Sitting of 20 July 1894

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  GREAT WESTERN AND MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL [Lords] (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, in moving the rejection of this Bill, it concerned his constituency almost exclusively, the whole of the Severn and Wye line (which the great companies were purchasing) being within the borders of that constituency, except part of the Severn Bridge and a little bit of junction with the Midland near Berkeley Castle. It was rumoured that the traders of the district had come to terms with the companies, but, although a majority of a so-called committee of traders had proposed to do so, those gentlemen were the proprietors of the larger collieries, who had arranged clauses through Mr. Cripps which met their views, but did not meet the grievance of the traders generally. He had no doubt that the interest of his constituents was opposed to the Bill in its present form, and that they had far better reject it than run the smallest risk of its passing without the provisions for the protection of the district which the Board of Trade favoured, and which the House of Lords had not inserted.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
  The House went;—and being returned;—
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,—
  Public Libraries (Scotland) Act, 1894.
  Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, Amendment Act, 1894.
  Merchandise Marks (Prosecutions) Act, 1894.
  Bishopric of Bristol Amendment Act, 1894.
  Injured Animals Act, 1894.
  Commissioners of Works Act, 1894.
  Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) Act, 1894.
  Wild Birds' Protection Act, 1894.
  Sea Fisheries (Shell Fish) Regulation Act, 1894.
  Prevention of Cruelty to Children (Amendment) Act, 1894.
  Notice of Accidents Act, 1894.
  Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1894.
  Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1894.
  Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 13) Act, 1894.
  Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 14) Act, 1894.
  Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1894.
  Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1894.
  Pier and Harbour Order Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1894.
  Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1894.
  Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1894.
  Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1894.
  Gas Orders Confirmation Act, 1894.
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1894.
  Water Orders Confirmation Act, 1894.
  Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1894.
  Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Act, 1894.
  Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Act, 1894.
  Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Act, 1894.
  Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 12) Act, 1894.
  Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 13) Act, 1894.
  Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 16) Act, 1894.
  Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 19) Act, 1894.
  Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (Poor Law) Act, 1894.

  GREAT WESTERN AND MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL [Lords] (by Order).
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR C. W. DILKEresuming, said: The traders had spent a great deal of money in the Lords without tangible improvement, and without obtaining those terms which the Board of Trade had thought they should obtain. He feared that, the great collieries having made their own terms, there would now be much risk in going to a Committee, in which the interests of the smaller men and of the inhabitants generally would probably be sacrificed. The Board of Trade reported in favour of the adoption for the local traffic of the Midland maximum scale. The Lords inserted only the actual rates in operation at the date of the passing of the Act. But those rates were, as the Board of Trade had shown, extraordinarily high rates, which were specially granted to this little local company on account of the curious shortness of its "lead." The whole line was on so microscopic a scale that special rates were conceded to it, by consent of the Board of Trade, originally, which would never have been granted to a greater line. Now that that line was passing to two great companies, they had to consider what was their character for liberality; and he had to say that if the purchase were by the Midland he should be content to trust that company, but the Great Western had not met the traders in such a manner as to make him inclined to trust himself to their mercy. The companies said that they had bought the line on the understanding that they should have the present rates, and they had offered to improve those rates in the course of time if the traffic increased, and they said that if this offer were not adopted they should drop the Bill. He was quite prepared to run the risk of the dropping of the Bill, in which, however, he did not believe, as the companies had strong reasons for desiring to keep competitors out of this district; and he felt certain that (while the local line, so far as it lived, must live on the district itself) the great companies, which were wholly independent of that district, and to which it would be but a small item, could not be trusted without Parlia-

  541
  mentary control to thoroughly meet its needs. A great deal of favour to the Bill came from those who were shareholders in the present line, as the companies had made a purchase which had conferred a value upon the ordinary shares, which previously had none, and had raised the value of the Preference Shares. But this was no reason why the district should continue to be handicapped by rates which would not be tolerated in the event of a new line being applied for by the larger companies, and he must press, as his minimum, for the principle of the Board of Trade Report—namely, the Midland maximum scale.
  SIR A. ROLLITseconded the Motion. One strong objection to this Bill was, he said, its tendency to put the Forest of Dean in what he might call a railway ring fence. He was not fully acquainted with all the local circumstances, but he did not think that such a proceeding ought to be tolerated for one moment except for the gravest reasons and under the most adequate safeguards. This was especially so in the present absence of a general law to prevent undue preference being given to one district over another. A company ought not to be permitted to abstract trade for its own benefit from a district to which it properly belonged. The only practical check against action of that sort on the part of a railway company had been found to be in competition. Yet the effect of this Bill would be to prevent competition, and to place the district in the hands of at least one railway company which had interests conflicting with those of the district. In the absence of a general law, there was only this course open to them in order to resist the Great Western Company, which had sinned against the interests of all concerned. The tendency in most companies was to reduce rates in order to attract traffic, but here powers were sought under an antiquated Act to impose heavy rates on the local traffic. This Bill would, if it passed, put the small traders in the district into the power of the combination, and under the circumstances he objected to the Bill going further. Not only were the powers he had alluded to objectionable, but other parts of the Bill seemed to him to be quite at variance with modern railway legislation. For instance, no power was given to compel the company
  542
  to grant through rates from their own systems to stations on the combined line. Surely in these days of business organisation, when through rates were so necessary to the success of a trader, some provision of this character ought to be inserted in the Bill. He understood that negotiations had taken place on the subject, and he thought this was a matter on which they were entitled to have further information. No doubt he would be told that matters such as these could best be dealt with in Committee, and he admitted that under general circumstances such would be the case; but in this case the very basis of the Bill was an attempt to legitimise combination, and to place in the hands of that combination a large district inhabited by small traders, while no power was taken to impose on the company the ordinary requirements necessary for the protection of the trader. In the absence of such provisions he could not assent to a Bill so utterly at variance with modern railway policy.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Sir C. W. Dilke.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR J. DORINGTONsaid, he ventured to intervene in the Debate, not on behalf of the Great Western, or Midland, or Severn Railway Company, but as representing the County Council of Gloucestershire, and in that capacity he did express a sincere hope that the Bill might be allowed to go before the Committee. The question from a railway point of view had been very fully dealt with by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and he would only add that the body which was bound to take action in the interests of the district most concerned—i.e., the County Council of Gloucestershire—had petitioned when the Bill was before the Lords, and as they had not got all they desired, they had again petitioned in this House. They would do all they could to get Midland rates for local traffic, but he must remind his right hon. Friend opposite that the line was a very poor one, and not likely

  543
  to be a competing one. On those grounds he thought that they ought to send the Bill to a Committee, in order that the matter might be fully considered. On the general question, he considered that the House of Commons would be usurping the functions of a Committee were they to settle so complicated a matter offhand, and he ventured, therefore, to ask the House to agree to his proposal.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought he might claim to be taking an impartial view of the question, for he had no interest whatever in either of the companies affected by the Bill. He did not understand that the right hon. Baronet desired that the Second Reading of the Bill should be negatived, provided that he saw a reasonable prospect of the question of rates being carefully considered in Committee at a later stage, and he hoped, therefore, that the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time. He believed that the district would be better served by the joint railways than it had been by the small company, which, as had been pointed out, had not sufficient capital to make necessary improvements. He thought Parliament in past years had been far too neglectful as to the rates it allowed to be charged when it sanctioned amalgamations of this kind, and he had always thought that there should be some department or official specially charged to watch these amalgamation Bills. He saw no reason why the company should not be allowed to charge a somewhat higher rate over that portion of the line joining the Severn Bridge. If the matter was considered in Committee, he trusted that the Board of Trade would see that the interests of the public were represented, by the recommendations to rates which were made in the Board of Trade Report on the Bill being properly brought before the Committee, either by an official of the Board, or, if necessary, by a Parliamentary agent or by counsel, as the traders of the district were very likely not in a position for want of funds to state their own case. He trusted, therefore, that if the right hon. Gentleman saw his way to allow this that the right hon. Baronet would be willing to withdraw his opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  SIR T. ROBINSONsaid, he, too, hoped that the Bill would be
  544
  allowed to go to a Second Reading, so that the details might be thoroughly gone into before a Committee. When it was first introduced certain members of his constituency were opposed to it. Since then, however, several concessions had been made by the promoters, and he therefore felt fully justified in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,)said, that while there was a great deal of force in the arguments that had been raised against the Second Reading of the Bill, he considered that it was in many respects a very useful measure, and one likely to be of benefit to the districts, especially as the company that now owned the line was admittedly not in a financial position to work it with advantage. It was unnecessary for him to do more than refer to the docks, as the proposal was merely to transfer them from one company to another. On the question of rates he considered that the Committee had taken a rather singular course. The company was allowed to charge higher rates owing to the great expenses incurred in making certain portions of the line in connection with the Severn Bridge. He thought, however, that the opinion expressed in the Report of the Board of Trade was correct, and that the consideration that induced Parliament to allow the company those higher rates should cease to carry the same weight under the altered condition of things. Why the Committee had not thought fit to act upon the advice of the Board of Trade he could not, of course, say. He agreed with the remarks that had been made by the hon. Member for Bristol, that it would be advantageous if an official were sent down to investigate matters in order that he should be in a position to give evidence before the Board. The suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol was one which should undoubtedly have consideration, with a view to seeing how far it might be properly adopted. As he had said already, he did not think they ought to reject the Bill on the Second Reading, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the discussion that had taken place and would withdraw his Motion. For himself, he was not bound by anything that had been said now, and any further action on the part

  545
  of the Board of Trade might depend upon the form the Bill took when it left the Committee.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHexpressed the hope that the Board of Trade would give evidence in support of their own Report. That suggestion became really more necessary in view of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, which pointed to the possibility of the Board of Trade objecting to the decision of the Committee.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he would see how far it was proper to go into the matter.
  SIR C. W. DILKEwould not put the House to the trouble of a Division, and he thought after what had fallen from the two right hon. Gentlemen, the present President of the Board of Trade and a former occupant of that position, that he and those who agreed with him on this matter had gained something. He also understood the President of the Board of Trade to say that he reserved complete freedom of action as to the course he would take on the Report. On that understanding he asked leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  GERMAN PRISON-MANUFACTURED GOODS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Report from Her Majesty's Embassy in Berlin, called for three months ago, on the question of goods manufactured in German prisons by prison labour at nominal wages and exported to England and sold in competition with English manufacturers, will be presented to Parliament?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The Report from Her Majesty's Embassy at Berlin has been received. It will be laid before Parliament, together with other Reports upon the same subject, as soon as they have all been received.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: When are they likely to be laid before Parliament?
  SIR E. GREY: I cannot tell; there will be no unjustifiable delay.

  THE INCREASE IN HOME PENSIONS.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, if he can explain the meaning of the explanation given on Page 3 of the Return of the Military Expenditure of the Government of India in India and England from 1875 to 1892–3; the item referred to is the increase of £929,822 in Home pensions, which is stated to be mainly due to the growth of the Colonels' allowances, derived from a much larger number of officers than that now existing; and, if the number of officers was at one time larger than that now existing, how the amount has been increased instead of diminished?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): As each officer successively becomes entitled by length of service to Colonel's allowances the Home pensions are to that extent increased; and the number of those who are now becoming entitled to such allowances depends upon the number of officers who were upon the establishment many years ago. The number of officers now upon the Effective List is less than half that of officers in the Indian Army in 1857.

  EVICTIONS IN COUNTY WESTMEATH.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Mrs. Rochford-Boyd, of Middleton Park, County Westmeath, has evicted a number of tenants from her estates in that county during the past seven years, and that she has lately put in possession of the evicted farms as bonâ fide tenants her gamekeeper, her butcher, her coachman, and other retainers of her household; and whether, under the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Bill, those tenants will be entitled to compensation?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I am informed by the constabulary that there is no foundation

  547
  for the allegations in the first paragraph of this question.

  THE SHIPMENT OF DYNAMITE.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty as the Harbour Authority for Plymouth is aware that German steamers calling at Plymouth are allowed to ship dynamite in the harbour; and, if so, whether the Admiralty will consider the expediency for the safety of the port and shipping in the harbour of having all shipments of dynamite or other explosives made outside the breakwater or other suitable place, subject to the like conditions as are imposed in the Thames and other ports in United Kingdom?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): German ships do not ship dynamite in Plymouth Harbour. A place is assigned in the Sound for that purpose, and the Queen's Harbourmaster sees that the bye-laws made under the Explosive Act are carried out. There is no reason, in the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief, for altering the present arrangements.
  MR. BARTLEY: I will ask is it not the fact that a German steamer shipped dynamite at Plymouth for Calcutta on the 18th June, and whether a second German steamer did not ship dynamite at Plymouth for Algoa Bay on the 29th June, the consignment consisting of 2,780 cases of dynamite, equivalent to about 70 tons weight? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that did not take place in Plymouth Harbour?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: No, Sir; not in the harbour. I have got no information about the two ships, but any consignment of dynamite is conducted in a part of the Sound specially set apart for that purpose.

  THE "COSTA RICA PACKET."
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the suggestion of arbitration in the case of the Costa Rica Packet that has been submitted by the Netherlands Government?
  SIR E. GREY: The matter will have to be considered in consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown. I cannot make any further statement.

  PICTORIAL ADVERTISEMENTS.
  MR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether imported pictorial advertisements are subject to the Merchandise Marks Act; whether he is aware that, at a cost of £7,000, the posters advertising Constantinople at Olympia were brought from the United States, and each bear in large letters their marks of origin as having been lithographed at Cleveland, U.S.A.; and whether, for the information of printers and lithographers in this country, he will cause a separate record to be kept of such imports in future?
  MR. BRYCE: All goods are subject to the Merchandise Marks Act, which, however, applies only where misleading marks are in question. I am not aware of the circumstances under which placards and advertisements relating to the exhibition at Olympia are imported; but if the facts be as stated in the question they go to show that there has been in the present case no infringement of that Act. The article referred to does not seem, at present, to be of sufficient importance to require a separate record; but if the hon. Member can supply me with any information tending to show that it is of such importance, the matter will be considered in the autumn by the Committee which annually revises the list of articles so recorded.

  BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS.
  MR. HUNTER(for Mr. FIELD): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that considerable and widespread dissatisfaction exists on account of the delay experienced in receiving the Report of the Bovine Tuberculosis Commission; and whether he has obtained any further information as to the probable date of its publication after so many inquiries?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,): I have communicated with the Commissioners, and am informed that they are fully

  549
  aware of the desirability of reporting as early as possible that no pains are being spared to complete the work, and that the Report will shortly be issued.
  SIR M. STEWART: Is there any hope of the Report being given to the House before the close of the Session?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I can only answer from the replies the Commissioners supply to me. I have made many communications to them with the same result.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Will he repeat those communications and put pressure on the Commissioners to let us have this Report? At the commencement of the Session he told us he hoped to be able to lay it upon the Table very shortly. It is now nearly the end of the Session, and we are precisely in the same position. This has been going on for three years.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I have already put whatever pressure I could upon the Commissioners.

  AN INDIAN JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India will he explain why, although Mr. N. Subramaniem, Barrister-at-Law and Judge of the Small Cause Court at Madras, has acted as Chief Judge of that Court for the last 13 months, and during that period has given complete satisfaction to the Government and to the public, on the permanent appointment becoming vacant, he has now been superseded by the nomination of Mr. R. B. Michell, from outside the Court, to be the Chief Judge; whether the Law requires that the Chief Judge should be a European; and, if not, whether the Secretary of State will state the grounds on which Mr. Subramaniem has been superseded; and whether the Secretary of State will lay upon the Table of the House the opinions of the Judges of the Madras High Court and the Correspondence between the Madras Government and the Government of India regarding this appointment?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The temporary discharge of the duties of a judicial post, even though they may be performed in a perfectly satisfactory manner, does not either in Great Britain
  550
  or India give any claim to succeed to the post on the occurrence of a vacancy. The appointment to which my hon. Friend refers rests exclusively with the Government of Madras, and I am informed that after the most careful inquiry they were of opinion that Mr. Michell was the fittest person available for the post. I do not propose to lay on the Table any Papers on the subject.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the case that the only objection to Mr. Subramaniem was that he was not a European?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: That is not so. It was not a question of objection but of selection. I have seen sufficient of the correspondence to show me that the Madras Government took great pains in the matter, and the decision they arrived at is a decision which entirely meets the justice of the case.

  KENSINGTON LOCAL EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. DIAMOND: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has any official knowledge of Kensington local examinations held under the auspices of a body styling itself the Society of Science, Letters, and Art of London, with an address in Holland Road, Kensington, and which awards certificates, medals, honours, &c.; whether these examinations have any connection with any Government department, and whether the certificates are of any value in any Government examination; and whether he can take steps to put a stop to proceedings which appear to be a colourable and misleading imitation of certain examinations conducted by authority?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): I am informed that there is a body calling itself the Society of Science, Letters, and Art of London, which, in its prospectus, states that it holds what are called the Kensington local examinations, and also awards medals, &c. The society has no connection with the Science and Art Department, South Kensington, and none of its certificates are recognised by the Government. I will further look into this matter, but in any case it is very desirable that the difference between the

  551
  work of the Science and Art Department and that of this society should be known by the public.

  FLOATING DERELICTS.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the 17th instant the steamship La Plata reported upon her arrival at Liverpool that on the 12th instant, 41·35 N.—10·20 W., she passed a partially-submerged vessel about 100 feet long, with heavy bilge frames, about eight feet out of water, evidently a long time in the water, and most dangerous to navigation; and will he notify the existence of this dangerous floating derelict to the masters of our marine about to leave our ports?
  MR. BRYCE: I am aware that the La Plata reported on her arrival at Liverpool on the 17th instant that she had passed a partially-submerged derelict. The report was published by Lloyd's in The Shipping and Mercantile Gazette and Lloyd's List of the following day, the 18th instant, for the general information of mariners. The position of the derelict on the 12th instant was reported to be about 20 miles off the coast of Portugal, and I am advised that, in the absence of further information, it would be useless and even misleading to follow the practice adopted in all suitable cases, and to publish its position on that day in the monthly summary of notices to mariners issued by the Board of Trade early in August, as this derelict will probably, in the three weeks which will then have intervened, either have drifted on shore or be well out of the stream of traffic.
  MR. MACDONA: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if it would not be of the greatest importance that information should be conveyed direct from the Board of Trade to the shipmasters?
  MR. BRYCE: In this particular case it would appear that everything possible to be done was done, because the La Plata made a report at Liverpool on the 17th, and on the 18th the report appeared in The Shipping and Mercantile Gazette. As far as this instance goes, the report could not have been published more expeditiously than it was.

  AFFAIRS IN SIAM.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present condition of affairs in Siam; and is it consistent with present and prospective British commercial and other interests?
  SIR E. GREY: It is not possible to give even a bird's-eye view of the general condition of a country within the limits of an answer to a question. The history of what occurred in Siam last year is well known, and there has been no material change since then. It is, of course, the intention of Her Majesty's Government to guard against any proceedings which would be inconsistent with the British interests described.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I would ask the hon. Baronet whether an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the affairs in Siam after the Papers which have been promised on the subject have been presented to Parliament?
  SIR E. GREY: I hope they will be presented before the Estimates are reached.

  COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by what means, if any, and under what conditions, as to notice and otherwise, can the Commercial Treaties with Belgium and the German Empire, which are said to prevent differential fiscal treatment of the Colonies, be denounced; and is such the effect of the Treaties?
  SIR E. GREY: Both those Treaties can be terminated by either party on giving 12 months' notice. It is not possible to give a general answer to the question how far they prevent differential fiscal treatment of the Colonies; but the actual terms of the articles in those treaties referred to—namely, Article 15 of the Treaty with Belgium of July 23, 1862, and Article 7 of the Treaty with the Zollverein of May 30, 1865—will be found in a Paper recently laid before Parliament, Commercial No. 17, 1893. (C. 7229), pages 3 and 20.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: May I ask the hon. Baronet whether these Treaties do prevent a re-arrangement of Commercial Treaties with the Colonies?
  SIR E. GREY: I would rather, in the first instance, that the terms of the Treaties should speak for themselves. If it is desired that an interpretation should be given of what may be considered as obscure in the terms of the Treaties I must have notice.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I should like to ask whether the Treaties are consistent with inter-colonial differential duties?
  SIR E. GREY: I must repeat that I must have proper notice before I can pretend to give an interpretation of the Treaties. I am not at present aware that the terms are obscure.

  JABEZ BALFOUR.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has the extradiction of Mr. Jabez Balfour from Argentine been finally refused or otherwise; and, if so, is it intended that proceedings against his colleagues in this country shall be further delayed?
  SIR E. GREY: The last telegram received at the Foreign Office was dated the 15th. It stated that the decision of the Federal Judge at Salta had not been given. It may be announced at any time, and we shall, of course, be informed at once when it is known. Everything in our power has been done to expedite the legal proceedings in the Argentine Republic. The last part of the question cannot be answered by the Foreign Office.

  COLONEL EDWARD MITCHELL, R.E.
  MR. NAOROJI: I beg to ask the Attorney General if he has recently received any communication or affidavit from Colonel Edward Mitchell, R.E., retired, denying the accuracy of the statement made in the House of Commons on the 9th December, 1890, by the then Attorney General, in reply to Mr. Cunninghame Graham, that the Crown did not press for the costs of the proceedings out of consideration of Colonel Mitchell, and at his request, on the distinct arrangement in writing that Colonel Mitchell's supposed claim should not again be raised in any shape; whether the gallant officer has appealed to him to cause justice to be done; whether he has forwarded to him a certificate of a learned Queen's Counsel on the subject; and
  554
  whether he will lay the Papers upon the Table of the House?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,): I have received communications from Colonel Mitchell, including an affidavit, on the subject mentioned in the question. Whether such an arrangement as is mentioned was actually entered into depends entirely upon the correspondence which my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War has already promised to lay upon the Table, together with a relevant portion of the affidavit. I think that these Papers include everything material. The certificate of counsel referred to has nothing to do with this arrangement. I have already stated to Colonel Mitchell, and to the hon. Gentleman who puts the question, and it is the fact, that I have no power to reopen the claim of Colonel Mitchell.

  BRAKES IN RICHMOND PARK.
  MR. F. FRYE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works by whose authority the keepers of the gates at Richmond Park are forbidden to allow brakes to drive through the park; whether it has been the custom in former years to allow brakes equally with other hired vehicles to do so; if there is any reason for the present prohibition; and whether he will give orders that it be removed?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,): There has been some doubt as to the exact interpretation of the rule of Richmond Park as to the admission of brakes, and the practice has accordingly not been at all times uniform. A legal opinion having now been obtained, brakes hired by an individual or a party, and not plying for hire, will in future be admitted.

  THE DUBLIN AND CORK TRAVELLING POST OFFICE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the staff attached to the Dublin and Cork Travelling Post Office (American Mail) are the only sorting clerks in the United Kingdom who are not in receipt of payment for Sunday work; whether previous to payment for Sunday duty being granted, a 21st part of those officers' weekly pay was deducted per diem when absent on sick leave, and

  555
  since payment was granted 1–18th has been deducted when absent on sick leave for any period less than a week in common with all other officers who receive Sunday pay; whether, in accordance with the latter portion of the foregoing paragraph, the working week consists of six working days; and, if so, why payment for Sunday work is withheld from those officers; whether he recently refused payment for Sunday duty to the staff on the representation of the Dublin authorities that, including the time of working at Queenstown for homeward American mails, their average weekly duty does not amount to 48 hours; and has he received a Memorial addressed to him on the 26th June by the Dublin and Cork Travelling Post Office staff, showing their weekly duty (exclusive of Sunday) to average above 60 hours?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): I am not aware whether the staff referred to by the hon. Member are the only sorting clerks who are not in receipt of payment for Sunday work; but if there are any others who do not receive such payment, it would be for the same reason, as I explained in my answer to the hon. Member of the 18th December last—namely, that their Sunday duties added to their week-day duties does not increase their attendance to more than the regular number of hours required of them in each week. Since the introduction of payment for Sunday duty, the officers in question have, in regard to deductions for sick absence, been treated in the same way as other members of the Dublin Sorting Force, of which they form part, and the deduction has been 1–18th instead of 1–21st part of their ordinary weekly pay. This part of the hon. Member's question has, however, no longer any practical importance, as under the new Regulation no deduction is made on account of sick absence, unless the sickness is due to causes within the officer's own control. I find that a Memorial was received from the sorting clerks employed in the Travelling Post Office at the end of last month, containing further representations respecting their weekly attendance, and these are now under investigation. I may add that the duty in the Dublin and Cork (American Mail) Travelling Post Office is a much-coveted one; and if those who are now engaged in it are not contented
  556
  with the conditions of their employment, they are at perfect liberty to give it up and resume their ordinary duties in the Dublin Sorting Office. Many others will be only too glad to take their places.

  CONTRACTS FOR NAVAL VESSELS.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when the particulars with regard to the contracts entered into by the Government with private firms for the building of new ships will be given to the House; and whether he will include in those particulars the prices quoted in the accepted tenders for the hull, the engines, the auxiliary machinery, and the masts and rigging?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I have before explained that it would be contrary to public interests to publish the prices for which certain contracts for ships have been made, before all the contracts are complete. This condition is not yet fulfilled, and I cannot, therefore, say how soon the promised Return can be granted. My hon. Friend's suggestion as to publishing details of prices shall be considered in preparing the Return.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to give any contract to the Passage Docks Company?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: This is not a question of future contracts, but relates to certain contracts which have already been made. The Passage Docks Company have recently been asked to tender for certain articles.

  LICENCE TO CARRY ARMS.
  MR. J. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. J. K. Bracken, of Templemore, County Tipperary, has been refused a licence to carry arms by the local Resident Magistrate; and whether he can state the reasons upon which this refusal was based?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am aware that the Resident Magistrate, in the exercise of the discretion vested in him by law, has declined to issue an arms licence to Mr. Bracken. It would be contrary to practice to state the reasons which influenced the Resident Magistrate in so

  557
  deciding, but I may state that I am making further inquiry into the matter.
  MR. J. REDMOND: I will repeat this question.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is it consistent with the Royal Irish Constabulary rules that men who have suffered from lunacy should be in charge of stations; and are any persons above the rank of sergeant who have suffered from lunacy in the Cavan force?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Men who have shown symptoms of mental depression are not placed upon duty or in any responsible positions in the Constabulary unless the attack was of a temporary character, and no disposition to a recurrence of the depression appeared. The second paragraph apparently refers to the case of a member of the force who suffered from mental depression some years ago, but only for a very brief period. He is reported to have been an excellent officer since his recovery.

  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION IN COUNTY ROSCOMMON.
  MR. COMBE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the head Inspector of the Board of Education in Ireland visited the proposed site of a school house at Clooncan (Union of Castlerea, County Roscommon), on 11th May last; and, if so, what report he had sent as to the desirability of building a school on that townland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that there was a difficulty in dealing with this case owing to the proximity of the proposed site to an existing vested school, but that under the special circumstances they have now made the required grant for the erection of the school.
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the reports made by Inspectors under such circumstances as are indicated in the question are open to the inspection of Members of this House?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not quite sure; I will inquire.

  THE DOWNPATRICK WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the new water for the supply of Downpatrick has been analysed by Sir Charles Cameron, and reported as full of microorganisms, and in a further report as unsuitable for a town supply; and that Dr. Olphert, the Medical Officer of Health for the town, has reported to the Sanitary Authority that he attributes several cases of illness to the drinking of the water, and has recommended the people to discontinue using it; will he explain why the Sanitary Authority have taken no notice of these reports; has his attention been called to the discussion at the last meeting of the Sanitary Authority, in which it was stated that the water was not being used for domestic purposes; and do the Local Government Board intend to take any notice of the matter?
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report of the proceedings at the last meeting of the Downpatrick Board of Guardians; whether he is aware that the reply sent him to a recent question on the Downpatrick water supply was stated to be incorrect, and that instead of the water being generally used by the inhabitants, there is not one family in Downpatrick using it for drinking purposes; whether, notwithstanding that at a previous meeting a resolution was passed to put up notices that the water was not fit for use, no such notices were posted; whether the water was condemned some time ago by the Medical Officer of the Board of Guardians; and if he will state what action the Local Government are prepared to take in the interests of the health of the town?
  MR. J. MORLEY: In reply to these questions, I am informed by the Local Government Board that Sir Charles Cameron reported that the water, though second-rate, is not dangerous to health. On the other hand, Dr. Olphert attributed cases of illness to the use of the water and recommended the people not to use it. The Guardians' consulting sanitary officer states that the water is safe and harmless, and their engineer is of opinion that it can be improved by filtration. The

  559
  Guardians have considered these reports, and propose to adopt measures to improve the quality of the water. The matter, I understand, is receiving the careful attention of the Guardians and the Local Government Board will be prepared, if called upon, to afford them every possible assistance and advice.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that Sir Charles Cameron has described the water as very second-rate?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen the report of the last meeting of the Guardians, when the Clerk to the Guardians had practically to admit that he had deceived the Government in the reply read by the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, that being the vital portion of my question, it was struck out at the Table.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have not had time to read that report.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I would ask if it is fair to make these insinuations against people who cannot defend themselves? I know this clerk very well.

  THE DE FREYNE ESTATE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that last week, on a farm on the De Freyne Estate, from which a tenant had been recently evicted, at Sheepwalk, in the County of Roscommon, a number of cattle belonging to the landlord were driven by his bailiffs into a crop of oats and potatoes; and that during three days whilst they were engaged in eating and trampling the crop they were protected by five policemen and six of the landlord's bailiffs; and whether, if this be so, the police were justified in assisting at such proceedings?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is a fact that on the 10th instant a number of cattle belonging to Lord de Freyne were driven by his steward and five assistants on the evicted farm referred to, and that since the date mentioned the cattle have been cared for by one of the landlord's herds, who drives them to the farm each morning and back again to the demesne at night. These cattle ate down the crops of oats and potatoes on the farm—unlawfully sown by the tenant—as well
  560
  as the grazing of it. It is not the case, however, that the landlord's employés, while engaged on this work, were assisted by the police. Three constables attended on the morning of the 10th instant to preserve the peace, but they did not remain long at the farm, as their presence there was not required. Since that date the police to the number of two men have occasionally patrolled to the vicinity of the farm in the capacity of peace officers, as they are well aware that the landlord's action was calculated to create a feeling of hostility against him and his employés. The police have done nothing that could be regarded as assisting the landlord or his employés in any way, but have acted simply in their capacity of peace officers.
  MR. DILLON: The Chief Secretary admits that three policemen attended on one occasion, and what I want to know is this: If when a landlord proceeds to drive cattle on growing crops on a farm the police are obliged to attend the operation, as they are on the execution of a decree of the courts, and if not, why do they put in an appearance when no breach of the peace had occurred?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The police put in an appearance, because they were given to understand that a breach of the peace was not unlikely to happen. Under those circumstances they were bound to go, and, as I have stated to the House, that was when it was thought a breach of the peace might well happen, because of the indignation and disgust which these proceedings gave rise to.
  MR. HARRINGTON: When the police went on this duty were they aware that it was for the purpose of placing cattle on growing crops—were their services asked for this purpose, and were they aware that was the duty they were on?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Their services were certainly not asked to assist this transaction of driving the cattle on to the growing crops.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Were they asked to be present, and did they know the purpose that was to be carried out?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I really cannot tell what was the purpose of the operation; but they were given to understand that a breach of the peace would take place on this spot, and they did no more than their duty in being there to prevent it.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Is not the Chief Secretary well aware of the fact that conduct such as this on the part of Lord de Freyne, which causes, as he says, indignation and disgust, would never be attempted by Lord de Freyne if he was not well aware that he would receive the support and the protection of the police? I would ask him whether once and for all he will now say that he will give orders to the police not to afford protection in cases of this kind, or to seem to afford protection in such cases which have created disgust and indignation?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot, of course, give orders to the police not to be present on occasions when they are informed that a breach of the peace is possible and likely. It would be quite contrary to any sense of duty that I should give such an order.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Is it not a fact that on such occasions it is perfectly notorious that the presence of the police rather tends than otherwise to a breach of the peace?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. HAYDEN: Is it not a fact that terms were recently offered on the part of the evicted tenants to Lord de Freyne, and that they were refused?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not aware of that.
  MR. CAINE: Did the information as to a breach of the peace being likely to occur come from Lord de Freyne?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot undertake to describe all the circumstances of this case.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the Chief Secretary or the Home Secretary whether in England if a case occurred in which the landlord sent cattle in to trample down the growing crops of a farm a large force of police would be ordered to attend?
  [No reply was given.]

  WELSH FORESTRY EDUCATION.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what proportion, if any, of the grant given by the Board of Agriculture towards the promotion of education in forestry is expended in Wales?
  MR. H. GARDNER: I have no separate fund at my disposal for aiding education in Forestry either in Wales or elsewhere, but of the £8,000 provided in the Estimate for my Department for the work of agricultural education generally I found myself able last year to a ward £1,500 to the University College at Bangor and Aberystwith, and it would be competent for those colleges to apply a portion of the grants thus made to them to such forms of forestry instruction as are in demand in their respective districts if they considered it desirable to do so.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that most of the oak used in building Her Majesty's Fleet was grown in Wales, and that, in fact, the wooden walls of old England consisted of Welsh timber?
  MR. H. GARDNER: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put that question on the Paper.

  THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
  MR. S. KEAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the expressions of public feeling which had taken place throughout the country, and particularly at the conference of Delegates recently held at Leeds, against the rejection by another branch of the Legislature of Bills which had been passed by the House, Her Majesty's Government, in accordance with the precedent already laid down by the House in three Resolutions passed on July 6th, 1860, would consider the advisability of again bringing forward resolutions directed to a similar object—namely, to guard for the future against an undue exercise of the power of the Lords to reject Bills?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): This is a large question, and I do not think that it can be dealt with in the way of question and answer.

  ANARCHIST PLACARDS.
  MR. DARLINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could give the House any information as to the statement which appeared in The Westminster Gazette of that afternoon that the police had seized a large number of Anarchists'

  563
  placards in Paris which had been printed in England?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not know anything of the circumstances of the statement.

  THE SUSPENSION OF THE TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Motion that stands in his name for the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule tonight. I do not propose to object to that Motion, but it must not be understood that in agreeing to it I think it possible for the Debate on the Evicted Tenants Bill to close tonight. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has come to the same conclusion as I have, that it is impossible to finish the Debate on the Bill to-night, or whether he proposes to sit long after 12 o'clock, or merely proposes to use the extension of the time to allow the hon. Member who may be in possession of the House at midnight to finish his speech.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I put this Motion down in the hope and with the expectation that the Debate on the Evicted Tenants Bill might be concluded to-night, and not with the intention of keeping the House up late. I wished rather to give the House an opportunity of concluding the Debate to-night if it were disposed to do so, but my intention is not to ask the House to sit late.

  SITTING OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
  Ordered—
  "That the proceedings on the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Arbitration Bill, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order Sittings of the House."—(Sir W. Harcourt.)

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ARBITRATION BILL.—(No. 176.)

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [19th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Colonel Saunderson.)
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. HALDANEwho said, that when his speech was interrupted at midnight he had traced the history of Irish land legislation from 1870 down to 1887; had pointed out that the uniform idea which unlay that series of Acts of Parliament was the dual interest, recognised and made equal of the tenants and landlords in the soil; and that the Bill now before the House was only a further and consequential step towards the recognition of that interest. He did not intend to pursue further that branch of the question, but desired to deal with the arguments that had been put forward last evening by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. The hon. and learned Member asked why the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not leave the evicted tenants to enforce their claims for compensation under the provisions of existing legislation. The answer to that argument was conclusive. There were three classes of evicted tenants, two of which had been wholly and totally outside of those provisions. They were, first, the tenants from year to year who were evicted before the Act of 1881, and, secondly, the leaseholders who were evicted before the Act of 1887. Both those classes had been outside the beneficent scope of the legislation to which he had referred; and had been left entirely to the mercy of the landlords. The third class of evicted tenants had been, it was true, within the scope of that legislation, but they were now in a position which made it urgently necessary in the interest of social order in Ireland that something should be done to relieve them. Those who knew the circumstances of the agrarian dispute in Ireland, knew that it was a point of honour with this third class of evicted tenants not to enter the Courts to make a claim for compensation for disturbance, because of considerations which, whether they were right or wrong, was immaterial to the

    565
    issue. That was the answer to the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the evicted tenants should be left to proceed under the existing Acts. He now came to the scheme of the Bill and to the criticism to which the hon. and learned Member subjected it. Summarising his arguments, the hon. and learned Member said the scheme of the Bill was unjust, coufiscatory, and without precedent; and he based his adjectives to some extent on argument, but principally on strong language. A greater misapprehension of what were the proper inference to be drawn from the existing state of things in Ireland and more extraordinary perversions of the position of the tenants in Ireland than were contained in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Dublin University he had not heard for a long time. He hoped to be able to show that the principal arguments of the hon. and learned Member—for he did not propose to deal with all the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments—were not well founded and were contrary to well-ascertained facts. The hon. and learned Gentleman had described the tribunal which was to try the cases of the evicted tenants as a political job. He could not believe that the hon. and learned Member applied that term in its proper sense to the constitution of the tribunal. The ordinary meaning of a political job was the creation of an appointment for the sake of someone who was to be benefited. But the arbitrators had been most carefully chosen by the Chief Secretary with a view to getting the best men that could be found for the positions, and entirely free from partizanship. One of them, Mr. Piers White, was a distinguished equity lawyer and a well-known Unionist; the second, Mr. Greer, was also a Unionist; while the third, Mr. Fottrell, had a reputation of having succeeded in settling questions that had arisen between landlords and tenants in Ireland more successfully than any other man in Ireland. A tribunal constituted as this was must command confidence. Its functions were to deal with a social emergency, with a situation of great difficulty, in a way that would cause the least friction, to act as a medium through whom landlords and tenants might come together to settle their difficulties. It might be asked why matters were not left
    566
    to proceed under Section 13 of the Act of 1891. All parties were agreed that that section had failed, though there was considerable dispute as to the reasons which brought about its failure. The Leader of the Opposition had said that it would have attained the object in view if only the tenants had been left alone and had not been intimidated. This matter had been investigated by the Mathew Commission, who gave various reasons why the clause had been inoperative, but they declared that there was no evidence of any attempt having been made to induce the tenants not to avail of the section. It was sufficient for present purposes that the section had not been successfully applied, and that some other step was necessary to heal the social evil in Ireland. That step was proposed by this Bill with the object of bringing landlords and tenants together and putting the tenants back on the land. So far as compulsory powers went, the Bill applied only to holdings which were vacant or in the occupation of the landlord. There was nothing in the Bill to interfere with, in any way, the rights of existing tenants. The procedure was simple, because it was founded upon the assumption that the arbitrators were to be trusted to do justice between man and man, and were therefore invested with large discretionary powers. In the first place, the Commissioners had to consider whether there was a primâ, facie case for reinstatement. There was no difficulty or ambiguity about making out a primâ facie case. Paragraphs 38 to 42 of the Report of the Mathew Commission showed the personal and local circumstances which entered into the question whether it was desirable that an applicant should be reinstated. There were public circumstances to be taken into account, such as whether the reinstatement of a tenant would tend to the peace and good order of the district; and also personal circumstances, such as whether any injustice was done to the individual in the eviction. Having decided that there was a primâ facie case for reinstatement, the arbitrators made a conditional order, and the landlord was entitled to come in and show why the order should not be made absolute. In all that there was nothing new. The free-sale clause of the Land Act of 1881 left more difficult questions

    567
    to be decided by the Courts. Under that clause, if the landlord objected to the new tenant who purchased the old tenant's property in the farm, the Court was to dive into the mind of the landlord and to consider his motives and the reasonableness of his refusal. The 29th section of the Land Act of 1887 gave power to Commissioners to reduce rents merely upon their own unfettered discretion and opinion, without hearing evidence or counsel as to the prices of agricultural produce prevailing in the particular district. If the arbitrators came to the conclusion that the tenant had made out his case, they made absolute the order for his reinstatement; and even then came into operation provisions which further sheltered the landlord—namely, the purchase clauses of the Act of 1891. Dealing with this part of the Bill the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University said that it introduced the entirely new and novel principle of taking property of which one man was in occupation against his will and transferring it to another person, and that there was nothing in the things which the Act of 1881 allowed comparable to the things sanctioned by this Bill. When he said that nothing in the Act of 1887 was comparable to this Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman must have forgotten that Section 13 of that Act, among other things, provided that, when a landlord had his contract of tenancy violated and had brought ejectment proceedings, the tenant was stilt entitled to ask the Court to stay proceedings in order that a fair rent might be fixed. In the present case, of course, there was no tenant in occupation, but he could not see the difference between a man who had no legal right in the farm, who was there as a wrong-doer, and a man who had gone out of occupation. In the Act of 1887 the very same provision was repeated in substantially the same terms; and, as he had said, under the free-sale clause of the Act of 1881 a tenant might be put into a farm of whom the landlord knew nothing and with whom he might wish, perhaps, to have nothing to do. The principles of those Acts were based on the fact that the interest of the tenant was as good as the landlord's in the soil, and it was that dual ownership in the land that was sought to be further protected by this Bill. But it was not necessary to go
    568
    to Ireland to find a precedent of a Government taking land in the occupation of a landlord and handing it over to a tenant, whom possibly the landlord would rather not have. Only a few weeks ago Parliament carried the Parish Councils Act, a clause of which enabled the County Council compulsorily to hire land, to take it out of the occupation of the owner, whether the owner liked it or not, and use it for allotments, and that was a precedent which it was also proposed to follow in the Local Government Bill for Scotland. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin University further said—
    "You are not only doing this wrongly and without precedent, but you are doing it without giving adequate compensation to the landlord; you are taking away the landlord's property without giving him adequate compensation."
    The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have examined the provisions of the Bill. It was true that the Bill proposed that the tenant was to be reinstated in the holding, and presumably at the old rent; but there was a section—which the hon. and learned Member had overlooked — which provided that the land should be subject to a fair rent, fixed under the provisions of the Land Act of 1881, and under that section any improvements which the landlord might have effected in the holding, while it was in his possession, would be taken into account by the Sub-Commissioners in determining the rent of the holding. Therefore, it was not true to say that under the provisions of the Bill no compensation would be given to the landlord, for compensation would be given and would be fixed by a tribunal which no one would say had been unfair to the landlords of Ireland. The hon. and learned Member also said that it was a monstrous thing to go back to 1879—15 years ago—to include in the operation of the Bill all tenants evicted since then; and that such a course was contrary to the analogy of the Statute of Limitations. What had the House to do with the Statute of Limitations in a question of this kind? They were settling a broad question of policy. They were not prescribing limitations within which a Court was to give judgment; but they were providing for tenants evicted since 1879, and in so doing they were following the analogy of Section 13 of the

    569
    Act of 1891, which was introduced by the present Leader of the Opposition. Another argument of the hon. and learned Member which, he confessed, filled him with astonishment was that the Bill would apply to holdings of every kind; and that the case of a man who was evicted from a house in Dublin 15 years ago would come under its operation. Again, he should ask, Had the hon. and learned Gentleman read the Bill?—had he looked at the Definition Clause, which said that the word "holding" was meant as defined by the Land Act of 1881? If the hon. and learned Gentleman would look at Clause 58 of the Act of 1881 he would find the definition of "holding." What was intended was perfectly plain, and no Court would have any difficulty in coming to a conclusion in the matter.
    MR. CARSONasked whether the whole of the 58th section of the Act of 1881 was included in the Bill? The hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in saying that that section was the definition section.
    MR. HALDANEsaid, he was told by those responsible for the Bill that it was the intention of the draftsman to apply to the word "holding" in the Bill the definition in the Act of 1881. For himself he had not the slightest doubt that the Court would have no difficulty in construing the provisions of the Bill; but if there was anything wrong in the matter—and he did not believe there was—it could be set right in Committee. In any case, the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member that the Bill could be applied to houses in Dublin was absurd.
    MR. CARSON: Does it apply to demesnes?
    MR. HALDANEreplied that the Land Act of 1881 expressly excluded town parks. Another suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman was that this Bill would be applied to purchasing tenants. He could hardly believe his ears when he heard that suggestion. Where a tenant had purchased his holding the landlord had no legal occupation of the land, and the Bill applied only to holdings where the landlord was in occupation and where there was no tenant. It was abundantly plain that under no possible circumstances would the position of the purchase tenants be
    570
    marred in the slightest degree. The hon. and learned Member also described some cases of hardship which he argued were possible under the Bill. It was easy to imagine thousands of cases which would be hard if they happened; but the answer was that here was set up a tribunal composed of trusted men, the majority of whom shared the political opinions of the Irish landlords, to whom Parliament had given large discretionary powers, who would see that no injustice was done to anyone in the administration of the Act, and who would certainly not put into the holdings the ragamuffin tenants to which the hon. and learned Member had alluded. The hon. and learned Member, in alluding to the clause which enabled the arbitrators, if they thought the holding was an insufficient security, owing to the deterioration, for an advance for purchase, to demand additional security, said that the interest of the tenant in such a case would not be sufficient security for the advance of public money. But the very words of that section were the words of the 13th section of the Act of 1891. They were words drafted and approved of by the late Government, and the draftsman of the present Bill had simply taken this provision—this very useful provision—from the Act of 1891, which the arbitrators might be entrusted to exercise sensibly. Then came the question of "the planters." But the Bill did not propose to confer any powers upon this or any other tribunal for evicting tenants who were actually in occupation. If those tenants did not wish to go they need not go, and they would not be asked to go. They would have a conditional order served on them, and then they would have the opportunity of coming forward and expressing their will, and whatever their will was their legal rights would be. It was suggested that if the Bill were passed the planters would be exposed to intimidation and violence. But those planters were not new arrivals on the scene. Many of them had lived on their holdings since 1879. They had become "land-grabbers"—to use the expression applied to them—a long time since, and they would not become land-grabbers the more by refusing to leave their holdings under this Bill, and having escaped destruction all those years,

    571
    it was hardly possible that that doom would reach them in the year 1894. Had there been a time in the whole of the last 20 years when Ireland had been more peaceable and more free from disturbance than at the present time? To say that those men would run a serious risk of outrage under the operations of the Bill was really to bring forward an argument that was not serious. He had endeavoured to put before the House considerations which seemed to him to make it right that this Bill or some proposals of the same shape or form should become law. It seemed to him that the Hues upon which the Bill proceeded were the only lines on which it was possible to deal with the social problem in Ireland. Remember, it was only a few days ago when all Parties in the House were agreed that the question of the evicted tenants needed settlement, and that that settlement could be accomplished by setting up such a tribunal as was proposed in the Bill and giving it a sufficient grant of money for the purpose. In fact, the only objection then urged against the proposals of the Government was founded on the contention that the funds proposed to be given to the tribunal were insufficient. That defect had now been cured. It was proposed to give £250,000 to the tribunal, and, judging by the calculations made by the Mathew Commission, that sum ought to be more than sufficient to accomplish the end in view. He wished this matter had been approached in the spirit which had been evinced not only by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin and the hon. Member for South Tyrone, but by persons who had a greater interest in the Irish soil and a greater stake in the country. He referred last night to an article by Lord Monteagle in The Nineteenth Century for June. He should like to read an extract from that article—
    "I approach the subject from an Irish point, disregarding party considerations. I shall try, moreover, to treat it without any landlord bias, and, especially at the outset, I wish to disclaim any sympathy with the vindictive feelings imputed (though I am sure in the great majority of cases unfairly) to the landlords affected. I heartily endorse every word quoted by Mr. Morley from Mr. Balfour's speech in 1891, on the 13th clause of the Act of that year:—'And for my own part, if I were an Irish landlord, even if it were not wholly to my own personal and pecuniary interest, I should desire to restore
    572
    peace to that part of the country in which my property was situated, and to see that on fair, equitable, and even generous terms the tenants were restored to their ancient homes.' Such vindictive feelings operating as a bar to reinstatement of solvent tenants I believe to be quite exceptional, though landlords who have been attacked by the Plan, would be more than human if they felt very charitably disposed even towards the tools of that conspiracy. But it would be wiser, in my opinion, to afford a locus penitentiæ even to the ringleaders, if solvent, or capable by any means of retrieving their character and position."
    Those views were the views of a great many of the landlords of Ireland. He trusted that they would prevail in the House of Commons. They could not hope for finality through a Bill of that kind; they could not hope that the Bill would solve this difficult and intricate social problem in Ireland, but it was certainly a step in the right direction, and a step in the only direction possible; and he believed that if hon. Gentlemen opposite would only consider the matter in a fair and reasonable spirit they would come to the same conclusion. He hoped it was not too late for the House as a whole to approach the question in a spirit that was above Party; and he trusted in the interest of the evicted tenants, in the interest of the landlords of Ireland, and last, but not least, in the interest of this British House of Commons, that the Second Reading of the Bill would be passed without a hostile Division.
    MR. BARTONsaid, that no one could find fault with the tone and substance of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Haddington; but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he was mistaken in thinking that his side of the House had a monopoly of sentiments of compassion for the evicted tenants, or of the desire to see justice done to them. The part of his speech in which the hon. Gentleman was least successful, and in which he entirely failed to carry the House with him, was the part in which he tried to answer the convincing speech delivered last night by the hon. Member for Dublin University. Nobody who had heard that speech, which had so deeply impressed the House, would say—nor, indeed, did he think even the hon. and learned Member for Haddington supposed it—that the speech of the hon. and learned Member had afforded even the fragment of an answer to the convincing arguments of the hon.

    573
    Member for Dublin University against the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Haddington had dealt with the Bill from two points of view—from the point of view of the law and from the point of view of the facts. He was bound to disagree with the facts of the hon. and learned Gentleman when he found that they had been produced from the Report of the Evicted Tenants Commission. He had never joined in any disrespectful observations on the distinguished Judge who had presided at that Commission; but he said that the way the evidence was given—unsworn, untested by cross-examination, and unanswered by any evidence on the other side—would deter anyone who desired to arrive at a just conclusion from paying the slightest attention to the conclusions of the Commission. He would read a sworn statutory declaration made by Mr. Long of Waterford, which would illustrate the way the evidence was collected. A witness was asked—
    "How could you have given such evidence, which you must have known to be untrue?"
    The answer was—
    "Sure you will not blame me when I tell you that they gave me 8s. a day, paid my tram fares, and took me to all the shows in Dublin. They also restored my pension of £10 a month, and I am now getting it regular."
    That was only one example of the statutory declarations which had been made on a number of estates to answer the unsworn statements made before the Commission. Therefore, the evidence on which the hon. and learned Gentleman founded his facts was absolutely unreliable and absolutely misleading. With regard to the legal arguments of the hon. and learned Member, he would not argue with him as to the compulsory clauses of English Acts of Parliament; but when the hon. and learned Member came into conflict with such a distinguished Irish lawyer as the hon. Member for Dublin University as to Irish law, no one would hesitate in accepting the views of the hon. Member for Dublin University. The hon. Member for Haddington said that they had in the Land Act of 1881 a precedent for the compulsory putting of a tenant on the property of a landlord. But there was no analogy between the two cases at all. In the case under the Act of 1881 there was an existing tenancy; there was a tenant in possession, and it was only a change from that tenant to
    574
    another tenant who came in under that principle of free sale. But the case in this Bill was that of a landlord who had his own property in his own hands; and who had a tenant forced in on that property against his wishes. The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that the hon. Member for Dublin University was wrong as to the definition of "holding" in the Bill; that the definition was the definition of "holding" in the Land Act of 1881, and he quoted Section 58 of the Act in support of his argument. He had not the Act with him, but, speaking from recollection, the hon. and learned Member had left out words which would show that he was wrong, and that the hon. Member for Dublin University was right.
    MR. HALDANE: The words are—
    "This Act, with the exception of so much thereof as amends the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, in respect of compensation for improvements, and with the exception of Part Five of this Act, shall not apply to tenancies in."
    MR. BARTONsaid, that was his point. The Act of 1881 did not include those tenants. And what was further, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary on the previous night could not answer the question put to him as to whether demesne lands, pasture holdings, and town parks came within the scope of the Bill. Categorical questions were put to the right hon. Gentleman on each of those points, and the answer in each case was "We shall see." This point, however, was important because the Bill provided that where a tenant was reinstated under its provisions he should become a present tenant; so that while the honest tenant, the pasture tenant, the town park tenant, and the demesne land tenant would be unable to come in and claim to have a fair rent fixed, the dishonest tenant, he who had been evicted under the Plan of Campaign, would be able to acquire all the rights under the Land Act which the ordinary tenant in Ireland would have. He did not think it would be contended that the word "holding" in the Bill did not include every "holding" in Ireland. What was the rest of the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman? He appeared to stake everything on the personnel of this tribunal. They asked what security

    575
    was there that the vague and indefinite powers unknown to the law which were conferred on it by this Bill would be exercised properly? and they asserted that the House had no right to make laws according to which the rights and property of tenants would be dependent, not upon the law of the land, but on the individual persons who composed this tribunal. They asserted, further, that there was no precedent for such a proposal, and nothing showed the injustice of the Bill more than that reliance upon the sense of justice of the Commissioners—this falling back absolutely and solely on the personnel of the tribunal, and this assertion that they must trust entirely to the justice of these men. He and his friends declined thus to sacrifice principle to personality. But what about the personnel of the Commission? Nothing was more difficult and more unpleasant to him to have to criticise particular individuals who were known to him; but this he would say: that nobody could assert that Messrs. Fottrell and Greer were on the side of the landlords, or that they would be on the side of the new tenants. He had not a word to say against these gentlemen personally; he did not even know Mr. Greer; but this he would say—that in his opinion they were not men with that backbone and of that firmness and fortitude of character necessary to enable them to deal with the problems that would be presented to them under the working of this Bill, nor would he be willing to entrust the administration of such wide powers to them. Again, what security had they that Mr. White would remain on the Commission? When the Mathew Commission was constituted a Member was placed upon it in whom they could trust. But what happened? Hardly had it commenced its investigations before that gentleman realised that a task had been imposed upon him which it was impossible for him to perform. The hon. and learned Gentleman had argued that they should let bygones be bygones, that there should be a development of Clause 13 of the Land Act of 1891, that a great social plague should be cured, and that a difficulty should be removed from the path of the Unionist Party. What did this mean? He joined with every Member of the House in saying that mere resentment against the tenants was neither statesmanlike, humane, nor
    576
    politic, and he hoped that the vote of no man would be regulated by such a feeling of resentment. They were willing to admit the attractive character of the appeal so far as it did not interfere with the lawful rights of other citizens. They might forgive those who had broken the laws, but at the same time they must not forget that there was one class of men who deserved nothing but consideration. Let them take the case of the landlord, who had offended in no way against the law. He was offered the alternative either of accepting a tenant who was obnoxious to him or insolvent, or both, or to sell his property at a price which, if it was to be fair to the State or the tenant, must be unfair to him. Besides, what security had the landlord that the rent of the new tenant would be paid? The hon. and learned Gentleman told them he would be compensated by the Government, and that he would have a rent fixed for his land. But what security was there that a single penny of that rent would be paid? In most of these cases the tenant was insolvent, and he was to be helped by the State to pay even a small composition for arrears. Again, there was no power in the Bill to compensate a landlord who had spent money in the improvement of his property during the interval. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University on the previous night quoted the case of a tenant evicted for rent arrears to the amount of £1,200. The landlord resumed possession; he found the farm buildings and farm very much deteriorated; he spent considerable sums on getting them into proper condition and last year he made £600 upon it, or £200 more than the rent. Was the tenant in that case to have a right to reinstatement? Was the landlord to have no compensation for his outlay? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Haddington suggested that perhaps the tribunal would refuse to reinstate in such a case. But what would happen to the present tenant? What chance of social order would there be under such circumstances? The new tenant had the terrible alternative either to leave with compensation in the shape of one year's rent, or to be boycotted, intimidated, and possibly killed. Nobody would deny that a man who remained on a farm under such circumstances would do so at the risk of his

    577
    life. Were they to let bygones be bygones on terms so unjust as these? They could not. But there were other tenants in Ireland who had to be considered—tenants who had been reinstated by their landlords before this Bill came into operation. What was their position? There had been a number of such cases. On three estates tenants had been reinstated, some paying six, some four, and the majority two years' arrears. Such cases had occurred on the Cloncurry Estate where the restored tenants had been granted 31 years' lease of pasture land, and on the Olphert Estate, where a number of tenants had been put in as future tenants on paying two years' rent with costs. It surely was apparent that the men who had resisted the law, and who would be restored under this Bill would be more favourably situated than the men who had submitted to the law, and who had been reinstated in a legitimate manner on payment of a certain amount of arrears. He had consulted the tenant-farmers in his own constituency and they had expressed their profound indignation against the Bill, which they said was an insult and an outrage to every honest tenant. They had directed him as their Representative to oppose the Bill as far as he could. What was the position of the ordinary solvent tenant compared with the tenant who would come under the Bill? As to arrears, the honest tenant was liable for six years' arrears; he could be made bankrupt for them, and he could be evicted for one year's arrears. The evicted tenant under the Bill had the benefit of a compulsory composition, under which he need pay only one year's arrears. As to arrears, many an honest tenant had his house in bad repair, and he had to pay for the repairs out of his own pocket. But the evicted tenant whose house was in bad repair, perhaps because of his resistance to the bailiffs, was to have £50 to effect repairs. Was that a fair and equal arrangement as between honest and dishonest men. As to purchase, the honest tenant, if he wished to buy his farm, must go to the Laud Commission, a permanent Public Department, which required the strictest security for the advance. But the evicted tenant did not go to a Public Department, but to a temporary tribunal erected for the purpose of reinstating
    578
    him. The honest and solvent tenant was only accepted as a purchaser with a guarantee deposit, consisting of one-fifth of the purchase-money kept back. But the insolvent tenant was to be accepted without any guarantee deposit. He ventured to assert that this was most unjust, unequal, and unbusiness-like, and he hoped that the taxpayers of this country would realise the risks that were thus being imposed on them. It was said that the Bill was only a development of Clause 13 of the Land Purchase Act. There was not a shadow of foundation for the suggestion. Under that clause no property was taken from anyone, and still less was it taken without compensation; but under this Bill the landlord's property was taken compulsorily and without compensation. Under Clause 13, again, no landlord could be forced either to accept an obnoxious or insolvent tenant, or to sell his property at a price fixed by a temporary tribunal, but that was what the Bill did. The clause did not force any tenant on the State at the discretion of a temporary tribunal; and it did not interfere with any new tenant who had taken land and made it his own. Under the Bill the new tenant must go out, or remain to be the target of intimidation and possible outrage. There was no objection to re-enacting Clause 13, in as far as it enabled a tenant, if he were solvent and had the landlord's consent, to purchase his holding. The Chief Secretary's chief point was that this Bill would settle a great difficulty in Ireland. If that were so, no doubt many Members would be prepared and, indeed, willing to make many sacrifices of principle. But would it settle the question? What did the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin say on this point? He was an authoritative witness, and he said that, so far from settling the question, the Bill would disturb Irish society; it would lead to disorder, contention, and strife. Would it stop crime and disorder? No; the hon. Member told them it would be an additional incentive to crime and disorder, and would lead to agitation far worse than had ever been seen in Ireland. The hon. Member said to the evicted tenants that if they did not make the position uncomfortable for a man who had a farm, and if public opinion was not strong enough to drive him out of it, there was no hope for them.
    MR. T. HARRINGTON: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but that was not my language as applied to the Bill, but as to one very inadequate provision of it, which allowed the tenant-right of an evicted tenant to be taken by the new tenant without compensation.
    MR. BARTONsaid, he admitted the hon. Member was an authority to whom they ought to listen. But the whole of his speech was directed to the fact that compulsory powers were not to be applied to the new tenant. All these great sacrifices of principle were to be made, while one of the most trustworthy witnesses on the subject declared that they would not settle the difficulty. It was said that the Bill would remove a difficulty from the path of the Unionist Party. But he denied that the Unionist Party had made pledges which they could not redeem. That was the difficulty of the Government, far more than disorder. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen now seated on the Ministerial Benches had made pledges which they now found it difficult to fulfil. The Amendment left Unionists perfectly free to do justice in this matter at any time. The Unionist Party when they came into Office would not find themselves bound, like the right hon. Gentleman opposite was, in dealing with the Irish evicted tenants' question, by pledges and prejudices. All the Unionist Party wished was to do justice, and that was the extent of their pledges and of their declarations. The Unionist Members had some difficulty in finding out what were the motives of this Bill. There could be no question involved as to the merits of the tenants or the demerits of the landlords. If any case was attempted to be made out on behalf of the tenants the landlords would, of course, make out their case. Believing as he did that the Bill was essentially a dishonest one, he should give it his unqualified opposition. The measure was that of a desperate Government, and unworthy of the character of its Members as statesmen.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, it was quite evident to him and to other Members of the House that the Party represented by the hon. Member who had just sat down and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University did not contemplate becoming responsible for the
    580
    government of Ireland for many years to come. Otherwise they would be glad to have this difficult and burning question settled. He could not conceive how, considering the pledges made by hon. Members, they should have set their faces against any settlement of this question. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had quoted some criticisms of his in condemnation of this Bill when it was first introduced. He was prepared to stand by the criticisms which he made then, and which he repeated now, that the Bill was utterly and wholly inadequate to settle the evicted tenants' question. Of course, he knew what the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland were, and what were the different interests that he had to conciliate, but he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken a bolder course and a higher stand with regard to it. The hon. and learned Members who opposed the Bill had endeavoured to lash themselves into fury in respect of several of its provisions, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had objected to the measure on the ground that the landlords were not compelled under its provisions to give a certain amount of security that the purchase instalments would be paid by the reinstated tenants. But surely in that respect a concession had been made in favour of the landlords. He was glad to find that, as a fact, no objection had been raised to the three gentlemen who had been chosen to act as arbitrators under the Bill.
    MR. BARTONsaid, that he was one of those who took objection to the gentlemen who were selected to act under the Bill.
    MR. HARRINGTON, continuing, said, he supposed it was impossible to satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman. Two of the arbitrators selected belonged to the same political Party to which he (Mr. Barton) belonged, and one of them was a gentleman to whose opinion upon matters of this kind they might very well object altogether. He had previously held an official position in Ireland, and they had some recollection of his extraordinary pranks. Still, they believed that he was impartial. However, as he had said, the majority of the Commission were certainly of the same

    581
    political opinion as the hon. and learned Member, and he congratulated the Chief Secretary upon the fact that he had been able to pick out three members for the Commission about whom no opinion of a hostile character could be offered. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had declared to the House that the Irish landlords were immaculate, and that they had never robbed the people who were their tenants. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman must be ashamed of the instance in which a landlord recently drove his cattle through the growing crops of an unfortunate tenant. It was very well known that there were cases of eviction in Ireland which no one could defend, and it was admitted on all hands that several classes of tenants were in no degree protected by legislation. It was asked that there should be a revision of judicial rents, and that the law should be made to include freeholders, but this was refused, and then the Plan of Campaign followed as a necessity. A year after a Tory Government proposed legislation, but in the meantime all the mischief had been done. He was not going to say that the Plan of Campaign might not be condemned, or that it was altogether defensible. It was a terrible necessity, and thousands of tenants were saved because of the pressure that it brought to bear upon the landlords. What was the difference between those who were evicted before the Act of 1887 and those whom it saved? Had those who were relieved by it a stronger claim as better tenants than those who were removed six months before by more aggressive landlords? There was no reason or common sense in describing one set of men as criminals and scoundrels, and the others as honest men. Let them look at the matter from the point of view of the landlords. One landlord was tolerant; he gave a little time, and did not put the law in motion early enough to anticipate delayed legislation, and by keeping his tenants he had his rents reduced by Tory legislation. Now, it was held that this very legislation should not be used to assist the poor men who were turned out by unreasonable landlords. He knew one leaseholder who, by the Act of 1887, got his rent reduced by £122, which showed that the landlord had been charging him to that
    582
    amount upon the tenant's improvements. This man could not have continued paying his full rent, but because he held on until he was relieved by the Act he was described as an honest person. But he had a neighbour who was unable to meet the gale of the rent before the passing of the Act, and who went under, but who was just as worthy a man as the other, and paid as long as he could. Was there nothing to be said for this man and others like him who were the victims of the accident that the Act was not passed sooner, and were these men to be excluded for ever from the benefits of this legislation? It was no objection to the Bill that it did not amend the law, because its only object was to bring within the scope of past legislation the cases that had been excluded from it. As to forcing unworthy tenants on landlords, his experience was that there were very few tenants who would refuse to pay rent if they were able to do so. If it was said that the Bill was introduced for political purposes, he would ask, was there no political motive behind the Opposition Benches that had dictated the speeches made in the course of this Debate? If a Member of the House could go down to an estate to prevent a landlord coming to terms with his tenants, was it wrong of other Members to go to the rescue of the tenants? He was supporting the Bill in the hope that it might be amended in Committee. Many of those who opposed it would only be too glad to avail themselves of its provisions for the purpose of readmitting their tenants, just as was the case of the tenant farmers of Armagh, who denounced as dishonest the Bill of 1887, but yet almost took the doors off their hinges in their anxiety to get into the Land Court to avail themselves of the benefits of the Act.
    MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member who has just sat down has spoken of the Unionist Party having set their faces against any dealing with the difficult question with which we are now concerned. I do not think there is any justification for saying that the Unionist Party, as a result of their opposition to this Bill, have set their faces against any plan which would tend towards solving what I admit to be a very great difficulty in Ireland. I must, therefore, repudiate on my own behalf, and I am sure I can

    583
    do so also on behalf of my friends, any desire to impose difficulties in the way of an honourable and honest settlement of the existing difficulties. The Chief Secretary in his speech deepened the impression which he already entertained of his great desire to find some solution of this very difficult question. I confess that I heard with some regret that the right hon. Gentleman could not resist the temptation to make what appeared to me to be a very gratuitous and unnecessary attack upon the Irish landlords. The right hon. Gentleman had no good word for the Irish landlords, and he described them as persons who in the past had often blighted the peace and order of Ireland. I wonder if he has formed any opinion of those people who have been the principal cause of the trouble which he has now to face—the men who by joining in illegal combinations have created not only difficulties for him, but much greater difficulties for his predecessors in Office. Not one single word had he to say in condemnation of those who had been the main cause of the difficulty. I think it behoves everybody to bring to bear a calm judgment and above all a conciliatory spirit upon this question. I recognise the difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman is placed, but at the same time, after having carefully considered this Bill, I have come to the conclusion that it would work great mischief, and that it would inflict great injustice. Therefore, I can with a free conscience vote against the measure. Reference has been made to the Mathew Commission and its Report. No doubt that Commission reported that in its opinion the re-enacting of Section B would be ineffective for the purpose of settling this difficult question. The Commission also expressed its regret that a spirit of conciliation appeared to be absent from both sides. I have never heard that any attempt has been made by the right hon. Gentleman to bring about that conciliation which apparently the Commission thought might have produced a different result. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Haldane) in one part of his speech referred to Lord Monteagle and his article in The Nineteenth Century. That article, which the hon. and learned Member appeared to approve of, did not recommend the drastic provisions con-
    584
    tained in this Bill. I am quite sure that everyone who knows Lord Monteagle knows that he tries as a landlord to discharge the duties of his position. Speaking as a man who has tried to do what he can for Ireland and for the tenants, Lord Monteagle expressed his opinion that if it were not all that was necessary, at all events, the first attempt should be some conciliation board to bring these people together who are now so far apart. I am sure that if any attempt of this kind were made there is no man on this side of the House who would offer any opposition to it, but that it would have everybody's support. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Carson) in what I hope I may without offence characterise as the remarkable and powerful speech he delivered last night, pointed out that this Bill would create great difficulties in many directions where difficulties did not at present exist. He referred with great force to many cases that would be brought under the operation of the Bill, and said that if action were taken under the Bill, the greatest injustice would be done to individuals in Ireland. His statements were challenged in some respects by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary; but the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Haldane), who had the advantage of being able to look up the authorities, has failed entirely to meet the case put by my hon. and learned Friend. I do not know what the difficulty was, but it appears to me that the hon. and learned Member failed to appreciate, at all events, some of the points which my hon. and learned Friend made last night. My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that in the case of new tenants there was no power under this Bill to do justice to them, and that they could not be compensated even to the extent the law at present provides for certain tenants who may be disturbed in their holdings. He pointed out that under the Act of 1870 a tenant disturbed in the possession of his holding was entitled to claim under the present law compensation to the extent of seven years. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Haldane) never attempted to meet that point. My hon. and learned Friend asked why, if these men had grievances, they did not go to the Court and ask to have their leases cancelled,

    585
    and what was the hon. and learned Member's answer to that challenge? Why, that these evicted tenants, if you please, make it a point of honour not to go to the Courts to obtain redress. The first scruple of honour they have is that they do not pay the rent they have undertaken to pay. What other remedy has the landlord except eviction under such circumstances? The hon. and learned Member, however, defends the position of the evicted tenant, who, without any reason or excuse, refuses to pay his rent, and defends his action in not going to the Court to obtain reinstatement in his holding in the ordinary course and process of law. I do not understand points of honour of that kind, and I do not think it is calculated to improve matters that statements of that kind should go forth from this House. Much has been said in regard to the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary argued that there was in this proposal no new principle, and that precedents might be found for practically everything it contained. I know of no precedent in the law of this country under which you can take a man's property compulsorily away from him, fixing the price without his intervention, or even force on him a tenant whom he is compelled to accept. The Bill no doubt was intended to be a Bill dealing with the difficulty of the Plan of Campaign tenants. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thought the House might see some objection to legislation for the relief of men who had combined against the law as had these Plan of Campaign tenants. I will not say that was the reason; but at any rate the Bill we have before us is a measure which is much wider in its scope, and which I think enlarges the area of mischief by reason of the widening of its scope. An attempt has been made to set up some analogy between Section 13 of the Act of 1879 and this Bill. I see no parallel at all between the two cases. Section 13 was passed in order to remove the disability under which tenants and landlords alike laboured because they could not, even though they were agreed as to the price, go into Court, and obtain the advances for purchase which would otherwise be opened to them. I see no analogy at all between the two cases. Under Section 13 there was no compulsion either upon
    586
    the tenants or upon the landlords to act. This Bill widens the area. It sets up a new tribunal with power to fix prices, and to take action far and away beyond that possessed by any tribunal at present. It extends to all evictions as far back as May, 1879. It also sets up this new tribunal which has, to a certain extent, co-ordinate powers with an existing tribunal dealing with precisely similar cases. There is, I think, not a county, probably not a barony, in Ireland that will not have had some cases of evictions during this long period of time, and evictions, it must be borne in mind, for perfectly justifiable reasons, and having attached to them no tincture of injustice. Yet you are to have this new tribunal dealing with the same class of cases as the old tribunal, and possibly arriving at different decisions. The result will be to produce collisions between the Land Commission Court and the new tribunal and to create wide discontent throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. I think that is a serious blot upon the Bill. I do not know how it can be remedied, especially if you are to retain in the Bill the compulsory power which is at present there. I think it must be apparent to the House that, instead of tending to settle matters, this Bill will tend still further to disturb them, inasmuch as it will extend the area of disturbance, which is at present limited to a small number of districts, to a much wider district, if not throughout the whole of Ireland. I think that, if for no other reason than this, we should be justified in voting against the Bill. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Haldane) made a very able argument on behalf of Clause 1, but it appeared to me that he failed to appreciate the point made by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Carson), that the compulsory power contained in the clause will and must work great hardship and injustice upon Irish landlords. The landlords in Ireland are entitled to justice as well as any other class of Her Majesty's subjects. The hon. and learned Member expressed his opinion that the instructions to the arbitrators in this clause are instructions to do justice. My contention is that they have no power under the clause to do justice. The hon. Member denied that injustice

    587
    would be worked under the clause, and said that when the decision had been arrived at and the tenant reinstated, the landlord would take the tenant to the Court if he wished to have a fair rent fixed under the Land Commission. That, in the hon. and learned Member's opinion, was a guard and protection against any injustice or loss being incurred by the landlord. Let me put two cases to him. Let me first take the case of a derelict farm. The hon. Member will probably say that not much loss will be incurred there. Let us assume that the arbitrators reinstated a tenant on a derelict farm. Why, I ask, was the farm derelict? It was derelict because the tenant refused to pay his rent, and was evicted under due process of law. The farm had remained derelict, let us say, for seven years. Has there been no depreciation of the property due to the action of the tenant and those who supported him in refusing to pay rent? If the landlord takes the tenant to the Land Commission to get a fair rent, on what basis is the Land Commission to fix the rent? Obviously they must fix it on the present value of the holding. Therefore, the landlord has imposed upon him this loss by the action of the evicted tenant, and there is no power under this Bill, even though the arbitrators might consider it just, to make compensation to the landlord. The other case I will take is that of a number of evicted farms on which the landlord has spent a considerable amount of money with the object of restoring them to the condition they were in when the tenant was evicted. The same process may be gone through. It may be that hundreds of pounds may have been expended on this property in order to restore it to its former condition. The fair rent to be fixed would be fixed, of course, upon the present value; but the whole expenditure made by the landlord in order to restore it to the condition it formerly was in would be entirely lost, and no compensation could be given to him for such expenditure. I think these two illustrations show that under this Bill injustice must be worked, as there is no power to give compensation to the landlord for his loss owing to the action taken by those tenants whom you are now seeking to put back upon their holdings. The other alternative which the landlord
    588
    has is that he may require the tenant to purchase. The hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. Harrington), I am sure unconsciously, entirely misrepresented what my hon. Friend the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) said with regard to injury to the security which the State would have for the advance. My hon. Friend pointed out that under the existing law there is a margin deducted from the value of the security and left by the Land Commissioners for a number of years, but that in this case there would be no margin of security. My hon. Friend was not complaining that this was a grievance which the landlord would feel, but was pointing out that it was an injury which the State might suffer. There is another important point which must be borne in mind with regard to this security. Under this Bill the purchase price is to be fixed by arbitrators, and the Land Commission, who are to advance the money, have no power to refuse this security or the price put upon it by the arbitrators. They will therefore be in the position of having to accept any security, whereas at present the permanent Department of the Land Commission is responsible for seeing that ample security is provided for all advances they make. I think this is a very important point to bear in mind, inasmuch as it considerably increases the risk which the State will run in making advances under such circumstances. The hon. and learned Member opposite tried to make another point with regard to the free sale tenants. He said there was a power under the Act for the tenants to take the landlords into Court, and that the Court had power to require that the landlord should act reasonably. But surely, Sir, there is no analogy between those two cases. In the former case Parliament gave protection to the tenant so as to prevent some interest of his which possessed a considerable value being rendered null and void by reason of unreasonable conduct on the part of the landlord. The tenant had a right which he could sell in the market, and it would have been grievously unjust if the State had not protected that right. In the same way where a transfer of leave takes place, as it does very often in London and elsewhere, the landlord ought

    589
    not to be able to refuse to accept the new tenant except upon reasonable grounds. But surely there is no analogy between these cases and the case of forcing a landlord who it may be has taken the land into his own hands, and who has been cultivating and improving it for years, to accept a tenant whom he does not want, and possibly a tenant who is unable to pay his rent. I desire to ask the Chief Secretary a question as to Clause 3. Speaking, of course, as a layman with no knowledge of the law, I notice that as regards Section 1 the landlord has power to require the tenant to purchase. Following Section 1 comes the clause which gives to the arbitrators powers to fix the purchase and take all necessary proceedings in connection with it. Then follows Clause 3, which deals with an entirely different class of cases, and provides that the arbitrators shall have in relation to the holding all the powers of the foregoing provisions of the Act. My question is this: Does this power to the arbitrators confer also on the landlord the power to call on the tenant to purchase? If it be otherwise, you might have an agreement come to between the new tenant and the evicted tenant under which no objection would be raised by the new tenant to the reinstatement of the evicted tenant against the will of the landlord. I would like an explanation of what would be the rights of the landlord supposing an agreement were made between the new tenant and the reinstated tenant against his sanction. There is nothing in the clause, so far as I see, that protects the landlord, although there is that in it which protects the arbitrator's powers. I have not very much objection to raise to Clause 3, because it has been rightly recognised, as I think, that in this case there should be no compulsory power exercised. But at the same time there is, I think, a great danger of injustice being done to the new tenants, not by reason of the operation of the law, but by reason of what we may call the pressure brought to bear elsewhere. The hon. and learned Member spoke of the new tenants not in terms of praise, and said they would have the protection which they had enjoyed hitherto. In that view the hon. Member rather differed from the view expressed by the
    590
    Chief Secretary on the Second Reading of the Bill, who spoke of what might be the effect of the rejection of the Bill, and the message thereby sent to the evicted tenants, that they need have no further hope. At present the new tenant has the law in support of his position. You are proposing to amend the law, and the new tenant will then be in this position that there will be nothing but his will between him and the evicted tenant, and I think it is easy to conceive how in such circumstances great pressure will be brought to bear, and possibly great injustice worked, by reason of the alteration which you are proposing to make in the law. I am not one of those who are going to charge the Chief Secretary with an indisposition to protect these new tenants. It is his duty to protect every subject of Her Majesty in Ireland, the new tenants just as much as the evicted tenants, and I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to give that protection to them which the law can afford. Clearly they will be in a much less strong position. I know it is customary to speak of these men in terms offensive, and as I think, untrue, and unjust. But I would ask the House to remember the difficult position that these men have filled in times of great difficulty. I think it would hardly be exaggeration to say that at the time when the war was going on between the tenants and the landlords, they exercised the rights of citizens, and took property which was available to them—stood up, in fact, in support of law and order, and I think they ought rather to be praised than blamed for their attitude. I remember well when that war was going on, how carefully and anxiously—and I am sure the Member for South Tyrone will remember this—that hon. Members from time to time, listened for the Reports as to how many farms had been taken, or how many tenants reinstated. These men, I think, performed difficult positions at that time. They showed the courage of their opinions, and I think really that those who are in favour of the maintenance of law and order owe them a debt of gratitude rather than of condemnation There was a moment when the law was almost on the verge of collapse, and when order threatened to become chaos, and

    591
    these men, I repeat, who stood valiantly to their post deserved commendation rather than blame. They are entitled to protection, and I hope they will continue to receive it as long as they hold their present position. There is one more reason. I will ask this question: Is this Bill likely to settle this question? The hon. Member for the Harbour Division has told us that he adheres to his former utterances. Well, those of us who heard the hon. Member on that occasion will remember distinctly that he predicted that the Bill would not settle the question, and I think there are substantial reasons for believing that that view of the question is not an inaccurate one. The Chief Secretary gave us some interesting figures on the First Reading of the Bill, and they are, as regards the totals, confirmed by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday on the Second Reading. The position is this: There are about 4,000 cases. To how many does this apply? The right hon. Gentleman gave us figures on the First Reading, which I will ask permission to re-state to the House. Quoting from the Mathew Commission, he said that on the 17 estates inquired into, there had been 1,350 evictions, that there had been reinstated 415 tenants, and that there were 15 cases of settlements come to between the old tenants and the new tenants, leaving 921 cases to be dealt with. Of this number 215 were new tenants, 20 had purchased their holdings, and 482 were in the hands of landlords or corporations, and 204 were derelict. That accounts for the 921 cases. In addition to the 921 cases, there were 2,755 other applications, and the right hon. Gentleman pointed out at the time that this figure did not necessarily cover the whole ground, because the figures were admittedly incomplete. This would make a total of 3,676 cases, and the compulsory powers of the Bill would apply only to the 686 cases; or, in other words, the compulsory powers of the Bill will apply to less than 20 per cent. of the whole of the cases. Now, I ask whether, supposing the Bill were put into operation to-morrow, and supposing that you deal with the 20 per cent. of these cases, do you think it would settle the question? Is it likely that those gentlemen who have
    592
    carried on the agitation in the past, fresh from their new success, would be satisfied to leave the question where it is? No, Sir; I say it is obvious from the figures of the right hon. Gentleman himself that this Bill cannot in its present shape settle the question. Therefore, if for that reason only, I should feel justified in voting against the Bill. But I think there are other reasons also which will lead me to vote against the Bill. I look upon this compulsory legislation as being in itself mischievous and unjust. The right hon. Gentleman himself admits that the Bill is mischievous to some extent. The right hon. Gentleman will remember, I think, that yesterday he spoke of the mischiefs which he admitted were in the Bill.
    MR. J. MORLEYdemurred, and was understood to say that what he had said was that for every mischief that could be pointed out in his plan he could point out numbers of mischiefs in others.
    MR. JACKSON: Yes; then I think I am justified in saying the right hon. Gentleman admits mischiefs in his Bill to a certain extent. I do not want to misrepresent what he said in any way. I look upon the Bill as being a mischievous one, and as introducing for the first time powers which are novel in this country. I do not say it is necessarily objectionable from the fact of certain provisions being new; but I say that looking at the conditions of things in Ireland, looking at the people you have to deal with, looking back upon the past, that you may anticipate that this is merely the first step upon an inclined plane upon which you will not be allowed to stop. What an encouragement this will be to those hon. Gentlemen who threaten you with a new campaign, who are certain to institute a new campaign! We have heard much about the wounded soldiers in the old campaign. What a glorious argument this will be for new recruits for the new campaign! The wounded soldiers in the old campaign have been provided for at the cost of the State. The victory rests with them, and the Government has absolutely surrendered at discretion. What a war cry it will be! for those gentlemen will make no secret of their intentions in the future. Sir, I believe the Bill to be

    593
    dangerous; I believe it to be mischievous; I believe it to be calculated to do much harm; and therefore on these grounds and others I certainly shall, with a clear conscience, vote against the Bill.
    MR. W. REDMONDsaid, he desired to intervene for a short time in the Debate. At the outset he might be allowed to say that if he knew anything about the evicted tenants in Ireland, and what they had suffered during the last seven or eight years, there was nothing in their lot to encourage other people to assume their position. If the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken imagined that the fact that these people who had been put back to their homes, after being out on the roadside with their families for eight or ten years, was sufficient to encourage others to become evicted tenants like them, he was speaking without much intimate knowledge of the question. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by saying that he was not going to take up a position of absolute hostility to the settlement of this question. He said that should a well-considered scheme be brought forward it would be regarded by the Opposition, if not with satisfaction, with, at any rate, a certain amount of toleration. He admitted there was a question to be settled, and concluded his speech by finding fault with this Bill, because it would not completely settle the question. That was a totally different position from that taken up by the Member for North Armagh and others. They denied that there was a question at all. They did not find fault with the Bill because it did not settle the question, but what they objected to was the payment of any public money on behalf of a class of people whom they described as undeserving criminals of the worst kind. If the Member for North Armagh and the other Representatives of the landlord party in Ireland were right that those people were undeserving criminals who had brought disaster upon themselves, what did the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken mean by saying that there was a great question to be settled, and that a well-considered scheme or some other scheme than this would receive the
    594
    consideration of the Opposition? These were two two totally different positions, which were taken up by the representatives of the landlord party in Ireland and by Members like the right hon. Gentleman, who knew from his experience of Ireland that there was a very serious question to be settled if not by this Government by the next. If it was not settled it would ultimately cost the country far more than the sum allotted for the purpose. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last had said that the Bill would not settle everything. Of course it would not. When the Land Bill of 1881 was introduced into this House the great argument used against it by the landlords' party was that it would not be a final settlement, and that if that Bill should pass the representatives of the Irish people would still demand more. That was, however, no real argument against passing that Bill. He remembered the late Mr. Parnell said at the time, that though he looked on the Land Act of 1881 with the greatest approval as going a great way in the direction he desired, yet at the same time it would not be a final settlement of the question. The way he was disposed to regard this Bill was in the same light that his leader, Mr. Parnell, regarded the Land Act of 1881. This Bill would, undoubtedly, if properly administered, do a great deal towards settling the question; but it would not settle it altogether, and the question they had to ask themselves was this: Were they going to refuse a Bill which would partially settle the great evil now existing in Ireland simply because it would not absolutely and completely settle it? He for one would not do that, and he supported the Bill as far as it went. But he would tell the Chief Secretary and the Government, what they must know perfectly well, that there was a class in Ireland who would not be touched by the Bill, and who were causing more disturbance than any other class. They were the planters who the late Chief Secretary eulogised, and who by their lawlessness had done more to disturb and break the law than any other men. The present Chief Secretary must know perfectly well that many of the planters were men who had no interest in the locality, and did not take the farms in a bonâ fide way at all. They came as

    595
    the representatives of the landlords, for the purpose of carrying out the landlords' policy, and he asserted that these men, in many cases, by their lawlessness, drunkenness, and insults to the people who were rightful occupiers of the farms, and their wives and children, were the cause of the peace being broken. There was a case on the Coolgreany estate, County Wexford, where one of the unfortunate tenants was shot at in open daylight by one of these men, without any provocation whatever, and the whole country side was turned into a state of disturbance. Yet, these were the men who had been described by the late Chief Secretary as upholders of law and order in Ireland. The late Chief Secretary had said that the people had been evicted because of their own fault. But if the right hon. Gentleman had listened more carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division, he would have understood that the great majority—he himself believed nine-tenths—of the evicted tenants were evicted, not for any fault of their own, but simply because Parliament did not legislate in time for their protection. He must say that with regard to the evicted tenants, whose farms had been taken, he did not know what was to be done. There would be many cases where by the Bill one evicted tenant would be restored to his holding, while another just across the road would have no hope of redress, not because he was worse than his neighbour, but because his farm had been taken. That man would not be satisfied, and he hoped that in Committee Amendments would be accepted to deal with "grabbed" farms. If the Government, however, should not support such Amendments, it would be no reason why this Bill should not be accepted, because they had the precedent of the Land Act of 1881 to prove that very often these things had to be done by successive Acts of Parliament. He and his hon. Friend who did not follow the lead of the hon. Member for Longford had been denounced for opposing this Bill; it was said that they had thrown cold water on it, and had discouraged the efforts of the Government. However that might be, they had the satisfaction now of seeing £250,000 in the Bill instead of £100,000. That
    596
    was a great step in the right direction, because it was money that was wanted to settle this question, but it was very unfair that it should be Irish money. By delaying legislation Parliament had incurred the responsibility for the eviction of these tenants. If the Bill which was passed in 1887 had been passed in 1886 he did not believe there would have been a quarter of the evicted tenants which there were now. The Irish Church Surplus Fund, after all, was a purely Irish fund; and although he admitted that this was a good way to use it, he did not see any reason for going into ecstasies of gratitude about the remedying of an Irish grievance with Irish money. The Irish people had a right to expect that this Bill would have been introduced long ago, and he now gave it his support.
    MR. CHANNINGsaid, he strongly approved of the principle of the Bill, and was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had seen his way to increase the amount of the fund available for carrying out the objects of the measure. He agreed with what had been said by the last speaker in one respect certainly—that the Imperial Parliament had responsibilities towards Ireland in this matter. The whole difficulty had arisen because Parliament had neglected Irish land legislation and had not endeavoured to arrive at a full, complete, and accurate solution of the problem before it, a settlement of the exact relations between landlords and tenants and the method to be adopted of dealing with the evicted tenants in Ireland. The Irish tenants were under a sense of oppression at being rented for their own improvements, and there had been a long period of over-renting in Ireland. The fault of the land legislation for Ireland, from beginning to end, had been that Parliament had not hitherto sufficiently recognised the instinct of the Irish people which had animated the entire agitation in favour of perpetuity of tenure and of the view that the tillers of the soil should be allowed to remain upon it as their predecessors had done. It was the failure of Parliament to recognise

    597
    that instinct that was at the bottom of the Irish land war and of the consequent detestable outrages and crime that had prevailed in that unhappy country for so long. Those terrible consequences lay far more at the door of Parliament than in the proceedings of Irish agitators who had been accused of bringing about those crimes. The responsibility of Parliament had been greatly increased during the last few years in consequence of the refusal of the late Government to institute Courts of Arbitration and Conciliation which might have brought about a peaceful solution of the Irish land difficulty. Even in the present Session we had had a further illustration of the necessity of dealing with these questions between landlord and tenant. The subject had been considered by a strong Committee, and it could not be said that the evidence brought before that Committee had established the landlords' case. The rights of the Irish tenants had never been sufficiently or adequately protected, and he maintained, therefore, that this measure was not the outcome of political expediency, but was an honest attempt to settle the question relating to the evicted tenants of Ireland. It was the frank recognition of an imperial duty to do justice in the matter. The question had been discussed from a very narrow point of view, as if the Plan of Campaign was the sole ground on which it rested. They had been told that this movement was not in reality agrarian, but was a mere struggle of lawlessness initiated for the purpose of defeating the reasonable control by this country of the affairs of Ireland. In every struggle for agrarian rights, in all attempts to right wrongs such as those suffered by the Irish peasantry, in every endeavour to settle such questions between landlord and tenant there must be a certain amount of lawlessness. That was inseparable from such a struggle. For the purpose of this attempt by the Irish people to right these wrongs and to bring about a better state of things a less demoralising machinery. It had been urged that the Bill was intended to reward the dishonest tenants who had joined the illegal combination known as the Plan of Campaign. He was not concerned to apologise for that Plan. He admitted that the Plan of Campaign might be against the strict
    598
    letter of the law, but he maintained that it had kept Ireland free from outrage and had lessened the bitterness of the agrarian struggle in that country. From what he had read of the circumstances of the various struggles which had occurred in Ireland, it was literally true that no serious crime or outrage could be fairly or justly attributed to the operation of the Plan of Campaign in Ireland. He would ask the House to consider for a moment whether the more serious charges had been proved by the actual facts and figures of the case, and whether the spirit manifested by the Irish tenants was to be attributed to unfair demands on their part. It had been proved in every case where those demands had been made and substantiated on Irish estates for a reduction of rents, they were, in comparison with neighbouring estates, found to be just and fair. In one typical case connected with the Plan of Campaign, it was found by the Court that tenants who had demanded that their rents should be fixed at £4 instead of £5 should only pay £3 17s. 6d. That was an illustration of the justness and fairness of the Plan of Campaign. It had been proved over and over again that the demands of the tenants for a reduction in the amount of their rents were fully justified. Out of 101 cases in which estates had been subjected to the operation of the Plan of Campaign, satisfactory settlements had been arrived at between landlords and tenants in 84 instances, while in the remaining 17 cases a settlement might have been arrived at by the landlords agreeing to a 30 per cent. reduction, according to an article attributed to Mr. Davitt in one of the magazines. He would ask his hon. Friend's attention to those facts in reference to the wild and reckless arguments brought forward against the Plan of Campaign, and which had been urged against the Land League as having forced the tenantry of Ireland into a miserable and destitute situation in order that it might succeed in its political objects. Would any fair minded man say when in all but 17 out of 101 cases settlements recognised as fair and reasonable had been arrived at, whether it was just and reasonable to denounce the Plan of Campaign as a mere lawless political plot and conspiracy, and not to

    599
    recognise it as a natural outcome of the agrarian position in Ireland and as an endeavour to settle the question by fair means? Reductions had been made to the extent of 15, 16, and 17 per cent. in addition to the originally-fixed judicial rents, which might be taken at 19 or 20 per cent. That would afford a fair measure of the reasonableness of the claims of the tenants; that, on the average, reductions had been made to the extent of at least 30 per cent. This was an Imperial question in more senses than one. The conduct of the Irish landlords in not listening to the wise advice given them, and the failure of Irish land legislation had cost the English Exchequer an enormous sum; the cost of the evictions on the 17 estates he had mentioned had amounted to £115,000; and it was estimated that the expense of the extra police necessary in Ireland had been no less than £120,000 a year. That was not an unreasonable estimate as the cost since 1887 of this policy of refusing to satisfy by fair means the traditional demands of the Irish people and the right which they had claimed at all times to the land which their ancestors had held. That policy had cost an enormous loss to the British taxpayer. He earnestly urged that the question should be considered, not as a violently-contested controversial topic, but as a recognition of the failure of Parliament to satisfy the legitimate and traditional claims of the Irish people; and he was prepared as an English Member to support the Chief Secretary in making the Bill as effective and as sweeping as was necessary in order to achieve its purpose. It would be a wise step now to adopt a conciliatory policy in dealing with the Irish people, a policy which would promote the prosperity and peace of Ireland, and he would, in conclusion, urge his right hon. Friend to strengthen the Bill and to afford protection in every sense of the word to the new tenants who might be displaced.
    MR. BUCKNILLhoped there would be no confusion of mind on this subject, and submitted that the duty of the House was not, as the last speaker suggested, to make provision for a certain class, the evicted tenants alone, but to see if it was possible "by a just procedure to get rid of a source of
    600
    administrative confusion and social trouble in Ireland." Three classes were affected by the Bill—the evicted tenants, the new tenants, and the landlords. He appealed to the Chief Secretary and every Member in the House to confirm that statement. It was not their duty to favour one class against another, and any legislation which attempted to deal with one in preference to the others was wrong and unjust. In a letter written by the Chief Secretary of Ireland to an hon. Member in 1892 he spoke of the Commission he was about to set on foot as being "an agent of healing and of peace"—meaning no doubt between the evicted tenants and the landlords, not between the Government and the evicted tenants, or between the Government and the party politicians in Ireland, who had to some extent been responsible for the evictions which had taken place. By the Act of 1891 something was attempted to be done, but not what the Government was now trying to do or anything like it. He contended that there was no analogy between the 13th section of the Act of 1891, which was purely permissive, and the present procedure, which was compulsory, and by which a new machinery was to be created which he could not condemn in terms too strong. He did not think that a proper foundation could be obtained by such means. The evicted tenant must first petition the arbitrators to be put back into his holding; the petition would then be sent on to the landlord in the form called by lawyers a rule nisi—i.e., with an intimation that if the landlord could not answer the primâ facie case made out by the tenant he must accept him, and put him back again upon his holding even after an absence of 15 long years; that was not like Section 13 of the Act of 1891, in which there was no similitude to such a proceeding. What could the arbitrators do if within the prescribed time the landlord made out no case in answer to the tenant's claim? They would have no choice in the matter, but would be bound to reinstate the tenant, and the landlord would have nothing further to say in the matter. He could not say, "You, the arbitrator, have said I have not made good my answer to this petition, therefore I will sell," for he had then no choice. He must

    601
    either, within the prescribed time, say he would sell or make answer to the petition. Under the Bill A, the evicted tenant, made his petition, and was supposed to present a primâ facie case. The arbitrator sent it on to B, the landlord, who attempted to answer it. The arbitrator said, "You have not made an answer, and I therefore have to reinstate the tenant." So far as the landlord was concerned he had no choice, and could not say, "I will sell the land." Let the House consider the hard case of the man evicted by "due process of law" in 1879 after the month of May. The landlord of that day who evicted the tenant was dead, and his property had passed to his successor, who might be a purchaser or an heir. Would anyone say that it was fair that such a tenant should be entitled and able now, on good cause as between himself and his landlord in the first instance, to say he was entitled to come back and turn out the present landlord? Certainly not. This case, it seemed to him (Mr. Bucknill), ought to be provided for, but it was not. The arbitrator could not say to the tenant who had shown good cause, "This is a hard case—it must not be." He was bound to reinstate the tenant in his holding. He would call attention to another hard case. A landlord might say, "I don't want to sell; I don't think I have power to sell; I am trustee for other persons, though the legal ownership vests in me." Because the landlord could not sell were the evicted tenants to be put in possession? Under such circumstances would anyone willingly reinstate even a friend or a relation? Why, then, should a landlord be bound to reinstate under the Bill? The answer was that which was put forward by the hon. and learned Member for York yesterday: "If you do not do this you will have social disorder and danger, and the Government know they have got to deal with you."
    MR. J. MORLEY: So will you have to deal with it.
    MR. BUCKNILL: But did the Government deal equitably and justly with all classes? If not they were in the wrong. They had no right to conciliate one class of the community at the expense of another. They had no right to conciliate the evicted tenant at the ex-
    602
    pense of the new tenant, and they had no right to conciliate the evicted tenant if they were unjust to the landlord. In the present case the Government were proposing to do a vast amount of injustice. The Bill was not an attempt to do justice, but an attempt to do the impossible. They had heard to-day from the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin that the Government were aiming at the impossible. This hon. Member, though he had spoken in terms of strong commendation of the Bill, had said on the First Reading that
    "it would disturb Irish society, and particularly in those places to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. He made bold to say that the proposal developed to the House was one that must inevitably lead to disorder and contention and strife, and to an agitation worse than anything which had yet been seen in Ireland."
    The hon. Member for East Mayo had said—
    "I believe in my heart it is beyond the power of this House ever to settle the Irish Land Question finally."
    The hon. Member said the Bill would not settle the case of the tenants who were to be evicted in the following year, or of those who were under notice of eviction. It would not settle cases in the future, but it would be a bad precedent. Those who thought they had forced the hand of the Government now would not be slow to use this machinery in the future. They would say, "We made you do it in 1894, and we will make you do it in 1898." He had no interest in Ireland. He was not an Irish landlord nor an Irish tenant; but he had the common interest that every man in the House ought to have, and that every honest Englishman had, and that was to see that they did not pass legislation that was not productive of good, but which might be productive of evil. That was the common interest of every man in the House. He had not said a word about the Plan of Campaign. He wished to treat the question as if there had been no Plan of Campaign, and to put on one side whatever might have led to evictions. But he could not help putting this question to himself: "Having this great difficulty to deal with, are you dealing with it in such a way as will be equally just and fair to the man whom you have in the first instance a

    603
    desire to assist—namely, the evicted tenant, and the man who is now lawfully in possession, and against whom no one has a right to say a word, and who should only be turned out under 'due process of law,' and which is just and fair to the landlord?" He could not answer that question in the affirmative. He did not believe that the Bill would tend to a peaceful settlement of the difficulty. Therefore, he should vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his speech introducing the Bill referred to certain gentlemen whom he denominated as "irrecoucilables." Personally he did not think he could be said to come under that description, because, if this Bill were possible of being carried out, he should consider that it would be a good and wise Bill to have brought in and he would not oppose it. The hon. Member for Cork had referred to the evicted tenants under the Plan of Compaign as the "wounded soldiers of the battle." That, he thought, was a poetic and correct description. Undoubtedly they had been wounded in endeavouring to carry on the battle. But what had to be considered was this: that it was a foolish battle, and the generals who conducted it were careless in regard to their men. The Chief Secretary claimed that he was trying to heal their wounds and to pour balm into them, and undoubtedly if his plan for doing that were a feasible one it would be a very ungracious thing to oppose his action. But again he must point out that these men engaged in a warfare which they were not justified in undertaking. He objected to the Bill because it was not a reinstating but an evicting Bill, which was not in itself a bad Bill, but which was proposing to do an impossible thing, because if it were put into force a great many families would be put out in the cold. Fifteen hundred men had been put into as many evicted farms, and those farms which were still untaken might be assumed to be the farms of the most dangerous of the men who had been evicted, while the 1,500 which had been taken were the farms of the best of the evicted tenants. At the very threshold, therefore, they bad to face the objection that this proposal would be putting a premium on the lawlessness of the worst
    604
    portion of the evicted tenants, and would be relieving them at the expense of tenants who most merited the sympathy of the House. It was very possible that those tenants who obeyed the mandate of hon. Members below the Gangway had thrown themselves out into the cold, and that their real friends were those who advised them and wanted them to fulfil their obligations. The tenants to be reinstated must have been evicted either because they could not pay or because they could pay and would not. If a tenant could not pay then, was he likely to be able to do so now? Would not a landlord be in a better position if he took those who could have paid and would not, rather than those who could not have paid? If all the farms were vacant and if they were to be re-occupied by those who could have paid and did not, he should have had much less objection to the Bill. The hon. Member for South Tyrone made an investigation on the Oxford estates in Donegal and found that the least arrears that were owing by any evicted tenant were four and a-half years' rent. Consequently, that statement made by the hon. Member for Armagh was no exaggeration. The Chief Secretary knew a good deal about Ireland, and he should know that in every part of Ireland a man taking a farm from which another man had been removed was called a grabber. That was to say, if the previous tenant had gone out against his will, his successor was called a grabber, no matter what the circumstances were; and the natural dislike of the Irish tenants to grabbers had been stimulated by the speeches which they had heard from the Nationalist leaders. That being so, was it possible that 1,500 new tenants could be removed to make room for old tenants without exposing the latter to the natural dislike of grabbers, and bringing about a terrible state of affairs? The Chief Secretary said there would be a terrible state of things if the Bill did not pass. If he believed that the passing of it would not produce great difficulties he would not oppose it. The Bill need not be regarded in any sense as a Party measure, because it was simply an attempt to get a number of unfortunate men out of the difficulties in which they

    605
    had involved themselves. The Chief Secretary was endeavouring to do by law what the hon. Member for South Hunts did without the assistance of the law. If the 1,500 new tenants could be removed without injustice, he did not think that any Unionist Member would offer anything but his support and encouragement to the Bill. But the Unionist Members took an absolutely opposite view; they believed that the Bill, by displacing the new tenants, would bring about a large amount of crime. Were it not for their sympathy with those who had taken the so-called grabbed farms they would be inclined to allow the Chief Secretary to have his way and to let the Bill go through in order to prove the disaster which must ensue. But for this apprehension he would say that the Chief Secretary was trying to do an impossible thing about as well as it could be done. Admitting that the attempt of the Chief Secretary might be possible, he did not say that any case had been made out against the clauses of the Bill, and he thought the hon. Member for North Armagh was well advised when he spoke on the general principles of the case. Objection might be taken to the discretion with which the arbitrators were to be invested, or the source from which the money was to be taken; and his opposition to the Bill narrowed itself down to the single point that 1,500 tenants would have to go out, and that this was an eviction Bill as well as a reinstatement Bill. No doubt when the Unionist Party returned to power they would be glad to have this question out of the way, and if this Bill would get it out of the way they would be blind to oppose it. But if the Chief Secretary got the farms now vacant refilled, he would leave to his successors the legacy of dealing with the 1,500 new tenants, for the right hon. Gentleman did not expect to be in Office when this difficulty would have to be dealt with. The Unionists would be left face to face with greater difficulties than ever, and the right hon. Gentleman would say, "See what the Unionists are doing." There did not seem to be any prospect of getting rid of the new tenants without bloodshed. If the Bill had dealt exclusively with the vacant farms, there would have been very little opposition,
    606
    and not any united opposition, on that side of the House. Many of them who viewed the sufferings of these tenants with the greatest sorrow felt compelled to oppose this Bill, believing that it would be fruitful in crime and disaster.
    MR. BYLESsaid, the one objection urged by hon. Members in opposition to the Bill was in reference to planters on the grabbed farms. He could not but feel that there was some exaggeration in the statement that there were 1,500 planted farm tenants. But even if there were, many of them were not bonâ fide tenants, but were simply creatures of the landlords—caretakers, who jobbed about the farm until the present difficulty should be settled. Even if there were 1,500 of these men, he did not think that that was a sufficient reason why they should not endeavour to arrange the large balance of disputes between other tenants and their landlords. A good deal had been said about the injustice of forcing upon landlords tenants whom they were unwilling to receive. But the principle of the Bill was exactly the same as that contained in the Parish Councils Bill, enabling the new bodies to hire land compulsorily, and it was the same as that under which railway companies were empowered to acquire land compulsorily. But that was not the whole case. It had been pointed out over and over again that these farms were really possessed by two owners. Parliament had realised by past legislation that the tenant was partner with the landlord, and, therefore, all they now proposed to do was to restore the partner. For his part, he would say that if either of the two partners in this dual ownership had power to evict the other, it should certainly be the tenant who should have the power to evict the landowner. In 99 cases out of 100 in Ireland the landlord did absolutely nothing except draw the rent. That was his sole function in life. He was a perfectly useless being. He (Mr. Byles) would probably be misunderstood if he said that the sooner the landlords were got rid of the better. What he meant was that if the landlords were away from Ireland altogether it would be for the benefit of Ireland. He did not wish his remarks to be misconstrued. He was quite sure many landlords recognised

    607
    their duties as landlords just as English landlords did, and were benefactors to the people who lived upon their land. But, upon the whole, to sweep out of Ireland those useless persons who simply drew the rent would be for the benefit of the country. The Irish tenants had created their farms out of land which was not worth a peppercorn. [Cries of "Oh!"] He knew what he was talking about. But for the industry of the poor peasant tenants much of the land in the South and West of Ireland would have been absolutely worthless. For generations the property of these poor people had been confiscated by the landlord class in Ireland. That was the basis and the root of the whole agrarian question, and it was at the bottom of the demand for Home Rule. If it had not been for that kind of robbery they would never have been where they were. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had described the Plan of Campaign tenants as a lawless class, and hon. Gentlemen on his own side had spoken of the combination in an apologetic tone. He made no apology whatever on behalf of the Plan of Campaign or of those tenants. These men were models amongst the tenantry of Ireland, because they had the courage and manhood to resist the enslaving influences to which the tenantry of Ireland had so long been subject. They had the manhood to say that they would not mulct their daughters who had been driven to America of their hard-earned wages in order to pay impossible rents. To say that they were men who could afford to pay and would not pay was to overlook the whole facts of the case. He hoped that their example would be followed, and that in the future the Irish tenantry would show the spirit of combination even more strongly than they had done in the past. The Irish agrarian controversy appeared to him to be on exactly the same principle as the great Coal Strike of last year or any of the great labour strikes. The miners refused to go down into the pits at a wage which they did not consider to be a living wage. They underwent great privations and sufferings in order to establish an understanding between themselves and their employers, and he rejoiced to know that that very day it was announced to the public that they had,
    608
    for the next two years, at any rate, accomplished their object, and had got for themselves a living wage. The Irish tenant was in the same position. He joined the Plan of Campaign, and deliberately allowed himself to be put out. He thought that the Irish tenant was to be commended and praised for attempting to obtain justice for his class. A Liberal Government and a Liberal Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley), than whom no man in the House had a more scrupulous sense of justice, came forward and said that these men who had been years and years in dispute with their landlords were entitled to the consideration of the House, and the constituencies who returned the Government to power two years ago told the House—he could speak for his own constituency, at any rate—that one of the first duties it ought to discharge was to put back into their farms the men who had been evicted by their co-partners. The House would only be discharging in the most direct and plain way the mandate it had received from the constituencies by endeavouring in the wise and moderate manner proposed to carry out an arrangement in the form of an Act of Parliament. He believed that this measure would do a great deal towards healing what everybody knew was a running sore and a constant danger to the peace of Ireland and to the loyalty of the Irish people towards the Empire. He firmly believed that if the Bill were passed it would make many an Irish peasant who was now resentful towards England friendly and kindly, and would promote those relations which he was sure every Member of the House desired to see promoted. If, however, this boon were refused to the Irish people, he for one said they were justified in taking the law into their own hands by forming a fresh combination such as the Plan of Campaign. This organisation was only started because legal remedies and legal justice were refused to them. In his opinion all combinations of this kind, whether they were the result of labour disputes in England or agrarian disputes in Ireland, were not the lawless and vicious acts of vicious men, but were crude attempts to obtain justice. They were attempts to get by rough-and-ready means the justice which was denied to men or which was too long in coming through

    609
    legal channels. It was because he believed this, and because he believed that those evicted tenants, very many of whom he knew personally, were the very salt of Ireland, that he earnestly desired that they should be put back upon the land which was theirs 10,000 times more than it was their landlords', and that they should be able to earn their livelihood and to continue to bring up a peaceful and a pious population.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, he doubted whether the doctrines which the hon. Member had enunciated in his speech would commend themselves to many Members of the House. He did not propose to dwell at length upon the comparison the hon. Member had drawn between the strikes which convulsed the whole commerce of the country last year, and the agricultural combinations which took place in Ireland, because although there might be points of likeness between these two forms of combination, he could find no points of likeness between the attitude of the Government towards strikes in England, and the attitude of the Government as embodied in this Bill towards evicted tenants in Ireland. He was not aware that the Government had ever entertained a proposal for forcing the employers of industry in England to take back men who, owing to the unfortunate disputes that had taken place had lost the means of earning their livelihood. He did not put this forward as an argument against the Bill, because he recognised that the position in Ireland was altogether distinct from any position of a like kind in England. He would not criticise the disquisition made by the hon. Member upon dual ownership in Ireland. The hon. Member had said many things with which he differed, but his observations had appeared to tend towards the view that some large scheme of purchase must be the goal towards which all parties in the House should aim. If that were the hon. Gentleman's view, he (Mr. Wyndham) shared it. Gladly would he welcome the day upon which the two great historical Parties in the House could forget immediate Party advantage, forget the recriminations which had sprung out of the unhappy history of the connection between England and Ireland, and join together
    610
    in placing on the Statute Book some large measure which would, once for all, settle agrarian difficulties in Ireland. He believed that day was far distant, and it was because he thought this Bill would not advance them one step towards that day that he should be prepared to vote against the second reading. The hon. Member (Mr. Byles) had expressed doubt as to whether it were true that 1,533 farms were occupied in Ireland by what were called "planters." Those were the figures, however, adduced from the Report of the Mathew Commission, and they were the figures presented only last year by the hon. Member for North Leitrim (Mr. P. A. M'Hugh.) He it was who told the House that the dispute might be narrowed down to 1,533 farms—namely, those who had been let to new tenants. When such a division of opinion existed upon the vital points at issue, as had been exemplified by the course of the Debate, what hope was there for the success of a measure which evaded any practical attempt to deal with these farms at all? His own judgment upon the Debate, as far as it had proceeded, led him to think that the balance of argument had been on the side of those who opposed the Bill. He felt like the man who came in rather late in the day for a game of ninepins—very few of the arguments of the other side were still left standing. But he would deal with one of the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Haddingtonshire which had escaped the searching criticisms of those who had followed that hon. and learned Gentleman in Debate on the Opposition side of the House. The hon. Members had been criticising an argument put forward in the vigorous speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, who had pointed out—and the matter was one well worthy of attention—that the evicted tenants had foregone, and deliberately foregone, many special privileges conferred on them by the law. The hon. Member had pointed to the fact that the Irish tenants could be divided into three categories, and as to two of those categories he had said the tenants in question had not foregone deliberately those advantages because they had not been conferred on them. He had said—

    611
    "The tenants evicted before 1881 had not the advantages of that Act conferred on them, and the leaseholders evicted before 1887 had not the advantages of the Land Act of 1887 bestowed on them."
    It seemed to him there was an obvious reply to that argument, and it was this—that in the 13th clause of the Land Act of 1891 both these classes were admitted to the privileges of the measure. Both these classes, had they pleased, might have come to a voluntary arrangement to purchase from their landlords, and, therefore, if they had not made any efforts to purchase voluntarily it might be truly said of them, as his hon. Friend had said, that they had foregone privileges conferred on them by the law. Then his hon. Friend took the third class of tenants—those who were evicted subsequent to all the agrarian legislation—and said they could not claim compensation, as they would by that resign all moral title to their holdings, and make submission to the law of this country. Well, if this moral title which they cherished was to lead Irish tenants to forego making use of the Acts passed in this House, what, in Heaven's name, was the use of wasting the time of the House of Commons in passing yet another Act in 1894? What reason had hon. Members to suppose that the Irish tenants, if they failed to take advantage of the Act, would not meet them with the plea that they had a moral title to the soil of Ireland, and that the Imperial Parliament must come to their assistance with time and money. It seemed to him that they had little inducement to believe that there was any measure of finality and hope of settlement in the Bill of the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Haddingtonshire endeavoured to defend the second sub-section of the first clause of the Bill from the adverse criticism passed on it last night by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. They had pitied the hon. and learned Member—as they must always commiserate a strong man struggling with adversity—when they had seen him endeavouring to describe what a primâ facie case would be. He had said that the draftsman had in his mind the 38th and 39th paragraphs of the Report of the Mathew Commission,
    612
    and he had said that if they would bear that in mind they would see that the arbitrator would have the widest discretion; and if they would read a little further on in the Bill they would see that those powers were unlimited. That was true. The last sentence of the third sub-section was to the effect that the arbitrator, after consideration of the question whether the conduct of either landlord or tenant had been unreasonable, might make such order in the matter as he might think consistent with justice. That sounded like a page out of the Arabian Nights Entertainments—like the decrees Haroun Alraschid was said to pronounce on the people brought before him. It would be in the power of these gentlemen to turn the landlord into the tenant and the tenant into the landlord. The hon. Member for Haddington had dealt with various other legal points which he (Mr. Wyndham) thought he might leave to other gentlemen more competent to deal with them. He should like only to deal with one. His hon. and learned Friend had said that the definition of "holding" in the Act of 1881 was so wide as to allow every evicted tenant in Ireland—even if evicted from town holdings or from other kinds of property excluded by another section from the Act of 1881—to obtain reinstatement. But his hon. and learned Friend had said that the intention of the draftsman in all this was perfectly plain; but if this was so, then it would appear that the draftsman had not divulged his intention to the Chief Secretary, who was unable to answer the questions put to him by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin last night as to whether these holdings were or were not excluded. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Haddington had said something which touched a vital point in the whole discussion. He had dealt at some length with the question of the "planters," to which nearly every subsequent speaker had referred, and he said not only that the Bill contained no power for forcing the tenants to leave their holdings—and here the hon. and learned Gentleman showed himself rather hardy—he said that they would not be asked to go. He (Mr. Wyndham) had taken down the hon. and learned Member's

    613
    words. Well, it might be doubted whether the method of solicitation would take the form of a polite request to depart. There had been speakers who had indicated more prompt and rude methods which would be brought to bear on these unfortunate new tenants. It was not only that they would be left to these dangers of social disorder—that was not the chief reason for the complaint that the Bill was inadequate, but because it ignored the crux of the problem. They had been taunted last night with a root-and-branch rejection of any scheme for dealing with these difficulties—
    MR. J. MORLEY: Hear, hear.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, the Chief Secretary applauded that, but if he had listened to the Debate he would have seen that the Opposition were prepared to welcome any attempt at dealing with the question which promised success. The right hon. Gentleman was not present when the hon. Member for Down addressed the House, or he would have heard him express regret that the Bill held out no promise of success, and promise that any that did would meet with his enthusiastic support. The right hon. Gentleman had blamed the unfortunate neglect of opportunity by the Opposition, but there was something worse than neglect of opportunities, and that was the abuse of them. The one might involve delay, and that delay might involve danger; but the other, in holding out hopes that were never realised, added another to the list of evils of the past to which reference had been made by the hon. Member for Clare. The experience of the past had taught them that these questions were only settled by successive Acts of Parliament. The hon. Member for Clare considered that the Bill was a step in the right direction, because it would increase the sum to be advanced from £100,000 to £250,000. This method of legislation might commend itself to hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. They might be pleased at the time of one Session after another being taken up with this attempt to cure the angry sores of the country, and that, at first, £100,000 and then £250,000 should be devoted to these attempts. The Opposition regretted every failure, and held that every fresh failure would render the chance of per-
    614
    manent success more problematical than before. Still, in dealing with the new tenants the Chief Secretary said that the danger might be great in leaving these men practically out of account, but that the danger would be far greater if they did not deal with the whole body of tenants in Ireland. It appeared to him that it was more dangerous to let through the majority of the tenants and then to slam the door in the faces of their fellows; and this was what the right hon. Gentleman did in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman excluded from the provisions of the Bill the very class who were in the minds, he was sure, of every Irish Member when speaking on this question in Ireland. The part of the eloquent speech of the hon. and learned Member for York, which received the most prolonged and animated cheering from hon. Members opposite, was that in which he defended the ringleaders, as they were called, of the Plan of Campaign—the men who could have paid their rent but did not. These were his words:—
    "Did the hon. and gallant or the hon. and learned Member think that the tenants of Ireland as a body would consent to a reinstatement one of the terms of which was to leave outside the pale the men who had stood beside them in the hour of their need?"
    Were not some of the men on the farms that had been re-let as worthy of those epithets as the men to whom the Member for York had referred? He did not discuss the merits of every action or motive of either class of men, but he maintained that if the ordinary ringleaders on every estate in which the Plan of Campaign had been started could be so spoken of the men whose farms had been re-let were entitled to the same praise. The hon. Member had told them that they did not understand Irishmen if they believed they would rest content as long as those men were excluded from the provisions of the Bill. The Opposition understood Irishmen well enough to know that so long as they excluded these 1,553 men their measure of conciliation was nothing but a pretence. Practically, the whole of the Luggacurran estate had been re-let to new tenants; one of the old tenants was a wealthy Member of that House; and the hon. Member for South Kerry (Mr. Kilbride) was a typical instance, to which the hon. and learned Member for

    615
    York referred the previous evening. As fas as he could see, however, the hon. Member for South Kerry was excluded from the provisions of the Bill. He had referred to these points in order to show how it was that, in his opinion, the Bill was doomed to become an absolute failure. This was by no means the first attempt which had been made to deal with this subject of the evicted tenants. This was the fifth attempt made in four years. The first was that of the hon. Member for Kerry in 1891, which was followed by that of the hon. Member for South Tyrone in the same year, and the proposal of the hon. Member for Roscommon in 1892, and that of the Member for North Meath in 1893. A great portion of the time of Parliament had been taken up with this question and strewn with the wrecks of their efforts. If that were so he thought they might abate a little the sanguine expressions of hope which made up so much of the speeches delivered from the Benches opposite. The Chief Secretary himself was not nearly so sanguine as his followers, because in his speeches he spoke of it with earnestness as an exceedingly difficult question. The Chief Secretary appreciated the difficulties of the question, but a good many of his followers failed to do so. Many of them seemed to think that this was a question as between landlord and tenant upon a certain limited number of estates. He had read a letter by the hon. Member for the Skipton Division which showed such a misconception of the scope and character of the Bill that, if it be widely shared and was not dispelled by their discussions, any decisions which they arrived at would be deprived of all value. In that letter the hon. Member said—
    "If we have to choose between a departure from ordinary political morality, between some derogation from the full rights of the owners on the one hand, and the peace of Ireland on the other, the less must yield to the greater, even if it is the Irish landlord class, for the supreme needs of the British Empire."
    He thought everybody would agree in those sentiments, but they were absolutely beside the issue. In nine cases out of ten the Bill would benefit the landlords on those estates—it would put money in their pockets. Some of the criticisms levelled against
    616
    the 13th clause of the Act of 1891 were that it would have that effect, and the same criticism, if it was a criticism, might be addressed against the proposal of the Government. They had nothing to fear from this Bill. If they could restrict their view to its effect upon the fortunes of the 4,000 tenants and their landlords on these estates, they might all go into the same Lobby and vote for the tenants getting the land and the landlords getting the money. But they could not so restrict their view. They must think of what its ultimate effect would be upon no less an area than the whole social peace of Ireland. There were two great issues at stake—the peace of Ireland in the first place, and, as the minor issue, a considerable expenditure of pubic money. For his part, if they could arrive at a satisfactory settlement upon the first, he should not inquire too curiously into the second. If they could be sure that this Bill would confirm the progress now being made towards universal agrarian content in Ireland, he should not mind if it cost, not a quarter of a million, but one million or two millions of money. But it was because he believed that, far from confirming that progress, it would interrupt it, that he was prepared to vote against its Second Reading. The issues before them were more momentous than many of the Chief Secretary's supporters seemed to imagine. They were also very novel and very complex. They knew the Chief Secretary had disclaimed novelty, and had said that every principle in this Bill was familiar to this House, and that the Bill was a mere extension of the 13th clause.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I never said that.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, it was quite true the Chief Secretary never said it, and he apologised to the right hon. Gentleman for the misstatement. Mr. Justice Mathew said it on the Commission, and for the moment he confused the two things in his mind. The right hon. Gentleman would agree that there had been a good deal of talk as to the policy of reinstatement, and that it had been said that it was familiar to this House, and that it had even obtained the sanction of this House on more than one occasion. The Chief Secretary had lent some colour to this view of the Bill by quoting

    617
    more than once the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who alleged that he was in favour of the extension of the 13th Clause. He had quoted that passage twice, and had appealed to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham as being in favour of a policy which was not very different from the policy of the 13th Clause.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had mentioned the 13th Section.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, he had not the quotation with him, but he undertook to say that the 13th Section was mentioned in the very quotation used by the Chief Secretary. But there was one salient feature of difference distinguishing this Bill not only from the 13th Clause, but from every one of the four attempts which had been made in recent Sessions to deal with this question. In every one of those attempts purchase was put forward as the primary solution, and reinstatement was only brought in as a threat or sanction behind the other. In this Bill, for the very first time, reinstatement was put forward as the primary solution of this difficulty and not purchase. There might be a possible exception in the case of the Bill, also founded on the Report of the Mathew Commission, brought in last year by the hon. Member for North Leitrim, but lest anyone should suppose that that Bill contained nothing that was not novel, he would remind the House that when an application for the Closure was made, Mr. Speaker declined to put the Question on the ground that the Debate appeared to open up, in his opinion, a question of great difficulty and complication, and that question of great difficulty and complication was nothing less than this: that for the first time in this House they were asked to reinstate, to restore tenants to all rights, whereas on all previous occasions they had only been asked to put them in a position to purchase and not restore them to all their rights. The measure of the hon. Member for North Kerry contemplated priority of purchase on the part of tenants evicted from farms which had subsequently been re-let; the 13th Clause merely contemplated purchase. The Bill introduced by the hon.
    618
    Member for Roscommon merely contemplated purchase, but, in the event of the landlord refusing to sell, reinstatement was put in as a dire punishment to be visited upon him for his offences. Still reinstatement was in the background. The policy of the Chief Secretary's Bill was a completely novel departure in this House. The other Bills all recognised the problem of the re-let farms to be the crux of the whole difficulty, but the Chief Secretary's Bill evaded and ignored it altogether. This was the other novelty of the Bill, and he thought that, before they came to any decision on it, they must examine it closely in the light of these two novel departures. He took the question of reinstatement as against purchase. He could not for the life of him imagine a single argument which had led the Chief Secretary to prefer reinstatement to purchase. Looked at from the point of view of the land, purchase had always been recognised as preferable. It had always been held that it was a hardship to force a landlord to take back a man who had failed to discharge his obligations towards him. Was it not true that from the point of view of the tenant also that purchase was preferable to reinstatement? The instalments under the Land Act of 1891 were in every case less than the rent he would have to pay, and there were provisions in that Act for assisting him if he fell into arrear not through his own fault.
    MR. BODKINsaid, that under the present Bill purchase was at the option of the landlord. He was perfectly certain the tenants would be quite prepared to take a Bill with purchase as the only solution.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, he dared say the tenants would be quite prepared to take a Bill with purchase as the only solution, but the Bill they had been asked to consider put forward reinstatement as the primary solution of this difficulty. Reinstatement was the Chief Secretary's solution, and if the landlord felt that reinstatement was too intolerable he was to be at the pains of appealing, of showing cause, of, practically, going to law in order to substitute purchase for reinstatement. If hon. Members from Ireland thought purchase was better

    619
    than reinstatement, they agreed with him, but why, in Heaven's name, was it not in the Bill? Why did not they induce the Chief Secretary to make it a purchase instead of a reinstatement Bill? Purchase was looked upon as a final remedy, and if it was a good remedy for estates in a normal condition, it followed that it was the best remedy for estates in connection with which these unhappy events had occurred. Of all the schemes for purchase that had been put forward the only one that had commended itself to the Unionist Party was the scheme of purchase embodied in the 13th Clause of the Land Act of 1891, because that measure was voluntary. It was not the mere traditional repugnance to compulsion which made them prefer the policy of the 13th Clause. It was because compulsory power in this case conferred special privileges upon a certain section of Irish tenants. It was not compulsion against which they rebelled; it was against the result of that compulsion—namely, that while the whole tenantry of Ireland, and especially the tenantry of Ulster, were dying to have a Bill for compulsory purchase, they put a certain amount of compulsory power into the hands of the men whom, rightly or wrongly, they despised as having failed to fulfil their obligations. That was, he thought, a very serious argument in favour of the policy of the 13th Clause, and a very damaging criticism against the policy of this Bill. The Chief Secretary had sometimes said that by granting this compulsory power they did not give special privileges to the evicted tenants. He had said, practically, "We don't give them compulsory purchase; they are only put on a level with the others; that they are reinstated into their holdings and enjoy them as other people enjoy their holdings." He thought it was easy to see that was a special privilege given. There was the case of the tenants whom he might call desirable tenants, from the landlord's point of view—the men who fulfilled their contracts. They had to make their bargain as best they could; but what was the position of the undesirable tenants, and tenants who had rendered themselves intolerable to the landlords. They could present the landlords with the alternative of selling
    620
    to them, or of receiving them back as tenants, so that they did not give them by this Bill a lever which they might apply at their pleasure upon the fulcrum of their own unfitness. It was always unwise to lead Irish tenants to think that they could not only resist the law, but neglect the benefits conferred on them by the law. That was the idea which had lurked in all their legislation for Ireland, and, although he might be told this was a criticism which might have been passed on the policy of the 13th Clause, he was sure the Chief Secretary would agree that as much difficulty sprang not only from the hostility to the restrictions imposed by the law as from the apathy of the tenants of Ireland to the benefits conferred by the law. It was in consequence of the repeated Acts which they had passed that they were fostering a belief in the breasts of the Irish tenants that they alone possessed inalienable rights which no breach of the law and which no neglect to take advantage of the benefits of the law could ever affect. Session after Session was wasted, and million after million was voted in order to restore to the Irish tenants special privileges which, for political purposes, they allow to go by default. He admitted that that was an argument which might be turned against their policy as embodied in the 13th Clause; but if there was danger there, is there not greater danger now when the benefits of that Act had also been ignored? If there was danger in putting the tenants who had been evicted upon an equality with the tenants who had fulfilled their obligations, is there not far greater danger in conferring special privileges upon them, and did they not push temerity to its last verge when, whilst making these proposals, they altogether ignored the crux of the whole problem—namely, the farms which had been re-let to new tenants in Ireland? So far as they knew, and they gathered even from the speeches which had been made that evening, this question of the farms that had been re-let to new tenants in Ireland was not only paramount, but was regarded as of exclusive importance by the men whom they wished to conciliate. The Chief Secretary professed to be guided by Irish opinion, yet his Bill did not touch the

    621
    problem as it was understood by his Irish advisers when, in the clause put forward in the Debates on the Land Act of 1891, it was provided that where a farm was held by a new tenant the old tenant should be allowed to offer as much money as the present tenant was willing to give for it. And if any hon. Member would read the speech of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, delivered in favour of his Bill of last year, he would see that from his argument he excluded the whole number of derelict farms and farms cultivated by the landlord. That was to say, he excluded from his argument the only farms with which the present Bill proposed to deal, and he concluded his argument by saying that the number of farms in dispute in Ireland would be reduced from 3,676 to 1,533, which, he added, was not a very large number. That was to say that the only point, according to him, in dispute was one which the Chief Secretary ignored altogether. If he meant to attack this problem, why did not he harden his heart and ask them to buy out these men at the full value of their holdings with 10 per cent. compensation for disturbance? This Bill was open to these two objections, and because these two objections were not addressed to the same point they could not be set off one against the other. The Chief Secretary had not arrived at a compromise between two rival solutions. He had made a combination of two views—a combination which embraced for the scheme of each Party the very element which led to its rejection by the other, and which eschewed the only element which commended it to those views. From such a combination they could not, with any probable regard for the future, have much doubt as to its failing to carry out the Chief Secretary's object. They might doubt how much this Bill would settle; they none of them could know how much it would cost. The Chief Secretary, in his speech on the First Reading, said it was impossible to say with anything like accuracy what was the precise number of cases that would have to be dealt with under this Bill. "This is a matter," he went on to say, "which the arbitrators will have to decide, and if the arbitrators are fully seized of the policy of this Bill, no doubt they will come to a right conclusion in all
    622
    the cases before them." The arbitrators would have to find whether a tenant had acted in a reasonable or unreasonable manner, but he asked the House to imagine the feelings of the man whose farm was now vacant, but who was found to have acted unreasonably by this Commission. If they did that they would arrive at some measure of the amount of success which was likely to attend this attempt at conciliation.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: If the tone, the good humour, and, to a large extent, the conciliatory speech we have just listened to had been imitated by the hon. Gentleman's more reactionary colleagues who have borne the burden of this Debate, I, for one, should not have dreamt of interfering even for a few moments in this Debate. The hon. Gentleman admits and deplores the evils which this Bill is framed to remedy, and the remedy which he himself suggests is beyond all doubt a remedy which is provided for in this very Bill, for in this Bill it is placed absolutely and unequivocally in the power of the landlord to choose whether a settlement under this Bill will be a settlement by reinstatement or by purchase. I do not intend to allow myself to be drawn by the taunts of the gentlemen who, I am sorry to say, represent the true spirit of opposition to this Bill. At the right moment I should say that we will possibly be able to take care of ourselves if there should be any occasion to do so. I do not think there is the least occasion to do so. It would be only degrading a question in reference to which any man who values permanent peace in Ireland might find something better to argue about than to keep fighting this question. The old and ancient litany of charges against the Flan of Campaign to which we listened last night and to-night has been recited hundreds, nay, thousands of times before the English constituencies year after year, and the result was that at the General Election the Tory Party, who put those charges forward, were compelled to cross the floor of the House of Commons. Again last night and again to-night we have these old charges repeated, and the action of the Tory Party shows that they are deter-

    623
    mined not to allow us to close this chapter of ancient Irish history. Certainly, so far as I am concerned, I have not the slightest desire to open it; but I cannot listen to these charges — these stale charges—without saying something to remind the House what are the facts. We have been told that this Bill is a Bill to screen persons who have taken part in an illegal political conspiracy. Well, we did not know, when we entered on this struggle, that it was illegal. I do not say that we cared very much whether it was or not. [A laugh.] Oh, certainly not. There is not a Trades Union in England that was not an illegal conspiracy until the Legislature learned sense and declared it legal. But I want to point out that, as a matter of fact, the Plan of Campaign, abuse it as you may, was for more than two years in operation, and that nearly all the evictions took place before the Irish people were made aware that it was an illegal combination, even in the estimation of Tory juries in Ireland. Instead of being illegal, we had it under the authority of the Tory Attorney General of the day that the Government could not interfere with it. A number of us were tried for entering into an illegal conspiracy, and, although most elaborate precautions were taken to pack the jury in Dublin, that jury of our countrymen declined to convict us, or to say that there was anything illegal in the Plan of Campaign. I think, under these circumstances, we were justified in assuming that our action was not illegal, and, glibly as gentlemen may talk about it now as an illegal conspiracy, I venture to submit to the judgment of the House the facts that the Plan of Campaign had been in operation for at least two years, and that all the evictions had taken place before any authoritative decision as to the illegality of the Plan was given. I challenge anyone to deny that ever since there was an authoritative condemnation of the Plan of Campaign that on any single one of those estates the tenants ever declined to accept any reasonable terms of arbitration, or were not from beginning to end ready to submit to anything, lest that they and their children should be driven to the workhouse, because they combined against rack rents, which the Tory Government afterwards admitted were intolerable. We have had
    624
    again and again repeated the ignorant outcry that the Plan of Campaign was a mere political dodge, and that it was not justified by the circumstances of agricultural depression in Ireland. The fact is that these tenants did nothing whatsoever that the Tory Chief Secretary, the hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol, did not do with regard to Lord Clanricarde, and which Sir E. Buller did not do in the same year with regard to the landlords of Kerry. That is to say, they put pressure—what the right hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol called "pressure within the law," and we thought we were well within the law in putting Trades Union pressure on the landlords in order to secure that justice was done to tenants in a year of appalling agricultural depression. This House, when it was a Tory House, declined to apply that pressure in a constitutional way when it was asked to do it by Mr. Parnell in 1886. They rejected his proposal with scoffing in the autumn of 1886, but they had to pass a Bill, which was far more stringent, in the summer of the following year; and what the Plan of Campaign did was simply to bridge over the interval and compel the landlords to do in 1887 what they declined to do in 1886. The opponents of this Bill are in this dilemma—either the Plan of Campaign was a necessary combination, or that the Tory Land Act of 1887 was a political dodge; because there is no getting over the fact that the Tory Land Act of 1887 was practically the legal enactment of the Plan of Campaign, let them abuse it now as much as they please, which they were compelled to pass into law; and if we have an Evicted Tenants Bill it is merely because the Tory Part most unwisely determined year after year for the last six or eight years to keep the country in hot water in order to take vengeance on the men who beat them. That year (1886) was a year of most intolerable distress to the Irish farmers, and we were right, and the Government were wrong, as all the world now knows. Whatever may have been the legal defects of the Plan of Campaign—and we never regarded it as anything but a rough-and-ready remedy—it brought the landlords and the Tory Parliament to reason; it saved the Irish farmers, and it prevented

    625
    a terrible outburst of crime as well. We have been charged again and again in this House and on Tory platforms with making political capital out of the Plan of Campaign. Our retort is that the Tory Party, to their own loss and ruin, endeavoured to extract political capital out of the Campaign by attempting to destroy these unfortunate tenants in order to prevent any further combination against the landlords, and to show what terrible fellows the Tory Party were as coercionists. I have frequently stated in this House that the quarrel might have been settled in 48 hours. Nothing would have been easier when the Act of 1887 was passed than to have drawn a wet sponge over the past—for I am certain that up to that time not more than 50, certainly not 80, of these evictions had taken place—and to have ended the whole dispute. I and other Irish Members again and again in this House offered to abandon the Plan of Campaign right away if these tenants were admitted to the benefits of the Act, which they themselves had won. But, no; the Tory Government did not want peace; they wanted vengeance; they wanted, what the hon. Member for South Hunts said, to make examples of the tenantry of Ireland for forcing Lord Salisbury to swallow in 1887 the declaration he made in 1886, that he never would reduce the judicial rents. I am sorry to have to say so; but I think I am bound to say it, that it was only for the purpose of wreaking vengeance upon these few bodies of tenants that the late Government passed their Coercion Act. It was passed for no other purpose than to crush them. That Government engaged in 4,000 prosecutions; they imprisoned about 24 Members of this House; they prosecuted almost every Nationalist newspaper in Ireland, and they carried on evictions wholesale in order to break down our combination. I sometimes wonder whether some of the Members of the Tory Party do not ask themselves what their Government gained by all these years of violence. I will tell them. They simply gained seats on the wrong side of the House. They played a petty political game for the purpose of ruining these unfortunate men in order to serve the landlords and to discredit the leaders of the movement
    626
    —a few Members of this House—and what has been the result? The evicted tenants have not been ruined, but the Tory Government are. In passing from this subject I will only say further that, no matter what you may say about their crimes or our crimes, these tenants were in substance right in the beginning of this quarrel. They have conducted themselves throughout all this painful time with marvellous patience. They have not allowed themselves to be intimidated by coercion, or to be goaded into crime by cruelty or suffering. I say that the Irish people will never abandon the evicted tenants. And what is more, I venture to say, with my colleagues around me, that if the Irish people were offered Home Rule to-morrow on condition of these men being driven into the workhouse they would repudiate it with scorn. This is certain: that while we are prepared to fight, we are also prepared, now as always, to put an end to the whole of this wretched business on any reasonable terms that will restore the evicted tenants. The Irish people want no crowing over the landlords; they want no injustice done to any man. They simply and honestly want to put an end to this quarrel once for all on reasonable terms. We have sufficient confidence in the justice and honesty of the case of the tenants that we are perfectly ready to allow any fair judicial tribunal to decide upon the equities of each individual case; and if the Chief Secretary has been fortunate enough to find such a tribunal—and it is remarkable that up to this the fairness of the tribunal has not been impugned by the other side—I can assure him that the Irish people will raise no difficulty as to any terms that are proposed which will do equal justice between man and man. As to the ludicrous suggestion that lifts been thrown out in the course of this Debate that the Irish Party are in some tremendous difficulty about the evicted tenants question, and that the Bill is intended to extricate them from that difficulty, it is a delusion as ridiculous as it is untrue. I do not think that any man who understands the rudiments merely of the Irish question believes it in his heart. This evicted tenants' question, instead of being our weakness, is our strength, and is one

    627
    of our principal holds on the loyalty of the Irish people. I need only instance the fact that the town of Tipperary—with regard to which some ridiculous misapprehensions prevail in this House—has contributed this year a larger sum towards the Evicted Tenants' Fund than any other town in Ireland, and sent its contributions not to the so-called champions of New Tipperary in this House, but to the parish priest, the Rev. Canon Cahill, who handed the money over to my hon. Friend, the terribly abused Member for East Mayo. I have been lately at meetings of our so-called dupes upon two of the largest Plan of Campaign estates—the Luggacurren and the Ponsonby estates—and I can assure the representatives of the landlords in this House that if they had been present they would have given up the illusion that they are going to damage us in the opinion of our fellow-countrymen by prolonging this wretched struggle over the evicted tenants. We are told by the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh that this Bill will be thrown out in another place. That may be so, for the other House has done as foolish things before. They rejected a certain Compensation for Disturbance Bill one year, and the next year they were able to plume themselves on having been the principal organisers of the Land League, one of the most fearful movements which the landlords of Ireland or of any other country had to contend against. This is almost too solemn a subject to prophesy about, and I recognise the danger of vaticination. But last night the Chief Secretary for Ireland reminded the House that events have invariably proved that when they have uttered warnings in this House the Irish Members have been right and their opponents have been wrong. It was so in 1880 and in 1886. I do not know how it may be in 1895 or 1896, but this I will say: that events will prove that we are right when we tell you here to-night that you might as well expect Englishmen to sell to the enemy men who had won some great battle for the existence of the English people as hope that you will ever in any possible circumstances induce the Irish people to abandon these evicted tenants or to let them drift into
    628
    the workhouse for the gratification of the landlords' revenge. We are, perhaps, well able to take care of ourselves when it comes to fighting; but I have no hesitation in saying that we do not want a fight; that we do not want to approach this Bill in a fighting spirit, but its object can be effected by any reasonable give-and-take arrangement which will do justice between man and man. I am afraid there is no use in appealing to hon. Members on the other side not to protract any longer this discussion at this preliminary stage of the Bill; but I will say that I believe the best friends of the landlords, as well as the friends of the tenants, would do wisely and well to hurry on the Committee stage of this Bill, to agree in Committee to such Amendments as may improve it, and then to pass it into law with as little friction as possible.
    MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member for Cork has just told us that it is the object of himself and his friends to put an end to the quarrels between landlords and tenants in Ireland without inflicting injustice on anyone. I can say at once, in reply to the hon. Member, with all the conviction in the world, that that is an object with which, without exception, every single Member in this House will sympathise, no matter in what quarter he may be sitting. But whether the course which the hon. Member has pursued in the past with reference to this question, or whether the Bill now before the House is or is not calculated to effect that object, is, I am afraid, a very different question altogether. With the permission of the House, I will make some observations in reply to the speech of the hon. Member later on, but, if I may be allowed to do so, I will begin by making some general observations upon the measure before us, because I think that the gravity and importance of some of the proposals it contains cannot possibly be exaggerated. Sir, what we are discussing to-night is really nothing more nor less than another new Irish Land Act. It is another chapter in the long series of measures by which, ever since I came into this House, I am afraid 25 years ago, Liberal Governments have been endeavouring, and in my humble opinion, with almost

    629
    entire failure, to settle the Irish land question. Moreover, I desire to point out that in some of its provisions this measure goes far beyond any proposals ever submitted to Parliament in the different measures dealing with the land question which have preceded it. The Chief Secretary told us yesterday that the Bill contained no new principles; that it contained no principles that had not been already sanctioned by Parliament, and incorporated in some of the various Acts in reference to land in Ireland. I can refute that statement at once by asking the right hon. Gentleman a single question. Is it or is it not true that under this Bill a man who has been farming his own land for 15 years, and who has spent money in improving it, can be evicted from it, and be deprived of the advantages resulting from the capital which he has expended upon it, and be deprived, moreover, of his business as a farmer, in which he may be engaged with great profit and advantage to himself, without one single penny of compensation? I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is not that a true description of some of the contents of this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny it; and unless he can deny it he must know, as well as I know, and everybody else in the House knows, that there are principles of entire novelty in this Bill for which there is absolutely no precedent whatever in any legislation of the past. The hon. and learned Member for Haddington this afternoon made what was undoubtedly an able speech, but as a reply to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University last night, it must be admitted to have been exceedingly feeble. The hon. and learned Member said, "You are guarded against these evils, because there must be a primâ facie case for the reinstatement of the tenant;" and he went on to point out to us the various attempts at safeguards that are contained in this particular clause of the Bill. But what is a primâ facie case for reinstatement? We have asked that question over and over again, and, up to the present, we have not had to that question a shadow of an answer from any Member of the Government or from anyone else who has intervened in this Debate. My hon. and
    630
    learned Friend the Member for Dublin University put case after case to the Government last night. He described various conditions under which the landlord might be called upon to resign the occupation of his own land. He put half-a-dozen specific cases to the Government, and on each particular case he asked, "Is this a primâ facie case for reinstatement?" No attempt at an answer has been made. It is no use to ride off, as the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire did this afternoon, by referring to old Acts passed years ago, and telling us that all these things to which we object have been done before at one time or another in measures that are now in existence. That is no answer to us, because we always held, and have demonstrated over and over again, that those Acts were, in many respects, most iniquitous and mischievous, and have, moreover, been almost complete and absolute failures. [Cries of "No!"] I should like very much to know the Member who says "no."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I say "No."
    MR. CHAPLIN: Well, I shall have to say something of the history of those Acts, because I think I can convince the House that I am accurate in saying that they have entirely failed in their purpose. Great measure after great measure dealing with the land question in Ireland have been passed during the time I have been a Member of the House of Commons, and I maintain that nearly all of them have been failures. The hon. and learned Member for Haddington says that if we reject this measure on this occasion the House of Commons will again be guilty of the same colossal blunder that Parliament made in rejecting the Compensation for Disturbances Bill in 1880. Yes, but compensation for disturbance did not begin in 1880. Compensation for disturbance was embodied in the Act of 1870 as it left the House of Commons. Does the hon. and learned Member remember the Bill of 1870 and the fate which overtook it? It had not been in existence for many years when it was found to be so entirely inefficient and had failed so completely in its purpose that its author himself appointed a Commission to inquire into its working; with

    631
    the result that that Commission reported in favour of the total repeal of the Act. A few months later, so inefficient was the Act found to be, that it was ignominiously repealed by the same Minister who had carried it in the House amidst the plaudits of his Party as one of the most historic measures of the age. [Cries of "No!"] I say the Act of 1870 was repealed, and the Act of 1881 took its place.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: There is a Committee sitting upstairs now actually inquiring into the working of the Act of 1870.
    MR. CHAPLIN: If the hon. Member makes that statement I cannot contradict him now; but I am perfectly certain that the repeal of the Act was recommended by the Commission appointed to inquire into it, and unless I am assured positively that it was not repealed, I adhere to that opinion. It was followed by the Act of 1881, and in that Act was carried everything that had been previously denounced and rejected by the authors of the measure of 1870. Provisions were actually carried in that Act which had been previously denounced by its authors as calculated more than anything in the world to demoralise whole masses of the people of this country. And demoralised the Irish people were, for I do not believe that even the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will deny that no people outside of a demoralised country would be found supporting a criminal conspiracy like the Plan of Campaign. Since the failure of the Act of 1881 both Parties in this House have been engaged in trying by various Land Purchase Acts to remove the evils of dual ownership, and it is upon these Acts, great failures as they have been, that the hon. and learned Member relies for the justification of all the propositions to which we object in the Bill that is now before us. The objections to this Bill are so obvious that there must be, in the opinion of the Government, some overwhelming reasons in their favour. What are the reasons with which they have endeavoured to support it? We are told that the Bill is absolutely necessary for the peace and harmony of different classes and their good conduct and order in Ireland. I admit that to be a very serious reason. The
    632
    hon. Member for Cork suggested that the hon. Member for Dover, who spoke recently, had admitted that there were evils in Ireland that this Bill was designed to remedy; and if this Bill were calculated to promote the blessings of peace and harmony in Ireland I should be the first to allow that a grave responsibility would lie upon any Party who would take upon themselves to reject this measure. But will it remedy the evils existing in Ireland? That is a point upon which I venture, with great respect and deference, to differ altogether from Her Majesty's Government. I say that, in the first place, it is our duty to do that which has been studiously ignored by the Government—namely, to examine as carefully as we can the causes of the evictions with which we are asked to deal at the present moment. The classes of persons proposed to be dealt with are not by any means the same. There are, on the one hand, those tenants who have lost their farms, it may be owing to causes for which they were not responsible—it may be, owing to misfortune and real inability to pay their rents; and for all these, and such as these I can say with perfect truth that I have only one feeling, and that is, great compassion and great sympathy; and if it were possible to do anything to relieve them no one would be more ready to do so than myself. Although I should find it hard to justify this exceptional treatment in their case any more than in the case of a great variety of persons suffering from cognate evils in this country, I would, for the sake of peace and order in Ireland, go great lengths to assist them. That, however, is only one side of the picture. I must draw the attention of the House to the other side. There is also the case of those tenants in Ireland who have been evicted because of their wilful and deliberate refusal to meet their legal obligations, though well able to pay their rents, as was openly avowed, at the bidding of their officers, who took upon themselves to dictate to the tenants what was the proper course to pursue at that particular time. These two classes of cases, the House must admit, are totally different, and to attempt to deal with these two classes of cases on the same footing appears to me to be a most unfortunate and disastrous method of

    633
    treating the subject. The Government cannot deny that this is offering the people of Ireland the greatest and most powerful inducements to repeat their unlawful acts at the very earliest moment at which they can get a favourable opportunity for doing so in the future. I cannot conceive anything more calculated to lead in the future to greater breaches of the law than to condone all their offences in the past in the way proposed in the Bill. The Member for Cork, in the course of his observations, offered a sort of quasi-apology for the Plan of Campaign. He said, "We did not know, at the time we instituted the Plan of Campaign, that it was illegal." I am bound to say that shows, to my mind, a very small acquaintance on the part of the hon. Member with the Ten Commandments, and especially with the eighth. What was the Plan of Campaign? The House must remember that the rents which were objected to by those tenants who obeyed the bidding of the Plan of Campaign were not fixed by the landlords, but by the Courts, and when these rents became due they were just as much the property of the landlords as the watch which is in the pocket of the hon. Member at the present moment is his property. That being so, what were the instructions given to the tenants by the leaders of the Plan of Campaign? They were to offer to pay to the landlords not the rent they had undertaken to pay, and which in many cases they were able to pay, but such rent as they themselves thought was fair. If this rent which they had fixed themselves was refused by the landlord they were to pay it to somebody else. I believe that to be a fair and accurate discription of the objects and proceedings of the Plan of Campaign; and yet the hon. Member says that neither he nor his friends were aware that it was in any sense illegal.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: No Court in Ireland pronounced it to be illegal.
    MR. CHAPLIN: The Chief Secretary, on the first night he introduced this Bill, said he could not go into the origin of this unfortunate business by asking whether Great Britain was responsible for the last two great agrarian risings in Ireland, or whether the Plan of Cam-
    634
    paign was justified by the action of this House in rejecting the proposals put forward by Mr. Parnell in the autumn of 1886. It was quite impossible that the rejection of that Bill could have formed the least justification for the Plan of Campaign.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I said I did not think it was much to the point.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I think it is much to the point, and for this simple reason, that the Plan of Campaign was started before the Bill of Mr. Parnell was rejected. ["No, no!"] I am quite aware there is a very common impression to the contrary, and it has been sedulously fostered and encouraged by the right hon. Member for Midlothian himself, who once said that if there was any crime and misconduct in connection with the Plan of Campaign the Tory Government and Party were more responsible for it than anyone else. A greater fiction was never invented. [Laughter.] I think, before I have completed my observations, the hon. Member from Ireland who seems to be so exceedingly amused will laugh at the other side of his mouth. What are the facts with regard to this question? Mr. Parnell's Bill was rejected on September 21, 1886. I am now going to quote some evidence with regard to the origin of the Plan of Campaign which will be found exceedingly interesting, which is, I think, new to the House; which I believe to be true, and which if not true can be controverted. My information is taken from an Irish paper, the Cork Constitution. In an issue of that paper of July 1888 there appears a verbatim report of the examination on oath of the hon. Member for Cork in an action which was brought by him against that paper. He was cross-examined by Mr. Atkinson, Q.C., and the examination was as follows:—
    "Question.—Is there any money comes from America that you are aware of for the support of the Plan of Campaign, and do the contributions come through the National League?—Mr. W. O'Brien: No; not all.
    "Who receives these that do not come through the National League that you know of?—As a matter of fact, I received the principal portion myself. I received a sum of £5,000 on one occasion myself from the Irish Parliamentary Fund Committee in America.
    "When was that contribution?—Oh, it was a long time ago. I should say it was three or four years ago."

    635
    That, therefore, would be in 1884 or 1885. The cross-examination continues—
    "When did you receive the £5,000?—When I was in America.
    "Was that devoted to the Plan of Campaign?—So far as I know, yes.
    "Was there any other money devoted to the Plan of Campaign except that money? Were there not other moneys from the National League and American money not from the National League?—I cannot make certain. I should say there must have been, but I do not myself know.
    "Did you not promise the people in your speech at Youghal support from America?—Certainly."
    As far as I have been able to ascertain the meeting at Youghal was held on August 18, 1886.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: Perhaps I can shorten the speech of the right hon. Gentleman if he will allow me to set him right. He is as much astray about the Plan of Campaign as he is about the Land Act of 1870. The sum of £5,000 mentioned in my evidence in Cork was received by me when I was in America almost two years after the starting of the Plan of Campaign. I knew all about the starting of the Plan of Campaign, and I can assure this House that it was only a week before its publication in United Ireland, at the end of October in 1886, that it ever entered into the heart of man to conceive it.
    MR. CHAPLIN: When was the Plan of Campaign started?
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: Nearly two months after the rejection of Mr. Parnell's Bill.
    MR. CHAPLIN: According to my information it was started just one month after the rejection of Mr. Parnell's Bill.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance, knowing all the facts of the case, that a week before its publication the Plan of Campaign had never been dreamt of by any Irish politician.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Does the hon. Member repudiate the evidence I have read?
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: The right hon. Gentleman is wholly astray.
    MR. CHAPLIN: There is no use telling me I am wholly astray. I have read the sworn evidence of the hon. Gentleman. Of course, if he tells me the report is incorrect, I will withdraw everything I have said and apologise. But, unless he is prepared to repudiate that sworn evidence of his own, I adhere to the statements I have made. I want to go a little bit further. I do not know on what other occasions the hon. Member might have been in America; but I am informed credibly that he was there in 1886 at the Chicago Convention, and, according to the evidence I have quoted, it must either have been then or at an earlier period that he received this £5,000 which, in my opinion, was intended for the Plan of Campaign.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: I am sorry to again disturb the right hon. Gentleman, but he is wholly astray. I was in America in 1886. The Plan of Campaign had not then been dreamt of. I was again in America in 1888, fighting out our battle on the Luggacurren estate, two years after the Plan of Campaign had been started, and it was then that I received the £5,000.
    MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member, according to his evidence, declares on the 28th of July, 1888—mind, if the hon. Gentleman repudiates the evidence, I do not press it. If he says he did not give that evidence, I will say no more about it. It is all very well to tell me I am astray. Either he gave this evidence or he did not, and if he says he did not there is an end to the matter.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: I certainly gave the evidence, and recovered a verdict for £100 damages.
    MR. CHAPLIN: On that date?
    MR. O'BRIEN: Yes.
    MR. CHAPLIN: On that date he declared that he had received £5,000 for the purposes of the Plan of Campaign, three or four years before 1888. That establishes my case.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: That is a palpable mistake in the report of the newspaper, against which I recovered damages for libel.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I do not care whether the hon. Member recovered damages

    637
    or not. There is the report, the accuracy of which is now admitted, and it absolutely proves the statements I have made. The idea that the Plan of Campaign was caused by the rejection of Mr. Parnell's Bill is one of the greatest fictions that was ever published. The iniquitous scheme, the Plan of Campaign, failed. The leaders of the Plan of Campaign for some time have been and are still greatly discredited with their unfortunate dupes. And they are not likely under existing circumstances to trust in them again. But if by the passing of this Bill you relieve them from the difficulties into which they have been led by their leaders; if by this Bill you come to the rescue of the Plan of Campaign, what greater inducement is it possible for Parliament to offer to these people to believe in these men as their guides again and to join in any fresh combinations which they may desire to institute in the future? One other point I must refer to. It has been suggested by more than one speaker in the course of the Debate that one effect of the Bill, and perhaps one of its worst effects, would be to lead to great intimidation towards the planters—towards persons who had taken possession of farms from which tenants have been evicted. The hon. and learned Member for Haddington dealt with that question, and then some evidence upon it, and declared that such an objection to the Bill could not be regarded as serious in any degree. It is quite true that the hon. and learned Member was contradicted on that point by an Irish Representative—the Member for East Clare—who spoke almost immediately after; but I should like to ask in all seriousness—Have we no knowledge or experience of intimidation in Ireland under such circumstances? Has the hon. and learned Member never heard of denunciations of land-grabbers? Has he never read the report of the Special Commission? Has he read the verdict of the Judges upon that Commission? If he has given the slightest attention to those questions, how is it possible for him to contend that the fear of intimidation under the circumstances which I have described is not a very serious factor which must be taken into consideration by any Government or by any statesman who is responsible for the government of Ireland.
    638
    What leads to intimidation in these cases? It is the possession by one man of the farm which another man thinks he should have and into the possession of which he desires to go. If you pass this Bill you will have the situation described by the hon. Member for East Clare. The hon. Member for East Clare pointed out that one evicted tenant might, under this Bill, be restored to the farm he desired to have while his neighbour might be left out permanently in the cold. There are circumstances which we know must occur from time to time in Ireland; and I must say with all respect to the hon. and learned Member for Haddington that to ignore the conditions which unhappily too often prevail in that country is a course I should not have expected from him. It is for these reasons, amongst many others, that I for one shall give all the opposition in my power to the passing of the Bill. While I yield to no single Member in this House my desire to deal out full and even-handed justice as between man and man, between landlord and tenants, whether in England, Ireland, Scotland, or Wales, I will never be a consenting party, by voting for this Bill, to propose what I believe is eminently calculated to lead to a renewal of disorder and further breaches of the law in Ireland.
    MR. SMITH-BARRYsaid, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when introducing the Bill, said that he considered that those who opposed it would be devoid of intelligence and humanity. He intended to oppose the Bill, and whether or no he was deficient in intelligence, at any rate he was not devoid of feelings of humanity. He believed he had never taken up a non possumus attitude in regard to the evicted tenants. Certainly he had done all he could to avoid evictions on his own estates when it was at all possible to avoid them; but when it was necessary for the sword to be drawn he had of course felt bound to carry the matter through, and he owned he had been responsible for a good many evictions that had taken place in other parts of the country. He had encouraged settlements, and supported the 13th section in the hope that many would be restored under

    639
    it. He would be ready to take the same course again if necessary. But this Bill was an altogether different measure. It was a thoroughly impolitic Bill, and one which he believed would be unjust to the landlord and to those tenants who had paid their rent steadily up to the present time. It was subversive of the ordinary principles of law. Who were the evicted tenants that the Bill was intended to benefit? It would be convenient to divide them into two classes—those who were evicted at the time that the "No-Rent Manifesto" was issued on the 18th October, 1881, and those who became so under the Plan of Campaign. Now, both those classes of evicted tenants rose owing to distinctly political movements. And the persons who were responsible for the evictions, therefore, were hon. Members who sat below the Gangway, among the chief of whom in this movement was the hon. Member for Cork. That hon. Gentleman stated that he had never heard of the Plan of Campaign a week before it was brought forward. But the Plan was started by the hon. Member and his colleague in the conduct of United Ireland, and it was a remarkable fact that in the October and the November of the previous year the Plan of Campaign was distinctly set out in lending articles which appeared in United Ireland for that date. The article of October 24, 1885, contained the following:—
    "Paragraphs are continuously appearing in the Press to the effect that tenants of such and such an estate having waited on the agent and been refused a reduction left in a body. We therefore wish to ask the Irish tenants whether in another sense they want to be 'left in a body,' as they assuredly will unless they set to work in a very different fashion. When they leave in a body what happens? Do they take counsel together, do they form any combination, do they go and bank such rent as they would pay in a common fund to be used against emergencies? No, they do not do anything of the kind. They go home one by one.… We repeat that the estates which dissolve in a body will be beaten in detail; the estates that harden into stern combination will smash the rack-renters' horse, foot, and dragoons. If parish after parish 'in a body' banked its rent at the abated rate in trustees' names, and pledged itself to use this war chest to succour every man attacked what would become of the exterminating union?"
    Here, then, they had an article in United Ireland, for the conduct of which the hon. Member for Cork was responsible, an article written
    640
    twelve months before the Plan of Campaign wag promulgated in 1886, and yet the hon. Member now said that the Plan of Campaign had never been dreamt of by any Irish politician until a week before it was started. He would not go through the speeches of hon. Members below the Gangway to show that the Plan was a political and not an agrarian movement, because the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin and other hon. Members for Ireland had admitted that it was a political and not an agrarian movement, and the hon. Member for East Mayo, in giving evidence before the Mathew Commission with regard to this movement, said that while the subject of the amount of abatement of rent was in dispute they at the same time had in view the getting of further agrarian legislation from the Government. That in itself was conclusive that all the hon. Members were aware of its object, and that that was as the hon. Member for Waterford once said, to make the Government of Ireland by England impossible. But if the fanners in Ireland who had failed in their business were to be reinstated, as was proposed by this Bill, and by public money, he should like to know why the shopkeepers, or small tradesmen, who had failed in the business, or the English farmers in their eastern counties should not have an equal claim to be reinstated.
    MR. BYLES: No.
    MR. SMITH-BARRY: Why not?
    MR. BYLES: Because the farm of the Irish tenant is his own farm; he has created it, and he cannot be put out without his property being taken away from him.
    MR. SMITH-BARRYsaid, the hon. Gentleman appeared to think the Irish tenant had made the land, and was different from any other of God's creatures. Even though the evicted tenants were reinstated, and were to have £50 given them with which to rebuild these houses, how were they to carry on their business? They would have no money to buy stock or to work the farm. The only thing that would happen would be that in a few short years they would have to be re-evicted, and the confusion and

    641
    disturbance in the country would be worse than before. The last state of all would be worse than the first. He believed there were no figures to show what had become of the numerous tenants who had their arrears paid under the Arrears Act of 1883, but he knew that on his own estate there were some of them who, after coming back, their arrears being paid, never paid another sixpence until they had to be evicted and their farms had to be handed over to other men, who were in a more solvent position and able to carry on the work. On the Ponsonby Estate there were 70 tenants who took advantage of the Arrears Act; the Court paid to the owner £800 and the owner forgave £855 of arrears, and at the time of the evictions in 1889 and 1890 these 70 tenants owed £5,116. These figures were not such as to encourage them to again try and prop up men who had already failed in business in the hope that they would succeed in a second venture. He was very sorry for them, and indeed he regretted to see a man fail in any kind of business, but he did not believe it would be doing them any permanent good thus to try and prop them up. It certainly would be doing no good to the landlords, and it would simply be a waste of public money, for they would be sure to fail again if put back into their holdings. And what would be the effect on the neighbours of the evicted tenants who were to be restored? Would it be an inducement to these men—who had paid their rents regularly and who had had a hard struggle to keep their heads above water—to act honestly and according to law, if they found that those who had acted illegally, who were thriftless and worthless, were put back into their holdings on better terms than the men who had struggled through. Was it likely that they would be satisfied and that they would see in the Bill an encouragement to act honestly in the future? What about those tenants who, after joining this combination, had come to an agreement with their landlords and gone back to their lands, paying arrears and costs—men with whom peace had been made and who were now working contentedly on their farms? How would these men be satisfied when they saw the men who had refused to enter into an agreement put back on better terms
    642
    than themselves? Was it not likely that there would be a greater and a far juster agitation than any which Ireland had ever seen before? Then there were many landlords who were working their own lands, and who, by spending money in improving farms which had been allowed to run down and in rebuilding tumble-down buildings, with the result that the holdings were now working at a profit greatly to the benefit of the labourers employed on them. He would give one case of several on his own estate. It was a farm of 500 acres in the County of Cork. As a young man he built a large house on that farm for the benefit of the tenant, at a cost of from £400 to £500, and charged him no interest on it. The tenant got on from bad to worse, though allowances were made to him, and at last he left owing rent to the amount of between £600 and £700. The house was left in a very delapidated condition, and it cost £200 or £300 to repair. He further spent £300 or £400 on drainage. The labourers' cottages were also delapidated, and the men had never been able to get their wages. He rebuilt the cottages and there were now four families living in them in comfort. But under this Bill the successor in title might come forward and establish a primâ facie case, which meant that his predecessor in title had not paid his rent. Not only would he, the landlord, be evicted from the land and all the money he had spent confiscated, but the labourers who were now so comfortable would also suffer, and be forced back to the miserable and barbarous system under which they had existed before. There were other tenants, whose farms were not in the possession of the landlords, who were equally unfitted to be restored to their holdings. There was a case in the County Kerry of a man who had been evicted three times. He had 19 acres at a rent of £3 10s., and he was first evicted in 1886 for £19 5s. of rent. There was a second ejectment on title in 1891, when the Sheriff of the County sought to recover possession of the land and £6 16s. due for costs; and again there was an execution in 1892. The farm was now a derelict farm, and the defendant, who had taken forcible possession, had been confined in Tralee Gaol for cutting and carrying away hay and turf,

    643
    and for removing the door and window frames of the house in order to prevent the sheriff from locking it up, and he owed 15 years' rent. That was the kind of gentleman who was to be restored under this Bill, and perhaps would receive some £50 to repair the house. The landlords of Ireland had no wish to be paid £100,000 or even £2,000,000 under this Bill as a bribe to restore such men. If Irish Members would allow the evicted tenants to meet their landlords, terms might easily be made with them without the necessity for this Bill. It might be urged that one reason why the State should interfere was that there was a great deal of land derelict, and consequently of no benefit to the community. He found from the Report of the Mathew Commission that there were 701 farms in Ireland absolutely derelict. He had only been able to get particulars of 312 of these, and he found that of that number 53 had been let to old tenants and 47 to new tenants, while 14 were being used by the landlord. This had taken place within 15 months. Therefore, notwithstanding the denunciations of land-grabbing and the promises of reinstatement made by the Government, one-third of the farms as to which he had obtained information were now being worked. That showed that the question was settling itself very fast. One strong reason why the question was not settled was that the Government and its supporters held out to the evicted tenants the hope of being put back on their own terms. If the Chief Secretary would get up and say that the Government could do nothing in the matter the question would settle itself. The time had come when the landlords and tenants, if left alone, could and would settle this question, so far as it deserved to be settled. As to the Bill, it would do more mischief than had been done in that unfortunate country for many years. It would upset all the tenants who had behaved honestly and straightforwardly, and it would be a distinct discouragement to law-abiding and honest people. By its means the Government, instead of bringing peace to the country, would simply be sowing dragons' teeth, and they would reap a fresh crop of outrages.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. J. Chamberlain.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARRY, &C.) BILL [Lords].—(No. 310).
  Read a second time, and committed.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS, &C.
  Leave to the Committee to make a Special Report.
  Special Report brought up, and read.
  Merchant Shipping Bill reported from the Joint Committee.
  Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 230.]
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 321.]

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS, &C.,
  Leave to the Committee to make a Special Report in respect of the—
  Copyhold Consolidation Bill [Lords].
  Special Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 231.]

  BRITISH MUSEUM (PURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.—(No. 315.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
  Return [presented 19th July] to be printed. [No. 227.]
  CALEDONIAN CANAL.
  Paper [presented 19th July] to be printed. [No. 228.]

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented,—of Annual Report of the Commissioners for the year 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

Public Libraries (Scotland).

Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, Amendment.

Merchandise Marks (Prosecutions).

Bishopric of Bristol Act (1884) Amendment.

Injured Animals.

Commissioners of Works.

Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies).

Wild Birds Protection Act (1880) Amendment.

Sea Fisheries (Shell Fish).

Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

Notice of Accidents.

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1.)

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 5.)

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 13.)

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 14.)

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2.)

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3.)

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 4.)

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3.)

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4.)

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5.)

Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1.)

Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2.)

Water Orders Confirmation.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7.)

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9.)

490

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10.)

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11.)

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12.)

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13.)

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 16.)

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 19.)

Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law).

INDIAN COTTON DUTIES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEinquired whether it was still the intention of Her Majesty's Government to prohibit the Government of India from extending the Import Duties, levied under the Tariff Act of 1894, to cotton goods; and called attention to the discussions upon this subject in the Legislative Council of the Governor General. He said: My Lords, before placing this Notice on your Lordships' Paper I asked myself, not without some anxiety, whether the discussion which I proposed to bring on could in any way embarrass the Government of India or be detrimental to public interests, and I came to the conclusion that upon the whole it was clearly desirable that the end of the Session should not pass by without some further reference in Parliament to a subject which has so deeply moved public opinion in India. I felt sure that the Debate which might take place this evening would be one which upon the whole could not fail to do good rather than harm. The subject has been so long before the public attention that I do not feel called upon to detain your Lordships with any lengthened reference to its history. It will be sufficient if I remind your Lordships that until a comparatively recent time—about 12 years ago—the Government of India used to derive a considerable part of its Revenue from Import Duties. It was the custom of the East India Company to impose such duties. I may say, in passing, that I believe there is no form of taxation which is more acceptable, or less repugnant, to an Eastern people than

  491
  taxation of this kind. In 1859 Mr. James Wilson, a well-known English financier, was sent out to take charge of the finances of India, and I believe he then re-arranged the Import Duties, and fixed an all-round rate of about 10 per cent. Those rates were subsequently, at different times, modified. A very important controversy took place in 1875 between the India Office and the Government of India upon the subject of the Import Duties. At that time the Marquess of Salisbury was in charge of the India Office, and my noble Friend at the head of the Government of India proposed a very considerable alteration of the tariff. He gave some relief to the exports; he reduced the general rate from 7½ per cent. to 5 per cent.; he altered the system under which cotton goods were valued—altered it, I may say, in a manner which gave a very considerable advantage to British importers. He did all those things; but he did not see his way to do away with the Import Duty upon cotton goods and yarns, which he left at the then existing rates of 5 per cent. and 3½ per cent. respectively. A discussion arose between the India Office and the Government of India as to the propriety of the action taken by my noble Friend. The noble Marquess opposite was of opinion that the Cotton Duties had a preferential claim. My noble Friend did not see his way then to give the desired relief to cotton goods; but the noble Marquess and the noble Earl were entirely at one as to this: that there could be no question of imposing additional taxation in order to give relief to the cotton goods. That point was clearly established at the close of the correspondence, and it is a point of some importance, because, as I think I shall be able to show the House presently, the Government of India is likely to be driven to impose fresh taxation if the prohibition against taxing imported goods remains much longer in force. The difference of opinion which declared itself in 1875 led to the Mission of Sir Lewis Malet, who was sent to India for the purpose of discovering a modus vivendi between Calcutta and Downing Street; so far as I have been able to make out, that Mission did not produce any immediate results.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He fell ill.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: However, in the following Session of Parliament a very remarkable Resolution, to which reference has constantly been made during the present controversy, was passed by the House of Commons. That Resolution was to the effect that the duties then levied upon British manufactures imported into India were protective in their nature, were contrary to sound commercial policy, and ought to be repealed without delay so soon as the financial condition of India would permit. This Resolution was transmitted to the Government of India as an Instruction, and it was followed by a partial remission of the obnoxious duties. But, my Lords, the opponents of the duties, having once tasted blood, were not going to be satisfied by any mere modification of the tariff, and in 1879 a second Resolution, more strongly worded than the first, was carried in the House of Commons. It ran as follows:—
  "That the Indian Import Duties on cotton goods, being unjust alike to the Indian consumer and the English producer, ought to be abolished, and this House accepts the recent reduction of these duties as a step towards their total abolition, to which Her Majesty's Government are pledged."
  The House will observe that this Resolution was more strongly worded than the first, and it differs from its predecessor inasmuch as no reference is made to the financial condition of India, and also inasmuch as the duties are attacked upon the ground of their injustice not only to the English producer but to the Indian consumer, about whose interest in the matter I shall have a word to say presently. My Lords, the result of this action on the part of the British Parliament was that in 1882, during the Viceroyalty of the noble Marquess, now Secretary of State for the Colonies, the duties were entirely swept away, and although there have since that time been many lean years, in which the Government of India has been in sore straits, no attempt has until now been made to re-open the question. That, my Lords, is all that I need to say by way of introduction. We have now to turn to the situation as it stood when the Government of India had to consider its position at the commencement of the present financial year. The rupee had fallen from 1s. 9d. in 1890 to a little over 1s. 2d., and, taking the rate of exchange at that figure,

  493
  which, as your Lordships know, has not been maintained, the Finance Member of Council found himself on March 1st face to face with a deficit of three and a-half crores—a deficit which was subsequently reduced to about three crores by changes to which I shall refer by-and-bye. The outlook was indeed serious, and it is impossible not to feel the greatest sympathy for the unfortunate Minister who was called upon to make both ends meet under such unpromising circumstances. The Finance Member of Council is never much to be envied, and I doubt whether his difficulties are perfectly understood in this country. A well-known English Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lowe) once compared the Revenue of this country to a table, and reminded his hearers that, just as you could not expect a table to stand unless it had a sufficient number of legs, so you could not expect the Revenue of a nation to maintain its stability if you cut away too many of the sources of income by which it is supported. That homely illustration is especially applicable to the case of India. In India the Revenue table has a very small number of legs, one or two of them are somewhat rickety, and the Financial Member comes very soon indeed to the end of his resources. The Salt Tax, from which he draws a very considerable portion of them, affects a necessary of life, and no statesman would, I am convinced, regard with satisfaction an attempt to increase it. The Opium Revenue is dwindling and uncertain. The Income Tax is unpopular and unproductive, and a very strong case has been made out in favour of exempting the smaller incomes. The Government of India can come down on the provincial balances; and it has, on more than one recent occasion, been compelled to adopt this course, but it is one which is deeply and not unnaturally resented by the victims of these appropriations, for it deprives the Local Governments of resources which they are able to use with excellent results in the development of the districts committed to their charge. Then there is the suspension of the Famine Grant. There is, I believe, a great deal to be said in favour of suspending it under circumstances such as those which have lately arisen; but the step is undoubtedly one which occasions a serious shock to public confidence, and
  494
  it is certainly not a step which any Government can take with a light heart. It involves a departure from a financial policy which has found general acceptance, and to which successive Governments have solemnly undertaken to adhere. But, my Lords, when we have arrived at this point, we have virtually exhausted the sources to which the Financial Member of Council can look for additional revenue. He cannot, like the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, extricate himself from his difficulties by imposing an extra penny or two in the Income Tax; still less can he, in spite of the fact that the finances for which he is responsible are those of an Eastern country, make a descent upon its accumulated wealth by transferring to his own pockets a slice of all property passing by death from one owner to another. There remains the question of reducing expenditure. That is a subject of immense difficulty; all that I feel called upon to say with regard to it at the present is, that although reduction may here and there be possible, and although rigid economy is, no doubt, desirable, I entirely disbelieve that it would be safe or statesmanlike to effect sudden and wholesale reductions, either in the civil or military expenditure of the Indian Empire. You may starve your public works, but the limits within which you can do so are far from wide. Of all dangerous and wasteful economies none is more dangerous and wasteful than that of suddenly interrupting the progress of a railway, or of some great irrigation scheme. In such cases stoppage means not only the arrestation of a useful work, but that large establishments are to be broken up or kept in idleness; and materials, accumulated or already ordered, wasted or left to perish by the roadside. The case of the military expenditure does not present fewer difficulties. A few economies may be made here and there, but no substantial diminution of expenditure can be arrived at unless you are prepared either to reduce the pay of the soldier or to diminish the number of troops now employed in India, or to deplete those reserves of stores which we have been endeavouring to accumulate during recent years. I do not envy the statesman who attempts to retrench in any of these three directions. This question of the reduction of our military expenditure was

  495
  very anxiously considered by the Government of India last year. I remember that it produced a deep impression upon me when I found that out of a total expenditure of between 15 and 16 crores no less than 12 crores were absorbed by the pay of the Army, by the expenses of feeding it, and by the pensions to which it was entitled, which could, of course, not be touched. It is easy to point to the fact that the military expenditure of India is large and has been increasing, but I think the critics are apt to forget how much of the increase has been due to the increase of the Army by 30,000 soldiers after the annexation of Upper Burma, to the measures which have been taken to promote the comfort and well-being of our troops, British and Native—measures with which the name of my noble and gallant Friend on the Cross Benches will always be honourably connected; to the vast expense which has been imposed upon us by the introduction of new armaments, to the fall in exchange, which has added nearly 40 lakhs to our Military Estimates in a single year, and last, but not least, to those measures of precaution which have been rendered necessary by the military activity of powerful neighbours both on the eastern and western frontiers of the Empire. This, then, was the position with which Lord Elgin's Government was confronted, and it was in all conscience serious enough. The Financial Member of Council found himself obliged to scrape together from the different sources available—and I have shown how few they were—the necessary Revenue with which to make up this large deficit. It was clear from the first that the Famine Grant had to go, and I do not think there can be any doubt that the Government of India was fully justified in suspending it. The Famine Grant, which your Lordships know, amounts to 150 lakhs per annum, was intended to provide out of the superfluity of prosperous years for the exigencies of years of adversity. Some of your Lordships have probably read the extremely instructive speech delivered in the Viceroy's Council on the 27th of March by Sir Charles Elliott, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. Sir C. Elliott was Secretary to the Famine Commission, to whose recommendation the institution of the so-called Famine Insurance Fund was due; and it
  496
  is noteworthy that Sir Charles, speaking with the authority due to his connection with the Famine Commission, as well as with that belonging to the head of the Province which has more than any other in India suffered from famines in the past, expressed his opinion that the time had come for inquiring whether the grounds on which this figure of lakhs was arrived at, still remain unchanged. He shows in the course of his speech that owing to the construction of many of the lines considered necessary by the Famine Commission, the districts most liable to scarcity have become much less vulnerable than they were, and he expresses his opinion that there is good reason for thinking that it is no longer necessary to set apart so large a surplus as 1½ crores, for the definite purpose of meeting the recurring expenditure which the occurrence of famine entails. I am not sorry to have this opportunity of adding to Sir Charles Elliott's testimony the expression of my own belief that the danger to the people of India from famine has become greatly less than it was; not only have the means of communication improved, and with them the facilities for bringing timely supplies of food into the threatened districts, but we have now a system of perfectly organised Returns carefully collated by the Department of Revenue and Agriculture, showing from time to time the condition of the population and the movement of the prices of food supplies—returns which render it almost impossible for the Government to be, as they were before these precautionary measures had been taken, surprised by sudden and unexpected calamities of this kind. It is, therefore, I think, clear that Lord Elgin's Government are amply justified in suspending the Famine Grant so far as it was possible to do so. A part of it was already pledged, but 107 lakhs out of 150 lakhs were available and were very properly hypothecated. The deficit was thus reduced to 250 lakhs, if Mr. Westland's first figure be accepted as the point of departure, and there was one source only from which the bulk of it could be made good. An all round tariff of Import Duties at the rate of 5 per cent. ad valorem would have given a sum which may be estimated at from 225 to 250 lakhs, and with this addition to their income the Government would have had an equili-

  497
  brium, or at all events a small deficit only, without further trouble. Now, my Lords, there is no question whatever that if the Government of India had been left to itself it would have taken this step. But it had to reckon with the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State had to reckon with Manchester. On the very day on which Mr. Westland introduced his Tariff Bill, an influential deputation waited upon the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who was then Secretary of State for India, and urged upon him the inexpediency of allowing the Government of India to tax imported cottons. The noble Earl announced that it had been decided by Her Majesty's Government that there was not to be a re-imposition of duties upon cotton goods—a statement which is reported to have been received with loud cheers by the deputation. The noble Earl was, however, perfectly frank, and he went on as follows:—
  "I should be uncandid if I did not tell you that there is in India an extremely strong feeling the other way."
  But he went on to say—
  "The matter is perfectly at rest so far as the present time is concerned, and it is highly satisfactory to me to be able to make this announcement to you to-day."
  A statement to the same effect was made by Mr. Westland in the Viceroy's Council when he introduced the Tariff Bill, and was repeated by him a few days later when that measure came up for discussion. Then, my Lords, took place those remarkable discussions in the Viceroy's Council, the Reports of which are before the House. All I need say with regard to them is that upon the merits not one single Member, official or unofficial, approved of the decision of Her Majesty's Government, or accepted it, save under a more or less emphatically worded protest, and with an expression of hope that the last word had not been spoken by the India Office. Let me point out to the House what were the results of this decision of Her Majesty's Government. The import duties, without the inclusion of cotton goods, yielded only 114 lakhs, instead of the 225 or 250 lakhs which would have been obtained if the cottons had not been exempted. Instead of an equilibrium or an approach to it, Mr. Westland found
  498
  himself, taking the original deficit of 350 lakhs as the point of departure, with a deficit of about 130 lakhs, for which provision had somehow or other to be made. Well, my Lords, what has happened? To begin with, part of the balance to the credit of the Provincial Governments was appropriated; in other words, the financial contracts recently entered into between the Government of India and the Local Governments were broken for the purpose of making good the deficit of the Imperial Exchequer. Let me read your Lordships the words in which Mr. Westland refers to this measure. In Paragraph 27 of the Financial Statement your Lordships will find the following passage:—
  "The Government of India were most unwilling to have recourse to a measure which practically means the stoppage for the time of all administrative improvements; a measure which they feel must take the heart out of Provincial Governments by making them surrender all the fruits of careful administration to fill the yawning gulf of our sterling payments."
  My Lords, I remember that on one occasion, while I was connected with the Government of India, we found ourselves obliged to ask the Local Governments for a benevolence of this kind. I always regretted it, and I feel very strongly that Mr. Westland was using no exaggerated language when he said that such action must have the effect both of stopping all administrative improvement, and taking the heart out of the Provincial Governments. From this source 40 lakhs out of 130 were obtained. In providing the sum which remained the Financial Department had literally to make bricks without straw. Twenty lakhs or thereabouts were obtained by reducing the grant for military works, and 17 or 18 lakhs more "by cutting out," to use Mr. Westland's language—
  "Practically every new work upon the civil side to which the Government of India was not absolutely committed."
  If your Lordships wish to know what these reductions mean, I would beg you to read the eloquent speech delivered in the Viceroy's Council by Sir Griffith Evans on the 27th of March, in which this part of the case is dealt with. You will find the passage at p. 99 of the Blue Book. Sir Griffith Evans says—
  "It is not suggested that these works are not necessary or that this expenditure can be permanently avoided. … It means totally to

  499
  arrest all development. … The barracks required in Upper Burma will not be built. … The sanitary measures required for the Army in India will not be carried; and worst of all, the proposed improved arrangements for water supply for the troops all over India must stand over. This means preventable sickness and preventable deaths among our troops. The dreadful scourge of enteric fever is to run its course unchecked."
  These, my Lords, are not the words of an agitator, or of a disloyal newspaper, but of the leader of the Calcutta Bar, a gentleman who has for many years been a member of the Viceroy's Council, and whose loyalty to the British Government is altogether beyond suspicion. No wonder, my Lords, that at the conclusion of his financial statement Mr. Westland made the observation that the means which he had adopted for nearly balancing his revenue and expenditure were means which would hardly be available a second time. And after all, my Lords, after the absorption of the Famine Grant, the appropriation of the provincial balances, and the abandonment of necessary works, the magnificent result was to leave the Government of India with a prospective deficit of 30 lakhs, and this, although the exchange value of the rupee had been estimated at 1s. 2d., a rate which, as your Lordships are aware, has not since been maintained. The financial results were, however, nothing as compared with the political effect which has been produced by the exemption. It is no exaggeration to say that it has evoked a feeling of universal disappointment—I should not be wrong if I said a feeling of universal indignation throughout India. What are the grounds upon which this special favour denied to all other imports has been shown to the imports of cotton goods? It has been said that the resolutions passed by the House of Commons in 1875 and 1879 are obligatory. I do not suppose that it will be seriously contended that, if a sufficient case can be shown, a Parliamentary Resolution carried under one particular set of circumstances must remain for all time and under wholly different circumstances, as a kind of law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not. I have told the House what those Resolutions were: one of them has reference to the interests of the Indian consumer, and I noticed that when the deputation, to which I have already referred, called upon the noble
  500
  Earl, the principal spokesman stated his case upon the assertion that—
  "the imposition of these duties would involve a great hardship upon the poor Indian consumer."
  The present Secretary of State also, I observe, spoke very strongly of the injustice of making the consumer pay for the benefit of the Indian manufacturer. I confess that while I am the first to admit that the case presents very considerable difficulties, I am a little incredulous as to the grievance of the Indian consumer. What is the argument? We are told that if the price of imported cottons is enhanced by the addition of the duty, the price of all other cottons will be raised, and it is urged that the additional cost will in all cases fall upon the consumer, that the amount by which the price is raised would, in the case of imported cotton, go into the pocket of the Government, and in the case of cottons produced in India, into the pocket of the manufacturer. It is obvious that if the Indian manufacturer puts up his prices by an amount equal to the duty payable by imported cottons, the Indian-made goods will gain no advantage in respect of cheapness, and to this extent the grievance of the British competitor would disappear. But, of course, the Indian manufacturer may add to his prices something less than the whole of the duty; in that case he will get his protection, and the consumers may have to submit to a more or less increased price. But let us see what is the extent of the consumer's grievance. A 5 per cent. duty is equal to about ½d. in the 1s., or less than one anna in the rupee. Now, I doubt extremely whether, as far as the Indian consumer is concerned, this addition to the price of those cotton goods which might be affected would be very seriously felt. At any rate, it is our duty to remember that the Indian consumer, so far as he has an articulate voice, is asking you to put an end to this exemption. You may say that he knows nothing about these questions. That may be true, but your Lordships may take it as beyond doubt that if you could get at the consumer's opinion you would find that he greatly preferred an infinitesimally small increase in the price of cotton cloths to an addition to the Salt Tax, and certainly to any kind of direct taxation,

  501
  and it is to some taxation of this kind that the Government of India will have to turn if it is deprived of the revenue which the Cotton Duties would yield. It is stated confidently by those best qualified to offer an opinion that while the duties upon imported cotton goods were still in force the consumer did not feel them, or know that he was being taxed. A well-known member of the Legislative Council, the President of the Calcutta Chamber of Commerce, estimated the incidence of these duties as equivalent to something like ¾d. per head of the population. It is interesting to note how this point was regarded when the question was discussed nearly 20 years ago between the Government of India and the Secretary of State. I quote the following from a Despatch addressed by the noble Marquess opposite to the Government of India on the 15th of April, 1875, when this question was under discussion. The noble Marquess wrote that—
  "In the presence of influences so powerful"
  (the noble Marquess was referring to the rapid development of the Indian industry)
  "the effect of the 5 per cent. duty was probably insignificant."
  He went on to say—
  "An importance, however, which I think exaggerated, has been attached to it by the cotton manufacturers both in England and Bombay."
  In the same Despatch the noble Marquess proceeded—
  "If it were true that this duty is the means of excluding English competition, and thereby raising the price of a necessary of life to the vast masses of Indian consumers, it is unnecessary for me to remark that it would be open to economical objections of the gravest kind. I do not attribute to it any such effect, but I cannot be insensible to the political evils which arise from the prevalent belief upon this matter."
  I shall have a few words to say presently as to the political aspect of the question, but I trust that I have said enough to show that the alleged consumer's grievance is not one to which your Lordships would be justified in attaching too much weight. Then, my Lords, we are told that the duties are protective and inconsistent with our Free Trade principles. My Lords, I hope we shall not allow our affection for Free Trade principles to degenerate into mere
  502
  bigotry. So far as the question of principle is concerned, I object altogether to the doctrine that, because we are believers in Free Trade, India is to be absolutely precluded from raising revenue by any taxation which, although imposed for revenue purposes, incidentally protects one industry or another. A more dangerous doctrine I cannot conceive. I have already pointed out that in the case of India a general tariff must necessarily be, to some extent, protective in its results. My Lords, I am aware of the dangers which surround the colonial analogy, and I should be the last to claim for India the kind of fiscal independence which is enjoyed by Canada or the Australian Colonies, but we cannot, when we are discussing this question, altogether exclude from consideration the fact that we allow our colonies to raise revenue by duties which are designedly protective, and which have undoubtedly had the effect of considerably hampering our own trade. So long as the colonies do not discriminate against the mother country we do not raise a finger, and they have at times been perilously near arriving at this point. You cannot, therefore, prevent people from asking why we swallow the colonial camel and strain at the Indian gnat. It is most desirable that we should know exactly to what extent protection would be given if these duties were imposed. Would it be so great that our trade would be crippled or destroyed? If this was the case it is clear that the duty would yield no revenue and would, therefore, fail to effect the purpose for which it was imposed. We know, however, that Indian cottons do not compete, or compete to a slight extent only, with our finer cotton goods; it is only in the case of coarser goods that there is any competition to speak of.
  "Manchester and Bombay,"
  to use the words of Mr. Westland,
  "overlap to a certain extent, but the area which Manchester occupies, and must continue to occupy without competition, is very wide and comprehensive."
  That is the statement of the expert adviser of Lord Elgin's Government. Do Her Majesty's Government accept it? By the last mail I received the report of an interesting discussion which took place last month of the Bombay Millowners' Association. A very re-

  503
  markable statement was then made by Mr. G. Cotton, the president of the association. I quote the following from his speech:—
  "We do not enter into competition with Lancashire, nor can she compete with us, and I may mention that this week I have declined to quote even for 24s., because our machinery can be more profitably employed on 6s., 8s., 10s., 16s., and 20s. Lancashire does not, I venture to say, export to this country any goods or yarns which average under 24s."
  He proceeds to give, in a tabular form, figures showing, as to yarns, the production of all the mills in India except one for 1893, and he says (and apparently the figures bear out the statement) that—
  "They show that 20 per cent. of our production is under 10s., that 79 per cent. is under 20s., and only 19½ per cent. is between 20s. and 30s., 1½ per cent. between 30s. and 40s., and 1.8 per cent. over 40s. I regret that we could not get the figures between 20s. and 24s., as I am sure that we would find that fully 10 per cent. are 20½s. and 21s., and a good 5 per cent. 22s. to 24s., so that fully 94 per cent. of our spinnings are counts that Lancashire does not send, and has not sent us for years."
  Are these figures, which I must say seem to me a little surprising, accepted by Her Majesty's Government, or can they be explained away, and, if so, to what extent? We must, however, I think, concede that to some extent these duties, unless accompanied by a countervailing Excise Duty, would be protective. Well, my Lords, as to that, let me say that even if it be true that to some slight extent Indian mills will get an advantage from the taxation of British goods, I, for one, deprecate the contention that this objection is fatal. The Indian millowners have had a good many trials of late. Our currency legislation has for the time disturbed their business. We have imposed upon them factory legislation conceived upon European rather than Indian lines; and, in this very tariff which we are discussing, their dye stuffs and chemicals, which enter very largely into the cost of production, are taxed. It is stated that the duty on these is equal to more than 1 per cent. on the cost of production. I confess that unless you are able to show that by taxing these imports you would give to the Indian mills an amount of protection which would seriously cripple British competition, and thereby lose you the revenue of which you are in need, I should not
  504
  regret to see these millowners get a little of the smooth as well as the rough. My Lords, if it comes to the question of protection, let us, at any rate, be consistent. If protection be indeed the unclean thing, and we are to rule out every duty which is protective in its effect, the tariff which the Secretary of State has already sanctioned is altogether inadmissible. At some points it is protective in the interests of the English manufacturer. The Government of India is, as I have just pointed out, about to take toll of the dye stuffs and metals used by the Indian millers, who will, to that extent, be subject to a penalty from which their British competitors are free. But that is by no means all. The new tariff includes Import Duties upon papers and woollens, both of which commodities are to a considerable extent manufactured in India. The manufacture of paper, in particular, is making great strides in that country. Every one of these newly-built paper mills will receive a certain amount of protection by the tariff. I could mention other cases, but the fact is, that the tariff, as a whole, hangs together, and it is impossible to make exceptions without creating anomalies and producing injustice. As for the Cotton Duties, I do not believe that Sir Evelyn Baring was guilty of any exaggeration when in 1872 he told the Viceroy's Legislative Council that, if the case were argued upon the ground of Free Trade or Protection,
  "The arguments in favour of abolishing the general Import Duties were even stronger than those which could be adduced in respect of the abolition of the Cotton Duties. The maintenance of the former, if the latter be abolished, would from every point of view be open to objection."
  We have reversed the process, we are imposing general duties, and giving exemption to the commodity which, in Sir Evelyn Baring's opinion, had the least claim of all to such indulgence. My Lords, the question is really a question of revenue, and these arguments founded upon the sanctity of Free Trade principles are, if I may be allowed to say so, beside the mark. Even if they had more weight, they would weigh as nothing compared with the political considerations which are involved, and which require a much fuller explanation than we have yet received of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. It is impossible

  505
  to exaggerate the intensity of feeling which this piece of fiscal favouritism has produced in India. Those who have had the longest experience in that country say unhesitatingly that public opinion never was so unanimous; from the Members of the Viceroy's Council to the humblest classes, the people of India are solid upon the subject. The case has been stated during the discussions in Council, at public meetings, and in the newspapers with merciless logic. Judgment has gone by default; there is no reply. Those from whom an official apology for the measure might have been expected have refused to make it. All that they are able to say is that they are acting under orders from Home, and that there is reason to hope that those orders may be reconsidered. In the meanwhile the public sees the Government of India cutting down expenditure, starving useful public works, and appropriating the economies of the Local Governments, merely because, as they are told, political exigencies render it impossible for the Secretary of State to give way. The time has, I think, come when we may reasonably ask Her Majesty's Government to take us more fully into their confidence. There never was a moment when it was more necessary to avoid creating an impression that our financial policy in India was dictated by selfish considerations. I am not one of those who regard with exaggerated alarm every bazaar rumour which may be telegraphed over to this country from India, but it is idle to conceal from ourselves that many causes are at work which should make us pause before we do anything to shake the confidence of the people in the absolute disinterestedness of our rule. Western ideas are spreading with rapidity in the minds of an Eastern population, not yet by any means fitted to receive them. The Press takes advantage of the wide measure of liberty which it enjoys to speak its mind with a licence that would not be tolerated by the rulers of any other Eastern country. The Government must make up its mind to be misrepresented, and may in ordinary cases console itself by the hope that the truth will prevail, and the reflection that a good deal of the vituperation is not very sincere, but it should think twice before it supplies the party of
  506
  agitation with a real grievance and with the materials for an indictment to which no reply has been made, because no reply has been possible. We have lately, I think most wisely, extended the functions of the Indian Legislative Councils; we have added to them a certain number of members owing their appointment, not to nomination from above, but to the recommendation of their fellow-countrymen, and we have given to the Councils thus reformed and reconstituted the right of discussing the financial proposals, both of the local and of the Imperial Governments. We have also given them the right, of which they are already availing themselves freely, of questioning the Government upon matters of public importance. It is at such a moment as this that we are adopting a course which has had the effect of supplying every ill-wisher of the British Government with a whole arsenal of arguments. At the moment when we are increasing the constitutional privileges of our Indian fellow-subjects, and giving them new opportunities of scrutinising our management of their finances, we are denying to the Government of the Indian Empire even a few shreds of the financial independence which every one of our self-governing colonies enjoys to the fullest extent. There is only one satisfactory feature about this painful subject, and that is that it has been made abundantly clear to us that Her Majesty's Government have not said their last word upon the matter. I trust that we shall be able to elicit from them this evening some announcement which will come as a relief to public feeling, official and unofficial, in India. What has been done is either right or wrong. If it is right, let us have the whole of the argument and let us say boldly that nothing will induce us to depart from our decision; but if it is wrong, as I for one believe that it is, if no sound arguments are forthcoming in support of the position taken up at first by the Secretary of State, then let us, at whatever cost, make a clean breast of it, and show the people of India that it is a gross libel to say that either of the great political Parties in this country will, for the sake of a passing advantage, deny to them the fair play which they expect at their hands.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord REAY): My Lords, I have listened with the greatest attention to the very dispassionate speech in which the noble Marquess has brought before us a subject of very grave importance. I will mention at the outset that with regard to any observations on the past action of the Government I shall leave the reply to the noble Earl (Lord Kimberley), as he ordered that these duties should not be imposed. Instructions to that effect were given before I joined the India Office. What the noble Marquess has asked with regard to the present state of affairs I am prepared to answer. I am not prepared to answer his question as to the figure at which the Government estimates the deficit that may arise in the Budget of the present year. I should have thought that the noble Marquess himself must feel that, with exchange fluctuating as it does, it would be impossible to make any estimate of what the deficit may ultimately amount to. I am, however, glad to be able to mention that the last accounts received from India as to the financial situation are not of a nature to cause alarm at this moment. As to what the noble Marquess has said about starving the Services, I certainly shall not deny that the various Services are subject at this moment to a régime of very rigid economy. It is, however, a result of the temporary nature of the financial situation, and economy is not identical with starvation. The financial situation has been correctly described in the Viceroy's Council in the following words by the Financial Member:—
  "It is a serious confession to make, but nevertheless, it is true, that our financial position in the immediate future depends on circumstances absolutely outside our control, and that we can do little more than watch in which direction the forces are working, which will, in the end, either bring us security from these perpetual variations, or still more serious trouble than any we have had as yet to provide against."
  This situation is provisional and temporary, and consequently it is impossible to make any definite forecast. I do not suppose that the noble Marquess urges that Supplementary Estimates should be introduced into the Budget without absolute necessity for such a course. He must be well aware of its inconvenience.
  508
  If, however, Supplementary Estimates become imperative, they will have to be considered. With regard to Public Works, the situation does not justify the criticism that they are starved. On March 31, 1894, the total length of railway, of all gauges, open in India was 18,500 miles, showing an increase of 458 miles over the open mileage at the corresponding period of the previous year. On the same date there were 1,922½ miles which had been sanctioned but were not yet opened; so that the total sanctioned mileage, including lines already opened, amounted to 20,422½ miles. During the year 1893–94 sanction was given to the construction of additional mileage to the extent of 154½ miles; but after allowing for deductions on account of lines abandoned or in abeyance and minor corrections of mileage the sanctioned mileage on March 31, 1894, exceeded the sanctioned mileage on March 31, 1893, by only 27¼ miles. Although no large schemes have been actually sanctioned during the past financial year, several large works are at present in hand or in contemplation, among them the East Coast Railway, of which it is expected that 200 miles more will be opened during the present year. Progress is being made with the Assam-Bengal Railway, which is in the hands of a company. The length of line included in this scheme is 742 miles. The construction of the Mu Valley Railway beyond Wuntho, in Burma, 156 miles, is being steadily pushed on. On the north-west frontier work is proceeding on the Muskaf-Bolan Railway, 86 miles, and to some extent on the Mari Attock line, 85 miles. The railway from Bareilly, viâ Rampur to Moradabad, 56 miles, and the Godra-Rutlam Railway, 115 miles, may also be mentioned. The latter is very near completion. Of the schemes in immediate contemplation the most important is the Delhi-Bhathinda Samasata project. This railway will be about 400 miles in length and is estimated to cost about 277 lakhs of rupees. It may be mentioned that in September last the Government of India issued a circular offering terms on which the Government would be prepared to consider offers for the construction, by the agency of private companies, of branch lines or extensions of existing railways. In the Budget the total outlay for construction of railways including

  509
  protective railways—although the Famine Insurance Fund has been suspended—is only reduced from Rx.4,027,000 in 1893–94 to Rx.3,450,000 in this year. I was very glad to hear the noble Marquess say that he had no objection to a temporary suspension of the Famine grant, and that he concurred in the views which Sir Charles Elliott laid before the Viceroy's Council. The noble Marquess has said that this is a practical Revenue question. In that I agree. If these duties have to be imposed, it is simply for raising Revenue; and, in so far as they would operate as protective duties, they would be inoperative as Revenue duties. The problem, therefore, which may ultimately have to be solved is, what kind of duties the Government can impose which will be paid into their own Treasury, and recovered from the purchasers of the goods. Now, my Lords, in these figures which the noble Marquess has quoted, and which I also have read with the greatest interest as given at the annual meeting of the Bombay Millowners' Association, there is one very important feature, that, whereas in 1879, no yarns above 30's were manufactured in India, yarns above 30's are now manufactured if only to a limited extent. It is quite true that these form only a small part of the yarns manufactured in India, but it is obvious that the moment you introduce a duty, the manufacture of yarns above 30's would increase. A well-known authority on these matters—Mr. O'Conor—has gone so far as to say that it would be necessary to exempt all yarns and all piece-goods under 60's, leaving only a very small quantity on which the duty could be raised. You will, therefore, for practical Revenue purposes, have to contemplate the prospect of countervailing duties—a matter which is very complex, and which will require very mature examination. This it will receive at the hands of the Government. The present position is stated as follows, in the words of the Viceroy to his Council:—
  "I am able to state that if, after an interval sufficient to judge of the position as affected by the Tariff Act, the course of exchange, and other circumstances, there is no improvement, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to receive a further representation on the subject."
  That representation has not yet been received, because the latest accounts of
  510
  the financial position in India are not alarming. The balances, which stood last year at this time at 15 crores stand now at 25 crores, and the present situation, indeed, is so little alarming that it has been found possible to invite tenders for the reduction of the interest on part of the debt. No blame can, therefore, be imputed to the Government of India for not having urged on the Home Government the necessity of immediate action on this subject. I claim for the Government of India absolute freedom to act in this matter as they may think opportune; but I also claim for ourselves entire freedom to consider any proposals when they are submitted to us, as it would be highly prejudicial to the interests of India in any way to bind the hands either of the Government of India or of the Government at home by any premature declaration on this occasion. But before I sit down I wish to give the noble Marquess this assurance: that Her Majesty's Government are well aware that the finances of India require close watching, and that the interests of India ought not to be, and should not be, sacrificed to any extraneous consideration. The House may feel satisfied that the Government do not consider this to be in any sense a Party question, but that they will have regard to the interests of India, and to those interests alone, in any future action which may be taken in connection with this most important subject, relying upon the support which your Lordships have always given to measures calculated to benefit Her Majesty's subjects in India.
  LORD ROBERTS OF KANDAHARsaid, the noble Marquess, whose five years' recent experience at the head of the Government of India enabled him to speak on the question before the House with an authority which no one else could claim, had so fully explained the object of the Motion brought forward for consideration that he would not venture to take up their Lordships' time with any words of his, did he not feel that he was bound by all he owed to India, and by his regard for, and intimate acquaintance with, its people, to tell what they thought of the question. He would, therefore, offer no apology for asking the House to listen to him for a few moments. The people of India thought that, by

  511
  prohibiting the extension of the Import Duties, levied under the Tariff Act of 1894, to cotton goods, the interests of their country were being sacrificed to the interests of this country. This was a feeling which ought not, which he thought must not, be allowed to continue. While, as a soldier, he believed that the prosperity of India depended on the maintenance of our naval and military supremacy; as an Englishman, who had lived for more than 40 years in that country, he knew that it depended to even a greater extent upon the contentment of the population, and their belief in the advantages of British rule. The extraordinary position we occupied in India was mainly due to the natives' firm reliance on our integrity and honesty of purpose, and on our determination to do what was right and best for them. If this feeling were once destroyed, the consequences would be disastrous. It was, indeed, this implicit trust in the uprightness of the British character which enabled a single English magistrate to keep peace and order in a district far larger than the largest county in the United Kingdom, amongst divers races, differing in religion, and often bitterly hostile to each other—a unique kind of influence which, he ventured to think, was unknown in any other part of the world, of which this nation might justly be proud, and without which we could not continue to hold India. The noble Marquess had shown how difficult it would be to make any material military retrenchment; but he would remind their Lordships that the Army in India was out of all proportion small to the extent of frontier, more than 5,000 miles of which it had to guard; the enormous area, upwards of 100,000,000 of square miles, over which it was scattered; and the population, numbering nearly 300,000,000, it was supposed to control. If, when the hour of trial came, we had only our few troops, our guns, and our forts to rely upon; if we had lost the confidence of the people; and if our feudatories were not loyal to us, it would go hard with us. The faith of the natives of India in our fair dealing must never be shaken. To show how strong that faith still was, he would read an extract from a letter he received a short time ago from a nobleman in Calcutta, the Maharajah Sir Jotendro Mohun Tagore, than whom
  512
  there was no more loyal subject or enlightened gentleman in Her Majesty's dominions. In referring to a remark made by himself in a letter to which this was a reply, the Maharajah says—
  "You tell me there is every desire in England to deal fairly by India as regards the cotton duties matter, and I may say that it is precisely because we are so sure of England's fair dealing that we appeal to her whenever there is any matter for complaint. If we had no faith in England and Englishmen all agitation would have ceased and there would have been a deathlike calmness—not perhaps a very desirable thing in the political world of India."
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words in this matter—they shall be very few. I cannot help knowing what a deep feeling there is all over India in regard to this question. I must press upon your Lordships the importance of one point alluded to by the noble Marquess, and that is the change which has been brought about in the position of the people of India by the reconstitution of the Indian Councils, by means of which the feeling of the people of India will be made much more known both here and in India than hitherto has been the case. Members of the Councils will now be appointed from among the people themselves, and Parliament must not forget that the power given to those Councils will probably become very great. I do not think the noble Marquess has in the least exaggerated the difficulties of the Finance Minister in India, who cannot tell whether he is to budget for a deficiency or not. No one can possibly exaggerate the lamentable and damaging fact that all the public works in India are practically stopped. I think the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State said that during the last 12 months 27 miles of railway were all that had been completed.
  LORD REAY: I said sanctioned in addition—
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I mean that only 27 miles had been added. I have had a good deal to do with the increase of the railways in India, and I believe that no greater benefit can be conferred on the country than by a vast increase in the mileage of Indian railways. Wherever a railway is opened civilisation and prosperity follows. If 27 miles is the only addition that has been made in the course of 12 months to the existing railways I

  513
  think it is one of the most lamentable facts that could be laid before us.
  LORD REAY: I have stated the sanctioned mileage in contemplation, which is 1,922 miles; 27 miles merely represents the additional net mileage sanctioned.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I have not the smallest doubt that there are other railways in contemplation; but they cannot be carried out. In the present financial condition of India it is impossible that can be done. I endeavoured when I was at the India Office to multiply the number of miles that were made; I believe we made them at one time at the rate of 1,000 miles a year. But that is practically stopped. You might go on making railways at the rate of 1,000 miles a year with the greatest possible benefit to the people of India, and yet it appears that only 27 miles have this year been made. This is one of the greatest calamities that could happen. But it is not only the railways. The irrigation works also are being stopped. If one thing is wanted more than another in India it is irrigation, because if works for that purpose were carried out they would turn what is practically desert into fruitful and fertile places, where the inhabitants of the country could live and prosper. It is not simply a question for the future; it is of the highest importance in the present. Again, it is not only the railways and irrigation works that are stopped, but works which are absolutely necessary for the health of the Army from one end of the country to the other. All those works are stopped on account of the want of funds. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Reay) said that this is only a temporary matter. I wish we knew that it was really so, and that we had got to the bottom of the hill; but I am sure the noble Lord knows no better than I do whether we have or not, and this is a case which is really deserving of the most serious attention of the Government. I am disappointed in looking through the Blue Book to find no correspondence published between the Indian Government and the Government at home. The noble Marquess wanted to know the reasons why the Government took this course, and one would naturally look for a reply in that correspond-
  514
  ence. What is the use of giving us a number of Blue Books when the one thing we want is not contained in them? The one thing the noble Marquess asks for is not to be found. The noble Lord who has just spoken on behalf of the India Office has given no answer to that question. Probably the noble Earl opposite (Lord Kimberley) will answer it before this Debate concludes. All I desire to add is, and I have always said so with regard to the affairs of India—this is no Party question whatever. I hope it will be a long time before that should prove to be the case, and it has been greatly to the advantage of India that it has not been the case hitherto. I must say, in conclusion, this is a matter which must be decided by the Government of the day. It is for them to say whether the course which has hitherto been adopted should be persisted in or not. They have the information which we could not get for the purpose of judging what is right and what is wrong. I observe that in the Debates in the Indian Council one member, who is also a millowner, said he would be very glad if the Import Duties were re-enacted—that there should be an Excise Duty imposed on cotton manufactured in India, though he points out how difficult it would be to collect, especially if you went beyond the cotton manufactures. It is, however, something for a millowner himself to say that if you do re-impose these Cotton Duties you should also be at liberty to impose an Excise Duty upon the manufacture of goods in India itself. All these are matters for the Government to consider. Do they believe that without the reimposition of these duties the Indian finances can be properly balanced? If they do, there is an end of the question; if not, are the duties not to be imposed simply on account of some fad about Free Trade which ought not to enter into the discussion of any question between great countries like England and India? At the same time, the Resolution of the House of Commons still stands, and is no doubt not lightly to be upset. It is, as I said before, a question for the Government of the day. I am sure if they saw their way to balance the finances of India without re-imposing these duties they would be happy to do so; but if they cannot find any other way of doing it, what is to be

  515
  done? It is entirely for them. If they can avoid doing this, well and good; but if they cannot balance the finances of India without re-imposing this particular tax, of course they will, at the proper time, reconsider the question, and probably re-impose it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The EARL OF KIMBERLEY): Before I make any other remark, I must thank the noble Marquess for the fair, temperate, and admirably clear manner in which he has brought this subject before the House. In regard to what the noble Viscount has just said as to the number of miles of railway my noble Friend has been somewhat misunderstood. What he stated was that during the year 1893–4 sanction was given to the construction of additional mileage to the extent of 154 miles, and that the sanctioned mileage in March, 1894, exceeded the sanctioned mileage on the 31st of March, 1893, by only 27 miles. That, of course, is a very different statement. I may also add, as illustrating the exact position, that the total outlay on the construction of railways, including protective railways, was, on the whole, only reduced from Rx. 4,027,000 in 1893–4 to Rx.3,450,000 in the present financial year. My Lords, though making that correction, I am not in the slightest degree disposed to question what the noble Viscount said with regard to the lamentable results of the great diminution which has occurred in Indian available revenues owing to the fall in the exchange. That fact has caused the whole of the embarrassment we have now to consider. It cannot be questioned for a moment that large reductions in expenditure suddenly made bring with them considerable inconvenience by the dislocation of works, and so forth, and I thoroughly share the noble Viscount's opinion, that it is greatly to be regretted that, even if there be no considerable reduction in the expenditure on railways, at all events the progressive increase in that expenditure which we desire to see is stopped, and I agree with the noble Viscount that it may be stopped possibly for some considerable time. The noble Marquess made one remark with which I cannot entirely agree. He spoke of the suspension of the Famine Fund as a reversal of the famine policy. It cannot be termed a reversal of the famine policy.
  516
  It has on previous occasions been found necessary, and, I think, during the time the noble Viscount was in Office, owing to temporary financial difficulties, to suspend the famine grant, and I wish to point out to the House that it is by no means so serious a step now as it would have been a few years ago. When the grant was instituted you had first to provide a fund to meet the possible occurrence of the same great famine, and, secondly, you desired to construct as rapidly as possible the railways, which were called famine railways, which would enable you to convey supplies into territories affected by famine, and so prevent the lamentable results which might otherwise ensue. The result of that policy, which has been going on ever since the institution of the famine grant, is that you have constructed most of the railways which were regarded by the Famine Commission as urgently necessary—I believe not very far from the whole of them. The construction of these railways has diminished the necessity for laying by the fund for this reason; that there is every reason to hope that it is scarcely possible for a famine with such results as former famines had to occur, because by timely measures and by all the advantages of better communication you would be able to prevent such disastrous results to a very considerable extent as you had formerly to meet. For that reason the famine grant has been one which may be taken advantage of by the Government of India upon emergency; and upon the present emergency it is perfectly justifiable, in my opinion, to make that suspension. It must not be supposed that the mere reimposition of the Cotton Duties would given you all the relief you want, supposing it were done. The condition of the finances of India is so uncertain, the future is so obscure, and the difficulty of making any trustworthy forecast is so great that you cannot by any means be certain that you will meet the difficulty by any one particular expedient, and, in any event, I think it would be sanguine to suppose that you must not look forward to a period—possibly for some time—when you will not be able to make such expenditures upon public works as were fortunately quite possible during a portion of the time when the noble Marquess was Viceroy of India, and when he had the good fortune

  517
  to have an overflowing Exchequer. Having made these few general remarks, I will now come to what is the real and more immediate matter for us to consider—namely, this question of the re-imposition of the Cotton Duties and the reasons why Her Majesty's Government did not when the Budget of the present year was framed, give their consent to that re-imposition. It is necessary to understand the precise history of this question. The first important document was a despatch from the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Salisbury), dated July 15, 1875, in which the noble Marquess drew attention to the effect of the duty on the coarser class of cotton goods and the necessity of removing a subject of dangerous contention as soon as the state of the finances would permit. That is a mere summary of the despatch. Again, in a Despatch on the 11th of November, 1875, the noble Marquess referred to the Import Duty in these words—
  "as impeding the importation of an article of first necessity, and as tending to operate as a protective duty in favour of a native manufacture. It is thus inconsistent with the policy which Parliament, after very mature deliberation, has sanctioned, and which, on that account, it is not open to Her Majesty's Government to allow to be set aside, without special cause, in any part of the Empire under its direct control."
  That seems to me to be a perfectly fair statement of the policy in the matter. I will not pursue all that was done before the Cotton Duties were ultimately repealed, because I do not think that is necessary for understanding the matter as it now stands. The noble Marquess referred to the Resolutions of the House of Commons. The second Resolution was certainly most unqualified in its terms. The noble Viscount spoke of a mere fad about Free Trade: but a Resolution of this kind by the House of Commons declaring that the duties operate as protective duties, and the Despatch from the Secretary of State at that time, then the noble Marquess opposite giving his opinion to the same effect shows that in the opinion at least of very high authorities this was not a mere fad of Free Trade, but involved questions of principle of a very serious kind. That then was the position of the question, and I would further wish the House to remember, what is often not sufficiently borne in mind in these discussions, that the objections entertained
  518
  in India to the removal of the duty upon cotton goods have always been entertained, and very strongly pressed ever since the Cotton Duties were repealed. The noble Marquess alluded to the answer I gave to the deputation from the Lancashire manufacturers, in which I reminded them that there had never been a moment, I believe, in India since the time when the Cotton Duties were repealed when there had not been more or less of an agitation, or, at all events, a continued very strong expression of opinion that an injustice had been done to India by the repeal of the Cotton Duties. I say it is extremely important to bear that in mind because you must not suppose that this agitation and strong feeling is merely the result of what has been done, or what has not been done, during the present year. The fact is, that as there had existed in India for years past an extremely strong feeling against the repeal of the duties upon cotton manufactures, a strong feeling not confined to the natives, but also very largely expressed by the Anglo-Indian community, the occasion which presented itself for pressing the matter still more strongly home owing to the difficulties in which the Government of India is placed by the deficit in its finances was naturally seized upon by all those who desire the re-imposition of the Cotton Duties, not merely because it might be necessary to meet the present emergency, but because they have invariably and continually insisted, in opposition to the policy of Parliament which has been adopted by both Parties in this country, that the duty upon cotton goods ought never to have been repealed. I do not by any means wish either to neglect or under-estimate the importance of that feeling. I think it is a very grave feature indeed in the consideration of the whole of this question. The only remark I would make upon it is this: That I do not believe that it is sound policy to consider these questions simply with reference to each member of the Empire without any consideration for the other members of it, and above all, strong as is my feeling in regard to allowing the Colonies the independence they enjoy, and fully as I share the opinions expressed to-night that you ought to have, in every respect, full regard for the interests of India, on the other hand, I say that we

  519
  have a right, as the head of a great Empire, to see that the interests of this country are also fully considered and that they are not neglected. The real difficulty we have to confront is how to conciliate all these interests, and an extremely difficult task it always must be. I come now to the actual position of affairs when I had the honour of holding the Seals as the Secretary of State for India and we had to deal with this difficult question. The matter presented itself to us practically in this form. I may say, without wearisome details, that the Estimates were put before us, and what appeared the best estimate that could be formed showed that in round numbers—and it is almost the exact figure—the deficit which would remain if the Import Duties, as they have been laid on, were imposed, without imposing duties upon cotton manufactures, would be Rx.300,000. We had then to consider whether it was desirable we should at once, then and there, consent to the re-imposition of these Cotton Duties, after the deliberate opinion of Parliament and the deliberate manner in which the policy of not imposing such duties had been accepted in this country before we had further experience of the condition of the finances of India, and, above all, before we knew what would be the result of our measures with regard to currency. I am not going to deal with that most abstruse question of currency, but everyone who has paid the slightest attention to it, more especially since the measure we adopted, must see how extraordinarily obscure is the whole matter, and how excessively difficult it is to form an estimate of its result. It seemed to us that to reverse under these circumstances the policy which had been adopted with regard to these Cotton Duties, without having further experience of what was likely to be—not merely for the moment, but was likely to be for some time the financial position of India—would be to pursue a most precipitate and unwise course. We thought, in all the circumstances of the case, although I admit the extreme difficulty of the matter, that on the whole it was better to accept a deficit of Rx.300,000, as estimated, and to wait until we had further experience of the effect of the currency measure and the general financial condition of India before pledging ourselves to any further step.
  520
  That is the statement—and there is nothing to add to it—of the grounds upon which the Cabinet came to that conclusion. Now, my Lords, I am aware I may be very fairly told that in announcing that decision of the Government of India I had to do so contrary to the expressed opinion of the whole of my Council, or of those who were present. I think there were 11 present. That, again, was a step which, I must say, I had to take with extreme regret. I always had felt the greatest advantage from the advice I received from my Council, with whom, I am happy to say, although we differed, I was always on most harmonious terms. But in this particular matter, where the interests of this country as well as those of India were involved, and where we had to deal with a Resolution passed by Parliament, it was quite evident that it must be decided upon the responsibility of the Cabinet itself. At the same time, I admit that my Council were perfectly justified in placing before me in plain terms their opinion from an Indian point of view, and I do not think they were called upon or that I could require them to take a view of a larger kind, and they were—if I may venture to say so of men of so much ability—from the very nature of the case, not so well qualified to offer me a really authoritative opinion as to the considerable part of the question which was not merely Indian. There was another point which weighed very much with me. I may have over-estimated, but I do not think I did, the opposition which would be met with in this country. The noble Marquess alluded to the deputation which waited upon me. He said that that deputation received my announcement with loud cheering. It was a deputation, I believe, of the most influential kind that Lancashire could send up, and they did receive it with loud cheering. But there was something more. They told me in explicit terms—and, although I am not a Lancashire man, like the noble Viscount, I have always believed that the words of Lancashire men meant deeds—they told me that, without distinction of Party, there was not a man among them, or, they believed, in Lancashire, who was interested in these manufactures who would not use every possible means at his disposal to agitate against and destroy any such measure on

  521
  the part of the Government. It was not merely the effect that might have upon the Government of the day, but we had to consider what was of much more consequence, the effect it might have on the relations between this country and India. It seemed to me that if there could be one thing which would be more disastrous than another, it would be that the Government of this country should have announced that these Cotton Duties might be reimposed, and that then there should be violent agitation which might lead to some resolution of Parliament or expression of opinion contrary to that decision which I think would have embittered opinion in India far more than the course we took. We can defend the course we took upon the solid ground that it would have been unwise to take any premature step. But if we had once committed ourselves and there had been a reversal of our policy in consequence of agitation against it, then I think there would have been far more harm to our relations with India than by the course we adopted. I do not believe there was anything we could have done which was not open on one side or the other to grave objections. We took the course, after very careful and full deliberation, which we thought to be best, and I also authorised the Viceroy to make the statement to his Council in those words which the noble Marquess has read as to the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the future:—
  "I am, therefore, able to state that if, after an interval sufficient to judge of the position as affected by the Act, the course of exchange, and other circumstances, there is no improvement, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to receive a further representation on the subject."
  That is how the matter stands. It rests with the Government of India, if they think it necessary, to make a representation to Her Majesty's Government at the time and in the manner they think best. The responsibility will then fall on the Government here to decide upon the course which they may take, but, as regards any indication of what may be the policy of the Government, I entirely agree with my noble Friend behind me that the very nature of the case precludes us from making any announcement. I will tell you why. Suppose I were to say the Government had con-
  522
  sidered the matter, and that if they should receive a representation they will be prepared to consent to this or that measure which may impose a duty, your Lordships will see at once what might be the result. It is obvious that whenever a duty is likely to be imposed the natural course is for the importers to take advantage of any interval which may exist to pour into the country where the duty is to be imposed as much of their manufactures as they can send over before the duty comes into effect, therefore it is quite clear that at the present time it would be highly improper that I or my noble Friend should give any indication beyond that I have already given—namely, that if the Government were to receive any resentation from India upon the subject, it would be fully and carefully considered here. My Lords, I am not at the present time so well acquainted with the precise condition of the finances in India as to be able to give your Lordships any very accurate details, but I believe that although there has been a greater fall in the exchange even than was anticipated, still there has been such an improvement in some branches of the Revenue as practically leaves the matter at present much as it was when the Budget Estimate was made. What the future may bring forth it is extremely difficult to say. It is undoubtedly true that in the position in which India now stands it may be necessary to have recourse to measures which otherwise we should not adopt, and the noble Marquess opposite, in the passage I read, indicated very clearly that that was his opinion, when he said "except for special reasons," a reservation that I think was perfectly right. The only other thing I will say is this: I entirely agree with what my noble Friend behind said in conclusion, and although it is, in my opinion, our duty not to confine our view merely to India in the consideration of such questions as this, yet when an emergency arises in India we must have regard—it is our duty to have regard—in the first and principal place, to the interests and needs of India itself. More than that I do not think, my Lords, I can say. If there is any other explanation I can give I shall be happy to give it in reply to any questions.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKtrusted in the few remarks he was about to make he should follow the excellent example set to him by his noble Friend the noble Marquess who had lately returned from India, and by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and that they should discuss this question with the greatest calmness and deliberation. At the same time, he must express his entire concurrence with what fell from the noble Viscount opposite, who regretted that in a matter of such importance as this they had before them no Despatches from the Secretary of State for India in Council and no Despatches from the Government of India. Lord Kimberley had felt it to be his duty to overrule the unanimous opinion of the Government of India, of every member, he believed, of the Legislative Council of India, and of the whole of the Council of the Secretary of State—the Council established by Parliament to advise the Secretary of State upon Indian matters, and who certainly ought not to be lightly overruled. In circumstances so grave, when a responsibility so tremendous had been undertaken by one individual as the mouthpiece of the Cabinet, he thought it was due to this country and to India that the reasons of the Government of India in proposing to impose this duty, the reasons for Her Majesty's Government declining to assent to that proposal, and the personal reasons of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for overruling his Council should be deliberately expressed and laid before Parliament, and thus given to this country and to India. The great powers which the Constitution undoubtedly gave to the Secretary of State for India ought not to be exercised in an important matter of this kind without publicity, and he thought of all the manners in which publicity could be given to those reasons the worst was probably that which was adopted by his noble Friend in his answer to the deputation from Lancashire, who were, no doubt, interested against the imposition of cotton duties. That fact of itself had created the very worst feeling in India, and would have been avoided if there had been a deliberate expression of opinion in well-weighed language in public Despatches. So far as to the manner in which this measure had been
  524
  taken by the Government, there could be no reason why, as far as he understood it, the whole correspondence should not be presented to Parliament. The Secretary of State for India the other day, in another place, was asked whether there was any proposal now before the Secretary of State for India in Council dealing with this question. He answered that there was no proposal. The correspondence, then, must be final and complete. The Viceroy, moreover, in his speech the other day in the Legislative Council of India, said publicly that the opinion of the Government of India would be seen in the papers that would be laid before Parliament. He should like to know where those Papers were? They, doubtless, were in the correspondence, but that correspondence appeared to be in the archives of the India Office. This, he thought, became of greater importance because, so far as he understood his noble Friend's explanation, he gave it to be understood in some way or other that the proposal to impose these duties was a revival of the opposition that was being made for many years for these duties having been taken off. If his noble Friend meant that the Government of India were influenced by any such considerations as that in making the proposal, it was surely only fair that the statement of the Government of India themselves should be presented to the world so that they could see whether there was any foundation for the supposition.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I never intended for a moment to convey or suggest anything that could imply that the Government of India had taken that view. I said that was the view taken generally, but not by the Government.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKaccepted his noble Friend's explanation, and, passing from that particular topic, expressed very great regret that his noble Friend did not feel himself in a position to indicate more clearly what the policy of the Government really was. He appeared to be ready, on the one hand, to assume the responsibility of overruling the Government of India, whilst on the other hand he did not seem to be ready to give the Government of India any help as to what the solution was to be of this question. His noble Friend said with some

  525
  plausibility that, of course, it was quite impossible for him to give any indication of his views in this matter, because the effect might be to derange the cotton trade and influence the exchanges, and might have some injurious effect on the Indian finances. His noble Friend might be reticent, but other people were not. Unfortunately, the trade was quite ready to see which way the wind was likely to blow, and to act in regard to their own interests upon their view. There was no secret in India about it as far as he understood. Only yesterday he got a recent copy of The Bombay Gazette, which stated that the fact that Mr. Westland, the Finance Minister of the Viceroy, was to go to Poonah and Bombay next month for the purpose of making himself familiar with matters affecting the cotton industry would be generally taken to mean that the re-imposition of the Cotton Duties had been decided upon. Then followed words which would show his noble Friend he need not be so apprehensive that he would do any harm by giving his opinions to the House. The writer stated that the anticipation of some such step had undoubtedly led to large speculative imports of Lancashire cottons, far beyond the actual requirements of the Indian market, with the result that stocks were unsaleable. This state of things would, no doubt, lead to a fall in prices and discourage imports for some time to come. In face of that how could his noble Friend suppose that any statement on his part could do any harm to the cotton trade in India? He thought some more explanation would not do any harm, but would tend to steady public feeling. The evil of all this had been that great excitement had arisen in India. He did not know whether the Government knew, but the people in India did not know what was going to happen in respect to this matter. The trade must be influenced by that, and he believed the sooner the Government of India and of this country could make up their mind on this important question the better it would be for trade, the better it would be for the honour and interest of the English Government, and the better it would be for all the parties concerned, both in India and in England. He was quite free to admit that the remarks made by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as regarded
  526
  the disadvantage to the public interest of so important an interest as the cotton manufacture of Lancashire being in collision with the whole of the feeling, native and European, official and non-official in India, was a matter of very serious concern. He greatly regretted to hear what his noble Friend said, that any man in that deputation from Lancashire should have said if this duty were imposed, for whatever reason, there would not be a man in Lancashire who would not oppose that measure, because he had a better opinion of his fellow-countrymen in Lancashire than to believe for a moment that if the necessity should really arise, and if it could be proved that the measures taken dealt fairly with the Lancashire manufacturers, the feeling in Lancashire would be against the re-imposition of the Cotton Duties. He welcomed the words in which the leader of that deputation expressed himself—namely, that all that Lancashire wanted was fair-play and no favour. He greatly regretted that his noble Friend did not think it his duty, after full consideration of this question with the Government of India, to decide it before the Budget of this year. It appeared from the discussion in the Legislative Council that much correspondence had taken place upon the matter between the Government of India and the Secretary of State in Council. There could, therefore, have been no reason why the whole facts of this case should not have been before his noble Friend, and knowing, as he did, his great industry and ability, and the fairness of his mind, he felt satisfied that having these matters all before him he could have been of the greatest value to both Governments in bringing about a settlement of this question. His noble Friend appeared to him to attach too much weight to the Resolution passed by the other House of Parliament in 1879. He thought his noble Friend should have remembered that that Resolution was passed no less than 15 years ago, and, as the late Viceroy said in his speech, in different circumstances to those of the present time. It was passed after a controversy which lasted some time, and which ended, to his great satisfaction, in the repeal of almost all the Indian Import Duties by his distinguished relative Lord Cromer, then Sir Evelyn Baring, who was at that time Finance

  527
  Minister. No one who cared for India or this country could have failed to rejoice in getting rid of the subject of dispute between the two countries, and moreover no one with any knowledge of finance or commerce could fail to rejoice that the Government of India were then in such circumstances as that they were able to remove almost all the Import and Export Duties, and give to the world an example of almost perfect free trade, such as he believed no country in the world except theirs could give. The advantage of the trade of India was very great, and he regretted that the Government of India had been obliged to re-impose those duties. The reason he alluded to this Customs Tariff Reform in 1882 was because it had not been alluded to by previous speakers and it had a great bearing upon this question. The difference of opinion among those who had studied the question of Cotton Duties before that time was whether the Government of India were right in supposing that the protective effect of the duty of 3½ per cent. upon yarn and of 5 per cent. upon cotton goods was great or small. The Government of India thought that the advantage that the Indian manufacturer had in having cotton supplied at his door, with cheap labour and perhaps some other advantages, would enable him to hold his own as against the Lancashire manufacturers in respect of all the coarser description of cotton goods. On the other hand, those who took the view of the Lancashire manufacturers in those days were strongly of opinion that the 5 per cent. Import Duty had a great prejudicial effect on the importation of Manchester manufactures into India. It was impossible at the time to prove whether the Government of India was right or the Manchester manufacturers were right. But now that they had had 12 years of Free Trade—of free competition, he should say, between the Indian manufacturers and the Lancashire manufacturers—they could judge what the real condition of the trade was much better than they could in the year 1879, and he thought that should have been in the mind of Lord Kimberley when he attached so much weight to the Resolution of the House of Commons of 1879. The result had been to show that the Government of India was correct in their supposition that in reality the effect of free competi-
  528
  tion was to give the whole of the trade in low class manufactures and low-class yarn to the Indian manufactures mainly from Bombay, and to give to the manufacturers of Lancashire the whole of the trade in the finer goods manufactured from the long staple cottons of the United States of America and manufactured by processes of manufacture, and in circumstances of climate with which India could not compete. That had been the result of twelve years of free competition between Lancashire and Bombay in respect to the cotton manufacture. He thought his noble Friend should have borne in mind that obvious circumstance to any one who had paid any attention to the manufactures of the two countries, and that he would see that the contention of the Government of India, as expressed by the Finance Minister, Mr. Westland, was the contention alluded to by the late Viceroy—namely, that although the duty now imposed might to a certain small extent be protective, it would make no serious difference in the amount of the trade of the two countries. The coarser goods would still be made almost entirely in India, and the finer goods would come almost entirely from Lancashire. Mr. Westland said that the finer goods which Manchester mainly sent out to India were beyond the power, at present at least, of the Indian manufacturer.
  "India, in fact, cannot produce the cotton requisite for their manufacture. The climate, too, I understand, is in some cases unsuitable to the processes involved. … Manchester and Bombay overlap to a certain extent, but the area which Manchester occupies, and must continue to occupy without competition, is very wide and comprehensive."
  He knew very well that the very able gentleman, Mr. O'Conor, who made annual Reports upon the Customs trade of India, had shown there was a development of the finer manufactures of yarn especially in the Bombay mills, that cotton from the United States of America and from Egypt, of a long staple had been imported into Bombay to be spun into yarn at the Bombay mills, and it must be admitted, as was admitted by the noble Marquess who opened this discussion, that in respect to a certain amount of the trade there might be a protective effect in imposing duties upon cotton imports into India. That being admitted, let them see, supposing these manufactures came from Germany and not from

  529
  England, what the revenue necessities of India were in the matter, because he held that it was the duty of the Secretary of State to be guided in the end by the interests of India, even if he had to do something which was unpopular in this country. But looking at it as a question merely of revenue, he thought it would be disadvantageous to the Indian Revenue, and therefore to the Indian taxpayer and to India generally that by the imposition of a duty upon cotton goods into India, the Bombay mills should be induced to produce goods of the same quality as those which came from abroad into India, because thereby the Indian Revenue would lose the duty upon those goods, and so far there would be a loss of revenue. Moreover, he was not one of those who considered that any artificial stimulus to any industry was ultimately advantageous to that industry. Something might be said in favour of imposing protective duties in countries where a manufacture was just beginning; but in India the Bombay cotton manufacture did not require any artificial stimulus. He said, therefore, that the duty of the Government was to see how far such a duty imposed upon the imports of cotton would really be protective. His impression, which was strengthened by the experience of free competition between the two industries in the last 12 years, was that as respected most of the lower grades of goods there would be no necessity whatever to put on any countervailing duty of any kind, and it would be only necessary in respect of some particular classes of goods in which the two industries might, and probably would overlap. Having said that he would make one further remark rather of a technical nature, in consequence of something which fell from Lord Reay in his answer to the noble Marquess. The noble Lord alluded to the finer class of yarn which was now being spun or likely to be spun in the Bombay cotton mills. For his part, he thought the policy of imposing a duty upon imported yarns was open to very considerable doubt, as yarns represented no more than one-tenth part of the value of the total imports. The yarn imported into India was a semi-manufactured article and would form part of the cotton manufactures there, being worked up either in the mills or by means of hand looms; and he thought it was excessively
  530
  doubtful whether, in respect to yarn, it was desirable that any duty should be imposed upon imports. He thought if that view should commend itself to the Government of India it would relieve them of very great difficulty in regard to arranging and finding out what remedy should be applied and to the possible protective effect to a very small extent of the duty upon the imports of cotton into India. He thought, then, that his noble Friend Lord Kimberley need not have attached such importance to the Resolution of the House of Commons of the year 1879 as he had. At any rate, it was in the noble Lord's power previous to the Budget to have brought the matter before either House of Parliament, to have explained his views and have got a decision of either House of Parliament upon it. Surely so important a subject as this, involving the present and future of Indian finance, ought to be postponed to no other question, however important, and even the Budget of this year might have been introduced a day or two later in order to have given an opportunity for the discussion of this question. He did not know whether his noble Friend the late Viceroy claimed to be gifted with prophetic qualities, but in a speech he made just before he left India he made use of quite prophetic language. At a dinner at the Chamber of Commerce in Calcutta his noble Friend made a speech in which he referred to the dangers which there were in India; but he said he was not sure that the greatest of all did not lie in the tendency to transfer power from the Government of India to the British Parliament. Whilst he admitted that the Imperial Parliament must be the ultimate source and depository of power in an extreme case, he said it did not follow that because these powers were inherent in Parliament they should be perpetually exercised by it and
  "it is the modern tendency to exercise those powers continually and at the instance of irresponsible persons which, in my belief, constitutes a grave menace to the safety of the empire. The policy of a body, which is admittedly a body of experts (the Indian Government), is liable at any moment to be thwarted and set aside by another body which must, in the nature of things, be deficient in expert knowledge, and which in recent years has shown constantly increasing tendencies to be swayed by emotion and enthusiasm. In the House of Commons an erratic Member, in a thin House, may carry a Resolution vitally affecting the

  531
  welfare of this country as summarily and as light-heartedly as if the proceedings were those of the debating club of a college rather than the Senate of a great empire, and so it may come to pass that while we are slowly and laboriously striving to obtain an equilibium between income and expenditure some haphazard decision of our masters on the other side threatens our financies with bankruptcy. The whole thing is done, and it is done in a manner which cannot fail to impair the authority of the Government which can carry on its work only if its authority is upheld."
  Those weighty words appeared to him to be in the nature of a prophecy of what had taken place now when they heard the Secretary of State for India had, in dealing with a question of this magnitude, without attempting to argue the matter out or bring it again before the House of Commons, founded the whole of his policy on the Resolution of the House of Commons of the year 1879. He would not trouble their Lordships any further except to say that in general he agreed entirely with the views taken by his noble Friend the late Viceroy, who had not, in his opinion, exaggerated the great importance of the question in India. Distinguished military officers, travelling about the country and becoming acquainted with all classes of people in India, had perhaps better opportunity than any others to acquire an accurate knowledge on the subject. He was therefore glad to hear his noble and gallant Friend Lord Roberts, with all his military reputation and knowledge, declare, in almost the same words previously employed by Lord Lawrence and Lord Napier of Magdala, that, although the foundation of the British power in India was, in one sense, the strength of her military power, yet, in another and wider and nobler sense, the real power of England in India lay in this, that the natives of that country should feel that she was being governed, not in the interests of England, but of India; and that, in the conduct of the Government in this country towards our great dependency, the Government should be guided only by the interests of India and by sentiments of justice. He hoped that the Government would carefully consider the questions which had been raised and would arrive at a decision upon the lines which had been indicated to them; and he trusted that when next they heard of the subject of this controversy it would be presented to Parliament as a matter which had been finally settled.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): There are only two or three points in the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down to which I think it necessary to allude. I think he scarcely did justice to the statement of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in saying he based his action wholly upon the Resolution of the House of Commons of 1879. My noble Friend stated that that was one of the factors which had to be taken into account, but I think he was far from stating it was upon that alone that he rested the conclusion at which he arrived. My Lords, it appears to me that my noble Friend a little overlooks the difficulty in which the Secretary of State was necessarily placed in arriving at a determination by this time. It is not until near the end of the financial year that the financial position is known to be estimated by the Government of India. There is, therefore, but necessarily a very short interval for any decision to be arrived at. The question is not what might have been done if there had been time for mature deliberation and inquiry, but rather whether the course which my noble Friend pursued was not the right one under the inevitable circumstances which then existed? My noble Friend who has just sat down has himself pointed out that to impose a duty which is, in fact, protective, is in itself necessarily mischievous to the country where that duty is imposed. Of course, one result of it is that part of the increased price which the consumer pays goes not for the good of the country and to increase its Revenue, but into the pocket of the particular manufacturing or trading class. Everybody must admit that that in itself is a disadvantage, and if the effect of imposing the duty be to stimulate a particular trade unnaturally to the extent to which you do that you increase the disadvantage by diminishing the Revenue advantage and increasing the advantage to the individual producer. And unless protection of that sort is to be permanent there is no more cruel kindness you can bestow upon the manufacturers themselves than to give them such protection, because if you have, by means of the protective duty, stimulated trade, and that duty be removed, it is obvious that you have done that which is very far from, on the whole,

  533
  being beneficial to the industry. Now, my noble Friend has pointed out that so far as it is a protection, or would be calculated to become protective by leading to the manufacture in India of goods of a fine character not now manufactured, but which might then be manufactured and become competitive, that this apprehended evil might be met by some countervailing duty. No doubt that is a very grave and important question. My noble Friend will see at once that the questions how far it would be practicable, how far it should extend, and how it should be imposed, are questions of very great difficulty. It would be utterly impossible for any such questions to be inquired into. If the duty was to be imposed, it must have been imposed absolutely with all the evils to which my noble Friend alluded, and with the impossibility of removing these evils by any of the expedients he has suggested. My noble Friend suggested that there should be certain exemptions, and he indicated yarn as one of these on account of its being used in India in manufacturing processes. But is he certain that no other cotton goods imported into India are used in manufacturing processes, and, which, for the same reason, ought to be exempted? That, again, would be a matter on which it would be obviously necessary to make inquiry, and the truth is that if I wanted reasons for showing how impossible it was to take any other course than that which my noble Friend took under the same existing circumstances I should have appealed to the speech of my noble Friend who has just sat down, because it shows the difficulty with which the question is surrounded and the number of problems which have to be solved, and the various considerations which have to be discussed and canvassed before you come to any conclusion on the subject. All that is absolutely impossible between the time the proposals are made and the revenue received, and when it becomes necessary to make a decision. That is the explanation of the necessity of arriving, as I say, at a decision such as the Government have arrived at at the time, but not, as then stated, a final decision applicable to all circumstances, and never open to review and reconsideration. The very contrary was stated publicly at the very time the decision was announced. The
  534
  noble Earl has said that he regretted that allusion should have been made to the statement by the gentlemen from Lancashire who attended the deputation which waited on my noble Friend, to the effect that they would fight as one man in opposition to the re-imposition of any such duties, and he said he had confidence in the good feeling and good sense of the Lancashire men, that if they saw it was necessary and right in the interest of India they would not let their own interests stand in the way of India's true interest. I entirely agree with my noble Friend in thinking that would be the view of Lancashire, and I would remind him that what my noble Friend alluded to was the statement made with reference to the then expected deficiency or apprehended deficiency, and the hope then expressed that some way or other would be found to meet that deficiency. My Lords, I should be very sorry to believe, with my noble Friend, that if there was an emergency in India which could not well be met in the interest of India in any other way than by dealing in some manner or other with the duties, that Lancashire would put its business inconvenience before the real interests of India and the necessity of meeting any great emergency arising there. When I say that, I lay emphasis upon the interest of India, because that is what has to be regarded, not the interest of any section of India, and not the interest of any manufacturers of India. If Lancashire believed that was what was being considered I think they would most naturally set their faces against the being imposed for the benefit of the manufacturers of India protective duties which would prejudically affect the manufacturers of Lancashire. But, my Lords, if once they are satisfied that the interests of India at large require some reconsideration and re-arrangement of these duties of a fair and reasonable character, I agree with my noble Friend that Lancashire, no more than any other class of Englishmen, would not set their faces against a change which, though it might chance to be in some respects prejudicial to themselves, would be fair and just to the interests of India, and was demanded by the righteous consideration of their interests. I agree with what has been said, that in circumstances such as those to which I have alluded it would not be right to sacrifice the interests of

  535
  India to the interests of any class or section of this community. There is entrusted to us a high mission in our Government of India, and we should, it seems to me, fall short of the demands upon us in respect to that mission if we were to do anything which was against the interest of that country. I trust that in our dealings in India we shall show that this country desires to pursue no selfish policy, to serve no selfish ends, but to govern India in the highest interests of the people of India themselves, particularly, if I may say so, bearing in mind the interests of the great inarticulate masses of India, and to lay before itself the determination that so far as this country can it will fulfil the mission entrusted to it, and seek to make the people of India see that this country is endeavouring to secure their contentment by exhibiting to them its determination to do them justice.

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL.—(No. 61.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD DENMANmoved the Second Reading of this Bill. He observed that it seemed almost a formality to make the Motion, but some women had taken the trouble to urge him to proceed with it. He did not see any great advantage in pressing the Bill, but, nevertheless, he pleaded with their Lordships to accord a Second Reading to the Bill, for which many women would be grateful. He did not wish it to be supposed that the House of Lords was against the Second Reading of the Bill. He had been for 10 years trying to obtain that stage, and had had many instances of agreement with him on many points, whilst there were no points of difference which could not be very easily adjusted in Committee. He did not think anyone could say he had been hasty in this matter. He had tried for many Sessions to get this Bill through the Second Reading; he had on many occasions been up till as late as 12 o'clock with a view to secure that object, and he trusted their Lordships would now reward his perseverance by agreeing to his present Motion. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Denman.)
  On Question? resolved in the negative.

VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 163.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord TWEEDMOUTH)moved that the Bill be read a second time. The Bill, he explained, was a very simple one designed to remove an inconvenience felt by the County Councils of Scotland by the late date at which the assessors made up the Roll and the County Valuation Roll. It was proposed by the Bill to make the date the 15th of March instead of the 15th of August, and by the alteration proposed the County Councils would be able to have the Roll before them at a convenient time to settle their assessments for the October meetings.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.—(No. 126.)
Reported, without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS AND CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Leave given to the Joint Committee to report from time to time: First Report made; and to be printed. (No. 170.)
COPYHOLD (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 2.)
Reported from the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 171.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.—(No 123.)
Amendments reported (according to Order); and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.—(No. 150.)
Amendment reported (according to Order); and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 18) BILL.—(No. 151.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PAROCHIAL ELECTORS (REGISTRATION ACCELERATION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
ZANZIBAR INDEMNITY BILL.—(No. 308.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

PEEBLES FOOT PAVEMENTS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 172.)
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.