Sitting of 4 April 1895

Preamble
The House met shortly after Three of the Clock.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL TRAM WAYS BILL.
MR. J. STUART MR. J. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton) moved:—"That Standing Order 171 be suspended in the case of the London County Tramways Bill, and that the Committee on the Bill have power, if they think fit to provide in the Bill, not with standing the said Standing Order, that the local authority may place and run carriages upon the tramways mentioned in the Bill or any of them, and take and demand tolls and charges in respect thereof."
SIR. J. BLUNDELL MAPLEregretted that he had to oppose this instruction because, in the first place, the hon. Gentleman had not consulted the Parliamentary Committee of the County Council, and therefore had no sanction whatever for bringing this matter forward. As it was, the County Council had plenty of work to do. That work had been ineffectively done in the past. They knew that the late Council was very ambitious, and some persons seemed to have an idea that the present County Council was in favour of the policy of the, late Council, whereas it was totally opposed to it. As regards these tramways, he believed there was a great future for tramways. He considered that a great many more were required in London, but if the London County Council insisted on running tramways, there would be no companies coming forward to promote tramways. Therefore it seemed to him that this was a totally unnecessary instruction. It would tie up the hands of the, Committee. The County Council, no doubt, was still in the hands of the Progressive Members, although they represented a minority of the voters. Through the co-option of the Aldermen they had still a majority, and they secured a majority on all the Committees.
890
Parliament had wisely decided that corporations should not work the tramways unless they failed to get a proper price as a rental for the tram lines, but if they were to pass this Bill they would be proclaiming, far and wide, that it was the view of the House that the London County Council ought to work the tramways themselves. He thought it would be a very great mistake indeed if the London. County Council did take upon itself the working of these tramways. The Committees were numerous enough already, and those committees had now more work than they could do efficiently. Then the Instruction would tie the hands of the Committee upstairs, and that, he, thought would be most unfair and most unwise. The hon. Member who brought forward this motion, had had no instruction to do so from the present Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council. There was a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee last, Thursday, but not one word said about this Instruction, and he was surprised the next morning to find this Instruction on the papers of the House, and if it had not been for the hon. Member for Marylebone that Instruction would have been passed. That was the way they were being "jockeyed" by the present London County Council. If this Instruction were passed it would be, tantamount to saying that the London County Council were called upon to work these tramways, and by and by they would be enabled to take upon themselves more work than it was doing now. When they had London divided into divisional districts and much of the work that was now being done, by the County Council handed over to those authorities, then they might, do more work. But at present it was impossible for the members of the County Council, even if they were to attend from early morning to late at night, to fulfil all the duties which now devolved upon them.
MR. J. STUARTsaid the hon. Member had made, an assertion with regard to himself, namely, that he had placed this motion on the paper without authority, which was incorrect. A week ago the question of the propriety of moving this Instruction was brought up before the Parliamentary Committee of the County Council, and by a narrow majority that Committee requested him

891
to place this notice upon the paper of the House. In consequence of that resolution he placed the Motion on the paper, and it was to have been taken on Monday. But after communicating with the hon. Member for Marylebone he thought it would be right and proper that they should have the decision of the new County Council upon the main issue of whether they desired to proceed with the Bill that was at present before the House, or not, before going on with this Motion. That was agreed to, and the hon. Member for Marylebone yesterday brought forward a resolution in the County Council to the effect that the present Bill be, abandoned. That resolution was defeated by a majority of 70 to 55. Those were the whole of the circumstances of the case. The Instruction, if it were adopted by the House, would not tie the hands of the Committee upstairs. It was one of those Instructions familiar to the House and was not of a mandatory character. The hon. Member who had just spoken had treated this resolution as if it were a resolution in some way or other obliging, or pledging, the County Council to work the tramways. It was no such thing. If this were carried and the Committee approved, the Bill would give power to the County Council to work the tramways. That was a direct following out of the line in which their Standing Orders and legislation had gone. In 1870 there was a General Tramways Bill introduced which said this:—
"That nothing in this Act contained shall authorise any Local Authority to work tramways,"
and so on. That Act had been, read into the Tramways Acts, and in 1871 a Standing Order of this House was passed which said that no Committee upstairs should authorise any Local Authority to work the tramways. That absolutely prohibitory Standing Order continued for 20 years, but in 1891 there was a modified Standing Order passed whereby a Committee upstairs was empowered to allow the Local Authority to work the tramways, provided it should be unable to let them on terms which might be approved by the Board of Trade. They were asking in the present instance to go a step farther and to remove that restriction about working them only under those
892
terms. And they were doing that, not from any desire of his own or of his friends, to work the London tramways. They were prepared to see what the circumstances brought forth, but they said that their bargain in letting them was, from the business point of view, seriously interfered with by the fact that they had not full power to work them. He appealed to the House as to whether this was not a reasonable thing to grant to the London County Council. They must take their chance whether the County Council did or did not work them after it had the power. The House might be assured that the people of London were well enough able, to keep the County Council in order if they were taking any action which they believed detrimental to their own interests. That was well seen by the late County Council elections. There was a reason for moving this suspension of the Standing Order in the interests of London, and there were the cases of other municipalities such as that of Leeds, which were in the same position. Of the London Tramways, 30 miles out of the 100 were established before the General Acts Acts of 1870, or during the, year 1870, and under those Acts, the County Council as successor to the Metropolitan Board of Works had the right to purchase and work those 30 miles of tramways. But in respect of the remaining 70 miles, the Council had no power of working. The hon. Member had spoken of the destruction of private enterprise which would result from this proposal. There was no one who held more highly than he did the advantages of individual enterprise, but if such enterprise were damaged, it would be by the fact that the Council already had the power to purchase the tramways, and not by the fact that, having purchased the tramways, they were able to work them. He was confident that, from a business point of view, it was desirable that the Council should have these powers.
MR. E. BOULNOIS, said that he could quite appreciate that the House did not very much care about the little squabbles of parties at Spring Gardens. [Ministerial Cries of "Hear!"] He could also quite appreciate those cheers on the other side

893
of the House, for, lately, the squabbles had been more interesting to tine Opposition. As to the proceedings last week in the Parliamentary Committee of the County Council, it was decided that this Motion now before the House should be put down without any reference at all to the Council as a whole. That was carried by a majority of 10 to 9, but the Parliamentary Committee had no power to pledge the Council. The hon. Member said that the Committee had instructions to do their best to get the Bills through which they introduced. He had searched in vain for any such mandate. What he did find was an instruction to the Parliamentary Committee to comply with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and yet they were now asking that one of those Standing Orders should be suspended. As to the majority of 15 on the Council, of which the hon. Member had made the most, that was insignificant when it was remembered that the aldermanic vote was much stronger on the Progressive than on the Moderate side. The question before the House was very simple. The County Council brought in a Bill enabling them to work the tramways which they had acquired. Then it was pointed out that the Bill was contrary to the Standing Orders of the House; and the County Council coolly asked the House to suspend the Standing Order, which was passed less than three years ago, and which might be considered, therefore, to embody the most recent deliberations of the House on the subject. The Standing Order provided that the Committee of the House might insert a clause into a Tramway Bill to the effect that if a local authority were unable to demise its tramways on such terms as in the opinion of the Board of Trade would yield the local authority an adequate return, the Board of Trade might give the local authority a licence to work such tramways. That provision ought to satisfy the London County Council, for the President of the Board of Trade was known to be very friendly to the County Council, and would readily accede to the application. It was said that the Council could not find a lessee to pay an adequate rent for the line. That was not surprising. There were a little more
894
than four miles of line which the Council wished to lease for a short term, and those four miles part of a large system of tramways. The hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Stuart) said that the view of the majority of the Council was that of business men on a business matter. His experience of the old Council and of the present majority was that it was by no means composed entirely of business men, but included a great many theorists and faddists and gentlemen who had not the least appreciation of matters of business. The hon. Member also said that the Council only wanted the power of working the tramways, and did not contemplate actually working them. The Council had never shown themselves backward in the past in exercising all the rights which had been given to them; and if the power now asked were once given, they would on the moment try the experiment of working the tramways. He predicted that the results would be most disastrous to the ratepayers of London. They had the experience of one tramway worked by a local authority—the Corporation of Huddersfield; and that was the only example which could be quoted. During the ten years in which the Huddersfield Corporation had worked the tramways there had been a loss of £37,442—a loss which fell upon the ratepayers. Why did not the London County Council follow the example of the Liverpool Corporation, which had expended £240,000 on the laying of tramways, and which received a rental of 10 per cent. on the outlay? That would be a much better plan of dealing with the ratepayers' money than speculating in horses and tramcars. The Moderates had been accused of championing monopolists. He appreciated the new-born zeal of the hon. Member for Shoreditch for private enterprise, but the majority of the County Council had shown in years past a desire to do everything to stifle and choke private enterprise. The Moderates wished to encourage private enterprise, without which what would London or England be? But they believed that in checking the attempt of the majority on the Council in their present endeavour they were acting as the champions of the ratepayers' purse. This municipalisation of everything the County Council could get hold of must tend to an increase of the rates. Why

895
should the Standing Order be suspended? A plain answer could be given. If the House determined to suspend the Order he was satisfied that every local authority in the country would come to the House and say they desired the Order suspended. He did not see why the London County Council should have any different treatment to the great Corporations in the provinces. He asked the House not to part with the restraining power which they had in their hands now and which had been imposed so recently.
MR. J. W. BENNsaid, that if this were a case of dealing with one tramway company the Standing Order might meet it, but in London there were unfortunately no less than eight tramway companies. While under the Standing Order the County Council might be successful in coming to terms with one or two companies, they might in all probability be at variance with the rest and be unable to deal with the whole tramway system in a satisfactory manner. The London County Council had endeavoured to so arrange their tramway business that the whole or nearly the whole of the system would come into their hands in four or five years' time. The hon. Member for Marylebone posed as the champion of the ratepayers. Let him direct attention to a few figures, which proved that concern for the interest of the ratepayers was rather on the other side. The Council had an offer some time ago for a 21 years' lease of one-third of the London tramway system. They found that, without the assistance of this measure, the best they could get from the tramway companies was something like £60,000 a year in the shape of rental.
SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEpresumed the figure was the hon. Member's own. If it was an advisers, would he name that adviser?
MR. J. W. BENNsaid, that if the hon. Baronet had been a member of the old Council he would not have asked the question. The figures were arrived at after communication with the North Metropolitan Company.
SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: One tramway company?
MR. J. W. BENNsaid, it had to do with one-third of the tramway system of London and of lines extending some
896
35 miles. Against the £60,000 rental they found the net earnings of the tramway companies of London at the present time amounted to £210,000. There was thus a balance of £150,000, and what the Council were fighting for was power to drive a fair bargain with the tramway companies, so that the ratepayers of London might get a share of the £150,000.
SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEasked if anything was calculated for horses and cars and capital?
MR. J. W. BENNsaid, that all those things were carefully calculated for in his figures.
SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: Not in the £60,000.
MR. J. W. BENNsaid, if the hon. Gentleman would confer with him afterwards he would satisfy him on all points. The matter had been referred to as if it were a fad of the Progressive Party. It was really nothing of the kind. It was the outcome of a like Bill which proceeded from the great Corporations of the kingdom, and was suggested by one of the leading Conservative Members of the London County Council. It was in no sense a Progressive fad. He thought they got at the secret of the matter from the following paragraph in a circular issued by the North Metropolitan Tramways Company to the electors advising them to vote for the Moderate candidates at the recent election:—
"If such a power were granted, it would seriously diminish the value of your undertaking, and under these circumstances I would strongly urge upon you not only to vote for, but to use your influence on behalf of, the Moderate candidates in this district."
This was a case of "one good turn deserves another." He hoped the Instruction would be agreed to by an overwhelming majority.
*MR. B. L. COHENthought the House, and certainly the Opposition, were indebted to the hon. Gentleman for his candour and straightforwardness. The hon. Member had gone into elaborate calculations which, if he accepted in their integrity, which, if he believed them to be as correct as he believed them to be incorrect, proved one thing beyond all question, namely, that the desire of the supporters of the Instruction was that the London County

897
Council should enter into possession of the tramways for the purpose of working them. The hon. Member for Shoreditch disclaimed any intention of working the tramways, and of course he accepted the assurance of his hon. Friend.
MR. STUART: I said that was a matter which must look after itself.
MR. COHENwas sorry his hon. Friend receded somewhat from that position. That made him all the more inclined to say he did not think there was a shred of confidence to be placed in the expressed intentions—he would not say of the hon. Gentleman because he had disclaimed it—of the Progressive majority of the London Comity Council. His reason for saying that was that there could not be any consistency—he had almost said sincerity—in the reasons they urged for the protecting Instruction they asked the House to pass. It was said the Instruction was needed in order that the hand of the London County Council should not be forced in negotiating for these leases. He assured his hon. Friends opposite that if he believed the London County Council would be, in could be, in any way damaged in negotiating the leases, he would not only not oppose but he would support the Instruction. The very contrary was the case. The Council were protected by the fact that, as soon as they satisfied the Board of Trade that they were unable to get reasonable terms from their suggested lessees, they would be armed with the power hon. Gentlemen proposed to endow them with. He regarded the intervention of the Board of Trade as absolutely essential for the economy, if not for the pure and honest management of the tramways. He did not suggest for a moment that the past, present or future London County Council could in any way be amenable to any corrupt influences of any kind, but he thought the House would see that to expose popularly elected bodies to the pressure which hon. Members knew constituencies would exercise was unwise in the highest degree. It was said only on Tuesday by Mr. Charles Harrison that the House, of Lords decided that it should be open to the Council to work the tramways. The question of working the tramways was never before their Lordships and was never pronounced upon by them. The right of working the tramways
898
had been prohibited by Parliament, and that right ought not to be restored in this case without cogent and irresistible reason; and certainly not upon the absurd pretext that it was necessary to protect the London County Council in negotiations in regard to the tramways with possible lessees. He was surprised at the boldness with which some hon. Members had urged that they were urging this question in the interest of the London ratepayers; considering that Mr. Charles Harrison, the prime mover in this project for having the tramways worked by the County Council, had his majority of 1,373 reduced to 872 at the last County Council election; that his hon. Friend opposite had his majority reduced by half, and that two other Members prominent in the business one of whom was the Chairman of the Highways Commission at that moment—were absolutely rejected by their constituencies. He said, therefore, that with those facts before them it was misleading the House of Commons to say that the issue was presented to the ratepayers, and that the answer of the ratepayers was that they were in favour of the working of the tramways by the London County Council. He was absolutely convinced that such a project would mean the introduction of unbusinesslike and un-remunerative principles into the working of those undertakings, at the expense of the ratepayers and in conflict with their decision as pronounced at the recent election.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OR TRADE (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.)said, he would not enter into the internal conflicts of the London County Council, with which the time of the House was unhappily so much occupied. The simple question before the House was whether, in the case of a Bill of the London County Council, they should suspend a particular Standing Order which gave power to the Committee on the Bill to allow a local authority to work a tramway only on the condition of leasing, or of endeavouring to lease, that tramway to some company. The Standing Order enlarged the power of the Committee, but it did not give them unlimited power to enable local authorities to work the tramways. It had been suspended in a considerable number of cases; and in three cases—

899
Glasgow, Plymouth, and Huddersfield—the local authorities were working the tramways, because they had not been able to get leasing terms satisfactory to themselves. It appeared that local authorities could generally succeed in getting round the clause, and work the tramways themselves, if they took the trouble to do so; but, on the other hand, if a local authority desired to lease a tramway, the clause threw some difficulties in their way. But the question now before the House was whether there were any reasons why the Standing Order should be suspended in the case of the London County Council. The hon. Member for Shoreditch had given certain reasons why the case of London should be favourably considered. It was pointed out that there were 30 miles of tramways which the County Council had already obtained the right to work; and that unless all the tramways were brought under the same system there would be difficulties as to transit and as to the interchange of fares, which in the interest of the people it would be well to avoid. That was the position of affairs. He would merely further point out that in Glasgow the tramways were worked by the municipality with very satisfactory results. [Cries of "No no!" and "Hear, hear!"] He was told by the Lord Provost of Glasgow that such was the case.
*SIR A. K. ROLLITsaid, he could speak with practical knowledge and experience of the results of the working of the tramways in Huddersfield by the Corporation. It might be that there was a balance against the Corporation in the working of the undertaking; but he thought the hon. Member for Marylebone must have somewhat exaggerated, though unintentionally, no doubt, the figures which he had quoted to the House.
MR. BOULNOIS: I beg to state that I got the figures from the Corporation accounts.
*SIR A. K. ROLLIT: They may not be the last accounts published.
MR. BOULNOIS: The accounts for 1894.
*SIR A. K. ROLLITsaid, he still thought his hon. Friend was under some mistake, but whatever, within any reasonable limits, the balance of the income account for 1894 might be, he could
900
say, as a ratepayer of Huddersfield, that public opinion was strongly in favour of the tramways being worked by the Corporation because of the great benefit it had conferred on the community. As an instance of the development of the undertaking, he might mention that, by an arrangement between the Corporation and the Post Office, the tramways collected the letters in the town and carried them to the outlying districts, and vice versâ. He knew that the general feeling of the Corporation, as well as that of the ratepayers, was that the working of the tramways by the municipality had conferred advantages on the community which were well worth whatever loss might have been sustained in the cost of working the undertaking. He, too, had had a conversation with the Lord Provost of Glasgow on the subject of the working of the tramways in that city; and he could say that the statement of the President of the Board of Trade was in strict accordance with what he had been told by that gentleman. The municipal corporations were practically unanimous in desiring that the powers asked for by this Bill should be conferred upon them; and they had passed a resolution to that effect through their representatives, and had prepared a draft Bill with that object. They thought the Standing Order was unnecessary and embarrassing to them; and surely Local Authorities knew best local wants and requirements, and how they could best fulfil their duties and obligations. For these reasons, and with the object that there might be another precedent for such municipal powers, the Corporations desired him to support this question being at least left to the discretion of the Committee after hearing the facts and arguments.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it was manifest from the speech of the hon. Member for Shore-ditch that the London County Council did not desire this privilege in order to make use of it, as they had no intention or wish to run the tramways themselves; but they desired to have in their hands a weapon or instrument which would give them a power over the tramways Companies in any negotiations that might take place.
MR. STUARTsaid, that, as to the views of the London County Council in

901
regard to the question, of working the tramways, he had no authority to say anything at all.
MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the hon. Gentleman might not have meant to say it, but that he did say it, was beyond doubt. He thought that in a matter of this kind, in which there was a bargain to be made between parties, Parliament should not interfere in favour of one party or the other, but should occupy an absolutely impartial position. As to the general merits of the question whether Corporations should work the tramways, he admitted there was a great deal to be said on either side, and they should endeavour to keep an open mind in regard to it. But there was one reason against it which the House would do well to keep constantly in view, and that was, that if they were going to give Municipal Corporations not only the possession of the tramways, which he thought they ought to have, but the right to work them as a commercial concern, they were going to bring them into direct competition with private enterprise in the way of 'buses and cabs. Though he put the rights of Corporations as high as his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, he thought it undesirable that the whole weight of the public purse—the whole weight of the rates—should be brought to bear in a competition possibly against existing private undertakings. That was all he had to say on the general question. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, that Local Authorities knew what was good for them better than the House or the Government. But if it were desirable to get rid of the Parliamentary control in this matter which now existed, surely it should be done by a general rule of the Act, and not left to be brought up time after time in a flagging House, when on one day, by a majority of 15, a particular Corporation would get the power, and the next day by a majority of 15, another Corporation would be deprived of the power. If the thing was right let it be done once for all, and let it be done thoroughly. This control of which they were talking was claimed by the House of Commons in a Bill passed a few years ago, establishing the London County Council, and the regulation they were now talking
902
about was passed by the House of Commons only three years ago. Of course, if in the short interval that had elapsed, the House of Commons had changed its mind, by all means let it say so by means of some general legislation such as he had suggested. It was now 10 years since he was at the Board of Trade, and things had changed there as much as elsewhere. In his time it was a tradition of the office impressed upon him, and which he endeavoured scrupulously to fulfil, that the whole weight and influence of the office should be brought to bear against any private Bill which sought to undo for a particular place or a particular purpose the general law and what was the general practice. He was told there had been great infractions on these precedents in the last year or two. The House of Commons appointed a Special Committee, which might be almost called an expert Committee, carefully to examine the circumstances under which power should be given to local authorities to provide electric lighting. But that caused corporation after corporation, and company after company, to come to the House, each with a separate scheme. It was thus almost impossible that the House could give to individual schemes the attention they required, and the House decided, once for all, to lay down rules which all companies and all corporations should obey. He understood that at the present time there was before a Committee of this House a Bill for establishing electric lighting which set at naught altogether all the regulations of the House. Again he said he was not at all prepared to argue that these regulations were the best that could be made, and that experience might not show the necessity for changes. But he thought it would be a most disastrous thing if, time after time, on the score of an application made by this or that authority, they were going to allow the general regulations which had been more carefully considered than any single case of this kind could be, to be overridden by a private Bill.
*MR. ALEXANDER CROSSpresumed that what they were considering now was the proposal by the London County Council that the Standing Order imposing certain conditions before a local authority could

903
take over the tramways, should be suspended in order that they might obtain power to work the tramways without complying with the conditions interposed by the Standing Order. There was involved in this question a broad issue. If the House yielded to any application submitted to it on behalf of the City of London, it would be impossible to deny that right to any other Municipality which might bring forward any analogous claim, The point they were considering, therefore, was whether it was advisable or in the general interest that they should give to Corporations the right to supply locomotion to their ratepayers at the public cost. It appeared to him absolutely necessary that the House should consider carefully before they proceeded to legislate in such a direction, and deal with the subject in a general and broad aspect. Were they to give powers to Municipalities without restriction? Were there to be no defined borrowing powers, and no regulations as to fares? They should consider such matters before, embarking upon legislation which might have the effect of inducing a Municipality to undertake the running of cars under the cost price of such conveyance. It would be absolutely essential from a business point of view that the House should make certain provisions by which it would be impossible for Corporations to convey passengers below the actual cost and to charge the loss upon the rates. Allusion had been made to the City of Glasgow, but it was premature to say one word as yet as to the success or otherwise of the tramway operations at Glasgow, because the finances of the city were so complicated. He felt it his duty to oppose the Bill promoted by the Glasgow Corporation which came before the House some little time ago, on account of two clauses to which he took great exception. But there were other clauses in that Bill which he suspected, for, whatever the intention, he seriously believed they might have the effect of concealing from the public the actual cost of the working of the tramways. It was believed in Glasgow that the Corporation had borrowed about £400,000 in order to provide for the tramways, but it was said they had no parliamentary authority to so employ it. They had, no doubt, in Glasgow splendid new cars, at fares 50 per cent, lower
904
than before. But was it to be supposed that, under the generous, benevolent management of the Corporation, they were going to make a profit at fares 50 per cent. below those which afforded only a small margin to a company before? He did not believe that it was possible for any Corporation to achieve results such as were achieved by individuals working for their own advantage, and who conducted their business more economically than could be done by a Corporation. He submitted that it would be wise and proper for this House to interpolate carefully devised yet reasonable conditions before they allowed Municipalities to have the conduct of tramway operations at the cost of the rates.
MR. JOHN BURNSobserved that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, to whom he generally deferred on matters connected with municipal policy, had imported into the Debate two matters which, from the point of view of London, ought to be replied to. The right hon. Gentleman suspected as a probability that if the London County Council had the exceptional power which he (Mr. Burns) denied that this Motion imposed upon it, that then he could concede the possibility of the Municipal Authority owning and working trams, in the exercise of that monopoly possibly restricting the freedom of living and employment of the men who worked cabs and rival omnibuses. The city of Birmingham owed a good deal to the right hon. Gentleman for having put a stop to private enterprise when that was opposed to the municipal and sanitary interests of his own city. The Corporation of Birmingham owned and leased the tramways, from which they enjoyed annually a net profit of £6,000. Surely the right hon. Member for West Birmingham would not deny to the city he so ably represented the right, if by a vote of the Town Council they so decided, to terminate the present condition of ownership and lease, and in the interest of the people of that city to work the trams without the direct intervention of a private company? He was sure that in such a case the right hon. Gentleman would take up the attitude he had taken up before, namely, that Municipalities, ordinarily speaking, should have the

905
power to dominate over their own municipal destinies. He could conceive it possible that Birmingham, as in the case of Huddersfield, might undertake to lose a certain amount of money by the working of their own tramways, and if by so doing the housing of the people and the sanitary accommodation of the city were improved by that small loss. The right hon. Gentleman had said that when he was at the Board of Trade the traditions of that Department were against the locality having powers which others did not enjoy. That was perfectly true. When Corporations came to that House to obtain power to own their own gasworks, they invariably did so by means of private Bills. It became so inconvenient for the House to be continually discussing Bill after Bill, that, for the benefit of every locality that wanted to purchase its gasworks, this duty was delegated, under certain general conditions and regulations, to a Committee upstairs, with the result that 198 gasworks were now owned by local authorities. The same course was subsequently followed in the case of waterworks and electric lighting, and when the demands for working or leasing tramways became as numerous as the applications in respect of gas and water undertakings had been in the past, then he was sure that House would refuse to any local authority the right to come to the House and discuss these matters, which were much better left to the Committee upstairs under the general instructions and conditions. He wanted to point out to the House that the London County Council practically asked, by the suspension of Standing Order 171, that it should be allowed to place itself in the position that Glasgow, Huddersfield, and Leeds were now in. Why should Glasgow have, either by private Bill or provisional order, powers to own and work its own tramways, and a Bill to effect the same object for London not to be allowed to go to a Committee upstairs? What the Board had to determine to do was to show that this big city of five millions should not labour under worse conditions than were applicable to Glasgow, Huddersfield, and Leeds, and he believed hon. Members would subordinate their politics so as to allow the municipal authority to carry out their policy, which, since the recent
906
election, had been endorsed by 70 votes to 55. He would appeal to the hon. Member for Dulwich, who had so worthily interested himself in cheap workmen's trains, not to stultify his action by declaring by his vote that the London County Council should not have a right to provide workmen's trams. He hoped the House would vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Shoreditch.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKopposed the motion. He thought it very undesirable that the County Council should undertake to work the tramways. They were already overwhelmed with work, which, moreover, was of necessity increasing, and yet the hon. Member for Shoreditch wished them to work the tramways, and later on the water supply. The real leaders of the Progressive Party went even further; they wished to municipalise, or rather monopolise, almost everything; they wished the London County Council to manage the Secondary Education of London, to undertake the Hospitals, to work the Docks, to superintend the Port, to keep the Pawnbrokers Shops—and in fact, in their view, the ideal of the Millenium would be that the population of London should consist of 118 Councillors, 19 Aldermen, and 4,500,000 County Council employés. They wish to turn the London County Council into a gigantic trading concern. This policy was condemned by the electors at the last election. The motion in the Council in support of the policy advocated by the hon. Member for Shoreditch was only carried by a very narrow majority of the electors. He believed that a large majority of the representatives of London in the House of Commons were opposed to the motion, and he hoped the Government would not again use their majority in a matter affecting London to override the wishes of London members. Of course, if the London County Council could not get any company to work the tramways, it might be necessary, however undesirable, that they should do so themselves. That was a very improbable contingency, but it might arise, and it had been fully provided for. In such a case the County Council could apply to the Board of Trade, and the Board of

907
Trade could grant them permission to work the lines until some reasonable offer were made. That fully met the case. He thought it very undesirable to increase the ever-growing army of County Council employés; the County Council were already overwhelmed with work. He felt sure they would make a loss if they attempted to work the tramways, and would still further raise the rapidly-increasing rates of the Metropolis.
*DR. MACGREGOR, as a Ratepayer in London, said he might claim the right to speak on the merits of this question, but that was not his object in rising. He wanted to know on what grounds London local questions claimed so much of the valuable time of the House. Only three or four days since, the Leader of the House informed the Scottish Members that he could not find time to introduce one or two Bills on Scottish legislation. Yet London Members came down here week after week and took up the best time of the House with their local affairs, and he as a Scotchman, pining for Scottish legislation, protested against this as an abuse of the privileges of the House. He wished to know whether it was not on the part of London the adoption of all the privileges of Home Rule, while they denied equal rights to Scotland.
The House divided—Ayes 191; Noes 158.—(Division List No. 41.)

QUESTIONS.

  INDIAN ARMY PENSIONS.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether Honorary Lieutenant Quilter was granted a pension of Rs.165 per mensem on retirement on 23rd March, 1891, and whether he would have received Rs.240 per mensem, on succeeding to Honorary Captain Ryan, if he had been permitted to count one more month of service for pension; whether his claim to the higher pension was strongly supported by the heads of his Department and recommended by the Government of India; whether Lieutenant Quilter took part in the
  908
  relief of Lucknow, and was rewarded with "boon" service of not less than one year on that account; and, whether, taking into consideration the fact that Lieutenant Quilter has received no benefit from his "boon" service, he will give effect to the recommendation of the Government of India?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,), answering in the absence of Mr. H. H. FOWLER: Lieutenant Quilter received the pension to which he was entitled by rank and length of service. It is true that the Government of India recommended an exceptional concession in his favour, but the Secretary of State in Council was unable to accept this suggestion, which appeared to him to be based on a misapprehension of the rules. The present Secretary of State sees no sufficient reason for disturbing his predecessor's decision.

  BRITISH INDIA.
  MR. D. NAOROJI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, that as Lord Cromer has stated with regard to his statement of 1882 about the annual average income per head, that though he was not prepared to pledge himself to the absolute accuracy of a calculation of this sort, it was sufficiently accurate to justify his conclusion that the taxpaying community was exceedingly poor, and that thus the calculation being sufficiently accurate, whether he will grant the Return for which a Motion stands on this day's Paper, as such Return is the only means of forming a fairly correct idea of the material condition of British India; and, whether, if he be unwilling to grant as a Return the details of Lord Cromer's calculations, as asked in the first part of the Motion, he will give an opportunity to the hon. Member for Finsbury of personally inspecting them?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Considering that the statement to which my hon. Friend refers was confessedly founded upon uncertain data, and that any similar calculation which might now be made must be founded on equally uncertain data and might probably be misleading, the Secretary of State is unable to agree to my hon. Friend's Motion.

  IRISH SOLDIERS AND THE SHAMROCK.
  MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that on St. Patrick's Day the Irish artillery men in St. James Cavalier and Tign hutments, Malta, were ordered and com pelled to remove the shamrock from their helmets on the batteries being paraded for church, the order being given in one case by the orderly sergeant and in the other by Lieutenant Quain of Dublin; was a circular issued by the War Office, dated 16th February 1893. in consequence of the punishment of Private O'Grady in the Welsh Fusiliers in 1892, allowing Irish, English, Scotch, and Welsh soldiers to wear national emblems on the occasion of national or regimental anniversaries, at the discretion of Commanding Officers; was the Commanding Officer at Malta a party to the order for removing the shamrock from the artillerymen's helmets; and whether, in view of the fact that the shamrock is publicly worn on St. Patrick's Day by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as representative of Her Majesty, the Government will take steps to prevent Irish soldiers being subjected in future to orders to remove the shamrock from their helmets on St. Patrick's Day on the initiative of non-commissioned and subaltern officers?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I promised a few days ago to enquire into the particular incident referred to in the question; nothing is known of it at present. With regard to the general question I may frankly state my view of it. I cannot see any harm, as a general rule, in permitting such gratification as the wearing of a national emblem on a national anniversary may afford. But discretion is allowed to the Commanding Officers of Battalions, and this, I presume, for two reasons: firstly that, after all, it is desirable that there should be some uniformity in what we call by the name of uniforms; and, secondly, that there may be circumstances in which the wearing of an emblem by one soldier may be a cause of offence to another.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The point of my question is that it was not a commanding
  910
  officer who gave this order, but a noncommissioned officer in one case and a subaltern in the other. Surely this is a matter of sufficient gravity, in view of the fact that there are 20,000 Irish soldiers wearing the Queen's colours, to justify the right hon. Gentleman in telegraphing to Malta for information.
  *Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Inquiry is being made into the circumstances. If they turn out to be what is alleged I will take the necessary steps.
  Mr. J. REDMOND:asked whether, in view of the fact that very often soldiers of the rank and file were not aware of the necessity of applying to the commanding officer for leave to wear their national emblem, the War Office would issue a general order to the effect that there was no objection to Irish soldiers wearing the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day?
  *Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I occupy a neutral position in this matter, as I belong to a country, the emblem of which does not lend itself to the convenience of a button-hole. But really I think a commanding officer who is responsible and who has to exercise his discretion should, unless he sees any particular reason, such as that to which I have alluded, allow every latitude and facility for the display of a laudable national sentiment.
  Mr. T. M. HEALYgave notice he should revert to this subject.
  Mr. W. REDMONDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiry by telegraph?
  *Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: With the Easter holidays so near I hope to have information when the House reassembles.

  POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
  MR. J. A. M. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether the Chairman of the Tracers' Association was recently degraded and his pay reduced for forwarding to him, at the request of the Association, a resolution unanimously adopted by its members; and whether, if so, there is any regulation of the Service which prohibits the officials of any union of Post Office servants from communicating with him on behalf of the union?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): It is the fact that a tracer was recently degraded and his pay reduced because he telegraphed a resolution to me direct at my private residence, instead of submitting a memorial through his superior officers. Not much more than a year before, however, he had, in conjunction with others, committed precisely the same offence, and with those others expressed regret for the action, and asked permission to withdraw the papers. It is obvious, therefore, that the tracer in question was well aware of the rule which he wilfully disregarded. That rule, which, I believe, obtains not only in the Post Office but throughout the Civil Service, directs officers to forward memorials with reference to the conditions of their service to the head of their department through their superior officers, and I must adhere to a rule which is essential both in the interest of individuals and of the discipline of the staff.

  THE OPIUM COMMISSION.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether the assurance given on 11th February that the House would be in possession of the Report of the Opium Commission before Easter will be realised?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State has no power to give any assurance with regard to the date at which the Royal Commission may send in their Report; but, having made inquiries, he has still reason to think that it may be presented by the 11th April.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON TUBERCULOSIS.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, considering that during the last two years 19 questions have been addressed to him as to the delay in publishing the Report of the Departmental Committee, he will state what explanations the Commission gives for the delay; how it is that while the Report, according to his statement on 28th May, 1894, was then being revised in passing through the press, it is still incomplete and unpublished; and, if he is aware that great
  912
  inconvenience has been caused by the protracted delay?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAWLEFEVRE, Bradford, Central): I have stated, in reply to previous questions, the explanations which I have received as to the delay in the Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, and I must disclaim any personal responsibility for the delay, which was largely owing to the long illness and death of the late Chairman, Lord Basing. I am glad to say, however, that I believe the Report was signed yesterday. A supplementary Report by one of the Commissioners is now being printed, and it is expected that this will very shortly be signed. Both Reports will then be sent in.

  THE FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACTS.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will issue instructions to Inspectors of Factories and Workshops that a place where manual labour is exercised for the purpose of gain in such processes as those of sorting rags, packing goods, or bottling liquors, is a workshop within the meaning of the Factory and Workshop Acts and the Public Health Act, 1875, without regard to the question whether tools or implements are used in such process, or whether he will (if necessary) introduce such an Amendment to the Factories and Workshops Bill of this Session as will provide that all such places shall be treated as workshops within the meaning of those Acts?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): I have no power to issue the instructions suggested. The widest interpretation consistent with the provision of the Act of 1878 is already given to the term "workshop." To extend it so as to include a mere warehouse not connected with a factory or workshop, where the work carried on is mere packing or bottling, and not in any sense the making or adapting for sale of the article, would be a very great extension of the Factory Acts, and would bring within their operation the establishments of most wholesale grocers, chemists and drapers Many of the

  913
  provisions of the Acts are not really appropriate to the work carried on in these places, and the duty of inspecting them would necessitate a very large increase in the present staff. I must not be understood as holding that warehouses of this kind might not properly be made the subject of statutory regulation, but I think that, if they are to be dealt with as in the case of shops, there must be special legislation on the subject.

  WINDOW BREAKING BY SOLDIERS.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Cork Corporation on Friday, 29th ultimo, when a city trader presented a bill for the malicious breakage of glass by soldiers of the South Lancashire Regiment, and several other breakages of glass were complained of as being committed by soldiers who wanted to get out of the Army; and, will the military authorities take any steps to compensate the aggrieved citizens or the Cork Corporation, who have to make good the damage done?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is true, I regret to say, that certain young soldiers in a battalion stationed at Cork, have been charged with the offence of larceny and window breaking. The cases are being dealt with by the civil power, and I am not aware of any reason why the public should bear the cost of making good the damage any more than in the case of civilian offenders. We have no reason to suppose that the object of the men was to get out of the Army.

  REPORTS ON AGRICULTURE, BOUNTIES, AND TRADE ABROAD.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to publish Reports on Agriculture, Bounties, and Trade in each of the several countries of Europe and in the United States for the year 1894, similar to the Report recently published with regard to France; and whether, in compiling such Reports, care will be taken to reduce, where possible, foreign money, weights and measures to English, so as to facilitate comparison with English statistics?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): Her Majesty's Representatives abroad have been instructed to furnish Reports on Bounties in continuation of those called for in 1889. Portions of Sir H. Crowe's report are in answer to a request made by the Royal Commission on Agriculture for special Reports on the agricultural position of France and Germany, and on the agricultural position and power of competition in agricultural produce of Russia, the United States, and the Argentine Republic. It is thought that special reports from these principal countries mentioned by the Royal Commission will be sufficient, seeing that the annual reports from Her Majesty's Consuls contain much information on agriculture. Attention will be paid to the conversion of weights, measures, and money.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHasked whether reports from Holland, Belgium, and Denmark might be included?
  SIR E. GREYsaid, he should consider the point.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked whether reports from South America would be included.
  SIR E. GREYsaid, the, Argentine would be included.
  MR. CHANNINGasked whether there was any idea when the reports would be obtained.
  SIR E. GREYsaid, the Report from the Argentine would take longer than a report, say, from Belgium.

  THROUGH RAILWAY RATES FROM IRELAND.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, although the North Eastern Company have given through rates from Belfast and Larne, yet they refuse to put through rates in operation, either for cattle or goods traffic, between interior Irish stations and stations on their system; and if he can make representation to the Railway Companies on the subject?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): The Board of Trade have communicated with the Railway Company on

  915
  the subject of the hon. Member's question, and I gather from their reply that the company are prepared to consider any applications for through rates from traders in Ireland. The company say that they are not prepared, however, to grant through rates for all of their stations to all inland stations in Ireland, but that they must deal with each case or group of cases separately.

  THE WELSH COMMISSIONERS.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state to the House the names of the proposed Welsh Commissioners before asking the House to consider the Established Church (Wales) Bill in Committee?
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not expect to be in a position to state the names of the proposed Commissioners before going into Committee. The names will, of course, be given, as was done in the case of the Irish Church Bill, in good time before the clause is reached.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid the names would occur early in the Bill.
  MR. ASQUITH: They are much later than in the case of the Irish Church Bill. I will take care adequate time is given.

  LISTOWEL, LICENSING SESSIONS.
  MR. R. M. DANE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. J. Ross), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that, at the October Licensing Sessions held at Listowel, a majority of the Bench, consisting of lately-appointed magistrates, granted a licence to a young girl called Mary Horgan, though her father, John Morgan, already held a public-house licence in the same town; (2) whether his attention has further been drawn to the statement of the County Court Judge, on the application for a transfer, that it was a gross scandal in the administration of justice that the licence should be used for such a purpose, or that magistrates should come there to put money in a man's pocket, and increase the public-houses in the town; and (3) whether any steps can be taken to prevent the repetition of such an occurrence?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): The facts, I am informed, are substantially as stated in the question, though it is not correct to say that the majority of the magistrates who were present on the occasion of the granting of the licence at the October Sessions were appointed since the present Government entered Office. Moreover, the voting took place in the magistrates' room, and it is not known how they individually voted. As regards the last paragraph, the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that the matter is not one in which the Executive Government has power to interfere in any way.

  THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any representations have been received from Australasia on the subject of the International Monetary Conference; if so, will he state the purport of such representations; and what steps, if any, have been taken to give them effect?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): Representations have been received from the Agents General to the effect that the Governments of the Australian Colonies desire to be represented at an International Monetary Conference if held; but, as the hon. Member was informed on Monday last by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Her Majesty's Government have received no intimation of an approaching Monetary Conference, and the question, therefore, of any arrangement with reference thereto has not arisen.

  THE ROYAL CANAL, IRELAND.
  MR. J. TUITE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that since the inspection of the Royal Canal, Ireland, by General Hutchinson, in July last year, practically nothing has been done by the owners, the Midland and Great Western Railway Company, to improve its condition; and whether, having regard to General Hutchinson's condemnation of the state of the water way, lock gates, tow paths, harbours,

  917
  passing places, &c., and to the neglect of the Company to remedy the very serious defects complained of, steps will be taken by the Board of Trade to have the promised re-inspection of the Canal at an early date, with a view to further proceedings?
  MR. BRYCE: The Board are in communication with the authorities of the Royal Canal, and will press them to carry out General Hutchinson s recommendations. In February this year the Board received a Report from the Engineer of the Canal, which indicator some progress with the works; I shall be happy to show the Report to the hon. Member. The Board propose, before long, to order a re-inspection.

  THE LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. DANE: On behalf of Mr. J. Ross, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the Land Commission have fixed a sitting of a sub-Commission in Cavan during the sitting of the County Court of Cavan, when the solicitors for landlords and tenants will be engaged and cannot attend the sub-Commission Court, and have the solicitors through their secretary made a representation to the Head Commission of the inconvenience attending this arrangement; and can he make any representation to the Commissioners with a view to an alteration of the date of the sitting of the sub-Commission?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The fact is as stated in the first part of the question. The Land Commissioners inform me that all the parties whose cases have been listed for hearing before the sub-Commission have long since been noticed to attend upon the date mentioned, and that they regret they cannot now postpone the sitting. The sittings of both courts will be held in different rooms of the same building, and the Commissioners will communicate with the chairman of the sub-Commission requesting him as far as possible to facilitate the parties interested, so as to obviate any inconvenience arising.

  LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS.
  MR. T. BUCKNILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in hiring
  918
  allotments under Section 10 of the Local Government Act of 1894, Parish Councils are restricted to hiring them for the benefit only of such persons as are included under the term "the labouring population," used in Section 2 of the Allotments Act, 1887; and whether that term includes any, and, if so, what, classes of persons who do not fall under the denomination of labourers as described in the judgment of Lord Ellenborough, and reported in Lowther v. Earl of Radnor, 8 East., p. 113, and of the present Master of the Rolls in Morgan v. London General Omnibus Company 13 Q. B. D., p. 832?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I am advised that a Parish Council can only hire land for allotments for the benefit of persons of the labouring population. I have no authority to define the expression "labouring population;" but I think it may fairly be taken to include persons employed in manual labour and any others who would usually be considered as belonging to the labouring class.
  MR. BUCKNILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us more distinctly what "manual labour" is?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think the hon. Member is as well able to give, a definition of that as I am.

  RELIEF WAGES.
  MR. J. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Rotherham Board of Guardians only pay men engaged on relief works 7d. per day, with 2d. per day for wife and 2d. for each child, and have stated that they have no legal powers to pay a higher scale of relief wages; and whether he will inform them as to what their powers are?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I have received a communication on this matter from the Rotherham Guardians. Their clerk informs me that they are fully aware that there is no scale of payment for relief work laid down by the Local Government Board. The only rule laid down by the Board is that at least one-half of the relief shall be given in kind, such as food and other articles of necessity. Beyond this the Board have never interfered with the discretion of the Guardians.

  FREE GRANTS TO IRISH RAILWAYS.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the amount of the free grants given to the counties of Mayo and Sligo respectively under various Acts since 1883 for the construction of railways, and what annual subsidy in addition is the Government responsible for; and what are the figures for similar purposes for the county of Roscommon?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN HIBBERT, Oldham): The free grants to the county of Mayo are in respect of the Ballina-Killala, the Westport-Mallaranny, and the Achill Extension lines, amounting altogether to £248,900. There has been a free grant to the counties of Mayo and Sligo together, of £150,000 in respect of the Collooney-Claremorris line. The county of Roscommon has received none. The annual subsidies payable are: Mayo, £4,193 for three lines; Sligo. £1,600 for one line, and for Roscommon nothing.

  PRESS TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGES.
  MR. W. L. JACKSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been directed to a letter in The Times of 19th March, signed by A. G. Jeans, Chairman of the Press Association, in which Mr. Jeans challenges the accuracy of the estimate of loss on Press telegraphic messages made by the Postmaster General at the meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce; and, whether he intends to take any steps so as to have the matter investigated by a competent committee or otherwise?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: I have read the letter in The Times to which the hon. Member refers, and I have also seen other communications in the public Press on the same subject. I have already, in this House, in reply to questions put to me by the hon. Member for Cardiff and other Members, explained that it was impossible to separate the cost of dealing with Press telegrams from that of the rest of the Service; but I added that the best estimate that could be formed by the officials of the Post Office pointed to the annual loss on Press telegrams being, at least, £300,000 a year; and, probably, a still larger sum. I see no reason whatever to depart from this estimate, and I should be quite willing
  920
  to arrange for an impartial investigation, such as is suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, if I were to receive satisfactory assurances that the Press would abide by the result of an inquiry, and would undertake not to oppose the passage of the necessary legislation for a corresponding revision in the charges, if it should be shown that they are insufficient to provide for the cost of the Service.

  ILLNESS OF MR. JUSTICE MONROE.
  MR. R. M. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the lamented illness of Mr. Justice Monroe, arrangements can be made for the execution of Landed Estates Court conveyances by one of Her Majesty's Judges of the High Court of Justice in Ireland acting for the Land Judge?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have communicated in this matter with the Lord Chancellor.

  THE REFORMATORY SHIP "CLARENCE."
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Committee of the reformatory ship Clarence have come to any new decision; and, whether the reinstatement of the captain has been arranged for; and, if not, whether the original notice of the termination of his appointment on 5th April will be permitted to be carried out in the face of the decision of the Home Office, in consequence of the conclusions arrived at by a full Official Inquiry?
  MR. ASQUITH: I regret to say that the Committee of this ship have not agreed to re-instate the superintendent. I have no power to reverse the decision of the Committee, but the state of affairs which results from the course they have taken is so serious that I fear I have no choice but to withdraw my certificate and close the school.

  BOILER EXPLOSION AT GLASGOW.
  MR. A. B. FORWOOD: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whether a tube of a boiler exploded yesterday, by which five men were seriously scalded and one

  921
  killed; and, whether the explosion took place on a Babcock water tube boiler intended for, or actually on board, a torpedo boat destroyer building under contract for the Admiralty?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,: I presume that the question refers to an accident which happened on the 1st instant at the Fairfield Company's Works, Glasgow. The Admiralty has called upon the Fairfield Company for a statement of the facts, and they have promised to send us a copy of their Engineer Manager's Report. In the meantime our Engineer Overseer on the spot has reported that the accident occurred when steam was being raised in a Babcock-Wilson boiler. A plug used for stopping one of the holes from which tubes had been drawn for trial purposes, blow out at a low pressure (about 70 pounds), scalding six men, one of whom has since died. This boiler is intended for a torpedo boat destroyer, building for the Admiralty by the Fairfield Company, provided only it is found satisfactory on the experimental trials on shore. This is all the information I have received at present. On receipt of the Fairfield Report I shall be glad to communicate its substance to hon. Members.

  SLAVE TRADERS ON THE CONGO.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Arab slave traders on the upper sources of the Congo have been conquered and destroyed, and their two principal towns, Nyangwa and Kasooge, razed to the ground; and, what measures have been or are to be taken by Her Majesty's Consul at Zanzibar to prevent Tippoo Tib, the great slave trader, from carrying on his traffic in slaves?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: It appears from the reports published in Brussels that the forces of the Congo State have conquered the Arab slave traders and destroyed their towns, but we have no further means of information. Tippoo Tib is now in Zanzibar. There is no reason to believe that he is attempting to engage in the slave trade in any territory under British control.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLasked whether it would not be possible to get from the
  922
  authorities of the Congo State information as to whether these towns have really been destroyed?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I understand a Report has already been published stating that they have been destroyed.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLasked whether that was only a Press report or an official Report.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: If the hon. Member will give me notice I will see if we have got any further information.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when he intends to introduce his promised Bill amending the Labourers (Ireland) Acts?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that many Boards of Guardians in Ireland have postponed proceeding with further schemes of cottages pending the promised Amendment of the Labourers' Cottages (Ireland) Acts; and whether, in view of the urgent necessity that exists for the adoption of these schemes, he will take the earliest opportunity of introducing the proposed Bill?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I may say that a Bill amending the Labourers' Cottages (Ireland) Acts has been framed, and that when a suitable opportunity presents itself I shall introduce it.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain a little further what he means by "suitable opportunity"?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will say possible opportunity.

  INDIAN CANTONMENTS.
  *MR. CROSFIELD: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division (Mr. H. J. Wilson), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will lay upon the Table the Cantonment Acts Amendment Act recently passed by the Government of India, together with any rules adopted in pursuance of the Act, and any Resolution of the Government of India relating thereto?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: A copy of the Cantonments Acts Amendment Act has been received, but the rules

  923
  framed under the Act and the resolutions of the Government of India relating thereto are not expected to reach this country till about the end of May. The Secretary of State has no objection to laying the papers on the Table of the House.
  *MR. CROSFIELD: On behalf of Mr. H. J. WILSON, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will lay upon the Table a copy of a Bill recently introduced in the Bengal Legislative Council by Sir John Lambert, conferring additional powers on the Calcutta Police?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State is not aware that any Bill has been introduced.

  TOWN BANK GRAMMAR SCHOOL ULVERSTONE.
  MR. WILLIAM SMITH: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner with regard to the inquiry which was held by Mr. Hope in April 1893, into the present position of Town Bank Grammar School, Ulverstone, and the further inquiry by Mr. Coon in November 1894, when a scheme was presented which had been drawn by representatives of the principal public bodies in Ulverstone, and which scheme had been approved by the inhabitants generally, will he explain why the Commissioners have hitherto failed to either approve of such scheme or issue a scheme of their own; whether they are aware of the great inconvenience this delay causes to the inhabitants who are under the necessity of sending their children daily to schools at the neighbouring town of Barrow-in-Furness; and when the Commissioners intend to issue a scheme?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. F. S. STEVENSON, Suffolk, Eye): The Commissioners have sent, for the consideration of the Governors, a draft of a Scheme prepared by them upon consideration of the Report made to them in the matter by their Assistant Commissioner in December last.

  GERMANY AND BRITISH LIVE STOCK.
  MR. A. F. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke): I beg to ask the President
  924
  of the Board of Agriculture if his atten has been called to the fact that the German Government has recently prohibited the importation of live stock for breeding purposes from this country, on the ground that foot-and-mouth disease exists here; and, whether, seeing that no case of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred in the United Kingdom for several months, he will take steps to call the attention of the German Government to the freedom of this country from foot-and-mouth disease, with the view of removing the erroneous impression which appears to exist?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HERBERT GARDNER, Essex, Saffron Walden): I took steps early last month to bring to the notice of the German Government the fact that there now is no reason whatever to suppose that foot-and-mouth disease exists in the United Kingdom, the restrictions rendered necessary by reason of the outbreaks which occurred towards the close of last year having been withdrawn as from the 15th January last. I trust that the result may be to lead the German Government to remove any prohibition against the importation of animals into Germany from the United Kingdom.

  ADJUTANCY IN THE YEOMANRY.
  MR. H. KIMBER (Wandsworth): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what are the qualifications necessary for the adjutancy of a Yeomanry regiment, and why an officer serving in such regiment and possessing the requisite qualifications should not be appointed to the adjutancy, so as to avoid, as far as possible, the practice of seconding officers from a regular cavalry regiment while there are officers in the Yeomanry who have served in the Regulars, and who are qualified and willing to take the adjutancy, and in this way save the half-pay of the officers so seconded?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is essential that the Adjutant of a corps of Yeomanry should be in full touch with the Regular Cavalry, so as to be able to carry out the latest changes in drill and organisation. The Royal Warrant therefore requires that the appointment shall be conferred on a major or captain on full pay of a Cavalry

  925
  Regiment. The system, which applies equally to the Militia and Volunteers, has been found most beneficial in its effect, and there is no intention of altering it.

  RELIEF WORKS IN IRELAND.
  MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution unanimously passed by the Board of Guardians of the Glenties Union, on the 29th March, urgently pressing on the Government the necessity of opening relief works in the district, complaining that inquiries into the condition of the people had not been made by any Local Government Board Inspector, stating that the poor rate in some districts already amounts to 6s. in the pound, and likewise stating that comparatively few people in the Union have taken advantage of the Seed Act this year, owing to the fact that the seed supplied in 1880 cost 8s. 6d. per hundredweight, never came to maturity, and put the Union to an expenditure of £4,000; and whether steps will be taken for the immediate commencement of relief works in this district?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have received the Resolution in question. The condition of the people in the various parts of this Union has been frequently inquired into, and works have been established in several divisions of the Union. There is only one division out of 27 in the Union in which the poor rate is 5s. 10d.; in the others the rate averages about 3s. The Guardians propose to distribute only a very small quantity of seed potatoes, the principal reason for this being, I think, that they were unable to collect a large proportion of former seed loans. The Local Government Board have asked the Guardians to reconsider the matter, and pointed out that the small occupiers ought to be given the facilities provided by the Act for cropping their lands.
  MR. MACNEILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that there was great dissatisfaction in the district in reference to the cursory and imperfect system of inspection, and that it had been denounced as an expensive one, and that the inspectors, owing to their flying visits, were called the "tandem-driven inspectors"?
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he did not think the description a good one, but he knew, from conversation with these two gentlemen, that they had taken every possible means—all the means that rational men could devise—to ascertain the position of the district. He should have an opportunity of seeing these gentlemen before many days were over, and he would sec if any further inquiries could be made.
  MR. MACNEILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman did not know, not as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of fact, that the inspectors should consult the priests of the locality?
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, these two gentlemen did consult the priests, and he had given instructions that in all cases they were to do so.

  THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. CYRIL DODD: I beg to ask the Comptroller of the Household, as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, whether he is aware that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners own most of the land of the village of Thorverton, Devon; whether Messrs. Clutton, as agents of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, have acted under the instructions of the Commissioners in declining to let to the Council of that parish land they desire to take for allotments under The Local Government Act, 1894, and whether such refusal is upon the ground that some of the proposed tenants are not labourers, but persons such as the village baker, carpenter, postmaster, and the like; and, whether he will call the attention of the Commissioners to the fact that the Act imposes no such restriction to the labouring classes as is suggested in regard to the hiring of land?
  MR. LEVESON-GOWER: In the parish of Thorverton, in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are large landowners, the wants of the labouring population in the matter of allotments have been fully met. Nearly nine acres have been set apart for this purpose, and there are also a number of small holdings. The present applicants are tradesmen in the village who ask for some small pasture fields in the valley now occupied by farmers, together with hill arable farms. The Commissioners are not prepared to deprive their farm

  927
  tenants of land which is specially valuable to them merely for the advantage of those engaged in other kinds of business.
  MR. DODDasked the hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that the hiring sections of the Act contained no limitation, and that they did not incorporate the old Allotment Act, and that, therefore, they appeared to be entitled to its provision.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWERsaid that subject had already been dealt with by the President of the local Government Board in answer to the hon. Member for Epsom.
  MR. DODDasked whether the hon. Gentleman could take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject, because many of them were of opinion that there was no limitation.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWERsaid the hon. Member had better put a question of that kind to the Law Officers.

  FEMALE FACTORY INSPECTORS.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the districts covered by the present four female inspectors under the Factory Acts?
  MR. ASQUITH: The female inspectors visit all parts of the United Kingdom to make such enquiries as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector considers desirable. They are not permanently attached to particular districts. I may add that Miss Abraham has recently visited different places in Ireland, and Miss Dean is at present making inquiries in the North of Ireland.
  *MR. W. P. BYLESasked, whether the appointment of four lady inspectors had not been greatly to the public advantage, and whether the right hon. Gentleman could not recommend the extension of their number?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he thought their appointment had been a great public advantage, and he should be very glad to see the number increased.

  SLAVERY IN EAST AFRICA.
  MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any of the districts injured by the recent swarms of locusts in Eastern Equatorial Africa are within the British sphere of influence, and what are the districts
  928
  injured within the German area; whether he anticipates any serious destitution in either sphere; and, if so, whether he is taking any steps to prevent the increase in the Slave Trade to the coast plantations and to the islands likely to result from such destitution; whether he is aware that natives wanting work dare not go to Pemba or the other islands for fear of being enslaved; and, whether he will take the opportunity of abolishing the status of slavery in the islands, so as to make it possible for destitute natives to seek work there without the danger of being ensnared into slavery?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: We have heard of serious damages by locusts in the districts near Machahos and Kikuyn in the British sphere, and in Bondei Usagara and Lindi in the German sphere, but it was hoped that the subsequent rains would relieve the scarcity which resulted. There is no reason to anticipate any increase in the Slave Trade in consequence. We have not heard that natives are unwilling to go to Pemba for fear of being enslaved, but, as I have previously stated, the question of the best method of putting an end to the status of slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba is now being considered.

  MAGISTRATES IN COUNTY FERMANAGH.
  MR. M'GILLIGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of Catholic magistrates in the electoral divisions of Lattoone, Rogagh, and Garrison, county Fermanagh; is he aware that a list of names of Catholic gentlemen in different districts in County Fermanagh, recommended by leading and trustworthy persons, have been submitted to the Lord Chancellor as suitable and necessary appointments to the magistracy; and, if he can state whether such appointments will be made; and, if so, when?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Lord Chancellor informs me he has no record of the religious persuasions of magistrates by electoral divisions. He has placed a considerable number of gentlemen in the Commission in the County Fermanagh, and has now under consideration the claims of several others who have been recommended to him for appointment.

  LABOURERS' DWELLINGS IN COUNTY FERMANAGH.
  *MR. P. M'GILLIGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the inquiry recently instituted by the Local Government Board relative to the housing of the labourers in Lisnaskea Union, county Fermanagh, consequent on the refusal of the guardians to act on the representations sent in from time to time from the ratepayers of various divisions to adopt the provisions of the Labourers Act, Mr. Murphy, solicitor, Clones, who appeared for the labourers, drew attention to the fact that some of the labourers, and especially one, Mr. Jones, who had attended had been threatened by their employers, and received intimations to look out for other houses, and that there had been a marked diminution in attendance of labourers at later stages of the inquiry; and whether steps will be taken in future to protect labourers who attend these inquiries from such treatment?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board have not yet received their Inspector's report of the proceedings at this inquiry, but they will refer the question to him for his observations. Complaints have been made in other cases that notices to quit had been served on applicants for cottages by their employers, but I hardly think the matter is one which comes within the control of the Local Government Board.

  ARMY CANTEEN SUPPLIES IN IRELAND.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary for War (1) whether he is aware that any portion of the supplies and groceries and other canteen requisites for the troops stationed in Ireland are supplied by the Army and Navy Stores; (2) whether, upon a total sale of £7,500,000 in those Stores, the Income Tax is levied on a lower scale than that taken from retail traders; and (3) whether he is in a position to state when the promised Report on this matter will be issued?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no knowledge of the fact alleged in the first paragraph, Canteen Committees generally being left to procure their supplies according to their own discretion without any interference from
  930
  the Military Authorities. The only exception of which I am aware is the recent case in the Cork district, and in that instance the interference of the General Officer Commanding was in the direction of procuring good articles at a moderate price within the district itself. As to the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, I have no information, but perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury could answer the hon. Gentleman.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN HIBBERT,: As regards the 2nd paragraph of the hon. Member's question, the assessment to Income Tax on the Army and Navy Stores is made in the same manner as on other traders, that is, on the actual profits on an average of three years; the rate at which the duty is charged is, of course, the current rate in force. I know nothing of the Report alluded to in the 3rd paragraph.
  MR. F. A. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the statement that the recent order issued by the Commanding Officer of the Cork Military District regulating the supply of goods to the canteens in the south of Ireland would only continue for one month, whether, on the expiration of that period, tenders will be invited for the supply of the various necessary articles, as heretofore the custom in the garrison towns of Ireland?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The present arrangement is of a tentative character, and renewable month by month. I should be disposed to wait until we find how it succeeds before coming to any decision regarding it.

  POLICE IN COUNTY TIPPERARY.
  MR. F. MANDEVILLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received an influentially signed memorial from the people of the parish of Cullen, county Tipperary, asking not to suppress the police station there, for the ratepayers consider its position to be the most conveniently central in their district; and if he will arrange to have the Cullen Police Station kept on, and one of the less useful police stations suppressed instead of it?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Memorial referred to has been received. Owing to

  931
  the recent reduction in the extra force in the county it has become necessary to arrange for the abolition of the station at Cullen, which is a small village only one and a-half miles distant from another police barrack, and sufficient protection can be afforded to Cullen and its neighbourhood from this barrack. Under present circumstances, I fear there is no sufficient reason for a further continuance of the station at Cullen.

  TYPE-WRITING FOR MEMBERS.
  MR. T. J. HEALY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will provide typewriting instruments free of charge for Members who wish to do their own correspondence.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE,: I am afraid I could not undertake to do so.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will use the influence of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the Vicar General of Moush, by name Nerses Khara-Khassian, who is now in Bitlis prison, should be summoned to Moush to give evidence before the Commission and Delegates, as he is intimately acquainted with the origin and object of the alleged massacre of Sassoon; and, will he cause representations to be made that Dr. Humbartson, known as Murad Effendi, also lying in Bitlis prison, it is said under sentence of death, should be brought before the Commission for examination?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: It appears from a Report of the British Delegate that the President of the Commission has decided that Murad and some other prisoners at Bitlis are to be examined before the Commission. The name of Nerses is not specially mentioned amongst these, but the Delegates have full power to suggest the names of persons to be examined, and the Reports received from them show that this power is being satisfactorily used.
  MR. JOHN AIRD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the provisions of Article 61 of the Berlin Treaty
  932
  have been fulfilled as regards the obligation of the Sublime Porte to make known periodically to the Powers the steps taken to carry out the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and to guarantee their security against the Circassians and Kurds; and, whether the Powers, if periodically informed of the steps taken, have, as provided for in the Treaty, superintended their application.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Turkish Government have on various occasions communicated to the Powers measures of reform which have been introduced in the provinces of Asia Minor. Unfortunately, those measures have not adequately fulfilled the objects in view. The British Consuls in the various provinces have, in the exercise of their duty, brought this fact to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government, and it has formed the subject of representations on various occasions. The extent to which other Powers have acted in the same manner is not a point upon which Her Majesty's Government can make any definite statement.

  THE NILE WATERWAY.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the official term "whole of the Nile waterway" is to be taken to mean right of free navigation up and down the whole course of the Nile and its tributaries, or to mean the whole of the area contained within the Nile watershed.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I believe the phrase mentioned was first used in a question put to me in this House. It was accepted and used by me as meaning the river Nile generally, but is of course not to be taken as a special definition of territory, for which reference must be made to the Agreements which have often been quoted.

  BOND TEA.
  MR. F. FRYE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give any information as to what is being done by the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the Chief of the City Police in reference to bond tea trading

  933
  shops, which are still carrying on business in the City and within the Metropolitan area?
  MR. ASQUITH: This matter is receiving full attention, but it might tend to defeat the ends of justice to state at present what steps the Police are taking.
  MR. F. C. FRYE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has observed that in the case of a conviction of a person named Jenson at Wolverhampton for the sale of bond tea, when Jenson was fined about £51 and costs, the statement was made to the Stipendiary Magistrate that the Treasury had absolutely declined to interfere in bond tea trading, and whether such a statement is correct?
  MR. ASQUITH: It is not the fact that the Treasury Solicitor has declined to interfere in bond tea trading. He offered to conduct the prosecution of Jenson at the North London Police Court in December last, but the Grocers' Society, by whom it had been started, wished to continue it themselves.

  FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has carried out the unanimous Resolution of the House of Commons on 19th February, and taken steps to restrict the importation of goods made in foreign prisons by the forced labour of convicts and felons?
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that he had caused inquiries to be instituted as to what steps could be taken. The matter was not one that could be dealt with without full information.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Has the right hon. Gentleman given notice of the introduction of a Bill on the subject, or can he fix the date for doing so?
  MR. BRYCE: As I have said, I am occupied in making inquiries, and until they are further advanced I cannot take any other steps.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the Bill shall be introduced directly after Easter?
  MR. BRYCE: I have already said that, pending the inquiries I am now making, and the information which I
  934
  shall receive from them, I cannot give such an undertaking.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but I must call his attention to the fact that the Motion which was accepted by the Government directed that steps should be taken at once. Unless some steps are taken I shall have to consider whether it will not be necessary to move the adjournment.
  MR. BRYCE: I have taken what steps I could by making inquiries; I have no power to do more.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1894.
  MR. C. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the fact that an applicant for land under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1894, being a freeholder precludes his application from being entertained?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It does not appear to me that the fact of an applicant for an allotment under the Local Government Act, 1894, being a freeholder, would in itself produce his application from being entertained.

  ASSISTANT TEACHERS IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether a present assistant teacher, who is classed higher than third class, and who has given more than five years' service as principal, is entitled to the bonus of £9 granted to assistants under the Education Act of 1892 and Schedule; and, if so, is it in accordance with the Act not to pay bonus to such assistants, many of whom had to revert from the position if principals from causes over which they had no control?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Commissioners of National Education have referred this matter to their Law Adviser, who is of opinion that they are not precluded from recognising the five years' service, though not continuously rendered as assistant, but interrupted by an interval of service as principal. The Commissioners have accordingly decided to admit assistants so circumstanced to the benefit of the second clause of the Fourth Schedule of the Act.

  DUBLIN AND EDINBURGH MUSEUMS OF SCIENCE AND ART.
  MR. W. KENNY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will state what are the salaries of the present Directors of the Museums of Science and Art at Dublin and Edinburgh respectively; whether the Director at Edinburgh has been granted an increase of salary personal to himself; and what were the grounds for such increase?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND, York, W.R.,: The present salaries of the Directors of the Science and Art Museums in Edinburgh and Dublin are respectively £800 and £760. These salaries, as will be seen from the estimates, are both personal salaries, including, in the case of the Edinburgh Director, both house rent and fees, and in that of the Dublin Director, house rent only. This, and the fact that there had been a misapprehension, with regard to the house rent, of the Directors of the Edinburgh Museum, are the reasons why the personal salary of the former is £40 a year more than that of the latter. When the posts are vacated by the present holders, the salaries will be the same—£650 rising to £750 a year.

  PUBLIC REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give instructions that, in the Accounts of Public Revenue, published at the end of each quarter of the financial year, the total amount of revenue from Death Duties shall be stated separately, instead of being included, as at present, with other duties under the one head of Stamps?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOUKT,: This would neither be convenient nor indeed possible. The Quarterly Returns are made on the expiring day of the quarter, when it is only possible to give the total exchequer receipts under the various principal heads, which require some time to analyse. The Returns can only be given in gross and cannot be distributed into their several items, any more than in the case of the Customs or the Excise.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: (1) I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the payment to local authorities out of the Death Duties for the financial year 1894–5, amounting to £2,153,059, represents one and a-half per cent. (under Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1894) on the principal value of the personal property, which would previously have been subject to Probate, Inventory, and Account Duty, and represents the charge on a total principal value of £143,537,260; whether this total value corresponds with the total value of property previously charged with Probate Duty; and whether he can explain why the total value of personalty charged with duty, which in 1891–2 was £193,397,000, in 1892–3 £164,322,000, and in 1893–4 £162,866,000, has apparently so seriously diminished in 1894–5 as to be less by £50,000,000 than in 1891–2, less by £20,000,000 than in 1892–3, and less by £19,000,000 than in 1893–4?
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: (2) I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can explain why the amount paid to Local Taxation Accounts out of Death Duties, which in 1891–2 was £2,793,668, in 1892–3 £2,409,187, and in 1893–4 £2,359,030, has fallen in 1894–5 to £2,153,059, or £640,609 below 1891–2 (the last preceding influenza year), and £206,971 below 1893–4; and whether he proposes to take any steps for making up to the local authorities this diminution in the amount payable to them out of the Death Duties?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone his questions, as I have not yet the information upon which to answer him. I could not make any statement involving an analysis of the figures until some time after the end of the financial half-year.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not the fact that the total Death Duties are kept entirely distinct and separate from the total general stamps and in a separate office, and, therefore, is it not perfectly easy to give the figures at the end of the quarter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must take the information which I have from the Department, and they say that the figures are in a lump, and that the items cannot be separated.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that the information I have is derived entirely from the public accounts? Cannot he follow me in the inferences which I have drawn from that information?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If the hon. Member has the information already he does not want it from me. Until I make the Fnancial Statement I shall not be in a position to give it.

  LEGACY AND SUCCESSION DUTY OFFICE.
  MR. J. A. M. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the great inconvenience and delay occasioned to solicitors and executors by the serious arrear into which the work of the Legacy and Succession Duty Office has fallen; and, if so, whether he proposes to take steps to place the Office on such a footing as will enable it to discharge its duties with punctuality?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am aware that in the working of the new system certain delays, not of a serious kind, have arisen; but the Department have under consideration what addition to the Staff may be necessary to deal with the increased work.

  THE CYPRUS TRIBUTE.
  MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—(1) what amount of the Cyprus tribute is retained for the Sinking Fund of the 1855 Turkish Guaranteed Loan; (2) what amount of money out of the Cyprus tribute has been paid to the French Government in repayment of interest paid by France under its guarantee of 1855; and (3) what was the date of such payment?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The answer to the first question is, about £10,000 a year; to the second, £33,000; and to the third, in the year 1881–2.

  INCOME TAX ON SHIPPING.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the rate of
  938
  depreciation allowed on steam and sailing ships by the Income Tax Commissioners varies in different ports, and even in different districts of the same port, and in particular that the rate for steamships stands at seven and a-half per cent. in the city parish of Glasgow, but has recently been reduced in the lower ward of Lanarkshire; and whether he proposes to take any steps to secure uniformity of assessment on competing shipowners in different parts of the country?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: This is a matter which is under consideration. I agree with my hon. Friend that uniformity is most desirable. The Board of Inland Revenue will use every effort to obtain it, but I must remind my hon. Friend that the matter is one in which neither the Treasury nor the Board have any jurisdiction, the authority to decide it being vested by law in the District Commissioners, subject to an appeal to the High Court on questions of law.
  MR. PARKER SMITHasked whether this was not a matter for general rule?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: It is entirely in the hands of the District Commissioners.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: Is it not a fact that at Liverpool iron sailing ships are allowed only 3 per cent. depreciation, as againt 5 per cent. at London and Glasgow, and that a similar discrepancy exists in the rates on steamers to the disadvantage of Liverpool as compared with rates in Dundee and Newcastle?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: What the hon. Member has stated is quite correct. The information I have received is, that these different rates are in use at Liverpool and other places. At the same time, I must inform him that the question rests entirely with the District Commissioners; and it is only through them that a change can be made. It cannot be made through the Inland Revenue.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the recent decision of the Exchequer Division of the High Court in Edinburgh declaring that, under the existing Law, no allowance in respect of depreciation for Income Tax could be made on account of a ship becoming obsolete and ceasing

  939
  to be profitable; and what steps he proposes to take, either by legislation or otherwise, to amend this taxation of unprofitable ships?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: The decision of the Exchequer Division of the Court in Edinburgh simply maintains with regard to ships the principle of allowance for depreciation which the Income Tax laws have laid down with regard to plant and machinery generally. That principle seems to me a fair one. My hon. Friend is in error in speaking of the taxation of unprofitable ships. The tax is on profits, and where a ship is earning no profits there is nothing to be taxed.

  SCHULL UNION.
  MR. J. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Poor Law Guardians of the Schull Union sustain a loss of £25 per annum on the residence of the medical officer of health for Schull, income tax on that residence will be remitted?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: This is a matter which should be arranged with the local surveyor of taxes. I am informed that the house in question is assessed on £12 10s. The ground on which remission of the tax is claimed is not known to the local surveyor; but, if the Guardians can satisfy him on this point, the remission will no doubt be given. As a matter of fact, the Duty has not been actually paid for 1892, 1893, or 1894.

  JABEZ BALFOUR.
  MR. C. J. DARLINGasked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether it was true as reported that Jabez Balfour had been removed from Salta; whether he was in the custody of an agent of the Government, and whether there existed now any obstacle in the way of his extradition?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: We have not yet received any news at the Foreign Office.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  SIR C. J. PEARSONasked whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce the Scotch
  940
  Local Government Bill this evening; and, if so, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would arrange for the termination of the Debate on the Irish Land Bill at a reasonable time, say 11 o'clock, in order that an opportunity might be given for some discussion of the Scotch Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERfeared that what the right hon. Member proposed could not be done that evening, because notice of such an arrangement as he desired ought to be given. Many hon. Members had probably made their arrangements in the belief that the discussion of the Land Bill would be continued to the usual hour. The Government were very anxious to introduce the Scotch Bill, and he would see what arrangements could be made for that purpose on another night.
  MR. J. H. C. HOZIERasked how much time the Government had devoted to Scotch business during the present Session?
  [No answer was given.]

  LIGHT RAILWAYS.
  MR. J. A. BRIGHTasked when the Bill for the provision of light railways would be introduced?
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that he was waiting anxiously for an opportunity to introduce the Bill. He would take advantage of the first opportunity that presented itself.
  MR. J. A. BRIGHTsaid, that perhaps he might ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could not provide time for the purpose?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that the one thing he could not provide was time.

  RATEABLE VALUE OF LANDS, &c., 1869–70, AND GROSS' ESTIMATED RENTAL AND RATEABLE VALUE OF LANDS, &c., 1894.
  Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 19th February; Mr. Shaw Lefevre]; to lie upon the Table.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS SECURITIES.
  Return ordered—
  "of the amounts of British Government Securities held by the several Government Departments

  941
  and other Public Offices on the 31st day of March 1895, specifying whether held in England or Ireland (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 65, of Session 1894):"—

  £2¾ per Cent. Consols.

  £2¾ per Cents. (1905).

  £2½ per Cents.

  Local Loans £3 per Cent. Stock.

  Guaranteed Land Stock.

  Book Debt, 55 and 56 Vic. c. 26.

  Other Securities.

  Exchequer Bills, Bonds, Treasury Bills, &c.

  Annuities for terms of years.

  —(Sir John Hibbert.)

  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 203.]

  CONTRACTS FOR FOREIGNERS.
  Address for—
  "Return of all Contracts for Articles of Home Manufacture made in the United Kingdom by the several Government Departments between the 1st day of April 1894 and the 31st day of March 1895, with Contractors outside the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 128, of Session 1894)."—(colonel Howard Vincent.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Shop Hours Bill without Amendment.
  That they give leave to the Lord Watson to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Select Committee appointed by this House on Trusts Administration, his Lordship (in his place) consenting.

  HOUSE TAX CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  On Motion of Sir John Hibbert, Bill to Consolidate Enactments relating to the Duties upon Inhabited Houses.
  Bill presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 23rd April, and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL
  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amand the Coal Mines Regulations Act, 1887. He explained that it was a non-contentious measure, carrying out substantially the recommendations of the Commission presided over by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The amendments of the law which the Bill would effect could not be conveniently discussed before the Bill was in print, and therefore he hoped that the House would excuse him from explaining them in detail on the present occasion. The main object of the Bill was to give effect to the recommendation of the Commission that there should be special rules in regard to explosions in mines rendered dangerous by the presence of coal dust and damp. One or two alterations of the general Act were also proposed, the chief change relating to the subject of deductions in connection with the wages of miners.
  Bill presented and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 194].

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that he rose to take part in this Debate, which was of such supreme importance to Ireland, with a feeling akin to despair. This feeling, however, was not due to any doubt entertained by him as to the course which he ought to pursue, because he had no doubt on the point. It was when he considered the difficulties lying in the path of the Bill that he almost despaired of the result. There were, in the first place, a number of Members in that House, and a large number of people outside, who were firmly convinced that the Irish tenants had already obtained more than justice at the hands of the Legislature. Then, in dealing with the subject of Irish land, they were touching a question which aroused the bitterest feelings and the most unpleasant memories in Ireland itself. There were thousands and thousands of tenants fighting against bad seasons, foreign competition, and low prices, and smarting under what they believed to be wrong legal decisions. On the other side there were landlords, with but a small margin of income left to live upon, and who saw that margin in danger of disappearing and naturally fought to preserve it. These were the last people from whom one could expect calm reasoning or sober judgment, and that added greatly to the difficulties in the way of a Bill like the present. In the third place, the measure was so complex that he feared he should be unable, not being a lawyer, to make plain to the House that which was plain to his own mind. He was glad that the leaders of the Unionist Party had resolved not to challenge a Division on the Second Reading. They had been taunted for that decision, but he did not see any ground for the taunt, the measure being one pre-eminently suited for discussion in Committee. He supported the Motion for the Second Reading because he was convinced that for Ireland itself, and for the Union, there was no safety except in a manly and resolute endeavour to grapple with the land question upon lines just both to the landlord and tenant. He would first refer to the question of procedure which the Chief Secretary had announced his intention of dealing with in Committee. The Irish landlords took a sound objection to the Bill as read a first
  944
  time, their complaint being that the present procedure was costly, slow, and cumbrous, and that the Chief Secretary had not attempted to remedy this evil. He rejoiced, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman had announced his intention to take the subject in hand in Committee. What was the present procedure for the fixing of a fair rent? A tenant wishing to have a rent fixed served an originating notice on the Land Commission. That notice went before a sub-Commission, comprising a legal gentleman and two agricultural experts. The tenant had usually to fee a lawyer to fight his case, and, if either landlord or tenant disagreed with the finding, there was an appeal to the head Commission. Other lawyers had to be feed, another legal fight took place, and costs were run up, which often exceeded greatly the reduction of rent granted. That was a costly proceeding. In its place the Chief Secretary proposed that the tenant should serve an originating notice on the Land Commission, which notice was to cost 1s. The Commission would then send down to the holding two valuers. In non-contentious cases, involving no complicated questions of improvement, the decision of these valuers might and probably would be accepted. Thus, in non-contentious cases, the whole costs incurred either by the landlord or the tenant would not exceed 1s. When, however, either the landlord or the tenant declined to accept the decision of the two valuers the right hon. Gentleman proposed that an appeal should lie to a sub-Commission Court constituted as now, and he stipulated that this Court of Appeal should consist of the permanent servants of the Land Commission, and they would therefore be the very men whom the Land Commission appointed now as Court valuers in appeal cases. Cases of appeal on points of law were, of course, to be reserved for the Judicial Commissioner, as at present. He thought the proposal a reasonable and fair one, and one that neither the landlord nor the tenant should object to. Passing to the Bill itself, and without beating about the bush, he would go to what was the kernel of the Bill—namely, the 5th clause, which dealt with the question of improvements. What was an improvement? He admitted the definition of an improvement in this

  945
  Bill differed somewhat from the definition of an improvement in the Act of 1870. According to the Act of 1870 an improvement must be "suitable to the holding." Those words were left out of this Bill, and he approved of the omission, for the presence of the words had worked injustice. The landlords and their representatives contended that the present definition of an improvement made "every expenditure of capital or labour which increased the letting value of the holding" an improvement. They argued that that was a new departure, and that it was unjust. In the first place, he demurred to the statement that ordinary tillage and cultivation would increase the letting value of the holding; it would do nothing of the kind, and no Commission would hold that it would. It was quite true that tillage of a high character would increase the letting value, but where it occurred it was protected in the Act of 1870; the definition of improvement there covered the question of tillage and manures that were unexhausted. He did not believe the phrase "every expenditure of capital or labour that increases the letting value of the holding" would cover ordinary tillage or cultivation, and he maintained that it ought not to do so. If the Chief Secretary intended it to do that he demurred, and for the reason that the tenant got the benefit of his ordinary tillage and cultivation in his crops, and had no right to get it a second time at the expense of the landlord by way of improvement. If that was what the Bill really meant, the landlord's interest ought to be protected by the addition of the words, "except ordinary tillage and cultivation." The next sub-section, dealt with the question of increased letting value. That was a question of comparatively little importance so far as the practical working of the Land Acts was concerned; but, inasmuch as it had been raised, and the landlords attached great importance to it, he desired to make his position quite clear. Sub-section 3 of Clause 5 was, to his mind, the most enigmatic piece of print he ever read. The other night the hon. Member for Cavan, who knew just as much about casuistry as most people, declared—and he had great sympathy with the hon. Member's contention—that that sub-section as it stood would give far more to the landlord than he got now
  946
  under the law. He was quite certain that if the sub-section were passed six months would not go by before there was a greater Adams and Dunseath case than ever there had been in the history of land in Ireland; and, not wishing to see that, he believed the sub-section could not be allowed to pass as it stood. What did the sub-section mean viewed in the light of the actual practice of the Land Commission? What was proved before the Committee upstairs was that when a rent was to be fixed, there was, first of all, a hearing in the Court, and then the two agricultural experts went upon the land. If they came upon a house and out-offices they simply ignored their existence unless the landlord claimed them. It was so much a matter of ordinary notoriety that the buildings belonged to the tenant that in 95 cases out of 100 the fact was unchallenged, and the Commissioners never took the slightest notice of a house on the land, and no rent was fixed upon it. If the Commissioners came across drainage work or reclamation the tenant had to prove the actual improvement work; it was not enough for him to say that a field was drained or that laud had been reclaimed, but he had to prove that the work had been done and what it cost. After the tenant had done that the Commissioners allowed him a certain percentage upon his expenditure. So far as the overwhelming majority of cases was concerned that really covered the equity of the case, and if the transaction were not governed by the 4th section of the Act of 1870, if it took place solely under the fair rent section of the Act of 1881 by itself, he should consider it a very fair proceeding, and, upon the whole, reasonably satisfactory. But in the small number of cases in which there was an increased letting value over and above the percentage which the Commissioners allowed to the tenant on his expenditure, a great controversy had arisen. There were three legal Commissioners. [Mr. J. MORLEY: "Four."] The fourth had not sat for a long time; he never left the office. There were three who were examined before the Committee. He asked Mr. Greer—question 8,149—
  "Where you have decided this question of increased letting value, what has been your legal direction to the lay Commissioners?"

  947
  "My legal direction," he replied, "has been to them to give a percentage in a case of that kind of 5 or 6 per cent. upon the actual cost, and nothing more." All the rest went to the landlord. According to Mr. Greer, the landlord received the whole of the unearned increment, or, as the Law Courts in Ireland called it, the increased letting value. There was another legal Commissioner examined—Mr. Laurence Doyle. He was a very tough customer indeed. Whatever prejudices he had could not be fairly said to be prejudices in favour of the tenant. He made no charge against Mr. Doyle, who gave his evidence in a most straightforward manner; he was a very able witness, and impressed every Member of the Committee. The hon. Member for North Kerry asked the witness:—
  "At any rate, where the improvements give a letting value over the interest, the rest of the letting value goes to the landlord?"
  Mr. Doyle, cautious as he was said—"I do not admit that in every case." The hon. Member replied, "But that is the law is it not?" Mr. Doyle — "I should say it is." The House would see how cautious he was; he was not to entrapped. At all events, he was forced to admit that whatever he did as a legal Commissioner that was the law he was bound to administer—namely, that where unearned increment arose it belonged to the landlord. The third legal Commissioner examined was Mr. Bailey. He asked that gentleman, "Is this your procedure under Adams and Dunseath? It is proved that a tenant has expended £100 on improving his holding, that the expenditure has increased the letting value of the land from, say, 10s. to 15s. an acre. Is it the law that you will simply deal with the £100, and that the whole of the increased letting value will go to the landlord?" Mr. Bailey replied, "That is the law." He had elaborated the point, because very great efforts were being made to confuse this simple issue They were told that certain lay Commissioners divided the unearned increment. What he wanted to impress on the House was that this was a question of law, and not of value at all. So far as it was a question of law under Adams and Dunseath, it was for the judgment of the legal Commissioners, and not for the judgment of the lay Commissioners,
  948
  and he affirmed that during the 14 years that had run since the Land Act of 1881 was passed the landlord had received in all these cases, be they few or many, and he thought they were few, that to which he was not entitled by law. He said that on the authority of Lord Justice FitzGibbon, who told the Committee—
  "Being suitable and ameliorative they (the improvement works) of course increase its letting value. But the works are one thing and the increased letting value another. The works executed by the tenant are wholly his and are to be completely protected and secured against confiscation, whether by imposition of rent on them or otherwise. But, so far as these works may have brought out latent powers and capacities of the soil and so increased its letting value, that increased value does not necessarily belong to the tenant."
  Asked whether he meant that this increased letting value should go to the landlord, Lord Justice FitzGibbon said—
  "Not only not the whole of it, but in every passage (in the judgment on Adams Mr. Dunseath) in which it is referred to it is stated that the interest of landlord and tenant in that remainder was to be had regard to."
  The landlord party in the House had been hurling charges of confiscation against the Government and against hon. Members who were supporting the Bill. But he said, on the evidence of the officials charged with the administration of the Act of 1881, on the evidence of one of the Judges who had decided the case of Adams v. Dunseath, and who probably was one of the ablest judges on the Irish or any other Bench, that the Irish landlords had for 14 years been receiving a share of this unearned increment which did not belong to them according to law. This matter probably concerned the north of Ireland more than the south, because those cases arose more in the north than in, the south; but the view of the tenants, north and south, was that, while the soil and its inherent capacities belonged to the landlord, the landlord, in letting to them the land for 15 years, let also its inherent capacities, and that therefore, the result of what they might choose to do with the land during that period belonged to them and them alone. In that view he did not, however, agree. He desired simply to stand as a juror indifferent between the parties, and to try to do his duty at once to the House

  949
  and to the landlords and tenants respectively. He did not, therefore, agree with the tenants' view, though it was strongly held by the tenants of Ulster. If the Land Commissioners, in fixing rent, took into account the improvability of the soil and its inherent capacities, he should say the tenants were entitled to the whole result. But that was precisely what the Land Commissioners did not do. He was bound to say that if the Land Commissioners did do so they would double the rent of Ireland. They dealt with the land as it stood; they calculated its carrying powers at the moment, whether in corn or cattle, and they never considered the question what the land would produce if it were in the hands of an enterprising tenant with capital. Therefore, as the Land Commissioners fixed the rent on the land as it stood, he said it was the tenant's for 15 years; but at the end of that term the Commissioners, on going on the land and finding it improved, ought to judicially decide in each case how much of the improvement was due to the expenditure of the tenant and how much was due to the capacities of the soil which belonged to the landlord, and so in determining the rent decide what the landlord ought to get and what the tenant ought to get. That was his view of the question. The House, however, should never forget that the question was more academic than real. [Nationalist Cries of "No, no."] The Commissioners examined upstairs agreed that it was academic, and some of them stated they had never met a case in which the point was raised. An issue of far greater importance was the question of the occupation-right of tenants. He would like to know what was meant by the fourth sub-section, which directed the Land Commissioners to have regard to the interest of the tenant in fixing rents. If the Chief Secretary meant by the occupation-right or interest of tenants the difference between a competitive rent and a fair rent, he thought regard ought to be paid to it; and, indeed, regard was paid to it even now, for no one proposed to fix a competitive rent in Ireland, because, as Mr. Doyle had said before the Committee, that was a rent which no one could pay. If the Chief Secretary meant that the tenant in possession was
  950
  to get consideration which was not extended to a man who simply walked on to the land without paying anything, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman; and the whole of the evidence before the Committee showed that regard was paid to this point in the fixing of the rents. But the Irish landlords put a very different interpretation on the fourth sub-section, with, he should say, something like just reason. Lord Waterford, for instance, was clearly of opinion, according to his published letters on the question, that it meant that, when a fair rent had been arrived at, a reduction should be made on account of occupation right or interest. It would, therefore, be better to make the matter quite clear. He had stated, over and over again, that all he wanted in this matter was to make the Land Act of 1881 carry out the intentions of its authors. This question of occupation right was fully discussed in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords during the consideration of the Act of 1881. Speaking on August 10, 1881, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian said:—
  "They [the Lords] had introduced into Clause 7 expressions which led to the belief that the value of the tenant's interest was to be deducted from the fair rent before the fair rent was fixed. That the Government had always disclaimed. The Government denied that any deduction was to be made They believed that the tenant's interest should be fairly estimated on its own ground under Clause 1, and the fair rent similarly estimated under Clause 7."
  Speaking again on August 15 the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "When these words came before the Lords (i.e. the interest of landlord and tenant respectively) they were viewed as being intended to bring in again an idea which the Government had always emphatically disclaimed—viz., that the value of the tenant's interest in the holding was to be legitimately deducted from the rent which would be otherwise due to the landlord."
  Lord Selborne, in the Lords, said on the same question of occupation-right:—
  "On the one side and on the other it would be the duty of the Court not to lay a rent upon the tenant because of the value of the tenant-right in the market, and, on the other hand, not to deduct from the landlord rent justly due because of the value of the tenant-right in the market."
  If, therefore, Lord Waterford's construction of the sub-section was right, it was a departure from the clearly expressed intentions of the authors of the Act of

  951
  1881. It was never intended that this question of occupation-right should be considered in estimating a fair rent. In the Court the question had never arisen. The hon. Member for North Kerry asked Mr. Doyle before the Committee:—
  "You do not think that the legal revolution made by the Act of 1881 entitling the tenant to perpetual occupation marks any difference in his interest as should affect the rent?"
  Mr. Doyle replied:—
  "I do not. It gives him a saleable interest as between himself and the landlord."
  The hon. Member for East Mayo asked Judge Neligan if the valuer ever deducted anything in respect of occupation-right, and the reply was this—
  "No, I have never heard of such a thing. Since the Act came into operation I have been administering it, and I have never been asked to do anything of the kind."
  The truth was that this bombshell had not been thrown into the camp by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, but it was thrown into the Committee by the Judicial Commissioner, Mr. Justice Bewley, and whatever blame arose Mr. Justice Bewley must take upon his own shoulders. What did Mr. Justice Bewley say? He (Mr. Russell) never saw such a conclusion drawn from such a premiss before. This Judge, before the Committee upstairs, quoted these words from the judgment of Lord Justice FitzGibbon in the case of Adams v. Dunseath:—
  "I guard myself, as the Master of the Rolls has done, from saying that the whole surplus profit belongs to the landlord, as I do not desire to prejudge the question which is not now before us, but which may hereafter arise, whether the tenant under the Acts of 1870 and 1881 has not an interest in the holding over and above his statutory tenure and right of compensation."
  Lord Justice FitzGibbon thus expressly guarded himself from giving any opinion on the matter, but, paraphrasing his observations, Mr. Justice Bewley said—
  "I interpret you as saying if, after making allowance to the tenant in rent for his improvements, there remain any improved value the whole does not necessarily go to the landlord, because the tenant may have a tenant-right or interest in the holding quite irrespective of his improvements, which may be taken into account in fixing the rent."
  In other words Mr. Justice Bewley calmly assumed that which Lord Justice Fitz Gibbon had expressly guarded him
  952
  self against. The short and long of this occupation-right was clearly expressed by the right hon. Member for Midlothian in 1881, who said that the tenant's interest was guarded and protected in Clause 1; it was there made a marketable and saleable commodity to the highest bidder. It was not a question which was to be taken into account in fixing the rent; it was an asset Parliament had conferred on the tenant which he was at liberty to sell and which was a valuable property. He objected to the subsection on a totally different ground from that stated by Lord Waterford. What was the position of an Ulster tenant? Suppose he went to the Court to get a fair rent fixed, proved that he had made many improvements, and then said he had an occupation right in the holding, which he valued at £500, and that he claimed a reduction on account of that. There were sub-Commissioners who would hold that that was ground for increasing instead of decreasing the rent. If that was the meaning that was to be put upon the occupation right in this sub-section, he said it was indefensible.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, New-castle-upon-Tyne): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I will remind him and the House that that is the very interpretation I expressly repudiated the other night.
  *Mr. T. W. RUSSELLexpressed the hope that whoever spoke for the Government would tell them what they really meant by this occupation-right, and how it was to be taken into account. Turning to sub-section 7 of Clause 5, he came to the question of presumption as to the ownership of improvements. The landlords said that this sub-section spelled prairie value. He thought the landlords and their friends were needlessly alarmed at the sub-section. On every Ulster custom estate the presumption without exception and limitation of any kind went back to the creation of the world if necessary. Had they got prairie value in Ulster as the result of the presumption being unfettered and unrestricted? Was there a man who would dare to propose to take that presumption away from Ulster or to touch the Ulster custom even with his little finger? So far from this presumption in Ulster having produced prairie value,

  953
  it had produced higher rents than those of Minister, Leinster, or Connaught. The operation of the Law now was governed by Section 5 of the Act of 1870. Some people imagined that the Chief Secretary had invented these words for the first time, but 25 years ago this House expressly enacted that the improvements on a farm should be the tenant's until the contrary was proved. There were five or six exceptions— leaseholders, for example, and a man whose valuation was over £100 not being given this presumption. He might be told that this was barred by the year 1850. A tenant who applied for a reduction of rent claimed, say, the house and out-offices on the ground that they had been built by himself or his predecessor in title. But if the landlord asserted that the house was built before 1850 the presumption disappeared, and unless the tenant could legally prove that the house was built by his predecessor in title the landlord got rent upon it. That was an every-day occurrence, and it happened only last week in Ulster that in five distinct cases where the houses plainly belonged to the tenants they were rented for the benefit of the landlord. That was how the present law operated to the detriment of the tenant. They did not hear anything about confiscation when that occurred. It was only when they proposed to lay hands on the sacred ark of landlordism that those dreadful epithets were heard. Was the house not of as much value to the tenant as to the landlord? The landlord or his predecessor had never put the stones there nor carried the mortar which welded them together, and what right had he to have the benefit of the house? What was it but confiscation for him to claim it or thus bar the tenant's claim to it? This clause would not work the damage that the landlords imagined. He said the House had a right to secure the buildings to the tenants who had made them. Supposing this clause were in operation and the tenant claimed for drainage and reclamation and relied upon presumption. Presumption was only applicable to visible improvements. The first thing he would have to do would be to prove, not only that he did the improvement work, but what it cost and all about it. How was the tenant to
  954
  go behind 1850 to prove anything of the kind? In Ulster, on estates outside the Ulster custom, claims were made in which the tenant was unable to give the necessary legal proof. This section did not mean prairie value. It literally gave the tenant what was his due; he had in the main made the improvements, and he ought not to be put to expense and trouble which ought to fall by right on the landlord. He wished to say that even here he was disposed, if the landlords still maintained their ground, to compromise the matter, subject to the buildings being first secured for the tenant. There were two other short points in connection with this clause before lie finished with it. A small sub-section dealt with contracts by tenants not to claim, on quitting their holdings, compensation for any improvement made by them, and provided that no such contract by a tenant nor anything in the Act of 1870 should authorise the allowance of any rent in respect of any improvement. He was glad to see this sub-section. Landlords before the Act of 1870 would not grant leases to their tenants, but afterwards gave them willingly. Why was this? He had a lease in his hand the other night. The whole gravamen of that lease lay in one clause by which the tenant contracted himself out of the Act of 1870 or any other Act in regard to claiming for improvements. It might be asked why tenants signed such leases. The answer was that they did so in the way that Irish farmers signed anything to remain on the land, and not be driven out to earn their livelihood elsewhere. He thanked the Government for their courage in inserting that sub-section, by which they said that these covenants would not in future be worth the paper they were written on. People talked of confiscation. How many improvements, he would ask, had landlords in Ireland confiscated under such clauses in their tenants' leases as the one he had referred to? Proceeding now to the next and last sub-section of Clause 5, and dealing with the assertion, of the hon. Member for South Antrim on the point to the effect that Parliament intended that Section 4 of the Act of 1870 should be read into the Act of 1881, he would point out that the late Sir Stafford

  955
  Northcote on 10th August 1881 moved an Amendment in these words:—
  "The Court Shall take into consideration the time during which such tenant may have enjoyed the advantage of those improvements, and also the rent at which such holding has been held, and any benefits which such tenant may have received from his landlord, in consideration, expressly or impliedly, of the improvements made."
  That Amendment, embodying Section 4 of the Act of 1870, was rejected by a majority of 130.
  MR. W. G. MACARTNEYsaid, that he quoted to the House the distinct question then put to the Attorney General by Mr. Gibson (now Lord Ashbourne) as to whether he was to understand that the Act of 1870 was to apply to all the provisions in the Bill then before the House, and it was distinctly stated that the Act of 1870 was intended to be read in.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that it was very inconvenient for any one to quote HANSARD without having it by him. He was now going to quote from HANSARD, vol. 264, p. 1,489, where the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Midlothian, speaking on the Amendment of Sir Stafford Northcote, said:—
  "The doctrine accepted at the time of the Land Act of 1870, and which he certainly declined to accept the night before, was the doctrine that the enjoyment by the tenant for a certain time of his improvements might have reimbursed him for the cost of those improvements, and by a natural process they passed to the landlord. But that was not the basis upon which they proceeded now, and there was no occasion for it. The tenant's improvement's were the tenant's own property, and he would not admit the principle that the time during which he had enjoyed those improvements was any reason for their passing away from him."
  Could there be any clearer statement upon the point than the rejection of that Amendment proposed by Sir S. North cote and that statement of the author of the Act of 1881? It was a fact which could not be disputed that, in the main the tenants, and not the landlords, had made improvements on the land in Ireland, though where the landlord had made the improvements he ought to get protection in Court. He was in favour of the law following the facts am putting a difficulty in the way of the man who wished to grab the improvements from another. If the landlord
  956
  could prove his expenditure on the improvements, he would still be able to get the benefit of them. Turning to the cases of exclusion which the Member for Mid Armagh thought rather hard and cruel in reference to demesne lands, he would remind him that this Bill only proposed to go back to the old law of demesne lands as laid down by Lord Fitzgerald. In regard to pasture holdings, he considered that to be a matter for compromise. When the landlords' representatives so foolishly retired from the Land Acts Committee last year—the most foolish thing that was ever done by them—he and the hon. Member for Louth fought the matter out, and arrived at £200 as a compromise on this question. In regard to the big graziers who lived in Dublin, they were not eligible under the clause of the Bill and never would be. He quite recognised that the cattle trade in 1881 and in 1895 were two different things, and in many cases the smaller graziers were in as bad a plight as the tillage farmers. But all the points in regard to them could be debated without any heat. As to sub-letting, that was largely an Ulster question. Subdivision and subletting were, no doubt, evils; and anyone who attempted to extend those evils would be doing a very questionable thing for Ireland. But those were evils which existed now, and to which the landlords had, in fact, assented all round. It was only when the farmer who had sublet came in to get a fair rent fixed that the landlord turned up and grew eloquent over the evils of subletting. The clause in the Bill would effectually prevent many of the evils arising from subletting and subdivision, and practically confined those evils to the present state of things. In regard to town parks, he wished to protest against the Courts, ever since the Act of 1881, having been engaged in deliberately narrowing down the definition of a "town." What had the Court of Appeal done? In a case within his own constituency they had given a decision which simply meant this—that every hamlet at a crossroads in Ireland which might have the characteristics of a town—having, that was to say, a church and a school-house. [An HON. MEMBER: "And a public-house."] He did not know about that—and where a demand for accommodation

  957
  land arose—and where did not that arise?— wherever these things came about, that was a town within the meaning of the Act, and was surrounded by a zone of privileged land. That was absolute nonsense. The Courts had been engaged for the last 23 years in deliberately narrowing the Act of 1881, and the privileges of those who should have been under the Land Act. Whatever the House of Commons did, it ought to make it impossible for any Court in Ireland to create hamlets with the characteristics of a town at their own sweet pleasure. The Act of 1881 was never intended to cover wealthy shopkeepers who had a field in the vicinity of a town for the convenience of themselves and their families. But wherever you had a shopkeeper who held land not for convenience, but because he was a farmer and used the land in order to make a profit out of it., such land ought to be removed from the category of a town park altogether. This was largely, in his opinion, a question of definition. As to the alteration of the statutory term of 10 years, he could see no dispute of a serious character arising upon it, and there he was heartily with the Chief Secretary; but there was a serious question when they approached the proposed abridgment to fixtures already running under the 15 years' limit. It was a serious thing to break a judicial contract any day. It was one of the worst lessons they could teach the people of Ireland. Then there was the question of the British taxpayer. For his part, he would not allow any scruples about the British taxpayer to stand in the way of any reform in Ireland, but he thought the British taxpayer, if he was on the alert, might have something to say about this. The Land Commission had cost a million sterling since 1881. The British taxpayer might say:—
  "We have spent a million of money making judicial contracts in Ireland that have been broken twice in 10 years; what is the use of doing anything of the kind; Let them make their own contracts."
  The British taxpayer might send them back in Ireland to free contract. It would be better to let the British taxpayer repose quietly, and not rouse his suspicions. By allowing the cases to come in as the 15 years' statutory period expired, there would be 45,000 cases due
  958
  in November next; if they broke existing contracts, and allowed the 10-years' limit to apply to these also, there would be 240,000 cases coming in, in November next. That would mean a block in the Land Courts. It meant that there must, perforce, be appointed an army of temporary commissioners to administer the new Act. Probably it would be a way of settling the evicted tenants question to appoint some of them commissioners. He admitted there was a good deal to be said in favour of this proposal, because the rents fixed between 1881 and 1886, both inclusive, were now admitted on all hands to be excessive rents. The Chief Secretary had had a choice of difficulties. Doubtless he had chosen the course of least resistance. Personally, he should have been glad if the Chief Secretary had adopted the plan of allowing a temporary abatement on rents fixed between 1881 and 1887; but, looking at the difficulties on both sides, he should not offer serious opposition to this clause in the Bill. The proposal with regard to future tenancies he welcomed. It was reasonable and moderate, and no landlord ought reasonably to object to it. He did not know why the landlords should object, either, to doing away with the right of pre-emption. To begin with, the right of pre-emption did not exist on estates where the Ulster custom prevailed. An Ulster tenant did not sell under the Act of 1881; he sold under the custom. Did any great grievance arise? He admitted frankly that the practice of giving large sums for tenant-right was a bad one. But not only did the right of pre-emption not exist in Ulster, but there was the stronger fact that where it did exist the landlord had not used it, so that the privilege was useless for its purpose. The right was unused. He observed that the landlords objected to the part of the Bill relating to the evicted tenants, because it did not give them two votese instead of one. If they did not want to take back an evicted tenant they had only to say so, and the proceedings were at an end. But if they cared to take him back, they said they ought to have another veto in case the Land Commission fixed too low a price. That was asking too much. It was perfectly plain, however, what the Irish landlords dreaded. They dreaded the price being fixed by one man. Why not allow the

  959
  Judicial Commissioner and two other Commissioners to exercise it? This, he submitted, was not a question on which the Government ought to stand. The words "revolutionary" and "confiscatory" had been freely used on the other side of the House. Well, confiscation was rather an awkward word for the representatives of the Irish landlords. He knew their position now. He did not desire to embitter it. Before, and up to 1870, they were masters of the situation. The tenant then had on legal interest in the land, no legal property of any kind whatever in the soil. His wretched position was often assuaged, he admitted, by kindness, by generosity on the part of the landlord, but at the best it was a position of absolute serfdom; and even the Ulster custom, which the landlords ate into as far as they could, often failed to protect the men of the north. These bitter days for the Irish tenant were gone for ever. They spoke of rents which were fixed at the famine time and had never been changed since. What was the basis? Every rent was fixed on the tenants' improvements. They denied the justice of any comparison between English and Irish rents. So did he. In the one case it was a farm fully furnished and equipped by the landlord; in the other it was the bare soil. The Irish tenant had, undoubtedly, passed into a new atmosphere. He at last was a free man. How he used that freedom was another thing. He had shown that in the past he had been ready to resist lawlessness oven where it was born of despair. His position had been complicated in this matter by an ungenerous attack made upon him the other night by a supporter of the Government. That hon. Member was not ashamed to taunt him and say that he acted as he did now because he was afraid of his seat. He held for the Unionist Party a perilous and a coveted seat. He valued it highly. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, acting within their undoubted rights, had fought him twice with their best men, and he had no doubt they would do so again. But he declared now—and the declaration would be read in every corner of Ulster tomorrow—that if he could only hold that or any other seat by acting dishonourably towards any class, then he should welcome exclusion from the House of Commons. Since the First Reading of this
  960
  Bill he had been in Ireland. He had been in the midst of his constituents. He had conferred with the representatives of the Ulster tenants in Belfast—with men who understood the Bill and the question. They were reasonable men; they were prepared to act in a reasonable spirit. And, while supporting cordially, heartily, and strenuously the Second Reading of this Bill, he said now that when the Committee stage was reached he should endeavour to stand indifferent between the two parties to this great issue. He should see to it, so far as his vote could do it, that the tenant was protected fully, and in a way no Court could misunderstand, in his expenditure of capital or labour. He should, on the other hand, be as anxious to protect the landlord in all that was justly his. He recognised his difficulties—difficulties not made nor created by the, present generation, but inherited by them. It was an old issue they were trying, and if the House was weary of it, let them remember it was England which planted her system of land tenure on Irish soil. They would not be right until they retraced their steps, until single ownership had been restored; until the occupier should be the owner. Believing that this Bill would immensely facilitate this, he supported it with all his heart.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsympathised with many of the views which had been expressed by his hon. Friend, and perhaps if his hon. Friend were responsible for the conduct of the Bill in Committee, it might be expected to assume ultimately a shape which even he could support. He did uot believe there was a landlord in Ireland who had ever tried to coerce the hon. Gentleman in his views. [Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: "Hear, hear!"] Knowing his views on the land question, the landlords had sunk their own opinions and had given his hon. Friend a loyal support. But it would not be the views of his hon. Friend which would govern the action of the Government; it would be the dictation of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland by whose support they remained in Office. In order to judge, therefore, what the action would be, they had to find out what hon. Gentlemen said on the subject of the land question when they were on the other side of the channel. In studying

  961
  the speeches of hon. Gentlemen, he could not say that that study led him to believe that, when the Bill was in Committee, the Government, on the main points upon which the landowners agreed, would be allowed to "back down." He did not believe, however, that the Government meant this Bill to become law. He had occupied a seat in the House at different times for 20 years, and during that period he had enjoyed the pleasure of listening to some of the greatest statesmen in modern times bringing forward some of the most complicated and most important measures that ever occupied the attention of Parliament. He had recognised from their speeches that they realised the different interests which those, measures affected, and they sought at any rate to conciliate the support of those who might oppose them. But, with this experience of previous statesmen, he gave the claim of absolute originality to the method adopted of bringing forward a difficult and contentious measure to the present Chief Secretary. There was a marked difference in the tone of the speech in which the right hon. Gentleman moved the First Reading and the tone adopted in moving the Second Reading. The First Reading speech was a very moderate one, so moderate that he had expressed the hope when he saw the Bill in print to be able to give fair consideration and possible support to it. In the Second Beading speech the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Bill was of a contentious character and full of difficulties. At the very starting-point the Chief Secretary executed a sort of oratorical war-dance before his enemies. The right hon. Gentleman divided the representatives from Ireland into two classes. He said:—
  In this House we were fortunate to possess some of the ablest and most ingenious Representatives of the tenants."
  He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. He admired the ability of his compatriots, and no one could deny their ingenuity. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on:—
  "The landlords were represented in this House by a row of Queen's Counsel;"
  and, referring to his hon. and learned
  962
  Friend, the Member for the Dublin University, the Chief Secretary added:—
  "The hon. and learned gentleman made a speech full of that rather mechanical and automatic violence which is sometimes called forensic, and of which Irish lawyers have a large command, but which neither helps any question forward nor keeps any question back."
  He could not conceive a more useless kind of Queen's Counsel than that. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to describe the other Representatives of the land-owning class in the House:—
  "One or two lay spokesmen who, I regret to think, represent that irreconcilable junta which is always violent, which is unteachable, which is always wrong, which always fights these Bills and these proposals with a blind and, I must say rather stupid, desperation."
  Why did the right hon. Gentleman call the land-owning Representatives blind? He supposed because they had never yet succeeded in seeing the beauty of placing Ireland under the government of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. Then they were described as being unteachable. Well, there were lessons which it was hard to teach to Irish landlords—say, for instance, that it was a pleasing process to be skinned. Under this Bill the landlord had no protection; and it was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which had led him to think, firstly, that the Bill was never meant to pass, and, secondly, that he had been improving his vocabulary by taking lessons from his friends below the Gangway. Speaking as a layman, he declared that the Bill, if passed as it now stood, would bring about a revolution, for it would utterly sweep away and destroy one class of Irishmen. It was all very well for the Chief Secretary to say what he meant, but the Irish Courts, in interpreting the Act, would not first try to find out what the right hon. Gentleman, or even the Government, meant. They would take the letter of the measure as it stood, and the result would be that the property of the landlord would be confiscated, and that it would be impossible for him any longer to live in his native country. He looked upon the first clause of the Bill, limiting to ten years the period of judicial rents, as specially designed to satisfy the wants and requirements of the lawyers. They would reap a crop every 10 years instead of every 15. The expenses would

  963
  come mainly out of the pockets of the landlords, but he believed that the amount which would be paid by the tenants in this respect would more than swallow up any benefit they would deirve from the operation of the clause. But the most important provision in the Bill was Subsection 2 of Clause 5, which enacted that "improvement" should include every expenditure of capital or labour on or in respect of the holding which increased its letting value. That meant prairie value—that the land was to be valued as if nothing had been done to it. The hon. Member for South Tyrone said that some landlords would be very lucky if they got prairie value. That would depend on the kind of prairie. When Cromwell settled his soldiers in Ireland the rent of grass-land was a sheep an acrea. If he could get prairie value of that sort for his land it would be an excellent thing for him, but the prairie value within the meaning of this Bill was the value of the game on the land in the days of Brian Boru. The Bill would sweep away practically the whole of the rent of every landlord in the country, and it was not a matter of wonder, therefore, that they should look upon it as a revolutionary measure which would destroy the present social conditions in Ireland. But that was not all. If the landlord were allowed prairie value he would get something. But the Bill brought in the occupation interest, and that was the finish. That provision was defended solely on the ground that Judge Bewley said occupation interest was now taken into consideration. That threw some light on the practice of valuing land in Ireland. They never before understood how it was done. They knew that two or three men came to the land. They looked at it, sometimes they tasted it, they invariably smelt it, and, having done so, they decided, according to the humour which they were in, on a reduction of 25, 30, or even 35 per cent. Now, they knew that these men took into consideration not only the character of the land and of the improvements of the tenant, but also his occupation interest. Was it not monstrous, because a farm was let low and consisted of good land, being therefore a valuable asset in the market, that another slice should be taken off the owner's rent? The combination of the
  964
  provisions in regard to prairie value of the occupation interest were in themselves enough to sweep away all the rents of the landlords of Ireland. The position of hon. Members below the Gangway was logical. They had always stated that they wanted to hunt the landlords out of Ireland. Therefore, as the Bill was drafted under the influence, if not under the supervision, of these hon. Gentlemen, he could not put upon the fifth clause the harmless interpretation which the hon. Member for South Tyrone was inclined to put upon it. This clause was the sting as well as the marrow of the Bill. It was the "scorcher" of which the hon. Member for Cork had spoken, and if carried into law it would drive the landlords from Ireland. With regard to the evicted tenants, he could answer for the landlords that, unless some change were made in the proposals of the Bill, there would be an effectual liar to the reinstatement of any of these tenants. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because under the clause in the Bill the very fact of a landlord consenting to take back an evicted tenant would place him at the mercy of the Commissioners; and there was no landlord, no matter how willing he might be to see these men restored to their holdings, who would run the risk of placing himself at the mercy of men who had never, up to the present, shown much sympathy with him.
  MR. J. MORLEY: May I point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that the clause contemplates the possibility of an agreement between the landlord and tenant, such as may take place now?
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, he was aware of that, but if the landlord gave his consent, under the clause all further power was taken out of his hands. He was entirely at the mercy of the Commissioners, and that, to his mind, was an absolute bar to any settlement in a satisfactory manner of the question of the evicted tenants. He had taken up this Bill in no unfriendly spirit, because he had been more or less disarmed by the speech with which the right hon Gentleman moved the First Reading; he had hoped that he should have been able to give the Bill his support and help to make it a really good Bill. They all acknowledged that

  965
  a Bill was necessary—that was conceded; but the present Bill was not one which he could support. That which struck him, after reading through the Bill, was the language contained in the the Preamble, and he believed that in the Preamble they would find the reason why the Bill was brought in. This, it was stated, was a Bill further to amend the law relating to the occupation and ownership of land in Ireland, and for other purposes relating thereto, and if those other purposes had not been before the minds of the Government and their Irish allies they never would have had this Bill brought into the House of Commons. Those other purposes were—to sweep the landlords away, and to try, if possible, to throw down a bone of contention in Ulster over which the Unionist Party would fight; and those other purposes, depend upon it, had been the leading and guiding motive which had brought this Bill into the House. The Ulster farmers, however much they might desire that protection which he himself was quite ready to accord them, would never allow a bribe, no matter how highly flavoured, to win them from that solid formation which they had taken up in confronting their opponents. That, he believed, would be proved at the next Election, and he was not in the least afraid of meeting his constituents, no matter what course he took upon this Bill. There would be no doubt before the Bill left Committee as to what he and his colleagues thought of its provisions; they would move Amendments giving expression to their opinions; and before the Bill left the Committee the right hon. Gentleman would be an older and a wiser man—at least he hoped so. It had been said that they did not propose to divide the House on the Second Reading because they were afraid of their constituents in Ulster, but they gained nothing by abstaining from dividing on the Second Reading. The Ulster farmers would watch their proceedings in Committee with just as much interest as they would a Second Reading Debate or Division, and would see exactly what they thought, and of what they disapproved in the Bill. But when the Bill had passed through Committee—and if they failed, as he believed they would, to carry out any material alteration in
  966
  those parts of the Bill which they believed to be perfectly fatal to the position of all landowners in Ireland—they would divide upon the Third Reading, and then there would be no doubt as to what they thought of its merits. The right hon. Gentleman, in a speech which he made the other day, placed the new principles which actuated his Party on Irish subjects clearly before the House. He stated that the right hon. Member for Midlothian did not desire to make a holocaust of free contract; he hoped that political economy would some day return from its far exile, but they had to deal with that part of the world called Ireland as it was. That was the answer to every argument. In regard to Ireland, everything was capsized; what was treason in one country was patriotism in Ireland; what was robbery in one country was philanthropy in Ireland. He did not look upon the Bill as a bonâ-fide measure which the Government believed would ever become law. It was another instance of ploughing the sands of the sea-shore, an agricultural operation which was first performed by Ulysses to prove that he was mad, and for the purpose he yoked to his plough an ass and a bullock. Who the ass was in the present case they knew from the confession of the Member for Northampton; which Member of the Government represented the bullock he would leave to their imagination. They had no hesitation in opposing what they did not believe to be a bonâ-fide attempt to settle this land question. If it had been bonâ-fide the right hon. Gentleman would not, on the Second Reading Debate, have breathed defiance at the landlord class and its Representatives, but would have tried to disarm opposition and shown a desire to meet any fair proposal in a fair and candid spirit. They looked upon this Bill as robbery dressed up in the flimsy covering of an Act of Parliament. Some time ago the Member for Cork had said that the landlords in Ireland were made to be hunted, and that they should be hunted until they were hunted out of Ireland. At that time Mr. Parnell managed the pack. Now they had got a new master of the hounds in the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who helped, as far as he could, to perform that operation, which, he believed, instead of bringing

  967
  peace, happiness, and prosperity to Ireland, would absolutely destroy it. The Bill contained principles destructive of their class, and, worst of all, it did not even offer them up on the altar of their country's prosperity, but tried to sacrifice them to the odious cry of political expediency.
  [Attention was called to the fact that there were not 40 Members present. House counted and 40 Members being present,]
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, it appeared to him that as far as the Irish Members were concerned, the case for the Second Reading of this Bill was so strong and had been so thoroughly made out, that it was really unnecessary for them to occupy the attention of the House at any length at this stage of the Bill. There was, undoubtedly, in Ireland, an unanimous opinion in favour of some measure of this kind, and the unanimity of feeling was never more strikingly illustrated than by the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, who himself admitted that there was a necessity for passing a Bill of the nature of that before the House. He supposed that the hon. and gallant gentleman represented the interest of the Irish landlords in the House that night; but the speech in which he replied to the hon. Member for South Tyrone was, in his opinion, absolutely the weakest defence of Irish landlordism ever put before the House. The hon. and gallant gentleman declared, towards the end of his speech, this Bill was robbery pure and simple, very slightly disguised. If that word was introduced at all in connection with this measure, it should be in connection with the action taken under the Land Acts, which had already robbed the tenants of their improvements and their interest in their holdings. The Irish landlords had commenced by opposing every Bill of this kind, but in the end they had always been obliged to admit the necessity for legislation. The hon. and gallant Member said that, if this Bill were passed into law, he would be unable to live in Ireland; but in the speech he delivered there was no sign in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's mind of any such fear. Speaking for himself, he would
  968
  say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and other landlords, would live in Ireland under much more favourable circumstances if they found the tenants around them satisfied and contented. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, at the end of his speech, that he thought that the second part of the Bill would not succeed in accomplishing its object, and he gave as his reason, that the landlords would not consent to enter into an agreement, because they would not have a word in fixing the price to be paid for their interest in the land. It seemed to him a new state of affairs that a representative of Irish landlordism should cast doubt on the integrity of the Land Commissioners. He did not suppose that the hon. and gallant Gentleman imagined for a moment that if an agreement was come to between the landlord and an evicted tenant, the Land Commissioners would deal unfairly with the interests of the landlord. A new feature had been introduced into the Debate by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The hon. Gentleman was representative of men in Ireland most strongly Unionist in their opinions, and was himself, perhaps, the strongest opponent of Home Rule coming from Ireland to the House; and yet he was advocating as strongly as any Nationalist Member could, the changes contemplated by the Bill before the House. The hon. Gentleman, in the course of his able speech, said that somebody, on the last occasion of this Debate, taunted him with the fact that he was to some extent a new advocate of the interests of the tenant farmers of Ireland. All he could say was, that he thought there was nothing' to be gained by recrimination of that kind, and as far as he was concerned he welcomed most heartily the intervention of the hon. Gentleman. The tenant farmers were to be congratulated on the fact that, if a Unionist in politics, the hon. Gentleman had given to the interests of the occupiers of the soil in Ireland great assistance. He could not help thinking, after listening to the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh and of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, that it was a pity that the case for and against the Bill could not be left to those two speeches. He doubted if anybody who listened to them could come to any

  969
  other conclusion but that the hon. Member for South Tyrone had made out an overwhelming case in favour of some change in the law. As far as he was himself concerned, he desired to say but very little about the Bill, and he commenced by saying that he regretted exceedingly that it did not occupy the first place in the Government Programme. He did not deny the urgency of the case made out for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales. He was as anxious as anybody in the House that justice should be done to the people of Wales on that question; but the question of Disestablishment in Wales was not nearly so urgent as the, question dealt with in this Bill, and it seemed to him to be to some extent a hollow proceeding to discuss this Bill at any length at the present time, because they knew perfectly well that unless some arrangement was made, which had not yet been announced, for pushing it forward, the chances were that it would not leave Committee in time to enable it to be dealt with in another place and to become law. Last year a measure dealing with Irish land was introduced into the Programme, but it did not occupy such a place as to have a chance of being passed into law. It was introduced in such a way at the end of the Session that there was very little time for its discussion, so that when it went to the House of Lords they were encouraged to reject it simply because they were able to say that it had not been properly considered in the House of Commons. The same kind of treatment was being meted out to this Bill, and unless the Government came to some arrangement to run this Bill side by side with the Welsh Bill, they might just as well save the time that would be occupied in discussing it, as there would not be time to pass it into law after the Welsh Bill was disposed of. This Bill dealt with the requirements of thousands and thousands of tenant farmers in Ireland. If the second part was to be operative it would deal with men now out of their homes, and how could any representative of the Government for a single moment get up and attempt to show that they were justified in placing a Bill dealing with the lives of the people of Ireland behind a Bill which had for its object the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales?
  970
  There was no excuse for the Government in this matter, and no words could adequately express the condemnation which the Government deserved in having relegated this question to a second place. The change of the statutory term from 15 to 10 years was, in his opinion, justified by the course of events. In 1887, judicial rents were interfered with by an Act of Parliament passed by a Conservative Government, and in view of that fact he could not understand how any Member, even of the Conservative Party, could find fault with the proposal to reduce the term. He cordially approved the inclusion in the scope of the Bill of those tenants who had hitherto been excluded from the benefits of the Land Acts. He referred to the holders of town parks, pastures, and demesne lands. It was not too soon to deal with these cases, for these tenants had suffered much. They had seen their neighbours receiving statutory leases and fair rent, whilst they, who were just as much entitled to the same benefit, were excluded completely from the operation of the Act of 1881. The 14th Clause of this Bill proposed to limit the time for the recovery of rent to the two years after such rent had become due. He considered it a good thing that a landlord should not be allowed to heap years upon years of arrears of rent upon a tenant and so to get the tenant completely in his power; but he feared that this particular clause might have a disastrous effect in Ireland, because it would induce landlords throughout the country to attempt, collectively and at once, to recover large arrears which it would be quite impossible for the tenants to pay. He hoped that in Committee this clause would be modified and amended, because as it stood it was a direct incitement to Irish landlords to proceed against their tenants. The second part of the Bill he viewed as wholly inadequate. The position taken up by the Government last year on the Evicted Tenants Question was, that the evicted tenants had been so treated that they were entitled to look to the State to replace them in their holdings. The Government took up the position that so much was it the duty of the State to deal with these tenants, that State money ought to be granted to facilitate their reinstatement.

  971
  The Bill of last year was thrown out by the Lords, and now it had been abandoned by its authors. Under the present Bill conpulsion was not to be used, and the question whether tenants should be reinstated was to be decided by voluntary settlements. But the Chief Secretary knew as well as he or the hon. Member for South Hunts, near him, did, that in the absence of compulsion, no arrangement was likely to be come to between the landlords and the evicted tenants, the victims of the war in the Plan of Campaign and other estates. The re-enactment of Clause 13 of the Land Act of 1881 was offered to the Irish tenant farmers by the Conservative Government some time ago, and if, at that time, the farmers had been advised to take advantage of the clause, they could have done so with much more success than would attach to such a provision at the present time. Could it be imagined that men like Lord Clanricarde and Lord Lansdowne, who had been carrying on a fierce and desperate struggle with their tenants at enormous cost, would voluntarily agree to reinstate the very men who had been fighting them? The Chief Secretary might say "at any rate, give the present proposal a chance. Even if it only results in the reinstatement of half-a-dozen tenants that will be better than nothing." In his opinion, that would be worse than nothing at all, because by making the measure voluntary the Government were enabling the House of Lords and its supporters to say, "See how we have been justified. Last year the Government introduced a compulsory Bill; we objected, and now the Government have abandoned compulsion, agreeing thereby that we were right in the action that we took." That argument would carry weight with a great many people who were opposed to legislation of a compulsory character. Therefore, he affirmed that it would have been better if the Government had stood by their former proposals. The Chief Secretary had been asked whether it would not be possible in cases where agreements were come to between landlords and tenants to place some money at the tenant's disposal to enable him to start afresh. The right hon. Member satisfied himself with the reply that that was a matter which the Government would consider. He assured the right
  972
  hon. Member that unless some money was provided it was folly to suppose that any substantial number of evicted tenants were likely to be restored to their holdings. The fact that no money was provided for the tenants would prevent agreements from being brought about. If nothing was done to provide tenants with the means of stocking their holdings the Bill would fail completely. Last year the Government proposed that compulsion should be used and that money should be granted; this year they had abandoned both those proposals, and he could not but express his disappointment in consequence. The abandonment of the position taken up last year by the Government upon the Evicted Tenants Question was likely to injure the tenants' cause. It would be better not to touch their case at all than to deal with it insufficiently and in a manner that was not practical. Sooner or later, either this Government or another would be obliged to deal with the question again, and compulsion would have to be used to compel landlords who would not reinstate their evicted tenants upon fair terms, to do so in the interests of peace, under a good Government.
  MR. EDWARD BARRYsaid his intervention in the Debate would be very brief. He could not help observing that the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh viewed the departure of his own class from Ireland with the greatest equanimity. He wished to view the question from the standpoint of an Irish farmer, and first he must express his sense of the inadequacy of the clause dealing with the evicted tenants. He did not hold the Chief Secretary responsible, for he did the best he could under the circumstances. He frankly confessed, however, that he regarded the merits of his Bill in its present form as completely overshadowing any defects that it might contain; but it should not be forgotten that judicial decisions often neutralised disastrously the best land legislation. The intentions of the Chief Secretary were everything that could be desired, bnt the decisions of the Court of Appeal had gone a great way towards neutralising the intentions of Parliament. It was difficult to exonerate the judges, or some of them, from the feeling of bias in favour of the landlords. But for the

  973
  decision in Adams v. Dunseath there would be very little need for this fresh legislation except in the matter of subletting town parks and the like. That decision, however, plucked the heart out of the Act of 1881 and left it a very useless measure indeed. From his own experience of the Act he could not say that he had ever known a case in which, to any appreciable extent, the improvements created in the soil by the tenant had been taken into account in the fixing of a fair rent. The Commissioners sat in the Court, and they went through certain formalities, and it was even said to-night that they went to the extent of testing the land, but in his experience the result had been the same; and he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that if instead of sitting in Court the Commissioners went on the farm in the first instance the result would be the same. They valued the land as they found it, regardless of the improvements made by the tenant and the predecessors in title. This vicious system put a premium on idleness, for the more a farm was neglected the more the reductions were sure to be. The Act of 1881, therefore, had proved little better than a mockery, a delusion, and a snare to good tenants. In the case of careless and bad tenants it was different; having made no improvements they got off with fair reductions. But even in these cases the reductions made were far more than counterbalanced by the fall in prices. He cited cases in support of his contention. He knew an estate where two tenants went into Court in 1882. In both cases the conditions were similar. In one case the tenant had sons who cultivated the farm and added yearly to its arable capacity. In the other case the tenant was unable to do more than cultivate the farm from year to year without effecting anything in the way of permanent improvements. The improving tenant did not succeed in getting a penny reduction, but the other tenant got a reduction of 30 per cent. He wished to add that the improving tenant got a reduction of 20 per cent. voluntarily from the agent, who saw the injustice done to the improving tenant. He considered this case typical. As to prairie value he did not think that need disturb the minds of Gentlemen above
  974
  the Gangway. Prairie value could not be worked out to its logical conclusion, but if it could in many cases there would have to be considerable restitution made by the landlords to the tenants. He knew farms which bore evidence that if the prairie value were applied it would not be a case of handing over the farm merely, but a good deal of restitution in addition. If under this Bill the fixing of fair rent was carried out, the rental of Ireland would be sufficiently reduced to meet the views of the Irish people without falling back on prairie value. There was one other question of special interest to him. Hereferred to town parks. He thought a population—and population was the best safeguard—of 2,000 was too exclusive. At least it should be 5,000. The hon. Member for Mid Armagh had fallen into an inaccuracy with regard to a case with which he was well acquainted. He desired to impress upon the Chief Secretary the necessity of adopting some safeguards against the recurrence of those legal decisions to which he had called attention, and also of importing some new and more sympathetic blood into the Land Commission.
  *MR. A. H. SMITH-BARRYsaid, they all admitted that a Bill must be passed of some kind, and most of the Irish landlords were anxious to see a Bill proposed which they could all consider in a conciliatory manner, which would set at rest certain disputed points in connection with the Act of 1881, and which would be an amending Act in the strict sense of the word. But the Bill now before the House was not such an Act as that. The Bill appeared to him, and to all those with whom he acted on this question, to be of a confiscatory character. It would introduce the system of prairie value, and, not withstanding all that had fallen from the hon. Member for South Tyrone, they still regarded it as being a pure confiscation of landlords' property. They also thought that the Bill contrived to take from them every safeguard that was introduced into the Act of 1881 for the protection and benefit of the landlords. He presumed the Chief Secretary knew what the Bill contained, but in his speech on Monday night it seemed as if he was scarcely clear as to what the effect of many of the clauses would be.

  975
  He would take the sub-clause under which the tenant's right of occupation was to be taken into consideration in fixing his rent. It was scarcely necessary for him to go into the effect of that sub-clause, for, if it worked as they believed it would work, the absurdity of it had been clearly shown by the right hon. Gentleman himself and by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin. The curious thing was that this sub-clause, interpreted as they believed it was to be interpreted, had already been acted upon by a County Court Judge in Ireland whom they had always considered as high in the counsels of the Chief Secretary. On October 10 last Judge Adams had before him in the Land Court at Limerick a tenant who applied to have a fair rent fixed on a holding of 4 acres 7 perches statute, with a rent of £3 5s. After considerable difficulty the fact was extracted that the tenant had recently purchased this holding, and had given no less a sum than £200 for the goodwill of the place. Judge Adams gave the old man a lecture upon the extreme folly of giving such a price as that, and reduced his rent to £2 10s. That was in direct anticipation of the clause in the Bill as it was interpreted by Lord Waterford and others. In the face of the possibility of such an interpretation being placed upon the clause, words should be inserted by which such a monstrous reduction as that, clearly in consequence of a preposterous price being given for a tenant right, should be prevented in the future.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Member must see he has no evidence that what weighed with Judge Adams was the price the tenant paid. He may have fixed the rent on the merits of the case.
  *MR. SMITH-BARRYsaid, what were the merits of the case he could not say, but Judge Adams stated there were no buildings and no improvements of any kind, and so it was clear that what he gave the price for was the right of occupation as distinguished from any tenant's improvements on the holdings. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the principles from which this Bill, which they looked upon as far-reaching and very dangerous to the Irish landlords, sprang are contained in the Act of 1870.
  976
  Like his hon. Friend the Member for North Armagh, he supported that Bill throughout all its stages, but he must say it never entered into his mind that it would be possible for such a revolution to take place as to bring about such a system of land legislation as was now proposed. And he would venture to remind those who owned property of any sort in Ireland that, if it were possible for such principles as were supposed to have existed in the Act of 1870 to have produced a Bill of the character they were now discussing, those principles were not likely to settle on one side of the Channel, but they would probably have them enacted here on this side of the water in a very short time. When he heard the right hon. Gentleman speaking of the principles on which these things were done, he could not help thinking he had in his mind Macchiavelli's saying that "Every violent change presents the possibility of making another." The right hon. Gentleman had complained that when he had to brine forward such measures as this dealing with the land, he did not get assistance from the Irish landlords.
  MR. MORLEY: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I complained not that I did not get assistance, but that I did not get rational criticism.
  *MR. SMITH-BARRYhoped, that since the right hon. Gentleman made that remark, he had been satisfied with the criticism which he got from the hon. Member for the Dublin University, the hon. Member for South Antrim, and the hon. Member for Guild-ford. He thought those criticisms were not only national, but so far-reaching that they might well be looked upon by the general public as having knocked a very large portion of the bottom out of the Bill. But Irish landlords were not likely to look upon measures of this kind with very great kindness. They had had a very bitter experience of land legislation. They had been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian that "they had been acquitted," and that "sufficient sacrifices had been exacted from them," but notwithstanding that they saw one Act come in after another, sometimes introduced by their enemies, sometimes even by their friends, which took further slices off their property.

  977
  The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) declared that rents in Ireland were too high. If the prices of agricultural produce fell, it stood to reason that rents must also fall. But there was one thing which never fell, but which went on increasing in value, and that was the tenant-right. He referred to the occupation right independently of the right in improvements. How was it that the tenant farmers were prepared to pay enormous prices for the tenant-right of holdings the rents of which they declared they could not afford to pay? So long as tenant-rights retained such a high value it was monstrous to say that the landlords' interests must be still further whittled down. Supposing that the agricultural depression had been as great in Ireland as in England—and that he absolutely denied—was it right or fair that the landlords alone, of all classes interested in the land, should suffer? In England, agriculturists had suffered bitterly; but the owner, the farmer, and the labourer, had all suffered together. He would pass to the second part of the Bill, dealing with the evicted tenants. He was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to re-enact Section 13 of the Land Purchase Act of 1891, because it would assist very much in the carrying out of a certain number of agreements between landlords and their ex-tenants. He had never pretended to think that the whole of the evicted tenants could be re-settled under the 13th Section or under any purchase system at all. If they were to be placed back on their holdings—and only a certain portion ever could be—it would be sometimes by purchase, and sometimes by reinstatement as tenants. But the right hon. Gentleman had put an addendum to Section 13 which would make it absolutely inoperative. It was not, at the hon. Member for South Tyrone said, that the landlords wished to have a double veto. The fact was this: under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, if the landlord consented to place the matter in the hands of the Land Purchase Commission, he was bound to accept the price for the land which the Commissioners placed upon it. But the Commissioners would not advance the full value of the land except to a tenant on an ex-tenant who was, in their opinion,
  978
  capable of paying the instalments upon that purchase. In the case of estates where the Plan of Campaign had been in operation, there were a large number of tenants to deal with, and it was impossible to know the circumstances of those tenants. But it was known that a considerable number were so impoverished that it would be quite impossible for the Purchase Commissioners to grant them anything like the full value of their holdings. Consequently, the landlord would, in the first instance, be bound to refuse the arbitration which the right hon. Gentleman offered, however much they might wish to come under Section 13, which offered great facilities for, and removed great obstacles in the way of settlements. That would be an absolute bar to the landlord accepting the arbitration proposed; unless the landlord had the power afterwards of accepting or refusing the price offered, he feared that the whole provision would be absolutely unworkable. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the landlord and tenant parties were agreed, he should be prepared to "implement" the provision by a money grant. In this matter he did not venture to speak for the landlords of Ireland. He had not had the opportunity, since the right hon. Gentleman sprang this proposal on the House, of consulting with any of them on the subject. But he was sure that there was no representative body of Irish landlords who would disagree with him when he said that he should most strongly object to any money grant being given, either out of the Imperial Exchequer, or the Irish Church Fund, or any public fund, for any such purpose. There was a very large number of tenants who, from their position, were quite incapable of ever being put back on their farms as ordinary tenants, or as purchasing-tenants, except by extraneous assistance; because, not being solvent men, it was impossible for the Purchase Commissioners to advance them sufficient money. The party who got them into their present trouble ought to get them out of it. It was said that the tenant farmers of Ireland owed a deep debt of gratitude to the evicted tenants who had fought the Plan of Campaign and the No Rent Manifesto. If that were so, let the tenant farmers show their gratitude by finding

  979
  the money necessary to restore them to their holdings. He had always understood that there were funds at the disposal of hon. Members, below the Gangway, raised and available for this purpose. Whether those funds were adequate or not, it rested with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to find the money. As he told the right hon. Gentleman last year, the Evicted Tenant Question was settling itself. The re-enactment of Section 13 was well, but it did not greatly matter. Since the Evicted Tenants Bill of last year was rejected, a number of tenants on the Ponsonby Estate had been trying to make arrangements with the agent for reinstatement. Even since the present Bill had been in print, and since its provisions had been known, other tenants on this estate had come in, preferring reinstatement on conditions to be arranged with the agent, to waiting for the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. Since the Bill had been known, some tenants had come forward who had not come forward before; and, within the last few days, 20 of these men had been reinstated, even while the House of Commons was discussing the method of reinstatement. The hon, Member for East Clare had mentioned the Clanricarde Estate as one on which a great many evicted tenants had to be put back. What was the case in regard to that estate? He was not there to speak for Lord Clanricarde. He did not know him, and he had never spoken a word to him in his life; but he believed that he was a deservedly unpopular gentleman. But so far as his dealings with his tenants were concerned, Lord Clanricarde had been one of the most lenient men in the whole country. The gross rental of the estate was £23,000 a year. It was generally supposed that the Plan of Campaign had existed over the whole of the estate, but, as a matter of fact, only £2,400 of the rent was ever the subject of eviction, and out of that, the lands which had not been relet only represented £200. It might be interesting to hon. Members to hear that according to a statement in one of the Irish papers of Tuesday a tenant's interest at Portumna had been sold at 16 years' purchase, although the outgoing tenant owed 7½ years' rent. In conclusion he said the Bill bristled with contentious matters of all sorts and kinds, and therefore English, Scotch,
  980
  and Welsh might rest assured that though a division might not be taken on the Second Reading, the measure would, in Committee, be hotly contested line by line.
  MR. J. DILLONsaid he would not have intervened in the Debate at this stage but for the speech to which they had just listened. He regretted the tone of the hon. Gentleman's reference to the evicted tenants, for the hon. Member announced that he was determined to oppose most strongly any proposal to make a money grant from any source whatever to facilitate a settlement in the case of those unhappy men. [Mr. SMITH-BARRY: "From any public fund."] Was the hon. Gentleman prepared to make a grant himself for that purpose? The hon. Member objected to the clause in the Bill which had for its object the settlement of the evicted tenants' case on two grounds. In the first place he objected to the landlords of Ireland, even if they were willing to reinstate the evicted tenants, being compelled or asked to agree to a price at which the farm should be sold which should be settled by the Land Commission. Last year it was repeatedly stated on the Conservative and Liberal Unionist benches that some practical scheme should be framed for the reinstatement of the evicted tenants, and that if the Irish Members would consent to a voluntary arrangement such an arrangement would meet with no opposition from any quarter. The Irish Members were said to be irreconcilable and unreasonable; they would not, it was said, agree to a voluntary settlement. At the time he denied that he and his friends were irreconcilable and unreasonable.
  *MR. SMITH-BARRYsaid he had not stated that he objected to the reinstatement of the evicted tenants. What he said was that the 13th Section was an excellent section, but he was afraid that by the addendum the right hon. Gentleman would defeat his own object.
  MR. DILLONsaid the hon. Gentleman did not object to a section which long experience proved would not reinstate the evicted tenants, but he objected to a section which might reinstate the tenants at a fair and reasonable price. The hon. Gentleman objected to the price at which the evicted tenants

  981
  should be put back being settled by an impartial tribunal, a tribunal which no one could pretend was likely to favour the evicted or any other tenants. He asked the House whether the attitude of the hon. Member for South Hunts was not proof of what the Irish Members said last year—namely, that there was no intention on the part of the hon. Member and those who sat round him to accept a voluntary settlement? The Irish Party would be glad to settle this burning question upon a voluntary system, but there must be two parties to a voluntary arrangement. Clause 13 was in operation for 12 months or more [Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: "Six months."], and the Irish Party did their best to promote settlements under it. [Laughter.] He heard scornful laughter on the Tory benches. He would like to know whether any Tory Member gave any money towards settlements under Clause 13. The Irish Party out of their Party funds, which, he regretted, were not very superabundant at the present moment, did make such grants. It was impossible, however, to get the landlords to agree to terms which the tenants could possibly hope to fulfil. The hon. Member also objected to the re-instatement of the evicted tenants because the farms were in a state of dilapidation. [MR. SMITH-BARRY: Because the tenants were insolvent.] Because the tenants were insolvent the Purchase Commissioners could not, the hon. Member said, advance the full price of the farms. Within two minutes the hon. Member swept away the whole of his own argument, because he boasted that at the present moment on the Ponsonby Estate, which was well known to be under his control, settlements were being arrived at. He abstained from informing the House as to the terms. Did the hon. Member believe that the Ponsonby tenants who were now out were insolvent men? [Mr. SMITH-BARRY: "Yes."] He believed they were insolvent men, and yet he had not hesitated to be a party to settlements based on what he (Mr. Dillon) called excessive prices. By his influence the hon. Gentleman had induced the Purchase Commissioners to advance the money of the British taxpayers to insolvent men. The hon. Member was quite willing to pocket the money and let the British
  982
  taxpayers recover the advances as well as they could. What about the large number of Ponsonby tenants who settled two years ago? Those tenants agreed to purchase at 19 years' purchase. The hon. Member, or the committee with which he was identified had pocketed the money. They were all right; they had escaped responsibility, and the British taxpayer had to look to insolvent men, who, owing to some occult influence, had been enabled to borrow a great deal more than the true value of their farms, for the sums advanced. The Member for South Hants and the Marquis of Clanricarde might find it a very congenial occupation to squeeze their rents out of the starving Irish tenants, but if the unfortunate Ponsonby tenants had settled on terms which they could not fulfil, he believed the British taxpayer would be more soft-hearted than either of those gentlemen. The hon. Member shrank from the task of defending the Marquis of Clanricarde, but the case of that landlord had to be dealt with. What was the condition of things on the Clanricarde estate? It was now, and had been for ten years, a disgrace to this country. The hon. Member for South Tyrone proposed that a special Bill should be introduced for the expropriation of Lord Clanricarde. But if something were not legally done this year to settle the question of the evicted estates there would have to be a special Bill introduced next year to get rid of the difficulty. He would like to recall to the House the history of the Clanricarde Estate during the last 15 years, for he noticed that the memories of English Members in connection with Irish affairs were extremely short. In 1881 he attended a large meeting of the tenants of the estate at Portumna, at which a combination was formed to demand a reduction of 20 per cent. in the rent, which was a very moderate demand. Shortly afterwards he received word from the estate that the combination had broken down and that the tenants were paying their rents. He recollected very well being taunted in the House with the defeat he and his friends had suffered on the Clanricarde estate. He was accustomed to defeats in Ireland, but they always turned up again and won something in the long run. During the five years which

  983
  followed the break-up of the tenants' combination on the Clanricarde estate which he formed in 1881 there were no public meetings, and there was no agitation on the estate, but during those years 11 men—including two agents of the estate—were murdered in the neighbourhood of Loughrea, and no one was ever brought to justice for the crimes. That was the result of the breaking-up of the tenants' combination of 1881; that was the result of the defeat with which he and his friends had been so often taunted. In 1886, at the earnest request of the Woodford Tenants' Defence Association, which had been formed on the estate in the preceding year, he once more went down to the estate, with considerable doubt and anxiety he confessed, and started the Plan of Campaign. What was the result? From the day the Plan of Campaign was started down to the present time no considerable outrage had been committed in the whole of South Galway. During the past three years, under the administration of the present Chief Secretary, Ireland had been reduced without coercion to a state of peace, unexampled for the past 50 years, although at the beginning of that rêgime the adjournment of the House was moved almost every week by Members of the Unionist Party to warn the country of the awful state of things which would prevail in Ireland if coercion were abandoned. But if Ireland was peaceable now owing to the absence of coercion and the hope in the hearts of the people that justice would be done them, that was no reason why the hon. Member for South Hants should sneer at the evicted tenants and at their sufferings, which during the last year had been cruel beyond the power of language to describe. These people were human beings. Were they to be ground into powder? If crime and outrage were again to follow discontent, the responsibility would lie on the shoulders of the hon. Member for South Hunts and men like him who turned a deaf ear to just demands, unless those demands were enforced by agitation and tumult. He had endeavoured honestly and earnestly to settle the evicted tenants' question in a way that would be reasonable. He had been willing, though a man of strong views on the subject, to make large concessions and to meet the landlords half-way.
  984
  He had agreed that there should be public money voted to smooth the transaction. Yes, Irish money, and to what better purpose could such money be devoted? He had been willing—and this was a large concession for the Nationalist Members to make—that the prices of the evicted farms should be settled by a Commission appointed by a Unionist Government. In his judgment it would have been to the material interest of the landlords to have met the advances of the Nationalist Members in a reasonable spirit. But it was the policy and purpose of the landlords to have vengeance on the evicted tenants—to persecute and drive absolutely desperate by starvation the men who, in the opinion of four-fifths of the Irish people, had been the means of bringing about not only the present Land Bill, but the Land Act of 1891. Was it reasonable or fair, or in accordance with human nature, to expect that the masses of the Irish people would forget the men who, in their judgment, had been the means of getting the present Land Bill and the Land Bill of 1887 passed, or that they should calmly consent to see these men treated as insolvent tenants and left to starvation or the workhouse? They would not consent to any such thing, and they would regard those who opposed so moderate a clause as that in the Bill, which was directed to the case of the evicted tenants, as showing a cruel and vindictive spirit, whilst they were also taking upon their shoulders a serious and terrible responsibility. Turning to the main body of the Bill, he should like to say a few words on the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who had done a great deal of service to the Irish tenants on the Land Acts Committee. With many portions of the hon. Member's able speech he heartily agreed, but there were one or two points on which he strongly differed from him. The hon. Member, while cordially agreeing with the general propositions of the Bill, seemed to think that, if anything, it went a little too far in the direction of the tenants. He totally differed from the hon. Gentleman in that respect, and he would call his attention to a meeting of the constituents of the hon. Member for West Down, held at Banbridge on Monday last, and which was typical of many meetings which had taken place

  985
  amongst the Unionist farmers of Ulster within the last few months. The Mem-for the West Down Division was invited to be present, but he wrote excusing himself on account of business. The meeting was attended by a number of Presbyterian and Church of Ireland Ministers, and from the names it was evident that it was in no sense a Nationalist meeting. One of the Resolutions passed was this—
  "That this meeting of West Down electors desires to thank Mr. John Morley for the attempt to embody in legislation the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Irish Land Laws, and approves generally of the Bill as an instalment of the just claims of the Irish tenants; that we call upon all Irish representatives, irrespective of their political opinions, and upon our representative, Lord Arthur Hill, in particular, to support the Bill as it now stands, with such amendments as are required ot protect the interests of the fanner."
  These were the Unionists of Ulster who had been quoted over and over again as loyal men who would not think of doing anything dishonest. They were not ignorant southern and western farmers, but educated Ulster Loyalists who had studied the Bill and considered it to be an instalment of their rights. He could tell hon. Members from Ulster that this would be a serious question to them in the autumn if they did not obey the demands of their constituents. Did any man in the House suppose the hon. Member for North Armagh would calmly see the Bill pass the Second Reading if it were not for Resolutions of this kind? Some hon. Members had spoken in very violent language of the utter absurdity and incomprehensibility of the tenant's interest as apart from his improvements being taken into consideration as distinct from a fair rent. Here was a Resolution passed at the same meeting:—
  "Inasmuch as it has been proved that in the administration of the Act of 1881 there was on the part of the Lund Commission neither a common understanding of the law nor anything approaching to uniformity of practice, we consider it essential in the framing of any fresh land law to clearly indicate the basis upon which a fair rent may be determined, having regard to the tenant's interest in his holding, the cost of production and yield, and the market value of the produce."
  The Resolution went on to declare that improvements made previous to the year 1850 must be allowed to the tenant.
  986
  That clearly demonstrated that the Unionist farmers of Ulster—for whom only the hon. Member for South Tyrone and the hon. Member for South Derry could speak in that House—considered the present Land Bill a most moderate Bill, and one which, in some particulars, required amendment in the direction of the protection of the farmers' interest. He agreed with that view. The Bill was a great improvement on its predecessors, and this was no doubt due to the fact that, while in the drafting of all previous measures the opinion of the representatives of the Irish farmers was totally ignored, in this instance the Chief Secretary had, upon the Select Committee on this subject of land legislation, a fair representation of those who spoke on behalf of the Irish farmers, to whose views he listened, and by which he was, no doubt, somewhat influenced. Some Conservative Members seemed to think that it was so utterly revolutionary and outrageous for the Chief Secretary to adopt such a course that this alone was sufficient to stamp his proposals with condemnation. It had come to be considered an outrage in some quarters if Irish Members were allowed to express their views upon a Bill before it was drafted. He gladly recognised that the Chief Secretary, by the Committee of last year, did give fair weight and consideration to the opinions of those who were sent by the Irish tenantry to represent them in that House. For that reason the right hon. Gentleman had produced a Bill which was vastly superior to its predecessors. So far from being an extreme and revolutionary measure, this Bill was, in his judgment, most moderate, and Irish Members would have to propose in Committee one or two Amendments in the spirit of the Resolution which he had just read out. Those Amendments would, he was certain, insure the support of the hon. Member for South Tyrone and other hon. Members. He would now touch on one or two points upon which he differed from the hon. Member for South Tyrone. One of these was the occupation interest. The hon. Member seemed inclined to throw discredit on the occupation interest, as an element for fixing the fair rent, and he said that he was willing to throw that element overboard, and he

  987
  asked that it should, at all events, be made perfectly clear what was meant by the occupation interest. It was very difficult to convey to a body of Englishmen and Scotchmen—perhaps Welshmen would understand it better—what was meant by "occupation interest." It meant, in his judgment, that the Irish tenants held their land, not under contracts to which they never assented, but by old and immemorial custom, and that there exists in the Irish tenant an estate in a form similar to what the landlord possesses. The hon. Member for South Tyrone said that he fully recognised that in fixing a fair rent the occupying tenant should get a lower rent fixed than a stranger coming in as a tenant. But that was exactly what was meant by "occupation interest." It was, no doubt, an entirely unknown principle to an English landlord that a sitting tenant should be charged a lower rent because he was a sitting tenant as contradistinguished from another tenant coming into the farm. This was a very important and burning point in relation to this Bill, and he would like to direct the attention of the House to the course of some evidence which had been given on the subject. It was perfectly true, as the Member for South Tyrone said, that two or three of the witnesses who had been examined—Judge Neligan, of Cork, and Mr. Doyle in particular—had stated that they knew of no such thing as an "occupation interest," and that they were in the habit of fixing a fair rent at a figure which a solvent tenant, taking one year with another, ought to be able to pay for the farm. But that was the very reason why some definition must be laid down by law to drive the Commissioners in the future, and bring them into harmony. Several sub-Commissioners gave evidence directly the reverse of that given by Judge Neligan and Mr. Doyle. Mr. M'Afee, one of the most able of them, said that he always made a considerable reduction in favour of a sitting tenant, simply because he was a sitting tenant, and that, in addition to any allowance which he made for improvements. Mr. M'Afee's evidence was supported by four or five sub-Commissioners of great experience; and the evidence of all these was directly contrary to the evidence of Judge Neligan and Mr. Doyle. Therefore it appeared
  988
  that a large section of the Commissioners were pursuing one course, while others were pursuing another and different course. This was a question of law. The first thing which an independent person, who might be sent by a humane and considerate landlord to value a property, would do, would be to ascertain the value to be charged on any income of the tenancy if the land were in the landlord's hands. Then, according to Judge Neligan and Mr. Doyle, that would be the fair rent. But Mr. M'Afee and others said that they fixed the rent, making a considerable reduction in respect of the fact that the farm was in occupation of a tenant, and they made that reduction before fixing the amount of the improvements. Was that a right condition for the law of the land to be in? Several of the witnesses were asked, for how much they would value for fair rent a farm which was in occupation, to the tenant in occupation, less than to a new tenant. Mr. M'Afee stated that the percentage was considerable, although he did not mention the exact rate. A very remarkable thing was this—that the representatives of the landlords brought up as a witness to support their cause Mr. Toler Garney, a well-known agent in the King's County, and, he must add, one who had anything but a savoury reputation. He was brought up because he was looked upon as a strong man, and yet he declared in his evidence that he would not charge the same to a sitting as to an incoming tenant. In view of this great discrepancy in the administration of the law in Ireland, were they to be told that the law was to be silent on this subject and no notice taken of it? The hon. Member for South Tyrone asked, "what do you mean by the occupancy interest? They did not mean—nobody outside a lunatic asylum would suggest—that the occupancy interest was to be estimated by the saleable right of the tenant. That was a preposterous suggestion. The occupancy interest was a well understood thing in Ireland; it meant the difference between the rent which would be fixed on a sitting tenant who had been, either through himself or his predecessors in title, in possession of the farm from time immemorial, and the rent which might be fairly fixed on an incoming tenant if the farm were in the

  989
  hands of the landlord. That was the occupancy interest. He contended that it was quite as easy to estimate that interest as the fair rent. He therefore asserted that there was in the evidence the strongest possible proof that the occupancy interest was a reality, and that in a great number of cases—he should say more than half—which had been settled under the Land Acts it had been taken away from the tenant by those who had misunderstood the law. The hon. Member for South Tyrone made one very great mistake in his speech. He said he was inclined to minimise this question of the occupancy interest and he added——
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLdenied that he minimised the occupancy interest, but he certainly minimised the question of the increased letting value; and he declared that he agreed with what the right hon. Member for Midlothian said in 1881 on the subject of the occupancy interest.
  MR. DILLON: But did not the hon. Member say that a sitting tenant was to get consideration as against an incoming tenant?
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he asked the Chief Secretary to say what he really meant by the occupation interest, and he put several alternatives to him. He could assure the hon. Member that the sum and substance of his argument about the occupation interest was this—that it was simply an asset conferred on the tenant by Act of Parliament which he could sell, But he denied that it had the slightest relation to the fixing of a fair rent.
  MR. DILLONreplied that his recollection of the speech of the hon. Gentleman was that he said:—
  "If you mean by the occupation interest that a sitting tenant is to got consideration as contradistinguished from an incoming tenant, then I am heartily with you."
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I said he gets it now.
  MR. DILLON: Quite so. That is exactly my point. He gets it now.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Then, why do you want a new sub-section?
  MR. DILLONsaid, he could answer the hon. Gentleman, for, recognising that the hon. Member had been so useful on the Land Act Committee to the
  990
  Irish tenants, he hoped the Irish Nationalist Party would be able to carry his able support throughout the discussions on this Bill. The reason why they wanted a new sub-section was explained out of the hon. Member's own mouth. An occupying tenant got a consideration as against an incoming tenant—that was to say, he got his rent fixed at a lower figure because he was a sitting tenant, and for no other reason. Yes; he got it from Mr. M'Apee and from several other Commissioners, but not from Judge Neligan and Mr. Doyle, and he wanted a definition because he wished the practice of Mr. M'Apee to be laid down as the practice of the Land Court. He denied that this question of the occupancy interest was first introduced to the committee by Judge Bewley. When he gave evidence Judge Bewley certainly said most emphatically—and it was an agreeable surprise to the friends of the tenants on the Committee—that the law as now administered recognised the occupation interest, and, lest there should be any doubt about it, he defined this as an interest which the tenants had in the soil quite irrespective of any improvements they had made, adding that that was recognised by the law in Ireland. But it appeared over and over again in the Blue Book that legal sub-Commissioners and County Court Judges had never heard of such a thing, and never gave tenants the benefit of it. In these circumstances a case was made out beyond all question for some definition in order to secure to the tenants in future the enjoyment of that which Judge Bewley said was at present the law of the land. In urging for a definition of the law which secured the interest of the tenant they were not advocating any revolutionary measure or innovation; they were simply asking that the law, as laid down by the head of the Land Commission and by one of the Judges of the Court of Appeal in Ireland, should be distinctly set forth in the Act, so that there might be no mistake about it. In connection with improvements the hon. Member for South Tyrone spoke of the increased letting value. In his judgment the term "unearned increment" was a very incorrect and misleading one The proper term for this particular point in

  991
  connection with the Irish Land Act was "increased letting value." The question was neither so complicated nor so difficult to understand as many persons seemed to think. If a tenant rented a farm, or was in the enjoyment of a farm for a number of years at a certain rent, and if he executed work which increased its letting value say 50 per cent., was he to receive the benefit of the increased value, or was he only to get a percentage on the cost? That was the question which had to be considered. It was admitted by everyone that nineteen-twentieths of the improvements made in Ireland for generations past had been made by the tenants. It was further admitted that in the future all the improvements would be made by the tenants, for the landlords were now reduced to such a position that their representatives declared they would never make any more improvements. Where, then, was the justice of saying that there might be in the soil of Ireland dormant so-called "inherent capabilities" which might be aroused into value, if the landlords, left to themselves, would never do anything to obtain that increased value? If, on the other hand, the tenants by their exertions and at their own risk drew out those "inherent capabilities" of the soil, were they to be fined for doing so on their own capital and labour? A great deal had been heard about the surplus letting value. There were hundreds of thousands of farms in Ireland where the labour of the tenants had been applied to inhospitable soil, and from which they did not get 2 per cent., and in many cases 1 per cent., on their outlay. Half of his own constituency, for example, had been reclaimed by the ceaseless toil of generations of poor men. This was land which, if it had been reclaimed on commercial principles and as an investment, would be waste mountain and waste bog at this day. Was it fair to say to a tenant:—
  "If you lay out money and get only 1 per cent., or 2 per cent., or nothing, your money must go; but if you chance to get a stroke of luck and obtain 40 or 50 per cent., then the landlord is to say: 'You have developed the "inherent capabilities" of the soil, and therefore you must hand over all the profits to me beyond the interest on your outlay.'"
  992
  That was a monstrous proposition to be put forward on behalf of men who had contributed nothing to the work and to the advancement of the country. In considering the question, therefore, of the unearned increment, two considerations should be prominent—first of all, to think of the multitude of men who did not receive fair interest for the capital and outlay expended on the farms; and, secondly, to consider what was for the interest of the community at large as contra-distinguished from the interest of a small class. He maintained that it was enormously to the interest of the community at large in Ireland that everything should be done consistently with justice to encourage Irish farmers to lay out capital on their land and so to improve the condition of the country. The wealth of Ireland could be enormously increased if the people were properly encouraged to improve the land. He knew one estate where the tenants bought the land 10 or 15 years ago, and he was told that they could scarcely recognise the same district as compared with its former condition. The moment the tenants got possession of the land, and possessing the knowledge that every improvement they made would be their own, their spirit of enterprise and industry was evoked. That was what they wanted to encourage in Ireland. He was in favour of purchase as a solution of the Irish land question, but purchase must take a long time to produce effects. Consistently with safeguarding the just rights of the landlords, who, after all, were only rent-chargers, the House ought to aim under this Act to bring about this condition of things in Ireland on the farms of those who were still tenant-farmers. It was ridiculous to say that the landlords who were only too anxious to sell at 17, 18, or 19 years' purchase, and even less, were so eager about their share of certain alleged inherent capacities of the soil, so long as the rents of the farms as they stood were secured to them. He welcomed the clearing away of these cobwebs, because the system of holding over a farmer the idea that a portion of the improved value which he had given to his farm would be grabbed by the landlord had a dulling and deadening effect on the enterprise of farmers. They were not satisfied to be told that they

  993
  would get sufficient interest on their outlay; they wanted to know that if they improved the value of their farms the landlord would not be able to step in and take away any of that value. There was another important consideration. Every member of the Select Committee was struck with the extraordinary complexity of the law and its uncertainty. It ought to be their desire in passing this Bill to make the law as simple as possible, and everybody could understand what was meant by saying that a farmer should get the benefit of all the increased value of his farm resulting from his improvement. But if they introduced the question of dividing the increased letting value between the landlord and tenant, according to some occult formula, based on the inherent capabilities of the soil, there would be no end to the difficulties that would arise. They had an example of the result of such a course in the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who stated that if the Land Commissioners took into account the inherent capabilities of the soil in valuing farms in Ireland the present rents would be doubled. That would be agreeable intelligence to the tenants of Ireland. He held it to be a matter of the highest policy, pending the final settlement of the Irish Land Question by a system of purchase, to do everything possible to encourage the Irish farmer to put his capital and labour into his farm; and the simplest and most straightforward way of doing that would be to give the farmer all the value he could add to his farm by the expenditure of that capital and labour. With regard to the question of reclamation, he could point to thousands of acres of land, which in its unreclaimed condition was not worth sixpence an acre, and which now, owing to the labours of the people, and without any expenditure on the part of the landlord, were let at 10s. and 15s. an acre. The Land Commissioners had said that it was impossible to go back upon old reclamations, but in these cases not only did the tenants lose the inherent capabilities of the soil, but they got nothing like a fair interest on their outlay. Thoughout East Mayo it would not have paid a man to reclaim a quarter of the land, and it had only been made available for the growth of human food, because the small holders
  994
  there did not reckon their labour as capital. It was a remarkable and sad fact that, in Ireland, the richer the land the more moderate the rent in proportion to its value, and the poorer and more wretched the land the more extravagant and excessive the rent. It was most unreasonable and unjust that these poor reclamation tenants should be charged enormous rents because they were unable to prove their own improvements. Under the present Bill the Commissioners and valuers, in fixing a fair rent, would be justified in accepting evidence which, without being actually legal evidence, might absolutely satisfy them. He held that the tenants should get a fair value for these reclamations. With regard to the question of presumption, he could not avoid mentioning that the Report of the Devon Commission in 1845 said that, upon a review of the evidence furnished to them on the subject, they believed that some legislative measure would be found necessary in order to give efficacy to such agreements and to provide compensation for improvements, and earnestly hoped that the Legislature would be disposed to entertain a Bill of this nature and pass it into law. From that time down to 1887 not a single move was made to protect the improvements of the Irish tenants in the spirit of that recommendation. He would strongly appeal to the Government, and to the members of the Liberal Party, not to follow the bad precedents set by previous Parliaments; not to neglect and treat with contempt the views of those who were entitled to speak on behalf of the tenant farmers of Ireland; and, if they really desired to lay this question to rest—for some years at least—to insist that this Bill should pass as a comprehensive and full measure, and not to accept the Amendments which had been threatened from the Opposition Benches, which would minimise the good effects of the Bill. This was absolutely the first great Irish Land Bill which had been introduced into the House since the Act of Union which, had not been coupled with a Coercion Act. The people of Ireland had never seen the House apply itself to any proposal for moderating the condition of the Irish tenants and settling for a time the Irish land question, except upon the heels of a Coercion Act, until now. Ireland was

  995
  peaceable and quiet to an extent hitherto unknown to this generation. He had read the other day that in Kerry, Limerick, Clare, Galway, and Roscommon, white gloves were presented to the Judges of Assize because there were no prisoners to try. The Bill was a most auspicious sign, and he trusted they would not take their hand from the plough to which they had put it; it would be impossible to exaggerate the profound effect which would be wrought on the minds of the people in Ireland, and upon the Irish race scattered all over the world, if this Parliament passed a great and beneficent measure to give justice to the Irish tenants, and, in spite of the Member for South Hunts, to restore the evicted tenants to their homes without agitation and crime in Ireland. On the other hand, if this great measure of justice was defeated, the effect on the people of Ireland—and he recommended this consideration to the Unionists—would certainly be most evil; and whatever might come in the future history of Ireland of disturbance, misfortune, or disaffection, the responsibility would entirely lie upon the shoulders of those who now, when they had no kind of excuse for their action, obstructed and resisted an honest effort to do justice to the Irish people.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Speaker,—Although the accident of the Debate has led to my following the hon Gentleman who has just sat down, I have no intention of following his argument step by step. It would lead me much too far from the line upon which I propose to address myself to the House. His standpoint and mine are entirely different. The hon. Member has dealt at some length with the history of the evicted tenants' question; he is now in a most conciliatory mood. He is also in a mood, not unusual with him, of great forgetfulness. The hon. Member said he was anxious for a settlement, and that he is ready to do anything in his power to promote the resettlement of those tenants who have been evicted, entirely, as I think—mainly, as most people would say—in consequence of the action of the hon. Member and his colleagues. That is not the line the hon. Member has always taken. This is not the first opportunity he has had. This is a late repentance. In 1891 the 13th clause, of which the clause in
  996
  the present Bill is substantially a repetition, was passed by the House. An offer was made to the tenants to replace them if they could agree, as owners of their holdings from which they had been evicted. What was the line then taken by the hon. Member for East Mayo?—
  "My advice," he says, "to the tenants is this: Be very slow to purchase your farms or have anything to do with the Land Act until after the General Election. Trust to your own exertions in your own localities. Abstain from taking these farms, and do not purchase at present."
  Unfortunately they accepted the advice of the hon. Member, and now he comes down and expresses these views, denounces the landlords as being an un-conciliatory lot of persons, and professes the utmost desire to secure for the evicted tenants the very provisions he advised them to reject in 1891. I have said that the standard of the hon. Member is different from mine. He says the tenants of Ireland have been driven by almost intolerable oppression and outrage to commit crime. I do not believe anything of the kind as regards recent years. But I believe even in recent years they have been driven to crime by the incentives which have been offered to them by the hon. Member opposite and some of his colleagues. He says—
  "This, forsooth, is a good time for dealing with this Bill. This is just the time—when you have Ireland in a state of peace and quiet which has not been known to the past generation."
  To whom do we owe that? Have we to thank him? Sir, in October, 1894—only a few months ago, before this Bill was brought in—what was the advice the hon. Member was then giving to the tenants in Ireland? He makes here tonight a conciliatory, or, at any rate, a plausible, speech. That is for the House of Commons. We have had this over and over again from the hon. Member. But what did he say yesterday when he spoke to the tenants in Ireland; and tomorrow, when he leaves this House, will he use the same language and argument he thinks good enough for this House? He says:—
  "I tell you that if the Land Act is rejected by the House of Lords, it will not be the fault of the Irish Party or the fault of the Government who have introduced it and done their best to pass it. It will be your fault if you do not make Ireland a little warm during this autumn and winter."

  997
  Then the hon. Member comes down here, and because the tenants of Ireland, whom he has deceived, have found him out and, on this occasion, rejected his advice, and, because they have not made Ireland "warm" during the autumn and winter, he comes down here and takes credit for the peace of Ireland—an unusual peace during this generation. Sir, I have no sympathy whatever either with the spirit or method of the hon. Member, and in regard to this Bill my own view is not any different, I think, from the views winch have been expressed as to its several provisions by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone. But I would point out to him that there is considerable difference between the net result of the criticisms which he has made of this Bill and the general description he has given of it. If the Amendments which my hon. Friend has suggested to-night should be accepted by the Government and made in this Bill, then, indeed, I should be prepared to say the Bill will be, if not a perfect Bill, at all events, a very different one from what it is at present. But I am not going to address myself to the imaginary Bill as it may be after the Amendments of my hon. Friend have been incorporated in it. I have to address myself to the Bill of the Government, and assume that they have carefully considered this question, and we—at all events on the Second Reading—have to take it in its present condition and upon that pass judgment. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, in introducing the Bill, made a special appeal to me, because he said I was one of the Members of the Cabinet of 1881, the others remaining being the right hon. Member for Midlothian and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who passed the great measure of Land Reform of that year. He appealed to me as responsible for that, and said that, under the circumstances, he expected from me favourable consideration for the proposals intended to amend that Act and further the great object which my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian had in view. He said his measure was—
  "just and politic, and a strenuous effort to meet practical difficulties," and was "one to which a sober and responsible man should give impartial consideration."
  I am much obliged to him for referring to me as a sober and responsible person.
  998
  I think I know what he meant. He is a catholic-minded man, and he meant everybody except those who are tainted with any kind of sympathy with that discredited class—the owners of land. I think I come within his description. It is quite true I am a landlord myself. I have only one tenant and he does not pay any rent, although he makes frequent claims for compensation. As my tenant is my hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire, I do not think I am much prejudiced on either side of the question. I will say that if the Chief Secretary can justify the description he gave of this Bill he will find me among the most enthusiastic of his supporters; but he did not in his opening speech lead me to anticipate anything like this Bill. It is really altogether a misnomer to call this a Bill founded upon the Act of 1881. Why, it ignores the declared principle on which the author of that measure recommended it to the House. It destroys almost every one of the safeguards which he introduced to prevent the injustice he foresaw and deprecated. It seems to me to carry out the majority of the principles of the Land League, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian expressly repudiated, and which he said on that occasion, for his part, he was unable to distinguish from schemes of public plunder. What were the declared intentions of the promoters of the Bill of 1881? I felt then and publicly expressed the opinion I have always entertained that the only final solution of this land question will be some system of transfer of ownership from the landlord to the tenant. The occupier of land in Ireland must also be the owner if you are ever to end these perpetually recurring difficulties. That was the view I learnt from my late friend Mr. John Bright; it received confirmation again and again, and especially I recollect on one occasion in 1887, it did so from a high authority, Mr. Parnell. I venture to hope there is no disagreement as to that. But we felt in 1881, as my right hon. Friend says, that land purchase must take a long time. You cannot secure this great result over a whole country in a few months or years; and in the meantime some modus vivendi had to be found. The

  999
  right hon. Member for Midlothian declared that he looked forward to a time when this measure would have done its work; when we might recur to a better and more natural state of things; when political economy, which had been temporarily banished to Saturn, would be amnestied and would revisit this earth. Accordingly he did not conceal from the House or from his supporters the danger attending the proposals he was making. He knew perfectly well that to interfere with freedom of contract, to fix rents by a legal tribunal, was a matter open to the gravest abuses; he did his best to prevent as much as possible the abuses which he foresaw; he distinctly laid before us the provisions, those exceptions and safeguards to which reference has been made, as calculated to prevent the abuses which he so greatly feared; and he said:
  "Take that Bill; with all its faults it is a less evil than the existing state of things."
  Now, the object of the present Bill is to remove almost every one of the safeguards which were introduced in the Bill of 1881. I do not say that experience may not have shown that these safeguards are unnecessary or wrong; but we are bound to consider the proposals of the Government on their merits; and it is an absolute misnomer, an attempt to prejudice this question, to say that it follows the machinery of the Act of 1881, the authority of which it directly impugns. A man invents a locomotive. Someone says,
  "If you do not take care the boiler will burst, or the locomotive will run away."
  He replies, "No, I have put in a safety valve and a brake." A few years later some one proposes to fasten down the safety valve and to jam the brake; and he says that that was the original intention of the inventor. That is the position of the Government. It is not merely that the principle of this Bill differs from the Act of 1881; but the spirit in which the two Bills were introduced is entirely different. My right hon. Friend quoted Mr. O'Connell as having said that crime in Ireland was due to iniquitous land laws. Suppose that were true; when did O'Connell say that? What has happened since? Even if it were true of the time of O'Connell,
  1000
  it cannot be true now, in 1895, after all the measures that have been passed. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) laughs at my suggestion, and implies that the legislation in which we have been engaged since the time of O'Connell, from 1870 to 1891, has made no difference in the state of things, and that it is still open to him and his friends to say that crime in Ireland is due to iniquitious land legislation as it was in the time of O'Connell. What have we done in the interval? will the hon. Gentleman listen to the opinions of his colleagues? I know he has not much respect for the opinions of his colleagues, but here is the Member for Cork City. He says that in the interval—that is, since 1879—
  "there has passed over the face of Ireland a revolution which has secured to the Irish peasantry all that and more than the French Revolution secured for the peasantry of France";
  and the hon. Member for Longford, in an address to Irishmen, said that
  "the powers of Irish landlordism, the powers of unchecked exaction and arbitrary eviction, which were the causes of indescribable wrong to the Irish people, have been shattered and destroyed."
  They have been shattered and destroyed, and yet my right hon. Friend still appeals to the authority of O'Connell and allows the House to infer, as a reason for the introduction of this Bill, that the present state of Irish land is entirely due to the iniquitous character of the Irish landlords! That is quite a different spirit to the spirit in which the Act of 1881 was introduced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian said in 1881, before the Act of 1887, and before the Act of 1891, that he disclaimed altogether the charge of iniquity which was sometimes brought against Irish landlords. He said it was an exaggerated charge. If that is true—and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will, I am sure, accept the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian—if that was true in 1881, still more is it true now, and I say it is unworthy of my right hon. Friend to introduce into this matter this appeal to prejudice and passion. Then, again, my right hon. Friend quoted from Sir William Gregory; but since the time when the oppression

  1001
  which Sir William Gregory described took place, we have altered the whole circumstances of the land in Ireland. A case of that kind cannot happen now. Therefore, what is the object of my right hon. Friend in referring to such a case in introducing this Bill, except it be to create prejudice amongst people who are ignorant on this matter? The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Midlothian, in introducing this Bill, appealed to the highest considerations of national policy and statesmanship; but my right hon. Friend has thought fit, on the contrary, when he knows that the only chance of success for the Bill is that it should be dealt with without party feeling and without party prejudice—my right hon. Friend has thought it necessary to speak with the voice of the Land League, with the voice of the hon. Member for Mayo. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, Mr. John Bright, and the late Mr. Forster, speaking on the Second Reading of the Act of 1881, expressed the belief that, while the Bill would enable the Land Courts to deal with exceptional cases of hardship and to reduce rents where gross exaction had been practised, yet in the great majority of instances it would not injure the landlords at all. It is rather curious to read these expressions of opinion and to contrast them with what has actually happened; and when so much is made of the intention of the promoters of the Act of 1881, it is surprising to remark the fact that on the result and operation of the Bill the intentions of the promoters have not been fulfilled—that is to say, that the operation of the Bill has been to reduce rents all over Ireland. I come now to consider, as briefly as I can, the provisions of this Bill. It is very difficult to deal with it in a Second Reading Debate, because each clause contains a separate principle. You might cut out half of the measure and still have a Bill of very considerable value. But I want to ask the House to drop the consideration of separate clauses and to think of the Bill as a whole. The main thing for us to look at is the general effect of the Bill, what is going to be its general operation, and I am going to take what is admitted to be the keynote of the Bill—namely, Clause 5. Clause 5 deals with improvements. The Act of 1881 laid down the
  1002
  broad principle that the tenant was not to be rented on improvements made by him and not paid for or otherwise compensated by the landlord. That is a fair principle, and nobody has objected to it in the slightest degree; but now let us see what is the extension that is going to be given to that principle under this Bill. Sub-section 2 defines as an improvement every expenditure of capital or labour which increases the letting value. It allows, therefore, good cultivation to come in as a ground for a reduction of rent. That is to say, if a man fulfils the ordinary conditions of his tenancy, for the non-fulfilment of which he would be punished, and for which deterioration would be claimed in this country, he is justified under this Bill in claiming a reduction of rent. Surely that is a perfectly monstrous proposal, which would not be entertained for a moment by any reasonable or fair-minded person. A man consents and contracts to farm his farm properly and well; and if he does not farm it badly he is invited under this Bill to apply for a reduction of the rent which he has agreed to pay on the condition that he farms the land well. The third section gives the whole additional value of improvements to the tenant when those improvements are due to his own expenditure or to the inherent capabilities of the soil. The fourth sub-section reduces the rent in consideration of the occupancy-right. Whatever may be the meaning and intention of my right hon. Friend himself, the meaning and intention of the the clause is, that in fixing the rent the valuer is to have regard to the occupancy right, which he must therefore value, and the deduction which he makes from the rent will depend upon the amount of that right, and that depends upon the sum which the tenant may have given for the goodwill of the farm. So, if the tenant has paid a pretium affectionis, if he has given 60 years' purchase, as some tenants have done, I believe, that is to be another ground for claiming a reduction of his rent. Under Sub-section 5 the landlord is to be debarred from pleading low rental or length of enjoyment as a set-off against reduction. Now, I ask the House to consider the cumulative effect of these provisions. The sixth Sub-section sweeps away the time limit, and allows compensation for

  1003
  improvements made, or alleged to have been made, up to the creation of man. Then the seventh Sub-section establishes the universal presumption that every one of these improvements, real or imaginary, has been effected by the tenant or his predecessor, although, as a matter of fact, the tenant who really made the improvements may have disappeared ages ago and the present tenant may not have paid a single penny for them. I will not apply the term "confiscation" to this Bill, but I will say that if it is logically interpreted in the Law Courts rent will absolutely disappear, for it will be reduced, not to "prairie value"—because I presume that prairie value is some value—but to no value at all. By a logical interpretation of these subsections you will arrive at a negative value, and, in course of time, I suppose a landlord will be considered a very bad landlord unless he pays a substantial sum to any tenant who will graciously consent to occupy his farm. I am not imputing to my right hon. Friend that he meant the Bill to have this effect; what I say is, that it will have this effect unless it is amended. Let me put this to the House. Take any land in Ireland at the present time. What was it 1,000 years ago? I suppose that in the majority of cases it was bog or swamp. What was its letting value then? Nothing. Everything that has given it a letting value since then is, under this Bill, to be presumed to have been done by the tenant or his predecessor, and therefore is to be deducted from the rent. In such circumstances, how can you arrive at any rent at all? This, I hold, is a mathematical demonstration, and, although it is a practical absurdity, that only justifies me in saying that the Bill requires large amendment. I said at the beginning that this was the doctrine of the Land League. What was that doctrine? As we read in the report of the Parnell Commission [Derisive Home Rulecheers]—the object of the gentlemen who were brought before that tribunal was—
  "to promote agrarian agitation against all payment of agricultural rents, for the purpose of impoverishing and expelling from Ireland the Irish landlords who were styled the English garrison."
  What I want to point out is, that what the League proposed to obtain by coercion
  1004
  and intimidation this Bill will give by constitutional means unless it is altered. Let me ask the House to look at subsection 3, which gives the whole increase in letting value to the tenant. I complain that the Chief Secretary either does not understand his own Bill, or speaks with two voices with regard to it. It seems to me that the speeches of my right hon. Friend on the Irish Land Question are affected by the principle of dual ownership. Sometimes he speaks with reason and moderation, and at other times he appears to speak the extreme doctrines of the Land League. He says that the whole increase of the letting value ought to go to the tenant, because the capacity of the soil was let to the tenant in his initial bargain, and that was accounted for in the fair rent. That is what I call the extreme view, and I say that it is inconsistent with another statement in the same speech. What the Bill says is not what my right hon. Friend says. The Bill says that the potential capacity of the land being accounted for, the whole of the letting value is to go to the tenant. The occupation-right, as described by my right hon. Friend in his speech on the Second Reading, involves, in my opinion, an absurdity, and it will have a result, whether he likes it or not, such as described. The Bill says you are to take into account the occupation-right, which is the goodwill of the tenant, and if you take that into account you must fix your deduction at the same rate as the interest upon the value. Whether it be 5 per cent. or 1 per cent., the principle is exactly the same. My right hon. Friend seems to have founded himself upon the obiter dictum of Mr. Justice Bewley that some if the Assistant Commissioners did take his right into account, not as a right. They did not take into account the occupation-right, but they did take into account the absolute concrete question whether the sitting tenant has been there for a long time or not. Somebody has said that that was all that he required to be taken into account, and that where a tenant or his family has been on the land from time immemorial he ought to have a lower rent fixed on his holding than the man of yesterday. I do not, on principle, see the force of that argument, but I wish to observe that it is a different thing from

  1005
  what is in the Bill. If you mean that, put it in the Bill; and if the only demand is, that some additional consideration shall be given to the old tenant, as compared with the new one, that at least—though I do not recognise it on principle—appeals to a sentiment which very likely this House would favourably consider. Only, I point out, unless you make this clear and define what you are driving at, if you leave in a reference to the occupancy-right, you will by that means ultimately destroy all rent altogether. It does not matter whether the deduction is small or large. Every decrease increases the occupancy value and therefore increases the demand at the next application. You destroy rent altogether. I will only mention, in passing, another sub-section, and that is the proposal to carry back the presumption beyond the memory of man. There is a practical question involved in that which I want to submit to my right hon. Friend. I think it is grossly unfair to take the presumption back so far as that, and I can conceive of a number of cases in which it would be a great injustice to the landlords. But even in the interest of the tenant I do not think it desirable to encourage possible claims of this imaginary description. If you do it is perfectly certain you will enormously add to the litigation and claims that would come before the Court, and I believe it would be in the interest of simplicity and therefore of economy that some limit of time should be fixed. If that limit is fixed, as it was fixed in the Act of 1870, at the year 1850, that would be a limit 45 years behind the the present time, in which the vast majority of improvements will have been practically exhausted; and really there cannot be anything of great importance which can practically substantially exist as a claim behind that time. I approve generally of the second clause, which deals with the exclusions, though I think there may be some room for amendment
  1006
  and criticism in Committee. I admit there does not seem to be sufficient reason for keeping all these clauses out of the Act, only I would remind my right hon. Friend that by this provision you are introducing a number of new claimants, and when you couple with that the principle of shortening the statutory term, and breaking the statutory term in the case of all tenants whose rents have been fixed within the last ten years, and the reinstatement of the evicted tenants as present tenants, you are immensely increasing the work in the Courts and enormously adding to the already great cost of litigation unless you do a great deal, more than I am afraid my right hon. Friend proposes, to simplify procedure. I do not think that when we come to the Committee stage the question of procedure will deserve more attention than up to the present time the Government have been able to give it. I will not argue the matter of pre-emption as I had intended, but I will ask my right hon. friend to look to the Debates in 1881, and to see what the Member for Midlothian said in regard to this particular clause. He said in effect that nothing could be more absurd than to allow restrictions upon competitive rent if you allowed competitive tenant-right unlimited extension, and he regarded sub-Section 3 in Clause 1 of his Act as tending to prevent this unlimited extension of tenant-right. I know my right hon. Friend says it has not fulfilled its object, but although that may be a reason for making it more stringent, it is certainly no reason for repealing it altogether. Before sitting down let me go back to what I said at first. My view is, that the one proper and final solution of this matter is land purchase; and one of my great objections to this Bill is, that it makes land purchase more difficult and throws increased obstacles in the way. By this Bill you are increasing the uncertainty of everything that concerns land purchase in Ireland. You are doing more than that.

  1007
  You are throwing doubt upon the past. What do you think is going to be the effect upon those persons who have purchased land if you are going to produce legislation, the result of which is to make a further considerable reduction in rents? Will it not bring upon you from those tenants who have purchased a universal demand for some reduction of the purchase price which they have paid? But one thing is certain. The tenant is a shrewd person, and he will not go into the Courts to buy so long as he believes there is an element of uncertainty as to what his ultimate rent is to be. He is not such a fool as to buy in a falling market, and unless, therefore, you introduce some kind of finality into your proceedings you will never carry out this great operation of land transfer, which everybody agrees is most desirable and most important. I want to make one suggestion to my right hon. Friend before I sit down. I want to ask him to consider between now and the Committee stage whether, at the time he is dealing with this question of land, he cannot do something as well for land purchase. Can he not, for instance, simplify the procedure with regard to land purchase and with regard to the guarantees which are demanded? I am told that some of those guarantees are unnecessary, and that they are not only unnecessary, but that they do act as a deterrent. If that be so, I hope my right hon. Friend will consider the question and see whether or not it may not be possible, with the experience which we have gained, to facilitate the transactions under that Act. But I am going much farther than that. I say this Bill is going to perpetrate the land war in Ireland. Every ten years under this Bill you will now bring every tenant in Ireland and every landlord in Ireland into sharp conflict, probably before the law. It cannot be otherwise. At the same time you will subject this country to enormous additional cost. As my right hon. Friend has already told the House, in the years since 1881 we
  1008
  have spent £1,000,000 endeavouring to deal with this question, and I say that was not the intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. When he brought in his Act he contemplated a better result than this. Even now, if we are going to legislate again after having, as hon. Members opposite say, "shattered the power of the landlords," we might say to the landlords and tenants:—
  "We have interfered in your affairs and have spent a million in order to fix rents and to settle your respective interests. In many cases we have failed to do justice, though we have tried to do our best, and if we try again it is doubtful whether we shall do better. What we propose now is, that if either of you is discontented with the present state of things, and if you come before the Courts for revision, in that case the other party shall have the right to say, 'We cannot agree. We are continually disagreeing, I am tired of this perpetual warfare. Our partnership is not a success, let us end it.'"
  Thereupon the Land Court should intervene and settle the transfer. That is my suggestion. It is a scheme of limited compulsory purchase. It is limited, in the first place, by the number of applicants who may come into Court; and, in the second place, by the amount of money with which the Court may be, provided by this House. I believe that a scheme of that kind would suffice to deal with most of the urgent and bitter contests which may arise in this matter, and that it would give a large extension to this principle of purchase which we desire to see made universal. I have shown that the Bill does not, in its present form at any rate, carry out the intentions declared by my right hon. Friend, and that it does not justify his description. It is not a moderate Bill, nor is it founded on the principles of the Act of 1881. On the contrary, it will, unless amended, bring about results which the promoters of the Act of 1881 all of them publicly disavowed. On the other hand, I agree that there is much in the Bill that is good. It is difficult to discuss it on a Second Reading, and fine must approach it with mixed feelings, for while there are some things

  1009
  whfch are good, and others which may be good but which require explanation, there are others which are absolutely bad. I do not know with what intention my right hon. Friend introduced the Bill. If it is only part of an electioneering programme, let him closure Debate in Committee as soon as he can, and get it out of this House. We know then what its fate will be. [Ironical cheers.] Certainly. If a Bill in this form were to go to the other House, that House would undoubtedly be failing in its duty if it did not give the same treatment to the Bill as to the Home Rule Bill But I do not believe that that is my right hon. Friend's intention. I believe he wants to pass a good Bill, and I hope that he will treat with consideration the amendments and suggestions which are submitted to him. If he dues that, I do not see any reason why a Bill dealing with the practical difficulties to which he has referred should not be passed, not only through this House, but through the other. Bull if the Bill is treated as a measure on which no amendments are to be allowed, then, though I do not vote against it on this occasion, I shall certainly oppose it on the Third Reading.
  Debate adjourned.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (CHANNEL ISLANDS CHILDREN) BILL.
  Im moving the Second Reading of this Bill,
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY of STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, North Beds)said, that the Bill, which was agreed to by the Legislatures of the Channel Islands, provided for the transfer to the reformatory and industrial schools of England of children ordered to be removed to such schools by the Courts of the Channel Islands. As far as he, knew there was no objection to the Bill on any ground.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked whether the charge for maintenance of the children in the schools would be borne by the authorities of the Channel Islands.
  MR. G. RUSSELL: Yes, Sir.
  Bill read 2°.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (RECEIVER) BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. TOMLINSONasked that some explanation should be given of the provisions of the Bill.
  *MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, this Bill was only intended to provide for the appointment, if necessary, of a substitute or deputy for the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police during the Receiver's temporary absence through illness or any other cause. At present there was no means of providing a deputy, and both receipts and expenditure on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Fund had to be authenticated by his signature. There was now no official qualified to sign for him.
  Motion put, and agreed to.

  SCOTCH EDUCATION CODE, 1895.
  *MR. J. A. CAMPBELLrose to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that Sections 3 and 4 of part II. of the Scotch Education Code, 1895, be withdrawn until further time has been given for considering the provisions as to Queen's students."
  He said, he owed an apology to the Speaker and to the House generally for causing a prolongation of the Sitting at that late hour, but his excuse must be found in the circumstances of the case. This was the only opportunity which could be taken of discussing the Scotch Education Code for that year. That

  1011
  Code contained important new provisions—especially some relating to the training of teachers—which would have deserved the consideration of the House even if there had been nothing in them calling for criticism or requiring explanation. But those provisions had raised not a little anxious criticism in Scotland. Deputations on the subject had waited on the Secretary for Scotland. Representations had been made by University authorities; and he had today presented a petition from the General Council of the University of Glasgow. Under these circumstances he trusted he should be excused by the House for the action he was now taking. He said at once that he did not propose this Motion in a sense hostile to the principle of the Code in making new provisions for the training of teachers. What he ventured to say was that the Code in itself and in the light of the circular which accompanied it, was calculated, unless satisfactorily explained, to awaken grave apprehensions as to its effect upon the existing Training Colleges—which were acknowledged to have done excellent work in the past—and apprehensions also as to its effect upon the Universities, with respect to the standard of teaching in the Arts classes. The Code proposed to add to the present means of preparing teachers, that candidates for the profession, to be called Queen's students, should attend a University or University College, under the authority of a local committee, who would be responsible for their discipline and moral supervision, for their regular attendance at professorial lectures, and for their practical training in a school approved by the Department. To this idea of connecting the preparation of teachers more closely with study at a University, there was nothing but approval expressed by all interested in education. He thought the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for Scotland, deserved the thanks of all Scottish educationists for putting so prominently-forward this connection of University
  1012
  education and the Teaching profession. They especially felt the importance of this development at the present time, when greater efforts were being made for the promotion of secondary education—requiring highly qualified teachers for their secondary schools, and for the higher departments of ordinary public schools. But how did the Code, as explained by the Circular, propose to carry out this idea? The Circular spoke of—
  "Allowing the whole training to be taken in connection with the university;"
  giving the impression that the University was in some way to have to do with all that had hitherto been done by the Training Colleges. And, again, when professional and technical training was referred to, the same impression was encouraged; for it was said that—
  "The Universities will now have an opportunity of taking a share in the work,"
  that was, of professional and technical training, "along with the training colleges." Here, then, there appeared to be the introduction of the Universities as competing with the Training Colleges in work proper to the Colleges, but not proper to the Universities. It was no wonder, he thought, that the committees of the Training Colleges took alarm lest they should be deprived of their students. How could they doubt that the dignity of being termed Queen's students, with attendance at University classes, under the easier supervision of a local committee, would be more attractive to the young people who had just completed their course as pupil teachers, than to become Queen's scholars under the stricter and more continuous discipline of a Training College? And the friends of Training Colleges were not alone in this opinion. Those who upon theoretical grounds are objectors to, or opponents of, the Training Colleges, took the same view. The publication of the Code made them jubilant, because they thought they saw in the new proposals the doom of the Training

  1013
  Colleges. And how did the matter look as viewed from the position of the Universities? Besides being called upon to join in a work which lay outside of their province, the Universities were to be invited to receive for instruction in subjects which were within their province a new class of imperfectly prepared men who should nevertheless bear the name of Queen's students. As to the preparation required for students entering the Universities, there had been an important step taken in Scotland in recent years. Ordinances had now become law which required that all students who went forward to graduation, or who entered the University with a view to graduation, should pass a certain preliminary examination or an equivalent to it, and the Universities desired that such students only should be encouraged to come within their walls. This condition, however, of passing an examination was not to be imperative, for the present at least, in the case of Queen's students. Their exemption was stated as a temporary provision, but no date was given for its removal. Those Queen's students, therefore, who did not pass the examination would attend the University as private students. Their presence there would not be very profitable to themselves if they were not sufficiently prepared to derive full benefit from the instruction given, and their presence would have a rather depressing effect on their fellow students. Their attendance would have no recognition by the University, and yet their name of Queen's students would give them a quasi University status in the eyes of the uninformed. It might be replied that Queen's scholars of the Training Colleges who attended University classes, as many of them did, were not required to undergo this preliminary examination; but, in answer, it had to be remembered that they were not allowed to attend the University unless they had attained a certain stage in the Training College, proving
  1014
  their fitness to profit by the University classes; and besides, they were, after all, only Queen's scholars—they had not the misleading title of Queen's students. The only safeguard against the evil to which he had referred was the discretion of the local committees, who ought, of course, to refuse their sanction to any Queen's student going forward to a University class who had not first proved his ability to profit by it; but having no information yet as to how these committees were to be constituted, they could scarcely say how far their discretion was to be trusted. A more certain ground of confidence was found, he thought, in a Memorandum just issued by the Principal of the University College of Dundee. He believed he might say it was an open secret that the appearance of these new provisions in the Code at this time had been largely owing to the desire expressed by educationists in Dundee (where there was at present no Training College), for some means of preparing teachers in that important centre. With that desire he had fully sympathised. He only regretted that in the way in which it was met in the Code there was, in appearance at least, an endangering of the good work done at present in other parts of the country. But Principal Peterson explained the views of the Council of Dundee University College in a way which appeared to him to be quite satisfactory. He said:—
  The essence of the Dundee proposal is to found a Normal Training Department which shall do for this district what is done by the Training Colleges in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen."
  And he said further:—
  "It is not University College, as a part of the Scotch University system, that is here in question."
  In other words, for students not prepared to profit by University teaching, Dundee College would have a Normal Training Department. Such students would be under instruction in the College

  1015
  as a separate institution of itself—not as a part of the Scottish University system. One could only regret that these young men and women were to receive the name of Queen's students, before they entered the University as students passing on to graduation. For students who could pass the preliminary examination he thought there would be general satisfaction in Scotland with the proposals of the Code. He believed that the Secretary for Scotland would say there, as he had said elsewhere, that which would go far to allay the fears which the Code as introduced had undoubtedly raised. It was in order to give the right hon. Gentleman that opportunity that he begged to propose the Motion which stood in his name.
  SIR C. DALRYMPLEseconded the Motion.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir GEORGE TREVELYAN,thought that the Department might congratulate themselves on the way in which the Code had been received. It contained, no doubt, changes and improvements, and it was impossible to please everybody. His hon. Friend, while generally praising the Code, expressed fears at what was, perhaps, the most important change in it. The late Government, in the year 1890, carried through a considerable, and, he thought, a very beneficent change in England, by allowing local committees to be started in University towns, and those local committees, which were of exactly the same nature and described in the Code in exactly the same language as those now proposed to be started in Scotland, were allowed to undertake the training of students in conjunction with the University or the College. To each of those students sums of money were paid. This was taken advantage of in many centres of education. In Wales especially it had caused a revival in University education as extended to the masses. In England and Wales there were now 871 students of these classes, of whom 436 were men and 435 women. The system had been a complete success, and England and Wales received considerably upwards of £20,000 a year from the public Treasury. Would Scotland remain any longer behind in this respect? The Department had extended to Scotland
  1016
  exactly the same advantages as were extended to England, but stronger guarantees were taken in the case of Scotland, because, in order that the most remote fear of lowering the University standard should be removed in Scotland, a condition was imposed by which each of those students had to have obtained a University mark of several passes of credit in one or another of the subjects of the examination for Queen's scholars. He had information that there was great need of trained teachers in Scotland. Out of 8,700 teachers, upwards of 2,500 were untrained, and he was very much afraid the numbers were increasing, because, out of 600 teachers who entered this year, 200—or, full one-third—had received no special training. In the other great centres there were Training Colleges, but in Dundee none; but, on the other hand, in Dundee there was a great desire on the part of young people to become teachers. The University College had long been anxious for the advantages that had been given since 1890 to England, and the local authorities of the town, the School Board and the Municipality asked that Dundee should be made a real centre for training, and another species of training from that of any Training Colleges which now exist. It was said that this would lower University teaching. Why in Scotland, if not in England? These Queen's students were not to have a degree at the University. They were to become teachers. Instead of having their degree at the end of their course, they were to pass an examination which was to be conducted by the Universities and by the local committee—an examintion of the same nature as certificated teachers pass when they come to the end of their career. The argument about lowering the standard of University teaching was not a good one in Scotland. When they considered in old days the trouble which Scottish parents took, the sacrifices they made to send their children to the University under the greatest disadvantages, he did not think they should be too ready to say that humble students ought not to attend the University, That was not all. The young men from the Training Colleges might go to the classes now without passing a preliminary examination; but they had to take the University mark. That was exactly what

  1017
  should have every opportunity and facility afforded them of going to the University. He was glad to see that in they proposed for the Queen's students—to place them on the same footing as those who now went to the Training Colleges which now existed, and he could not consent to place them in a less advantageous position. It was said that there was an unfair competition with the Training Colleges. That was not so. The average payment on account of the Queen's students was £32 10s. per year, and the average payment to the Training Colleges was £32 12s. He should like to refer to an important Memorandum laid before him by the deputation from the Training Colleges. Speaking in a much stronger tone than his hon. Friend, they protested against this proposal, in the first place, because it was a proposal uneducational, undesirable, and retrograde. On the contrary, he said it was a progressive and desirable proposal, and as it had been a real success in England, it should be extended to Scotland. Then it was said that the proposal "is wholly superfluous and unnecessary." But as Minister for Education in Scotland, he received on the other side complaints that the supply of teachers was steadily falling off. Again it was pleaded that—
  "It would gradually destroy existing instistutions.…Training colleges would come to an end in a few years, and the Churches would give them up."
  This system, however, had succeeded in 15 centres in England, and the Training Colleges had expressed no apprehension. Then came the most important objection that no provision was made for the religious instruction of students intending to be teachers. The Government did not lay down any obligation that religion should be taught, and he thought quite rightly so, because it was not the business of the State. As no obligation was laid on the Training Colleges in Scotland with reference to the teaching of religion, no obligation would be laid on the local committee; but could anyone believe that a committee formed of representatives of educationists, municipalities
  1018
  and Universities would really start an institution for the training of teachers in which there was to be no teaching of religion? To the contention that the teachers of the young could not be taught religion except in a college attached to a special denomination, he, as an individual Member of Parliament, could never possibly accede; neither as an administrator could he consent for such a reason as that to forego for Scotland an advantage which had been enjoyed by England since 1890. The object of the Department was to make this new step a success, and in order to do so they proposed to observe two conditions. In the first place, they did not intend to force the scheme upon anybody who did not want it. If a University College wished to take part in the system and it placed itself in communication with the School Board of the city in which it was placed and with the municipality, and made a solid local committee to which they could safely intrust the welfare and the guidance of the young people, the scheme would be put in operation. But, on the other hand, when they had a body like that at Dundee which already was prepared to come forward, the Department wished that that body should set the new system in motion under such conditions that it might be successful, and that that body should not be hampered in any way in comparison with the existing training colleges. The Department would watch the system most carefully, and see whether it wanted relaxing or tightening in any respect to make it a success or to prevent it from being a danger; but he could not consent, under any circumstances, to go back from the proposal of extending to Scotland an advantage which appeared to him to be peculiarly adapted to Scotch requirements, to Scotch character, and to Scotch educational conditions.
  MR. J. PARKER SMITHdid not think anyone could challenge the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there was great need of fresh and additional teachers in Scotland, and that it was desirable those teachers

  1019
  a good many respects the Code made more attractive in one way or another the profession of the teacher and facilitated the training to fit him for his profession. But the great claim the right hon. Gentleman put forward was that the Code was to add largely to what Scotland drew from the Treasury for the purpose of training. He did not see where that came in except in one particular case; Dundee wanted an opportunity of training teachers. It was quite right Dundee should have that chance. By all means let the University College of Dundee have every opportunity of training as many teachers as it could. That was wanted, and no one would grudge that to Dundee. But he would like to know what chance there was that the other Universities of Scotland would fall in with the plan of the right hon. Gentleman. What were they to gain by it? They could gain nothing under the Code except in regard to teachers who remained in a course of training for a third year unless they formed a local committee. What form of local committee were they to have? The right hon. Gentleman had said he did not intend to force a local committee on anyone who did not want it. He was glad of that; but what sort of local committee would there be? Supposing, for example, that in Glasgow the training colleges now existing, together with the University and the School Board, desired to form themselves into a local committee. Of course the Department would have to judge of the fitness of the local committee. Would that he had mentioned be the kind of local committee the right hon. Gentleman would approve of? Would the right hon. Gentleman in that way give Glasgow and Edinburgh and Aberdeen a chance of benefiting by the scheme? The great objection that was felt to the scheme as it stood was that it admitted to the University students of too low a standard. The language that the right hon. Gentleman used about humble students seemed to him wide of the mark. It was not a question of the humbleness of the student, but of his fitness to benefit by University teaching. Just lately in the Scotch Universities they had made a great step in advance
  1020
  by imposing a preliminary examination. He contrasted the tone of the circular of the Education Department with that now used by the right hon. Gentleman. He quite agreed with the view expressed in the circular, and that was the view which had been expressed strongly by the University of Edinburgh, the Educational Institute, and by various training colleges. It appeared to him that to go back on the step they had just introduced of having a preliminary examination was unnecessary to prevent what was an evil to Scotch Universities in times past, viz., that they contained students whose knowledge was so elementary that they could not benefit by their position in the Universities, and who ought rather to be taught in schools. That would be a very great flaw in what otherwise he should consider a great improvement to the scheme. He did not think it was correct that under this scheme the Queen's students were to be exactly on the same footing as the Queen's scholars, because the Queen's students were, when they passed in the first or second class, to be admitted to University lectures, while the scholars only got their fees paid when they passed in the first class. The Queen's scholars who had passed the first class were on the whole undoubtedly fit to benefit by University training. He thought it would be bad for Universities, and also for students, that they should encourage people whose training and knowledge was not sufficient to benefit by the University to go there; they ought to leave them to be dealt with in other institutions such as training colleges, schools, and University colleges which did not give a degree. The education of all these more backward students ought not to be thrown on the University. On the whole, the extension of the supply of teachers and the association of teachers more closely with the Universities was a thing that would be welcomed throughout Scotland. He only regretted that there were the drawbacks he had mentioned in regard to it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Twenty-two minutes before One o'clock.

DRAFTING OF BILLS.
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that the Commons do concur with their Lordships in the Resolution communicated in their Lordships' message of Friday last—namely: That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider in what manner such inconvenience as arises from legislation by reference in Acts of Parliament to prior enactments can best be avoided.
GOVERNMENT INSURANCES AND ANNUITIES.
Accounts of all moneys received and of the disposal thereof, and of all contracts for the grant of deferred life annuities, and for payments on death, made during the year ended December 31st, 1894.
GENERAL PRISONS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
Order in Council approving of rule made by the General Prisons Board for Ireland, dated March 11th, 1895.

CHITRAL.
In answer to the Marquess of LANSDOWNE,
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord REAY)said, I can communicate a telegram just received from the Viceroy, dated 3.15 p.m. to-day, which is as follows:—
"Malakand Pass captured yesterday, 3rd April. The pass was very difficult and stoutly held by 3,000, chiefly Mullahs and Sheikhs and their followers, Upper Ranizais, Utman Khels, and Adamzais. Gatherings on Morah and Shahkot Passes had no time to join. Advance was made by our infantry in several columns, and the heights were ultimately carried at the point of the bayonet. Artillery and Maxims co-operated with great success. Enemy lost at least 500, and probably more. Our casualties nut vet known fully, but reported as 50 in second brigade alone. First brigade advance to Swat river to-day (4th), and the second follow when pass is tit for camels."

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) (No. 2.) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order); and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL— [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendment read, and discharged.

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES (No. 2) BILL— [H.L.]
On Report of Amendment to this Bill,
*LORD MORRIScalled attention to what he considered to be an irregularity in the procedure before the Standing Committee. He moved an Amendment on that occasion dealing with the application of the Bill to Ireland. It was put to the Vote, and 12 Peers voted with him and 13 the other way. A noble Lord was present on that occasion who was not a Member of the Standing Committee when, the Bill was first called on, though he admitted that if any noble Lord ought to be on such a Committee it was the Peer to whom he referred—the Lord Chief Justice. That noble Lord's vote was counted in the Division, and the clause remained in the Bill. He understood that while the question was under consideration the name of the Lord Chief Justice was added to the Committee. He did not understand by what means this was done, but he thought it was an extraordinary proceeding. The Lord Chief Justice was not a Member of the Standing Committee, and he had no right to vote. But his vote had made a decided change in excepting Ireland from the operation of the general criminal law of the country; and therefore he objected to the reception of the Report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HERSCHELL)said, that while there were two identical Bills dealing with this subject, they were nevertheless perfectly

879
separate. It was incorrect to say that the two Bills had been taken together; they were taken in succession. His noble Friend had objected on principle to the Report of this Bill because of something which had been done on another Bill; but the noble and learned Lord would have an opportunity to restate his objection when the Report connected with the other Bill was moved by his noble and learned Friend, Lord Halsbury.
The EARL OF MORLEYthought that nothing irregular was done before the Standing Committee, and there was no question as to the Standing Orders having been complied with. During the sitting of the Committee he was informed that the Lord Chief justice desired to serve on the Committee. Lord Kensington and himself, under the Standing Orders, agreed that the noble Lord ought to be placed on the Committee for that occasion. The Standing Order No. 47 distinctly gave power to the Committee of Selection, appointed at the beginning of each Session, to appoint any noble Lord to serve on a Standing Committee. This was constantly being done. It was usually done the day before, but it was not necessary to take action the day before, and there was no compulsion on the Committee of Selection to make any report to the House on the subject. *LORD MORRIS said he would withdraw his objection.
Report received and agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE RENT-CHARGE IN IRELAND.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE rose to call attention to the recent action of the Irish Land Commissioners in requiring the payment of ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge at earlier dates than usual; and to move for papers. This question, he said, had been before their Lordships on several occasions; and the particular point to which he wished to refer that evening was mentioned not many days ago by the noble Lord on the front Opposition bench at the close of a conversation begun by Lord Belmore. His noble Friend was not successful in eliciting from Her Majesty's Government any explanation as to the facts to which he then adverted, and as the subject had attracted a good deal of attention
880
in Ireland he had thought it desirable to give their lordships an opportunity to obtain an explanation with regard to it. Their Lordships would no doubt recollect that the Irish Church Act of 1869 contained a provision under which it was open to a landowner to redeem the tithe rent-charge on payment of a sum equal to 22½ years' purchase on the annual instalments. The Act also contained an alternative proposal intended no doubt to meet those cases in which a transaction by out-and-out purchase might not be convenient to those concerned. The alternative was that the rent-charge could be redeemed by a series of annual instalments slightly exceeding the amount of the rent-charge and spread over a period of 52 years. Three years after the passing of the Irish Church Act, in 1872, an Amending Act was passed. That Act contained a number of different provisions, and among them was one stereotyping the ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge at the figure at which it stood on November 1 of the previous year. Their Lordship's would observe that the effect of that provision was to preclude those who were liable for this rent-charge from the right of having its amount revised at intervals of seven years according to the fluctuations in the price of certain agricultural staples. Then they came to the Act of 1887—an Act which amended the Land Act of 1881 and the Land Purchase Act of 1885. In that part of the Act of 1887 which dealt with the question of purchase, it was indicated that the—
"Land Commission may, if they think expedient, order the redemption of any Crown rent, quit rent, or tithe rent-charge or any apportioned part thereof, at a price to be fixed by the Land Commission."
Their Lordships would observe that, whereas the number of years' purchase laid down in the original Act was 22½years, the number of years' purchase in the Amending Act was that which might be fixed by the Land Commissioners, he presumed with the concurrence of the Treasury. With regard to the Act of 1872, he observed that it passed through both Houses without any discussion whatever, and, no doubt, judged by the light of the circumstances which were then present, it did seem a very desirable thing that the amount of the rent-charge should be, fixed once and for

881
all instead of being variable at intervals; but the result had certainly been rather disadvantageous to the persons liable for this particular payment. He noticed in the recent Report of the Land Commissioners that in the last year 11 perpetuity rents, amounting to £1,419, were reduced in accordance with the prices of corn to £959, a very substantial reduction, and one which the ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge was now no longer liable to. Then, with regard to the terms of commutation, they would recollect that last year Lord Belmore, in a very temperate and carefully-reasoned speech, laid before them certain reasons for believing that there had been a very serious miscalculation in the terms upon which the tithe rent-charge might be redeemed under the Irish Church Act. The noble Earl showed that while the Bill was under discussion the original proposal of the Government had been considerably modified, and that, in consequence, the number of years in which the principal sum, together with interest, was to be extinguished had been overestimated by no less than six years, and that whereas 46 years would have been the proper term to lay down, the term actually laid down was 52 years. Lord Belmore subsequently asked for statistics from Her Majesty's Government with the object of elucidating this point, but, owing to an unfortunate piece of forget fulness, which was admitted the other day, that information had not yet been provided, and he hoped that the noble Lord who was going to follow him would be able to tell them that it would be laid upon the Table of the House at an early date. But there was a good deal of other evidence which showed that these tithe rent-charges were very considerably overvalued under the Irish Church Act; it was a remarkable thing that on two occasions the Land Commissioners had approached the Treasury and made a specific recommendation that the number of years' purchase should be reduced from 22½ years to 20, and in a recent Report they said:—
"The facilities afforded by the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, for the apportionment and redemption of quit-rout, tithe rent-charge, and head-rents have enabled sales to be effected in almost all cases discharged of outgoings. While, however, the redemption prices of head-rents are being fixed as provided by the 16th Section of that Aft, and the price of lay tithe rent-charge
882
has been fixed by us at 20 years' purchase, we regret to have to report that no effect has as yet been given to the provisions of the 15th Section of that Act for the revision of the prices of either quit-rents or of tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission, which have still to be redeemed at the respective rates of 25 years' and 22½ years' purchase."
The effect of the maintenance of this high rate of purchase was that a landlord who was the owner of a lay tithe of £10 a year payable to him out of lands which were being sold, received for that payment at the rate of 20 years' purchase—namely, £200; but if, at the same time, he was selling lands charged with an ecclesiastical tithe of £10, he had to buy that up at 22½ years' purchase—namely, £225, or a difference of no less than 12½ per cent. between the two transactions. In regard to the question of over-valuation, Mr. Morrough O'Brien, one of the Irish Land Commissioners, had recently given evidence before the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland to the effect that tithe rent-charges, though a first charge on the land, were difficult to identify, costly to collect, and not easily saleable in the open market, so that, as a rule, they were not worth more than 17 years' purchase; that perpetuity rents were not worth more than 21 years' purchase, and as the Church rents were variable with corn prices, they were not worth as much as ordinary fee farm rents; but that the Church Act had fixed the price of tithe rent-charge at 22½ and perpetuity rents at 25 years' purchase, thus adding £2,779,000 to the then market value of the securities, the artificially swollen value being to the detriment of owners of property subject to those charges. If these contentions had any force in them those who were liable should at least receive from the public department concerned no less consideration than had been extended to them during recent years. The allegation, however, was that the Land Commission, instead of pressing these claims with moderation and forbearance, were at this moment engaged in what was vulgarly called pulling up arrears, greatly to the inconvenience of those who were liable for these payments. Even on the best estates in Ireland, he believed it was the case that rents and tithe rent-charges due in May were paid in November, and

883
those due in November were paid in May; but now the tithe rent-charges due last November had been asked for in February, and further time was peremptorily refused. This attempt to obtain the payment of three half-years' tithe rent-charges within 12 months was, he thought, unwise. Everyone knew that if the landlord were to attempt to obtain payment of the rent out of which the rent-charge was to be met in a similar manner, and asked for three half-years within the 12 months, he would be told he was acting very harshly and running the risk of troubling the public tranquillity. Recent legislation abounded in provisions intended to give every opportunity to embarrassed tenants to obtain from their landlords the utmost indulgence. He believed that at the present time a Bill was before Parliament designed, among other things, still further to increase the difficulty of overtaking arrears of agricultural rents in Ireland. He did not say that the indulgence was unwise, but he contended that in common fairness it would be just to extend to those liable for these rent-charges a few shreds of the consideration extended to those liable for the rent out of which the rent-charge had to be met. That was the whole of his contention. He hoped there was no intention on the part of the Government to depart in any way from the practice which had hitherto governed the procedure of the Department responsible for these matters. He would like to hear whether the cases that had been commented upon in Parliament and the Press were isolated cases, or represented a policy that had been deliberately adopted and sanctioned. If there had been a new departure, he hoped the noble Lord who would reply for the Government would tell the House whether it had been thought necessary to make it; and whether, if there were any papers, and if any instructions had been given under which the Land Commission had taken this action, he would be good enough to lay them on the Table of the House.
LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, that as to the papers that were asked for he could not conceive what papers he could lay on the Table unless it was a Return of payments and claims for payments on account of tithe-rent charge in past years. He had no such Return, and he did not
884
think, if he placed such papers on the Table, they would add anything to the explanation which he hoped he would be able to give in answer to the questions of the noble Marquess. He was sure the noble Marquess would be the first to admit that in the remarks he had addressed to the House he had wandered a good deal outside the limits of his question. He himself did not complain in the least of that. But the question asked for information upon the specific action recently taken by the Irish Land Commission with regard to the payment of tithe-rent charge, and he was sure his noble Friend would not expect him to go into the redemption and over-valuation of tithe as affected by the Act of 1869 and the amending Acts since. He would have to say a word in a different connection on the Act of 1869, but not as regarded general legislation as to commutation of tithes, which was not embraced in the noble Marquess's question. Whenever attention was called in the House to the recent action of anybody or anything in Ireland it was generally not in a congratulatory tone. The present case was no exception to the rule. He understood the noble Marquess—and he recognised the most moderate and temperate way in which he put his case—to say that the Irish Land Commissioners were supposed to be showing a want of moderation and forbearance, and not showing the moderation and forbearance which the circumstances surrounding the payment of sums of money owing would warrant them to suppose they would show in the case of Ireland. The noble Marquess also wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to take a completely new departure and to act in future in a harsh and unreasonable manner towards those who had to pay tithe rent-charges. He also said that if a new departure had been taken it would be only right for the Government to say why such new departure had taken place. He put on one side altogether the idea that in what the Land Commissioners were doing or had done they had acted harshly. They were merely doing what they thought right in view of circumstances which he would explain. It was quite true that the custom for some years had been that the issue of notices for payment of tithe-rent charge due on May 1st did not take place until

885
early in October, and payments due on November 1st were not paid until early in March. The payment of May gale under the old order of things was demanded on May 1st, and the November gale on March 25th. The noble Marquess thought the recent action of the Commissioners pointed to a new-order of things. He admitted that a new state of things had come about. The Commissioners, on full consideration, had decided now that the notice for payments of tithe rent-charge should be issued within two months of the half-yearly payment, and that the limit of payments should be the first three months after 1st November and 1st May for the payments then due. While six months' credit was formerly given, now it was only throe months. Those who had been accustomed to six months credit might feel the shortening of the period a little hard, but the persons to whom the money was owing had to be considered as well as the person who had to pay. It might be just as inconvenient for the creditor to give six months' credit as it might be pleasant for the debtor to obtain it. Roughly speaking, the tithe rent-charge amounted to £170,000 a year. That was a large sum, and the Commissioners were bound to pay the interest on the charges imposed by Parliament on the Church Fund on the actual date on which the interest became legally due. The charges which they had to pay to the Church Fund almost absorbed the whole of their receivable income. Consequently, six months' credit had been allowed by those who had to meet their obligations punctually to the day. There was also the difficulty of keeping accounts and having enough money to go on with. That was the reason why the change had been instituted. Previous to the Act of 1869 the tithe rent-charge was paid by incumbents and various ecclesiastical bodies in Ireland, and there was no reason to suppose that long arrears were allowed then. An incumbent probably had a family to bring up, boys to send to school, and the butcher and grocer to pay, and therefore looked well after his tithe, and got it paid pretty punctually. Why should arrears which were not allowed to run on continually in those days be allowed to run on continually
886
now? He did not think the Land Commissioners intended in deal harshly, but it was their duty to require payment of the tithe rent-charge sooner than hitherto, because they had to pay interest and other money they might owe on the day it became due. In conclusion, he would inquire when the memorandum, asked for by Lord Belmore, giving the calculations upon which the commutation of tithe rent-charge was based, would be ready.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that nothing could be clearer, but, at the same time, more entirely unsatisfactory, than the statement of the noble Lord. The position appeared to be a harsh one, a disagreeable one, and one that was largely indefensible. The Irish landlords and those who had to pay these charges ought not to be made to suffer because Parliament, in its imprudence, had made many charges upon these Irish funds. Over and over again attention had been drawn to the wav in which the Church Fund had been charged with millions and half-millions, and it was a wonder that the Fund had not come to an end a long time ago. Each time a demand had been made it had been argued from figures that the Fund was not insolvent, but that, when all its assets were taken into account, it was quite solvent, and if it were wound up at some future time there would be a substantial surplus; but each time the question had become graver and more serious, and had led to the manifestation of more incredulity as to the power of the Fund to bear any further advance. From the statement which the noble Lord had made, apparently by instruction, it might be inferred that it was the Treasury who were really answerable for this new departure, and who had caused the collectors to press for prompt payment in order to enable them to satisfy the claims upon the Irish Church Fund. That was an unfair position in which to place those who were bound to pay these charges. The noble Lord carefully read, apparently from communicated notes, the statement that an order had been made or a direction given. It would be satisfactory if this order or direction could be produced, so as to show the date and the method of this new departure, and in its absence they

887
could understand that it was the Treasury that was responsible for this pressure. He had heard the statement with surprise; he did not expect an answer so painfully frank and disagreeably candid; he rather anticipated a denial of intentional or exceptional pressure, and a promise of inquiry and of adherence to older methods. This was a hard case, and a harsh one. Irish landlords were no more easy in circumstances than were their English and Scotch brethren, and it was hard upon them to ask them to make these payments almost to the hour, whilst at the same time, in Parliament, on platform, and in the Press, they were asked to be generous, forbearing and indulgent in not pressing for their rents—nay, the sentiment was embodied in the language of statutes, for in the Act of 1887 there was a clause empowering a County Court, Judge, instead of taking land from a tenant in arrears, to spread the payment of them over a number of instalments. The landlords were thus forbidden to seek for that prompt payment which by this new departure they were themselves required to make. This was harsh and unreasonable. Some agents had received printed forms stating that payment must be made within six days. It was not fair criticism to object to the noble Marquess going outside the bare question on the notice paper, for they must look at the matter as a whole. The 22½ years' purchase adopted in the Church Act having come to be the measure for the purchase of ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge, the calculations on which it was originally based had been asked for and promised, but not supplied. The return was promised last year, and the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, regretted that the matter had been forgotten. It was very unsatisfactory that a return which was promised twice over in Parliament by the Prime Minister had been forgotten—a return which was greatly sought for in order to show how it came about that a heavy payment was exacted from Irish landlords when they desired to buy or redeem ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge. The statement now made left the matter in a position which necessitated further inquiry, and, if necessary, further discussion.
LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, he was sure the noble Marquess would acquit him of having indulged in any criticism in the remarks he made as regarded tithe commutation rent-charge. What he said was not by way of criticism, but it was by way of excusing himself for not being able to go fully into a very different question which the noble Marquess raised. Having said that, he must add that he rather objected to the noble Lord opposite going into a question which he had said he was not prepared to go into, and making use of a specific question by the noble Marquess to convey what he might call a somewhat menacing argument. They were asked to do all sorts of things and to make all sorts of inquiries which were completely outside the original question, and which he took some exception to. The noble Lord opposite had asked him whether he had spoken from his own notes or from what had been supplied to him by some one else. It was quite true that lie had in his hands the answer which he did practically make. As to the part he had read, to which the noble Lord attached such super-excellent importance, the words "Treasury minute" were not mentioned at all in the instructions. He did read, from the notes with which he had been supplied, the following passage—
"The Commissioners, on full consideration, decided that the demands for payment should go out in future within two months of the half-yearly dates upon which tithe rent-charge becomes legally payable, and that the limit for payment should be three months after May 1st and November 1st respectively."
He only read that because the noble Marquess had asked him a perfectly plain question as to whether a new departure, had been made.

COURTS OF LAW FEES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 1a To be printed; and to be read 2a Monday next.—(The Lord Chancellor.) [N° 65.]
The House adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock.