Sitting of 14 May 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  On the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  MR. D. CRILLYsaid that the Measure included five Provisional Orders, four of which related to England and one to Ireland. He had no objection to make to the confirmation of the English Provisional Orders, but he did object to the confirmation of that which related to Killala.
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member opposes the Bill, it will be postponed until another day.
  MR. CRILLYwished to ask, on a point of Order, whether if the Bill were postponed, he would be allowed to state his objections to the Measure when it came before the House on a future occasion.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Certainly, the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of stating the grounds of his objections to the Bill.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLasked whether he would be in order in moving an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The notice of the Instruction can be given, but the Instruction cannot be moved now.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

QUESTIONS.

  CAPE GARRISON.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if a Roman Catholic chaplain accompanied the Irish troops now on their way to South Africa; and, was a Presbyterian clergyman sent with the Seaforth Highlanders to Crete?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Chaplains are not, as a rule, sent with troops proceeding to a colony. Officiating clergymen of the required denomination are employed in the colony to whatever extent may be found necessary. There are no Army chaplains of any denomination in South Africa. A Presbyterian clergyman was sent with the Seaforth Highlanders to Crete as there was no probability of finding there a clergyman who could officiate.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked why a distinction was drawn in this matter in favour of the Presbyterians and against the Roman Catholics?
  MR. BRODRICK: Because the soldiers who happened to be sent to Crete were Presbyterians, and if soldiers of other denominations had been sent

  493
  there we should have sent chaplains of those denominations.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Here are 800 Roman Catholic soldiers sent to South Africa. Why should nut they have a Roman Catholic chaplain just as the Presbyterians who were sent to Crete have a Presbyterian chaplain?
  MR. BRODRICK: A Presbyterian chaplain was sent because there was not one in Crete. Had an Irish regiment been sent to the island a Roman Catholic chaplain would have been sent with it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Here are 800 Roman Catholic soldiers sent to South Africa without —
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is arguing upon the answer. ["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how many of the 189 men and 272 horses drafted from other batteries to complete the three batteries under orders for the Cape were, taken from the two batteries on the higher establishment and on the roster for foreign service; whether, although the, 189 men and 272 horses were taken from 20 different, batteries, no less than 27 horses and 53 men were taken from the 19th and 73rd field batteries, both of which were already under strength; and whether in case another brigade division be required for foreign service, it will be necessary to make up by drafts 63 per cent, of the men and nearly 90 per cent, of the horses required?
  MR. BRODRICK: Thirty-two men and 27 horses were transferred from the two batteries on the higher establishment, and those batteries were slightly under strength. Although 272 horses were taken from home batteries, 116 were met by exchange of horses from the batteries going abroad, those horses not being thought the best for foreign service. Only 156, therefore, were really taken from the home batteries, representing 38 per cent, of the strength of horses in the three batteries for South Africa. The men drafted from home batteries were 38 per cent. As batteries on foreign service require more men and horses than high-strength batteries at home, some transfers are inevitable.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the whole of his Question.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that he believed he had done so.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERrepelled a part of his Question as it stood upon the Paper.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that all the material parts of the Question were replied to in his answer.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERrose amid loud cries of "Oh "and "Order" from Nationalist Members.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to order, Mr. Speaker. We are stopped in putting questions, but the hon. Member opposite is allowed to go on. [Loud cries of "Order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order: The hon. Member for North Louth is entirely out of order in making suggestions of that kind, [Cheers.] The hon. Member was stopped because he was arguing upon an answer. The hon. Member for West Belfast, as I understand, is strictly confining himself so far to the, Question upon the Paper, and is stating that that Question has not been answered.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: He has risen four times. [Loud cries of"Order!"
  MR. J. SWIFT MACNEILL, who rose amid loud cries of "Order!" said, "Order yourselves!" [Renewed cries of "Order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  LOUGH MASK AND BALLINROBE CANAL.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutedant of Ireland if any decision has been come to with regard to the grant for the Lough Mask and Ballinrobe Canal?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): No decision has yet been arrived at in this matter, which will be brought before the Congested Districts Board at its next meeting. I ought, perhaps, to add that the fuller reports received since the last Question of the hon. and learned Member on the 5th April are not altogether favourable to the project.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether

  495
  the Department would allow managers to give;in extra week's holiday during Jubilee week, as an exceptional case, without endangering the grants under Article 83 because the schools were not opened 400 times?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir John GORST,): In ordinary cases the managers could easily give an extra week's holiday and still make 400 openings. Very exceptional cases, if any, would be dealt with on their merits.
  COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the First, Commissioner of Works whether arrangements can be made for the minor officials and messengers of the House of Commons to view the Jubilee Procession on the 22nd of June, as was done in 1887?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. A. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I am sorry to say that I cannot promise accommodation for the whole staff of the House to view the Queen's Procession. The arrangement of 1887 alluded to was a private one. If my hon. and gallant Friend can approach me with any similar proposal I will do what I can to meet him.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether a son of the Sultan of Turkey is coming to this country to take part in the Jubilee rejoicings and if so, at whose invitation is the visit to be undertaken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understand that the Sultan has, through the British Ambassador at Constantinople, announced his intention of sending a mission over on the occasion of the Jubilee. No invitations were issued.

  GOVERNMENT OFFICES (SITES).
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works when it is proposed to summon the Committee on Government Offices (Sites)?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: In reply to the Question of the right hon. Baronet, I have to say that the Committee on Government Offices (Appropriation of
  496
  Sites) will be called to choose a Chairman and to take evidence on Wednesday next.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. W. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed by the Clifden Board of Guardians, in which they complain of the very serious inconvenience occasioned by the fact that the mail arrives in Clifden an hour or more later every morning since 1st May, thus seriously affecting the delivery of letters through all parts of Connemara, and rendering it difficult, if not impossible, to reply to correspondence on the same day; and, whether he will take the necessary steps to remedy this state of affairs?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANSBURY,): Clifden cannot benefit, as most of the rest of Ireland does, by the accelerated day mail, because, though that reaches Galway 54 minutes earlier than it did, the car could still only reach Clifden about 7 p.m. too late for the return mail to leave the same day. It is, therefore, dependent upon the night mail which leaves Dublin and arrives at Galway 50 minutes later than formerly, in order to include the mails sent from other parts of Ireland via Dublin. The evening mail from Dublin to England is now 50 minutes later, and the mails to Dublin have been made 50 minutes later in order to share in this advantage.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that there was a line of railway running in close proximity to Clifden?
  MR. HANBURYsaid that was so, but the trains ran at very inconvenient times.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will inquire from the Great Northern Railway Company the cause of the delay of the mid-day mails for Belturbet at Ballyhaise Junction; whether he is aware that the Cavan mails reach Cavan half an hour earlier than the Belturbet mails reach Belturbet, although the distance to Cavan from Ballyhaise Junction is longer than to Belturbet from the

  497
  same junction; and, whether, if this is j caused by any special train arrangement, or by shunting, or the like, he will ask the railway company to alter the arrangements?
  MR. HANBURY: The mid-day mails for Belturbet are not, it appears, delayed at Ballyhaise Junction, but arrive at Belturbet at 11.10 a.m., only five minutes later than at Cavan. This is due to an alteration in the timetables, of which the London Post Office had no information when I stated on Tuesday last that the train reach Belturbet at 11.35 the time also stated in "Bradshaw." This means an addition of twenty-five minutes to the increased interval between the arrival and departure of the mail at Belturbet.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with reference to the lenders recently invited by the Post office for the conveyance of mails between Kinsale and Ballinhassig, could he state what the amount of the accepted tender was, and whether any lower tender was sent in; and, if so, what its amount was, and why it was not accepted?
  MR. HANBURY: The lowest tender was accepted for the service in question, but the Postmaster General is not prepared to state the amount.

  BROOKEBOROUGH PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he will direct a Return to be made to this House of the summons directed to James Kirkpatrick, on a charge of tracing hares, armed with a gun, which charge was heard and adjudicated on at Brookeborough, on the 2nd March 1897: together with the names of the magistrates who heard and decided the case, the name or names of the complainant or complainants, the names of the witnesses examined, and the penalty imposed?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): No good purpose would be served by granting the Return referred to. I must therefore decline to direct it. Any party interested can obtain a copy of the entry in the order book of the
  498
  magistrates, which contains all the particulars mentioned in the Question, and if as I have already stated in answer to a Question of the hon. Member, Kirkpatrick be in a position to show that any of the adjudicating magistrates were disqualified by interest, he can take proceedings to have the conviction quashed.

  HONITON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (HOLY WEEK).
  MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that on a day in Holy Week, and during school hours, the children in the only public elementary school in Honiton were marched through the town to a Church of England service, some of them being the children of Nonconformists who have claimed for them the benefit of the Conscience Clause, and who were not aware of the intention to take the children to the service; and, whether the Department will take steps to prevent the compulsory attendance of children at religious services in places of worship?
  SIR. J. GORST: The Committee of Council have no information on the subject, and have received no complaints.

  CORK AND TRALEE PRISONS.
  Mr. M. J. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain on what grounds 21 prisoners were transferred from Cork City Prison to Tralee Prison in December 1896; and, what is the cost to the Kerry ratepayers by the transfer of the prisoners and the escort of constabulary that accompanied them?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There was nothing unusual in the movement, of prisoners referred to; such transfers are effected from time to time when it is considered desirable to equalise prison populations. The expenses of transfer in all such cases, including cost of constabulary escort, are borne by the Prisons Vote.

  ORMATHWAITE, PROPERTY (LISTOWEL).
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that all the evicted

  499
  tenants on the Ormathwaite property, situate near Listowel, have been reinstated with the exception of Thomas Walsh, although he has made the same offer for reinstatement as the others; and, on what grounds has his application for reinstatement been refused?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Three of the holdings from which the former tenants were evicted on this property, still remain unoccupied. I have no means of knowing on what grounds the landlord acted in refusing the application of Walsh for reinstatement.
  MR. FLAVINasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that this man was the only exception on the whole property, that he had made an application to be reinstated and that no ground had been given for the refusal to reinstate him?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that if no ground for the refusal to reinstate the man had been given he did not see how he could be expected to give one.
  MR. FLAVINasked why the extra police were kept on the property at the cost of the ratepayers?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he supposed that the extra police were kept on the property in the interests of peace. He had no further information to give on the subject.
  MR. FLAVINsaid that he should call further attention to the matter.

  POSTAL DELIVERIES (IRELAND).
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, how it is intended to have house to house deliveries carried out in rural districts of Ireland; when will the new arrangements come into operation; and, when will rural auxiliaries get their pay for Sunday duty?
  MR. HANBURY: Deliveries to un-served houses in rural districts of Ireland will be afforded partly by extending the walks of existing postmen and partly by employing additional postmen. The work will be put in hand without delay, but it will necessarily take some time to complete. The rate of pay for Sunday duty, i.e., payment at a rate and a half recommended by Lord Tweedmouth's Committee, will in all cases date from the 1st of April 1897.

  DISCHARGE OF WEAVERS (BURNLEY).
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the particulars of the case reported in the local press where two sisters, young women employed in a weaving shed in the town of Burnley, one of whom, having been discharged without notice for reasons she thought insufficient, brought an action against the employers for wages in lieu of notice, and the employers, the day before the date fixed for the trial, paid the full claim and costs; whether he is aware that on the following day notice to quit was given by the employers to the other sister, without any cause of complaint whatever assigned against her, who, in spite of her repeated requests, refuse to give any reason to her in explanation of her discharge; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the case?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): The attention of the Secretary of State has not been called to this case except by the hon. Member's Question. There is no suggestion in the facts which the hon. Member states of any offence against the law having been committed, and this being so I am afraid there is nothing which calls for an inquiry on the part of the Secretary of State. It is obviously impossible for him to undertake to inquire into every case where workpeople are alleged to have been harshly treated by their employers, and even if he made inquiries he would have no power to interfere.

  ST. ANDREWS UNIVERSITY.
  MR. R. COX: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been directed to a resolution passed by a majority of the University Court of St. Andrews on the 10th February 1897, suspending the operation of certain ordinances made by the University Commissioners, and confirmed by the Privy Council on the 15th January 1897, till the commencement of the next academical year; and whether the action of the University Court in suspending the effect of ordinances confirmed by the Privy Council is in accordance with law; and, if not, what

  501
  steps the Executive Government intend to take in order to obviate, the prejudicial effect to the University of St. Andrews and to University College, Dundee, of the said resolution?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): It having been brought to the notice of the Secretary for Scotland that certain individuals intended to test in the law courts the legality of the decision of the Privy Council with reference to the disputed ordinances, the opinion of the English and Scottish Law Officers of the Crown was taken, and acting on that opinion the Secretary for Scotland is now in consultation with the Treasury as to the course to be followed.

  DOG LICENCE (DRUMLITHIE, KINCARDINESHIRE).
  MR. J. W. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Alexander Murray, who occupies the croft of Bogside, Drumlithie, Kincardineshire, and lets the farm as pasture for some40 or 50 sheep, which he has to look after, has this year been refused an exemption from dog licence; and whether, seeing that the exemption has been granted for two years under similar circumstances, he will explain on what ground it is now refused?
  MR. HANBURY: I understand that Mr. Murray is a tailor who is tenant of about eight acres of pasture. He owns no stock himself, but, lets the pasture for sheep during the summer and autumn months. The field is well fenced, and the sheep are brought to it, and removed, when necessary, by the owners themselves. Mr. Murray was found to be in possession of a dog on the 3rd of March, and, as he declined to take out a licence, the Board of Inland Revenue considered that the case was one in which proceedings should be taken. It is true that an exemption was granted to Mr. Murray for the past year, but, now that the facts of the case are fully before the Board, they do not feel justified in continuing it.

  AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the event
  502
  of the dropping of the Agriculture and Industries (Ireland) Bill, he can make any statement as to the way in which the Irish Government propose to use the money voted by Parliament as the Irish share of the aid grant for relief of rating in England; whether this sum is suspended simpliciter, or is at interest for the Irish benefit pending its appropriation; and whether any representation has reached him as to the advisability of appointing a Committee, to inquire into the best means to be taken for spending the sum, or will it continue to remain as last year, in case the Agriculture and Industries (Ireland) Bill fails to pass?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A Question similar to this stands on the Paper for to-day addressed to my right hon. Friend, the First Lord of the Treasury, by the hon. Member for West Islington. I understand my right hon. Friend will be prepared to make a statement on the, subject, if not, today, at all events in the near future. I must ask the hon. Member to wait for that statement.

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Technical Education Committee of a county or county borough, or in a county borough a school board supplying and managing higher grade and organised science schools, will be regarded as an organisation for the promotion of secondary education within the meaning of Section 7 of the Revised Science and Art Directory?
  SIR J. GORST: The language of Section 7 was purposely left general by the Committee, and I do not think the interpretation put upon it by the Question would apply in all cases.

  BRITISH TROOPS IN INDIA (HEALTH).
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received any representative memorials or petitions from the general public on the subject of the proposals contained in his Dispatch of 26th March 1897 for improving the health of the British troops in India; and, if so whether he has any objection to make them public?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I have received only two memorials which can be held to be representative of general public opinion on the subject of my Dispatch of 26th March 1897 regarding the health of British troops in India, and I have no objection to make them public. A few memorials have also been received from local meetings and societies, embodying protests against the action taken by Her Majesty's Government.

  SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) ACT 1895.
  MR. JOHN HAMMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Carlow Board of Guardians were compelled to pay to the Board of "Works, Ireland, a fine of £15 15s. because of the delay of 10 days in repayment of the first instalment of a loan under the Seed Potatoes Supply (Ireland) Act 1895; that this delay was caused solely by the absence of the clerk of the union on extended leave of absence owing to illness; and will he, having regard-to the circumstances of this case, order that this sum of £15 15s. shall be refunded to the Carlow Board of Guardians?
  MR. HANBURY: The charge in question is not a fine, but a charge for collection (of 1s. in the pound) levied under Section G of the Public Works Loans Act 1892 in cases where the repayment is more than 31 days overdue. I have repeatedly explained that interest on these seed loans is payable not by the Guardians but by the Church Fund, so if the fees for collection were not enforced, there would be little inducement to the Guardians to repay the loans. In this case the instalment (£315) was due on 31st July 1896. The Guardians were informed on that date that the fees would become due if it was not paid within 31 days. They met every Thursday during that period, and the clerk was absent on only two of them. Even if he had been absent on each of the four Thursdays, there is no reason why such a pressing matter of ordinary business should not have been brought before the Guardians by a sub-
  504
  ordinate. I see no special reason for making any exception in this case.
  In reply to further questions asked by Mr. HAMMOND and Mr. FLYNN,
  MR. HANBURYsaid that the instalments became payable in the month of August, and that it was a statutory charge.

  HIGH SHERIFF (CARRICKFERGUS).
  MR. RICHARD M. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to the recent trial before the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland of an information at the suit of the Irish Attorney-General against Captain Con way Higginson for declining the office of High Sheriff of the county and town of Carrickfergus; and (2) whether it is the intention of the Government to deal with the question of the appointment to the office of Sheriff in Ireland during the present Session of Parliament.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The whole subject is now under the consideration of the Government, but I cannot, at present, make any statement in the matter.

  WORMWOOD SCRUBS.
  *MR. W. E. T. SHARPE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what decision has been arrived at by the War Department regarding a proposal to open a path across Wormwood Scrubbs, submitted by the London County Council on 26th October last?
  MR. BRODRICK: The question of a path across the drilling ground at Wormwood Scrubbs presents considerable difficulty, but I hope to be able to communicate a decision to the London County Council in a few days.

  POTATO CROP (IRELAND).
  MR. P. MCDERMOTT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if his attention has been called to the extremely unfavourable prospects of the potato crop in Ireland; (2) whether he is aware that in many cases where the seed has

  505
  been planted it has perished from the excessive rain, and that in nearly every district in Ireland the potato planting is a month later than usual; and (3) whether, as a recurrence of the potato disease may be obviated by spraying the crops, he will take steps in the poorer districts in Ireland to provide the necessary materials for those who are unable to obtain them, thereby preventing the serious risk of another potato famine in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is a fact, I understand, that the planting of potato seed has been later than usual this season owing to the long continued wet weather, and I believe there is reason to fear that in some localities the seed has been injured by excessive rain. It is entirely premature, however, to express any opinion respecting the prospects of the crop generally. As regards the third paragraph, the matter will In brought under the notice of the Congested Districts Board.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the south of Ireland a large portion of the potato seed has failed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; I am not aware that that is the fact.

  JOINT BURIAL COMMITTEES.
  MR. J. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Hoard if he is aware that legal difficulties have been raised with regard to the exercise of borrowing powers by Joint Burial Committees appointed under Section 53 of the Local Government Act 1894, and that, in answer to an application, from the Horsham Burial District Joint Committee, the Board stated in August of last year that legislation would be necessary to meet those difficulties; and if the necessary legislation will be undertaken by the Government in the course of the present Session?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Local Government Board are aware that legal difficulties have arisen in connection with the matter referred to and the question of legislation on the subject is receiving consideration.

  PERFORMING BEARS (STREETS).
  COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the numerous accidents which have recently resulted from the, exhibition of performing bears in the streets of London and elsewhere: and whether there exists any law or police order under which these exhibitions can be put a stop to?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: No such accidents have been reported to the Metropolitan Police or been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State from other districts. The matter is one which is provided for by law, and in regard to which the Metropolitan Police have suitable instructions.

  SLAVERY IN ZANZIBAR.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Allah's whether a copy of the Edict issued by the Sultan of Zanzibar relating to the abolition of slavery in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba early in April will be laid at an early date upon the Table.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): Yes, Sir. A copy of the Decree will be presented almost immediately.

  WESTMINSTER HALL.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it has been brought to his notice that during the Easter Recess many excursionists were disappointed through Westminster Mall being closed to the public except on Monday and Tuesday; and whether he will consider the advisability of permitting the public to view the Hall between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. during the whole of the Whitsuntide Recess instead of upon two days only?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I regret to find that, owing to a misunderstanding of the new regulations, Westminster Hall was closed to the public on certain days in Easter week. I have communicated with the police authorities desiring that the public may be admitted daily

  507
  throughout the year, at any hour, between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. at which Parliament is not sitting. This order will not apply to Sundays, Christmas Day, and Good Friday.

  ROYAL MARINES (RESERVE).
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether their Lordships have approved of any proposal or formulated any scheme for the formation of an effective reserve of men formerly serving in the corps of Royal Marines, as stated to be under consideration in the speech of the First Lord on Naval Estimates; and if he can give the particulars to the House of such scheme?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): A. scheme for a reserve of men from the corps of Royal Marines is at present being prepared by the Deputy Adjutant General. It has not yet reached a shape in which to be submitted to the Board for approval, but I think I may already say that I foresee no great difficulties in the adoption of an effective plan. Some legislation may be necessary.

  LAUNDRY WORKERS.
  MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a memorial recently presented to the Home Office by the Christian Social Union relating to the hours of labour and general conditions of employment of women in laundries; and, whether he will consider the desirability of introducing into any future legislation upon the subject provisions dealing with the state of facts disclosed in the memorial?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The Secretary of State has received the memorial in question, and will certainly consider the representations made in it when the time comes for further revision of the Factory Acts.

  CIVIL (UNCOVENANTED) SERVICE (INDIA).
  MR. GORELL BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the
  508
  Dispatch of the Government of India, dated 20th September 1893, on the leave and pension rules of the Civil (Uncovenanted) Service, published in a Return to an Address of this House, dated 11th August 1896, full consideration will be given to the dissenting Minute of Sir Alexander Miller, Legal Member of the Viceroy's Council: and whether a copy of that dissenting Minute, which is referred to at page 32 of the said Return, can be laid upon the Table of the House.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No separate dissent was recorded by Sir Alexander Miller. His views were expressed in the third paragraph of the letter from the Government of India referred to by the hon. Member, and were fully considered at the time by the Secretary of State in Council.

  CRETE.
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when further Papers on the affairs of Crete will be presented: and, to what date the next batch of Papers will come?
  MR. CURZON: Further Papers on Crete, carrying the narrative of events up till the end of April, are in active course of preparation, and will be laid at the earliest possible date. I hope that this may be during the course of the next fortnight.

  PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS' LISTS (REVISION).
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the attention of the Postmaster General has been called to the great expense caused to political organisations in connection with the revision of lists of parliamentary voters by the amount of the registration fee charged on notices of objection sent by post, viz., 2d. in addition to 1d. postage, i.e. 3d. postage on each objection; whether he is aware that the registration fee on these notices was fixed at 2d. as a concession at a time when the registration fee of ordinary letters was 4d.; whether a notice of objection, if sent by post in the ordinary way, would require more than ½d. postage; and, whether, in view of the fact

  509
  that the work of parliamentary registration is of a public character, he will consider the advisability of reducing the postage on objections to ½d. and the registration fee at 1d., being half the ordinary registration fee as originally intended?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General's attention has not previously been called to the subject referred to by the hon. Member, but he is aware that the registration fee on notices of objection was fixed at 2d. by the Parliamentary Voters Registration Act 1843, at a time when a higher registration fee was charged on ordinary letters. The work prescribed by the statute in reference to these notices is not the same as that involved in the ordinary registration of a letter, and the Postmaster General will consider whether it will be possible for the special registration, fee of 2d. to be reduced. With respect to the postage as distinguished from the registration fee, notices of objection have already been admitted to the half-penny rate of postage where they conform to the authorised definition of a circular.

  DEPORTATION OF PAUPERS.
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can state on what grounds the Scotch Office declined to nominate a representative to act on the Committee of Inquiry suggested by the Local Government Board for Ireland regarding the deportation of paupers from Scotland to Ireland?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: I must ask the hon. Member for longer notice. If he will put it down for Monday, I shall endeavour to give him an answer.

  LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Land Sub-Commission sat in Manorhamilton in March and disposed of 57 cases, but that up to the present no decision has been given in any of these cases; and when will the decisions in these cases be given?
  The HON. MEMBER also asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he were aware that a large
  510
  number of originating notices were served in the Manorhamilton district of county Leitrim so far back as November which have not yet been dealt with; can he state when these cases will be dealt with; and will he see that no unnecessary delay occurs?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The present Manorhamilton list, the hearing of which was commenced on the 9th of March last, contained all cases from that Union in which applications to fix fair rents were received prior to the 1st day of December 1896. 57 of these cases have been heard at Manorhamilton, but the lay Assistant Commissioners have not yet been able to complete the inspection of all these holdings. The inspection is being proceeded with as rapidly as is possible, and judgments will be given by the Sub-Commission in the cases referred to on the earliest possible opportunity.

  INEBRIATES (REFORMATORIES).
  DR. FARQUHARSON.: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is his intention to introduce, during the present Session, the Bill for the establishment of reformatories for inebriates, mentioned in the Queen's Speech; and, if he does so, whether he will include in it arrangements for the reception of habitual offenders in labour settlements, as recommended in the Departmental Committee (1895) on Habitual Offenders, Vagrants, Beggars, Inebriates, and Juvenile Delinquents (Scotland), and the Report from the Departmental Committee on Prisons (1895)?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; I do not think that there is any probability that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be able to introduce a Bill on this subject during the present Session.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked whether, if time could not be found for the introduction of the Bill in that House, the right hon. Gentleman would arrange for its introduction in the House of Lords?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I will consult with the Home Secretary upon the point.

  POOR RELIEF IRELAND (BILL).
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, after the almost unanimous vote of the Irish Members that was given on Thursday night, that the money that had been allocated to Ireland in 1896 should go to the relief of rates, it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill and the Agriculture, and Industries (Ireland) Bill, under which this money would be allocated to other purposes and if not, whether the Government are prepared to reconsider the position taken up on Thursday night, and make pro vision for the reduction of agricultural local rates in Ireland on the same basis as has already taken place in England and Scotland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member an answer to-day; perhaps he will defer the Question until Thursday next.
  MR. LOUGHasked whether it would not be reasonable to postpone the Vote for the Irish Local Government. Board, which was down for that evening, until the Government should have determined whether or not the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill would be proceeded with.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not think that the Estimates for the year are relevant to the Question of the hon. Member. I may remind him that the Vote to which he refers is put upon the Paper to-day in accordance with the desire of the Irish Members.

  ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND.
  MR. ARTHUR BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in giving effect to any of the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Royal Patriotic Fund, Her Majesty's Government will favourably consider including within the scope of the fund the case of widows of Crimean Officers who rose from the ranks?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: After inquiry I find that the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund are of opinion that the very numerous applications, already amounting to nearly 1,000, from the necessitous
  512
  I widows of petty officers and non-commissioned officers of the Navy and Army who come within the scope of the Commissioners' powers as recently extended, make it impossible for them to hold out any hope that they can extend their operations to the cases of widows of commissioned officers.

  SUPPLY (WAR OFFICE VOTE).
  SIR A. F. ACLAND-HOOD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it will be convenient to put down the War Office Vote for the first Friday in July?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not think it would be convenient to give a pledge so far in advance with regard to the allocation of a day for discussing this vote. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Fiend will repeat the question at a subsequent, time.

MOTION.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT (1877) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Maurice Healy and Mr. Dane; presented accordingly, and Read the first time; to be Read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 253.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [EIGHTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]

CIVIL, SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1897–8.

  CLASS III.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, a sum not exceeding £68,431, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for the Salaries and Expenses of the office of the Irish Land Commission."
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERdrew attention to the necessity of some steps being taken with a view to keep some check on the gentlemen who were going about the country cutting down rents — [Ironical laughter]—on no evidence whatever. Rents were being cut down in a reckless manner and on no solid ground. Almost every reduction was accompanied by a simultaneous rise of the selling value of the occupation holding. [Ironical laughter] When this legislation was introduced they were told that the object which the Government had in view was to enable the occupiers of the soil to retain their holdings on conditions which would allow them to conduct, their business at a profit, to live and thrive on their holdings. Hut time after time holdings had been brought into Court with the result that rents had been cut down, and then the tenants immediately sold their holdings to some one else, receiving a large premium for their interest. This, he maintained, defeated the object of Parliament. This premium was obviously taken out of the landlord's pocket: and if this were to go on it was obvious that Parliament was robbing the landlord of what was his property, and for which other persons were prepared to pay a substantial premium. The incoming tenant' who bought the holding, and gave an enhanced price for it, had in a great majority of cases to borrow the money to pay the premium; he paid interest at the current rate, and this was a good deal more than the holders of Consols received.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in order in discussing the policy of the Act of 1881 on this vote.
  *THE CHAIRMAN or WAYS AND MEANS: No. I do not think it would be in order to discuss the policy, except so far as the action of the Assistant Commissioners is concerned.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid this was what he was doing. Parliament had been under the impression that the persons who would be employed would exercise judicial functions in a judicial spirit and that the reduction of rents would be fair and reasonable. His contention, on the other hand, was that these persons had been keeping their eyes on the popularity which might
  514
  attach in some quarters to the wholesale cutting down of rents, by means of which wholesale robbery had been perpetrated. An occupier 15 years ago was in a better position with regard to his annual outgoings in respect of the land than the tenant was now after two processes of wholesale reduction of rents. These gentlemen were known some years ago by the name of "sub-confiscators;" and these were the "chief confiscators," who disregarded every judicial attribute and simply endeavoured to make friends with mammon —[laughter]— insuring their own reappointment by making themselves popular with the class which they thought possessed the largest share of political interest. What, in these circumstances, did the Government propose to do? He thought they ought to have some data by which Parliament could decide whether or not it was the duty of the State to make recompense to those who had been robbed. He hoped the right hon. Gentlemen who represented the Irish Office would be able to assure them that the Government intended to hold an inquiry. He maintained that a great wrong had been done.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that so long as this country maintained its Free Trade policy in the extraordinary way in which it was maintained, he had no doubt that reductions of rent would continue to be given in England and in Ireland. He should like to say one word to correct the right hon. Gentleman. He was entirely in error in supposing that there was a large demand for the purchase of holdings in Ireland. Except in the case of small holdings of five or six acres, there was practically no demand. He challenged any landlord to put up for sale a farm of 100 acres with a fair rent fixed near even large cities like Dublin or Cork. He did not profess to understand Down or Antrim; but he declared for such a farm they would get nothing. Where high prices were given for small farms they were generally given by retired policemen or by men who had made a little money not out of land. ["Hear, hear !"] These high prices were given generally by fools who know nothing about land. They would make more if they put their money in the savings bank. [Laughter] But he had never been able to understand the outcry as to the reductions of rent in Ireland

  515
  when the Scotch rent reductions received not a word. Under the Crofters Act there was power to remit arrears, and they found the Crofters getting 50 and 00 per cent, reductions; and then on the second judicial term, as in Orkney, there was a further reduction of 17 per cent.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: But they do not sell their tenant-right.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Scotch never had the common-law right of free sale. The great prevailing influence in Ireland was fixity of tenure. He regretted that the Land Commission had not given them a Blue-book. Every year the Scotch Crofters' Commission issued a Blue-book giving full details, and he wished the Irish Land Commission would do the same. As to the reductions made by the Sub-Commissioners it did not be in the mouths of the Party opposite to attack these gentlemen. He had gone into the matter, and he found that, with three exceptions, every one of the existing Sub-Commissioners had been appointed by a Tory Government. As to the Head Commissioners, Mr. Murrough O'Brien was the only one appointed by a Liberal Government, and he was now never consulted under the majority rule. He never pitied any man more than he pitied the Chief Secretary, with whom rested the appointment of these 80 gentlemen. He himself had received 3,496 applications—[loud laughter]— therefore, he could imagine what had happened to the Chief Secretary. ["Hear, hear !"] But what had the Chief Secretary done? Out of 80 appointed three were Catholics. [Cries of "Oh !"] Something like 76 were landlords or land agents. He did not believe that more than three of the 80 had any connection with the tenant farmers; and these were the Sub-Commissioners they complained of. The reductions were not half enough, and if Free Trade continued they would have to be increased. It was only because the Irish farmers were used to a lower rate of subsistence than the English, and because their daughters and sons gave their labour, that so many rents were paid. If the boys and girls had been paid for their work, not one-tenth of the rents which the Sub-Commissioners called fair would have been paid. Now, however, the young people were going to America,
  516
  where they could get paid for their labour, with the result that after 60 years' reign Her Majesty would find the population of Ireland reduced to one-half of what it was when she came to the throne. It was idle for the landlords of Ireland to make an outcry against the Sub-Commissioners, almost every one of whom were of the same religion, race, and blood as the landlords, and who gave their decisions with very bad grace. What could be more extraordinary than the Prime Minister's recent allocution? Supposing that, while the Coercion Act was in greater vigour than it was now, some of the people who were suffering under its operation had come to the Prime Minister and said: "Oh, your sentences are very hard, your plank beds are even harder still, and really these removable magistrates are behaving in a most atrocious manner !" Did any one suppose that the Prime Minister would have thrown dirt on his own statute, that he would have said: "Agitate in England, address meetings in England, expose your grievances, show them how often you have been sent to prison, explain the plank bed, bring a model of the battering-ram along with you"—[laughter]—" and rouse the great heart of England as to your grievances"? The tenants had no men to speak for them in the House of Lords and but few men in the House of Commons. The majority in both Houses was permanently arrayed against the Irish people. The landlords had the whole of the House of Lords and about three-fourths of the House of Commons with them, and yet Lord Salisbury had advised them to go on platforms and explain their grievances. If they were to believe The Times—though he did not think that an organ to which they ought to attach much credence the Government had resolved to appoint a committee of experts. A more fatal policy could not be devised. Already there was in fair rent cases the right of appeal and of a counter-appeal. Were they going to throw the whole thing into the melting pot and call up the Sub-Commissioners, the Chief Commissioners, and the Judges of Appeal, and ask them to explain the grounds upon which they had reduced Pat Doolan's rent from,£10 to £8? In 1882 Mr. Justice O'Hagan and Mr. Commissioner Litton refused before a Select Committee of the House of Lords

  517
  to state the grounds of their legal decisions, but neither of them was sent to the Clock Tower. Upon this occasion Lord Salisbury had condemned a Select Committee—who, however, could send for persons, papers, and records, and could commit for contempt—as an unsuitable tribunal for retrying this matter. Was it then to be committed to a Royal Commission who had no power to send for witnesses, to take evidence upon oath, or to send anybody to gaol? Surely that would be a feebler tribunal than a Select Committee. And if a Royal Commission were appointed, who could be got to serve upon it? Landlords and tenants could not serve upon it, neither could Members of either House of Parliament, because they were supposed to be pre judiced from some one point of view or another. Were tinkers or tailors, who had no interest in the land question, to form the Commission, or were the Government going to bring the Scotch Crofting Commissioners down to go into the Irish land question? He had seen it stated that Mr. Clare Sewell Read and Mr. Pell should be appointed, but they could know nothing about the price of bog-land in Connaught, although they knew everything about high scientific cultivation in this country. After all, there was no good in quarrelling with the Land Commission, except from the point of view that they did not give large enough reductions. He saw no solution for the present condition of the landlords except through some system of purchase. Land in Ireland had reached the low-water mark, and very soon it would barely pay the rates, especially if the Government insisted upon not paving half the rates as they now did in England. The present reductions of rent were the slow but grudging acknowledgments which the sub-Commissioners had been obliged to make of an economic condition which had been produced, not by agitation, not by unrest, not by dishonesty—for the Irish people were amongst the best payers of rent— but by a series of laws which year after year this Parliament had been good enough to pass for Ireland.
  MR. EDWARD CARSONsaid he did not intend to go at any great length into the Trish Land Question because he was tired of bringing
  518
  it before the House and the Government. Notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, his view was that the present condition of the Irish landlords was entirely the result of the fact that they had no political power whatsoever. He regretted to say that his view of the English parties was that, while they were always quite willing to take any extraneous advantage or assistance they might get from Irish landlords, or from those who sympathised with them, they were never prepared to show any sympathy with Irish landlords in return. After all, the Irish landlords had no political power which would enable the English landlords to be kept in power; and so it was that whenever they raised this question in the House of Commons they got occasionally, as they were going into the lobbies, a few encouraging words from Members on that side of the House, who said: "We heartily sympathise with you; but you know we must vote with the Government." [Ironical Irish cheers] That was his experience of that House, and so far as he was concerned, whether it was the property of the Church or of the brewers that was attacked in that House, for the future he should always take what was best for Ireland in reference to any question, and solely in regard to that he should give his vote. [Nationalist cheers.] The truth of the matter was, he was really tired of being talked of as an Irish Conservative when it suited the English Conservatives, and of being deserted by the English Conservatives just when it suited them. [Irish cheers.] What was going on at the present moment in Ireland? He would give the House a few figures. He had before him an extract of the rents that were fixed in December last. The total original rents dealt with by the Commissioners were £16,826, and the valuation was £12,543. On the first statutory term it was fixed at £13,239, or a little over the valuation: but on the second statutory term what was originally £16,826 was reduced to £9,553, or about one-third less than the tenement valuation upon which the taxes were fixed and in relation to which that House had refused any relief to Ireland. That was a specimen of what the landlords were suffering. ["Hear, hear!"] When they found that by their legislation the rents of the Irish

  519
  landlords had been reduced to that extent, he unhesitatingly said that a serious condition of affairs had arisen in that country. He should like to know, if the same method of valuation went on through the various successive periods fixed by the Land Acts, what would he left to the landlords after one more valuation. ["Hear, hear !"] It was all very well to tell him that there were also great rent reductions in England. No doubt there were, but the two cases were entirely different. In the first place, if there were reductions in England the landlord gave them voluntarily, and if he did not he got back his land. In Ireland there was no such power to get back the land. By the action of that House—and he said this as not in the least grudging the reduction the tenant had got if it was a just reduction—they had taken away an elementary right of property from the landlord. If, for the benefit of the State and of the public, they wished to give his land to somebody else at a rent which they themselves fixed, then at once, unless they were prepared to compensate him, they raised the question of having confiscated aright which he had just as much as he had in any other kind of property. ["Hear, hear!"] That being so, he said a grave question had arisen in Ireland. And while no one knew better than he did, that in the past many tenants in Ireland had had a hard time and a hard life, and had lived upon a standard of livelihood which probably would almost be unknown to people of a similar class in this country, they must not imagine that there were not people connected with the land owning class in Ireland who had not gone through hardships which, if not greater, were at least equal to those of the tenants. He received, day after day, letters from Ireland, which he believed would almost draw tears to the eyes of the very hardest, in connection with this question, from people tenderly and genteelly educated and brought up, who, through no fault or extravagance of their own, had been deprived absolutely of the means of subsistence. He had known of cases of men of great education and of great ambitions who had died in the garrets of London absolutely of starvation in consequence of the condition this Irish land question had come to. Therefore, if there were cases of hardships on the one
  520
  side, there were also such cases on the other, and he said it was a reproach to this country and to the Union under which they lived that when, for the sake of governing Ireland, they deemed it necessary to pass these laws, they asked, as the price of the maintenance of that Union the starvation of those with whom they had been associated and with whom they sympathised. [Irish Unionist, cheers.] Of course, he was not in a position to attack these reductions if they took the rent from an economic point of view. He could not tell whether these rents were just or not. They had set up a system which debarred them from admitting that they were just reductions, and that was his case. He had put question after question to the Chief Secretary—and he did not for a moment suppose that his right lion, friend was in the least lacking in sympathy with his view—as to what were the reasons for these reductions, and the Chief Secretary had told him that the Land Commissioners' Court were not bound to give any reason for the reductions they made. No, they gave their judgments, which they communicated by means of a halfpenny post-card to the agent, and they absolutely declined to give any reasons. He said that such a system as that was a monstrous absurdity, and it was ridiculous to talk of any such system of Courts as was set up for this purpose being regulated by the ordinary procedure which was adopted in any Court of justice, whether in this or in any other country ["Hear, hear!"] He would tell the House why no reasons were given, and this was what, he thought, lay at the whole root of this matter. No reasons were given because the moment they departed from contract and from market value they could set up no standard except a standard of guesswork; and when they selected a number of men and asked them to fix what was a fair rent, what were they to start from? The truth of the matter was that the system was an absolutely impossible one, and let them not pretend, whatever might be the result, that they were voting this £127,000 for the purpose of paying these Courts as a matter of justice or as a judicial matter. Let them acknowledge the whole thing as a farce, as of course it was, and deal with it accordingly.

  521
  ["Hear hear!"] It might be necessary, he did not say it would not, further to reduce rents in Ireland. It might be necessary to the peasantry of Ireland, with other people in this Empire, to adopt a higher standard of living than they had hitherto lived. If that were so, then a grave question faced the State. But let the State face the question and not be afraid of it, and let them not have, time after time, as the only one act of statesmanship towards Ireland that they ever knew of in the House, a Land Bill depriving the landlord of the last remnant of his property. A good deal was said by the hon. and learned Member for Louth about the appointment of these Sub-Commissioners. He was not going to attack the appointment of the Sub-Commissioners. He thought the applications for recommendations which came to him amounted, if not to thousands, at any rate to hundreds: but he recommended none of them, and he knew none of the gentlemen who were appointed. He was not going to attack them, for the simple reason that these gentlemen had been put in the position of having to perform an impossible task. This was the problem which confronted his right hon. Friend. He was told to find in Ireland 90 men who, without any guidance from the Act, without any standard set up, were to fix up what each one of them at his own sweet will thought a fair rent. He was not going to attack these men—it would be cowardly to do so. The thing to be attacked was the system set up by the Acts of Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"] When they were considering the claims of the Irish landlords they could not leave out of sight the large sums that were being paid every day for tenant-right. It was ridiculous that a man should have his rent reduced say ££50, and immediately afterwards go into the open market and sell exactly what that £50 was worth. That was simply transferring the property from the landlord to the tenant. He would give the House an example of the method in which this operated. He saw the other day in a newspaper an advertisement offering for sale the tenant's interest in a farm. It announced Griffith's valuation—i.e., the valuation for rating purposes; it announced the old rent, it announced that some 30 or 40 per cent, had been taken
  522
  off by the Commission, and it invited the public to come in and bid for the value of the tenant's interest. That was not all, for there was an important postscript:—
  "N.B.—The first statutory term will shortly expire, and then the tenant will be able to again go into Court and have his rent further reduced."
  There was no question of improvements arising; these had been all taken into consideration upon the first statutory term; but it was an invitation to the public to come in and compete, and one of the baits held out was that the rent would be still further reduced when, the first term expired. He admitted that the high prices given for farms in Ireland arose a great deal from what might be called a land-hunger. ["Hear, hear !"] He admitted it, and it would be quite untrue to put it in any other way. But what did that mean? It meant that where, in England, a man who did not wish to stay upon his farm, could go to the manufacturing towns and get employment for himself and his children— ["Hear, hear!"] But in Ireland that was not the case, the farmer must stick to the land. ["Hear, hear !"] Yes, but how was that to affect the landlord? The fact was that, by reason of the special circumstances of Ireland, land was more valuable than in England. But if, for reasons of the state, the tenants were to be prevented from paying high rents, was it fair to put the whole burden and disadvantage on the landlords? Surely not. ["Hear, hear !"] When the Land Acts were passed in 1881 they were told that the administration of them would be perfectly safe, because the House was prepared to appoint a Land Commission which would command every possible respect, by reason of the status of the three Head Commissioners. He said nothing of these three Head Commissioners personally, but he said that the whole register of appeal administered by the Commissioners was an absolute farce. What was the appeal? The Commissioners were paid some £3,000 or £3,500 a year, and what did they do? When a case for the settlement of rent went down it first came before the Sub-Commissioners, two of whom were laymen supposed to be acquainted with land and the other was a legal Commissioner.

  523
  The two Agricultural Sub-Commissioners went out and valued the land. Now what was this appeal for which the country was paying so much? What the three Commissioners simply did was this. Having received the assessment of rent made by the lay Commissioners, simply meant that two Sub-Commissioners sit in judgment upon the rent fixed by the other. [An HON. MEMBER "NO, no—two."] Well, take it to be two. It simply meant that two Sub Commissioners who had heard the case, had to appeal to two Sub Commissioners who had never heard the case at all. [Laughter.] And then as to the appeal, what happened was this. You went into the Appeal Court and you found a Judge of the High Court presiding with all the dignity of a Judge of the Queen's Bench—Mr. Justice Bewley; they found sitting by his side Mr. Commissioner Fitzgerald, also a lawyer, originally a county court judge, who was appointed he believed by Mr. Gladstone; and they found also Mr. Wrench, who he believed was an expert in the breeding of hackney horses. [Laughter.] There they satin solemn state, that was, if the three of them happened to be present, and what occurred was this. The Judge would say, "Have you read the report of the Sub-Commissioners who have valued this farm?" and if you said "Yes," he would say, "Do you think, after that, that it is necessary to hear this case?" [Laughter.] That was the whole procedure, day after day, with hundreds of thousands of pounds depending upon it—the whole procedure for which they were going to vote this £125,000 to-day, or at all events a considerable portion of it. He maintained, and he believed that if any one of these three judges who were drawing salaries could be got at in a confidential humour when not sitting in court, he would admit that the whole thing was absolutely ridiculous. And that was what they were asked to pay for to-day, or that the country was asked to pay for.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Their vote is from the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. CARSON: No doubt, but there were the Sub-Commissioners who value, and other officials. Why, what did they do but read up the Sub-Commissioners' reports? While he said that as regarded these gentlemen, let him say again that the
  524
  system they had set up was an impossible one. Nobody would deny that Mr. Justice Bewley, as a lawyer, was an absolutely competent man and a perfectly fair and upright judge; he was a man of distinguished learning, who had held very high positions before he went on the Bench. That he admitted, but it was only in an occasional case that these questions arose, and as regarded the rest of the system, what he had described to the House—ridiculous as it appeared—was absolutely what took place in the Land Court if any of these decisions were appealed against. How long then was this system to go on? Hon. Members opposite might say that he was throwing out a bait for their assistance. Well, if the House liked to say so, be it so. It was perfectly true that he should be glad to have their assistance, and he thought that a scheme might be very easily devised—that was, if this great English Government were prepared to deal with liberality—
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Do you want a fresh Land Act?
  MR. CARSON: A scheme might be easily devised which might confer great benefits on the tenants, and at the same time enable the landlords to find some salvation. That naturally brought him to the second question, the question of purchase. It had always been put forward by consecutive Governments that the real solution of this land question in Ireland was purchase. All he could say was that the reports which reached him of the methods in which the Purchase Acts were carried out were anything but satisfactory. The Land Commission, in dealing with purchase, whereas in reality they ought to grease the wheels, so to speak, did everything they could to clog them. [Nationalist Cheers.] To use the phrase of the hon. and learned Member, they were always higgling about small matters. A case came under his notice the other day, where a landlord and tenant had agreed for the sale and purchase of a farm for the sum of £22O, which to the tenant would have meant an immediate reduction of some 20 per j cent, upon the judicial rent already fixed. But the valuers were sent down, and so accurate were they in their diagnosis of the land that they refused to advance the: £220, but said they

  525
  would advance, £200, knocking off the £20. The landlord, rather than have the matter go off, agreed to accept the £200. What was the result? Within a fortnight the tenant sold the farm in open market for £450. So much fur the judgment of the Land Commission. He mentioned the incident merely as showing this—that if they wanted purchase to really succeed—and it was under purchase that the tenant got by far the greatest benefit—they must be deliberate in the way they administered these Acts. A ease happened only the other day of a collision between the two Courts—the Land Commission and the Land Judges' Court. The Land Commission had valued some farms at £5,000; and just as the thing was about to be settled the Land Judges Court said they did no think it was worth more than £3,000. So that they had the valuers of ! one Court valuing an estate at nearly £6.000, and those of another valuing the same estate at half the sum. The Land Commission Court seemed to think that its sole mission was to underestimate the value of land and to subtract as much as possible from the landlords' interest. There was a ease in which a tenant applied to his landlord for leave to sell his farm in open market for £500. The landlord, thinking that £500 was too much for an incoming tenant to pay, exercised his right of pre-emption. The Sub-Commissioners then went down to fix the sum which the landlord ought to give for the tenant's interest, and they fixed it at £800, or £300 more than the tenant could have obtained in open market. Did the Government suppose that the landlords and those connected with them could rest satisfied while cases of that kind occurred? There was something in The Times of that day about the intention of the Government to grant a Commission. If it were the fact, as he believed, that rents were being fixed without any standard, and that the Land Acts were being administered to the detriment of the landlords on all occasions, there certainly ought to be an inquiry without delay. He knew that no one became a "bore" in that House sooner than a man who appeared to have a subject upon the nerves; but he felt sure that if hon. Members only knew as much as he did of the sufferings of many of the landlord class in Ireland, and of the privations of their
  526
  families, whom they could not educate in accordance with their station in life, the House would pardon him for having asked once more for justice for these people. [Cheers.]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that he had never heard a more crushing indictment of English rule in Ireland than the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Of course, the standpoint of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends was not the same as that of the Nationalist Members, but they seemed now to be agreed that Ireland was an oppressed and wronged country. If the landlord class were oppressed, as the right hon. Gentleman averred, so were the tenants. His right hon. and learned Friend had entered that House under the auspices of the First Lord of the Treasury. When the right hon. Gentleman was contesting the Trinity College seat, the First Lord of the Treasury gave him a character as to his experience in Irish matters. It was on July 29, 1892.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: How does the hon. Member propose to connect this with the Vote?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that he would connect it with the Vote in a way that would be patent to the meanest understanding. [Laughter.] On the date which he had mentioned the First Lord of the Treasury wrote his right hon. and learned Friend a letter in which he spoke of him as being specially competent to supply information and give advice upon the legal aspects of all Irish questions, and as being well qualified by training and ability to take a prominent part in the House of Commons, and on public platforms when Irish subjects were being discussed. Those were the terms in which the First Lord of the Treasury spoke of his right hon. and learned Friend who now, after five years' experience of the House of Commons had come to the same conclusion—judging from his speech —which the Irish Members on the Opposition side of the House had come to long ago—namely, that the British Parliament was either incompetent or unwilling to do justice to the Irish people. Whilst he agreed with much that the right hon. Gentleman had said he could not subscribe to all that he had said regarding the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners, for among the 80 officials selected

  527
  by the Government there was nut one who could be regarded us having any special sympathy with the tenants. Without exception all the Sub-Commissioners had been appointed by the present Government, and all the Chief Commissioners, with the one exception of Mr. Murrough O'Brien, had also been appointed by them. All the gentlemen appointed by preceding Governments had been re-appointed by the present Ministry with approval of their judicial action. The landlords declared that the reductions of rent pressed hardly upon them. He believed that that was so, and sympathised with them. His right hon. Friend who spoke a few minutes ago was not singular in that respect, but the answer to his complaint was, who had produced that system? ['Hear, hear!"] The English Government had produced it—["hear, hear !"]—and he contended that the Irish landlords would be better off if they joined with their own colleagues than they were in relying on an English Government. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had referred to the land hunger which existed in Ireland. He said that there was a land hunger because of the limited supply of land, and because there was no other outlet for industry in Ireland; but who was responsible for the fact that there were no industries in Ireland? It was the English Government. [Cheers.] But in the misfortunes and vicissitudes which must always accompany movements like the land agitation, the misfortunes that had fallen on the toiling millions of Ireland must not be ignored. No doubt it was very miserable to sec the reductions that had to be made in the great households; but he would rather see a reduction in the establishments of 10 country gentlemen than one child in want of a bit of bread. ["Hear, hear!"] He wondered whether the Chief Secretary would maintain, during this Debate his uncomfortable position of energetic silence. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman had lately been like a sheep dumb before the shearers. Would he hear his right hon. Friend the Attorney General? He would be glad to hear him because he knew he sympathised with him. He would be also glad to know whether they were to hear anything from their Friend the hon. Member for South Tyrone; or were the Government going to "Gorst"
  528
  him? [Ministerial cries of "Order!"] He would withdraw that expression if it was unparliamentary. He thanked the House for the kindness with which they had listened to him. He would, in conclusion, impress on his Unionist. Friends that all Irishmen had much in common, and if they could only take the country into their own hands, they would soon cease to be bullied and cajoled by an incompetent English Administration. [Cheers.]
  HE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)My right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University has touched in eloquent terms on the misfortunes under which the landlord class in Ireland are suffering at this time. I do not think that from those words anybody on cither side of the House will dissent. Undoubtedly the landlord class in Ireland are suffering severely. Their incomes have been very materially reduced during the last 15 or 20 years; they are in a large number of cases heavily burdened with charges on their estates; and in many instances they have been reduced to live on a comparatively small portion of the income they once enjoyed. All that is undoubtedly true. There may be some controversy as to whether these misfortunes have been brought about entirely in consequence of the legislation this House has passed from 1881 upwards; but I should not be in order in discussing the policy of the Land Act of 1881, and the amending Acts that followed it. Still, I think it is only right to remind the House that, while we on this side of the House never approved of the principle of the Act of 1881 in the first instance, yet, on the other hand, there were difficulties in connection with the Irish land question at that time which, no doubt, did call for legislation of some kind or another— [hear, hear!"]—and in the speeches that have been made lately by the landlords and those who represented them at the Convention in Dublin and elsewhere, I must say that I could have wished there had been some reference to the circumstance that the Richmond Commission and other Commissions, consisting to a very considerable extent of landlords, declared that some of the principal evils at that time arose from the excessive price then paid for tenant-right, and

  529
  from the fact that rents had burn too much raised on the tenants. ["Hear, hear'"] It is impossible, in taking a general view of the land legislation of the past 15 years, and in endeavouring to form an estimate as to whether it was justified or not, to leave these considerations entirely out of sight; and I would go further and remind my right hon. Friend that, although the landlords and their representatives attack the policy of the Act and the amending Acts, when those amending Acts were before the House they did not vote against them. They did not vote against the Act of 1887, nor against the Second Reading of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, nor against the Second Reading of the Bill of last year. In these circumstances I think they must admit, as we on this Bench admit and maintain, that whatever objections may be justly raised to the principle of the Act of 1881, that Act, baying been once passed into law, it would be unwise and unstatesmanlike to attempt to return to the condition of things that obtained before it was passed. ["Hear, hear!"] Apart from the question of the policy of the Act of 1881, this discussion has mainly turned on the procedure and personnel of the Land Commission. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University made a speech of very threat moderation, especially when compared with the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet, who himself once held the office I now hold. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University, in discussing this question of the Sub-Commissioners, admitted that he was not in a position to say whether the reductions of rent lately made by them were just or not—very different language from that held by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, in this connection I should like to refer to a speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Armagh, delivered in Dublin the other day This is what he said:—
  hey passed a Land Act, and they wanted to make 40 millions spread to what 80 or 90 millions might have done that they did not get, and they chose Land Commissioners who would, whittle down the rents, and then, according to this new principle of statesmanship, which he could not sympathise with, it appeared that, undoubtedly, it was more easy and more cheap to buy a bankrupt landlord
  530
  than it was to buy a solvent one. So the thing was to make a bankrupt of him first and then buy him up. Now, he asked them was he exaggerating in the least?"
  ["Hear, hear!" from Colonel SAUNDERSON.] I am sorry to hear my hon. and gallant Friend say "Hear, hear!" because that really amounts to a charge that the Government have deliberately appointed men who might be counted upon to reduce the landlords' rents. I really do think it is unworthy of my hon. and gallant Friend to suspect for one moment that the Government in making these appointments looked to the probability that the men appointed would cut down rents. ["Hear, hear!"] If we were actuated by motives of that kind we should be unworthy of the position we occupy.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONThat certainly was not my intention. I simply pointed to the fact that the Government chose Commissioners whose probable action would be to lower rents and make the landlords bankrupt.
  R. T. M. HEALYThey raised them on Lord Annesley's estate last week.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think my hon. and learned Friend's interruption very much alters what I have said. ["Hear, hear!"] We are accused on the other side of having appointed the Commissioners with the deliberate view that they should not reduce rents by an adequate amount; but I will do hon. Members opposite the justice to say that I do not think they believe that. [Mr. MACNEILL: "We do !" and laughter.] Of course, the object of the Government in making the appointments was to secure men who would carry out their duties in an impartial manner under the Act. Let me say one word as to the statements of the hon. and learned Member for Louth. He says that since the Government came into office 80 appointments have been made, that of these only three are Roman Catholics, and that over 70 are landlords or landlords' agents. I have not got the figures, but we have not made anything like 80 appointments. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then you ought to!"] I think we have appointed something like 24 Sub-Commissioners who have not held the position before, and of these I believe several are Roman Catholics, though I do not know. Religion does not come into these appointments. [A laugh.]

  531
  I have told the Member for Louth and others more than once that it is not the object of the Government to prevent Roman Catholics from receiving appointments for which they are qualified. I think in that matter I shall have the support of the Member for Montrose. I believe that, if anything, it is the disposition of the Government to stretch a point in the appointment of Roman Catholics, everything being equal. [An HON. MEMBER: "Never; nonsense !"] I think the Member for Montrose will confirm me in that. That, however, is a matter of comparatively small importance. As to 70 out of the 80 being landlords or land agents, I am quite sure that that proportion is absolutely inaccurate.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then give us your figures and version.
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Member has only to look at the published list of the Sub-Commissioners to see that his statement is without, foundation.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I maintain it.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Now, Sir, I pass from that question to the complaint of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University that the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners are not supported by reasons for those decisions. My answer to that is that you may analyze as much as you please and enumerate as much as you please, but, ultimately you will have to come to a matter of opinion.
  MR. CARSONwas understood to say that he had asked to be stated the proportion of the rents to the market value.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Act of 1881 did away with it.
  MR. CARSON: Might I ask my right hon. Friend whether any Sub-Commissioner has laid down what he means by a fair rent?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, the Act requires him to fix a fair rent, and he is to start from the facts as they are before him. Then there is the statement that the Commissioners are entirely in the hands of the Court valuers. It is for the Commissioners themselves to decide, after hearing the valuers, what a fair rent should be. It is a singular fallacy that, because the valuers have been Sub-Commissioners, therefore they are not to be trusted. As a matter of fact, the valuers are men who have been
  532
  selected for this special duty from the body of the Sub-Commissioners at large. They are not chosen haphazard, and I do not believe you could get better valuers outside the ranks of the Sub-Commissioners. If you went outside you would have a greater chance of getting valuers who were not so impartial as the Court valuers. ["Hear, hear !"] Now I come to what is, after all, the great point. The complaint is made that these Sub-Coin-missioners have made reductions which are complained of as unjust and unfair. On the other side, however, it is said that the reductions are not adequate to meet the difficulties of the case. ["Hear, hear!"] There are a great many considerations which have to be borne in mind. We have heard a great deal about the high prices given for tenant-right. Then we hear about the reductions of rent being far greater than was justified by the fall in prices; and some say that the fall in rent should be according to the fall in prices. ["Hear, hear!"] It is very easy to argue from these general considerations, but I am convinced that it is exceedingly difficult from these general considerations to arrive at any clear, satisfactory, and cogent conclusion. But while the tenants appear to be dissatisfied with the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners, the landlords have given their dissatisfaction a practical form, for they have asked for an inquiry into the procedure and practice of the Land Commissioners. That Inquiry the Government have decided to grant. ["Oh, oh!"] The form which the inquiry will take will be a Royal Commission, small in numbers, but to be selected with a view to the impartiality of its members—[ironical Home Rule, cheers]—and in some cases their expert knowledge of the value of land. I am not yet in a position to say what the, exact terms of reference will be or who will be appointed to serve, but, I have, I think, sufficiently indicated the general character of the inquiry. Whether the result of the inquiry will be to justify the expectations that are formed by my hon. Friends on this side is in my judgment very open to question indeed, but, of course, in asking for this Commission they must know perfectly well that it is possible that the conclusions arrived at by the Commission may be adverse to them.
  MR. T. H. HEALY: There is no tear of that.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not intended that the principles of the Acts shall be inquired into; those are to be taken for granted. It will be an inquiry into the practice and procedure of the Land Commission and of the Land Courts in fixing fair rents, and into the practice and procedure of the Land Commission in making advances under the Land Purchase Acts. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will the personnel of the Land Commission be inquired into] No. The Government did not feel justified in refusing a request made so strongly by a body of men who are undoubtedly, rightly of wrongly, convinced that they are suffering very serious injustice. But there is another reason why in my judgment it is a proper thing to appoint a Commission of inquiry. Charges are now being freely made against the competence and, in some quarters, even as to the honesty, of the Sub-Commissioners. Those charges it is impossible for the Land Commissioners to meet at the present time. They have to remain silent under the accusations which are levelled against them. In my judgment, for the sake of the Land Commissioners alone, it is desirable there should be an inquiry.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the Land Commission been consulted?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, the Land Commission has not been consulted in the matter. Let me repeat that we have not decided to appoint this Commission of Inquiry with any preconceived idea as to whether the rents which are now being fixed are too high or too low. We feel that we have not sufficient data on which to form a judgment. We think it is very important that there should be upon this subject some kind of authoritative decision rather than that public opinion should be left to the mercy of assertions founded for the most part upon uninstructed, vague, and general considerations. [Cheers.]
  MR. DILLON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will inform us whether it is proposed to stop the fixing of fair rents and to suspend the payment of rents until the Royal Commission reports.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I confess I listened to the statement of
  534
  the right hon. Gentleman with considerable surprise and with some dismay— [Hear, hear !"]—and I think that the embarrassment—if I may so call it— with which the right hon. Gentleman announced the appointment of this Commission, showed that it is in no very right good will on his part that this concession has been made to the pressure of the Irish landlords. [cheers] That pressure began almost immediately after the passing of the right hon. Gentleman's Act of last year; it was pressure that was set in operation in anticipation of anything that was done by the Commissioners or by the Sub-Commissioners. When the Duke of Abercorn brought this proposal forward in another place the Prime Minister dismissed it with a series of objections which those who heard him felt were in his own mind conclusive at the time. What is taking place now is a repetition of what took place, and took place with such mischievous results, in the case of the Land Act of 1881. ['Hear, hear!"] All who sat on the Committee over which I presided in 1894 are aware that witnesses of every kind came before that Committee and gave as one of the reasons for what is an indisputable fact—namely, that the rents fixed in 1882 and 1883 were too high— the deterrent effect exercised on the minds of the Sub-Commissioners, first of all by the appointment of a Committee, and. secondly, by the attitude of Lord Salisbury and others.
  MR. CARSON: I do not recollect any such evidence.
  COLONEL WARING: I must say I have no recollection of it.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The evidence may have been given after those hon. Gentlemen, unfortunately, deserted the Committee.
  COLONEL, WARING: There was no evidence taken after we left.
  MR. J. MORLEY: My statement can be tested by the Blue-book. Besides, the hon. Member for South Tyrone was a Member of the Committee, and I am sure he will not deny what I have said. Now, one very extraordinary reason for the appointment of this Commission has been given; it is that Gentlemen below the gangway opposite and gentlemen in Ireland—landlords—have made extravagant and unjust and partisan accusations

  535
  as to the action of the Land Commissioners, That was to say, it you want a Commission all you have to do is to make a series of extravagant and unsubstantiated charges, and the Government of the day, in order to clear the officers so charged, will appoint a commission of inquiry. The First Lord of the Treasury used to say, or, at any rate, his policy indicated the belief by him, that the Land Commissioners are judicial, or quasi-or semi-judicial gentlemen. Would he, I wonder, have consented to appoint a Commission in order to meet extravagant and unsubstantiated assertions made by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on the Opposition side of the House? He would have been the last man in the House to do so. There is another point I must mention. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin might say that the Committee over which I presided did not take all the evidence which ought to have been taken— [Mr. CARSON: "Hear, hear!"]—but the Chief Secretary for Ireland brought in a Bill founded avowedly—Oh, the right hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but it was so. It may have been bad tactics on the part of the Chief Secretary, but as to the fact, there is no doubt. In introducing his Bill, the right hon. Gentleman referred again and again to the report of the Committee as constituting the foundation upon which he reared his Bill. He, at all events, appeared to think that there was so much value to be attached to the evidence taken before that Committee and to its Report that he felt legislation was called for, and not a word was said, in the introduction or the conduct of that Bill, to show that the right hon. Gentleman for one moment thought that any reason had been brought forward why the action of the Sub-Commissioners or the Land Commissioners should be subjected to unfavourable criticism. At that time, not nine mouths ago, it had not entered into the right hon. Gentleman's mind that there was any kind of objection made to the action or equity or fairness of the gentlemen who administered those Acts. The right hon. Gentleman said in the earlier part of his remarks what I entirely subscribe to. He said it was doing him and the Irish Government a great injustice to suppose for a moment that he has appointed one single Sub-Commissioner either because he hoped or
  536
  thought that he would fix rents high or low. I do not suppose for one moment that such a consideration ever entered into the mind of the right hon. Gentleman; but is he not by appointing this Commission, because suspicions, or more than suspicions, have lodged themselves in the minds of the landlord party, showing that he is himself yielding to the expression of suspicious which, as applied to himself, he indignantly and quite properly repudiates? He says that this Commission is not to inquire into the principles of the Land Act, but into procedure only. What kind of evidence, I want to know, is this Royal Commission going to take which did not come before the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1894, and what kind of men are you going to have? It has been suggested in the public prints, but I dismiss the matter from my mind as entirely unworthy of belief, that this Commission is to be presided over by a Judge, and the name of an able Judge was mentioned; because, say what you like, the object of the Commission can only be one which cannot be friendly to the tenants. [Nationalist cheers.] I do not say the right hon. Gentleman or the Government have in their minds a deliberate intention of any sort of putting pressure on the Land Commission or Sub-Commissioners, but it is perfectly notorious—and the Irish are not so slow-witted as not to be wide awake to the fact—that this Commission is appointed to please the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin, University and those whom, he so ably and powerfully represents—[Nationalist cheers]— a Commission appointed with the expectation in the minds of those who got it appointed that they will and flaws and inequalities and errors in the procedure of the Land Court. To put a Judge at the head of a Commission which, say what you like, is to be a landlord Commission — [Nationalist cheers]—will certainly not be killing Home Rule with kindness. ["Hear, hear!"] I will not say any more than this. You pass a Rent Act in 1887 —I do not go further back than that— and another Rent Act in 1896; and then in 1897, before the Act has been eight or nine months in operation, you show so little confidence in your own handiwork that you are going to appoint an important Royal Commission to overhaul the doings of the body to whom you have

  537
  intrusted the carrying out of your legislation. I have heard the announcement with dismay and deep regret and I am perfectly sure that the Chief Secretary, when he is in Ireland at all events, knows it is a most fatal error they are making with a view lo the good working of his own Act. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not propose to survey the whole Debate that has taken place to-night upon the Land Commission, but one or two words, I think, must be said in answer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not traverse what I should regard as inaccuracies, however import tint in themselves, which are not relevant to this particular Debate—such an inaccuracy, as I think, as the statement that the Bill of last year was based on the Report of the Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman opposite presided. I do not think that is an accurate description of the Bill, which, though it did contain several of the non-controversial clauses which found a place in the right hon. Gentleman's own Bill, did not resemble that Bill in any of its broader aspects, and certainly did not copy that Bill in many of the objectionable features, as we think, which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to add to the land legislation of Ireland. The immediate discussion before the House is the propriety of the course which the Government have adopted. When the right hon. Gentleman opposite points out that we are dealing with a judicial body, and that inquiries into the action of a judicial body are in themselves rather dangerous remedies, I entirely agree with him. I think the course we have adopted is one which ought to be adopted with reluctance, and only if there is adequate ground shown for it; but observe that, by the very nature of the case, the sort of judicial work which we have thrown upon the Land Commission by the Act of 1881 and successive Acts justifies a procedure which would not be proper if we were dealing with the administration of settled principles of law such as those which the ordinary practice of the Courts in this country administer, I have never concealed from the House that, however great the excuses—and they were great—for the experiment made in 1881, that experiment was in itself a disastrous experiment—[cheers]—foredoomed to
  538
  failure, or, at all events, to partial failure—and that we attempted to do through the medium of a Court that which no Court could adequately accomplish. Let it not be said if is no longer open to us to make in 1897 such criticisms as were passed in 1881 inasmuch as we ourselves have been responsible for Acts amending the Act of 1881. No such criticism holds good against our policy. The Act of 1881 was passed, rightly or wrongly—wrongly and unfortunately, as I think—and it became the fundamental law governing the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, and no practical statesman, I venture to say, would suggest that the system then established could be destroyed except by the gradual extinction of double ownership1 by the creation of a great system of peasant proprietary. That has been our view consistently for the last 16 years. Holding-that view, we have felt it our duty, not; merely to pass from time to time Acts intended to facilitate land purchase in Ireland, but also, finding that we had to administer Ireland under the Act of 1881, to make the principles of that Act as tolerable as they could be made and as just to the various parties connected with land in Ireland. That is the position of the land problem as we conceive it. What has happened is precisely what everyone foresaw must happen—namely, that these Land Courts have been subjected, from one side and the other, by an inevitable necessity, to criticism which, if it has had no other effect, has had the effect necessarily of diminishing the authority with which their decisions have been received both in Ireland and in this country. It is a most unfortunate fact; it is a fact which we all deplore, but it is a fact which could have been foreseen, and which was almost inevitable, human nature being what it is. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says, "You are appointing this Commission in the interests of the landlords—[Nationalist cheers]—allthose who represent the tenants will complain, and have a right to complain, of the course you are pursuing." The course we are pursuing is as greatly justified by the utterances of the friends of the tenants as it is by the utterances of the friends of the landlords. It is perfectly true that the landlords hold, rightly or wrongly, that the recent reductions in

  539
  the second statutory twin have been excessive. True it is that they have criticised in detail the machinery of the Land Commission, and in particular they have alleged that the system of appeal is one which practically gives, and can give, no confidence to the various suitors who come before the Commission. But if these have been the charges levelled by the landlords against the administration of the Acts, charges equally as strong, and uttered from even more numerous mouths, have been uttered against the Land Commission on behalf of the tenants. In this afternoon's Debate charges against the Land Commission of not reducing rents sufficiently have been explicitly made by, among others, the hon. and learned Member for Louth. I really think it would be better if no suspicion existed as to the action of the Land Court, that no charges of this kind were bandied about from side to side. We have to take facts as they are; and undoubtedly the result of recent events has been that a widespread sense of insecurity as to the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners in the first instance and of the Head Commissioners on appeal has been diffused throughout both the great classes concerned in the administration of the Land Acts. Under these circumstances are we wrong in doing what we can to restore that confidence which, through no fault of ours, has been shaken in Ireland? [Laughter.] I gather from the laughter of the hon. Member for Donegal that he regards with 'derision that statement of policy on the part of the Government. But let me say that there may be circumstances under which, whatever may be the evils of action, the evils of inaction are still greater—["Hear, hear !"]-—and I am convinced that, though it is far better, if you can, to leave the action of any tribunal untouched by public criticism, uninterfered with by outside inquiry, still, if you reach a point when the result of inquiry would be to restore confidence which has been shaken and to bring back a state of things which unfortunately has been disturbed, your only choice, the only choice left open to the Government, is to take such a course and to follow it out to the best of their ability. [Ministerial cheers.] Now, Sir, what says the right hon. Gentleman,
  540
  the Member for the Montrose Burghs? He says:—
  "Will a Commission, if appointed, arid anything to the mass of information collected by the Committee of which he was Chairman?"
  I am bound to say that I thought this reference of the right hon. Gentleman an unfortunate one—["hear, hear !"]—because he must be well aware that, whether through the fault of the Government, of which he was a member, or to unfortunate accident, this result was obtained—that while that Committee took all the evidence which the tenants desired on their side of the case, the landlords, however rightly or wrongly, thought that the evidence on their side of the case was burked and never taken at all. [Ministerial cheers of "Oh !"] I believe I am not mistaken in an historical fact when I say that the Parliamentary Committee desired to close the evidence taken before it at the very moment when the principal allegations on behalf of the landlords were about to be brought before it. ["Hear, hear !" from the Ministerial Bunches]. Even if that be not an accurate statement of fact, though I believe it to be perfectly accurate, it is universally believed by the landlords in Ireland, and that circumstance alone will show how much may still require to be done by a small Commission, and that is the intention of the Government in proposing it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has by anticipation done his best to destroy the value of the labours of this Commission by expressing his opinion that it is appointed in the interests of the landlords. [Irish cheers.] Well, Sir, it can only be appointed in the interests of the landlords if the landlords have been suffering injustice. I offer no suggestion or opinion on that point at all. I can most honestly and truly say I have formed no opinion—
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then why do you appoint a Commission?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Why appoint a Commission? I propose to appoint a Commission, as I have already endeavoured to explain to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee, because partly through his exertions discredit has been thrown upon the labours of the Land Courts; and

  541
  some investigation of the course they are pursuing is absolutely necessary if that confidence is to be restored. For my own part lean most truly say that while I have heard a great deal both on the side of the landlord and on the side of the tenant with regard to judicial rents, I have never been able—and if I had made up my mind, if I had formed any opinion as to the action of the Commissioners in fixing judicial rents I should not express it; but I can truly say that I have formed no such opinion. On the contrary, the whole question seems to be one of extreme difficulty, and it may be naturally supposed that I have taken my share in appointing this Commission with no preformed opinion as to what the result of its labours is likely to be. I am not sure that if I had been interested in Irish land I should have pressed the Government lo appoint it. ["Hear, hear!" from the Nationalist] That is my own view. But we have been pressed to appoint a Commission, and even those who have not pressed us to do so—even those who like hon. Gentlemen opposite, appear to dislike the idea of a Commission—have themselves, by reiterating their unceasing criticisms upon the decisions of the Land Courts, given us the very strongest argument that can be given for the course we have adopted. Under these circumstances, Sir, I hope the Committee will feel that we really have done our best to make this almost unworkable land system in Ireland work with justice both to the landlords and to the tenants; and that if, after all the legislation in which we have been engaged we think that an inquiry into the working of that legislation is now necessary, we say that it is necessary not because we have in any sense prejudged the controversy between landlord and tenant, but because now as ever we think it our duty to take every step which may secure justice as between those two great classes. [Ministerial cheers.]
  MR. JOHN DILLONsaid he thought there would not be in Ireland on any side of politics a second opinion as to the object with which the Commission was appointed. The object was, of course, to put pressure upon the Sub-Commissioners. This Commission had been granted at the request of the Irish landlords, he might almost say, he
  542
  thought, without exaggeration, that it had been granted in consequence of the threats of the Irish landlords. Therefore, it was preposterous and absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to contend that it was a Commission in the granting of which the Government had equally considered the interests of the tenant farmers and the landlords. It was a sop thrown out to their enraged supporters in Ireland, or to supporters who affected to be enraged. Now, what was the situation? They had got a Land Commission which had been manned from the top to the bottom by a Government which was a Government of the Irish landlords. He believed, as had been already stated by the hon. Member for North Louth, and, if not admitted, not contradicted—that with the exception of one or two individuals, the whole body of Commissioners, including the members of the Head Commission, and the Assistant Commissioners, whose salaries they were now discussing, were appointees of a Government which was a Government by the choice of the Irish landlords. So that the Irish landlords were in this position—that they had had the manning of the Commission, they had had the nominating of the men who were now deciding the rents of the Irish tenants; and not content with that, they must go a step farther; and because owing to the pressure of irresistible facts and circumstances, the Commissioners were giving a certain reduction of rents—what he and his friends believed to be a very insufficient reduction— they must now insist on a Commission which could have no object but to intimidate these Sub-Commissioners with a view to producing an insufficient reduction of rents. Let him refer for a moment to the extraordinary speech delivered by Lord Salisbury in reply to the deputation of landlords. It was, he thought, one of the most extraordinary speeches ever delivered by a responsible Minister of the Crown. Because he took up this amazing position—
  "I don't profess to know whether your demand is a just demand or not, but what I advise you to do is this—if yon think you have any claim, agitate;"
  they were to agitate and to put pressure upon Ministers by their public agitation. Well, he and his Friends had been accustomed to be denounced in every

  543
  mood as agitators, as men who were engaged in a disreputable occupation; and now they saw Her Majesty's Prime Minister advising a deputation of dukes and noblemen to allow themselves to be degraded to that same position of public agitators. [Laughter] What did Lord Salisbury go on to say? He was discussing the merits of various forms of inquiry which might be granted. He first pointed out that a Royal Commission was utterly unsuited to the case. He then went on to say that—
  "there was a Committee of one of the Houses of Parliament after the passing of the Act of 1881, and my impression is that, on the whole, that Inquiry did good, if not so much as was anticipated, but on the whole it was beneficial."
  Those were sinister words. Everybody who remembered that time knew that the effect of the Inquiry by the Committee of the House of Lords was an immediate cutting down of the reductions in rent—by intimidating the Sub-Commissioners; and the Prime Minister, with a masterly audacity—ho might almost say indecency—deliberately pointed out to the landlords, and advocated to his Friends, the beneficial effect he expected from any Commission which might be appointed by remembering that a Committee of the House of Lords had had some beneficial effect on a former occasion, though not as much as they expected. Now what meaning could be attached to that language except one? What did the beneficial effect of a Commission upon the Irish landlords amount to? They knew that the only effect the landlords would consider beneficial would be the effect of limiting the reductions of rents by the Land Commissioners. ["Hear, hear !"] And Lord Salisbury indicated to the landlords that if they made themselves sufficiently active in agitation, and put enough pressure on the Government, no doubt their will would be carried into effect and their demands be granted. The Irish landlords, he was bound to say, did not long delay to act upon that advice. They summoned a large meeting at Dublin, which was held on the 13th of April last. He would refer for a single moment only to the character of that meeting. The character of the speeches delivered at the meeting of landlords in Dublin on April 30 removed all doubt as to the
  544
  reasons for appointing this Commission. The Duke of Abercorn, at that meeting, quoted Lord Salisbury's words:—
  "In the days in which we live the class that does not complain is the class that will go to the wall,"
  and he said:—
  "This means agitation. Now, agitation is a most useful method of bringing questions before the public mind. If you look back upon the history of this country you will see the every great reform has been obtained by agitation."
  Here, then, they had the deplorable spectacle of a Duke advising his friends in Ireland to betake themselves to the much-abused vocation of agitators. He was astonished that the Chief Secretary had not come to the House prepared to give more particulars as to the character and antecedents of the men whom he had appointed as Commissioners.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I beg pardon. All I was unable to say was that there were so many landlords among them, so many agents, and so many tenants.
  MR. DILLONthought that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been ready to give more particulars, seeing that he must have known that the character of his appointments would be challenged. There were six members of the Chief Court of the Land Commission—because Judge Ross was practically a member— and five of them were nominees of the Unionist Government. Bearing in mind their antecedents and connections, it was impossible not to see that they must sympathise with the landlords. The right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College had drawn a very truthful picture of the farcical state of affairs in this Court when questions of land value were being considered. The Court was presided over by a most estimable Judge, who was an excellent lawyer, but who knew nothing about the value of land. Another member of the Court was Mr. Fitzgerald, who, according to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, knew nothing about land; and a third was Mr. Wrench, who was skilled in the rearing of hackney horses, and who, at one time, was one of the best known agents for the landlords in the North of Ireland. The right hon. and learned Member,

  545
  however, had omitted to mention one member of the Court—namely, Mr. O'Brien. It was a very curious circumstance that Mr. O'Brien, who knew more about the value of land than, perhaps, any man in Ireland, and who was the only member of the Court appointed by a Liberal Government, was nearly always overruled. He was, in fact, almost boycotted, and the business of the Land Court was left practically to the Unionist nominees. Irish Unionists who denounced the Government ought to remember that it was the Government of their choice; they had subscribed their money to put it in power, and as long as the landlord party in Ireland helped to keep this Government in power by supporting it, they could not say with any show of reason that the appointments to the Land Commission were made in the interests of the tenants. The appointments to the Commission had not been made in the interests of the tenants. Almost to a man the officials were the enemies of the tenants. The Chief Secretary had appealed to them not to impute unworthy motives to him. He did not do so, for he did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman had appointed a single Commissioner with a view to having the rents raised. But the right hon. Gentleman had been obliged to make selections among thousands of men of whose characters, views, and dispositions he knew nothing, and what means had he to decide which of these men were fit for the appointments? Of course, he had to rely on those who recommended the selected candidates, and the officials and people with whom he was in communication had influenced him to lean towards the landlord side in making those appointments. That was inevitable, having regard to the atmosphere in which the right hon. Gentleman lived. He had himself made independent inquiries into the antecedents and character of the gentlemen who had been appointed Sub-Commissioners, and he asserted that, out of 73 lay Sub-Commissioners, 53 were, of had been in one capacity or another, closely connected with the landlord class, and he believed that many among the rest could be described in the same way. He was certain that he was well within the mark
  546
  in saying that four-fifths of the lay Sub-Commissioners were either landlords, the agents of landlords—which was worse— or gentlemen who had distinguished themselves by canvassing and spouting in the Unionist cause, and denouncing the dishonesty of Irish tenants. The right hon. Gentleman had called attention to the number of farmers who, he said, had been appointed as Land Commissioners. This description of "farmer" was, however, not exhaustive in many cases. Third on the list, for example, was a gentleman who was described as "a tenant," but this gentleman had been a leading land agent and valuer for the landlords in the North of Ireland before his appointment. He had taken the greatest pains to find out the facts, and he did not believe it was possible for the Chief Secretary to contradict his statement that four-fifths of the Commissioners were either landlords or supported by the landlords in their claims to be appointed. The right hon. Gentleman was asked whether the Commission would investigate and report upon the personnel of the Land Commission, but they were to report upon exactly what the landlords wanted, and upon nothing else. The right hon. Member for Trinity College drew a touching picture of the sufferings, and what he described to be the feelings of despair, of the Irish landlords. He had no doubt there was a great deal of truth in that moving and heart-rending picture, but the right hon. Gentleman had touched very little on the other side, which was not the sufferings of a few individual families but of hundreds and thousands of the industrious poor in Ireland. He did not desire to inflict hardships in a spirit of vengeance upon the landlords, and still less on unfortunate bodies. Three or four years ago when the question of a Roman Catholic University for Ireland was discussed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College said that if the Irish people were only allowed to settle the question they would do so to the satisfaction of all parties. [Cheers.] He had thought that was the dawning of a similar view on the part of the right hon. Gentleman on the land question. In 1885, in order to inaugurate a new and happier era for Ireland, they offered terms to the Irish landlords which they would never again get—["hear, hear!"]-—and those

  547
  terms were thrust back and refused— [cheers]—as hon. Gentlemen opposite thought they could best serve the interest of their class by tying themselves to an alien Government which they believed would be loyal to the Unionist garrison. They were now reaping the harvest of what they had sown, and perhaps the time would come yet when they would find their countrymen willing, and only too willing, to bury in oblivion the bitter and miserable past, and that they would obtain better terms from them than from any English Government. [Cheers.] He confessed he listened with great pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College adopting their views that night, and pointing out the causes which had brought about the rackrenting and misery of the tenants in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] It was due, he said, to the lack of other occupations; and why was it that the people were driven to compete with each other to the point of absolute starvation and nakedness? It was because the class to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged had in the past forgotten their duties to their people. [Cheers.] He hoped the speech they had listened to that night was some indication of the dawning of a better day amongst the Irish Unionists [Cheers.] But with reference to the appointment of this Commission by which Ireland would be thrown into turmoil, and they would be afforded the spectacle of noble Dukes engaged in agitation—that was a game two could play at, and he had no doubt that the Chief Secretary by this Commission would let loose a considerable flood of agitation in Ireland. The Commission would be regarded by the tenant farmers of Ireland as a deliberate attempt to intimidate the Land Commissioners. Probably the first effect of the appointment of the Commission would be to lessen the reductions. That was the intention.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: We have stated in explicit terms that this Commission is not appointed because we have any opinion as to the justice or injustice of the decisions.
  MR. DILLON: Then it comes to this, that any body of men in Ireland have only to make spurious charges against a court of law, and instantly they are to have a Royal Commission. [Irish cheers.]
  548
  There was no pretence or excuse for this inquiry; on the contrary, the Leader of the House and the Chief Secretary had been very cautious in their language, suggesting that it was most undesirable. However, as the landlords had kicked up a row the right hon. Gentleman intimated that they had no choice in the matter. Were they going to allow the levying and the payment of rent when nobody knew what might be the result of this Commission? They were entitled to recall the remarks of Ministers last year about the finality of their land legislation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who said that?"] It was declared on the other side that there was to be no more land legislation so long as this Parliament sat.
  MR. CARSON: Who believed it?
  MR. DILLONsaid that he did not believe it, but Ministers said it, and they had a right to enjoy the speedy fulfilment, of their promises. He should conclude by strongly advising the tenants to put into practice, with the least possible delay, the advice which Lord Salisbury gave to the landlords—["Hear, hear!"] —namely, that "in these days" classes which did not agitate would go to the wall, and he would further remind the tenants that, so far as that House went, they had nothing to expect, according to the declarations of two Ministers, from this Commission beyond an attempt to destroy the Act of 1881. [Cheers.]
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, if anyone required proof as to the capacity of the Land Commissioners exercising a just decision in the matter of rent, he thought the proof came from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, and the hon. Member who had just sat down. Both of these Gentleman said that the result of appointing a Commission of Inquiry would be to influence the Sub-Commissioners in fixing rents in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, on a former occasion, pointed out that the Sub-Commissioners were so affected in Ireland by the appointment of a Commission, that they gave unfair decisions. Now if the appointment of a Commission had this effect upon the minds of the Sub-Commissioners in Ireland, was there not good reason why the landlords, who suffered from their unfair decisions, should have some qualms? He occupied on this question a peculiar position. He was one of

  549
  the few landlords who supported the passing of the Land Bill of '70, which was the foundation of all subsequent Land Acts. He never could sec then, nor did he believe anyone could at that time, nor in 1881, that the passing of a Land Act meant, not fixing fair rents, but sweeping away the whole landlord class in Ireland. ["Hear, hear !"] If Mr. Gladstone had got up and said that the Act of 1881 was not an Act for fixing fair rents, but for simply lowering rents, no one on that side of the House would have been found to support it. ["Hear, hear !"] The hon. Member then quoted from the Return showing that so far as, for example, Downpatrick was concerned, the reductions in the rent were out of all proportion to previous reductions, and the reductions in the price of produce. In fact rent was reduced now, when the price of produce was going up, and when it was higher than it was during previous periods of reductions. The reductions of 1887–8–9 had changed from 11 per cent, to 31 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER "Quite right!"] Some rents which were reduced a few years ago by 5 per cent. were now reduced by 28 per cent.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the rents in 1881, 1882, and 1883 were fixed on a wrong principle?
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: That I think proves the justice of our demands for inquiry. The Act of 1881 required the Commissioners to fix a fair rent, but finding inspect inn too laborious a task, they went by the rule of thumb. He would mention one case which illustrated the sort of way in which rents were reduced in Ireland. Some seven years ago the rent of a farm on Mr. Trollope's estates was to be fixed. Concerning the case, the gentleman wrote:—
  "Some years ago the County Court Judge was applied to to fix a fair rent, and as the case was small, I allowed it to remain in the County Court. A few days previous to the day of hearing, at Phillipstown Quarter Sessions, I happened to he on the estate with Mr. Lennan making a valuation, and as we were going home in the evening—a very wet evening—we met the County Court valuer, blind drunk and staggering along, about a mile from the farm he was going to value. He was then too drunk to go any further, and we got him up upon a car, and sent him home. The following Saturday, when the case was called at Phillipstown. County Court Judge Fitzgerald, now Commissioner Fitzgerald, read
  550
  a letter from the County Court valuer saying he could not value the farm, as it was all under water. I pointed out to the County Court Judge this was a mistake, as the farm was on the top of a hill. The result was, the case was adjourned till the following Tuesday, and the Judge said he would direct his valuer to value the farm on Monday, so as to be ready to fix the rent on Tuesday. I directed my bailiff to wait on Monday to see the valuer valued the proper farm. As I was on my way to Claremorris I met him, and he reported that the Court valuer had not been on the land. You may imagine my surprise on hearing this valuer read out in open Court a most minute valuation of this farm he had never seen, and was never within a mile of in his life except once, and was then so drunk that he could not walk. And yet the County Court Judge fixed the rent of the farm, and reduced our rent on the valuation made by this drunken man, who had never seen the farm in his life."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That is 10 years aero. How is it we have not heard of it before?
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid it was seven years ago; the Statute of Limitation had not quite run out yet. He did not say that all valuers were drunkards—far from it. He did not accuse the Commissioners of dishonesty, but he maintained they were acting on some principle with which he was not acquainted, but wanted to be. There was a revolution proceeding in Ireland. If such a state of things existed in Armenia hon. Members opposite would be found asking questions and moving the Adjournment of the House, pointing out the monstrous iniquity of things, and demanding the instant interference of the British Government. But Irish landlords might be plundered, and they sat still. The Irish landlords were called the English garrison, and they were proud to be known by that title. The hon. Member for East Mayo said, "Are you not sorry you refused what we offered you?" In the name of the class he belonged to, he said "No," and if the offer were made to them again they would refuse it. They believed that their loyalty was worth more, than a few years purchase. Bad as their position was now, he did not believe it would be improved if Home Rule were established; indeed the hon. Member for East Mayo had said with Home Rule they would make short work of the Irish landlords. The work now was not short; it went on in jumps of 15 years, but one thing was certain, that if the rents in Ireland were dealt with in the future as they had been

  551
  dealt with in the past, a man would not have to live to a very great age to see the whole class of landlords swept away. He regretted the speech he made in Dublin. If he did say, as he possibly did, that the right hon. Gentleman was actuated by sinister motives towards Irish landlords he withdrew his words, though they would apply to the policy the right hon. Gentleman's Government pursued. He could not believe, that the prosperity, peace and tranquillity of Ireland was to be founded upon an act of gross injustice. If they destroyed his right to property, what right would the men who came in to-morrow have to his? He believed that the outcome of the new Inquiry would be that the minds of the people would be opened to what the meaning of property and the rights of property were. If it were decided that, for State purposes, the landlord class should be swept away, he trusted the Government would, as honest men, see that the process was not accomplished at the expense of the landlords themselves.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the case which the hon. and gallant Member had just mentioned must have occurred in 1887. [Colonel. SAUNDERSON; "In 1888 !"] The landlord apparently allowed the rent to be fixed without cross-examining the valuer, or without appeal. [Colonel SAUNDERSON: "Do they ever cross-examine the valuer?"] Why did not the landlord complain in Court of the state of the facts? If the valuer got drunk was that not as bad for the tenant as for the landlord? What was the name of the valuer? He presumed if they insisted upon hearing his name they would be told he was dead. Now, he had a few questions to ask in respect to the very grave statement they had just heard from the Chief Secretary. He believed that the proper way to have met that statement was by moving to report Progress, because he conceived that they ought not to go on with the Debate upon the Land Commission Vote until they knew the terms of reference to the new Commission and until they knew who were to form the Commission. He desired to know now, however, whether it was intended that past or only future rents should be affected. Of one thing this House had a horror, and that was of touching anything which was sub
  552
  judice. But the whole rental of Ireland was sub judice at this moment. This question, of rent was at the bottom not only of English rule but of justice, and if this Commission found the rents were too high they would have had an admission that for 15 years they had been converting tenants into caretakers, and making present tenancies into future tenancies on a basis of injustice. Since 1887 they had converted 40,000 present tenancies into future tenancies by way of evictions. Were these 40,000 cases to be inquired into by the Commission, and were they going to ask upon what principles the fair rents were decided, which afterwards led to 40,000 evictions, or were those cases to go un-discussed and un-ransacked, and what the Commission was to go on were to be the cases of the future? And if they were going to deal with future rents, did not they arrest the stream of applications, and did not they paralyse the very fountain of justice itself? He would tell the Committee the genesis of this Royal Commission. The Lord Lieutenant, the representative of Her Majesty, called on the Land Commission last week for a return of the per centage of judicial rents, and horror was expressed by him at the result of the figures. That return was presented to the Cabinet this week —and it was upon the return, irregularly obtained by the Viceroy from a judicial body and irregularly presented by the representative of the Queen, to the Cabinet, that this Royal Commission had been granted. He knew it would be said that it was granted because he had stated earlier in the evening, that the tenants were dissatisfied with the reductions they were getting, but the real genesis of the Commissioners was that which he had just stated. What was the position of these unfortunate Sub-Commissioners? There were 73 laymen, and only 30 of them had permanent jobs. The other 43 held their office till next December, and these 43 trembling wretches were to fix rents in Munster, Leinster, and Connaught with a Judge of the High Court watching their operations. Who was that Judge to be? He could not be an Englishman, because the Party opposite had denounced Mr. Justice Mathew, and had declared that it was an irregularity and an impropriety for an English Judge to go over to

  553
  Ireland, even on a mission of appeasement, to inquire into the thorny subject of evictions in Ireland. Consequently it could not he an English Judge. It could not he an Irish Judge, because every Irish Judge who had sat on the Bench had denounced their Land Acts. If it was not an Irish Judge, who was it going to be?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It will not be either an English or an Irish Judge.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then it must be a Scotch Judge.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, nor a Scotch Judge.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then who is it?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but it was, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose who said it was to be an English Judge. I would only say that the right hon. Gentleman has not been taken into the confidence of Her Majesty's Government in this matter.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the House of Commons had a right to be taken into the confidence of the Government— [cheers]—and the Government had no right to make this statement until they were prepared with the names of the Commissioners and the terms of reference. This was the 14th of May, and tomorrow the notice of this Royal Commission would go tingling to the veins of every temporary Sub-Commissioner in Ireland. To-morrow rent reductions would drop to zero. Let any man reckon the percentages that had been given up to the 15th of May, and then let him compare the percentages of reductions that would be given afterwards, and he would venture to say he would discover that reductions would fall 15 per cent, from this day forward. It was four months since the Government announced that they would appoint a Royal Commission to reverse the findings of another Royal Commission with which they were dissatisfied, and Her Majesty's Government had not yet been able to make up their minds as to who were the gentlemen who were to upset the verdict of Lord Farrer, Lord Welby, and other Treasury exports. They were now to have another period of incubation. The Government were
  554
  wallowing in the mire of landlordism. Their Cabinet was a landlord Cabinet; their Executive was a landlord Executive. They were available to every landlord influence. He did not say they were not striving to do their best. He had always maintained that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was, according to his belief and his lights, honestly endeavouring, as he believed, to steer an even keel as between both parties, but he was plunged into a morass of landlordism, and if it had taken four months to get, and they had not yet got, a Commission for a subject upon which the Treasury had all the facts, how long would it take to get a sufficient number of impartial experts to inquire into the fairness of the fair rents on 350,000 Irish holdings? An instant declaration should be made on the point of what were the rents that were to be inquired into—past rents or future rents. They would, at all events, do something to prevent that feeling of consternation and alarm which would spread throughout every province in Ireland if they were to announce that it would only be as to rent fixed up to this date. Let the Sub-Commissioners, the Chief Commissioners, the landlords, and the tenants know that it would only be as to transactions decided and closed that this inquiry would take place. He could conceive no Court so destitute of self-respect as to go on fixing rents upon holdings when every act they did would be watched by jealous eyes, and when every investigation they made would be subsequently challenged, not in a court of law or of justice, but before a tribunal which had not even the power to call witnesses or administer an oath. The tenants boycotted the Bessborough Commission, and he presumed they would refuse to give evidence before the forthcoming Royal Commission. They would therefore be at the mercy of the landlords, who would be bringing forward their unsifted grievances of seven years ago— or they would have what Air. Morley's Select Committee had in 1894, they would have to depend, as he depended, upon evidence of officials. If they had official witnesses, it would be only the Land Commissioners white-washing themselves, for it would not be presumed that they would come forward to give themselves a bad character. It appeared to him, therefore, that this proposal had

  555
  every possible vice. It assailed the very foundations of law; it was an attack upon order. They were told that the British Government was a continuity. It was no longer a continuity; for while a series of statutes had been passed—one by the Liberals, five by the Party now in office, the Government of law and order now propose to indict, not only the framers of the statute, but their administrators. He had intended to say only one word more. He would give the House an instance of what went on, so as to show how far there was any prejudice in the tenants' favour in the action of the Land Courts. An hon. and gallant Member had given them the case of the Jolly estate ten years ago. He would give them the case of the Copeley estate, in the county of Wexford, two months ago. The Copeley estate was an estate under Judge Wallis's Court. The Receiver was instructed to resist the fixing of fair rents on the estate, and there was a standard rule in the Land Judges' Court not to allow any fair rents to be fixed by a County Court Judge, and to transfer them to the Sub-Commission, so that the permanent judges of the land had not the confidence, apparently, of the land judges. The Copeley tenants went into Court, and three Sub-Commissioners were sent down to hear their cases. They gave reductions varying he thought, from about 30 to 40 percent., he spoke under correction as to the amount. The landlord appealed. What happened? Every man of the Sub-Commissioners was removed from the county of Wexford, and the two lay men were sent to the Botany Bay of the Land Commission, Belmullet in the county of Mayo. Both these Sub-Commissioners, Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Kelly, were men of the greatest moderation. Mr. O'Kelly he knew to be a landlord of the county of Roscommon and Mr. Dillon, he was told, was from the same place, and he presumed was a landlord also. What happened when these two gentlemen had given their decisions; the Land Commissioners sent down one man to review them—the weakest man, the most landlord man they could get, and he raised the rents from 10 to 15 per cent., and at the present moment there was only one of the Sub-Commissioners operating in Wexford, the other two having for their sins
  556
  been chased to county Mayo [Laughter.] Now was that the way to treat judicial gentlemen? One would suppose that men who had gained knowledge of a county would be allowed to remain in it. These were not allowed to remain, and simply because of their decisions in the Copeley estate cases they were sent 200 miles off to the most inhospitable and the most unpleasant part of Ireland the Commissioners could exile them to. The Chief Commissioners who managed all these things were both members of the Kildare Street Club—a club consisting of landlords and land agents. So that it was by Kildare Street they were governed, and not as they thought, by the Castle. There was not a land case that was settled in Ireland that was not discussed in that club. And what was more, he said that remonstrances issuing from it — and sometimes personally—were made to the judicial members who belonged to the club. It was monstrous that judicial officers should belong to this Kildare Street Club. Would they be allowed to be members of the National League? [Nationalist cheers.] And if not, why should they be allowed to belong to the chief landlord organisation in the country? When they heard appeals made by a skilful advocate, no doubt great sympathy was aroused for poor ladies who had lost a margin of rent. But what about the poor widow of the Irish tenant? [Nationalist cheers.] What about the two millions who had perished under their eyes of famine? Did it draw tears from that House? [Cheers.] Since 1887 forty thousand present tenancies had been converted into future tenancies. Was there any weeping and wailing over that? Let them go down to Queenstown Quay if they wanted to have their hearts wrung by the sight of miserable people going off from the land which denied them food and shelter. And they were asked to weep over the sufferings of gentlemen who were, distressed because they could not have a little more to spend at Monte Carlo. [Nationalist cheers.] As to the religion of the Commissioners, he had gone over their names and he could state accurately what the result was by their place of education. As far as he could make out, out of the 73 men there were only ten Catholics. About one-half of these were appointed by previous Governments;

  557
  but as far as he could make out the appointments of the right hon. Gentleman he could give him just half-a-dozen Catholics and no more.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: said that of course there was no official information, but he understood that among those appointed before he took office there were six Roman Catholics, and of the 19 new men appointed by himself live, were Roman Catholics.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It came to this, that in a population which was mainly Catholic they were dealing with a matter that went to the very lives of the people by a body of which four-fifths were Protestants. What was it, that gave a Protestant a knowledge of land? Was it a belief in the Thirty-Nine Articles? [Loud laughter.] Did a man's belief in the infallibility of the Pope render him incapable of judging this value of land? [Laughter.] They were told there were no more Catholics appointed because then; were no Catholics suitable. They were not educated enough; and yet they were denied the advantages of university education. They could not have superior education because they were Catholics; and because they were Catholics they could not be Land Commissioners. And here was a fresh Commission to be appointed. Would there be any Catholics on it? Would it be three-fourths Protestant too? He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman cared no more about religion than himself. [Laughter.] He meant to say he did not mind the creed of any man. But how did it come about that whenever he had to make appointments, three-fourths of them always belonged to the religion of the ascendant Party? If men were appointed who were drawn from a particular class, he maintained that they would sympathise with the people of their own religion. The proof was to be found in this fact—that the Protestant tenant farmers of the north had received larger abatements than the Papists of the south. It was a remarkable fact that the First Lord of the Treasury warned the landlords not to be too hopeful as to the result of this Commission. Did this circumstance not show that the Government themselves had no faith in their own specific, that they regarded it with anxiety, and that they were undermining the foundations of law
  558
  and order? In this business there was really no foothold for the foot of common sense, and he believed that the Government had taken a fatal course. They had spread uneasiness and dismay from one corner of Ireland to the other, and if the Land Commissioners had any self-respect they would decline to go on fixing rents until this attack upon them had in some way been settled. It was amazing that the Chief Secretary should have stated that the Land Commission ought to welcome this new Commission, when he had neither consulted them as to the matter, the mode, nor the principle of its appointment.
  After the usual interval Mr. GRANT LAWSON took the Chair.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNsaid that the announcement made by Her Majesty's Government would be received with the greatest dismay all over Ireland. They could not forger the effect of the action of the House of Lords in 1882 and 1883, when a Committee was appointed by them nominally to inquire into the working of the Land Act, but really to overawe the Commissioners in the task of fixing fair rents. That action was responsible for much of the dissatisfaction and trouble which had since been experienced in Ireland. The second statutory term had just begun to run. In January 72 cases were heard all over Ireland, 63 being in Ulster. The aggregate rent in those cases was £1,430, and the Sub-Commissioners had reduced it for the second statutory term to £1,038. The landlords had taken alarm at this; they had held meetings; they had sent deputations to the Prime Minister with the result that the Government had that night made a startling announcement; but he was confident that when all was said and done, the landlords who had set this matter in motion would not be the most pleased. The Nationalist Members had listened with great interest and not without sympathy to the speech of the right hon. Member for Dublin University. He was surprised it did not strike the right hon. Gentleman that his speech was an indictment of the inevitable. The right hon. Gentleman might as well have tried to indict, the Free Trade policy of the country, or foreign competition—nay, he might as well have indicted the unfavourable climatic conditions of the

  559
  country. The Nationalist Members had much, sympathy for the landlords. No one could view with equanimity the spectacle of a class—no matter who they were —reduced to straitened circumstances. But they must not think alone of the landlords. The three millions of the Irish people who were engaged in agriculture were also entitled to the consideration of the House. He asserted that if there had been no land legislation whatever, the fall in prices, the increased foreign competition, the unfavourable1 climatic conditions of Ireland would have justified far larger reductions in rents than the reductions which had been given in Ireland after a long and sometimes bloody agrarian struggle. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to forget that there were piles of Blue-books and carefully prepared statistics which showed that after all that had happened in Ireland the average reduction in rent up to last year did not exceed 21·5 per cent, all over the country. Much had been made on either side of the high prices which had been given for tenant-right in Ireland. But he was inclined to think that in many cases auctioneers and brokers, to show what clever men they were, quoted the prices at larger figures than had actually been realised by the tenants. It was to be observed that the landlords were very reticent in regard to those cases of sales of tenant-right. The counties were mentioned, but not the names of the parties or any other particulars. He asserted that the average price paid at the present moment for farms did not exceed eight years' purchase of the tenant-right. Mr. Justice Madden, a former Attorney General for Ireland, had declared that the tenant had at least half the property in a holding; and therefore, eight years' purchase was not an extravagant figure for the tenant-right. It must be remembered also that that right included not only the possession of the land, but the buildings—the dwelling-house and out-offices — which were entirely the property of the tenants in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. They were face to face with the fact that owing to the scarcity of manufactures, agriculture was the great industry of Ire land, and two-thirds of the people de pended upon it; and what they had to consider was—were the people of Ireland to be maintained in something like decent comfort on the soil of Ireland, or was
  560
  the pauperism of the country to continue growing, or the stream of emigration from the country to go on for all time? It would be remembered that in, the discussion on the Land Acts last year the representatives of the tenant farmers—not the agitators alone but the Ulster Members—asserted that the judicial rents were not fairly fixed. The question of improvements was not defined with sufficient clearness, and the question of how to arrive at a fair value, taking into account the tenant's interest, was not properly described. The Act of last year might practically never have been placed on the statute book. They had implored the Government to shorten the judicial term in order that tenant farmers with rack rents might be able to come into Court and have their cases heard. The pressure which, had been brought to bear on the Government was of a patent and obvious character. The great danger was that it would be impossible for the Sub-Commissioners to consider the fixing of a fair rent with unprejudiced and fearless minds. The tenants were coming to the Court very quickly, and would be coming more and more rapidly. In 1891 they had protested against the salaries and expenses of the Land Commission being put on the Consolidated Fund. It was then argued that the functions of the Commission were of a judicial character, and that they should be put in as independent a position as the Judges of the Superior Court. They on that side did not acquiesce in that argument at that time, although there was much in it. But the Courts of the Sub-Commissioners were retained on these Votes, and it must be remembered that these men were only employed temporarily. As representing the tenant farmers of the country and the working population, who, more than any landlords, Dukes, or noble Lords constituted the people of Ireland, the Nationalist Members protested against the appointment of this Royal Commission as an act of cowardice on the part of the Government. The Government had hearkened to the clamour of a few noble Dukes and Lords, but the proposal would be received throughout Ireland with dismay and indignation. He felt that they should do something to mark their sense of the conduct of the Gov-

  561
  ernment, and he therefore moved "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsupported the Motion. He thought the action of the -Government in this matter, having regard to the pledges which they gave to their constituents at the General Election, put them in a very tight place. He presumed they would not hear anything from the hon. Member for South Tyrone on this subject, although they would be very glad to hear whether he approved of this change of front on the part of the Government. The hon. Member, having claimed in interviews given to the Press that the Act of last year was mainly passed through his pressure, as a final settlement of the land question, had within ten months of that apparently consented to the appointment of a Commission which undermined not only the Act of last year, but every principle contained in the previous legislation on this question.
  *THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT-LAWSON)requested the hon. Member to keep to the exact Motion before the Committee.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid the statement which had been made would certainly, he thought, create the most intense dissatisfaction throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. The people had been endeavouring to give the Government the fair trial which was asked for by the Chief Secretary when he came into office. The right hon. Gentleman could not complain of there having been any very vigorous agitation in Ireland, although, for his part, he very much regretted that there had not been one—[Irish cheers]—as the action of the Government showed them that the only way in which they could get attention paid to their wants was by maintaining a vigorous agitation. This matter affected the whole of the people of Ireland, because their main industry was agriculture. He hoped the people of Ireland would show the right hon. Gentleman that he had over-estimated the power of his Government.
  MR. DAVID SHEEHYsaid the Committee were asked to pay Commissioners whose work might be knocked to pieces by the proposed Royal Commission. The money would, under such circumstances, be wasted. He hoped Progress would be reported that they
  562
  might know where they were. He suggested that the Vote should be withdrawn and payment of the Commissioners suspended until after the Commissioners had reported. It was indefinite as to who the Commissioners would be, and what they were to inquire into.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Government could not consent to Progress being reported or treat the Motion seriously.
  MR. DILLONappealed to the Government to postpone the Vote until the Royal Commission had reported. It was only a reasonable request that the Vote should be withdrawn for the present until they knew what the terms of the reference to the new Royal Commission were to be and they knew something of the personnel of the Royal Commission. [Nationalist cheers.] The Government were about to take a far-reaching and momentous step. If the Vote were taken that night they would have no further opportunity during the Session of discussing the administration of the Land Commission. Irish Members should have an opportunity of consulting their constituents and the public opinion of Ireland as to the personnel of the Commission. The whole situation had been revolutionised by the announcement of the Government. He hoped the Vote would be withdrawn and put down at a later date as soon as the Government, had given some information as to the terms of reference and the composition of the Land Commission, and then the Land Commission Vote might be discussed in the light of the new situation.
  SIR THOMAS LEAsaid he was not prepared to vote for the Motion, but there was a good deal to be said for it. ["Hear, hear!"] The Committee had been taken rather by surprise. If on a future evening the general principle could be discussed on the Vote an acrimonious discussion that night might be averted.
  MR. M. HEALYsaid the Nationalist Members had come wholly unprepared for the announcement of the Government, and it was only fair that they should have time to consider it.
  Mr. GERALD BALFOURreminded the hon. Member that only a limited number of nights could be devoted to Supply. If the hon. Gentleman was unable to continue the discussion that

  563
  night he would point out to him that there would be another opportunity for discussing the appointment of the Commission on the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary. The hon. Member should reserve his remarks for that occasion, and not stand in the way of hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House who desired to continue the Debate. Since he addressed the Committee only one Member on the Government side had spoken, although four or five were anxious to make some observations.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64; Noes, 119.—(Division List, No. 209).
  MR. J. A. RENTOULobserved that the Debate had been devoted to two branches—one being an attack upon the personnel of the Land Commission in Ireland, and the other an attack upon the new Commission that was to be appointed. There appeared to be a perfect unanimity between Nationalists opposite and Irish landlords on the Government side of the House with regard to the attack on the recent appointments to the Land Commission; but when they came to the new Commission the action of the Government was defended by hon. Members on their own side and attacked by Nationalist Members on the other. With regard to the appointments that had been made to the Land Commission by the present Chief Secretary, he did not join either with the, Nationalists on the other side or the landlords on his own side in their attacks on those appointments, and he was bound to say that no selections by a Government Department had given him so much confidence in the manner in which public appointments were made. There was, he knew, a very prevalent notion that in connection with public appointments "Kissing goes by favour," and that a great number of appointments were made on personal grounds. It had been suggested that evening that the fact that the Chief Secretary was not personally acquainted with the candidates for the Land Commission was a proof of his unfitness to make the appointments.
  564
  In his opinion that fact constituted the right hon. Member's fitness for the task. His fitness to discharge it lay in the fact that he was not personally acquainted with the candidates. One official only, namely, the Lord Chancellor, was always supposed to appoint officials on his own personal knowledge of their qualifications, while, with that exception, the theory was that the head of a Department ought to appoint on information brought before him, just as a judge and jury were supposed to give their decisions, not in matters within their own knowledge, but upon the evidence adduced in Court. The Home Secretary, for example, who appointed the Metropolitan magistrates did not claim to have any personal knowledge of fitness of candidates, but made appointments upon information supplied to him, and it was the general opinion of the legal profession that no better legal appointments were made. Then the Chief Secretary, not being an Irishman and not having lived in Ireland, had manifestly to make his appointments upon testimony laid before him. Having been anxious himself to secure the appointment of certain candidates for the position of Assistant Sub-Commissioner he had tried to find out how he could effect his object, and upon inquiry in various quarters closely connected with the Government he discovered that these appointments were to be made absolutely impartially upon testimony laid before the Chief Secretary—[A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "By whom?']—and that no personal influence of any sort was to be allowed to bias his decision. At lease 20 gentlemen went to him asking for his influence in their favour as candidates and he replied to every one of them, saying that neither his recommendation nor that of anyone else would be of the slightest value, except as one testimonial among others. Merit alone, he told them, would, he believed, be the test of any candidate's fitness. The testimonials of a large number of the candidates had come under his own notice, and he found that every one of those candidates had strong testimonials from landlords. How then the landlords could attack the appointments he did not understand. He challenged hon. Members to point to a single, candidate who had no support from the landlords. [Nationalist cheers.]; But, on the other hand, all the testi-

  565
  monials which he saw also contained recommendations from tenant tanners and even Roman Catholic Nationalist farmers, and from parish priests or Catholic curates. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "How did you come to see these testimonials?"] Several candidates who asked for his support sent him the testimonials of other gentlemen in order that he might see how superior the qualifications of his correspondents were to those of their rivals. [Laughter.] He judged from what he knew of the testimonials of these gentlemen that were before the Chief Secretary. Every single bundle of them contained testimony from both sides. The hon. Member for East Mayo was less fortunate in his illustrations than in his eloquence; in fact, we might generally assume that the hon. Member was wrong in his illustrations, though by accident he was sometimes right. The hon. Member mentioned two gentlemen only, one of whom was Mr. Bassett. Curiously enough, that gentleman was backed by a large number of tenant farmers, and Nationalist tenant farmers, too. That gentleman's testimonials also contained one from the Roman Catholic clergyman of Downpatrick, one from a clergyman of the Irish Church, and one from a minister of the Presbyterian Church. It was true that the bundle also contained some testimonials from landlords, but a more impartial and a stronger set of testimonials was never produced before a Chief Secretary. That was one, of the illustrations of the hon. Member for East Mayo, and if the hon. Gentleman had given more he might have been able to deal with them in the same way. Was it to be assumed, was it credible that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be so foolish as to appoint men to please this Member or that, or this landlord or that, and so barter away his own reputation as Chief Secretary and as a statesman? He knew Lord Spencer took the greatest care in interviewing each candidate when he was appointing Sub-Commissioners. And what did the present Chief Secretary do? A number of Lord Spencer's Laud Commissioners had ceased to be in office because they were no longer required, and so were set aside, and he found that the present Chief Secretary re-appointed all of them, with, he believed, one exception; so that
  566
  as far as 25 out of his 42 appointments were concerned, he appointed men who had been appointed by the previous Government. ["Hear, hear !"] So much for the appointment of those Commissioners by the Chief Secretary. As far as he was acquainted with them he was entirely satisfied with them. He spoke as the representative of a tenant farmer constituency, and his opinion was that the Commissioners had been remarkably well appointed. Speaking on behalf of his constituency, he might say that he was entirely satisfied with them, and he believed his constituents were entirely satisfied with him. ["Hear, hear!"] He therefore said that in his opinion the charges that had been made against the Land Commissioners in the past had not been well made. No man had a right to interfere with the freedom of contract between landlord and tenant, that was the position taken up by the landlords. A tenant should be allowed to pay what rent he pleased. That was the honest, downright truth— that the whole of the land legislation since 1881 was a wrong and an injustice of the strongest possible character. That was their position, but no impartial outsider could say that some legislation was not necessary in the matter of the vexed question of landlord and tenant in Ireland. [Cries of "No, no !"] Some of his friends said "No, no !" but he was glad that opinion came from an English Member; it certainly could not come from an Irish. Member. ["Hear, hear!"] They had lust night a most important Irish Bill blocked by an English Member, who had never been in Ireland at all. [Cheers.] What was the state of affairs as to the tenants? The Member for Trinity College made that afternoon an extremely powerful speech, showing the hardships which the landlords had to endure. There was no Irish Member who did not know of such cases. They all knew that the landlords had suffered severely in the last 30 years. He did not believe that any Nationalist Member was anxious to rob the Irish landlords merely through vindictiveness. But what was the position of the tenants? How many thousands and tens of thousands were in distress? He would mention a case which came to his own knowledge within the last five hours. He could not give the names,

  567
  but he should give the entire facts to any Member who doubted him. The case was this there was a farm in a prosperous Ulster county. There were some fine buildings on it, the extent being 80 or 90 acres of laud. The rent was fixed by the Land Commission, and the tenant was practically the owner. That tenant that afternoon offered the farm to a man home from Australia with a wife and three children. He was offered the laud, stock, and farm for £300. The money was offered to him as a loan. The result of consideration was a letter to him from the man, asking that a situation might be obtained for him as a bus conductor or driver in London. [Cheers.] He told the man that he thought he was wise—["hear, hear !"]—and if his influence was as strong as he thought it was, that man would remain a London bus conductor and not an Antrim farmer. Only a few weeks ago he obtained from a Member of that House letters of introduction for two young men going out to Australia. They were forced to give up their farm, and at 35 years of age they were gone away to a new country without a penny in their pockets. The landlords' cases were unquestionably hard, but the instances he had given would show that the tenants' cases were also very hard. He had visited every one of the 32 counties of Ireland, and he knew that the position of the tenant farmers was one of extreme difficulty. He was certain, too, that the landlords had been hard hit. He had no reason to be more sympathetic with the tenant farmers than with the landlords; perhaps not so much, but he saw the difficulty from both sides of the question. One word with regard to the Commission which the Government intended to appoint. The landlords had asked for the Commission, the Nationalists had opposed it, and the Government had declared through the mouth of the Chief Secretary that the Commission was to be appointed. He was sorry that the Government had come to that conclusion; but at the same time he recognised the difficulty of the situation. A great deal had been said which he thought unjustifiable and unnecessary. It had been said, for example, that the Government in granting the Commission implied unfriendliness towards the tenant-—[Nationalist cheers]. He was prepared for that cheer; but was not that a
  568
  grave position for hon. Gentlemen opposite to take up in respect to a Commission the personnel of which they knew nothing? As a matter of fact the present Government had shown itself most favourable to the tenants. The Land Act of last year, for instance, was approved by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. It was now assumed that the Commission about to be appointed must be necessarily a Commission unfriendly to the tenants. One hon. Gentleman had said, "You won't give every litigant who is dissatisfied with the tribunal a Royal Commission to try the tribunal." That was one way of stating the case, but it must be borne in mind that the landlord was a compulsory litigant. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "All dependents are !"] But what was the position of the Irish tenant? The Act of 1881 was an Act without parallel in the history of the world. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "No !"] The hon. and learned Member was a very good historian, and he would be glad to have an illustration from him of any Parliament or Senate of any country ever having transferred the ownership of the entire land of the country from one class to another. [Mr. GERALD BALFOUR: "India !"] The Chief Secretary believed there was something like it in India. He was not aware of the case; but his reading of the Act of 1881 led him to believe that the Act transferred the ownership of the land from the landlords to the tenants, that the landlords were absolute owners previous to 1881; but that since every incidence of ownership belonged to the tenant, that now the landlord was a rent charge and nothing else. He would have preferred that this Commission had not been granted, but he saw the reasons which must have induced the Government to grant it, namely, that the circumstances of Irish landlords and Irish tenants were an extraordinary set of circumstances, and that therefore there was nothing unnatural in trying remedies in this case which had never been tried before, and would not be tried in any other case. Who was the appointment of the Commission to affect? He thought its appointment would have two results, and that those results, as regarded time, would be divided into two parts. First, what would be the effect of the Commission between now and when it reported; and, secondly, what would be the effect

  569
  after it had reported? As to the first point, suppose these non-permanent Sub-Commissioners were terrified by the coming Commission, and that they were very cowardly, very contemptible, and very unworthy men. If that were the case, and if they were doing fairly at the present time in lowering rents, and if they ceased to lower rents as much in the future between now and the Report of the Commission, then they would do so from cowardice. His confidence in them was higher than that of the hon. and learned Member for Louth. He knew of no "trembling wretches." He believed that the Sub-Commissioners who were doing their duty fearlessly in the past, would do it fearlessly in the future, no matter what happened to them. If there were such "trembling wretches." the Debate that night would have the effect of letting them see that they were not likely to be crushed, and that they would have as many standing up for them on that side of the House as on the other side, and that they might do their duty fearlessly.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Does the hon. Member think that they keep their eye on the Debates in this House.
  MR. RENTOULsaid he had reason to know they did. The hon. and learned Member for Louth had made his prophecy as to the effect of the Commission on these non-permanent Sub-Commissioners. He would make his prophecy, and that was, that there would be no effect upon them between now and the time it reported; that they would be very cowardly men who would be affected by it; and that the rents would not go; down, and that there would be no appreciable difference in the conduct of the Land Commissioners between now and the time when the Royal Commission gave in its Report. As to the second point—what would he the effect of the Commission when if did report—he had so much confidence in the Land Commissioners that he believed its Report would be in approval of what the Land Commissioners had done. What was to be submitted to the Royal Commission? Not the personnel of the Land Commission, not the justice of their interference when they were fixing rents, but aye or no, were they doing their duty fairly, and were the reductions of rent at present given too great or too little in pro-Portion to the present prices and the
  570
  present difficulties of the farmers' position in general. He was not afraid of the judgment of the Commission in regard to that matter. He believed that the findings of the Land Commissioners would stand the test of the Royal Commission Inquiry, and that if any persons were in danger from the Report which it would make it would not be the tenants of Ireland. He did not, therefore, look upon the appointment of the Royal Commission as likely to be a boon to the landlords. They had asked for this Commission, and they were going to get it, but he questioned very much their wisdom in asking for it. He wanted the landlords of Ireland, who had now got their Commission, or would get it, to know the effect of the situation; and he wanted the tenant farmers to understand it, too. The tenant farmers might be extremely frightened when they heard that this Commission was about to be appointed. [Hear, hear !"] But it was his earnest belief that there would be very little to frighten them, and that the Report would be a pat on the back for the Land Commissioners, for it would hi; found that they had done their duty fairly. That being so. He failed to see what the landlords could possibly gain. The situation was a difficult one from every point. One knew that the Irish landlords had suffered heavily, and one knew also that the difficulties of the tenants were no mere fictions. They saw in the past that the poverty of Ireland was so great when famine came that only a few weeks would bring the people to the verge of starvation, and sometimes to actual starvation. ["Hear, hear!"] That being so, he rejoiced at the Land Bill that was passed by the present Government. He believed that the hon. Member for North Louth said the Party he represented expressed their belief at the time that the Government had done well and honestly, and had acted a friendly part to the tenant farmers of Ireland in that Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government had done nothing since to discredit their action on that occasion. They had now appointed a Commission. If it were true that they had appointed it in the interests of the landlords, and for the purpose of destroying the effect of the Land Act of last year, then, of course, the Government would be false to the tenant farmers, whom

  571
  they then, desired to benefit. But they had no proof of that whatever. Whilst he believed that the Commission would not do a particle of good, he was equally sure that it would do no harm whatever. The Government had granted it as an act of kindness to the landlords, who. He believed honestly, had been too hard hit, and he believed that, too much had been done against them. But he believed also that they would get that satisfaction which people very often got from going to a Court of Appeal, only to find the decision of the Court below confirmed against them.
  MR. DENIS KILBRIDEhad failed to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the hon. Member who had just sat down was a representative of the tenant farmers or of the landlords. The hon. and learned Gentleman began his speech by adverting to an illustration given by the hon. Member for East Mayo with regard to the composition of the Sub-Commissioners. He mentioned the name of a gentleman called Basset, who, he understood, was a constituent, of Ins own. He (the speaker) took occasion to refer to the Return that was given to the hon. Member for South Down five or six weeks ago, and when he looked to see what the qualifications of Mr. Basset were, he found that he was a gentleman who never was obliged to make his living by the earning and the paying of rent. He held that the man who was best entitled to come to a just conclusion and form a just estimate of what fair rent ought to be between the average hardworking tenant and the fair landlord was the man who had practical experience of how to make, as well as of how to pay, rent. Mr. Basset might be an admirable man and he did not desire to controvert anything that had been said in his favour. It might be true that he had a memorial signed by 200 farmers in the county of Down, it might be perfectly true that, among these 200 there were some Nationalists, and it might be true that he had the signatures of both Protestant and Catholic ministers. But to bring that forward as proof of the fitness of any man in Ireland for any public position was trading upon the credulity of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman knew, and those who sat around him (the speaker) knew—everyone of them knew that
  572
  whether a man was a political friend or a political opponent, there was enough left, he was glad to say, of the milk of human kindness in the Irish heart to put a name to any memorial in favour of him. [Laughter.]
  MR. RENTOULsaid he must remind the hon. Member that he did not bring forward Mr. Basset's name. He simply dealt with it by way of reply.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I dealt with it by way of illustration.
  MR. RENTOUL: And I by way of reply.
  MR. KILBRIDE: By way of reply in order to prove how unfortunate my hon. and learned Friend was in his illustration.
  MR. RENTOUL: Quite so.
  MR. KILBRIDE, continuing, said he found Mr. Basset described in the Return as a valuer and surveyor. He believed that for many years he was a clerk in the office of the Clerk of the Crown and Peace. [Mr. RENTOUL: "TWO or three years!"] That was how this gentleman acquired his knowledge of land. If the hon. Member for East Down wanted to defend Mr. Basset, why did he not tell the House what had been his occupation for years before be was put on the Sub-Commission? Had it been in his power to say, "This man is a practical farmer, he has paid rent because he made it," he would have been only too glad to say so. But he had kept back from the House—he said that, advisedly—he had kept back his knowledge of the position this man held for years before his appointment as a clerk in the office of the Clerk of the Crown and Peace.
  MR. RENTOULwas sorry to interrupt, but he could not let that pass; otherwise it would seem that he was deceiving the House. The fact of Mr. Basset having been a clerk in the County Court, had been already mentioned in the House before he spoke. He had no desire to keep back anything.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid he did not remember hearing the fact referred to by any hon. Member. Mr. Basset, he found, had never farmed land for himself, either as owner or as tenant; but he had "farmed for a family." Well, he hoped that the "family" had a great deal of money; because he did not think that a clerk in a law office was the man most calculated to make a great deal of rent for a family.

  573
  It was staled that the Chief Secretary's reputation was at stake in making these appointments. He had no doubt the Chief Secretary acted as well as it was possible to do, and that he was actuated by a sincere desire to appoint the best and the most impartial men; but if that reputation had been at stake, surely it was now much more at stake since these appointments had been attacked by his own supporters. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the appointments, and was one of the objects of the Commission, therefore, to whitewash the tarnished reputation of the Chief Secretary? He commented on the fact that while the last speaker was neither a landlord nor a tenant fanner he was returned by the vote of tenant farmers, and while there were several gentlemen in the hon. and learned Member's constituency well qualified to act as lay Sub-Commissioners, only one appointment had been made. On the other hand, in oilier constituencies in the north of Ireland represented by landlords, several men had been appointed to act on the Land Commission. Were the Unionist and Presbyterian tenant farmers of Down satisfied with the rent reductions of the Sub-Commissioners? He ventured to tell the Committee that whether it was Nationalist farmers in Cork or Galway, or Unionist and Presbyterian farmers in Down and Antrim, they were all alike dissatisfied with the reductions they had received. While it was a regrettable thing to see country gentlemen, especially if they were sportsmen, being obliged to shut up their establishments and live in the cheaper Continental countries, still, that was a lesser evil than that large bodies of tenant farmers should be unable to find the necessaries of life for themselves and their families. A favourite argument on the other side was that the reductions in rent should be in direct proportion to the fall in prices, but his contention was that the Irish tenant farmers had not only been injuriously affected by the fall in agricultural values, but still more by the shrinkage in produce. But this shrinkage of produce was a thing that was carefully kept from the purview of the House by the advocates of the landlords. It never occurred to those hon. Gentlemen to recall the statement made by the present Judge Madden, then Attorney General, when he wanted the House to consent to the advance of 30
  574
  millions of British money to turn the Irish occupiers into Irish owners, the Irish landlords to run away with the swag — he told the House, on his responsibility as a Minister, that the interest of the tenant farmer in the soil was greater than that of the landlord. He, should like to ask the representatives of the landlords why they, who were not absolute owners, but only co-partners with the tenants in going concerns, should expect 18 or 20 years' purchase of their interest, if the tenants, whose interest was declared by Mr. Justice Madden to be the greater, were not entitled to claim at least the same. The Marquess of Salisbury told a deputation of Irish landlords that in these days the interest which did not agitate was bound to go to the wall. He was glad that the noble Marquess had come to that conclusion, because at one time the most opprobrious term which could be applied to the Nationalist Members was that of professional agitators." Now the whole of the Irish landlords, headed by the Duke of Abercorn, had successfully converted themselves into professional agitators. And if the landlords claimed to be heard in the House, it was equally within the rights of the tenant farmer to call attention to the fact that the reductions given by the Sub-Commissioners were wholly inadequate. The Chief Secretary would find that his policy of killing Home Rule with kindness would be made more difficult when they heard that this Royal Commission was to be appointed to decide whether they were to have any reductions or not. He had been anxious to hear the hon. Member for South Tyrone or the Attorney General for Ireland on this proposal, for they both represented tenant farmer constituencies. They must be opposed to it, for they knew that the Royal Commission was simply to whittle down reductions or to prevent the tenant farmers from getting any at all. It was said that the object of the Commission was to restore confidence in the Land Commission. How could it do that? If the Commission decided that the reductions given for the second statutory term were too great, would it establish confidence in the minds of the Irish tenant farmers? If the result of the Report was to restore the confidence of the landlords in the

  575
  Land Court, it would lead to a fierce agitation on the part of the tenant farmers to induce some Court to give them the reductions to which, they were entitled. On the other hand, if the Report should be that the reductions in rent were only commensurate with the necessities of the case, how would that restore the confidence of the landlords in the Land Court? The landlords would never have any confidence in any Court that reduced rent. He was opposed to the appointment of the Commission, because he objected to any further interference by this House or any other body with the judicial functions exercised by the Land Commission Courts. This was an attack upon the judicial Bench in Ireland. If it was right for the landlords to attack the Land Commissioners in their capacity as Judges, it was right for the Nationalists to attack the decisions of any of the other judicial tribunes in Ireland. When, some years ago, the Nationalist Members attacked in the House certain Judges in Ireland for their partiality to the Government in political cases, they were denounced for their want of respect for law and order. Now the attacks on Irish Judges did not come from the Nationalist Members, but from the loyal and patriotic body on the other side of the House—from the men who had so long posed as the advocates and defenders of law and order in Ireland.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid a more flagrant waste of public money than that involved in the Vote before the Commitee had never come under his observation. For what was the £130,000 to be spent? Was it to bring them to a final decision on the Irish land question? No; for no one had suggested that the Land Commission thus enforced would bring them one inch nearer to the end they desired to attain. The hon. Member for North Louth, with his usual acumen, tried to lead the Debate into a line which, if the colleagues of the hon. Member had followed, their speeches might have had more influence on the Committee. The hon. Gentleman had said that the House was asked to interfere with the decisions of a judicial body. The hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that an appeal like that was likely to be effectual with the House, but, unfortunately for him, a little light was thrown, in the course of the Debate on those judicial bodies.
  576
  The present system had been one long wrangle over the qualifications of this man or that man. Was there the slightest analogy between a judicial tribunal as we understood it in England, and this scratch pack of gentlemen who were performing a travesty of justice in Ireland? These gentlemen could not be compared with the early Judges who were appointed on the Land Commission, and who were permanent servants of the Crown. There were 53 of these temporary Assistant Commissioners, and he did not wish to say anything against them. He did not think anybody knew much about them, but they were human beings susceptible to the passions and temptations which swayed human beings, and it was very dangerous to set these men in judicial posts without taking steps to guard them against temptation. We made it our boast that our Judges, oven in the humblest offices, were appointed for life, and were, therefore, removed from the temptation which any shorter appointment would lay them open to. It was inconceivable that these temporary assistants should not be suspected of being affected by such considerations. They had heard something as to the process by which they were selected. A member of the British Bench was selected by probably the fiercest form of competition to which a man could be subjected, namely, by the process of trial among his peers, and that, too, in one of the most competitive professions that existed. In addition to this they surrounded him with every precaution necessary in the interests of justice. They had heard, however, that these gentlemen were appointed on the strength of a shoal of testimonials. He did not blame the Chief Secretary, who had to make the best of the bewildering mass of information put before him, but that was not the way to obtain Judges ill whom confidence could be placed. As an example of the sort of man who was appointed he cited the case of one gentleman, a tenant, chiefly self taught, who had visited various farms. That was not the qualification which was needed for settling for all time to come the affairs of a certain number of Her Majesty's subjects. They ought to have in a Judge the power to discern between two cases presented with equal force, and the faculty of impartiality. All this talk about the Land Commissioners, whether

  577
  they were deciding fairly whether the rents should be lowered or raised was beside the mark. He did not think the problem was capable of solution by any tribunal which could be set up. Given this infinite multiplicity of sham Judges, they were no nearer finality on this question. In 1897 the Land Commissioners were beginning exactly where they were in 1881. The Courts were crowded with suitors, and hon. Members opposite said the plethora of cases in the Courts prevented decisions being given. Sheaves of applications for fair rents to be fixed were pouring in. Recent land legislation for Ireland had been exceptional legislation, and its inception was presented as a remedy for an emergency. A remedy for an emergency was not a remedy for all time. It was doing incalculable mischief to the landlords, and hon. Members opposite did not profess that any benefit had accrued to the tenant.
  MR. DILLON: We said that so great had been the fall in prices that reductions of rent have not made the tenant as well off as under the old rent of 20 years ago. That is due to the agricultural depression.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that precisely the same complaint was made of the operations of the recent Land Acts as was made of the operation of the Land Act of 25 years ago. His point was that we were not advancing in this matter one inch, and the demoralisation that had occurred was beyond belief. He would appeal to English Members. They j were apt to think they had but slight interest in this, but he would point out that the demoralisation had spread to this side of the water, and that already they had presented to the House a Bill based on predatory and dishonest principles in regard to the Principality of Wales. It was not based on the law of England, on the Ten Commandments, or on common sense, but was based line by line on the precedent followed in the Randt. What had been said by the First Lord of the Treasury was a summary of the whole of the possibilities of the question. It was impossible to go back to the state of things that existed before 1881 The First Lord of the Treasury had said that there was one issue, and one issue alone, out of this terrible faux pas into which they had got, and that was by doing away with dual ownership and restoring the single ownership of land.
  578
  He agreed with this. He could not believe it was in the interest of any section in Ireland, except the attorneys, that the present condition of things should go on. He believed that this annually increasing Vote for the Land Commission was a curse to Ireland, and that the people who were living upon it were the lawyers. For every pound of rent reduction in Ireland since the Act of 1881 was passed, there had been an expenditure of two pounds to bring about that reduction. The cost of the maintenance of the Land Commission and the cost of litigation largely exceeded the whole of the reductions of rent. But whether that were so or not, nobody could pretend that what was happening was to the advantage of Ireland. He believed that until they looked on the Land Commissioners and their work in the daylight of common-sense, until they asked themselves whether they were doing things in Ireland which they should dare to see done in England and Scotland, they should not get much further in this matter. When they had noblemen like Lord Dufferin speaking as he had recently done on this question, it was calculated to make pause even the most enthusiastic advocate of the existing land system in Ireland. They were told that, among the many other miseries the Land Commission had inflicted upon Ireland, they were now doing all in their power to obstruct purchase, although everyone who wished well to Ireland desired that the wheels of the machinery of land purchase should be oiled. He believed that could be done even, under the bad and incomplete system that existed. He believed it ought and could be improved with very little trouble, and he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for the University of Dublin that if purchase was to be made a success, it could only be made so on terms of ample generosity to the parties whose property was compulsorily taken from them.
  MR. J. DALYregretted that the hon. Member opposite should have thought fit to call the Land Court a "sham" Court, and to apply the epithet "suspect" to the Judges of that tribunal. The hon. Member for West Belfast and those who acted with him had succeeded in cowing the Government who had bent the knee to the few landlords from Ireland who had seats in that House. Last year, when the Land Act was before

  579
  them, they were told by the Government that they would hear nothing more about the land question for a very long time, and yet, before 12 months had elapsed since the passing of that Act, this proposal to appoint a Commission was made. He feared that the effect of this new policy would be to cow the Land Sub-Commissioners. There were few of the Sub-Commissioners who were not needy men, and when needy men had obtained appointments they were naturally disinclined to relinquish them. This action of the landlords he regarded as merely a game of bluff, although, no doubt, they had carried their point. Because the landlords, acting on the advice of Lord Salisbury, were agitating while the people were quiet and orderly, the former were going to be aided and the peasants injured. Perhaps the peasants would have to follow the landlords' example. They had heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College, Dublin, a good deal about the sorry plight of some of the landlords in Ireland. In considering their ease, it should be taken into account that these gentlemen or their predecessors had lived very extravagantly in their time. If they had not done so, they would not be so hard up now. Time after time, when the privations and grievances of the people of Ireland had been brought forward in that House, it had been impossible to extract a sympathetic word from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but now, because a few landlords pretended that they were hard up, the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College almost wept over their distress.
  MR. HUBERT DUNCOMBEclaimed to move "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman of Ways and Means with-held his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. J. DALYsaid that what distressed him was to see poor people leaving Ireland for America in order that they might earn rent for the landlords.
  And, it being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

INDUSTRIES (IRELAND) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
As amended, considered; Bill Read the Third time and passed.
RESTRAINT OF EVICTIONS (LONDON) BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Second Rending deferred till Monday next.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION PETITIONS.
Select Committee appointed to inquire into the procedure and practice on Parliamentary Election Petitions, and to report to the House if any changes are desirable therein. The Committee was accordingly nominated of:—Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Gordon, Mr. H. D. Greene, Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. Hedderwiek, Mr. Wootton Isaacson, Mr. A. K. Loyd, Sir Robert Reid, and the Solicitor General. Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records. Ordered, That Three be the quorum.— (Sir William Walrond.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST LORD OF TUE TREASURYgave Notice that the Second Reading of the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill would be taken on Monday, and if not finished then it would be taken again on Tuesday, when there would not be a morning sitting. Wednesday would be left to private Members. On Thursday the first Order would be the Elementary Education Act (1870) Amendment Bill, which ought to be passed as soon as possible into law. The second Order would be the Finance Bill. On Friday the South African Vote, as promised to the Leader of the Opposition, would be taken.
House, Adjourned at Five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock till Monday next.

The Lord Lilford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
SECONDARY EDUCATION.
LORD NORTONgave notice that on Monday next he would ask the Lord President of the Council whether he hopes to be able to introduce a Bill on Secondary Education this Session, or, if not, early next year.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  Read a Second time.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved:—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill shall be referred (1) to omit Part IV. and Schedules; (2) to inquire into the advisability of extending the municipal franchise to all Parliamentary voters, and of providing that the burgess lists shall be revised and made up by the same persons and at the same time as the Parliamentary register, before the increased powers proposed to be given by the Bill are conferred upon the Corporation, and to make provisions in the Bill for same; and that they have power to make provisions for an amendment of the law as to the election and tenure of office of aldermen councillors, and as to the appointment and tenure of office of any officers annually elected by the Corporation, or appointed by any persons nominated by the Corporation."
  He said that on no less than three occasions hail a Bill of a similar character been presented to Parliament, and the Bill might appear at first sight innocuous and harmless. The first three provisions were as follows: (1) to borrow money for tire brigade purposes; (2) to enable the Corporation to compel the owner fir occupier of vacant land likely to be a nuisance
  454
  to fence it in; and (3) to make further provision, with regard to the supply of water. Those three provisions had the hearty support of the section of the community whom he represented. But the Bill went a great deal further than that, because it interfered with the municipal franchise as it at present existed. Now, he submitted that the question of the franchise could only be dealt with by Parliament, and not by private individuals bringing in a Bill to promote the interests of a certain section of the community, and interfering with the right of franchise at present enjoyed by other sections. In support, of that doctrine he quoted declarations made by the Lord Chancellor and the Earl of Morley, as well as the Speaker of the House of Commons. At present, the rating qualification in Dublin was represented by the very smallest coin of the realm. It was divided into two sections, the ratepayers who paid £8 and over, and those who paid less. The ratepayers of £8 and over were automatically placed in the list or roll of burgesses, subject to their having paid their rates and fulfilled the residence qualification. In the case of those who paid less than £8, they had to prove the same conditions, but what he particularly drew attention to was that these rates were invariably paid by the landlord. Of course it might be said that these rates were taken into consideration in the rent, but the answer to that was that the rent taken would in no way be altered whether the rates were paid by the landlord or by the tenant. Consequently the tenant got considerably the better part of the bargain. But what was the result? The result was that those ratepayers who paid no rates whatever formed the great majority of Dublin burgesses. What would be the situation if his Instruction were not accepted? In the first place, the Town. Clerk would be forced to place on the roll every occupier, no matter what might be his period of residence. The real ratepayer who paid rates as tenant would be placed on a far worse footing, and at a great disadvantage as compared with the occupying tenant who paid no rates whatever. The Town Clerk would be forced to place upon the roll men who, he knew well, should be disqualified from having a vote at all, for the simple reason that they had not been in occupation sufficiently long to qualify them for a vote.

  455
  The onus of disproving the right rested upon those who objected, and what would be the result? He was told on good authority that in July of next year 50 per cent, of the new voters would have changed their residence and lost their qualification, with the result that 15,000 additional voters, mostly bogus, would be added to the list of those who enjoyed the municipal franchise. Of course, it might be said that these voters could be objected to, but under the municipal franchise this involved personal service of the objection, and to prove that 15,000 objections had been served on 15,000 people by hand was not only a very tiresome but a very costly business. There was another point. Under this Bill, the Town Clerk received remuneration for preparing the list of those whom he proposed to add to the municipal franchise, and while he had every confidence in the present Town Clerk, he was not so confident that the Town Clerks who might be appointed in years to come would discharge their duties with the same impartiality. The Unionist Party in Dublin maintained that if the municipal franchise were to be altered and ameliorated it should be done by Parliament, and not by a Bill which was ostensibly to deal with the water supply of Dublin, but in reality meant to eliminate the Unionist majority in Dublin from the representation they at present enjoyed. At the present moment they could boast, only of 11 members out of 60. But if these 15,000 further voters were enfranchised, the Unionists would be absolutely eliminated. Perhaps it would be said to him, connected as he was with the North of Ireland, that this was the procedure which had been followed in Belfast and other cities where the Protestant element was paramount. He contradicted that argument. A franchise Bill had been recently passed which had given to the very small Nationalist minority in Belfast considerable representation on the Corporation. The same thing had taken place in Armagh and Derry; and, therefore, if the Nationalist Party, which was in a minority in these cities, were allowed that representation which he maintained a minority should always be allowed to have, the Unionist minority in Dublin had an equal claim to representation. It might be said, Why did not the Unionist Party in the House
  456
  of Commons reject the Measure? The Unionists in Dublin had fully believed that the majority which they had helped to return to Parliament would see that their rights were not taken away; and that this Water Bill, with political clauses tacked on at the fag end, would have been denounced by the Chief Secretary. On the 30th March a whip was issued by the Unionist Whips in the House of Commons, stating that the Dublin Corporation Bill would be taken at the time of Private Business, and that an Amendment would be moved by Mr. Carson. The Dublin Unionists imagined from that that the Government were going to protect their rights. He did not wish to say a word derogatory of the Chief Secretary, but his right hon. Friend could not have understood the importance of the question when he said that he did not regard it as a Party question, and that everyone was to vote as he liked. In consequence of that declaration, and the fact that the Dublin Unionists did not issue a whip — which they would have done, had they known what line the Chief Secretary was going to take—the franchise clauses were carried by a very small majority. The feelings of the Dublin Unionists were very strong. A meeting was held by them on Monday last, presided over by the President of the Chamber of Commerce, and attended by one of the Governors of the Bank of Ireland, and by the most influential Unionists of the city; and that meeting had requested him to move these Instructions in the House of Lords, declaring that as they helped to return a majority of 150 in favour of Unionist principles they could not understand why that majority should consent to the elimination of Unionists in Dublin. He knew that certain noble Lords and intimate friends of his in the House of Commons would like to see the franchise extended to women, and objected to the line taken by Mr. Carson, because it excluded women. He would tell their Lordships in strict confidence that he was a very anti-woman voter—[laughter] —but he was not so narrow-minded as not to recognise the strength of the convictions of his friends who thought differently from him on that point. But why did they not get a Bill brought in to deal with the question, instead of supporting a Measure which was ostensibly

  457
  a Water Bill? It was the duty of Parliament to deal with the question frankly, and not to allow it to be settled in a Private Bill. He maintained that the action of his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees was not, according to his own showing, advisable, and, according to the ruling of the Speaker of the House of Lords, that it was very near the line where it would be out of order. He should be perfectly willing to support the Bill without the franchise clauses; but so unjust did he think the treatment of the loyal minority in Dublin, that unless I hose clauses were withdrawn, he should ask their Lordships to support his Instruction.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY (CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES)said that his action in introducing this Bill was merely a part of his official duties as Chairman of Committees. He was in no way responsible for all the Private Bills which he from time to time introduced. His practice was, if a Bill were opposed on Second Reading, not to move the Second Reading; but as he presumed that this Bill was not opposed in principle, but that only part of it was opposed, he thought it his duty to introduce the Measure to their Lordships' notice. He was in no way responsible for what it had contained. He need not enter into the long question of the franchise, but he would state the history of the Bill, and the position of the question generally. As to the Instruction of his noble Friend, it had not of recent years been the practice in their Lordships' House to move mandatory Instructions to the Committees to which Private Bills were referred; and though his noble Friend was within his rights, he rather deprecated such a practice gaining ground. The second part of the Instruction seemed to go far beyond the scope of the Bill itself, and direct the Committee to introduce into the Bill matters which would not be covered by the notices issued with the Bill in November last; and on that ground, the Measure, if amended, as his noble Friend desired, would not be in accordance with the Standing Orders. As to the Bill itself, his noble Friend said quite justly I hat it was a Water Bill, and he adhered most strongly to the opinion which he expressed last year, that these franchise clauses should not be introduced into Private Bills. But at the
  458
  same time, it was necessary to consider the circumstances and reasons which had led to their being introduced in this case. Last year the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords purely as a Water Bill. During its passage through the House of Commons the franchise clauses were introduced under a mandatory Resolution passed by the whole House. When the Bill came back to the House of Lords, their Lordships had no opportunity of discussing the new question raised, and there was no tune for any opponent to I the clauses to be heard. As the new clauses were not covered by the notices issued with the Bill in the previous November, they were so obviously out of order, that the Standing Orders Committee refused to dispense with the Standing Orders in respect of that portion of the Bill, and the Bill was returned to the House of Commons with those clauses struck out. The consequence was that the Bill was lost, and the Dublin Corporation spent its money in vain. This year the Water Bill was I reintroduced, but with a view of avoiding the catastrophe of last year, the Corporation put the franchise clauses into the original draft, and they were covered by the notices issued with the Bill in the previous November. The Bill was introduced first in the House of Commons, where an Instruction was carried by the whole House empowering the Committee to introduce another franchise clause giving the vote to women. The Bill came back to the House on Report with this additional clause inserted, and then a Motion was made for the omission of the franchise clauses altogether. That Motion was rejected; and, therefore, the Bill came to their Lordships' House with, the old franchise clauses and the new one expressly approved by the House of Commons. Though he entirely adhered to the opinion he had expressed on more than one occasion that it was undesirable to insert measures of this kind having a party and political character attached to them into private Bills, he asked the House to consider whether it was desirable, after what had passed in the House of Commons, to send back the Bill with the clauses omitted from it, with the almost certain result that the Bill would be again wrecked, that the money spent in promoting it would

  459
  be lost, and the long-standing quarrel about water between Dublin and the surrounding districts would be left unsettled. Their Lordships might say that the franchise was of more importance than water. ["Hear, hear!"] He would not argue that question, but he would point out to the House that if the principle was for the first time embodied in the Bill, he would agree that the clauses should be expunged. But a Bill attempting to prove the present admittedly unsatisfactory condition of the Irish municipal franchise having unfortunately failed to pass into law, owing to the change of Government a few years ago, the result was that individual Irish boroughs had taken advantage of gas or water Bills to introduce modifications into their system of municipal franchise. That was done in the case of Belfast, Londonderry, Armagh, Drogheda, Waterford, and in the districts around Dublin, Blackrock, Rathmines, and Kingstown. Therefore, having those precedents in view, it was doubtful whether it could now be argued fairly that the municipal franchise must not be altered in private Bills. He did not wish to argue with his noble Friend as to the effect of the clauses. They were rather difficult to grasp, but, as he understood them, they did not alter the actual qualifications of the municipal electors, but created a new mode for their getting on the burgess roll. No doubt that alteration in procedure would have a large effect, but the franchise was not altered, and, having regard to the fact that the Measure had been passed by the House of Commons, that it did not establish a precedent, because, unfortunately, the precedent had been established in many cases before, and having regard also to the fact that, if the Instruction were passed, it would mean the almost certain destruction of the Bill, he thought the House would have some hesitation before accepting the Instruction.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid he did not give way to the noble Marquess in regard to his principles as a Unionist, and he knew very well who were the people who had whipped up the Irish Unionist Peers in this matter. But, after all, considering the relative numbers of Nationalists and Unionists in Dublin, the question of
  460
  Unionist representation in the Corporation of Dublin was not of great importance. He would point out that the ratepayers of Dublin had already paid £10,000 in the promotion of Bills of a similar character to this, but which had failed to pass, and if the Instruction of the noble Marquess were carried, this Bill would also be wrecked. It was all very well to say the Unionists should have a representation on the Corporation of Dublin, but they must take matters as they found them in Dublin, and so long as matters remained as they were at, present, the Nationalists would continue to run the show in Dublin. He thought the Irish Unionist Alliance, of which he was a member, was a little hysterical about this question. In another whip that had been sent out by another Unionist Party in Dublin—the Unionist Burgesses—it was said that the Bill, if passed, would seriously discourage Unionist activity in Dublin, and that it would imperil the safety of the Unionist representation of the Stephen's Green Division in Parliament. With all due respect to those people, he should say that that was rubbish. He hoped the House would follow the advice given by Lord Morley, and allow the Bill to go through. Things were carried on in Ireland in a different way than they were carried on in this country. There were not in Ireland such sticklers for order as they were in England. But the Bill, as it stood, would not do that immense amount of harm to the Unionist cause in Dublin that the noble Marquess seemed to apprehend, and, on the other hand, he, who worked a great deal with the people of Dublin in many matters, was aware that it was a good Measure.
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid he was not converted by the arguments of his noble Friend, which were curious arguments coming from a Unionist source. This Bill was primarily a water Bill. He had no wish to stand in the way of a good water supply to Dublin, where, although he was not a rated occupier, he spent a good deal of time during the year, and used a good deal of Dublin water. But he considered that the franchise clauses were more important than the water clauses. His reasons for supporting the Instruction, of the noble Marquess were that the proposed alteration in municipal franchise procedure would have the effect of

  461
  creating a large number of faggot votes. He did not agree with the noble Marquess that the 15,000 votes that would be added to the franchise would be all faggot votes, but it was clear that a large proportion of them would be of that character. The result would be that the Unionist representation of Dublin would probably be reduced to nothing, and the largest ratepayers would have no voice in the spending of the rates. He had always held that taxation and representation should go together. That was considered a sound doctrine when he was young, but it was not fashionable now. He, however, still supported it, and for that reason he intended to vote for the Instruction of the noble Marquess.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid he would not have intervened in the Debate had not the noble Marquess referred to the Government opposition to his Instruction. He therefore merely wished to say that there was no Government opposition to the Instruction, neither was there any Government, approval of it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said he was not disposed to withdraw from what he had said on a former occasion as to the inconvenience and irregularity of amending the municipal franchise law by means of private Bills intended to supply communities with gas or water. It was calculated to reduce what was a great public question —the question of how the franchise should be exercised by the community — into a mere local question between parties. He could not deny that Parliament had in the past allowed a certain number of boroughs in Ireland to reform their civic electoral system by means of private Bills, and it might be argued that it would not be fair, after allowing it in one case, to disallow it in another. If the Committee to whom the Bill was referred thought there were inappropriate provisions in it, it would be competent for them to strike them out if they liked, but this was a mandatory Instruction to the Committee, which did not give them discretion in the matter. He had read the Bill with great care, and he thought it needed to be so read, and there were some objections which he should entertain very strongly if he were sitting on the Committee. It would be open to the noble Marquess to move an Amendment to the Bill even after the Committee
  462
  stage. He confessed it seemed to him to be a somewhat precipitate course to take from the Committee any discretion. He suggested to the noble Marquess that he should divide the Instruction into two parts, and deal with the second part afterwards.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYentirely concurred with the noble and learned Lord as to the objection generally to the practice. He thought it was obviously inconvenient to deal with such a subject as municipal franchise in a. Bill of this kind. If the Bill went to a Committee there would be ample opportunity to amend any provisions, and on the Third Reading the House might deal with it as it thought proper. He thought nothing was more objectionable than that municipal matters should be considered with reference to the divisions of political parties in this country. [Cheers.] An alteration in the franchise should not be made with reference to any consideration whatever as to whether the alterations would be in favour, or not, of the Unionist, Nationalist, or any other party in Dublin, but simply on the ground of whether the whole population in a municipality was or was not fairly represented. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid he quite agreed with what had been said by the last speaker, and by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on the subject of introducing politcal considerations into gas and waer Bills; but the argument appeared to him to be an extraordinary one, that because the Houses of Parliament had committed an error once or twice—[cheers]—that error should be perpetuated for all time. That was an unfortunate position to adopt. He was quite willing to incur the slight inconvenience which might result from voting for the noble Marquess's Instruction and disregarding the other precedents.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he entirely concurred with that part of the Bill which dealt with the subject of water, but he entirely disapproved of that part which dealt with municipal or political matters. He had desired to

  463
  divide his Instruction into two parts, and if he had been defeated on the first part he had intended to divide the House on second part. He entirely dissociated from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he would ask the House to accept the first part of the Instruction, and if that wore carried he would drop the second part. He entirely disassociated himself from the political question, which he thought had been introduced for Party purposes.
  The House divided on the Motion, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill shall be referred to omit Part IV. and Schedules."

  CONTENTS

  …

  …

  66

  NOT CONTENTS

  …

  …

  48

  DIVISION LIST.— CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Egerton, L.

  Erskine, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Hertford, M.

  Harlech, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Hindlip, L.

  Belmore, E. [Teller.]

  Hopetoun, L. (Hopetoun.)

  Cranbrook, E.

  de Montalt, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Leconfield, L.

  Minto, E.

  Lilford, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Lingen, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Llangattock, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry).[Teller.]

  Loch, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Bangor, V.

  Monckton, L. (V. Gulway.)

  Falmouth, V.

  Halifax, V.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Hood, V.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Mostyn, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Mount Stephen, L.

  Norton, L.

  Ely, L. Bp.

  Penrhyn, L.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborouth.)

  Ashburton, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Bowton, L.

  Barnard, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Shute, T,. (V. Barrington.)

  Calthorpe, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Clarina, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Clonbrock, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

  Connemara, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  464

  NOT CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, (L. Chancellor.)

  Brougham and Vaux L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Chelmsford, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Digby, L.

  Dorchester. L.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Heneage, L.

  Herries, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Herschell, L

  Ducie, E.

  James. L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Kenry, L. (Earl Dunraven and Mount Earl)

  Lauderdale, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Mayo, E.[Teller.]

  Lawrence, L.

  Morley, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Magheramorne, L.

  Romney, E.

  Monkswell, L. [Teller]

  Selborne, E.

  Northbourne, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Playfair, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Reay, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Sinclair, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Oxenbridge, V.

  Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

  Powerscourt, V.

  Teynham, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Belper, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and ordered accordingly.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Marquess move the second part of the Instruction?
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: No.

JURIES DETENTION BILL.
Committee (which stands appointed for Monday next) put off to Thursday next.
MERSEY CHANNELS BILL.
Brought from the Commons: Read .1a; and to be printed.—[No. 84.]
FISHERIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Fisheries Acts wan presented by the Earl of Dudley; Read 1a; and to be printed.—[No. 88.]

CHURCH PATRONAGE TRANSFERS BILL [H.L.]
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said the Bill was brief in itself and simple in its character. It was intended to meet a difficulty of not infrequent occurrence. It was obviously desirable that, the Bishop should be able to know who was the patron of any individual benefices in his diocese; and in some senses n was important and necessary, because there were occasions on which notices had to be given to the patron of the living when any steps were taken in regard to if. In a large number of instances this knowledge was not within the reach of the Bishop. All that could be ascertained was who made the presentation to the living when it vacancy last occurred. Since that dale the patronage might have changed hands many times, and frequently that hail been the case. When the living became vacant the presentation was sent to the Bishop, who was bound to act upon it on ascertaining that the presentation in itself was valid. But all the time this might be an illegal transaction. The patronage might have been sold during the vacancy It was to meet such a case that he had drawn up this Bill, and he believed it would meet a large number of cases which were continually occurring and giving trouble to the Bishops. The Bill provided that on a living becoming vacant notice in writing of the intended transfer and the address of transferor and transferee should be sent to the Bishop. This would render impossible the sale of next presentations during the time of a vacancy. Besides meeting a practical difficulty the Bill would tend, it not to abolish, at any rate to diminish, the traffic in livings, because when livings were sold they were often repurchased and sold again, and passed from hand to hand that some pecuniary gain might be made. He moved the Second Reading of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLORthought the House would be well advised to see if the Dill carried out the object which the most rev. Prelate had in view, as he could see one or two difficulties which might arise by adhering to the language of the Bill without providing some safeguards.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid he heartily sympathised with the object of the Bill. But his fear was lest it should be too little. It dealt with a great evil—of that
466
he had no doubt—but it dealt with, it so tenderly that he was afraid it would not do much to diminish the evil.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid he was quite aware that there was a much larger question lying behind: but attempts had been made to deal with the larger question both in that House and the other without any success. Therefore, it was better to do what one could, even if the Bill did not cover the whole scope of the evil, than let abuses go on year after year without any attempt to deal with them. He would be willing in Committee to make any alteration in the wording of the Measure, but he trusted that by allowing the Second Reading of the Bill their Lordships would show the desire, which he was sure they all felt, to get rid of this abuse, and do what they could, if they could not do all they desired. ["Hear, hear!"]
Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be Read 3a on Monday next.
REGULAR AND ELDERS' WIDOWS
Considered in Committee (according to Order); reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be Read 3a on Monday next.
ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS (HOLIDAYS) BILL.
LORD BELPER, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it was to enable the Metropolitan Police Courts to be closed on any day observed as a bank

467
holiday. The immediate object of the Bill was to enable the courts to be closed on June 22, the day for the celebration of the 60th year of the Queen's reign. The courts were closed on thanksgiving days, but there was a technical reason for not proclaiming June 22 as a Thanks giving day, because, under the Bills of Exchange Act, bills due on bank holidays became payable the day alter, but bills due on thanksgiving days were payable the day before. The Bill had passed the House of Commons, and it was desirable it should become law without delay.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

BRITISH TROOPS IN INDIA (HEALTH).
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENrose to call attention to the prevalence of contagious diseases in Her Majesty's Army, especially in India, and to move,—
"That in view of the Report of the Departmental Committee of the India Office of February 20, 1897, it is, in the opinion of this House, urgently necessary that an Inquiry be made into the effect of such diseases upon the Forces of the Crown, the civil population, and the native races within Her Majesty's dominions, and into the nature and results of the measures which are, or have been, in force in this and other countries for the prevention of such diseases."
He said that since he put this Motion down on the Notice Paper some time ago, a very considerable change had taken place in the circumstances. Had he brought the matter forward at that time, he would have been bound to enter into a somewhat lengthy and exhaustive examination of a good many facts and statistics. But since then a Departmental Committee, presided over by his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for India, had presented a Report which dealt with all the facts of the case as far as they affected India, clearly and graphically, and the Secretary of State had issued a Dispatch to the Indian Government on the subject with which their Lordships were cognisant. It would not, therefore, be necessary for him to go in great detail into ancient facts and statistics. The Report relieved him of that,
468
but it also opened up a very much larger aspect of the whole case, for it referred not only to the reaction of the disease upon Her Majesty's troops in India, but also to the reaction and its effects upon the whole population at home. While he most heartily approved and applauded what the Government had done he could not conscientiously say he believed that any Measures which might be taken by the Indian Government subject to the limitations which were laid down in the Dispatch of the Secretary of State would prove efficacious in dealing with this evil, which was so detrimental to the strength of the Army in India and dangerous to the health of the whole community at home. In 1877 the admissions to hospital from venereal diseases were 362 per 1,000. In 1895 they had risen to 537 per 1,000. That was to say that during those eight years this proportion of men on the sick list owing to these causes had increased at the rate of 48 per cent., and more than half the total number of the forces in India had been affected by the diseases. The effect of this condition of things upon the efficiency of the troops in India was most graphically described in the Departmental Committee's Report. It stated that in 1895, 45 per 1,000, or, altogether, 3,200 men out of a total force of 71,031, were constantly in hospital from this cause. These were terribly high figures; but bad as they were they did not, as the Report showed, by any means represent the actual inefficiency. The Report mentioned cases of these diseases which were being treated outside the hospital, and which did not come into the Returns at all. It called attention to the fact that many men were in hospital or under treatment for various diseases of another character, which were either induced or greatly aggravated by venereal disease. The Report also alluded to the fact that a large number of men who were nominally cured were only fit for service under peace conditions, and would break down on field service. Among 5,822 men detailed for field service with the Chitral Relief Force, 462, or nearly 8 per cent., had to be rejected for venereal disease; 279 more, or an additional 4² per cent., had to be transferred from the field hospitals to the base for the same cause. The Chitral force was a fair sample of the whole, and calculating on that basis they were face to face with

469
the appalling fact Hint out of a force of 70,000 men no less than 9,000, or 13 per cent, of the whole, were unlit for native service, owing to a cause which, to a great extent, at any rate, was a preventible cause. ["Hear, hear!"] The Deport certainly did not make the worst of the case. In cases of that kind it merely assumed that a soldier sent to the field hospital and from there to the base on active service was a soldier lost. As a matter of fact the detriment was greater than that, for every sick soldier on a campaign was an encumbrance and infinitely worse than no soldier at all. He remembered very well the speech of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for war, in introducing the Army Reserve Bill, in which he lamented the difficulty of sending so small a force of 20,000 men out of the country without dislocating and disarranging all ordinary military routine, and as their Lordships knew he recommended, and the Legislature sanctioned, an increase in the Army at an annual expense of, £600,000. Putting aside altogether their duty as a civilised country, putting aside what he thought their duty as a humane nation and acting within the spirit of the religion they professed, putting aside also the protective duty that Parliament owed to the whole community and looking at the matter purely from a commercial point of view as a mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence, it was perfectly plain that if efficacious steps could be taken to check the ravages of this disease there would be a greater gain to the efficiency of the Army than there would be by the increase to the Army that the Legislature had recently sanctioned, and his noble Friend would no longer have to deplore, or, at any rate, not to the same extent, the lamentable fact that they could not send 20,000 men out of the country without disarranging the whole course of their military routine. That was bad enough, but this dead loss to the Army did not represent the whole of the mischief, for the knowledge of the prevalence of these diseases had a most detrimental effect on recruiting, parents dissuading their sons from entering the Army from a natural dread of the consequences to which their children might be exposed by service in India. That was not strange, but was a natural state; of things. The Report gave an account
470
of the condition of these unfortunate men in Netley:—
"Before reaching the age of 25 years these young men have come home, presenting a most shocking appearance; some lay there having obviously but a short time to live; others were unrecognisable from disfigurement by reason of the destruction of their features, or had lost their palates, their eyesight, or their sense of hearing; others again were in a state of extreme emaciation, their joints distorted and diseased. Not a few are time-expired, but cannot be discharged in their present condition, incapacitated as they are to earn their livelihood, and in a condition so repulsive that they could not mix with their fellow-men."
Not, only had the diseases increased enormously in quantity, but they had also increased enormously in virulence. In 1887 there were 29 per 1,000 suffering from secondary syphilis. That number had been steadily rising until it now amounted to 85 per 1,000. The Return for 1804 showed that of a total of 70,000 men in India 5,421 had been in hospital for secondary diseases during the term of their Indian service, and probably many more were suffering from the same disease who had not been treated in hospital, for it. The officials at Netley declared that never had there been so many cases of secondary syphilis in the hospital nor of so bail a type. Consider the effect that that must have upon the civil population at home. Out of 13,000 men who returned from India every year, 3,640 were impregnated with this terrible and fatal disease, and a very small proportion were married. They became absorbed in the population at home; they married, and in many cases they transmitted the disease to their innocent offspring. Moreover, this disease, amongst many terrors and horrors, was transmissible by many means and with the greatest facility. The Departmental report said:—
"Doctors contract it in the performance of their duties. It may be caught through drinking out of a cup, or smoking a pipe, which has been touched by diseased lips; nurses can communicate it to infants, and infants to nurses. It is altogether a most easily communicable poison. The present condition of the Army in India, with the enormous prevalence of venereal disease, which has been shown to exist, yearly sending home thousands of men infected with constitutional taint, is therefore a great and growing source of danger to the whole community. The influence which it is liable to exercise upon the health of the home population is one of the gravest aspects of the whole question."

471
These grave words were worthy of the attention not only of Parliament, but of the whole country. The gravity of the disease had always been known. In 1882 a Select Committee of the House of Commons reported:—
"The testimony to its severity, and to the injuries inflicted by it on the person who contracts it by contact, and on his or her innocent descendants, was irrestible."
He remembered that Sir James Paget stated in his evidence before the Lords Committee:—
"We now know that certain diseases of the lungs, liver, and spleen are all of syphilitic origin, and the mortality from syphilis in its later forms is, every year, found to be larger and larger by its being found to be the source of a number of diseases, which previously were referred to other origins or to accidents."
Quite recently the Royal College of Surgeons described the disease as one
"which not only undermines the constitution of those who contract it in the first instance, but, by reason of the many ways in which it may be transmitted, destroys the health and happiness of countless other persons, and induces in the children of those originally infected diseases of a most formidable character."
The Royal College of Physicians said that in its opinion the disease was:—
"One of the most serious, insidious and lasting of all the contagious diseases that afflict humanity."
That was the situation as far as India was concerned. Out of 70,000 men in the Army there, 3,200 were invalided, and 9,000 wore absolutely unfit for active service. A constant stream of men was being poured into the population and absorbed by it, conveying the most persistent and virulent poison known into the blood of the people. As to the Army generally, he maintained that the figures were not creditable to us. In round numbers, the figures per 1,000 were—in Germany 27, France 44, Russia 43, Austria 65, Italy 71, and British troops in United Kingdom 204. Various measures had been enforced both at home and in India to deal with the evil. He admitted that the preventive and sanitary measures adopted in India had been more or less a partial failure because they had disappointed those who expected better results. But the causes of the partial
472
failure were the change to the short service system, which introduced into India a very large number of very young and inexperienced men; the creation of camps of exercise; and the greater movement of troops throughout the country. When the men were in the cantonments they were influenced by the regulations in force; when, they were absent from the cantonments they were not; and it would be found that disease increased whenever large numbers of men were absent from the cantonments, and decreased when they were within the sphere of influence of protective and sanitary measures. Strong presumptive evidence on that point was made conclusive by the enormous increase in disease and the increase in its severity since the Indian Government were obliged, owing to a most lamentable Resolution of the Legislature —[cheers]—to abolish the regulations. That view was borne out by all the authorities most competent to judge. An experiment was made by the Indian Government in 1884. They closed some hospitals to see what the result would be; and in 1885 it was reported that the experimental closure had resulted in—
"such an enormous and progressive increase in the prevalence of disease that the military authorities considered it absolutely essential to the efficiency of the troops stationed in the cantonments concerned that the lock hospitals should be speedily re-opened and the preventive rules again enforced."
The Army Sanitary Commission reported not many years ago rather adversely to the regulations; but now they said:—
"We have now proof that the measures heretofore adopted in India, imperfectly administered as they often were, nevertheless exercised a very sensible influence in checking increase in the number of British soldiers admitted into hospital for venereal disease, and in mitigating the severity of the disease itself."
It had often been said in argument that regulations and rules had proved useless, and that the only thing to be relied upon was moral suasion. It was perfectly certain that both in this country and in India regulations and sanitary measures had proved to be most beneficial. Some years ago a Special Committee of the House of Commons in looking into this matter as it affected England, reported very strongly to the effect that the Acts in force in England had a most beneficial

473
effect. Acting on that Report the House of Commons not long after passed a Resolution and the Acts were repealed affecting England. This evil was of the greatest gravity, and he asked their Lordships to consider how it was proposed to meet and grapple with it. There was an Act in force, in India dealing with other contagious diseases like typhoid, cholera, and small-pox, the gist, of which was that if a medical officer was convinced on credible testimony that a person was diseased he could be ordered lo hospital for examination. If be refused the cantonments magistrate could on the request of the medical officer expel him from the cantonments, but owing to the Resolution of the House of Commons this particular disease was not allowed to come under the operation of the sanitary rules that affected other contagious diseases. This disease was made a privileged disease—[cheers]—and allowed to contract itself out of the Act. He was glad to say that the Government had relieved the country of that gross slur on its common sense and humanity["Hear, hear !"] At any rate, this disease was placed in the same category as all other contagious diseases. But he did not see how it was possible for a medical officer to obtain credible testimony of disease in this instance. Where could he get any testimony? In other diseases he thought that their presence was more or less evident in the appearance and general health of the sufferer, even in their early stages; but he believed he was correct in saying that in syphilis there was nothing to be seen in the persons outward appearance and general health during the incipient stages of the disease. He did not see how it, was possible for the medical officer under the ordinary rules to ascertain the presence of this disease in its early stapes, and of all the diseases which afflicted mankind this was the one disease which required specially to be treated in its early stapes in order, if possible, to prevent the frightful ulterior consequences that often ensued. It seemed common sense that if any effective precaution was to be taken, examination was necessary, and he did not see how medical officers could be satisfied of the presence of disease if examination was absolutely forbidden. He should be perfectly content if the Indian Government had a free hand in this
474
matter. If the suggestion that was made by the Committee of the Royal College of Physicians was carried out, he should be perfectly content. They made the following suggestion:—
"That is the civil, military, and medical officers in India are best, acquainted with the local conditions now existing, and affecting this prevalence of venereal disease, so they are the best judges of the most efficient means of dealing with it. Your Committee, therefore, suggests that power be given to the Government of India to take such steps for the mitigation of this evil as these officers may advise."
He saw the other day that the Commit tee of the Council of the British Institute of Public Health, under the chairmanship of Lord Playfair, were preparing to present a congratulatory address to Her Majesty on the great progress made in the matter of public health during the reign. It was true great advances had been made—except in one particular, and was it not a scandalous and iniquitous thing that now, if they wished to congratulate the Sovereign on the progress sanitation had made during her reign, they must, either wilfully shut their eyes to the existence of a terrible evil, or they must admit that never during that reign had her forces been so decimated by disease, and never has the country been in such danger from the same cause. [Cheers] That was due to the action of Parliament—["hear, hear!"]—ineference to, he had no doubt, a genuine but a very mistaken opinion. He could not understand why people who recognised the danger of pouring a poison of this kind into the blood of the nation, could not unite in their efforts lo cleanse the blood of the Army, to purge the life of the nation, and to remove so great a scandal from us as a civilised State. [Cheers.]One thing was absolutely proved, and that was that disease was not a, deterrent. The moral argument was totally illogical. If it was wrong to mitigate disease because the fact of disease argued immorality, then it must be wrong to cure the disease—["hear, hear"]—and no human being would make so barbarous a proposition as that. He had seen it suggested that the hospital sheet should be taken into consideration as well as the defaulter's sheet in determining a soldier's character. Nothing could be more unjust. The act was not illegal, and it was suggested to punish not the act, but the

475
purely chance results, for the act in itself was legal. That was not only illogical but monstrously unjust. They had experience on this point. Lord Cardwell passed an Order in 1872 which was in force for seven years—an Order which made a stoppage of pay while men were in hospital from this disease. What was the result? It had no effect whatever as a deterrent, but produced the most disastrous results by inducing men to conceal the fact of disease to the last possible stage. He could not see how any man of common sense could rely on moral force and moral force alone. As practical men, they had to deal with men as they were, and not as they ought to be. If the time came when moral force was sufficiently strong to enable men, at the age when the instincts were strongest and the will power weakest, successfully to resist one of the most dominant of human instincts, then there would be no need for sanitation. But while we did everything possible to bring that time about, it surely behoved us meanwhile to do what could legitimately be done to save these men and the whole nation from the effects of acts which might be immoral and improper. ["Hear, hear!"] There were many matters in connection with this subject on which information was needed: whether the general sanitary law in India could be made more effective; the general and local amount and character of the disease in India; the regulations enforced in other countries and the colonies, especially where they had dealings with native races; all these were questions about which information was difficult to obtain. He did not know where he should go to learn what effect we had had upon the native races with which we had come into contact. That subject had never been much noticed, but it ought to be; because, though we might have a perfect right to colonise and extend our possessions, we could not have any moral right to plant alongside the flag the seeds of an insidious and terrible disease. ["Hear, hear !"] Public opinion needed instruction, though, thank God ! it had greatly changed on this matter. The great mass of opinion in the country was beginning to realise the gravity of the evil, and the sinful-ness of inaction. The Departmental
476
Committee had performed a most admirable work in bringing together in an accessible form the immense amount of information which was before diffused and difficult to obtain; and he thought that an investigation and report of a similar character, but more extensive, would be the best form of inquiry to hold. Nearly all that was wanted could be obtained from the three Departments most concerned—the War Office, the Colonial Office, and the India Office; but the information must be collated, weeded, examined, and brought into accessible shape, so that those who wished to instruct themselves on this great national matter should have facilities for doing so. ["' Hear, hear !"] He was rather puzzled to know what to do in respect to the Amendment which was to be moved. Theoretically, he entirely agreed with it: but he did not see how it was practicable. Hut perhaps if the House agreed to his Motion and refused to accept the Amendment, they might put themselves in a position which would be capable of misconstruction. In some quarters his Motion had been construed as a dilatory Motion; but nothing was further from his intentions. He asked for an inquiry because he thought information was greatly needed to educate public opinion. He entirely applauded Her Majesty's Government for the steps which they had taken: but he feared that they would not prove effectual, and that their comparative failure would be used as an argument against any regulations. He looked upon this as a matter of great national moment. [Cheers] It was not a question of party. ["Hear, hear !"] He would support any Government which attempted to deal efficaciously with this great evil; and he was certain that the great bulk of common-sense opinion in the country would sustain this or any Government in a resolute attempt to check the ravages of an evil which was so detrimental to Her Majesty's forces and so dangerous to the whole population, and which was a scandal to this country as a great people and a civilised nation. [Cheers.]
LORD ROBERTS OF KANDAHAR: The subject brought forward by the noble Earl is one which nobody would willingly discuss in public if he could conscientiously avoid doing so, and I have been most reluctant to take part in this

477
Debate. But, my Lords, I recognise so strongly the necessity for measures being adopted to arrest the progress of a great and growing evil—an evil which is sapping the strength of our Army and paralysing many of our best troops—that I feel I should be wanting in my duty to my country and the service to which I have the honour to belong were I to shrink from speaking plainly or neglect to do whatever lies in my power to make my countrymen understand the culpability of permitting to continue unchecked a horrible disease, so far-reaching in its results that it threatens seriously to injure the health and physique of a large proportion of the population of the United Kingdom. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not propose to take up your Lordships' time by giving detailed statistics of the disastrous effects of this disease upon the British troops in India; the proceedings of the Committee presided over by the Under Secretary of State for India show how appalling these effects are. I wish merely to draw your attention, my Lords, to two facts which completely, I think, prove the fallacy of the assertion that contagious disease in India has not increased since the abolition of the Contagious Diseases Act, and clearly demonstrate the; necessity for action being taken without delay to preserve the health and efficiency fit British soldiers serving in our Eastern Empire. One of the facts, my Lords, which I would bring to your notice is the extraordinary number of men now being invalided from India suffering from the effects of this loathsome disease as compared with the numbers invalided from the same cause when the Contagious Diseases Act was in force. In the statement which I hold in my hand the comparison is made out for 1879 and 1880— the two years immediately preceding the relaxation of the regulations framed under the Contagious Diseases Act—and for 1894 and 1895—the two latest years for which returns are available. In 1879 and 1880 the number of British soldiers in India (exclusive of those on service in Afghanistan) were respectively 49,537 and 50,Kiti. During those two years only 126, or less than 13 per cent, were invalided to England on account of this special disease. In 1894 and 1895 the number of British soldiers in India were respectively 70,983 and 68,331, of whom
478
a total of no less than 648, or nearly ·5 per cent., were sent home from this same cause. In other words, the proportion of men invalided during the latter period on account of this disease was more than four times as great as it was when the Contagious Diseases Act was in force. ["Hear, hear!"] The other fact, my Lords, to which I would draw your attention, is the number of British soldiers who were found unfit to do their duty during the short time the Chitral expeditionary force was employed in 1895. That force consisted in round numbers of 6,000 British and 11,000 native soldiers. The troops selected were all medically examined before the expedition started, and about 8 per cent, of the British troops were weeded out as unfit for service on account of this most horrible form of contagious disease. The force crossed the frontier on April 3, and by July 31, less than four months, 957 British and only 294 native soldiers had been sent back sick to India. And Lieutenant-General Sir Robert Low, commanding the force, reported that this enormous excess of British soldiers was entirely due to contagious disease, not disease contracted locally, for the condition of affairs rendered that an impossibility, but the old disease breaking out afresh in consequence of the hardships and privations of a four months' campaign. In all other respects the British were as healthy as the native soldiers; so, taking the number of natives sent back as normal, the proportion of British should have been 160 instead of 957. Or, to put it in plainer language, 797 men, more than 13 per cent, of the British troops engaged, were rendered unfit for their duty as soldiers, and therefore a useless expense to the State, from what the majority of our medical officers call preventible disease. These figures, and those given in Lord Onslow's Report, alarming as I think, my Lords, you must consider them, for they show that one-fourth of the 70,000 soldiers serving in India are unable to take the field from contagious disease and its consequent disabilities, cannot be gainsaid. And they further prove how fallacious is the argument urged by the opponents of the Contagious Diseases Act, that the protective regulations enforced under that Act failed to mitigate the evil which caused them to be introduced. I know,

479
my Lords, that those regulations did not work all the good that was hoped for, but this was not the fault of the regulations, but of the half-hearted manner in which they were applied. So apathetically were they brought into force that, although the Cantonment Act which legalised the regulations was passed in 1864, it was not until 1869, live years later, that Fort William and its environs were protected, although this is certainly the station most in need of precautionary measures on account of its immediate proximity to the City of Calcutta. Up to the last, 12 military stations in Bengal were left unprotected, and at three of those stations in 1879 the number of admissions to hospitals from contagions disease actually rose to upwards of 700 per 1,000 men. I think, my Lords, you must agree with me that it speaks well for the benefiical results of the Act that, not withstanding these astounding figures were included in the total number of registered cases during the year, the proportion of men invalided was, as I have already shown, nearly four times greater in 1894 and 1895 than it was in 1879 and 1880. The truth is, my Lords, the Contagious Diseases Act was never given a fair trial in India. It was not believed in by the authority responsible to the Government of India for its being properly carried out, and, in consequence, no attempt was ever made to investigate the working of the Act or to ascertain what cases of disease were contracted within the area to which the Act applied, and what cases were contracted outside that area; so that even if every station in India had been brought within the scope of the Act, the good really done by the Act could not have been correctly appreciated from the returns furnished by the sanitary commissioner. Tables prepared from such unreliable data, were bound to bring the Act into disrepute, and to strengthen the arguments of those who were, and are still, opposed to its introduction. Then, again, my Lords, the Act was administered in some places with zeal and intelligence by medical officers, in others it was carried on in a very perfunctory manner. When visiting Lock. Hospitals I invaiably found that success was complete when the medical officer in charge took an interest in his work and satisfied himself that those who came for
480
treatment were properly looked after. The disease under such auspices diminished rapidly, and at one station, where it had been extremely prevalent, it was almost entirely stamped out owing to the exertions of the medical officer. I am well aware, my Lords, that those who are opposed to the enforcement of the Contagious Diseases Act contend that direct interference is adverse to morality, and that, in all justice, the sinner should be allowed to reap the punishment of his sin. Although to my mind this is not a very Christian doctrine, I can understand and respect the horror of wrong-doing of which it is the outcome, provided the punishment could be confined to the sinner himself; but what I cannot understand is how any one can think it right to take no measures to prevent the spread of an evil which involves disease and misery on innocent women and children, and which must seriously injure equally innocent generations in the future. In my opinion it is as bad or worse than it would be to allow a mad dog to bite as many people as he felt inclined, or to permit a person known to have smallpox or diphtheria to mix freely with people in health. I say worse, because the evil in such cases might, at all events, be limited to those bitten or infected; while, in the other, it is impossible to calculate how far-reaching will be the deadly results of neglecting to take precautions. My Lords, we have to deal with human nature, and, in considering the question at issue, we must not lose sight of the fact that, year by year, several thousand young men, mere boys, indeed—freed from all moral restraint, arrive in India and are at once subject to great and peculiar temptations. For many months of the year they are necessarily kept within barracks from sunrise to sunset, only to emerge when darkness, which comes on so rapidly in the East, prohibits anything in the shape of such healthy recreation as out-door games. A great deal has been done of late years by the Government of India to enable the men to amuse themselves in a rational manner, by poviding comfortable and attractive reading-rooms, coffee shops, etc. These regimental institutes, as they are called, have helped to raise the tone of our soldies and to reduce crime, especially drunkenness, but they seem to have had, I regret to say, but little effect

481
in preventing contagious disease, which, though it might have assumed still more gigantic proportions, had these counterattractions not been provided, has, notwithstanding all that has been done in this direction, gone on steadily increasing, as your Lordships will perceive from Lord Onslow's Committee's Report. Other and more direct measures should now he resorted to. The disease under consideration ought to be treated as all other contagious diseases are treated. It is even more essential that precautionary measures should be adopted in regard to it than to any other disease, for as slated in the Report of the Royal College of Physicians, dated March 23 last,
"The constitutional form of the disease is one of the most serious, insidious, and lasting of all the contagious diseases that afflict humanity. "
When it is prevalent there should be periodical examinations of all unmarried soldiers during their first period of service, and of older soldiers, if thought necessary, and any infringement of the order requiring men to report themselves on the first sign of becoming affected, should be severely punished. There ought to be no doubt as to the intention of these orders in the Army Regulations, but I am afraid that they are now frequently lost sight of and the importance of strictly enforcing them not thoroughly appreciated. With regard to women, I would leave the matter in the hands of the Government of India, on the distinct understanding, as stated in the Secretary of State's Dispatch that "there must be nothing which can be represented as an encouragement to vice. In the interests of morality, and to protect, as far as is possible, young soldiers from temptation, women professedly belonging to a certain class should be forbidden to reside in regimental bazaars or follow regiments on the line of inarch. And in every military station all women, professionals or otherwise, known to have communicated disease to any soldier, should be obliged to submit to medical treatment and subsequent periodical examinations or to quit the station and its immediate neighbourhood. Each case of expulsion should be carried out in communication with the local civil authorities, who will, I trust, be empowered to take such further action as may be considered necessary For the protection of
482
the community at large. To limit the Contagious Diseases Act (or whatever regulations the, Government of India may think proper to introduce) to cantonments and to exclude the neighbouring cities and towns would, in my opinion, be altogether insufficient, and would certainly not get at the root of the evil. There must, of course, be some punishment, such as line or imprisonment, for disobedience of orders, but my belief is that it would seldom have to be enforced if the women are kindly treated in the Government hospitals. The employment of women as coolies in the construction and repairs of barracks should be discouraged, but where this kind of labour is unavoidable, special precautions should be taken by means of civil and regimental police. These are surely only reasonable preventive measures, in the enforcement of which there should be little difficulty, for the calling of every person in a cantonment in India, is well known. Boundary pillars mark off the space set apart for the soldiers' barracks, parade ground, and officers' quarters, and within these limits, at any rate, it is our bounden duty to protect, the health of our soldiers, who, we must remember, are cut off from the pleasures and enjoyments of home life, and are compelled to live as single men for a certain number of years. If there is reason to suspect that the disease is contracted outside the cantonment limits, the country round should be put out of bounds and the number of men on duty as regimental police should be increased until matters improve. I have myself found this an effective way of checking the spread of this terrible scourge. I believe that much valuable assistance might be afforded by military chaplains if they would interest themselves in the matter. An excellent example has been set by the Rev. John Crauford, a Presbyterian clergyman at Meerut, who, a few years ago, established a "Purity Society" at that station for the benefit of soldiers, many of whom joined it, with the happiest results both as regards health and conduct. Something also might be gained by warning I young and inexperienced soldiers, on first arrival in India, of the aggravated effects of immorality in such a climate, and its appalling results as can be seen at. Netley Hospital. I am certain, too,

483
that medical officers would be able to do a great deal towards the desired end if they were brought into closer communication with troops than they are at present. ["'Hear, hear!"] They never now see or know the men as they did formerly, except those who come to them for treatment in hospital; and the cordial intercourse which used to exist between the combatant and medical officers and which was so conducive to good fellowship and to the general health of the Army—[Cheers]—is, unfortunately, a thing of the past. I trust, my Lords, I have not wearied you. [Cries of "No !"] My excuse for taking up so much of your time is that the efficiency of the Army and the moral and material well-being of the soldiers I love so well are at stake. I beg you, my Lords, to give this painful subject your most careful consideration, and I earnestly hope that the British public may be induced to look upon it from a wise and prudent, as well as from a, merciful and Christian point of view. [Cheers.]
*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am grateful to the noble Earl and the gallant General for the way in which they have handled what is unquestionably a very difficult subject. I do not think it can be denied that the disease and its effects have come to such a point that it is impossible to refuse a thorough inquiry into the whole matter. I do not think it is possible to read the papers which have been distributed to Members of this House without feeling that it is the imperative duty of the Legislature to look into the matter and see what ought to be done. ["Hear, hear !"] I think there is one class of of consideration which has not received full attention in either of the speeches we have listened to; it is quite certain that you cannot get to the root of such an evil as this without giving a very large part of your attention to the moral side of the whole question. The old regulations were objected to, and not a moment too soon, because they unquestionably had the effect of giving the impression to the soldiers that the sin in which they were indulging was not anything very wrong in itself, and that it was the business and purpose of the Government not to stamp the sin as an evil, but only to stop the effects of it. I do not think there can be any doubt that that was the
484
only impression which could be made upon the soldiers at the time when it was the custom to provide for the indulgence of this sin by special establishments. It was a long time ago, but there still remains the same kind of impression. The authorities should make it very clear that they look upon this kind of indulgence as a very evil thing which is to be condemned by every good man and by every good soldier. If you can change the tone of the Army in that respect you will have done something towards getting rid of the evil. It can never be done by mere regulations, and if your regulations are of such a character as to maintain the belief that you do not really care about the wrong of the self-indulgence, and that you only want to have soldiers who can right, depend upon it all your regulations will fall short of really extirpating the mischief. It is the habitual and continued indulgence that keeps up this mischief, and the temptation is increased by barrack-room conversation and the way in which the soldiers regard the sin itself. As long as that is the case you cannot have the co-operation of the men themselves in getting rid of the evil, and without their own co-operation it is hopeless to endeavour to raise any class of men to a higher position. If you leave out all this moral consideration, and think only of sanitary regulations as if they were really the complete remedy, every now and then you will find that your sanitary regulations will altogether fail. If there is to be ail Inquiry it ought to go beyond the mere examination of the sanitary regulations that may be made, and should consider how you can get at the soldier's conscience and his habits of life. How very much more might be done, for instance, if a larger number of men were allowed to marry. It would no doubt cost you money, but it will not cost you as much as the present evil costs you. Something has boon done, no doubt, to employ the soldiers and to keep their minds away from that sensuality which, when once men have allowed their imaginations to be affected by it, is sure to constantly recur to their minds. More may be done by occupying them in employment agreeable and interesting to them in their idle moments, and a great deal more than has yet been tried should be tried in this regard. I am only

485
using this as an illustration of what I mean. I do not moan there are not many other things I could mention myself that could be done with this view. But what I want to emphasise is that in all that is done the moral impress made on the troops is to he one of the first considerations, and that whatever regulations you make you are doing, perhaps, benefit for the moment, but certain mischief for the future if you let soldiers think you do not care whether they are moral or not. ["Hear, hear!"] I think, my Lords, an Inquiry which looked into this side of the matter, with as much care as a medical man would naturally bestow upon the material side, an Inquiry of that kind would really be of great benefit. I do not propose to move any Amendment to the Resolution, or to vote against, it. I believe that such an Inquiry as the noble Lord proposes, if only it be conducted by men who will look at both sides of the matter, and will be thorough-going in looking at the moral side, may be of the greatest benefit. Lord Kinnaird proposes to add something to the Resolution. The noble Lord seemed to deprecate the addition. I confess I do not see why it should be said such an addition will in any way interfere with the Inquiry proposed. It seems to me that if your Inquiry is to be of permanent value, you must extend it to the whole subject. My Lords, I cannot sit down without expressing my strong sense of deep gratitude to those who have brought this matter forward. I believe they have done no more than their duty. I believe that we may safely follow their lead, if only we are careful to see that the Inquiry proposed shall not be confined entirely to physical considerations, which will be dealing, not with the root of the evil, but only with the symptoms of it, and which will leave untouched that out of which the whole tiling comes. If we can have an Inquiry which will avoid that, I believe it will be of the greatest use. My Lords, these young men who are so readily tempted to fall, come often from country villages, from the artisan class in the towns. They often have not lived very excellent lives before they enlist. Nevertheless, you do not find among them anything like
486
the mischief you are now finding in your Army. And why? Because they have so much else to occupy their minds, because the moral influences around them are so much higher than the moral influences they find among their comrades when they join their regiments. They are protected by their surroundings, and soldiers are not. Look to it, and see whether something may not be done, something very real, to raise the whole tone of the Service in this matter. Lord Roberts pointed out to us various particulars in which he plainly aimed at that purpose. I thank him. I only wish to emphasise what he has said, and to press upon you that it is in that direction you must look if you desire to obtain permanent benefit. [Cheers.]
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of ONSLOW)said he welcomed the contribution to the Debate that had just fallen from the most rev. Prelate, because he gathered from his remarks that he entirely agreed in the opinion already expressed that the magnitude of the mischief done was such that some steps must be speedily taken to put an end, if possible, to so terrible an evil. But when he joined with Lord Dunraven in desiring an Inquiry, he would suggest that the time for inquiry was past, and the time for action had arrived. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped Lord Dunraven would not persist in his Motion for two reasons first, because he thought any exhaustive Inquiry by a Committee or Commission might have the effect of leading some of those who were not prepared to take immediate action to point to the proceedings of the Inquiry as a reason for delay. Secondly, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed, because he hardly knew in what direct ion it would be possible to produce more facts or figures than those already available. The amount of literature on the subject was something overwhelming. Lord Dunraven asked that an Inquiry should be held into the effect of contagious disease on the forces of the Crown. Every year the Army Medical Department issued a Report which dealt with the affliction of the troops from these diseases in all parts of Her Majesty's dominions, whether they were Europeans, Asiatics, or Africans. Lord Dunraven desired that an Inquiry should be held into the effect of

487
the disease upon the civil population. In the course of the Inquiry to which illusion had already been made he endeavoured to obtain from the principal hospitals in London and the large towns of England some information as to the proportion of these diseases to others, their influence upon others, and the increase of hereditary disease. But he found that statistics were not kept on these heads, and in many instances cases of venereal disease were not admitted. But if the noble Earl desired to find out what was the effect of the disease on the civil population, he had only to ask the superintendents of workhouses or the matrons of the women's hospitals or of the sick children's hospitals, or visit, he was sorry to say, the graves in our country churchyards, to be at once informed that the evil was rapidly increasing throughout the country. As to its effect on native races throughout Her Majesty's dominions, no fewer than live large volumes had been presented to Parliament, the result of inquiries made by governors and medical officers in all our colonies. Lord Dunraven asked for the regulations here and in other countries. The regulations in Great Britain were set forth in the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons in 1882, and in the Inquiry he himself recently held he obtained from our Ambassadors abroad a statement of the regulations in existence in each of the European countries and also the regulations affecting the troops of those countries, if Lord Dunraven would he content with a Return giving that information, he would have pleasure in laving it nil the Table, and he trusted that he would see that no further Inquiry was necessary. He would inform the House what had been the course of affairs during the last few years in India. In 1889 a new Cantonment Act was passed in consequence of a Resolution of the House of Commons in 1888. In 1892 instructions were issued by the Government of India for the strict observance of the rules under that Act. It was claimed that those rules were not strictly observed, and Lord Lansdowne, then Viceroy of India, while declaring that the Government of India at least had loyally carried out the Resolution of the House of Commons, said that local authorities might in some instances have evaded orders. In 1894
488
the Secretary for India ordered the introduction into the Viceroy's Council of a new Act to amend the Cantonments Act of 1889, and further rules eliminating this particular class of diseases from the infectious and contagious disorders, sufferers from which might be expelled from the cantonments, and imposing a fine or imprisonment on any public servant subjecting women to compulsory examination. The Government of India strongly protested against that course and said it was necessary to have power to exclude diseased women from the cantonments, or at any rate they must have power to exclude persons without giving a reason. But the Secretary of State was unable to agree in this view, and his sanction was refused to any rules which would have that effect. So matters remained until recently, when public attention was forcibly drawn to the alarming increase of the disease in India and its appalling consequences. Upon that the Secretary of State had written a Dispatch in which most Members of the House would be prepared to agree, and he should like to dwell on one or two of the conditions laid down, because he believed they would go a long way to meet not only the views of Lord Roberts, but also of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Government said they could not acquiesce in the continuance of the present state of things, and that common humanity, no less than their duty to the large body of British troops in India, demanded that some measures should be taken to restrain the prevalence of venereal disease. The Dispatch went on to say that there were certain things which must not be done—that was to say, there should be no approach to what had been called official purveying for immorality, but it gave power to the Government of India to expel from cantonments persons suffering from these diseases. It was quite true the result might be that there might be examination of women in some cases, but it would not be, as it was in the former case, compulsory, except in the same degree as it was now compulsory when a person suffered from smallpox, scarlet fever, or any of those diseases which the community had long since recognised to be a danger to public health. There were certain other measures which the Secretary of State had not yet pre-

489
scribed, but which he had in his Dispatch invited advice from the Government of India upon. The first of these related to the taking of precautions to see that women were not employed about the barracks in the manner which Lord Roberts had shown had proved such a danger to the health of the soldiers. In the second place, the Secretary of State expressed to the Viceroy his desire to co-operate with him in every way in improving the moral and physical condition el' the soldier. That was no new departure. For many years the Government of India and the Commander-in-Chief had been doing their best to improve the moral conditon of the soldier, and no one had done more than the noble and gallant Lord who had addressed their Lordships, and who had not only shown himself to be an incomparable captain in leading Her Majesty's forces against an Asiatic enemy, but had endeared himself to the common soldiers in India by the efforts which he had successfully made to improve their condition in all the commands he had held in that dependency. ["Hear, hear!"] He agreed with the most rev. Prelate that there was an opening not only for chaplains, but also for the commanding officers, to take this opportunity of inculcating upon the men under their command not only—as the Secretary of State had requested—the measures for the preservation of their health, but also impressing upon them the sin and wickedness of indulging in these vices. The Secretary of State desired that the practice, which was already in existence of warning young soldiers by regimental and medical officers of the risks they ran should in future be made universal. Me had every reason to believe that the measures winch the Secretary of State proposed to take would be efficacious, and the Viceroy had telegraphed on behalf of the Indian Government that the proposals of the Government
"Are in accord with our views. And, if sanctioned, will, we hope, enable us to combat successfully the spread of the disease."
One other important point the Dispatch dealt with was the remarkable fact that in some cantonments the disease had decreased, while in others it had increased to a great extent. It was not quite clear what was the reason for that variation between different stations, but he was in-
490
clined to agree with the explanation which had been suggested by Lord Roberts. The Government of India had been asked for further information upon this point. There was no reason to believe that women in India, any more than anywhere else, did not desire to be treated in hospital and regain their health, and he could not see upon what ground of Christian charity they could in any way say that the prevention of disease was not one of the first duties of a Government. ["Hear, hear!"] But how could they cure and how could they prevent disease if that disease was concealed? ["Hear, hear!"] It seemed to him the only course was to treat it like all other disease and compel the immediate notification of it. Some of those who, not long ago were most bitterly ranged against any preventive regulation now admitted that the time had arrived when something must be done. Their Lordships might have observed the letter in The Times from Lady Henry Somerset, in which she recognised that this horrible scourge had brought upon thousands of innocent women in England a load of suffering, and said that she gladly welcomed the Dispatch of the Secretary of State as a statement of inspiring and controlling principles never yet professed by any previous Government. That was not an isolated instance. A memorial had been presented to the Secretary of State and would shortly be made public, signed by a very large number of ladies of the highest position, philanthropists, nurses, superintendents, and matrons of hospitals, wives of doctors and clergymen, all praying that immediate action might be taken to check the spread of this terrible disease and the ravages it was inflicting among the population, at home. They stated that preventive measures, if exercised with scrupulous care, did not cause any real danger to women, but constituted a valuable safeguard to women's virtue, and afforded a great opportunity of escape from a life of vice. He earnestly hoped the noble Earl would not press his Motion; but, whatever the result of that Debate might be. Her Majesty's Government felt that the time for action had arrived, and that it was necessary at once to take such steps as might seem to the Government of India and the Government in this country most likely to make a real

491
and efficacious diminution in the disease. ["Hear, hear!']
*LORD REAYsaid that he would move the adjournment of the Debate, if there was no objection on the part of the Government, as several noble Lords were anxious to speak on the subject.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEreplied that the Government had no objection to the adjournment of the Debate, which would be resumed as the first Order on Monday.
Debate accordingly adjourned to Monday next.

RAILWAY ASSESSORS (SCOTLAND) SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY (TRANSFER OF PATRONAGE) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.
House Adjourned at a Quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a Quarter before Eleven o'clock.