Sitting of 9 February 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions, for Private Bills, that, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, viz.:—
  Army and Navy Investment Trust.
  Aston Manor Tramways.
  Barry Railway (Steam Vessels).
  Bexhill and Rotherfield Railway.
  Birmingham Corporation (Stock).
  Birmingham (King Edward the Sixth) Schools.
  Birmingham University.
  Bournemouth Corporation.
  Brewery and Commercial Investment Trust.
  Bristol Water.
  Burnley Corporation.
  Bury and District Water (Transfer).
  Caledonian Railway.
  Church's Patent.
  Cleethorpes Gas.
  Clyde Navigation.
  Commercial Union Assurance Company.
  Cork, Bandon and South Coast Railway.
  Cowes Pier.
  Crystal Palace Company.
  Dearne Valley Railway.
  Donegal Railway.
  Dorking Water.
  Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway.
  Dundee Harbour.
  East Shropshire Water.
  East Stirlingshire Water.
  Edinburgh Corporation.
  Edinburgh District Lunacy Board.
  Exmouth and District Water.
  Exmouth Urban District Water.
  Falkirk and District Water.
  Falkirk Corporation.
  Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours.
  Fishguard Water and Gas.
  Glasgow and South Western Railway.
  Glasgow Building Regulations.
  Glyncorrwg Urban District Council Gas.
  Government Stock and other Securities Investment Company.
  Great Berkhampstead Water.
  Great Central Railway.
  Great Southern and Westernand Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Companies Amalgamation.
  Great Southern and Western and Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation.
  Great Southern and Western Railway.
  Gun Barrel Proof Act, 1868, Amendment.
  Gwyrfai Rural District Council Water.
  Hemel Hempsted Corporation (Water).
  Higham Ferrers Water.
  Ipswich Corporation Tramways.
  Kingston-upon-Thames Corporation.
  Kingston-upon-Thames Gas.
  Lancashire Inebriates Acts Board.
  Lincoln Corporation (Tramways).
  Liverpool Overhead Railway.
  London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway.
  London Hydraulic Power Company.
  London Sea Water Supply.
  Manchester Corporation Tramways.
  Manchester Ship Canal.
  Margate Corporation.
  Margate Pier and Harbour.
  Menstone Water (Transfer).
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.
  Mersey Railway.
  Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland.
  Milford Docks.
  Morley Corporation.
  Motherwell and Bellshill Railway.
  Motherwell Water.
  Mountain Ash Water.
  Muirkirk, Mauchline, and Dalmellington Railways (Abandonment).
  Neath Harbour.
  Newport Corporation.
  Newport (Monmouthshire) Gas.
  New Russia Company.
  Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn Urban District Gas.
  North British Railway.
  North Eastern Railway.
  North Eastern Railway (Steam Vessels).
  Otley Urban District Council Water.
  Paignton Urban District Water.
  Preston Corporation.
  Purfleet and Gravesend Junction Railway.
  Ramsgate Corporation Improvements.
  Rawmarsh Urban District Council (Tramways).
  Rhymney Iron Company.
  Rhymney Railway.
  Rotherham Corporation.
  Rotherhithe and Ratcliff Tunnel.
  Salford Corporation.
  Scottish American Investment Company.
  Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society.
  Sheffield Corporation.
  Sheffield District Railway.
  Southampton Harbour.
  South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways.
  South Eastern Railway.
  South Essex Water.
  South Essex Water Board.
  South Shields Corporation.
  South Staffordshire Tramways.
  Sunderland Corporation.
  Taff Vale Railway.
  Universal Life Assurance Society.
  Westgate and Birchington Water.
  Whitechapel and Bow Railway.
  Wirral Railway.
  Withington Urban District Council.
  Workington Railways and Docks.
  And that they have certified that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in the following case, viz.:—

  Cardiff Corporation.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Reports from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that in the case of the Petitions for the following

  1027
  Bills, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—

  Airdrie and Coatbridge Tramways Bill.

  County and City of Dublin Electric Lighting Bill.

  Devonport Corporation Bill.

  Newry, Keady, and Tynan Light Railway Bill.

  Shannon Water and Electric Power Bill.

  Ordered, that the Reports be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Cardiff Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  ABERDEEN POLICE AND IMPROVE MENT.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bryce and Mr. Pirie.
  AIRDRIE, COATBRIDGE, AND DISTRICT WATER TRUST.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Wilson (Falkirk), Mr. Douglas, and Mr. M'Killop.
  BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John William Maclure, Mr. Halsey, and Mr. Bill.
  BEDFORD GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pym and Mr. Thornton.
  BELFAST AND COUNTY DOWN RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Blakiston-Houston and Mr. M'Cartan.
  BRADFORD CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville, Mr. Wanklyn, and Mr. Flower.
  BRAY AND ENNISKERRY RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harrington and Mr. Clancy.
  BRIGHTON CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Loader, Mr. Vernon-Wentworth, and Sir Henry Fletcher.
  BRITISH GAS LIGHT COMPANY (STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Aird and Mr. Skewes-Cox.
  BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alban Gibbs and Mr. Whitmore.
  BUCKINGHAM, TOWCESTER, AND METROPOLITAN JUNCTION RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John William Maclure, Sir Benjamin Stone, and Mr. Carlile.
  CHARING CROSS AND STRAND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Seton-Karr and Mr. Faithful Begg.
  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bonsor and Mr. Lawson, Walton.
  CHELSEA WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Boulnois and Captain Bowles.
  CHESHIRE LINES COMMITTEE.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henderson and Mr. Jackson.
  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kimber and Mr. Bond.
  CITY OF LONDON ELECTRIC LIGHTING.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kimber and Mr. Paulton.
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Reginald Hanson and Sir Horatio Davies.
  CLONTARF URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Carson, Mr. J. H. M. Campbell, Captain Phillpotts, and Mr. William Moore.
  COLONIAL BANK.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hoare and Mr. Alban Gibbs.
  COUNTY OF LONDON AND BRUSH PROVINCIAL ELECTRIC LIGHTING.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Boulnois and Sir Weetman Pearson.
  COVENTRY CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles Murray and Mr. Newdigate.
  CROYDON TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir James Fergusson and Mr. Bonsor.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hemphill, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. Field, Mr. Harrington, Mr. T. M. Healy, and Mr. Carew.
  DURHAM (COUNTY OF) ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Atherley-Jones and Mr. Samuel Evans.
  EAST LONDON WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Banbury, and Mr. Boulnois.
  EXETER CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Edward Clarke and Sir Albert Rollit.
  FARNWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Mellor and Mr. Cawley.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE, COMMERCIAL GAS, AND SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Stewart and Mr. John Burns.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Aird.
  GLASTONBURY AND STREET GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hobhouse and Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.
  GLASTONBURY CORPORATION GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Wodehouse.
  GRANTHAM GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lopes and Mr. Younger.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Strutt, and Mr. Penn.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Mr. Fison.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir James Haslett and Mr. James H. Campbell.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Wills and Mr. Llewellyn.
  GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Harry Bullard and Sir John Colomb.
  HALIFAX CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Billson and Mr. Arnold.
  HAMILTON BURGH.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Caldwell and Mr. John Wilson (Falkirk).
  HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Thomas Richardson and Mr. Richardson.
  HASTINGS CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lucas-Shadwell and Mr. Brook-field.
  HASTINGS HARBOUR.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lucas-Shadwell and Mr. Brook-field.
  HASTINGS TRAMWAYS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lucas-Shadwell and Mr. Brook-field.
  HOYLAKE AND WEST KIRBY IMPROVEMENT.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Cotton-Jodrell, Sir Elliott Lees, and Mr. Yerburgh.
  HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION TRAMWAYS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir James Woodhouse, Sir James Kitson, and Sir Albert Rollit.
  HUNTINGDON CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Smith-Barry and Mr. Fellowes.
  ILFRACOMBE IMPROVEMENT.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Cameron Gull and Mr. Lambert.
  JARROW AND HEBBURN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cruddas and Mr. Joseph A. Pease.
  KINGSCOURT, KEADY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. Macaleese, and Mr. Daly.
  KNOTT END RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John William Maclure, Mr. Firbank, and Mr. T. M. Healy.
  LAMBETH WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lyttelton, Mr. Cripps, and Mr. Talbot.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Hornby and Mr. Lees Knowles.
  LANCASHIRE, DERBYSHIRE, AND EAST COAST RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bainbridge, Mr. Thomas Bayley, Mr. Oldroyd, Mr. Perks, and Mr. Pollock.
  LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Macdona and Mr. James Bailey.
  LANCASHIRE CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Foster and Mr. Tomlinson.
  LATIMER ROAD AND ACTON RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Oldroyd and Mr. Lawson Walton.
  LEE CONSERVANCY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, and Mr. Courtenay Warner.
  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Warr and Mr. Charles M'Arthur.
  LONDON AND INDIA DOCKS JOINT COMMITTEE.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bonsor and Mr. Cripps.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Houldsworth, Colonel Lockwood, and Mr. Macartney.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (WALES).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Houldsworth, Colonel Lockwood, and Mr. Macartney.
  LONDON AND ST. KATHARINE DOCKS AND EAST AND WEST INDIA DOCK COMPANIES.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bonsor and Mr. Cripps.
  LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Beach, Sir Barrington Simeon, and Colonel Williams.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF LAND).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Stuart and Mr. John Burns.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Whitmore.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Whitmore.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SPITAL-FIELDS MARKET).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Stuart and Mr. John Burns.
  LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lafone and Mr. Wanklyn.
  LONDON WATER (PURCHASE).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Stuart and Mr. John Burns.
  LONDON WATER (WELSH SUPPLY).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Stuart and Mr. John Burns.
  LOWESTOFT RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lyttelton and Mr. Clough.
  MAIDENHEAD GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Palmer and Commander Young.
  MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL ELECTRIC EXPRESS RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir James Fergusson, Mr. W. F. Lawrence, Mr. Schwann, Sir John Willox, Mr. Galloway, and Mr. Warr.
  MANCHESTER CITY RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir James Fergusson, Mr. Schwann, and Mr. Disraeli.
  MARKET WEIGHTON DRAINAGE AND NAVIGATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Wilson-Todd.
  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Charles Dalrymple and Mr. Aird.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Boulnois and Colonel Lock-wood.
  MID-KENT WATER.
  Petition and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tomlinson, General Goldsworthy, and Mr. Aird.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Frederick Mappin and Mr. Allison.
  MORECAMBE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Foster and Mr. Tomlinson.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt, Mr. William Allan, and Mr. Joseph A. Pease.
  NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Atherley-Jones and Mr. Samuel Evans.
  NORTH METROPOLITAN RAILWAY AND CANAL COMPANY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Albert Rollit and Mr. Aird.
  NORTH WARWICKSHIRE WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Joseph Leese and Sir Harry Bullard.
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bond and Mr. Yoxall.
  OLDHAM CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Emmott and Mr. Runciman.
  OSSETT CORPORATION GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Hutton and Mr. Oldroyd.
  OSSETT GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson, Mr. Fison, and Mr. Aird.
  PONTEFRACT PARK.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in Mr. Nussey, Sir John Austin, and Colonel Gunter.
  READING CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Palmer and Sir Albert Rollit.
  REDHILL GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Bonsor.
  RICKMANSWORTH AND UXBRIDGE VALLEY WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alban Gibbs and Mr. Aird.
  RUGELEY GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Heath and Mr. Henderson.
  ST. ALBAN'S WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hudson and Mr. Vicary Gibbs.
  ST. DAVID'S RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Philipps, General Laurie, and Mr. David Randell.
  SCARBOROUGH CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Beckett and Mr. Rickett.
  SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Archibald Willox and Mr. Brigg.
  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Banbury and Mr. Woodall.
  SOUTHPORT CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir George Pilkington and Sir Joseph Leese.
  SOUTHPORT EXTENSION AND TRAMWAYS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir George Pilkington and Sir Joseph Leese.
  SOUTHPORT WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kenyon and Colonel Mellor.
  SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Samuel Evans and Mr. Alfred Thomas.
  SPALDING URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pollock, Sir Joseph Leese, and Mr. Randell.
  STOCKPORT CORPORATION TRAMWAYS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Whiteley and Mr. Melville.
  TAUNTON CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Welby and Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.
  TOTTENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Howard and Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland.
  TYNESIDE ELECTRIC POWER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Joseph A. Pease, Mr. Cruddas, Sir James Joicey, and Mr. William Allan.
  VALE OF RHEIDOL LIGHT RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Vaughan-Davies and Colonel Pryce-Jones.
  WAKEFIELD CORPORATION MARKET.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pickard and Mr. Oldroyd.
  WANDSWORTH AND PUTNEY GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kimber and Sir John Colomb.
  WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ernest Spencer, Sir Alfred Hickman, Sir Henry Meysey-Thompson, Mr. Brooke Robinson, and Mr. Parkes.
  WEST HAM CORPORATION
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ernest Gray and Major Rasch.
  WETHERBY DISTRICT WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Gunter and Mr. Lyttelton.
  WIDNES AND RUNCORN BRIDGE.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Cotton-Jodrell and Sir John Brunner.
  WOLVERHAMPTON, ESSINGTON, AND CANNOCK CHASE JUNCTION RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Alfred Hickman, Colonel Mil-ward, and Mr. Warner.
  WOLVERHAMPTON GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Staveley Hill and Sir Alfred Hickman.
  WOODBRIDGE DISTRICT WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to brought in by Captain Pretyman and Mr. Moulton.
  AIRDRIE AND COATBRIDGE TRAMWAYS.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  COUNTY AND CITY OF DUBLIN ELECTRIC LIGHTING.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  DEVONPORT CORPORATION.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  NEWRY, KEADY, AND TYNAN LIGHT RAILWAY.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER.
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Secretary of State, under the Military Lands Act, 1892, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wyndham and Mr. Powell-Williams.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Secretary of State, under the Military Lands Act, 1892," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented,—of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Essex from Kelvedon to Coggeshall (Coggeshall Light Railway Order, 1899) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented,—of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the county of Lincoln from Frodingham and Scunthorpe to Whitton Winterton and Winteringham (North Lindsey Light Railways Order, 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented,—of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of

  1039
  Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Lincoln from Lincoln to Scawby (North Lincolnshire Light Railway Order, 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented,—of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the West Riding of the county of York from Bradford to Leeds (Bradford and Leeds Light Railway Order, 1899) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented,—of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the West Riding of the county of York, in and near the borough of Doncaster (Doncaster Corporation Light Railways Order, 1899) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented,—of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the counties of Worcester and Warwick, from Redditch to Astwood Bank (Redditch and District Light Railways Order, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented,—of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Stafford, commencing in the parish of Essington and terminating in the parish of Darlaston, with branches (Essington and Ashmore Light Railway Order, 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented,—of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the county of Kent, between Cranbrook and Tenterden, in extension of the Rother Valley (Light) Railway, and the construction and working of that Railway as a Light Railway (Cranbrook and Tenterden Light Railway Order, 1899) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented,—of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a
  1040
  Light Railway in the county of Caithness, between Wick and Lybster (Wick and Lybster Light Railway Order, 1899) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented,—of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company to construct and work as a Light Railway the Cairn Valley Railway which the said company have power to construct and work under the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Act, 1897 (Glasgow and South-Western Railway (Cairn Valley Light Railway) Order, 1899) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented,—of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Basingstoke and Alton Light Railway Order, 1897 (Basingstoke and Alton Light Railway (Amendment) Order, 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petition from Winnington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SERVANTS' SUPERANNUATION.
  Petition from Edmonton, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) RILL.
  Petition from Belfast, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions, in favour, from Stamford; and Lavenham; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Hull, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kilrenny, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented,—of General Rules made pursuant to Section 26 of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, dated 28th December, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (NORTHUMBERLAND).
  Copy presented,—of Order made by the County Council of Northumberland, dividing into polling districts so much of the Tyneside Parliamentary Division of the county of Northumberland as is comprised in the parishes of Camperdown, Long Benton, and Weetslade [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.
  Estimates presented,—for the year 1900–1901, with Explanation of Differences [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 41.]
  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
  Copy presented,—of Eighteenth Report of the Royal University of Ireland, being for the year 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGED DESERVING POOR (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented,—of Report of the Departmental Committee on the financial aspects of the proposals made by the Select Committee of the House of Commons of 1899 about the Aged Deserving Poor, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—CONTRABAND OF WAR—RIGHT OF SEARCH—THE "HERZOG."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is he aware that the boarding and prize officers of Her Majesty's ship "Thetis," which detained the German ship "Herzog" on suspicion of carrying contraband of war, neither broke bulk nor made any search into or examination of the "Herzog's" cargo; what was the nature of the summary
  1042
  search which is alleged to have taken place, by whom was it made, and in virtue of what authority; was it made before the "Herzog" was released by order of Her Majesty's Government, or after the release, and when and where was it made; and did those who conducted it examine the boxes marked "Macaroni," which there is reason to believe contained rifles, and did they examine any other part of the cargo.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): Bulk was not broken, nor could it properly be broken except under orders from a prize court. The reports received show that an examination of the papers on board relating to the cargo was made by the officers of Her Majesty's ship "Thetis" at sea on the 3rd of January. It was made before the ship was released. The boxes mentioned were not examined, but there is no reason to suppose that they contained rifles, as none were found at Lorenzo Marques, where a careful examination of the ship's cargo took place.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: By whom was it examined at Lorenzo Marques?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs did the Marshal of the Prize Court at Durban refuse to take charge of the German steamer "Herzog" when the prize officer of H.M.S. "Thetis," which had detained and brought her in, tendered her to the Prize Court; was this refusal a consequence of any communication or order from Her Majesty's Government; if so, on what ground was such communication or order given; if not, can he state on what ground the refusal of the Marshal to take charge of the prize was based; and, in case he is not able to state this, will he make inquiry.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Marshal's refusal to take charge of the "Herzog" was not based on any orders received from Her Majesty's Government, but on the fact that the vessel was not yet in harbour.

  PROPERTY IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLICS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the. Colonies

  1043
  can he explain the scope and effect of the notice issued by Sir Alfred Milner, High Commissioner for South Africa, on 26th January, 1900, to the effect that Her Majesty's Government will not recognise as valid any forfeiture, charge, fine, encumbrance, conveyance, transfer, or transmission in respect of property situate in the territories of the South African Republic or the Orange Free State which may be declared, charged, levied, created, made, or carried into effect by the governments of those countries subsequent to the outbreak of war; is the word governments intended to include the legislative body, and also the judicial authorities of the two States mentioned, or only their executive governments; does the notice affect transfers of property made by the subjects of the South African Republic or the Orange Free State as between themselves; does it affect transfers of property made by British subjects as between themselves; does it affect transfers of property made between themselves by subjects of Foreign States other than the South African Republic or the Orange Free State, or between such foreign subjects and British subjects; is he aware of any precedent for a notice during war by one belligerent State declaring invalid the executive, legislative, or judicial acts of the other belligerent State in respect of property situate within its own territories to be invalid; and is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to prosecute the war until the invalidity of the acts contemplated by the notice is recognised by the two States.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Her Majesty's Government has had reason to believe that it was the intention of the Republican Governments to impose burdens which it would be impossible to meet upon property within their territories owned by British subjects and the subjects of other Powers with the object of confiscating such property. It would be impossible for Her Majesty's Government to countenance such confiscation at the termination of the war, whether carried out by an Act of the Executive or under colour of legislation empowering the courts to declare such forfeiture. The text of the notice shows that it has no reference to transactions between individuals. It is
  1044
  not desirable to enter into a discussion of the points raised in questions 6 and 7.

  SIR ALFRED MILNER'S STAFF.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what position on the staff of Sir Alfred Milner has Mr. F. H. Wilson, legal assistant of the Colonial Office, been appointed; has Mr. Wilson been appointed in an advising capacity to Sir Alfred Milner as Governor of the Cape or as High Commissioner; has Mr. Wilson's appointment been recommended or approved by the Cabinet of Cape Colony; and whether, seeing that the legal advisers to the High Commissioners of South Africa have hitherto been selected from the Cape Bar on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Cape Colony, will he explain on what grounds has there been a departure from this practice.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In view of the pressure of work in the High Commissioner's office, Sir A. Milner requested the assistance of an additional staff-officer with legal experience. Mr. Wilson will give general assistance to the High Commissioner, and his presence will in no way affect the constitutional relations between the Governor and the Cape Ministry.

  BRITISH COLONIAL ARMAMENTS AT THE OUTBREAK OF WAR.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how many fort guns were in Cape Colony and Natal prior to the outbreak of hostilities; what was their calibre and class; and whether any of them have been used in the present war.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): None of the guns in the fortresses of Cape Colony and Natal which were there before the war have been used during the campaign. It is not in the public interest to state the armaments of these forts.

  PROPORTION OF ARTILLERY STRENGTH.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many

  1045
  Royal Horse and Field Artillery guns are now in South Africa per thousand of the troops there; calculating the per thousand on the same basis as the guns of mobilised German Army Corps; their proportion to the three arms, trains, columns, and services employed in the field, and not at the base.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Even if it were possible, it would be inexpedient to give the distribution of troops in South Africa at the present time. My statement referred to the immediate future. I said that the number of field guns in or proceeding to South Africa will give a Continental percentage in the fighting line, and by that I mean a proportion of five guns to every thousand sabres and bayonets.

  "MILITARY AUTHORITIES."
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will explain and define the exact meaning and limits of the official phrase, "the advice of the military authorities"; whether that phrase is to be taken to mean in general application the specific and particular advice or opinion of the Commander-in-Chief for the time being for which he is alone responsible, or whether it embraces advice and opinion given by other military officers not necessarily coinciding with that of the Commander-in-Chief; and whether that phrase excludes or includes the opinion or advice of political and civil officials of the War Office.
  MR. WYNDHAM: "Military authorities" is not an official term. It does not occur in any Order in Council or other official document. Its meaning and limits are, therefore, not defined. If they have ever seemed obscure the fault must have rested with the user of the phrase—probably myself—for it ought to have been obvious from the context that the step in question was taken on the advice of military and not of political and civil officials. If used in connection with important questions of policy it would point to the status of the Commander-in-Chief and Army Board as defined by Order in Council. If used in connection with minor executive subjects or with movements in the field it would point to the military officer or officers charged with their conduct.
  SIR J. COLOMB: My question was not directed to any official document. I wished to know what the hon. Gentleman himself means.
  MR. WYNDHAM: That is what I have endeavoured to explain. When speaking of great questions of policy I refer to the Commander-in-Chief and Army Board, in a matter relating to a district the general officer commanding in that district, and in relation to an action taken in the field the general commanding the troops there.

  LORD IVEAGH'S AMBULANCE CORPS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether every member of Lord Iveagh's ambulance corps had to sign an agreement that he would become a combatant if called on; and whether in any of the foreign ambulance corps with the Boers such a condition had been insisted on.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Nothing is known of this at the War Office.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is a very good example for Russia.

  VOLUNTEER RECRUITS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government are placing obstacles in the way of obtaining recruits for Volunteer regiments by requiring that the expense of all members above the number allowed by Government shall be borne by the corps; and whether, in view of the present strong desire to enlist, and the exigencies of the war, the Government can see their way to relax this regulation.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It has already been announced that facilities will be afforded for men to join the Volunteer force in excess of the present establishments. Regulations on the subject will shortly be issued, and I shall refer to it in the statement which I shall make to the House, I hope on Monday.

  CANADIAN MEDICAL CONTINGENT.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, as it appears

  1047
  from the published telegram, No. 61, of Secretary of State for Colonies to Governor General of Canada, dated 23rd October, 1899, that the Secretary of State for War could only accept Canadian military medical officers and trained female nurses for service with the Canadian contingent, as British troops can be legally only attended by surgeons registered in the United Kingdom and nurses belonging to the Army Reserve, and as Canadian troops accompanied by Canadian military surgeons and nurses are now serving at the front side by side with their comrades of the British Regular Service, whether he will take steps to remove the legal prohibition which prevents these Canadian and other colonial military surgeons from rendering medical assistance to their British comrades.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Medical Act of 1858 prohibits the appointment as Army surgeon of a practitioner not registered in the United Kingdom; but it does not prevent a non-registered surgeon from rendering assistance under the orders of the Medical Staff. The general question of reciprocity with the colonies as regards medical qualifications is too broad a question for the War Office to deal with.

  TREATMENT OF INVALIDED SOLDIERS —THE "SUMATRA."
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether two officers and 128 men invalided home from South Africa disembarked from the deck of the "Sumatra," on 7th December last, on the quay of the Royal Albert Docks, and were left for upwards of an hour in the rain in their khaki; whether some of the invalids who were landed amid these surroundings were victims of ague, consumption, and dysentery, while several had become insane from the hardships of the war; and will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The "Sumatra" arrived on the 6th December, at 12.30; being one and a half hours before the time at which the steamship company had notified that she was to be expected. The ambulances arrived at 2 p.m., and the invalids who had remained on board were landed at 3 p.m., and placed immediately
  1048
  in a shed close by on the wharf. They all had great coats on and were never left in the rain. They were then removed without unnecessary delay in ambulances to Herbert Hospital, Woolwich. There were on board six cases of insanity, three cases of dysentery, one of tubercle, and one of phthisis, the remainder being of ordinary character.

  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  MR. HAMMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Carlow Militia, a battalion of the King's Royal Rifles recently embodied, is now stationed in Templemore; that prior to their departure from Carlow last month, the men of this corps were informed that in their absence their families would be entitled to a separation allowance on the scale of 10d. per week for a wife, and 2d. per week for each child; and as the families of many of these men have been placed in a position of distress and destitution owing to the absence of their breadwinners and to the non-payment of the promised allowance, if he would have the goodness to inquire into the matter, and endeavour to arrange that these people shall be relieved by the regular weekly payment to them of the allowance to which they would appear to be entitled.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The rates of the allowances referred to are daily rates and not weekly rates, as stated in the question. Separation allowances are payable monthly in advance. A telegram has been sent to Ireland on the subject of the hon. Member's question, and if any mistake has been made, it will be set right at once. I may add that the rate of separation allowance for the wife is not 10d. a week, but 13d. a day.

  CONTRACTS FOR HORSES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether orders to buy horses suitable for the various branches of the Army have ceased in Ireland, while extensive orders have been issued for the purchase of horses for the British Army in continental countries; and whether he will inquire if all the requisite horses can be procured in Ireland at short notice, and order that they shall be purchased there.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): Trained horses of suitable ages are very difficult to obtain in Ireland, and it is impossible to purchase there all the horses that are required. It has therefore been found necessary to buy a few thoroughly broken horses abroad and others in the Colonies. A large number of cobs have been purchased in Argentina, as they are very hardy, are accustomed to live on grass, and are best suited to the mounted infantry serving in South Africa; they are also very cheap. Horses are still being purchased in Ireland, and the number purchased from home sources for South Africa is much larger than the number obtained elsewhere—not taking cobs into account.

  BOOT CONTRACTS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, what has been the saving per pair of boots on the purchase of Indian boots for the South Africa forces as compared with the average price of English made Army boots; whether the leather of which Indian boots are made is thinner than the leather used for Army boots in England, and there is practically no heavy sole leather used in India at all; whether the Indian boots ordered have been, or will be, subjected to the examination and tests usually applied at Pimlico to English made boots; and whether the large orders for English made boots for the Army, amounting to about 300,000 pairs, have only been given out in the past few days, after the strong protests made a few weeks ago.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have already informed the hon. Member, in answer to his question of yesterday, that the price paid for the Indian boots referred to was about equal to the lowest price paid in England. Price, however, did not govern the transaction. Speedy supply formed the only element. Boots made in India to the pattern of the home Government closely resemble in thickness of sole and upper the English made article. The Indian boots, as I have already told the hon. Member, were subjected to strict and proper inspection in India before being shipped. I do not know what "strong protests" the hon. Member refers to in the last paragraph
  1050
  of his question, but he may rest assured that the necessities of the Service alone caused the issue of recent orders.
  MR. CHANNING: Have not orders for 300,000 pairs of boots been recently issued?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I cannot give the exact figures, but undoubtedly large orders for boots have recently been issued, but not in consequence of any protest such as my hon. friend refers to.
  MR. CHANNING: I shall draw attention to this matter on the Estimates.

  RIFLE RANGES.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, of the nineteen new ranges that have been constructed or approved since the date of the return of the ranges closed since 1890, which was presented to the House in June last, those that have been constructed include any which in the said return were described as approved but not then constructed; and whether the nineteen new ranges should be added to the total of 186 new ranges mentioned in the return, making the total of new ranges to date in Great Britain 205, and the total of ranges closed 536.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. The figures stand as stated in the second.

  THE SIERRA LEONE CAMPAIGN —MEDALS.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a medal has been struck in commemoration of the operations in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone to put down the insurrection consequent upon the partial imposition of the Hut Tax; and, if so, whether the medal will be given to any of the natives in the Government employment who were reported by the late Sir David Chambers to have been guilty of cruel and unlawful acts towards native chiefs in the Protectorate.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Queen has been pleased to approve of the grant of the West African medal to the troops

  1051
  employed in the operations in the Sierra Leone Protectorate in 1898 and 1899. With regard to the second part of the question, no native convicted of serious offence will get the medal.

  AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH BILL.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Australian Commonwealth Bill will be introduced, and if Her Majesty's Government propose to suggest to Parliament to make any change in the constitution as accepted by five colonies.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Delegates from the Australian Colonies are coming to this country to give and receive explanations as to certain points, and as they are expected at an early date the introduction of the Bill will be deferred until they have arrived.

  THE "KOWSHING."
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state what is the present position of the negotiations for the settlement by arbitration of the claims made by Her Majesty's Government on the Chinese Government more than five years ago for compensation to the owners of the British steamer "Kowshing," and to the families of British subjects who lost their lives by the sinking of that vessel.
  MR. BRODRICK: It has now been arranged between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of China that the case of the "Kowshing" should be referred to the arbitration of a foreign jurist.
  MR. PROVAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the jurist is likely to arrive at a decision?
  [No answer was given.]

  RUSSIAN LOAN TO PERSIA.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government received from the Persian Government in July last a précis of the financial proposals of the Russian Govern-
  1052
  ment in regard to the Persian Loan conversion; and what reply was returned to the Government of the Shah by Sir M. Durand.
  MR. BRODRICK: No such communication was received.

  FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE REGULATIONS.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, in view of the fact that the Executive Committee for the County of Suffolk resolved on the 6th instant that it is strongly desirable that a modification of the Order of the Board of Agriculture of 31st January should be made, so as to enable fat cattle to be moved for slaughter, that the district comprised in the Order is unnecessarily large, and that the Board of Agriculture be requested to vary their Order to meet the foregoing, and that occupiers of land should be allowed to move their sheep and cattle across or along highways intersecting their own occupation, where it is more than three miles from the infected area; whether he is prepared to introduce at once into the Order modifications similar to what has been asked for in the case of Norfolk, in accordance with the first and third recommendations; and whether he will also reconsider the extent of the scheduled area, in accordance with the second recommendation, if it can be done without risk, especially having regard to the fact that districts in Suffolk, nearly forty miles from the scene of the outbreak have been included in that schedule.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): The new Order which comes into operation to-day is applicable to the Suffolk portion of the district as well as to the Norfolk portion. I cannot as yet sanction the reduction of the area of the district, but the situation is carefully considered from day to day, and I shall be very glad indeed to find myself able to modify the severe restrictions we have felt it necessary to impose in the interest of stockowners generally.
  MR. F. W. WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state how many fresh cases of foot and mouth disease have occurred in the present

  1053
  week; and whether any petty sessional division which has been scheduled, where no fresh outbreak has occurred for seven days, can be reopened for the movement of cattle for slaughter.
  MR. LONG: Two further outbreaks of foot and mouth disease have occurred in the scheduled district during the present week. I cannot at the moment sanction any further modification of the existing restrictions, the position being stall a very serious one, but it is carefully considered from day to day, and the hon. Member may be sure that relief will be given at the earliest possible moment consistently with the safety of the country as a whole.

  CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE HOLIDAY ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the holiday arrangements at the Central Telegraph Office, in submitting a proposed scheme to the staff representatives, expressly stated that as a condition of its application the holidays should be distributed equally over the holiday months and chosen in order of seniority; whether these conditions are now being departed from; and whether he will direct that the holidays shall be distributed equally over the eight holiday months and chosen strictly in order of seniority.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): No, Sir; I am informed that the Committee made no such statement. Considerable additions have been made to the staff to enable every telegraphist to take a holiday in one of the best eight months. The senior men have the choice of the best four months, and I understand that a senior officer who prefers taking a holiday in the other four has no difficulty in finding a junior to exchange with him.

  POST OFFICE LONDON TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is
  1054
  now ready to issue the tariff and regulations of the Post Office London Telephone Exchange.
  MR. HANBURY: The tariff and regulations for the Post Office London Telephone Exchange system are practically complete; but until the work of constructing the main system is also completed, it has been thought better not to publish the details of the scheme prematurely.

  IRISH PIERS AND HARBOURS.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant a return showing the application of the sum of £250,000, voted for piers and harbours in Ireland, under the Act 46 and 47 Vic, c. 26; and in what counties the said sum has been so far expended.
  MR. HANBURY: No material change has occurred since the issue of House of Commons Paper No. 272 of 1898; and I think that this return will probably be sufficient for any purpose that the hon. Member may contemplate. But I shall be quite ready to inform him privately, if he desires it, as to any modifications recently made.

  PARCELS POST TO IRELAND.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if any part of the parcel post traffic between London and Dublin is carried round by Carlisle and Stranraer and viâ Portadown; is the same carried, or any part of it, by the same trains in England which convey the mails to the north of Ireland viâ Larne and Stranraer; what is the extra distance of this route over and above the direct route to Dublin; and has this contributed to the delays in the mails recently so much complained of in the north of Ireland; and, if so, will the practice be discontinued.
  MR. HANBURY: No part of the parcel post traffic between London and Dublin is forwarded by way of Stranraer and Portadown, nor is any part of it carried by the same train in England which conveys to Carlisle the mails for the north of Ireland.

  SNEEM MAILS.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that great inconvenience is caused in and around the district of Sneem (County Kerry) owing to the late delivery of mails; whether, under the late arrangements made by the Post Office authorities, letters now arrive and are delivered nearly one hour later than heretofore; and whether it should not be the object of the Post Office to accelerate rather than delay the arrival of mails in the Sneem district.
  MR. HANBURY: No change has been made in the time of arrival of the mails at Sneem since 1897. In that year the time of arrival at Sneem had to be postponed from 9.40 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. in consequence of the later dispatch by fifty minutes of the night mails from Dublin to the various ports of Ireland. This in turn was due to the later despatch from the provinces of the day mail trains to Dublin in connection with the later departure from Dublin of the night mail for England. Under these rearrangements a considerable improvement of postal service was afforded, and the Postmaster General regrets that in a few instances some disadvantage has been unavoidable.
  MR. FLAVIN: Cannot you make some representations to the carrying companies to accelerate the service?
  [No answer was given.]

  STEAM TRAWLERS IN WEXFORD BAY.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Wexford bye-laws are being constantly violated by steam trawlers, and that great damage is being done to the fishery, and numbers of poor men thrown out of employment; and that although the names of four trawlers have been supplied to the inspectors of fisheries, they refuse to prosecute on the ground of insufficient evidence: and whether, since local vessels can do no more than find out the names of the trawlers, he will consent to give a gunboat to protect Wexford and other Irish fisheries, considering that gunboats have
  1056
  been given to protect English and Scotch fisheries.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): As I have often explained, the duty of the Admiralty is to protect fishermen against any illegal inroads on the part of foreign fishing boats, but they do not undertake the enforcement of bye-laws passed by local authorities, nor have they appropriated vessels for local fisheries except in the special case of the Scottish Fishery Board, who have the assistance of two small vessels. There are gunboats on the coast of Ireland which are fully employed there at present.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Under these circumstances cannot a gunboat be sent to protect Irish fisheries from steam trawlers? If not, of what use is the Navy to Ireland at all?
  MR. POWER: Will the hon. Member for South Dublin take into consideration the advisability of—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice should be given of these questions.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that these bye-laws are made not by the local authorities, but by the Fishery Board? Will the right hon. Gentleman under these circumstances reconsider the matter?
  MR. GOSCHEN: We do not undertake to enforce the bye-laws of the Fishery Board.

  WARDEN ESTATE, CO. KERRY.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the landlord of the Warden estate, near Sneem, county Kerry, refused to give a site for a national school teacher's residence on the teacher's own farm of land unless the teacher would give up his tenant right to him, and that the teacher, under the landlord's pressure, has consented to give up his tenant right in his holding in order to obtain a suitable site for the residence he requires on his own farm; whether the Local Government Board have refused to sanction the site which the landlord

  1057
  selected owing to its unsuitable condition; and what steps, if any, can the Government now take to compel the landlord to allow the teacher to build a residence on his own land which will be approved of by the Local Government Board.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): I have no information as to the matters referred to in the first paragraph. It is the fact, however, that an application for a loan to erect a teacher's residence, in connection with the Sneem National School, was approved by the Commissioners of National Education. The site proposed was found to be rocky and unsuitable, and another site was suggested by the teacher. The manager was informed by the Board of Works of the legal steps necessary to be taken by him, and he was informed that pending the perfection and registration of the lease, nothing further could be done to complete the case. The Board are not aware of any difficulty with the landlord in obtaining this site, but if such difficulties exist the trustees can avail themselves of the provisions of the Irish Education Acts, under which sites for teachers' residences can be acquired compulsorily subject to certain conditions being satisfied.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman says he has no information. Will he cause the police to make inquiries?
  MR. FLAVIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman applied to the teacher for information?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  KANTURK BARONIAL RAILWAY GUARANTEE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the case of the Kanturk Rural District Council in respect to the Baronial Railway guarantee; and if he can state whether the Commissioner of Valuation reported to the board, under Section 58, Sub-Section 4, that the Kanturk district was entitled to
  1058
  relief, as the guarantee exceeds sixpence in the pound on the rateable value; and, if so, why has not the district received the relief for the current financial year.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Commissioner of Valuation reported that, in his opinion, the provisions of Section 54, Sub-Section 4, of the Local Government Act, 1898, came into force on the 1st April, 1899, and that payments in respect of which a contribution may be made from the Local Taxation Account under these provisions will not become due until after the 31st March, 1900—the end of the current financial year.
  MR. FLYNN: Surely, if the financial year commenced on the 1st April last year, the district is entitled to a full year's payment.
  MR. ATKINSON: I have given all the information asked for in the question.

  CLARE COUNTY POLICE CHARGES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a resolution of the Clare County Council, in which they call attention to the high taxation that prevails in Clare, and respectfully ask the Irish Government to reconsider the question of the instalments of extra police charge, seeing that the county has returned to its normal position of peace; and whether the prayer of this resolution can be granted.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The attention of the Chief Secretary has been directed to the resolution referred to. The Government are unable to accede to the application contained in the resolution.

  CAVAN POLICE FORCE.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state whether any increase has taken place recently in the police force of Cavan County; and whether, seeing that he promised in 1896 to see that a gradual process of reduction would take place, it is intended to carry this promise into effect.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): No increase has recently been made in the police force of County Cavan. For many years the county has been served by the free quota. The policy of reducing the strength of the entire police force throughout Ireland, promised in 1896, has been since then steadily pursued.

  MARQUESS OF SLIGO'S ESTATE.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that negotiations have been proceeding for some time between the Marquess of Sligo and the Congested Districts Board, with a view to the sale to the Board of portions of his Lordship's estate: and could he state the price asked by the Marquess of Sligo, and would he give a copy of the correspondence with reference to such sale.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKETT,: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The correspondence that has passed between the Congested Districts Board and the Marquess of Sligo in the matter is regarded as confidential. The board can give no information as to the respective offers made, and it is not intended to lay on the Table the correspondence that has taken place.

  MUZZLING ORDER IN CORK.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received resolutions from the Corporation of Cork and the Cork Rural District Council recommending that the dogs muzzling order be rescinded; and whether he is now prepared to accede to the general desire that the order should be rescinded.
  MR. PLUNKETT: Resolutions have been received from the Corporation of Cork and the Cork Rural District Council, recommending that the muzzling of dogs order be rescinded. Since the 29th April, 1899, twelve cases of rabies occurred within the County Cork, the last case so recently as the 3rd January. The question of rescinding the order has been carefully considered, but it is felt that the time has not yet arrived when any part of the County Cork could, with due re-
  1060
  gard to the general interest, be exempted from the operation of the order.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—NEWS FROM THE FRONT.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the House would like to know whether there is any news from South Africa.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): No, Sir, I do not think there is.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: May I give notice that on Monday I shall move, in accordance with the statement I have already made to the House, that, until the end of the financial year, financial business have precedence on Tuesdays whenever set down by the Government. Of course that is subject to the pledge I have already given in regard to Tuesday the 20th, in connection with the motion now down on the Paper for that day.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: With regard to the Tuesday referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, I think there would be a strong general feeling of disappointment and dissatisfaction if, as the right hon. Gentleman has rather implied, there were merely an evening sitting on that occasion. The matter which is to be discussed has excited a great deal of attention and interest, and I think it is a matter of such importance that it ought not to be relegated to an evening sitting.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite recognise the existence of the feeling to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes, and I can assure the House that nothing but absolute necessity would oblige me to reduce the time for discussing that motion to the three hours between nine and twelve o'clock.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
Motion made, and Question put, "That the proceedings on the Address, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, Sittings of the House."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 226; Noes, 86. (Division list No. 6.)

AYES.

Aird, John

Flower, Ernest

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Allsopp, Hon. George

Forster, Henry William

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Fry, Lewis

Milward, Colonel Victor

Arrol, Sir William

Galloway, William Johnson

Monckton, Edward Philip

Asher, Alexander

Garfit, William

Monk, Charles James

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gedge, Sydney

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H. (City of Lond.

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Bainbridge, Emerson

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Baker, Sir John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

Baldwin, Alfred

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Mount, William George

Banbury, Frederick George

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo.'s

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Barnes, Frederic Gorrell

Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith-(Hunts

Graham, Henry Robert

Nicholson, William Graham

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bartley, George C. T.

Gull, Sir Cameron

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l

Gunter, Colonel

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

O'Neill, Hon. Robt. Torrens

Bethell, Commander

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm.

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Biddulph, Michael

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bill, Charles

Hardy, Laurence

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Blakiston-Houston, John

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Penn, John

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Heath, James

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Helder, Augustus

Pierpoint, Robert

Boulnois, Edmund

Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex)

Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C.

Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Holland, William Henry

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Horniman, Frederick John

Purvis, Robert

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Houston, R. P.

Rankin, Sir James

Brymer, William Ernest

Howard, Joseph

Rentoul, James Alexander

Buxton, Sidney Charles

Howell, William Tudor

Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Causton, Richard Knight

Hudson, Geo. Bickersteth

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Runciman, Walter

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelten'm

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

Kinloch, Sir John George S.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Knowles, Lees

Savory, Sir Joseph

Chelsea, Viscount

Lafone, Alfred

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Cornwall)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Edw H.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(S'sea)

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Curzon, Viscount

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Dalkeith, Earl of

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Spencer, Ernest

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardig'n

Long, Rt. Hn. Walt. (Liverpool)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Lorne, Marquess of

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lowe, Francis William

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Doughty, George

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stock, James Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Macdona, John Cumming

Tennant, Harold John

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Maclure, Sir John William

Thornton, Percy M.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Tollemache, Henry James

Fardell, Sir T. George

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

M'Crae, George

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manch.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbro, W.)

Verney, Hon. Richard Greville

Finch, George H.

M'Killop, James

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Malcolm, Ian

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Fisher, William Hayes

Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

Webster, Sir Richard E.

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Marks, Henry Hananel

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Millbank, Sir Powlett Chas. Jhn

Whitely, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

1062

1063

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E.R. (Bath)

Younger, William

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Wylie, Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Wyndham, George

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

NOES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

Flynn, James Christopher

Murnaghan, George

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Gibney, James

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Allison, Robert Andrew

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ambrose, Robert

Hammond, John (Carlow)

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Harrington, Timothy

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Barlow, John Emmott

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Blake, Edward

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Pinkerton, John

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hazell, Walter

Power, Patrick Joseph

Caldwell, James

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Cameron, Robt. (Durham)

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Carvill, P. Geo. Hamilton

Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H.

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

Channing, Francis Allston

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hogan, James Francis

Roche, John (East Galway)

Commins, Andrew

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jordan, Jeremiah

Souttar, Robinson

Crean, Eugene

Kilbride, Denis

Steadman, William Charles

Crilly, Daniel

Labouchere, Henry

Strachey, Edward

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Daly, James

Leng, Sir John

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

Dewar, Arthur

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lloyd-George, David

Tully, Jasper

Donelan, Captain A.

Lough, Thomas

Wason, Eugene

Doogan, P. C.

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

Wedderburn, Sir William

Engledew, Charles John

Macaleese, Daniel

Weir, James Galloway

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

McDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Queen's C.

Wilson, John (Govan)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

M'Cartan, Michael

Fenwick, Charles

M'Ghee, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Woods.

Ffrench, Peter

Mandeville, J. Francis

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

NEW BILLS.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the Housing of the Working Classes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Steadman, Mr. John Burns, Captain Norton, and Mr. Woods.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (RURAL DISTRICTS).
  Bill to amend the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, so as to facilitate the provision of cottages by Rural Authorities, ordered to be brought in by Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Channing, Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Price, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Billson, Mr. Frederick Wilson, and Mr. Soames.

  WINE AND BEERHOUSE ACTS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the licensing of Beerhouses and places for the sale of Cider and Wine by retail in England and Wales, ordered to be brought
  1064
  in by Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Courtney, Sir Cameron Gull, and Mr. Cameron Corbett.

  WINE AND BEERHOUSE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the licensing of Beerhouses and places for the sale of Cider and Wine by retail in England and Wales," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 20th February, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]
  LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS OF SALE) (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to alter the Law relating to the Hours during which premises licensed for the sale of excisable liquors may be open in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Provand, Captain Sinclair, Mr. Colville, Mr. Ure, and Mr. Caldwell.

  LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS OF SALE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To alter the Law relating to the Hours during which premises licensed for the sale of excisable liquors may be open

  1065
  in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

  BAKEHOUSES (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Bill to restrict the Hours of Labour in Bakehouses to forty-eight per week, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Woods, Mr. John Burns, and Mr. Steadman.
  BAKEHOUSES (HOURS OF LABOUR) BILL.
  "To restrict the Hours of labour in Bakehouses to forty-eight per week," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 14th March, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE).
  Bill to grant certificates to persons in charge of steam engines and boilers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jonathan Samuel, Mr. J. A. Pease, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Helder, Colonel Denny, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. Paulton, Mr. Joseph Walton, and Mr. Holland.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  "To grant certificates to Persons in Charge of Steam Engines and Boilers." Presented and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Housing of the Working Classes," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 25th April, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (RURAL DISTRICTS) BILL.
  "To amend the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, so as to facilitate the provision of cottages by Rural Authorities," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, 23rd February, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    NINTH DAY'S DEBATE.
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Alain Question [30th January], "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:—
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Captain Pretyman.)
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.

    TAXATION OF IRELAND.
    SIR T. G. ESMONDE: In seconding the Amendment which is on the Paper I feel myself in a position of considerable disadvantage because I have to follow the very admirable speech of my hon. friend the Member for North Dublin, which practically touched almost every aspect of the case. There is also this further disadvantage, that this subject has been so often debated that there is very little new to be said about it. Still, I am glad to second it in view of the special and peculiar circumstances of the present time. This country is engaged in a war which is likely to prove both long and expensive. It is a war from which it is not conceivable that Ireland can derive any advantage. On the other hand, it will undoubtedly lead to a very great increase of taxation, and of that taxation Ireland will be compelled, whether she likes it or not, to pay what we Irishmen consider to be an utterly disproportionate share. I do not propose to go extensively into the details of this question, nor do I believe there is any necessity for any justification on our part for the action we are taking at the present moment. We consider that in view of the feelings we hold on the question of the over-taxation of Ireland it is essential we should take the first opportunity of making our position clear with regard to any further increase of that taxation. We shall have many opportunities in the course of this session of considering pos-

    1067
    sible further increases of taxation, and we trust and hope to be able to utilise those opportunities to the fullest possible extent when the occasion for doing so arises. There is no necessity for me now to speculate on the direction those possible increases of taxation may take. Neither, Sir, is there any necessity at this stage for me to go in detail into the historical aspects of the situation. The historical case of Ireland has been repeated over and over again in this House. It has been repeated so many times that we have, as a matter of fact, absolutely lost count of them, and although statements have been laid before the House many a time and oft, and although even in my own time there have been repeated discussions on the national grievances of Ireland, I do not think any Irish Member of this House has yet heard a satisfactory answer to the Irish case in respect to the over-taxation of Ireland. I will not, Sir, go back very far into this history, as it is not so very many years ago since the case of Ireland was set forth in most admirable and, I may say, unanswerable fashion by my hon. friend the Member for South Long-ford. The legitimate claims of Ireland for redress as put forward from this quarter of the House have met with no adequate settlement since that time, nor since our case was put later still by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. No answer is yet forthcoming; I do not suppose there is any answer beyond that to which we are so well accustomed, namely, that Ireland has no substantial grievance at all. Sir, I may, perhaps, be allowed to give the House an outline of the Irish case. From our point of view, it is a record of continuous breaches of engagements entered into by England with Ireland. Ever since the Act of Union the question has been discussed and debated in this House in vain, and the injustice continues in face of our continued and unabated protest. That protest has been made now for nearly a hundred years, and invariably without success. Let us go back to the Act of Union. It was a solemn treaty entered into between England and Ireland, in which certain covenants as to financial relations between the two countries were set forth, and received the form of legislative enactment. We were regarded, in financial matters, as a separate entity. It was a solemn compact by which Ireland was to receive the benefit of cer-
    1068
    tain exceptional treatment. She was promised exemption in one case and abatement in another; but the realisation of those promises is yet to come. From 1800 to 1816, the period at which the exchequers of Ireland and England were consolidated, we find by the records of this House, by the debates which are reported in Hansard, that Ireland has contributed to the war expenditure of England—war expenditure in which Ireland has had no concern whatever, and from which she can derive no possible advantage—money amounting to millions sterling. In that period Ireland has contributed between £60,000,000 and £70,000,000 compensation for England's benefit, and no less than £30,000,000 in excess of the proportion fixed by the Act of Union. These are statements which can be easily verified either by a reference to the pages of Hansard in the Parliamentary Library. In 1816 the Act came into force, and in 1817 the two exchequers were consolidated. A new treaty was made by which Ireland was promised that a revision of her taxation would be carried out at certain intervals of time. That was the main grievance; that agreement was not observed, there was no such revision of Ireland's taxation, and the main condition upon which the consolidation was ratified were never observed by this country. In 1854 there was a new departure in taxation, and Ireland contributed £30,000,000 at least more than was provided by the consolidation of the two exchequers. The Royal Commission which investigated the financial relations of the two countries resulted in a number of new taxes being imposed. The inducement which led the Irish people to consent to these, new taxes was that they would be only of a temporary nature, and after seven years some of them would be taken off, and after a further period the whole of them would be removed. That was the engagement, but, like every other engagement, it was forgotten. The "temporary taxes," so-called, imposed in 1854, became permanent, although the Financial Relations Commission showed that Ireland was already overtaxed by 120 to 130 millions. That Financial Relations Commission was composed of eminent financiers, who went thoroughly into the question of the financial relations existing between the two countries. The record

    1069
    of its sitting is preserved in a Bluebook, which is, perhaps, the most valuable contribution to the question that we possess. According to the investigations of this Commission, the over-taxation of Ireland is put down, at the lowest figure, as £2,500,000 per annum. According to these eminent experts Ireland contributed at least £2,500,000 per annum more than the condition of her resources entitled her to pay. Well, that Report was promptly put into the waste-paper basket; and there has been no practical result of the Commission ever since. It has occurred to me and many of my hon. friends what a different view would have been taken of the Report of that Commission had it been found that Ireland was paying £2,500,000 less than her proper proportion of the taxation. However, since the sitting of the Commission, new taxation has been imposed on Ireland in the shape of an increase in the spirit duties and an imposition of the estate duty. By this additional taxation, increased revenue has been derived from Ireland amounting, at any rate, to £500,000 a year. Thus the Report of the Royal Commission, which showed that Ireland was already overtaxed to the tune of £2,500,000, only led to the imposition of another half million sterling. In these various stages of the financial relations between the two countries, it will be seen that these taxes were not imposed without strong protest on behalf of Ireland. Every opportunity that presented itself to the Irish party was seized by way of strongly protesting against England's unjust financial treatment. Ireland objected to the union of the two exchequers. She protested in 1854, and again in 1864, when another Commission of inquiry was appointed to sit in London. She protested then and since continually, and the day on which Ireland will get justice in this matter seems as distant as ever. And yet English members of this House, and especially hon. Members opposite, profess to be surprised that there is no more real sympathy existing between the people of England and the people of Ireland. I should like to know how this country would have behaved had the positions been reversed, and Ireland had treated England in the same way. What would have been the feelings of the English people under such circumstances? How can England expect Ireland to be kindly disposed towards her in view of
    1070
    the financial treatment meted out by England? Our country is labouring under a most frightful injustice, and we protest against it; we have protested before, and shall continue to protest. As long as the Irish people take an intelligent interest in the concerns of their country, so long will they protest against this system, which is surely and inevitably bleeding Ireland to death, ruining her industrial and financial possibilities, and driving year by year thousands of Irish people out of the country simply because they cannot get employment at home. One result of your financial treatment of Ireland is that of all the countries in the world the one in which Irish industries do not succeed, except in a very small measure, is the country to which they belong. We shall probably hear, as we have heard many times before, the old arguments advanced against the claim of Ireland. We shall be told that Ireland is treated extremely well; that England makes nothing out of Ireland; that England spends an enormously disproportionate amount of money year by year in Ireland on the administration of the country. It is one of the strong points which is constantly raised in the discussion of the financial claims of Ireland that the expense of the administration is something prodigious. Our answer to that is that we are not concerned in the administration of Ireland; we have nothing whatever to say to it. The administration of Ireland has been devised in this House; for the expenses of that administration this House is responsible, and, as far as we are concerned, Ireland derives absolutely nothing from the amount of money you spend on the various swarms of officials in that country. If this argument is supposed to be a really strong and tangible one, you have a very easy remedy. If this House would approve of the appointment of a Commission of practical Irishmen to go into the figures of the administration of the country, and would undertake that whatever money was saved as the result of that Commission should be devoted to Irish purposes, I am perfectly certain that any body of intelligent Irishmen would be able to effect very considerable retrenchments in the expenses of Irish administration. As to the argument that for Irish purposes England has contributed, and continues to contribute, enormous, sums of money, many Parliamentary

    1071
    Papers and numerous speeches in Hansard make it perfectly plain that for every one of those generous contributions there was a very considerable quid pro quo given by Ireland. All those contributions from time to time were made in return for financial concessions on the part of Ireland, by which England was invariably the gainer. When we are told of the Imperial expenditure in Ireland, one is tempted to ask what is the Imperial expenditure in England? How much is spent in building men-of-war in England and in Ireland respectively? How much is spent on dockyards at Plymouth, Ports-mouth, and other places in England, and how much is spent in Ireland in the same direction? Why, there is not a single dockyard in Ireland, although over one hundred years ago you promised that one should be established. The question of the great prosperity of Ireland under English rule has been threshed out so often that it is practically threadbare and not worth discussing. We should probably be told—it is a favourite argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the deposits in the Irish savings banks have increased, and that fact will be heralded forth as an evidence of the great advance in the prosperity of Ireland. I would very much like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or anyone who puts forward that argument, to state the amount of the deposits in the English savings banks. It is understood that the amount of those deposits is such that the Post Office does not know what to do with the money. If a comparison was made between the deposits in the two countries, as an evidence of increasing prosperity, Ireland would show up very poorly as compared with England. I desire to direct the attention of the I House to one or two small details in connection with the financial question. As was pointed out last night, there are so many ways in which England makes money out of Ireland without any acknowledgment being made that it is impossible to go into them all, but there are one or two points to which I will refer. First, there is the question of the redemption of the quit and crown rents in Ireland. It is very difficult to arrive at the figures, as the redemption has been going on ever since the Land Purchase Acts came into operation, and, of course, will continue for a number of years to come. As far as I understand it, what-
    1072
    ever money is derived from the redemption of these quit rents is devoted not to Irish but to English purposes. We hold that instead of devoting this money to the purchase of properties of the Crown in England or to the discharge of liabilities on Crown properties in England, it would be much more in accordance with justice if this money, which is essentially Irish, were devoted to Irish purposes. This is a matter which, perhaps, has been forgotten or overlooked by the representative of Ireland, but it is one we are not disposed to allow to remain in abeyance much longer. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will inform us how much money has been received from the redemption of Irish quit and Crown rents, and to what purposes that money has been devoted. We would insist that the money so derived hitherto and to be derived should be devoted to Irish purposes. Then there is the agricultural grant in connection with the Irish Local Government Act. When that Act was introduced I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that we were to receive about £750,000. As it has worked out, however, we have received only about £720,000. There may be nothing in it, but the feeling in Ireland is that there is a grievance in this matter, and I shall be obliged if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us some information on the point. Another point as to which considerable doubt exists, which we are extremely anxious should be cleared up, is the question of Irish lunatic asylum finance. According to our contention the Treasury have made a profit of about £120,000 out of the rearrangement of the finances of the Irish asylums in connection with the Irish Local Government Act. I should be extremely glad if it is wrong, but my information is somewhat to this effect: In the old days, before the Irish Local Government Act was passed, the financial year of the lunatic asylums ended on 31st December, and the arrangement was that the Imperial Treasury gave a subsidy of 4s. a week, or half the amount per head paid by the local taxpayers—whichever was the smaller amount—for every lunatic treated in the asylums. Under the recent Act this arrangement ceased, and certain fixed sums are to be paid. This charge is to be met out of the Local Taxation Account for Ireland. That account opened on 31st March, while the old

    1073
    Asylums Account ended on 31st December, and apparently the matter has been so arranged that the Treasury have escaped paying their contribution for the period between 31st December, 1898, and 31st March, 1899. The exact amount is a matter for the calculation of experts, but the general opinion is that the Treasury have made about £120,000 by the transaction. The original Treasury liability was called a "refund," and was in respect of payments already made. Under the new arrangement the Treasury contribution goes under the name of a "grant," and is supposed to be in respect of future payments. On that understanding it would seem that about £120,000 remains due to Ireland for the period I have named. The matter has already been brought to the notice of the House by a question to the Irish Secretary—whose absence, especially on account of its cause, I regret very much, and all of us hope we shall see him in his place again before long. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give a satisfactory explanation. I have only raised this question as one of the many details of Irish finance. Many others could be raised, but I do not propose to raise them now. We have put forward this Amendment for the purpose of asserting our position in this country, and emphasising the opinion of Ireland that it labours under a distinct grievance which, throughout the whole of this session, as far as the forms of the House will allow us, we shall continue to press upon the House, and, whether we receive justice or not, we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that we have done our duty.
    Amendment proposed—
    "At the end of the Question, to add the words, But we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the over taxation of Ireland, which promises to become greatly aggravated by the expenditure on the war in South Africa, is a most serious and pressing grievance, and demands the early attention of Parliament with a view to its removal.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. LOUGH: There is only one observation made by the hon. Member this evening with which I have the slightest disposition to differ. He said it was very difficult to say anything
    1074
    new upon this question of Irish taxation. Unless Irishmen are able to say something new upon this matter they will never get their grievances redressed. This House does not care about archaeology. It is useful, perhaps, to explain what mistakes were made in 1853, and the Royal Commission in 1894 made a splendid contribution to our history of Ireland. This House, however, pushes these things aside. It says they are past, and if you cannot show us that at the present moment you have a grievance of a pressing nature it is no use complaining. As I am strongly impressed with the belief that this grievance is one of the most acute that Parliament has got to deal with, and is growing more acute every day, I venture to make a few observations in this debate. I shall best make my point by alluding to a speech of the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman has made three speeches on Irish taxation—the first was bad, the second was worse, and the third was the worst of all. No one appreciates more than I do the good feeling which the right hon. Gentleman has shown towards Ireland, and no one appreciates more than myself the useful character of some of the measures he has passed for Ireland. But it is very curious how his mind comes back to this financial question, and deals with it more inadequately upon every fresh occasion. The last speech he made was a very short but emphatic one. It was made during the recess, and he was drawing a parallel between the difficulties and grievances in South Africa and Ireland. I think Ireland might have been left alone in that connection. His argument went to show how just it was for the House of Commons to try and redress the grievances of the Uitlanders in the Transvaal, and he endeavoured to show that the Uitlanders' grievances were much more acute than the Irish grievances, and he mentioned them one after the other, and amongst others he alluded to the taxation grievance. He said that—
    "…. The Irish people allege that they are overtaxed when compared with the English. Personally I think just the reverse, and I have given my reasons for that opinion in a very elaborate form, open to anybody to discuss and to criticise, and, if they can, to answer. Even the Irishmen who most believe in Ireland's financial grievances will hardly

    1075
    maintain that they are taxed at £16 per head, which is what the Uitlanders are taxed at."*
    The argument is that because the Uitlanders pay £16 per head, their grievance is greater than the Irish. The sum now paid by Irishmen amounts to 60s. per head. At the commencement of the present reign the total amount of local and Imperial taxation was 16s. per head, but since that time it has been doubled twice. That is, of course, even now very different to the Uitlanders' proportion, but mark the difference in the position of the two. There are no gold mines in Ireland. The great feature of Irish geography is a huge bog, and £16 per head can be more easily paid by the Uitlander than the smaller sum of 60s. by the Irishman. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit that nothing can be gained by comparing figures so different as the Uitlanders' and the Irish, and what should be compared is the principle of taxation. Let us do so for a moment. What was the principle upon which President Kruger imposed his taxes? It was this—that the richer the Uitlanders became and the more numerous they were, the more he would make them pay towards the taxation of the country. What is the principle this House follows in Ireland? It is that the poorer Ireland becomes and the fewer her population, the more this House will make her pay. If that is the truth, I bring against this House the gravest charge that can be put into human words. It is an evil which does not exist in any other civilised country, and I question if there is any other country where wealth and population are declining, and where taxation is increasing, as in Ireland. To find taxes constantly increasing under such circumstances is certainly one of the most extraordinary things that can be imagined. And it is for this reason that I say this Irish grievance is growing more acute. The people are getting fewer and the wealth is getting less, but this House is continually thrusting increased burdens of taxation upon them. My Irish friends have said that this Report of the Royal Commission has been neglected. When the Report of the Royal Commission was presented to this House there were three courses open to it. One course
    *Speech of Mr. A. J. Balfour, at Dewsbury, 28th November, 1899.
    1076
    would have been for this House instantly to have said, "This is a serious matter; let us put this grievance right and reduce this burden of over-taxation." Another course would have been to let the matter alone, and say, "We will not reduce taxation, neither will we increase it." A third course—and I think everybody will agree the worst course—would have been for this House, after the Commission had reported, to go on increasing the taxes in a worse way than it had ever done before. It is this third and the worst course exactly that has been followed by this House. The figures are most extraordinary. Almost every Irish tax has been raised since that Commission reported, and the sum of £700,000 a year more was collected during the last financial year than in the year when the Commission reported. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that this was caused simply by the normal operation of our system, but that is precisely what my hon. friends protest against and declare to be unjust. Perhaps some English Member will urge, "We have been treated in England in the same way;" but I contend that they have not been treated in the same way. They never were treated in the same way, for the English, Welsh, or Scotch Members would not stand it for an hour, and I am astonished at the patience with which my hon. friends the Irish Members have borne this burden. What is the case of the British? We must remember that great division which God has made between the two countries. There are two islands separated from each other; one is called Great Britain and the other Ireland. Our Chancellors of the Exchequer have tried to mix up the accounts of the two countries, but they have not succeeded. It is just as hard to mix them as to try and join the two islands together. What is the case of Great Britain as compared with Ireland? There has been a great increase of many millions in the wealth of Great Britain, and there has also been an increase of population. The increase in the wealth of Great Britain cannot be computed, and it has been mildly put at £50,000,000 per annum, in the revenue of the country. In England the increase of taxation has gone step by step with an increase of population and an increase of wealth. But how has it gone in Ireland? There the increase of taxation

    1077
    has gone on with a decrease of population and a decrease of wealth. That is really the only point I want to make, because I believe if we could awaken the conscience of this House to the magnitude of this evil—and I believe in the justice of this House when it understands a question—it would become more sympathetic. The reason the House does not take up this question is because it is a question of figures, and it does not understand it. Although I am dealing mainly with principles, let me offer one practical illustration of how the system works. I will give a striking figure to prove the decrease of the wealth and population of Ireland. My hon. friend who has just spoken has said something upon that point, and I will not repeat anything he has said. I only wish to give the House one figure, and it is such an astounding figure that I did not care to quote it without first writing to the Local Government Board in Dublin to correct it and bring it down to the year 1898. It is the return of pauperism in Ireland. I am going to ask the House to bear with me while I quote three very simple figures from this astounding document. I will state the proportion between the population and pauperism at three periods. The periods are 1864, 1894, and 1898. I may be asked why I take the year 1864. The reason is because the returns were commenced in that year, and it was a fair normal year. I take 1894 to show the facts when the Commission reported, and 1898 to show the present position. I hope that selection will be admitted to be fair. Omitting the odd figures, the population in 1864 was 5,640,000, and in 1894, 4,600,000. In 1864 the total number of paupers returned by the Local Government Board in Ireland was 295,000, and in 1894, 437,000, with a population a million less. Let me put the matter in another way. In 1864 the proportion of pauperism to population was 52 per 1,000, and in 1894 95 per 1,000. British Members in this House pay great attention to pauperism—they understand its importance—and may I appeal to them to observe that while pauperism has, thank God, fallen one-half in this country, pauperism in Ireland has almost doubled. I will give further figures. In 1894 the number of paupers was 437,000, and in 1898 526,000—an increase of 90,000 in four years, and the proportion per thousand
    1078
    had risen from 95 to 115. These are the most astounding figures presented to this House for many years. I believed from my own experience in Ireland that the figures were bad, but I had no idea that such a state of affairs existed, and before venturing to make a statement in the House of Commons I had the figures I have quoted confirmed by the Local Government Board. In Ireland taxation is constantly increasing while that phenomenon of decreasing wealth has to be dealt with. Let me deal with one other point. The English are very ingenious in meeting the arguments of the Irish, and they say, "Well, although you have very poor districts in the west of Ireland and a great many paupers, yet there are a great many well-to-do people, and their condition is improving, so that notwithstanding the appalling figures you have given the state of Ireland is better than you have led the House to suppose." I will give an answer to that argument. The Irish had a great genius for dealing with questions of finance, and it was agreed at the discussion which took place between the two Parliaments at the end of the last century that there would come a time when it would be possible to measure the conditions of Ireland and Great Britain respectively, and that that time would be when a common tax was levied on the same principle in both countries. There is such a common tax now. It is not equally just in both Countries—it is just in Great Britain and unjust in Ireland—but it is levied on the same principle. I allude to the income tax. These great financial authorities at the end of the last century, among whom I include Pitt, agreed that when such a tax was levied for a large number of years it would be possible to judge the progress of the two countries by watching its operation. For the last five or six years income tax at the rate of 8d. in the £ has been levied in these two interesting islands, on the same principle, by the same authority, and passing into the same Treasury. In 1895 in Ireland income tax produced £18,000 more than it produced last year, while in Great Britain last year it produced nearly £2,000,000 more than it did in 1895. That proves that in Ireland the condition of the rich marches with the condition of the poor, and that they too are worse off than they were. I have given the House figures

    1079
    with reference to pauperism and the produce of the income tax, and, tested by either, this grievance is proved to be most acute and dangerous in Ireland. I will now deal with another British objection. The defenders of the British position may say, "How can this be?" I would ask them to drop the "how" and say, "Is this true?" But the British will not be satisfied unless the Irish answer every poser put to them. They will never deal with an Irish grievance unless they understand it. They ask, "How can such a great grievance arise under a common system of taxation?" There have been three systems of taxation in Ireland during the century, all equally oppressive. The first was a system of unequal taxation. Ireland was simply robbed under that, because whenever the English wanted to take off a tax they merely put a stop to a tax which only existed in England. That grievance became so flagrant that equal taxation was resolved upon, but under that system selected articles were taxed which pressed more hardly on Ireland than on England, and the result was as bad under equal as it was under unequal taxation. Then a third and a worse system than either has arisen lately. It is the collection of too much taxation and the giving back of a certain amount in grants. I believe the real object for which that system was established was to facilitate the plunder of Ireland; otherwise the system would have no meaning. What is the object of asking Great Britain to pay too much, and then giving the balance back. This House discovered only five taxes that would be at all productive in Ireland. Almost the only thing which would pay that was left out was the potato, and the House said, "Now, we must never part with any of the taxes on these articles." Then came the time when taxation realised too much, and the system arose of giving grants. Of course, the machinery was at hand for cheating Ireland, and this House used it. It gave grants to England and forgot Ireland. We have had an illustration of that in the present Parliament. The House has no historic memory and no continuity of policy—to which may be attributed some of our international and other dangers at the present moment—and the grants which were given by the present Parliament differed in their nature from previous grants. How has the
    1080
    present Parliament treated Ireland? In 1896 a large grant was given to land, and Ireland received only £180,000 instead of £800,000. In 1898 this House admitted it was wrong, and gave Ireland the larger sum. Now the House cannot have been right in both years, but its action is an example of how Ireland is treated under this system of grants. I will mention a smaller example. On what principle is the Science and Art Grant made? One would have thought that if there were to be a selection, the larger amount would be given to the poorer country, and to the country which had the greater artistic faculty to work on. On that principle the larger sum would go to Ireland, because the people are more artistic and have more time to devote to the work. It, however, gets not a twentieth or a twelfth—the proportion it pays of some taxes—but a fifty-ninth of the grant. In London alone about £35,000 a year is given, whereas the whole amount given to Ireland is only about £5,000. Without going into details, I have shown the principle on which Ireland has been invariably treated. Every system has been to the detriment of Ireland, The last point I have to mention is a very strong one, and refers to the war. I can see that my friends from Ireland mean to develop this point as the session goes on. In both the great wars of the century Ireland was treated in the most cruel way. In the Crimean War the tax was raised in Ireland and Great Britain. When that war was over it was taken off in Great Britain, but it has never been reduced a penny in Ireland. Then in the French War that culminated in the battle of Waterloo the tax was raised in Great Britain and Ireland; in the year after Waterloo £20,000,000 was struck off the British tax, but no corresponding reduction was made in Ireland. You will make this war a pretext for raising the taxes again, and when the war is over you will again forget to take them off. Now, I maintain that you cannot get money for this war from Ireland, because she has not got it to give you. The Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles, but if you do get anything it will be at a terrible expense of life. Even now the income tax does not produce so much as it did. Ireland has voted against you; all her people, or a large majority of them, are solid against you. The bulk of opinion in Ireland does not approve

    1081
    of the war, and in making the protest which they make by this Amendment the Irish people make a perfectly just protest which I commend to the sympathy of the House.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: The answer to the charge that the hon. Member has made that we heap heavier taxes on Ireland and the people grow poorer is that the taxes have not been raised in Ireland up to the same level as in Great Britain, and that the people are able to consume more taxable commodities, and that seems to show that they are growing, not poorer, but richer.
    MR. LOUGH: A clear £700,000 was the result of the fresh taxes imposed in 1894 and 1896.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: The hon. Member apparently refers to the whisky tax.
    MR. LOUGH: No, the income tax and the death duties.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: Then I gather that the hon. Gentleman means that the disparity is increased by the income tax and the taxation of property passing at death. I am perfectly sure that Irishmen will not endorse that statement. In considering fixed taxation on certain commodities you must assume, if it is found that fewer people produce a greater amount, that those people are getting not worse but better off. It is a sign of increased prosperity that they can consume more taxable articles. Now, the hon. Baronet just now appeared unhappy because our answer to the party which he adorns has been that Ireland has no financial grievance at all. That is a satisfactory answer. In assuming that Ireland has a grievance we must see how the individual is situated. It is said that the grievance is the grievance of the nation and not an individual grievance of the people forming that nation. Of course, if the individual grievance is nothing, the nation has no grievance. Now, the individual living in Ireland has no grievance whatever. He pays the same taxation as people living here.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: What about the Union?
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: The hon. Member asks about the Act of Union. Several hon. Gentlemen have referred to the Act of Union, but they have not read the words of the seventh section to the House. That section, after providing for a declaration of indiscriminate taxation, provides that the Parliament of the United Kingdom
    "May from time to time, as circumstances may require, impose and apply such taxes" [equal on same articles] "subject only to such particular exemptions or abatements in Ireland, and in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, as circumstances may appear from time to time to demand."
    That section appears quite unnecessary. It is an inherent power of any Government to do that at any time. Under that Ireland was exempted from land tax, house tax, passenger duty, and establishment charges. It is not only in the Treaty itself that Parliament has the right to make exemptions and abatements. We have had this point put to us as settled by authorities on taxation. The Commission which decided it consisted of very eminent financiers, and originally consisted of thirteen members, ten of whom were Irish or drawn from that section of the British who are more Irish than the Irish themselves. That mixture not being strong enough, two more Irish were added to the Commission. The report gave two pages of agreed report and 200 of different reasons, and the two pages which were agreed did not answer anything at all. The hon. Baronet said that in the matter of taxation for this war Irishmen will pay a disproportionate share—
    SIR T. G. ESMONDE: On the basis of the finding of the Royal Commission.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: If it falls on taxable commodities it presses the individual. The individual who drinks whisky will pay a disproportionate share as against that paid by a less convivial character, just as he will in England. The hon. Member for Islington suggested you ought to have given larger grants to Ireland in matters of technical instruction, but the Irish decline to recognise what they call a miserable apology for a set off by liberality in matters of expenditure. I hope hon. Members opposite will press this to a division, because I desire to see how many there are who suggest that England should pay more in order that Ireland may pay less.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: We are now discussing a question in which the majority of Irish Members say that by a clever arrangement of this country Ireland is monstrously overtaxed: yet the benches opposite present the appearance they usually do on a full-dress Indian debate. They do not think it worth while to come down and hear our criticisms. I am glad the hon. Gentleman did not deliver his speech in the presence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, because they take very different views. His argument is that as taxation falls on the unit it does not matter where that unit lives. The First Lord of the Admiralty, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the father of the expression that Ireland was a separate fiscal unit. He acknowledged it in 1891. We all knew, and the right hon. Gentleman knew, because he was a well-informed man, the real condition of Ireland, but the bulk of the English people could not know that Ireland was overtaxed to the extent of two and a half millions per annum. But I need not go into those details now, and the House would not care to listen to me if I did. The Amendment complains of over-taxation now, and that it will be undoubtedly enhanced by the present war. I differ from the hon. Member for Islington in believing that what took place at the time of the Union is no longer interesting. The 7th Section of the Act of Union was wholly ignored, or rather, was ruthlessly violated. At the time of the Union both Irish and English statesmen saw that it would have the effect of robbing Ireland by unfairly taxing her in the event of a war. The last Speaker of the Irish House of Commons, Mr. Foster, was the greatest fiscal authority of his time. For sixteen years after the Union we had in the English House an Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer to guard our interests, and Mr. Foster was Chancellor of the Exchequer for some time. He strongly opposed the Union for fiscal reasons, and I will just quote a sentence from a speech made a century ago which is applicable at the present time. Mr. Foster said that Mr. Pitt wanted the Union not from any desire to reform the Irish Constitution, but in order to take the guardianship of the people's purse out of the hands of the Irish representatives, so that Ireland might be unfairly taxed in the event of a war. Mr. Pitt attempted to buy and stop
    1084
    Mr. Foster's mouth by writing a letter, which I have seen, attempting to bribe him with the offer of an English peerage in order to get his vote. I will not say more about the Act of Union except this. The object of the seventh section of the Act of Union was that the National Debts of the two countries before the date of the Union should be kept separate, and that Ireland, in matters of taxation, should be treated with consideration and with an absolute regard to her ability to pay taxes, and that in the event of a surplus from Irish sources it should be expended upon Irish purposes. I would implore the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to rely on the authority of Mr. Gladstone (as did the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1870) for supporting the present financial system between England and Ireland. The First Lord of the Admiralty wrote an article upon the subject in the Contemporary Review, and Mr. Gladstone, speaking on the merits of the article, said that Ireland loudly and bitterly complained that England had failed to deal justly with her, and that after some inquiry into a very intricate subject he was compelled to agree. When the income tax was first imposed in 1853 the great majority of the people voted against it through thick and thin, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that this tax will not be cheerfully paid. We know that Ireland has been mercilessly robbed under the Act of Union. The truth is that the Government enforce the Act of Union when it tells against Ireland, and ignore it when it is in her favour. The passing of the 7th Article of the Act of Union arranged that Ireland should have separate taxation, and should be separately considered, and above all, that the pre-Union debt of four hundred and fifty millions should never be charged to Ireland. It was only owing to the insertion of that article that the Act of Union was carried even in the bribed Parliament of that day. What followed? The amalgamation of the Exchequers took place when Ireland had a public debt of only 28 millions, and one million of a rent charge, while England at the same time had a debt of 450 millions, with 17 millions of a rent charge. An hon. Member tells us that Parliament had a perfect right to repeal the 7th Article of the Act of Union; but the Act of Union was more than an Act of Parliament. The Act of Union was a treaty between

    1085
    two great contracting powers, between two nations. I will not trouble the House with the details of it, which are well enough known already. But we must recollect how the Act of Union was carried as between one legislature and another. Mr. Pitt was fully alive to this. He was asked what guarantee would be given by the House of Commons, on the 21st April, 1800, that the provisions of the 7th Article of the Act would not be violated. We know what Mr. Pitt's strictures were. In his loftiest style he said: "If I were asked, 'What security would you give to Ireland for the performance of the 7th Article?' I would answer, None; the liberality, the honour, and the love of justice of the people of Great Britain have never yet Seen found deficient." I say, "Go and tell that to the Boers!" O'Connell in 1843 characterised the Union as "a gross financial swindle," and said that if his advice, as a lawyer, were asked in regard to a proposed partnership between a man owing 21 millions and a man owing 450 millions he would be inclined to say to the attorney, "Is our poor client on the way to a lunatic asylum?" This over taxation of Ireland will be protested against with the vigour of one voice and one party acting together in unison. It will be raised again and again, because this Act of Union, under which this wrong and injustice has been perpetrated, is an unconscionable wrong so great that the gentlemen who committed it would disgrace the dock of the Central Criminal Court. In season and out of season we shall protest against this malicious wrong till it be righted, for we believe that our efforts have the sympathy of the world.
    MR. RENTOUL: I hope my hon. friend will not press this motion to a division, especially when I remind him of what took place last year. He is perfectly well aware that Members on this side of the House join with him and his colleagues in this matter. He will recollect that there is one thing both he and his opponents were careful to insist upon, namely, that there should be nothing done to put us in a definite position, and when it was proposed that the matter should be brought up again we were all anxious that it should not be brought up in such a way as to imply a vote of censure. Under these circumstances, and seeing what took
    1086
    place then, I would put it to my hon. friend not to go to a division on this matter this evening, for the simple reason that we feel it is absolutely necessary to go into the other lobby. He knows that since this session began there has been proposed a vote of censure on the Government in connection with this war. He knows that even this Amendment is mixed up with the war, and as soon as any mention of the war is made in an Amendment for one would vote against it. If the matter is deferred till a time when a vote can be taken without implying censure on the Government, hon. Members opposite will find that I and my colleagues in Ulster have not changed our minds. I think the discussion that has taken place has served a good purpose. It is necessary to keep the ball rolling. As to what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal, it was largely a repetition of what has gone before; at the same time that is no reason why the matter should not be brought up again and again. The desire in the heart of everyone in the Committee Room upstairs was that Irish Members should all act together. Moreover, after what has been said by the hon. Member, the leader of the Irish Unionist party, for whom our estimation is miles higher than before, I ask my hon. friends, for the sake of Auld Lang Syne, not to press the Amendment to a division, but reserve it for another and more convenient season, when Unionist Members from Ireland can support it without joining in a vote of censure on the Government.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I had not intended taking part in this debate, but after the speech of the hon. Member for East Down I think I should offer some answer to the remarks he has made. Considering the past relations between us and the Members for whom he speaks, it would scarcely be courteous on my part unless I made some answer. I will endeavour to explain in a few sentences how the matter presents itself to my mind. I believe that a great many Members are deterred from taking part in these debates by the idea that this is a very difficult and complicated question, and that in order to understand it it is necessary to study deeply the history of the past, and to pore over the

    1087
    evidence contained in bulky Blue-books. I do not take that view at all. It seems to me in essence a question that is easily and simply understood. An hon. Member opposite has told us that he has read every word of the evidence given before the Royal Commission, but I must say, without meaning any disrespect to him, that if he has done so he has exhibited a lamentable ignorance of the question as it presents itself to us. Here is a treaty made between two nations on certain terms. One of those terms is that the Irish nation, one of the parties to the treaty, was never to be taxed beyond her relative capacity to bear taxation. Ireland under that treaty, or Act of Union, was to contribute to the Imperial expenditure only in proportion to her resources. The hon. Member for the Thirsk Division quoted two or three words from the seventh article of the treaty, and put a construction of his own upon it, but if anybody is uncertain as to the meaning and wants to interpret that article, surely the reasonable thing would be to go back to the declarations of English statesmen at the time when the treaty was made. Mr. Pitt, Lord Castlereagh, and other Englishmen at the time declared that the meaning of that seventh article was that Ireland should never be taxed beyond her relative taxable capacity, and Lord Castlereagh stated that the ratio of Ireland's contribution must ever correspond with her relative wealth and prosperity. There fore the question is quite a simple one, and all these speeches going into elaborate details are beside the issue. The question is a simple one, and it is this—it has not been denied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury that under the Act of Union Ireland is only entitled to be taxed according to her relative taxable capacity. The plain issue therefore is, is she taxed more than she ought to be, and beyond her taxable capacity, and if she is, are you going to repudiate the treaty of Union? Now, on the question as to whether Ireland is taxed beyond her relative capacity there cannot be any doubt. The Royal Commission found she was, and that since 1753 the taxation of Ireland has been doubled, whilst the taxation of England has been largely diminished, and nobody who heard the speech of the hon. Member for West Islington could fail to be struck by the extraordinary figures he
    1088
    gave the House. During the period when the taxation of Ireland was doubled and that of England diminished the pauperism of Ireland increased from 294,000, or 54 per thousand of the population, to 536,000, or 105 per thousand of the population, and during the same period the prosperity of England increased and the pauperism of England diminished by one-half. These figures, to my mind, are extraordinary in their significance, and I say there is no answer to the judgment of the Royal Commission that Ireland is to-day taxed beyond her relative capacity to bear taxation. If that be so, I say that the only answer left to you is a repudiation of the Act of Union, and I say it is a serious question for the Unionist party to take up that position on this question. I do not intend to delay the House further than to say that this, question has now been before the country and Parliament for several years. I admit in the frankest and fullest way that the Irish Unionist opinion is on our side in this matter. The right hon. and gallant Member who leads the Irish Unionist party in this House presided at a conference of Irish Members held upstairs, and with one or two exceptions the Irish Unionist Members were in thorough sympathy with our demands, and up to a certain point they gave us considerable assistance. But what has happened? We have argued this question and they have argued it. We have had full-dress debate after full-dress debate. But have we got any further? Sir, we have not advanced one single inch. I had almost said we had gone back, in spite of the help the Irish Unionist Members opposite have given us in making effective debates and arguments upon this question. Now, what are we to do under the circumstances? We are driven back to the old position which we always in the past adopted when we wanted to force a remedy for any grievances upon this House. We have tried argument, we have tried appeals coming from a practically united Ireland, and we have failed. What are we to do? The hon. Member for East Down says everything on this question has been heard on both sides, but I argue that from time to time the question ought to be brought up again, and we ought to have more full dress, debates. Does he not know as a practical man that by such proceedings we would not advance our case a single inch in our lifetime?
    MR. RENTOUL: Will pressing the matter to a division now advance it?
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: As a practical man the hon. Member must know that the only chance we have of bringing this question to a successful issue is to make it a troublesome, and, if possible, a dangerous question for every English party which may be in power to ignore and despise. I therefore take the view that this question must be pressed upon the attention of the House of Commons and the Government, and not by a series of full-dress debates only. I think the proper action for us to take is to press it forward on every stage of the Budget. It ought to be pressed forward at every stage of the Budget, and of course if we take that course our friends opposite cannot follow us, becouse they naturally would not take part in an attempt to defeat the Government on the Budget, and it seems, therefore, if we are to listen to the appeal made to us and fall in with the view now expressed, that we ought to take no really serious action upon this question in attempting to force it on the Government. I and my colleagues of this side are not content to let these full-dress debates go on and to leave the Government in peace. I am in favour of dividing on this question, because it will impress upon the Government that we are determined to take an aggressive and militant attitude on this question, and to make it a troublesome one in the future. Let me put this to the House. If this question is to be brought to a successful issue by an expression of opinion from the Unionist Members for Ireland, we have got that and will always get it, because, whether or not we divide, hon. Members such as those who have just spoken will not go back on their opinions, but will always say we are right in asking for a redress of this grievance. We shall not lose anything by their not voting; we have got the value of their opinions. What we mean by going to a division is that we are prepared to take independent action, and to make this question a real trouble and danger to the Government on every possible occasion. I hope the hon. and learned Member will not think I have answered his appeal in either a discourteous or unreasonable way; I have endeavoured to answer it in a frank way, and I hope the House will understand our position.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): It is not for me to suggest to those who take a different view to mine how best they may promote their view, but I very much doubt if any good has really been done to their cause by those who desire to follow the policy suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in bringing forward the question now. I will not attempt to detain the House at this moment, when time is so important, by dwelling on arguments used in past debates. It has been said again and again on either side that the whole question has been thoroughly threshed out on more than one occasion during the present Parliament, and I do not think we need go back to-night to the great principles that divide us upon these matters, and the arguments by which those principles are supported. But I demur entirely, and in a few sentences will state my reasons, to the view the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has expressed, that the Act of Union requires that the taxation of Ireland is to be decided according to the taxable capacity of Ireland, and that any other method of dealing with the taxation of the country is a repudiation of the Act of Union. The Act of Union contemplated in the seventh article the union of the exchequers and the adoption of a common system of taxation throughout the United Kingdom. That was decided with the assent—which was a ready assent—of the representatives of Ireland in 1817, and ever since that time that has taken place which was laid down as the object to be attained in the seventh article of the Act of Union—namely, that the expenditure of the country should be defrayed indiscriminately by taxes upon the same articles in the two countries; then comes the proviso, on which alone the case of the hon. Members opposite rests, "subject only to such exemptions and abatements as circumstances appear from time to time to demand."
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting, but may I say that I interpret these words by the statements of Mr. Pitt and Lord Castlereagh.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I interpret the words of the Act of Union by the Act of Union itself. Parliament, long ago, as I have said, with the assent of the Irish representatives of that date, adopted this

    1091
    equal system of taxation on the same articles throughout the United Kingdom; and I hope with all my heart that Parliament will not depart from that position. I will not deal at length with this question of exemptions and abatements. I will only say that, as far as I am concerned, I accept the view laid down last session by my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury in a speech which has been very much discussed in the course of this debate—namely, that the proviso, whatever it meant, had no reference to any periodical calculation of the taxable capacity of different parts of the United Kingdom, whether of Scotland or Ireland; or to any attempt based on such a calculation to adapt the taxation in these countries on that basis. It simply referred to this, that care should be taken, as care had been taken for the previous 100 years in Scotland, that taxes should not unfairly oppress individuals or industries in one country as compared with the others. That really in my belief was the intention of the framers of the proviso. That was the way it was understood for more than a hundred years in Scotland, and it was adopted in the Act of Union for Ireland from the Act of Union between England and Scotland. All this notion of taxable capacity as connected with a common system of taxation is, in my belief, entirely an erroneous offspring from the report of the Royal Commission. Having said that much I will confine myself to an attempt to deal with what seems to be the object of this motion. It is, no doubt—and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford so indicated—a sort of preliminary skirmish on a question of which we may expect to hear a great deal in the course of the session, but it has also been raised, perhaps mainly raised, at the present time with reference to expenditure on the war. Hon. Members below the gangway opposite object to the war, and they will object, I do not doubt, to all expenditure on the war, and from that point of view they are perfectly justified in opposing any proposals for increase of taxation on account of war expenditure and in taking such a course as they may think right and proper for resisting them. But if I may dismiss for a moment, by way of argument, the question of the requirements of the Act of Union, let me say that the imposition of increased taxation
    1092
    on Ireland on account of the war cannot on any other ground create any injustice to Ireland. The hon. Baronet opposite, the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland, spoke and voted against the war the other night, and he will, no doubt, oppose taxation on account of the war as strongly as Members from. Ireland; but, assuming that the majority of this House is of a different opinion, he will be in a minority, and he and his constituents will not have the faintest reason, to complain of any injustice with regard to the result. The only way, therefore, in which this question, the expenditure on the war, is really relevant to the matter of Irish financial relations is that, in the opinion of the hon. Member for North Dublin, if there should be—upon which in February I certainly express no opinion—an increase of taxation on account of the war that increase will aggravate what he considers the present injustice to Ireland. I would just observe in passing that it does not at all follow, assuming there be injustice to Ireland in the present system, that it would be aggravated by an increase of taxation. Hon. Members who have examined this question know that a greater percentage of certain taxes, according to the calculations which have been made of the true revenue raised in both countries, is raised in Ireland, as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, than of other taxes. For example, suppose—hon. Members will remember I am not in any way suggesting anything with regard to future taxation; it is much too early in February to do that—but suppose for a moment that it was necessary to raise revenue by largely increased taxation on account of the war, and that the whole of the increase, was raised by direct taxation, certainly that would not aggravate any injustice Members from Ireland complain of; that must be admitted by hon. Members opposite. The simple fact is this—Ireland pays a very much less proportion of direct taxation than she pays of indirect taxation, or of direct and indirect taxation taken together. I will give an instance from what happened last session. It was a small matter, but I had to increase taxation by something like £900,000 a year, and I increased the stamp duties, mainly, if not entirely, on documents connected with Stock Exchange transactions, and I placed an increased duty on wine. Now, was that an aggravation of the injustice to Ireland?
    MR. CLANCY: Certainly.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Then why did not hon. Members oppose it on that ground? Upon the ground that it aggravated the injustice to Ireland there was not a single protest against the Budget of last session.
    MR. CLANCY: The more shame to Irish Members.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not venture to suggest that Irish Members neglected their duty.
    MR. CLANCY: It is an invitation to us this session, and I hope we shall not neglect it.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I should not have given the invitation if I had not had the promise already. I believe that hon. Members on that occasion did not neglect their duty, and I am convinced that if those who have studied this question had seen an increase of injustice last year they would have opposed the proposal on that ground. Let me say something more. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Islington on this subject, to which he has given great attention. From his point of view the injustice which he holds Ireland has to complain of under the present system is a growing injustice. Very well. But, even if you deal solely with the question of revenue, it certainly is not a growing injustice so far as the proportion of our revenue raised in Ireland is concerned. The Royal Commission reported upon the figures of the year 1893–94. In that year it was calculated that the total true revenue raised was £89,286,000 and the true revenue raised in Ireland £7,558,000. They reported that the proportion of the total revenue raised in Ireland was, I think, 1 in 11. Since that time that proportion has been steadily diminishing.
    MR. FLYNN: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but were those figures accepted by the Royal Commission? There were several suggestions as to making them more accurate.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I believe they are the figures on which the calcula-
    1094
    tions of the Royal Commission of the proportionate revenue of England and Ireland were based. What were the last figures presented to Parliament for the year 1898–99? The true revenue of Great Britain had increased to £108,837,000, the true revenue of Irelaud had increased to £8,202,000. The true revenue of Great Britain therefore had increased by £19,500,000, or something of that sort, and the true revenue of Ireland by about £650,000. Although it is premature to give figures with regard to the outcome of the present year, I am convinced from what I have already seen that the increase in the true revenue of Great Britain is likely to be at least £4,000,000 more than that of the year 1898–1899, while the increase in the revenue of Ireland may possibly be £250,000. The result is this—that whereas the Royal Commission reported that the proportion of the revenue of the United Kingdom raised in Ireland was one in eleven, it now comes to something like one in fifteen. What is the answer of the hon. Member for Islington? He says the wealth of Great Britain has enormously increased, and that the wealth of Ireland has diminished, that Ireland is a poorer country than she was. With regard to the years I have quoted I entirely admit that the wealth of Great Britain has largely increased; it is the fact that the main part of the great increase in revenue in Great Britain to which I have referred has arisen from increased direct taxation levied since 1893–94, from the increase of the death duties; but it arises also from an increase in the wealth of the country. Neither the income tax, nor the death duties, nor any form of direct taxation, can for a moment fairly be argued to press heavily on Ireland. The hon. Member says Ireland has become very much poorer since 1864; that is not my view. As the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division has already pointed out to the House, there has been a considerable increase since that time in the receipts from indirect taxation on dutiable articles in Ireland. There is no doubt about it, and why? Because there has been an increased consumption of those articles, some of which certainly are subject to less taxation than they were in that day.
    MR. LOUGH: On the whole the rate of taxation is more.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It may be that the rate of taxation on spirits is higher; the rate of taxation on beer is higher; but does any hon. Member desire to reduce that?
    MR. LOUGH: That is not the point.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, it is, and it is a very important point. There is not an hon. Member in this House who has suggested in the course of these debates that the rate of taxation on beer or whisky should be reduced.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I suggest it.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I beg the hon. Member's pardon for not excepting him, but that at any rate has not been the view which has been pressed on Parliament. The rate of taxation on tea has been very largely reduced, and yet the receipts from tea both in Ireland and Great Britain are unquestionably larger than they were at the date which has been mentioned. That is a proof, and if the rates of duty on beer and spirits are higher, the increased consumption of beer and spirits is even more a proof, not of increased poverty, but of increased means on the part of the nation. When the hon. Member for West Islington puts before the House an increase in the number of paupers in Ireland during the last forty years as an irrefutable argument in favour of his contention that Ireland is poorer now than she was then, is he really ignorant of the enormous, and I think most unfortunate, change in the system of Poor Law administration in Ireland, which has spread out relief over the whole of the country, whereas at the time to which he referred it was, comparatively, hardly known at all?
    MR. LOUGH: I have compared the years 1894 and 1898.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, 1864.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg your pardon. The right hon. Gentleman does not do me justice. I first took the years 1864 and 1894, and then the years 1894 and 1898. The system was thoroughly established in 1894, and I showed that the proportionate increase was far greater between 1894 and 1898 than between 1864 and 1894.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not agree with the hon. Member; I do not think the system was thoroughly established in 1894. I am afraid it has been increasing since and is increasing still; but what I have said is at any rate a complete answer to the statistics in regard to 1864. But the hon. Member went on to say that the income-tax in 1898 produces less in Ireland than it did in 1894. Does he not think there may be some reason for that besides the decrease in the wealth of Ireland? There are three reasons, to which I think some importance may be attached, as they certainly make the income tax apply more leniently to Ireland than to the rest of the United Kingdom. One reason is that there has been a considerable extension of the system of exemptions and abatements in favour of the smaller incomes, which necessarily must form a larger proportion in Ireland than in Great Britain of the whole amount on which income-tax is charged. Another is that there has been, I have no doubt, in those four years no inconsiderable increase in the number of small proprietors in Ireland, and every increase of that kind would relieve a man from income tax. When the estate of a large landowner is sold to his tenants, a property which formerly paid income tax tends to become free from it. That has been, I have no doubt, a factor of some importance of late years in Ireland. Another point in which Irish owners of property subject to income tax have an advantage over owners of such property in the rest of the United Kingdom is that in Great Britain the owner of such property is assessed at the rent which he receives from it, while in Ireland, whatever rent he receives from it, he cannot be assessed at more than Griffiths's valuation—[An HON. MEMBER: That is frequently more than the rent.]—and if that valuation is more than the rent he can claim to be assessed at the rent which he receives. I am sorry to say it is a game of "heads I win and tails you lose," and the net result is that the income tax payer in Ireland is certainly assessed on the whole more favourably for himself than he is in Great Britain. As the hon. Member raised these points, I thought it well to put before the House something which I think deserves consideration on the other side. But I must now turn to a view of this case which I know is very distasteful to

    1097
    hon. Members opposite; but I hope, as we have listened very patiently to accusations of cheating, robbery, fraud, and everything of that kind, with regard to this matter, they will hear me patiently. I have never been able to see the justice of dealing with taxation, as my hon. friend the Member for the Thirsk Division put it, on Separatist lines, and dealing with expenditure on Unionist lines. If you are to deal with taxation on separatist lines, you must also consider expenditure on the same lines. That brings me directly to the set-off which I know hon. Members opposite below the gangway never condescend to consider in respect to this matter. There have been for many years now returns annually presented to Parliament showing what is expended out of the Imperial revenue in the different parts of the United Kingdom for local purposes. [An HON. MEMBER: They are not correct.] I know the hon. Member thinks they are not correct; I know it has been said in the course of this debate that some of the local expenditure in Ireland ought to be included among Imperial expenses. For instance, the hon. Member for North Dublin told us, although he dealt with Irish revenue on Separatist lines, that it was absurd to charge against Ireland the charge for collecting that revenue.
    MR. CLANCY: Certainly, because the Act of Parliament says so.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: And he went on to say that so far from being content with the suggestion which the First Lord of the Treasury made last year, and I think made rather generously, that only half the cost of the Irish constabulary ought to be counted as an Irish local charge, he thought none of the cost of that constabulary ought to be so accounted. In other words, that Irishmen ought to keep the peace at no cost whatever to themselves.
    MR. CLANCY: You undertook the cost of keeping the peace in Ireland as the price to be paid for the injury done to Ireland by the repeal of the Corn Laws.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, I do not follow the hon. Member in that argument at all. If you are to estimate these local charges fairly in the different
    1098
    portions of the United Kingdom, you must make in each part a fair charge for the ordinary cost of keeping the peace. I have never been able to believe that under any system of Home Rule the cost of keeping the peace in Ireland would be less than it is now. ["Oh, oh!"] I feel that that is an unpopular opinion, and I do not want to press that point; but at least it must be admitted by hon. Members below the gangway that it would be advisable to have some policemen, and if they have policemen they would have to pay for them, and therefore there would have to be a charge against Ireland. The hon. Member for North Dublin told us that a good deal of this expenditure, besides that to which I have alluded, was expenditure which was forced upon Ireland, and that, at any rate, it was not expenditure which Irishmen, if left to themselves, would care to incur. I can only say with regard to such matters as the educational charge and charges for other things to Ireland which are unquestionably local charges, I never remember, in all the years during which I have had the honour of a seat in this House, any occasion on which Irish. Members of all shades of political opinions did not cheerfully welcome any expenditure, and do their best to maintain that expenditure. I do not make any complaint of that at all; I merely point out that this is expenditure which they desire, and that, therefore, they cannot exclude it on the ground of its being forced upon them in calculating what are the local charges borne on the Imperial revenue. I suggested two or three years ago that, as I knew they questioned the way in which these accounts are calculated, the matter should be further examined by a Commission, which should endeavour to arrive at a fair adjustment. That suggestion was scouted by hon. Members, and I was told that it was a fraudulent device—a kind of term which hon. Members use rather freely on this subject. They would have nothing whatever to do with it, and, therefore, I can only rest myself upon the figures as they now stand. I will briefly state to the House how these figures have altered in recent years. Whether they rest on a fair basis or not, they may at any rate be used for the purpose of comparison with different years; it was calculated upon the basis which has been adopted that in 1893–94

    1099
    Ireland's contribution to the Imperial expenditure was not one-twentieth, as it ought to be if you accept that proportion for her revenue, but one thirty-first part only; in 1897–98 that had decreased to one thirty-sixth, in 1898–99 to one forty-second, and this present year I believe it will work out at about one fifty-fifth. In other words, out of a total expenditure of £75,500,000—excluding the war expenditure—Ireland, for Imperial purposes, will pay nothing more than £1,375,000, and yet we are told that it is a gross injustice, robbery, and fraud, if Ireland is asked to pay anything towards the expenditure of this great war. I do not wish to detain the House further. I have endeavoured to address myself to what I may call new matters which have arisen in the course of this debate. On other matters I have nothing to add to what I have already said in previous debates, and, as I fear that the arguments which I have often adduced have not obtained the assent of hon. Members opposite, I have no greater hopes of converting them to-night. But this much I will say, as I have said before, that I never will consent to anything which would do what was suggested by the hon. Member for North Dublin—place the rich man in Ireland in a better position with regard to the payment of income tax than the rich man in Great Britain, or place the poor man in Ireland in a better position with regard to his tea and tobacco, his beer and his spirits, than the poor man in great Britain.
    MR. CLANCY: That is what the Act of Union says should be done.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I absolutely deny that proposition. I absolutely deny that the Act of Union said or intended anything of the kind. It would be a gross injustice to the population of the United Kingdom as a whole; and I believe that our present fiscal system, if it were fairly looked at, even by hon. Members opposite, apart from the will-o'-the-wisp light of the Report of the Royal Commission, would be found to be as fair and as equitable as any which exists in any country in the world.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, although I have always regarded him as a stern and severe taskmaster in English politics, and
    1100
    though he has always taken a strong line in rebutting our arguments, I have never regarded as personally unfriendly to Ireland. On the contrary, I have always believed, from the time when he was Chief Secretary, he would like to do something for Ireland, for, unlike some past Irish Secretaries, some of his knowledge still sticks to him. He has divided his present argument into three branches. He first scouted our argument on the Act of Union, and then he treated us to an examination of the figures based on our being Lancashire or Yorkshire. And then the third branch of his argument was: "Even granted that you are not Lancashire or Yorkshire, there is an Imperial set off of money spent in the country which suffices to repair any injustice." I should first of all like to say two or three words on the historical argument. I ask you when there is any question between any two countries as to the interpretation of a treaty, would you think it tolerable that the people in one country should be the sole arbiters of the interpretation and the construction of that treaty? You tried that on with Venezuela, and you said: "We have got the ships and we have got the men, and we will quarter up your country as we please." That was your intention, but the United States would not hear of it, and said: "No, this is a dispute between two sovereign States, and it must be referred to arbitration." And when it was referred to arbitration, as in all cases where England has been reluctant to enter upon arbitration, she got the worst of it. (Cries of "No, no.") It reflected a curious light upon the original reluctance to referring the matter to arbitration if it is now satisfactory. Ireland claims—whether rightly or wrongly is immaterial for my argument—that the construction of this treaty is not a matter for one of the parties to it. That it was a treaty is unquestionable. It was made between two countries which were separated, and between two sovereign legislatures. I say nothing now as to how the Union was produced; how all the un-bribed intellect of Ireland was against it, while, instead of there being thousands of voters as there are now in the country, the three hundred Irish Members were elected by a mere handful of votes. Well, now, is it a prudent thing for the English, who at this moment are so strong about the observance of the London Convention

    1101
    with the Boers—is it a prudent thing to suggest that we shall not have arbitration, we shall not have a court of law, and we shall only have the British Treasury to decide as to this treaty? I say that that in itself constitutes a casus belli between the two countries. Where is our remedy? You say in the Transvaal, because taxes are piled up on the Uitlanders, "We will go to war to redress that wrong." You say you have a casus belli against the Transvaal. Kruger wanted to refer the matter to arbitration, and you refused. I say when there is a question of the construction of a treaty between two countries we have a right to ask that the matter should be referred to arbitration, and that we have a casus belli if you refuse. [An HON. MEMBER: No, no!] I submit that, legally speaking, we have. Let us put it on lower ground than upon a dispute between two sovereign States. Let us suppose that we are all shareholders in a great international concern. Would you think it right that these shareholders should be denied access to the books, that they should be denied an audit, and that the books should be kept in the hands of a particular number of the directors? Supposing there was a railway and a steamship company from here to France. Suppose that the Northern Railway of France was fused with the London and Chatham Railway, would you think it right that the joint company should only have French directors, and that when the English directors demanded an audit the French directors should shrug their shoulders and refuse it? But that is the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. The whole system is English; the Treasury is English. We have not in the Government a single man to see fair play. The Irish Secretary is an Englishman or a Scotchman, which for our purpose is the same thing. The whole of the system is a British system, and we have no means of knowing how the books are kept; and even if they were kept by the most honourable set of people in the world I say it is a monstrous state of things that those who contribute some eight millions of money should be denied all access to the accounts. And then the right hon. Gentleman referred to the "true" revenue of Ireland. Why have you to speak of the "true" revenue of Ireland, and why should you have to use the word "true"? Is there a "false" revenue of Ireland? The reason is
    1102
    this: because you have so manipulated the accounts of the three countries that you have absolutely erased and eradicated any means of ascertaining the true revenue of Ireland. You have abolished for your own purpose our Custom House, though a Custom House, even if there was not a separate fiscal system, would be an enormous value to us in stowing what we exported, and so on; and if yow enabled us to see what butter we were making and what cattle we were exporting it would be like a pulsometer, and would act, at all events, for registration purposes. But because this pulsometer or register or penny in the slot system would act injuriously for your Treasury purposes the Treasury even deny us the few clerks necessary in order to know what merchandise we send away, and you decline to take any account of it. Even if the system between England and Ireland were perfect then, for the purpose of quieting your conscience and showing the world that we were getting fair play, would it not be well for you to do something. You may be the most admirable people in the world, but you are as God made you and we have our suspicions of you. And, therefore, I say if it is only for the purpose of quieting your conscience, you ought to consent to submit this matter to some impartial judge. And then the right hon. Gentleman said that we absolutely refused, and scouted any suggestion of a further Commission to inquire into the question of set-off. For my part, I am always very cautious in referring to that question, and for this reason: the Irish party at the time was divided. Mr. Sexton, who behaved with so much credit to himself and so much advantage to his country on that Commission, was no longer a Member of the House. The Member for Waterford, the other member of the Commission, was acting with a small and separate party, and accordingly we were not in a condition to approach the Government on this question with any kind of a strong hand, and we did not feel in our then condition that it was a proposition which we were in a position to entertain.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: A meeting of the Irish Members was held, and there was an actual resolution passed

    1103
    on the subject, with the hon. Member for East Mayo in the chair.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not think I myself attended that meeting, though I fully admit that it bound me, and accordingly with that resolution before us in our then somewhat distracted condition, I don't think it was an unfair thing of those asked to consider the question of this Commission to take up an attitude of hesitation upon it, when they already had the verdict of another Commission in their favour and the new one was to be manned to reverse or discredit its findings. But, at the same time, I don't think that the matter of what should be treated as Imperial and what should be treated as Irish expenditure should be entirely closed. Then let us see the nature of the set-off, which the Member for North Dublin handled so well yesterday. Take the present condition of Italy. It was determined, owing to the Triple Alliance, to keep up a certain number of regiments, with the result that every Italian peasant is ground to powder with extraordinary taxation, his bread and meat and salt being taxed, and practically there is no money in the country but paper money. Is it any satisfaction to the Italian peasant to know that at Spezzia or some other great place armaments are being heaped up, and that vessels are being filled with gunpowder and cannon, when he is absolutely rendered penniless by this extraordinary system of taxation? All these war taxes are spent in Italy for guns, ships, and soldiers. But what is the set-off to a man who wants to put salt in his porridge if he knows that some 110-ton guns are being built? Therefore I say that though there is something in a set-off it can never be considered a complete answer to our argument. I might deal with it in this way: Let us suppose that Dublin Castle is filled with rats, and that in consequence you have to find an extraordinary quantity of cat's meat. Would you consider this Castle cat's meat a set-off? No doubt for your own purpose you keep up this system of barracks, prisons, and poor-houses, and then you turn round and say to us, "We spend so much upon our Militia, so much upon our Army, so much upon guns, police, county court judges," and so on throughout the whole of the British form of administration in the
    1104
    country. What satisfaction is that to us? What satisfaction is it to that person "the man in the street," walking along Merrion Square, to know that there are four or five judges living there receiving £4,000 or £5,000 a year? What satisfaction is it to a man in Phœnix Park to know that there is a Lord Lieutenant there holding a levee who is paid £25,000 per annum, or that there are barracks on all sides at which a limited class of the population, chiefly ladies, find consolation? I think the set-off argument may be fairly pigeon-holed under the title of "the Castle cat's meat." If I were dealing with the question of set-off, I would like to divide it into two heads, reproductive and non-reproductive works. I believe if you had reproductive works set going in Ireland like you have at Woolwich or Chatham, if you had in Ireland shipbuilding yards, I think then you might fairly say, "We will treat the wages as a set-off." But salaries paid to judges as part of the machinery of oppression like policemen and soldiers, or the gunpowder kept for the collection of rent, I decline to reckon as a set-off. The right hon. Gentleman must not assume that we cannot conceive that, in certain circumstances, the question of a set-off might not fairly arise. What we do say is that the items he refers to are not a set-off. May I say one or two other words upon this question? The right hon. Gentleman, in the third part of his argument, asked us not to assume that Ireland must necessarily be taxed for this war. I would not expect any extraction of opinion from him in advance upon that point, but could he lay his hands upon his heart and say that for the last hundred years the Irish fiscal system has been a fair one to our country? I challenge him to get up and declare upon his financial conscience that that is so. He can see that it is a system which has destroyed our mills, exported our millers, levelled our distilleries, stopped our tobacco industry, ruined our weaving and flax growing, and turned the whole country into one vast grazing tract, of which the profits go into the hands of a few grazers, and I challenge him to show that it is a fair system to our country. He says that Ireland is not hit by indirect taxation, but I deny it. I say that every farthing which you exact from the country,

    1105
    whether from stamps or whisky, to which we have not given our national assent is robbery, and it is nothing else. The right hon. Gentleman says stamp duties are no injustice to Ireland. Is it no injustice to a man going into the Land court when he has to pay a shilling or ten shillings as an initial proceeding to get justice? Is it no injustice to have to pay a tax upon the formation of a tiny company? Suppose we want to get up a company for the starting of any industry in Ireland, have we not to pay the same rate of taxation as if it were a company for the starting of a gold mine in the Rand? It is the very same tax. Will any man tell me that it is the same thing to put a stamp on the formation of a colliery as to put the same stamp upon the formation of a company to start a little cloth mill in Ireland? Our industries require, to some extent at all events, to be fostered. You do not even let them alone, and I deny, when you come to consider the relative question of taxation, that Ireland should be treated in the same spirit or temper as a country with vast mineral resources. He says: "What is the harm of a tax on whisky?" The right hon. Gentleman asks: "Is anybody in favour of reducing the tax on whisky?" I am in favour of reducing the tax on everything. That is my answer. With regard to this argument I would like to see fewer public-houses in the country, temperance established, and every man a teetotaler. Nobody would more rejoice at that than myself. But I deny, in a miserable country like ours, the proposition that alcohol is necessarily a luxury. I believe tea may sometimes be a greater luxury. Take a man working as a day labourer at 1s. or 1s. 6d. per day. Perhaps he may work in a flannel jacket and get thoroughly soaked, and can spare twopence to have half a glass of whisky. I wish him joy with it, and I deny that that two pence is a portion of his luxury. In a country like that would it not be something if that man was able to buy that for a penny?—[Laughter]—Or might he not buy a red herring or a pound of bread with his spare penny? You may say he would have two glasses, and then the British taxgatherer suddenly becomes a temperance philanthropist. I deny altogether the proposition that British philanthropists and taxgatherers have a right to say, "We will keep the
    1106
    tax on whisky." Tax beer similarly to whisky, and then we will talk to you. How long does the right hon. Gentleman think he would occupy his honourable office if he taxed beer as he does whisky? The right hon. Gentleman also used this argument with regard to paupers—I never will be a statistician, I can badly add up figures, and I never will set up as an authority on finance—he says, with regard to the argument about paupers used by the hon. Member for West Islington, whose calculations and work on this subject entitle him to the lasting gratitude of our country, that the figures since 1864 were due to outdoor relief. That is a terrible condemnation of the system on which the workhouses were conducted in Ireland, a system under which a man was compelled to leave his wife and family instead of getting sixpence or a shilling on the English system. I do not credit that argument. It is true in recent years, no doubt, there has been some increase in the system of outdoor relief, but I cannot gather, nor will I admit that it is the fact that the increase of pauperism can be attributed to that. What is the answer? Does he consider that lunacy is pauperism? How is it that lunacy has increased in the country? Lunacy to an enormous extent has increased. I have seen calculations showing that if you take the statistics of lunacy in America, they show that lunacy has increased more largely among the farming and agricultural class than in any other class in the United States. "Farming must always be a bare business," was a saying of the late Mr. Biggar. When you have to meet your rent half-yearly or yearly, and the anxieties connected with the farm—whether the weather is good or bad, whether your flocks and herds will bear in a prolific manner, whether the blight will visit your potatoes or not—all tend necessarily to make the business of a farmer in a country with an uncertain climate a more anxious life than almost any other business or occupation. Now nine-tenths of the population of Ireland are farmers, and this extraordinary increase in lunacy, in my judgment, is due to the fact that it has an agricultural population of this kind. Is it fair to tax an agricultural population in the same way as you tax a mining or a textile population? Why not put all your taxes on coal? We have no coal, practically speaking, in Ireland. Would you think that fair?

    1107
    Would you think it fair to put all your taxes on iron or on cheese? The English eat all the cheese. Would you think it fair if all the staple English industries were picked out and the other industries were left alone? I admit there are enormous difficulties in arriving at a just system of taxation for the English people. I think anybody in the position of the right hon. Gentleman must have anxious nights, even on the question of England alone. What is his burden, then, when he has to do justice between this enormously rich country, on the one hand, and this enormously poor country on the other, who are the two last partners that should ever have been brought together? I venture to think that if the statesmen of the Union had to solve the problem they had to consider one hundred years ago in the light of what has happened, the fiscal union of the two countries would be the last thing they would propose. Why is Ireland taxed when the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are left out? Do you think you would promote loyalty in the Isle of Man by putting 10s. 6d. on their whisky? What becomes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement when he said—
    "I will never be a party to letting the rich man off in Ireland, or giving the poor man his beer and tobacco cheaper in Ireland than in England"?
    What is the mystery about the Isle of Man? Why do not they pay? They have a separate Parliament, they have separate wealth, and they are wealthier than we are, and yet they do not pay a single shilling to this Imperial fund. Then, again, Jersey is at your doors. It sends you flowers and new potatoes, and yet it does not pay a single penny. Is not that a sad thing for us to contemplate in the unhappy position in which we are placed. Last of all, look at your great and glorious self-governing colonies. You boast about the splendid contingents they supply for this war, but in 1883 there were New South Wales and Canadian contingents fighting against the Mahdi in Egypt while the Colonial Secretary was still at the Local Government Board. Do your colonies give you a shilling? Not a penny, but you tell us they have given these splendid contingents of men. Do not we give you as good contingents? Wiry is it the Secretary of State for War will not tell us the proportion of militia regiments from England, Scotland, and Ireland?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not confining himself to the question of the over-taxation of Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I feel the justice of that observation, Mr. Speaker. When we are invited to consider the question of "set-off" I think we are entitled to put the argument of "set-on," and when you think of the enormous assistance our country gives in the way of troops and physical contributions it is a matter that may fairly be set against the fiscal contributions to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred. I entirely share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford when he said that we cannot abstain from pressing this matter to a division. No doubt we have had useful assistance from hon. Gentlemen opposite from Ireland, but, unhappily, Sir, the authors of the Union forgot, when they were giving us one hundred Members for the purpose of advocating the claims of Ireland with regard to taxation and legislation, that they would be divided into two parties, and that one of them would be an Irish party and the other practically an English party. I say that without any intention whatever of reflecting on the patriotism of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but for some reason or other—either the expectation of office or because they are connected with land—they ally themselves with one or other of the great English parties, and therefore to that extent the arm of Ireland in fighting this question is paralysed; but we who have none of these expectations are bound to press the claims of Ireland irrespective of English party considerations; and when we find the British Ministry rejecting our arguments, refusing our demands, and refusing to submit this matter to the arbitration of a competent tribunal, we are bound to press it in a way perhaps more severely than hon. Gentlemen who sit on the other side of the House. These are the considerations we have to put before the House. They are founded on the Treaty of Union itself, and founded on the relative conditions of the two countries, and they may well be deemed worthy of consideration by any fair and impartial tribunal.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 77; Noes, 200. (Division List No. 7.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Malley, William

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Holland, William Henry

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Parnell, John Howard

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Blake, Edward

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Pinkerton, John

    Caldwell, James

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

    Kilbride, Denis

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Redmond, John E. (Waterf'rd)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

    Commins, Andrew

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lough, Thomas

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Crean, Eugene

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Sullivan, D. (Westmeath)

    Daly, James

    MacDonnell, Dr. MA (Queen's C)

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Dewar, Arthur

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Tennant, Harold John

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Cartan, Michael

    Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Engledew, Charles John

    M'Leod, John

    Tully, Jasper

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Ure, Alexander

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

    Morton, Edw J C. (Devonport)

    Warner, T. Courtenay T.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Moss, Samuel

    Young, S. (Cavan, E.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

    Murnaghan, George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Fry, Lewis

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Garfit, William

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Gedge, Sydney

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H. (C. of Lond.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Balcarres, Lord

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    O'Neill, Hon. Robt. Torrens

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A J. (Manch'r

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Penn, John

    Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith-(Hunts

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Goschen, Rt. Hn. G.J. (St. Geo.'s

    Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

    Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Bristol

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon

    Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants)

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Bethell, Commander

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

    Purvis, Robert

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Bill, Charles

    Hardy, Laurence

    Rankin, Sir James

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

    Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

    Heath, James

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Helder, Augustus

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomson

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Henderson, Alexander

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Robinson, Brooke

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Round, James

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbysh're)

    Hutchinson, Capt. G.W. Grice-

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. Ed. J.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Charrington, Spencer

    Keswick, William

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Kimber, Henry

    Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Knowles, Lees

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

    Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E.H.

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

    Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

    Leighton, Stanley

    Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg'w)

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Strauss, Arthur

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J.G. (Ox. Un.)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Lowe, Francis William

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Curzon, Viscount

    Lowies, John

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Verney, Hon. Richard G.

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Ward, Hon. Robt. A. (Crewe)

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

    Webster, Sir Richard E.

    Doughty, George

    M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Welby, Lieut.-Colonel A. C. E.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Malcolm, Ian

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-undr-L.)

    Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

    Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

    Williams, Joseph P. (Birm.)

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

    Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

    Milner, Sir Frederick George

    Wylie, Alexander

    Finch, George H.

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Monk, Charles James

    Younger, William

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Flower, Ernest

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Main question again proposed.

    IRISH LAND ACTS.
    MR. DALY: In rising to move the Amendment which stands in my name, I would wish that the duty had fallen on some other member of the Irish party more capable of dealing with it, but the necessity for the Amendment is my apology for occupying the time of the House in considering it. Had it not been for the Tory party, I would not be moving this Amendment now. It was their opposition that prevented the passage of the Home Rule Bill, and prevented the Irish land question, instead of being discussed here, being settled by an Irish Parliament, which would understand it. I regret to say that the land legislation passed in this House for Ireland has left out a great many tenant farmers, and has given them no claim to protection. Had the Home Rule Bill been passed we would not at this time be endeavouring to get our railway companies to acknowledge the demand of the Irish farmer to have his produce properly placed on the English market. We are cut out in every respect by other nations whose railways are subsidised and encouraged by State funds. The Land Bill of 1896 was brought in with a great nourish of trumpets, but from my experience the Act has not fulfilled the expectations
    1112
    formed of it. It was brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who, I regret, is not in his place to-night, and he said we might take it or leave it. There was one section in it which it was expected would benefit some of the tenants in Ireland. It was expected that under Section 4 the estates in the Landed Estates Court would pass immediately on satisfactory terms to the tenants. I regret to say that the expectation has not been realised, for the following reason. The Land Commissioners, who are not friendly to the tenants, state the value of the property that the tenants wish to purchase. In several cases they gave the bare value which it would be safe to advance, and when the matter came before the Landed Estates Court the judge said the sum was not sufficient, and unless the tenants were prepared out of their own private means to advance a certain amount in addition to that stated by the Land Commissioners the sale fell through, and the property was allowed to fall into the hands of a grabber. That is a very unsatisfactory state of things. The Act of 1896 barely touched the fringe of the land question in Ireland, and left the vital points untouched. The question of town parks was not dealt with in that Act, although the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury stated the last time the Tory party were in power that there should be a popula-

    1113
    tion limit of 2,000 to enable tenants to enter the Land Courts. Again, the evicted tenants were not included in the Act of 1896, although during the last Liberal administration a Bill to reinstate these tenants was passed through this House, but the will of the representatives of the people was frustrated by another Chamber. Next, the future tenants were not dealt with in the Act, and altogether there are about 5,000 tenants every year in Ireland who cannot enter the Land Courts. There must be 125,000 souls in Ireland that had no benefit from the Land Act of 1896. It cannot be said that the people of Ireland are very well treated or encouraged when you take into account the fact that the average number of them who leave home for foreign countries every year is 35,000. I submit that if the land laws were as they should be that state of affairs would not have existed owing to the splendid rule of England over Ireland. It is a terrible thing that since 1851 no less than four millions of the best men and women of Ireland have had to seek foreign lands in order to make a living. No person knows better than the Attorney General for Ireland that the effect of a recent speech of the right hon. the Chief Secretary must have been to induce the Land Commissioners not to grant fair rents. There was a case in Armagh where a tenant planted fruit trees at his own expense, hoping that in the course of time they would bring in some revenue; and the chief Land Commissioner increased the rent of that holding. It amounts to this, that whether the land is deteriorated, or whether it is improved, the landlord comes out best in the transaction. I hold that there is only one means of settling this question, and that is by a Land Purchase Bill, and I would respectfully suggest that the Government should take this matter in hand and settle it once and for all. The chief Land Commissioner and the Sub-Commissioners cost the country from £80,000 to £90,000 a year, and the worst of it is that nobody seems to be pleased. In Belfast in December last, out of forty-nine appeal cases considered by the chief Land Commissioner, in twenty-two the rents were raised, twenty-four restored, and only two reduced—of course the farce would not be complete without one or two reductions. On the same day in six cases out of eight from Cory's estate, the rent was raised. In County Down in December
    1114
    last, out of sixteen cases heard, thirteen were thrown out, and only three confirmed. What is extraordinary is that the chief Land Commissioner never sees the land at all, but decides on the reports submitted to him. Considering the class from which the Land Commissioners are appointed, it is impossible that they should be impartial; and their decisions are not received with any confidence; and under these circumstances the people of Ireland have become despondent. Some appeals have been no less than four years before the Sub-Commissioners, and it was only after a number of questions had been put in the House as to when these appeals were going to be heard, that the Sub-Commissioners sat upon them. Between 1891 and 1897 no fewer than 61,658 appeals have been made, and it is not to be wondered at that every landlord appeals when he sees that the the tenant comes worst out of the transaction. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said, in addressing a meeting at Leeds, after the passing of the Land Act in 1896, what a great blessing that Act had been, and that the tenant farmers were purchasing their holdings to the tune of two millions a year. Now, it would take from eighty to a hundred millions to buy out the landlords of Ireland, and at the rate mentioned by the Chief Secretary it could not be done under forty or fifty years, while in the meantime four millions would have been spent in salaries of land commissioners alone. It would be far better if a Land Purchase Bill were passed, and the question settled once for all.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: In rising to second the Amendment which has been proposed by my hon. friend the Member for South Monaghan, I may perhaps be allowed to say that I think in this debate the Irish Members labour under some disadvantage in not having the presence of the Chief Secretary in his place; and in saying that I would like to say that we regret very much the absence of the right hon. Gentleman and the serious illness to which it is due, the news of which has caused serious pain in the House. We differ from the right hon. Gentleman on several topics, and sometimes come into sharp collision with him, but in a case of serious illness such as this no one, I think, is more ready to express sympathy with his opponent than are the

    1115
    gentlemen who sit on these benches. My object in rising to second this Amendment is not because I have any special knowledge which would justify me in intervening in this debate, but to give expression to sentiments which I know are entertained almost throughout the land of Ireland. I represent a large portion of Clare, where the bulk of the people make their living out of the land, and as Member for such a district it is not out of place that I should second this Amendment. The real and true solution of the Irish question is not to be found in any Land Acts in force at the present time, but in an occupying owner or peasant proprietor. Whatever other subjects have disappeared periodically the Irish land question has always been a source of contention and a subject of discussion in this House. I have been here myself for something like seventeen years, and I never remember a single session during the whole of that time when the Irish land question did not crop up in the debates of this House, and did not occupy a considerable time. The same question has occupied the attention of Parliament and successive Administrations ever since 1860, when the Irish Land Act was introduced. Down to the present the Irish land question has been a subject upon which Bill after Bill has been introduced in this House, and yet at the present time, in spite of all these enactments, there is unrest and agitation in Ireland, and dissatisfaction at the condition in which the land question remains. I have often heard in this House that the land question is settled. We were told it was settled in 1867, and again in 1881, and again in 1887, and we were told as shortly ago as 1896 that the Act of that year put the finishing touch on all the Acts that had gone before. In spite of all these additions, much remains to be done in regard to the Irish land question, and the people have many legitimate reasons for complaint. In dealing with this subject of land purchase it is significant to observe that, although the land agitation of the past has not always received support from hon. Gentlemen's constituents in Ireland, the system of compulsory land purchase receives no more enthusiastic support than it does in Ulster, and that in itself should commend this matter to the Government, and urge them to take it into serious consideration. The Irish, we
    1116
    are told, have been the spoiled darlings of Parliament. We have been told that no people have received such privileges as those given by the Irish Land Acts. The efficiency of the Land Acts depends upon one thing, and that is whether they are administered impartially and fairly as between landlord and tenant. I am not going to make any sweeping charge of partiality against the agents who administer the Land Acts in Ireland, but this much I do say—that the operation of the Land Acts in Ireland is such that it cannot and could not command the confidence of the tenant. Many of the Land Commissioners are gentlemen who no doubt intended to act as gentlemen, but it must be remembered that they have been drawn almost exclusively from the landlord class, or from that portion of the population which sympathises with the landlord class, and therefore they cannot be expected to mete out impartial justice between landlords and tenants; but whether they have attempted to do so or not, the fact remains that they do not retain the confidence of the large body of tenants who appeal to them, and that in itself is sufficient to cause unrest in the country, and to compel this question to be brought periodically before the House. Mr. Speaker, the system whereby rents are periodically fixed and refixed, cannot, in my opinion, be satisfactorily settled or taken as a permanent incentive to real industry. There is nothing in it to make the occupiers of the soil really interested. I have noticed myself at different times where rents have come up to be refixed, the rents, instead of being lowered or instead of being confirmed, have actually been raised.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The rents that have been raised are the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners in the second period. These have sometimes been raised on appeal.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: At all events they have been raised. What we want in Ireland is a system which exists with very beneficial results in very many Continental countries, and that is that the occupiers of the land, the tillers of the soil, shall be in reality the owners of the land upon

    1117
    which they live. Thus placed they will be encouraged to renewed industry in the knowledge that the more work they put into the land the more benefit will they get for themselves and their families. Now, Sir, the question of compulsory sale is no doubt a very difficult question. It involves the expenditure of a large amount of capital; but that it is not an altogether impossible question, and not a question which has failed altogether to enlist the sympathy and interest even of English statesmen, is to be found in the fact that Mr. Gladstone himself, concurrently with his Home Rule proposal, formulated a scheme of peasant proprietary in Ireland. That scheme failed, and no doubt surprised people in this country; and a very strong protest was made against the embarkation of English capital to buy out the Irish landlord. The system which has grown up and been so disastrous in Ireland for so many generations is that which is the outcome of the government of Ireland by this country. It is the outcome of a system of confiscation practised century upon century by successive Governments in Ireland. We are told that the Irish occupiers of the soil are not to be trusted; and it may be urged that to embark an amount of British capital in reorganisation of the land system in Ireland would be to risk the loss of a large sum of money. But we can only reason by results. Under Lord Ashbourne's Act down to the present time, as far as I can gather from the figures, between 40,000 and 50,000 tenants in Ireland have, with the assistance of the State, bought under this purchase Act, and become practically the purchasers of their own land. The result has been most surprising to many doubting Englishmen. These 40,000 or 50,000 tenants have met their engagements in the most punctual way, and not the slightest complaint has been made of their defaulting or failing to keep their engagements in regard to the repayment of the instalments advanced, while the change in their condition from tenants to owners has been attended with the best results to themselves and to the districts in which they lived. That being the result, so far, of the attempts made to create a peasant proprietary in Ireland, is it unreasonable to ask that the system should be extended? We are told that there is great difficulty in fixing
    1118
    the amount of the purchase-money. That is not the real difficulty. I don't believe that where a landlord is willing to sell and the tenant is willing to buy, the question of the amount to be paid is allowed to break down the negotiations. There have been difficulties and delays, but in most cases there has been a settlement of the price and the conditions. What, then, is the difficulty in extending the system of peasant proprietary, which so far has been a success? The real difficulty is what I must call the obstinate determination of certain landlords in Ireland not to meet the wishes of their tenants in this respect; and therefore it is that in the recognition in Ireland and in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Tyrone—as well as in the Unionist portions of Ulster more than anywhere else—of the system of peasant proprietary, it is absolutely necessary, to give it a fair chance, to exercise a certain amount of compulsion towards these unreasonable landlords. I think if we all live long enough we shall see the time when this Act will be unnecessary. Slowly and surely the idea is gaining ground amongst landlords in Ireland that it would be more satisfactory for themselves, and more beneficial to their tenants, to accept a fair price for their land. I can understand the feeling of certain landlords who say "Well, this land has belonged to my father and my grandfather, and these acres have been in the family for generations." I confess to a certain amount of respect for sentiment of that kind; but sentiment of that sort in the nineteenth or twentieth century must give way to the interests of the general community, and in obedience to public opinion. Take the case of the landlord with a large number of tenants. He may be an obstinate landlord. The result is friction and agitation and disputes as to the amount of rent to be paid, and the consequent expense of going to the land courts. Would it not be very much better for the landlord to receive in hard cash the equivalent for his land? Would it not be very much better for the tenants in that district to become their own landlords, so that every additional turn they gave to the plough would mean more money, not for the landlord, but for themselves? How is this worked abroad? It is a pleasure to travel in France and Belgium, and to see the thrift and industry

    1119
    which the occupiers of the soil put into their work; it is a marked contrast to visit Ireland and see the signs of discontent and unrest in the tenants, who know not whether their rents may be raised or what may happen to them. The paramount feeling in the breasts of the Irish people is that the land question is a deep-rooted grievance. Let this be remedied and that discontent will pass away. I believe that in this lies the solution of the Irish problem. We have had Act after Act passed, and legal machinery of the most complicated kind devised to meet the case, while vast sums of money have been expended on litigation in Ireland, and yet the land question remains unsettled. This proves that dual ownership cannot settle it; and if you want to finally allay the spirit of agrarian agitation you will have to break up the dual ownership and give the people the absolute possession of their own farms. The late Mr. Parnell thought the solution of the Irish land question was to be found in the establishment of a peasant proprietary. That view has been consistently held by all prominent Irish politicians down to the present day. It is a view which has been gaining and gathering support day by day and year by year, until now it is not merely the representatives of the Nationalist party in Ireland, but those of the Unionist and Orange parties in the province of Ulster, who urge Parliament to take it up. I am really tired of week after week and month after month receiving complaints and letters and remonstrances on the subject from every part of my large agricultural constituency. First of all, their cases have been listed for so many months, and in some instances almost for years, and they have not come up for hearing. Then they bitterly complain that the Commissioners sent down to value the land have been men who, from their antecedents, surroundings, and associations, they could not believe would do them justice and fair play. These reasons for discontent, whether well founded or not, come to every Irish Nationalist Member, and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will be the last to deny that there has been a great deal of blocking and regrettable delay in connection with the matter. Whether the complaints of the personnel of the Commissioners and of delay are right or wrong, there can be no doubt that from one cause or another the people are unrestful and discontented, and there
    1120
    is a general feeling of uncertainty and irritation connected with the present Land Court and everything appertaining to it. For that reason we are entitled to come here and ask the Government to cut this knot once and for ever, to do away with these irritating legal complications, to give the landlords whatever in the sight of Heaven is their due, and at the same time to establish the people on the soil and make them owners of their land. That is the first reason which impels us to bring this matter forward. The second reason is that we are entitled to demand that the people of this country shall make some serious effort to give rest and peace to our people. We are sometimes described as being mere agitators, as men who thrive on discontent, and as being never happier than when voicing grievances in this House. I do not believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite sincerely believe that. It is a matter of the utmost displeasure to us personally to have to come here year after year and voice the eternal complaints of our agricultural constituents. It would be a source of infinite satisfaction and rest to us if a solution of this question was come to which would free us from the unpleasant position of always seeming to complain. It is an irksome duty, but we are entitled to ask that the Government and the people of this country shall do something to restore peace and harmony to Ireland, which were driven from our shores when the present land system was first established. I do not for a moment say that the relations between landlord and tenant must necessarily be unpleasant and strained because the landlords are mostly of one race and of one religion, while the tenants are of another. We do not, and I hope never shall, pay any attention to religion or race with regard to the landlords as long as they behave fairly. But this I do say, that it is proved in other countries, and in other times, that where the dense mass of the tillers of the soil are of one race and of one religion, and the owners of the soil, to whom they are obliged to pay tribute, are of another, the result is unsatisfactory and unpleasant for both parties. I say that, in common fairness and justice, you are bound to take some pains to remedy the result of your own misgovernment, and to give the people of Ireland a system of secure land tenure. The expenditure of British credit would

    1121
    not be accompanied by any risk whatever. If you do this thing for the tenant farmers of Ireland they will keep their share of the bond honestly and fairly, and not a single shilling would be lost to this country. On the other hand, you would give peace and contentment to the agricultural population, you would relieve the landlords from an awkward and unpleasant position, and before many years you would see the people of Ireland—naturally still devoted to the national cause, but increasing in thrift and industry, growing prosperous and well-to-do, simply because they would be the owners of their land, and upon themselves, not upon the caprice of a Land Commission or the generosity of a landlord, would depend whether they lived in comfort and happiness with their families on the soil, or whether they missed their opportunities and went back to the system under which they have lived, unfortunately, in the past.
    Amendment proposed—
    "At the end of the Question to add the words, 'But we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the administration of the Irish Land Acts is not satisfactory to any class of Your Majesty's Irish subjects, and that the only and permanent solution of the Irish Land question must be found in a measure providing for the general and immediate creation of an occupying proprietary in that country.'"—(Mr. Daly.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): In the first place, I desire to join with the hon. Member for East Clare in expressing my deep and sincere regret that the Chief Secretary for Ireland is unable to be in his place to-night, and I am sure the House will be glad to hear there is every hope that his absence will be but temporary. I do not intend to travel over the vast field traversed by the hon. Member for East Clare. The Amendment, as I understand it, although it does not expressly say so, means that at once and immediately a system of peasant occupying proprietary should be created by compulsory powers. I am not concerned to defend the Land Act of 1881. The mover of the Amendment said that that Act was looked upon as unsatisfactory by all sides; but, lest that assertion might make any special reflection on
    1122
    that Act, he expressed his belief that any Act that had ever been, could ever be, or would ever be introduced dealing with the same subject would not give satisfaction. I am very much inclined to agree in that opinion. But those who have formed that opinion, and feel that it is almost impossible to construct a statute which will enable you to set up a satisfactory system for the purpose of compulsory valuation of rents, ought to hesitate a little before they see their way to set up a compulsory system of sale and purchase when the amount of purchase money must be settled by the very same agency which when applied to the settlement of rents is said to give no satisfaction whatever. If you cannot secure gentlemen sufficiently free from bias towards either landlord or tenant to be safely trusted to say what the rent of a particular farm should be, I do not know the process by which in the same country, dealing with the same classes, and having the same materials, you will be able to select gentlemen who will give satisfaction in settling the price of sale. It is not necessary for the purposes of this Amendment to enter into a defence of the Land Act of 1881, but it is only just and right that some misapprehensions and mistakes into which hon. Members have apparently fallen should be dealt with. The Land Act of 1881 at all events sought to gain four great objects—first, to prevent rack-renting; secondly, to prevent capricious evictions; thirdly, to secure to the tenant his interest and improvements; and, fourthly, to secure free sale. All that the Land Act of 1886 purported to do was—not to offer a panacea for all the errors and mistakes in the Irish land system, but merely to extend the provisions of the Act of 1881 to persons who were within its spirit, but without its letter, to take further steps for securing to tenants the benefit of their improvements, and to facilitate purchase. The mover of the Amendment expressed his dissatisfaction with the operation of Section 40 of the Act of 1896. He apparently expected that that section would have the effect of transferring vast tracts of land from landlord to tenant. I do not know whence the hon. Member got the notion that the section had failed, because it has been but a short time in operation, owing to a difference of view between those charged with its adminis-

    1123
    tration. Those differences have been settled by the Court of Appeal, and since the removal of all impediments, 802 tenant proprietaries have been created, and almost a quarter of a million of money advanced.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: What is the amount of the rental?
    MR. ATKINSON: I do not know the exact rental. Objection was also taken to the statement of my right hon. friend in reference to the duties of the Commissioners when dealing with cases of wilful deterioration. The hon. Member seemed to anticipate that that statement would act as an instigation to the Commissioners to refuse to fix fair rents where there was deterioration. If the words of my right hon. friend arouse Sub-Commissioners to a sense of their duty to refuse to fix fair rents where they find there is wilful deterioration, can any friend of honest and fair dealing between landlord and tenant, and between man and man, but rejoice at that? There can be no greater piece of dishonesty practised by any man against his neighbour, or any person with whom he has relations, commercial or otherwise, than deliberately to deteriorate his land for the purpose of getting a lower rent fixed. It is a mean fraud, and while I am happy to think that it very seldom occurs, it is the imperative duty of every tribunal before which such cases come to endeavour to defeat the object of such a practice. The hon. Member in reference to the Appeal Court appeared to think that that court must necessarily be corrupt or inefficient unless its decisions were always on one side.
    MR. PINKERTON: They always are.
    MR. ATKINSON: If the Appeal Court either confirms the order of the Sub-Commissioner or decreases the rent it is satisfactory and proper, but the moment it increases the rent as fixed by the Sub-Commissioner it shows that it is either inefficient or corrupt. That is not my opinion. There never was an Appeal Court which always agreed with the Court from which the appeal came. I do not see what the use of such an Appeal Court
    1124
    would be. The variation of a great many decisions may be accounted for neither by the corruption nor by the inefficiency of the Appeal Court, but by a greater amount of evidence being given and a more satisfactory investigation being made. Landlords, from a very mistaken view of their own interests, I think, very often do not lay their case as fully before the inferior tribunal as before the Court of Appeal. That accounts for many instances in which appeals have been made. It was also objected that the members of the Appeal Court do not go to the lands to view. That is quite true, but the hon. Member is entirely mistaken in supposing that they necessarily and always decide upon the report of their own Court valuer. They have the reports of the valuers of the parties; they have the report of the Commissioners who did value the land. With those reports, as corrected by the evidence given before them, and supplemented by the report of the Court valuer, it would appear to me that unless there is something more difficult than usual in fixing the value of land they have the materials before them on which they should be able to arrive at a correct conclusion. In reference to the speech of the hon. Member for East Clare, he has entirely misapprehended the observations of my hon. friend. On the whole, the reductions which have been made amount to close upon 40 per cent. on an average. The first reductions were 20·9 per cent., and the second reductions amount to almost the same. The rents which have been reduced have in no case been increased. On the contrary, they have almost invariably been reduced, the average reduction being about 20 per cent. What has occurred is that where the Sub-Commissioners reduced the rent, on appeal the order made by the Sub-Commissioners as to the amount of rent has been raised. [An HON. MEMBER: What about putting an increased rent on tenants' improvements?] I am sorry I did not know the hon. Member expected me to be so very fully informed on a given case as to give an answer to that question. All I can say is that both in the Act of 1881 and the Act of 1896 ample provision is made to protect tenants' improvements. Clause 8, Sub-clause 9, as the hon. Member knows, specially enacts that rent is not to be put on tenants' improvements, and if that course has been departed from

    1125
    the Act has not been attended to. I have not sufficient cognisance of the case mentioned to know whether that is the case or not. I can hardly believe that if the case came within the section to which I have referred the Commissioner would have disregarded the provision of these different Acts. I pass from these matters to the broad question introduced by the Amendment, namely, the propriety of setting up at once and immediately a system of compulsory purchase and sale. Attention has not been directed to the vast and almost insurmountable difficulties that present themselves in carrying out any such scheme. In the first place, no such scheme would be at all justifiable unless an overwhelming necessity required it. Even if it were desirable to adopt such a course it should be perfectly clear that it was practicable. First of all, is it necessary? ["Yes!"] Before you come to that conclusion it would be interesting for me to give to the House some few statistics in reference to the rate at which purchase is at present progressing. After all, the creation of a peasant proprietary is almost the favourite remedy of the Unionist party for the solution of the agrarian question in Ireland. Under the Ashbourne Acts, 1885 and 1888, £9,999,640 has been advanced to purchase 25,368 holdings. Under the Acts of 1891 and 1896, sales have been made to 25,100 tenants, and £7,947,580 has been advanced. In all, under those four Acts, 50,468 peasant proprietors have been created, and the sums advanced amount to £17,940,220, or practically £18,000,000. Even that is not the most satisfactory feature, because the rate of progress indicates clearly that still greater increases may be confidently looked for in the future. Contrasting the years 1897–98 with the two previous years, we find that £2,201,223 was advanced as against £1,200,000, while in the year concluded on 31st December, 1899, the enormous sum of £1,775,295, or practically £2,000,000, was advanced. Therefore the rate of progress has been such that the amount of money advanced in the one year 1899 was almost as large as in the two years 1897–98, and almost twice as large as in the two years 1895–96. There is no reason to apprehend that the amount of money available is not sufficient, by slow and steady progress, to create a large number of peasant proprietors.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give us any information as to how the instalments have been paid?
    MR. ATKINSON: I do not know the exact amount of money, but I think it is admitted that the purchasers under these Acts have discharged their obligations in a praiseworthy manner. I think we ought to remember that possibly the reason—and the principal reason—why they are punctual in their payments is because compulsory sale is not established. No person buys who does not wish to buy, and no person sells who does not wish to sell; and consequently we get willing purchasers who pay punctually and satisfactorily the sums they are bound to pay. I do not think hon. Members opposite have considered some of the enormous practical difficulties which stand in the way of carrying out the proposal contained in this Amendment, even if necessity called for it being put into operation. First of all this scheme of compulsory purchase—sale would be more accurate—must be reciprocal. If the tenant compels the landlord to sell, it should be possible for the landlord to compel him to buy. If it were otherwise, two or three tenants in the middle of a man's estate might come into court and compel the landlord to sell to them their holdings, leaving the balance of the estate absolutely and almost entirely worthless, and inflicting a very considerable injury upon him. We all know in the case of compulsory sales under the Lands Clauses Act and all Acts of that character, sums far in excess of the actual purchase money of the land taken have been awarded to owners for consequential injury done to the surrounding lands, although such lands still remain in the hands of the owner. So that it would be manifestly unjust if such a principle were put into operation, and it would be unjust not to make it apply to both landlord and tenant respectively. I do not know how the tenants of Ireland would regard any proposition to compel them to buy when they did not want to buy; and even if they did regard it as satisfactory I do not know where you would get the material from to construct a tribunal that would award the sum to be paid to the satisfaction of all parties. One of the hon. Members who have spoken to-night has urged that the Sub-Commissioners are unsatisfactory, and that

    1127
    they belong to one particular class of the community. All I can say is that the very utmost care is taken to select men who will discharge their duties satisfactorily. I must confess that there are a number of men in Ireland who are most careless and reckless about the statements they make. I think, however, we can look with confidence to the creation of an adequate system, by the free will, co-operation, and agreement of all parties. This has worked well up to the present and will work well in the future, because it is not forced upon them and they get only what they desire, and I believe this system will enable a vast number of tenants of Ireland to become the Owners of their holdings. On the other hand, I submit that a principle so novel and so wide as that indicated in the Amendment cannot be adopted. It would inflict the most cruel injury and suffering on vast numbers of proprietors. I cannot on behalf of the Government hold out any encouragement in regard to the adoption of the principles which have been advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    MR. PINKERTON: After listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I came to the conclusion that it was most regrettable, considering all the changes that have been made, that the right hon. Gentleman had not been elevated to the judicial Bench, as the speech we have just listened to gave evidence of most impartial judicial balancing. I must say that while I deeply regret the absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, I am not sorry that it has given an opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman, who has, in reply, made the most half-hearted apology I have ever heard. We know already that a sum of money sufficient to buy out all the landlords in Ireland has been sunk in the Modder River. We know that every shell fired in South Africa will delay a settlement of this question, and, therefore, it is all important that this subject should be settled as soon as possible. We are nearing the time when we must face our constituencies, and the right hon. Gentleman, if he was not returned as an advocate of compulsory sale, at least was elected as a very strong friend of it. I am glad to see the hon. and learned Member who represents East Down and other Unionist Members in their places. With one solitary exception, in all their election addresses they place the question
    1128
    of compulsory sale in the front. I can understand the delicate distinction between compulsory sale and compulsory purchase which has been drawn by the right hon Gentleman, but why did he not draw that distinction before he was elected? We have brought Amendment after Amendment from this side of the House, and it has been pretty generally agreed that landlords should be compelled to sell when the tenants are willing to buy. The right hon. Gentleman said the Act of 1881 was intended to secure occupation and the right of free sale, but he cannot sit upon that bench ingnorant of the fact that the right of free sale has been absolutely ruined. I can quote evidence to show that the right of free sale has been destroyed because the landlord claims the right of pre-emption unless the tenant is willing to add an additional sum to the annual rent, and in almost every case throughout the north of Ireland where the tenant cannot clearly prove to the satisfaction of the Land Commission that it is an Ulster Custom estate the landlord prevents the right of free sale. The hon. and learned Gentleman said if we object to the machinery for fixing fair rents how can we hope to have a satisfactory settlement of the question of compulsory sale? I am prepared to say, without fear of contradiction, that upon a close examination it will be found that Head Commissioners represent one class, and one class alone. The only gentleman belonging to the Head Commissioners who is suspected of sympathising with the tenants is Mr. O'Brien, and if he is allowed to adjudicate in any case his decision is always overpowered by the majority of his colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to a number of cases which have been satisfactorily settled under the 40th section. I know the Act is working more smoothly now than it did some time ago, when there was a considerable amount of friction. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly said that the landlords refused to come before the court of Sub-Commissioner and give their evidence because they preferred to reserve their evidence for a higher court. I think without any Act of Parliament, or without any attempt to introduce a drastic remedy, the power rests with the Government to prevent such evidence being given before a superior court. In every case neither landlord nor tenant should be allowed to amend their

    1129
    case, and the evidence they have refused to tender in the first instance should not be allowed to be given in a superior court. Since the Local Government Act was passed, when the Agricultural Grant was dangled before our eyes, the landlords have all pocketed their share, but the tenants of Ireland have not benefited by one single farthing. No doubt if you try to carry a compulsory purchase measure it will be argued that you must give a certain bonus to the landlords. As I have pointed out already, in the shape of the Agricultural Grant, the landlords have received a bonus which I do not think, in many cases, they deserved. With regard to the appointment of Sub-Commissioners, I would ask hon. Members opposite, why should Home Rulers not have their feelings considered in this matter as well as Unionists? Can they not discharge those duties just as well as the followers of the hon. Member for South Belfast? I do not claim that they should be elected from the political party to which I belong, but as it is purely and simply a court of arbitration, I say those Commissioners should be appointed who will command the respect of all the classes interested in this question. We have been trying year after year and session after session to have the Head Commissioners strengthened in such a way as to inspire a certain amount of confidence on the part of the tenants. The right hon. Gentleman said no one ever expected that the Court of Appeal would agree absolutely and entirely with the lower court, but I noticed the other day that in the list of cases in the Appeal Court nine-tenths or at least four-fifths of them were increased, and only a very small number—about 5 per cent.—were reduced. That is undoubtedly using the machinery and the powers put into the hands of those Commissioners not to administer justice, but for the purpose of making the Land Acts palatable to the landlord class. It seems to me most remarkable that the Head Commissioners—who have no opportunity of visiting the land—should act upon the decision of the Court valuers, who have simply taken a superficial view of the land in question, and who have had no opportunity of hearing the evidence given before the Sub-Commissioners. The Sub-Commissioners have not only the advantage of visiting the land, but they have an opportunity of corroborating or refuting other state-
    1130
    ments made in the lower Court. The Sub-Commissioners, by examination, see clearly, and they have ocular demonstration of the truth of the evidence given in Court and of sifting the evidence, and their opinion is better than the Court valuer who is sent out to examine the holding, and who has never heard the evidence. I can say, for my part, that no stronger argument can be advanced in favour of the abolition of the superior Court than that which has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General, and I think they may very well ask to be delivered from their friends. There is another point, and I sympathise immensely with the landlords who are in that position. All these Acts of Parliament were unjustly framed, because no notice was taken of the mortgagee. It is very hard, for instance, for a man whose rents amount, say, to £5,000, £4,000 of which goes in payments on mortgages and other charges, that the reduction should all fall on the remaining £1,000. That leaves a man in a very unfortunate position, and I think every Act of Parliament introduced into this House should be framed in such a manner that the mortgagee would have to bear a fair share of the reduction. I do not know why a mortgagee who has advanced money on land should be treated differently to a man who has invested in a railway. At the same time it is also very hard that a stumbling block should be put in the way of land purchase in Ireland by the fact that so much of the land is subject to mortgages. It is, unfortunately, a very difficult position for the Irish landlords, but all the same it is a fact that the tenants, who are not responsible for these debts, have to pay the penalty. I can assure English taxpayers that for every penny of British money invested in Irish land, you are certain to be paid your full price. It is a good investment, better than throwing away your money to steal goldfields in South Africa.
    MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I should like to state that the primary object with which I was sent to this House was that of supporting Her Majesty's Government in the policy which they are carrying out. Therefore, as the passing of this Amendment would not lead to legislation and would practically amount to a vote of censure on the

    1131
    Government, I shall vote against it, although I agree with a great deal that has been said on this subject by hon. Members opposite. The question of the ultimate settlement of the Irish land question is one which is a very burning question, and one which has come to the front very much during the last few years. It has been said that many Irish Members sitting on this side of the House pledged themselves at the last election in favour of a final settlement of the Irish Land question more or less upon the lines indicated in this Amendment—that is, a compulsory scheme of purchase on fair terms. The hon. Member for Galway has informed the House that I was similarly pledged. It is beyond all doubt, as the hon. Member for East Clare has stated, that in the North of Ireland this is a very burning question, and one on which we are anxious that the House should know our opinions. As far as the work of the Commission is concerned I should like to say that there are a good deal of complaints on all sides about the working of the Land Commission. It has been urged by hon. Members opposite that it is packed by the landlord class, but in practice I have never found that to be the case. At present I am not aware that there are any landlord nominees on the Land Commission. I only know two Commissioners, and one of them is a cousin of the hon. Member for Galway. Regarding the manner in which the work is carried on, speaking as a neutral, I think that both tenants and landlords equally mistrust the members of the Land Commission, but I am bound to add that, taking the Commissioners all round, the Government could not have made a better selection or found better men for the work. When you have a tribunal to decide vexed questions in which so many pecuniary interests are involved, the members of that tribunal, unless they are paid salaries which render them above suspicion, will always have these charges made against them. Then there is another objection—I can see how it could be remedied, but other people may not take the same view—and that is the trouble and bother of this perpetual litigation. If the landlords and tenants of Ireland would only consent to an automatic revision of rents, that would be a great help. But the present position is that at the end of every fifteen years it is
    1132
    open to either the landlord or tenant to have a new rent fixed by the courts. That leads to unrest and litigation, and is very undesirable, for reasons which will appear to every hon. Member. I cannot agree at all with the attacks made on the Appeal Court or the Land Commission. With reference to the Sub-Commissioners sitting in the country, it is an objection of which I have a certain amount of experience, that although the Sub-Commissioners are supposed to take evidence in court and on oath in the presence of the legal representatives of the parties, they are too often in the habit of going on the lands and picking up evidence themselves.
    MR. PINKERTON: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that the landlord or his agent always accompanies the Sub-Commissioners?
    MR. WILLIAM MOORE: In any event the practice cannot fail to operate on the minds of the Sub-Commissioners. They then fix a rent which I venture to say is in nearly every case from 45 to 50 per cent. less than the rent in 1881. In some cases the landlord settles with the vast majority of his tenants. I know one case where a landlord settled with all his tenants except one on the basis of 22 per cent. below the first term rent. This tenant went into court and got a reduction of 46 per cent. If the landlord submitted to that reduction every other one of his tenants would think he had sold them, and accordingly he appealed, and the reduction was decreased to 22 per cent., and the other tenants were satisfied. You could not blame the landlord for having appealed in a case of that kind. I would wish, however, that some means could be devised whereby the vexation and cost of the present delays connected with appeals could be avoided. I should now like to say a few words with reference to compulsory sale. I am bound to say that I view with the greatest suspicion the suggestions of hon. Gentlemen opposite when it is proposed to expropriate the Irish landlords. The hon. Member for East Clare went into questions of religion and politics, which seem to me to have no application in land cases at all. When hon. Gentlemen declare that their whole aim is to drive the landlords, who are described as the English garrison, out

    1133
    of Ireland, and to give them only prairie value for their land—[Several HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] This is the first time I have ever heard that repudiated. If hon. Gentlemen are prepared to treat the matter on business lines I am prepared to meet them. Before the Act of 1870 the Irish landlords were the absolute owners of their land, subject to the tenancies which existed under them. In 1870 the system was introduced which has landed us in all our present difficulties. It may have been right or wrong—I am not quarrelling with it, because it is not in my power nor in the power of any hon. Member to repeal that Act. It was supposed to compose all differences; it made the tenant part owner with the landlord, and created the principle of dual ownership, and although the landlord could still turn the tenant out he could only do it by paying him a fixed scale of compensation. The principle of dual ownership was still further recognised by the Act of 1881, which, instead of leaving the parties as it found them, restricted the rights of the landlords in different ways. The tenant could not be evicted if he paid the fair rent fixed by the courts, and he secured the right of selling his interest in his holding. Prior to the Act of 1881 the landlord and tenant might be described as half-owners, but after that Act the landlord had only something between a fourth and a third of the interest, and the tenant had the balance. Whenever two interests exist in that proportion they are always in conflict, and as long as that conflict continues there will be no peace in Ireland, and therefore it is the duty of every statesman to endeavour to end such a state of affairs. It seems to me the only end that can be effective is to buy out the landlords on fair and equitable terms. The landlord, being the weaker partner, will have to go. I say that with regret, but you cannot deny the trend of public opinion, and therefore the only choice of the unfortunate landlord is between confiscation and compensation, and in the interests of all parties and in the interests of the landlords themselves the sooner they get compensation the better. The Attorney General for Ireland referred to the Purchase Act of 1885. Long-headed men in Ireland when that Act was passed sold their properties and got twenty years purchase on first-term rents, but if they
    1134
    were about to sell now they would be very lucky if they got eighteen or nineteen years purchase on second - term rents. Land is a falling market, and it is to the interest of the landlords to sell as soon as they can. I know I shall be told by my hon. friends, on this side of the House that in advocating compulsory sale I am doing something far from Conservative doctrine. In Ireland we have not had very much Conservative doctrine from our brother English Conservatives, and although it may be said it is against the principles of Conservatism to take a man's property against his will, the Irish landlords have been suffering for the last twenty years. The Liberal Government first of all in 1881 put it into the power of a tribunal to take 25 per cent. off the landlords' rents for fifteen years without one particle of compensation. In 1887 the Conservative Government said, "The Liberals have made a reduction of 25 per cent. on ordinary rents, but we will strike 25 per cent. off the leasehold rents without any compensation whatever." It therefore seems to me that no objection can be made by English Conservatives when it is proposed to buy out the landlords compulsorily on fair terms. In the middle of the last century the Scotch lairds had certain rights which were found to be inconsistent with English law, and the English Government compelled them to give them up, but compensated them. In the early part of the present century slavery was considered to be a national disgrace, and Parliament accordingly compelled the English slave-owners in the West Indies to free their slaves, but secured them compensation. It seems to me that in buying out the Irish landlords at a fair price Parliament would be only following the policy which has been pursued for a century. If the landlords are to go, let them go without being robbed or despoiled. A great many difficulties have been suggested by hon. Gentlemen, and also by the Attorney General for Ireland, in the way of carrying this out. The very success of your Acts of Parliament providing for voluntary sale is one of the best reasons for compulsory sale. I know a property which was owned by an English absentee landlord. He sold it to his tenants with the result that they, who will be the purchasing proprietors, are year by year paying a less sum by way of instalments

    1135
    of the purchase money to the Government, than the tenants around them whose landlords have not sold; and the more voluntary sales there are, the more general will be the discontent. At the same time I think it would be exceedingly hard to compel the landlords to sell without fully compensating them. Take a landlord getting £1,000 a year out of his estate. He gets £18,000 for his interest, and that amount at 3 per cent. or 3½ per cent. is not an equivalent for £1,000 a year. He cannot get any more for his interest, and by one stroke of the pen his income is diminished. How can such a man be expected to submit to a reduction which would render it impossible for him to live as he had been living? You will find it exceedingly hard to persuade the Irish tenants to give more than eighteen or nineteen years purchase, and it will be equally hard to get the landlords to aceept eighteen or nineteen years purchase on second term rents. You cannot charge the tenant more than a fair price, and the Government should step in, as it compensated the Scotch lairds and the West Indian slave owners, and make up the difference. These are the views held by my constituents—as loyal as any in the United Kingdom—and by the vast majority of the Unionists in the surrounding constituencies. It is a policy to which I and other Unionist Members are pledged, and whoever gets in for Mid-Armagh is pledged to the same thing. We are all agreed that the sooner the question is settled the better, and as far as I am concerned my desire is to have it settled on terms fair to both landlords and tenants.
    SERJEANT HEMPHILL: One observation fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland which all the House fully received with pleasure, namely, his statement that the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would be only temporary. That announcement gave great satisfaction to everyone in this House. I think the House is indebted to the hon. Member for North Monaghan for bringing forward this Amendment, because it has been the means of eliciting from a very representative member of the Unionist party from the North of Ireland a very clear, distinct, and eloquent avowal of his adoption of the principle of compulsory purchase. We have also been told that
    1136
    not only the hon. Member for North Antrim, but several other hon. Members from the North of Ireland, are pledged to compulsory purchase, and that the candidates in the pending election in Mid-Armagh have also promised to support it. That was not the only matter elicited by the Amendment, because we also had it stated by the Attorney General for Ireland that the Government which he so ably and eloquently represents on this and every other occasion in which he addresses this House have long regarded the abolition of dual ownership as a panacea for the evils of Ireland. Dual ownership can only be abolished by some system of compulsory sale and purchase, and we have a great Government—great in numbers—I could not pay them any other compliment; if I did I would be open to the charge which I should least like to be laid at my door, namely, the charge of insincerity—committed to some such system. But if this is the panacea how is it that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim—who, like the candidates in Mid Armagh, and, I suppose, the candidate who will seek to displace myself whenever the opportunity arises, is pledged to support compulsory sale and purchase—stated in his opening observations that although he agreed with every word of the Amendment he must vote with the Government?
    MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I did not use the words imputed to me by the right hon. Gentleman. What I said was that owing to my pledge to my constituents I was not at liberty to join in a vote of censure on the Government.
    SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I beg the hon. and learned Member's pardon. I did understand that he was going to vote with the Government, although he was voting against his convictions, because if the vote of censure were carried it would lead to the resignation of the Government and to a General Election, when he would have to go over to North Antrim and repeat the sincere pledges he has already given. I thoroughly agree with the spirit of the Amendment; and speaking, of course, wholly for myself, I am in the happy position of being able to vote for the Amendment in accordance with my pledges, and not, in a Parliamentary sense, having to break my word. I believe the Amendment embodies a prin-

    1137
    ciple which is essential to the well-being of Ireland. I have had experience of the working of the land laws, both under the old regime and the new, and I was surprised to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General that he considers the Act of 1881 unsatisfactory. That Act was the creation of the greatest Liberal statesman that has ever existed in the country, and probably one whose like it will be a long time before we shall see again; but though it was Mr. Gladstone's Act, we must recollect that it was adopted and considerably extended by a Ministry professing the opinions put forward by the present Government. The cause of all our misfortunes in Ireland, and one of the great causes of the misery, degradation, and crime which disfigure our annals, was the unhappy state of the land laws, until Mr. Gladstone came to the rescue. If the law of landlords and tenants had been left to the operation of the English common law, the evils that sprang up in the last century, and two-thirds of the present century, would never have existed. From the time of the Union down to 1867–8, with very short intervals, almost all the land laws of Ireland were passed by Tory Governments, and these made the Irish tenants bondsmen, and left them to the tender mercies of the landlords. That state of things was rectified by Mr. Gladstone in 1881, the Act passed that year being the first to give security of tenure to a vast proportion of the tenants of Ireland. What remains to crown the edifice, to restore peace and harmony to Ireland, to abolish all those grievances which rankle so in the hearts of our countrymen, even when they are obliged to leave their homes, and the memory of which is handed down to their children from generation to generation, is to plant the tenants firmly on the soil, and make them proprietors, leaving to the landlords their mansions and their domains. The principle embodied in the Amendment would accomplish that great object. It would only do what has led to prosperity, happiness, and peace in many parts of the Continent, where the tillers of the soil are the owners. The principle of fixing fair rents and voluntary purchase has been recognised by the legislature, and I see no practical difficulty in going this further step. The Attorney General for Ireland had said that the progress made in land
    1138
    purchase under the Acts of 1885 and 1891 had been slow, steady, and satisfactory, that the payments had been made with the utmost punctuality, and that the whole arrears only amounted to between £3,000 and £4,000. This showed that the difficulty in getting in the rent in old times was not from deficiency of honest principle on the part of the tenants, but really because it was impossible for them to meet the exorbitant rents which ruled in many parts of the country. It may be said that that would be very hard on mortgagees; but it must be remembered that, under the Encumbered Estates Act, which really prevented a revolt in Ireland, the estates were sold for whatever they would fetch. The first mortgagees went into court and bought the property, leaving the owners without a penny. But that is no reason why justice should not be done, and an act of public policy should not be carried out, and dual ownership be abolished. I am not going to say much about the tribunals which have been raised up under the existing Land Acts. I take it for granted that every judge decides everything according to the best of his ability. We all know that in Ireland, of course, every lawyer is a politician. [Laughter.] Well, more or less. You all know that the general view in Ireland is that the Government for the time being selects the judges from their own supporters. But that is no reason why, when the judges ascend the bench, they should not leave their politics behind. It is not impossible to discharge from their minds their politics, and I have no doubt that these judges do discharge their duty to the best of their ability. But the fact remains that the circumstance of these judges having been politicians gives rise to the idea on the part of certain suitors that they deal partial justice, an idea which I am sure has no foundation in fact. But there is one thing in the system that I do deprecate. I am in a position to know, from representations I have had made to me from my own constituency, that very often a round peg is put into a square hole, and that Land Commissioners are appointed whose opinions differ as to what is fair rent. Another thing is that the Land Commissioners are more or less removable. Every man who sits upon the bench ought to have the feeling that he cannot be removed. They ought to be made per-

    1139
    manent. One of the great grievances of the Uitlanders in the Transvaal was that the judges were removable. The Supreme Judges in Ireland were removable until 1782, and yet that is made a casus belli in the case of the Transvaal now. Then, I think, there should be appeals from the Assistant Land Commissioners on matters of law; but on a mere question of valuation a properly constituted tribunal of Land Commissioners would be much more likely to be right than the judges of any Appeal Court. It will not be denied that it is a common practice for landlords to appeal, no matter what decision is given. I would, therefore, abolish appeals altogether, except on questions of law. That is the principle of the ordinary courts, where the decision of the jury is as a general rule final, and only an appeal is allowed on a question of law. One other point I wish to make. It is repugnant to all my ideas of judicial proceeding to have a case decided on ex parte statements. My idea is that these land courts, like every other court, should decide only on a full hearing of the evidence offered on both sides, and with a full opportunity to the representatives of both sides to cross-examine. But as I understand the working of the system in ninety cases out of a hundred, no matter what evidence may be produced, the land court takes the valuation of the court valuer, of which only a copy has been supplied to the suitor, and on that valuation the court acts. I trust that the Government will deal with this subject either this session or the next. I am quite sure there is statesmanship enough among the occupants of the front bench to enable them to conceive some method which will abolish dual ownership and will satisfy all parties in Ireland, including the right hon. Member for North Armagh.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman, in his very impassioned peroration, wanted practically to get rid of the Irish landlords, and that these should be compelled to sell their estates at prairie value.
    SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I am a landlord myself in a small way.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I thought so much from the speech of the right
    1140
    hon. Gentleman. I am not going to vote for the Amendment, for two reasons—first, because the object of any Amendment to the Address is to make it a vote of want of confidence in the Government; and, second, because I disapprove of it. [Laughter from hon. Members on the Irish benches.] I have the advantage which hon. Members opposite do not possess, that I voted for the Land Bill of 1870 when many of them were in arms. I voted for that Bill because I remember Mr. Gladstone, in a very eloquent speech, said that it was a final measure, and to give a final settlement to this long-vexed Irish question. Not very many years after, Mr. Gladstone brought in another Bill, which was absolutely to settle the question for ever and ever. The object of that Bill was to give the Irish tenants the "three F's," which was then their ultimate aspiration.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not correct in that. The Land League, which then represented the views of the Irish tenants, strongly advocated peasant proprietary, or compulsory purchase, as a final settlement of the land question.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I did not include the Land League. The Land League wanted to get rid of the landlords without compensation.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: That statement is absolutely incorrect. The Land League published their programme and in that very document they proposed that the landlords should be bought out at a reasonable number of years purchase—twenty years purchase.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I can only say that I judge of the objects and position of the Land League by the speeches of the gentlemen who supported it. I remember the hon. Member for East Mayo saying that he would "make short work of Irish landlords." The meaning of that phrase may be left to the imagination of the House. Mr. Gladstone himself said in this House that after all the minutest inspection made in view of the passing of this Act, the vast majority of Irish landlords had come honourably out of that severe inquest. That is very much to the

    1141
    honour of the Irish landlords. I never did deny that there are bad landlords; but I think if you find a man like Mr. Gladstone, who was not very fond of Irish landlords, stating that it was his conviction, after examining all the circumstances, that they had come well out of the examination, that is a very good certificate of character. I would remind the House that Mr. Gladstone said that the position of the Irish landlords after the passing of the Act of 1881 was infinitely more secure than ever before, and now we find that the Irish people are far from being satisfied. I have always opposed compulsory purchase. A great majority of the people of North Armagh have always given me their support, and I told them the reasons why I oppose compulsory purchase. First, because I look upon it as an act of tyranny and injustice, in what is called a free country, to say to me, whether I like it or not, "You must sell your land"; and to say to my tenant, whether he likes it or not, "You must buy the land." I say that is an evil principle. I told my tenants that if that principle were established, it would sweep away the right of property—which, after all, is the foundation of liberty—and the prosperity of the country. Then when are you going to stop? Do you think you can isolate an act of national injustice to Ireland? I do not think you can. Another reason why I oppose compulsory purchase is that I am an Irishman, and I am proud to be an Irishman, and have as much right to live in Ireland as hon. Gentlemen opposite. What right have you to buy my land at a depreciated value, and force me to invest the purchase money in Consols, which would render it impossible for me to live in Ireland? I say you have no right to do that. The hon. Member for Galway said that what he looked forward to was an Act which would give equal satisfaction to all parties concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: I think he said, "Do equal justice to all parties."] If you wait for that tribunal you will wait very long. I learned from my hon. and learned friend here that, although he supports the principle of compulsory purchase, he supports it with the addition that if you buy out the Irish landlords at what the courts in Ireland may consider a fair price you will add to the purchase money a sum which would
    1142
    really make up to him the loss he would sustain.
    MR. CLANCY: That is not in his election address.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I have not read his election address; I never read election addresses. What I ask myself is this: Who is going to pay that additional money? The British taxpayer, I suppose. The British taxpayer and the Government representing the British taxpayer would naturally ask this question: Is it worth while to pay this money? I can conceive a Government reasoning in this way: Here is Ireland, not exactly what you would call a particularly loyal country or an extremely easy country to govern. Would it be worth our while to supplement the price to be paid to get rid of these Irish landlords in order to bring about that "peace which we all desire," as my hon. and learned friend terms it? Can anyone imagine for one moment that if all the Irish landlords were bought out it would have the slightest effect on the views taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite—for instance, with regard to the war in South Africa? Would it make them loyal subjects of the Crown? [An IRISH MEMBER: No.] Of course it would not. They are above bribes. They are not going to sacrifice their patriotic aspirations in order to buy out Irish landlords. If the British taxpayer would buy out the Irish landlords without taking any money at all from Ireland they would never consent to sacrifice the aspiration of that part of the race to which they belong, the aspiration which they have always stated as kicking the English out of Ireland and to reign themselves supreme. That is the object which they say is the highest aspiration of their lives. Therefore, I conclude that a British Government, to whichever side it might belong, would say that it was not worth while sacrificing the taxpayers' money to buy up these landlords and still leave Ireland in as bad a state as it was before. I cannot conceive the sense of justice, which to my mind is one of the prominent features of the British people, permitting a Government or the House of Commons, in order to satisfy a momentary exigency which may arise, to perpetrate what I would look upon as an act of absolute and unbounded injustice.

    1143
    I quite admit that it might be far more to my interest to consent to sell my land at twenty years' purchase than to allow fifteen years to elapse, when I or my successors might be possessed of a diminished income, and be much poorer than would have been the case had I consented to sell. As representing a family who have lived in Ireland for hundreds of years, I say that no matter how much you whittle down my income I will never sell my land. I may be looked upon as very foolish, but I intend to live in Ireland, and I hope that those who come after me may live in Ireland. From the aspect of the House I believe that this Amendment will be rejected by a very large majority, though I cannot conceive the House of Commons being influenced by the arguments which have been urged from the opposite side of the House, and, indeed, from some Members on this side. The House must reason in this way: Which is the class who have always come forward to assist in the maintenance of law and order in Ireland? The class of all others is the landowning class. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, of course, will not accept that, but I should like them to prove the contrary. Who are the people who have come forward to help the Irish in distress? The men who have done more than any others in Ireland have been the landlords. Who now in Ireland are subscribing the most money for the relief of the suffering caused by this war? The landlords. There is one thing, at any rate, I am proud to say, in which all classes in Ireland join, and that is in furnishing Her Majesty the Queen with the bravest men who have ever fought in her Army. Now, I have done. I have tried to show that the landlords in Ireland probably refuse to sell because they wish to continue to live in their country. That is the reason which animates me, and that is the main reason why I shall vote against the Amendment.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: As far as I know the sentiments of any gentleman on this side of the House there is no desire whatever to drive the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh out of the country in which he expresses a desire to live. He has a perfect right to live there, and it is stretching the argument against this Amendment very much too far to suggest that because we ask
    1144
    the Government to pass a compulsory Land Bill for Ireland he and his class must necessarily take their departure from the country. There would be a considerable proportion of private property still left in their hands; they would not be deprived of their demesne lands or of their residences, while as regards his patriotism in wishing to remain in the country there is no reason why, because he is compelled to sell his holdings, he should take his departure. Several speeches of a very contradictory character have been delivered from the other side of the House, and I will leave hon. Gentlemen to settle their differences between them. As regards the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, it seemed to me that he followed the example of the Attorney General for Ireland in trying to circle his argument. He was in favour of compulsory purchase, but yet he was not in favour of voting for this Amendment. He was in favour of compulsory purchase to drive out the Irish landlords, but yet he was in favour of giving the landlords better treatment than the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh expects they will ever get. The two position are entirely contradictory, and it is impossible to give effect to them. The position taken up by the hon. and learned Gentleman is the same as that adopted by his political friends in Ireland, namely, to obstruct us who by our agitation in the country have brought this land question within measurable distance of settlement, but the moment we get legislation passed they will be the first to rush into the courts to take advantage of it. The Amendment before the House naturally divides itself into two parts. One part of the Amendment very justly and properly finds fault with the administration of the Land Acts in Ireland. I listened with considerable interest to the defence of the Attorney General of this maladministration—it can be called nothing else—but I cannot by any means compliment him upon his performance. He told us, in effect, that if we had patience the operation of the land purchase department of the Land Commission would effect the purposes of this Amendment. What are the facts? He told us that in a period of fifteen years, from 1885 to the present time, 55,000 tenants have become possessors of their holdings at a cost of about £18,000,000. There

    1145
    are 600,000 occupying tenants in Ireland, so that it is merely a question of arithmetical calculation to discover how long it will take to convert all the tenants into the owners of their own farms. It would take 180 years, on a moderate calculation, if the process proceeded at the same rate as during the past fifteen years. I venture to hope the process will be considerably expedited. No doubt, by the decision of the Court of Appeal as regards the 40th section a considerable improvement has taken place, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that a tremendous amount of unnecessary delay takes place in the working of the Acts. I know of one small case in County Longford that took seven years to pass through the Commission Court in Dublin. It was sent about from chamber to chamber; it was put back on motions to explain delay; it was kept going about for seven long years before the tenants who signed their agreements in 1887 got their vesting orders in 1894. What was the result? Could it be said to be satisfactory to either party? The landlords were deprived of the money which they required, and for which they had sold their property, for those seven years. The tenants were compelled to pay seven years interest in lieu of rent, so that they paid that amount more than they would have done had the sale been expedited as cases will be in the future. There is a considerable amount of discontent existing in connection with the fixing of fair rents. I know perfectly well how things are done in County Long-ford. No doubt some of the gentlemen who are sent down as Sub-Commissioners come with the very best intentions, but they do not come down with the intention of hurrying on the cases in their lists. I have frequently seen them rise in the middle of the day, on some pretext or other, when there was plenty of time to hear a considerable number of other cases. There has been most unreasonable delay in the inspection of farms. It was stated to-night that these inspections were highly unsatisfactory. I know, as far as the Commissioners are concerned, whenever I have been present, notice was given to both sides and the day fixed, but it is as to the length of time that elapses with which I particularly find fault, the period invariably running from a fortnight to three, four, or six weeks as the date of visitation. There was no valid reason why the visit should
    1146
    not be made the next day or the day after, or at any rate before the Commissioners left that locality. In this connection the delay is the strongest part of our case against the Commissioners. It may be said there is a great deal to allow for, that a great number of these applications are coming in constantly, and that they are being dealt with as quickly as possible. I do not know how far that statement can be substantiated with proof. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman gets reports supplied to him which may to some extent refute any case I may set up as regards these tenants. But as to County Longford I have known tenants to be kept from six to sixteen or twenty months out of hearing of their case, and these tenants, so far from being treated with the consideration which litigants before any other court in the land would receive, were not even vouchsafed a reply to their requests for expedition when they wrote to the Land Court complaining of this delay.
    MR. ATKINSON: Would the hon. Member give me the name of such a case?
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I will give the name of a particular estate and send the facts to the right hon. Gentleman by post. In approaching the consideration of the settlement of this question I venture to say it is not by any legal quibbling we will effect the object we have in view. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be ignorant of the fact that there is in Ireland a strong and growing agitation for the redress of the grievances of the people in this matter. He cannot be unaware of the fact that large public meetings are being held week after week—some of which the forces of the Crown are illegally, in my opinion, suppressing—for the purpose of calling the attention of the Government to the grievance of the tenants in the matter of land purchase, and to the necessity of passing legislation to compel unwilling landlords to sell. It must be, it follows from the nature of things, a matter of dissatisfaction to tenants living in a particular locality to see one estate sold to the tenants at a very considerable reduction, while the tenants on one

    1147
    or both sides of that estate have no prospect whatever of getting into the same position. The right hon. Gentleman may say that it is unjust and improper of us to force on this question or to expect the Government to commit the injustice of passing legislation of this character. That argument has been used from the beginning. Every effort to deal with this question, no matter in what way, has been denounced in the past, and will be denounced in the future, from the side which has an interest in maintaining the status quo. The Unionist Government, which professes to be a strong and resolute Government, able to carry out any policy to which it commits itself, could not do anything more to its credit or more to the satisfaction of the tenant farmers of Ireland than to deal in a wholesale and thorough manner with this question. The people are unanimously in favour of it; they will not be satisfied until some effort is made to remedy the grievances entailed on different estates by reason of the sale of other estates in the same locality. On higher and national grounds I would be disposed to speak more strongly on this question, but I do not want to irritate the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have expressed opinions in favour of this resolution to-night, and whose co-operation will in due time, I trust, have the effect of making the Government deal in a more liberal spirit with this question. Of one thing I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, and that is, that if he or the Government think the land question has been settled by the Act of either 1887 or 1892 or 1896 they are woefully mistaken. The people of Ireland are by no means satisfied with the progress which has been made under the existing law, and I sincerely trust that the division to be taken on this Amendment will bring home to the Government and their advisers that there is a real and vivid land question in Ireland to be settled, and that they will have no rest until it is settled.
    MR. O'MALLEY: I desire to join in the expression of our regret at the absence, and its cause, of the Chief Secretary from the House. I am sure we shall all be glad to see him back again in his place. The question before the House is undoubtedly one of
    1148
    vital importance to Ireland. I will go further, and say that it is a question of vital importance to England. The people of this country cannot wish Ireland to go on from year to year and from generation to generation in a state of discontent and a condition of penury, and with famine periodically scourging its people. If the Government desire to do away with Irish discontent and Irish distress, and, to a large extent, Irish disloyalty, they must grapple with this land question, and grapple with it soon. If there is one thing more certain than another it is that the Land Act of 1881 and the subsequent amendments of that Act have not settled the Irish land question. We still have the tenants and the landlords at loggerheads. We have the tenants appealing, very often in vain, to have their rents fixed; years elapse from the time they apply to the court before the rents are fixed; and then in almost every case the landlords appeal, their main object being to frustrate the operation and the administration of the Act, and to defeat the tenants—not because they want to have the rents fixed by the court raised, but to put the tenants to expense, and to cause them to be in a state of rebellion. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. There are poor people living from hand to mouth in the west of Ireland, paying exorbitant rents for most miserable tracts of land, who, after years of weary waiting, get their rents fixed by the courts, only to have an appeal entered against the decision by the landlord. Do you mean to tell me that while that state of things continues we can have peace and comfort and prosperity in Ireland? We have been charged during the last few months with disloyalty. Is it not a matter of serious consequence to this country that the Irish people should be loyal? Have you not seen the effect of this feeling of disloyalty in America and in South Africa? and it is only too true that the Irish people for generations have been taught that England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity? Do you mean to tell me you want this state of affairs to continue? If you want to make the Irish people loyal make them contented. Get rid, I will not say of the landlords, bag and baggage, but of Irish landlordism, and then you will find that a contented and peaceful Ireland will not be the disloyal Ireland of to-day. I would strongly appeal to

    1149
    hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, no doubt, are anxious in their hearts to do the right thing to my country. I believe the English people, if they fully realised the facts, if they were not blinded by centuries of persecution and bigotry, would settle this question very soon. It is our duty as Nationalist representatives to bring this question before the House. You may defeat us to-night. But take care that you do not have again in Ireland, and very soon, an agitation that will stir up all the elements that we on this side are most anxious to keep down. We want to see Ireland and England as brothers together, loving instead of hating each other. But by ignoring this question, by defeating this Amendment, by giving it out to the Irish people that you will not grapple with this matter in the way it should be grappled with—that is, by compulsory purchase—you will have once more all the bad elements in Ireland up against you. And who will be to blame? This House will be to blame, because the English people would be only too glad to endorse whatever decision you arrive at. I shall not detain you longer; but I strongly urge Gentlemen opposite, even at the risk of offending those gentlemen on the Treasury Bench,
    to yield to their consciences in this matter and support the Amendment.
    MR. FLAVINcharacterised the action of the Land Commissioners in Ireland as extraordinary, and gave several examples. From personal experience of the county of Kerry and surrounding counties, the hon. Member averred that the only solution of the question was compulsory purchase, with a fair price fixed for landlord and tenant alike. There were good and bad landlords in Kerry, where they had allowed a reduction of as much as 4s. in the pound; but, generally speaking, while landlords and tenants were going to war with each other, unless this House intervened by bringing in a Compulsory Purchase Bill, they would have a continuance of this bitter feud in Ireland.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—For the Amendment, 75; against, 209. (Division List No. 8.)
    Main Question again proposed.

    DEPORTATION OF PAUPERS INTO IRELAND.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in my name.
    MR. MURNAGHANseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "At the end of the Question to add the words, 'But we humbly represent to Your Majesty the great regret of this House that no reference has been made in Your Majesty's Speech regarding a Bill to discontinue the deportation of paupers from England and Wales into Ireland.'"—(Mr. Flavin.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)said that the ques-
    tion would be considered by the Local Government Board and the Irish Government with a view to the introduction of a measure that would satisfy hon. Members.
    MR. FLAVIN, on this assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main question again proposed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 215; Noes, 64. (Division List No. 9.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)

    Garfit, William

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of L.)

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Godson, Sir A. Frederick

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r.)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Goschen, Rt. Hn. GJ (St George's)

    Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith (Hts.)

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.B. (Brist'l)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Beach, Rt. Hn. W.W.B. (Hants)

    Curzon, Viscount

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Ld. George

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

    Bethell, Commander

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Hardy, Laurence

    Bill, Charles

    Doughty, George

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

    Heath, James

    Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

    Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

    Helder, Augustus

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Henderson, Alexander

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

    Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

    Fergusson, Sir J. (Manches'r.)

    Hutchinson, Capt. G.W. Grice-

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Finch, George H.

    Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Jessell, Captain H. Merton

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Flower, Ernest

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Forster, Henry-William

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Fry, Lewis

    Keswick, William

    Kimber, Henry

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Knowles, Lees

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Lawrence, Sir E. Durning (Corn

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

    Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks)

    Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Leighton, Stanley

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Strauss, Arthur

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Penn, John

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

    Pilkington, R. (Lancs. Newton

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon

    Verney, Hn. Richard Greville

    Lowe, Francis William

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Lowles, John

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Ward, Hon. Robt. A. (Crewe)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Purvis, Robert

    Webster, Sir Richard E.

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

    M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

    Rankin, Sir James

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edin'. W.)

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Malcolm, Ian

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

    Williams, Jos. Powell (Birm.)

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Robinson, Brooke

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas John

    Round, James

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Wylie, Alexander

    Milner, Sir Frederick George

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Younger, William

    Monk, Charles James

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    NOES.

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Gedge, Sydney

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Malley, William

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale

    Parnell, John Howard

    Caldwell, James

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Pease, Jos. A. (Northumb.)

    Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

    Holland, William Henry

    Pinkerton, John

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Clark Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Commins, Andrew

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Roberts, J. Bryn (Eifion)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Crean, Eugene

    Lough, Thomas

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Crilly, Daniel

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Daly, James

    MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn's Co

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Dewar, Arthur

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Tennant, Harold John

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Cartan, Michael

    Tully, Jasper

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Ure, Alexander

    Engledew, Charles John

    M'Leod, John

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Samuel Evans and Mr. D. A. Thomas.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Moss, Samuel

    Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

    Murnaghan, George

    Main Question put accordingly.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 229; Noes 39. (Division List No. 10.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Milbank, Sir Powlett C. John

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Milner, Sir Frederick George

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Flower, Ernest

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Forster, Henry William

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Fry, Lewis

    Monk, Charles James

    Balcarres, Lord

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r)

    Garfit, William

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Gedge, Sydney

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lon.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Barry, Rt. Hn. A.H. Smith- (Hunts

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Moss, Samuel

    Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A.H.G. (Bute)

    Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants.

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo's

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Bethell, Commander

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Bill, Charles

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hardy, Laurence

    Penn, John

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newt'n)

    Caldwell, James

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. C. Seale-

    Plact-Higgins, Frederick

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

    Heath, James

    Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace Curzon

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Helder, Augustus

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbysh.)

    Henderson, Alexander

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Purvis, Bobert

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry C.

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir.)

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Rankin, Sir James

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Hutchinson, Capt.G. W.Grice-

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Richardson, Sir Thos (Hartlep'l

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Kenyon Slancy, Col. William

    Robinson, Brooke

    Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

    Keswick, William

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

    Kimber, Henry

    Round, James

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Knowles, Lees

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. Ed. J.

    Curzon, Viscount

    Leighton, Stanley

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swans'a

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Dewar, Arthur

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Doughty, George

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Lowe, Francis William

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

    Lowles, John

    Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Strauss, Arthur

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    M'Calmont, Col.J. (Antrim, E.)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Sturt, Hon. H. Napier

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Ox. Univ.)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Manners, Lord Ed. Wm. J.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

    Finch, George H.

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W F

    Thornton, Percy M.

    1158

    1159

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Ure, Alexander

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Verney, Hon. Richard G.

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Younger, William

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

    Willox, Sir John A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Warner, Thomas C. T.

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Webster, Sir Richard E.

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

    Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

    Wylie, Alexander

    NOES.

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Malley, William

    Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Parnell, John Howard

    Commins, Andrew

    Holland, William Henry

    Pinkerton, John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crilly, Daniel

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Daly, James

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    MacDonnell, Dr. M.A. (Qn's C.)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Doogan, P. C.

    MacNeill, J. Gordon Swift

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Engledew, Charles John

    M'Cartan, Michael

    Tully, Jasper

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Leod, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. J. P. Farrell and Mr. Crean.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

    Murnaghan, George

    Resolved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as followeth:—
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
    To be presented by Privy Councillors and such Members as are of Her Majesty's Household.

    SUPPLY.
    Resolved, That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
    Ordered, That the several Estimates presented to this House during the present session be referred to the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. Hanbury.)

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Resolved, That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Com-
    1160
    mittee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.—(Mr. Hanbury.)

    SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—NEWS FROM THE FRONT.
    On the Motion for Adjournment,
    MR. CALDWELLasked whether there was any information from the seat of war.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Our information points to the fact that General Buller is not pressing his advance from the position occupied on Wednesday. We have not thought it right to press him for detailed information about the operations which are in progress; nor, if he gives us such information, do we think it right to make it public until the operations are completed.
    MR. TENNANT: May I ask whether it is true that General Macdonald has been ordered back?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have no information upon the point.
    Adjourned at ten minutes before One of the clock till Monday next.

EARL OF MEXBOROUGH.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of John Horatio Earl of Mexborough to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
ADDRESS.
The Queen's Answer to the Address of Tuesday, the 30th of January last, reported, and Address and Answer to be printed and published.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Aberdeen Police and Improvement.
Airdrie, Coatbridge, and District Water Trust.
Army and Navy Investment Trust.
Aston Manor Tramways.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway.
Barry Railway (Steam Vessels).
Bedford Gas.
Belfast and County Down Railway.
Bexhill and Rotherfield Railway.
Birmingham Corporation (Stock).
Birmingham (King Edward the Sixth) Schools.
Birmingham University.
Bournemouth Corporation.
Bradford Corporation.
Bray and Enniskerry Railway.
Brewery and Commercial Investment Trust.
Brighton Corporation.
Bristol Corporation.
Bristol Water.
British Gas Light Company (Stafford-shire Potteries).
Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway.
Buckingham, Towcester, and Metropolitan Junction Railway.
Burnley Corporation.
Bury and District Water (Transfer).
Caledonian Railway.
Charing Cross and Strand Electricity Supply.
Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway.
Chelsea Water.
Cheltenham Improvements.
Cheshire Lines Committee.
Church's Patent.
City and South London Railway.
City of London Electric Lighting.
City of London (Various Powers).
Cleethorpes Gas.
Clontarf Urban District Council.
Clyde Navigation.
Colonial Bank.
Commercial Union Assurance Company.
Cork, Bandon, and South Coast Railway.
County of London and Brush Provincial Electric Lighting.
Coventry Corporation.
Cowes Pier.
Crowborough District Water (Gas Transfer).
Croydon Tramways and Improvements.
Crystal Palace Company.
Dearne Valley Railway.
Donegal Railway.
Dorking Water.
Dublin Corporation.
Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway.
Dundee Harbour.
Durham (County of) Electric Power Supply.
East London Water.
East Shropshire Water.
East Stirlingshire Water.
Edinburgh Corporation.
Edinburgh District Lunacy Board.
Exeter Corporation.
Exmouth and District Water.
Exmouth Urban District Water.
Falkirk and District Water.
Falkirk Corporation.
Farnworth Urban District Council.
Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours.
Fishguard Water and Gas.
Gas Light and Coke Company.
Gas Light and Coke, Commercial Gas, and South Metropolitan Gas Companies.
Glasgow and South-Western Railway.
Glasgow Building Regulations.
Glastonbury and Street Gas.
Glastonbury Corporation Gas.
Glyncorrwg Urban District Council Gas.
Government Stock and other Securities Investment Company.
Grantham Gas.
Great Berkhampstead Water.
Great Central Railway.
Great Eastern Railway.
Great Northern Railway.
Great Northern Railway (Ireland).
Great Southern and Western and Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Companies Amalgamation.
Great Southern and Western and Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation.
Great Southern and Western Railway.
Great Western Railway.
Great Yarmouth Port and Haven.
Gun Barrel Proof Act, 1868, Amendment.
Gwyrfai Rural District Council Water.
Halifax Corporation.
Hamilton Burgh.
Hartlepool Gas and Water.
Hastings Corporation.
Hastings Harbour.
Hastings Tramways.
Hemel Hempstead Corporation (Water).
Higham Ferrers Water.
Hoylake and West Kirkby Improvement.
Huddersfield Corporation Tramways.
Huntingdon Corporation.
Ilfracombe Improvement.
Ipswich Corporation Tramways.
Jarrow and Hebburn Electricity Supply.
Kingscourt, Keady, and Armagh Railway.
Kingston-upon-Thames Corporation.
Kingston-upon-Thames Gas.
Knott End Railway.
Lambeth Water.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.
Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railway.
Lancashire Electric Power.
Lancashire Inebriates Acts Board.
Lancaster Corporation.
Latimer Road and Acton Railway.
Lee Conservancy.
Lincoln Corporation (Tramways).
Liverpool Corporation.
Liverpool Overhead Railway.
London and India Docks Joint Committee.
London and North-Western Railway.
London and North-Western Railway (Wales).
London and Saint Katharine Docks and East and West India Dock Companies.
London and South-Western Railway.
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway.
London County Council (Compulsory Purchase of Land).
London County Council (General Powers).
London County Council (Improvements).
London County Council (Spitalfields Market).
London Hydraulic Power Company.
London Sea Water Supply.
London, Walthamstow, and Epping Forest Railway.
London Water (Purchase).
London Water (Welsh Supply).
Lowestoft Railway.
Maidenhead Gas.
Manchester City Railway.
Manchester and Liverpool Electric Express Railway.
Manchester Corporation Tramways.
Manchester Ship Canal.
Margate Corporation.
Margate Pier and Harbour.
Market Weighton Drainage and Navigation.
Maryport Harbour.
Menstone Water (Transfer).
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.
Mersey Railway.
Metropolitan District Railway.
Metropolitan Water Companies.
Mid-Kent Water.
Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland.
Midland Railway.
Milford Docks.
Morecambe Urban District Council (Gas).
Morley Corporation.
Motherwell and Bellshill Railway.
Motherwell Water.
Mountain Ash Water.
Muirkirk, Mauchline, and Dalmellington Railways (Abandonment).
Neath Harbour.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Electric Supply.
Newport Corporation.
Newport (Monmouthshire) Gas.
New Russia Company.
Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn Urban District Gas.
North British Railway.
North-Eastern Railway.
North-Eastern Railway (Steam Vessels).
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply.
North Metropolitan Railway and Canal.
North Warwickshire Water.
Nottingham Corporation.
Oldham Corporation.
Ossett Corporation Gas.
Ossett Gas.
Otley Urban District Council Water.
Paignton Urban District Water.
Pontefract Park.
Preston Corporation.
Purfleet and Gravesend Junction Railway.
Ramsgate Corporation Improvements.
Rawmarsh Urban District Council (Tramways).
Reading Corporation (Tramways).
Redhill Gas.
Rhymney Iron Company.
Rhymney Railway.
Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water.
Rotherham Corporation.
Rotherhithe and Ratcliffe Tunnel.
Rugeley Gas.
St. Alban's Water.
St. David's Railway (Additional Powers).
Salford Corporation.
Scarborough Corporation.
Scottish American Investment Company.
Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society.
Sheffield Corporation.
Sheffield District Railway.
Southampton Harbour.
South-Eastern and London, Chatham and Dover Railways.
South-Eastern Railway.
South Essex Water.
South Essex Water Board.
South Lancashire Tramways.
South Metropolitan Gas.
Southport Corporation.
Southport Extension and Tramways.
Southport Water.
South Shields Corporation.
South Staffordshire Tramways.
South Wales Electrical Power Distribution.
Spalding Urban District Council (Water.)
Stockport Corporation Tramways.
Sunderland Corporation.
Sutton District Water.
Taff Vale Railway.
Taunton Corporation.
Tottenham Urban District Council.
Tyneside Electric Power.
Universal Life Assurance Society.
Vale of Rheidol Light Railway.
Wakefield Corporation Market.
Wandsworth and Putney Gas.
West Bromwich Corporation.
West Ham Corporation.
Westgate and Birchington Water
Wetherby District Water.
Whitechapel and Bow Railway.
Widnes and Runcorn Bridge.
Wirral Railway.
Withington Urban District Council.
Wolverhampton, Essington, and Can-nock Chase Junction Railway.
Wolverhampton Gas.
Woodbridge District Water.
Workington Railways and Docks.
And the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:—
Airdrie and Coatbridge Tramways.
County and City of Dublin Electric Lighting.
Cardiff Corporation.
Newry, Keady, and Tynan Light Railway.
Shannon Water and Electric Power.
Devonport Corporation.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  General Rules made pursuant to Section 26 of the Companies (Winding-Up) Act, 1890, dated 28th December, 1899.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF NORTHUMBERLAND).
  Order made by the County Council of Northumberland, dividing into polling districts so much of the Tyneside Parliamentary division of the County of Northumberland as is comprised in the parishes of Camperdown, Longbenton, and Weetslade.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  I. Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a light railway—

  1. In the county of Essex, from Kelvedon to Coggeshall.

  2. In the West Riding of the county of York, from Bradford to Leeds.

  3. In the county of Caithness, between Wick and Lybster.

  4. In the West Riding of the county of York, in and near the borough of Doncaster.

  5. In the county of Kent, between Cranbrook and Tenterden, in extension of the Rother Valley (Light) Railway, and the construction and working of that railway as a light railway.

  6. In the county of Lincoln, from Lincoln to Scawby.

  7. In the county of Lincoln, from Frodingham and Scunthorpe to Whitton, Winterton, and Winteringham.

  8. In the counties of Worcester and Warwick, from Redditch to Astwood Bank.

  9. In the county of Stafford, commencing in the parish of Essington and terminating in the parish of Darlaston, with branches.

  II. Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade—

  1. Amending the Basingstoke and Alton Light Railway Order, 1897.

  2. Authorising the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company to construct and work as a light railway the Cairne Valley Railway, which the said Company have power to construct and work under the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Act, 1897.

  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the table.

NEW BILL

  INEBRIATES AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1899, for Scotland—Was presented by the Lord Balfour; read 1α; and to be printed. (No. 9.)
  House adjourned at half-past Four of the clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven of the clock.