Sitting of 3 July 1900

PRIVILEGE—NOTICES OF QUESTIONS
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I wish to ask your kind attention, Mr. Speaker, to a matter which I think affects the privileges of Members of this House. Yesterday I gave notice that to-day I would repeat a question I had on the Paper with regard to the capture of the Derbyshire Regiment, a question which the Under Secretary for War, in my opinion, had not answered. I expected that, as a matter of course, after I had given notice across the floor of the House, it would appear among to-day's questions, but it does not do so. I wish to know if the omission is made by your direction or if it is the act of the clerks, from whom I have always, received so much courtesy. If it has been done after consulting you, I think I should have been communicated with.
*MR. SPEAKER: I think it may save time if I at once state that the hon. Member was understood simply to have given notice that he would put the question some other day. The Clerk at the Table consulted me, and as he said that no notice had been given by the hon. Member to put the question down for the next day, I directed to wait until fresh instructions were given. I understood also that the Under Secretary for War thought he had answered the question, in which case it should not be put down again.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It must have been my fault for not speaking
366
distinctly. I certainly did give the notice. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman, however, will now put the question down for Thursday.
*MR. SPEAKER: That shall be done if the hon. Member thinks the question has not been answered.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Certainly I consider it has not been answered.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  *CAPTAIN NORTON: In moving the rejection "of this Bill, I desire to say that I do so not only by the special request of the vestry of the important parish affected by it—Marylebone —but also by the wish of other public authorities in London, and especially of the parish a portion of which I have the honour to represent in this House. I make this statement in order to show that this is no narrow issue as between the parish of Marylebone and a certain electric lighting company, but that it is a matter which affects important parishes throughout this immense and thickly-populated area of the county of London. This Bill comes forward at a most inopportune moment, inasmuch as it is on the eve not of the creation, but of the coming into being of the great London boroughs on the 1st November next. It will be a matter of the gravest concern to every one of these great areas if at this moment the parish of Marylebone is to be placed in the position that a second electric lighting company is to be brought into competition with the existing company, with the result that the new borough authority, when it comes into existence, will either have to forego for many years the right and power to supply its own electric light, or will have to buy out at enormous cost the two companies. This is in no sense a party matter, and I believe I am justified in saying that the President of the Board of Trade has left it an open question, and that he desires

  367
  the House itself to settle the issue. Neither is it a question of municipal trading, inasmuch as from time immemorial it has been deemed to be one of the primary duties of local bodies to control the lighting of the area for the management of which they are responsible. Seeing that the formation of these new metropolitan boroughs was carried in this House by a majority of the votes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and in opposition to the wishes of many on this side, I would point out to those who desire to treat this as a party question that if they pass this measure they will practically be handicapping and weighting the horse that they themselves have backed. It is of the first importance that these new borough councils should have a fair field. They were created with the express purpose of bringing new municipal life into the administration of the great areas throughout the metropolis, and with a view of encouraging men of a superior class to join the local bodies. So far as the borough of Marylebone is concerned the new borough council will be practically identical with the present district, and by passing this Bill you will be placing it in a position in which it will be unable to deal effectively with the electric lighting of its area. I wish to be perfectly fair to the House in this matter. I have no intention of attempting to make a lawyer-like speech, but I will be perfectly frank, and give a plain statement of what has occurred. I will do absolute justice not only to the company which is promoting this Bill, but also to the company which now has possession of the electric lighting of Marylebone. I frankly acknowledge that the vestry have been at fault. In the year 1889 it allowed the Metropolitan Company to provide electric light, in view of the reserve powers granted to them by the Acts of 1882 and 1888, and having in view the risks, seeing that electric lighting was not in the advanced stage it has now reached, and it was, consequently, a highly speculative matter. The vestry, bearing in view those facts, agreed to forego the power which they might have obtained themselves to supply the electricity, and allowed the Metropolitan Company to undertake the duty. For a certain time the company did the work fairly well, but eventually, owing to the fact that the demand for the light in this great and rich parish enormously in-
  368
  creased, the company became unable to give complete satisfaction to the inhabitants of the district. They were, moreover, handicapped by the fact that they were building a large generating station at Willesden. Some years later the vestry, overwhelmed to some extent by complaints from the inhabitants of the parish, applied for an Order to enable it to supply the electric light, and at the same time two other companies made a similar application, one of them being the company which is promoting the present Bill. What happened? The Board of Trade granted the Order, but left it to the House to decide whether or not the vestry should be allowed to compete with the existing company. The House— very fairly, as I think—decided in favour of the Metropolitan company, inasmuch as that company had borne the toil and heat of the day. It had entered on a risky undertaking, and, up to a certain period, had given satisfaction. Some years later the vestry applied again for an Order, and again failed, and it then brought in a private Bill with a view to buying up the Metropolitan Company, either voluntarily or compulsorily. The company opposed that, and the House of Commons again decided against the vestry and in favour of the company. What has happened now? The vestry have once more decided to apply for a Provisional Order, more especially in view of the fact that they are soon to be constituted a borough council. But, at the same time, another electric lighting company, which is identical with the St. James's Lighting Company—perhaps one of the best electric lighting companies in the metropolis—is also attempting to get a footing in the parish of Marylebone, and if it does so the local authority will eventually be obliged to buy it out at enormous cost. What does the company urge in favour of its scheme? I have here the document in which they put forward their claim to support. They point to the fact that in 1889 the vestry adopted a report of its Parliamentary Committee, stating that, "in the belief of the Committee, competition between two companies would be beneficial to the parishioners." No doubt, at that time, when the vestry were being harassed by complaints of the inefficiency of the supply, they, did believe that competition would be a good thing. Then the promoters go on to point out that at a meeting held at the Board of Trade on

  369
  the 21st March, 1900, to consider the grant of the present Order, counsel for the vestry stated that "the vestry has always been in favour of competition in this parish, and they are still in favour of it." But what is the reply of the President of the Board of Trade, at the close of his remarks when he received the deputation in January? He said he thought the deputation would have "done some good in ventilating the subject, and in showing how burdensome the present state of things was, and how necessary it was that a remedy should be found" Well, that remedy has been found in a provisional agreement which has been come to between the representatives of the vestry and of the Metropolitan Company, to buy out the latter, and, therefore, whatever there may have been in the statement that the vestry favoured competition, that statement now counts for nothing. I notice in this document from which I have been (noting there is a statement, made prominent by the fact of its being printed in red ink, to the following effect —
  " It is stated that since the notice of objection to the Second Reading was given a committee of the vestry have made a provisional agreement with the Metropolitan Company for the purchase of the undertaking of the latter company within the parish at an enhanced price. Neither party having the necessary powers to make such an agreement, it is ultra vires, and cannot be binding upon either party."
  We know it cannot, but the vestry have done all that they can do by entering into this provisional agreement. I may further add that the existing Metropolitan Company, which formerly opposed this measure, distinctly contradicts the statement I have read, and says it can lie disproved by a reference to the Parliamentary Paper (Electric Lighting, Metropolis) (No. 189). The true position of the matter is stated in the Parliamentary Paper of 1889 (page 9) as follows—
  "The Marylebone authorities object to more than one company having powers in their district, and have entered into agreements with the Metropolitan Company."
  Seeing that this agreement has been entered into, and seeing also that the company which has a real status in the parish is at one with the vestry, I think I am justified in saying that it would be
  370
  directly against the interests of the community to allow a second company to come in—a company which could not compote, a company which would never be in a position to compete, and which would do nothing more than, thwart the efforts of the new borough council to do its duty, and which would ultimately force that borough council to buy it out at a heavy cost. I may further state that the vestry has not only petitioned Parliament against this Bill, but it is prepared to oppose it at every stage. If you pass this Bill the new borough council will not be able, like some of its neighbours, to supply the electric current at something like 3d. per unit, and private householders will have to pay probably 6d. per unit, and business premises 5d., while the parish itself will have to go on paying £30 per lamp instead of being able to supply its own lamps at a cost of £20 each per year, as is done in the adjacent parish of St. Pancras. By passing this Bill you will be depriving the ratepayers of Marylebone of the opportunity of getting better and cheaper facilities for lighting; you will deprive them also of the opportunity of making a profit which could go to the reduction of rates; and, furthermore, you will be bringing in a new authority to tear up the streets of the parish. You must remember that Oxford Street and Marylebone Road both pass through this parish. In one year Oxford Street was opened up 178 and Marylebone Road 111 times. Is it not monstrous you should bring in another company to tear up these streets, to the great detriment not only of the inhabitants of the parish, but of the trade and of the entire community, causing as it does so much inconvenience and loss to the residents and the public? Finally, may I point out that if you pass this Bill you will be stultifying yourselves? This House has passed a measure creating borough councils throughout the metropolis, and at the beginning you are going to stab one of them in the back by preventing it performing one of its most important duties—namely, dealing with the lighting of the parish. By so acting you are taking a distinctly retrograde step in the matter of local government, and at the same time you will be doing a great injustice to the inhabitants of a large and important parish. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time, this day three mouths.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I rise to second the motion. I do not propose to go over the ground so well covered by my hon. and gallant friend opposite. I simply stand here as a representative of a metropolitan and municipal authority, which feels that if this privilege is given to a private company in the case of Marylebone it will be given in the case of other municipalities, and that private companies, against the wishes of the local authorities, will be enabled to furnish what it is claimed it would be an advantage to the inhabitants of a municipality to have supplied by the local authority. Twelve years ago the Metropolitan Company was permitted, with the consent of the vestry, to furnish electric light to the parish. But the work has not been done satisfactorily; indeed, matters became so unsatisfactory that the vestry decided to avail itself of their reserve right to instal the light themselves. It accordingly applied for a Provisional Order, but some difficulty arose in regard to it, and Parliament refused it the power to instal, the House taking the view that when certain individuals had invested their money in furnishing what they believed to be a convenience to the inhabitants, no competition should be permitted. Yet, although competition by a local authority was forbidden, the House is now asked to allow competition by another private company. The parish says, and with absolute truth, that sooner or later this electric service must be furnished by the municipality itself, and when the local authority does take it over, instead of having only one company to buy out there will, if this Bill is allowed to pass, be two companies to be bought up. No doubt competition is a very good thing in the right place, but if it means that there must, in consequence of it, be a large addition to the rates, then the ratepayers are certainly not prepared to accept a proposal entailing such a liability. People who live in adjoining parishes realise that this is the thin edge of the wedge, and that what is made to apply to Marylebone to-day will be applied to other vestries to-morrow. Only to-day the vestry to which I have the honour to belong passed a resolution urging that this Bill should be opposed in every possible way. The President of the Board of Trade, in a debate on an exactly similar question a short time ago, said the House should always support
  372
  municipality. Well, I ask the House to take that course to-day. The President of the Local Government Board has also laid it down as a general principle that when a municipality and a private company were applying for the same thing the preference should be given to the municipality. Now, what is the position here I Marylebone has applied for and been refused permission to instal, but it intends to again come to the House for power to supply its own electric light, as well as to buy out the existing company. In the meantime you are asked by this Bill to allow a private company to come in and establish itself. I venture to suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board meant what he said the other day he will support the opposition to this Bill. Again, the right hon. Gentleman said——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not in order in discussing a speech made on a different occasion and on another subject, in the present session.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I am sorry to have transgressed the rules of the House. I only desired to express my hope that the views uttered by the right hon. Gentleman not very long ago are still held by him. I would also like to point out that, after all, the person to be chiefly considered is not the municipal authority or the commercial company, but the consumer. If I understand aright, the consumer and the ratepayer are very nearly identical persons, and as a ratepayer I would point out that he, after all, is the proper person to deal with this subject, because he has, every now and then, the means of turning out his elected representatives on the local authority if they do not do their duty, whereas, if the lighting is in the hands of a private company he has no control whatever over the directors. The parish to which I belong is spending over £100,000 in laying new pavements, and what is our experience of private companies? We have asked a company which has legislative power to break up our streets to do what work they require before we repave them, and their reply has been that they intend to use their powers when they like. How much better would it be for work of this sort to be done by the municipality itself, instead of allowing a private company to do all

  373
  sort of mischief by breaking up the streets and destroying the value of work done with the ratepayers' money. I hope that the House will not accept this Bill, but will postpone consideration of it until such time as the borough councils themselves have been created, and the ratepayers sure in a position to express their views upon the subject.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months."'—(Captain Norton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): I will endeavour to put before the House the dry facts of the case, which lie to a great extent in a nutshell. This is a Bill which proposes to confirm a Provisional Order, and I only desire to say, in the first place, that in issuing these Orders the Board of Trade acts with a view to giving the House an opportunity of judging whether or not the Orders should toe converted into law. The position in regard to this matter is this. Tie supply of electric light in Marylebone has been bad for some years past and has been greatly complained of. It therefore became necessary that something tangible should be done to remedy the existing state of things. Two years ago the Vestry of Marylebone applied to the Board of Trade for a Provisional Order to provide a supply in competition with the existing company. Having regard to the state of affairs we did not hesitate for a moment to grant it, but it gave rise to considerable discussion. It was contended that it would have been unfair to the existing company to put it in competition with a rate-aided authority. However, the House agreed to read the Bill a second time, although later on the Committee rejected it, mainly, I believe, on the ground that rate-aided competition would be unfair to the company. Subsequently an important deputation, including many of the loading inhabitants, waited on the Board of Trade complaining of the quality of the light. Eminent doctors declared that it was impossible to carry on operations in consequence of the bad light; shopkeepers also complained, and the conductors of
  374
  places of worship, declared that they could not carry on their devotions—they wanted more light. The deputation seemed to think that the Board of Trade had some means of putting these wrongs right, but, as a matter of fact, I had to explain that the Board of Trade was practically powerless, and that the only remedy for a grievance of this kind is to be found in competition. That is the real way in which existing evils, both in regard to price and quality, can be remedied. But the application of the vestry for a Provisional Order having been refused, is this House now to say that there shall be no remedy until some future time, when a new municipal authority has been created? The House must decide this question for itself. I have sympathy with the position of the vestry, but I must point out that, having already been refused power, they have not put in a fresh application. The hon. Gentleman says they have agreed with the existing company to purchase its undertaking, and that if it is carried out the vestry will then have the matter in its own hands. But I understand that that agreement requires ratification, and that it has not been definitely assented to by either side. If the House reads this Bill a second time I propose to move an Instruction to the Committee in order to safeguard the interests of the vestry in regard to any agreement which it may conclude. I shall propose that it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider the expediency of inserting a clause in the Order, providing that the Order shall not come into operation until a date to be decided by the Committee, and shall not then come into operation if the undertaking authorised by the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (West London Order, 1899) shall have been purchased by the vestry of Marylebone or their successors. If the House passes the Second Reading, together with this Instruction, the Committee will then be able to consider the position of the vestry in regard to this agreement. I hope that, having regard to the undoubted fact that the supply of the electric light is defective, and that the vestry have been refused power to instal, the House will not relegate this matter again to the position in which it was six months ago, but that it will send the Bill to a Committee to consider all the questions raised by it.
  MR. CRIPPSonly wanted to say one or two words as to the proper principle of dealing with matters of this kind. He hoped that the House would not give a Second Reading to this Bill. The facts were very simple. They already had a company in possession of the parish, and they had a vestry or municipal authority desirous of taking the lighting of the district into its own hands. Between the company and the vestry there was a provisional agreement, and they might take it for granted that if this Bill were thrown out that agreement would be carried into effect. Was it right, then, to introduce another company which the vestry would eventually have to buy out? As they knew, he was an opponent of municipal trading, but this was not a question of municipal trading at all, for the House had long recognised the principle that, where a local authority asked for powers to buy out an existing company, in order that it might itself supply the light, such power ought to be granted it. He did not believe any case could be quoted where it had been refused. When the vestry asked for power to compete with the existing company a totally different set of conditions arose, and it was felt by the House that the company should not be subjected to a rate-aided competition. If this Bill were carried they would have two authorities interfering with the streets, which was an unmitigated nuisance, and when the time for purchase came they would have two companies to buy out instead of one.
  MR. LYTTELTONhoped that the House would give the Bill a Second Reading. Was it fair that, because a local authority had intimated that some time or other it would light its own district, private enterprise should be refused even a hearing before a Committee of that House? He regretted that, after the offer of the President of the Board of Trade to move an Instruction which would practically safeguard the interests of the local authority, the opposition to the Bill was being persisted in. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved its rejection had admitted that the promoters of this Bill were men of excellent position in the electric lighting world, and that they had an
  376
  excellent record in London. It was admitted, too, that so far back as 1897 the vestry desired competition. So bad was the electric lighting that the vestry itself came to Parliament for a Provisional Order, but the House very properly declined to give a rate-aided authority power to compete with the Metropolitan Company. How had the situation changed? The opponents of this Bill said that it had changed because the vestry had entered into a provisional agreement to purchase the undertaking of the Metropolitan Company. He understands that that was not the fact. The vestry had never passed any such resolution at all. It was passed by a committee of the vestry against a powerful minority, and there were considerable obstacles to the carrying out of the agreement. In the first place the shareholders of the Metropolitan Company had to be asked for their consent. Next, Parliament had to approve the bargain, and finally the electors of the parish of Marylebone would have to ratify it, and he did not believe that that ratification was by any means assured, in view of the strong minority which opposed the passing of the resolution. He did not say it was not a bonâ fide agreement; it was a mere intention to agree, with many obstacles in the way. The shareholders of the Metropolitan Company had to be dealt with; the electors of the new borough council had to be converted, and so also had that body when elected. He did not say the vestry might not be so fortunate as to get Parliament to reverse its decision of 1898, and convert the electors in November next. The Amendment in effect said, "Notwithstanding all these obstacles in the way, you, the ratepayers and inhabitants of Marylebone, are to remain in a condition, as regards electric lighting, which everyone admits to be deplorable, or at any rate very undesirable." What did the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade amount to? That the State should guarantee the rights of the vestry if they were in earnest and successful in carrying out the bargain which they had made provisionally with the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company; and on the vestry being able to purchase the existing undertaking, the operation of this Bill should be postponed. What more reasonable, rational, and temperate proposal could be made? He submitted that the refusal of such an offer as that guaranteed by

  377
  the Instruction to the Committee, threw a very considerable light on the ability of the vestry to carry out their declared intentions.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 119; Noes, 147. (Division List No. 169.)

  AYES.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mount, William George

  Arrol, Sir William

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gull, Sir Cameron

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

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Gunter, Colonel

  Myers, William Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Hardy, Laurence

  Penn, John

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Percy, Earl

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S.-(Hunts.)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Hartley, George C. T.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Howortn, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Purvis, Robert

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Billiard, Sir Harry

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Shaw, Charles Ed. (Stafford.)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Kimber, Henry

  Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Knowles, Lees

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Lafoue, Alfred

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cross, Herb, Shepherd(Bolton)

  Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A. R.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Curzon, Viscount

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Usborne, Thomas

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Lowther, Rt. Hn J W (Cumb'land)

  Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Willox, Sir J. Archibald

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcester, N.)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Maclure, Sir John William

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

  Finch, George H.

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

  Wolff, Gustav, Wilhelm

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Wylie, Alexander

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Fitzgerald, Sir Robert Penrose.

  Middlemore, John Throgmortn

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fry, Lewis

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Mr. Lyttelton and Mr. Banbury.

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

  NOES.

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

  Colomb, Sir John Ch. Ready

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Baker, Sir John

  Crombie, John William

  Gold, Charles

  Bethell, Commander

  Daly, James

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  Blake, Edward

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Dillon, John

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Harwood, George

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hatch, Ernest Fredk. George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Duckworth, James

  Hazell, Walter

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Hurt, Thomas

  Emmott, Alfred

  Holland, William Henry

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Engledew, Charles John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Caldwell, James

  Evershed, Sydney

  Howard, Joseph

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Howell, William Tudor

  Carew, James Laurence

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wor.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Flower, Ernest

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kinloch, Sir Jn. Geo. Smyth

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Labouchere, Henry

  O'Kelly, James

  Strachey, Edward

  Langley, Batty

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tennant, Harold John

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Leng, Sir John

  Fender, Sir James

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Perks, Robert William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lloyd-George, David

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lough, Thomas

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wallace, Robert

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  MacDonnell, Dr. MA. (Queen's C)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walton, Joseph (Bamsley)

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Easch, Major Frederic Carne

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wason, Eugene

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

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

  M'Kenna, Reginald

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

  William's, John Carvell (Notts)

  M'Killop, James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

  Samuel, Hy. S. (Limehouse)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (H'dde'sfd)

  Monk, Charles James

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Woods, Samuel

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Murnaghan, George

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Yoxall, James Henry

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

  Souttar, Robinson

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Spencer, Ernest

  Captain Norton and General Laurie.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Spicer, Albert

  Resolutions agreed to.

  Words added.
  Second Reading put off for three months.

  GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. DOOGAN MR. DOOGAN (Tyrone, E.) moved that the Bill be read a second time this day three months. He said that if the Provisional Order was confirmed it would confer a monopoly on the Dungannon Gas Company, to the great loss of the people of that town. The local authority of Dungannon, up to the 1st April last, was a board of town commissioners constituted under an old Act, the 9th of George IV., whereby special privileges of rating were given to the occupiers of that town. The board of guardians was the sanitary authority, and the sanitary and water rates were paid half by the landlord and half by the tenant. If the town commissioners had before 1st April last obtained powers to provide a gas scheme, the incidence of rating would have been altered, and the payment of rates would have fallen altogether on the tenant, en-
  380
  tailing a loss of £540 per annum, a loss which would have more than counterbalanced any gain to be derived from the possession of gas works. The passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898 had, however, changed that position. It enabled the town commissioners to apply to the Local Government Board to be constituted an urban council and sanitary board with all the powers conferred upon them by the Local Government Act. The gas company, knowing that the Dungannon council would now enter into competition with them under the provisions of the Act of 1854 which they could do without any practical change in their rating system, determined to forestall the council, and prevent them exercising their new power, had applied for this Provisional Order, which if confirmed would give them the statutory right to break up the streets, and exclude the local authority from supplying gas in the interests of the ratepayers. During the whole of their existence the gas company never before applied for a Provisional Order, and never had the power to break up the streets, but this Bill, if passed, would give them that power, and also enable them to sell their undertaking to the people of Dungannon at an enormous profit. This was a Bill to create a monopoly in the hands of a private company which had been paying a dividend of 10 per cent. for sixteen years. They

  381
  had charged 5s. 10d. per 1,000 feet of gas, a price much higher than in any neighbouring town in the county of Tyrone. The price in Strabane is 4s. 2d.; in Omagh, 4s. 7d.; Corkstown, 4s. 7d; the price in Armagh is 3s. 4d., and in the adjoining county, Portadown, 3s. 9d. In no Ulster town is the price so high as it is in Dungannon. If the Bill passed there was no prospect of the gas company ever lessening the present price, and they would continue to make an enormous profit out of the people of Dungannon. The company started with a capital of £3,000 –600 £5 shares. Afterwards the company made a call of £2 on their shareholders, which increased the capital to £4,200. So far as he could ascertain that was all the additional capital the shareholders had ever paid into the company. But the capital was nominally raised in 1880 to £6,000, on which constantly a dividend of 10 per cent. had been paid since for sixteen years. Another inflation of the capital had been made a short time before the company sought this Provisional Order. A new company was formed, and at one stroke the capital was raised from £6,000 to £9,000, without a penny being paid; but the new company was nothing but the old company, which merely raised their shares from £10 to £15, and had themselves registered a new company. The transaction was the very embodiment of simplicity in the art of flotation. This Confirmation Bill would enable the company to charge the ratepayers of Dungannon a price sufficiently high in order to pay 10 per cent. on their inflated capital. The present price of gas was so prohibitory that out of 1,040 householders in Dungannon only 245 made use of it, and that on such a small scale that the gas supply of the town was only sufficient to make darkness visible. The policy of the House had been to give the control of public utilities to the local authority. If this Bill be confirmed it would inflict a great injustice on the people of Dungannon; their streets would be broken up, their representatives would be precluded from supplying gas at a popular price, and allocating the profits to the reduction of Urban rates, and the gas company would make themselves both inconvenient and intolerable with the ultimate purpose of enormously enhancing the value of their undertaking and compelling the town to
  382
  buy them out on their own terms. Hitherto the company had been mere trespassers on the streets, but this Bill would give them power of using the streets to put down mains and supply pipes, and to interfere with the sewers, the water supply, and the general efficient management of the streets. In fact, if the Town Council of Dungannon were to put a steam-roller on their own streets they would be liable for an action for damages if a leak were to occur in the company's pipes, He would give an illustration of how the company had used their powers as private monopolists. He was told on undoubted authority that about 1879 a gentleman bought a hundred £5 shares for £3 each. In 1880 these £5 shares were raised to £10, so that his capital of £300 was raised to £1,000, on which a dividend of £100 was paid; and if the Bill were passed that dividend would be raised in future to £150. Talk of Klondike. Why, it was not in it with this private company's gold mine in Dungannon. It was high time that the company should be checked in their career, instead of being confirmed by the House in their monopoly, which would enable them to break up the streets of Dungannon in despite of the unanimous opposition of the citizens and the local sanitary authority, in order to force upon them gas at a price so high that more than three-fourths of the householders at the present time refuse to use it. The local authority, in whose hands the lighting of the town should be placed, had no objection to buy the undertaking of the Gas Company at a fair price based on their true capital. But if the company obtained statutory powers they would be able, by making themselves unpalatable to the people, to force a sale on the basis of their nominal capital and at an exorbitant price. Having regard to all the circumstances in connection with this Bill, he appealed respectfully to the House to reject it, and he begged to move the motion standing in his name.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: It will be unnecessary for me to occupy the time of the House at any length in seconding the motion of the hon. Member. The hon. Member for East Tyrone alluded to that portion of the country in which Dungannon is situated, and naturally it falls to my hon. friend to make the motion concerning it. I am asked

  383
  by the Urban Council of Dungannon to identify myself with his opposition, and I am requested by the chairman of the urban council, who is also agent for Lord Ranfurly, Governor of New Zealand, and by the people of the neighbourhood to take a prominent part in laying before the House the opposition to this Bill. I do not wish to say a single word against the Board of Trade. The President of the Board of Trade has always shown himself most anxious and most earnest in developing the resources of the country. While not finding fault with the manner in which the Commissioner who was sent down in March conducted the inquiry, or with the report that he made, and while I do not wish in any way to reflect upon the general management of the Board of Trade, or the manner in which its representatives act on occasions of this sort, I wish to state that a remonstrance has been sent to the Board of Trade on the part of those who object to this Provisional Order. I regret that due effect was not given to that remonstrance, for if that had been done it would have prevented the expense that will be incurred by the urban council of Dungannon in opposing this Bill in Parliament. It is unnecessary that I should at any length follow the hon. Member in the statement he has made concerning the high price of gas under the management of the gas company, and the large dividend which is paid to the shareholders. I merely wish to say that the urban ratepayers are unanimous in asking the House to reject this Bill. If this Bill is passed the householders of Dungannon will suffer a great injustice, and the only remedy that will be left will be the adoption of the electric light. I ask the House to carefully consider that this is one of those opportunities given to local bodies of developing the resources of Ireland. If the House refuses to reject this Bill on this, occasion it will be striking a blow at the local government of Ireland and stultifying a measure which caused them much effort and was successfully passed through the House last session.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Doogan.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I wish to say two or three words on this, subject. I have, like the hon. Member for South Belfast, been requested by the people of Dungannon to move in this matter and to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. I do so as a Member from the County Tyrone and in compliance with the wishes of a great many of the inhabitants. It is quite true that the price of gas in Dungannon has been abnormal. In the county the price of gas is 1s. 3d. per 1,000 feet less. than in the town of Dungannon. In the neighbouring towns it is. still less. The methods by which the gas company has carried on business are certainly not such as to commend it to public favour. After what has occurred, I think we must ask the House, to reject the Bill. We are now dealing; with a little town in Ireland, and I ask the House to do for that town what it has done for great towns.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): Compared with the, other lighting questions before the House to-day and yesterday, this is no doubt a very small matter, but it is rather an important matter for the town of Dungannon, part of which is in my constituency, and that is the reason why I speak on the subject. The first thing the House has to bear in mind is that, until the Local Government Act of 1898, the town commissioners of Dungannon were debarred from either acquiring or erecting gasworks. They had no power. They were absolutely precluded, and therefore this company is in existence and has grown up. This company, which has been in existence a great many years, has had a rather curious history. It has an entire paid up capital amounting to £4,200. Under the Order it is proposed to make this capital into a sum of £9,000. What has taken place is this They have supplied gas to the town of Dungannon, and for the last thirty years the price of gas has varied from 7s. 6d. to 5s. 10d. per 1,000 cubic feet. They have paid dividends consistently of 10 per cent., and the profits, after payment of 10 per cent., have been used in extending the works. This inflated capital has been made through the consumers of gas in Dungannon being compelled by a monopoly to pay an exorbitant price.

  385
  That is the second thing the House ought to bear in mind. I wish to call the attention of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade to this matter. The gentleman who hold the inquiry was asked to go and inspect the works —this is really an important matter for the Board of Trade—and he declined to go. He stated that he had seen them from the railway as he passed. I rather think that on the question of inflated capital that is a fact which should be taken into account. The gentleman who inquired really did not inspect the works at all. Now the price of gas is 5s. 10d. per 1,000 feet. For fifteen or sixteen years it has been enormously in excess of the price charged by other companies in towns in the immediate neighbourhood. I think these are facts the House ought to take into account in dealing with the question, but when all is said and done this company is in possession. It has property which cannot be disposed of unless it is disposed of fairly and honestly. I have been appealed to by both parties. The chairman of the gas company is an old friend of my own—he formerly represented in this House the county a division of which I now represent—Mr. Thomas Dickson. Mr. Dickson, as representing the gas company, has given what I think is a perfectly fair proposal. This is a matter for purchase at a fair price. The town commissioners, now that they are entitled by law to purchase, have proposed to give the gas company £7,000 for the undertaking. Mr. Dickson has asked £9,000. He has, I think with perfect fairness, stated that the gas company is quite willing that £9,000 should be the maximum, and that the difference between £7,000 and £9,000 should be settled by the Government arbitrator. I recognise that as being a very fair offer. I have received a telegram stating that the Urban Council have agreed in principle to the purchase, and that the question now is one of price. I am going to make an appeal to my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade. I have been engaged for two days in opposing him, and I do not know that he will be in any very good humour for listening to any appeal I may make, but I am sure he will recognise the fairness of what I am going to ask. The question is merely one of terms, and the gas company have made an offer which cannot very
  386
  well be resisted in principle by the Commissioners. What I ask is this: Do not pass this Bill to-day. By doing so you will give the gas company a statutory position which we ought not to confer while negotiations are going on. Will my right hon. friend agree to postpone this Bill for a fortnight? It has been through the House of Lords, so that it is perfectly safe. This can then be taken before an Unopposed Bill Committee, and all will end well. The local authority will get the gas company's undertaking, and the gas company will get a fair price for their undertaking. I hope my right hon. friend will make this concession, and although I have been opposing him yesterday and to day, I trust he will heap coals of fire on my head by agreeing to my proposal.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): I can assure my hon. friend that I do not at all object to his opposition; I rather like it than otherwise. Of course, it must not be supposed that a Bill for confirming a Provisional Order is in any sense a matter promoted by the Government. It is merely an opportunity for the House to decide on the matter. My hon. friend asks for a postponement for a fortnight. Having regard to the circumstances and the facts he had brought before us, I do not think the House should resist that appeal.
  MR. LOUGH: It occurs to me that this is really not quite a satisfactory way of settling this matter. In fact, I question whether it is in order. We have had a debate on the matter, and surely we do not want on a future occasion to have that debate all over again. Now, with the facts fresh in our minds, the question might be decided. Dungannon has been very badly treated by this company; there is no law for its protection at all, there is no sliding scale; and I think the House is well advised as to what should be done under the circumstances. Having heard the facts and listened to the debate, I think we ought to decide this simple question, and if my hon. friend goes to a division I shall certainly support him.
  MR. CALDWELL: In order to bring the matter to a point, I will move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Caldwell.)
  MR. DILLON: I am sorry this motion has been moved before I had an opportunity of speaking with reference to the proposal made by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, but I will endeavour to keep what I desired to say in order on the motion for adjournment. I have no objection to the proposal of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, although I do not think any legitimate ground was shown for keeping this Bill hanging in terrorem over the town commissioners of Dungannon. Still, I shall not oppose his suggestion, as it would not be a prudent thing to do under the circumstances. The hon. Member tells us that the gas company and the commissioners have come to an agreement in principle, but there is a great difference between coming to an agreement in principle and coming to an agreement as to figures. As I understand, the town commissioners are willing to pay £7,000. or nearly double the amount of capital ever subscribed to the undertaking. The chairman of the gas company wants £9,000, and in order to put pressure on the town commissioners of Dungannon to increase their offer it is proposed to keep this Bill hanging in terrorem over the commissioners, instead of doing as the House should do—reject the Bill. The hon. Member, having made a powerful attack on the gas company, suggests an adjournment in order to allow the gas company and the town commissioners to come to terms. I recognise that, without having specific instructions from the town commissioners of Dungannon, it would be taking a very serious responsibility to divide in face of that offer, and with the Bill accepted by the President of the Board of Trade. I am not prepared to take the responsibility, but I am entitled to demand, on behalf of the citizens of Dungannon, that if this compromise is agreed to the Government or the President of the Board of Trade shall give us a pledge that the Bill will be finally dealt with not later than this day fortnight. That is a matter of very great importance, as having once been withdrawn from the power of the House it may be pushed off until the end of the session, when the Irish Members may have dispersed, and then be passed. That would be a monstrous injustice, and we ought to have a
  388
  definite understanding that the Bill should be placed on the Paper not later than this day fortnight.
  MR. RITCHIE: I think the House would not be justified in keeping this Bill hanging indefinitely in its present condition, and I am clearly of opinion that the House ought to decide upon the issue not. later than this day fortnight.
  MR. DOOGAN: I might point out, that the £9,000 asked by the gas company for their undertaking is exclusive of £1,739 balance of revenue, and also of the amount of coal in stock. These items if included would bring the price demanded up to between £11,000 and £12,000. I mention this as it may cause a disagreement in the arbitration. On behalf of the Urban Council, I accede to the adjournment.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Having seconded the motion of the hon. Member, I rise to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very considerate reply, and to say I have no objection to the adjournment.
  MR. FIELD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the understanding that this. question should be taken about the same date as the Irish Estimates?
  MR. RITCHIE: That, of course depends on when the Irish Estimates are taken.
  MR. FIELD: That is what we want to know, as then the Irish Members will be here.
  Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday, 17th July.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING, ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO 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 following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are

  389
  applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.: —
  Hammond (G. H.) Company Bill [Lords].
  London and San Francisco Bank Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO 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 following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Caledonian Railway Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  WIRRAL RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  CROYDON TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Bill accordingly read third time, and passed.

  EAST STIRLINGSHIRE WATER BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  MUIRKIRK, MAUCHLINE, AND DALMELLINGTON RAILWAYS (ABANDONMENT) BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.

  MOTHERWELL AND BELLSHILL RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on the
  390
  Motherwell and Bellshill Railway Bill [Lords], of the present session, be referred to the Committee on Group No. 8 of Railway Bills.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PRO-VISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL. ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
    TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL [Lords].

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL [Lords].
    GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
    LONDON (ST. MARYLEBONE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed.

    RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 8).
    Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER informed the House that, the Committee on Group 8 of Railway Bills not being appointed to meet until Thursday next, the parties promoting the Motherwell and Bellshill Railway Bill [Lords], which was set down for consideration upon the first day of the meeting of the Committee, had appeared before him and proved that the evidence of John Marshall, boiler-maker, Motherwell, and of David Henderson Macdonald, bridge-builder, Motherwell, was essential to their case, and that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House.
    Ordered, That the said John Marshall and David Henderson Macdonald do attend the Committee on Group 8 of Railway Bills on Thursday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.—(Mr. James William Lowther.)

    STANDING ORDERS.
    Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

    1. "That, in the case of the Salford Corporation Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with— That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

    2. "That, in the case of the North British Railway Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with— That the parties he permitted to proceed with their Bill."

    SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords],
    Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
    Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

    NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
    Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

    TYNESIDE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
    Reported from the Select Committee on Electric Power Bills [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.
    ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—Bedford Gas Bill, without amendment.
    That they have agreed to—Vale of Rheidol Light Railway Bill, with an Amendment.
    That they have agreed to—Woodbridge District Water Bill, Hartlepool Gas and Water Bill, City of London Electric Lighting Bill, and Lancashire and York-shire Railway Bill, with Amendments.
    That they have agreed to Amendment to—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords], without amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to extend the borrowing powers of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Morley, and to make further provision in regard to their water and electrical undertakings, and for the improvement and good government of the said borough; and for other purposes." Morley Corporation Bill [Lords].

    MORLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
    KILRUSH HARBOUR (PROPOSED PROVISIONAL ORDER).
    Copy ordered, "of the Report made to the Board of Trade on the subject of an inquiry held by the Board of Trade at the Court House, Kilrush, on the 27th day of April, 1900, relative to a Provisional Order applied for by Mr. Vandaleur on the subject of Kilrush Pier, which Provisional Order has been refused."— (Major Jameson.)
  PETITIONS.
    LAND VALUES TAXATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petition from Bonhill, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Poynings; Fulking; Norwich (five); Old Lakenham; Ilford; Farnworth; and Portsmouth; to lie upon the Table.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
    Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
    Petitions in favour, from Lydford; Brandon Colliery; Battle; Sherbum Hill; Browney; Middleton; Walsden; Dundee; Uttoxeter (two); Hunslet; West Bromwich; Bideford; Orpington; Norwich (four); Blackhill (two); Bethnal Green; Burton-on-Trent; Hythe; Not tingham; Bournemouth (two); Farnworth (four); Morecambe; Mountain

    393
    Ash; Christchurch (seven); Croydon; and Cheriton; to lie upon the Table.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Benholm; and Roxburgh; to lie upon the Table.
    SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Rugeley; Walsden; Sherburn Hill; Bethnal Green; Holsworthy; Tavistock; Caledonian Road; Bulkworthy; Nottingham; Norwich (four); West Bromwich (two); Ryhope; Bradford; Farnworth (two); Croydon; Portsmouth; Mountain Ash; and Morecambe; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    CELTIC ORNAMENTS FOUND IN IRELAND.
    Copy presented, of Summary prepared by Treasury of Facts and Correspondence with respect to certain Celtic Ornaments [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    APPOINTMENTS OPEN TO RETIRED SOLDIERS.
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 16th June, 1899; Colonel Long]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 249.]
    HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CLERKS).
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 24th May; Admiral Field]; to lie upon the Table.
    TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
    Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2468 to 2470 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    TRAMWAYS (STREET AND ROAD).
    Return ordered, "of Street and Road Tramways authorised by Parliament, showing the amount of Capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of Tramway authorised, and the length open for the public conveyance of passengers down to the 30th day of June, 1900; the gross Receipts, working Expenditure, and net Receipts; the number of passengers
    394
    conveyed and the number of miles run by Cars during the year ended the 30th day of June, 1900; together with the number of Horses, Engines, and Cars at that date (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 327, of Session 1899)."— (Mr. Ritchie.)

QUESTIONS.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK— RECENT NEWS.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman the representative of the Foreign Office any information to give the House regarding China?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The news received from various sources makes it clear that a large number of foreignersand missionaries of various denominations had taken refuge in the British Legation, which is besieged, and that the position in Peking is very grave—but we have no direct intelligence from Peking itself. A telegram has reached us from the Consul at Tientsin, dated 28th June, stating that the three arsenals known as the Eastern Arsenal, the Haikuan Ssu, and the Si-ku or Wu-ku Arsenal have been burned by the allied forces, with immense stores of powder and ammunition.

  COMMAND OF THE ALLIED FORCES.
  SIR J. COLOMB: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether General Sir A. Gaselee is now on the way from India to China with the Indian contingent; and whether General Gaselee will command the allied forces on land in China.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): My answer to the first question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second, I cannot yet say what arrangements will be made as to the command and distribution of the allied forces.

  SUGGESTED MOVEMENT OF TROOPS FROM SOUTH AFRICA TO CHINA.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of

  395
  State for War if he will say on what ground Lord Roberts has declined the application made to him by the Government to detach a portion of the army now serving in South Africa for China, having regard to the fact that upwards of 250,000 men are at present under the command of Lord Roberts in a country where it has been authoritatively stated that the war is practically at an end.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The Secretary of State for War is not at present prepared to give any information as to the subject of the hon. Member's question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: When will he be in a state of preparation?
  [No answer was given.]

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—SIR GEORGE WHITE'S LADYSMITH DESPATCHES.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the time has now come when Sir George White's Lady-smith despatches can be published.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I have repeatedly explained to the House that the publication of despatches rests entirely with the Secretary of State for War, and that I am not prepared to prejudice the exercise of his discretion by way of question and answer.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Are we to understand from the hon. Gentleman's answer that the House of Commons is refused this information?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think that question arises out of my answer. The selection of the time of publication must rest with the Secretary of State.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I will call attention to this on the Army Estimates.

  THE LATE GENERAL WAUCHOPE.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that Landrost Baumann, of Hoopstad, has in his keeping the rifle, revolver, and other arm's the late General Wauchope had with him when he fell at Magersfontein, and also some small trinkets belonging to the general, and has authorised Mr. Michael Davitt to state that he would hold these articles in safe keeping till some oppor-
  396
  tunity presents itself of forwarding them to the family of General Wauchope; and whether the Government, having regard to the offer of Mr. Baumann, will take any steps to provide for the immediate forwarding of these relics, of General Wauchope to his relatives.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understand that no official information has been received here referring to the hon. Member's question; but Lord Roberts has been requested by telegraph to make inquiries, and, if possible, to send home the articles mentioned.

  ENTERIC FEVER—STATISTICS'
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of cases of enteric fever admitted into hospitals at Bloemfontein during each of the eight weeks ending 12th May, and the number of men dying in those hospitals from this disease during the same period; and whether he can state the number of cases of simple continued fever admitted into hospitals in Natal, hospitals in Cape Colony, and hospitals north of the Orange River, respectively, with the number of deaths which occurred among these patients, whether subsequently transferred to the heading of enteric fever or not.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has given very short notice of a question involving so much statistical research, but I will do my best to satisfy him with my answer. The number of admittances for enteric fever into hospitals at Bloemfontein and of deaths from the same cause-in the eight weeks ended on 11th May— the week, for the purpose of these returns, ending on Friday—were:—23rd March; admitted, 88; died, 5. 30th March: admitted, 160; died, 9. 6th April: admitted, 166; died, 21. 13th April: admitted, 377; died, 34. 20th April: admitted, 263; died, 44. 27th April: admitted, 224; died, 54. 4th May: admitted, 226; died, 54. 11th May: admitted, 583; died, 65; making totals of 2,087 admissions and 286 deaths. That give a percentage of 13·7. The second question scarcely admits of an answer. I can only give the total admissions for simple continued fever, which were 5,860 and deaths only one. But I think the hon. Member will see that if a case was

  397
  subsequently diagnosed as enteric fever the death would be set down as from enteric fever and not as from simple continued fever.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the admissions and deaths were of noncommissioned officers, and how many of men?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I have the numbers of commissioned and non-commissioned officers and men in parallel columns, but it would be confusing to simply read them to the House.

  ENTERIC FEVER—THE SERUM TEST.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will state what steps were taken by the War Office to provide means for the application of the serum test (Widal's method) to the diagnosis of doubtful cases of enteric fever in general hospitals in South Africa; whether he is aware that this means of making an early diagnosis is largely used by hospitals and local sanitary authorities; and whether he will take immediate steps to provide every general hospital in South Africa with the skilled assistance and simple appliances necessary in those cases in which such provision has not yet been made.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: No special steps have been taken beyond the general training of medical officers in this method of diagnosis. The test is being applied in South Africa, and Army medical officers are quite capable of carrying it out.

  PRIVATE SOLDIERS—MESSING AND RATION ALLOWANCES.
  MR. ELLIOT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, seeing that private soldiers on active service are entitled to 6d. per diem in addition to free rations, whether he will explain why, when payment is asked for by soldiers in South Africa, they have been told that payment will not be made till the end of the war.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member-has been misinformed. Soldiers on active service get free rations, including vegetables and groceries when possible, and they also get the 3d. messing allowance,
  398
  but not the 6d. ration allowance. The ration allowance, however, is due to a soldier for any day on which he did not draw a ration, and the money is paid to him weekly if he desires. On a campaign, however, occasions may, of course, arise which preclude the possibility of such payment for a time.

  CENSORSHIP REGULATIONS.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to certain Minutes published in the Natal Witness, which have passed between the Prime Minister of Natal, the Governor, General Murray, and Sir Redvers Buller respecting the detention, opening, and suppression of letters and documents passing through the Post Office by the Censorship Department, and especially to the observation of the Prime Minister of Natal that the opening of private letters had been indiscriminate and unnecessarily rigorous and inquisitorial; whether he is aware that the Governor expressed by Minute agreement with his Ministers; whether, inasmuch as the matter has thus become public in Natal, these and any other Minutes on the subject which have passed between the Prime Minister and Governor of Natal and the generals referred to will be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether he will lay upon the Table any documents which have been issued by the Government, or those responsible in South Africa, prescribing or dealing in any way with the manner in which the censorship of telegrams or letters should be carried out in South Africa or elsewhere.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The Secretary of State has no objection whatever to the publication in this country of the documents which have been published in Natal. I do not know whether the hon. Member has seen the correspondence.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Yes, I have it. Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of my question?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: That should be addressed to the Foreign Office, as the general question of censorship is a much larger one, and refers to more than one Department.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I will put a question to the First Lord of the Treasury.

  TREATMENT OF DISCHARGED SOLDIERS—CASE OF PRIVATE WEIR.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I wish to ask the Under Secretary for War a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, what explanation has the War Office to give for the removal from Netley Hospital of Private Robert Weir, of the 27th Inniskilling Fusiliers, who had served with his regiment all through the Natal campaign, and was sent home in an enfeebled state of body and mind, and of the deportation of this soldier, who is without a pension and has received no gratuity, to the workhouse at Enniskillen, where he is at present a pauper inmate.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I have received no notice, and it is obvious I could not have answered such a question under forty-eight hours notice.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I sent it to the War Office, and had a letter from the hon. Gentleman's private secretary.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give longer notice.

  ARTILLERY ESTABLISHMENT— REDUCTION IN 1892–95.
  *MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether there was any reduction in the strength of artillery or diminution in the store of ammunition during the three years from July, 1892, to June, 1895.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: This question does not admit of a single reply. The changes made in the artillery of the last ten or twenty years embrace changes not only in the number of units but in the number also of men and guns. The hon. Member had much better ask for a Return, which I shall be quite prepared to grant.
  *MR. M'KENNA: My question is clear —whether there was any reduction in the strength of artillery or diminution of stores in a specified period.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I quite see the object of the question. We all recollect
  400
  there was a diminution of stores. But I put that on one side. What does the hon. Member mean by the rest of his question; does he mean a reduction of batteries, of guns, or of men? He will get the information much more clearly if he will allow me to give it by way of Return.
  *MR. M'KENNA: What was the information given to the Colonial Secretary, on which he based some recent observations?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  ARMY PENSION REGULATIONS.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a soldier incapacitated from all employment by illness contracted while on duty in camp in England and discharged as unfit for further service is entitled to a pension as if he had been on foreign service; and, if so, to whom should application be made.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The conditions are not quite the same, but application should be made to the same authorities, namely, the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital.

  LICHFIELD RIFLE RANGE.
  MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state what progress is being made towards the construction of the contemplated rifle range near Withington Barracks, Lichfield; and if anything has been done in the matter in the last two months.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Since the passing of the Act confirming the Provisional Order for the acquisition of the land required for this range, the notices to treat have been served on the various owners concerned, and we are now awaiting their claims, when endeavours will be made to arrange terms by negotiation, but where this is not possible recourse to arbitration will be necessary. The construction of the range cannot be commenced until possession of the land has been obtained.

  VOLUNTEER MOUNTED INFANTRY GRANT.
  MR. LUCAS-SHADWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what grant the Government pro-

  401
  poses to make towards the expenses of Volunteer mounted infantry beyond the ordinary grant to Volunteers.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: It has been decided to grant for this year an initial equipment allowance of £10 10s., an efficiency grant of £4, in addition to the ordinary capitation grant to provide for maintenance of equipment and hire of horses, and a special grant of 12s. for each day a Volunteer earns camp allowance, to cover the cost of providing and maintaining a horse in camp, and a travelling allowance of 3d. a mile to cover conveyance of horses to and from camp.
  MR. LUCAS-SHADWELL: Does this arrangement apply to this year only, or is it permanent?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: This year only. We are not prepared to deal with questions of permanent policy at this moment.

  SHORNCLIFFE CAMP—HOSPITAL ARRANGEMENTS—DEATH OF SERGEANT WILMSHURST.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he is aware that at an inquest held on Saturday last at Shorncliffe Camp, on Sergeant Wilmshurst, of the Sussex Regiment, it was shown in evidence that there was not a single orderly of the Army Medical Corps in the hospital, and that Wilmshurst, when taken to the hospital in a fit, died before a doctor could be found; and in view of the comments made by the jury at the inquest, whether he can say what steps, if any, are now being taken to secure without delay an adequate staff for our military hospitals both at home and abroad.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: No information has been received in the War Office of this incident, but inquiry will be made the staff of the hospital consists of a sergeant-major, a sergeant, two corporals, and fourteen orderlies of the Army Medical Corps, besides regimental soldiers. The hon. Member will see that I have to make further inquiry in order to give an exhaustive answer to this question. I put it to him and to other Members that when a question comes before me for the first time at ten or eleven o'clock in the morning at the War Office, it is impos-
  402
  sible to deal with it satisfactorily before the House sits. I trust that more consideration will in future be shown to an already over-burdened Department.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I will renew the question a few days hence.

  ROYAL RESERVE REGIMENT OF HUSSARS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the Royal Reserve Regiment of Hussars, now quartered at Hounslow, has been embodied for seven weeks, and had up to last week received no grooming kit and only sixteen saddles, so that the regiment is compelled to drag their horses round the barrack square with ropes and chains; and when the Department propose to make this cavalry corps efficient.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The requisitions for the saddlery and grooming kits were not received at Woolwich until the 20th June, the whole supply was despatched on or before the 28th June.

  MILITIA EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that till last autumn the militia competitive examination consisted of Military law, tactics, fortification, and military topography, he will explain why the subjects of military law and tactics have been excluded from the course, and military history, consisting of the first 130 pages of Hamley's "Operations of War," dealing with the strategic movements in the Napoleonic Wars, substituted since the South. African War, such being a study of a system of military operations rendered obsolete by smokeless powder and the improvements in modern firearms.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The changes were made because it was thought better to have one instead of two examinations. But care was taken not to prejudice the chances of candidates who had passed the first examination under the old system.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state whether Militia candidates doing duty with their embodied battalions will be forced to pass

  403
  a competitive examination in September; and, if so, in what subjects they will be examined.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The subjects for the revised Militia examination were published in August, 1899. As I have stated in reply to a previous question, arrangements have been made to prevent hardship to those who have already passed the first examination under the old system. These arrangements would have been in force in March if an examination had been held; and they will be in force in September. I may point out the necessity for a competition examination depends on whether or not there are more vacancies than candidates.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will there be a competitive examination in September?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I think almost certainly, but it depends whether the number of candidates exceeds the number of vacancies. If a greater number of gentlemen wish to enter the Army than there are vacancies for, then they must compete between themselves for the vacancies.
  GENERAL LAURIE: Will the officers now serving at the front be required to go through the same literary competitive examinations as those in garrisons? If so, it will be extremely hard.
  *Mr. WYNDHAM: It is difficult to deal with this matter in answer to questions. Care has been taken to make the examinations as equal as possible. It is impossible for the officers at the front to compete next September, and therefore a portion of places will be set apart and will be filled up on the nomination of Lord Roberts. As to officers of Militia at home or on the Mediterranean stations a difficulty arises, because commanding officers have been able to give leave to some, but have had to refuse it to others. We hope, however, to meet their case by granting a proportion of marks for every day of duty done, and every day on board ship, which will equalise conditions as far as possible.
  MR. BOSCAWEN: Arising out of this answer may I ask
  404
  whether in the case of Militia abroad, but not in South Africa, the examination of candidates will be held in England or at their respective stations?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The examination in these eases will be held at the respective stations for those candidates who are at their stations, and an allowance of marks will be made for everyday of duty done and for every day on board ship.

  BELLEVILLE BOILERS—ROYALTIES AND FEES.
  MR. PENN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in new designs for, or on points of detail in, the construction of Belleville boilers the Belleville Company is consulted; and, if so, what fee is paid, and what is the total sum so paid since the adoption of the boiler, over and above anything paid as royalty, and what is the total amount paid, and to be paid, as royalty.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The fee for this consultation is included in the royalty. The only extra payment to the Belleville Company beyond the royalty is for drawings which they supply. The actual amount paid up to date for royalty is £116,192, and for drawings £644, in respect of fifty-four ships. The approximate amount remaining to be paid for royalty in respect of forty-eight ships is £49,231.

  WATER-TUBE BOILERS.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the technical character of the controversy as to the use of water-tube boilers on Her Majesty's ships, he could, for the convenience of the House, lay on the Table a Memorandum on the subject a few days before the discussion on Vote 8 of the Navy Estimates is taken.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will see what materials for the discussion on water-tube boilers I can place before the House before the Vote is taken, but my own review of the case, which I am anxious to make as little technical as the ease admits, I propose to embody in the statement which I shall make to the House.

  AUSTRALIA AND IMPERIAL DEFENCE —AUSTRALIAN HELP IN THE CHINESE DIFFICULTY.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when he will be in a position to make his promised statement respecting the new arrangements to be made on the termination of the Australian agreement sanctioned by the Imperial Defence Act, 1888.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not remember giving the undertaking to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but matters will remain as they are until the central government in Australia is formed under the Commonwealth Bill, when, of course, any negotiation would be easier. I may mention that, there being among our ships on the Australian station several suitable for work in Chinese waters, the Secretary of State telegraphed for the consent of the Australian colonies to their temporary withdrawal, which consent is necessary under the Imperial Defence Act. This consent was given in twenty-four hours, and in the most cordial manner.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: May I ask if the cost of these ships sent from Australia to China is defrayed by the United Kingdom?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I think the Australian colonies are far more bent on helping us in China than on any financial question.

  REORGANISATION OF THE MILITARY FORCES OF THE EMPIRE.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any attempt has been made to ascertain the views of the Colonial and Indian Governments on the reorganisation of the military forces of the Empire; and whether the Government will consider the desirability of adding to the Committee of the Council of Defence representatives of the great self-governing colonies and of India.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that opportunity has been taken to consult the authorities on the question referred to by my hon. friend. The Committee referred to in the question is a Committee of the Cabinet, and the Government, therefore, cannot add to it in the manner suggested.

  SIRDAR BHAI SHAMSHERE SINGH.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the arrangements made for the education, during his minority, of Sirdar Bhai Shamshere Singh, the present chief of Arnowli and head of the Bhaikean family in the Punjab; and whether he will ascertain if there is any reason why the Sirdar should not be allowed a tutor competent to educate him in English, and in a manner becoming the position he is likely to hold on his coming of age.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): This chief is at present only nine years old, and his brother six years old. The estate to which he is heir has only a moderate income, and is in debt. The arrangements for the education of these boys are made by the Court of Wards, subject to the approval of the Punjab Government, and under these circumstances there is much to be said in favour of a good native tutor until the lads are old enough to go to the Sirdar's college.

  CANADIAN ARTILLERY—CASE OF CORPORAL COURTNEY.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Corporal Courtney, of A Battery, Kingston, Toronto, was on the 24th May ordered to march a squad of the battery to the canteen to drink the Queen's health in beer, to which he had a personal objection; and that, in consequence, he has been reduced to the ranks; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the case.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have no information as to the incident to which the hon. Member refers. The administration of the Canadian Militia is entirely a matter for the Canadian Government, and Her Majesty's Government have no right or desire to interfere in a question which solely concerns one of the self-governing colonies.

  BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES AND ASSIGNMENTS OF DEBTS.
  SIR HENRY STANLEY: I beg to ask the President of the

  407
  Board of Trade if he is aware that trustees in bankruptcy receive notices of assignments of debts due to creditors; whether it is the duty of trustees to assure themselves that assignments do in fact exist before parting with moneys in their hands; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to provide that trustees receiving notices of assignment should at once apprise the creditors concerned.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The answer to the first two paragraphs of the question is in the affirmative. With reference to the third paragraph, I am of opinion that there is no necessity for legislation.

  SALE OF UNDERSIZED SEA-FISH— LEGISLATION IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing what legislation, if any, has been adopted by and now 3xists in France, Belgium, Holland, Prussia, and Denmark, respectively, with regard to the limits of size of sea-fish allowed to be caught, imported or ox-ported, possessed or sold, as well as the penalties, if any, imposed by such legislation, the conditions under which such penalties are incurred, and the date of each law included in the Return.
  SIR CAMERON GULL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask if he will include in any such Return a statement whether the legislation referred to is strictly enforced in those countries.
  MR. RITCHIE: One can hardly ask a foreign Government if the laws enacted in its country are strictly enforced. I am making inquiries through the Foreign Office, and will consider when I receive the replies how far I can supply the information desired by my hon. friend.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if there are any prosecutions in those countries?
  MR. RITCHIE: I think that is rather beyond the scope of our inquiries.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give us the information before proceeding with the Undersized Fish Bill?
  MR. RITCHIE: I cannot undertake anything of the kind. Whatever may be the regulations in force in other countries, they have nothing to do with the passing of this Bill.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: But that is one of the questions the House is asked to deal with.

  RAILWAY PASSENGERS' LUGGAGE.
  SIR CAMERON GULL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will grant a Return of the amounts of free luggage which the various railway companies are under statutory liability to allow to the several classes of passengers over the different portions of their lines.
  MR. RITCHIE: The Board of Trade are in communication with the Railway Association, and have said they assume-that the companies will have no difficulty in supplying the information. I shall press for an early reply.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES AND DEATH CERTIFICATES.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General will he explain on what authority the registrars charge varying sums of from 1s. to 2s. 7d. for certificates of death of members of registered trade unions, who have funeral benefits attached to their societies, seeing that registered friendly societies only pay 1s. for such certificates, which is fixed by law, and whether he can take any action with a view of making the same charge for obtaining certificates for registered trade unions.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer the question. Section 97 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, provides that for the purposes of that Act a certificate of the death of any member of a registered friendly society is to be given by the Registrar of Deaths for a sum not exceeding 1s., This enactment, however, does not apply in the case of the death of a member of a registered trade union, and consequently

  409
  in such a case the ordinary fee of 2s. 7d. is payable for a certificate of death. I have no power to take the action suggested in the last paragraph of the question.

  CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT REGULATIONS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the notice issued by the Civil Service Commissioners, on 7th April, 1894, announcing a competition limited to registered copyists for eight appointments as abstractor or assistant clerk, stating the maximum limit of age for entry at sixty, it was contemplated to retire a successful competitor upon reaching that age.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): Whatever may or may not have been in the mind of the authorities when that notice was issued, there can be no question that, under the general rule of the service laid down in Clause 10 of the Order in Council of 15th August, 1890, and Clause 18 of the Order of 29th November, 1898, a civil servant is liable to be called upon to retire at the age of sixty.

  ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFTCE DUBLIN.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the late Mr. T. J. O'Brien, of the Consolidated Accounting Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, was allowed a special salary amounting to £210 per annum for the discharge of the duties of Clerk in Charge of the Vote Account, and that, since shortly after Mr. O'Brien's decease in June, 1898, these duties have been performed by a junior clerk at a salary of £140, who recently presented a petition to the Lord Chancellor praying for an allowance similar to Mr. O'Brien's; whether the Lord Chancellor on receipt of the petition instructed the Accountant General to take steps to have these duties performed by a first class clerk; and, whether, seeing that the time of the three first class clerks is fully engaged by other responsible duties, and that it has been found impossible to get the work of the Vote Account done by the present first class staff, an additional first class clerk will be appointed; and, if not,
  410
  whether an adequate allowance will be given to the junior clerk who has during, the past two years been discharging the duties connected with the Vote Account.
  MR. HANBURY: The junior clerk referred to (who is only nominally clerk in charge and receives all necessary directions from his superior officer) has the same salary as Mr. O'Brien's predecessor. Mr. O'Brien was allowed the exceptional fixed salary of £210 to compensate him for the fact that being outside the normal organisation of the Office, he had no right of promotion such as Mr. Wilson has, and was on a much lower scale of pay. Mr. Wilson's salary after thirteen years service will be £230, rising by £10 to £300 as against £210, fixed salary paid to Mr. O'Brien after the same period of service—and this irrespective of his chance of promotion.

  IRISH LAND ACTS—THE ASHBOURNE ACT.
  MR. DALY: I beg; to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that purchasers under the Ashbourne Act are only entitled to about £10 per cent. every ten years, while purchasers under the Land Bill of 1896 will be entitled to £14 after ten years; whether he is also aware that the sinking fund under the: Ashbourne Act is only 17s. 6d., while under the Bill of 1896 it is £1 5s.; and. whether there is any reason for not placing the purchasers under the Ashbourne Acts on as favourable terms as the purchasers under the Bill of 1896.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The first paragraph of the question appears to be based upon a misapprehension, for though the Treasury rules and tallies have been published so. far as regards the application of the decade system to purchases under the Ashbourne Act, they have not yet been issued with regard to purchases under the Acts of 1891 and 1896. There is no. authority, therefore, for assuming that the sum of £14 per cent. is correct. The facts are as stated in the second paragraph. The advances under the Ashbourne Act were made by means of the realisation of stock issued under the Local Loans Act at 3 per cent., advances under the Acts of 1891 and 1896 by the

  411
  issue of guaranteed land stock bearing dividends at £2 15s. per cent., which is provided by the interest portion of the tenant purchasers' annuities, the balance of the annuity, £1 5s., being accumulated against the annuity. The Local Loans stock is not redeemable until 1912.

  LISTOWEL SUB-COMMISSION.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the number of originating notices served by tenants to have judicial rents fixed before the Sub-Land Commission at Listowel; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in North Kerry owing to the delays caused to tenants by the fact of their applications to have fair rents fixed being delayed for such long periods; and whether he can say when the next sitting of the Sub-Land Commission at Listowel will be held.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: There are 115 cases from the union of Listowel, in which the applications to fix fair rents have not as yet been listed for hearing before a Sub-Commission. Apart from the statement in the question, I am not aware that dissatisfaction of the nature indicated exists in the district referred to. Sittings of Sub-Commissions have been held for the disposal of cases from that district as frequently as has been found possible, having regard to the claims of other districts. It is probable that a list containing the majority of the 115 eases now outstanding will be issued towards the close of the present year, but no definite arrangements have as yet been made.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the real cause of the dissatisfaction is that the orginating notices were served so long ago as three years last March?
  [No answer was given.]

  IRISH LUNATIC ASYLUM REGULATIONS.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a resolution adopted by the Board of the Limerick District Asylum pointing out the state of the law as regards the admission of lunatics in
  412
  Ireland; and, seeing that after the magistrates, in conjunction with the medical officer called to examine insane patients, make the order for committal to an asylum, there is no power to compel the friends or relations of such patients to pay for their maintenance, even if they are able to afford it, whether power could be given to the authorities of asylums in Ireland to compel payment for patients so committed on ascertaining that the persons responsible for their support are in a position to do so.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: No such resolution, I am informed, has been passed by the Board of the Limerick District Asylum. I may observe, however, that the power to compel friends or relatives of patients committed as dangerous lunatics, under the tenth section of the Act 30 and 31 Vict. c. 118, to pay for their maintenance could only be given by legislation.

  THE SEIZURE OF THE "UNTTED IRISHMAN."
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that certain issues of the United Irishman, published at Ormond Quay, Dublin, were seized and confiscated by the Dublin metropolitan police and also by the constabulary; whether he can explain to the House the reasons for such seizure and confiscation; and whether he would state upon whose orders those seizures were made.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: This question only appeared on the Paper this morning, and as all the official documents on the subject are in Dublin, I will ask the hon. Member to defer the question until Thursday.

  DUBLIN CONSTABULARY CLOTHING.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the fact that the uniform and clothing of the Dublin police are imported from England, although this force is largely supported out of local rates, and that the uniforms of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the uniform and clothing used in the Irish Prison Service, and the Army clothing used in Ireland, are obtained also in England, and in view of the difficulty entailed on Irish manufacturers by the

  413
  system of contracts established by the Government Department at Pimlico, whether the Government would consider the advisability of starting an Irish Government Clothing Department, so that local manufactures may be established on lines which would make it possible for the clothing used in Irish Government Services to be made in Ireland.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The contractors for the supply of cloth for the Irish police are all, I believe, resident in England, but the making up of the articles of clothing is, with the exception of helmets, in the hands of Irish firms. The subject of contracts for the clothing of the police has on more than one occasion engaged my own personal consideration. Proposals have been made to me that these contracts should be restricted to Irish firms alone, and that the existing system of inspection at the Army Clothing Department in London should be abolished. As regards the first proposal, every facility has been given to Irish firms to tender, and they have been supplied with samples of the standard patterns. It is impracticable for the Government to consent to the restriction of these contracts to Irish firms alone, but in the case of such firms the only requirement necessary to secure the adoption of an Irish made cloth as a sealed pattern is that it should stand the War Office tests. The suggestion that an inspection depot should be established in Ireland has been brought before the War Department, but they were unable to concur in it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: AS you have established an Agricultural Department to enable Irish landlords to improve their position, why not have an Industrial Department to give the people a chance of earning wages? As the Dublin people pay £30,000 or £40,000 a year, they ought at least to have a chance of having the clothing made in Dublin.
  MR. FLYNN: Are we to understand that the Royal Irish Constabulary are a branch of the War Office and under its control?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The clothing contracts are.

  POTATO GROWING IN IRELAND— EXPERIMENTS WITH ELECTRICITY.
  MR. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland if his attention has been directed to a series of experiments made by Mr. O'Sullivan, of Athea, in the county of Limerick, with a view of improving potato growing; whether he is aware that under this new system an increase of 80 per cent. in the crop is shown; and will the Department cause inquiries to be made into the matter.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKKTT,): My attention has been called to the experiments referred to in the question. I understand that Mr. O'Sullivan attributes the extraordinary increase in his potato crop to the action of electricity introduced through lightning conductors and distributed through the crop by means of wires. As both the parish priest of Athea and the county surveyor of Limerick are satisfied both as to the effect and the cause of this remarkable phenomenon, I shall have inquiries made on behalf of the Department.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the cost per acre of electricity is?
  MR. PLUNKETT: The Department has not made its inquiries yet.

  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty have assented to the proposed inquiry into the constitution of the Board; and whether the inquiry will be enlarged so as to include the powers as well as the constitution of the Board.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have done my best to acquaint myself with the wishes of the Governors, and I do not think the reference need be altered.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can tell us what will be the business to-morrow and on Thursday. And

415
I would venture to remind him of the Indian Budget. Public attention has been directed to Indian questions generally, and I think he seemed disposed a few days ago to give some consideration to it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The work immediately before us is the Tithes Bill of my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the Agricultural Holdings Bill, the consideration of which was commenced last night. As regards the Indian Budget, my right hon. friend is perfectly correct in saying that I am anxious to advance the ordinary date upon which the Indian Budget is taken. That, as the House is aware, is just before the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, which, during this Parliament, has come on in the second week in August. I hope to considerably advance that date, but I am not yet in a position to say exactly what day it will be convenient for the House to allocate to that purpose.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: What will be the business to-morrow?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Tithes Bill will be put down again for to-morrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Mr. Kemp; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Charles M'Arthur.
MR. HALSEY further reported from the Committee, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Money-lending Bill [Lords]:— Sir William Anson, Mr. Thomas Bayley, Mr. Birrell, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Sydney Gedge, Mr. Vicary Gibbs, Mr. Hazell, Mr. Lyttelton, Mr. Maddison, Mr. Marks, Mr. Murnaghan, Major Rasch, Mr. Steadman, Mr. Lawson Walton, and Mr. Warr.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Colonial Solicitors Bill, without amendment.
That they have agreed to—Coal Mines (Prohibition of Child Labour Underground) Bill, changed to Mines (Prohibition of Child Labour Underground) Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to check Corruption." Prevention of Corruption Bill [Lords].
Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend the Volunteer Act, 1863." Volunteers Bill [Lords].
Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to. amend the Military Lands Act, 1892." Military Lands Bill [Lords].
Queen Anne's Bounty Board.—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Five Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons (pursuant to Message of this House) to consider the constitution of Queen Anne's Bounty Board, and to report whether economy and efficiency of administration would be promoted by any change in its constitution or by its amalgamation with any other body.

VETERINARY SURGEONS AMENDMENT BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee, on Law, etc., without amendment.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No 250.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 250.]
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK— POSITION OF BRITISH LEGATION AT PEKING.
[MOTION FOE ADJOURNMENT.]
MR. PRITCHARD MORGANrose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the present position of the British Legation at Peking, and the necessity of taking immediate and definite steps in the matter "; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr.. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen:—
MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I am sure the whole of the House will regret

417
to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that the gravest possible fear exists with regard to the safety of British residents in Peking, and especially with regard to the Legation. I am not altogether without hope that there is a probability that the Peking Legation can hold out until some relief comes, but in the meantime we are face to face with this very grave difficulty: We do not know who is the ruling power in China to-day; we do not know whether it is the Dowager Empress, or whether she has been removed; and we do not know whether it is Prince Tuan or his son. That being so, and there being such a terrible state of confusion, I think that Her Majesty's Government ought to consider the advisability of taking some step, in conjunction with other Powers, to consider the question of creating a Regency in China. With Peking, at the present moment, it is impossible to hold any communication, and even if it were possible, matters are in such a disturbed condition that it would be impracticable to arrive at any solution of this very grave difficulty. I would like the House to follow me in one or two observations with regard to these disturbances. They exist only in one part of China—that is in the extreme north in the provinces of Shantung and Chihli. There are various causes given for these disturbances, and causes which perhaps it would not be well to remind the House or the country of at the present moment. But the Chinese have had some causes of complaint, not least among them being the demands of the various foreign Powers for concessions of railways throughout their Empire, and not only for concessions for railways, but insisting upon the Chinese Government undertaking to pay interest on the capital which was required for the building of these railways. That was one of the causes, perhaps, which led to these disturbances. I am not defending the Chinese in any way, but do not let the House misunderstand me. I want the House to understand that the disturbances have arisen in those particular districts where these concessions have been insisted upon from the Chinese. It is impossible, probably, to change the form of Government or the Constitution of China. The status quo should, perhaps, in the opinion of those best able to judge, be maintained. But,
418
in the meantime, we have this danger—a danger to the lives of British subjects at Peking, and also a danger to the lives of all foreigners, which, of course, their respective Governments will probably also consider. I do not think it is generally known to the House or to the country that there is a provisional Government already appointed in China. That provisional Government consists of Li Hung Chang (who is at the head of it), Chang Tsi Tung, Lien Quan Yih, Yuen Chili Kai, and Yu Lien Chan. I think Her Majesty's Government is aware officially of the existence of this provisional Government, and these Gentlemen are Viceroys of the most important provinces in China. But these provinces are situated at great distances from each other, and it is utterly and absolutely impossible for them to enter into communication with each other daily or hourly, as the importance of the subject would necessitate. I would suggest—and I am not doing this for the purpose of embarrassing Her Majesty's Government—that a Regent should be appointed. I suggest that you should have one man with whom you can deal in China, and the experience of all those who know Chinese affairs points unmistakably to one man as the strongest man in China, who is head and shoulders above everybody else, and who some thirty years ago was considered the most eligible man to occupy the throne of China. He is the man whom General Gordon picked out for the throne, and Gordon would have put him upon that throne if one of the Powers had not found out what Gordon was going to do, and the result was that Gordon was recalled upon the particular day he was going to do it. That man is Li Hung Chang. He is the most prominent statesman in China. He has more influence there to-day, for his mere name strikes terror into the heart of every Chinaman, and I say that in this extreme emergency, having regard to the fact that you do not know who is on the throne to-day, that Her Majesty's Ministers do not know to-day who is the Emperor or who is the Empress of China, it is the duty of the Government to consider the question of creating a Regency and communicating with other Powers to find someone in China who can be dealt with at this critical moment, and who may even now save the lives of British subjects and others in

419
Peking. From the year 1860 up to the Japanese war Li Hung Chang was looked upon as the heir apparent to the throne. I hope that the Government will not for a moment consider that I am making this suggestion in order to embarrass them, for I am only doing it in order that it may be made known to the other Powers that there is a possibility of saving the lives of the foreigners who are in Peking, and I do not hesitate to say that Li Hung Chang would do it. It is not only my opinion, but also the opinion of the highest Chinese authorities, that Li Hung Chang is the man who can probably put an end to these disturbances, and I would beg and pray of Her Majesty's Government and the other Powers in Europe and America to consider the question of creating this Regency at this critical moment, and later on consider the question of whom you are going to put on the throne. It is necessary that changes should be made in order that peace and prosperity may attend that mighty Empire. I appeal to the House, having regard to our being in ignorance as to whether there is at present any head of the Government, to consider whether one should not be created. I believe that if Li Hung Chang were to go north there would be a rising of the Cantonese and Southern Chinese against the Manchu dynasty. Leave him where he is for the present; terms can be made, and then Li Hung Chang can proceed to Peking, accompanied by troops if necessary. I am certain that this is the only possible means of restoring order. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
*MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to second the motion as a matter of form, because, though there has not been a stronger critic in this House of the policy pursued by Her Majesty Government in relation to affairs in China than I have been, yet I am bound to say that I believe in the present crisis they have done all in their power to protect the lives and property of British subjects in China. I have the honour of personally knowing Admiral Seymour, and I feel certain that all that courage, determination, and ability could do was done by him and the 2,000 troops under him when they attempted to reach Peking to relieve the foreigners there. My opinion is that long before any such an arrangement as that foreshadowed by
420
the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken could possibly be given effect to there would be no foreigners in Peking to be relieved. From all I gathered during my visit to the districts where the rebellion, now is, a few months ago, and from my somewhat extensive journeys throughout China, I believe it is a fact that the great bulk of the inhabitants throughout that country have no sympathy with the present rising. I believe that the great hope of staying the rising and preserving the integrity of the country lies in intimating, distinctly—in concert with Japan, the United States, Germany, and any other Power interested in China that would join in the intimation—to the great Viceroys of Nankin and Wuchang that they can rely on no attempt being made by any of the Powers to seize territory in that great heart of China—the Yang-tsze region—and that the Powers will co-operate with the Viceroys in the interests of order. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that Li Hung Chang should be made Regent of the great Chinese Empire, my own feeling is that it would be much wiser on the part of Her Majesty's Government to intimate to Li Hung Chang that they would hold him responsible in purse and person for any outrages committed on foreigners in the districts under his governorship. I hope the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be able to give us some information that will show that the opinion I have expressed that Her Majesty's Government are doing all that is humanly possible to relieve Peking is true. I certainly do not think that this is an opportune moment to raise any further question than that which has been declared to be of urgent and definite public importance—namely, what has been done and is being done to reach Peking with an expeditionary force in time to save the lives of the foreigners there. I must say, knowing as I do personally many of those now cooped up in Peking surrounded by those hordes of Chinese, that one's heart goes out to them and is sad when one thinks that even at the present moment, while we are discussing this question here, it is. seriously possible that there may be none of them alive for relief to be taken to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Pritchard Morgan.)
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It is a matter of concern, in view of the most serious, sudden, and unexpected events that have occurred, that notice should be taken of them in this House, even by way of moving the adjournment—always an unsatisfactory method. The events which have occurred are undoubtedly not only of a most unexpected character, but are of the greatest possible importance and fraught with the greatest issues—issues which concern not only the relations of the Powers to China but the relation of the Powers towards each other, which is, perhaps, the gravest and most serious difficulty that may arise out of this rising in China. But we must also not forget that on these events and the turn they may take will depend also the future of so large a portion of the earth's population as one-third. I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that this is not a popular rising in China in the sense of being a rising of the whole people. It is a small provoked rising, but none the less serious for that. I believe Her Majesty's Government are once more at the parting of the ways, as they were when they were called upon to remove Her Majesty's ships from Port Arthur. There are two courses to be initiated at the Foreign Office, and upon the wise choice between these courses will depend, I believe, the future of China and the whole future of British prospects in the East. I think there can be no doubt that the Imperial Government at Peking as we knew it a fortnight ago has disappeared. It no longer exists, and in its place there is chaos, accompanied, as the hon. Member opposite said, with the most awful danger to Europeans in Peking. I am convinced I am not exaggerating the situation when I say that chaos reigns in the Chinese capital, and that there is no form of Government to appeal to. The only question that I think we ought to consider now is, the Chinese Government we have known having disappeared, what is to be done to carry on our relations with China, to secure law and order and the observance of treaties. I cannot for a moment agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that. England ought, in company with other Powers, to intervene with the Government of China by nominating a Viceroy, I care not whether he be Li Hung Chang or anyone else. Not only have we no
422
right to impose a Viceroy on China, but I will undertake to say that we have no power to do it. I therefore entirely repudiate the suggestion made to that effect, but I repudiate still more strongly the suggestion that Li Hung Chang should be held personally responsible for events over which he has no control and which he could not have prevented.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: My remarks, referred only to the districts under the control of Li Hung Chang.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: No such occurrences have taken place in those districts, nor are any expected, and I am sorry, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman should have made such a strong suggestion on a mere possible contingency which I believe will not arise. I need not recall to the House that China consists of eighteen provinces governed by nine. Viceroys and nine Governors, who have always been the real Governors of China. The Imperial Government of China is a shadowy something not after our idea of government. There is no central Government for taxation, and the government of the country is carried on by the Viceroys. I have information which I believe to be absolutely true, and which comes from a very serious and well-informed source, to the effect that of the nine Viceroys six have already met together and have practically formed a provisional Government. These Viceroys are the Governors of the central and southern provinces.
MR. PRITCHAED MORGAN: They have never met together yet.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not know how late the hon. Gentlemen's information may be—whether it is information he brought from China or information he received since his return, but my information is that there has been common action between the six Viceroys I have indicated. It is possible they may not have all met, but by inter-communication they have achieved this result. They have practically formed a provisional Government, which at this moment exists, and they are prepared and are in a position to guarantee good order and the safety of foreigners in their own provinces, and are also prepared to guarantee the execution of treaties with foreign Powers.

423
They are, in other words, a de facto Government, with powers much more real than were ever exercised by the Imperial Court, and they are ready to undertake the government of the country. That is a more natural arrangement than one Viceroy or one Regent, and they look for—and for my part I trust they will obtain—the support of Her Majesty's Government. We have lost one Government, but we have got another. I am not sure whether it will last, but there it is for the moment, and it is for the moment that we want some controlling power able to take charge of an abandoned Empire. Assuming that my information is correct—and I am pretty certain that it is—this Government does exist. It is not a Government de jure but it is a Government de facto. It has been the tradition of England to recognise de facto Governments, and I hope this tradition will be carried out in connection with China. That tradition always seems to me practical and useful, and should be pursued by Her Majesty's Government. We do not know what awful vistas of war, confusion, and trouble may be opened up in these Eastern parts. We do not know on what conditions the Powers are going to intervene. Are they to elect a Regent, or any other new form of Government? I am most profoundly convinced that if Her Majesty's Government attempt to invent a form of government for the Chinese and impose it upon them, they will undoubtedly meet with a most ignominious failure. Twenty-one times has China been invaded, and twenty-one times has China absorbed the invader, and the invader has become a Chinaman. Do not let us make the attempt. [Laughter.] I am sorry that on this grave emergency hon. Members should laugh. Do not let us attempt, in our position, to invent and to impose any new form of Government on the Chinese. Her Majesty's Government should at once recognise the de facto Government and give them such support as to carry with them, at any rate, the central and southern provinces over which the Viceroys hold sway, in the terrible emergency with which they are confronted.
MR. DILLON: I only desire to ask one question of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the subject before the House. Is it the fact, or is there any foundation for the statement,
424
that the American Admiral in Chinese waters objected to the policy of the other Powers in attacking the Ta-ku forts, and pointed out that an attack on those forts was calculated to force the regular Chinese army into alliance with the "Boxers"? And also, if that report be true, what is the present relation existing between the American forces and those of Great Britain, and whether the Americans are co-operating with the other Powers in the other stops proposed to be taken, or if America has declared a policy of its own in China.
*SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn has furnished the House with a very important statement in regard to the action of the Viceroys of the southern and central provinces of China; but I fear that these Viceroys will not be able to secure the restoration of order in the north. There are two great questions which we have now to consider. The first is the immediate question of the safety of the British Minister, and the other British and foreign residents in Peking. The other is the future settlement of the Chinese problem. I will only say one word in regard to the first, which is the cause of the very gravest anxiety. I wish to know why the Government have not invited three weeks ago, when they first knew the gravity of the situation, the only Power which is able to relieve the Legations in Peking, and possibly the only Power which is able to put an end to these disturbances in China—I refer to the Empire of Japan—to take action. There is not the slightest doubt that the Japanese have sufficient troops to march to Peking and put down any Chinese force which they may encounter between the sea and the capital of China. They have mobilised an army of 50,000 of the best disciplined troops in the East, and these could do all that is required. If Her Majesty's Government have allowed themselves to be pushed away from asking Japan to do what Japan alone is able to do efficiently and quickly, by the opposition of any European Power jealous of Japan, then they have incurred a great responsibility. I do not believe in this chimera of a European concert. I have never believed in it. I have watched this farce for years. I have seen its utter effeteness in Turkey, and I do not believe

425
it will be any more successful, in the long run, in China. What this country wants in China is a clear and definite policy resolutely carried out—a British policy supported by all the support which Great Britain can obtain. I see no other way of relieving the Legations except by an immediate appeal to Japan. Whether Russia or Franco agrees or not, England and the other Powers should insist on urging Japan to interfere. That is what we owe to our Minister, to our fellow subjects, and to the Christian inhabitants in the north of China. I now go to the greater question, that of the future. What is to be our policy towards China? Well, I am afraid that neither of the two Front Benches have much ground for attacking each other upon their policy towards China. On that side I see right hon. Gentlemen who seven years ago, in 1893, allowed the greatest chance ever offered for settling the Russian menace against China——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing the general policy of this country towards China. The motion before the House only allows him to discuss the present position of the Legation in Peking.
*SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I was unfortunate in not hearing the words of the motion. I understood the hon. Gentlemen who preceded me had been permitted to refer to the future arrangements in China. I was going to say that the loss of the opportunity of settling the Chinese question in 1893, and a similar blunder in 1898, when our ships were driven out of Port Arthur, is to be deeply regretted. But I will say no more about those lost opportunities. In regard to the saving of the Legations and the strengthening of the Government of China—questions of the greatest importance—the hon. Gentleman who moved the motion distinctly referred to the establishment of some kind of fresh Government in China, which should prevent the recurrence of these fatal disturbances and these attacks on foreign Ministers and foreign subjects. I believe that under a kind of tutelage by Great Britain, Japan, Germany, and the United States, a Government might be set up in China which the Chinese themselves would allow to be a national Government, and which might
426
be encouraged for the cause of civilisation. We have heard a great deal of the good policy of the young Emperor. We do not know whether he is living or not, but we might do something to encourage him. And if we go to Poking, and if the Dowager Empress is willing to be the centre of reform, we might induce or even compel her to a beneficent policy. But the most fatal policy which we could adopt—a policy which has been openly avowed in some quarters of late—is that of the disintegration of China. That would be a fatal policy, would do us no good, and would alienate Japan, the United States, and probably Germany, and would unite the whole of China against this country. The suggestion that we should have a sphere of influence in the Yang-tsze valley——
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not complying with my ruling.
*SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I again apologise. While I do not, Mr. Speaker, dispute your ruling, I am sure I have the sympathy of many hon. Gentlemen, who rarely have an opportunity of discussing this kind of question—an opportunity, however, which we have a right to exercise. Therefore, if on occasion when the great question of China is raised in a modest form, I think that even you, Sir, will allow me your sympathy at being restricted in my remarks by the rules of the House. The question before us, then, is the safety of the Legations and the restoration of order in China. The more this question is looked at the more it will be seen that the means I have suggested— namely, the intervention of Japan—is the only way of securing it. I know that the Government think a great deal of the Concert of Europe in this matter. But the Concert of Europe is a will-o'-the-wisp. The European forces may have fought together, but they are only small in number; and the most difficult questions will arise later. We know that there is the greatest jealousy on the part of Russia of any interference by Japan. But Russia itself is unable to send a sufficient force for the relief of the Legations. We hear a good deal of the great armies Russia has in North-eastern Asia. I doubt whether Russia has in all 80,000 troops there; and it is very doubtful

427
whether she could send 20,000 for the relief of Peking, or even half that number. On the other hand, Japan could immediately put 50,000 or 60,000 troops, with artillery, transport, and everything complete, in the field. I venture to say that the result of that operation on the part of Japan would not only be the relief of the Legations in Peking, but would place in Peking a Power upon whose thorough friendship and fairness this country could rely.
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has alluded to the difficulty private Members are in of bringing on questions of this character. I make no complaint of any advantage which may be taken of the rules of the House in order to elicit information with regard to China at this particular juncture. No one is better aware than I am of the grave anxiety which exists throughout the country at the present time as to the safety of the Legations, and also as to the preparations that Her Majesty's Government may have made. So far as it has been possible we have made no concealment from the House of Commons. We have from day to day given, as fully as we possibly could, the unfortunately very scant information which has reached us; but I very much doubt whether any good can be gained at this particular moment by an attempt to draw the Government into any discussion of policy with regard to the position in China. At the very moment when military operations are going on it is usually considered injudicious to forecast what may be the next step. At the best of moments the Government of China, or the position of affairs in China, or its Constitution, is not an exact science. At the present moment we are in a maze of uncertainties with regard to the position at Peking, and any forecast we may make as to the future must be based very much on information which must render it altogether unreliable. I doubt, therefore, whether it would be well for me to follow my hon. friend into some of the suggestions he has made, more especially as those suggestions are not altogether calculated to preserve that full concert and accord of the Powers which it is the great desire of Her Majesty's
428
Government to secure at the present, moment. But the hon. Member who moved the adjournment made one practical suggestion. I was a little surprised when he went back to the causes of this. outbreak—I think that at this moment, no discussion of those causes would throw very much light on the procedure which it is now desirable to adopt—and attributed it to the efforts of the concessionnaires and the pressure they wished should be brought to bear on the Chinese Government, seeing that there is no Member in the House who has invoked the good offices of the Foreign Office more frequently than the hon. Gentleman himself. But, speaking with a considerable experience of China, he urges us to consider the propriety of conferring on Li Hung Chang some special authority to act on behalf of the Powers in the preservation of order. I think it may be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to consider that among many other possible alternatives; but I certainly think it would not be our duty to pronounce any verdict on the feasibility of it, seeing that nearly every consideration, as to the probable effect of it is at present, hidden from us. My hon. friend has, in. some respects, impeached the Government. His fear is that we have not taken sufficiently vigorous measures towards obtaining the support of the only Power which is, at this moment, capable of coming up in large numbers for the relief of the Legations. The question of calling; in any particular Power is of itself a difficult one. The Government have, from the very first, from the 6th of June, when they gave full power to Sir Claude MacDonald and to Admiral Seymour to act according to their discretion for the relief and preservation of the Legations, communicated to other Powers consistently their desire that as full a force as was desired by the officers on the spot should without any delay be brought to bear. The hon. Member for East. Mayo asked me whether the American Admiral had dissented, from the other-Powers in regard to the attack on the Ta-ku forts. We have no reason to suppose that there was any division of opinion between the Admirals on that point. Our information goes to show that the attack on the Ta-ku forts was not begun by the ships. The forts were being rapidly manned, by soldiers, and their position would have made the

429
position of the ships untenable, and, as a matter of fact, fire was opened by the forts on the allied fleet. So far as we are aware, the Americans, who had landed men already, and were proceeding to the relief of Peking with Admiral Seymour's force, took the same part as the other ships of the squadrons in resisting the forts.
MR. DILLON: Was not the fire opened upon the fleet only in reply to the ultimatum of the Powers that if the troops were not removed they would attack the forts in the morning?
*MR. BRODRICK: There is no doubt the Admirals originally made some communication to the forts; but, so far as we are aware, they acted entirely in concert. I believe the American Government are averse, as a rule, from entering into technical and diplomatic joint action; but they are acting in co-operation, exactly in the same way as the other Powers, with ourselves. My hon. friend asked why Her Majesty's Government had not called in the Japanese, and why they had not taken advantage of the proximity of Japan to urge them to throw in an overwhelming force at once for the relief of Peking. Her Majesty's Government have been in communication with all the Powers, including the Japanese Government. Their view has been throughout to give encouragement to any Power for the prompt despatch of any body of troops which they could send to meet the existing emergency at Poking. We made it perfectly clear to the Japanese Government that we hoped that they, having it in their power, owing to their proximity, and the circumstances which enable them to throw in a large force within a comparatively small number of days, would see their way to supplement considerably the contingent they had already landed. That communication was made to them some time ago.
*SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Has any Power objected to that?
*MR. BRODRICK: We have no reason to think that any influence has been exerted by other Powers to discourage the Japanese Government from undertaking this work. My hon. friend has probably considered to some extent the military character of the problem. He
430
will recollect that, while it is one thing to put troops on board ship, it is another to provide them with the commissariat and transport necessary for marching more than 100 miles through a hostile country. I need not remind the House that the circumstances in China at this moment may vender it extremely difficult for a relief force to penetrate to the capital within a reasonable time. The period of rain has begun, the roads are practically impassable owing to the rains, and the railway has been rendered useless for the greater part of the way. Therefore the problem is not merely one of bringing a sufficient number of troops on the scene, but of providing them with all the details and the equipment necessary to convey a large army through a difficult country in the face of the enemy. Therefore I will ask my hon. friend to remember that the problem which we have to face, and have been facing for the last three weeks, is not so easy or so simple as, I think, he seems to imagine. I should like in a few words to explain to the House what has been done by Her Majesty's Government from the first in this matter. Practically the first warning of a serious crisis having arisen was on 20th May, when there was a meeting of the Corps Diplomatique, at which they decided that, unless the Chinese Government showed more vigour in bringing the existing state of disorder in Shantung and about 90 miles from Peking to a close, it would be necessary to send for guards. Those guards were provided on 28th May. On 6th June full discretion was given to the Admiral and Sir Claude MacDonald; and on the 9th the admiral marched. Before that had taken place the Admiral had already anticipated possible difficulties by calling up seven ships to Ta-ku. Her Majesty's Government have since then made the following provision to meet the difficulty which has arisen: In the first place they called up nearly 1,000 troops from Hong Kong, and ordered them to be immediately replaced by 1,000 from India. Those troops have been landed, and there are now nearly 2,000 men on shore, making with the contingents of other powers about 13,500. They have with them, I think, fifty-three field guns and thirty-six maxims. We have at this moment nine ships at Ta-ku, and twenty-five other ships on the China station. In addition to that other ships have been brought up

431
from Manila and Singapore. The "Goliath" battleship, the "Dido," and "Isis," first-class cruisers, have all passed Aden on their way to China; the "Argonaut," first-class cruiser, has sailed from home; three ships have been ordered from Australia; two destroyers have been put in commission at Hong Kong; two further gun-vessels are being commissioned and will sail in a day or two; the second-class cruiser "Prospero" has been ordered to Hankau and will be there in a very few days; the transport "Jelunga" has started from Southampton with 800 seamen and marines, and arrangements have been made to utilise her as a hospital ship if necessary. No doubt that is a force, so far as naval power goes, and so far as the object of protecting isolated treaty ports where foreigners are resident is concerned, that ought to enable us very shortly indeed to carry out any work that may be required of us in that respect. Beyond that the Government have put under orders 10,000 men from India, and the Indian Government, acting with their proverbial promptitude, have already succeeded in despatching four or five transports. Some of those troops will be at Hong Kong early next week. Therefore, so far as meeting the emergency with all the means in our power is concerned, I think the House will agree with the hon. Member for Barnsley that there has been no remissness on the part of Her Majesty's Government. But my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn asked us to take a definite step in regard to our relations with the Viceroys on the Yang-tsze. He asked us to commit ourselves to them—to establish them, as it were, as the Government of China for the time being—and to give them any support they may stand in need of. The latter part of my hon. friend's request has already been done. We cannot at this moment decide what is the Government of China, or what persons may be trusted in regard to the Government of China, but before Sir Claude MacDonald was isolated in Peking he received instructions from Her Majesty's Government to do all in his power to place as full a force as the Admiral could supply him with in support of any Chinese authority in restoring law and order. The announcement made to Sir Claude MacDonald has also been made to the Viceroys of the Yang-tsze and the
432
south. They have been informed that so long as they use their efforts for preservation of law and order Her Majesty's ships and Her Majesty's forces will, to the full extent which the officers in command consider possible, co-operate with them and use their power in that respect. It is impossible for us by any measures which we may now take short of the progress of the expedition which we still hope the Admirals may find it possible to undertake—it is impossible for us to do more than that towards the preservation of the lives of those who are isolated at different spots in China, and more especially at the Peking Legations. We cannot go further. The safety of the Legations and the preservation of order are the only points to which we can at this moment direct our attention. All other questions of policy, all the questions of the future government of China, must necessarily stand aside until we see what may be the result of the next few days or weeks. We may, of course, be on the eve of the complete disintegration of China from within. I am not speaking of any action by the Powers from without. We may have to face the problem of 400 millions of people either in civil war or, at all events, not obeying the central authority at Peking; but all those points must wait. We can at this moment do but one thing, and that is to direct all our energies to meeting the present emergencies to the best of our ability; and I believe, notwithstanding what has fallen from my hon. friend the Member for the Eeclesall Division, the House of Commons will agree with the Government in thinking that to meet those emergencies as they have arisen the first and most cardinal and most important point is that there should be the most complete accord between all the Powers. Our labours for the past few weeks have been unremittingly directed towards that end. Up to this moment there has been complete accord between the Powers as to the steps to be taken. We believe that the united forces belonging to six different nations have co-operated in the most loyal manner in each other's support. We believe that the officers in command of them have with the forces at their disposal done the very best they can to carry through a difficult and an almost impossible task. Beyond that I hope that the House will not expect me to go this afternoon. I only hope that the

433
House will continue to have confidence in the Government. We will spare no effort and will strain every nerve in order to secure the relief of the Legations and also to prevent the trouble which has arisen in the north of China from spreading to the other provinces.
SIR EDWARD GREY: China has been so much in our thoughts in the last few days that it is not unnatural that this debate should have arisen; but, although I feel it is not unnatural, it does seem to me that the present time is a peculiarly inconvenient one for speaking on the subject. I sympathise entirely with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in his reluctance to enter into details on any question of policy at the present moment. Her Majesty's Government have always told us that, so far as they are concerned, there will be no heart-burning, no jealousy, no reluctance to see any one of the Powers which is most capable of forwarding the work of rescue at Peking undertake a large share of responsibility. That is the utmost they can say, and it is the one thing needful to be said at the present moment. And I am sure, in the face of the news which has come to-day, all civilised Powers must feel that it would be a discredit to any one of them to adopt any other attitude. A few days ago our anxieties were concentrated upon the sufferings and the uncertainty of the fate of Admiral Seymour's force. To-day our sympathy has been aroused by the news of the blow which has fallen on Germany, and that news has quickened and painfully heightened our anxiety as to what may be the fate of our own Minister and others in Peking from whom we have no news. In face of that, we surely must feel that the one thing urgent is the work of rescue. That cannot be otherwise than impeded if there be any difference amongst the Powers. The one thing for the moment is that they should all be united in forwarding that work; and it is because I feel that the discussion of any further question of policy might possibly, by raising afterthoughts in the minds of others, impair their agreement and concentration upon the work of the moment, that I think this is a time at which to say as little as possible. After the work of rescue is over, which mercifully we hope may still be done in time, there will come the question of reparation; and I will only
434
say that I hope the Powers will be able, when the question of reparation does arise, to so adjust their measures that the burden may fall upon the guilty parties who are really responsible. When we come to the further question which may arise in the future I would only say this much—that,, although, of course, we expect Her Majesty's Government, considering our great interest in China, to be more than a lay figure in the concert, yet we are anxious that they shall do everything in their power to preserve that concert beyond the need of the present moment. And when they do exercise their influence in the concert I trust it will be in the direction of doing all in their power to avert anything like the partition of China, which, if it were the outcome of present disasters, would I am sure be a calamity to every one interested.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW BILL.
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION.
  Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to the protection of Wild Birds, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Big-wood, Mr. Howard, Mr. Buxton, and Sir John William Maclure.
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL.
  "To consolidate and amend the Law relating to the Protection of Wild Birds." presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 281.]
  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY JOINT COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That Sir William Anson, Mr. Humphreys-Owen, Mr. W. F. D. Smith, Mr. Stevenson, and Mr. Stuart-Wortley be members of the Joint Committee on Queen Anne's Bounty —(Sir William Walrond.)

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  *MR. SPEAKER: There is upon the Paper an Instruction in the name of the

  435
  hon. Member for East Mayo.* The rule as to Instructions for dividing a Bill into two Bills is that the Bill must either be one which is in two parts itself, or which relates to two separate and distinct subject-matters, so that it may naturally and easily be divided into two Bills. It appears to me that this Bill is a Bill for giving relief or concessions to the tithe-payers in Ireland, and although the first section proposes to give a special relief to a special class of tithe-payers, this does not constitute such a creation of two distinct matters as to facilitate a division into separate Bills. Therefore I am of opinion that the Instruction is out of order; but I may point out that the same result may be obtained by striking out the first clause and amending the definition clause by amendments in Committee.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, after 'rent-charge' to insert 'and the land has not been, since the date of such order, conveyed to any person on a sale thereof.' "—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF STATE FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,),who was indistinctly heard, said this question did not appear to be quite so simple as the hon. and learned Gentleman apparently thought. There might be some justification for the Amendment on the ground that persons who had purchased an estate since 1872 upon which tithes were payable knew the exact position, and that any repayment or annuity payable out of the estate would have to be paid; but, on the other hand, hon. Members must remember the person who suffered the hardship was the vendor of the estate. He did not think it was possible to admit the principle of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment as regards estates sold between
  * The notice was as follows:—" That it be an instruction to the Committee to divide the Bill into two Bills, one dealing with the case of lay impropriate tithe-payers and the other with the case of ecclesiastical tithe-payers."
  436
  1872 and 1896, but he was prepared to consider the question raised by this and the later Amendment which the hon. Gentleman had set down before the Report stage, with a view to its being dealt with in one clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALYdid not consider that the Report stage was the proper stage for the consideration of a matter of the kind raised by the Amendment he proposed. This was admittedly a blot upon the Bill, and it was essential that it should be remedied. If the Government were determined to pass a Bill against the wishes or desires of the Irish people by which a million and a quarter was to be given to the landlords, he would suggest that the Government should also at the same time give say £200,000 to tenants. He would be quite willing to withdraw his Amendment upon the promise of the right hon. Gentleman to put a clause into the Bill, of which fair notice had been given, if it were brought in before the conclusion of the Committee stage, so that it might be fairly discussed. The question before the Committee was one which greatly affected the Irish tenants. The Government passed for the benefit of those tenants the fortieth section of the Act of 1896. He voted against that section because he believed that instead of working for the benefit of the tenants it would work in favour of Irish land values, which, unfortunately, had been the case. Instead of the tenants getting the land which they desired, the Act had been availed of to put over the heads of the tenants, after they had made a market, these land grabbers. It was not the landlords who made the trouble, but the land grabbers, and those were the persons who were now to receive a bonus of 25 per cent. on their tithe rent charge, although they were clearly purchasers with notice. Take the case of the sale of the Muckross Estate, which had been purchased by Lord Ardilaun for £500,000; was he to receive a reduction of 25 per cent. in his tithe rent-charge because the men who lived on the bogs on his estate received 25 per cent. reduction on their rents? Was he in the same position as the ancient landed gentry, who had held their land since the time of Cromwell, in whose favour, perhaps, something might be said? The same state of things was going on all over the country, and, in his opinion, it was

  437
  most unjust. Not only were those people to get out of paying their tithes, but at the end of a number of years payment was to be cut down by seven years. Supposing the Committee were dealing with an English Bill, and a man went to Token-house Yard and purchased a property to be paid for by fifteen annual instalments; was it just that a Bill should be brought in the next year whereby those fifteen annual instalments should be reduced to eight? That is what the Bill now under consideration did. He had not put the case for the Irish landlords who had struggled and gone down; they might have an arguable case, but these people had no case at all. In 1869 the present Chancellor of the Exchequer denounced the action of Mr. Gladstone as sacrilege; were they now to give the benefit of that sacrilege to the persons who purchased their property the day before yesterday? When Mr. Gladstone was pulling down the Irish Church he was destroying an ancient institution, though he did his best to be friendly with his enemies; but he would turn in his grave if he thought that those persons were going to benefit by his action. Much as he (Mr. Healy) objected to the Bill, he had put down no Amendments of an obstructive kind. The Amendment before the Committee was of a businesslike character, and, if the right hon. Gentleman could not accept it at the moment, he would withdraw it upon the promise of the right hon. Gentleman that he would bring in a clause during the Committee stage of the Bill, when it could be dealt with in a businesslike manner.
  MR. DILLON: This Amendment is a valuable one, forming as it does a test of the bona fides of the Bill. We are told by the Chief Secretary that the Bill is introduced simply for the purpose of remedying a grievance. The hon. Member for North Louth brings in at the outset of the discussion an Amendment which deals with a case which the Government did not foresee. If this Bill is to remedy a grievance, why do not the Government accept this Amendment?— because the Government surely will not contend there is any grievance so far as the people who bought since 1872 are concerned; and it is quite true, as the hon. Member for North Louth said, that the land-grabbers who purchased estates
  438
  in this way had purchased them recently. But there were a great many purchases of estates before the purchase Acts were introduced. In the interval which elapsed between 1872 and 1885 there were a great many people who purchased upon notice as regards the burdens that this clause deals with, and therefore the Government cannot contend for a moment that they have any grievance whatever. The particular clause we are now discussing deals with cases of terminable annual instalments. There is no question as to the tithe rent-charge. There was previously a variable charge, but it has now become an invariable charge. There is only the annual instalment by which these people purchased their tithes. As regards this clause it cannot be pretended that any person who has bought an estate in Ireland has any grievance whatever to complain of. I cannot imagine that the Government can offer any reason for objecting at all events to the principle of the Amendment.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am ready to meet, as far as I can, the views of the hon. Member for North Louth. The Government will draw up a clause dealing with this question, as well as the subsequent question raised by the hon. Member, and will give sufficient time for the House to consider it. I hope, on the other hand, that this particular bone of contention is removed for the present, and that the Government will be able to get the Bill through Committee this evening. I think I ought to say that while I will endeavour to meet the views of the hon. Member as far as possible, I do not wish him to be under the impression that I am giving a pledge beyond what I have already indicated as to the date of limitation. I will endeavour to frame a new clause which shall meet the case as far as equity requires.
  *SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I think it would be much more satisfactory if the Government or the Committee were now to dispose of this Amendment. It must be borne in mind that it is not merely the hon. Member for Louth, or even hon. Members below the gangway, who are interested in this question, but that every Member of this House is more or less interested in the question which will ultimately, or may ultimately, affect the Imperial taxes;

  439
  because every penny that is taken away from the Church Fund by the operation of this Bill diminishes the security which the British taxpayer has now in case of default being made in the caraying out of the Land Purchase Acts of Ireland. Therefore I do not think it is satisfactory of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to say, "If you are satisfied with my engagement to bring up a particular clause you must give me an undertaking that the debate will close to-night." I confess that, for my part, I will give no such undertaking. I disapprove of the clause in toto, but assuming that, for the purpose of this Amendment, that clause will stand, I wish to point out why I think the Amendment of my hon. and learned friend the Member for North Louth should be adopted by the House. I do not think many Members of the House exactly understand the case. It must be borne in mind that redemption of tithe rent-charge was a voluntary act on the part of the tithe-payers, after the passing of the Irish Church Act of 1869. No tithe-payer was bound to come forward and enter into that arrangement by which the tithe was redeemable at the end of fifty-two years, or any other time. It was altogether optional. He might have gone on paying the rent-charge as before. This was a privilege given to them either to redeem by twenty-two and a half year's purchase, or instead of that, by paying an annuity terminable at the expiration of fifty-two years from the date of the order, and calculated on the basis of £4 9s. per cent. That was altogether a voluntary act. I know many tithe-payers who redeemed by paying twenty-two and a half years purchase. There is no relief offered to them. There is no restitution made or sought to be made to them.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with the point in the Amendment. I think the right hon. Gentleman might confine himself to that.
  *SERJEANT HEMPHILL: It is impossible to illustrate my argument by always confining myself to the particular words of the Amendment. I am illustrating the argument that the persons who elected to convert their tithe rent-charge into this terminable annuity were volunteers.
  440
  They were under no compulsion to do so, and the State owes nothing to them any more than the State owes anything to those who put their hands into their pockets to redeem the tithe rent-charge by paying twenty two and a half years purchase. I happen myself to have done that many years ago. It never occurred to me that under any circumstances the House of Commons would give me the opportunity of getting a rebate on that amount. It is stated that the land is sold subject to this terminable annuity of fifty-two years, calculated at £4 9s. per cent., and that the purchaser, when calculating the purchase money, pays so much less because of that burden being on the estate, and why should he now get the benefit? It is really the vendors who would be entitled to that benefit. The vendors twenty or thirty years ago would be the persons entitled to get this drawback. The purchaser, with his eyes open, bought the estate subject to this charge, and now why should the person who so purchased—it may have passed through intermediate hands—get so much knocked off the purchase money? It appears to me the most illogical and unreasonable thing ever brought into Parliament in that respect. This Amendment would go a very short way to remedy the illogical nature, and the unjust nature, of the measure, but it would go some way, and at all events it would indicate that as regards those persons who were in possession of estates, or their immediate successors since 1869, who have not done anything either to redeem the tithe rent-charge, or to convert it into a terminable annuity, and who have suffered from the reduction of the rents paid by the occupying tenants, there might be some reason for saying that they should come in and get the benefit of that Act, but those who have purchased land on a particular basis, and who took the property subject to that charge are, it appears to mo, on an altogether different footing. I trust that this Amendment will be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I should like to make a few observations on the Amendment. I think the object which the hon. Member for North Louth has announced as his object for moving the Amendment can be met without going a considerable

  441
  distance in what scorns to mo to be a dangerous direction. The present state of things arose owing to a miscalculation. The hon. Member for North Louth will admit that. [Mr. HEALY: No!] He does not admit it, but we on this side of the House say that the term of fifty-two years ought to have been forty-five years, and, as I understand, whether that assumption is right or wrong, the hon. Member for North Louth does not object to the application of this section in the case of those parties in whose possession the laud was originally. But this Amendment deals with those cases where the land has, since the order, changed hands. If the original owner is entitled to the relief the Bill gives, surely it would follow that any person who purchased his land would be entitled to whatever rights, as an ordinary matter of the law of property, the original owner might have. The hon. Member for North Louth objects to the clause because a land corporation or speculators may have come in and purchased the land, and it seems to me he makes a fair enough case for excluding that class of persons. I do not think any one can blame the procedure of the Land Judges Court, because it is the duty of a Land Judge to get all the money he can for the parties concerned. He is bound to realise at the highest price, no matter from what quarter it comes. But the 40th Section is not used to facilitate land purchases, and I would suggest that to meet the difficulty the hon. Member has stated as arising from the transactions of the Land Judges Court this Amendment should be limited to people who have come in over the tenants' heads. There may be a difficulty if you are going to apply it to every case of sale. Sale is a large word. There may be cases where there has been a mortgage, and where the mortgagee has foreclosed and come in. This is the way to meet the grievance to which the hon. Member for North Louth refers. I think that to do otherwise would be to go a considerable way in a dangerous direction.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If I make a bargain by which I undertake to pay a certain number of annual or monthly instalments, it would be intolerable that an Act of Parliament should be brought in, and that I should be relieved out of the public funds of seven of those instalments. That is the proposition made
  442
  here. I remember what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day when we pressed him about the income tax. We said the income tax under the arrangement made at the time of the Union was not payable in Ireland as it was in England or Scotland. His reply was: "When I find millionaires and speculators drawing large incomes in Ireland, why should not I make them pay income tax as in England and Scotland?" When you find millionaires picking up property in the open market, is it tolerable that you should consent to seven of their instalments being knocked off out of the public pocket? It is the most extravagant, erratic, and burlesque proposal I ever heard of. I felt it to be a grievance that I should have to pay anything towards the war in South Africa, because I did not contract it. These people entered into a contract by which they were subject to pay so many years instalments, and the Government now turned round and said they would, out of their kindness, let them off seven instalments, not out of English, but out of Irish money. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh once said —
  "Whenever England wants to wipe away a tear from the eye of Ireland she is always careful to make Ireland pay for the pocket-handkerchief."
  It is one of the truest things ever said, and it is not the less true because it was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. They are ready enough to remedy the mistakes made against Irish millionaires when they have an intolerable grievance, but why do they not remedy the mistakes made against the Irish National teachers? When they make mistakes against Irish landlords they remedy them out of Irish funds, and the Government are now-making an assault upon the one petty little fund available in Ireland for education, in order to let the gentlemen who bought this land off seven years instalments. The English Government do many grotesque things, but I do not think that they ever in their wildest moments did anything like this. I can say no more. You can pass anything with regard to Ireland through this House. There was a time when these things caused amusement, but nothing amuses anybody now. You give Ireland £30,000 or £40,000 out of this fund to teach us how to churn butter one year, and the year after you take away from

  443
  us £1,500,000. If this grievance exists, why do you not remedy it out of the English funds? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not insist that the English should buy the pocket-handkerchief? He said that upon the hustings.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: No. I said that in the House of Commons.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Well, then, you must have repeated it in the House. The Government in this matter have acted in a manner which is absolutely incomprehensible, for there was no pressure put upon them in regard to these new speculators. A more monstrous proposition never emanated from any Government.
  MR. FLYNNasked what understanding had been come to between the Chief Secretary and the hon. Member for North Louth.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The understanding is that at the end of the Committee stage I shall bring forward a new clause dealing with the question raised in the present Amendment. I understand that, under those circumstances, the hon. and learned Member for North Louth consents to the Committee stage being finished to-night.
  MR. DILLON: I did not understand at all that the hon. Member for North Louth went so far as the right hon. Gentleman says. The hon. Member for North Louth made some observations as to the possibility of the Bill passing through Committee to-night, but that depends on the course of the discussion. Of course, if the Government are prepared to give any fair concessions, to meet our Amendments in a reasonable spirit, the Bill would pass more rapidly.
  MR. FLYNNsaid the more this clause was considered the more the justice of the Amendment must become apparent. There were cases in which speculators came in and bought land over the heads of the unfortunate tenants, and it was not fair that they should get the benefit of this clause. He thought that they were more than justified in insisting that there should be a discussion on this clause, and that the consideration of the new clause should not be relegated to the
  444
  hour of midnight. Something ought to be done to meet the views of those who were in favour of what seemed on all hands to be a most logical and proper Amendment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said that if what the Chief Secretary had stated did not carry out fully the views of the hon. Member for North Louth, it would at all events give a very large measure of what he desired. As he understood the arrangement, it was that the Committee stage should be finished that night, with the exception of the new clause which the Chief Secretary had undertaken to bring up, the discussion on which should be taken early on Thursday.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that his Amendment would be accepted in principle, and therefore, so far as he was concerned, he accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DILLON: We shall have an opportunity of discussing the Clause as a whole later on, and the Amendment I rise to move touches only in a very slight degree the principle of the clause. I desire at the very earliest moment to reply to the statement that the clause itself and the demand of the Irish landlords upon which it is founded spring from a miscalculation made in the settlement of 1869. There is not a shadow of foundation for that statement. It rests upon an absolute invention which was first heard of thirty years after that settlement was arrived at, and which till then had never been stated by the Irish landlords or anybody on their behalf. The point was raised in the House of Lords in 1894 by Lord Belmore when he asked why the Treasury in 1869 recommended the Government to alter the terms of the annuity of £4 10s., including interest at 3½ per cent. for forty-five years, to an annuity of £4 9s. for fifty-two years, and he insinuated at the time that there had been a miscalculation on the part of the Treasury. Here is the answer of the Treasury in the Memorandum of June, 1895—
  "The Land Commissioners have recommended that in such cases the terms of

  445
  redemption of the perpetual tithe should be reduced from twenty-two and a half years' purchase, the rate prescribed by the Acts of 1869 and 1872, to twenty years' purchase, but the Treasury have not felt justified in concurring in this proposal. The primary reason which led this Board and their predecessors to that conclusion was the very serious loss which this proposal, and the consequences which might be apprehended from it, would inflict on the Church Fund. The possible amount of that loss was estimated by the Land Commission in 1888 at £845,000, supposing the concession limited to the tithe only, "without application to other portions of the Church property; and it may be taken as certain that no such amount could now he surrendered without serious risk to the solvency of the Church Fund. Other considerations, however, affecting the proposal on its merits cannot be overlooked, two of which the First Lord may place on record:—
  "(1) It is in effect a compulsory reduction of the (statutory) value of one particular charge on the land—namely, that held in trust for Irish public purposes, unaccompanied by any suggestion of reduction in other and less will-secured charges such as mortgages. Measuring the security of a charge by the rate of interest which it carries this proposal would treat the tithe as a 5 per cent. charge, and, therefore, as being no better secured than mortgages carrying 5 per cent. interest, and worse secured than those carrying 4½ per cent. As all such mortgages are posterior to tithe the First Lord thinks that the statutory price of twenty-two and a half years' purchase, implying interest at 4½ per cent., is not illiberal to the tithe payer in view of the ordinary rates of interest on mortgages on Irish land.
  "(2) This proposal to treat the tithe as no better secured than a 5 per cent. charge is in striking contrast to the suggestion that loans from the Church Fund on precisely the same security should be made at a rate not exceeding 3½ or even 3 per cent., which rates involve a high estimate of the security. It would be extremely illogical, apart from other objections, to apply simultaneously both these methods of relieving the tithe-payer at the cost of the Church Fund.
  "In conclusion, the First Lord desires to remark that he has endeavoured in this memorandum to distinguish between the matters for which the Board is, and those for which it is not, responsible. In the case of the former, it is their Lordships' duty to defend their own decisions; but as to the latter, it is only necessary to state facts and figures for the consideration of the Legislature."
  For thirty years this tithe rent-charge was accepted as a, first statutory charge on the land of the owners who were subject to it without any complaint or suggestion that it was otherwise than fair and legal. What is the nature of the clause we are now discussing? Under
  446
  the Church Act of 1869, by Clause 32 the tithe rent-charge payers of Ireland were entitled, if they so desired, to redeem the tithe rent-charge by an annual payment for fifty-two years equal to the perpetual payment to which they wore subject. There was no question of the amount of interest or sinking fund, but they were given permission as a bribe to get rid of a perpetual charge on their estates by a terminable annuity extending over fifty-two years. What landlord or private individual owning property is there in this House who would not accept such a generous settlement? Moreover, no Irish landlord was compelled to accept those terms. After the clause was passed any landlord who redeemed on those terms entered into a voluntary contract with the Church Fund and the Government—a contract which he was bound to observe. Landlords were subject to the tithe rent-charge to the extent of nearly half the revenue of the Church Fund arising from tithe redeemed, and we have to remember the extent to which that redemption has gone and the amount of the present terminable annuities. According to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on Church Temporalities in Ireland for the year ending 31st March, 1898, the annuities amounted to £167,717 per annum. Therefore, what is proposed in this clause is to strike off seven instalments of those annuities. I am going to move an Amendment which will have this effect—that instead of presenting to the Irish landlords a sum of considerably over £1,000,000, we should content ourselves with giving them a sum of £167,000, that is to say, one annual instalment instead of seven. Although I do not intend on this Amendment to raise the whole question of the principle of the clause, I have thought it light to take the opinion of the House on this particular question, so that if we are to make any gift at all to the Irish landlords it shall be not £1,200,000, but only £167,000. I beg to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'forty-five,' and insert the words 'fifty-one.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'forty-five' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The hon. Member for East Mayo said he did not desire to discuss the principle of the clause on this Amendment, but it appeared to me that at least four-fifths of the speech to which we have listened was, as a matter of fact, devoted to the general principle of the clause, and not to the Amendment. With respect to the Amendment I will only say that the case for reducing the number of years purchase to fifty-two was thought at the time to be overwhelming, but that was because a miscalculation was made. If we were to accept the hon. Member's Amendment to reduce the number of annual instalments by one, we should be cutting the ground from under our own feet; therefore, it is not an Amendment the Government could possibly accept.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLwished in the strongest way permitted by Parliamentary language to deny the assertion that there was any miscalculation in this matter. Lord Belmore, who was the first to start this claim, was a young man in the House of Lords at the time the Church Act was passed, but he did not oppose the settlement. A very eminent landlord on the opposite side of the House voted for the disestablishment of the Irish Church, but he never saw that he was being robbed, or that a mistake was being made. The hon. Member himself could remember the fearful prophecies that were made at the time of the passage of the Church Act as to what would become of the funds of the Irish Church; it was said that the money would go to the building of lunatic asylums and lighthouses and so on, but instead of that it was being used to make presents to the landlords. This was not the first time that that which belonged to the Irish people had been taken and given to a class of land-jobbers, but he defied anybody to find, in the whole English Statute-book, a proposal more audacious than that now before the Committee. Without difficulty he could make a list of under thirty names which would comprise the men who would benefit the most by this Bill, and no fewer than five members of Her Majesty's Government would by it shovel public money into their own pockets.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is hardly addressing himself to the Amendment.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he was addressing himself to the monetary interest of the members of the Government in this proposal. He should resist this. Bill by every means in his power, and when it was passed denounce it on every possible occasion throughout the country.
  *SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I think there are one or two matters in reference to this Amendment on which the Committee ought to be informed before they come to. a decision. The Chief Secretary has stated that the fifty-two years was based originally on a miscalculation, but he has not informed the Committee what that miscalculation was or wherein the error consisted. I apprehend that it was an arbitrary figure determined upon, when giving; an option to tithe-payers which they might either adopt or refuse. I presume the right hon. Gentleman will state to the House how he makes out that this was an actuarial error. The other matter upon which I should like a little information is this. At present the great majority of tithe rent-charges in Ireland have not been either redeemed or converted into terminable annuities. Will this section enable future buyers to get this, advantage?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: No.
  *SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Then it ought, to be so worded. Is it altogether retrospective?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Clause 4 is.
  *SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Clause 4 is only in regard to redemptions. There is nothing to prevent a person who is now liable to pay the regular tithe rent-charge as fixed by the Act of 1872, coming in the day after this Bill is passed, and converting that into a terminable annuity.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): My right hon. friend is quite mistaken; he is led entirely astray in his remarks by the assumption that this payment is not a sale. There is no difference between a sale when you pay cash down, and a sale when the purchase money is in annuities. Both are sales within the express wording of the Act.
  *SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I do not agree with my right hon. friend. There

  449
  is no definition of "sale" in the Act. There will be exactly the same happen as was the case with the Land Act of 1896: it will be a puzzle for the Courts to solve.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I think this should be discussed on the clause itself, and not on the Amendment, and the hon. Member for East Mayo has succeeded in getting a double discussion on the principle of the clause. As, however, he has insisted on raising this point, let me at once say that, if the right hon. Gentleman opposite will read Section 32 of the Irish Church Act, 1869, he will see that what is contemplated is a sale. I think the right hon. Gentleman will now admit that in both cases, whether the payment is by a lump sum or by annuity, it is a sale.
  *SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I think it is very ambiguous, and it ought to be made clear.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman has made the charge against me that in moving this Amendment I have got a double discussion on the principle of this clause. I particularly said that I intended to be brief, and I was brief, because I did not want to discuss the principle of the clause. But this Amendment plainly involves that principle. The principle of the clause is to make a further gift to people who have no claim whatever to such a gift, and it is perfectly legitimate in a few words to show that that is the principle, and therefore is a ground for reducing the amount of that gift. If the gift is to be made at all it will be less objectionable if the amount is £167,000 instead of £1,200,000. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a point which I intended to raise—namely, that the transaction we are now called upon to undo was a sale, and a sale carried out in most eases thirty years ago. It was no miscalculation, but a sale carried out at twenty-two and a half years purchase, the landlord being allowed to
  borrow the money from the Church Fund at a very low rate of interest to pay for the thing he had bought. There is overwhelming force in the case put forward by the right hon. Gentleman below me of those who put their hands into their pockets and paid cash.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken.
  MR. DILLON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that nobody paid for their tithe rent-charge in cash?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Those who redeemed their tithe rent-charge in cash in 1872 redeemed the net tithe rent-charge and not the gross.
  MR. MURNAGHANsupported the Amendment on the ground that it was the lesser of two evils. He objected entirely to the principle at the bottom of this proposal, and could not make out why the Government, without any pressure from any quarter, should wish to disturb a settlement of such a character. Such a course was not in the interest of any great public policy, and it certainly would not pacify the country. He was rather curious to know what defence the right hon. Gentleman would make for carrying out such a settlement. He claimed that he was doing it as an act of justice, but he did not see where the injustice of the present system came in. These parties entered into their contracts voluntarily, and they did so because they thought it would be profitable, and why should they now put their hands into the purse of the Irish nation? He desired most earnestly to support the Amendment of his hon. friend, which he hoped would be pressed to a division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided —Ayes, 116; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 170.)

  AYES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Charrington, Spencer

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Baird, John G. Alexander

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Balcarres, Lord

  Butcher, John George

  Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Colston, Chas. Edw H Athole

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derby)

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

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

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge

  Knowles, Lees

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E. H.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Curzon, Viscount

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swan.)

  Purvis, Robert

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpool)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowe, Francis William

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Lowles, John

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col. Edw J.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)

  Fitz Gerald Sir Robt. Penrose.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Foster, Sir M. (Lond. Univ.)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Galloway, William Johnson

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

  Stock, James Henry

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  M'Killop, James

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Goschen, Rt. Hn G. J (St George's)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Geo.

  Middlemore, John Throgm'r'n

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Helder, Augustus

  Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Henderson, Alexander

  Morrison, Walter

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

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Howard, Joseph

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Howell, William Tudor

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wyndham, George

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Jebb, Sir R. Claverhouse

  Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Percy, Earl

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Kenyon, James

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire)

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Langley, Batty

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lloyd-George, David

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Caldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen's C)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Daly, James

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Dillon, John

  M'Dermott, Patrick

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Duckworth, James

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Weir, James Galloway

  Evershed, Sydney

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murnaghan, George

  Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Gibney, James

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

  Woods, Samuel

  Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Kelly, James

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Flavin.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Malley, William

  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'forty-five,' to insert the word 'annual.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I do not think this Amendment is at all necessary, and I think it would be very reasonable to leave the clause as it is.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: But I want to. know what is the exact meaning of it.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid the Act provided that the annual sum should continue to be paid for only forty-five payments instead of fifty-two, and it was entirely unnecessary to repeat the word "annual."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DILLONsaid that under the settlement of 1872 the payer of tithe rent-charge had three courses open to him: (1) He could buy the tithe rent-charge at twenty-two and a half years purchase; (2) he could buy it by fifty-two years instalments; or (3) he could agree with the commissioners to pay a sum somewhat larger than that to which he was subject, and have a shorter term fixed than fifty-two years, at the end of which his annuity would expire. He did not know how many acted upon this third plan. The second sub-section proposed to extend to the purchasers of tithe rent - charge who elected to adopt the increased payment to shorten the term, a concession similar to that proposed by the first sub-section to those who adopted twenty-two and a half years annuities. This second sub-section simply proposed to slice off a portion of this fund and distribute it among the supporters of the Government in Ireland. The proposal was utterly indifferent as to doing equal justice between the gentlemen who were to have this distribution. The man who purchased his tithe rent-charge for cash got nothing, and if he bought it for an annuity at not more than thirty years he also got no relief. But if he bought it at less than thirty years he got a concession, and if he bought it at a number of years extending to fifty-two then he got seven years taken off. The Amendment he proposed was to deal with short term annuitants on the same principle as it was proposed to deal with long term annuitants.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 20, to leave out the word 'ten' and insert the word 'fifteen.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the clause."
  MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member for East Mayo was entirely in error in supposing that the Bill made a distinction between those who purchased for cash and those who made a special arrangement. Those who purchased their tithe rent-charge for cash subsequent to 1872 paid cash less the amount of the poor rate, or in other words they paid for the net tithe rent-charge. If the pro-
  454
  visions of this Bill were carried out the same treatment would be meted out to those paying off the charge by means of annuities. The object of the clause was to put those who had contracted for a shorter period upon the same footing as those who had arranged for fifty-two years. The change suggested by this Amendment would place at a disadvantage those who made arrangements to pay off at shorter periods.
  MR. DILLONsaid this was simply begging the whole question. It was contended that for thirty years they had been charged at the rate of fifty-two years when they should only have been charged forty-five years, and now after thirty years these extraordinary statisticians had made this discovery. In regard to the Treasury Minute of 1895 they had been told that there was a complete change in the personnel, but up to that hour they had never had a single argument or memorandum to justify that total change of policy. Now they had made this extraordinary discovery, to buy off Lord Ardilaun and the Dublin Daily Express. The right hon. Gentleman had not given a single word of explanation in regard to Sub-section 2, which appeared to him to be preposterous, and the whole clause as it stood was most absurd. It was now proposed to make this enormous concession to those who had already been allowed to borrow State money at £3 16s. 3d. per cent. They had already got that advantage over cash buyers, and they were now to get the additional advantage of an enormous reduction in the annuity. He should insist upon pressing his Amendment to a division.
  *SERJEANT HEMPHILL: The right hon. Gentleman referred to some speech made by Mr. Gladstone as a ground for saying that there was an actuarial error. I wish to remind the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Gladstone's statement was made in 1869, but what we are dealing with now is what was done by Section 7 of the Irish Church Amendment Act in the year-1872, and there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that that Act was based upon an actuarial or any other error. It is necessary to call the attention of the Committee to the words of that Act, because it shows how very arbitrary this reduction of the interest is to £3 10s. The Act declared the purchase money

  455
  payable by instalments for fifty-two years at £4 9s. per cent. on the purchase money, or for such less number of years as might be agreed upon as an equivalent annual sum so as to discharge the principal and interest in a less number of years. That is the provision to which this point has reference. What grounds are there for altering this section and fixing £3 10s. as the arbitrary sum? We have no statistics or figures in regard to these annuities, and here we are asked in this arbitrary way to give the benefit to these persons by introducing this arbitrary figure, for which no reason is assigned. I shall, therefore, vote for this Amendment if it goes to a division.
  MR. ARCHDALEsaid he hoped the Chief Secretary would press his opposition to this Amendment. He had not the honour of knowing Lord Ardilaun, but he knew that his Lordship made good and charitable use of his money both in Ireland and in this country. He thought the clause was an attempt to remedy a gross injustice.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The action of the Government in this matter reminds me of bimetallism. One day a member of the Government announces he is in favour of the gold standard, and next day he goes down to Lancashire and receives light on the subject, and then announces he is in favour of the fifteen to one ratio. What I should like to know is, when did the Government receive grace in regard to this gross injustice; when did the light of justice first shine upon their souls? I remember the long line of Chief Secretaries who have preceded the right hon. Gentleman; he has blasphemed them all in this Bill. I have been making a list of the number of English statesmen whom we have been asked to look up to, and to whom I have been asked many times to go down on my intellectual knees. Now I learn that they were wrong all the time, and I am told that when I was asked to respect law and order I was asked to respect a gross injustice and a fraud on the Irish landlords. Here is a list of the Irish Chief Secretaries for the last thirty years: Mr. Fortescue, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Mr. James Lowther, Mr. Forster, Sir George Trevelyan, Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. J. Morley, Sir W. Hart Dyke, Mr. W. H. Smith, Mr. John Morley; again
  456
  Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Mr. A. J. Balfour, and Mr. John Morley. They have all been engaged in perpetrating a most heinous wrong on a most deserving class of the community, and what is more, an irreparable wrong, because many men sold their land, and did not get full value for it. What about the Duke of Devonshire, who sold land in Cork, and Lord Derby, who sold his estate in the county of Tipperary? Look at the appalling injustice done to them; they gave away their estates, so to speak, with a pound of tea and without any consideration for the seven years compensation now to be made to their successors. The Duke of Devonshire sold his estates, and the man who succeeded to them now gets a seven years bonus, and the Duke has been grievously wronged by the Government of which he is a member. I feel appalled when I think of the black injustice which has been done to the landlords who have endeavoured to get rid of the landlordism by selling their estates. The old stock has gone, and none of them have got the benefit of this seven years bonus. Who was it that discovered this grievance; who was this financial Christopher Columbus who, embarking on the dark seas of finance, discovered it? Is his name to remain silent? Are not the present landlords entitled to know to whom their gratitude is to be given, and are not the men who sold out entitled to know to whom their curses are to be awarded? The right hon. Gentleman has taken it upon himself to reverse the policy of his predecessors; but, at all events, he has given a blow to the famous doctrine that the British Government in Ireland is a continuity. Let every Irish tenant take heart. He may be smarting under unjust laws, and he may be told that it is quite right to pay his rent, but some new Chief Secretary may arise—perhaps in an Irish Parliament— and may be able to announce that he has found salvation, that he has adopted the doctrine of repudiation, and that from the depths of his inner consciousness he finds that the tenants should be relieved of seven years annuity or perhaps seven years payment of rent. If this doctrine is to prevail now, why should it not be enacted later that for seven years every man, woman, and child in Ireland should not be liable for rent, rates, or taxes? There would be just as much reason for that as there is for the provision in this

  457
  Bill. Remember that the original Act was an arbitrary one, and no one could say whether the purchase price should be 22½ years or 42½ years. It had to be arrived at in an empirical manner. If it were found that the landlords should have paid forty years purchase, would you bring in a Bill to compel them to make restitution now? Would that not be as sound and logical a proposition as that now made; because, starting as you did from an empirical standard, you now contend that your empiricism was founded on justice. I cannot understand how a man with the logical mind of the right hon. Gentleman can stand up and advance such a proposition without laughing. If I were an English statesman I should say, "I have got a troublesome gang to deal with in Ireland. Lord Ardilaun has bought the Daily Express; when the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture had it things were amicable and pleasant, but now I must give them something." I can thoroughly understand that; but to invent an injustice, and now propose to make up for it in sackcloth and ashes, not at your own expense, but at ours, and to ask us to accept this absurdity is, even for an Irish Member, a little too much. I must say for myself that the only fault I find with the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo is that it is too moderate. I feel inclined to denounce it as giving the whole case away. At all events, whatever may be said for the Amendment, the proposition in the Bill is one which no serious statesman should endeavour to defend.
  MR. DILLON: I maintain, after listening carefully to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that the second sub-section of this clause will be positive nonsense if this Amendment is not accepted. The whole of this question is very complicated, and must be examined very closely before it is understood. The section applies to men who agreed to buy their tithe rent-charge at twenty-two and a half years purchase. Then came a subsidiary agreement that that twenty-two and a half years purchase should be paid in instalments. For the sake of illustration, let us assume that an agreement was entered into for an annuity extending over thirty-one years. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do in that case? If the
  458
  agreement were made in 1870 the last annuity would be payable next year. He says that the Treasury should go back on this transaction and should recalculate it on the supposition that it was not £3 16s. 3½d. but £3 10s. per cent. that should have been charged, and that the sinking fund should be increased by the difference between the two rates. Is it not perfectly evident that by making such a recalculation the whole principal and interest would have been found to have been paid, and so far from there being an instalment due there would have been an over-payment? And this, forsooth, is to be by way of relief to a man who has already repaid more than the principal. I will road the words of the sub-section—
  "Such annual sum shall continue to be paid until such loss number of payments thereof from the date at which it commenced as will pay off the purchase money on the assumption that the annual sum so charged included interest it the rate of £3 10s. per cent. per annum have been made, and no longer."
  But if he has more than repaid on the new assumption, what nonsense it is to enact a provision of this kind! What I want to convince the right hon. Gentleman of is—and it is as clear as daylight—that his sub-section is nonsense, and that he is enacting an impossibility, because a man in the case I have mentioned would have already paid his principal, and it is ridiculous to say that the instalments should continue on a debt which has been already paid. When it is found that men have more than repaid there will be a claim for compensation. The real grievance will then arise, and an amending Bill will have to be introduced. Then the persons who bought for cash will say, "Are we to have no compensation?" and their case will be a strong one. It will be no answer to say that the cash buyers bought on the gross, whereas the annuitants bought on the net. That is not a fact. The cash buyers, the short annuitants, and the long annuitants all bought at twenty-two and a half years purchase of the net value, and therefore they all stand in the same position. Now observe the extraordinary position which will arise. A buys a tithe rent-charge and pays in cash twenty-two and a half years purchase; B buys a tithe rent-charge, but does not pay cash. He borrows the money from the Government at £3 16s. 3½d. per cent., and how, by the simple fact that B has borrowed money from the Government, can he

  459
  have suffered any greater injustice than A, who paid cash? The argument is perfectly ridiculous. The difficulty we have to contend with is to get into the minds of hon. Members the grotesque monstrosity of this proposal. I am convinced that if hon. Members really understood these proposals the Bill would be defeated by three to one. But the fact is it is not understood. I maintain that unless this Amendment is accepted the sub-section will be nonsense, and that it will be found that it cannot be worked at all in some cases, and that it will work so unjustly in other cases that an amending Bill will be needed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the Treasury Bench was deserted by all the Government except the Attorney General for Ireland, who, however, knew far better than he did the utter absurdity of this Bill. It represented fraud and dishonesty, and the absolute ignorance of the gentleman who drafted it insulted the intelligence of Parliament. Anyone who read the second sub-section of Clause 1 would see clearly that a man who had been paying at the rate of £3 16s. 6d. since 1872 must have long since paid all the principal, and all the interest; and the absurdity of this clause was that he was to go on still paying. But the clause was something more than arrant absurdity; it was downright dishonesty, and amounted to the repudiation by the State itself of contracts. The Government had no right to misuse public property as they were doing under this clause. They were giving a large donation out of the public funds to various parties who were supposed to pay for their own interests.. An honest man who got the payment of his just debt at the expense of the community ought to give this money to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as conscience money. The idea that Parliament was omnipotent was true, but there were moral grounds on which this bargain ought not to be made; it was a gross fraud. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could point to any instance, since the Revolution, of Parliament repudiating debts and cancelling obligations. He knew of no case on the Statute Book where, when a tenant had entered, under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, into a solemn contract with the State to pay a certain sum of money at £3 16s. 6d. per cent., thirty
  460
  years after the contract was made the interest should be reduced to £3 10s.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It has been done in the case of the Church glebe tenants.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that that was the exception which proved the rule. When was the error discovered? When was the remarkable change in the personnel of the Treasury officials, which resulted in the discovery? It was an afterthought. It was never mooted for thirty years, and then, when there was no necessity, Parliament stepped in to relieve, not the poverty-stricken tenant, but Lord Ardilaun, at the expense of the Irish Church Fund. He supported most strongly the Amendment before the House, and he hoped it would be pressed to a division. When the clause came on for discussion he would denounce the policy of the clause, and show how the Irish Church Fund had been misappropriated for the benefit of the Irish landlords. The right hon. Gentleman had intimated that the Bill was to rectify a financial fraud. That fraud had been undiscovered by Lord. Ardilaun and other landlords, but it had been discovered by a Treasury official in the back parlours of the Treasury Office, and must be rectified. The right hon. Gentleman had decided to rectify this error. Would he go further and rectify the other error committed by the Treasury officials, by which the Irish people had been robbed of three and a half millions of money? That error would not be rectified, because it would have to be rectified at the expense of the British taxpayer; but the error which this Bill was to rectify would be rectified, because the cost would, fall upon the Irish Church Fund. The sub-section was a mass of legal jargon, and, in his opinion had the provisions of the Bill been peruse by the House at large it would have bee entirely repudiated.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that the Government had always acted on the basis of the sanctity of contract, and he now wished to know whether the principle of sanctity of contract was to be given up; The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had alluded to the case of the Irish Church glebe tenants, in which it had been given up, but that was an entirely different case to the question of tithes. They were occupying tenants and when relief was given, to them it was

  461
  obvious there was a special reason for giving it. Then, again, if the Government took the other case, no argument could be based upon it, because it was the Government's own doing. The Government stated in the House a few years previously that they could not reduce a contract that had been entered into with Parliament. That was stated over and over again in another place by Lord Salisbury, and yet it was this Government which started the principle of making the reduction and doing away with the contract as well. The reason for the special reduction in the case of the occupying landlord was a very different matter, because in that case the tenant comprised the positions of landlord and tenant. Those who took advantage of a number of years purchase under the Land Act were landlords as well as occupying tenants, and it was in the combined capacity that they received the concession, and the Government mitigated the contract. If this present reduction was not put upon the ground of exceptional circumstances, which was the only warrant at all for giving a reduction, by statute, to the tenant, effect would be given to a principle far-reaching in its consequences, which could not be confined to Ireland. That principle was that if parties agreed to pay a certain sum of money under a contract to the State, Parliament could come some time afterwards and make alterations in the terms, although in the interval some other person had come forward and paid the sum in cash.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Might I ask, on a point of order, whether this has any reference whatever to the Amendment before the Committee.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is somewhat trespassing be-yond the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that his point was that by Act of Parliament £3 16s. 6d. per cent. was fixed as the amount to be paid by the parties, and it was now proposed to reduce that amount to £3 10s. If the right hon. Gentleman thought by such interruptions as he had made he would shorten the debate he might find that he was mistaken. He could find no precedent for such a reduction except in the case of the Irish Church Glebe tenants. There was no case on record, neither in Scotland nor in England, and
  462
  the Committee was entitled to say that the Government could not violate a contract entered into under an Act of Parliament. Was the principle of sanctity of contract to be given up? Was this to apply to every case? If not, the Government should make out a case of the exceptional circumstances which justified it in this instance. They were dealing with parties in possession of land upon which there was a first charge. It had no relation whatever to the profits of the land or what is taken off it. The charge having been made a fixed one, was there any case where the owner could not plead poverty in which this principle could be applied? The Government did not propose to give any such relief to England or Scotland, and the Committee were entitled to ask whether the Government proposed to apply this principle to persons who could not make out a special case.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he had asked for an explanation for the action of the Government, but had failed to elicit a reply. On thinking the matter out he had arrived at a solution of the problem. He had come to the conclusion that Mr. Gladstone was the only statesman who could have repudiated the suggestion that the Government had made an error, and the Government had not thought it safe to bring in the Bill until Mr. Gladstone had died. He had just received a letter which illustrated the manner in which tenants were treated in Ireland in contrast to the landlords. The Local Government Act relieved the landlords of all rates in the Corofin division of Tipperary, and the Local Government Board had just struck a rate of 9s. 6d. in the pound. The people wondered what it was for, and were told that the reason was that for nine or ten years the debt had been accruing, and it now had to be paid off. The Local Government Board did not discover it until the landlords were relieved of the rates. The landlords were entitled to pay that debt for the last eight or nine years, and he wished now to ask the Government whether they would make any provision for the payment of the amount which ought to have been paid by the landlords in the seven or eight years past, and which is now put on the shoulders of the people of the Corofin division of Tipperary. They applied to the Local Government Board

  463
  to extend the time of payment to two years, but the Local Government Board refused. If the Government were anxious to relieve one error in the case of the landlords, why were they not anxious to act in a similar manner for the relief of the tenant? He thought the attitude taken by the right hon. Gentleman on this Bill was simply deplorable. On other occasions he had been able to give reasons for his attitude, but on the present occasion he had failed to answer any argument which had been put to him.
  MR. MURNAGHAN, who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to say that the right hon. Gentleman had given no solid reason which would satisfy the Committee for the reductions he proposed to make by this Bill. His one point was that a mistake had been made, and would have to be rectified. The Committee had no means of verifying that fact, and it was only right that further information should be given. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to give a certain reduction on delayed payments for purchase. The man who had raised the money to pay off his indebtedness in thirty years received benefit, but the man who arranged to pay in fifty-two years benefited to the extent of the reduction of seven yearly instalments. The Irish Members were not satisfied with the figures of the right hon. Gentleman, and they were within their rights in protesting against such procedure. The right hon. Gentleman could do in this matter what he had done with the first part of the clause—he could postpone it for further consideration. He did not dispute that the right hon. Gentleman was doing all he could to act in a perfectly fair manner, but in the interest of one class——
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is wandering from the Amendment.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: On a point of order, is not my hon. friend entitled to show, when largess is given to a certain class, how that largess might be better expended?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is a better judge than myself of these matters, but in my opinion the hon. Gentleman who was addressing the Committee was irrelevant.
  MR. MURNAGHANsaid he objected to the right hon. Gentleman putting his hand into the pockets of the Irish people and taking money out of the Church Fund not for a public purpose. The Irish Members were entitled to have some reply from the right hon. Gentleman to the arguments which had been urged on behalf of those whom they represented. If no reply was given, they could only test the matter by a division.
  MR. SWIFT MACNKILLsaid the Amendment was one under which certain reductions wore to be made. He begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that he was not the financial authority on Irish questions. He complained that, although this was a financial question, neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Secretary to the Treasury were present to consider it. And their absence showed that they were neglecting their duties. [Laughter.] It was no laughing matter, except to those hon. Members opposite who were going to gain from it. It was a most unheard of procedure when a finance measure of this kind was under discussion, that some one was not present to defend the financial policy put forward by the Amendment. Since the Amendment had been moved, the words "financial fraud" and "Treasury fraud" had been freely used. Yet nobody was present to speak for the Treasury or for the Solomon in the Treasury who had discovered the error. It was not the place of the right hon. Gentleman to do so, he had done his duty when he had moved the clause Under the circumstances, he begged leave to move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question propose "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. MacNeill.) But the Chairman, being opinion that the motion was an abuse the Rules of the House, declined to pro-pose the Question thereon to the Committee.
  MR. MCKENNAI should be very glad to have some explanation why this particular sum of £3 10s. per cent. is taken as the annual charge for interest. There must be some particular reason why that sum is taken
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The general principle of this Bill was discussed very fully on the Second Reading, it was discussed again on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Mayo, and again on this Amendment. We have had notice of another Amendment by the hon. Member for East Mayo. That has been my reason for not going fully into this matter.
  MR. DILLON: I must say that it is an extraordinary position for the Chief Secretary to take up. I submit that the clause, as it stands, is nonsense and cannot be worked. In some cases it would cause gross injustice, and in other cases it would be absolutely unworkable.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is quite wrong. I may further say that the Amendment to reduce the rate of interest is certainly open to objection.
  MR. DILLON: I submit that my case is made out by the admission of the Chief Secretary himself—absolutely and without any question or doubt. The whole purpose of the Bill is to benefit the landlords. There is no other justification of the Bill. They say now that a man who has arranged—and this I
  am sure would be the case in a great many instances—to repay his loan for the purchase of his tithes, by instalments terminating in thirty-five years under the operation of this sub-section, if this new arrangement is accepted, will get four or five annual instalments knocked off, and another man who has arranged to pay the tithe loan in thirty-one instalments will get the next year's instalment knocked off, although under this new term of interest he may have repaid considerably more than the whole of his loan. Are we to be told seriously that men under these circumstances will sit down content, and that you will not be face to face with the clamour—I must say the justifiable clamour—of those treated in this fashion? Nothing at all is to be paid to the man who has put his hand in his own pocket. I maintain that my contention has not been answered, nor even attempted to be answered, by the representatives of the Government, and that the clause as it stands without my Amendment is nonsense. It will be unworkable in some cases, and in other cases it will work gross injustice.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 171.)

  AYES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Howard, Joseph

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Curzon, Viscount

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kenyon, James

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Knowles, Lees

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S. (Hunts.)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swans.)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Finch, George H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Brymer, William Ernest

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Lowles, John

  Butcher, John George

  Golds-worthy, Major-General

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St George's)

  Maclure, Sir J. William

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.)

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbu'y)

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  M'Killop, James

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Malcolm, Ian

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Helder, Augustus

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Henderson, Alexander

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Morrison, Walter

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon.

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

  Williams, J. Powell. (Birm.)

  Myers, William Henry

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

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

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Peel, Hn. William R. Wellesley

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wyndham, George

  Percy, Earl

  Stock, James Henry

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace Curz'n

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Purvis, Robert

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  NOES.

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

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Billson, Alfred

  Kitson, Sir James

  Roberts, J. Bryn (Eifion)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

  Burt, Thomas

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Caldwell, James

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

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Carew, James Laurence

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Souttar, Robinson

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  M'Dermott, Patrick

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

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Daly, James

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Dillon, John

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Doogar, P. C.

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Murnaghan, George

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Duckworth, James

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Engledew, Charles John

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud'rsf'd)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Woods, Samuel

  Evershed, Sydney

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Dowd, John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Kelly, James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Holland, William Henry

  Priestley, Briggs

  Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. DILLON: We now come to the serious question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. I shall endeavour to bring clearly before the minds of hon. Members what they are called upon to do by passing this clause. There are two main headings under which the considerations affecting this clause naturally fall. The first of these headings is the question whether there is really any grievance on the part of Irish landlords, and whether, under the arrangements which this clause proposes to break up, the Irish landlords were generously treated, and entered into
  468
  a voluntary bargain, without any kind of compulsion. The second heading is what will be the financial effect on the Church Fund if this clause is passed into law First of all I turn to the question of the grievance under which the Irish landlord are alleged to suffer, and to meet which this extraordinary proposal is submitted to the House. That grievance is, as I said in the earlier stages of this debate, based on the extraordinary claim that Mr. Gladstone while he was passing the Church Act through this House made a miscalculation, that the whole House condoned that miscalculation, and that the spokesmen of the Irish landlords in that day in the long debates which took place

  469
  on the Church Act, and particularly Clause 32, never discovered that they were the victims of a Treasury miscalculation, and that they swallowed this settlement, as I shall prove they swallowed it, with every appearance of satisfaction, and in absolute ignorance of the fact that they were being made to pay seven years instalments more than were just. The Attorney General based his case entirely on the famous speech made by Mr. Gladstone when proposing the First Reading of the Church Act. I regret to say that I shall be obliged to quote at some little length from that speech, because it has been the basis of the whole of this discussion. He came to that portion of his Bill which dealt with the disposition of the tithe rent-charge, and he announced that it was his intention to offer the tithe rent-charge to the landlords of Ireland at twenty-two and a half years purchase. Mr. Gladstone said*—
  "That is, of course, twenty-two and a-half years purchase, not of the old gross £100, but of the £75 a year. We make that otter because we think there may be landlords in Ireland who will be disposed at once to wind up the arrangement with us. But, if Gentlemen will listen to me. they will see that we have another alternative for those who may not be disposed to purchase the tithe rent-charge out and out in money down at 22½ years purchase. It is this; we make them a compulsory sale."
  I would ask hon. Members to bear this in mind. This was the alternative proposed in the Church Bill. Mr. Gladstone continued—
  "I have not the least idea anyone will object to that. We convey the tithe rent-charge to them under the following conditions. We charge them in our book with £2,250 for every net £100 a year tithe rent-charge; that is to say we sell them a tithe rent-charge at a rate to yield them 4½ per cent. We then credit them on the other side with a loan of equal amount. We provide that they shall pay off that loan by annual instalments with interest. The rate of interest to be charged on the instalment is 3½ per cent. The consequence is that a fund of 1 per cent. will remain as a sinking fund to absorb the principal. The purchaser of the tithe rent-charge in that form, except that he will get rid of the fluctuation—for we must give him a fixed amount—will not be called upon to make any addition whatever to his annual payment. He will be liable for the annual payment for a term of forty-five years, and at the close of the term he will under this arrangement have the rent-charge, whatever
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. cxciv., p. 448.
  470
  it may be for the residue of the time, for nothing. That will be the financial effect of the arrangement, which, I think, will not be bad for the Irish landlord."
  It is on that speech of Mr. Gladstone's that the whole case of the Government rests. That was a speech made while introducing the Church Bill in its original form, when it was proposed to sell the tithe rent-charge to the landlords either for cash at twenty-two and a half years purchase, or for twenty-two and a half years purchase of the land to the tithe-payer, the amount of the purchase money to be paid by forty-five annual instalments at the rate of £4 10s. per annum on the purchase money. What happened? When the Church Bill was introduced in Committee the famous Clause 32 of the Bill was altered and appeared in a different shape—in the shape in which it now stands. That is an important point to remember. It was then proposed to sell the tithe rent-charge at the same number of years purchase—twenty-two and a half years—but the landlords were allowed to deduct from the tithe rent-charge under the new arrangement what they had paid on the average of the last five years for poor rate, which, under the Poor Kate Act of 1838, they had the power to deduct from the tithe rent-charge. Therefore the actual amount was reduced by a considerable poundage. I daresay it averaged half-a-crown in the pound, and the annual instalment was reduced from £4 10s. per cent. to £4 9s., and the instalments were extended to fifty-two years instead of forty-five years. That was in the second form of Clause 32 as introduced in the Committee on the Church Act. I desire to emphasise what Mr. Gladstone said as to the amount of the interest on which the money to purchase the tithes was to be lent. That had disappeared out of the calculation altogether, and it was proposed that the tithe should be extinguished in the case of those not ready to pay by fifty-two annual instalments calculated at £4 9s. per cent. on the amount of twenty-two and a half years purchase of the net tithe rent-charge as distinguished from the gross, being the tithe rent-charge less the amount for poor rate. This second proposal was substituted for the previous proposal, and in the course of the long debate on Clause 32 no complaint was made on behalf of the Irish

  471
  landlords as to the change proposed. I am indignant to find the landlords— who allege that there was a miscalculation and misunderstanding, which is absolutely without foundation—going back on the speech of Mr. Gladstone introducing the Bill originally, and utterly ignoring the debate on Clause 32 in the amended form, that clause being in substitution of the proposal in the Bill as it originally stood. What we have to deal with is the proposal in Clause 32 as it appeared before the Committee on the Church Bill. The first observation I have to make in regard to the proposal in Clause 32 is this. Suppose that there had been a miscalculation, or suppose that the terms of Clause 32 as finally debated in the House were less favourable to the Irish landlords than the original terms proposed in the first draft of the Irish Church Bill, am I to be told for a single moment that the landlords in this House would not have made a strong demand upon the Government to give them better terms? But in the whole course of the discussion no such contention was put forward, as far as I can find out, on behalf of the Irish landlords. On the contrary, as I shall show beyond all question, the proposal of the Government was accepted by all parties— Liberals, Radicals, and landlords—as a gift to the Irish landlords in order to mitigate their opposition to the Bill. That proposal, which was dealt with in the discussions as a gift to the landlords, was not the original proposal to which Mr. Gladstone's speech referred in introducing the Bill. I have already alluded to some of the language which was used in the course of the debate on Clause 32. Here is what Mr. Gladstone himself said, "It was that consideration of policy which led the Government." What I want to direct the attention of the Committee to is that Mr. Gladstone's speech in defending the fifty-two years was a speech of apology against the attacks of Mr. Disraeli and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in answer to Mr. Gladstone's defence of the 3½ per cent.——
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: What authority has the hon. Gentleman for saying the interest was 3½ per cent.?
  MR. DILLON: What authority have I? Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that it is so? Does he mean to tell me that when Mr. Gladstone introduced a proposal to extinguish this sum of money by fifty-two annual payments of £4 9s. per cent. he did not know that it involved an interest of £31 6s. 3d.? You may say that Mr. Gladstone's politics were false and that his principles of finance were faulty, but this is the first time I have-ever heard it suggested that he could not work out such a simple sum as that Such a supposition is grotesque in the extreme. But mark what it involves. It means that not only were Mr. Gladstone and the Treasury deceived, but every Member of the House of Commons was deceived. Dealing with this proposal, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer-said*—
  "He yielded to. no one in the force of his objections to many of the tenets of the Roman Catholic religion, and he could not witness with entire approval the payments to Maynooth. But he would rather see the whole of this tithe rent-charge devoted to the purposes of the Roman Catholic religion, than see it taken from the Church, and appropriated to purely secular objects. In his opinion the proposal of the Government combined sacrilege with bribery. These were strong words, but nothing less strong would express his feelings. He believed it was sacrilege because it was taking away from the Church property to which the State had no right, and devoting it to secular purposes and bribery; also because it was admitted to secure the consent of the landlords by handing over to them the property upon terms making the transfer a gift and not a sale."
  Then we come to Sir Frederick Heygate, the Member for Deny, one of the leading members of the landlord party—
  "He quite agreed with his hon. friend Sir Michael Hicks Beach that the clause was nothing less than bribery and sacrilege. The Irish landlords were, in fact, asked to take a bribe and assist the Government to pass the Bill."
  Then comes Colonel Barttelot, who also denounced the proposal; and I must read an extract from the speech of one who was as great an authority on finance as anybody in his day—the late Mr. Fawcett. He said—
  "He was astonished when he heard the
  * This and the succeeding quotations are from The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. cxcvi. The debate on clause 32 commences at page 23 of that volume.

  473
  proposition made; he had consulted distinguished Members of the House about it, and they said: 'We know it is making an enormous present to Irish landlords, but we must do something to grease the wheels, to conciliate hostility and buy off opposition.'"
  The reason I have referred to and quoted these speeches again is to make it perfectly clear that all these statements made in the course of the debate on Clause 32 had reference to the proposal which is now in force and is the law of the land, and that they had no reference to any proposal of 3½ per cent. for forty-live annual instalments. In his opening remarks the present Chancellor of the Exchequer put this point remarkably clearly—
  "The second part of the clause, the omission of which was moved, consisted of a financial process under which the landlords would, for 52 years, continue to pay to the State the exact sum which they had hitherto paid to the Church; and at the end of that time would in reality obtain the tithe rent-charge as a gift."
  There was no doubt about it in the minds of the House, and in the face of these statements it is perfectly monstrous to talk about a miscalculation. Notwithstanding the appeals of Mr. Gladstone, which were not on logical grounds or grounds of finance, but on grounds of policy and expediency, Mr. Fawcett and other leading Radicals divided against the clause on the ground that it was too favourable to the landlords and that it gave away public funds to private individuals. What was the result? In that division every single Irish landlord in this House voted in favour of the clause. I repeat that in the whole history of that Act there is not the slightest shred of justification for the contention that there was any miscalculation or possibility of misunderstanding. What happened afterwards? Clause 32 made to the Irish landlords an offer which they eagerly accepted. There was no compulsion; they were absolutely free to accept the terms of to remain as they were. It is said that under the Act of 1872 the right to vary which was still retained by those who did not redeem was annulled. My answer to that is that that clause of the Act of 1872 passed through both Houses without a single word of protest or objection from any Irish landlord, and, seeing that in those days the representation of Ireland both in the House of Lords
  474
  and in the House of Commons was almost, entirely in the hands of the Irish landlords, it is an absurdity to argue that they were not a party to that enactment when they allowed it to pass through without protest. They were parties to it, because the right of varying tithes in Ireland was practically a nullity. That, right had been so fenced round with difficulties that, during the thirty years which had intervened since the settlement, out of 2,400 parishes the tithes had been varied in only sixty. One reason the landlords permitted the Act of 1872; to pass was that it was thought the variation might do them more harm than good, but the main reason was that it was a matter of indifference, because it was a right they never exercised. When the Government contend that the landlords of Ireland, in accepting the Act of 1872 as part and parcel of the settlement under the Church Act, were not, making a bargain, they are speaking against the facts of the case. No clearer case of Parliamentary bargaining was ever put on record in this House. But the question of variability as affected by the Act of 1872 has no bearing on the present proposal. This clause does not deal with the variable tithe rent charge, but with the invariable terminable annuities, and those invariable terminable annuities were set up by the landlords availing themselves of the terms of Clause 32, which were admitted by everybody to be in the nature of a gift and a bribe to the landlords. I turn now to the effect of this proposal on the Church Fund. First of all I will direct attention to a very remarkable debate which took place in this House in 1894. The Church Fund is a very extraordinary fund; it reminds one of the widow's cruse—it has frequently been said to be exhausted, and still millions can be drawn from it. In 1894 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose brought in a Bill to reinstate the evicted Irish tenants, and in connection with that Bill it was proposed to lay a charge of £100,000 on the Irish Church Fund for the purpose of facilitating that operation. On the first reading of the Bill the First Lord of the Treasury got up immediately after the right hon. Gentleman proposed the Bill, and made a very impassioned

  475
  speech, in the course of which he used the following language*—
  "Following the order of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, I now come to the amount to be taken from the Irish Church surplus in order to meet the necessities of the Bill. I have no observations to make on that point. First, when I was in office, and had official means of information on those points, I was assured that the Irish Church surplus was mortgaged up to the hilt. The number of charges upon it were such that, after we had taken the £1,500,000 required for the Congested Board, practically nothing would be left behind. Whether since that time any circumstances have come to the knowledge of the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman will inform me at a later stage of the Bill; but my official advisers at that time informed me that nothing beyond the £1,500,000 was available for any public purpose; and if we are to charge that fund with £100,000, or with a larger sum, and the fund proves to be insufficient to meet the liability, it will be impossible for the British taxpayer to flatter himself that he will get off without having to make up the deficiency."
  The soul of the First Lord of the Treasury was wrung with anxiety, fearing the contingent liability on the British taxpayer. Since then we have had a Bill setting up in Ireland a Department of Agriculture, by which the Church Fund is charged with £70,000 a year, which, I make out, is the interest on about £2,700,000. We are now invited to hand over from this fund to the landlords £1,200,000 in cash, and furthermore to reduce the income of the fund by about £30,000 a year, or to hand over to the landlords over £2,000,000 more. That is to say, that more than £4,000,000 are to be charged upon this fund, which, according to the First Lord of the Treasury, could not bear an additional charge of £100,000 in 1894. The next point is the Treasury Memorandum of 1895, which was drawn up in connection with the proposal to reduce the selling price of tithe rent-charge in the case of sales under the Land Purchase Acts. This Memorandum at great length pointed out as one of the main grounds for refusing to give the Treasury consent to this proposal of the Land Commission that the Irish Church Fund would be made bankrupt by such consent. The Treasury Memorandum states that the calculation of the Land Commission was that such consent would involve a loss of over £800,000 to the Church Fund. The proposal of the Land Commission was that, whereas in all sales up to that date they
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xxiii., page 886.
  476
  were obliged to redeem tithe rent-charge at twenty-two and a half years purchase, they should in future be allowed to redeem it at twenty years purchase, and also be allowed to redeem the perpetual annuities on a basis of forty-five years payments instead of fifty-two. It was argued by the Treasury that such a proposal would involve a loss of over £800,000, and that the Church Fund could not bear such a loss. But then, within six months, overriding its own decision and argument, the Treasury granted its consent, so that in addition to the sums I have mentioned, there is this possible loss of £800,000. Where are we as regards the solvency of the Church Fund? When the Government were pressed on this matter last year they prepared a fresh Memorandum to show that the Church Fund was solvent, and a most extraordinary document it is. In the first place, the Memorandum declares that they abandon all attempt to estimate the assets or liabilities of the fund, and then it goes on to say that the estimate which is given of the receipts and liabilities of the fund for the next forty-five years is made up on the supposition that no more sales occur in the Land Courts. I contend that that is turning our whole discussion into a perfect farce. All Ireland are in favour of expediting sales in the Land Courts; they are going on now at the rate of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 worth of property per annum, and there is growing up in Ireland a strong agitation for some means of greatly facilitating this process of sale, and yet we are invited to discuss this whole subject and consider the capacity of the Church Fund to stand this charge on the supposition that the sales in the Land Courts stop, and that no further sales are effected. A more grotesque and extraordinary theory was never placed before Parliament. Having made that impossible assumption, they proceed to make an estimate of the condition of the fund during the next forty years. What does it come to? They attempt to show that, even supposing the present Bill passes into law, the fund will remain solvent until the year 1946–47 with a very small surplus, and that after that date it will probably be necessary to seriously diminish the provision made for the Agricultural Department. This gift to the landlords will seriously diminish the Irish Church Fund, and will affect the grant to the Agricul-

  477
  tural Department. This is an extraordinary instance of the recklessness of the Government, for having started a department to which they attach enormous importance for instructing Irishmen in the art of agriculture, and having given us the hope that if it is successful a further sum will be granted, the Government now come forward with a proposal to take a further sum from that very fund from which the agricultural grant is drawn. Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that the Purchase Acts will cease to operate? In the Bill of 1896 a great concession was made to the Irish landlords. Under Clause 37 of that Act the Land Commission had the power to order the redemption of the tithe rent-charge in case of sale to the tenant at twenty years purchase and to order the redemption on the basis of forty-five years instalments. That involved a loss of £850,000; but still it was an inducement to sell. Under that concession a landlord had a bonus for selling an estate to his tenant. If he sold his estate he could redeem the tithe rent-charge at twenty years purchase, but if he did not sell he could only redeem the tithe rent-charge at twenty-two and a half years purchase. If the landlord sold his estate he could redeem at forty-five years instalments, and if he did not sell the period would be fifty two years. I admit it was an inroad on public funds for the benefit of the landlords, but it had this advantage, that it was a bribe to facilitate sale. The Government now propose to block and obstruct this process of sale, because they withdraw by this clause from the landlords the inducement to sell which existed under the Act of 1896. So far as this clause has any effect it will have a tendency to withdraw from the Irish landlords that inducement to sell their estates which existed before. Therefore the Government have no ground or argument in support of the present proposal in what was done in 1896. This clause is simply a shameless attempt to take a large portion of the public funds in order to hand it over to the landlords of Ireland. Before finally moving the rejection of this clause, I want to appeal to the Government, if they do consider it necessary to hand over this money, to at least take it from the profits which the Treasury has made by lending money at 3½ per cent. to the Irish Church Fund. The Treasury
  478
  must have made a profit of something like £1,000,000 by this process. If they adopted this course they would not be depriving the Irish people of money which could be devoted to much more useful purposes.
  MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member had admitted that the question was a very complicated one, but he had evidently failed to understand it. The case of the Government was strengthen ed by the fact that while the hon. Member for East Mayo had referred at length to the provisions of the Irish Church Act of 1869 he had scarcely mentioned the Act of 1872 at all. The hon. Member had left out of account altogether the fact that landlords were entitled to deduct the poor rate before paying the tithe, and in his estimate of the capital value of the tithe he had based his calculation upon the gross tithe rent-charge and not upon the net value. Therefore the value would be rather more than £800,000 less than the amount stated. In regard to the Act of 1869, in the first place Mr. Gladstone proposed that the sale should be compulsory, but, for some reason, during the interval between his introductory speech and the printing of the Bill, Mr. Gladstone changed his mind, and the compulsory proposal was dropped. It was then pointed out to Mr. Gladstone that he had neglected to take into consideration this question of the reduction of the poor-rate, and in Committee he corrected this mistake by moving without comment an Amendment. The hon. Member stated that in doing so Mr. Gladstone was increasing the rate of interest from £3 10s. to £3 16s. per cent., but he asked what authority had the hon. Member for making that statement? He could not point to any statement made by Mr. Gladstone to that effect. He merely said that he was bound to assume it because Mr. Gladstone was a great financier, and knew what he was doing. He (Mr. Bal-four) was ready to admit Mr. Gladstone's merits as a financier, but he was bound to say that the hon. Member was wrong in asserting that Mr. Gladstone, while making the reduction for the poor-rate, at the same time increased the interest from

  479
  £3 10s. to £3 16s., for that was not Mr. Gladstone's idea in making those further proposals. As Mr. Gladstone stated in introducing the Bill, the clause contained two proposals, one providing for a cash payment and the other for an annuity extending over fifty-two years. But it was also provided that there should be a reduction of such sum based upon an average of five years, which the purchaser should be entitled to deduct from the tithe rent-charge in regard to the poor rate. What Mr. Gladstone really did was to allow a reduction of the amount of poor rate in respect of this payment, but what he gave with one hand in that way he took away with the other, for he increased the period from forty-five to fifty-two years. The point was that the admission of this seven years exactly made the difference between the payment by the landlords of the net and the gross tithe rent-charge. What Mr. Gladstone intended to do was to allow the tithe rent-charge payer to pay a sum less the amount of the poor rate, but at the same time, in order to preserve the gross amount of the Church Fund, he deliberately increased the period from forty-five to fifty-two years. So far it could not be contended that the tithe rent payer had any grievance, because under the Act of 1869 the tithe rent-charge payer could redeem not by an annuity but by a cash payment, and he was called upon to redeem not the net but the gross tithe rent-charge. Therefore the tithe rent-charge payer who redeemed in cash was placed by the provision of the Act of 1869 in precisely the same position as the tithe rent-charge payer who redeemed by an annuity. It was not until 1872 that the real disparity commenced. In the Bill of 1872 a condition was introduced to the effect that the tithe rent-charge payer who had redeemed in cash was entitled to deduct the poor rate. That Bill passed through the House practically without discussion, and Mr. Gladstone never explained his proposal upon this point. The hon. Member for East Mayo dwelt at enormous length upon the provisions of the Act of 1869, but he said practically nothing about the Act of 1872. Therefore, he entirely ignored the real essence of the case. How could it be defended that the tithe rent-charge payer who paid in cash was entitled to pay a smaller sum,
  480
  while the annuitant was called upon to pay a larger sum?
  MR. DILLON: That is not the case,, and I absolutely deny it.
  MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid he still asserted that that was absolutely the case. The hon. Member had practically ignored the Act of 1872. As to the hon. Member's remarks upon the effect this proposal would have upon the Irish Church Fund, it was not his business to defend that fund. What he did say, however, was that he had had these calculations in the Treasury Memorandum checked again and again in every possible way, and he believed the figures in. that Memorandum might be taken as being as nearly accurate as circumstances would allow. The hon. Member for East Mayo made a great point of the fact that the loss upon land purchase transactions was not taken into account, but he should have read a little more from the latter part of the Memorandum, which says—
  "It remains to consider the effect of redemptions in cases of sale under the Land Purchase Acts £100 per annum of tithe rent-charge is sold under those Acts for £2,000, which sum could not be applied so as to reduce the net annual charge on the Fund by more than £60. So there would be a loss of £40 per annum for every £100 per annum of tithe rent-charge redeemed. In the case of tithe annuities, perpetuity rents, mortgages, and land annuities, the loss would be proportionately less, and the loss on tithe and land annuities must diminish as they draw nearer to their close. If such redemptions continued on a considerable scale, it would ultimately become necessary to reduce the provision of £70,000 per annum under the Agricultural Bill; not, however, in the near future."
  When speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, he stated that he believed that if the land purchase transactions went on in future at about the same pace as they had lately done, the effect on the Church Fund would be that it would still be able to afford this charge for fifteen years, and probably for thirty years, and that after thirty years they might be able to still pay £70,000 a year to the Department of Agriculture. He quite agreed with what the hon. Member had said in regard to

  481
  the desirability of preserving the Church Fund, but he did not think it was incumbent upon the House to dwell too carefully upon what might happen a generation hence. He ventured to say that if the Department of Agriculture proved a success the final result would be not that these amounts would be diminished, but that they would be increased. But the fact that they might be unable to pay this large sum to the Department of Agriculture was not, in his judgment, a sufficient reason why they should refuse to do justice to those whose payments constituted the Church Fund.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: As I understand the case it is simply this. Originally the persons liable for tithe rent-charge in Ireland had the option of adopting two methods. I understand that some tithe payers continue to pay the full tithe now. The others, I believe, have the option of electing to adopt either one of two systems. The Act of 1872 dealt in two different ways with two different classes of creditors, but it does not necessarily follow that there was any injustice to either of them, and in this respect I think the right hon. Gentleman has conspicuously failed to make out his case. Who knows—he evidently does not—what the mind of Parliament was in 1872 in creating what he calls this disparity? The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House when the Act was passed; I was not in the House, and many hon. Members now present were not Members of the House at that time. Those who were then Members of the House appear to be under an obligation to inform us what was the Parliamentary understanding then arrived at. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular, whose views have been cited during this debate in a sense entirely favourable to the contention of hon. Members from Ireland, has not favoured us with an explanation, and until he does so, I must take it that the contention of the hon. Members from Ireland must be true. I have listened very carefully to the speech of the Member for East Mayo, but I felt all the time that he was merely beating the air. This Bill is no new thing in this House. It is part of the policy to which an enormous
  482
  majority of this House of Commons during its whole career has devoted itself. I will not go into a retrospect of the various Acts which have been based, in my opinion, on the principle on which this Act was based. The first was an Act which took public money and gave it in relief of rates. Then there was a similar Act by which public money was granted in aid of Voluntary schools; that was public money given to a particular class. Then there was a section in the Finance Act two or three years ago, by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer put money into the pockets of a particular class. Then came the enormous bribe which was given to the Irish landlords in order to grease the wheels of the Local Government Act, and then, last year, we had the Act by which tithe rent-charge benefices were to be paid out of public funds. Every one of these Acts was based on the principle of this Bill. There is one difference, and only one, between the five measures to which I have referred and the present proposal. In Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne we were told that this Bill was going to be introduced, but we were also told that no domestic reforms which involved a large expenditure of money could be undertaken. I suppose this may be called a domestic reform, and I am told it involves an expenditure of 2½ millions. But what is the difference between it and the measures to which I have referred? They were paid for out of the Imperial Exchequer, whereas this is going to be paid for out of the miserable remnant of the Irish Church Fund. I object altogether to the proposals contained in this Bill, but speaking here as a Scotch Member, I declare I would rather see this relief a charge upon Imperial resources than on the small remnant of the Irish Church Fund which was to be devoted to purely Irish purposes. If this is a good thing, let us do it out of our own pockets, and let us not rob Ireland, for the sake of a small class, of money intended for the Irish people. I shall vote with my hon. friend against this clause.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The last time I had the honour of addressing the House on the Irish question I condoled with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite on

  483
  what I ventured to call the somewhat pathetic position he occupied in this House —always lamenting the condition of the class to which he belonged. I reverse that statement to-night, and I congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on one of the most remarkable Parliamentary achievements that any man has ever been able to carry out in this House. He and his friends have succeeded in getting the Government to reverse the whole process of legislation, and to give to a particular class in Ireland monetary compensation previously refused in nearly every single case. Take some of the cases we have seen in this House. An unfortunate man is wrongly convicted; he is sent for years to imprisonment, he is deprived of the means of earning his livelihood, and his wife and children are deprived of his assistance as the breadwinner. Take the case of the two Irishmen whose release was procured by the confession of Peace the murderer. They were imprisoned for four or five years for a murder, and their relatives were deprived of their assistance as breadwinners.
  MR. GALLOWAY: These two men had no relatives.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Oh, yes, they had; they were not married, but Irishmen always have relatives. A demand for compensation for these men was made, but ignominiously rejected by the Treasury. Officers in the Army and in the Navy who by admitted miscalculations, not conjectural miscalculations, have been treated unfairly, have come to Parliament session after session and have demanded compensation, which has always been refused. And now, for the first time in the history of Parliament, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, representing the landlords of Ireland, basing his claim on an alleged and conjectural miscalculation thirty years ago, is able to get from the Government for his class a redemption of seven years. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is much to be congratulated on such a remarkable achievement. The Chief Secretary introduced this extraordinary Bill, but I think the Bill is not half so
  484
  extraordinary as the arguments he used to-support it. Take the speech we listened to a short time ago—a speech which I venture to say is the most interesting psychological as well as Parliamentary study I have ever had the pleasure of hearing in this House. The right hon. Gentleman lays down the principle that we are to judge of the intentions of Parliament, not by the words of Acts of Parliament, but by the ideas which he projects into the minds of gentlemen responsible for them thirty years ago. Why, Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman were to come before any of the Courts of this country, and were to quote, by way of arriving at the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, speeches in debate in this House, any Judge in the land would stop him and say, "What we have to consider are not the speeches by which the Bill became an Act of Parliament; our business is to interpret the words of the Statute before us. What was said during the discussion on the Bill has nothing; to do with us." Then the right hon. Gentleman says that the Act of Parliament says so and so and moans something else, and we ask him what are his reasons. He admits that the Act of Parliament prescribes a certain number of years for the repayment of a certain debt, but then he goes on to say that when the Act said fifty-two it meant forty-five. What is his proof? We read the speeches made for and against the Bill, and we read the speeches of Mr. Gladstone and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. According to the right hon. Gentleman Clause 32 of the Irish Church Act was a fraud on the landlords, but according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was in Parliament when the Bill was being discussed, it was no fraud on the landlords at all, but a fraud on the Church, because it was a gift or a bribe to the landlords. In face of that the right hon. Gentleman now says, "Oh, really, I think I cannot give any reasons for that, except my own inner consciousness and my power of reading into the minds of people thirty years back. I think Mr. Gladstone must have meant not what he said but the opposite, and the Act of Parliament not what it said but the opposite; and what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant when he described certain proposals as a gift or bribe to the landlords was not what he really meant, but that it was a fraud on the landlords." Then he says that

  485
  any hon. friend the Member for East Mayo—whose mastery of this question, as well as the energy and persistence with which he is most properly fighting this iniquitous measure, entitle him to the admiration of the House — only paid attention to one Act and said nothing about the Act of 1872. The right hon. Gentleman says that Mr. Gladstone could not have had present to his mind all the facts of the case, and could not have gone into all the details. Mr. Gladstone made a certain proposal on the gross amount of the tithe-rent; he found that it was not charged on the gross but on the net, and he then very probably did justice to the landlords by calculating on the net instead of on the gross, but when he did that he very naturally and properly increased the number of instalments from forty-five to fifty-two. The right hon. Gentleman says he took away with one hand what he gave with the other, but it is perfectly evident that, having made a calculation which was unjust to the landlords, Mr. Gladstone did justice in a second calculation, and having done justice in that way he was bound also to do justice to the Treasury by increasing the instalments. That is what the right hon. Gentleman means by saying that Mr. Gladstone took away with one hand what he gave with the other. Then the right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, but look at the Act of 1872. See what injustice existed until that Act was passed." That injustice affected only persons who had paid cash, because they were charged on the gross, whereas persons who have bought by instalments were charged on the net. The right hon. Gentleman says that this was an injustice, and so it was, and accordingly in 1872 the cash purchasers were put in the same position as those who redeemed by instalments. That injustice was removed, but is there any reason now why you should create a new injustice? I am absolutely unable to see how the right hon. Gentleman can use the Act of 1872 as any justification whatever for the proposals in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to the Irish Church Fund. I will not go into the question at length, but I must say that it is a very startling thing that, in face of the admitted needs of Ireland, we have this Government making a present to the Irish landlords of a large amount of money, not one penny of which, I believe, they are en-
  486
  titled to. If any such proposal had been made seven or eight years ago, I believe the House of Commons then in existence would have stood aghast and amazed at it. In fact, I believe that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in his heart of hearts is really in a state of almost bewildered and benumbed surprise at finding any Government so reckless as to make such a proposal. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends have again and again complained in this House of the manner in which their property, or what they are pleased to call their property, has been transferred to the Irish tenants. I say "what they are pleased to call their property" because they make no allowance for the fact that the value of the land has been increased by the labour of the tenants. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that when Englishmen desire to do justice to the oppressed people in Ireland, what they mean is that they are going to take money out of the pockets of one class of Irishmen in order to give it to another class. I think there is a good deal in that contention. Let us apply that point of view to the present Bill.. The Government say that the unfortunate Irish land- lords have been suffering a, gross injustice for thirty years owing to a miscalculation —a simple matter of arithmetic—which was made by the greatest financier of our time, and the Government in a noble spirit of righteousness propose to right this wrong. How do they propose to do it? Not by taking money from English pockets, but by taking money out of the Irish Church Fund, which was intended by Mr. Gladstone for the relief of Irish distress, and then they talk of the noble spirit of righteousness in, which they have righted the wrongs of the Irish landlords. I think it is shameless on the part of the Government—in face of the many calls there are for relief in Ireland—in face of the festering some of the evicted tenants for whom session after session we have asked assistance—to come forward with this proposal.
  MR. FLYNN: I have had some years experience in this House, but I have never heard so many inconsequential, perplexed and confused arguments used as have been employed in connection with this Bill. I should have thought that, if

  487
  the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary were justified in the statements he made in defence of this proposal, either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of the Treasury would have defended the acts of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Act of 1869, amended by the Act of 1872, means something different from what it states, but he has brought absolutely no proof either from the speeches on the Bill of 1869 or from the speeches on the Bill of 1872 which can overthrow one single figure or fact advanced by my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo. What does the whole foundation of this clause rest on? That the Treasury has been making a serious mistake all these years. In the Treasury Minute of 1895 it was stated that no case existed to support the charge of wrong-doing towards the Irish landlords, but by some strange concatenation of circumstances, some fortuitous concurrence of political accidents, we now find the Government
  advocating the existence of an injustice which they themselves previously denied. This is a matter of the most serious importance, and I think we are entitled to have some declaration from the Treasury before we proceed further. I think also we are entitled to know how the Irish Church Fund will stand if this Bill becomes law. The Chief Secretary does not know, and we do not know whether the Agricultural Department will receive the £70,000 a year allotted to it.
  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 Committee divided:—Ayes, 144 Noes, 64. (Division List No. 172.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Finch, George H.

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swans'a)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Baird, John G. Alexander

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Lowles, John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

  Forster, Benry William

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Maclure, Sir John William

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

  Gedge, Sydney

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

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

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  M'Killop, James

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Malcolm, Ian

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St George's)

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Billiard, Sir Harry

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

  Butcher, John George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouthsh.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

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

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

  Gurdon, Sir William B.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Myers, William Henry

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hardy, Laurence

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Charrington, Spencer

  Helder, Augustus

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Purvis, Robert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Curzon, Viscount

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kenyon, James

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Keswick, William

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Knowles, Lees

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Faber, George Denison

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Stock, James Henry

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw J.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxford U.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wyndham, George

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edward M.

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Sidebottom, William (Derby.)

  Went worth, Bruce C. Vernon.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

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

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstrnther.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Stirling-Max well, Sir John M.

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale.

  Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Billson, Alfred

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Price, Robert John

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cum'bl'nd)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Sinclair, Capt. Jno. (Forfarsh.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Crombie, John William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Daly, James

  M'Crae, George

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

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Dillon, John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Douglas, C. M. (Lanark)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Duckworth, James

  Murnaghan, George

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd)

  Engledew, Charles John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Woods, Samuel

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

  Evershed, Sydney

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Dowd, John

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Kelly, James

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Malley, William

  Question put accordingly, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 143; Noes, 64. (Division List No. 173.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Charrington, Spencer

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

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

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Baird, John Geo. Alexander

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

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

  Curzon, Viscount

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

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

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hardy, Laurence

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Faber, George Denison

  Helder, Augustus

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith.

  Finch, George H.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Rbt. Penrose.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Butcher, John George

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Kenyon, James

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

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Keswick, William

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

  Gedge, Sydney

  Knowles, Lees

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

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

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn. (Swans.)

  Myers, William Henry

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stanley, Edward J.(Somerset)

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Stock, James Henry

  Lowe, Francis William

  Peel, Hon. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uni.)

  Lowles, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Purvis, Robert

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

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

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  M'Killop, James

  Richardson Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

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

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Moore, Wm. (Antrim, N.)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wyndham, George

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Morgan, Hn F. (Monmouthsh.)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Young Commanded Berks, E.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Murray, Col. Wynd. (Bath)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Scale-

  Peare, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Billson, Alfred

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Price, Robert John

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

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

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, Wil. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilf. (Cumb'land)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Crombie, John William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Daly, James

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Ghee, Richard

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

  Dillon, John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Duckworth, James

  Murnaghan, George

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Engledew, Charles John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddrsfld)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

  Woods, Samuel

  Evershed, Sydney

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Kelly, James

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Guerdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

  O'Malley, William

  It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  EDUCATION OF THE BLIND (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Committee report Progress.
  Order for Committee discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  Adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
London County Council (Money).
Tottenham Urban District Council.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the following Bill:—
West Ham Corporation,
ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed.
Read, and agreed to.

DEVONPORT CORPORATION BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Order made on the 25th of June last discharged, and Bill committed.
EXETER CORPORATION BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Order made on the 14th of May last discharged, and Bill committed.
LONDON AND SAINT KATHERINE DOCKS AND EAST AND WEST INDIA DOCK COMPANIES BILL.

  BUENOS AYRES AND ROSARIO RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  ST. ALBANS WATER BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.

  MORLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  BRITISH GASLIGHT COMPANY (STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES) BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.
  LATIMER ROAD AND ACTON RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CROYDON TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL.

  CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL (BRIDGES) BILL.
  PLYMOUTH, STONEHOUSE, AND DEVONPORT TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

  EDUCATIONAL BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BRIGHTON AND PRESTON UNITED DISTRICTS, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL. (No. 155.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL. (No. 156.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL. (No. 157.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL. (No. 158.)
  PERTH AND PAISLEY GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL. (No. 159.)
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2468. Turkey (Salonica and District);
  No. 2469. China (Chinkiang);
  No. 2470. Brazil (Bahia).

  CELTIC ORNAMENTS FOUND IN IRELAND.
  Summary, prepared by the Treasury, of facts and correspondence with respect to certain Celtic ornaments found in the year 1896, at Limavady, in the northwest of Ireland.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DISTRICT COUNCILLORS AND GUARDIANS (TERM OF OFFICE) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF YARBOROUGH: My Lords, when the district councils were created it was enacted that one-third of the councillors should vacate office annually; but power was given to the county council, on the request of any district council, to vary this procedure and to require that all the councillors should vacate office simultaneously every third year. No power, however, was given to the county council to rescind this order should the district council wish to return to the normal procedure. This case has arisen at Woodbridge in Suffolk, and the Law Officers of the Crown have ruled that a Bill is necessary to remedy the omission. This Bill has passed the other House without opposition; it has not been opposed by the Local Government Board; and therefore I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Harris, I am asked to say that the Local Government Board approve of this Bill, as representing a practical way of getting over the difficulty to which the noble Earl has referred.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION BILL.
  Read 3a, (according to Order), with the Amendments; further Amendments made. Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL.
  House in Committee (according to-Order). Bill reported without amendment. Standing Committee negatived;, and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  COLONIAL STOCK BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without amendment; and recommitted to the Standings Committee.

  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BOARD.
  Moved, That the Commons' Message-of Thursday last be taken into consideration (The Earl Waldegrave); agreed to. The said Message considered accordingly. Then it was moved that a Committee of Five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the constitution of Queen Anne's Bounty Board, and to report whether economy and efficiency of administration, would be promoted by any change in its constitution or by its amalgamation with, any other body; agreed to.
  Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons, in answer to their said Message, to inform them of the appointment of the said Committee by this House.

CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 152.)

  CUSTOMS DUTIES (ISLE OF MAN) BILL. (No. 153.)
  EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 154.)
  Brought from the Commons; read la;, and to be pointed.

  MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee, with further Amendments. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Thursday-next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 160.)
  UNION OF BENEFICES ACT, 1860, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  CREMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 161.)

  BURIAL GROUNDS BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment, and to be read 3a on Friday next.
  House adjourned at Twenty minutes before Five of the clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten of the clock.