Sitting of 19 July 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  DEARNE VALLEY RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
GLYNCORRWG URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL GAS BILL [Lords].
  LONDON SEA WATER SUPPLY BILL [Lords].
    WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

WORKINGTON RAILWAYS AND DOCKS BILL [Lords].
Ordered, That, in the case of the Workington Railways and Docks Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 204 and 235 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on the Bill have leave to sit and proceed upon Monday next.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY BILL.
Order (12th February) referring the London, Walthamstow, and Epping Forest Railway Bill to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

EDINBURGH (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) IMPROVEMENT SCHEME PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee of Selection have leave to appoint

451
the Committee on the Bill, to sit and proceed forthwith.—(The Lord Advocate.)

PAISLEY WATERWORKS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee of Selection have leave to appoint the Committee on the Bill, to sit and proceed forthwith.—(The Lord Advocate.)

RAILWAYS (IRELAND) AMALGAMATION BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Report from the Joint Committee on Railways (Ireland) Amalgamation Bills in respect of the Great Southern and Western and Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill [Lords] (Pending in the Lords) brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Report from the Joint Committee on Railways (Ireland) Amalgamation Bills in respect of the Great Southern and Western and Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill [Lords] (Pending in the Lords), brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill.
Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill.
Bray Urban District Council Bill, without Amendment.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill.
Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railway Bill.
Lambeth Water Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Sunderland to contribute towards the construction by the North-Eastern Railway Company of a bridge and road across the River Wear, and to make provision
452
for the construction of a new road in Southwick to join the same; and for other purposes. "Sunderland Corporation Bill [Lords].

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [Lords.]
Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Lowick, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Lowick and Alnwick; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Crieff, in. favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 13th March; Mr Goddard]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 284.]
  WHISKY IN BOND (SCOTLAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th June; Mr. Gordon]; to lie upon the Table.
  COURT OF PROBATE DIVISION (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE) (IRELAND).
  Annual Account presented, of Receipts and Disbursements for the year ended 31st December, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND REGISTRY.
  Account presented, of Receipts and Payments in respect of the Land Registry for the year ended 31st March, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 285.]
  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND COURT OF APPEAL, ETC.
  Copy presented, of Account showing the Receipts and Expenditure in respect of the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal during the year ended 31st March, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 286.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 29th Juno, 1900, granting a retired allowance to Mr. Thomas Alfred Inch, a Second Division Clerk (Higher Grade) under the Board of Trade, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  IMPERIAL INSTETUTE (INDIAN SECTION).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of the Imperial Institute (Indian Section) for the year 1899–1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Copy presented, of Return of Eviction Notices filed during the Quarter ended 30th June, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 4, 1900).
  Copy presented, of Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Honduras. Signed at Guatemala, 22nd January, 1887. (Ratifications exchanged at Guatemala, 3rd February, 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Astronomer Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich [by Command]; to lie upon the Table
QUESTIONS.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK— ASSISTANCE TO REFUGEES.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken to assist the escape of foreigners who have fled from the interior to places on the rivers or sea coast of China.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): All foreigners have been brought from Wenchow to Shanghai, and a vessel has been hired to bring away refugees from Chung King if necessary. At other Yang-tsze ports there are gunboats, and there are also men-of-war at Woosung held in readiness to proceed to any port where they may be required. Consul-General Warren was empowered on 12th July to take any steps in concert with the senior naval officer which may be considered necessary for bringing away refugees.

  PEKING LEGATION NAVAL GUARD.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty know the names of the officer, non-commissioned officers, and men who formed the guard at our Legation at Peking, and if so, whether he will notify them to the press, and if the Admiralty have not ascertained the names will he take steps to do so.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): The names of the officers attached to the guard of Royal Marines at Peking are:— Captain Lewis S. T. Halliday, H.M.S. "Orlando": Captain Bernard M. Strouts and Captain Edmund Wray, H.M.S. "Centurion," for service at Wei-hai-wei. The relatives have been informed, but the names were not sent to the press. The names of the non-commissioned officers and men are not known. If any certain news is received of the fate of the Peking Legations the Commander-in-Chief may be depended upon to inform the Admiralty by telegraph, but while it is uncertain he naturally does not do so.
  SIR J. COLOMB: Will the Admiralty take stops to ascertain the names?
  MR. MACARTNEY: It is not necessary. The Commander-in-Chief will take the earliest possible steps to communicate the names.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I suppose the hon. Gentleman knows that there is great anxiety?
  MR. MACARTNEY: Yes, Sir; and the Admiralty will take immediate steps to relieve that anxiety. As soon as the

  455
  Commander-in-Chief has trustworthy news he will, of course, communicate it.

  INDIAN TROOPS FOR CHINA—COST.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the expenses of the 22,000 troops withdrawn from the Indian establishment to servo in China will fall on the Imperial or on the Indian Exchequer; and whether provision will be made, having regard that no fewer than 90,000,000 persons in India are affected by the famine now devastating that dependency of the Crown, that the maintenance of the regiments, native or otherwise, now serving out of India be not charged directly or indirectly on the Indian revenue.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I have on several occasions stated that all the cost, both ordinary and extraordinary, of any Indian troops sent to China would be paid by the the Imperial Exchequer. The number so sent is not 22,000, but less than half that number.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Do I understand that the actual ordinary expenses of the regiment will be paid not by the Indian, but by the Imperial Exchequer? We have had this point raised before, and I want an explicit answer.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have answered.

  JAPANESE TROOPS FOR CHINA.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what is the number of Japanese troops now landed or about to land in China.
  MR. BRODRICK: According to our latest information about 14,000 men had either landed or were en route on 17th July. It is expected that 2,000 more will embark by Sunday next.

  YANG-TSZE VALLEY—ENGLISH SUPPORT TO THE VICEROYS.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary a question of which I have given him private notice— namely, whether Her Majesty's Govern-
  456
  ment are prepared to enter into engagements with the Viceroys of the Yang-tsze with the view of preserving peace and order in their respective jurisdictions, and whether they had given, or are prepared to give, definite and binding pledges to support the Viceroys.
  MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government have, as I have already informed the House, empowered Consul-General Warren to inform the Viceroys that in any efforts they may make to restore order they may count on the full support of Her Majesty's ships. No further pledges of support have been asked for or seem necessary.
  MR. YERBURGH: In consequence of that answer, I give notice that I will repeat the question on Monday.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—TREATMENT OF BOERS IN BRITISH HOSPITALS.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any considerable number of Boers have received medical or surgical assistance in our hospitals, and whether he can state approximately how many; whether any complaints have been received from the Boer Governments, Boer officers, or Boer patients in respect of the medical or surgical services rendered by us, or of the means and appliances provided by us, and whether there is any ground for believing that they have been dissatisfied; whether the medical and hospital assistance requisite for the care of the opposing forces tended by us in addition to our own was foreseen and arranged for; and whether he can state the number of our soldiers who have received medical or surgical aid in Boer hospitals.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Before the question is answered, may I inquire if the third paragraph of the question is not out of order, seeing that it embodies the expression of the opinion that the assistance was requisite?
  MR. SPEAKER: I wish the hon. Member was never more irregular.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): About 450 Boers have been admitted into British hospitals, mostly for

  457
  gunshot wounds. No complaints have been received. The probability that we might have occasionally to give medical and surgical assistance to Boers was foreseen, and they received the same treatment and attention as our men. There are no Returns showing how many of our soldiers were admitted to Boer hospitals.

  TRANSPORT — CATERING ARRANGEMENTS ON THE "CUSTODIAN."
  MR. PAULTON: I beg to ask the Secretary the the Admiralty whether, on the arrival of the transport "Custodian" at Southampton, complaints were made to the staff officers on duty concerning the food supplied and the moss and canteen arrangements on board during the voyage from Cape Town; and, if so, what report has been made on the subject.
  MR. MACARTNEY: The report of the officer commanding the troops during the voyage in question, which I shall be glad to show the hon. Gentleman, states that there was no cause of complaint in respect of the provisions issued, and that everything appertaining to the comfort of officers and men on board was well carried out. I am also informed that while one man complained to the embarkation officer of everything on board, his comrades did not support him and stated that his allegations did not merit inquiry.

  THE "AVONDALE CASTLE" CANTEEN PRICES.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Queen's regulations for the Transport Service fixing the prices of canteen articles to be supplied to troops on board transport vessels were applicable to the R.M.S. "Avondale Castle," on her voyage from Southampton to Cape Town, between 12th May and 10th June, and, if they were applicable, why these regulations were not adhered to, seeing that the troops on board that vessel were charged a price for aerated waters double that prescribed by the regulations; and will he state what action will be taken by the War Office in the matter, having regard to the observations made by the officer in command in his report on the voyage, and to the possibility that similar non-observances of the regulations may recur.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The owners of the "Avondale Castle" have explained that the overcharge for aerated waters was made by mistake. The amount involved is small, but if the Volunteer battalion applies for its refund the owners will be asked for the money.

  UNDER-AGE RECRUIT—PRIVATE WALSH, 1ST MUNSTER FUSILIERS.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state if Private P. Walsh, 1st Regiment Munster Fusiliers, who is reported in despatches from Cape Town on Thursday last as having been wounded, is the same Private Walsh who was stated recently to have enlisted when under sixteen years of age; whether he has yet attained that age; and whether, in the event of his having been wounded, he will be sent home by the first available ship, and discharged from the Army with an adequate pension to assist in the support of his mother.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Private Walsh is the soldier referred to by the hon. Member in his question of the 4th inst. The question of invaliding depends on the severity of the wound. Should his wound lead to his discharge, the amount of his pension will be decided in accordance with regulations by the Chelsea Hospital Commissioners.
  MR. FLAVIN: Then this is the boy. Will he be sent homo by the first available ship?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have answered that question.

  SOUTH DENES CAMP, YARMOUTH—COLLECTIONS BY THE SISTERS OF NAZARETH.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the regulations issued by Colonel Brownrigg, inspecting the Volunteers on the South Denes, Yarmouth, forbidding the Sisters of Nazareth to collect pennies from the 4,000 Volunteers now in camp; whether Colonel Brownrigg has any authority for issuing such regulations; and, if he is aware that the sisterhood who were sent back are of the same order as that which was so highly commended for nursing the sick and wounded in South Africa.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no information at the War Office on these incidents. The exclusion or admission of strangers in camp is a matter within the competence of Colonel Brownrigg, as officer commanding the brigade.
  DR. TANNER: Is it the fact that these ladies were excluded in consequence of their religion?
  MR. WYNDHAM; I have no knowledge of the matter, but if the hon. Gentleman alleges that an unfair distinction has been drawn, and that privileges have been denied to those ladies which were granted to others, I will inquire into it.
  DR. TANNER: I will repeat the question on Monday.

  BOOTS AND CLOTHING FOR THE TROOPS.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has any information to the effect that Lord Roberts' army is now hampered by the want of boots, and that a large portion of the troops now under his command are almost barefooted.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In consequence of statements on this subject in the press, the Secretary of State had a telegram of inquiry sent to Lord Roberts on the 14th instant, and the following reply has been received—
  "Pretoria, 18th July, 12.55 p.m.—The temporary break in communications and necessity for giving preference to troops and supplies occasioned delay in issue of boots and clothing to some units. The last consignment arrived to-day."

  COLENSO ENGAGEMENT—COLONEL LONG'S REPORT.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to publish Colonel Long's report regarding the abandonment of eleven guns at the battle of Colenso.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must refer my hon. and gallant friend to the answers which have been given by the First Lord on the general question of the publication of despatches and reports.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I revive the hon. Gentleman's recollection that last March—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Well, let me put it this way. I will, of course, at once sit down if you rule me out of order. Sir Redvers Buller made a serious attack on Colonel Long—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is putting an obviously irrelevant question.

  3RD INNISKILLING FUSILIERS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state how many men of the 3rd Inniskilling Fusiliers, stationed at Cowshott Manor Camp, responded to the call made in February last to volunteer for service in South Africa; wore any deprivations of privilege made in the case of men who then declined to volunteer; and how many men responded to a further call for Volunteers made upon this corps in the present month, and have any of the corps been visited with displeasure for refusal.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The 3rd Inniskilling Fusiliers were not asked by the Secretary of State for War to volunteer for service abroad either in February or later.

  INVALIDED SOLDIERS—STATISTICS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how many officers, non-commissioned officers, and men have been invalided from South Africa since the outbreak of the war; of these how many have died on the passage home, or in military hospitals, or in their own homes; and how many have been incapacitated from further service by wounds or disease.
  MR. WYNDHAM: 20,658 have been invalided home; of these 63 died on the passage and 60 in military hospitals. There is no record of any having died in their own homes. 430 have been incapacitated from further service by wounds and disease.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Can you give roughly the proportion of officers?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member did not ask for it, or I could have given it exactly.

  CIVIL TRIBUNAL AT JOHANNESBURG.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in addition to the military tribunal at Johannesburg, a Court styled the Court of the Chief Magistrate has been appointed over which an officer styled the Chief Magistrate presides; whether this Court has cognisance of and jurisdiction in all criminal cases except murder, treason, sedition, rape, robbery, arson, and concealment of arms; whether the Chief Magistrate is empowered to inflict sentences not exceeding two years imprisonment, fines not exceeding £100, and to sentence to the punishment of flogging, the flogging not to exceed 100 lashes; and whether the Colonial Secretary can give any explanation of the establishment of this tribunal, and on what evidence Sir Alfred Milner, as High Commissioner, has sanctioned the establishment of a tribunal to which the power of sentencing to the lash is entrusted.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I have no information. All the arrangements for preserving law and order in the Transvaal are entirely in the hands of Lord Roberts.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: As this is a matter of flogging, will the right hon. Gentleman ask his agent, Sir Alfred Milner?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

  MARTIAL LAW—PAPERS ON THE CAPE REBELS.
  MR SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Papers in reference to South Africa, especially in reference to the communications between the Home Government and the Cape Government in regard to the Cape rebels, will be presented before the Colonial Vote is taken.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the Papers will be in the hands of Members before the Colonial Vote is taken.

  ARMY CHAPLAIN AT HONG KONG.
  MR. BRODIE HOARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether there is a commissioned chaplain to the forces at Hong Kong; if not, whether, in view of the importance of Hong Kong as a military base, immediate steps will be taken to appoint one.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Commissioned chaplains are, as a rule, sent only to the larger foreign stations. There is an acting chaplain at Hong Kong who devotes his whole time to the troops. He is at present, however, on leave, and his duties are being discharged by the local clergy. The question of an increase in the establishment of chaplains is under consideration. The House is aware that the Hong Kong garrison has recently been reduced.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the supply of chaplains has been found to be insufficient in the present South African campaign?
  MR. WYNDHAM: There was a time, perhaps, when it was not sufficient, but I believe every demand has now been supplied.

  SENTRY DUTY IN THE METROPOLIS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for "War if he can state what number of men are detailed for guards and sentry-go in the metropolis in each twenty-four hours when the battalions and regiments are on home service, and what is the necessity, if any, of posting sentries over empty buildings and public offices when protection could be afforded by the police; and whether the sentry on the War Office was incapacitated by the heat on Tuesday.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are five officers and 218 non-commissioned officers and men detailed for guards and sentry go in the metropolis. There are no sentries over empty buildings. The matter has been very thoroughly considered and the numbers in recent years have been largely reduced. The sentry on the War Office was unfortunately overcome by the heat on Monday.
  MAJOR RASCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a man in a tunic

  463
  buttoned close up to his throat, and wearing a heavy busby, and carrying a rifle on a beat extending only ten yards, cannot be a very mobile protector?
  [No answer was given.]

  OUTLAY UPON BELLEVILLE BOILERS.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state approximately the amount spent upon Belleville boilers for the Navy during the last five years.
  MR. MACARTNEY: It is not possible to state the amount spent upon Belleville boilers, as they are included in the tender for the propelling machinery and are not priced separately.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: Has the hon. Gentleman no approximate idea of the cost?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not over £5,000,000?
  MR. MACARTNEY: I can give no other answer. It would involve an examination of all the contracts.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Cannot you say the cost within a million?
  [No answer was given.]

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY— REPORTED TRANSFER TO THE CROWN.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have been negotiating with the British South Africa Company for the transfer of its territory to the Crown.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I have heard the rumour, but there is not an atom of foundation for the suggestion contained in the question.

  BRITISH TRADE IN MADAGASCAR.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and, if so, what reply has been received to the representations made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the French Government in July, 1898, that their action in greatly increasing the
  464
  import duties upon the principal articles of British manufacture was a further infraction of British rights in Madagascar, inconsistent with the international rights of this country, and with the assurances given by the Government of the Republic.
  MR. BRODRICK: NO direct reply has been received to the representations made in 1898, the French Government having stated that they adhered to the reply upon the subject which was made by Monsieur Hanotaux on the 23rd April, 1897. This reply has already been laid before Parliament.

  CABLE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE WEST INDIAN ISLANDS.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, although the Island of Jamaica is now in direct telegraphic communication with the British Empire through British cables by Turks Island, Bermuda, and Halifax (Nova Scotia), no steps have yet been taken to establish a direct communication between Jamaica and the other West Indian Islands, and that the cables connecting Jamaica with the fortified coaling station of St. Lucia and the Islands of Barbados, St. Vincent, and Trinadad, and the other West Indian Islands, as well as the mainland of British Guiana, all touch foreign soil at one or more points; whether he is aware that British Honduras is also dependent upon foreign cables, and that if a colonist in British Honduras wishes to telegraph to the United States or England he has to take a journey into the neighbouring Republics of Guatemala or Spanish Honduras in order to do so; whether the Colonial Office have these matters under consideration; and whether he can hold out any hope of being able to deal speedily with these grievances.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The facts are as stated. The points raised in the hon. Member's question have been carefully considered, and will not be lost sight of. Considerable expenditure would be involved, and I cannot promise any immediate action in the matter.

  INDIAN FAMINE—LOANS TO NATIVE STATES.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in

  465
  a position to specify the amounts advanced by the Government of India to the several native States by way of famine loans; whether, when making each loan, the Government of India ascertained that the State was exercising economy in its general administration, with a view both to the relief of the famine-stricken and the repayment of the loan; and whether the Bhaunagar State in Kattywar applied for a famine loan of 30 lakhs, what is the reason why Bhaunagar, recently prosperous, is now in financial straits, and has the Government of India satisfied itself that this State has reduced all unnecessary expenditure both in India and in England.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The total amount of loans to native States for relief purposes sanctioned up to the end of May, either from Government funds or on Government guarantee, was £1,217,000. A list of these loans will be found at the end of the Papers presented to Parliament regarding Famine Relief in Native States, which Papers will, I hope, be distributed before the end of next week. The Government of India has repeatedly inculcated strict economy on native States suffering from famine and applying for financial assistance. Applications for loans to such States and their conduct of relief measures are subjected to such scrutiny and supervision as are possible without undesirable interference. Bhaunagar is undoubtedly a prosperous State, but its Government has recently invested £507,000 in its railways, and had a working cash balance of only £20,000 at the beginning of the year. Owing to the famine, its income has shrunk and its expenditure has increased considerably. The net deficit to be met was estimated in March last at £147,000, and so the State applied for and received a large loan from the Government. The ways and means of the State, its intended expenditure, and the possible economies to be made were considered by the Government of India before the loan was granted.

  REMISSIONS OF LAND REVENUE.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the famine of 1896–7 the Government of the North-West Provinces remitted land revenue to the extent of Rs.6,000,000, while the
  466
  Government of Bombay remitted Rs.15,000; and whether, looking to the remarks of the Famine Commissioners of 1898, who approved the liberal remissions in the North-West Provinces as mitigating distress, while taking exception to the course followed in Bombay, he will urge upon the Bombay Government a more liberal policy than that followed by them in 1896–7.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: In the North-West Provinces, where the population of the affected districts may be taken to have been 19½ millions, the Government during the famine of 1897–8 remitted revenue to the extent of six million rupees; in Bombay, on a population of eight millions, about 800,000 rupees were either remitted or suspended, and 5,300,000 rupees were loaned out to occupiers. The Commissioners point out in their Report that the land revenue assessment of the Bombay Deccan is admittedly light; and, on the whole, I am not prepared to accept without reservation the hon. Member's version of their opinion as to the measures taken in the North West Provinces and in Bombay respectively. So far as the famine is concerned I have every reason to believe that the Bombay Government are acting in a judicious and liberal spirit towards the cultivators under their jurisdiction. In Guzerat alone the Bombay Government report that they had up to July deliberately left uncollected two-thirds of the land revenue in the affected districts.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: The noble Lord will understand I am referring to remissions and not suspensions?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Quite so.

  RAINFALL IN THE FAMINE AREAS.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has official information to the effect of the telegraphic news received since yesterday of satisfactory rainfalls having taken place in the areas affected by the famine; if so, can he give the total of the rainfall since the monsoon set in up to date in several affected districts, and state if it is regarded as decidedly improving the prospects of the ensuing crops in those parts.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am glad to say that I have received a report of good rainfalls in most parts of the famine area. The telegram giving this intelligence was dated Simla, the 14th July, and has been published in the newspapers. But I am afraid I cannot at present give precise figures of the rainfall up to date in the several affected districts.

  CATTLE IN THE FAMINE DISTRICTS— SUPPLIES OF SEED GRAIN, FODDER, ETC.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state what, approximately, are the percentages of deaths among the cattle in the famine districts, and what funds are available for the supply of cattle, fodder, and seed grain to the cultivators in these districts; and what steps are being taken to secure a supply of fodder for the surviving cattle, and what proportion of the cattle recently supplied to make good previous losses have died from want of fodder.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have no precise figures about the mortality among cattle. We shall learn some months hence what approximately the losses have been in British districts when the yearly returns are made up of the number of cattle alive. No similar returns are made for native States. The funds at present allotted for the supply of seed grain and cattle to cultivators in British districts are 123 lakhs for advances to cultivators. The charitable funds have also distributed for the same purpose a considerable sum to the poorer cultivators. Strenuous efforts were made in parts of the Bombay Presidency to collect and distribute fodder earlier in the season. Now that rain has come and grass is growing I do not anticipate that further endeavours in that direction will be required. I am not able to say what proportion of the recently supplied cattle have perished from lack of fodder or from lack of water.

  CHOLERA IN THE FAMINE DISTRICTS.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the outbreak of cholera in the famine districts of India, any, and, if so, what, addition has been made to the famine medical service; and whether he can state the number of deaths from cholera in the famine districts.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am not able to state the number of additional medical officers and medical subordinates sent to the famine districts in consequence of the outbreak of cholera. I was informed that, as regards the worst cholera tract in the middle of June, the local authorities there had received as much extra medical help as they thought necessary. The returns which have reached me show that during the month of June 22,198 cholera deaths were reported from British famine districts, and there were 19,122 from native States similarly afflicted. During the three weeks ending on the 7th July, the reported cholera deaths averaged 6,562 a week for British famine districts and 6,185 a week for native States affected by famine.

  INDIAN PENAL LAWS.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, looking to the loyalty and patience manifested by the Indian people while suffering from grievous calamities, and looking to the benefit to Imperial interests from such manifestation at the present time, he will consider whether, by withdrawing recent penal legislation, this loyalty may be recognised, and the Indian people assured of the confidence and appreciation of Her Majesty's Government.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The loyalty, courage, and resignation manifested by the Indian people in the face of most grievous calamities are most fully appreciated by Her Majesty's Government and by the people of this country, and on more than one occasion both the Viceroy in India and I, as Secretary of State in England, have given unstinted expression to our admiration of their demeanour and conduct. I do not know what the hon. Member means by withdrawal of recent penal legislation, for certainly during my tenure of office no such legislation has been sanctioned.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBUEN: Does not the noble Lord understand that I refer to the law with regard to the press and sedition, which now appear not to be necessary?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: If the hon. Baronet will be good enough to examine that law I think he will find it exactly

  469
  the same as that which obtains in this country.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Remember the case of the Natu Brothers.

  NEW TAXATION IN INDIA SINCE 1886.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will grant a Return showing the amount yielded by new taxation imposed in India in or since the year 1866, and stating in each case the purpose for which such taxation was at the time said to be imposed.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: There is no objection to the motion for the Return which the hon. Baronet desires.

  THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IN INDIA.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India how long has the office of Commander-in-Chief in India been vacant, and when is an appointment to be made.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Sir W. Lockhart died suddenly on the 18th of March, and since then General Sir Power Palmer has discharged, as acting Commander-in-Chief, the functions of the office. A permanent appointment will be made before long.

  SILVER COINAGE.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the coinage of five-shilling and four-shilling pieces is to be continued, and whether he can state if any representations have been made by retail traders as to the inconvenience of these coins.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The coinage of double florins has been discontinued since 1891. Those remaining in circulation are in course of withdrawal. No representation as to the inconvenience of crowns is recorded as having been received at the Mint or the Treasury. Only a very small proportion of the silver pieces issued is in crowns. In 1899, out of an issue of 32,129,100 of such pieces, only 159,100 were crowns. It is not proposed to discontinue their issue.

  INCOME TAX—INTEREST ON MUNICIPAL LOANS.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the reasons why income derived from payments for interest made by municipal authorities is charged with the full duty of 1s. in the pound for the whole period in respect of which the same is payable, whereas income derived from similar payments made by public companies or private persons is calculated at the increased rate only since the date when the increased duty was imposed.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The distinction, which leads to a difference of treatment in respect of income tax, between income derived from payments for interest made by municipal authorities, and income derived from similar payments made by public companies or private persons, lies in the fact that in the latter case the interest is paid out of profits and gains assessable to income tax, while in the former it is (as a rule) paid, or partly paid, out of rates, which are not so assessable. In this latter event Sub-section 3 of Section 24 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, applies, and this distinctly prescribes that the rate of income tax shall be that in force at the time of payment. I may be allowed to add I think that some public inconvenience is caused by the existing difference of treatment in this matter, and I propose to examine the possibility of adopting a uniform system.
  MR. BARTLEY: Will regard be had to the case where there is obviously a charge in excess, like the Jamaica railway debentures?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No. I do not think that was a case of excessive charge.

  PRISON TREATMENT OF DEBTORS.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state how many persons are at present detained as debtors in Her Majesty's gaols, whether under the prison rules such persons are obliged to wear prison uniform, and whether their treatment as to food, exercise, and such matters differs in any particular from those convicted of criminal offences.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): There were 474 male and eleven female debtors in custody on the 17th instant. Debtors are permitted to wear their own clothing unless it is unfit for use, in which case they wear the same uniform as prisoners awaiting trial whose clothes are unfit for use. They have the same food as offenders of the first division, and are allowed to exercise twice a day. Generally speaking, their treatment differs in almost every particular from that of convicted prisoners.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state whether the Metropolitan Police Force is at present below its establishment, also whether desirable recruits are now forthcoming in sufficient numbers and continue to remain in the force.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The force is at present below its establishment chiefly owing to the Reservists being called out for service with the colours. A sufficient number of properly qualified recruits is forthcoming to rather more than meet the normal needs of the force, but not sufficient to replace the absent Reservists or to make good augmentations. The answer to the last few words of the question is in the affirmative.

  UNDELIVERED POSTCARDS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, seeing that undelivered postcards are returned to the senders only on the condition that a request for their return must be placed on the outside before posting, and on the payment of a return postage of one halfpenny on delivery, while undelivered letters are returned to the senders without any extra charge or request for their return, whether he can say why postcards are differently dealt with, and which side of a postcard the Post Office authorities describe as the inside.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): These postcards are treated differently from letters, because the half-
  472
  penny post is not in itself remunerative, and in the great majority of cases the return to the sender of undeliverable matter passing at the halfpenny rate is not desired and involves much useless labour. Such packets can be returned, if the sender so desires, by placing on the address side a request to that effect. The official regulations make no reference to the "inside" of a postcard.

  CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE OVERTIME.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the amount of overtime performed by the staff at the Central Telegraph Office, London, the Postmaster General is considering the advisability of increasing the number of operators; whether it is intended that such increase should be effected by the addition of unestablished telegraphists at lower wages than the ordinary clerks receive; and, whether the Postmaster General will take steps to provide that all new telegraphists shall be placed in a position with reference to pay and other rights similar to that of the present established staff of the London office.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is considering the advisability of adding to the staff in the Central Telegraph Office in order to reduce overtime, but it is not intended that unestablished telegraphists should be employed for that purpose. Officers appointed to the established class of telegraphists will receive the pay and privileges proper to that class.

  COOTEHILL (CAVAN) POSTMASTERSHIP.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has examined the correspondence which passed in 1897 and 1898 relative to the appointment of the previous postmistress of Cootehill, county Cavan; and, whether, seeing that a condition requiring her to give up her private business was attached to the appointment, he can state why a similar condition was not attached to the appointment of the present postmaster; and whether he is at liberty to say on the authority of what official his recent statement was made.
  MR. HANBURY: There was no condition attached to Miss Corry's appointment such as the hon. Member describes. Miss Corry had no private business, but resided with her relative, the previous sub-postmistress of Cootehill, to whom she acted as assistant. The newly appointed sub-postmaster is not required to give his whole time to the public service, and it is not necessary, therefore, that he should relinquish his business as chemist. My recent reply was given on the authority of the Postmaster General.

  NEWBLISS POST OFFICE.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the late postmistress at Newbliss, county Monaghan, still resides in the post office in that town, notwithstanding that her successor was appointed several months ago; and can he state who is the tenant of the Newbliss Post Office, and if the late postmistress is still the tenant, is that arrangement in accordance with General Post Office practice; and will he say how many females are employed there as telegraph practitioners or learners, and whether complaints have been made to the chief postmaster in Dublin that some of these young women are occasionally employed as postal messengers; and how many persons altogether, male and female, are employed in connection with this post office, and how many are Roman Catholics.
  MR. HANBURY: The fact is as stated. The late sub-postmistress of Newbliss still resides in the house in which the post office is situated, and there is no objection, under the rules of the Department, to her so doing. The present sub-postmistress is the tenant of the premises. One female assistant and one female telegraph learner are employed at the Newbliss office; and the services of these persons are occasionally utilised in the delivery of telegrams. It is not known that any complaints have been made against this practice, which is not in violation of any rule. The total number of persons employed in connection with the Newbliss office is nine—six men and three women. Nothing is known as regards their religion.

  R.I.C. MEDICAL APPOINTMENT FOR TIPPERARY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the death of Dr. Nadin, Tipperary, who was doctor to the Royal Irish. Constabulary at various stations, the men in each barrack were asked to choose a successor, and their choice was ratified in every case except Tipperary and Limerick Junction, where the police, thirty-four in number, almost unanimously selected Dr. O'Dwyer, but that in this case the County Inspector intervened and recommended a practitioner who had only received one or two votes, and that Dr. O'Dwyer was then set aside by the Inspector General and the position given to the nominee of the County Inspector, although his qualifications were in no respect superior; and will he explain why the wishes of the force were not allowed to prevail in this case as in that of all the other vacancies created by the death of Dr. Nadin.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): I am informed it is not the fact that the police at any of the stations in question were asked to choose a successor to Dr. Nadin. The gentleman selected for appointment at Tipperary and Limerick has been longer in practice than Dr. O'Dwyer, and had also attended the police on previous occasions when the late medical attendant was unable to do so, and had given every satisfaction. While of course every attention is given, as far as possible, to the wishes of the constabulary in a matter of this kind, the choice of a medical attendant is not with the men, and the rule is to appoint the most experienced and most suitable doctor.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Do I understand that in the other cases no steps were taken to consult the wishes of the police?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I do not know how far their wishes were consulted. Whatever was done was done in an informal manner.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: However informal, is it not the fact that in all cases, except that of Tipperary, the wishes of the constabulary were met?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: That I cannot say.

  GRAZING IN PHŒNIX PARK, DUBLIN.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the annual profit received by the Government from letting the Phoenix Park for grazing cattle, and whether any of the London parks are similarly let; is he aware that the bullocks in the Phoenix Park are not herded, but continually stray on the roads and paths, to the annoyance of the public; that filth from the cattle disfigures the walks; that they are allowed to trample down and dirt that portion of the sward of the park most used for games by the citizens; and that in the London parks sheep are introduced whenever it is necessary to eat down the grass; and whether any steps will be taken, by efficient herding, to prevent the Phoenix Park roads and walks from being obstructed and defiled by cattle.
  MR. HANBURY: The average annual receipts from grazing rents in the Phoenix Park during the past five years wore £626 3s. 4d. There is no grazing in St. James's Park, but £64 a year is received for grazings in Hyde Park and the Green Park. No complaint has been received from the public with regard to the bullocks. The size of the park renders it impossible to prevent completely the straying of cattle on the roads, but every effort is made to keep the cattle off the roads (especially the main road) and preserve the cleanliness of the walks. No serious inconvenience with regard to games has arisen, and no complaint has been made. Sheep are introduced into some of the London parks to eat down the grass. A similar plan was tried in Dublin some years ago, but the grass did not suit sheep.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Are herds employed to keep the cattle off the path?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir.

  IRISH BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS— ASSISTANT SURVEYOR OF BUILDINGS.
  SIR GEORGE FARDELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain why Mr. R. W. Garden, the successful candidate at the recent examination for the situation of assistant surveyor of buildings in the Architectural Department of the Board of Public Works, Ireland, after having received notice of his success, has been re-
  476
  jected, although his qualifications fulfil the requirements set out in the special regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission on 27th April, 1900, respecting such examination; and whether it is proposed to appoint Mr. Donaldson because he happens to be at the present time in the temporary service of the Department.
  MR. HANBURY: Mr. Carden was rejected because his qualifications did not fulfil the requirements to which the hon. Member refers. They were prima, facie satisfactory; but they did not bear close investigation. No appointment will be made on the result of the examination.

  TRACTION ENGINES ON IRISH ROADS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—1. Have any representations been made to him about the state of the law in Ireland in relation to the use of traction engines on public roads. 2. Is he aware that owing to the use of such engines on the coast road between Glen-arm and Lame the road authority finds the cost of maintenance so materially increased as to be a source of embarrassment, while no power exists by which they can oblige the owners of the engines to contribute to the cost of repairs to the road. 3. Is he aware that the County Antrim Grand Jury passed resolutions calling upon the Government to assimilate the law in Ireland to that of England in regard to the passage of traction engines along public roads, complaining at the same time that the owners of these engines carry on their traffic under most illegal conditions 4. And will he introduce a clause into his Bill to amend the Local Government (Ireland) Act, placing the law in Ireland upon the same footing with the law in England.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Representations have been made to me of the character mentioned in the first paragraph. The average expenditure on the coast road between Glenarm and Larne has been increased about 30 per cent. within recent years; I am unable to say whether this increased expenditure has resulted in any embarrassment as alleged, but, if so, the case would appear to be one in which an application for an extension of the limit under Section 27, Subsection 2, of the Local Government Act,

  477
  1898, would probably be entertained by the Local Government Board. The answer to the third paragraph is in the affirmative. The Amendment suggested in the last paragraph would not be covered by the title of the Bill now before the House. Under Section 23 of the. Highways and Locomotives Act, 1878, as amended by Section 12 of the Locomotives Act, 1898, damages can be recovered by the local authority in England in respect of excessive wear on highways by reason of extraordinary traffic. These enactments do not, however, apply to Ireland, but I will consider the question of assimilating the law in this respect in the two countries with a view to possible legislation in a future session.

  THE BOTANICAL GARDENS, DUBLIN.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state what has been the annual expenditure for the past ten years on Kew Gardens, London, and the Botanical Gardens, Dublin.
  MR. HANBURY: The total gross expenditure from 1890–1 to 1899–1900 was —On Kew Gardens, £261,408 5s. 10d.; on the Botanical Gardens, Glasnevin, £18,769 6s. 1d.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to consult the Secretary for the Colonies as to the desirability of making an extra grant for the Botanical Gardens, Dublin?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Give us some orchids.

  SUTTON TO HOWTH TRAMWAY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the effort to represent the passing of the Bill to extend the time for the completion of the Great Northern Tramway from Sutton to Howth as an exoneration of the manner in which the work has up to the present been done; and whether, before sanctioning an inspection of the line by his inspectors, he will obtain an undertaking from the company that fresh Parliamentary powers will be applied for, or else enforce compliance with the original Act prescribing that the tramway shall be laid along the road and with its rails on a level therewith.
  R. HANBURY: The company state that if Parliamentary powers are necessary to authorise the deviation which has been made at the request of the grand jury, they will take an early opportunity of applying for them. In the meantime, the Board of Trade do not think it would be in the public interest to decline to allow an inspection for the purpose of ascertaining whether the line can be safely worked.

  LISTOWEL TO TARBERT RAILWAY.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will receive a deputation with a view of giving a grant of money or providing a means for giving such grant, for the construction of a railway from Listowel via Newtown Sandes and Ballylongford to Tarbert; and whether, in view of the fact that a portion of the district is congested, and of the want of travelling facilities as well as of employment to the poor, he will favourably consider the request made.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: There are no funds available for the construction of a railway from Listowel to Tarbert, and therefore no useful purpose would be served by my receiving a deputation, as suggested in the question.
  MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is exactly the question the right hon. Gentleman has answered.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of meetings can be held in North Kerry calling on the Government to make a grant?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman not find a slice of the Church Fund for this purpose?

  POLICE PROTECTION NEAR LISTOWEL.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of police employed in protecting the farm in Derry situate near Listowel, the property of John Sands, and whether the police so employed cost the district £160

  479
  per year; and, if not, how much; and whether, having regard to the present condition of the district, the extra police so employed on this farm will be removed.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Two constables are employed in protecting the caretaker on the farm referred to. They will be removed when, in the opinion of the authorities locally responsible, the necessity no longer exists for their employment. The men are supplied from the free force of the county, consequently their employment entails no charge whatever either to the district or the county.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole duty those men have to perform is to arrest the emergency man and charge him with drunkenness?

  CELTIC MANUSCRIPTS—SALARY OF IRISH SCRIBE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that an annual sum of £200 has been voted from 1865 to 1891 to the Royal Irish Academy as salary to an Irish scribe, including cataloguing and printing Irish manuscripts, and that a like sum has been included in the general grant-in-aid voted to the said Academy between 1892 and 1899; whether the transcription of Celtic manuscripts ceased on the death, in 1880, of Mr. O'Longan, the last of the Irish scribes, whether the copying of Irish manuscripts since 1880 has been by photograph, and whether the photographing of old Irish manuscripts ceased with the completion of the Yellow Book of Leccan in 1895; and, if so, can he say what has been done with the £200 a year voted for Irish scribes since 1880, and the £200 a year for printing Celtic manuscripts since 1893; whether the proceeds of the sale of the four folio volumes facsimiled or photographed at the expense of Parliament have been refunded to Her Majesty's Treasury, or spent on the general purposes of the Royal Irish Academy; and whether, if the Royal Irish Academy be unwilling to publish Celtic manuscripts, he will consider the desirability of transferring the present annual grants for this purpose to some of the other existing antiquarian societies in Ireland.
  MR. HANBURY: The sum of £200 was voted from 1865 to 1870for "Salary of Irish Scribe and for Cataloguing and. Printing Irish Manuscripts," and from l871 to 1890 for "Researches in connection with Celtic Manuscripts." In the Estimates for 1890ߝ1 and up to 1896ߝ7 this special item was merged in a grant of £400 for "Researches into and publication of Celtic Manuscripts." Since 1897ߝ8 the grant to the Academy has been voted as a lump sum, but the Academy have from year to year allocated a similar amount to such researches. Since the death of Mr. O'Longan in 1880 the manuscripts have been reproduced by photo-lithography, and the last one published was the Yellow Book of Leccan in 1895. The proceeds of the facsimiles published by the Academy have never been refunded to the Treasury. The receipts from the five volumes of "Facsimiles of National Manuscripts of Ireland," published by the Stationery Office, were, of course, paid into the Exchequer. The Academy is anxious to continue the publication of Celtic MSS. But it has full discretion as to the disposal of its grant-in-aid, and recently it has devoted its income mainly to collecting material, for a Thesaurus of the Irish language, which will be a most important aid to the study of the texts themselves.
  MR. DILLON: What are the researches to which this sum has been, devoted during the last few years?
  MR. HANBURY: To the preparation, of a dictionary of the Irish language.
  MR. DILLON: Will that dictionary-be published before the end of next, century?
  [No answer was given.]

  MONAGHAN ASYLUM WORKS.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the governors of the asylum of Monaghan demanded from the County Council of Monaghan £6,500 last week for sewerage and other works, and that the county council, not knowing of this expenditure at the asylum, struck a rate that will leave the council in debt several hundred pounds at the end of the year if they have to pay this claim of the asy-

  481
  lum governors; and whether he will inquire if this work is necessary, and provide that the governors of the asylum will in future give notice to the County Council of Monaghan before making such an outlay.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: This question appears to be founded upon a misapprehension of the facts. The governors of the asylum have not demanded a sum of £6,500 from the county council for the works referred to. The joint committee of the asylum, which includes a certain number of members of the Monaghan County Council, applied to the Local Government Board for sanction to two loans, one of £6,500 for sewerage and other works, and another of £2,500 for building a new church. Advertisements were issued by the joint committee in newspapers circulating in the district inviting any ratepayer or owner of property desirous of making a representation to the Local Government Board in connection with the proposed loans, to do so within fourteen days. No objection was received by the Board, and they have accordingly sanctioned the loans—to be repaid in thirty and forty years respectively. The proportion of the amount of the two loans of £9,000 for which the county Monaghan is liable is £3,872, the county Cavan being liable for the remainder. A printed copy of the notice of the proposal to apply for these loans was sent to every representative of the county council acting on the joint committee of management of the asylum on 14th January last, in compliance with the regulations made by the Local Government Board on the subject.

  SNEEM (COUNTY KERRY) POLICE FORCE.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the ordinary police force at Sneem, county Kerry, has been increased lately; and if so, what is the cause of the increase; whether Mr. Warden has now or had at any time lately police protecting his house; and if so, on what grounds; and whether, considering the present condition of the district of Sneem, he will make representations to have the extra police force withdrawn.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The ordinary police force at Sneem has recently been
  482
  augmented by five men to enable better protection by patrols to be given to a caretaker in the locality. Mr. Warden receives protection because such protection is considered necessary. These additional constables cannot be withdrawn until their services are no longer required.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 50 per cent. of the tenants on this estate are excluded from the benefits of the Land Act by the recent action of this landlord
  MR. FLAVIN: And is he aware that the magistrates in petty sessions have signed a petition for the withdrawal of these men?

  IRISH EDUCATION— NEW REGULATIONS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen a copy of a memorandum issued by the National Teachers Association of Ireland, in reference to certain provisions contained in the proposed new rules and regulations issued by the Commissioners of National Education, and the probable injury to the cause of primary education; and whether, in view of the fact that the extract from said rules was only issued a few days ago, the Government will delay their adoption of them for a period of about six months, in order to give the managers of schools and the school teachers an opportunity of considering their effect on the system of primary education in Ireland.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have not yet seen the memorandum referred to, but I had the opportunity yesterday of an interview with a deputation of Irish national teachers on the subject of the new rules. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative; the Government have no such power, nor do I think it would be desirable to exercise it if they had.
  MR. FLYNN: How long must the rules be on the Table of the House before they receive the sanction of Parliament?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: They do not require the sanction of Parliament. They are already in force.

  EXTRA SUBJECTS—REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS.
  MR. WILLTAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state what is the scale of remuneration to be paid to teachers in the national schools of Ireland for extra subjects, sanctioned only out of school hours, a list of which is issued by the Commissioners of National Education.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The scale of remuneration and mode of payment for extra branches have not yet been determined by the Commissioners.

  MONITORS IN IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether gratuities for the instruction of monitors will be paid to Irish national teachers as usual this year, and when will the result of their examination be made known to those monitors who attended the examinations hold during last Easter week at the different district centres.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Gratuities due on account of monitors' instruction for the past year will be paid to the teachers in all cases. The results of their examination at Easter will be made known to the monitors without delay.

  IRISH COUNTY SURVEYORS.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether county surveyors and deputy county surveyors are compelled under the Local Government (Ireland) Act to devote their whole time to the service and work of the county councils in Ireland; and, whether the office of county surveyor and deputy county surveyor are pensionable offices or otherwise.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Existing county and assistant county surveyors hold their office on the same terms and conditions as heretofore. County councils cannot prohibit them from undertaking private practice if they are able to do so without neglecting the duties of their office. I understand, however, that since the passing of the Local Government
  484
  Act, 1898, the surveyors have little or no time for private practice owing to their increased duties. In the case of new appointments there would be nothing to prevent councils from stipulating that the persons appointed should devote their entire time to their duties. The offices of county surveyor and assistant surveyor are pensionable, the former under 38 and 39 Vict., c. 56, and the latter under Section 83, Sub-section 11, of the Act of 1898. But no surveyor appointed after the passing of the Act of 1875 can obtain a superannuation allowance unless he has given his whole time to the service of the county, and assistant surveyors must also devote their whole time to the service of the county to qualify for superannuation allowance.

  PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE— STANDING ORDERS.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when it is intended to consider whether any and what change should be made in Parliamentary procedure, so that notices of Motions may not prevent the House discussing questions of urgency or importance.
  I also desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, as Members of the House generally are deprived of the opportunity of moving any Amendments in the case of Bills which are reported without Amendment by Standing Committees, he will consider the expediency of such an alteration in the mode of procedure as will secure that all Bills reported from a Standing Committee, whether amended or not, shall be considered on Report in the House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think the hon. Member will agree that at the present period of the session these are subjects which it is impossible for us to take up.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give the assurance that an opportunity will be given for considering the Vote for the Local Government Board in Committee of Supply.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state when the Local Government Board Vote will be taken.
  MR. BRYCE: When will the Board of Trade Vote be taken?
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give the House long notice of the day on which the Supplementary Vote for the war in South Africa will be proposed.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will state the business for next Monday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose to put down the Local Government Board Vote and the Board of Trade Vote on the two remaining allotted days for Supply. I cannot put them first, and whether they will be reached depends on what view the House takes of the relative importance of the questions that arise. The Army Votes are down, but they will not be put first. As to the Supplementary Vote for the war in South Africa, I hope that it will be taken to-morrow week. I am unable to give an absolutely certain answer, because my scheme has been upset by the uncertainty as to whether the Papers promised by the Colonial Secretary will be in the hands of hon. Members by Tuesday, on which day I had proposed to take the Colonial Vote. I have put down the Foreign Office Vote second. That, I think, will be a convenient arrangement, but it cannot be maintained if the promised Papers are not in the hands of hon. Members. I will defer a statement on that point until my right hon. friend can inform me on the question. On Monday the Government will take the Military Bills. I am not certain whether the Companies Bill will be down from the Grand Committee, but whether or not that is the case, I think it would be rather short notice for the Bill to be taken. The Military Lands Bill will be taken first, and afterwards the other Military Bills
  486
  which were advanced a stage yesterday. T hope to put down the Naval Reserve Bill on the same day.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: What is the alternative business for Tuesday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not had time to consider that.
  MR. WARNER: Will another day be given to Army Votes?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; they have already been discussed. I cannot put them down as first Order.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state approximately the amount of money to be asked for in the Supplementary Estimate in connection with the war in South Africa; and also approximately what portion of the estimated gross cost of the war in South Africa will Ireland have to contribute.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not yet in a position to state what is the amount of the Estimate.
  MR. FLAVIN: I will put the question again Tomorrow.

  SEA FISHERIES BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence; Special Report brought up, and read.
  Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 287.]
  Bill reported, without amendment.

COMPANIES BIL.
Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc., with Amendments.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 288.]
Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 288.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Mon- day next, and to be printed. [Bill 304.]

NEW BILLS.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION (ISLE OF MAN).
  Bill to extend The Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, to Teachers serving in the Isle of Man and to service as a Teacher in that Island, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jesse Collings and Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION (ISLE OF MAN) BILL.
  "To extend the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, to Teachers serving in the Isle of Man and to service as a Teacher in that Island," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 305.]
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION (JERSEY).
  Bill to extend The Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, to Teachers serving in the Island of Jersey and to service as a Teacher in that Island, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jesse Collings and Secretary Sir Matthew-White Ridley.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION (JERSEY) HILL.
  "To extend The Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, to Teachers serving in the Island of Jersey and to service as a Teacher in that Island," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 306.]

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): This Bill is introduced with special regard to the recommendations of the Viceregal Commission appointed to inquire into the system of intermediate education in Ireland. That Commission
  488
  made a very thorough inquiry into the whole subject; it took a large amount of evidence, and ultimately brought in a valuable and unanimous Report. It is not necessary that I should describe minutely the conclusions at which it arrived, but, speaking generally, it reported in the direction of attaching loss importance to individual results and more importance to tests of general efficiency as the measure of the grant that should be made to a school. How far legislation is necessary to give effect to its recommendation is a doubtful matter; on one point certainly it is requisite, and I think we may take it for granted that the Commissioners would not be willing to give effect generally to the recommendations which they made in the absence of special legislation clearly enabling them to do so. The Bill proposes to give powers of a general character to the Board—powers which will enable them to apply portions of the funds at their disposal for the promotion of secondary education in a manner provided by rules to be made by the Board with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant. It has been deliberately drafted in that form because it seemed to the Government that the provisions of Clause 2 would give sufficient safeguards against any abuse of the powers so conferred; but, in addition, it was thought desirable to give them greater freedom than they would possess if their policy was absolutely limited and circumscribed to the recommendations made in the body of the Report. I am still of opinion that the Bill in that form would be a more useful measure than one limited to the recommendations of the Committee, because it is impossible to say definitely the direction which fresh educational developments may take. Just as since 1878 considerable difference has become apparent in the opinions of those interested in education, so in the next twenty years similar differences may arise. But it has been intimated to mo that in its present form the Bill might prove contentious, and that the element of contention might be removed if in the Committee stage the Government were prepared to introduce Amendments confining the scope of the Bill to the recommendations actually made by the Commissioners. In the circumstances I shall be prepared to make that concession to the objectors to the Bill, and having given that intimation I

  489
  trust that the Second Heading of the Bill will be taken without very much further discussion. The measure will constitute an important stop, not only in the cause of secondary education in Ireland, but in the cause of education generally in Ireland.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. G. W. Balfour.)
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The circumstances under which the Bill has been brought to a Second Reading are such as will probably prevent any great contention over its provisions. A Bill dealing with this subject cannot, however, be disposed of in a few minutes; there must be some reasonable discussion of the subject. I do not think it would be possible for a more important and interesting subject connected with Ireland to be brought before the House. It is now some twenty years since the intermediate system of education was established in Ireland, and ample time has elapsed to enable the Irish people generally to judge of its merits and demerits, and, with regard to the system, the public opinion of Ireland has come to three clear conclusions. I believe that public opinion has come almost unanimously to the conclusion that, looking at the system broadly, it has worked a very great deal of good in the secondary education of the country. It has certainly put an end to the apathy and stagnation which prevailed in Irish schools twenty-five years ago. Interest in the school work has quickened, and emulation has been stimulated and improved. Boys at school work with a keener zest than they did twenty-five years ago, and the standard of secondary education has been greatly improved in every school throughout the country. Not the least valuable feature of the system is that it has enabled high-class secondary education to be imparted to the children of poorer parents—education which it was very difficult for them to obtain before the intermediate system was introduced. The Irish people under these circumstances are prepared to admit that the system has been of enormous benefit. But it is equally clear to them that this intermediate system has grave defects which have been apparent to everybody, and I say the fact that we have had to wait over twenty years for a remedy for
  490
  these defects points to the most serious defect of all—the centralised and irresponsible educational control which has been set up. The Board of Education which exercises control over the education of the country consists of seven gentlemen, and although I dislike intensely alluding unnecessarily to any question of religion, I feel bound to point out that of these seven gentlemen four are Protestants and three Catholics, and it seems rather a strange thing that Protestants should preponderate on a Board which is administering education to boys the overwhelming majority of whom are Catholics. This Board is exclusively appointed by the Government, and its history for the last twenty years shows that it has been for the most part absolutely out of touch with educational opinion in Ireland. Certainly the headmasters of the schools in Ireland have had no voice whatever in the management of examinations or any other matter connected with the work of the Department. I believe it is not overstating the case to say that for the most of those twenty odd years, certainly for the last ten years, no member of the Board has had any personal experience whatever of secondary education in Ireland. I think that is a system thoroughly unsound. The gravest defect of all is that the constitution of this educational control is wrong. It is, I believe, without parallel in any country in Europe. I do not think there is another instance in Europe of an educational board of this kind which has not associated with it a consultative council, upon which the opinions of practical educationists are represented. I do not pretend to be completely familiar with the educational systems of Europe, but I do not believe that in any country there is an Education Board appointed by the Government having no association with practical education, as happens to be the case in Ireland. Even here in England —England that is always so slow to move in these matters—this Continental system was adopted last year. An Education Act was passed for England which created a consultative council, to consist, so far as two-thirds of its members were concerned, of persons qualified to represent the views of universities and other bodies interested in education. The first consultative council includes such authorities as Mr. Dyke Acland, Sir William

  491
  Anson, Mrs. Sophy Bryant, Sir William Hart Dyke, Professor Michael Foster, Professor Jebb, Mr. Ernest Gray, Professor Owens, and others. With such a precedent, surely a similar system might be extended to Ireland, and you might give us a consultative council charged with the duty of advising the Board on educational matters. We have a precedent nearer at home. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the South Division of the County of Dublin in his place. Last year a measure was passed constituting the Department of which he is the head, and a provision was inserted in it for the creation of a consultative council to advise him on matters of technical education. The principle having, therefore, been adopted in England, and to a certain extent in Ireland, I submit that it should be extended to the Intermediate Education Board, as until that is done that Board will continue, as it is, I believe, to-day, to be very largely out of touch with educational opinion throughout the country. This is a reform which, for my part, I feel sure is bound to come in the very near future. This Bill, however, does not propose any reform of this character at all. As the right hon. Gentleman has most frankly stated, it, on the contrary, confers new and enlarged powers on this centralised and irresponsible Board. As it is drawn, it enormously increases the powers of the Board, and if it be passed as it stands it will give for all time to the Board of Intermediate Education, however it may be constituted in the future, absolute power to spend its endowments in any way it likes. That is a proposal which I certainly cannot agree to, neither do I believe that the Irish Members of this House will assent to it. If the constitution of the board were amended in the way I have suggested, by associating with it a consultative council, then the objection to giving enlarged powers to this Board would almost entirely disappear; but so long as the Board is constituted as at present I believe Irish representatives would be false to their duty, and false to the best interests of education in Ireland, if they agreed to pass a measure such as this, giving the Board absolute plenary powers. This Board may or may not command public confidence. Nobody can tell what its constitution in the future may be, and it certainly seems a rather startling proposi-
  492
  tion that we should be asked to give it a blank cheque to enable it to do as it likes henceforward. This Bill proposes to give power to the Board to interfere, not merely with the results of education, but also with the methods of education in every school in Ireland. The schools, in fact, will have absolutely no voice whatever, and therefore I say that in my opinion it would be a most unwise and foolish thing for the Irish representatives to give the Board power to carry out Amendments in their system of which we know nothing, and which will not be submitted for our judgment. I therefore cannot agree to the Bill passing in its present form. With its main object, however, I am in perfect accord. That object is plain. The history of this intermediate system is in many respects most curious. For upwards of twenty years public opinion has been clamouring for a. change in the Education Board, and the anti-reform section of that Board, if I may so call in, has been successful in preventing any reform whatever. At last, by the exertions of some members of the Board, it was induced to ask the Lord Lieutenant for an inquiry into the present system, and the House will be amused when I recall the fact that the inquiry that the Board asked for was to be one directed by itself; in other words the Board of Intermediate Education asked that members of its own body should be appointed a Commission to inquire into the defects or the merits of the system it was administering. The Intermediate Education Commission which sat was, therefore, a Commission consisting only of members of the Board of Intermediate Education itself The inquiry, though hold under such disadvantageous circumstances, still proved most valuable. It was held in the light of day, and by the very force of circumstances the Board were obliged to examine as witnesses all those associated most closely with educational interests in Ireland, with the result that evidence was given on every part of the system, and the greatest possible light let in as to its merits on the one side, and its defects on the other. The Commission—rather to my surprise, I confess, knowing some of the elements on the Board—unanimously agreed to a Report of a most valuable character, setting forth a number of very important reforms—reforms for which people have been clamouring for a great

  493
  many years past. It would not be right for me to attempt to make this an opportunity for any prolonged consideration of the Report, hut I might say in passing that I think the Government ought to give Irish Members a proper opportunity of discussing the recommendations in that Report. Those recommendations, when they become new rules under this Bill, will have to be laid upon the Table of the House for a certain number of days; but we know by experience that that does not mean a proper and adequate opportunity for discussing matters of that sort. They will come on late at night when there is no real opportunity for discussion, and I think it will be only fair if I ask the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government to give us some sort of understanding that before the forty days, or whatever may be the number of days during which the rules are to lie on the Table elapse, a fair opportunity should be given for their consideration. If we have no such prospect before us I am afraid we will be driven to consider and discuss them on this Bill—a course which will be inconvenient and not in the interest of the passage of the measure. All I have to say may be summed up in two or three sentences. The chief complaint against the system of intermediate education in Ireland was that it led merely to a training of the memory, that it did not train the intellect, that it simply crammed the mind. The system of competition and the system of exclusively written examinations were very largely regarded as the causes of the deplorable results which undoubtedly have followed. I regard the first three recommendations of the Report as of enormous importance. The provision as to the two courses will enable boys to obtain the advantage of the system by training themselves more on a commercial than on a literary or a classical basis, and the first two provisions are calculated to put an end to the system of cramming, which undoubtedly has had very bad effects in the working of the system in Ireland. Equally important from this point of view is the recommendation which provides in certain cases for viva voce as well as written examinations, and in certain circumstances that the test of the efficiency of a school should not be solely, as heretofore, the results of the examinations, but should depend upon a certain
  494
  modified inspection. These are some of the main recommendations in the Report, and it would be very foolish for anyone interested in secondary education in. Ireland to throw any obstacle in the way of those recommendations being carried into effect. I must, however, take this opportunity of expressing the deep regret universally entertained in Ireland that there is nothing in the Report dealing with the study of Irish. Some years ago the marks allotted to Irish in the programme of the Intermediate Board were suddenly, and without any valid reason being given, reduced, and they are to day considerably below those awarded for French, German, or other languages. It is a monstrous thing that the language of the country, the ancient language of Ireland, should in this way be proscribed in the system of intermediate education, and that it should be on a lower level than the languages of the Continent. If it were in my power, I would be delighted to have an opportunity of moving some Amendment that would insert in the new rules which will be based on these recommendations, a. provision that the marks for Irish should be raised to the standard at which they stood before, or at least be equal to. those given for French or German. Let me, however, briefly sum up the position I take on this Bill. I am quite willing—I am anxious—that the Board should have given to them the necessary powers to carry out the recommendations of their own Report, and if the Bill is amended in the direction indicated by the right hon. Gentleman so as to limit these powers to carrying out those recommendations, I think it will be the duty of Irish representatives not only not to throw any obstacle in the way of this Bill, but to facilitate its passage into law. I have drafted an Amendment on this subject, which I propose to put on the Paper, and a copy of which I have handed to the Government. I do not ask for any pledge that the Government will accept the precise terms of that Amendment, but I do expect the right hon. Gentleman to give us a pledge that in Committee an Amendment carrying out the substance of my proposal will be either proposed or accepted by the Government. My suggested Amendment runs in this way—
  "And so far as may be required, in order to carry into effect the several recommendations

  495
  contained in the Report of the Intermediate Education Commission presented to Parliament in 1899, may from time to time apply a portion of the funds placed at the disposal of the Board," and so on.
  The Bill, as it stands, enables them in future to dispose of the money under their control in any way they like, while the Amendment I suggest limits their power to the spending of the money in the carrying out of those particular re-commendations embodied in the Report, which are before us, and of which we approve. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to promise that he would accept in substance that Amendment, and on that understanding I hope the Bill will be passed into law. I may be asked why, if I take so strong a view as I have expressed about the constitution of this Board, should I agree to enlarge its powers at all? The answer is very plain. We all want the constitution of the Board altered, and I am strongly in favour of associating with it such a consultative council as exists elsewhere. But I have to ask myself—are we, therefore, to postpone all the reforms for which we have asked and waited for the last twenty years? We desire to see the recommendations of this Report carried into effect, and the only way they can be carried into effect is by passing this Bill with the alteration I have suggested. I should, therefore, on the understanding given, support the second reading, and I think it would be a wise course generally for Irish Members to take the same line, in the hope that thereby we may obtain valuable reforms in the system, and that in the constitution of the Board in future we may be able to obtain such a reform as I have indicated.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I rise to perform once again the ungrateful task of criticising the drafting of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman opposite has told us that this Bill does not provide for the preservation of the Irish language. I think, at any rate, judging from this Bill, that the English language has become almost a dead tongue in Parliamentary drafting. The first section of the Bill begins—
  "Notwithstanding anything in the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act, 1878, or the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890—"
  notwithstanding anything in those two Acts—therefore, before I come to this
  496
  Bill at all I have to know everything in those two Acts. Then I turn to Section 4—
  "This Act may be cited as the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act, 1900, and the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act, 1878, the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act, 1882, and this Act shall be construed as one Act, and may be cited collectively as the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1900."
  Therefore I have got four Acts to read together before I can come to a knowledge of what is enacted. That is hard enough, but let me come back to the first clause—
  "Notwithstanding anything in the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act, 1878, or the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, portion of the funds—"
  What portion? A small portion? A large portion? Some portion? Is there a word omitted? It must be Irish.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If it was Irish it would be intelligible.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Certainly as it is here put in English it is not intelligible. You cannot say "portion." You can say, "a portion," "some portion," or "any portion." It may be adequate, but it does not appear so to me; that is all I say.
  "—portion of the funds placed at the disposal of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland (in this Act referred to as 'the Board') may, subject to the proviso in Sub-section (4) of Section 5, and to Section 7 of the said Act of 1878—"
  First of all you say, "notwithstanding anything" in that Act, and now it comes in as part of the Act. This seems to me to be another instance of that legislation by reference which has been so often condemned in this House. I do not know how the English or the Irish Attorney General would deal with such a simple matter if they had to refer to the Ten Commandments or the law against murder. I suppose he would say, "Notwithstanding anything in the 20th chapter of Exodus, the word 'wilfully' should be inserted in the 13th verse," and then I suppose he would say, "This Act shall not extend to Ireland." I sometimes ask myself whether the framers know what they have in their minds. Here is another point to which I invite

  497
  the attention of the Chief Secretary. Sub-section 2 of Clause 1 provides—
  "All rules made in pursuance of this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within three weeks after the same have been made, if Parliament be then sitting, or if Parliament be not then sitting, within three weeks of the session then next ensuing."
  But which end of the session? Is that right? To make that passage intelligible you should follow the example set in the first part of the phrase and insert—
  "Within three weeks after the commencement of the session."
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: That is the common form.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: If that is the common form, then it is not intelligible and it is not plain, and such words ought not to be put into an Act of Parliament. It is another instance of slovenly drafting, and it is neither English nor Irish. I do not think the Education Commissioners will understand this law, and certainly the man who comes down to give technical instruction will not be able to understand it. I protest against this kind of drafting, for the object of a draughtsman should be to render that which is complicated distinct and clear and that which is involved plain, so that we may all understand exactly what laws we have to obey.
  MR. T. M. HEALYreminded the hon. Member for King's Lynn that the object of the drafting of a Bill was that nobody should understand it. Had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford he should have been inclined to oppose the measure. He was perfectly sensitive of the number of absurdities that had grown up under the existing system of examinations in Ireland, especially in the teaching of modern languages. In order to obtain passes in French, pupils were instructed to pronounce the French language as it was spelt. As to "cramming," he could not see how pupils could learn anything except by cramming. The system which it was proposed to abolish had to be compared with the system which it was intended to introduce. Could any rule which could be proposed get over the question of
  498
  personnel? The laws which were passed for Ireland were good enough until they reached the judges. The rules under this Act might be of a splendid and impartial character, but the moment they got away from the practice of this competitive system and entered upon the question of personnel, then came in religious and political controversy, and the schools would consider whether the inspector was a Protestant or a Catholic, whether he was a Jesuit or a member of the Nonconformist conscience. Under the system proposed to be set up they would have at once, unless the inspectors were almost on a level with the angels, a burning-controversy. They had been told that for the first time they were going to have superannuation. He did not know how this superannuation would scale off all this earthly dross. Suppose they appointed as an inspector a most learned, a most pious, and the most perfect Jesuit possible to examine an Orange school— say, in Sandy Row—in the elements of Euclid. The whole of the pupils might find themselves "plucked" by the new examiner. In that case was there an organ in Belfast that would not be ready to contend that this result had ensued because a Jesuit inspector had been sent down? He would take another case. They had at the present time, earning large sums, Jesuit schools in certain parts of the country. Supposing they sent down some hard and fast examiner from the north of Ireland, with very strong theological views, to examine a Catholic school in Cork which had hitherto earned large prizes, was it supposed that they would not have the suggestion made that the inspector was a person of religious bias? He saw the other day, in a paper in the south of Ireland, where it was the custom to have an examination in the Catholic catechism, that several columns were occupied with attacks on the clergyman conducting the examination, whoso fairness was called into question. That was amongst Catholics. Now it was proposed, in regard to a Board composed of four Protestants and three Catholics, to set up a system which was to give satisfaction to both sides. He would ask anybody who had considered the subject to consider the personnel of the examiners, even under the competitive system. Papers were set, and secretly set, and; there had been no imputation whatever of unfairness, and so far as

  499
  he knew there had been no complaint whatever of the existing competitive system. But it was a strange fact that at the very moment this competitive system was instituted nearly all the examiners were Protestants. Taking the entire body of examiners who had been conducting the competitive system in Ireland for the last twenty years, it was an extraordinary thing that the learned persons set to conduct the examinations nearly all belonged to the general minority of the people in Ireland. His hon. and learned friend had mentioned the names of the members of that Commission, and undoubtedly they were all very eminent men. For his part he protested against judges of the land being appointed members of that body. Why did they not mind their own business? To tell him that a lawyer of the eminence of the Chief of the Bar had not enough to do in his own court, and that he had to fill up his leisure time and amuse himself in setting problems for the benefit of the youth, when he had problems enough to discuss in his own court, was an absurdity, and a gross absurdity. Either the judges had enough to do or they had not. If they had not enough to do, abolish them. If they had enough to do, do not go to the farce of suggesting that men of that laborious occupation could really engage themselves in business of this kind. Take Mr. Justice Mathew. He was no doubt a very distinguished Shakesperian scholar, and a very eminent man in many ways; but was it suggested that he had not enough to do on the bench, or that he ought to be supposed to occupy the Long Vacation in considering those educational problems? Had the Lord Provost of Trinity College not enough to do? The O'Conor Don was a man of leisure, a gentleman and a Catholic, and was a proper appointment from the point of view of a man having time on his hands. Then there was the Rev. Mr. Martin, of the Theological College, Belfast. He knew nothing for or against him, but he thought he should be a gentleman sufficiently employed in the Theological College. Of Mr. David G. Berkley he had never beard, and he did not know whether he came from Belfast or Bantry; and there was the Archbishop of Dublin. The majority were hostile in religion and politics to the majority of the people of Ireland. They were told that in ordinary times Ireland was a hotbed of controversy,
  500
  but yet a large number of persons of a different persuasion to that of the majority of the people were appointed to these positions. He would be well disposed to have this Bill deferred to another session, and then, perhaps, in a new Parliament the Government might bring up a scheme for the entire revision of the education system. They had stood it now since 1878, and for his part he would be prepared to bear the burden for another twelve months. The final observation he had to make was that he entirely protested against this scheme. The first thing an office-seeker in Ireland wanted was a job; when he got the job he wanted an advance in salary; and when he got the advance he wanted a pension. These office-seekers were all delighted when they got the jobs, and they were perfectly satisfied; then their work became really overpowering, and they claimed an advance of salary, and when they got that they wanted a pension. Who were these gentlemen? Let their names be known. Thorns' Directory was rather vague on the subject, but he would back this: that every man who was to get a pension under the Bill was a Tory and a Protestant. That he was sure of, because there was no fear that the Government would go out of their way to give pensions to Catholics or Nationalists. The Bill, as the hon. Member for King's Lynn complained, was very vague in its drafting; but as he read it, the pension scheme would moan a further diminution of the Irish Church surplus. The Bill stated that "the Board may, if they think fit, order out of the funds at their disposal," which, of course, meant the funds out of the Local Taxation Account—which was to that extent an earmarked Imperial Fund— and the Irish Church surplus. No burden would be placed on John Bull; he was too much engaged in South Africa and China, and of course the losses in Natal must be taken into account. Therefore, for the second time in this session, they had a raid made on the Irish Church surplus for the benefit of a particular class in Ireland. He protested against it. He thought these gentlemen had done very well out of the country. They had had very little to do in making out these examination papers. Look at all the examination papers available. There were the Home Civil Service examination paper, the examination paper

  501
  for sub-commissioners in Ireland, which he recently brought before the House, and the Indian Civil Service examination papers. The officials would only have to copy from them, and for that they were to be given pensions. There was a great deal to be said for the view of the Gaelic League and other societies of that kind—namely, to block these Hills and then insist on their own views. The Government sooner or later would give in, and, perhaps, if they would give the pensions, the Government would give marks in Irish, or something of that kind. If they promised the pensions the Government might even agree to the teaching of the Irish language, and in that way, in another session, and, perhaps, in a new Parliament, they might get what they wanted. His own view was entirely against the passing of the Bill, and he thought that it was to be regretted that the Government had not determined to bring forward a comprehensive reform of the system now in force.
  MR. LECKY: After an exceedingly long and full inquiry, at which all creeds and classes in Ireland were heard, the members of the intermediate Board, among whom were Archbishop Walsh and the Provost of Trinity College, came to a unanimous conclusion on this matter, and I believe that this scheme was drawn up by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin and the representatives of the Church of Ireland and the Presbyterian Church. I do not suppose that anyone imagines that the Intermediate system in Ireland is, or ever will be, a perfectly ideal one under existing conditions. In working an united system of three creeds we must look not only to questions of efficiency, but quite as much to questions of religion. We must oftentimes duplicate officials, not because they are wanted, but because they belong to different creeds. Examiners must be changed over and over again for the same reason, and under these circumstances you will never get an ideal system. All classes in Ireland are agreed that the system of payment by results, which some years ago was popular, has been carried to an extent which is extremely injurious to the best schools of Ireland, and the real point in this Bill is to substitute payment after inspection to a great extent for payment by
  502
  results. The three most eminent members of the three different creeds in Ireland are all agreed that this very important change is for the benefit of the poor children for whom this intermediate system is intended, and I earnestly hope that those proposals, having been received with complete harmony in Ireland by members of different creeds, will not be obstructed or opposed by hon. Members, and that this piece of good work for Ireland may be carried into effect during the present session.
  MR. DILLON: I confess I hold what I know to be a somewhat extreme view on this question. I go so far as to differ from the hon. Member for Waterford in what he says as regards the effect that has been produced by the results system in Ireland. I am a bigot on this subject, I admit. I believe, although it is a deplorable thing to have to say, that intermediate education in Ireland is worse to-day than it was fifty years ago. I do not expect any Irishman to agree with me, but I do believe that we have been going backwards. I believe our fathers had better schools in Ireland than we have at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, whose authority on these matters is great, and who, whenever he devotes himself to a speech on education or literature, is always listened to by hon. Members on these benches with the respect and interest he deserves, drew in his speech a most melancholy picture of the state of Irish education. He seems to accept it as inevitable that Ireland should for all futurity be condemned to the miserable circumstances which have placed the education of that country in a deplorable position. He said practically that all the evils connected with education in Ireland arose from a conflict of religions and the rival claims of different persuasions. I will tell the House what has been the root, in my judgment, of the unsatisfactory position of the intermediate and every other system of education in Ireland. It is that when the Intermediate Education Act was passed in 1878 no man ever thought for a single moment of considering it from an educational point of view. The Bill was dealt with by the Government and by the House, as all Irish educational questions are dealt with, from the point of view of rival factions in Ire-

  503
  land, and still more from the point of view of the Parliamentary exigencies of the Government. I have been in this House for twenty years, and I confess I never heard Irish educational questions debated from the point of view of the interests of the people or of educational advancement. Irish education has always been dealt with from the point of view of political exigencies, and that is the reason it is so unsatisfactory. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman shows that he has abandoned all hope of ever reaching the true ideal of education in Ireland, and thinks that we must accept this barbarous system of subordinating the educational interests of the people of Ireland to political exigencies as a permanent system. The original Irish Intermediate Bill was a bad Bill, and the machinery for its administration was worse. I will give the reason for that. We see this extraordinary phenomenon, already alluded to by the hon. Member for Water-ford: that for twenty years the Irish people have been absolutely powerless even to demand a reform in the system of intermediate education, because the House of Commons and the Government of the day—with great ingenuity from the point of view of their own convenience, but with infinite perverseness from an Irish educational point of view—saddled us with an irresponsible Board, and abstained from putting down a single pound on the Estimates which would have enabled us to discuss the system from year to year. The effect of that has been that we have been closured and forbidden to debate the working of the intermediate system of education in Ireland. We have succeeded in effecting very considerable improvements in primary education because, fortunately, we had on the Estimates a large Vote which we were able to discuss, and during which we laid our views before Parliament, and consequently many of our grievances were redressed. But, as regards intermediate education, the Government, warned by their experience in primary education, constructed an iron wall, by which, having passed a very bad Bill and set up a very bad Board, they have completely muzzled Irish Members from discussing the working of the system. In my opinion we never will have decent intermediate education in Ireland until we have a Minister or a Board in control of the system which will boar the same relation to the
  504
  public opinion of Ireland as the English Board of Education has to public opinion in this country. We hear about the danger to the integrity of the Empire in connection with Home Rule. Was there a danger to the integrity of the Empire in allowing the Irish people to educate their own children according to their own ideas? It was part of the system pursued by this country in regard to primary, intermediate, and university education, to compel the Irish people, by taking hold of their children, to forget that they were Irishmen. In order to stamp out the obnoxious spirit of nationalism, the children were never taught the history of their own country or the history of their language and literature. Although that policy had been laid aside, and men are now ashamed to admit that it had ever been put in force, yet the old principles on which the system of education in Ireland was first started still live. I want to know on what grounds this House denies to Ireland the right to educate her own children according to the views of the people of that country, just as you allow the education system of England to be cast and recast according to popular sentiment in England. Am I to be told that the union of the Empire and the interests and integrity of the Empire demand this sacrifice at our hands? I doubt very much whether any Minister will get up at this time of day and say so. The Chief Secretary of the Colonies cannot say that, because we all remember that in the "unauthorised programme" which was to be the alternative to Home Rule he proposed deliberately that the whole system of education in Ireland should be handed over to an Irish Board. That would be a true system; and we would settle this matter among ourselves. I maintain that all these religious quarrels which are alleged as an excuse for the infamies which have destroyed education in Ireland are the creation of your interference in Ireland, and it is intolerable that you should attempt to justify the ruin of our educational interests by such flimsy pleas. Leave us to ourselves, give us a free hand, and in twenty years we will show a very different picture from now. It is impossible to conceive a question more vitally affecting the future generations of our race than that of education, and yet when a Bill is introduced regarding it, hon. Members

  505
  who are qualified—none better—to appreciate the real ideals on this matter, get up from these benches and, with gloomy countenance and in a melancholy voice, accept as the unchangeable fate of Ireland that the education of our children must be subordinated to vile politics. It is time for us to put forward a claim on this matter of education which you have so dismally failed to make a success, and that you should give it up to some Irish body which would be responsible to the people of Ireland. My position is that this is largely a question of personality, and we shall never have a satisfactory system of intermediate education in Ireland, nor of primary education, until we have a Board which will be responsible to Irish public opinion. There is only one other point on which I wish to say a few words, and that is as to the teaching of the Irish language and literature. The hon. Member for Waterford said quite correctly that unfortunately in the Report of the Commission, which is a very able Report in certain respects, there is no mention of the teaching of the Irish language. That was not because the Commission did not investigate the subject. They heard a great deal of evidence upon it. The preservation of the old records and the ancient literature of Ireland is a matter of interest to practically all the scholars of Europe. The witnesses who came before the Commission gave most interesting and valuable evidence which struck me very much, although I confess I have been for twenty-five years a member of all these national scientific associations, and was indeed one of the founders of the Association for the Preservation of the Irish Language. But when Professor Atkinson came before the Commission he gave evidence of the most scandalous kind. Although the Chief Secretary smiles, I repeat it was evidence which shocked and disgusted the Gorman and French scholars who take an interest in this matter; and in fact it attracted a great deal of attention throughout Europe. This gentleman, who en-joys the hospitality of Ireland and rejoices in the receipt of a large salary, comes forward and declares that the Irish language and literature are worthless objects of study, that it is impossible to teach the Irish language in the schools of Ireland, because its literature is so disgusting and filthy that he would be ashamed to allow anybody to read it.
  506
  Now I am sorry to say that, although this subject was so fully investigated, there is no recommendation in the Report in regard to the teaching of the Irish language. If my memory serves me rightly, it was placed long ago among the paying subjects in the schools.
  MR. SPEAKER: I fail to see how the hon. Member can enter into a general discussion of the teaching of the Irish langauge and literature under this Bill. Of course I understand that regulations are to be made by the Board, and it is possible that the question may arise under these regulations. It is competent for the hon. Member to suggest that from what he has seen in the Report the Board of Education in Ireland should not be entrusted with that power; but to raise the question of the Irish language and literature generally is going too far.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Would it not be in order to move, as an Amendment, that no Bill will be satisfactory to the Irish people which does not provide for the efficient teaching of the Irish language?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think that would not be in order. This Bill is for the creation of a Board which is to make regulations in connection with intermediate education.
  MR. DILLON: I think if you, Mr. Speaker, will allow me a few moments, on a point of order, I may make some effect on your mind.
  MR. SPEAKER: I should have said that this is a Bill for entrusting an existing Board with power to make certain regulations.
  MR. DILLON: The Bill is to endow the Board with very great additional powers which will revolutionise the whole system of intermediate education in Ireland. It seems to me to be at the root of the question that the Bill be read a second time, whether the Irish people have sufficient faith in the Board to justify its being entrusted with such powers. The object of granting these powers is to carry into effect the recom-

  507
  mendations of the Board in its own Report, and it seems to me that we would be clearly in order in discussing the nature of the recommendations, because there is no object in introducing the Bill except to carry out these recommendations.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to advance arguments to show that the Board ought not to be entrusted with larger powers, but he is going far beyond that. It is irregular to anticipate what the regulations as to teaching Irish may turn out to be, and so to discuss the teaching of the Irish language as if it were the substantial question before the House.
  MR. DILLON: The point which I was trying to address to the House was this. In the past history of the Board they started by putting the Irish language upon the same level as French and German. It is a permissive subject, and that is the policy of the Board. There is no compulsion for any child coming into an Irish school to learn the Irish tongue.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is going beyond the scope of the Bill.
  MR. DILLON: Then I fail to see what we are to discuss on this Bill, and I shall be much obliged if the Chief Secretary or somebody else will explain to us. This is a Bill to give large powers to the Board. If we are not entitled to criticise the Board or to discuss the uses which they have made of the powers that they already have, how are we to discuss the question at all? Am I not allowed to go into the history and tell the House the uses they have made of those powers they already have?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have said that the hon. Member is entitled to show that the Board ought not to be entrusted with large powers, but the hon. Member is not entitled, because there is a particular subject with which the Board will have to deal in the regulations, to treat that subject as a topic for general discussion upon this Bill.
  MR. DILLON: Then I will say that this Board has placed the Irish language upon the plane of French and German— that is to say, on the plane of a foreign tongue; and I think upon that ground we are not justified in trusting the Board in future. I now turn to one point arising out of it which, I think, is strictly in order. This Bill proposes, I think, in Clause 2 a certain method by which the Board is to exercise its power. There is nothing in the Bill laying down the conditions under which intermediate education is to be conducted in Ireland in future, but it is perfectly obvious that the object of the Bill is to place in the hands of the Board the power to alter in the most radical manner the whole system of intermediate education in Ireland. I am in hearty sympathy with the resolution, but I think I am entitled to examine the machinery that is to carry this into effect. The Bill prescribes that it should be effected by rules which shall lie on the Table of the House for forty days. I say that the system of education under these new rules will be illusory and absurd, and early next session —for the rules will not be out this session — we ought to get a pledge that a day will be given to discuss the new rules, when all these matters, which are vital to our people, ought to be fairly and fully discussed. I will put the matter a little further, and I would ask the Government to make this departure: I would ask them to place upon the Estimates some Vote—I care not how small, £50 or £100 a year—by way of a grant-in-aid towards this matter, so that in future we may, from year to year, have a right to discuss the system of intermediate education in Ireland, as we now have a right to discuss primary education. I think that is only reasonable, as it is governed by a Board over which we have no control, and upon which the people of Ireland are only represented by a small minority.
  MR. RENTOULthought that when the hon. Gentleman described himself as a bigot on this Bill he was hardly doing himself justice. In all pro-liability his (Mr. Rentoul's) medical education led him to take a view upon the subject which would not be taken by

  509
  those who had not given the same study to medical science. While the Commission was sitting to inquire into this matter, a medical man of great eminence wrote to a large number of his professional brethren in Belfast and Dublin upon the question, and received from all a reply which spoke in terms of the terrible evil that was done to intermediate education in Ireland. Those letters were far more important to his mind than any evidence that was given before the Commission, and why they were not published in any newspaper he did not know. It was from the medical point of view that this Bill ought to be considered, and therefore he could not agree with the first of the three propositions laid down by the hon. Member for Waterford. The hon. Member said that the system of intermediate education that had been in vogue since 1879 had done marked good. No doubt the hon. Gentleman spoke from his own experience; but let hon. Gentlemen compare their experience with his. The hon. Gentleman's first remark was that boys work with greater assiduity; that he emphatically and entirely denied. In the schools before 1879—before this system of intermediate education was started—the assiduity of the boys was just as great as at the present time. He had been a pupil at four Irish schools, and had once had opportunities of being in many in connection with prize distributions, and he had taken a great interest in this subject. Bribery with regard to education—and he regarded these prizes and scholarships as bribery—had been rampant in Ireland since 1879. It was simple bribery and prostituting education, and dragging it down from the high level on which it ought to stand. The cultivation of the intellect ought to stand next in importance to the cultivation of the soul, though it required a greater metaphysician than himself to say where the one ended and the other began, and he almost despaired when bribery and fraud were so rampant. They might almost as well offer bribes to people to attend to their religious duties. The hon. Member then said that the standard of education had been raised, and there, again, his experience did not coincide with that of the hon. Gentleman. As a test he would point out that the intermediate schools, both before and since 1879, had been preparing students for the university colleges, but, so far as he could hear, the standard of examination
  510
  necessary to obtain a scholarship in the three Queen's colleges had not improved. The standard of education had not been improved at all. If the standard had been raised in the intermediate schools, clearly the standard in the university colleges must have risen too. Some hon. Gentlemen only smiled, and that was because they did not approve of the Queen's colleges, but that had nothing to do with the question. The point was that so long as students came into the colleges from these schools the colleges were the test of the work done in the schools. He found on looking over the list that Queen's College, Galway, had the honour of having more Members in that House than any other university college in the United Kingdom except Christ Church, Oxford, and that being so the scholarships of that college would certainly be the test in the matter. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman said that education by this intermediate system was being extended to the poor. Again he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, before he repeated that statement, to investigate and find out whether there were more students now going on to university education than before 1879—whether, in fact, the number had increased, and whether intermediate education had done anything in that direction. The hon. and learned Member had said that the system had many grave defects. There he agreed with him at once. He listened with great attention and took great pains to hear what the many defects wore, in order to treasure them as the result of the hon. and learned Member's experience of the subject. As far as he could gather, the hon. and learned Member stopped with one of the grave defects, and that was with reference to the seven gentlemen who formed the Board. The grave defect there, in the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind, seemed to be that four members were Protestants and three were Catholics.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: That is a most unfair statement. I only alluded to the constitution of the Board in passing. The real defect in the constitution of the Board to which I drew attention was that it was irresponsible and had net associated with it, as have other similar

  511
  Boards elsewhere, anything in the nature of a consultative council.
  MR. RENTOULsaid he should be extremely sorry to say anything unfair to the hon. and learned Member, but that was how the matter struck him. He did not gather any other objection. He now came to the recommendations of the Commission, and he might refer just in a sentence in passing to the question of teaching the Irish language. He thought that instead of letting children waste their time in learning Irish it would be better to let them learn French and Gorman, or something that would do them some good. As for the statement that the teaching of Irish was desirable on account of its necessity in the investigation of old documents, surely it was rather trifling with a serious debate to put such an argument forward. There were not three of the Irish Members in that House who, in addressing their constituents, could speak fifteen words of Irish. [Several HON. MEMBERS: It is not true.] Hon. Members said the statement was not true. He always liked things to be brought at once to the test. His test was this. Let hon. Members representing Irish constituencies who did speak the Irish language write letters to the newspapers in the Irish language contradicting the statement. A statement of that sort made across the floor of the House did not mean much, and recoiled upon the gentlemen who made it. He recalled to the recollection of hon. Members the statement made only a few weeks ago by the Lord Chief Justice as to the inutility of trying to learn the Irish language. As regarded the Commission, one recommendation was certainly of extreme value. He referred to the recommendation with regard to having a modern school course and a grammar school course. The hon. Member for North Louth had said he did not see very much objection to cramming. He could not help thinking that the hon. Member must attach a different meaning to the word from that which was usual. The word education meant the drawing out of the mental powers, but cramming was the very opposite. What did they mean by cramming as understood technically in
  512
  schools? They meant that educational pills were prepared, and that they were; swallowed. A portion of history was taken, and a few questions were drawn up and tabulated with the answers. The pupils, without understanding the bearing; of the matter at all, had to commit these questions and answers to memory. They knew that was the way preparation was, done by cramming. The same thing applied to languages. In connection with Latin or Greek, for example, certain catch words, very odd forms of expression, were picked out. They were of very little value to the scholar, but they were generally nicked out as catches, and put down in the examination paper. Reference was made in the debate by the hon. and learned Member to the system of. teaching and examining in modern languages. Anything more futile than that system of teaching could not be imagined!. It was a fact that the pupils were not allowed to pronounce the word at all, lest the attempt to pronounce the word should have an evil effect on their spelling. That was cramming. He advised the hon. and learned Member to look into the meaning of the word cramming. It was a word which was perfectly well-known in the educational world. When a tutor was being employed at present to prepare a pupil privately for the intermediate course he had known the question asked, "Is he a good crammer?" They all knew that cramming was a means of stunting and dwarfing the intellect. If any one wanted to encourage cramming there was no. better means by which it could be done than by the intermediate system as it had existed hitherto. Many Irishmen considered that it would have been better if not a single farthing had been spent on intermediate education since 1879, and. that a vast number of shattered constitutions and early graves were the result of the system. Now a change was to be made, but it was impossible to say whether it would be one atom better. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University said the rules would be made by very able men. But they did not know what the rules would be. It was said that a Report would, be laid on the Table, and that they would have time to consider and discuss the rules. They might be discussed after twelve o'clock, and, of course, if the discussion took place then there was no possibility of teaching the constituencies

  513
  on one of the most important Bills which had been before this Parliament. To say that the members of the Board were well meaning, conscientious men who would do their best and so forth, did not meet the case. No doubt the Government of 1879 were most anxious to leave on the Statute-book an Act that they themselves would feel credit in afterwards; but it seemed to him that the Act was worse than useless. There was nothing more deplorable in education than to be perpetually changing the system. They must give a plant time to grow before they pulled it up by the roots. He was not in favour of the proposal presented by the Bill; he would rather see the question postponed, or the Commissioners allowed to exercise whatever powers they now possessed at their discretion without the Bill, than that the whole matter should be shelved, as it would be if this Bill was passed, for a very considerable time. The hon. Member for East Mayo had, as usual, made use of the Bill to make some reference to Home Rule. It was, however, rather unfortunate that he did not look more carefully at the result of his argument. He said:—"Why is not this matter left to the Irish and the different denominations? Leave the Irish to manage their own affairs." But that was exactly what was done by the Intermediate Board. [" No."] The Board was composed of seven gentlemen, every one of whom was Irish.
  MR. DILLON: Nominated by Dublin Castle.
  MR. RENTOUL: What does that matter? They were seven men of great distinction, and what did it matter if they were nominated by Dublin Castle, so long as the right men were nominated? If there had been a Home Rule Parliament in Dublin they would in all probability have nominated these very men. There was not one of them who could possibly have been objectionable to such a Parliament.
  MR. DILLONexplained that his point was, that whoever was nominated or elected should be responsible to a body representing the people.
  MR. RENTOUL: This Intermediate Education Board is responsible to this House. ["No."] Then what does this Bill mean?
  MR. DILLON: It is not responsible. Ask the Chief Secretary.
  MR. RENTOULcontended that if the House had power to disestablish the Board at any moment, to take away its emoluments, and to change its functions, surely the Board must be responsible to the House. The hon. Member for East Mayo was therefore only weakening his argument by bringing in Home Rule by such a side wind. It would be fair enough to say that these seven gentlemen, having acted on a system for twenty years, had become more or less wedded to that system—
  MR. DILLON: I am sorry to interrupt, but I do not want to be misrepresented as to my attitude towards these gentlemen. These gentlemen have acted on a system imposed upon them by this House. They are not wedded to that system, because they are now seeking power to depart from it. The hon. and learned Gentleman is therefore misrepresenting me in this matter. What I was trying to bring out were the evil results of not having some administrative body conducting the education of the country responsible to public opinion in Ireland.
  MR. RENTOULwould not willingly misrepresent the hon. Member, but that was how he understood his argument. The position taken by the hon. Member for Waterford in support of the Bill was not one in which he would be backed by the public generally. The question was whether this large grant of money was well or ill spent. Opinion upon that subject varied along a considerable line. Some people held that the Intermediate Grant had been the greatest educational curse of any land or age. That was one extreme. The other was that the grant had been the greatest possible boon to the people of Ireland. Moderate people, however, who had studied the matter had come to the conclusion that the grant as at

  515
  present administered was of no value to the country, and that a complete and drastic change was needed. The question was, would that change be made by the Report which would be laid on the Table? And if it was not, would there be any opportunity in which the matter could be fully discussed, so that something might be done which would be of permanent value to the country?
  SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I shall not detain the House at any length, but I must express my agreement with one observation, and only one, of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. I believe this is one of the most important Bills that has been introduced by the present Government or could be introduced by any Government. It is a Bill which will materially affect the education of the youth of Ireland of every class and denomination; and anything that controls and affects the education of the youth of a country determines more than anything else can do the future destiny of that country. I have been a close observer of the working of the Intermediate Education Act, living as I have done in Ireland all my life, and being brought into contact with youths who took advantage of the Act and with youths who were educated before the intermediate system came into operation. The result of my experience is that the Intermediate Education Act was, on the whole, a benefit to Ireland. It was not an unmixed boon, but it was very far from being an unmixed evil. I cannot agree with those who think the general education in Ireland has not progressed under the influence of the Intermediate Education Act; but in saying that I am far from contending that the system is not capable of very great improvement. I may say in passing that it is perfectly vain to expect that youths can be stimulated to a great amount of work and exertion unless some species of prize or inducement is held out to them. There may be individuals of such very superior temperament and constitution as under the ideal of the celebrated Dr. Arnold might enter the arena of study and reach the goal without any material inducement being hold out to them. But such are the few and the exception, and we must legislate for the
  516
  average of human nature. This applies not merely to youths, but also to men in every stage of life. The majority of mankind are striving for garters, stars, ribbons, or decorations, and they undergo great risks and perils in the anxious struggle. I have often heard it said with regard to examinations of all sorts, "Oh, what a desperate system cramming is!" Cramming may be abused, but cramming really is nothing but devoting; yourself night and day to certain subjects of study which are set before you. Afterwards, when you are subjected to examination, the result of that toil and labour comes forth, and the industrious boy is singled out from the idle boy.
  MR. RENTOUL: That is not what cramming means.
  SERJEANT HEMPHILL: We will not dispute about words. I do not understand cramming to mean anything drawn out of a man, nor do I understand education to mean anything drawn out of a man. If that were so, what would be the use of education, the object of education being to improve the intellect and the morale which are essentially bound up in the man? But to come to the Bill itself. After the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford I should be very sorry indeed to throw any difficulty in the way of the Second Reading, but whether the Bill will be a good or a bad Bill depends altogether upon the rules which are made under it. I myself would have preferred that it was postponed; I would like to have seen it brought in as a part of a great scheme regulating the entire system of the education of Ireland. The whole system requires overhauling. This is only a step towards reaching a system of education which is so much wanted in Ireland, and on which the prosperity of the country so much depends. If the rules are framed in such a way as to hold out, equal advantages to all classes of the community, and if the House has a proper-opportunity for discussing and amending those rules, I see in this Bill the nucleus of what may turn out to be a very useful measure, and in that view I shall support the Second Reading.
  MR. CLANCY: The hon. and learned Member for East Down said that he did not know what

  517
  rules were going to be made by the Commissioners if this Bill passed. If I was in a similar state of ignorance I would vote against the Second Reading of the measure; but I wish to state in the presence of the Government what I understand to be the actual state of the case. The Bill in its present form would enable the Intermediate Board to make any rules they liked at any time in relation to the duties they have to perform. To that proposition I offer the strongest possible opposition. The hon. Member for Waterford stated, however, that the Government had agreed to accept an Amendment limiting the power of the Commissioners to make rules on the lines of the recommendations contained in their Report. That being so, we are not in ignorance of what the Commissioners are going to do. We may not know exactly what they are going to do, but we do know the main lines upon which their work will proceed. If I am wrong in that, I will vote against the Second Heading, but otherwise I shall vote for it. I have no hesitation in saying that if any rule is made contravening the general recommendations of the Report it will be a breach of faith on the part of the Government and of the Commissioners. If, however, as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, it will be absolutely illegal to make any rubs contrary to those recommendations, I have the strongest reason for supporting the Bill, because I approve of those recommendations. I think there is no difference of opinion on that point. Nobody, except the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, has defended cramming, and I am not sure that either of those two Gentlemen would defend cramming properly understood.
  SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I do not defend cramming. I gave a definition of what I understood cramming to mean.
  MR. CLANCY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not defend the system by which at present subjects of comparatively little use are taught, and he does not defend the physical injuries resulting from overwork in connection with examinations. Nobody in the House de-
  518
  fends those things, and the recommendations of the Report go to remedy those defects, and when I know that the Bill will simply enable those recommendations to be carried out I have no hesitation in supporting the Second Reading.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTcordially agreed with nearly all that had been said by the hon. Member for Water-ford, understanding that all that was intended was to give the Board power to carry out the unanimous recommendations of the excellent Commission that took so much evidence in connection with intermediate education. He looked with a certain amount of fear upon the tremendous power put into the hands of the inspectors to say whether or not the quality of the teaching given by a particular teacher was efficient. He freely admitted that if any consultative system could be married to the existing system, if the Commissioners could come down more immediately to the parties who were to be educated, if they could see more to the detail of the work, if they could appreciate the difficulties of the teachers and thoroughly understand the educational work from that point of view, a very great advance would be made, and he hoped the day was not very far distant when that would be done, and there would be a union or fusion between the governing body of the Education Department in Dublin and the general working body in the particular districts. He was deeply interested in the vexed question of the Irish language. He was in favour of it being taught, but it must be subsidiary to the language which would enable the youth of the country to compete in the struggle of life. Care must be taken that the education given did not in any way interfere with the broadening of the horizon of the youth of the country. By teaching them Irish only, the sphere of their labour would be circumscribed; but if the language were taught as Latin was taught—as a means of understanding the records of the country and the beauties of its literature—it was desirable that every Irishman should have a smattering of his own language. Higher marks, however, must not be given for Irish, and lower marks for Euclid or for French or German—
  MR. SPEAKERdrew the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he was now getting into a discussion of the merits of the Irish language.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTthereupon concluded his remarks by saying that he supported the Bill, believing that the rules to be made would be rules to carry out the unanimous recommendations of one of the best Commissions which had ever sat upon this question in Ireland. As the Bill merely empowered the Board to give effect to those recommendations, he thought it was a measure which should receive the sanction of the House.
  MR. HARRINGTON: While I quite agree that the promised acceptance of the suggested Amendment of my hon. friend has completely changed our attitude towards this Bill, I think it is nevertheless our duty to protest against this system of treating so important a question as the education of the Irish people by a Bill which on its face really discloses none of its main features, as such a measure should do under the circumstances. It is a very deplorable thing that when a Bill was being introduced the rules in accordance with the Report should not have been presented to the House. I also agree with the hon. Member for East Down that it is much to be regretted that we should enter upon a system of education as an experiment, and that after a year or two the whole system should be completely changed again. As the whole value of the Bill depends upon the rules which will be made under it, it is an extraordinary thing that we are precluded from considering those rules in the present debate, and that we should be precluded in all future debates from considering this entire question of the system of education in Ireland. This Bill enables the Commissioners to do a certain thing, and but for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford, which has been accepted, we should have been hopelessly in the dark, and we should have had no future opportunity of reviewing the system set up by the new rules. I quite agree in the general condemnation of the system of intermediate education as practised up to the present time, but I must confess that I cannot go to the whole
  520
  extent of entirely condemning the result system. I believe a judicious system should combine both the stimulus to the individual pupil and the stimulus to the efficiency of the school as a whole. I could not go at all with the hon. Member for East Down in condemning as demoralising the giving of prizes as a stimulus to study. I think the hon. Member has gone too far, and I do hope that, in the rules which are to be adopted, the general efficiency of the schools will be very carefully considered, while at the same time means should be found of inducing individual pupils to strike out to obtain those marks of distinction which, after all, have not been injurious to the result system. I think when this House gives its approval to these new rules we should have the full means of ascertaining whether the measure is suitable to the country or not; and though I am prepared to support the Second Reading upon the promise which has been given, I do protest against the system of introducing a complete change in the system in the manner which has been adopted, for it commits the House to rules without our knowing exactly what those rules are.
  MR. POWER: I think it is very unfortunate that these rules wore not presented along with the Bill. I understand that the Government, while not in a position to state the exact rules, have pledged themselves that the money shall be laid out on the main lines of the recommendations of the Commission, and that promise meets our view. I think, however, that it is scandalous that we are asked to pass a Bill of this importance in this way. We hope an ample opportunity will be given by the Government to discuss this question, not after midnight, but at a proper and reasonable hour. As far as educational matters in Ireland are concerned, owing to the way in which the Irish Estimates are arranged, we never have an opportunity of discussing the educational policy of the Government. In my district I may say that the gravest disappointment will be evinced at the way in which this subject has been dealt with.
  MR. FIELD: I have no intention of delaying the House, but it appears to me that a subject of this importance deserves the serious

  521
  attention of the House of Commons. The education of the people is really the most important subject that could engage the attention of the legislature at the present time. What do we see when we look around to other countries, such as the United States, Germany, or Franco, or any other great legislative bodies? Can any Member of this House imagine that a subject of this importance would be brought in by such a skeleton Bill, pledging us to principles of this kind, in any of the Parliaments in the countries I have alluded to? I am not going to enter into detail, but as an Irish Member I protest against this system, for it is not treating a great subject with that attention which it deserves. This question of intermediate education is one which requires immense care and debate by trained educationists. To expect a Bill like this to be accepted practically without debate is not treating respectfully this great subject of education. I think the Bill ought to contain something more than the carrying out of the recommendations of this Commission. The National Board of Education should not be constituted as it is at present, for it is really an irresponsible nominated Board with extraordinary and extensive powers of expending money which is contributed by the ratepayers, who have no control whatever over that expenditure. As a taxpayer and as a representative of the city of Dublin, I object entirely to that principle. I say that the people should have some control over the Board of National Education, who really govern the whole system of education in Ireland. It may be alleged that the House of Commons has a certain control over this expenditure. I deny that, because, owing to the way the Votes are taken for national education, the question does not come within our purview. We have no opportunity whatever given us of controlling the actions of these gentlemen, and the result is that we have a system of so-called national education which is anti-Irish, and which omits to teach the principal thing which an Irishman ought to know. The Irish language is not taught, and I have been requested to ask that Irish should be taught in every national school, and more particularly in the southern districts of Ireland, where the Irish language is still partially spoken. I cannot understand why the Commission omitted any
  522
  reference to a matter upon which there is such a large amount of popular feeling at the present time, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give us some gleam of hope that this matter will receive attention. I am prepared to vote for the Second Reading, but I do so very unwillingly. I say that the manner in which education in Ireland has been carried out is exceedingly unsatisfactory, and we have no definite guarantee as to what improvement is going to take place except the recommendations of the Committee. These recommendations do not satisfy me, for I think the Irish people ought to have some control over the National Board of Education, and the people should have some control over the funds which they provide. They have neither control nor influence under this Bill, and in this respect it is very unsatisfactory. I have no intention of further delaying the House except to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to give a favourable answer to the request which has been put forward in regard to the teaching of the Irish language. The present system of intermediate education in Ireland has done much harm to the rising generation, because, instead of being given a useful education, they have been taught something which has not enabled them to obtain employment, and the system has been manufacturing an article for which there was no demand. Manual instruction has been altogether neglected, and undoubtedly the results have not been satisfactory. I have no faith in the system of cramming. There was no intermediate system where I was educated, but there was cramming, and I confess the result was that I forgot all about the subject in a very few weeks. The system of cramming is altogether wrong. There is one other matter which to my mind is a very serious defect. Under the present system the smart children are taken out of certain schools and placed in bettor schools, and I think that is a wrong system. I think every boy and girl ought to get equality of treatment. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give some expression of opinion as to the constitution of this Board of National Education, which I trust will be made responsible to somebody, for at present they are responsible to nobody. I hope that an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss and debate these rules

  523
  so that we may know exactly what system of education is to be introduced in Ireland in the future. Our educational system means either the ruin or the prosperity of the country, for education is the main factor in progress, and a more important thing could not be discussed in this House. The question is non-political and non-sectarian, and every man must be affected by the intellectual progress of the community amongst whom he resides.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIENsaid that the refusal of the Government and the Education Commissioners to give to Ireland the bilingual system which had been given to Wales was an infamous conspiracy against the Irish language. The Government and the Commissioners appeared to have as much terror of the Irish language as they would have if Mauser Rifles were to be placed in the hands of the people.
  MR. SHEE: In regard to the Amendment which the Government have agreed to accept, I think it will be very necessary for us to first get the assent of the Government to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Mayo in reference to the desirability of giving the House an opportunity of discussing the rules, although they are restricted to the recommendations made by the Commissioners. There is one very important pecuniary question which may arise in regard to the rules which are to be made. Under the system which has hitherto existed the amount given to masters of schools and colleges for results has averaged £50,000 a year, while the amount given to students as prizes has been something less than £18,000 a year. It should be quite possible in making the rules to reduce to a much smaller proportion than £18,000 the amount devoted to prizes for competitors in the class examinations which it is proposed to substitute. I altogether disagree with the right hon. Gentleman in his view that intermediate system has resulted in cramming, because anyone who knows the nature of the questions set in examination papers could not possibly make this mistake, for those questions could not be answered effectively by anybody who had been crammed. The effect of cram-
  524
  ming depends upon the kind of question the examiner puts, and examiners can to a great extent prevent or mitigate the existence of the evils of cramming by the nature of the questions they set. I think it would be a great misfortune for intermediate education if the annual grant which has hitherto been given in prizes, should be reduced. Undoubtedly it is not the amount of these fees which have been given to the masters of colleges that has produced the success in the system, but it is the amount given to the pupils which has induced them to pay more attention to their studies than they did under the old system of education which existed in Ireland before the Intermediate Education Act was passed. I believe the result of increased grants to the masters would have a tendency to increase cramming, for it would then be to the advantage of the masters to prepare a certain number of pupils, and so prepare them that they would get as the result of the examination a very large proportion of the result fees. The recommendations of the Committee will prevent the adoption of a general pass examination and the possibility of cramming. There is another question which has been mentioned as one of the evils of the intermediate system. I believe that there is real ground for the assertion that there has been over pressure, which is a different thing to cramming. Over-pressure has existed to a very great extent in the intermediate schools, and the result has been that a great many pupils have been practically ruined in sight and in other ways. Possibly the new system will to some extent diminish this over-pressure. I think the Government ought to consent to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Mayo that when the rules have been drafted and laid on the Table of the House we should be given an opportunity of discussing them, because it is possible, with the very wide discretion the Commissioners possess, that they may make rules which would be very objectionable to the people mostly interested in the system. For that reason I think the House ought to have an opportunity of discussing the rules. It is also very desirable that every year the House should have an opportunity upon the Estimates of discussing the question of intermediate education, and of dealing, for the public benefit, with the manner in which the Commissioners carry out

  525
  their duties under the Intermediate Education Act.
  MR. MURNAGHANsaid he wished to know whether the superannuation proposed in Clause 3 was to come out of the Irish Church Fund or out of the money set aside for the benefit of intermediate education in Ireland.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: From the Intermediate Education Fund.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: Then you are diverting the money sot aside by this House for education, and you are handing it over to a certain class of officials. This money was granted for a special purpose, and you are devoting it now for a purpose entirely different. That is not a matter which Member's of this House ought to pass. The amount of money for encouraging intermediate education is small enough already, and for this House to take away any large portion of that amount would be a very unfortunate matter. I think the Government might find a sum somewhere else instead of putting their hands upon the fund at the disposal of the Intermediate Commissioners. I have heard a great deal about cramming, but I do not know what is meant. If you do not hold out some promise of a reward to students for their industry and perseverance, they will not apply themselves so much to their studies. I hope the Commissioners will not believe that the majority of the Irish people are opposed to any efforts they may make to encourage pupils to put themselves to the test and bring out to the very full their mental capabilities. I have no sympathy at all with the remarks which have been made upon this question of cramming. I think, however, that this proposal is running in a wrong direction, for it is diverting the money which should be given to those who apply themselves to study, and the money should be used as a stimulus in this direction. I think it is unfortunate that this Fund should be cut into by the Government in order to grant annuities to these officials. I think the Government might very well let the Fund stand for the purposes for which it was intended, and that they
  526
  should have taken the money for these pensions from some other source.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed, for Monday next.

  IRISH EDUCATION BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: This second; Bill dealing with education in Ireland has been introduced in order to facilitate the carrying out of a reorganised scheme for the payment of teachers which has been already adopted by the Commissioners of Education, and which is embodied in the Blue-book laid on the Table of the House the other day. Over three-fourths of the sum available for the payment of teachers in Ireland the Commissioners at present have the right of free disposal. It is only as regards a sum of about £250,000 that the Commissioners are in any way limited as to the manner in which it should be distributed. The effect of this Bill, if passed, will be to give the Commissioners, the same free hand over the distribution of this £250,000 as they already have over the remaining three-fourths of the total sum available for the payment of teachers. When I introduced this Bill I said that it was not absolutely necessary for the purpose of carrying out the new scheme that the Bill should be passed. Perhaps I ought to explain a little more in detail what I meant by that statement. The payments which the teachers will receive under the schedule will in every case include all the remuneration they now receive. Their present incomes will, as a matter of fact, be covered by the consolidated salaries paid to them under the provisions of this Bill, and the reorganised scheme could have been carried out from a legal point of view without this Bill at all. It may be asked, then, why we have decided to introduce it. One reason is that it is desirable to have this Bill on the Statute-book, because, although it is not necessary for the purposes of the scheme, yet it will remove certain difficulties which, although they do not amount to legal obstacles, it is desirable should be removed. It may be

  527
  frankly admitted that the schedule did not contemplate consolidated salaries to the teachers, and, therefore, it is just as well that this Bill should be put on the Statute-book. But there is another and more practical reason why this Bill should be passed. Unless it is passed, the Commissioners may be called upon by any teacher to show that, as a matter of fact, the consolidated salary to be paid to him covers the remuneration he now receives. There would be no difficulty in proving that in every case the necessary conditions have been fulfilled, but it would impose a very considerable amount of labour indeed on the staff of the Commissioners. I understand that the Synod of the Church of Ireland have raised certain objections to this Bill, on the ground that it will take away some of the advantages which small schools now possess. In my opinion, and in the judgment of the Commissioners, that view is absolutely unfounded. It is admitted that small schools, having from ten to nineteen pupils, will undoubtedly benefit pecuniarily under the scheme, and I think also that schools having from twenty to twenty-five pupils will also benefit pecuniarily. It is perhaps right that I should call attention to the fact that the Commissioners have not yet published the salaries of the different grades, because a great deal of calculation is required before the salaries can be finally fixed; but I may safely say that the consolidated salaries will cover every part of the teachers' present remuneration, and if the Bill is passed there is absolutely no fear of any injustice being done, or that any teacher in any small school will suffer under the new rules. But, as I have already stated, the Bill is not absolutely necessary for the scheme of the Commissioners, and if there is a disposition on both sides of the House that the Bill should not be insisted on I will give way to that pressure, because the Loader of the House has already stated that it is not our intention to press any of these Irish Bills if they are opposed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. SPEAKER: This will be a convenient time to inform the hon. Member for Waterford that the Amendment on
  528
  the Paper in his name, by which he proposes to raise the question of the teaching of the Irish language in elementary schools, is not in order. The Bill proposes merely to abrogate the rules under which the distribution of grants-in-aid is now made, and to authorise new rules for that purpose, and any Amendment raising discussion as to the subjects or methods of education would be out of order.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: After your ruling, Sir, it is impossible for me to discuss on this motion the question I was most anxious to raise—namely, the teaching of the Irish language in these schools in Ireland. I must only bow to your ruling, Sir, and postpone that question until to-morrow, when we will have the Education Vote before us. That topic of discussion having been taken away from me, I do not propose to detain the House. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that in his opinion this Bill is not absolutely necessary, and that if it were so desired by the Irish Members he would have no objection to postponing it. I have had no opportunity of gathering the opinion of the Irish Members on the subject, but I do not think that I am very far wrong in interpreting them to be in favour of the postponement of this Bill. We take a very strong view of the action of the Government in not affording us an opportunity of discussing the system of new primary education in Ireland. It is true we may discuss it to-morrow, but one sitting is quite insufficient for the discussion of the question of the Irish language and also for the discussion of this elaborate system. We feel very strongly that we have not been properly treated by the Government in this matter, and as we are practically prevented from discussing the details of the scheme, I, for my part, think the best course would be to let the Bill stand over. If necessary, let it be introduced next year, when we will be in a better position to understand the working of the new system. For these reasons I will move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the Government propose, as is suggested, to adopt the view of the hon. Member, the better course would be to move that the Order be dis-

  529
  charged and the Bill withdrawn. That ought to come from the right hon. Gentle-man in charge of the Bill.
  MR. DILLON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I should like, Sir, to be perfectly clear as to the scope of your ruling. You will see that it has a bearing on the question raised by the hon. Member for Waterford. I understood you, Sir, as well as I could catch your last ruling, to state that it was not within our power to discuss the methods of education in Ireland. Therefore, if this Bill were introduced next year we should be debarred from discussing any of the new rules. The object of this Bill is to put it within the power of the Commissioners to alter the whole system of education in Ireland.
  MR. SPEAKER: Not to alter the subjects of education, but the distribution of the funds.
  MR. DILLON: I am not prepared to argue that the Bill directly concerns particular subjects, but it does absolutely concern the methods of education, because the sole and only object of the Bill is to enable revolutionary changes to be carried out with reference to national education in Ireland.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not a Bill on which the methods or subjects of education can be discussed.
  MR. FLYNN: Our difficulty is this. I asked a question this afternoon, and I was nonchalantly informed that my inquiry was useless, and that it was impossible to discuss the rules and regulations because they were already in operation. Then what is the necessity for the Bill? Our position is exceedingly difficult, and it would be far better if the Bill were postponed.
  MR. DILLON: On the question of the Second Reading, and before the Chief Secretary states whether he will withdraw the Bill or not, I assume I will be in order in discussing the points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman in introducing this Bill. His first point was of great importance. He stated that unless this Bill were passed any teacher could call on the National Board to prove that
  530
  the sums to which he was entitled under the old scheme were covered by the gross sum under the new scheme. Therefore one effect of this Bill would be to deprive National teachers of their right under the law to call on the Commissioners to prove that their allocation of salary was accurate. If the Bill passes they will be deprived of that right. I dare say that the new system will be a better system, and that no teacher will really suffer. But that is not the view of the teachers themselves, and I do not think it is unnatural that they should be anxious, when the old system is to be revolutionised, and that they should be unwilling to part with any right they have until they see the actual figures of the new scheme. We know perfectly well that, on the admission of the Treasury themselves, the teachers were by a miscalculation deprived of large arrears, some of which we subsequently got by repeated, debates in this House. Anyone who listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman must have realised that the subject is one of great complexity, and, it. is therefore not at all wonderful that the teachers should be uneasy and unwilling to part with the rights they have until they are satisfied that they will not be damaged by the provisions of the new scheme. As I understood the speech, of the right hon. Gentleman, he stated categorically that the teachers, if this Bill were passed, would lose the right of calling on the Board to prove that their salaries had not been reduced. I think the hon. Member for Waterford is most wise in calling on the Government to postpone this Bill until we have time to study and consider the figures and details of the new scheme. While I take that view, I think it is only just to state— and I know I am speaking the mind of the hon. Member for Waterford and other Irish Members—that we recognise in this now scheme and these new rules for intermediate education in Ireland a development of a new spirit of educational reform. I regard it as a result of the appointment to the Board of certain individuals whose names I need not mention, and who have brought a new and a better spirit into the Board. We are heartily in sympathy with the main principles of these changes, and while-there is no dispute as to principle, I think it is only fair we should take up this attitude in order to safeguard the in-

  531
  terests of the teachers and preserve their rights. After your ruling, Sir, it is manifest that this Bill will afford no foothold for discussing the general methods or subjects of education in Ireland. Next session we shall only be able to examine the financial aspects of those changes as they affect the salaries of the teachers, and there we shall be stopped. For these reasons I think the Government ought to give us an opportunity early next session of discussing both the intermediate system and these revolutionary changes. I think we are entitled to make that demand. We have been cut down to three days for Irish Estimates, and it may be next July before they will be reached, and the new system will then be in operation for more than a year. I would respectfully urge the Government that we should be afforded an opportunity for discussing these matters early next session.
  MR. LECKY: I think it would be much bettor to postpone this measure to another session. There is a great deal of difference of opinion on the subject. I myself am not prepared to endorse altogether the views of the Chief Secretary, and I think that under the circumstances it would be very much better if the Bill were not pressed forward.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: After the views which have been expressed on both sides it must be clear that the best course would be to withdraw the Bill and bring it in later, when the operations of the new rules will be better known.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some answer as regards facilities for discussing this matter next session.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is impossible for me to answer that question. I recognise the extreme importance of the changes we are about to introduce into both the intermediate and elementary systems of education, and, personally, I should not be adverse to a day being given for a discussion of the whole question, but of course it must be clearly understood that I am not in a position to give any undertaking on that point with-out consulting my colleagues. I beg to
  532
  move, That the Order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
  Motion for Second Reading, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. BUCHANAN: Before we pass the Third Reading of this Bill I should like to make a few observations regarding it. It has yet to pass through another place, and many Amendments may be made in it which at any rate will not be against the interests of the landlords, but taking the Bill as we find it I should like to say a few words on it. First of all, how far does this Bill really remedy the acknowledged grievances of agricultural tenants in England and Scotland, and how far is it a proper redemption of the many promises and pledges given by the Government and their supporters at the last General Election and other times with regard to this subject? To deal with the second question first, I think I am within the mark in saying that the passage of this Bill is a very long-deferred and very inadequate redemption of the promises and pledges given by hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on this subject. It will be in the recollection of hon. Members who sat in the last Parliament that there was no subject more frequently brought forward by the Conservative Opposition than the interests of agriculture and the grievances of agricultural tenants. In every session during the last Parliament an Amendment to the Address was moved by a leading-member of the Conservative party, and not content with that, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-east Essex moved the adjournment of the House on this subject. All these Amendments were supported by Gentlemen then on the Front Opposition Bench, and no one was more strenuous

  533
  in supporting them than the present President of the Board of Agriculture. The General Election came, and what was the position then? If there was one subject on which the Unionist party harped, it was the neglect of the agricultural interest, and that the only remedy for this was to look to the Unionist party. I do not want to hold the Government too closely to the promises of the right hon. the Colonial Secretary, although he is a very important member of the present Government. The promises he gave on various political and other subjects were so diverse and varied that it would be unwise to place too much reliance on them; but I would like to remind the House what he did say, not when in an irresponsible position, but when he was an important member of the Ministry. On 22nd July, 1895, in the middle of the General Election, he went down and addressed a large meeting in Warwickshire, when he stated that if the Unionists were returned to power they were prepared to give a scheme of land purchase to the agricultural tenants in England and Scotland. But from that day to this not a single word has been said in favour of that proposal, and not a single step has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in that direction. When Parliament met we reminded them of their promises, and they were very indignant. Now I am justified in stating that up to that time the Unionist party themselves considered that this was a question highly important and deserving the attention of the Government at an early date. What happened? On the first day of the session of 1896 the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture gave notice from the Table of the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to give compensation to agricultural tenants. That session passed, as did the sessions of 1897, 1898, and 1899; but it was not until the present year that the Government took any effective steps to redeem the large and wide promises they had made. And in what form did they redeem them? I think their own estimate of this Bill now is very different from the estimate they had of the importance of the subject in 1896. Instead of introducing it in the last session of the present Parliament as a measure of the first importance, they brought it in under the Ten Minutes Rule; they sent it up-
  534
  stairs to a Grand Committee, where it was discussed for a couple of sittings ten days ago; and now, with the thermometer standing at ninety degrees in the shade, we are expected to deal with the Third Reading. That does not look as if the supporters of the Bill attached supreme importance to it, or as if they believed that it in any sense provides an adequate remedy for the grievances of the agricultural tenants. It has been stated more than once by the President of the Board of Agriculture that, after all, this Bill will only deal with 5 per cent. of the cases of compensation that arise. I do not think a Bill is of much importance which only deals with one in forty of the grievances of agricultural tenants. It was described on the Second Reading by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Hampshire, a strong supporter of the Government, as "a small amending Bill"; and another hon. Gentleman opposite described it as "as good a Bill as could be got under the circumstances "; while the other night a no less strong supporter of the Government said of it that "if not totally unnecessary it was certainly harmless." Now, these are not descriptions by hon. Members on this side of the House, but by either the authors of the Bill or the most strenuous supporters of the Government and their policy. Does the Bill really make any serious attempt to settle the grievances that have existed among the agricultural i tenants? It will be in the memory of all that the President of the Board of Agriculture, when introducing the Bill, and before we had seen it, described it as a Bill that would settle once for all the differences between the owners and occupiers of land. When we had the opportunity of examining and discussing it in detail, we saw how very wide of the mark indeed and exaggerated that description was. I want to state to the House what were the general proposals for the amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act which were put forward by leading agriculturists, and what are the actual proposals in the Bill. I have here one of the most valuable Reports made by the sub-commissioners. Mr. James Hope, a supporter of the Government, dealing with various counties in Scotland, summarises the principal Amendments on which he said opinion was unanimous which should be made in the Agricultural Holdings Act.

  535
  It will be found that, at the outside, not more than two or three of these Amendments have been inserted in this Bill. But if hon. Gentlemen care to take a more simple method of testing the value of the Bill, they have only got to compare the schedules in the Bill with the schedules in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883. They will see that the alterations are very infinitesimal, and substantially, so far as that part of the Bill is concerned, it deals very inadequately with large and important grievances undoubtedly felt by the agricultural community throughout the country. One of the recommendations held out to us in regard to the Bill was that it would very largely simplify and cheapen procedure under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and it was said: "Here, at any rate, you will have your cases decided by a single arbitrator, and no longer by two arbitrators and an umpire, which has caused so much expense in the old procedure." When, in Committee, I endeavoured to have the Bill amended so that the procedure should really be by a single arbitrator, I was told by the Attorney General that my proposal was far too drastic, and that we ought not to make a single arbitrator compulsory. I have never got any explanation from the Attorney General or the President of the Board of Agriculture as to how the procedure under this Bill is to be cheaper and simpler than under the existing Act. The actual proposals in the Bill are very inadequate to deal with existing grievances. It is, in fact, a very incomplete and insufficient measure. I venture to say that it does not deal with the grievances of large classes of tenants; and however applicable it may be to some classes of tenants in England, it is entirely inadequate to deal with the grievances of agriculturists in Scotland, while it is singularly inapplicable to the agricultural conditions of Wales, as will be shown by-and-by by Members from Wales. Meantime I will only deal with it as it affects my own country. When the Bill was considered on the Report stage I was constantly told by the President of the Board of Agriculture, in answer to my complaints, "Oh! that is only the case of Scotland. I cannot profess to know the actual conditions of Scotland." That was considered a sufficient answer to the arguments which my colleagues and I brought forward to show
  536
  that the Bill would not adequately meet the demand of Scottish tenants. I have often heard before that "There are hills beyond Pentland, and lands beyond Forth,'' but we would have been perfectly content to cut out from this Bill the hills beyond Pentland and the lands beyond Forth. What we complain of is, that you have endeavoured to include in one common Bill for England and Scotland subjects which have hitherto been invariably treated by separate Bills, in order to meet the separate demands and separate conditions of agriculture. The hon. Member for King's Lynn talked about legislation by reference, but. I do not know any Scottish agriculturist, and not many Scottish lawyers, who would be able to understand this Bill at first sight. But our substantial grievance is that you are endeavouring to deal here, in a single Act, not merely with purely agricultural questions, but with questions affecting the tenure of land, which are entirely different in Scotland and England. More than that, we pointed out— and nobody knows this better than the Attorney General—that there were large classes of tenants, particularly in the north-east of Scotland, who would be absolutely excluded by the terms of the schedule from getting any compensation for the substantial improvements they have made on their holdings. These are the small improving tenants called squatters. Now the First Lord of the Treasury, in the summer of 1895, speaking about what he considered to be the obligations of his party to bring forward an adequate measure of compensation, gave a very specific promise that any such measure would be applicable to small as well as large tenants in all three countries. It would affect, he said, small men as well as big men. The Government have conspicuously failed to bring forward a measure that is able to satisfy the demands of these small tenants for whom the First Lord of the Treasury pleaded in 1895, and they will for another term of years be shut out from obtaining any measure of relief. It is on these grounds of the conspicuous failure to redeem often repeated and most specific pledges given by responsible Members of the Government; of the valuelessness of the Bill to give to industrious and enterprising tenants the assurance of compensation if they put their capital into the soil, and because it will delay remedial legislation

  537
  for years, that I beg leave to move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  DR. FARQUHARSONseconded the Amendment.
  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. Buchanan.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MAJOR RASCH: The hon. Gentleman seemed surprised that we should have attacked the late Liberal Government for their neglect of the agricultural interest. But what did they do for that interest when they were in office five years ago? The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that I once had the honour of moving the adjournment of the House in connection with the neglect of the Liberal Government to deal with the grievances of agricultural tenants; but the debate lasted hardly an hour, when it was closured by the hon. Gentleman's leaders. The hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture in the Liberal Ministry did not know the difference between barley and oats, and when a deputation of farmers came to him he practically refused to see them. Then, in the cud, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire introduced the death duties, which were to quench the smoking flax; and he was prompted to get up about once a month and thank God that wheat was selling at 19s. 6d. a quarter. Well, we are now taunted with not tackling the Government because they have not done more for us during the present Parliament; but we have got some concessions from the Government, and we hope the Government will do better when in office in the next Parliament. With reference to this particular Bill, as an agricultural Member representing a very large division, which extends from within sixteen miles of Whitechapel Church to the North Sea, I cannot help thanking the Government for what they have done. They have carried out the recommendations of the Central Chamber of Agriculture in 1894; they have practically
  538
  abolished the law of distress except in the case of the previous twelve months rent; they have taken the question of permanent pasture, which is a burning question, from Part 1 to Part 3 of the Schedule; they have simplified procedure; they have knocked off the shackles from the agricultural industry; and have so legislated that tenants will more willingly put their capital into the land than before. I have said before that this Bill is not perfect; but very few things in this world are perfect. The attitude taken up by a good many of us in reference to this Bill is "What we can get we take." I took particular care not to move any Amendment, and not to speak often, but of course that does not mean that I thought the Bill absolutely perfect. I could have made some suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the Bill which it might have been well to have carried out. I think a man should be allowed to cultivate the soil as he likes, so long as its fertility is not impaired; that there should be no penal rents unless actual damage is proved; and that there should be compensation for continuous good farming. I congratulate the Government on having had the courage to resist certain Amendments' made by some of their own supporters, especially that proposed by the hon. Member for Newark, which alluded to the inherent capabilities of the soil. The Government very properly resisted that Amendment. If they had not done so they would have made the Bill ridiculous, and would have caused great dissatisfaction in the eastern counties, which I know well. If the inherent capabilities of the soil are high a man pays a high rent, if they are low he pays a low rent, and therefore, practically, there is nothing in it. I hope that in a future Parliament the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture will, from this side of the Table or the other, introduce a Bill to carry out the suggestions I have made. For the rest I can only say I am extremely glad that the Government have brought in this Bill. I do not say that it will be accepted with effusive gratitude, because effusive gratitude is proverbially not a quality of the agricultural interest; but I know it is a good step in the right direction.
  MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton): I regret the absence of the Minister for Agriculture, who, I believe,

  539
  is too ill to conduct this Bill through its last stage in this House. We will miss the right hon. Gentleman, for he is a master of the subject. If I may be pardoned by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I think that if, instead of going into ancient history and what had been done in the last Parliament, he had read the Bill more carefully his speech would have been more valuable. He stated that the law of distraint for rent had been practically abolished. Why, it is not in the Bill. When an Amendment was moved to abolish distraint I am rather afraid that it did not receive the support of the hon. Gentleman, I cannot but express the disappointment which I feel, and which has been voiced in the country, that this Bill is not more complete and effective. There is not the slightest doubt that the farming interest expected a Bill which would give them larger rights to compensation at the end of a tenancy. It makes confusion worse confounded; for any farmer who wants to know his rights under the Bill, must provide himself with a small arsenal of Acts of Parliament. We know that farmers do not, and will not provide themselves with all these Acts of Parliament; and instead of being able to know exactly how they stand, they will have to go to expert valuers, and pay them for information, which ought to have been made clear in the Act itself. A second complaint which I have to make is that the Bill does not sufficiently strengthen the agricultural tenant. I may congratulate the Agricultural Department on having exercised considerable ingenuity in drawing up a Bill of fourteen clauses, which practically does so very little. It is a Bill fairly pretentious in size, but what it does is almost absolutely nil. A change of front always takes place by hon. Gentlemen opposite, according to whether they are in or out of office. I noticed the Minister of Agriculture, speaking at a rent-audit of the Duke of Portland, said that the less legislation there was for agriculturists the better it would be for them. That was not the cry we heard at the last General Election. I think, however, he has impressed his views on this Bill, because it does so very little for agriculturists. There are two good things in the Bill. It gives the farmer compensation for laying down permanent pasture; and the arbitration clauses are good. But, unfortunately, those arbitration clauses
  540
  are vitiated by the poison that runs through the whole Bill—the power given to the landlord to contract himself out of the measure. We know perfectly well that the Act of 1875 was passed with contracting-out clauses, and that immediately every landlord sent notice to his tenants, saying he would not come under the Act. I do not want in the least to discourage agreements between landlord and tenant, provided the agreements are fair to the tenant. What we want is that we shall have an Act of Parliament upon which the tenant can fall back when he has not got a fair agreement. That is what we do not get in this Bill. The arbitration clauses are very good indeed, but they are vitiated by the fact that the landlord can contract himself out of them. I can quite understand that a landlord does not like to have to pay compensation at the end of a tenancy, and I know this, that the result of this contracting out will be that the tenants will be deterred from sending claims in; because if they go to arbitration and there is an appeal it runs up the costs, and that is a matter which affects the farmer more than the landlord, because the landlord has the longest purse. We are told that the tenant farmers will not sign agreements that are unfair to themselves; the only answer I have to that is that they do. It has been brought out before the Royal Commission, and has been publicly exposed in the press over and over again, that tenants sign impossible agreements in order to get into a farm. The object of this Bill is to protect the farmers from signing unfair agreements, and if they are able to protect themselves there is no reason for this Bill. But the Government recognises that the tenant farmers cannot protect themselves, and therefore have introduced this Bill for their protection. I shall be told, I suppose, that instead of farmers running after the landlords it is the landlords who run after the farmers. That may be so in some cases, but it is not so in the west of England, and the very fact that there are six or eight tenants after a farm compels the tenant to sign an agreement which is prejudicial to himself in order to get into the farm. What we want is that the tenant farmers shall have compensation when they quit their holdings for improvements they have made. There is the question of permanent pasture. I never could under-

  541
  stand why the tenant should have to get the consent of the landlord in order to be compensated for permanent pasture. It is well known that when a man lays down permanent pasture he cannot injure the land; that was brought out in the evidence before the Royal Commission, because if he lays it clown for a certain time a considerable amount of fertility is generated in the land which can be got out by subsequent cropping. A man might lay down permanent pasture and not succeed—it depends upon the weather and many other circumstances; but if he does succeed and adds to the value of the land, why should not he be compensated for the improvement? All I say is that you add value to the land when you lay down permanent pasture, and it should not be necessary to get the consent of the landlord in the matter, because it is impossible that the landlord could be impoverished. And if you add to the value of the land I do not see why you should not be paid for it. When does temporary pasture become permanent pasture I do not, I confess, understand. I have land which has been put down to temporary pasture, and which, having been well manured and looked after, has become very good pasture indeed. Is that to be taken as temporary or permanent pasture? There is no regulation laid down. Why should compensation be given for temporary and not for permanent pasture? That is a matter which is absolutely beyond me. Then there is the question of compensation for disturbance. I know this is a debated subject, but personally, in the interests of the smaller tenants, I advocate it. It is all very well to say that large farmers can take care of themselves and that the landlords usually act very generously to their tenants; but it is the small tenants who cannot get their grievances taken up in the local press and ventilated. It is they who have to suffer in silence, and if they offend the agent of the estate upon which they are in any way they get notice to quit, and have to go into a now neighbourhood and acquire all the experience necessary to carry on farming operations in the neighbourhood, and that is only done at a great loss and a great sacrifice. I am not, of course, speaking of honourable landlords—this Bill is not intended for good landlords, but for those who treat their tenants unjustly. The claim for compensation by the tenant is to be lodged before the
  542
  determination of the tenancy, but if the landlord has a claim for dilapidations, he need not claim for six years after the determination of the tenancy. That is a constant source of complaint, and the witnesses before the Royal Commission wore almost unanimous in advocating that the claims both of the landlord and the tenant, should be put in on the same day. Under the Agricultural Act of 1883 the landlord is allowed to see the tenant's claim before putting in his own, with the consequence that very often exaggerated claims on the part of the landlord are put in. Upon this point I would like to quote some evidence given in favour of the claims of the landlord and tenant being delivered simultaneously. Mr. Clare Sewell Read, whose authority to speak upon this point no one will challenge, says—
  "Where the tenant has made a claim the landlord has made a bigger counterclaim. This in consequence of the landlord having time to consider the tenant's claim. I am sure it would be diminished by the claims being made simultaneously."
  And Mr. Lipscombe, the Chairman of the Committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, which was appointed to draw up a new Agricultural Bill, says that that was a universal complaint, and that the Committee appointed to examine into the question was almost unanimous in recommending that the two claims should be put in on the same day. We ask the Government to accept that. In Grand Committee it was proposed by the hon. Member for North Hampshire, and we want to know whose views the Government propose to carry out in this matter. Do they propose to carry out the views of the tenant farmer or of people who have no interest in, and less knowledge of, the matter? It is a matter upon which the tenant farmers feel very strongly indeed. There seems to be an alarming dread in this House of giving powers to strengthen the position of the tenant farmer. It was only the other day that we had a revolt from below the gangway, because the Government proposed to allow the tenant to plant an acre of osiers without the consent of the landlord. Then certain noble supporters of the Government woke up to the fact that that was an infringement of the freedom of contract between landlord and tenant. We have been interfering with freedom of contract all through this

  543
  Parliament; we did so when we passed an Act for compensation for injuries for the labourer, and why should not the landlord be bound to pay compensation for improvements made by the tenant? It seems to me that when they come to deal with the landlords the Government have a special tenderness for their supporters. This is a matter of extreme importance to farmers. I have had cases come before me of men who had been farming for a number of years, and by skill and experience and good husbandry they have greatly improved the land; yet when they leave, all the improvement goes into the pocket of the landlord. Why should that be? Those facts cannot be disputed. I can bring cases where that has occurred, and where that has taken place this Bill will do nothing to protect the man who has laid out his money in this respect, and ensure compensation for good farming and increasing the value of the holding for the incoming tenant. We do not ask that the tenant should be paid for work which does not add to the value of the land; but if improvements have added to the value of the holding, then he ought to be compensated. I regret that the Government have not accepted many of the Amendments which were proposed to make the Bill more effective and simple; bat although the Bill is ineffective and complicated, it does some little good. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes, but it cannot be said to give us even half a loaf. It gives us a crumb of bread, and that being so, I cannot support my friend in voting against the Third Reading; though, at the same time, I cannot congratulate the Government upon the measure which they have brought in.
  MR. STRUTT: There is one blemish in the Bill which I think the Government might rectify very well —that is its incomprehensibility. It is almost impossible for any ordinary layman from reading this Bill by itself to understand in any way what the law is. The people whose interests are affected by this Bill are not lawyers, and I think if the Government would give us a promise to bring in a Bill to codify these matters dealing with tenant right they would confer a great boon on the tenant-farmer class. They could easily bring in a Bill to join all these matters together in
  544
  one simple measure which would be easily understood, and which would not refer to any other measure, but would contain in itself everything necessary to enable the farmer or landlord to understand what the law is. The Bill as it stands contains the terrible blemish of making it necessary for a tenant farmer when he wants to find out what the law is to go to a lawyer. I hope, therefore, the Attorney General will give us a promise that the Government intend in a future session— as early a session as possible—to bring in a Bill to codify the law relating to the important questions of tenant right.
  MR. ALFRED THOMASsaid that, in intervening in the present debate he wished it to be understood that it was not done for the purpose of wrecking the Bill, for as far as it goes the measure pointed in the right direction. Still less was it intended by way of a complaint against the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, in whom we recognised not only an able administrator but one also who, we believe, sympathises very deeply with the difficult and arduous position of the tenant farmer. Our object in intervening in the present debate is to emphasise our feelings of disappointment that the Government, in drafting the Bill, totally ignored the recommendations of the unanimous Report of the Welsh Land Commission. After the treatment offered by the Government to other Reports of two different. Royal Commissions, perhaps we wore a little sanguine to expect to be treated differently, and though he could not often commend them on their consistency, he could with much propriety with regard to their equality of treatment of the two Royal Commissions appointed by themselves as well as that of the one appointed by Mr. Gladstone. But, Sir, something should be said for the unfortunate individual who serves on. Royal Commissions. Take the case of one who sat on the Welsh Land Commission. The Commission commenced its-labours in April, 1893, and ended in December, 1895, some two years and nine months. They held about ninety meetings, and examined many hundreds of witnesses, and wrote out two elaborate, and exhaustive Reports. With what result? To be simply ignored.

  545
  Now what self-respecting man would care to sit on a Royal Commission if, after giving some three years of his valuable (or otherwise) time to the public, his labours should be treated with so much contempt as to be beneath the notice of the Government? But, Sir, if the Government think so little or nothing of the recommendations of three such distinguished men as Lord Kenyon, the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea, and Mr. Frederic Seebohm, the people of Wales think very highly of them. The two former as representing the best type of landlord in the Principality and the latter as undoubtedly the greatest authority on land tenure in the United Kingdom, perhaps in the world. It is not to be expected that the name of Mr. Seebohm is a household word among the mass of the tenant farmers of Wales, though his face must be familiar to many of them— those who appeared before the Commission, which held meetings in every important centre in the Principality. And not a few, he had no doubt, had read some of the many works he had written, especially one dealing with the Principality—"The Tribal System in Wales." But the other two gentlemen are well known, Lord Kenyon in the north and the hon. Baronet in the south, and both highly esteemed and respected, and all three ardent supporters of the present Government. In reading the Report signed by those three gentlemen one is reminded of a long chapter in the Book of Lamentations. Undoubtedly they felt they hold a very undignified position that they should simply represent three fingerposts pointing to the direction their bolder and more enterprising colleagues had travelled and left them out of sight. Especially so must it have been to the author of the "Land Question." Though he said that those gentlemen had only pointed the way that should be traversed, at the same time, in justice to them, it should be stated that they only differed in degree and not in principle from their colleagues. It is true they used other terms.
  "What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet."
  Now, Sir, let us examine some two or three of the recommendations of those gentlemen. In their Report they seem much concerned that they should not be understood as advocating what is
  546
  known as "Fixity of Tenure." Yet in dealing with the question of "Notice to Quit" they say—
  "We are also of opinion that whenever a notice to quit is given it should state the reason why it is given, and that whenever the reason is other than a breach of the legal conditions of tenancy it would be fair that, in recognition of the cost to the tenant of an enforced change of tenancy, a longer notice should be required than in a case where the tenant is in default, or else that in such a case the rent should be made to cease in respect of the last year of the tenancy."
  Then they say that in case of a tenant who has performed all conditions under which he holds his tenancy he should be compensated for disturbance. They say that the rent of the last year of his tenancy should be forfeited A very moderate proposal, but it has in it more than the germ of the principle of fixity. No doubt bolder reformers would say five or seven years. It is only a question of degree, and not of principle. Again, in the case of the "Sale of an Estate," they say—
  "On the whole, in a case in which it is necessary to choose between the interest of the selling landlord, who naturally desires to obtain the highest price attainable for his property, and the interest of often a considerable number of tenants to whom it is more or less a question financially of life or death, we are disposed to think the law ought to lean on the side of the weaker party. And we are disposed to suggest that the equity of the case would be more than reasonably met by the provision that in case of the death of an estate owner or the sale of the estate the tenant shall be protected by law in the occupation of his farm at the old rent for say three years from the date of death or sale, except in case of non-payment of rent or the infringement of the conditions of the tenancy, which under the circumstances of the case should be stringent enough to protect the landlord from the depreciation or exhaustion of the farm."
  Here again, in their meek and mild way, they are advocating the principle of fixity of tenure, and in doing so they deserve every encouragement, as they are on the right line. For it is only by securing to the tenant who faithfully performs the conditions of his tenancy practically fixity of tenure, can we ever hope to see a satisfactory settlement of the "Land Question." Another bogey that frightened our three friends was the proposal of the majority of the Commissioners to set up a Land Court. To this, among other things, they say—
  "We would suggest that if on an estate there should be what may roughly be described as a general dispute between landlords and

  547
  tenants tending to disturbance or public scandal or manifest injustice, both the landlord on the one hand and a certain portion of the tenants on the other hand, under proper restrictions and upon an engagement to pay a certain maximum fee, should have the right to call in to their aid an expert from the Board of Agriculture or some other recognised authority to act as mediator, with a view, if possible, to bring about a friendly settlement."
  Again, they advocate a new principle in the relation of landlord and tenant, and while they view with horror a properly constituted land court, yet they suggest the appointment of a go-between to settle disputes between landlords and tenants, who is to be awarded a maximum fee. While fully realising that we could not hope to settle so old and great a question as that of the relationship of landlord and tenant by the very mild proposals of those three gentlemen, we at the same time admit that there is some ground for the statement they make on the last paragraph of their Report—
  "It is believed that were the law regarding year-to-year tenancy amended as we ventured to suggest a great step would be gained towards the removal of the feeling of insecurity and of other causes of dissatisfaction between landlords and tenants, without unduly infringing upon the principle of freedom of contract and without destroying the great advantages which, on the whole, and in spite of defects, the present agricultural system affords to the various classes of the Welsh people whose living is connected with the land."
  Their words prove that they had properly estimated the gravity of the situation when they said—
  "A great step would be gained towards the removal of the feeling of dissatisfaction between landlords and tenants."
  Still they say it was only a step—though a great step. That is an admission that what they proposed was not sufficient, and could not settle the question. Though they only proposed a step in the direction of the solution of this great question, it was more than the Government would take in the interests of the Welsh tenant farmers. There is no class in the community so helpless and defenceless as the tenant farmer. Even the agricultural labourer has his association to defend him. But the poor tenant farmer is left unprotected to any and every oppression. While we know and rejoice in the fact that there are landlords who treat their tenants as well as ever they would be treated under any legislation, we know
  548
  they are but comparatively few. What we want is to bring the other landlords up to their level, and no Government which neglects the rights of the tenant farmers can be said to be doing its duty to the State in leaving the most important class in the community without safeguarding legislation.
  MR. GILES: I should like to call attention to the fact that whatever this Bill does is in the interest of the tenant farmer, and that it does nothing for the landlord with the exception of the small advantage in Clause 5. With regard to the criticism that this is not a Consolidation Bill, and that it would be a very great advantage to tenant farmers to have a Consolidation Bill, all I have to say is that no doubt Consolidation Bills are extremely convenient to lawyers and to those who, having no knowledge of the subject, desire to study it. But the farmers, of whom I have had experience, undoubtedly have some knowledge of the subject, and they certainly do not rely for their knowledge upon the Agricultural Holdings Acts or any Bill, whether Consolidation or otherwise. They invariably go to some text-book for an explanation of the various provisions. I do not desire to say anything against Consolidation Acts, but it is not a fair-criticism upon this Bill, which is in itself a satisfactory measure, to say that it is. not to the full extent a Consolidation Bill. The hon. Member for South Molton found fault with the Government for not passing a simple Bill giving powers independent of contract. I desire to point out in the interests of many, especially small farmers, that there is another side to that question. I may give am illustration, some of the facts of which came under my personal knowledge, in the case of a farmer, a self-made man, and without capital. He had great experience of farming, and when he found the rent he was forced to pay was too much for him he went to another part of the county and took another farm. He was enabled to take that farm because of his reputation as a farmer, and he got it on this sort of consideration. The landlord said: "If you will take this farm at a yearly rental and require no compensation from, me when you leave, the rent shall be so

  549
  much per acre; but if you require compensation I must forestall that possibility by charging you so much more per acre." Under these circumstances a contract was made—in my opinion very much to the benefit of the tenant farmer, who, being a man without capital, was thus enabled to take this farm and work it to the satisfaction of the landlord, and by means of the condition which he made he had to pay only a moderate rent—a rent very much below that which he would have had to pay had he insisted on all the terms of the Agricultural Holdings Act. There is another point. I contend that this Bill, even if it contained no other provision than the Arbitration Clause, would be of very great advantage to the agricultural industry. For years there has been a very great want for a clause of this kind in the relations between tenant farmer's and landlords. Up to the present time if a tenant farmer desired to get justice from his landlord he had to begin by issuing a statement of claim, which in certain circumstances involved summonses for particulars and summonses for further and better particulars; these summonses in Chambers would, perhaps, involve two or three attendances before the Judge, and possibly an appeal. That would be followed by a statement of defence, and a reply. In a particular case I have in mind this was followed by a notice of trial; the trial actually took place before a special jury at the assizes, and certain gentlemen were specially taken down to attend. The trial had not gone on very long before it was referred, and the reference took place. Each side appointed an arbitrator, the two arbitrators appointed an umpire, and a considerable number of days were occupied in taking evidence on each side. Those who know anything about these proceedings know that the expenses incurred before getting to arbitration were very serious indeed. Now, I am glad to say, although it is much against the interest of the profession of which I am a humble member, the tenant farmers can obtain justice and get their claims satisfied without any of that very heavy preliminary expense. There is one other point in regard to the clause to which I should like to call attention. Fault was found with it because of the costs involved. But by the terms of Clause 14, which deals with costs, those costs are in the discretion of the arbitrator, and if the arbitrator finds that the
  550
  tenant farmer has a fair claim to compensation which has not been fairly met by the landlord it will be undoubtedly his duty to award costs against the landlord, and in that case the tenant would be relieved of the costs, or the greater part of them. I am sure a great number of tenant farmers would welcome this Bill with satisfaction and gratitude.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I think the hon. and learned Member for the Wisbech Division speaks with considerable authority when he says this Bill will be welcomed by many tenant farmers, but it will be welcomed only in English counties, not in Wales. It is a Bill which wholly fails to satisfy the pledges given by hon. Members opposite, and candidates who stood in the Unionist interest at the election of 1895 in the thirteen counties of Wales and Monmouthshire. I do not wish to delay the passing of this Bill into law. For what it is we are willing to accept it, and, for myself, I am not going to vote against it. But I think that we who represent Welsh constituencies have been a great deal too for bearing in regard to the conduct of Welsh agricultural matters by the present Government. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture is not in his place to-night. I regret the cause of his absence, and I join in the tribute paid by the hon. Member for East Glamorganshire to the courtesy with which he has invariably treated us in regard to matters concerning the Department over which he presides. But the position in Wales with regard to this Agricultural Holdings Bill is entirely special. The right hon. Gentleman himself, in the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, practically admitted that the case for Wales was distinct from the case for England or Scotland. Let me briefly recall the recent history of this land question in Wales, and the demands made by Welsh tenant farmers —demands which I understand the right hon. Gentleman and the Government say are sufficiently met by the Bill now before the House. As far back as 1843 and 1844 there were strong demands made for a reform of agricultural tenancies in Wales and Monmouthshire, especially in those parts of Wales in which the prevailing language was the Welsh language. From 1839 to 1843 there were serious dis

  551
  turbances in Wales, which came to be known as the "Rebecca Riots," and which were due to agrarian causes. From the time when these riots broke out down to the present there has been a persistent movement in favour of altering the law relating to landlord and tenant. It is mot so much the question whether the mere formal legal tenure is satisfactory that agitates the minds of the tenant farmers; it is the economic question of how the system is carried out. Down to about the end of the last century there was very little trouble in Wales. But about the beginning of the century, and especially after the close of the Great War, a new system was introduced, under which the landlord undertook practically to make all the improvements on agricultural holdings. That was the theory and the understanding, but the system has broken down in certain parts of the country, though not everywhere; for the tenant in many cases has to supply labour, and also do the haulage of materials—a very costly item in a mountainous country. On the whole the result was to produce a state of profound dissatisfaction among Welsh tenant farmers, and the state of dissatisfaction has continued down to the present time. When the agricultural industry, as a whole, is making bettor profits you naturally do not hear so many complaints, and there was a time when the Welsh complaints sank down because agricultural prices were so high; but the Welsh tenant farmers have never lost sight of the grievances which, having regard to the special circumstances of the Principality, are necessarily inflicted upon them. Many complaints were made in the Welsh newspapers, and, as a result, in 1892 the Welsh landlords asked the then Conservative Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the alleged grievances of the tenant farmers of Wales. The Government refused. In the middle of 1892 there was a change of Government; the demands for a Royal Commission were renewed from many quarters, and ultimately, in March, 1893. Mr. Gladstone appointed a Royal Commission with a designedly broad reference to consider all the questions connected with the holding, occupation, and cultivation of land in Wales. That Commission, like most Commissions, was not absolutely equal in its party complexion, but at any rate there were upon it three gentlemen representing the party
  552
  opposite—namely, Lord Kenyon, my hon. colleague in the representation of Swansea, and Mr. Frederic Seebohm. There were also Principal Rhys, a man who had taken no overt part in politics at all, two tenant fanners, the chairman of the Monmouthshire County Council, and myself. We did our best to inquire into the matters referred to us, and it has been entirely overlooked by our critics that the statement of facts in the Report as to the condition of things in the Principality has never been challenged by anybody. Nearly the whole of the Report is signed by all the Commissioners, and is simply a statement of facts connected with the Principality. Some may say that a number of our facts were irrelevant. ["Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member says "Hear, hoar!" What facts are irrelevant to a broad consideration of the argument? Does he contend that the history of the country has no relevancy to the question with which this Bill is concerned? If so, that is a very narrow point of view to take. If you say, "It is my first principle that we are going to have absolutely the same law for the whole of the United Kingdom," the particular facts connected with the history of any particular county or collection of counties are, of course, irrelevant. But is the adoption of such a principle as that statesmanship? Not at all. That is what hon. Gentlemen like my hon. friend opposite have failed to grasp in regard to our notion of what a Report on Land in Wales and Monmouthshire ought to be, and what the legislation in regard to land in Wales ought to be. But I will not pursue that topic, as I want to come to something which is absolutely and entirely relevant to this Bill. Having given our best consideration to the matter, we arrived at a series of conclusions, absolutely clear, very important, and which ought to carry weight with the Government and with the country. One of the first things we agreed upon was this—
  "We have no right to pronounce on the question whether such an amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883—"
  That refers to certain much more drastic amendments of the Act of 1883 than are contained in the present Bill.
  "—and of the law of landlord and tenant as to agricultural holdings is required for England as well as for Wales; but without prejudice to this question we think that the circumstances disclosed in regard to Wales by

  553
  our inquiry urgently call for legislation such as we have above sketched, and chat it would be expedient to deal with the case of Wales in a separate Bill for this purpose, however desirable it may be as a general rule to avoid separate or particular legislation."
  I call the attention of the Attorney General to that sentence in the Report. It was signed by supporters of the present Government. But I do not want to make too much of that point, because there is something more important than that. Lord Kenyon is one of the most popular and best landlords in Wales; so also is my hon. friend the Member for Swansea Town. They are both large landowners; men are eager to become tenants on their estates. This paragraph was signed by them, although their whole spirit, in a sense, was against the idea of any recognition of Wales as a separate nation. Nor, indeed, do I claim that sentence as necessarily involving any theory of a separate nationality. The point I put as a practical point for the consideration of the Government is that there are many matters within the sphere of jurisprudence which may well be treated separately. I know that in regard to the marriage laws, bills of exchange, mercantile documents, and so on, it would be very inconvenient and inexpedient to have separate legislation for different parts of the United Kingdom. But when you come to matters relating to land the question is quite different. It is right and proper, if you want to have a good economic system for the whole of the Kingdom, that the particular circumstances of counties, districts, or provinces should be taken into account by the legislature in dealing with these matters. Our first complaint against the Government, therefore, is that we are not given a separate Bill. We demand that Bill; we say that you have directly or indirectly promised us that Bill; friends of yours sat upon the Commission; they have assented to it; they applied their minds to the question; they did their work honestly; that is the conclusion at which they arrived. I am not going into minute details, as we are all practically agreed that this Bill should become law. But lot me point out what were the conclusions at which that Commission unanimously arrived. They agreed that, having regard to what took place in 1868 and years afterwards— although they would not admit that the tenure from year to year was necessarily
  554
  a bad kind of tenure for agricultural purposes—the unlimited right of the landlord, without any cause shown, to give notice to quit to the tenant ought not to be further maintained. Accordingly, one of their unanimous recommendations is that in case a landlord gives notice to quit to a tenant without reasonable cause, and if the tenant has paid his rent and has not been guilty of any breach of the covenants or the conditions in the agreement, there should be, in the discretion of the arbitrator, an amount allowed as compensation for capricious disturbance. That is not in this Bill. If you want to make the relations between landlord and tenant fair, the special circumstances of Wales demand the insertion of such a clause. We have made no general charge against the landlords of Wales, but at the same time, especially in regard to the smaller estates, there are evictions from time to time for which no reason satisfactory to the district in which the event takes place can be given. The result is very disadvantageous from many points of view. It disturbs other farmers on the estate; it disturbs the whole parish; it gives rise to all sorts of suspicious feelings on the part of the tenant farmers. In any case, evictions without cause are not fair in a country with the historic circumstances of Wales, where in many cases the families of the present tenant farmers have been on the same holdings for hundreds of years. I need hardly point out that it was proved, not only before our own Commission, but also before the Agricultural Commission for England, that to make a man move from one farm to another was practically tantamount to fining him 20 per cent. on the whole capital invested in the farm. I beg in all seriousness, and without any polemical intent, the Government to take notice of a significant fact like that, and that men like Lord Kenyon, and practically all the best agents in Wales, are quite willing to assent to a clause providing for compensation for capricious disturbance. The majority of the Commission adopted the theory of a land court, not at all in the sense of the Irish Act of 1881, nor did our proposed legislation create a dual ownership. On that I say nothing. We cannot expect this Government to do anything of that kind, and therefore I will not say anything in support of the general plan of the majority of the Commission. But there was

  555
  another practical point suggested by all the Commissioners. It was to prevent the injustice which in practice arises from the fact that the rent is often raised upon the improvements of the sitting tenant. The matter is not quite easy to explain, and perhaps the law itself is not entirely to blame, but that the injustice does take place is admitted by the three Commissioners I have named. It happens in this way. I will take one kind of case only. Supposing there is a largo estate going to be sold. The first thing that occurs is, seeing that the purchaser will have the right to demand possession, notice to quit is given to all the tenants. When the 29th September, the usual date for the expiry of the notice, approaches, no Welsh tenant dares give what he has a right to give to his landlord or the persons acting for the landlord, namely, the two months' notice under the Act of 1883 for compensation. If he did that it would be accepted, and he would have to leave on the 29th September, for the simple reason that, owing to the special circumstances of Wales, there are so many demands for these holdings; there is such a great land hunger that the man knows very well that his landlord will let him go, and that he may get something for his improvements under the Act of 1883, but to leave his farm is the very last thing he desires. It is not merely a matter of money with him, for he wants to bring up his family on the holding which from generation to generation his ancestors have occupied. After the sale has taken place and the now purchaser comes upon the scene a revaluation takes place, and the new holder naturally proceeds upon the basis of what the landlord thinks the farm is worth, with the result that rents are raised all round. I do not want to develop these points in detail, but I think I have made the meaning of this unanimous report clear. I wish to call the attention of the Attorney General to the fact that two of the greatest Welsh landlords agreed to this policy. Further we are face to face with cases where estates are heavily mortgaged and in Chancery, and in which trustees for the real owners were in possession. Here exists a state of things under which, if you do this or that, you may be running a risk of pecuniary loss. This Commission unanimously
  556
  recommended that there should be not a court, but a kind of public arbitration, and that there should be an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Agriculture to deal with estates in that situation. If the tenant complained and the trustee gave the answer, "I dare not comply with your request because I cannot tell what the Chancery judges may do," in that kind of case a suggestion made by the Commissioners was that the Board of Agriculture should appoint mediators or arbitrators to hear both the trustees and the mortgagees when the tenants complain. They shall then say what in their judgment is fair to be done, and the decision of the arbitrators shall be binding upon the Court of Chancery. I have only taken about three points of a definite and practical character in order to show how unfair it is to Wales for the Government to bring in a Bill of this kind as a satisfaction of the claims of the Welsh tenants. This Commission arrived at a. definite conclusion about the facts, but its Report has been given the go-by, and no doubt the Government at the next election will claim that they have passed an Agricultural Holdings Act of a highly beneficial character. But that will not go down in Wales. On the Second Reading I put these points before the House and the Government did not attend to them. We are not wild revolutionists, and we are not asking for the breaking up of great estates. The Commission recommended that the best system was one of large estates; but what we object to is allowing a system to go on which is inevitably thrusting out Welshman after Welshman. These farmhouses are the nursery of a very sturdy and vigorous race, and we want to keep these people upon the land where they have lived from generation to generation. We have no desire to introduce any ill-feeling between landlord and tenant, but the course you are taking in neglecting the Report of this Commission is one which will be fraught with disaster to the whole country. We know that the best security a nation can have is a good supply of capable citizens, and you cannot achieve that better than by keeping these old Welsh families on their land. You will not accomplish that by little Bills like this, and you can only do it by taking a broad and statesmanlike view of the whole situation.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: In the county of Anglesey between 1889 and 1893 no less than 11,000 acres of land changed hands, or about one fourteenth of the acreage of the whole county was sold during four years. I need hardly point out the great significance of a fact like that. The last speaker has reminded us that when a tenant changes from one farm to another it is equivalent to a loss of 20 per cent. of his capital. If that is so, then it is a very easy sum to calculate to find out what a considerable sum of money has been lost by the tenants of Anglesey during the four years I have alluded to. We are almost in agreement in regard to this measure on both sides of the House. I do not agree with the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Cambridgeshire who said that this Bill did nothing for the landlords. You must benefit the landlords when you give security of tenure, and thus induce the tenant to sink his capital in the soil. To encourage him to do this is to sot a premium upon industry and capacity, and this benefits not only the country, but the landlords as well. The object of the Bill is to assist not merely existing tenants, but tenants generally, and I am not in favour of dual ownership or free sale. I am in favour of any reform of the law which will give the tenant better security. Any Bill which gives the tenant greater security is a stop in the right direction. The Minority Report states that when a notice to quit was given for any insufficient reason, in that case there should be compensation to the tenant equivalent to a year's rent of his farm. I think that is also a step in the light direction, although it is too late to hope that anything of the kind will be done in this Bill. Nevertheless, I would press upon the Attorney General that he should give us some hope that the Government will see the necessity of taking some such step as this, and that when they have another chance of legislating in that direction they will bear this matter in mind. No amount of compensation for improvement is of itself enough to give security of tenure. The necessity for this exists in the country generally, but more especially in Wales, where the land is not only a financial but a social question. In Wales there is a difference of language, of race, and of creed, and we do ask this House to give to the tenant
  558
  in Wales some security of tenure under which anyone who turns him out of his farm will have to pay dearly for it.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I think the whole of this question rests upon the issue as to whether the conditions in Wales are essentially different from those which exist in England in regard to the claim for land legislation. What I venture to affirm is, that if anyone will take the trouble to inquire into the facts as they really exist in Wales he is bound to come to the conclusion that there is a real difference between the position of the two countries in this respect. In proof of this statement, I need only say that the Welsh Land Commission, after an exhaustive inquiry, came unanimously to that conclusion. The House already knows this from the conclusive arguments used by my hon. friend below me, but I would lay special stress upon their unanimity in regard to some of the most important points we have to consider. I am not going to recapitulate what has already been said in reference to the character of the Welsh Land Commission; neither am I going to describe in detail the important recommendations which they made. I should like to point out, however, that the case of Wales is substantially different in regard to its agriculture to that of England, and our claim to separate legislation in regard to land reform rests broadly upon a different historical development. Anybody who has any knowledge of Welsh life must at once see the differences in race, in language, habits, and customs which so largely prevail between the two countries, and these must have their effect upon the agricultural environments of the two countries. Anybody who has paid the slightest notice to the course of recent events in Wales must have been struck by the very rapid advance made in public opinion in recent years upon this question. So far as the knowledge of the facts of this House and the country generally goes, the development has been more or less recent, because it is a fact that during recent years Wales has had a. chance of expressing politically its mind upon these public questions. I would simply remind the House of one or two simple facts showing the depth and reality of the position of Wales in regard to the

  559
  question of land reform. The House will remember what took place in 1886, and upon the introduction of the Welsh Land Bill of 1891. I need not remind the House of the appointment of the Commission of 1893 which reported in 1896. But there are one or two practical facts that I should like to mention very briefly to the House, which prove the case which I am endeavouring to make. What are one or two of the practical differences in regard to Welsh and English agricultural life? First of all, there is this fact, that in Wales to-day there are fewer occupying freeholders than in England. In England they number 15 per cent. of the whole, bat in Wales the occupying freeholders only number 12 per cent of the whole. In the county of Denbigh the proportion is only 10 per cent. Therefore there exists friction between landlord and tenant in a very acute form. It is almost inevitable that there should be a more acute land-hunger prevailing in Wales than in England, when there is a clear line of cleavage between the general body of landowners and the tenants on great questions of political opinions and of religious creeds. In Wales the farms are smaller than in England; there are more applicants for them, and the country is poorer. If any hon. Member chooses to look closely into this matter he will find abundant proof of what I am saying. In Wales you will find patches on the mountain side which have been cultivated, and I venture to say it would be impossible to find such patches in England. That seems to me to prove fully that there are certain fundamental differences between the two cases. I will mention one further fact, for all these facts to my mind seem very relevant to the discussion, as showing that the Bill we are now discussing— although undoubtedly in certain respects it is an improvement upon the existing law—will not touch even the fringe of the question so far as Wales is concerned livery question in regard to agricultural reform turns upon one or two considerations. First, there is the question of fixity of tenure. During the first eighty years of this century the rents of the whole of England rose 16"3 per cent., whereas with regard to the rents in Wales during the same period they rose 69·9 per cent. This fact in regard to the greatly enhanced rise of rent in Wales, as compared
  560
  with England during the present century, is a fact of fundamental importance in the case we are now discussing. That is the reason why I feel that, although we welcome some of the provisions of this Bill, we should make it perfectly clear what the state of agriculture in Wales really is, and prove that Wales in this respect is in a worse condition than England. Wales has had a certain amount of relief, although only temporary, by the rise in prices, but beyond this fact the question is one of very serious moment when we realise the steady depopulation which is going on in the rural districts of Wales. Here are one or two facts which will explain the position clearly to the House: At the beginning of this century the population of Wales was about 500,000, but since that time it has increased 100 per cent. Side by side with this upward movement of the population in Wales there is this serious fact, that from the year 1840 and onwards there has been an alarming decrease in the agricultural population. I will give two instances bearing upon this fact. In a rural sanitary district of which I have personal knowledge, and where I live, there were in the year 1891 over 2,200 less people living there than ten years before, and during the last fifty years there has been an actual increase in the rural population of the country. This falls short of the natural increase by 132,000 people. This question of the draining of the population in rural districts is a very serious one. First of all it has a very direct bearing upon the labour problem, and no one who has any knowledge whatever of the agricultural conditions of Wales and Welsh life can deny that this is a very serious question at the present moment, and unless something is done of a far more drastic nature than will be accomplished by this Bill, I fear that the agricultural outlook in Wales from this standpoint is not a very bright one. But not only is this constant draining of the best life of the country through the depopulation of the rural districts a serious matter from an agricultural point of view, but it is also serious from a national standpoint. I would like to corroborate what has already been said in regard to the best life of Wales lying in the rural districts, and it depends very largely upon agricultural

  561
  conditions whether those people remain there or not. If you want them to remain on the soil you must make the conditions of their life more satisfactory. I feel that this Bill, though it is a step in advance, and a step in the right direction, is a very small measure. I will be perfectly frank with the Government. I must differ from my hon. friend below me in saying that I never expected them to carry out the wishes of the great majority of the tenant farmers of Wales in regard to the unanimous recommendations of that Commission. I remember very well a few months ago the Home Secretary saying that if we required legislation of that kind we must go elsewhere to get it. I recognise that fact, but nevertheless I feel it my duty, as representing a largo agricultural constituency, to say that, although I welcome this small Bill, I do not accept it as a solution of the Welsh land question.
  MR. CHANNING: I cannot entirely agree with what fell from my hon. friend who last spoke as to this Bill being altogether a very small step in the right direction. In the few remarks I shall make I shall point out that this Bill is distinctly a retrograde measure from the position taken up in the Act of 1833. At any rate, the intention of the Legislature in 1883, however defective in working out, seems to me to represent a more progressive stage of legislation, judged from the point of view of the tenant farmer and of agriculture, than the present Bill does. I have been entitled to form an opinion on the Welsh question, because the Agriculture Commission on which I sat examined a large number of Welsh witnesses as well as witnesses from England and Scotland. The Welsh witnesses were gentlemen of great ability, and some of them strong representatives of the landlord interest in Wales. I remember one witness in particular, Mr. Tennant, gave extremely important evidence from the landlords' point of view which went to establish unanswerably the general case referred to by my hon. and learned friend. I cannot quite assent to the attitude which my hon. friends have taken up in separating the Welsh land question absolutely from the question of agricultural holdings in England and Scotland. Granting the full strength of the historical argu-
  562
  ments as affecting the tenure of land, I cannot admit for a moment that the economic arguments or the legal and equitable arguments are at all different in the case of Welsh farmers from similar arguments in the case of tenant farmers in England and Scotland. After very careful consideration of the evidence it seems to roe that the arguments are very much the-same as those which induced Sir James Caird and other thoughtful economists and agricultural reformers to advocate muck the same group of reforms for England and Scotland which the Welsh Land Commission recommended for Wales. I wish to make my own position clear with regard to the Report of the Welsh Land, Commission, because I do not admit that any special reasons—economic or legal— exist for the carrying out of these reforms in Wales which do not exist to an almost equal or even a greater extent in some of the counties of England and Scotland. Before the House assents to the Third Reading of this Bill, as I have no doubt it will, I wish in the first place to express; my personal regret that the President of the Board of Agriculture is unable to be present to-night to bring this Bill to a conclusion, much as I differ from many of the arguments which he has advanced during the passage of the measure through the House. It seems to me that this Bill represents a large extension of the power of the landlords in this country. I do not know if the House generally realises how much greater the power of the landlords will be in dealing with their tenants as a result of this Bilk In the first place, while the Bill does not carry out a change suggested by many agricultural reformers, that both parties should have equal rights to put the Act into operation, it gives to the landlord the right to bring the whole of the claims he can make at common law into arbitration as a set-off against the claim of the tenant, and the landlord's claim can now be enforced even if it exceeds the amount which the tenant can prove to be due to him for improvements. That is a distinct and very important alteration of the law. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 the landlord could not enforce any counterclaim for a larger, amount than the amount awarded as compensation to the tenant. If a tenant established a claim for improvements of £200 under the schedule of the Act of 1883, and Ms landlord were able to set up

  563
  a counter-claim for dilapidations for £300 or £400, he would not be able to recover more than £200; but by the present Bill the landlord can enforce his full claim even if it exceeds the claim established by the tenant. Then, again, he has a longer period for introducing his claim. Seven days after the commencement of the arbitration he may spring any number of claims on the tenant—claims which in my opinion ought not to be sprung on the tenant at all. In some parts of Scotland and also in Lincolnshire arbitrators have held that a receipt for rent should be held to bar claims for previous dilapidations, and that estates ought to be managed so carefully that it should be the duty of the landlord to inform the tenant at the earliest possible moment if he were not properly treating the land, and that arrears for dilapidation and waste should not be allowed to accumulate, and that therefore the landlord should be prevented from springing such unlimited claims on the tenant. Then, again, I maintain that it is a very wrong thing for the Government to provide no limitation whatever after two of its members—the President of the Local Government Board and the President of the Board of Agriculture—had signed a recommendation that in regard to yearly tenancies the limit for counter-claims should be two years. The present limit is four years, and the universal demand has been that it should be limited to two years, but under this Bill the landlord would be perfectly free to set up counterclaims without any limitation whatever, unless, of course, the tenant set up the statute of limitations to bar that. That would mean at best a six years limit, and the result will be that many tenants will be frightened out of making any claim whatever for improvements by the fact that the landlord might bring in unlimited counter-claims, and so place them in the invidious position of having to set up the statute of limitations. That is placing the tenant in a very unfair position. The third point in which it seems to me that the position of the landlord is strengthened is the alteration with regard to freedom of sale of produce. The President of the Board of Agriculture has stated that he will introduce in another place some further alterations into the fourth subsection of Clause 1, but the Bill as it stands will undoubtedly place the landlord in a position in which
  564
  he can bar the right of freedom of sale by special agreement as to the amount of manurial return, and in the case of holdings near large towns when it has been understood that there was perfect freedom, the tenant sending on his produce and carting back manure, a perfectly fair arrangement might thus be set aside. The next point in which the landlord is placed in a stronger position than he is now, is that the parties will not be on an equality as regards the serving of notices. The main extension of the landlord's power is one, however, which I think neither the House nor the country have fully grasped the meaning of. It is rather a difficult question to explain, as I found myself when I endeavoured to explain it to some practical farmers at the Council Meeting of the Chambers in Westminster Hall. The first sub-section of Clause 2 undoubtedly gives to the landlord a power which he does not at present possess of depriving his tenant of any right to have recourse to the arbitration procedure provided under the Act. The landlord will now be enabled to insist on an agreement in regard to arbitration, not only as to the conditions under which settlements are to be arrived at, but that on his estate all disputes are to be referred to Mr. So and So. It is desirable that the landlord and tenant should be free to agree as to the scales of compensation for various improvements at the beginning of the tenancy. It is also perfectly reasonable that when claims are made for compensation for improvements at the end of the tenancy, the time and mode of payment should be settled by agreement, but there is a tremendous difference between the old Act and the Bill, because under the Bill the arbitrator is bound to have regard to any agreement that may be in force at the time. An agreement may have been entered into years and years before with out any consideration of the special circumstances under which the tenancy may be terminated, and it is not in the interest of fair and reasonable procedure we are providing in the Bill that we should give to the landlord the power of being able to say to the tenant, "There is a clause in your agreement which prevents your doing anything under the Act. You may think you are able to proceed to arbitration provided by the the Act of Parliament, but your agreement bars that, and you are absolutely at

  565
  my mercy." That is a very important alteration, and I may say I was profoundly disappointed when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Hoard of Agriculture finally refused to remove that enormous power from the hands of the landlords. It seems to me that this is a "take it or leave it" Bill, and that landlords and agents will be enabled to force estate agreements on the tenants wherever they are in a strong enough position. For these and other reasons I feel very strongly as to the character of this Bill, which, if this tremendous power were removed from the landlords, might, with Amendments, be made a very useful and desirable measure. I now turn to the other side of the picture. What does the tenant get out of this Bill? He gets the right to make a garden under one acre, the right to plant an orchard, also under one acre, and the right to make osier beds under one acre. He will also get a few shillings for the droppings of his horses, which will be a most trivial compensation. Then there is also a trivial concession for temporary pasture. And even that is made wholly prospective. I put down, in pursuance of the suggestion of Mr. Clare Sewell Read, a proviso that in the case of temporary pasture, compensation would be given for the improvement if made not more than three years before the end of the tenancy; but even this concession was rejected when moved by my hon. friend the Member for North Hampshire. I should have thought that some appreciation of what the tenants of England, especially in the Eastern Counties, have done during the last years to keep themselves and the landlords going would have been shown. But no; the concessions which have been given to the tenants are really too trivial to mention. There will be no real extension of their powers under this Bill, whereas enormous powers are given to the landlords. I must say that I do wish that we had in this House a few representatives of the farming interest. That would be a very good thing for us, and I would not care whether they sat on the Conservative benches or on these benches; I would welcome them all the same. The Government have rejected many suggestions made by the Chambers of Agriculture, and many suggestions made by the Commissions; they have rejected the principle of giving the tenant freedom in carrying out improve-
  566
  ments suitable for his holding, and the principle that a tenant farmer should be placed in the same position as every-other temporary holder of real estate who is dispossessed of it and loses trade interests and goodwill thereby. The Government have also rejected the Amendment, which was supported by the Chamber of Agriculture, as regards the laying down of permanent pasture. It seems to me chat the tenant farmers of England, who are mainly supporters of the party opposite, have been treated in this Bill with singular ingratitude. The Government have thrown away an enormous opportunity of dealing with a great economic question which is of vast importance to the country. It was the best type of tenant farmers who during the period of depression kept the landlords going, proving that agriculture in qualified hands is a sound and progressive industry. But it is a terrible thing that, as a conclusion of all these Commissions and inquiries, and as a wind up of all the information which has been received as to the causes of agricultural depression, this trumpery measure should be the result, and that it should give increased powers to the landlords, who have done so much to hinder agriculture in the past, and should have no regard for the equitable rights of the tenants or the economic rights of the State.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I should like to deal with the debate as far as it has progressed. It is significant to us on this side of the House that the debate should have been opened by a Scotch Member who dwells in London, and who has never owned or occupied any agricultural land whatever. Then we have had the intervention of the distinguished representative from England who has just sat down, and, in accordance with his reputation, he has spoken at great length. I cannot help telling the hon. Member, in all courtesy and all straightforwardness, that in the general opinion of all agriculturists in this country, whether occupiers or owners, inasmuch as he has not had the advantage of any practical acquaintance with the subject, he is regarded merely as an agricultural phonograph, and that agriculturists are not prepared to accept his opinions on these questions. If there is one branch of industry

  567
  more than another with which it is necessary that a man should have a practical acquaintance before he lays down the law, it is agriculture. We have heard nothing but groans from our acquaintance, who has nothing whatever to do with the practical management of land either as farmer or owner. He has been talking in many instances to those who have spent their whole lives as owners or farmers, and who knew the practical economic conditions of land management. The propositions which he has laid down are for the most part rotten and altogether untenable, and would never have been laid down by anyone who had not the audacity of ignorance in these matters. We have heard of the intervention of Scottish pedants, and of the agricultural phonographs, but the intervention of the Welsh Members is of another character. I welcome with all cordiality their perfectly different tone. The name oftenest used by the Welsh Members in support of their views is that of a noble relative of mine; but perhaps I have talked over this subject more frequently with him than they have, and know more of his opinions than they do. I have the honour and pleasure of being the representative of in English constituency separated from Wales only by an imaginary line. Therefore, it can well be imagined that the Welsh case has particular interest for me; and sometimes I could not help wondering whether the hon. Members from Wales have not mistaken their own case. At any rate, these hon. Members will not accuse me of any want of courtesy if I do not agree with them. Some of their arguments are difficult to understand. One hon. Member said that the loss when a change of tenancy occurred was very considerable to the tenant; but it should be remembered that the loss to the owner is just as great as to the tenant. Then something was said about the acute differences which exist in Wales, because the landlord holds a creed different from that of his tenant, the landlord being a member of the Established Church, and the tenant a Nonconformist. But we have instances in England, Scotland, Ireland, and parts of Wales where large landowners belong to the Roman Catholic Church, and yet they are on absolutely good terms with the Protestant tenants on their estates. I do not think it is a sound argument to say that in Wales there is an acute divergence between
  568
  landlord and tenant because they are of different creeds. We were told that one of the reasons why Wales had a right to difference of treatment to the rest of the United Kingdom was that, most unfortunately, the agricultural population there was decreasing, and that the competition for farms was enormous. It seems to me that these arguments are contradictory and self-destructive. Then a statement was made that in Wales there had been a very considerable rise in the value of the rental of land. Let the hon. Gentleman who used that argument go into an estate office and see the enormous increase in the amount spent on farms and on farm buildings by the landlords. For many years I have been an active trustee on the largest estate in Wales, and I can say without fear of contradiction that the expenditure of late years on estates in Wales has been so great as to justify, at any rate, some improvement in the rent. It is curious to me that the argument has been raised that there has been a greater demand for land than in England. Is there not something in this: that in Wales there are smaller holdings and smaller farms than exist in some portions of England? It is well known that even in England the demand for small farms is considerable and satisfactory, and the demand for large farms is often deficient. I come to another question of which I may be expected to know something. I have a warm feeling for Wales by every tie of neighbourhood and family descent. I live in the county I represent, which is only separated from Wales by an artificial line. There are several estates-partly in Shropshire and partly over the Welsh border. Now I have been told that on these estates, on one side of the river or high road, there is absolute contentment on the part of the tenants with their tenure, and absolutely none of the feelings described by hon. Gentlemen opposite. But on merely crossing the river or road you find tenants, who hold from the same landlord and on the same tenure, with a hopeless and burning desire for a change of their condition. It merely means that where the English system has penetrated with the greatest vigour, there the Welsh national desires seem to have lessened and the national feeling seems to have become less acute. The argument, therefore, is to further introduce the English system instead of

  569
  the Welsh, which the hon. Gentleman wishes to champion and uphold. Although I frankly admit the right hon. Gentleman has a right to use the results of the Welsh Land Commission in his favour, I hold to my opinion that the attempt to raise what I believe to be an absolutely artificial distinction between the condition of Wales and that of England must be extremely bad in the first instance to the Welsh farmers. I cannot help feeling that as we thresh out this question we shall approach a state of things in which Wales will not be unwilling to learn what England has to teach, and England will not be unwilling to learn what Wales has to teach. I believe that there is rather a lurking desire in the background on the part of some hon. Gentlemen to create something dangerously akin to that dual ownership which has been the curse of the sister isle. I am therefore one of those who welcome this Bill, all the more because it is not what it is the fashion to call a drastic Bill. I am afraid drastic legislation is generally dangerous legislation, and introduced by the most ignorant sections of the legislature. Therefore, inasmuch as this Bill proceeds on moderate lines, it is, I believe, all the more likely to be useful. Though it does not embody all the suggestions we could have wished, it does embrace many which are extremely valuable and likely to do good. It does not go as far as many of those interested in agriculture would have liked to go; but it may be amended in that direction at a future time. It, however, meets points wanting remedy, and will place the conditions of landlord and tenant on a better footing. It may be that some future Parliament will take up all the Acts on agricultural tenancy, and codify them in a form which will be much more intelligible than now to people who are unacquainted with the law. I think the reception given to the Bill has been in fair accordance with its merits. Those who have no political end in view, but only a desire to see a moderate change in the agricultural and social conditions of the United Kingdom, welcome the Bill, and the Government may rest assured that it will be so received in all parts of the country.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): I cannot congratulate the
  570
  hon. and gallant Member for Newport on the very excitable performance which he has just made, which can only be explained on the suspicion that the hot weather has affected him. His attack on the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire was exceedingly uncalled for and unjustifiable. I attended some of the meetings of the Grand Committee on Trade when this Bill was under discussion, and I found my hon. friend addressing himself to the details of the Bill in a most intelligent manner, which showed that his study of the questions at issue had been very thorough. It is remarkable that, although the hon. Member for Newport made this attack in sweeping terms on the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, he has not condescended to address himself to a single point of criticism of the Bill before the House. The hon. Gentleman has taken upon himself to speak on behalf of the tenant farmers of Wales as well as of England. He complained of my hon. friend as being a mere agricultural phonograph, but I cannot say that my hon. friend is a phonograph of Welsh opinion. The Welsh farmers have spokesmen on their own behalf, although it seems to have been reserved for the hon. Gentleman who represents the English constituency of Newport to voice the real grievances of the Welsh tenant farmers. The hon. Member said that he had a practical acquaintance with agriculture, but he will allow me to say that his views on this subject are rather vitiated, to the extent that he represents only one party and not the other. His views on this question might be as unconscionable as mine would be on a bill of costs. After all, he represents the landlord interest, and he understands it from that point of view. Undoubtedly he knows something about Welsh estates; but, unfortunately, he represents the best Welsh estates. He does not know anything of the Welsh estates of which we complain, and to which both the majority and the minority of the Welsh Commission referred. If all the estates were managed like those with which the hon. Member is identified, I venture to say that the Welsh land question would never have reached the acute phase which the House is forced to recognise as now existing, by the fact that we are taking three or four hours in discussing these points. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is not a very good witness in

  571
  a matter of that sort. I disagree with the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire as much as the hon. Member for Newport on certain points. Neither of the two hon. Members really understands the Welsh land question. My hon friend, it is true, sat on the Agricultural Commission, and upon the basis of certain evidence given before that Commission he comes to the conclusion that the Welsh question is practically identical with the English question. I will tell the hon. Member why he should not come to that conclusion. The Welsh tenant farmers in fact practically ignored that Commission. The only evidence given was by Welsh landowners and agents, and only one or two tenants. But before the Welsh Land Commission evidence was given by Welsh tenant farmers from all over Wales, and they did not think it worth their while to come up to London to give evidence before the English Commission, especially when, with one or two exceptions, they had no confidence in its members. The real difficulty in the case of Wales is not altogether economic. It is to a large extent a question of sentiment. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that when he comes to Shropshire he finds no difficulty. But it is very curious that wherever you get a Celtic peasantry, whether it be in the Highlands of Scotland, or in Ireland, or in Wales, there is the same difficulty—namely, the sentimental clinging to the soil, which renders it hard for them to judge the question of rent from a purely commercial point of view, impartially and calmly; it seems to hamper their judgment altogether. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that when you get hold of one of these peasants on a small farm in the hills, he will pay any rent up to the last penny in his possession before he will quit his farm. It is not the owners of estates represented by the hon. Member for Newport that will take advantage of that sentiment. They know that these men are very good tenants. But the difficulty comes in when you come to the small landowners, especially when you come to the men who invest in land and want it to pay 4 and 5 per cent. These take advantage of the sentimental weakness of the peasant, and utilise that in order to raise the rent and extort from him the uttermost farthing; and when that fails they let the holding to another man who would be also ready to pay his last
  572
  penny. The English tenant farmer, on the other hand, is much cooler, and takes a more or less commercial view of the transaction. He says, "This land does not pay me," and he gives it up. Unfortunately that is not the case with the small farmers in Wales, Scotland and Ireland, who go on borrowing from each other to keep on their holdings until the whole community is more or less bankrupt. I wish to call attention to the way in which the Government has been dealing with these Commissions on Agriculture and the Land question. We have had an Agricultural Commission for England and Wales, which made two or three recommendations. They brought in an interim Report in 1896, and the moment it was presented there was legislation upon it—so far as it was favourable to the landlords—almost before the ink with which it was written was dry. Then we waited for two or three years, until we got the final Report of the Commission, with recommendations in favour of the tenant farmer; but session after session passed before we got this Bill. And what do we find? That the Bill does not carry out the moderate recommendations of that Commission, and falls short even of the recommendations most favourable to the landlords ever presented to Parliament. That is the way in which the landlords and tenant farmers of England have been treated by the Government. Well, there is the Welsh Land Commission, which presented a Report at the end of 1895. There were a few recommendations made unanimously by that Commission, which included the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea, Lord Kenyon, and Professor Seebohm —all Liberal Unionists, but gentle-men who understood Welsh agricultural questions, and who were large Welsh landlords. Surely the Government might have taken their recommendations, because they represented the mini-mum of the Welsh tenant farmers' claims; but they absolutely ignored those recommendations. Then there was the Commission on Local Taxation, which made an interim Report in favour of a dole to another section of the supporters of Her Majesty's Government, and that was embodied in legislation in the same session. That is the way in which those Commissions and their Reports have been dealt with. Whenever there is a recommendation

  573
  which is favourable to the landlords and the Government supporters, we got legislation; but when it is for the benefit of the tenant farmer we get a niggardly Bill like this before the House.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I have only a few words to add in support of the strong case which has been made out by my hon. friend, but I am unwilling to give a silent vote upon this matter, because this is the only opportunity I shall have of giving voice to the opinion of the great majority of my constituents. We have heard that there is very little difference between the Welsh and English cases, but that is disproved by the fact that while the English Members have dealt freely with the Bill itself, the Welsh Members have not thought it worth while to criticise the Bill itself, but have spoken on the Amendment of my hon. friend the Member for East Glamorganshire. It appears to me that the provision for compensation is good so far as it goes, but it does not meet the demands of the Welsh people. It has been said that the ordinary relation of landlord and tenant as created by English law is a relation such as no Christian man would offer and no sane man would accept, and there is a great deal of truth in that remark. Something has been done to mitigate the inequity of the law by previous Agricultural Acts, but there are two hardships which are involved in the relationship of landlord and tenant. The first is due to the doctrine that whatever is placed in the soil adheres to the soil and is the property of the landlord—that enables the landlord to confiscate the improvements of the tenant; and the second is insecurity of tenure, which by law is only from year to year. I am quite aware that the English tenant regards his position as tenant far more from a commercial point of view than the Welshman. A short time ago a friend told me that in his part of the country it was a regular thing for tenants, if they felt the least disinclination to continue on their farms, to give notice at once and remove elsewhere, without the least consideration as to whether it was their ancestral home or not. Now I can speak with considerable confidence of the Welsh temperament, and I can say that the Welsh tenant does not move from a
  574
  farm upon which his ancestors have lived without great difficulty or great disagreement with his landlord, and when he does move he does not move far. He desires to live in the same parish, great any rate the same county. He does not so much want to be compensated for improvements which he has made as to be secure in his holding. My hon. and gallant friend the Member for Newport spoke of Shropshire, and I do not deny that he is perfectly acquainted with that county and the parts of Wales bordering on that county, but it is a matter of common knowledge that there is debateable land on the frontier between two different races where the one blends into the other, and that is the case with Wales and Shropshire. English influence has spread along the valley of the Severn, and the farmers on the cast side are a very different class to the farmers on the hills on the west side, and what my hon. and gallant friend said of his Flint and Denbigh neighbours may be perfectly true, but when you come to the men who live upon the hills, who speak Welsh as their native language, and only speak English for its commercial convenience, you come to a totally different economic condition of things. Those are the men who, above all, are pressing for security of tenure in their holdings. My hon. and gallant friend made the claim on behalf of Welsh landlords that they had spent a great deal of money upon building, but, if he is cognisant of the management of a large estate, he may have had to deal with borrowing from land improvement companies for improving estates held by tenants for life, and if he has he will know that as a rule the justification given to the Board of Agriculture for imposing these burdens on the fee simple is that they are needed to maintain the existing rents. My strong inclination is to believe that the expenditure which has been made upon different estates, though excellent in itself, is an expenditure which does not justify the raising of rents, but one which simply puts the house in a condition in accordance with modern civilisation, and the modern standard of comfort. With regard to dual ownership, I do not advocate it, and I have heard it disclaimed by the Welsh farmers, who do not want it. They want security of tenure against capricious eviction. The days of capricious eviction are over, but apprehensions of it still pre-

  575
  vail, and it is a great social evil that the Welsh farmers think themselves unable to speak out their minds in matters of polities or religious conviction lest it should lead to such capricious eviction. I regret that the Government, from their fanatical desire for uniformity, have refused to give consideration to the special case of the Welsh tenant farmer, and hope that if they have another lease of power they will take care to do so in a future session.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): I very much regret the absence of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, but I think that, had he been here, he would have had every reason to be satisfied with the debate that has taken place. There has been in all parts of the House a recognition of the fact that the Bill marks a substantial step in advance. All are agreed that the Bill is not quite satisfactory, but in all quarters it has been recognised that it has done a great deal in simplifying the procedure, and that it has done away with one grievance—that it has enlarged the scope in which compensation can be claimed in urban districts. It is true that we have had expressions of satisfaction from all quarters, and the only exception from the general unanimity has been in the speech of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen shire, who denounced the Bill root and branch; but I appeal from the hon. Member to the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, a highly representative body, and one thoroughly conversant with the subject both in practice and theory. That Chamber formally declared that the Bill would be of substantial benefit to landed proprietors as well as to tenants, and would contribute to a considerable extent to promote the interests of agriculture in the country. The criticisms of English Members have been devoted entirely to details, and in some of these criticisms they are wrong. The hon. Member for East Northampton shire appears to think the Bill confers on the landlords, with regard to claims, privileges which they did not previously enjoy. The hon. Member is absolutely mistaken. The main effect of the Bill is to do what is in the interests of landlord and tenant alike. The hon. Member has lost himself in details and has failed to
  576
  appreciate what the scope and effect of the Bill are. Passing to the friendly criticisms of the Welsh Members, they have recognised that, while the Bill does not do all they could wish, it makes a substantial step in advance. This will be a great satisfaction to the President of the Board of Agriculture. It was suggested that Wales should be accorded separate treatment in respect of agricultural land. Wales would lose more than she would gain if separate treatment were established. The hon. Member for Carnarvon said the population of Wales was Celtic, and there was such "earth-hunger" that the tenants would pay any rents rather than quit their homes. I do not believe this is a matter of race; it is much more a matter of economic condition. In many parts of the country owing to accidental circumstances there are no facilities for enterprise of any other kind. There are no industrial openings, and the only career a man feels he has open to him is to farm his land as his fathers did before him. As other industries are opened up the most malignant symptoms of this "earth-hunger" will disappear in Wales as elsewhere. Complaint has been made that the Report of the Welsh Land Commission with regard to the circumstances of Welsh agriculture has been ignored; but it is not fair to say that, because several very important recommendations of the Commission have been given effect to in the Bill. Then, three suggestions have been made. The first was that there ought to be compensation for disturbance, and, in fact, fixity of tenure. I ask hon. Members who make that suggestion to bear in mind that there is an increasing disinclination on the part of farmers to bind themselves down on the land for any long period. Is a tenant farmer to have the right to stop as long as he likes on the land, while he is not to be bound to stop as long as the landlord may desire to have him as a tenant? You cannot have one-sided legislation of that sort. Another proposition made was that some provision ought to have been made for securing compensation for improvements to the sitting-tenant as distinguished from the quitting tenant. Is a tenant to be able to require the landlord to buy his improvements, and then to have the benefit of them without paying any rent in respect of them? If we give compensation, the inevitable result must be that what we

  577
  put into one pocket we must take out of the other. A third suggestion was that in the case of estates in Wales which got into Chancery the Board of Agriculture should be appointed a sort of assessor to the Court of Chancery and advise the judge as to the management of the estates. There are grave objections to such a system of dual management. The hon. Member for South-east Essex suggested that the law affecting agriculture should be codified. I should be glad to see such codification undertaken if it would be useful; but I do not believe the ordinary tenant farmer would find the benefit arising from it that hon. Members expect. Anyone who wants to know the law about agriculture will get a much better idea out of a text-book than out of an Act of Parliament. If I want to know anything with regard to a subject with which I am not conversant I would much rather take up a text-book, from which I should be sure to get a better view than by puzzling through an Act of Parliament. I say we ought not to attach too much importance to the actual wording of an Act of Parliament. There is never any want of men in the profession to which I have the honour to belong who are ready to explain the most obscure Acts of Parliament, and who are ready to bring out treatises, in which everything is made as clear as possible. On the whole, I ask the House without a dissentient voice to give a Third Reading to this Bill.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I wish to join in the expression of regret at the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, and also in the protest against this Bill as an entirely insufficient measure to meet the needs of the Welsh tenant farmer. I am surprised that the Government continue to give so many object lessons as to the utter futility of appointing Royal Commissions. I imagine the time is not far distant when gentlemen who are well qualified to serve on Royal Commissions will absolutely decline to do so, if they retain any self-respect whatever, because recommendations in the case of Commission after Commission have been delibe-
  578
  rately set aside by even the Government which appointed the Commission. In the case of the particular Commission here concerned, exception has been taken to it because it was appointed by a Liberal Government. But it had upon it gentlemen who command the confidence of the vast majority of hon. Gentlemen opposite—men like the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea Town and Lord Kenyon. I might give instances of other Royal Commissions, appointed by Conservative and Unionist Governments, which have made identically the same recommendations, and which recommendations are before the House in the form of Bills, and yet—I do not know whether it is because they relate to Wales—those recommendations have been absolutely rejected by the present Government. I venture to think that this is not a proper course of proceeding, and I trust that in future we shall have a little more attention paid to the findings of these Royal Commissions. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken has attacked the position which we, as representing Welsh constituencies, have taken up. He has practically denied that there is any difference whatever between Wales and England in regard to the conditions under which land is held. One of the reasons he gave for the land hunger that exists in Wales is that the industrial openings in Wales are few as compared with those in other parts of the kingdom. That, however, is not the case. There are plenty of industrial openings both in North and in South Wales. The families of tenant farmers and labourers who have hitherto been in the employ of tenant farmers have at the present time the most abundant opportunities possible of leaving the country, of serving on railways, of going to factories, mines, or quarries. So far as industrial openings are concerned, they exist in North and South Wales to as great an extent as in most other parts of the Kingdom. The hon. and learned Gentleman controverted the argument that that land hunger arises very largely from the fact that Wales has been peopled by a Celtic race. The hon. and learned Gentleman adduced some instances in which there has been Teutonic blood in the Celtic races, but there was one consideration he entirely forgot in regard to Wales, and that was the language. In Wales nearly a million people

  579
  speak the Welsh language, and a very large proportion of that million speak Welsh alone. They hear of openings in the rural districts of England, but they do not avail themselves of them. Why is that the case? It is because the Welsh language is the language of their hearts and their homes, the language they have heard all their life, the language in which they have worshipped from earliest infancy. Hon. Members have very little idea of the enormous wrench it is to a Welshman, who has been accustomed to speak and to be spoken to and to worship in the Welsh language, to leave his homo for other parts, even for a part in which he is certain to make his fortune, and to live under infinitely better economic conditions than obtain in Wales. If the hon. and learned Gentleman knew more of Wales in this respect he would understand that the sentimental tie-if so you like to call it is extremely strong, and that it binds a Welshman to his own home and to the country in which his language is spoken. There are other considerations as well. We have heard that holdings in Wales are comparatively small, but the hon. Member for Newport appeared to think the conditions were practically the same in England as in Wales in this respect. I can only take the country as a whole. The holdings from twenty to fifty acres are over 20 per cent. of the total of holdings in Wales, as compared with 14 per cent. in England; and the holdings of from sixty to a hundred acres are over 16 per cent. of the holdings in Wales and only about 10 per cent. in England. Then again with regard to labour-and I would especially call attention to this point-the average number of labourers employed varies from ten in the eastern counties of England to five in the western counties on each farm; in Wales the number of labourers is from one and a half to two on each farm. As further illustrating the economic difference between England and Wales in this respect, I may say that the Welsh farmers, their families, and the labourers boarded on the farms, do two-thirds of the work of the farm; in Eng-they do only one-third. I will give very shortly some official figures which show that the land hunger in Wales must have affected very materially indeed the rents originally charged in that country. The variations in the agricultural assessments to income tax for the twenty-nine
  580
  years ending April, 1894, show that rents in the seven eastern counties of Wales have fallen to the level at which they stood in 1864; in the six western counties they are now, in spite of the depreciation, 18½ per cent. higher than they were in 1864, or, taking the whole of Wales together, the net increase amounts to 7·8 per cent. In England, on the other hand, the rents have fallen 15·2 per cent. below the level of 1864. It is therefore perfectly obvious that there is a considerable difference between England and Wales in this respect. There is one thing I very deeply regret in connection with this Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken of it as having been agreed by us to be a substantial step in advance. I wish it were. It is a step in advance, otherwise we should be challenging the Third Reading; but to say we agree it is a substantial step in advance is, I think, going a little further than is warranted by the circumstances of the case. I regret that the clause proposed by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire was not included in the Bill. It was based upon the unanimous recommendation of the Welsh Land Commission. The recommendation was that wherever a tenant was capriciously evicted-that is to say, received notice to quit his holding for inadequate reasons, or for any other cause than that he had not paid his rent, or that he had persisted in permitting waste, and so forth-the tenant ought to be permitted to claim, in addition to the compensation due under the the Act of 1883, some compensation for disturbance. I regret that that has not been introduced into this Bill. If that clause had been inserted it would have been regarded by the Welsh tenant farmers as a great concession, and we should have been able to say without any reservation that this Bill was indeed a substantial step in advance. It seemed to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not deal adequately with the question of mortgagees in possession and of trustees. There are cases in which trustees, owing to their position as trustees, are absolutely bound to do things which, perhaps, if they had sole and unfettered discretion, as individual or private owners would have, they would never dream of doing. I have cases of that kind in my mind, and there are cases also where there are mortgagees in possession; they have none of the social restraints of resident landlords; they may be persons in

  581
  the City who do not care two straws about the land or the tenant or anything else other than receiving as much as they possibly can. I venture to think that in cases of that kind, in which great hardship has often been caused not merely to individual tenants, but to large bodies of tenants, some relief might have been given by the Government. It is surely not beyond the resources of statesmanship to find some means by which persons of that kind can be protected against persons who are obliged to act extortionately against their will, or against persons who are in possession as mortgagees and who sometimes act very heartlessly indeed, as we have known in the past. It appears to mo that during this Parliament Wales has had less reason to thank Her Majesty's Government than during any preceding Parliament of which I have any recollection. We have made appeal after appeal to the Government of the day for justice to Wales in regard to a large number of questions—not merely the land question alone, but in regard to other questions in which we are interested. We have laid before the Government recommendations of Royal Commissions, presented unanimously by the bodies from which they came, but every one has been rejected. We have asked very little, but we have had from this Government still less. In regard to the great questions in which Wales is interested—and she is interested I would have hon. Members know in different sets of questions from those in which English Members are interested—she has received absolutely nothing at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. We do not vote against this Bill, because we are willing to take whatever crumb may fall from that Table, but we have at all events the right to say that this measure does not meet the needs or the requirements of the Welsh tenant farmer's, and that the Welsh representatives in this House will continue to press forward the demands they have hitherto made until those demands are conceded in much larger measure than is the case at present.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order for Third Reading road.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. CALDWELLdid not wish to weary the House, but there were two or three points he desired to have on record. He understood that although the Secretary to the Treasury was unable to assent to the striking out of Sub-section 3 of Clause 1, he was prepared to recommend that, as far as possible, the Treasury should pay the local authorities the rates during the demolition of buildings until the post office was built. He further understood that in future the plans should be made accessible to Members of the House. The right hon. Gentleman also promised to give some information as to the persons to be displaced, and it was further understood that the special privileges given to the City Corporation should be extended to the other local authorities affected. As to Clause 9, it would be an improvement if it were omitted altogether, as it was absolutely unnecessary.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE, TREASURY (MR. HANBURY,)thought he had satisfied the hon. Member when the Bill was in Committee. He was perfectly ready to give the assurance with regard to the rates. With regard to the number of persons to be displaced, the Standing Order did not apply in London if less than twenty houses were taken. That did not happen under the Bill, as in Whitechapel there were only three and in Southwark fourteen. There was, however, one case in which, if this were an ordinary private Bill, the Standing Order would apply, and that was the case of Bristol. There forty houses were to be taken, thereby dispossessing about 194 occupants. It was not really possible to enforce any such Order on the Crown, but he agreed that it was perfectly right and just that a rule which applied to private bodies should hold good as regarded the Crown in a case of this kind, and the Solicitor to the Post Office agreed with

  583
  him that in a case of this kind provision should be made for the people displaced.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  COUNTY COURTS (INVESTMENT OF DEPOSITS) BILL [Lords].
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. CALDWELLpointed out that in Ireland the repayment of deposits might be made by an Order either of the Lord Chancellor or the county court. In England it was by an Order of the Treasury. It was a little strange that the Treasury should be asked to make an Order in a civil matter in regard to which they could do practically nothing. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act there was practically the same subject dealt with, and there the Order was by the Treasury or the, county court. That seemed to be the correct form, and it was a pity it was not adhered to in this case.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYhad no doubt due weight would be given to the general observations of the hon. Member with regard to the desirability of uniformity.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  LUNACY BOARD (SCOTLAND) (SALARIES, ETC.) BILL.
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. CALDWELLstated that when this Bill was first brought in it proposed to establish an entirely new principle. Five hundred pounds a year was to be paid to men who, by Act of Parliament, were bound to discharge gratuitously, as public officials, the duty for which that payment was proposed to be made. The clause to which exception was taken having been expunged, there was now no objection to the Bill passing.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  OIL IN TOBACCO BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1:—
  Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  DR. TANNERmoved, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again"; but the Chairman, being of opinion that the motion was an abuse of the rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  DR. TANNERmoved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"; but the Chairman, being of opinion that the motion was an abuse of the rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  INEBRIATES AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee, and reported, with an Amendment.
  Bill considered, as amended; read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

  DIOCESAN RECORDS BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  RAILWAYS (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
  Resolved, That the Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year 1900–1901 be approved. -(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further-Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Durham (County of) Electric Power Supply.
Lancashire Electric Power.
Also the Certificate that in the case of the following Bill the further proofs required by the Standing Orders Committee have been given:—
Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devonport Tramways.
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.
Report of Her Majesty's Attorney General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
  Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday n ext.
MARKET WEIGHTON DRAINAGE AND NAVIGATION BILL.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (WALES) BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  The Queen's consent, and the consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is right of his Duchy of Cornwall, signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL
  COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.

    HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL.
    ALEXANDRA PARK BILL.
    SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL.
    Moved, That the Order made on 12th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be road a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; and Bills read 2a accordingly.

TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.
  COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
    ALEXANDRA PARK BILL.
    Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
    MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    SOUTH-EASTERN METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
    PORTLAND URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL.
    Committed for Tomorrow.
    BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to, with an Amendment; and Bill returned to the Commons.
  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    FALKIRK AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    HAMILTON, MOTHERWELL, AND WISH AW TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Commons Amendment considered, and agreed to.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
    WELLIXGBOROUGH AND DISTRICT TRAMROADS BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
    ASTON MANOR TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    GWYRFAI RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
    KINGSCOURT, READY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL.
    Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; road, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 26th of June and Monday last discharged; and Bill committed for Tomorrow.
    CROYDON TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
    Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on Thursday and Monday last discharged; and Bill committed.

    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL.
    Report from the Select Committee That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition
    412
    thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 2nd instant and Monday last discharged; and Bill committed.

  LONDON (ST. LUKE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    LONDON (SOUTHWARK) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Moved, That the order made on the 12th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought before the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 2Gth day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House Tomorrow.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3" Tomorrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to-Order). Bills reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a Tomorrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL. ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LONDON (CLERKENWELL AND HOLBORN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    LONDON (POPLAR) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
    (Chester Rural Order.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
    (Dorchester Order.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
    (Torquay Order.)
    TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    (Weston-super-Mare Order.)
TOTTENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  BRAY AND ENNISKERRY RAILWAY BILL.

    ALEXANDRA PARK BILL.
    NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—

    E. Carrington,

    L. Churchill,

    L. Stanmore,

    L. Rathmore (chairman),

    L. Heneage;

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 14 (1900).
  Treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Honduras; signed at Guatemala, 21st January, 1887 (ratifications exchanged at Guatemala, 3rd February, 1900); together with an explanatory protocol signed at Guatemala 3rd February, 1900.
  METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Maps, plans, and diagrams to accompany the minutes of evidence and report of Her Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of the water supply within the limits of the Metropolitan Water Companies.
  LOCAL TAXATION ( [RELAND).
  Return for the year 1898–99.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 30th June, 1900.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK.
  Annual Report of the President, for the session 1899–1900.
  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE (INDIAN SECTION).
  Annual Report for the year 1899–1900.

  GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
  Report of the Astronomer Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, road at the annual visitation of the Royal Observatory, 26th June, 1900.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  Account of receipts and payments in respect of the Land Registry for the year ended 31st March, 1900.
  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND COURT OF APPEAL.
  Account showing the receipts and expenditure in respect of the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal during the year ended 31st March, 1900.
  COURT OF PROBATE DIVISION (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE) (IRELAND).
  Annual account of receipts and disbursements, for the year ended 31st December, 1899.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 29th June, 1900, granting a retired allowance to Mr. Thomas Alfred Inch, a second division clerk (higher grade) under the

  415
  Board of Trade, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Second Report from the Select Committee made; to be printed; and to be considered on Tuesday next. (No. 191.)
  COPYRIGHT (ARTISTIC) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 192.)
COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
  COPYRIGHT (ARTISTIC) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with the proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed (No. 193): Minutes of evidence, together with an appendix, laid upon the Table, and delivered out.

  POOR REMOVAL BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD DAVEY: My Lords, I must apologise for troubling your Lordships with an Amendment to this Bill at this stage. My noble friend Lord Avebury, in Committee of the whole House, moved a clause which had the same object, but which was not substantially in the same words as the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper. That Amendment was, however, rejected. My noble friend was under the impression that he could move it again before the Standing Committee, but the noble Earl who presides over that Committee expressed the opinion that that could not be done. Therefore I ask your Lordships to consider the Amendment which I have put down. The first sub-section of Clause 1 of this Bill is as follows—
  "A person who has resided continuously for five years in England shall not thereafter be removed to Ireland under the Acts relating to the relief of the poor."
  416
  It has occurred to many of us that that is rather a large order and rather vague in its terms. An Irish labourer may have tramped about the country seeking and finding, or not finding, work, for five years or for a less period, and then he may apply for poor relief in a parish into which, perhaps, he has only come within the previous week. It is unjust to the ratepayers of that parish or union that they should be burdened with the maintenance of the Irish labourer, who really has no connection whatever with the place, merely because he happened to be in a particular parish or union when he applied for relief. I propose, therefore, to insert, after the first sub-section, the words—
  "Provided that such person shall have resided continuously for at least six months in the parish or union from which it is proposed to remove him."
  That will give a guarantee of some residential connection with the parish or union in which he seeks relief, and it will also follow the precedent in the Scottish Act. Under that Act the pauper cannot avoid removal from Scotland to Ireland unless he has resided for, I believe, a whole year in the place from which it is sought to remove him. I am sure your Lordships will see that the clause, as it stands, may impose a great burden upon the ratepayers of a parish or union with which the pauper has no connection whatever, and I hope the House will agree to my Amendment.
  Moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after 'the poor' to insert 'provided that such person shall have resided continuously for at least six months in the parish or union from which it is proposed to remove him.'"—(Lord Davey)
  LORD MORRIS: My Lords, I hope the House will not agree to this Amendment, which would practically render the Bill entirely inoperative and useless. I do not think my noble and learned friend can have studied the history of this question, which has been agitated for the last fifty years. It is thirty-four years since I myself moved in the House of Commons†—
  "That the state of the law of removal from England to Ireland of persons receiving poor-law relief is one deserving of the immediate attention of Parliament and of the Government."
  † See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. clxxxiv., p. 299.

  417
  The late Mr. Charles Villiers, who was at j that time at the head of the Poor-Law Board, stated that this was "a very old grievance." That was his language thirty-four years ago, and this is the first practical attempt to remedy that grievance. I think I can appeal—in support of my statement that this has always been a subject of great grievance in Ireland—to the noble Earl opposite, Earl Spencer, who had a very long reign in Ireland as Lord Lieutenant. Under the present state of the law an Irish labourer who comes over here as a boy, and who probably spends the whole of his life in this country, may, in his old age, when he is like a squeezed lemon, be sent over and pitched on the coast of Ireland to be taken care of by the first union into which he is placed. It is not a question between one parish and another parish; it is an international question between England and Ireland. There is at present no reciprocity. An Irish pauper who applied for relief in England can be removed to Ireland, but an English-born pauper who applies for relief in Ireland must be kept in Ireland by the union to which he applies. This question between different parishes in England has nothing, to do with the Irish grievance. The English parishes must fight it out amongst themselves. If a man who has been absent from Ireland for five years does not form a settlement according to English law in a certain parish, what has that to do with Ireland? Why should he he sent back to Ireland on that account? The promoters of this Bill have drawn a very large limit in saying an Irish person should have resided for five years continuously in England before becoming irremovable. In my opinion that period is too long. I hope the House will not, at the twelfth hour, strangle a Bill which has been long looked forward to in Ireland, and which will remedy what has always created a great deal of annoyance and dissatisfaction.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, the Amendment I moved when the Bill was in Committee was discussed for some little while and withdrawn. It was not rejected. The noble and learned Lord who has just spoken has not dealt with the case of this Amendment. It is not an Irish question. We have agreed that an Irishman who has been five years in Eng-
  418
  land is to be relieved in England, but the question is where. The Bill gives him his choice, the amendment says he is to be relieved where he has worked. Why should an Irishman be placed in a different position in this matter from an Englishman or a Scotsman? If he were a Scotsman or an Englishman he would not obtain a settlement in the way indicated by this Bill. Under this Bill an Irishman, although he may not have lived in the parish or union in which he applies for relief more than a few days, is able to throw himself upon that parish or union for the rest of his life. Surely, if he has been working for some time in one part of England there should be power to remove him to that part of England when he becomes chargeable to the poor law. By this Bill as it stands you are cutting into the root of the whole law of settlement. All that my noble and learned friend asks is that the person shall have been for six months in the parish or union in which he claims relief. Surely that is a very reasonable suggestion. What we fail to see is why, in the case of an Irishman, all the safeguards in the working of the poor law which Parliament has devised in the case of Englishmen and Scotsmen should be dispensed with.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I still maintain the view I expressed when Lord Avebury's Amendment was before the House. It is impossible to put the two countries on the same footing, for the very reason that in Ireland there is not a law of settlement and in England there is. An Englishman who happens to be in Ireland and applies for relief has to be relieved by the union in which he applies, and cannot be removed, whereas an Irishman applying for relief in England can be removed back to his own country. Therefore I say, if you are going to remove this difficulty, do it in a liberal spirit. It is only fair that, as an Englishman cannot be removed from Ireland, an Irishman should be placed in a similar position when in this country.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: This Bill does not give reciprocity. It says an Irishman must have resided five years in England before becoming irremovable. Reciprocity would be to put an Irishman in the same position in England as an Englishman occupies in Ireland. It

  419
  would be reciprocity if an Irishman in England was entitled to obtain relief in any parish or union where he might apply for it and be irremovable. I certainly do feel as strongly as the noble and learned Lord opposite that this has been a real and substantial grievance in Ireland. The question is whether, in removing this grievance conditionally upon a residence of five years, it is desirable that you should place upon the parishes in which Irishmen apply for relief, and in which they may only have been residing for a few days, the burden of perpetually maintaining them.
  LORD HARRIS: I was under the impression that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition spoke on the Second Reading, and that he was a supporter of the measure.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I made exactly the same remarks on the Second Reading.
  LORD HARRIS: I do not contest, as I said in Committee, the fact that England will suffer under this Bill. The measure was introduced with the idea of removing from Ireland some of the injustice she has long laboured under, and I do not deny that the burden has fallen upon England. I may remind your Lordships that this Amendment was negatived in Committee after a long discussion.
  LORD AVEBURY: I beg my noble friend's pardon. It was withdrawn.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): Yes, after a full discussion.
  LORD HARRIS: I understood that the noble Lord accepted the arguments as sufficient, and withdrew his Amendment. Technically I was wrong in saying it was negatived, but the noble Lord had an opportunity of going to a division, which he did not avail himself of. The proposal on that occasion was that the pauper should have resided continuously for at least twelve months in the parish or union from which it was proposed to remove him. The noble and learned Lord opposite now proposes a residence of six months. This would really do away altogether with the justice the Government asks you to do to Ireland. It would make
  420
  removability very much more easy and irremovability very much more difficult. If you are going to do this act of justice to Ireland, I submit that it is better to do it with a good grace. The noble Lord below the gangway (Lord Avebury) argued that it would be hard upon the union of the parish on which the liability of maintaining the pauper would in future rest unless such an Amendment were adopted. I admit that, but all the unions and parishes in England run the risk, which is therefore shared amongst them all. I submit that as the Bill has gone through its various stages in this House, there is no reason for amending it in the way suggested by the noble and learned Lord.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Bill passed.

  DIOCESAN REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
  CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL.
  Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
  MEMBERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES RELIEF BILL [Hi L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order): A further amendment made: and Bill to be read 3a To morrow.
  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  VETERINARY SURGEONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I shall occupy as little of the time of the House as possible.

    421
    The Bill is brought in to remedy what is a clear grievance, and to do a piece of tardy justice. In Ireland, as in England, tithes were a charge upon the land, and for a very considerable time were paid by the occupier. Until the year 1823 tithes in Ireland wore paid in kind by the occupier, but at that time a change was made, and although the occupier was left still the person to pay, the change was made that there should be a money composition. That wont on for a considerable time—namely, until the year 1838. Then a further change was made, and for public convenience, which was recognised upon all sides, the landlord was made the person who was to pay. A tithe rent-charge was created, and he was made the person to pay a sum that was measured at three-quarters of the previous money composition. The assumption, I presume, was that he might add, possibly, the amount of the tithe that he was called upon to pay to the rent. That may have been done in some cases, but I do not believe it was at all generally done. I have read statements by those who have studied the question indicating that it was not generally done. In Ireland, as in England, it has at all times been of the very essence of tithe that it should be variable and subject to occasional revision. The statutory machinery provided in Ireland for this purpose was different, fortunately for England, from that in England; the statutory machinery pro-Tided in Ireland was that if certain not very simple methods were adopted, the tithe rent-charges might be varied by reference to the average price of wheat and oats that were published from time to time in the Dublin Gazette. That method was clumsy and inconvenient, but it worked, as clumsy and inconvenient methods do work, in a kind of way for a long time. But in the year 1889 a change was made in the Dublin Gazette— no one has ever been able exactly to trace how the change occurred—and the publication in the Gazette of the prices of the two commodities, wheat and oats, teased.
    EARL SPENCER: In what year?
    LORD ASHBOURNE: In the year 1889. I have mentioned no year that touches any particular conscience, and I have said that nobody has ever been able to ascertain why the change was made.
    THE EARL OF MAYO: In what year did the noble and learned Lord say the publication of the averages in the Gazette ceased?
    LORD ASHBOURNE: In 1889.
    THE EARL OF MAYO: I thought it was lone; before that.
    LORD ASHBOURNE: No. The publication of the averages ceased in 1889, for what reason no one has ever been able to find out, and, strange to say, the cessation of their publication was not ascertained or relied on in our Courts for a considerable time. The matter, however, came before the Courts in Ireland, and it was then contended, with irresistible force, that, as the averages had ceased to be published in the statutory way required, there was nothing that could be appealed to to satisfy the requirements of the Statute. Accordingly, what was an obvious injustice resulted. Up to a comparatively recent time the position of Irish lay and ecclesiastical tithes was exactly the same as to variation; they each had to be varied and revised by reference to the publication of prices in the Dublin Gazette. But at the time I am referring to this only applied to lay tithes. It is obvious that the absence of any machinery by which these tithes can be varied and revised is a clear and distinct grievance. This is, indeed, not denied or questioned by any one. The position of ecclesiastical tithes at the present time is somewhat different. They were dealt with in the Irish Church Act of 1869, when it was distinctly stated by Mr. Gladstone — I have his words here, and they have been quoted in the other House during the last three weeks—that the calculation of the then Government was that ecclesiastical tithes should be commuted at the purchase of 22½ years, with an interest not exceeding 3½ per cent. and an annuity not exceeding 45 years. When the Act came to be examined, however, it was found that the annuity, instead of running from the time stated, was to run for 52 years. How the figure 45, stated by the Prime Minister in his place in Parliament to be the proper figure, became 52 has not hitherto been explained; but it has never been suggested that it can be seriously defended or that it was anything but a most inconceivable blunder.

    423
    Moreover, the 3½ per cent. interest pays oft' every farthing in 45 years, and it is only the simplest justice to get rid of the additional seven years which have in some way been added, and which cannot be defended or even explained on any theory of common sense or ordinary arithmetic. During the discussions—the anxious discussions—which took place in the House of Commons there was no effort on the part of the fitful Opposition interveners in Debate to give any vestige of explanation of this figure, and every one was compelled to admit that every farthing of the tithe was paid off in 45 years. The next step was taken in 1872. At that time, I believe, the Government had under consideration a loan on the security of the Church property—a loan of £9,000,000—and it was deemed desirable by Mr. Gladstone and the able Ministers who composed his Government that there should be a change in reference to tithe rent-charge, and that the power of revision should be taken away. It was considered a more satisfactory security not to have a variable charge, but that there should be a fixed tithe incapable of change. That was regarded as a better asset on which to rely as a security, and also more satisfactory to deal with. Under those circumstances the power of revision was taken away by the Act of 1872. It was a very short Act—a Treasury Act—and one which did not, so far as I can see, excite any attention whatever. It passed through Parliament towards the close of the session without debate, but it has been gravely alleged that the Act of 1872, by which the power of revision was taken away, was a bargain. The habits of my life and of my office require that I should use moderate and temperate language, but I am at a loss to describe in adequate terms this suggestion. It is a grotesque absurdity. Who was the bargain between? What was the bargain about? Why should there be a bargain? There is not a trace of any such suggestion to be found in Hansard, and I have spoken to gentlemen who were then members of the House of Commons, and they inform mo that they never heard or dreamt of such a thing as this being a bargain. The suggestion is absolutely unsupported by proof, and has really no bearing upon the question. Had the power of revision remained, had it not been taken away
    424
    by this Act of 1872, the Irish ecclesiastical tithe, like the English tithe, would, I have heard, be payable at a percentage much less than at present. At any rate, wheat has fallen from that time by about 40 per cent., and oats by about 22 per cent., and, as every one knows, there have beer; enormous reductions in the value of land. Therefore it is simple justice to do what the Bill does. If my statements cannot be contradicted, am I not right in saying that there is a clear grievance to be righted and a palpable injustice to be got rid of? The first of the proposals is to reduce from 52 to 45 years the period provided for the redemption of the annuities, and, secondly to restore the variation and power of revision with regard to both lay and ecclesiastical tithes. In England, where revision exists, there has been, as your Lordships know, a vast reduction in tithes. Irish tithe payers have been deprived of that benefit, and therefore it is simple justice to do what this Bill does. The measure has been described as another dole to Irish landlords, but it is the simplest, the nakedest, and the merest act of justice. If the payment of the tithes had never been handed over to the landowner and were still payable by the occupier, could any human being, with any regard for his own sanity, suggest that every dictate of justice did not require that everything I have suggested should be carried out? This is. not a one-sided proceeding at all. It was pointed out in 1885, when the first of the Land Purchase Acts was introduced, that it was not reasonable to ask glebe tenant-purchasers to go on paying their instalments with the inclusion of the original rate of interest, and their friends in both Houses of Parliament said that justice required that there should be a revision. They wore given it with universal approval, and the 3½ per cent. interest on their loans was cut down to £3 1s. 8d. No one said then that justice should not be done. Justice required that that should be done then in the interests of tenant-purchasers, and it requires that it should be done now in the interests of the landlords. In Ireland the system has always been cumbrous, inconvenient, expensive., and difficult to carry out. Wheat is not now grown in Ireland to the extent it used to be; and the standards that were formerly appealed to have ceased to be

    425
    efficient regulations for the purpose. The plan by which it is proposed to ascertain the amount of variation—namely, by the average judicial reduction of rents in each county, is fair, intelligible, and a thousand times better than resorting to the old methods. Another important feature of the Bill is that it takes away the power of redeeming tithe rent charges, save in the case of sales under the Land Acts, and then it is intended to safeguard the terms. There is another clause in the Bill, dealing with the deduction of Poor Kate from tithe, which the Chief Secretary calculated would assist the Irish Church Fund by a sum of about £6,000 a year. This benefit will be obtained in connection with decisions as to the deductions made from tithes for the Poor Kate. The figures in reference to these matters have been very fully stated in the other House of Parliament, and I have confined myself to presenting the case to your Lordships in the shortest possible way, because I recognise that there are many other topics on your Lordship's Paper for discussion to-night. Of course, I will be quite ready to give any information to the House or to answer any questions that may be put to mo at this or any subsequent stage.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I certainly feel a certain amount of embarrassment in controverting what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, because he has so pointedly laid it down that every proposition which he has put before the House is absolutely just, absolutely sound, and absolutely impossible of doubt. It may seem somewhat remarkable that I doubt the greater portion of the assertions the noble and learned Lord has made. First of all, I will deal with the very novel argument with which he commenced his speech, and which, I must say, surprised me extremely. It appears that at some stage of the Irish Church Bill, Mr. Gladstone, who was then at the head of the Government, and who, as the noble and learned Lord most justly said, took a special interest in that legislation, said that ecclesiastical tithes should be commuted at the purchase of 22½ years, with an interest not exceeding 3½ per cent., and an annuity not exceeding 45
    426
    years. Subsequently it appears that an interest of £4 9s. Od. per cent. and a period of 52 years wore fixed in the Act. On that the noble and learned Lord says there has been a great injustice, and that we should regard the statement made by the Prime Minister of that day in the course of a speech as conclusive. I have never heard such an argument. I always thought Acts of Parliament were conclusive. Mr. Gladstone is not alive to explain the words he used in 1869, but I entirely deny that we are bound by the statement of even so great a man as Mr. Gladstone.
    LORD ASHBOURNE: Mr. Gladstone's, words are not contradicted by arithmetic.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: But they are contradicted by something which is binding upon us quite as much as arithmetic—namely, an Act of Parliament. According to the noble and learned Lord, it is so perfectly clear that a great injustice was committed, because the Act is not in accordance with some words which he found in a speech of Mr. Gladstone, that we are bound now, after twenty-seven years, to remedy what was. then done. If this is so extremely simple, so perfectly evident, so absolutely conclusive, what was the Conservative Government which came into office in 1874 doing? Had they no supporters amongst Irish landlords? The Act then was a very fresh one, and if the injustice had been so wonderfully apparent it would naturally have been for the Government of that day, which had no particular love for Mr. Gladstone's legislation, to remedy it. I dismiss that argument of the noble and learned Lord as having no bearing on the question. The noble and learned Lord said there was no bargain. The case really is that twenty-seven years ago Parliament laid down a certain principle for the payment of tithe, and it seems to me a dangerous doctrine, after Parliament has dealt with the matter so long ago, that we should now set aside that Act. Past legislation may have inflicted hardships on those subjected to it. That argument is one which may always be used. But I am surprised that twenty-seven years should have been allowed to elapse without any attempt to remedy any hardships in the present case. I deny that the Bill is a matter of justice; it is purely a matter of expediency. In

    427
    the present state of prices an undue burden has been laid on the landlords of Ireland, and that should be lightened. That is the case of the Government, and I dismiss all other arguments. It comes to this, that after twenty-seven years the Government have made up their minds that they ought to make a present to the Irish landlords of a certain portion of the Irish Church fund. T feel some sympathy for the Trish landlords in the position in which they find themselves, but I must repeat what I have often said, that if the Irish landlords lived in the part of the kingdom in which I do they would not consider themselves so badly off. I object to the Bill on the ground that it is upsetting a deliberate arrangement made by Parliament, and then regarded as just and fair, for the purpose of giving a money advantage; to a certain class.
    LORD CLONBEOCK: My Lords, it is gratifying to those who are interested in the Bill introduced by my noble and learned friend to hear him describe it as a mere measure of justice. It is, indeed, a tardy measure of justice, for relief in this matter has been promised to Trish tithe rent-charge payers for the last twelve years. In support of its being a measure of justice, I should like to compare the position of the English and Irish tithe rent-charge payer since the year 1872. It is somewhat singular, my Lords, that when a comparison can be made, by any stress of imagination, to the detriment of the interests of property in Ireland, such as, for instance, the comparison of the reduction of rents in England and Ireland, it is pressed home, however unsound may be the foundation up on which it rests; but when there is any comparison which would tell the other way. St. George's Channel appears to be an insuperable objection to its being adduced. Indeed, as to all rights of property, it seems to make all the difference in the world on which side of St. George's Channel the property is situated. I was much struck some days ago at hearing the noble Earl the leader of the Opposition condemning a Government measure—the Military Manœuvres Bill—on the ground that it assumed a certain control over a landlord's property for three weeks in the year, for ever. I thought at the time that there was a certain force in the noble Earl's objections, but I could not help contrasting this solicitude for the rights of property
    428
    with the slight regard paid to those rights by the Land Act of 1881, an Act which deprived Irish landlords of more than 25 per cent. of the fee - simple of their property, not for three weeks, but for all the year round, for ever. I wonder the noble Marquess who had charge of that Bill did not notice the inconsistency, but I suppose that the severe training which he underwent in 1896, before he was reduced, as he then told us, to the position of a tame elephant, has rendered him somewhat callous to the injuries inflicted on his wilder brethren. But a comparison between the English and the Irish tithe rent-charge payer shows that the former in 1872 had to pay £108 16s. Od. for every £100 tithe rent-charge as fixed in 1836, while in 1899 he only paid.£68 2s. 4d. Now by the Act of 1872 tithe rent charge in Ireland was rendered invariable, and the tithe rent-charge payer has ever since been paying the same amount as in 1872, notwithstanding the fall in prices. It is no wonder, therefore, that the opponents of this measure take very good care not to draw a comparison, which they might be ready enough to do if it told the other way My Lords, this settlement in 1872 is spoken of as a bargain, which tithe rent-charge payers gladly accepted, fearing that the price of corn might rise. Now, no one probably anticipated the deplorable agricultural depression which has since occurred, but, on the other hand, no one in his senses, seeing the continually increasing facilities for the importation of corn, could have dreaded as a tithe payer, or hoped for as a farmer, any decided rise in the price, of corn. Indeed, prices, after some fluctuation, showed a tendency to fall in the years immediately preceding 1872. The fact is that the Act of 1872 was slipped through Parliament in August as a Departmental measure, without any explanation in either House, and escaped observation. But tithe rent-charge payers have suffered in another way by legislation. By the Church Act of 1869 the price of redemption of tithe rent-charge was fixed at 22½ years purchase. A high authority on the subject, Mr. O'Brien, has stated that in previous times it never was worth more than 17. On the other hand, in consequence of the Land Act of 1881. the selling value of property has been reduced from about 22½ years purchase of the old rent to about 17 of the new. Consequently the value of property

    429
    has been artificially reduced about 5—, years purchase, and the charge on it artificially raised by the same amount. And yet wonder is expressed that Irish landlords complain of being unjustly treated. It is needless to point out that the Church Fund has benefited by the extravagant price exacted from those who have redeemed, mainly wider the Land Purchase Acts. The amount must be over half a million sterling. And now, my Lords, as to the provisions of the Bill itself. While we can only consider it as a measure of justice, and as a partial measure of justice, we must acknowledge that the Government have spared no effort to pass it in the face of a most determined and unscrupulous opposition. But the pity is that when they were prepared to take so much trouble, they did not make it a more comprehensive measure. For I must point out that, while it otters some relief to what I may call the more improvident persons, who did not commute their tithe rent-charge, it offers practically nothing to the more provident who did, for the reduction of the number of years from 52 to 45 is nothing more than the rectification of an arithmetical blunder. It cannot be contended that the Government intended to charge those who commuted £3 16s. 3d. per cent. interest, when the ordinary rate for Government loans was £3 10s. Od If the interest is taken at £3 10s. Od., payment of £4 9s. Od. per cent. for 52 years would mean the payment of £130 for every £100 advanced. We hoped that, in the case of those who had commuted, the Government would have ascertained the capital amount already redeemed, and treated the residue as a loan to be redeemed in the same way, and on the same terms as loans made to tenants. This would have involved no loss to the Treasury. Finally, my Lords, there is the case of lay tithe rent-charge payers, and holders of perpetuities. In their case there is no question of public money. But they have suffered from the failure of duty of some Government official. Their payments were not affected by the Act of 1872, but remained variable in accordance with the average prices of oats and wheat which ought to be published, and up to 1872 always were published, in the Dublin Gazette. The rents of perpetuity holders were also variable in accordance with those prices. But soon after 1872
    430
    these prices were at first incorrectly published, the mean being taken instead of the average, and since 1887 have not been published at all. Consequently no variation has been possible. The lay tithe rent-charge payers urge that they have an undoubted grievance against Government in this matter. They are by no means satisfied with the scale of variation proposed for them in the Bill, and cannot see why the prices published by the Land Commission should not be adopted in place of those which ought to have been published by the Government. The holders of perpetuities who have just the same grievance are not included in the Bill at all, as might easily have been done. My Lords, we are given to understand that if we attempt to introduce any amendments into this Bill, we shall probably lose it altogether. I do not, therefore, propose to do so. But I think it necessary to point out how much it falls short of what we might have expected, and to protest against the | statements which have been made that it is a singular act of beneficence to Irish landlords. Moreover, it is not a measure affecting landlords alone. I may mention that in 1869 there were 36,000 tithe rent-charge payers, while the number of proprietors who could correctly be described as landlords was not more than a third of that total.
    THE EARL OF MAYO: It is a pleasure to see our old friend the Tithe Rent-charge Bill, of which we have heard so much, first of all in two Queen's Speeches and also in a great many debates, brought forward. It is a measure of justice, and I deny the statement of the noble Earl opposite that it is a boon. As usual, we are compared to English landowners. That is the comparison which is always made in this House, but what are the facts of the case? English landowners can have their tithes revised by the prices of corn and oats, but in Ireland there is no revision at all. As my noble friend Lord Cronbrock has gone so fully into the subject there is very little for me to say, except that we accept the Bill not as a boon but as a simple act of justice on the part of the Government. It is really time that the Bill was passed, and I am delighted to see it in this House. A short section was slipped into the Bill in the House of Commons which creates an obvious in-

    431
    justice. By that section it is provided that:—
    "Sections three and four of this Act shall not apply to any tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission out of hereditaments the fee simple of which has, after the tenth day of August one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two and before the twelfth day of May one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, been conveyed to a purchaser on a sale."
    The argument adduced for the insertion of these words was that when the estate was purchased a certain allowance was made for the tithe rent-charge. But I must draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the rents on the estate are reducible every 15 years, and it is hardly fair that the man who purchased the estate should go on paying the same tithe rent-charge. I only raise this by way of protest. I know it is no good moving an Amendment; but I hope the noble Marquess who is going to wind up the debate will say something on that point.
    THE EARL OF ARRAN: Before my noble friend the Marquess of Londonderry makes his speech, which I am sure will throw a great deal of light on this question, I should like to say a few words. I agree with my noble friends who have spoken from this side of the House that this Bill is an act of tardy justice to the Irish landlords. One of the advantages of the Bill is that the question of revision of tithe rent-charge will be rendered perfectly simple. Under the old Act, to get a tithe revised necessitated the proving of the whole title to the estate. It was a matter of great difficulty. The co-operation of several people had to be obtained as a rule, and the cost was very often a great deal more than the thing was worth. I hail with satisfaction the simplification of the procedure. Having said that, I venture to express my opinion that we owe very little gratitude for this Bill. It is a sort of salve for the policy which has been pursued by the British Government in regard to Ireland for 28 years past, and which I cannot help thinking will inevitably lead to the absolute expropriation of the Irish landlords. I should like to ask, What has this country gained by this policy? Is Ireland more contented or more loyal? I venture to think, speaking for that part of Ireland with which I am best acquainted, and, I think I may almost say, for the whole Western seaboard of Ireland, that whatever may be the feeling
    432
    of the Western Irishmen as regards her Majesty the Queen, there never was a time when the Western peasant was more disloyal to the English connection; and the smaller landlords, the men who are being ruined by the land legislation, would not raise a hand to help this country in any difficulty she might be in.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My lords, although my noble friends who have last spoken have alluded to the fact that I was to wind up this debate, I confess that after the extremely concise, explanatory, and, I think, complete speech of my noble and learned friend in introducing this measure no words are necessary from me to recommend the Bill to the support of your Lordships. But I do not think it would be right that the speech of the noble Earl who followed him should be passed over in complete-silence by the Front Ministerial Bench. As an Irish landlord, the Bill will not affect me in the slightest degree, and consequently I can speak of it in the most disinterested manner. My feelings of justice force me to recognise that the Bill removes an unjust burden under which the land-owning classes have for many years laboured. The measure is not a "boon" or a "present" to the Irish landlords, as it has been described by the noble Earl opposite. To my mind it is not even an act of generosity or kindness. It is merely an act of ordinary justice; an honest endeavour to remove, very late in the day, a most unfair burden from the Irish landlords —a burden that would not be tolerated if imposed upon any other class in any other part of the kingdom. My noble and learned friend who introduced the measure stated that this small act of justice was of a very tardy character. Never were truer words said. The Irish landowners have lived many years in the hope that this tardy act of justice would be brought forward at some time or other. They remember the words of the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who, as Lord Privy Seal, declared so long ago as 1888, speaking on behalf of the Government, that they recognised the difficulties under which Irish landlords laboured in regard to tithe rent-charge, and that it was their anxious wish to afford a remedy for a state of things which nobody could deny required immediate consideration. I am the most recent addition to the Government, but I

    433
    should say that the landlords of Ireland have a grievance in not having this act of justice done them, according to promise, years ago. What strikes me as very extraordinary is that there has been so much opposition to this measure, which is in itself so small. The amount of opposition to this Bill has filled me with amaze- merit. After all, what is it that this measure enacts? It merely enacts that where a landowner has paid off the principal and interest the charge should cease to exist, and, secondly, that tithes should be variable as they were up to 1872, and as they are in England at the present moment. It is obvious that they should be variable. If you go back to the Book of Genesis you will find that tithe was a proportion of the produce of the producer. That principle has been recognised from time immemorial, but since the Act of 1872 revision of tithe has been made impossible in Ireland. My noble and learned friend stated with justice that the price of wheat and oats had fallen very materially in Ireland since 1872. I have ventured to look up the statistics, and I can endorse his remarks on that subject. In the year 1872 the price of wheat, which in Ireland is calculated by the barrel of 20 stone, was £1 9s. 11d. per barrel, but in 1899 the price had fallen to 15s. 6d. per barrel. I can endorse also what my noble and learned friend told the House with regard to the fall in the price of oats. In 1872 a barrel of oats fetched 14s. 8½d. in Ireland, or, according to English calculation, £1 6s. 8d. per quarter; but in 1899 it was only worth 10s. lid. per barrel, or 18s. 4d. per quarter. Under these circumstances it is only fair to ask that the tithe rent-charge should be varied. The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition stated, I think, that it was after close calculation in 1872 that the charge was fixed permanently, but in 1872 I do not think anybody imagined that there was going to be the Act of 1881, under which rents could be compulsorily reduced periodically until eventually the tithe rent payer might be left with no margin at all. I know cases in which rents have been reduced by 30, 40, 50, and even 60 percent.—I will not say one word as to whether they were rightly or wrongly reduced—but surely it is not right, after such reductions have been made, that there should remain the same permanent tithe rent-charge upon the landowner. You
    434
    should pursue the same system in Ireland as you do in England, which this measure is endeavouring to carry out, and not ask a landlord, because he is an Irishman, to pay on a different scale from that which obtains in England. In the House of Commons the Home Secretary of the late Liberal Government denounced the Bill as an iniquitous encroachment upon the Irish Church Fund which was intended for the relief of unavoidable calamity and suffering in Ireland. The funds of the Irish Church have been used—and rightly used —for other measures than those to relieve unavoidable calamity and suffering. They have been used for arrears of rent, for sea-fishery loans, for the Intermediate Education Act, for the benefit of national school teachers, and for the Royal University. That attack comes with a very bad grace from a member of a Government who passed through the House of Commons a measure, fortunately rejected by your Lordships, for giving £250,000 out of the Church Fund to the evicted tenants—a body of men described by the Pope of Rome as having been guilty of an immoral action, and by the judges of the land as having taken part in an illegal conspiracy. Is it in the interest of the tenant-farmers that the Nationalist Members are opposing the Bill? I say "No," and I ask myself again the question —Are the Nationalist Members of Parliament, who are all members of the United Irish League, real friends of the tenant-farmers, and is it in the interests of those farmers that they are endeavouring to oppose the Bill? I say that if they were true friends of the Irish farmers they would at the present moment be endeavouring to assist that class to take advantage of the Technical Education Act for Ireland, and to make the most of their opportunities, but instead of doing so they are trying to induce them to leave their land derelict. The real secret of the determined resistance offered to the Bill in the House of Commons was explained recently by Mr. Dillon, when he said that the great object of the League, and consequently of the Nationalist members, was to abolish landlordism and drive it out of the country. Now we know the real reason of the opposition to this measure. It is to drive landlordism out of Ireland, because it is the one barrier to total separation from this kingdom. When Mr. Dillon tells us that it is the object of the United Irish League

    435
    to drive landlordism out of the country, I think it may be as well to consider whether it would be for the advantage of Ireland if this were to occur. I do not believe that the tenant-farmers generally desire that the landlords should be driven out of Ireland. Would it be beneficial to Ireland that the landlords should be expatriated? I reply deliberately that with the disappearance of the land-owning classes the ruin of Ireland would begin. The land-owning classes have been for generations past the backbone of the agricultural community in Ireland, and agriculture, as your Lordships know, is the great industry of the country. If you expatriate the landlords their places will be taken by the class below them, who, in their turn, may be forced out by the class below, and the result will be that Ireland will be owned and farmed by a race of men without capital and without resources, the majority of whom will be in the hands of the Gombeen-men. With that class of person in possession of Ireland there would be no confidence, and without confidence there would be no capital expended in Ireland. In the interests of Ireland it is the duty of your Lordships not only to relieve an injustice, but to retain in the country people who have its welfare at heart.
    On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

    LAND CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
    Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

    THE RESERVE FORCES OF AUSTRALIA.
    LORD BRASSEY: My Lords, I think I shall best introduce the subject which I desire to bring very briefly under your notice with a few figures. The armed forces of Australia include for service afloat 350 permanent men, 1,250 reservists, and 1,350 naval volunteers. For the land service the numbers are 1,250 regulars, 8,000 militia, 13,000 volunteers, and 12,000 cadets, trained as the cadets are trained in the public schools of this country. When we compare these figures with the citizen army of the Swiss Re-public, it will be clear that hitherto preparations for defence, with the exception, perhaps, of harbour defence, have not been regarded as a matter of urgency
    436
    in Australia. There was no formidable enemy near at hand, and full reliance was placed upon the Imperial navy. Today we stand in a different position. Patriotic feeling in the colonies has been keenly stirred. The war in South Africa has given occasion to our Australian fellow subjects to show how ready they are to share our responsibilities, and how great are the resources at their command. It seems a fitting opportunity to consider how best the mother country and the colonies may co-operate in the preparation of forces for the common defence. My Lords, I will deal first with the mounted infantry. The Australian colonies undoubtedly possess most exceptional resources for raising a force of that description. Every governor who serves in Australia is expected to travel widely over the country. Wherever he goes he is attended by a strong escort of mounted infantry, and it is impossible not to admire the endurance of men and horses under a fiery sun, and the skilful and bold horsemanship with which the escort will ride, fours abreast, over the most formidable timber fences. It was a natural reflection that here were men specially fitted for such a service as our forces have been called upon to render in South Africa. Privately I made inquiries, addressing myself to the Imperial and colonial officers in all the colonies, and I was assured that at least 5,000 men could be raised upon the same footing as our yeomanry at home, and at a comparatively small expense. It was much to be regretted that on a late occasion when there was a most patriotic desire to send contingents to South Africa, those 5,000 men were not ready at hand. In Victoria we had several hundreds of mounted infantry upon the musterrolls, but they were recruited from a class which could not be expected to volunteer in large numbers for foreign service. The majority were small farmers, to whom it would have spelt ruin to leave their farms at the commencement of the harvest. The true men of the bush were not numerously represented in the first contingent which we despatched. They came in later when special efforts were made and Imperial subscriptions had been contributed, and the resources were available for preparing a corps of bushmen. A force ready to serve whenever required must consist of the younger men. It should be raised rather from the wage-

    437
    earning than from the wage-paying class. The training should be more complete, especially for the officers, than has hitherto been attempted in Australia. To a certain extent the force must be a paid force. Our mounted infantry in Victoria were not a paid force. I strongly urge that Her Majesty's Government should concert measures with the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia with a view to raising an Imperial Yeomanry in Australia of at least 5,000 men, under engagement to serve in any part of the Empire, the cost to be met by joint contributions from the Imperial Exchequer and from colonial funds. If the principle be accepted, a scheme could be best worked out on the spot by the commandants and the ministers of defence. It must take time to gather information, time to mature a plan, time to confer with the Colonial Government on the political considerations involved. The work I venture to say should be taken in hand without delay, in preparation for practical action as soon as the Federal Government of Australia has been set on foot. My Lords, I pass from the enrolment of a force of mounted infantry to the general efficiency of the colonial military forces. In deference to political considerations, the Imperial forces have been wholly withdrawn from the colonies. Their removal has left the colonies without infantry or cavalry up to the standard of smartness which can only be obtained by constant drill. In the altered circumstances in which we stand to-day the question of raising and maintaining a small Imperial force of infantry and cavalry in Australia would seem worthy of consideration. It will not be necessary that the forces should be kept at the full strength in the time of peace. A single squadron of cavalry and a few companies of infantry at the military headquarters in the several States would be of the greatest value for the instruction of large bodies of militia and volunteers assembled for reviews and for camps of exercise. They are needed to stiffen the Militia and Volunteers, which have not the advantage of constant drill. There is only one further suggestion which I should like to offer bearing upon efficiency. It is borrowed from a recent work by an eminent military writer, Sir George Clarice. I refer to the advantage of occasional, perhaps annual, inspections of the colonial forces by an Imperial officer of high
    438
    standing. If it were possible that his Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught should pay a visit of inspection to Australia it would give great encouragement to loyal feeling, and I feel sure would be an immense advantage to the army. I may mention that under a recent regulation the naval forces of Victoria are annually inspected by the Commander-in-Chief on the Station, and that inspection has proved of the greatest advantage. My Lords, I pass from the military to the naval forces. Australia will not compare with the sister colony of Canada in the numbers of its seafaring population, but there are in Australia ample resources for the creation of a colonial naval reserve. Official inquiries have lately been made and it has been ascertained that we have, in the coasting trade and fisheries of Australia, more than 30,000 men. The men earn high wages, and those wages are well earned. The seamen in the coasting trade and fisheries of Australia are men of superior qualifications both in seamanship and in general intelligence and conduct. Having for many years taken the deepest interest in the question of a Colonial Naval Reserve, it was to me an immense satisfaction when I came home two years ago on leave, to hear from Mr. Goschen that the Admiralty had at last decided to take steps to raise a Colonial Naval Reserve. The announcement was followed by an official communication from the Commander-in-Chief on the Australian station. The terms offered by the Admiralty were identical with those established for the Naval Reserve at home, and without modifications they were not acceptable to the seafaring class in Australia. I may refer more particularly to the regulation requiring six months service on a man-of-war upon a low scale of wages. I earnestly hope that the Admiralty will not allow this matter to drop, and I would urge that instructions should be given to the Commander-in-Chief, directing him, in consultation with the local officers, to revise the regulations which are established for our Naval Reserve at home, so as to make them suitable to Colonial conditions. In this connection, I would like to say a few words with reference to the report made by the naval advisors of the Australian colonies with reference to this question of a Colonial Naval Reserve. That report has boon criticised as a proposal to

    439
    establish a merely local force. I believe that report to have been misunderstood. The true feeling in the colonies must be gauged by recent events. When we stood in a recent crisis face to face with the sudden emergency in China, no objection was urged to the removal of certain vessels from the Australian squadron to China. The colonies offered a ship, which has been accepted; they offered the services of their naval brigades, which have also been accepted. What has happened lately I feel sure would happen again. I feel certain that all the available naval forces of the Australian colonies will at all times be available for Imperial defence. My Lords, I have only one other observation to make. The proposal that payment should be made from Imperial funds for the maintenance of forces in Australia may be challenged in certain quarters, but the principle of paying men from Imperial funds in Australia was accepted when the Admiralty consented to the enrolment of a Naval Reserve. If a retainer is paid to the seamen, why not to the mounted infantry? In conclusion, it seems to me clear that recent events have made it evident that steps must be taken to strengthen our military and our naval resources. If the work is to be done without imposing intolerable burdens, it must be by means of reserve forces, and I hope I have shown to the satisfaction of your Lordships that proposals for raising reserves in Australia should be included in the comprehensive scheme for which we look to the Government in the next session of Parliament.
    VISCOUNT FRANKFORT,*VISCOUNT FRANKFORT, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention had been drawn to a letter in The Times of July 12th "on Colonial Reserves," and whether he approved of the suggestion therein made by Major General French, commanding the New South Wales military forces; and whether he proposed to consult the Secretary of State for the Colonies in regard to the advisability of taking steps to obtain the insertion in the Federal Defence Act for all Australia, shortly to be brought forward, the necessary powers for the formation of such war reserve, said: My Lords, I have listened with great attention to the noble Lord who has just sat down. The question I have put on the Paper is rather with regard to war reserve than with regard to forces to be
    440
    raised in the colony, but I think we must all agree that the defence of the Empire is a most important subject. A few days ago the Australian Commonwealth Bill received the Royal Assent, and there is no doubt that the people of Australia are willing to take their share in the defence of the Empire. I am anxious that no time should be lost in taking steps to obtain the insertion in the Federal Defence Act for all Australia of the necessary powers for the formation of a war reserve. The writer of the letter which appeared in The Times of the 12th of August is by no means an amateur. He has served some 12 years in Canada and a like number of years in Australia. He was more or less responsible on the military side for the Military Lands Act of 1884; at the present moment he is commanding the New South Wales Military forces. He has come to the conclusion that a scheme is feasible which would be mutually advantageous to England and the Colonies and of benefit to the Empire in which they live, and to use his own words "for which we ought to do our utmost." With regard to Canada, the suggestion Major General French makes is this. He suggests that the 75,000 fishermen and sailors on the Atlantic seaboard might make a very large and a very useful war reserve for our fleets. With regard to Australia the rate of wages current in Australia is so high that it is impossible to have a very large force for peace duties. But on the other hand any number of men will come forward in time of war at a fair rate of pay. Now what is proposed is to form a reserve of, say, 10,000 men with a retaining fee of £8 per man per annum for efficient privates of infantry, £12 per man per annum for troopers of mounted corps who have horses and saddlery effective for service, and other ranks in proportion. The approximate cost of this force at, say, £10 per head would be about £100,000. The requirements of efficiency would involve an annual course of training and musketry. This reserve force should be formed mainly from the efficient officers and men who have passed through the ranks of the defence forces, and who agree to serve within or without Australia in war time. The 6,000 men that are now out in South Africa would make a capital start for this reserve. As I have said, the notion is that the reserve pay is to be paid by the Imperial Govern-

    441
    merit as a retaining fee. I am quoting word for word from General French's letter. He knows well the feeling of the Colonies, and I think this paragraph is most important as regards pay for extra services. Your Lordships know that the Colonial Government are paying the difference between the imperial rate of pay and the rate of pay to their own men in South Africa. Major-General French goes on to say, "They might well do so in the future in view of the substantial advantage of having 10,000 trained reserves kept up in Australia in peace time at no expense to them." Thus, My Lords, by this scheme the imperial Government would have 10,000 men, and when they are called up for service in any future war they would only have to pay them the imperial rates of pay. I think steps should be taken by the Government to form a reserve in Australia something on these lines, and steps should be taken soon. As soon as the war in South Africa will allow it these Australian soldiers will go back to their country, they will be disbanded, they will disperse all over the country, and it will be most difficult to collect them again to form this reserve which I am suggesting. With these observations I beg to ask the noble Marquess the question standing on the Paper in my name.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, with the general principle laid down by the two noble lords, who have addressed your Lordships I desire to express my entire concurrence and sympathy. The war which is now going on in South Africa will be ever memorable as that in which for the first time the troops of this country and those of our great colonies have fought side by side, and I do not think we can overrate the deep impression which has been produced, not only upon the people of the United Kingdom, not only upon the people of the British Empire, but upon all parts of the world, by the exhibition of colonial patriotism and loyalty, which we have lately witnessed. Throughout these difficult and arduous operations, during the initial stages when success seemed to come to us with slow and halting steps, and later, when our progress has been more rapid and satisfactory, the colonial troops have borne a distinguished and honourable share in the hardships and in
    442
    the dangers of the war. My Lords, as I have mentioned this, I am impelled to refer to the telegram which we all of us have read from Lord Roberts two days ago in which he mentions how in a recent hard-fought action beyond Pretoria, two young Canadian officers, when leading their men in a counter attack on the enemy's flank at a critical juncture of an important engagement lost their lives, one of them being the only son of the Canadian Minister of Militia and Defence, a young officer whom Lord Roberts describes as having twice before been brought to his notice in despatches for gallant and intrepid conduct. When we think who was the writer of that telegram, and with what feelings he must have written it, I think we may say that no more touching tribute could have been paid to the memory of these brave young representatives of our Colonial forces. With regard to the Australian contingents, I do not think the noble lord who spoke first at all overrated the value of the services which they have rendered. I think there are between 8,000 and 9,000 of them at this moment fighting for us in South Africa, and they have exhibited those qualities, not only of personal courage, but of great endurance, fine horsemanship, and resource and readiness which his experience of the Australian Colonies led him to attribute to them. I think the noble lord is perfectly right when he describes Australia as pre-eminently a country of mounted infantry. You have there men of the right stamp, and you have abundance of horses of the right stamp. There may be a certain difficulty in obtaining horses of the type that we require for cavalry and artillery, but the mounted infantry horses can be obtained in almost infinite numbers. I am sure we all of us feel that this co-operation of the colonial forces has not been the result of any passing mood on their part; it is not a mere momentary effervescence of loyalty, it is the result of a deep-seated patriotism and an abiding desire to bear with us a part in the burden of Empire. I am sure one and all of us would wish and hope that if this country should find itself again circumstanced as it has been of late we should find the colonies ready to take their place by our side. And if it would be possible, as the noble lord behind me desired, for us to come to some understanding with the colonies by which

    443
    that co-operation might be rendered easier both for them and for us, I for one should greatly rejoice at it. But I venture to suggest that the matter is one in which we can scarcely proceed with too much caution. I cannot help thinking that increased assistance in numbers and increased efficiency, might be too dearly bought if they were paid for by any loss of that wonderful spontaneity which has characterised the co-operation of the colonies on this occasion, I could not help being struck by the concluding sentence of the letter of General French, which the noble and gallant Lord quoted, in which he says:— "Now is the time to act. If we wait till the cold fit comes on progress may be made impossible." I cannot help saying that this sentence suggested to my mind an inference rather different from that which the writer probably intended to suggest. I should be sorry if we were at this moment to take advantage of the manner in which the colonies have come forward during the last nine or ten months in order to hurry them into any arrangement which upon mature Deflection afterwards some might think irksome or inconvenient. I confess I am a little reminded of the analogy of the Volunteer Bill, which I lately passed through your Lordships' House and which was severely criticised by noble Lords opposite, who said we were endeavouring to persuade the Volunteers in a moment of popular excitement to assume permanently a liability which the force as a whole might afterwards object to. That provision met with an unfortunate fate in another place. But I think there is an object lesson to be drawn from that Bill, and I would say that if it is necessary to proceed with caution when we are dealing with our own forces in this country, still more must we be cautious when we are dealing with the forces of the colonies. I entirely agree with what the noble lord on the back bench said, that in a case like this the scheme must be worked out on the spot. There is no doubt about that. I also agree with him that it should be worked out under the supervision of that Federal Government which is about to come into existence under such auspicious circumstances. All I can say is that we are perfectly ready to discuss a scheme, but in our opinion it is desirable that the initiative should come from the colonies, and that we will
    444
    certainly give them all the advice, all the assistance, and all the expert cooperation that they can possibly desire from us. The discussion of the details of such a scheme would at the present moment, I cannot help thinking, be a little premature. The two noble Lords seem to be agreed upon this, that they would like to see raised in the colonies a special body of troops, receiving special training, paid partly by us and partly out of colonial funds, and liable in certain circumstances for active service beyond the limits of the colony to which they belong. The noble Lord opposite spoke, I think, of a force of 5,000 Yeomanry. He did not mention the particular financial arrangements which he would recommend. The noble Lord behind me regarded with favour the scheme of General French, who proposes that we should have a force of 10,000 men in Australia, receiving, in time of peace, a retaining fee of from £8 to £12, to be paid by us, and who would be liable for active service in case of Imperial emergency. I must ask the noble lord to receive with a certain amount of caution General French's estimate of the relative cost of these proposals, because, I see that according to his calculation, while 10,000 British cavalry would cost this country £1,000,000 a year, 10,000 Australian mounted infantry would cost £100,000 a year. To begin with, I do not accept a calculation based upon a charge of £100 per head for each British cavalry soldier; and then, of course, it is impossible to make a fair comparison between the cost of troops who are only available for active service at rare intervals and on special occasions and the cost of troops whose liability is continuous and whom you can always make use of whether the emergency be great or little. There are obviously a great number of points which it would be necessary to consider with the greatest care before any scheme of this kind could really be adopted. I can only mention one or two of them. In the first place, I presume that if the British taxpayer is to be called upon to pay for these colonial reserves he will require to be satisfied as to the efficiency of the troops for whom he pays. Then would arise the question of the tests of efficiency which would have to be applied. Who would lay down those tests? Who would from time to time inspect these troops?

    445
    What facilities would they have for training at intervals?—these are all points which would require to be examined. Then there is the most important question as to the extent of the liability which these troops would be expected to assume. I think it was the noble Lord behind me who quoted General French's letter and proposed that these troops should be liable to be called upon within or without Australia in war time. Who is to decide whether the war is one of such importance as to justify a call upon the colonies? We know that in this country we cannot call out our Reserves, we cannot embody our Militia, we cannot call up the Volunteers without a proclamation of emergency. In the Case of the colonies who would issue the proclamation of the emergency? Would it be the Parliament at home or the Parliament in the colonies? It would be very regrettable if it should ever happen that while in the opinion of one Parliament it appeared that there was emergency, it appeared in the opinion of the other Parliament that the emergency was not sufficient, Those are all points that would have to be looked in the face and, as the noble lord said, worked out on the spot before we could arrive at an understanding. There is another point. What would be the place of these colonial troops in the military system of their own colonies? The noble Lord knows very well that for many years past it has been our policy to concentrate our Imperial troops at home, in India, and in a few of the great garrisons We have withdrawn our troops from the outlying colonies, and our policy has been to induce the colonies, so far as possible, to make arrangements for their own defence. Now, would the Empire really gain unless those colonial reserves, which the noble Lord wishes to form, were additional to the colonial forces required for the defence of the colony itself? If the Imperial Reserves were only a part of the colonial Militia, I do not think it would be very satisfactory if, at a time of emergency, we found ourselves calling away from the Colonies the very élite of their force. That would be what is called "picking the eyes" out of their little army. That, again, is a point that will have to be considered. Then the noble Lord made another suggestion. He said, "Why should we not raise in the colonies an Imperial corps of cavalry or infantry which would form part of the British
    446
    Army, but which would be raised and maintained in the colonies?" The noble Lord knows the colonies a great deal better than I do, but I confess that I should have thought that an almost insuperable obstacle in the way of the adoption of such a, proposal is the very high rate of wages which obtains in the colonies. General French tells us in his letter that the minimum rate of wages paid by Government contractors is 7s. a day. I am afraid that that is a rate which, when compared with the wages the British Army receives, becomes almost prohibitive. When the noble Lord, not long ago, was in communication with the War Office upon this subject calculations were made, and I believe the result was to show that a force of 5,000 men paid at the rate of 6s. a day would cost no less than £400,000 more than a similar force paid at Imperial rates; and at the rate of 7s. a day it would cost nearly half a million a year more. That is rather a formidable obstacle, I think, to the proposal that we should raise a part of the Imperial Army within the colonies.
    LORD BRASSEY: I said only a small force for the purposes of instruction.
    The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No doubt the smaller the force the less the expense would be. One reason the noble Lord adduces in favour of his pro posal—and I think it a very sound reason indeed—is that since we have withdrawn British troops from the colonies there has necessarily no longer been in the colonies that high standard of smartness and efficiency provided by the well-trained and permanently trained forces forming part of the Imperial Army. I confess I think it is extremely desirable that that standard should, if possible, be afforded, and an attempt has been made to arrive at that by a system of interchanging units between the colonial and the Imperial forces. I mean that a colonial corps should for a time take its place in a British garrison and a British force should take its place for a time in a colonial station. That is a matter that was discussed by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies at a conference with the Colonial Premiers in the year 1897. The idea was, on the whole, favourably received, and the War Office entirely approved of it. New South Wales, I believe, accepted the

    447
    proposal, and was prepared to exchange a company of its garrison artillery with a company of Imperial Garrison Artillery. I believe New Zealand made an offer, and in Canada there have been similar interchanges between the troops belonging to the garrison of Halifax and the troops belonging to the Canadian Militia. The matter was progressing far from unfavourably when unfortunately the war came, and put an end to the negotiations which were going on. With regard to Naval Reserve, I can say little of my own knowledge, but I am authorised to say that, in principle, the First Lord of the Admiralty entirely accepts the idea of a colonial Naval Reserve, but he thinks, as, no doubt, does the noble Lord opposite, that it would be more prudent to wait for the accomplishment of Federation before attempting to advance the matter any further. My Lords, I can only add to what I have said that, agreeebly to the suggestion of the noble Lord behind me, I shall make it my business, in consultation with the Secretary for the Colonies, to advance the policy the noble Lord has advocated as much as we can possibly advance it. I can assure you no one hopes more anxiously and keenly than I do that in years to come we may find the soldiers of the great colonies fighting side by side with our own Imperial troops in the same patriotic and loyal spirit which they have exhibited during the war now in progress.
    EARL CARRINGTON: I hope your Lordships will bear with me for one single moment while I express the pleasure with which we on this side of the House have heard the eloquent words of the Secretary of State for War, when he spoke of the patriotism of the Colonies, in answer to Lord Brassey, whom we are glad to see present after five years service rendered with so much pride to himself and so much advantage to the great colony of Victoria. With regard to what Lord Brassey has said as to colonial mounted infantry, perhaps I may be permitted to say that fifteen years ago when I was in Australia I was much struck with the possibilities of mounted infantry in those colonies, and it was with peculiar pleasure that I read that the New South Wales Lancers were the first of the colonial contingents to arrive at the Cape, the first to be sent to the front, and the first to come under fire.
    448
    Lord Brassey spoke of the deep-seated patriotism that exists in the colonies. I hardly think that the colonists themselves know how deep-seated that patriotism is. It seems to me to be like one of those great Australian underground rivers that disappear in the bowels of the earth and then come up again, and appear and disappear again, and then when they are tapped they rise in a huge geyser, finally rushing down in a mighty torrent to the ocean. I think we can always rely on having the colonies on our side, but it must be on one condition. This country must recognise that there must be perfect equality between the soldiers of our great self-governing colonies and the English, Scotch, Welsh, and Irish troops. The noble Marquess said that we must move with great caution. Naturally, great caution is necessary, but I would venture very respectfully to suggest to him that we ought to insist that there shall be perfect equality between the Imperial and colonial forces, and that all honours and rewards shall be shared and dealt out equally to both branches of Her Majesty's servants in proportion to the strength of the men turned out.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR — HOSPITAL, AND MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS— COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN,who had on the Paper notice of the following question: "To ask if Her Majesty's Government can inform the House when the Commission to inquire into the question of the treatment of the sick and wounded soldiers in South Africa is likely to be appointed," said: My Lords, the announcement which was made in the other House of Parliament after the question in my name was placed on the Paper of course anticipates the answer to this question, which has, therefore, a somewhat belated appearance. However, although very apologetically, I take advantage of the fact that the question is on the Paper, to say two words by way of expressing the hope that, notwithstanding the important avocations of members of the Commission, it will be possible for the inquiry to be commenced without delay, not only because of the great interest and importance of the matters in question, but because many of the individuals who could give evidence regarding the state of matters at the particular period in question may be dispersed. For

  449
  example, it was mentioned the other day in the newspapers that a certain number of the Canadian contingent were sailing for home from Liverpool. Some of these men wore asked to contribute their impressions upon the matters referred to in this question, and I think the statements reported are significant. Of course I am only speaking from the reports given to the public; but what was said in effect was that in some respects there were things which were remembered with regret in regard to the medical arrangements, but at the same time they offered a hearty tribute of admiration with regard to other matters. I venture to think that that is significant, because in such vast operations as those of this war it is obvious that in certain sections of arrangements there might be defects or misfortunes, while side by side with those there were arrangements and matters calling forth only admiration. My Lords, I cannot refrain from expressing satisfaction, which, I am sure, will be common to all your Lordships, at the touching words of sympathy which fell from the noble Marquess, with regard especially to the death in South Africa of the two young Canadians, one being Lieutenant Borden, the only son of the Minister of Militia in Canada. The noble Marquess speaks not only as Secretary of State for War, but as a past Governor-General of Canada, and one whose name is familiar in the best sense in that country; and, as one of his successors in the position of Governor-General of Canada, I venture to assure the House that the words which fell from the noble Marquess will be welcomed throughout the Dominion with peculiar appreciation. With regard to the subject-matter of the question I would point out that at Netley there must be many soldiers invalided home from South Africa whose evidence might be taken regarding their experience at the seat of war. I trust that there will be no delay in the inquiry getting to work.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have every reason to believe that the Commission will commence its labours without any delay. The noble Earl is aware that the appointment to the two last seats in the Commission was only made yesterday or the day before. But I know that the Commission intend to meet immediately, and I know also that it is their desire to lose no time in taking
  450
  up the important question committed to them.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Seven of the clock till Tomorrow, half past Ten of the clock.