Sitting of 3 August 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY IN QUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
  Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords]; Scottish Ontario and Manitoba Land Company Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Brighton Corporation Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Hastings Harbour District Railway Bill [Lords]; Liverpool University Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
  South Staffordshire Tramways Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Airdrie and Coatbridge Tramways Order Confirmation.—Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Airdrie and Coatbridge Tramways, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  Airdrie and Coat bridge Tramways Order Confirmation Bill.—"To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Airdrie and Coatbridge Tramways." Presented accordingly; and ordered to be considered to-morrow.
  Lerwick Harbour Improvements Act (1877) Amendment Order Confirmation.—Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Lerwick Harbour, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  Lerwick Harbour Improvements Act (1877) Amendment Order Confirmation Bill.—"To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Lerwick Harbour." Presented accordingly; and ordered to be considered to-morrow.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Public Offices (Dublin) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill;
  1272
  Castleblaney, Keady, and Armagh Railway (Extension of Time) Bill, without Amendment.
  Military Lands Bill, with an Amendment.
  Pistols Bill; Ebbw Vale Water and Improvement Bill—now, Ebbw Vale Improvement Bill; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill; Stroud and District Tramways Bill; Erith Tramways and Improvement Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to—Manchester Southern Tramways Bill [Lords]; Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Stornoway, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Faringdon, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SHIP CANAL BETWEEN THE FIRTHS OF FORTH AND CLYDE.
  Petition from Alloa, in favour of construction; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  REVENUE BILL.
  Copy ordered "of Memorandum Explanatory of the Revenue Biil."—(Mr. Elliot.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 307.]

  CUNARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LIMITED.
  Copy presented, of an Agreement, dated 30th July, 1903, between the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and the Postmaster-General, of the one part, and the Cunard Steamship Company, Limited, of the other part, with Copy of Treasury Minute thereon, dated 31st July 1903, and Copies of the said Company's Memorandum and Articles of Association

  1273
  and of a draft Trust Deed for securing Debenture Stock [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  CANADA (PREFERENTIAL TARIFF FOR GOODS FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 29th July; Mr. Alfred Davies]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 310.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  Copy presented, of Supplement to the Thirty-first Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1901–2, in continuation of the Report of the Medical Officer for 1901–2, on Lead Poisoning and Water Supplies, Vol. II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Copy presented, of Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1903–4 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 311.]
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 29th July; Mr. Elliot]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 309.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Yeomanry Training on Chobham Common.
  MR. REMNANT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the 3rd Company of London Imperial Yeomanry, which is at present undergoing its annual training at Chobham, has been forbidden to manœuvre on Chobham Common; and, if so, will he state the reason for such prohibition.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This company has been refused permission to manœuvre on Chobham Common, but I am not aware of the reasons for the refusal. It has, however, been granted permission to manœuvre in Windsor Park.

  Construction of Rackwick Road Walls, Orkney.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Lord Advocate
  1274
  if, in view of the facts that have been laid before the Congested Districts Board, an independent officer will be sent to report to the Board on the Rackwick Road, Walls, Orkney, and the necessity or otherwise for its immediate construction.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Secretary for Scotland is not of opinion that any special inquiry is necessary in regard to the proposed Rackwick Road. The Congested Districts Board will consider the respective importance of this and other roads submitted by the County Council as soon as the Board are satisfied that the roads towards which grants have already been authorised are approaching completion, and an inquiry will be sent to the County Council asking for a report as to the exact state of progress of the several roads for which grants have been authorised.

  Construction of Causeway at Longhope, Orkney.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state what steps have been taken by the Congested Districts Board to secure the fulfilment of the arrangement for the construction of a causeway over the Ayre at Longhope, Orkney.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Congested Districts Board are informed that with the exception of a portion which it is proposed to leave un-causewayed until next year in order to test the effect of the winter storms, the causeway is expected to be finished by the end of September.

  Increment to Telegraphists for postal knowledge—Case at Shrewsbury.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that four telegraphists stationed at the Shrewsbury office, who were transferred from amalgamated offices, have received the increment for postal knowledge, while another telegraphist at the same town, who was transferred from an amalgamated office, has been refused the increment; and, if so, whether he will explain the reason for this difference of treatment, and have the case investigated, with a view to the concession of the increment.

  1275
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) As I stated in reply to a similar Question on Friday,† if the name of the officer referred to is furnished I will inquire into the matter.

  Sea Sorting Post Offices on Cunard Liners.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can state whether any, and, if so, what, arrangement has now been made for the establishment of sea sorting post offices on the mail steamers to New York of the Cunard line.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to his Question on this subject asked on the 9th of last month.‡ I am not in a position to give further information

  Publication of Registrar General's Report and Supplement to Annual Report of Local Government Board
  MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): To ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Sixty-fourth Annual Report (Births, Deaths, and Marriages, England) of the Registrar General for 1901, presented 4th August 1902, and when the Supplement to the Thirty-first Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1901–2, containing the Report of the Medical Officer for 1901–2, presented 3rd November 1902, will be delivered; if he can say what has been the cause of the delay in the publication of these Reports; and if he will take steps to alter the practice of presenting Command Papers in dummy in one session when not ready, and not delivering them until the next, in view of the inconvenience involved.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) As regards the Annual Report of the Registrar General, I am informed that it will be issued with very little further delay. The Registrar General states that the Report has been delayed exceptionally this year on account of the heavy pressure in his office due to the preparation of the Census Returns, and
  † See page 1080.
  ‡See (4) Debates, cxxv., 150.
  1276
  also to an important change which it has been found necessary to make in the tabulation of deaths. The Report of the Medical Officer of the Local Government Board, to which the hon. Member refers, has gone to press and will, I understand, probably be issued within a month. The issue of the Report this year has been delayed through the amount of special work which has been thrown on the medical branch in connection with the recent smallpox epidemic. I am desirous that Reports which are presented in dummy should be issued as soon as possible afterwards; but, as the hon. Member will see, the delay in the present cases was due to exceptional circumstances.

  Indian Commercial Relations with Tibet.
  Mr. DILLON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any information as to the negotiations alleged to be in progress between the Governments of China and of India as to India's commercial relations with Tibet; whether the Government of India has it in contemplation to impose any system of commercial relations on the Government of Tibet; and, whether he can lay any Papers upon the Table giving information as to the commercial resources of Tibet.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The negotiations shortly to commence will deal with difficulties which have risen in the conduct of trade between India and Tibet under the regulations drawn up and signed by British and Chinese Commissioners in 1893 to give effect to the Convention of 1890 between Great Britain and China. The negotiations will also deal with grazing and other disputes on the northern frontier of Sikkim and Tibet, which were laid down in the Convention. This Convention and the regulations have been published as a Parliamentary Return [C. 7312] of session 1894. As to the commercial resources of Tibet, there are no Papers which I can lay on the Table of the House. The imports from Tibet into India during the last five years averaged £115,000 per annum. The chief article of import is wool. A certain amount of borax, musk, salt, and living animals is also imported.

  Irish Education—Fees for Teaching Irish.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in national schools in Ireland, the principal teacher has authority to return his own name, solely, on the annual Returns for the teaching of Irish, not with standing that his assistant has also taught it during the annual period, but whose name does not appear on the annual sheets; and whether, in such a case, any remedy is open to the assistant by which he might recover his share of the fees earned by teaching this extra subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed by the Commissioners that the principal teacher has no authority to return his own name as sole teacher of Irish, if instruction is also given in the subject by the assistant teacher. If the hon. Member will communicate to the Commissioners the particulars of any such case the matter will be inquired into and a remedy applied if necessary.

  Persons in receipt of Relief Return.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Return standing on to-day's Paper, relative to Boards of Guardians (Persons in receipt of Relief), similar to the Return recently ordered for England and Wales, will be granted.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) On Tuesday last pointed out to the hon. Member that the preparation of a Return such as suggested would entail an immense amount of labour on the part of local authorities, and that I hesitate to impose this labour, the more particularly at the present moment, when the Poor Law Commission propose to compile statistics in the matter which will be duly published.
  The Return referred to is as follows—Boards of Guardians (Persons in Receipt of Relief) Return showing, in respect of each union and urban or rural district in Ireland, the number of persons of each sex in receipt from Boards of Guardians (a) of indoor relief or (b) of out-door relief on the first day of October, 1903, who were over sixty years of age, distinguishing those who were over sixty and under sixty-five,
  1278
  sixty-five and under seventy, seventy and under seventy-five, seventy-five and under eighty, and eighty years of age and upwards; lunatics in asylums, licensed houses, and registered hospitals; vagrants and persons who were only in receipt of relief constructively by reason of relief being given to wives or children, not being included; and. showing in regard to (a) the number of those who in the opinion of the medical, officer of the workhouse could not satisfactorily take care of themselves owing to mental or physical infirmity.

  Revision Court for Dalkey.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received resolutions from the Killiney and Dalkey Urban District Councils requesting that a revision Court may be held in Dalkey; and, if so,, whether he will advise the Lord Lieutenant to arrange this.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham). An official communication on this subject wag addressed to the hon. Member on the 1st instant. To that communication I have nothing to add.

  Health of John M'Elligott, a Prisoner in Dundalk Gaol.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received any reports from the Medical Officer of Dundalk Gaol as to the condition of health of John M'Elligott; whether he is aware that M'Elligott is 76 years of age, and that he has been now two years in prison for contempt of Court; and whether it has been brought under his notice that one of M'Elligott's daughters has offered to take her father's place in prison if the Court will release M'Elligott; and, if so, will he state whether he can take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Hr. Wyndham.) Reports on the condition of health of prisoners committed for contempt of Court are made at regular intervals to the committing Judge. The medical officer of the prison states that M'Elligott is sleeping and eating well, and is in a better condition of health than when he was first committed. I have no information

  1279
  in respect to the second part of the Question, and can only repeat what I stated in answer to the honourable Member's previous Question of the 13th July,† that the Master of the Rolls has on several occasions informed the prisoner that a verbal undertaking to abstain from repeating his contempt will be followed by immediate release.

  Suggested Steamer Service between Sligo and Galway.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Len-tenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the fact that the agricultural and manufacturing industries along the coast of Mayo are handicapped owing to the railway charges for the carriage of goods, and that a steamer service between Sligo and Galway, calling at the different towns on the coast of Mayo, would materially assist the development of those industries by cheapening the transit of goods, he will see that such a service is established.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) If, as I hope, a harbour is constructed at Inishlyre, it is not unreasonable to expect that steamers will call there without subsidies.

  Military Books for Officers' Messes.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the cost of military books to officers and of the fact that there is a military library only at large stations, where the greater part of the Army has not access to it, he will make arrangements to supply to each mess a library of standard military works to enable all officers co study their profession.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This question has been arid is now under consideration, but it is not possible to make any statement on the subject at present.

  Full Head-dress for Royal Irish Rifles Militia.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of state for War, whether he is aware that during the King's visit to the North of Ireland a guard of honour of Royal Irish Rifles Militia had to borrow their full head-
  †See (4) Debates, cxxv., 407.
  1280
  dresses from the regular battalion of the same regiment owing to the fact that full head-dress has never yet been provided for the men of Militia rifle battalions; and, if so, will he say when such full headdress will be provided.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Militia Rifle battalions, Fusiliers, and Highlanders have no full dress head-dress, and, in view of the heavy expense, there is no intention of issuing it.

  Great Britain and Canada—Bounties on Pig Iron.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, when the preferential tariff in favour of Great Britain by Canada was increased in 18971898 to 25 per cent., the bounty given on iron was increased from 2 dols. to 3 dols. per ton; what was the production of pig iron in Canada in 1897 and in 1901; whether, when the question of preferential duties was discussed at the Conference in 1902, any proposal was made to abandon the condemned principle of bounties to private manufacture in Canada; and whether it is proposed to establish bounties on iron in Australia.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) In 1898 the bounty on pig iron made from Canadian ore was raised from 2 dols. to 3 dols per ton. The bounty on pig iron made from imported ore remained at 2 dols. per ton The production of pig iron in Canada in 1897 was 58,007 tons, and in 1901 274,376 tons. The question of bounties was not discussed at the Conference. I have no information as to any proposal to establish bounties in Australia.

  Immigrants into Canada.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of immigrants into the Dominion of Canada in 1900 and 1901 respectively, distinguishing between those of the following nationalities: United States, British, Galicians, Germans, Scandinavians, French, Belgians, Doukhobors, and other nationalities.
  (Answered by Secretary Chamberlain.) Owing to the change in 1900 of the period for which immigration statistics

  1281
  in Canada are given from the calendar year to the fiscal year, which ends on 30th June, I am unable to give the Return desired; but probably the following information from the latest Report of the

  Increase of Population of Canada.
  Mr. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the rate of increase in the population of the Dominion of Canada between 1891 and 1901, and how it compares with the rate of increase in Great Britain during the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The increase in the population of the Dominion of Canada in the 10 years 1891 to 1901 was 11·14 per cent. The increase in the population of the United Kingdom during the same period was 9·9 per cent.

  Decrease of Birth Rate in Australia and New Zealand.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any official information showing whether the continuous decrease in the Mirth rates in Australia and New Zealand from 38 and 40 per thousand respectively in 1871 to 27 and 26 respectively in 1901 is due to circumstances peculiar to those colonies; and if he can state the corresponding birth rates in the Dominion.of Canada in 1871 and 1901.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I have no official information as to the causes to which the decline in the birth rate of the Australian Colonies and New
  Canadian Department of the interior will be sufficient.
  Immigrants into Canada for settlement, 1899 to 1902:—
  Zealand is due. There are no complete statistics as to the birth rate in Canada. One of the provinces has no registry of births and deaths.

  Imports into Canada.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, what was the value of dutiable goods imported into Canada for home consumption for the year 1902 under the general tariff, from Great Britain, the United States, Germany, France, Belgium, and Holland: from Great Britain under the preferential tariff: and, what was the value of all iron and steel, manufactured and unmanufactured, imported from Great Britain into Canada in the years 1900 and 1901; and what was the amount of bounty paid upon iron in Canada in the years 1897 and 1901.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The value of dutiable goods imported into Canada for consumption in the year 1901–2 under the general tariff from the countries named was as follows: Great Britain, £1,301,614; United States, £12,370,705; Germany, £1,866,116; France, £1,140,191; Belgium, £295,351; Holland, £105,507. From Great Britain under the preferential tariff, £5,905,691. The value of iron and steel, manufactured and unmanufactured imported from Great

  1283
  Britain in 1899–1900 was £1,178,144; in 1900–1901, £699,556; in 1901–02, £1,314,727. The bounties on iron and steel paid by the Canadian Government in 1886–7 amounted to £20,543; in 1900–1901, to £96,204.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Somali Operations.—Stopping Power of Bullets.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, what action he proposes to take with reference to General Manning's official report, that the present service ammunition has little stopping power, and that in a fanatical rush of savages a heavier bullet, or one with greater stopping power, is very requisite.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): Ammunition possessing greater stopping power than the service ammunition has been sent to Somaliland.

    Canada and Irish Home Rule.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that resolutions in favour of Home Rule for Ireland were recently adopted in the Canadian Parliament: and, if so, whether he will place a copy of these resolutions upon the Table of the House.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CRAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W): I suppose the hon. Member refers in his Question to an Address to the Crown passed by the Canadian Parliament in favour of Home Rule for Ireland. There is no objection to laying a copy of it on the Table of the House.
    MR. J. DEVLINsuggested that the Cabinet should, in view of the importance of colonial opinion, extend their inquiry to the question of Home Rule for Ireland.

    Kobé Consular Report.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will state when the Kobe Consular Report is likely to be issued; and will arrangements be made for the Report to be issued earlier in the year in future.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester): Since the Question was put upon the Paper the Report has been issued. The date of issue must in a measure depend upon the date on which the Returns are available from which the figures are compiled.

    Soudan Civil Service.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any kind of examination for candidates desirous of entering the service of the Government of the Soudan; and, if not, will he direct the Governor-General to arrange for some educational test, especially as regards a knowledge of Arabic.
    LORD CRANBORNE: There is at present no examination for candidates desirous of entering the service of the Government of the Soudan. The matter is under consideration.

    United States Sugar.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the statement on page 11 of the Findings of the Permanent Commission, that the United States sends us no bountied sugar, his attention has been directed to the fact that 23,000 cwts. of sugar was received last year from the United States, that bounties upon sugar cultivation and production have been given in the United States for thirteen years past, having been initiated at the same time as the countervailing duties on foreign bountied sugar, and that details of sugar bounties given in the State of New York are given in the Consular Report for that district; and, if so, whether he will say if any communications have taken place between the Government and the Government of the United States on the possibility that American sugar may be prohibited from entry if the Sugar Convention Bill came into force; and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the Table.
    LORD CRANBORNE: I see no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement referred to in the Question as to the amount of sugar received last year from the United States. His Majesty's Government are not aware of any evidence that it was bounty-fed, but the decision

    1285
    whether or not sugar exported from any country is bounty-fed lies with the Brussels Commission, and in the absence of any such finding no action is called for on the part of His Majesty's Government, and no communications have passed between the two Governments.

    American Shoe Trade.
    MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the statement in the Consular Report on the Trade of the United States that the Hinted States attribute the decrease in their shoe trade to the fact that British manufacturers are able to obtain American machinery from the linked States cheaper than the Americans themselves can buy it on the spot; and, if so, will this fact be brought to the attention of those holding the inquiry into the fiscal system of this country.
    THE PBESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I have seen the statement in question. Points of tins nature will of course be borne in mind.

    Stornoway Fishermen's Dwellings.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, seeing that the proprietor of the Island of Lewis has not yet come to terms with the applicants for fens for fishermen's dwellings near Stornoway, he will state what steps the Congested Districts Board propose to take in the matter.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): The Congested Districts Board's last information was that fees to be taken up by each applicant had not yet been arranged but were not expected to present much difficulty of adjustment. The matter is primarily one between the superior and the feuars: but the Board will make further inquiry as to the reason for delay.
    MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same state of things has been going on for the past twelve years?
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: No, Sir.

    South Uist Crofters.
    MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the promised inquiry into the condition of the crofters and cottars in South Uist is now proceeding; and, if so, when the Report may be expected to be issued.
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: As the hon. Member is aware, the district referred to in the Question has been the subject of anxious and careful consideration by the Secretary for Scotland early in the present year. The Secretary for Scotland had given instructions some time ago for a special inquiry into some matters brought under his notice, but before it could take place letters arrived containing distinct threats of unlawful action, and the Secretary for Scotland felt compelled, though with reluctance, to suspend for a time the instruction he hail given. It is his intention to allow the inquiry to take place at a suitable time, but he is unable to give any assurance in regard either to the date when the inquiry will be held or when the Report may be expected. I ant to add that a good deal will depend on the attitude adopted by those in the island who have endeavoured by threats to secure compliance with their wishes.

    Westminster Abbey.
    MR. CHANNING,: I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has considered the proposals of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to demolish the old residential quarter immediately south of Westminster Abbey and Deanery Garden, with a view to selling the sites for important commercial buildings; and whether, having regard to the undesirability and risk of erecting lofty buildings close to the Abbey, His Majesty's Government will make representations to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or take other steps to prevent this proposal from being carried out.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: This is a matter which does not come within the jurisdiction of the First Commissioner of Works. But he would strongly deprecate any building scheme which might impair the safety or amenity of the Abbey.
    MR. CHANNING: Has the Commissioner of Works no power over the height of buildings adjacent to such a building as Westminster Abbey.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I am afraid not. I can add nothing to my answer.

    Dublin Golf Club.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the sale in the Land Judge's Court of a portion of the North Bull to the trustees of the Dublin Golf Club, and, if so, whether, seeing that this portion of land has been used as public recreation ground, will he take steps to prevent it falling into the hands of private owners.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): I am informed that the property in question is and always has been private property. The Golf Club have no intention, I understand, of preventing the public from using, as a recreation ground, the portion of the North Bull acquired by the Club.

    Ballincollig Royal Powder Mills, Cork.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Ballincollig Royal Powder Mills, County Cork, have been closed since 30th June, and that in consequence a number of workmen have been thrown out of employment and are at present threatened with eviction from their cottages and plots of land; and if so, seeing that the present proprietors do not intend to reopen the mills, will he recommend to the proper authorities the desirability of negotiating for their purchase with a view to having them taken over and worked by the Government.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have communicated this Question to the War Department, and am informed that it does not require to purchase any powder mills.

    Irish National School Teachers.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many teachers in the service of the Commissioners of National Education, who
    1288
    are officially registered as first division of first class, are precluded by the seventy average (Rule 195 J) from attaining the maximum salary attached to the first section of the first grade; how many of these teachers are, as at present circumstanced, debarred from receiving any increments to their present salaries, as indicated in Rule 200, Section 2 (c); and whether, seeing that such teachers have been promoted to that class as a reward for efficiency and scholarship, as well as for long service, he will direct the attention of the Commissioners to their alleged grievances.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed by the Commissioners that there are 142 principal teachers registered under the old regulations as in the first division of the first class, who, owing to the fact that there is not an average attendance of severity pupils at the national schools in which they are serving, cannot receive the maximum salary prescribed for first division of the first grade teachers, and cannot receive any increments to their present salaries. These and other first division of first class teachers who are serving in smaller schools have no grievances under the new system of payments. The first grade income under the new system is an entirely different thing from first class salary under the old regulations.
    MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Commissioners and point out the undesirability of the placing these Civil servants in a worse position in regard to promotion than other Civil servants?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I understand that they are not labouring under any such grievance.

    Irish Housing Question.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Housing Bill of the President of the Local Government Board, about to be introduced as a Government measure, does not extend to Ireland; and whether it is the intention of the Government to also introduce a measure dealing with the question

    1289
    of the housing of the working classes in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As already stated, it is my intention during the autumn to consider the whole question of the housing of the labouring classes in Ireland.
    MR. NANNETTI: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the housing of the labouring classes does he mean the working classes generally?
    MR. WYNDHAM: The questions are somewhat germane. We had better take a view of the whole field.
    MR. SHEEHAN: Will that include the housing of the working classes in cities and towns?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot give any pledges. I have said the whole subject will be considered, but I cannot go into details.

    Sligo and the Congested Districts Board.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Sligo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that since its formation the Congested Districts Board have expended the sum of £86,025 in the counties of Donegal, Mayo, and Galway, whilst only £2,183 have been given to Sligo, and that applications for grants from Sligo have recently been refused by hat body, steps will be taken to have a representative from Sligo on the Congested Districts Board.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The figures quoted erpresent expenditure on engineering works only. There is no vacancy at present on the Board.

    Sligo Constabulary Office.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Sligo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Inland whether, in view of the fact that extra clerks have been employed during the past eighteen months in the office of the County In-
    1290
    spector, Royal Irish Constabulary, at Sligo, he will state whether this extra staff, which includes a detective sergeant, is still continued; and, if so, will he state the nature of their duties and the amount payable by the ratepayers for their maintenance.
    MR. WYNDHAM: One additional constable clerk has been employed. His services are still required. The extra expense involved is borne by the Constabulary Vote.

    Enniskillen Prison.
    MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the County Fermanagh Grand Jury were asked at last Assizes to appoint visiting justices to the disused Enniskillen prison, and why they were not asked to appoint visiting justices to the prison where Fermanagh prisoners are sent.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The request, I am informed, was made by inadvertence The representation of the County Fermanagh Grand Jury on the Visiting Committee of the Sligo prison will be duly provided for.

    Lismore Rural Council and the Crimes Act.
    Mr. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution of the Lismore Rural Council urging the repeal of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 187, and resolutions of other public bodies in Ireland to the same effect; and, if so, whether he will undertake to consider the subject with a view to legislation in the next session of Parliament in the sense indicated.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; resolutions to this effect have been received. The question raised is one of policy upon which I have no statement to make.

    Lloyd Apjohn Property, County Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what progress has

    1291
    been made with the sale to the tenants of the Lloyd Apjohn property in the parish of Grean, county Limerick; and whether it will now be carried out under the Purchase Acts hitherto prevailing, or under the Purchase Act foreshadowed in the Bill at present before Parliament.
    MR. WYNDHAM: On Thursday last the Land Judge expressed dissatisfaction at the non-settlement of the rental of the estate and adjourned the proceedings until November. He also announced that if the rental was not completed by November he would transfer the charge of the estate to another solicitor.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Who is responsible for this unsatisfactory position of affairs?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I infer some delay was due to the solicitor.

    Policemen as Clerks of Petty Sessions.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the rules for the appointment of clerks of petty sessions provide that policemen and others up to the age of fifty years are eligible to compete, whilst civilians over the age of forty years are disqualified; and, if so, whether he will take steps to either raise the limit for all candidates, or to place policemen on a level with candidates who have not been in receipt of public money.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The age limit of fifty years applies also to civilians, such as practising barristers, solicitors, clerks, and justices of the peace. These persons and retired officers of the constabulary possess a special knowledge of the duties of petty sessions clerk, and the limit was designedly extended to secure their services. It is not proposed to raise the limit in the case of other persons not so qualified.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is it the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that a policeman past the age of fifty years is fit to become a petty sessions clerk?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Under the maximum of fifty, yes.

    Irish Development Grant.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether in apportioning the money available under the Irish Development Grant for different purposes, the views of public bodies and others in reference to primary education and economic development will receive consideration as well as the views of those in official positions.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Certainly.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not the fact that this money cannot be allocated without the consent of Parliament?
    MR. WYNDHAM'Sreply was inaudible.

    Irish Industrial Inquiry.
    MR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Select Committee was appointed in the Session 1884–5 to inquire into the natural resources and the present condition of manufacturing and productive industries in Ireland, and to report how those natural resources may be more fully developed, and how those industries may be encouraged and extended; and that the Committee was unable in the time at their disposal to take sufficient evidence to enable them to agree upon specific recommendations, but recommended that a Committee be appointed in the next session of Parliament to continue the inquiry; and, if so, whether, in view of the importance of such inquiry and its bearing on the future prospects of Ireland, he will see that the Committee is re-appointed.
    MR. WYNDHAM: It is not intended, nor is it necessary, to re-appoint the Committee of 1885. The Recess Committee has since made a special study of the industrial position and needs of Ireland. The results of their investigations have been published. The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, created by the Act of 1899, has been furnished with funds and machinery for the purpose of carrying out such inquiries, and is constantly

    1293
    engaged, through its experts and with the aid of advisory committees representative of particular industries, in conducting investigations much more direct and definite than would be possible by a Parliamentary Committee. The Department has already published the results of much of the economic information so far acquired, and is constantly supplementing these publications.

    Queen's County Jury Panel.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I big to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Ins attention has been directed to the fact that the name of a juror rated at over £100 has been struck off the special jury panel of Queen's County by the rate collector without direction from the Judge of Assize or Revising Barrister; and, if so, will he state under what authority the rate collector so acted.
    MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member will forward me the name I will inquire.

    Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act (1886) Amendment Bill.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasure whether he has yet considered the advisability of giving facilities for the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act (1886) Amendment Bill, the object of which is to extent the benefits of the Crofters Act, 1886, to small tenants holding under lease in the crafting counties.
    THE PRIME MINISTE AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)was under stood to say he could hold out no hope to the hon. Member on the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked as to the course of business.
MR. A. J BALFOUR: I hope I may take after twelve o'clock to-night the Report of the Sugar Convention (Expenses and Duties) Resolution; Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Bill, Second Reading; Poor Law (Dissolution of Scholl Districts and Adjustments) Bill,
1294
Third Reading; Public Buildings Expenses Bill, Second Reading; Ireland Development Grant Bill, consideration as amended; Naval Works Bill, Third Reading and Patriotic Fund Bill, Committee. There are certain Supplementary Estimates which we must take after twelve o'clock in order to comply with the Standing Order; but these, I believe, are quite uncontroversial.
MR. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say as to Wednesday and Friday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, it is impossible to foresee the exact course of the business.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When is Supply to be closed?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Thursday is the penultimate day.
MR. FLYNN: Will the Government give any facilities for the Butter Bill, to which so much time has been devoted?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give any promise of that kind.

NEW BILL.
  LIQUOR SELLERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  "To provide for the payment of compensation by sellers of liquor in certain cases," presented by Sir Wilfrid Lawson supported by Mr. T. W. Russell; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 310.]
  BUSINESS of THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Ordered, That the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, 1903–4 (New Services), and Army Excess Vote, 1901–2, may be considered in Committee of Supply at this evening's Sitting after midnight—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

  SUPPLY [21ST ALLOTTED DAY].
  (Considered in Committee.)
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a suns, not exceeding £6,895,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge for provisions, forage, and other supplies, including South African compensation claims, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904."
  COLONEL LEGGEmoved to reduce the Vote by £100. He said the recruits of the; Army were not fed as well as the trained soldiers, who had an extra 3d. per day messing allowance. This extra allowance the recruit was not allowed to have until he was nineteen years of age, or had what was called the physical equivalent of that age, and even then he must have served six months and given evidence of satisfactory progress. It was very hard on him, because at the time he entered the Army he was usually underfed; he had, moreover, to work hard and constantly, and was at a time of life when food was most necessary to him. The Secretary for War two years ago had said that the matter had been carefully considered, but that it would appear that there was no justification for relaxing the regulations. He regarded that answer as satisfactory, because had he been merely told that the matter was under consideration lip would have been perfectly hopeless, because when once a question reached that stage in the War Office nothing more was ever heard about it. Now, however, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to hold out some hope that, if not immediately, at any rate next year
  1296
  he would be able to see his way to relax the regulations and give the recruit the increased food which he so urgently required.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Item A (Cost of Provisions) be reduced by £100." (Colonel Legge.)
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid this question had been frequently before the House during the last two years. The food of the Army was still inferior in quantity to the food of the Navy, which, however, had recently been increased as a result of the Report of a recent inquiry, and he believed the greatest difficulty in the way of recruiting at present was the smaller quantity of food given in the Army. He entirely endorsed, therefore, the remarks of his hon. and gallant friend. There was another matter which certainly ought to he looked into by the Committee. They had recently had the question raised of the destruction of rations in South Africa, and also as to the quality of the rations supplied. With reference to this question a book had just been published which deserved attention. He referred to Sir Wodehouse Richardson's recent book, "With the Army Service Corps in South Africa." Sir Wodehouse Richardson, who was the principal officer of the Army Service Corps in South Africa, gave the real dates of the mobilisation of the expeditionary force, which were very different from the dates given to that House, and dealing with rations, said that 20,000,000 lbs. of preserved meat and vegetable rations passed under his surveillance. The following entry appeared in his diary—
  "Meat and vegetable rations. A large proportion of those sent to South Africa were found to be unfit for consumption."
  After such a statement from so high an authority he thought an explanation should be given by the Government on the subject. He was aware that it was alleged on behalf of those who supplied the rations that the goods were damaged.—wilfully or carelessly—before they were tested, by persons in Government employ, but certainly this was a matter on which they ought to press the Government for a clear statement of the confession which had come into their possession.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsupported the appeal which had been made in favour of an improvement in the rations of the private soldier. He did not go so far as to say that it was necessary the youngest recruits should have exactly the same full ration as the full fighting man, but still there was room for improvement. He wished mainly to point out that the private soldier did not object so much to the food itself as to the way in which it was prepared and served, and he suggested that some little expense might be incurred in providing the men with proper utensils. It was not calculated to encourage decent men to join the Army to compel them to take their liquid nourishment out of an earthen ware bowl.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): A mug.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the right hon. Gentleman might call it a mug, but it had no handle, and it was very unpopular in the Army. Why not provide the soldiers with some more decent method of consuming their rations? Let them lame the ordinary appendages of civilised feeding. It would not involve very great expense, but it would remove a serious grievance which certainly had a tendency to discourage recruiting.
  MR. WLLIAM REDMONDsaid he had addressed several Questions to the Secretary for War on the question of the destruction of rations at Pretoria, and he would now like to know the result of the right hon. Gentleman's communications with South Africa on the subject. This was an extremely serious matter. Something like £80,000 worth of rations were declared to be unlit and were ordered to be destroyed. In view of the appalling amount of distress which existed in all parts of the country—in view of the hundreds of thousands of people actually in a state of starvation—or verging upon starvation, it was a horrible thing to read that £80,000 worth of the rations paid for by the taxpayers of the country had had to be destroyed as if they were so much
  1298
  rubbish in South Africa. The matter called for the most searching inquiry on the part of the Government. When he first put the Question he had not the faintest idea of the names of the firms who supplied the rations, nor did he think that that was a matter which concerned a private Member. It was one rather for the War Office. He now had information of a more or less reliable character that, as a matter of fact, a great portion of these rations were not really bad or unfit for human consumption when they were destroyed, and that quantities were eaten by the people of the locality without the slightest ill-effects. Remembering how thousands of people in this country and especially in Ireland found it difficult to find food for their children, he desired to know what means were taken to determine whether these rations were good or not, whether those means were such as to satisfy the authorities in South Africa that they were really bad, and whether any rumour had reached the Secretary of State to the effect that a large portion of these rations were hastily assumed to be unfit food. It was most deplorable and regrettable that food unfit for consumption should be sent out for our men who were risking their lives on the battle field, but it was almost criminal if food which was not unfit to he eaten had been destroyed in such vast quantities. They ought to have a frank and full statement from the Government on the subject.
  COLONEL BLUNDELLsupported the suggestion that larger rations should be given to recruits, especially when drill and gymnastic exercises are being carried On together. It might be done with ease at recruit training depôts like Caterham, and with a little trouble he should think the difficulty could be overcome in regiments where the recruits mess with soldiers who have passed their drill.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton)said he would answer the hon. and gallant Member for St. George's Hanover Square, at once. He had complained that the recruit had not the same messing facilities as the

  1299
  trained soldier. He would ask the hon. and gallant Member to make a comparison between the position of the trained soldier in 1895 and at the present time. In 1895 the trained soldier had 1s. per day and 3d. for messing. The recruit had precisely the same conditions now as the trained soldier bad in 1895. Nine months after he reached the age of nineteen he now got 3d. for messing allowance and 2d. for stoppages. He thought the man who was serving his apprenticeship should be compelled to find something towards the education which was being given to him in order to fit him for his career. As they had done much to increase the pay of the soldier, and as next year there would come into force a still further payment from the State to the soldier, they hesitated about putting upon the country a still further burden by supplying the recruit with the extra money which would put him into the same position as the trained soldier. They were justified in saying that while he was a recruit he should be considered as serving his apprenticeship, and should be required to purchase any extra provisions he required, other than those allowed by the State. He agreed that it was desirable that, as far as possible, the recruit should be well fed, but he thought he should he required to find a certain amount of the extra nourishment while he was a recruit and not a trained soldier.
  With regard to the destruction of provisions in South Africa he would lay the whole case before the House. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman had quoted a paragraph from a book written by Colonel Richardson. He did not know whether that book had been issued to the public or whether it had been published for private circulation, but he had not had the privilege of seeing it. He had made inquiries since that paragraph was read, and he could not find that Colonel Richardson had ever made any complaint officially to the War Office similar to that which he bad put into his book, which was written after he had left the Army. He could not help saying that this was rather hard upon those who were trying to meet the objections which were being put forward as the results of the late
  1300
  war. The purchase of preserved meat for South Africa was supervised in the following way. At nearly all the contractors' manufactories they had men expressly placed, not only to inspect the meat when it was being put into the tins but also to inspect it before it was prepared ready to put into the tins, and they were given full power to reject in any and every way anything which they thought undesirable. The goods when supplied were forwarded, for trans-shipment to South Africa, to Woolwich, and there the War Office had again inspectors who not only took out tins from any consignment for examination, but they also sent samples to the public analyst to be analysed not only for the quality but also for any deterioration of the contents of the tins, and an inspection of the tins and the material of the tins. There was not one single complaint from the analyst that either the tins or the meat were anything but what was considered up to the specification, and those were the most stringent conditions they could put upon any manufacturer. Therefore, he thought the Committee would hold that the War Office did all it possibly could to secure for the troops in South Africa and other places that when it left this country the preserved meat should be in the best condition that they could devise for preservation and for the use of the troops. In a matter like this the Committee should allow some line to be drawn between the responsibility of the War Office at home and the responsibility of those on the spot. As far as the War Office were concerned their sole duty must be, and should be, to try and get the best article, and be perfectly certain that the best article went out from this country in as perfect a condition as supervision could possibly secure. He maintained that the War Office did that. With regard to the destruction of the provisions in South Africa, he candidly confessed that he wished that more careful inspection had been made of those goods before they were summarily disposed of by the general officer in command. Reports came to him that, owing to the deterioration of the preserved rations, it was suspected that there was a certain amount of illness amongst the troops. He thereupon

  1301
  assembled a board, who took a percentage of the rations still in store, examined them, and on these examinations it was reported that the rations were in a state which necessitated their destruction. Upon that report the general officer commanding ordered the destruction of the whole lot.
  The hon. Member for East Clare had asked him a Question as to whether he had heard rumour that some of these rations ordered to be destroyed were taken away by the natives and eaten by them, and that no ill consequences arose. He was not perfectly certain that a thing which agreed with a native would always agree with an European, and therefore that argument did not weigh very much with him. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen read out a letter in the House in which it was stated that the natives had taken away some of this preserved meat, that they had eaten it, and that it had done them no harm. In this matter they had to place themselves in the position of the general officer commanding. He assembled a board which reported that the rations ought to be destroyed, and he had them destroyed. Even if he had a doubt in ins own mind that some of those rations were not as bad as the report of the samples made out, he had to consider whether it was worth the risk, in order merely to preserve perhaps an infinitesimal number of the rations, to risk the health of the troops under his command. That being so he accepted the responsibility which, personally, he wished he had accepted after a closer examination of the rations themselves; but, after all, it was a responsibility in regard to winch the House generally would hold that he exercised the wisest discretion in his power, and did what he thought was best for the troops under his command. He destroyed those rations, and there now arose the question of responsibility for their replacing, or any fine in lieu of replacement, a question which must he dealt with by them and by those who destroyed the rations. If there was any case where they could find negligence or shortcomings on the part of a contractor they would not allow him to escape from any liability. The House must understand that in these matters hon. Members must discriminate to a certain extent
  1302
  between rations so destroyed in time Of peace and rations destroyed in time of war. He said that more especially now, because with regard to these rations they had not previously had any complaint, nor did he find that the men who had the same kind of rations had ever made any formal complaint about them. It was a big trade and one which they must not depreciate except on the fairest grounds and after the closest examination. He therefore asked the House to realise that a tin of meat which might be perfectly good for two years when properly stored had not the same chance of deteriorating as the tins which had to go to the Tropics and he stored in all sorts of places, in all weathers, without shelter, sometimes in the damp, and sometimes in the blazing sun. Under those circumstances the meat had not the same chance as when stored at home. Some allowance must, therefore, be made for the conditions under which these provisions were stored, and possibly those were some of the various causes which might have helped the deterioration of these particular rations. At the same time they were making further inquiries into the matter. They had telegraphed for further particulars which had to be cleared up before they could deal with the manufacturers, but he repeated that, as far as they were concerned, they knew and believed that the provisions left this country in an absolutely good condition, and, as far as any legal rights they had got in regard to compensation were concerned, they were perfectly prepared and intended to insist upon them being upheld.
  MR. WIILIAM REDMONDsaid the noble Lord had just stated that the Government were still making inquiries, but he had made one admission which completely justified the action taken by those who had drawn attention to this matter. He bad said that he considered that the general officer who ordered the destruction of these goods did so before he had made a good and sufficient inquiry. That was a serious statement and it put on the War Office the responsibility of taking some action with regard to the officers who ordered the destruction of tens of thousands of pounds worth of property without a sufficiently exhaustive inquiry. The noble Lord made another statement which, he thought,

  1303
  ought to shift the ground of the inquiry to some extent, from that altogether. The noble Lord said they were inquiring as to the responsibility of the contractors and that they had not come to a conclusion. That was so far satisfactory, but he wished to know whether the noble Lord would make an inquiry as to the officers. The noble Lord stated that the most scrupulous examination imaginable was made of the goods before they left England; first of all they were inspected while in the process of manufacturing, and secondly at Woolwich before they were shipped. Within a few months of the examination by these officers they were again examined by another set of officers in Pretoria, and whereas the officers at the factories and at Woolwich passed the goods as perfectly sound, the other officers condemned them as bad. That was an extraordinary state of affairs. He thought the War Office were bound to inquire very closely into the suitability of the officers who made these inquiries, both in South Africa and in England, because to most people it would seem a very unlikely thing that goods which were passed in England should, within a few months, be condemned in South Africa. The presumption was that one of these two sets of officers did not do their duty. The noble Lord said that allowance must be made for climatic considerations, but that, he thought, would not hold water for a single moment. He believed that the contractors themselves, if they were asked, would repudiate the idea that any climatic influences could have such an effect upon tinned goods of this description, if they were properly tinned. There was no reason why they should be exposed to the sun in Pretoria. The noble Lord would find, if he inquired, what they all knew, that the serious part of this matter was that a large portion of the goods were examined and condemned within a few months of their arrival in South Africa. That was an unusual state of affairs. One could understand tins which had been knocking about for years in all kinds of weather and places deteriorating, but the serious matter was that many of the tins which were ordered to be destroyed had only just arrived in South Africa. Were the
  1304
  two sets of officers who made the examination to be passed by scot free? Was there to be no inquiry as to their fitness? Were the Committee to be told their names, and were they medical men? What process did they put the food under in order to examine it? This was as serious a matter almost as any case that might be made out with reference to the culpability of the contractors themselves. There must be fault and blame somewhere, and He would ask the noble Lord to say whether careful inquiry would be made, not only with regard to the contractors, but the officers. The noble Lord had said that this was the first time complaints had been made with regard to rations of this description. He heard the statement was a little surprise, because the information he had received did not tally with it. Did the noble lord say now that, outside of these rations which were destroyed in Pretoria a few months ago, no complaint had been made with reference to any of the rations supplied either to the Army or the Navy? He had received a contrary statement, and he should be very glad to hear that it was not true.
  MR. MALCOLMjoined the hon. Member for East Clare in expressing surprise at the statement made by the noble Lord that the tinned meat destroyed at Pretoria was the first lot of which he had heard any complaint. He remembered that a couple of years ago he wrote to the War Office on behalf of some canteen contractors whose goods were returned from Cape Town. He thought that a word from the noble Lord would rehabilitate some of the canteen contractors who had smarted a good deal under the condemnation they suffered. He asked the Secretary of State for War two years ago whether there were any contracts for canned meats going to Canadian contractors because he knew that there were a great I many going to American contractors. His right hon. friend informed him that the Canadian contract goods were very inferior indeed, and that some of them had to be returned to Canada, He then made some representations to the Colonial Office because it seemed to him very hard that the Canadian contractors should be excluded altogether,

  1305
  perhaps on account of the wrongdoing of two or three contractors in Canada. He understood that when the goods were sent back to Canada a small committee examined them, and the report that reached him was that they found there had been some considerable mistake. A great many of the packages had never been opened, and they were quite as good when returned to Montreal as when they were sent out. There was naturally a good deal of soreness felt by the Canadian contractors who thought they had not, on the whole, been very well treated as compared with American contractors who had done nothing at all for us in the course of the war. He wished to know whether it was under some misapprehension that these goods were returned.
  COLONEL LEGGEsaid that the matter now before the Committee was a question of money, but so far as the soldiers were concerned, it was a question of food and not of pay. Every soldier paid 3d. per day out of Iris pay towards extra messing, and in addition to that the old soldier got this messing allowance of 3d. per day, but it did not go into his pocket at all. The old soldier got the benefit of extra messing which the recruit did not get. Three years ago he was commanding a reserve regiment, and it so happened that there were not enough old soldiers to form the regiment. He had 200 old soldiers and 300 recruits. These 200 were ex-soldiers, who came back to serve with the colours in response to the appeals which were made, and they received their extra messing allowance. In a good many cases their waist measurement was considerably larger than their chest measurement, but with the recruits the measurements were the other way. It was the recruits who wanted the extra messing, and he hoped his right hon. friend would do something to meet this requirement.
  MR. MACONOCHIEsaid he was surprised to hear the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean, about tinned rations for the Army. He had the pleasure of meeting Sir Wodehouse Richardson, whom the right hon. Gentleman quoted, at his
  1306
  request, and particularly discussed the question of meat rations. His words to him were to the effect that he had had considerable practical experience of Maconochie's tinned rations, and that he found they were perfectly satisfactory. He said that what he desired was a square tin and a better method of opening it than by knife. The hon. Member did not think that this discussion, whatever might come out of it, would be for the benefit of the manufacturers of this country or the working classes, unless they could show that it was no new thing for this ration to be praised and not blamed, and that it had been in use for many years. The Times correspondent, writing from Merawi in September, 1897, said—
  "It is fortunate that officers and correspondents are not dependent on this country for provisions. We came up well supplied with stores, and ni my opinion a Maconochie Army ration of tinned beef or mutton is far more palatable than the fresh meat we purchase here."
  On February 12th, 1897, referring to the Ashanti expedition, the Allahabad Poineer stated—
  "Maconochie field rations, which I think I have mentioned to you before, have gained golden opinions in the late Ashanti expedition."
  The British Medical Journal, the Daily Chronicle, the Lancet, the Daily News and the Pioneer bore testimony to similar effect. The hon. Member said he had a host of extracts from letters of soldiers at the from praising this particular form of food. Under these circumstances, he thought it was only fair to ask that the manufacturers should tar given the benefit of the doubt and not be condemned when there was not a single service Member in the House, who was at the war, who had not expressed appreciation of the Maconochie Army ration.
  SIR ELLIOTT LEESasked whether arrangements could he made for rations being put up in smaller tins than was done during the last war. It was very inconvenient to have seven-pound tins of rations, and smaller quantities would be more serviceable.
  LORD STANLEYsaid his hon. friend had mentioned this matter of the size of rations as soon as he came back from South Africa, and he was glad to be able to state that steps would be taken to

  1307
  ensure that that they would be made up in smaller quantities in future. In regard to the remarks of his hon. friend the Member for Stowmarket in regard to canned meat obtained from Canada, he had to say that this meat was condemned by the officers appointed by Lord Kitchener who examined it at Cape Town. The committee were not satisfied. The sample was divided into two parts—one being sent to Woolwich and the other to Montreal for examination. Professsor Robertson of Canada was allowed to be present at the examination. At Montreal they were satisfied that the meat was quite good. At Woolwich, which, after all, was the place which must know more about the matter, they were not at all satisfied. They said that the meat was not good, that it was composed in great part of gristle and they unhesitatingly condemmed the sample. In that respect it might be said that those who were unbiassed at home confirmed the opinion of those in South Africa, and that as a matter of fact the officers appointed by Lord Kitchener were perfectly right. In saying that unless there was a distinct improvement they could not continue employing these Canadian firms whose goods had been condemmed, it must be understood that where Canadian contractors endeavoured to act up to the War Office specification there would be every inclination to give them the same opportunity for contracting as was given to foreign countries. Therefore, there was not the slightest bias on the part of the War Office against the Canadian manufacturers. In regard to what was said as to making the meals of the soldiers more palatable in the sense of affording improved accommodation, they were doing what they said in the way of providing separate dining rooms and in making the dinner more of a real dinner and less of a picnic than formerly. It had improved, and if there was a way of improving it farther without involving large expense on the nation, he would be only too glad to receive any proposals and recommend them fm approval. He thought that the hon. Member for Clare had misconstrued his words. What the hon. Member said was that he was not satisfied that there had been a sufficiently good inquiry. What he had said was that he could have wished that there had been a larger percentage than one per cent., but that they
  1308
  did not know what other reasons—there might have been many—influenced the committee in the decision they arrived at. In regard to what the hon. Member said about officers not doing their duty, he could not, in any way, agree with it.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he did not say that the officers did not do their duty. He only asked the noble Lord whether an inquiry would be held into the unusual fact that, whereas one set of officers at Woolwich and the factories said that the goods were perfectly good and sound, another set of officers in South Africa decided exactly the reverse. There must be something wrong there.
  LORD STANLEYsaid that that did not at all follow. It must be remembered that a few months intervened between the two examinations, during which there was every sort of change of climate, atmosphere and condition. It might be a matter for consideration whether the War Office requirements as to the goods being manufactured with sufficient care, so as to preserve the meat during these months and provide against all changes of climate which might intervene, had been fulfilled.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked for how long these tinned rations were expected to hold good; whether any guarantee as to length of time was given with them; or whether hey were bought on the understanding that within a few months under such conditions they might be expected to turn bad.
  LORD STANLEYsaid that there was a guarantee for two years, and that was what made him say that he thought there might be a legal liability to make good the loss on the part of the manufacturers. He was not in a position to state fully when these tins did arrive in South Africa. He might ease the minds of those who thought that these preserved rations were neither good nor palatable by saying that his friend the Secretary to the Admiralty asked the Navy officials their opinion of the tinned rations, and the reply was, that the condemnation of tinned meats for the Navy

  1309
  was very small, and did not average more than ·351 per cent. of the total stocks per annum. The Committee would therefore see that when the War Office selected these particular preserved rations for the Army, they had, at all events, a good basis for believing they had got a good article for the Army in the field.
  MR. JOHN BURNSasked if the noble Lord could inform the Committee what proportion of the condemned rations were in soldered tins and what only in sealed tins.
  LORD STANLEYsaid he had no information at present, but that was one of the points they were dealing with.
  MR. MACONOCHIEasked if there were not 1,150,000 soldered tins and about 550,000 or 600,000 unsoldered.
  LORD STANLEYsaid he would endeavour to get the information.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he wished to press this point, because it would be of use in the future to know the proportion of soldered and sealed tins. He suspected that the soldered tins were infinitely the better.
  LORD STANLEYsaid he dared say they were, and if he could get the information before evening he would give it to the Committee.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if the result of the inquiry would not be given in Papers to be laid before the House.
  LORD STANLEYsaid he did not think it would be necessary to publish Papers. The information could be given in answer to Questions.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he did not blame the noble Lord, because he had given the Committee all the information he could, but this was a matter which he was perfectly justified in raising. He did not know whether other Members came in contact, as he did, with the very poor classes of the population both in Ireland and this country,
  1310
  who could hardly find the means of subsistence and who were absolutely in a state of want and misery; and when they were told that £80,000 worth of food had been destroyed, either wrongly or because it was bad, it was a shocking state of things which ought to be thoroughly inquired into.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he wished to point out that the reply of the noble Lord was most unsatisfactory, because he talked of the recruit being entitled to tins or that. It was not a question of what he was entitled to, but of State policy. They ought to attend to the point which the recruits themselves said was the greatest difficulty in the way of recruiting. There was a very general belief that the shortness of food was the difficulty in the way of recruiting at the present time. The principle laid down by the Admiralty Committee was sound, that the State ought to give that which a man needed in the shape of food. At present the State did not give him that.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was not in the least insensible to the appeal he made; but he asked the Committee to follow the course of the concessions which had been made, under the influence of the right hon. Gentleman, in order to avoid the difficulties to which allusion had been made. It was only six years ago, and then the trained soldier had 1s. a day pay, out of which he paid 3d. for messing and 2d. for stoppages. In order to add to the attractions of the service and to give the man more money in his pocket at the end of the week, the War Office induced the Committee to vote an extra 3d. to every man who had completed his recruit drill. That limitation was put for two reasons. First, it was urged that it was not fair to expect a man to go on serving after he had come to his full strength, and to a full knowledge of Ins work, at the same rate of pay as was given to the boy who had not his full strength or full trained ability. And second, because they were urged to establish a difference between the two classes. Again, the War Office obtained

  1311
  the permission of the Committee in 1901 to make a further very large concession, and give every soldier 2d. a day to carry stoppages. Then, next April, every soldier who had two years service would get 6d. a day on re-engagement. In other words, the trained soldier had formerly a pay of 1s. a day, then he had 1s. 5d., and soon he would have 1s. 11d.; and the difference between what he had in his pocket on a Saturday night would be 7d. a day formerly and 1s. now; and between 7d. a day formerly and 1s. 6d. soon, or an increase of nearly 150 per cent. He was more anxious than any man alive to see contentment produced in the Army; and he had done more than any man living to induce the Committee to agree to supply the wants of the soldier. It was now said, because they had done so much for the trained soldier, that they were damaging the position of the recruit. As regarded what was said by his hon. friend the Member for the Fareham Division, he recognised to the full the desirability of improving what he might call the attraction of the dining arrangements in barracks. The present Commander-in-Chief had given a great deal of attention to this subject, and. in this connection, the great expense which they had asked the State to incur in order to provide dining rooms should not be forgotten. They had now obviated the necessity of men dining in their sleeping rooms, or, in the case of cavalry regiments, over stables. He hoped his hon. and gallant friend would
  not find it necessary to proceed to a division. If he did, he would find in the lobby against him many who sympathised to the full with the object he had in view, and who had done all they could to carry it out. In his opinion, the Committee would be well advised to wait and see the effect of the new conditions before they approved of further heavy charges being incurred.
  COLONEL LEGGEsaid he felt some hesitation in withdrawing, because he felt very strongly in this matter. However, he quite appreciated all his right hon. friend had done for the Army; and he would again press upon him the great necessity of treating recruits well. He thought it was a pity that when the alterations in pay were made the question of the pay of recruits was not also taken into consideration. He quite understood that a recruit was an apprentice and should not be paid as well as a trained soldier; but he hoped the matter would not be lost sight of, and that some day or other the recruit would be better fed than he was at present.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think him discourteous, but many hon. Members felt strongly in the matter, and would have to press for a division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided, Ayes, 44; Noes, 110. (Division list No. 206.)

  AYES.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Aurthur D.

  Spencer, Rt Hn C.R. (Northants

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Burns, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.

  Burt, Thomas

  Labouchere, Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Ure, Alexander

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Wallace, Robert

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lough, Thomas

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Crooks William

  Lundon, W.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Delany, William

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Morley, Rt. John (Montrose

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Emmott, Alfred

  O'Brien, P.J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Partington, Oswald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Shackleton, David James

  Mr. Fuller and Mr. Bell.

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Balcarres, Lord

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Haslett, Sir. James Horner

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Heath, James (Staffs, N. W.)

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Kemp, Lieut.-Col. George

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

  Stanley, E. Jas. (Somerset)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Stroyan, John

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Loder, Gerald, Walter Erskine

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Douglas, Rt. Hon, A. Akers

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Valentia, Viscount

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton-u.-Lyne)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell (Birm

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Forster, Henry William

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gordon, Hn J E (Elgin and N'rn

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S)

  Percy, Earl

  Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormbhy-(Lincs.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Purvis, Robert

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR A. HAYTERsaid that before the Vote was finally taken be wished to ask a few Questions. In the first place, he wished to know why the amount paid for advertisements in newspapers had nearly trebled. Then, with reference to the contribution of the Transvaal to the Government or supplies requisitioned during the war, he apprehended that that was a final payment for all goods supplied during the var. A Question was asked the other day as to the delay in paying for these supplies; but the Colonial Secretary replied that that was due to swindling demands. He should like to know whether the new check system, under which both purchaser and vendor signed, was or was not a success.
  LORD STANLEYsaid that with reference to the increase in the amount paid for advertisements in newspapers, it arose from several causes. One was advertisements for recruits; another was connected with manœuvres; and a third was with reference to contracts,
  1314
  as they now endeavoured, as far as possible, to give information to the country generally as to War Office requirements, whether at home or abroad. All these resulted in an increase, which he hoped would, however, be justified, and, to a certain extent, recouped, as a result of greater competition. He was afraid he could not as yet give any information as to the practical result of the new check system; but they had every reason to suppose that it would prevent not only fraudulent demands but fraudulent receipts being given in any future war in which this country might be unhappily engaged. As regards practical results, however, they had as yet no experience
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he wished to ask a Question with regard to special allowances. As he understood the matter, under the King's Regulations, when officers and men were under canvas they had certain special allowances given to them. Certain regiments were now serving in South Africa, which were not, it was true, tinder canvas, although in ordinary circumstances they would be under canvas. They were housed in disused tin huts erected during the war

  1315
  for remount and other departments. It appeared to him it was quite as essential that special allowances should be given to the officers and men stationed in these huts, as if they were under canvas. Any other interpretation of the regulations appeared to him to savour of red tape. If these officers and men were for purposes of economy and convenience not put under canvas, but in buildings which corresponded to canvas, surely it would be enforcing the letter of the law rather too strictly to deprive them of allowances to which they would otherwise be entitled. Great dissatisfaction resulted from the refusal of these allowances; and he hoped the Secretary of State for War would pay attention to the matter.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he wished to ask a question about the £50,000 which was put down for stores for China and Somaliland. He wished to know why stores were required for China this year, and with regard to Somaliland, he desired to ask if the suns now taken would be sufficient.
  LORD STANLEYsaid that with regard to the Question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Perthshire, his sympathies were entirely with the officers and men who were at present serving in South Africa, where the cost of living was extremely high. The question of allowances to officers was under consideration, and communications were passing between the War Office and the general officer commanding in South Africa with a view to seeing what could be done to decrease the very large expense of officers stationed in South Africa. With regard to the China Expeditionary Force, the amount was asked for for the purpose of repayment to India, and also for the cost of the force still in China. With reference to the Somaliland expedition, he was afraid that the question raised by the hon. Gentleman would give rise to a discussion which would not be in order on this particular Vote.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he thought his question was perfectly in order. He wished to know whether the sum now asked for for forage and other supplies in Somaliland would be sufficient, or whether it would he necessary to ask for a supplementary Vote.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that if £50,000 was not sufficient they would, of course, ask for a supplementary Estimate.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked if the right hon. Gentleman would state whether in his opinion the amount was or was not sufficient.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he merely wished to know if the amount taken was in the opinion of the War Office sufficient. He thought that was a very reasonable question.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid his difficulty in giving figures arose from the fact that reinforcements for Somaliland had been sent from India, and some time must necessarily elaspe before they could ascertain what the Estimate required would be likely to be. If necessary, they would come to the House for a supplementary grant.
  2. £907,000, Militia: Pay, Bounty, etc.
  MR. YERBURGHsaid he wished to direct attention to the position of the Militia battalions who went to South Africa. They numbered 180,000 officers and men, and, as far as he understood, the battalions which went out in 1901 and 1902 received very little recognition for their services. He himself thought that rewards were given with too free a hand, and that their value was accordingly diminished, but if the rewards had been too freely given, that in itself" militated against the position of the Militia regiments which responded to the call the country made on them. Six battalions went out in 1901. One commanding officer was either killed in action or had since died; and of the remaining five commanding officers, four received the Civil C.B. Why an officer engaged in war should be awarded the Civil C.B. he did not know. But the fifth commanding officer did not receive any recognition whatever. In 1902 fifteen battalions went out, but neither officers nor noncommissioned officers nor men received any recognition. Therefore it amounted to this—that the only recognition given by a grateful country to the twenty-one

  1317
  Militia battalions that went out was four Civil C.B.'s. He was aware that that had occasioned the gravest dissatisfaction in the Militia; and that the regiments considered that their services had not been properly recognised. The Militia had fought on a great many hard fields, and had always distinguished themselves; and they felt very strongly that the recognition they had received for their services during the late war was anything but generous; and there was a strong feeling that further recognition should be given.
  COLONEL SANDYSsaid there was a strong feeling abroad that the war services of the Militia had been imperfectly recognised. He also protested against the award of Civil C.B.'s to officers of the old constitutional force. One of the great difficulties at present was to secure competent officers to enter the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers, and gentlemen would certainly not be encouraged to come forward if it was felt that their services would be somewhat inadequately recognised. He believed it was the feeling of a large section of the officers of the force, that in connection with the late war their services had been lightly considered, and when the matter was fully understood the Secretary of State for War would probably be the first to recognise the fact.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he was grateful to the hon. Member for Chester, and the hon. Member for Bootle, for bringing this matter forward. The subject had been discussed for months past in the military and other papers, but, as was the case with many matters on which he could throw light, he was unable to enter into the controversy unless the subject was considered of sufficient importance to be brought up in the House of Commons. In connection with this matter an entirely false impression had been created in the Militia, and much criticism, for which there was no foundation, had been directed against the War Office. The desire had been to do everything possible, consistently with justice, for those who had volunteered. But justice had, of course, to be done to the Regular Army, and in estimating the
  1318
  awards it was impossible for the Commander-in-Chief—first Lord Roberts and afterwards Lord Kitchener—to put forward the names of men who had not seen as much service in South Africa as officers of the Regular Army, who for three years had been risking their lives. People hardly appreciated what had been done for the Militia in this matter. There was an idea abroad that in the issue of decorations the Militia had been greatly neglected. Setting aside the twenty-two battalions which went out at the end of 1901, there were 121 distinctions awarded to Militia officers alone, viz., sixteen Companionships of the Order of the Bath, twenty-five Companionships of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, and seventy-five Distinguished Service Orders. To be absolutely fair to the Militia, it should be said that eighteen out of the seventy-five were adjutants, who in most cases belonged to the Regular Army, arid should therefore be deducted from the figures for the Militia. Seeing, how ever, that over a hundred distinctions had been given to the Militia, although many battalions were in South Africa for a shorter period than battalions of the Line, the Committee would probably agree that there had been no intentional neglect on the part of the War Office.
  MR. YERBURGHasked, in order to complete the comparison, how many decorations and awards were given to the Yeomanry and Volunteers.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he could not give the figures off-hand, but it should be remembered that, by reason of the composition of the force, the Yeomanry were continually on trek and under fire, while many of the Militia battalions, although they did extremely useful work in blockhouses and on the lines of communication, were from the circumstances not nearly so often in contact with the enemy, and officers who had been on trek for a year or a year and a half naturally came under the eye of the Commander-in-Chief, or were reported oftener than officers occupied in more stationary duties. With regard to the twenty-two battalions which went out at the end of 1901, their service began in December, negotiations commenced

  1319
  in March or April, 1902, and peace was declared on June 1st. The longest period that any of these battalions served under campaign conditions was three months, whereas, when Lord Kitchener came to make out his recommendations, there were many officers whose service under campaign conditions extended over three or three and a half years. Lord Kitchener came to the conclusion, for which the War Office were not in any way responsible, that he could not mention in his dispatches the officers of regiments which, having gone c at last, had not had the opportunity of service that others had had. Lord Roberts and he (the Secretary of State) had been accused of partiality because these officers had not been given decorations, but it was out of their power to do anything more than they had done, as they could recommend to His Majesty only such officers as had been recommended by the General in the field. His hon. friend had asked why Civil C.B.'s had been awarded. Her late Majesty was advised to give annually a certain number of Civil distinctions to officers in the Militia, Yeomanry and Volunteers. The whole of these distinctions were strictly limited by statute, and only vacancies could be filled up. This year there were four vacancies, and on the recommendation of Lord Roberts the four commanding officers to whom reference had been made were put forward to fill them. Everything, therefore, that the War Office could do had been done. Their one idea had been to recognise in the fullest manner the services of the Auxiliary forces, and it was a matter of deep regret that there should be any idea that those services had been deliberately passed over. During the voyage home Lord Kitchener personally went through list after list and considered the case of each officer individually. No doubt mistakes had been made; it was inevitable in such cases that some men should come more prominently before the General's notice than others; but the Committee might be assured that both in the overhauling of Lord Kitchener's recommendations and in the original discrimination the greatest care was exercised with an intense desire to do what was right by all concerned. In the particular case of
  1320
  the Militia, nothing inure than had been, could be done without injustice to others, Hundreds of officers had been named by their superiors without finding their way to the Commander-in-Chief's dispatches. He keenly sympathised with those men, but he was powerless to help them, and when it was stated that in connection with the war 2,800 honours and promotions had been recommended to His Majesty, the Committee would recognise that the War Office had not been niggardly in their endeavour to recognise services rendered under difficult circumstances by a large body of troops.
  COLONEL SANDYSasked whether there was any reason why military C.B.'s should not have been given to military officers for military services. Civil C.B.'s might possibly be given to Volunteer officers, but he contended that Militia officers were entitled for military services to receive military decorations.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he should be very sorry to propose to change what he believed had been one of the greatest safeguards against favouritism, viz., the rule that no officer could obtain the military C.B. who had not been mentioned in despatches. That applied to every Regular officer, and pro tanto must guide the procedure with regard to Militia officers. The nearer the Militia is to the Regular officer the mope important is it that the same rules should apply to the bestowal of decorations.
  SIR A. HAYTERsaid that they on that side of the House fully sympathised with the desire of the hon. Members, who had spoken, to improve the efficiency and content of the Militia force. But a stronger advocate than anybody on that side of the House was the Secretary of State for War himself, who, on March 4 of last year, said:—
  "We are going to do what we can to encourage Militia officers. (1.) In the first place we shall give every year a certain number an opportunity of serving with the Line regiments, in order that they may have the benefit of the training, and also to enable Line regiments to have additional officers at these periods of the year. (2.) We intend to continue the system of entering the Army through the Militia. (3.) We recommend for this year the establishment of a Militia reserve of 50,000 men, who have already served in the Militia or completed their reserve service in the Line."

  1321
  He thought those were most excellent provisions, for they gave the double advantage both to the Militia and the Line, that young men competent to perform regimental duties should for a certain time be attached to a Line regiment. But in the month of June, according to the Returns, no less than thirty-seven officers resigned Militia commissions in one single Gazette. The officers on the establishment numbered 3,667, but the total now stood at 2,812, showing a deficiency of 885 officers in the Militia service. That was a very serious thing, and therefore everything that was possible should be done to increase the attractions in the Militia. What was the state of the rank and file? The total was 138,000 on the establishment, but there were 20,596 short on January 1st this year. That was an enormous shortage, and it required the serious attention of the military authorities to make up the deficiency. No less than 9,200 had been lost through desertion, and it was a large increase upon preceding years. One or two steps might certainly be taken. He could not understand why no Militia officers were ever thought good enough tube adjutants of their Militia regiments. Whenever there was a vacancy, it was filled up by some captain in the affiliated Line regiment, and Militia officers never seemed to obtain those very valuable prizes. He doubted very much if there was the same system prevailing amongst the non-commissioned officers and men of granting long service and good conduct medals as in other arms. They could not qualify in the same way as other forces and that was a grievance which ought to be remedied. After twenty years service a medal was granted to Volunteers, but the privilege had never been granted to the Militia. The right hon. Gentleman said in March this year that—
  "The Militia has done far more for the Regular Army during the late campaign than anybody could have expected of them. We are determined that the old constitutional force shall not be pressed out between the Regulars and Volunteers."
  He thought they would have to recognise one or two things with regard to their service. With regard to the camp on Salisbury Plain, the great necessity in the case of young soldiers was to relieve them of all unnecessary fatigue, and great care should be taken
  1322
  that the whole of the time they were out should be spent improving their shooting and their drill. He wished to say that on this side of the House they did not yield in any degree to the other in their admiration for the Militia, and they were ready to do all they could to remove any discontent from the old constitutional force.
  MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid it fell upon him, as there was no other Militia officer present, to say what were the feelings of both officers and men in that branch of the service upon this question. He desired to represent to his right hon. friend what had been laid before him with the justification of very high military authority, namely, the inadvisability of sending Militia battalions to train every year at Salisbury Plain. If they were told that Salisbury Plain was the only possible place where troops could be trained, that would be a very difficult case to answer, but as his right hon. friend the Member for Walsall had intimated, the situation at Salisbury Plain was very different from what some people who had never been there might imagine. It was so cut up with rifle ranges that it was almost impossible to go anywhere without being shot. They could not extend troops anywhere without marching at least three miles, and, as long as the musketry was going on, they had very little more room to teach young soldiers the elementary part of their training than they had at Wellington Barracks. It was, of course, a great advantage to a battalion to have ample rifle accommodation on the ranges so as to get through their musketry rapidly, and leave more time for field training and so forth, but even when a battalion had been put through its shooting, other battalions were using the ranges, and consequently it was almost as much tied to the camp. Then having done their day's work, there was really nothing whatever on Salisbury Plain to reconcile a soldier to his lot, or to encourage enlistment. He was, not advocating the pampering of the. Militia, but they must bear in mind that the Militia were civilians and not a Volunteer force, and if they did not want to pamper them at all events they

  1323
  did want to encourage them and give them some inducement to the military service, and they certainly ought not to throw any discouragement in their way. On Salisbury Plain there was nothing whatever to do. The ground did not permit of any recreation except a game of football, which might be a good game in winter but was a bad game in summer. There was nothing to look at except a few trees, and nothing ever happened except perhaps when al man came with a cart of oranges. And therefore the lot of those who had not antiquarian tastes and no great love of walking caused them to become so bored as to be almost demoralised.
  He was speaking not only of officers but of men. They disliked the life so much that he was prepared to prove that recruiting was already falling off, and the numbers would be seriously diminished. There was another reason why men disliked going on Salisbury Plain every year. Many of them, who were men of business, thought it was a great convenience—almost a necessity—that in the course of their training they should be able to go home on Sundays, or whenever an opportunity occurred, to attend to their business. He was much struck this year with the large number of men who availed themselves of the opportunity of bank holiday occurring to go home, but many of them found it impossible to be back in time, and therefore lost a day's pay. But they were so anxious to go home that they were prepared to make that sacrifice. Let it be understood that their own counties were the proper places for Militia training. Such a rule would be not only a legitimate advantage and benefit to the men but a material inducement to renewed interest in the battalions, that would tend to the improvement of recruiting.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid that there was a battalion which numbered over 1,000 men when he was connected with it, and which always used to have a list of men ready to come on when they were required. He was sorry to say that that number had now come down to something like 400
  1324
  men. At the suggestion of the Commanders of the Forces in Scotland the deputy-lieutenants were called together to consider what was the cause of this great falling off, and they had testimony that one great fault was the system of drilling recruits at the regimental Line depôts instead of by their own officers at the preliminary training. When they went to the depôts inducements were held out to them to join the Line, and out of 200 recruits only some thirty-five came back to the battalion. Some were induced to join the affiliated Line regiment; a good many disappeared. It seemed to him that that fact alone accounted for a considerable falling off in the strength of that regiments, because in the adjoining counties where there were no Line depôts, their regiments were full and remained full, and there was not the same constant inducement for them to go into the Line. It was a most expensive way of getting recruits first to enrol them in the Militia and then to give them a bounty to go to the Line. That was the system which was still going on, and it was not surprising that there should be a diminution in numbers. Something had been said of the dulness of the conditions of life in camp. That dulness was experienced by the Regular soldiers equally. He thought it was for the advantage of the Army that troops should be trained in larger bodies than formerly, and under a thoroughly regular system. There was no doubt, however, that in the camps there was a great absence of amusement, and consequently much diminished attraction to the ranks. He had had conversations with old soldiers of great experience, who were exceedingly anxious for the welfare of the Army, and they said that in these camps there should be buildings where the troops could have I amuse men s greater than could be afforded by the canteens and other regimental rooms. Such buildings, capable of seating 1,000, had been erected at some stations at the cost of £3,000, and if that could be done in other places there would be amusement in the evenings. These buildings could be utilised as drill halls and for various military purposes, while they would attract theatrical

  1325
  and music-hall companies. He thought the suggestion made to him by these old soldiers was a very valuable one.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the number at present actually serving was 115,000; that meant a diminution on the establishment, but it was very little different from what it was a few years ago. The most difficult point was with regard to officers. They must hope that the Royal Commission which was now sitting might, if it.did not find a remedy, recommend sweeping changes in the constitution of the Militia and Volunteers. If they did not make very large proposals he hoped they would find some means of coping with the position with regard to officers. He should like to ask two Questions. One of them concerned the recent change in the Jersey Militia. The change made some time ago in the Guernsey Militia was fully satisfactory. The change in the Jersey Militia had been made much more slowly, and he wished to know what was the position of matters there. It was quite possible that his Question might be premature. The other Question was one which he was sure the Secretary of State would be glad to give information upon if he could. It referred to the position of the Militia field artillery. On this Vote this year they had an increase from 432 men to 1,298 for the Militia field artillery. That trebling of the Militia field artillery ought to lead the Committee to ask how far the War Office were satisfied, so far as they had gone, with that force. They must remember that they were relying upon the Militia field artillery to a considerable extent. Two years ago the Secretary of State for War said this force was necessary to complete his Army Corps scheme. Since that time certain modifications of his scheme had been made, and the House had been led to suppose that it was the intention of the Government to strengthen still further the field artillery. They had a right to ask what had been the result of the experiment up to the present.
  MR. WALTER PALMERsupported the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North East Manchester in regard to the desirability of providing accommodation for amusements. At Salisbury such
  1326
  a building as had been suggested was erected at a cost of £3,000, and billiard tables and various amusements of that kind were provided.
  MR. FULLERasked the right hon. Gentleman to give some information as to the present state of the Militia reserve. He believed that the Militia reserve was non-existent, but the War Office were taking a sum on this Vote for the expenses and pay of the Militia reserve.
  MR. MOONsaid he was at Salisbury Plain with a Volunteer regiment, and they found that the work was so hard that they had no time for recreation.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he was very glad to hear the testimony borne by his hon. friend the member for St. Pancras, as to the nature of the work at Salisbury Plain. He did think that the question raised by the hon. member for Portsmouth an important one, but there was no doubt it would be difficult to accommodate the idea of military training to the notion of a fair amount of holiday which some Militia regiments had always enjoyed and naturally expected to get. Of course he quite realised that the thing must not be pushed too far. The military view was that if the Militia regiments in camp could be brigaded or brought into contact with the Regular forces that would be of the greatest advantage. Of course he must remind his hon. friend and the Committee that if they refused to have ranges at Salisbury Plain, and if they had left more room for manœvring, they would have spoiled the object for which the ranges were put there, because the troops would have had to march so far that it would have been impossible to carry out musketry practice. But the Committee should not suppose that Salisbury Plain was completely covered by ranges. He ventured to say that by marching three or four miles off, every Militia regiment they had could exhaust themselves without encountering the ranges again. He thought the Militia should not camp every year, but that they should at certain periods if possible go through their annual training in their own neighbourhood. That was important when they considered the recruiting figures. It was

  1327
  also important to try to find in the neighbourhood some means of recreation. He did not find that the military authorities were quite as anxious about that as some Members a this House. They naturally put training first of all, as they thought it was difficult to make anything like a soldier in a month. He could only say that he would give his attention to the matter. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the deficiency of officers in the Militia. The question of officers was of course a very difficult one, and he did not propose at present to enter upon it at any length. All these questions had been sent for the consideration of the Royal Commission. With regard to the officers there were two reasons that made it more difficult at this moment to cope with the absence of officers than formerly. The first was that the Yeomanry drew its officers from the same class, and there had been a great rise in the Yeomanry. The second was that the officers who bad patriotically given up their time to go out to South Africa had in ninny eases suffered very largely in their business, and, when all was over, it was natural that they should release themselves from the ties of the Militia, feeling that they could not give their time with due regard to their own interests. That was the cause of the reduced number of officers One step the War Office had endeavoured to take. Until two years ago any young man who desired to put on a uniform, and could induce the Lord Lieutenant of the county to make him a deputy-lieutenant, was able to obtain that uniform, which was very like that of an Army general, and he could wear it for the rest of his life. They had now put a stop to what lie thought was an unreasonable use of the uniform. In one county, which he would not name, but it was neither one of the largest nor most important, the Lord-Lieutenant had made 126 deputy-lieutenants. He himself felt it his duty to approach His Majesty on that question, and now they had laid down a proportion of deputy-lieutenants to the population which would not give that Lord Lieutenant more than twenty. What was more, the regulations now provided that no lieutenant could be made until he was twenty-eight years of age. He thought His Majesty's regulations on this sub-
  1328
  ject would be appreciated by hon. Members.
  He would add a few words in regard to Militia recruiting, which the War Office had been carefully watching. It should be remembered that within the last few years 3d. a day had been added to the pay of the Militia, and the bounty of £1 had been increased to £1 10s. Then, three times during the winter months—October, December, and February—another £1 had been added, or £4 10s. in all, as well as, pay. That was a substantial increase of emolument. He could not altogether join with his right hon. friend in the appeal he made that the 1lilitia should be paid at the same rate as the Line. He valued the Militia exceedingly, but he valued the Line much more. The hon. Member for Wiltshire had asked as to the state of the Militia reserve. They would not require the whole of the money taken, but more men were coining forward steadily to join the Militia reserve—at the rate of from 150 to 200 a week. The present reserve only started four or five months ago, and the number was now between 4,000 and 5,000; and before long the total would be appreciable in case of mobilization to fill up the ranks. As regarded Jersey, a satisfactory arrangement had been made as to the Militia there, and they owed to the Lieutenant-Governor of Jersey, Major-General Abadie, C.B., very great thanks for the tact, judgment, and perseverance with which he had persuaded and induced the island authorities to recognise their obligations in the matter. As to the Militia field artillery, the position was this. The military authorities were most highly satisfied with the Militia field artillery formed in 1901, but they had not extended the experiment, because they wanted to see whether the results then obtained, when they had power to mobilize, would be maintained when the men would not be compelled to mobilize. He had not vet got the reports for this year, but if these were as favourable as last year, he was satisfied that they could extend the system, If they could induce the military authorities to take a favourable view of the Militia field artillery they would have gone a long way to secure a full establishment.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: What about the scientific training of the officers?
  LORD STANLEY: Every facility is being given to them to obtain a scientific training.
  Vote agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £480,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge for the pay and allowances of the Imperial Yeomanry, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904."
  SIR A. HAYTERsaid he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not take steps to make up the list of deficiencies in the Imperial Yeomanry, which seemed to be in as bad a case as the Militia. He saw from the Return that the officers on the establishment were 1,566, and the number enrolled only 1,016, or a deficiency of 550. As to the noncommissioned officers and troopers, the establishment was 33,256, and the number enrolled only 21,625, or a total deficiency of close on 12,000 men. Then the Returns showed that the deficiency was greater in some regiments than in others. In the country with which he had a connection—Somerset—the West Somerset regiment was short 224 troopers, and the North Somerest 330, or a total shortage for the tow regiments of 554 on establishment of 1,200 men. He did not know whether they were both entitled to have adjutants. It seemed to him that regiments which had only half their number, should not enjoy the same staff privileges as those who were full or nearly full up to their establishment. Again, the two Kent regiments were 500 men short. He should think very little of this if the recruiting was improved, but, according to the Returns, there had been actually no substantial increase. The number of recruits taken during the year was 8,845, as compared with 8,216 in the preceding twelve months. It seemed to him that they were spending a good deal too much on the staffs of these small regiments. He noticed
  1330
  that the East Riding of Yorkshire regiment, with an establishment of 596, had only a strength of fourteen. Why was it kept up as a regiment at all?
  COLONEL LEGGEsaid he wanted some explanation about the Imperial Yeomanry and what they were for. It was a hundred years since the Yeomanry were first raised in this country, and they were then Volunteer cavalry raised under the Act of 1802, subsequently amended by the acts of 1803 and 1804. They remained under these Acts until two years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman introduced and passed a Bill quite at the end of the session, which completely altered the status of the Yeomanry. It put them under the Militia Act and converted them from Volunteer cavalry into mounted Militia. The officers had, in consequence, to get new commissions. When the right hon. Gentleman brought in his Army Corps scheme in the beginning of 1901 a resolution was passed in increase the Yeomanry from 12,000 to 35,000, and they were constituted a mounted infantry force for home defence. The uniform was to be khaki and the arm was to be the rifle and bayonet. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on one thing, and that was having dropped the Hindustani word "Khaki" for the good old English word "drab," which was good serviceable colour. But he found that some of the new regiments were by no means satisfied with that uniform. There was the City of London regiment with "blue grey tunics—facings purple;" the 2nd County of London with "scarlet tunics—facings purple;" the 3rd County of London with "green tunics—facings and busby—bag green, plume green and yellow." There was the Surrey regiment, of which his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War was honorary colonel, which was dressed in drab tunic with scarlet facings. It was a very handsome uniform, because it was a lancer uniform, very becoming, he was quite sure, to his right hon. friend, who would set it of with great advantage. The cap lines of a lancer were simply a hat guard; but this regiment did not wear a lancer cap but a cow-boy hat, although it kept the lancer cap-lines! Then he found that these regiments had got other names. The City of London regiment was called

  1331
  "Roughriders." What was their business in an Army Corps to be? Were they going to break in the horses purchased by the Remount Department from the Omnibus Companies? The 3rd County of London regiment were called "Sharpshooters." Well, he always understood that sharpshooters went in from to prepare the way for the thin red line. But every soldier now was a sharpshooter, and he should like to know what place these County of London sharpshooters were to take in the Army Corps? The 2nd County of London regiment were called the "Westminster Dragoons." According to Johnson's Dictionary a dragoon was "a kind of soldier that serves indifferently on foot or horseback." But if this regiment were to be mounted infantry they would fight on foot; they would only be mounted for the purposes of locomotion. After looking through the descriptions of the uniforms of these regiments, he was reminded of Thackeray's description of the Hammersmith Hussars, which had a uniform of a yellow jacket, pink pantaloons, silver lace, and light-blue pelisse! With regard to the training, the Militia Act did not provide sufficient time for the training of the Yeomanry. Some information should be given on these points, and also with regard to the arming of the Yeomanry. The Committee had been told they were to be armed with rifles and bayonets. None of them had bayonets, but he had been told, though he could hardly credit it, that one regiment was armed with that antiquated and obsolete weapon, the lance, which was now only carried by Regular troops on ceremonial occasions as a relic of their departed glory. He also thought the number of the Yeomanry was largely in excess of the number required. He could not see what they wanted so many mounted troops for. "32,670 available for home defence and 5,226 available for naval fortresses." He would like some little information as to how it was proposed to use mounted men for naval defence. He would also like to know whether the time for the training of the Yeomanry could not be extended and what position they held with the defensive forces of this country. He noticed that in the Second Army Corps they were called the Cavalry Brigade, and in the Fourth they were called the Mounted Brigade. The right hon. Gentleman in his scheme of 1901 said he
  1332
  was going to put his money on the Yeomanry, and he had certainly done so. He should like to take some of the money off, but he did not know whether he would be in order in moving ally other Amendment than that which he had down on the Paper. He thought a great deal of money might be saved on this force, without imperilling the safety of the Empire.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £479,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Colonel Legge.)
  LORD STANLEYsaid he had almost hoped that the prejudice which in old days existed with regard to the Yeomanry might have died out; that those who were in the cavalry in the past might have come into line with those in the cavalry in the present, with regard to the force that had done much distinguished service in South Africa, and which was the nucleus of the greatest mounted force at the present moment. The hon. and gallant Member said the Yeomanry in the first place had too little training, and of course the more training that could be given to them the better the military authorities would be pleased. They had to give them as much training as would adapt them to military requirements, arid having regard to the composition of the force, they gave them as much training as it was possible to give. The training the Yeomanry received was, in his opinion, amply sufficient, and was at the same time the maximum to which the Yeomanry could be expected to go. The hon. and gallant Gentleman sneered at the names of these regiments, but the names were those which the regiments had held for years and years, and when they were put under the Militia Act and formed into a general body of Yeomanry, the Government, in his opinion, would have done wrong to have taken away the names upon which hung so much esprit de corps. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had spoken of "Roughriders" and "Sharpshooters," but he would be the last person in the world to countenance any attempt being made to deprive a regiment of a name upon which hung so much of the esprit de corps. Carbines had been done away with in the cavalry for some time, but would the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest because they

  1333
  had done away with the carbines that the "Carbineers" ought to lose the name they now possessed?
  COLONEL LEGGE: They are an old regiment.
  LORD STANLEYsaid these regiments would grow old in time, and he hoped the names they had given themselves would last for generations. The Yeomanry scheme was one of the schemes of which, if he might say so, his hon. and gallant friend might be justly proud. The figures of the Yeomanry not long ago were only 8,000 or 9,000. On the 1st of January this year they were 26,000 odd, and in this year alone there had been an increase of 3,600, so that the Committee might take it that the Yeomanry was a great living force. The hon. Member mentioned many regiments which were under strength, and asked whether the staffs of those regiments could not be reduced. No doubt there were some regiments under strength, but he believed that officers commanding in every case were doing their best to raise the standard. Some regiments, of course, had prejudices, and would only take one class of men and the Government preferred that the standard should be raised without in any way changing the status of those who come in. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of others which were over strength, and asked that they should be reduced, but the most important thing in a regiment was its Establishment, arid it ought to be established in the highest possible degree. The Yeomanry was a force which had been developed quite recently, and its growth had been abnormally large, and with that had collie a proportionately greater deficiency of officers. In the matter of all Auxiliary officers it seemed to him a problem almost insoluble how to provide officers. He hoped they would have from the Royal Commission some suggestion as to how officers could be obtained. He was perfectly certain the authorities would be only too glad to get any hints that could be given to them as to obtaining officers and as to checking expense. There was one point on which he agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he thought it was a great pity that there should not be a design of uniform which was serviceable and cheap. Facings he did not mind,
  1334
  because they could be taken off. In the case of old regiments they must sacrifice something to the past, but in the case of new regiments he did think something of the kind might be done.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that those who sympathised most with the cavalry grievance upon which, the hon. and gallant gentleman, who was no doubt smarting from the removal of the weapon which made the cavalry of the past, had moved the reduction could not follow him in all his strictures upon the Yeomanry, but he thought the Committee generally would need to be assured that the Yeomanry were not being made a sham by making them show sometimes as Yeomanry and sometimes as cavalry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had more justice in his attack on the names of the new regiments. Some of them had taken most pretentious names. The name of "Roughriders" was very pretentious unless applied to a regiment which really could ride. While upon this point he thought the hon. and gallant Member had something to go upon, he did not agree with his general strictures on the Yeomanry, but he thought the Committee should be anxious to see that they were not being put off with that force, which could not displace Regular cavalry or mounted infantry. There was some truth in the allegation that these troops were being used to some extent in the War Office Returns, both as cavalry and mounted infantry, and the statements of the War Office, and even Lord Roberts himself, had to be very carefully examined for fear that the country might be led to believe that it possessed a great mass of Regular cavalry, which it had not got. The Committee should insist upon seeing what was in the mind of the War Office with regard to the future strength of the cavalry; because, although the Yeomanry might be all they desired to see it, it could not take the place of Regular cavalry or mounted infantry.
  MR. GUESTthought this was one part of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for War, which offered most ground for congratulation, and that it had been a most signal success. Anyone who

  1335
  regarded the Yeomanry as fitted to play its part in the defence of this country in case of invasion, could not but congratulate themselves upon the increase of numbers, due entirely to the action of his right hon. friend. He thought it was unreasonable to complain of the Yeomanry in the tone of the hon. Member. There had been great improvements in the training and the general position of the Yeomanry since the prewar days. It was a great gain to have got them under conditions more nearly those under which they would have to serve. Through the policy of his right hon. friend there had been a distinctly better feeling towards the Yeomanry in the War Office, which was now prepared to make arrangements for the training of the Yeomanry and to allow the Artillery to come out and train with them, which was of great assistance to the proper training of the Yeomanry. He rose particularly to make two suggestions with regard to the subject of the training of the Yeomanry. In the first place, in his opinion it was unduly long, and he would point out that, just at the moment when they had changed the drill and had commenced to give them a far more simple drill than that of the Cavalry, which was difficult to learn, in proportion as they had simplified the training they had increased its length. If the Yeomanry had shorter training, a great many more men would join, because many found it difficult to leave their occupations for 18 days, who would gladly join if the training could be brought within a fortnight. The other suggestion he desired to make was with regard to the Yeomanry reserve. He thought for cavalry men to join the Yeomanry reserve would create invidious distinctions. What he desired to see was a real reserve for the Yeomanry. He believed it would be quite possible, by enlisting men with the basis of three years with the regiment and six with the reserve, to get as many men as at present, and to avoid losing altogether yeomen on the expiry of their term with the regiment. Many men had to leave from family or business considerations, but it did not follow that they had lost sympathy with the force, and it would be a valuable
  1336
  scheme if they could pass to a Yeomanry reserve. For a very small retaining fee men would go through a course of shooting, and parade one day a year; £2 a head would probably cover the cost, and. by that means a real reserve for the Yeomanry might be built up. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the matter his consideration.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITHsaid that his experience had been the exact opposite to that of his hon. friend. The difficulty in his regiment arose from men coming in the middle of the training and saying their employers could not let them remain the whole time. In one respect a town regiment had an advantage over a country regiment: it was able easily to get its men together for squadron drills, whereas a country regiment, scattered over a wide area, had great difficulty in so doing. In his opinion, the present period of training, considering the pay, was not too long, arid certainly it was none too long to acquire the knowledge a. yeoman was now expected to possess. The drill itself was much easier to acquire than it used to be, and he could assure the right hon. Baronet that the cavalry drill, as a whole, was not expected from the Yeomanry. As to the expenses of officers, in his opinion the sum granted to Yeomanry regiments was, as a general rule, quite sufficient. It was perfectly possible to run a Yeomanry regiment on the sum now given. There were certain items, however, in respect of which officers could be helped. Nobody would suggest that it would not be an excellent thing for every Yeomanry regiment to acquire a camp, but it certainly involved expense to the officers. No provision whatever was made for sergeants' mess, and there was no tent issued which could be used for a mess-room. These tents had always to be hired, and formed a considerable item of expense. With regard to the position of the permanent staff regimental sergeant-major, so far as he could make out, the Yeomanry regulations made no provision in that direction. Five permanent staff sergeants were allowed for each regiment, one of whom became regimental sergeant-major, and, with the adjutant, did practically the whole of the work, both on training and during the year. At present, not

  1337
  only was the permanent staff sergeant-major who acted in this capacity in a worse position as regarded rank than his Militia brother, in that he was not a warrant officer, but he was in a worse position than the sergeant-major similarly placed in a Volunteer regiment. The sergeant-major of a Volunteer regiment after twenty-one years service reckoned his pension under Class I., whereas a Yeomanry regimental sergeant-major reckoned his pension on precisely the same basis as a squadron sergeant-major, under Class II., and that alone meant a difference of 3d. a day in his pension. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to recommend the War Office to put the Yeomanry regimental sergeant-major on the same footing as his Militia brother, or, failing that, to put him on the same pension basis as the regimental sergeant-major in a Volunteer regiment.
  COLONEL NOLANasked, in reference to the Irish Yeomanry, whether the noble Lord could give the Committee any information as to the number of regiments and the number of men to be raised in Ireland. On the general question, it seemed that the cost of the Yeomanry worked out at £21 per head. That was about one-fifth the cost of a Regular cavalry man, but if the men could not shoot they were not worth the money. He understood that they devoted their time on training to riding and manœuvring, and did not practise shooting.
  LORD STANLEYsaid there were two Irish regiments of Yeomanry, and they were given precisely the same establishment as the English regiments. He did not recollect the exact figure, but he believed it was 550.
  SIR ELLIOTT LEESsaid that although he felt inclined to stray into the path which the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had rather tempted them to discuss—the relative numbers of cavalry, mounted infantry, and Yeomanry in this country—he feared that if he attempted to do so he should find himself out of order after the first two of three sentences. He recognised the importance of the country
  1338
  being well supplied with mounted infantry, but whether or not the establishment of Yeomanry was the right way to accomplish this he could not discuss at the present moment. His hon. and gallant friend asked what Yeomanry were, and what they were going to do. At the present time it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman hoped the Yeomanry would be available, not only for home defence, but that they would supply a certain number of additional troops to supplement the mounted infantry in case of war. The two objects were not always incompatible, but, at the same time, they were very different objects. If they wanted the Yeomanry for home defence they must try to enlist a rather different class of men than those which were required to supplement to mounted infantry abroad on foreign service. If they wanted men to volunteer in case of war, it mattered very little from what class they drew them, or whether they had any position or stake in the country, or any knowledge of the particular locality. The less stake they had in the country the more likely were they to volunteer for the extra pay. If they wanted Yeomanry for home defence they ought to do all they could to retain the British farmer in the ranks. There was no finer cavalry material in the world than the English farmer, who provided his own horse, for they were accustomed to a certain amount of discipline in the hunting field, and the British farmer, officered by his neighbour, whom he often followed all over the country hunting, was the ideal cavalry solider. This was the class of men who formed the nucleus of the first batch of Yeomanry sent out to South Africa during the late war.
  With regard to the training period, he thought it was very difficult for a large farmer to go away for so long a time. The small farmer found some difficulty also, but the extra pay which the War Office now gave the Yeomanry compensated him for the length of the training. In the case of the large farmer it was very difficult for him to spare practically three weeks away from his business. On the other hand, it was ridiculous to suppose, if they took the Yeomanry as reserve in order to get volunteers to go abroad, that they could train them in the space of three weeks.

  1339
  They could not make a horseman in three weeks. They might give a man sufficient confidence to induce him to volunteer in that time, but it was impossible to unite those two classes and still retain them usefully in the ranks. When the Secretary of State for War brought his Yeomanry scheme forward there were a great many Yeomanry officers in the House, and they protested against the increased length of the training, but the right hon. Gentleman assured them that the fullest permission would be given to commanding officers to grant leave to their men. He believed that the whole solution of this problem lay in trusting the commanding officers, and giving them fuller powers to choose the best men they could get to command Yeomanry regiments, who must be of local standing, and who should also possess military knowledge, and be efficient. When they had chosen the commanding officers they should give them a free hand and trust them to produce the best regiments that local circumstances would permit. The War Office would ' probably say that that had been their intention all through, but if they intended it to be carried out, and the commanding officers were allowed a free hand, this fact should be impressed upon the generals commanding the Army Corps. It was almost impossible for the officers commanding the Yeomanry to go against the wishes of the generals commanding the Army Corps, and they should be informed that they were to allow the commanding officers to have a free hand. With regard to the training, there seemed no reason why the first four days should not be given up, where necessary, to recruit drill or to the riding-school drill, but it would be ridiculous to ask men to do this who had been accustomed to riding and might be even more efficient in this respect than the officers. He hoped his right hon. friend would take these matters into his serious consideration, because it was a lamentable thing for commanding officers to lose some of their best noncommissioned officers of good position, who attracted recruits of good standing, and even old Bisley veterans, whose services were lost because they could not devote the time to the training, owing to
  1340
  calls upon them at home. He ventured to bring these points before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, knowing how anxious he was for the welfare of the Yeomanry, and what a good friend he had shown himself to be to them during the last few years.
  MR. PEELsaid the hon. Member who introduced this Motion for a reduction seemed to think that fourteen days was the only training the Yeomanry got. Be wished to point out that they had a great number of drills be ides those they got when they went to camp, although that was a very important portion of their training. His hon. friend the Member for Plymouth had suggested separate training for regiments, accordingly as they came from the town or the country. A great many regiments contained men both from the town and the country. The regiment he belonged to was recruited partly in the country and partly in the town. There was a very great difference between the men from the town and from the country, because even in a small country town, as a rule, they knew as little about riding as they did in London. The hon. Member opposite had called attention to the small numbers in these regiments, but he should remember that they had only very recently been started, and he did not think it was a good thing to fill up a regiment at once. By taking time they were able to show that some standard was required to join the regiment. Some commanding officers were very stringent in regard to the conditions they imposed; and that should not be interfered with. As to the length of training, he should like it made longer if possible. He was aware that there was a difficulty in giving training in places not outside their own county, although that would be an enormous advantage in many cases. In his own county there was really no place where they could drill 400 or 500 men. His regiment contained a good many townsmen, and if they were obliged to take their fortnight's training outside the county they would probably leave the regiment. He was glad to hear the noble Lord speak about the growing expense of officers, because that was a matter of great importance in many new

  1341
  regiments. There appeared to be a great determination that these new regiments should be run upon a very economical basis, and upon that matter he rather agreed with the criticisms made by the mover of this reduction. The full dress for officers was, of course, purely voluntary, but it soon became practically compulsory, and very difficult for officers to avoid. Then there was the question of the full, smart, dress for the men. In this respect very often there was dissatisfaction caused because a neighbouring county had a very smart dress for the men, while another county had not. He thought the Secretary of State for War should give some attention to that matter, and that he should be even stricter with commanding officers than he had been, with reference to the growing expense of Yeomanry officers. He had taken some trouble to recruit officers himself, and he was always asked what would be the expense. That was a difficult thing to give a definite answer upon, because the expense was rather uncertain. The only thing that was not uncertain was that the expense was generally great.
  Another matter which he should like to complain about was that the training was very short, and that the amount of work done during the training was diminished by several causes. In the fifteen days there were probably two Sundays, and then there was too much inspection. He should have thought that one day was sufficient for inspection, but it was supposed to he necessary that the inspecting officers should have two days for inspection—one day in field exercise, a sham fight, or something of that kind, and then the next day going through drill with each squadron commander or troop leader. That was a large amount to take out of this small amount of time available for training. It was certainly his experience, and he believed it was the experience of other officers, that the General of the district came down and said that he must have an inspection. Then the whole of another day was lost for the regular training, for something had to be shown to him which was not a part of the regular training. Then the General of the Army Corps came down, and he had to be treated the same way,
  1342
  a special day being set apart for him. He should like to suggest to the Secretary of State for War that possibly this inspection was a little excessive, and. that it would be better if they were left a little more to do their own work iii their own way. He should like to ask what were the regulations which permitted, in the same way as in the Militia, officers to join the Yeomanry and then pass through the Yeomanry into the Regular cavalry. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to move any further in the way of creating a separate force inside the. Yeomanry for foreign service. He could not help thinking that it would be an invidious thing to establish this class of men in the same regiment. If the necessity arose they could count on getting a considerable number from the Yeomanry for service abroad. Perhaps he might be allowed to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the great success of the new Yeomanry movement.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he could assure his hon. friend the Member for South Manchester that he sympathised with his remarks with regard to the number of inspections, but he thought that what he had said showed that the position the Yeomanry held in the country was such that, all those who were placed over them, desired to see as much of them as they could. With regard to the expenses of officers, he was informed that the expenses of the officers during training in some regiments, which he would not name, had amounted to £72 each. He did not wish to use strong language and say that that was a scandal, but it was certainly very undesirable. Whatever the War Office could do to prevent that sort of thing would certainly be done. With regard to the suggestion that regimental sergeant-majors should be made warrant officers, he understood that there were conditions, at all events, in the stronger regiments which might justify something being done in that respect, and he would undertake to consider the question during the autumn. Two serious questions had been asked—first, was this large number of Yeomanry needed, and, secondly, what was going to happen with regard to the Yeomanry reserve? With regard to the first, he maintained that of all the forces that had

  1343
  recently been raised, this body of Yeomanry was the most useful—for this reason, that it supplied the one thing we had never had, namely, a sufficient number of mounted troops which, if we were to make preparations for invasion, must exist to cover any army which might be put in the field. A cavalry regiment of 700 men cost £65,000, and for that sum 3,000 to 3,500 Yeomanry could be had; and, as had been shown in the late war, for our purposes it was important to have numbers of men on whom we could draw in an emergency. As to the proposal to put 5,000 Yeomanry at the service of the military authorities for service abroad in case of emergency, trained cavalry of the very first order was wanted now as much as ever; but a certain body of mounted troops, not so highly trained as cavalry, was also required who could assist the forces of the country and take a certain position in an emergency. It was that function which the Yeomanry were being trained to carry out. Some dislike had been expressed of the existence of two classes of Yeomanry. His answer was that there were two classes of Militia up to last year, and it had never occurred to anybody to say that a man who did not join the Militia reserve was a different being from the man who did. It was a question of pay. He did not regard the subject as dead, and he proposed to consult the Yeomanry Advisory Board arid the commanding officers on the subject, and if he secured the support of the latter, he hoped the Yeomanry Members of the House; would not make it too difficult to carry out what the military authorities, on the one side, and the commanding officers, on the other, desired.
  MAJOR JAMESON (Glare, W.)said he could not allow this Vote to pass without a protest against the very serious position in which the Yeomanry had been placed by the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War in placing a proportion of that force under totally different conditions from the rest Up to the present time the Yeomanry had been Volunteers, and he was astonished that so many Members in the House who had been, or were members of that force, had not protested against this revolutionary change in the constitution of the Yeomanry, who had been essentially recruited
  1344
  from amongst the farmers of the country to remain at home for its defence. Although the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give the Yeomanry a little more money, the new system by which their Volunteer element was to be done away with was bound to be a failure. During the late war was there not plenty of demonstration that the Yeomanry would turn out for foreign service if need be, and what then was the use of altering the whole character of the force? He regretted very much the alteration in the clothing of the Yeomanry. When he first joined the service during the Franco-German War, he had a very keen recollection that within a few months their heckles were taken from them and they were given helmets; and if the Zulus had beaten in the last war the War Office would have given them feathers and paint! The War Office were altering the Yeomanry, Artillery, and every other uniform in order to suit the needs of South Africa; and anything more absurd and ridiculous he never heard of. He had seen a Yeomanry cap the other day which was a cross between a French shako and a dustman's hat. These extraordinary alterations of uniform would not, in his opinion, bring recruits to the Yeomanry force. If a cavalryman and a Yeomanryman was not well dressed and thought himself invincible in love and war, he was not worth 1s. 6d. a day.
  COLONEL LEGGEsaid he should like to assure the Committee that he duly appreciated the services of the Yeomanry, of which he was deeply sensible. He had not any intention of sneering at the new Yeomanry, and the illustrations which he had given were taken from official documents. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  £1,280,000, Volunteer Corps, Pay and Allowances.
  MR. C. R. SPENCERsaid he wished to know whether the War Office would be prepared to consider the possibility, or rather the advisability, of

  1345
  equalising the position of sergeant-majors in Volunteer regiments to that of sergeant-majors in the Militia. The sergeant-majors in the Volunteers did an infinity of work. They acted as paymaster sergeant, quarter-master sergeant and orderly clerk, they drilled their recruits, they attended to the range orders, and also did the work of the armourer-sergeant. He thought he was not asking too much in demanding that these noncommissioned officers should be treated in the same way as the sergeant-majors in the Militia. There was another point which interested hint considerably. On page 49 of the Army Estimates there was an item "Officers Outfit Allowance, £18,000." Last year the amount was £15,500. He would be obliged if some official at the War Office would inform him who were the officers who got this allowance.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that some years ago, in order to assist officers, £20 was given to each officer for his outfit.
  MR. C. E. SPENCERsaid it was one of the increasing misfortunes of age that he should have been debarred from enjoying that £20. He was not in command of a Volunteer regiment, but he knew there was a very strong feeling that Occasionally, if possible, their training in camp should take place in their own neighbourhood. That would be an advantage, he considered, for recruiting, financial, and other purposes. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider this point, most country Volunteer officers would be deeply grateful to him.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GOREsaid he wished to direct attention to the question of the rearmament of the Artillery Volunteers. He had addressed a great many Questions on the subject to the Secretary of State for War and had been informed that the matter would be settled. Another hon. Member had been told that a number of mobile artillery would be armed with 15 pounders. That promise, however, had not been fulfilled. He considered that the War Secretary had perpetrated two enormities. He had inflicted great hardship on the Volunteer Artillery and still greater hardship on the British Museum and other institutions which contained antiquities of ancient date. The discon-
  1346
  tent felt by Volunteers was not altogether without foundation. There was nothing that so deteriorated a body of men as the knowledge that the work they were doing was utterly useless. The mobile artillery force had made great sacrifices. There were only five brigade divisions in the United Kingdom; and one of them he was connected with. It was all very well to say that the Volunteer Artillery were of no use. If that argument could be sustained why did they exist at all? He recollected a debate in the House of Lords when there was an acrimonious interchange between the late Commander-in-Chief and Lord Lansdowne as to the conduct of the War, and when Lord Wolseley said that Lord Lansdowne had advised him to send the Volunteer Artillery to the front with obsolete guns. The mobile artillery were now to be armed with 4·7 guns. That would destroy the very being and character of the force. To begin with, he had heard from various officers connected with the Sheffield and Lanark forces, that the men were not of sufficient physique to be able to move these big guns. That did not apply to the 3rd Kent or Lincoln, or to the 1st Monmouth. In 1891, the Inspector General of Auxiliary Forces, inspecting the 4th West York, said he was well satisfied with what he had seen, and that, though the corps had not quite the same degree of mobility as Royal Field Artillery, which could not be expected after only three days' mounted work, it was so, far as mobility and general efficiency were concerned, well worthy of field guns. Sir A. E. Turner further said that he had seen only two other Volunteer Artillery Corps so good. One was the 3rd Kent (Woolwich Arsenal), the other the 1st Monmouth, which in 1900 had done three months' training at Aldershot and on Salisbury Plain. Continuing, he said he might safely say that these three corps would be attached as Field Artillery to the new Army Corps, and would be the first to receive the promised issue of new pattern guns. But at the present moment these brigade divisions were armed only with obsolete 16 pounders. An additional grievance was inflicted on them by putting them through infantry foot drill, instead of cavalry foot drill. In fact, the Artillery Volunteer was at present of a nondescript and hybrid character, a mixture of

  1347
  modernity and antiquity—a sort of cross between a fox-terrier and a dodo. It was also said there was no chance of the Woolwich Volunteers being called into requisition, for the reason, that if war broke out, they would be required to work in the Arsenal. There was no substantial reason for that. They were not skilled workmen, but labourers employed around the Arsenal. It would be far better if the War Secretary were to look after material he had at hand than seek aerial schemes for military organisations in the future. Because the Artillery Volunteers were not properly armed, and because of the neglect with which his right hon. friend had treated them, the hon. member for Woolwich now sat on the Opposition Benches. He hoped, however, that his right hon. friend would pay more attention to the matter in future.
  MR. WYLIE (Dumbartonshire),said he wished to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War, to two points, connected with the Volunteers, which were of immediate urgency. They were the inadequate supply of ammunition to the Volunteers, and also the inadequacy of the camp allowance. He agreed that the Volunteer Artillery ought not to be supplied with obsolete weapons. He had been told by a commanding officer that he had seen in a museum, at Hanover, guns marked obsolete, which were of the same pattern as those used by his own regiment in this country. Volunteers had to thank the War Office for very small mercies; and therefore, he was not surprised that they should have been thankful to the War Office for having granted them a little suspense until the Royal Commission had inquired into the whole subject. He was glad their case was being considered and that they would have a chance of proving that they were an efficient branch of the Volunteer service. Although he had criticized the policy of the War Office in connection with the Volunteers, he did not associate himself with the wholesale injudicious criticisms that had been passed upon the Secretary of State for War, because he believed he had done splendid service to the country at a time of storm and stress. He
  1348
  questioned whether any of his critics could have shown such ability under the circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman had done more for the Regular Army, Militia, and Yeomanry, than any War Secretary of their time. He had very much increased the allowance to these branches of the service. He believed his Yeomanry scheme as a whole was assured of success, and that success would follow his scheme in connection with the Regular Army and Militia, because he had based his scheme on large augmentations of general facilities and allowances. But he did not think the same success was attending his administration of the Volunteer force, probably because he had not had time to go into the matter thoroughly. In one year, 1901–1902, the Volunteers had fallen off from 277, 000 to 251,000, a decrease of 26,000 from 1901–2 till 1902–3, or 10 per cent., whereas the shortage of officers was still more marked. In 1897 the shortage was 1,188, while on 1 January, 1903, it was as much as 1,895, which was an increase of 40 per cent. He was an advocate of the sound policy of increasing the number and efficiency of the Volunteers in proportion to the increasing necessities of the Empire. He thought that, to secure this, the Capitation Grant should be increased to a minimum of 60s., rising to 60s. for various degrees of efficiency; there should be a more liberal allowance for rifle ranges and an additional allowance for going into camp.
  A Royal Commission had been appointed to consider the whole subject, but there were two questions of immediate importance which the War Office was quite capable of dealing with without waiting for the report of the Commission. There had been a considerable shrinkage in the Volunteers, both in the rank and file and in the officers, and if the Government would take up the two questions he had indicated he thought they would do much to preserve the Volunteers in the condition in which they found them. With regard to the question of ammunition, Lord Roberts had pointed out that shooting was now the most important part of military training, and should be encouraged as much as possible. The War Office had encouraged it in the Army, Militia and Yeomanry, but the Volunteers had not

  1349
  received a round more ammunition to enable them to arrive at high efficiency. In the opinion of all officers concerned the present allowance of ninety rounds was miserably inadequate, and in his opinion it should be increased to 150, which was the least allowance that could be made to insure efficiency. The minimum allowance for going into camp should be at least 5s. He believed the success of the Yeomanry was due to the allowance they received for going into camp, which enabled them to go back from camp with from £5 to £7 in their pockets. If it was desired to make the Volunteers a success the men should have £1 or 30s. a week so long as they were in camp. They had proved their efficiency in South Africa, and it was a great disappointment to them that while the Yeomanry had increased by 150 per cent., the Militia by 50 per cent., and the Army to a considerable extent, by the judicious increase of pay, allowances, and facilities, the Volunteers were steadily decreasing, owing to more arduous training being required of them without the corresponding increase of facilities and allowances which should have accompanied the demand.
  Mr. BRODRICK,in reply, said it was not desirable to discuss this Vote at any great length to-night, because, as would be seen iron the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, the debate dealt almost exclusively with points which were now before the Royal Commission, and it would not be respectful to the Commission if he were to forestall their decisions on all the points raised by the hon. Member. On the other hand, if he were to make suggestions it would he like giving a lead to the Commission as to what they should propose. He hoped the Report would be out well before Christmas. His hon. friend must not suppose, however, that the Volunteers were suffering in the meantime. The numbers increased enormously during 1900 and 1901. On 1 January last they were 250,000, and by the latest Return in July the numbers were 256,000, while 176,000 went into camp last year. The question of money was a most serious subject. Nothing was easier than to raise demands which every Member of the Committee would be glad to meet if he could, but the concession of 5s. asked by
  1350
  his hon. friend would mean an expenditure of £112,000.
  Mr. WYLIEsaid it would have been well worth the expense.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid there were many things well worth the expense winch they could not do. They had provided the Volunteers with 154 4·7 inch guns of the most modern type. On no previous occasion had so much been given, and it represented the extreme which the military authorities required in the country. They had Volunteer batteries of artillery in excess of what was required by the military authorities for national defence, but it was a subject on which the Royal Commission would doubtless give some advice Such armament caused the Volunteer Artillery to be as costly as the Regular Artillery. The question of sergeant-majors would have to be left until the Royal Commission had reported. Many people seemed to think there was a want of sympathy on the part of the Executive with the Volunteers. He assured the Committee that such an idea was absolutely unfounded. When Lord Roberts came home from South Africa the Volunteers were for the first time recognised as tit to serve the country in the first line of defence, and they were assigned that postion in the fourth, fifth, and sixth Army Corps; but at the same time something more in the way of efficiency was asked of them. That request hail been taken as evidence of want of sympathy. The War Office had fully recognised that unexpected demands frequently caused embarrassments, and they had not, up to the present, enforced any demand which had caused any serious reduction in numbers, but they had asked the Commission to consider the matter. When he first went to the War Office, the capitation and other payments for Volunteers amounted to £451,000 for a force of 218,000 men; today, with a force of 256,000 men, the capitation and other allowances were £1,068,000. That did not show any want of sympathy on the part of the the Executive; it showed rather that they had been very considerate, and they would continue to be so He hoped the Committee would now allow the Vote to be taken.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEasked what meaning was now attached to the phrase "field artillery" in this Vote. Two or three years ago the intention was to form batteries of field artillery in the ordinary sense of the term, but he understood that that intention had now been given up.
  MR. BRODRICKwas understood to say that the proposal was to arm the Volunteers with heavier guns than the ordinary field artillery. He did not think the military authorities were willing to consider them as in the first line; they looked upon them rather as supplemental to than as taking the place of Regular artillery.
  MR. MALCOLMasked whether it was possible for the 2nd Battalion of the Suffolk Volunteers to obtain the camping allowance which, under certain circumstances, they would have received last year. The battalion comprised a large number of agriculturists, and they were told to go into camp in harvest-time. That was a most unfortunate order, and it would have been absolutely impossible for the battalion to comply with it in anything like full numbers. The commanding officer represented the case to the authorities, and pointed out that only 130 men out of 600 could go to camp, and they would prefer being brigaded earlier in the year. They were allowed to do that, and went to camp 400 or 500 strong. They made themselves very efficient, and they naturally expected to receive camping allowance. In that expectation, however, they were disappointed, because they were not brigaded at the time stated by the War Office, and they were mulcted to the extent of £430. That was an extraordinary penalty for a poor battalion to have to bear, and it might result in the disbandment of the battalion.
  MR. BRODRICKreplied that it was a question between a higher and a lower allowance. Unfortunately the battalion did not get into the condition necessary to entitle them to the higher allowance. It was an exceptional case, and he had put it before the Treasury, but the Treasury, who were within the exercise of their right, felt that the
  1352
  higher allowance should only be given if certain conditions were fulfilled. Those conditions were not fulfilled, and therefore they did not get the allowance.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That a sum, not exceeding £530,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge for the pay, etc., of the medical establishment, and for medicines, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904."
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTShoped the Committee would not think it unreasonable that he should wish to make some comments on this Vote. There had been a reform of the Army Medical Service, the earliest and, perhaps, the most elaborate reform, as far as it went, of any which the right hon. Gentleman had produced. But this House, or this Committee, had had practically no opportunity of considering it, and he personally had not troubled the House on the subject for more than two years. He hoped that was an example of patience which would commend itself to the Committee. He would remind the Committee that the scheme of reform was first brought forward in October, 1901, in the shape of the Report of the Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman to consider the re-organisation of the Army Medical Service. In February, 1902, this scheme was remodelled and expanded by Royal Warrant. No opportunity was afforded of discussing it till the following July, when the Vote was specifically put down for the afternoon, and specifically not put down for the evening sitting. It was not taken in the afternoon, but it was taken in the evening when several of those interested had been informed on reliable authority that it could not come on and were not present. Another year had now passed and the Committee were therefore in this position, that they had had a scheme of reform of a very important part of the Army, brought forward, formulated, confirmed, and put into practice, without Parliament having had any adequate opportunity of discussing it. He thought he could show that it was not by any means a merely professional matter, but one that ought to

  1353
  understood and discussed by hon. Members, and could be discussed without professional jargon and made perfectly clear to the lay mind—the class of mind which he always thought, if it saw professional or departmental matters clearly, was the best judge of it. When the matter was one concerning the economical administration of one of the great Departments, it was still more incumbent on hon. Members to look closely into it. He was far from wishing to depreciate the work, still less the intentions, of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for War, whose honesty of purpose, great industry, and many other admirable qualities, he respected and admired. He was all the more ready to pay him every tribute, because he was the first to alter—he perhaps might be pardoned for saving, to clear and elevate—the ministerial atmosphere that surrounded this question, and to make some acknowledgment to those who had brought it forward. But while attaching full importance to what had been done, he proposed to show, and he felt it his bounden duty to show, that if they left the matter as it now stood, and went forward in the belief that the Army Medical Service had been made efficient, or cast into a shape that would make it efficient, to meet the demands of a great war, they would simply court a repetition of those disasters which had followed every so-called attempt at reform during the last sixty years.
  And it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.
SUPPLY [21ST ALLOTTED DAY.]
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
£530,000, Medical Establishment, Pay, etc.
MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid when the sitting was suspended he was stating that the scheme of reforms of the right hon. Gentleman did not provide against disaster in the time of a great war. Before explaining that he wished to remind the Committee of what had been reformed, and to lay it up to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman. First, there had been a wise and healthy association of the civilian with the military medical element, not only for the purposes of reform, but in the normal administration of the Army Medical Service. Four civilian medical men had been placed permanently on the Advisory Board. In stating these reforms he did not propose, for want of time, to criticise the manner in which they had been carried out. If he did he should have something to say about the unreasonableness of expecting to get eminent civilians to share in the multifarious duties of that Board for the payment of £200 a year. Of course they knew that two very distinguished surgeons, Sir Frederick Treves and Sir Alfred Fripp, were now performing that service. But when the enthusiasm of war was over, if they wanted to make the civilian element a permanent factor in the normal administration of the Army Medical Service and to get the best men for the purpose, they could not do so for £200 a year. It was trading on their patriotism. They had better pay them nothing and let them have the honour and unmixed gratitude for rendering a public service, which certainly belong to the gentlemen which certainly belong to the gentlemen he had named. But what he feared most was that this civilian element would be gradually eliminated so far as its practical functions went, and that the administration would fall back into that old routine of departmentalism under which it slept for so many years, waking only at the sound of war to produce on of its perennial medical disasters. The second great reform had been and increase of pay to the Army medical officer which naturally improved his position. The third had been an increase of numbers, about the advisability of which there was some doubt—save in one respect; that so far as an increase of number was necessary in order to give the Army medical officer study-leave and opportunities for self-improvement, and therefore to raise his efficiency—so far it was legitimate. It was not legitimate, as it

1355
was intended to make the Army Medical Service independent of civilian aid. The fourth reform was the granting of this study—leave and facilities for self-improvement, which the Army medical officer was always seeking for, and which he rarely could obtain, and then had to pay for himself. It always seemed to him a great reproach to all concerned that after his entrance examination the Army medical officer had no opportunities of study afforded him in a profession in which continuous and well-directed study was quite as necessary as practice. Under this head he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what had become of the proposed London Military Hospital and Military School? The fifth reform, arid one of the most important, had been the introduction of promotion by merit rather than mere seniority, this promotion by merit being secured by a mingled system of examination and selection. The sixth reform was applied to what was shown to be in the last war a crying evil—the condition of the orderlies. Their status and pay had been improved. The absurdity of strong men, who ought to be at the front, struggling over clerks' work at the base; of thinking that every man, because he was an orderly, could be an efficient nurse, which. required three years' training,—or could be a good cook; the absurdity of not differentiating from these skilled departments the orderlies who were only suited for general labour; all this, they learned from a speech made by the Director-General last October, had been recognised and the orderlies had been classified according to their various functions. The seventh reform—he did not know what progress had been made in it, but it was promised in the speech of the Director-General to which he had referred—was the founding of a sanitary department. The last and greatest reform of all had been a full recognition of the principle of female nursing in military hospitals, and the organisation of an efficient female nursing service under the intelligent and experienced supervision of Her Majesty the Queen.
He had given a full list of the reforms that had been carried out, or were included in the scheme, or were promised by those responsible for the Depart-
1356
ment; and he was naturally the first to admit they were wise and prudent reforms, because they were all pointed out, and argued one by one, with instances of what was going on under his own eyes in South Africa, in the series of articles he wrote to the Times. Those articles were entirely devoted to the question of reform of the Army Medical Service, to the crying need for it, and for a more reasonable and generous treatment of Army medical officer, until the time came when the state of things out there required a drastic and immediate change, and the state of things here—the dream of satisfaction into which the public hand been lulled—made it unavoidable in the interests of humanity to bring public opinion to bear on the subject. He had no fault to find with the right hon. Gentleman for what he had done. But it was what he had not done that would involve us at any moment in great danger if we were plunged into another war. It was so true that it almost sounded like a platitude now, to say that we could never maintain an Army medical service in time of peace equal to the demands of great war. It was an axiom that applied generally to the question of Army reform, but specifically and most of all to the Army Medical Service. It was all very well to prefect our normal system for peace time; but one of the objects, perhaps the most important object in doing so, was to be able to elasticise and expand it at any moment for a great war. The two things ought to be inseparable if we were to have economy and efficiency and be ready for war.
In this respect the Army Medical Service was in a peculiar position, and differed from other departments of the Army. They could not always get artillery or trained cavalry or scouts of other skilled factors in the field force from outside; but they had always ready at hand an unlimited supply of civilian medical men who were willing and anxious to go out to a war. It was always so. It was so when the South African War broke out, and afterwards when the pressure was at its greatest. Why then was this civilian complement not properly utilised? What caused the breakdown? It was because there was no organization of this

1357
civilian medical aid. He should have thought this was the first and most important lesson taught by the recent war. But such an organisation was entirely absent from this great scheme of reform.
Anyone looking at the reforms would gather that the medical failure in the last war was due to the want of scientific attainment on the part of the Army doctor. Was that so? Not in the least; or only in the smallest possible measure. If they had been the most skilful physicians and surgeons in the world, or even up to the standard that this scheme contemplated, and had been paid four times what it laid down, did they suppose that would have averted the catastrophe? No. They wanted more materiel, more men, more orderlies and nurses and doctors. They would want them in the future; and they wanted them selected, not by hasty advertisement at a day's notice, but by some carefully prepared scheme of registration, or other means of securing an enlargement of their medical service, which would not only be suitable and efficient but on which they could rely at any time when the need might arise. Had anything of this sort been done? It had been a great deal talked about but had it been done? He put aside the important matters of a Militia Medical reserve, and a Volunter Medical reserve, because he did not know what had been done in those directions. The worst of it was we rover did know what had been done, and we never cared to inquire in a quasi-professional matter like this. We took things for granted, and went to sleep until one fine day we woke up and found the deluge upon us. Then we made a terrible row, and hanged someone. And then we went to sleep again. There was only one way out of this fatal cycle of disaster and attempted reform; only one way to shake off the national reproach that had run through the history of the Army Medical Service only one way to secure efficiency and economy with regard to it, and that was by a carefully thought-out scheme of civilian aid to be ready when called on by a great war. It was a monstrous thesis to put forward that a civilian doctor or surgeon could not treat a soldier. Yet it was this suggestion, born of
1358
Army medical rank, which placed the sword before the stethoscope, and fostered by departmentalism, which lay at the root of all our failures, and it was this idea which permeated the right hon. Gentleman's scheme of reform. It was perfectly obvious. Speaking at White-haven last October, the right hon. Gentleman had cited, as a proof of the success of his reform, that "whereas up to the time of the late war they were getting one candidate for two vacancies, they were now getting between two and three candidates for one vacancy." That was his great object, to enrol men in the Royal Army Medical Corps—men who had to be paid and had to be pensioned at the expense of the nation. What had that to do, what could it ever have to do, with being prepared for a great war That could only be done by civilian aid.
The methods by which civilian aid could be utilised in time of war were twofold. In the first place, there was the simple method of enlarging the numerical strength of their staff by taking into it, for the time required and no longer, civilian aid. They wanted a scheme prepared for obtaining this aid, for utilising it, for distributing it in its requisite proportions, for settling the relations of the civilian medical man to the Army medical officer, and for avoiding many other difficulties that arose in South Africa. The absence of any such scheme gave rise to untold evil. Some of it was told. At No. 8 General Hospital at Bloemfontein, where there were nearly 2,000 patients, the strained relations between the two classes of medical men disorganised the whole work. When the principal medical officer of South Africa was questioned about it, he stated that "he knew of the friction"; and he added the strange remark that he "thought the friction would go on until the machine stopped." A medical man of large practice and great experience at home would be given the rank of a lieutenant, and so be placed not only as to his rank, but as to the medical treatment of his patient under an Army medical captain or major, who had no experience at all. He could tell the Committee, if time allowed, of several cases where this occurred to the infinite detriment of the patients in the hospital; but he would only

1359
mention one. A consulting surgeon of a large hospital, a man of great experience and scientific ability, was attached to a certain hospital in the war, given the rank of lieutenant, and placed under an Army medical major. His requisitions for the barest medical necessities were refused by the major, and he had to go off to a town thirty miles away and buy them himself, which proved they could easily have been got; his prescriptions were revised by the major; cases of internal operations of a most serious and delicate kind were attempted to be removed the clay after by the major; until at last, exasperated and indignant for the patients whose lives were in his charge, the consultant surgeon threatened to punch the major's bead if he came into the wards again. And the major, thinking discretion the better part of what he supposed he would call "discipline," kept out of the wards after that. He thought, considering the number of medical practitioners there were wanting employment, that for purposes of economy to the State, and to avoid a heavy pension list, it might be used to a great extent in peace time. He found nothing about that in the scheme. But it certainly wanted careful organisation beforehand for war time.
But there was another and more important form of civilian aid in wax time, which demanded thorough organisation in time of peace They did not want only civilian medical men; they wanted civilian hospital complete and self-contained, organised and ready to go out to a war, either to take over the base hospitals and so free the trained Army medical staff to go up to the front, their proper places or not only staffed but equipped, prepared to he sent up and dotted along the lines of communication as stationary hospitals; or even prepared, if need be, to take the field, as some of them did, gallantly and efficiently in the late war. The Committee would remember—and the country would always remember—the splendid part played in the medical history of the war by the great system of civilian hospitals voluntarily and generously provided from England—from Scotland, from Ireland, from Wales, aye, and even from the colonies. But they could not rely, in providing a formal scheme for the medical needs of their Army, they had no right to rely upon the generosity and patriotism of private people. Those noble sentiments would, no doubt, always exist, but a
1360
hundred causes might prevent their taking this particular form. But if they could not rely on what was done being done again in the same way, and from the same sources, they could at least take it to a certain extent as a model, and improve on it, and make it a certainty. They could create a system of medical units for war time in connection with the large civilian hospitals and great medical schools, units with staff equipment and training, ready to go out, and engaged to go out, to a war when called on.
His hon. friend the Member for Edinburgh University made some interesting remarks about this last year. But eighteen months before that, in February, 1901, a scheme of that kind, and one upon the lines of which any satisfactory scheme in the future must be founded, was drawn up by a gentleman of great military-medical experience, and one who played a very important part, not only a practical but an originating part, in the system of voluntary civilian hospitals in the late war, and was laid before the Secretary of State for War. Long before that, he himself constantly and publicly urged the provision of some such scheme, because it was the only means by which they could place the medical service, at a moment's notice, on a war footing—with a due regard to efficiency and economy. It would save the country from "bloated armaments" in peace time, in the shape of an excessive Royal Army Medical Corps and a heavy pension list; it would save the lives and the health of our soldiers in war time, by providing them with a better medical service than they could get from any other source. What had become of this scheme and this proposal? Was it still in the state it was last October when the Director-General, speaking to the civil profession, eloquently advocated "the establishment in time of peace of medical units for service when war comes," and the perfect organisation of such units, and said—"Where are volunteer field ambulances?"—he used the word "volunteer" not in connection with that branch of the Army but as applied to the great medical schools—"above all where are our volunteer general hospitals?" And he, speaking nine months after that, but three years after the proposal was publicly put forward and argued, asked where were these things? Where was this

1361
scheme? It was an integral part of any real and effective reform of the Army Medical Service it was absolutely essential, in order to avert another disaster in war-time. It required thought and study and organisation, and careful co-ordination with the normal Army Medical Service—all of which could only be done in peace days. Where was it? What had been done, or what was being done with regard to it?
He trusted the Committee would par don him for having addressed them at such length on this Vote. It involved a matter literally of life and death to the Army—the well-being and health of our soldiers in time of peace; and in war time the saving them from death, which comes, he thought, in its most pathetic form, not on the field of battle, but in hospital. They had no reason to complain; they never had had and never should have any reason than to be other than proud, of the courage and efficiency of the Army medical officer on the field of battle. The history of the South African war was illuminated by many brilliant examples of those qualities to which no one had been more anxious to do full justice than himself. But they must bear in mind that no amount of coolness and heroism in the field could make up for an imperfect and ill-organised medical system, which was detected by the hospital in war time. No gallant dash to save a wounded lean and carry him back under heavy fire no steady imperturbable dressing of wounds in the zone of the quick-firing rifle could supply the place of that careful organisation and that combined economy and efficiency which they, as Members of Parliament, ought to demand in this department of the Army. All their efforts for reform should be directed to these aspects of the question.
MR. BRODRICKsaid he fully recognised the services which his hon. friend had rendered in bringing this question forward. In the changes that had been suggested it was recognised that it was highly important that they should not rely on anything that might become stereotyped in the department, arid in order to avoid that they had enlisted the services of leading members of the medical profession who were in closest touch with the most recent medical
1362
developments of the day. They had been peculiarly fortunate in this respect. He had invited some of the most eminent members of the medical profession to assist him in the organisation of the department; and he could not express too strongly his gratitude to those gentlemen who had given up high fees and personal practice to sit with him on a Committee in the months of June and July giving up their time frequently from five o'clock in the afternoon to eight o'clock in the evening probing this question to the very bottom, and, having done that, had expressed themselves willing to serve on the Advisory Board at a mere nominal honorarium in order adequately to reorganize the Army Medical Department upon which so many lives depended and which embraced so many medical men. Besides the Army medical members, the Advisory Board consisted of five eminent civilian doctors and surgeons, including Sir Charles Ball, Dr. Fripp, and Sir Frederick Treves. These, gentlemen had been most constant in their attendance, attending three or four Committees a week. He thought it was, most unusual in any scientific profession to find professional men willing to give so much time to public objects. The' War Office had endeavoured to meet their views with regard to pay, with regard to the increase in numbers, and, what was more important, with regard to the increase of leave for study to be carried out in the Medical College, for which a site had been secured. In future they would be able to obtain their knowledge' of the medical profession in the very best centres for scientific research. With regard to nursing, the men had been given a special rate of pay, and the female nursing service, organised by Her Majesty the Queen, contained the very best nurses in the profession. Previous, to the appointment of the Advisory Board, the number of candidates was not equal to the vacancies, but since the number of candidates had increased, and. at the last examination there were 32 candidates for 30 vacancies, and he understood that some of the candidates held positions as house-surgeons in the best hospitals in London. The Advisory Board had made a review of the whole of the military hospitals of the United Kingdom, in which review one of the

1363
civil members had always taken part; and he hoped they were on the eve of many great changes, in the way of not treating so many trifling cases in hospital, n having much better equipment, more scientific structures, and a general modernising of the institutions. He had asked the House for a sum of £150,000, which he proposed to entrust to a small Committee of which Sir C. Perry, now a most active and responsible official at Guy's, would be the chairman. That Committee would apportion the money among the various hospitals with a view to securing their modernisation. An other point was the organisation of an adequate civilian reserve and the definition of their status as compared with the Army Medical Corps. He hoped that before the House met again he might be in a position to tell his hon. friend and the House that these were all accomplished facts.
His hon. friend the Member for Westminster had alluded to one or two other subjects. The points he had brought out during the war in South Africa were subjects which required to be brought out, and the fact that the hon. Member had been on the spot amply justified him in bringing them out, and by taking that course he rendered a great service to the country. Nevertheless he maintained that during the war the Army Medical Corps amidst great difficulties did their duty with the most absolute self-denial and success under a system in which organisation was wanted more than initiative, and which organisation had never up to that time been asked for by the House of Commons. All he could say now was that they recognised those difficulties, and personally he was grateful to his hon. friend the Member for Westminster for the share he had taken in suggesting remedies.
MR. WEIR.called attention to the inadequate equipment of Fort George with surgical instruments. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to see that more up-to-date instruments were supplied to the hospital at Fort George. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would look into this matter. Some years ago he went down to Aldershot, and he was
1364
surprised to find that the surgical instruments in use there were of the most ancient order. They had been slightly improved since, but very little.
MR. BRODRICKreplied that two members of the Board were making inquiries into this matter.
COLONEL SANDY'Ssaid he felt that the point which he desired to bring before the Committee was one which ought not to be allowed to pass without some kind of comment—he alluded to the practice of giving military titles to medical men. He was aware that this was a very delicate subject to touch upon, but it seemed to him that the present titles should not be given to the medical profession, and the different grades of Army surgeons might be met by such titles as assistant-surgeon, surgeon, field-surgeon, and others. Special privileges might be given in regard to service, the granting of emoluments, and other things. For certain reasons concessions had been made to medical clamour by granting certain titles, but be was convinced that as regarded the Army itself no good whatever had been done by allowing the medical profession to assume military titles.
MR. BUCHANANthought the hon. Member for Westminster must be astonished, although no doubt pleased, at the very changed tone in the reception of his criticisms. It was not owing to the War Office, but to the hon. Member and a few others, that attention was called to the gross insufficiency and the scandalous mismanagement of the medical arrangements at the beginning of the war. The loss of many lives, and the amount of sickness and torture and misery endured by our soldiers, officers as well as men, were due to the culpable mismanagement of the right hon. Gentleman now sitting on the Treasury Bench. ("Oh, oh.")
MR. BRODRICK: I must beg the hon. Member to moderate his language, and to observe, first of all, that I was not at the War Office at the time he refers to, and that I took the full responsibility, when the War Office was organised to send 70,000 men abroad, of sending 250,000 men. Perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw the observation he has made. From the point of view of the comity that exists among Members of

1365
this House he will withdraw a charge which he cannot substantiate. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Withdraw."]
MR. BUCHANANsaid, in so far as the right hon. Gentleman corrected him by the reminder that he was not then Secretary for War, he acknowledged that he was in error; but the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member did not make anything like adequate provision in the medical department for the exigencies of the war. That was only one part—the right hon. Gentleman might ride off on that plea if he liked—of the gross mismanagement and want of foresight shown in every matter connected with the inception of the war. In no Government Department had the want of foresight been so remarkable as in regard to the Army Medical Corps. It was well remembered how the hon. Member for Westminster was received by the Prime Minister and other responsible Ministers when he first reported what he had seen in South Africa. The improvement in the Medical Department now, and the future improvements contemplated, were the result of a very tardy repentance on the part of the Ministers of the Crown, and were due mainly to the perseverance, fortitude, industry, and courage of the hon. Member for Westminster, and those who acted with him.
MR. WHITLEYcalled attention to an item of £5,000 for an expeditionary force in China. The China expeditionary force was sent out more than a year ago, and he could not understand how it came about that at this time of day the Committee should be asked to pay £5,000 for this purpose. He wished to know how it was that they were now called upon to pay this item.
LORD STANLEYsaid the reason was that certain accounts had not been rendered at the commencement of last Sear, but as they knew they would come in during tire present year they now asked for money to meet those charges.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he understood that some expense was still going on in regard to this force, which could hardly be called an expeditionary force at the present time. He thought there should
1366
be a distinction drawn in the estimates between the money spent on the war in China and that spent for the maintenance and protection of the Legation.
Vote agreed to.
2. £1,838,000, Transports and Re mounts.
SIR CHARLES DILKEcalled attention to the small establishment of horses. At the present moment, although the number of horses of cavalry regiments had been slightly increased there was still a very small number of horses of effective age. The number of horses per squadron kept up in connection with British cavalry regiments was smaller than that of any other army in the world. They did not average more than 110 horses per squadron. He believed that the number of men justified at least 135 horses per squadron, and he wished to press the Government if necessary, rather to reduce the number of cadres than keep up so small an establishment of horses.
MR. BRODRICKsaid he had more than once had meetings with officers of cavalry regiments on this subject. It was not altogether merely a matter of horses. The officers stated that, having regard to the number of men, they could not with advantage take more horses than they had already got. Consequently, while he agreed with the right hon. Baronet, he was in the hands of the military authorities, who said they got all the horses they could manage, considering the work the men had to do. If the War Office gave them all they wasted they could do no more.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: You ought to be able to do as well as any other cavalry in the world. There is no other cavalry with so small a proportion of horses.
MR. BRODRICK: There is something peculiar about the British Army in many ways In most cases it spends more than any army in the world. In this case it spends less.
MAJOR SEELYthought the right hon. Gentleman should take

1367
this criticism more seriously to heart. The right hon. Gentleman had informed the Committee that he had frequently made representations on this subject, and that, so far, he had not been able to get any further, because the officers of cavalry regiments had pointed out that they had so many men engaged in other duties that it would be impossible to keep more horses employed. But surely that was a most ridiculous state of things. When every other country could keep up a proper establishment of horses we might be expected to have the very best and most efficient. He would suggest that, if the commanders of cavalry regiments said it was impossible to have this under the present plan, a change should be made in the plan, which was admitted to be not entirely creditable. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter further attention.
MR. BRODRICKsaid the present supply of horses was adequate to mount the men and take them into the field. He was in full agreement with his hon. friend, and he could assure him it was not a question of parsimony, but whether he should dictate to the War authorities to keep a larger number of horses than they wanted to keep.
MR. CALDWELLasked for imformation with respect to the hired transports for bringing home the troops from South Africa. The amount taken this year was £812,500. He wanted to know how many hired transports there were at present. He supposed that the work of bringing home the troops from South Africa was nearly finished. There had been very considerable waste in this respect, a great many transports having been kept practically idle. Had the Admiralty no hospital ships at all I He found in connection with the China expedition that a hospital ship was hired from the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and it remained out there for many months.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.)said he could not give the hon. Member full details in regard to the number of ships that had been engaged in transport work. What
1368
happened was this. Requests were made by the War Office for ships, and the Transport Department of the Admiralty furnished the transports. In some cases they were kept for considerable periods of time, waiting for troops coming back. That was necessary during the war, but not now. Every care was taken to get the transports at market rates. The question of hospital ships for the Army was a totally different matter. The number of transport ships had been considerably diminished, and now they were limited to the number required to bring troops from South Africa from time to time.
MR. CALDWELLsaid this was a vague and general answer which conveyed no information whatever. It was at this time more than any other that there was likely to be waste. There was an item of £719,900 for hired transports, and the Committee expected a little information regarding it. How many hired transports had they on hand?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the actual number of hired transports was two. If more were required at a later stage they would be hired.
MR. CALDWELL: Exactly, but why could you not give us that information when it was asked? Now perhaps you can tell us whether the cost is £1 per ton per month.
MR. BRODRICKsaid he kept the most careful watch on the use of these transports. They had an enormous number of moves going on as between South Africa, the Mediterranean, and this country early in the year. That caused a very heavy charge for transports. There were at the beginning of the year about thirty transports employed; hut, as the Secretary to the Admiralty had stated, the number was now reduced to, two.
MR. BUCHANANthought it high time that Parliament should be informed as to the rate at which transports were hired for service during the war. A categorical promise was given by Lord Goschen at the beginning of the war that the information should be furnished when the war was concluded.
MR. WHITLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not given a satisfactory answer to the question of sea transports. The item they were now asked to vote was three times the amount normally required. How was it that so long after the conclusion of the war there should be these swollen figures? What they were anxious for was that as soon as possible they might get back to the normal figures in this respect.
MR. BRODRICKsaid he had already explained that an enormous number of moves had taken place this year. The War Office had hardly got credit for what they had done since the close of the war. They had discharged 160,000 men since the war ended. There was no one in the House more interested than himself in economic administration. When they further reduced the Estimates the figures referred to would be much lower.
MR. BUCHANANsaid the Committee should get some information as to the rates at which the transports were hired. It was in February, 1900, Lord Goschen, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, stated that at the conclusion of the war full particulars would be furnished in regard to the chartering of ships.
MR. BRODRICK: said the Admiralty had not the slightest objection to give these particulars in a Parliamentary Return.
MR. LOUGHasked what the charge of £70,000 for the China expedition was based on. Did it apply entirely to last year? If so it did not seem to him to be a satisfactory way of keeping the accounts. He thought there was plenty of time, when the Estimates were being prepared, to get some particulars from India as to the exact amount. When he turned to the Somaliland charges he found the amount was £170,000. That seemed to him the cost of a little war itself. Was that the total item for Somaliland, a ad might the Committee assume that no more money would be wanted? What were the chief heads of the expenses here?
MR. BRODRICK: The sea transport charges, to which the hon. Gentleman
1370
called attention, were payments made when the transports were discharged. The proceeds of the sale of animals were, of course, larger at the end of a war than in a normal year. In regard to the two expeditions in China and Somaliland, transport and remounts involved the largest portion of this charge. He would welcome the day when it was possible to bring the Indian troops from China and place them on the charge of India; but the hon. Member would understand that, seeing the trouble had so recently subsided in the portions of China where those troops were, the Government must not be asked to come to too precipitate a decision on the subject. They had, however, reduced the troops to one quarter of the former number.
MR. LOUGHasked what force there was at present in China.
MR. BRODRICKsaid he thought there were about 3,200 men. Then, as regarded the Somaliland Vote, the same answer applied as to the China Vote.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he did not see why they should have 3,000 men in China. There were at one time 700 or 800 men at Shanghai, and they all knew that the French, German, and British troops had gone away from that place. Then, in Peking, there was only the normal guarding for guarding the Embassy, which could not amount to more than 500 at the outside. It must be useful to the Government to know that the Germans had three or four times the number of officers at Peking and Tient-sin the British had, so that they would be able to fill up details at once on an emergency.
MR. WEIRsaid he would like to know where our forces in China were stationed. The last time he was in Shanghai there were very few British troops.
MR. BRODRICKsaid that if the hon. Member were to go there again he would find some British forces in Shanghai and some in Hong-Kong.
MR. WEIRsaid that the new barracks at Hong-Kong would not be finished for two or three years yet. The right hon. Gentleman was not purposely misleading the Committee, but it would be well if he

1371
were to mark, learn, and inwardly digest what had been said, and see that the officials at the War Office furnished him with accurate information. As the representative of Ross and Cromarty, he did not come there to vote hundreds of thousands of pounds, aye millions, without any information.
MR. CALDWELLsaid if the Secretary for War included the troops in Hong-Kong he might make up 3,000; but he would inform the right hon. Gentleman that Hong-Kong was not part of the expedition to China. It was a British settlement and was under the Colonial Office. Ho hoped the Secretary fur War would look up the matter, and discriminate between the expenditure which belonged to the British colony of Hong-Kong, and that which related to the China expedition. The Vote was far too large for the British force which was in China.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,822,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Clothing Establishments and Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904."
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not propose to raise the question of wages at the Pimlico Clothing Establishment, but there was one grievance there which he was quite certain ought to be looked into by the War Office. A circular had recently been issued by the Home Office in regard to sanitary accommodation in factories, and he was certain that the accommodation of that description at Pimlico was below the Home Office standard.
LORD STANLEYsaid that inquiry was being made into this matter, and if the sanitary accommodation at Pimlico was below the standard, steps would be taken to remedy it.
MR. CKOOKSsaid that in the case of contractors who infringed the fair wages Resolution of the House, the Department was always willing to receive a deputation on the subject from the trade union. He saw no reason why the
1372
same course should not be followed in regard to the men, and the women, who were in an even more unfortunate position—namely, those employed in Government factories. The employees in the Pimlico factory should be allowed to make their grievances known direct to the War Office through the medium of the trade union organization. He knew the arrogance of the overseers and foremen towards the workmen. He had a letter from an employee in the Pimlico factory who had made an appeal to the overseer, and he was referred to "Bill Crooks to answer it." No official had the right to answer a workman's request in that manner.
MR. BRODRICKsaid he quite saw what the hon. Member desired, but the rule of the Government had always been, and he hoped it always would be, to deal direct with its own employees. The Government, he hoped, was a good employer, and they had every desire to give good employment, and deal fairly with their workpeople. But the Government had never given any recognition to the idea that outside intermediaries should come in between them and those whom they employed. Such a course, he thought, would not tend either to smooth working, or to a good understanding between employer and employed in Government service. He could assure the hon. Menber that if the men or women were dissatisfied they were perfectly free to ventilate their grievances, and to approach the authorities on the matter, and he would take care that they would not be penalised for doing so.
MR. CROOKSsaid that that was a very unsatisfactory statement by the right hon. Gentleman, and he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £100. The right hon. Gentleman said that these poor people in the factories need have no fear in making complaints; but he could give twenty cases in which the over lookers or foremen said to the workmen, "You can complain if you like, but if you do, bear in mind that we shall remember you." Was not that coercion? He had always found that the people who had been paid at the lowest rate of wages lacked moral courage. That had been taken out of them long ago; and they should be allowed to make their representations through their unions.
Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £1,821,900 be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Crooks.)
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERsaid he wished to put it to the Secretary for War that, in his reply to the hon. Member for Woolwich, he did not at all deal with the logical point which the hon. Member had raised. That point was, why did the officers of State and the members of the Government receive deputations from outside combinations of workmen in respect of alleged contraventions of the regulations by contractors who employed the workmen, but refused to receive similar deputations from those who had adopted the grievances of workmen in the direct employment of the Government. He awaited with considerable interest and with an entirely open mind the explanation of his right hon. friend.
MR. BRODRICKsaid the distinction between the two cases which the hon. Member for Woolwich had raised was this Those employed in the service had a right to approach the heads of the Department direct; whereas, the workers under contractors, who might be doing other business outside Government business, had no right of access to the Government. In the latter case, if a representation was made to the Government, they called on the contractors for an explanation as to whether the rules which this House had set up had been observed. In the former case, they looked after their own workmen.
MR. KEARLEYsaid he would let a little daylight into this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, said the Government would not allow any outside interference between it and its employees But what was the channel of communication between the Government employees and the Government? It was by petition, and these petitions were sent in year by year, and the men were led to suppose that they would receive a prompt reply. The Committee would probably be surprised to know that that was not acted upon in any sense. He knew of a petition which had been sent in, in 1902, to which no reply had yet been given, and when he addressed a question last week to the
1374
Secretary to the Admiralty on the subject, the only satisfaction he got was that the matter was still being considered. The only opportunity the workpeople in Pimlico had of ventilating their grievances was by sending in petitions, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to make inquiries into the matter He was glad to see the Secretary to the Admiralty present.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order This is rot an Admiralty Vote.
MR. KEARLEYsaid that the only way these workpeople had to ventilate their grievances was by petition.
MR. BRODRICKasked if the hon. Gentleman suggested that the Pimlico, petition was disregarded.
MR. KEARLEYsaid yes, absolutely. No reply had been given to the petition, and he should be glad to know if the right hon. Gentleman intended to remedy that state of affairs. He thought the Committee ought to have a definite pledge that replies would be given to, such petitions.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid he wished the right hon. Gentleman would consider that this was a matter which had been recognised by employers of labour throughout the country. This House recognised over thirty years ago the right of workpeople to organise in the only way possible, namely, by appointing men in whom they had confidence to lay their case before the employers. In this case the employer was the War Office; and surely the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that these workpeople had a perfect right to appoint the man whom they considered best able to present their case to the officers appointed by the right hon. Gentleman to investigate it. The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman was most inconsistent. He stated that the applications for work were more numerous than the employment necessitated. That was the whole secret of the situation, and that was why the right hon. Gentleman ignored the trades union representative. The action of the

1375
Government was altogether wrong, and ought not to be tolerated. Trades unionists throughout the country would not read with pleasure the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to receive a trades union representative. He hoped his hon. friend would take a division.
MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he felt bound to associate himself with the views of Vie hon. Gentle man the Member for Devonport, because his experience was much the same as that of the hon. Gentleman. He, however, was persuaded that the Government did not desire to deal unfairly with their employees; and in that respect he differed from the hon. Gentleman. He thought, however, that the Government did not appreciate the difficulty of employees in putting their case forward. The Government should remember that it was not easy for the men to be their own advocates. They were very often, if he might say so, inarticulate, and found it very difficult to state their own case, although he entirely exonerated the Government from trying to take an unfair advantage of their employees.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he desired to state that the hon. Member for Devonport was under an entire misapprehension. There was no disinclination on the part of Government employees to place their views before a particular Department. It was stated that there had been some delay, but that, he believed, was also a misapprehension. Perhaps hon. Members were not aware of the volume of petitions received by Government Departments. Their consideration involved immense detail, and it could not be expected that an immediate answer could be given to them.
MR. KEARLEYsaid that six months was a fair time in which to receive an answer.
THE CHAIRMAN: I called the hon. Member for Devonport to order for discussing the question of Admiralty employees; now the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty is answering the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport, but it is quite out of order on this Vote.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he understood that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth had alluded to the matter.
THE CHAIRMAN: No, the hon. Member did not refer to Admiralty employees, but to Government employees generally.
SIR JOHN GORSTwas surprised to hear that it was the settled policy of the Department not to allow employees to make representations through third parties. He thought such a policy objectionable on two grounds. In the first place, it was nut just, and in the second place, it was inexpedient. The Government employed a great number of extremely poor workers, particularly in the clothing factory, many of whom were women, and they could not make the best of their case when brought face to face with military people and officials in high places. There was no better way of preventing the springing up of disputes than the bringing in of third persons, who could take a calm and impartial view of the situation. It was foolish of the Government not to allow their workpeople to make representations to them through their own trade union officials.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that a grave matter of principle was involved, and the problems which were presented by the relations between the State and its employees would not be rendered less difficult or delicate by refusing to recognise trade unionism. A few years ago the House of Commons passed a Resolution which asserted the principle that the Government should be a model employer of labour. Certainly no employer of labour could be regarded as a model employer who refused to treat with trade union representatives. The principle of collective bargaining was at the root of the settlement of all industrial difficulties. In many industries, certainly in the great industries in the North of England, employers preferred that the men should be trade unionists. The right hon. Gentleman now set up a principle which had been rejected by every

1377
progressive employer of labour throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman said that he refused to negotiate with workmen through the medium of third parties. In the next breath he said that he was ready to receive representations on behalf of the workmen from Members of Parliament. How could the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between the two cases? No doubt it was necessary to have military discipline in the case of those who were to serve in the field. But these ideas of discipline that reigned at the War Office ought not to be applied to its Civil establishments. The doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman had enunciated would be an encouragement to every reactionary employer of labour throughout the country.
COLONEL SANDYSsaid he could not agree with the argument which had been advanced by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken; and he confessed he was very much surprised at the views put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. He was glad his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War had taken up the position he did on that occasion. It was quite refreshing in these days to hear of a Minister having sufficient courage to say that he would not allow any outside interference with his Department. In no Department of the Government should any outside interference of any sort or kind be allowed. The curse of the country at the present time was trade union agitation; and he hoped that his right hon. friend would adhere to the position he had taken up.
MR. EMMOTTsaid that the hon. Member who had just spoken had not perhaps had much experience of trade disputes. If he had had such experience, he would not have made the speech he had just delivered. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Portsmouth that the Government were not trying to get the better of their employees. He could not conceive any Government being so stupid as to attempt that. With reference to collective bargaining, he confessed from his own experience that he would rather deal
1378
with a trained negotiator than with a man appointed, so to speak, ad hoc to represent the case of his fellow workmen. It was not that there might be any inability to state the case, but the trained negotiator knew when to give way, and realised when the argument against him was sensible. The untrained negotiator did not know when to give way, or when sense and reason were with the other side and he went into the negotiation prepared to say practically what was put into his mouth. He was convinced that the Government, if proper safeguards were adopted, would achieve more satisfactory results if they negotiated with the man appointed by the workpeople than by adopting the unfortunate method which led to such a long continued war in connection with the Penrhyn quarries.
MR. DALZIELsaid he thought the thanks of the Committee were due to the hon. Member for Woolwich for raising what was after all one of the most important questions connected with Government Departments. So far as he understood it, it resolved itself into a question of trades unionism or no trades unionism. He regretted very much the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. The hon. and gallant Gentleman advised the Government to stand against the interference of anyone connected with trades unions. He would be very much surprised if the hon. and gallant Gentleman delivered such a speech to his constituents. The question they had to consider was that the work-people believed, rightly or wrongly, they could not place their grievances before the heads of the Department. The facts in the present case were that the petition was presented last September, and that, up to the present, no reply had been received. His point was that the present system was not successful. If the right hon. Gentleman would adopt the suggestion that the men themselves should appoint a spokesman that might meet the difficulty. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was unsympathetic but he was a busy man; and it was impossible for him to examine into the details of various branches of his Department. If the Resolution of the

1379
House was to be effective no bar should be placed in the way of complaints as to its failure being investigated. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might meet the complaint by ordering a special inquiry into the difficulty of presenting grievances.
MR. BRODRICKsaid there never was the slightest difficulty about the employees of the War Office seeing the heads of the Department.
MR. DALZIELsaid the right hon. Gentleman had made a statement that the Pimlico Clothing Factory workpeople could appoint from among themselves a deputation which he was willing to receive. Was that the case?
MR. BRODRICK: I said there had never been the slightest difficulty in the employees of the War Office approaching the heads of the Department.
MR. DALZIELsaid that in reply to a communication the right hon. Gentleman had indicated his willingness to consider any complaints of the employees which might be forwarded through the proper channels, but he declined to recognise their union as the intermediary. His claim was that the union ought to be recognised.
MR. BRODRICK: The letter also states that I would see any individual employees.
MR. DALZIELsaid he was content to rest his case on the words "I must decline to recognise the union or receive any deputation which may purport to convey the views of the members." Surely the employees were the best judges as to how and by whom they wished their grievances to be represented. The issue now really was—"trades unions, or no trades unions."
SIR J. FERGUSSONhoped the Committee would support the right hon. Gentleman in the position which he had taken up, and which was in accordance with the universal practice of the Government. The only logical course open to the right hon. Gentleman was to decline to allow outsiders to come in and inter-
1380
fere with the organisation of a Government Department, and hon. Members would surely support him in that.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the attitude of the War Office and that of the Post Office was totally indefensible, and it was impossible to maintain it. Scarcely a year in the last twenty-seven had passed in which he had not discussed grievances with the employees in the Army Clothing Department. They had real grievances, and there was serious difficulty in putting them before the Secretary of State. The majority of the employees were poor women, not of a class who were able to state their grievances. If any skilled lady inspector of factories could see the employees she would be able to bring the case before the right hon. Gentleman in a way it had not been brought up to the present time.
MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid the principle of allowing the employees themselves to put their grievances forward was a right one, and he thought the Government ought to be supported in the position they had taken up.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid the idea of being willing to see individuals but not persons representing them, was the old ground taken up by the most determined opponents of labour combination and organisation. It was not the policy adopted in all Government Departments. For instance the Commissioner of Works was in constant communication with a powerful trades-union of which he was a member.
BRODRICK: Surely not with regard to the wages paid to its own permanent employees.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid the communications had reference to the conditions of work, hours, etc., and that indirectly at any rate affected labour. The War Office was the last Department in the world that should take unto itself any air of superiority in any way whatsoever. He had himself had a long experience in connection with the Army Clothing Department. He had been associated with the grievances of the

1381
employees for more than thirty years, mostly in the days when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Trades Union Congress and when Mr. Childers was Secretary of State for War. He once arranged a deputation with that right hon. Gentleman in the old Conference room, and after listening to the women for about ten minutes, Mr. Childers begged leave to withdraw, and begged him to make any terms possible with the workers in that particular Department. The attitude now taken up by the Secretary for War was one which must prevent the administrative work of a Department being successfully carried on, and he hoped the Government as a whole did not accept the right hon. Gentleman's views.
MR. BRODRICKsaid that if the members employed in the Army Clothing Department had reason to complain and made their complaints through the proper channels—through their own superior officer—he was ready to see them. But he was not ready to recognise unions of the workers.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Why not?
MR. BRODRICK: The Government never has dealt with any of its employees—postmen, policemen, soldiers or sailors through a union.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the right hon. Gentleman by quoting the cases of soldiers, sailors, and policemen was simply confusing the issue, because they stood in an entirely different position from ordinary working people. The right hon. Gentleman had frequently stated that he would not receive a deputation from an outside organisation, but he had not yet given any reasons for adopting this attitude.
COLONEL LOCKWOODwhile thoroughly agreeing with the Secretary of State for War in regard
1382
to this question, suggested that he should avail himself of the services of one of the women factory inspectors who should inquire into the conditions of employment of women in the Pimlico factory.
MR. KEARLEYpointed out that in the case which had been quoted in which the Chief Ordnance Officer refused to receive a deputation from the union, it was simply a union of Government employees. The right hon. Gentleman had said he would be very glad to see individuals or bodies representing those individuals, and in this case why not receive the representatives of the individuals' union. Did the right hon. Gentleman make any differentiation? Did he merely refuse to receive outside unions or did he also ref use to receive representatives of unions of any kind whatsoever?
MR. DALZIELhoped the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to make some small concession and thus avoid a division. Why not adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, backed up by the recommendation of the hon. and gallant Member for the Epping Division, and appoint an independent lady inspector to hear the grievances of these women and ascertain the cause of the dissatisfaction which existed as to the presentation of grievances. Let the enquiry even be confidential, if desired. If the right hon. Gentleman refused to adopt that suggestion the case was hopeless.
MR. PRIESTLEYsaid they heard a great deal now-a-days about the necessity of introducing business-like, methods into their administration. They were all agreed that the trades union movement in this country had been most serviceable to the men, and a useful means of getting rid of friction between employers and employed. Why should not the War Office, in its own interest, try

1383
to utilise this method of dealing with the grievances of its employees. If it had some antiquated notion about improper interference, it was most stupid. The course which had been followed was stupid, and it was time to have done with stupidity. Why did not the War Office utilise to the best of their ability the lessons which the common sense of the country had taught in the matter of trade disputes? The classes who had no power to speak for themselves were the least represented, and Government offices and Departments ought to have some consideration for those who could not help themselves. He hoped some guarantee would be given that in this little matter the affairs of the War Office would be conducted on the lines of common sense and business.
MR. PIERPOINTthought there was a great difference between receiving a trade union deputation from outside the Pimlico factory and receiving a deputation from inside, because in the latter case although it might be a trade union deputation yet it would be a deputation of the men themselves, who, as far as he knew, were perfectly at liberty to form a union inside the factory, and had a reasonable right to he received. He would be inclined to agree with his right hon. friend in refusing to receive a deputation from inside the factory were it not for the fact that there was frequently the most inordinate delay in getting replies from the War Office. The right hon. Gentleman had not explained why no reply had been given to the representation made last October.
MR. CREMERjoined in the appeal to the
1384
Secretary of State to reconsider his decision. It was practically impossible for these poor women to address the right hon. Gentleman; they would tremble in his presence, and be practically dumb. It was only natural that they should desire to have some one used to putting their grievances before the proper authorities. The principle was allowed in the Law Courts; everybody was there allowed to employ an advocate, and all these people asked was that they should be allowed to appoint anyone they pleased as their advocate. It was a right for which trades unions had always contended and which he had hoped had been settled long ago, but it appeared that the battle would have to be fought over again. Scores of cases could be cited in which terrible disasters had resulted from the narrow-minded plea now advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, and many instances had come under his own notice in which, the good sense of the employers having recognised the right of the trades unions to plead the cause of their members, serious struggles had been averted. It was always to the interest of the representatives of trades unions to avoid strikes in order to guard the funds of the unions. Leaders did not make strikes, but strikes made leaders. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would concede the point for which they were contending.
MR. LYTTELTONthought a middle course might he found which would he acceptable to the Government. He understood the Government objection was to suffer the interference of a large trade union outside their employment, and that he could understand, because a trade union might have

1385
some object of their own to gain. But there could not be any reason at all against allowing a deputation from within the employment. He should think the employees would be able to appoint a deputation of their own who could sufficiently represent their grievances. He understood that that was conceded. If, then, any body of employees were not able to represent their case clearly and adequately, there ought not to he any rigid rule which would prevent the right hon. Gentleman and the employees agreeing upon some person to speak on the latter's behalf.
MR. CROOKSsaid the hon. and learned Member had stated the ease admirably, but it was just that which the right hon. Gentleman had refused to grant. The words of the right hon. Gentleman were—
"I am prepared to consider any complaints of the employees which may be forwarded through the proper channel, or to listen to any individual who asks to see me through his immediate superior, but I must decline to recognise the trade union as an intermediary, or to receive a deputation which may purport to convey the views of its members."
MR. LYTTELTONasked what trade union was referred to.
MR. CROOKSsaid it was the Union of Government Workers—people actually in the employment of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to receive a deputation of the union, what had now taken him ten months to consider, without arriving at any decision, could be settled in ten minutes.
MR. BRODRICKsaid the hon. Member for Woolwich and the hon. and
1386
learned Member for Warwick were at variance on the very point upon which he was at variance with the proposal which had been made. If any individual, or any deputation, or any body of workmen wished to make representations to him they were perfectly at liberty to do so at any time. He could imagine a case in which a body of workpeople would be unable to speak for themselves and required a spokesman, and he drought there would be no difficulty in arranging for such a case. But what hon. Members opposite desired was that he should recognise what was practically the intervention of an outside union representing other unions—("No").
MR. SHACKLETONthought the right hon. Gentleman had not stated the case fairly. What they wanted was that these women or any other body of Government employees should have the right to appoint one of the officials connected with their union—which was entirely composed of Government workers—to represent their case. The official of the union might possibly not be working for the Government; he might have retired from the service; but by constant contact with the work-people he would be better acquainted with the facts as a whole than any individual workman could be. The society with which he was connected consisted of 100,000 workpeople, of whom 60 per cent. were women, and during the last ten years the employers of Lancashire had never refused him a hearing on behalf of the women. He failed to see why the Government should not recognise the same principle.
MR. DUKEunderstood his right hon. friend to agree as to the

1387
desirability of any body of workmen being allowed to select a representative of their own in the service of the Department to approach the head of the Department. The Secretary of State had also stated that if through defective education, sex, or other cause, they were unable to state their case properly,
he had no objection to assistance being given. That being so, he failed to see what more was required.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 118. (Division List No. 207.)

AYES.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Rose, Charles Day

Broadhurst, Henry

Helme, Norval Watson

Russell, T. W.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

Burt, Thomas

Kearley, Hudson E.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Caldwell, James

Levy, Maurice

Soares, Ernest J.

Cawley, Frederick

Lough, Thomas

Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants

Cremer, William Randal

Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

Sullivan, Donal

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Ure, Alexander

Delany, William

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Weir, James Galloway

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Moss, Samuel

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Murphy, John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

O'Brien, P. J (Tipperary, N.)

Wilson, Henry (York, W. R.)

Doogan, P. C.

O'Mara, James

Emmott, Alfred

Partington, Oswald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Fuller, J. M. F.

Priestley, Arthur

Mr. Crooks and Mr.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Shackleton.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fisher, William Hayes

Milvain, Thomas

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algeron

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Forster, Henry William

Morrell, George Herbert

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Fyler, John Arthur

Morrison, James Archibald

Bagot, Capt. Josceline. FitzRoy

Gordon, Hn.J. E. (Elgin & Nrn.

Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

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

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gore Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

Myers, William Henry

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Parkes, Ebenezer

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld.G (Midx

Percy,Earl

Butcher, John George

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pierpoint, Robert

Campbell, J. H. M (Dublin Univ.

Heath, Arthur H. Hanley)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Purvis, Robert

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hogg, Lindsay

Randles, John S.

Chamberlain, Rt.Hon. J. (Birm.

Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Chamberlain Rt Hn J A (Worc.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Charrington, Spencer

Keswick, William

Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Renwick, George

Colomb, Sir. John Charles Ready

Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N. R.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lee Arthur H (Hants. Fareham)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim S.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Cranborne, Viscount

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Davenport, William Bromley

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Seely, Maj J.E.B. (Isle of Wight

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Duke, Henry Edward

Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lvttelton, Hon. Alfred

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

Macdona, John Cumming

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Faber, George Denison (York)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Spear, John Ward

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

Majendie, James A. H.

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumhfriessh.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Walker, Col. William Hall

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Thornton, Percy M.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Tollemache, Henry James

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Sir Alexander Acland-

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

Wylie, Alexander

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Valentia, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Original Question put, and agreed to.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1903–4.

  CLASS VII.
  £8,000, Visit of the President of the French Republic.
  MR. LOUGHthought they had some right to complain of the neglect of the House of Commons in this matter. He wished to know how many tickets were placed at the disposal of the Government for the Opera-house, and why some of the tickets were not placed at the disposal of Members of the House of Commons.
  MR. WHITLEYthought the Committee should get more details of the item of £8,000. It was a mistake to put down a lump sum and give absolutely no details as to what the money was spent on. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury to give in round figures particulars of this sum.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT, Durham)said that the accounts had not been absolutely made up, but, roughly, it might be said that for the Office of Works for preparing York House, painting, etc., the sum was £1,800; for the Lord Chamberlain's Department for upholstering £2,300; for the Lord Steward for Buckingham Palace expenses and the Opera-house £2,500; and the
  1390
  Master of Horse £100; troops lining the streets, £1,000.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid it was satisfactory to receive these rough figures subdividing the Vote. He hardly thought the money should have been spent without getting some permanent value for it. Would any portion of this expenditure save similar expenditure in the future?
  MR. ELLIOT: Anything unexpended will be surrendered to the Exchequer. I do not think I can give any further information.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he would like to know how many tickets for the opera were placed at the disposal of Members of the House of Commons.
  Vote agreed to.
  £123,334, Ireland Development Grant.
  MR. O'MARAappealed to the Chief Secretary to give a portion of the money to assist in the construction of the railway from Castle comer mine to Kilkenny. That railway would confer permanent benefit on the district through which it ran, and also on the adjoining districts.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the hon. Member had referred to a project in his own constituency, but he

  1391
  need hardly say that the Irish representatives had all projects in their own districts. He could make out an excellent case for every penny of the money being spent in County Clare. It would not be possible to do much this year, but next year or the year after, when there would be some money to spend, they could consider what should be done with it.
  Vote agreed to.

  ARMY (EXCESSES) 1901–2.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £100 be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses of Army Expenditure beyond the Grants, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902."
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that if the Government had any regard for economy and improved methods of checking expenditure, they ought not to bring on a Vote of this kind at that hour of the morning and at that period of the session. He must say he was amazed when he looked into the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the accounts at the end of last financial year, that the Committee was not given a fuller opportunity of discussing and considering it. It would be quite sufficient to show the great seriousness of the matters concealed under this Report by calling the attention of the Committee to a few headings. For instance, the Auditor-General drew attention to the circumstances attending participation in fraud; to frauds at Aldershot connected with the payment of wages; to charges for transport insufficiently vouched; to irregularities in accounts; to imperfect vouching, etc. In one case the number of accounts which ought to
  1392
  have been furnished was sixty-three, but only thirteen had been returned, and of these some were of little value. He maintained that this Vote—which involved several millions of pounds—should not be carried through sub silentio and without full and satisfactory explanation by those responsible; and he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £99.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the sum of £1 be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Whitley.)
  SIR A. HAYTERsaid he quite agreed with the hon. Member that it was very unsatisfactory that the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, who fully examined these accounts, and of the Auditor-General had not been brought before the House of Commons as was recommended by the National Expenditure Committee. The fact was that it was exceedingly difficult to carry on war expenditure by Estimates, and the War Office must be allowed considerable latitude. Many of the accounts referred to by the hon. Member had been carefully examined by the Public Accounts Committee, who were of the unanimous opinion, and recommended to the House, that a total Vote should be granted in order to make up deficiencies.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that before presenting the matter to the Committee he had taken the precaution of submitting it to the Chairman of the Public Accounts. Committee; and he thought that the Report of the Public Accounts Committee called for some statement from the Government as to the action that would be taken to prevent similar irregularities in the future.
  Question put.

  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 25; Noes, 116. (Division List No. 208.)

  AYES.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Levy, Maurice

  Sullivan, Donal

  Caldwell, James

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Cawley, Frederick

  Moss, Samuel

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Partington, Oswald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Mr. Whitley and Mr

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Samuel, Herbt, L.(Cleveland)

  Lough.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Shackleton, David James

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Mid'x

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Purvis, Robert

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Randles, John S.

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Renwick, George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn, C. Thomson

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Keswick, William

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, NR

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hon J (Birm

  Leveson-Gower, Frederiek N.S.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J A (Worc

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Seely, Maj. J.E.B. (Isle of Wight

  Chapman, Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

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

  Corbett, T. L.(Down, North)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Spear, John Ward

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Hon, Arthur (Ormskirk

  Cranborne, Viscount

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Sturt, Hn. Humphrey Napier

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Milvain, Thomas

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Ure, Alexander

  Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Valentia, Viscount

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Forster, Henry William

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wylie, Alexander

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Percy, Earl

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther

  Resolutions to be reported this day; Committee to sit again this day.

  SUGAR CONVENTION [EXPENSES AND DUTIES].
  Resolution reported—"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of
  1394
  moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a share of the expenses of the Permanent Commission and of any expenses in connection with the attendance of delegates at the Commission, which may be payable under any Art of the present session to

  1395
  make provision for giving effect to a Convention signed the 5th day of March, 1902, in relation to sugar. That the duties payable under Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1901, or any Act amending the same, shall be taken on the delivery of any article from any factory or refinery, which in pursuance of any Act of the present session is made subject to the supervision of the Commissioners of Customs or Commissioners of Inland Revenue,
  and shall be the same as those payable on the like articles on importation."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 106; Noes, 28. (Division List No. 209.)

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES BILL [LORDS.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWESin moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said the object of the measure was to transfer to the Board of Agriculture the powers and duties relating to sea and inland fisheries now carried out by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade welcomed the Bill, and the Board of Agriculture were perfectly willing to undertake the duties and to do everything they could on behalf of so important a class, and to encourage and develop the fishing industry. The question to be dealt with related to the encouragement of production of food, and therefore comes within the province of the Agricultural Department. It was believed that the methods which had made the Board of Agriculture more and more useful to the farming industry would be useful also to the great fishing industry of the country. The fisheries were already under the Department of Agriculture in Holland, Germany, Belgium, Ireland and Canada. The transfer was to take place on October 1, and, subject to the approval of the Treasury, the duties would be carried out by an assistant secretary of the Board of Agriculture, with a separate department altogether, under whom there would be two inspectors, one for fresh water and the other for sea fisheries. The Bill was strongly supported by the whole of the fishing
  1398
  industry, and he hoped the House would now give it a Second Reading.
  Motion made and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. DALZIELsaid the hon. Gentleman had made a very clear statement of the objects and intentions of the Bill, and if the representatives of other Departments followed his example they would be much more likely to get their measures passed than by endeavouring to rush them through without explanation or debate. He had placed on the Paper a Motion for the rejection of the measure, mainly because he had little confidence in the manner in which many of the duties of the Board of Agriculture were discharged. It should be remembered that by this Bill duties were to be handed over to a Department not directly represented in the House of Commons, and upon which, therefore, it was difficult to exercise legitimate pressure. He understood, however, that there was a general feeling on the part of the industry principally concerned in favour of the Bill, and therefore he would not move his Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Order for consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee) read and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  POOR LAW (DISSOLUTION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND ADJUSTMENTS) BILL.
  Read the third time and passed.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBT].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the remission of a certain debt due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners by the Port Seton Harbour Commissioners in pursuance of any Act of the present session relating to Local Loans.—(Mr. Elliot.)
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  IRELAND DEVELOPMENT GRANT BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
  NAVAL WORKS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  NAVAL WORKS (PORTSMOUTH BARRACKS SITE) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.
  MARRIAGES LEGISLATION BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT AT THE AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE).
  Copy ordered, "of Treasury Minute, dated the 30th day of July, 1903, stating the circumstances under which certain Civil Servants have been retained in the service after they have attained the Age
  1400
  of Sixty-five; and of the Return therein referred to."—(Mr. Elliot.)

  POST OFFICE (CONTRACT FOR ACCELERATED MAIL SERVICE TO AND FROM IRELAND via CARLISLE, STRANRAER, AND LARNE).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Contract, dated the 8th day of November, 1902, with the Glasgow and South Western Railway Company, the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Committee, and the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company, for an Accelerated Mail Service to and from Ireland via Carlisle, Stranraer, and Larne, printed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 56, of session 1903, be approved."—(Mr. Elliot.)—Debate arising.
  Debate adjourned till this day.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES [SALARIES, ETC.].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any Salaries and Expenses which may become payable under any Act of the present session to transfer to the Board of Agriculture powers and duties relating to the Industry of Fishing, and to amend the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889 (King's Recommendation signified), this day.—(Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.)
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 28th day of July, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at five minutes after One o'clock.

PRIVIATE BILL BUSINESS.
Chard Corporation Gas and Electricity Bill [H.L.]; Rochester Corporation Tramways and Improvements Bill [H.L.]. Commons' amendments considered, and agreed to.
Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Bill, now Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with amendments.
Great Central Railway Bill; Gateshead Corporation Bill; South Yorkshire Joint Railways Bill; North Eastern Railway Bill; Sheffield Corporation Bill; Cork Harbour Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Employment of Children Bill; Wick and Pulteney Harbours Order Confirmation Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Kip's Patents Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Maryport Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; West Bromwich Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Hove, Worthing, and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]; Scottish Ontario and Manitoba Land Company Bill [H.L.]. Returned form the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Bath Corporation Water Bill; Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill. Returned form the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment; The said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Carmarthenshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. Returned form the Commons with the Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, not insisted on.
Wick and Pulteney Harbours Order Confirmation Bill. Read; 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Balfour): and reported from the Committee; and to be read 3a on Thursday next. (No. 185.)
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]: Tramway Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Commons' Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (THIRTY-FIRST ANNUAL REPORT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD, 1901–1902).
  Supplement in continuation of the Report of the Medical Officer for 1901–1902 on Lead Poisoning and Water Supplies. Volume II.

  CUNARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LIMITED.
  Agreement, dated 30th July, 1903, between the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and the Postmaster-General, of the one part, and the Cunard Steamship Company, Limited, of the other part, and Treasury Minute thereon, dated 31st July, 1903, together with the said Company's memorandum and articles of association, and of a draft trust deed for securing debenture stock:
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow—(The Lord Belper.) (No. 184.)

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I have had some difficulty in considering what kind of statement I ought to make in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill is a very long one, extending to 100 clauses. It contains constant references to the existing Irish land law, and many of its clauses are of a highly technical nature. Some of them are, indeed, necessarily of a complicated character, and I am not sure that I fully understand the exact bearing of all of them. Therefore I certainly should despair of being able to make them all intelligible to any one who did not already possess a very complete knowledge of the subject. All I can attempt to do, therefore, will be to explain some, and only some, of the main reasons which have induced the Government to produce this Bill; and in discharging this task I thought that it might conduce to the saving of your Lordships' time, and enable me better to condense what I have got to say, if I were to prepare some notes of what I want to lay before your Lordships at the risk of exposing myself to the possible charge of reading my speech.
  If I were to follow strictly the former precedents I conceive that I ought to introduce this measure by entering into some review of the history of Irish Land Acts during a period of now more than thirty years. I ought, perhaps, to enter into a general, if not detailed, description of between thirty and forty Acts of Parliament, Acts dealing with the statutory position of owners and occupiers of land in Ireland, in regard to compensation for disturbance, fixity of tenure, right of sale, and, above all, the determination of rent. I ought, perhaps, also to attempt to describe the machinery which has been set up, and which has been repeatedly amended, for settling those relations, for determining them in the first instance and for deciding on appeals when the determination has proved in the first instance unsatisfactory to either party. I might also be expected to give some account of the extent to which these various Acts have fulfilled the intentions of those who carried them through
  1156
  Parliament; and it might be my painful duty to touch on the history of such subjects as the "No Rent" manifesto, the Plan of Campaign, the agitation carried on by the Irish Land League, the evicted tenants question, and, last of all, perhaps, on the agitation in Ulster. I ought further to describe the succession of Land Purchase Acts, ranging from the Bright clauses contained in the Act of 1870, which provided for the advance by the State of two-thirds of the purchase money, to later Acts, which advanced that amount to three-fourths of the purchase money, down to the Act known as the Ashbourne Act, which permitted the advance of the whole sum.
  I shall not attempt to enter upon any such task. In the first place I feel that I should not be competent to perform it with any approach to completeness. It is quite true that many years ago I was rather closely connected with Irish land legislation, and subsequently to that period that I have had from time to time occasion to interest myself in some incidents relating to it. But it is now a very long time since I was closely associated with Irish administration, and I confess that my acquaintance with some of its later developments is very far from complete. I think it may be enough for me to say that this series of Land Acts for regulating the relations between landlord and tenant, the most important of which have been those dealing with the fixing of rents—that series which was originated in 1881 by Mr. Gladstone in an Act with which the noble Earl opposite and myself were closely connected—as amended or altered by other enactments, although they may have prevented worse evils, have not succeeded in establishing either agrarian peace or agricultural prosperity in Ireland. They have not prevented the constant recurrence of agitation, sometimes culminating in violence, and, even in the absence of open agitation, they have not prevented the continuance of the rent war which has been carried on up to the present day, and, I am afraid, even in a greater degree than ever at the present day, in the Courts of law.
  This perpetual recourse either to agitation or litigation, rather than to the exercise of their skill and energy, has paralysed, and is paralysing, the chief Irish industry; and, as Mr. Wyndham said in another place, the Irish landlords

  1157
  are being financially, and the Irish occupiers morally, ruined by the continuance of this state of things. The burden on the public Exchequer for the maintenance of machinery for carrying on this litigation and for the repression of open disorder is a burden which has been constantly increasing up to the present time. I shall not now enlarge on that; but I wish to point out specially with regard to this matter that Irish land purchase legislation has so far proved uniformly successful. For some reason or other, however, the progress of this policy of occupying ownerships seems to have been arrested and is not likely to succeed as things are, although there have been 80,000 purchasers.
  I turn now to the attitude of public opinion in Ireland during last autumn and winter. The Bill introduced last year in the other House of Parliament was rejected by the leaders of the Nationalist Party as inadequate, and the Government were unable to give time for its discussion as a contentious measure, and the Bill had accordingly to drop. Subsequently, attempts were made, without very much success, to revive an active land agitation. At the same time there was a dissentient minority in the Nationalist Party which was openly attacking the leaders for the rejection of that measure. It was known that throughout Ireland there did exist a large body of feeling in the same direction and that a real, strong, although somewhat vague desire pervaded all classes, a desire that some means should be found to end this land, or rent, war. Perhaps the first public expression of this feeling took place at the meeting of Irish landowners convened in October last year. I shall not quote at length the resolutions passed at that convention and will give the effect of only a few of them. The resolutions made it clear that the landlords had abandoned all hopes of obtaining compensation for injuries they thought they had suffered from past legislation. They declared on behalf of those they represented that landlords who had not yet sold were resolved not to part with their estates on terms in which additional loss would be incurred, and they called for the introduction of a comprehensive land purchase measure, the introduction of which had twice been announced in the speech from the Throne. They further indicated the conditions by which this
  1158
  change, though not of their own seeking, might be carried through without expense or additional loss to themselves, and in order to make these acceptable to the tenants they suggested that the purchase instalments should be reduced from 4 to 3¼ per cent. They made detailed recommendations with which I need not trouble your Lordships.
  Still more important was a meeting held last winter, known as the Irish Land Conference, at which representatives of both landlords and tenants took part. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Dunraven, who presided over that conference with so much ability and whose exertions in this cause we recognise, deserves the thanks of all who are interested in the welfare of Ireland. I am sure Lord Dunraven would not himself say that the report of the proceedings at this conference, or the resolutions passed at the conference, contained, or professed to contain, a definite and complete scheme. The importance of that conference consisted in the fact that both parties, as represented there, assented to principles the assent to which is essential to any settlement. Their acceptance of these principles did not in itself constitute a scheme, or even make any scheme possible, but without that acceptance of these principles no scheme at all would have been possible. I shall, as regards the conference, as with the convention, only give the effect of some of the most important resolutions. They said a satisfactory settlement of the land question could only be effected by the substitution of an occupying proprietary in lieu of the existing system of dual ownership. They said that, subject to certain exceptions, settlements for this purpose should be between owners and occupiers. They said it was desirable in the interests of Ireland that present owners of land should not he, as a result of a settlement, expatriated or find no object in remaining in Ireland. They said to obtain such a result an equitable price ought to be paid to owners on a basis of income, and they defined that basis of income as second-term rents, or their fair equivalent, and they agreed that the capital sum for that income should be, obtainable without capital outlay on their part such as would be involved by further charges. As an inducement for owners to continue to reside in Ireland, extended provision, they said, should be made in

  1159
  the Land Bill for the re-sale of mansions, demesne lands, and home farms, and also for the re-sale of land to enlarge neighbouring tenancies. The amount of purchase money payable by the tenant should extend over a series of years at the rate of principal and interest that would at once secure a reduction of not less than 15, and not more than 25 per cent. reduction on second-term rents. They recognised that these proposals might involve some assistance from the State beyond the use of State credit. These resolutions, as I have said, did not constitute a scheme; their importance consisted in the fact that some of them were obviously directly in the interest of landlords, and others obviously in the direct interest of tenants, but they were unanimously agreed to by the representatives of both.
  Now I go on to attempt to describe the scheme of the Bill and then to show how far it goes to meet the principles accepted at the Landowners' Convention and at the Land Conference. The purchase of entire estates by the Land Commission for the purpose of re-sale, in recent Acts at all events, has been recognised in theory as the policy of the law, but the policy has hitherto remained entirely inoperative. Sales by owners to tenants have been in almost every case sales of separate holdings, though in some cases they have been made on a very considerable scale. The object of the first twenty-five clauses of the Bill is to make the policy of sales of entire estates an operative policy, and to encourage and facilitate the sale of entire estates by holding out increased advantages to landlords to sell and tenants to buy.
  One of the most important provisions in the Bill is the constitution of a new authority, to be called the Estates Commission, for the purpose of exercising functions of the Land Commission, so far as they relate to the sale and purchase of estates. The Commissioners will be an administrative body, they will act under the Irish Government, and the Irish Government will be responsible to Parliament for their action. Their function will be, not to impede, but to facilitate transactions of this character, so far as that can he done consistently with maintaining security for advances made by the State. In these transactions, no existing rights are withdrawn, individual bargains between landlords and tenants may still go
  1160
  on, subject to the present examination by the Land Commission, but the Bill contemplates that, in future, in the majority of these transactions, transactions will take the form of sales of entire estates. The Commissioners will have power to define an estate, and it will not necessarily be the whole of the property of a landlord, and may mean an area, which, taken alone or in conjunction with land at present untenanted and which it may be expedient for economic reasons to add to the tenanted part of an estate, can be dealt with as a whole. These transactions will remain voluntary and may be carried out in either of two ways. The landlord may make his own bargain or arrangements with his tenants, and if the arrangements fall within the policy of the Bill, they will only have to go before the Estates Commission to he sanctioned. On the other hand, the landlord may approach the Commissioners and may apply to them to purchase with a view to re-sale, but whichever method is adopted the purchase either in respect of holdings or of untenanted land must come within the limits laid down in the Bill. In either of these cases it will be the ordinary, but not a universal condition that some reduction should take place in the amount of instalments payable to the Government as compared with the existing rent—the judicial rent. That condition, which is necessary in all ordinary cases, is in the interest both of the State and of the tenants. It is necessary in the interest of the State because it is essential that the State should have a fair margin of security. It is necessary in the interest of the tenant, because in entering into a transaction extending over a long period of years it is essential that from the outset the transaction should be safe and secure. It is necessary, also, because experience has, I believe, proved that in the case of the 80,000 sales which have already taken place there has invariably been a reduction in the instalments as compared with the rent. It would be impossible for the State to enter into a bargain with a very much larger number of tenants and to place them in a worse position than the purchasers under previous Acts.
  I will try to explain how the provisions of the Bill will affect both tenants and landlords. I have quoted some of the most important resolutions of the conference. We have not been able to go the whole length of those resolutions. In our

  1161
  opinion that would involve excessive and also indeterminate charges upon the Exchequer. The conference proposed that the normal reduction of instalments, as compared with rent, should range from 15 to 25 per cent. We have endeavoured to meet that proposal by a system of zones. We have adopted the mean reduction suggested by the conference—that is 20 per cent.—and we have enlarged the limits from 15 to 25 per cent., and from 10 to 30 per cent. The conference used the expression of the fair equivalent of second-term rents. We have endeavoured to translate that recommendation into practice by adopting a different zone for first-term rents, and extending the limits of reduction to reductions of from 20 to 40 per cent. The chief subject of contention in this Bill in the other House of Parliament has been the subject of these zones. The representatives of the tenants endeavoured in the House of Commons to get rid of the maximum limit of reduction, but on this point we were not able to make any concession. The zones will remain as they were introduced in the Bill as the limit within which bargains will be accepted by the Commissioners without question. But we did accept Amendments which, in the first place, excluded non-judicial rents altogether from the zones, and, ill the next place, made the adoption of zones optional as between the parties.
  Bargains may still be permitted which are not within the limits of the zones; but in their case the transaction must undergo a full examination by the Commissioners. We regret that this concession was found necessary; but we believe that the practical effect of it will not be extensive, and that it will not extend much farther than the special treatment of some inferior holdings. The transactions within the limit of the zone will be so much more frequent and easily effected than those outside the limit, that we believe they will be the rule in all ordinary cases. These Amendments were assented to by the Government, and were also assented to by the representatives of the landlords in the other House of Parliament. I believe that those representatives were wise in accepting these Amendments in order to preserve and to maintain the impression that both classes were still working in concert in order that the measure might pass, and I
  1162
  believe they were right in thinking that such an impression, if it was to prevail, would do more to facilitate rapid settlement and fair bargains than could be done by the most perfect legislation. I have no doubt this House will hear a good deal further on this point, but I will reserve any further observations for a later period.
  I have spoken so far of the conditions chiefly which affect the tenant. Now I come to the point how far that principle of the recommendations was met which laid down that the landlord's income should not he reduced by transactions of this kind by more than 10 per cent., which was the estimated cost of the collection of the rent. This representation cannot be absolutely accurate; a great deal must depend on the character of the estate. It is partly met by a provision in the Bill which substitutes payment in cash for payment in stock. It has been met so far as we have found it possible by a reduction of the rate, at which the annuities payable by the tenant will be calculated. The tenant now pays £4 for every £100 advanced to him. This will be reduced by the Bill to £3 5s. The ten years reductions are abolished, and the period of the annuity will be sixty-eight and a half years. The effect of these changes taken together is that the State will be able to advance a larger sum than at present on a reduced instalment. To these sums is also added the bonus. That also was a suggestion mentioned in the conference. Here again we have been unable to go the, length winch was suggested. As placed before us, the suggestion was that the State should find a sum of money to bridge over the gap between the landlord's and the tenant's price—between the sum that the landlord could afford to accept and the sum that the tenant could afford to give, If that principle had been adopted in that shape it would, in our opinion, have involved unreasonable demands on one side, or perhaps the rejection of reasonable offers on the other. But we do admit that, this transaction not being one of the landlord's seeking, there is some consideration due from his point of view. We admit that we are not legislating wholley for the present owners, but also for those who are to succeed them, and we consider that it would not be just that the necessary cost of these transactions should be thrown entirely on the present life owners of these estates.

  1163
  We have, therefore, thought it equitable to provide a sum of £12,000,000, which will be distributed in addition to the purchase money at the rate of a 12 per cent. addition. That may be fairly taken as a provision which would cover, perhaps more than cover, the expenses of the transaction. We have asked Parliament to provide this bonus of £12,000,000, the interest on which will fall upon the annual Estimates. The charge will be a small one at first, but will undoubtedly, as the process goes on, be an increasing one; but we have asked Parliament to consent to take upon itself this charge all the more willingly because we believe that the charge will be partial at first, and will subsequently he compensated for by the economies which Parliament will be able to make both in the expenses of the judicial machinery for settling land disputes and in the cost of the establishments provided for maintaining public order in Ireland. The bonus will go directly to the owners, and it will constitute a substantial increase of price which they may expect to receive for their property from the direct application of the credit of the State.
  The actual amount to be received by the landlord, arid the future income, consisting of interest on that amount, must, as I have said, depend within certain limits on the terms which he is able to make with his tenants. The advantage to the landlord will vary in different cases. It will depend to a considerable extent on the condition of Ins property, on the embarrassed or unembarrassed condition of his estate, and also on the manner in which he will be able to invest the capital sum which he will receive. In the case of heavily encumbered estates where it will be possible to pay off encumbrances bearing in some cases a very high rate of interest, the relief will be very great; and the appointment of a public trustee, and the enlargement of the investments which are permitted under the Acts, which is also provided for in this Bill, will enable investments to be made in many cases at a better rate of interest than 3¼ per cent. It is impossible, therefore, to say in every case what will be the future assured income of the landlord who sells, but it is possible to give an example of what he may expect to receive in what I may call normal cases and cases coming within the zones to which I have referred. In the case of
  1164
  a landlord selling £100 on second-term rents, if the landlord and tenant agree on instalments of £85—that is to say, 15 per cent.—this will produce to the vendor £2,615. To that is added a bonus of 12 per cent., which is £314. The total of £2,929 will produce at 3¼ per cent. an income of nearly £95. On the other hand, if landlord and tenant agree on instalments of £75—that is to say, nearly the lower limit, or 25 per cent.—the price will be £2,308, the bonus will be £277, and the income produced by the total of £2,585 will be £84. Those are normal cases, and the advantage I have already pointed out will be very much greater in the case of an encumbered owner, who can pay off his mortgages, or of an owner who is able to invest at a higher rate of interest than 3¼ per cent.
  There is another principle which has also been recognised in former Acts, and which has up to the present time been also wholly inoperative. That is the principle which enabled advances to be made for the sale of untenanted land. This Bill empowers and directs the Estates Commissioners to make these provisions operative. The owner who sells that portion of his estate which is occupied may find himself left with a certain amount of unoccupied land. It may be grass land, let on what are called eleven months tenancies, which have not come within the scope of the Acts. The owner cannot sell land of this description unless he can find a purchaser who can advance the cash, and the tenant cannot buy the additional land which may be necessary for the improvement of his holding unless he is in a position to find cash for that purpose. Advances for the sale of such land and for re-sale to certain classes of tenants and others are provided for under the second clause of the Bill. I think the advantages of this power to the landlord must be obvious, and the advantages to the tenant are not less great.
  There are estimated to be in Ireland 490,000 agricultural holdings, and of these there are 278,000 winch are under £10 valuation, and 134,000 which are under £4 valuation. I do not say that the whole of these small tenancies are uneconomic holdings. It may be that where the tenant can obtain employment as a labourer a very small holding of this description may add to his comfort and that of his family very materially. But in cases where the estate consists almost

  1165
  entirely of such holdings, where there is no field for other occupation, it is almost impossible to conceive that holdings of this character can be such as to provide decent subsistence for a man and his family. There may also be in the neighbourhood of estates sold under the Act congested districts, for the inhabitants of which holdings ought to be found. This provision then, I think, is one of the greatest importance, as it enables existing holdings to a great extent to be improved by the advance of the purchase money for an addition to them, and it also provides for the resettlement of some people in the congested districts.
  There is another provision to which I believe the conference attach considerable importance. That is a provision relating to the advance to owners in respect of their demesne lands, including the mansion house. Such advances may be made under this Bill provided that they do not exceed the limit of either £30,000 or one-third of the value of the whole estate, whichever sum may be the smaller. These advances will increase the capital sum which may be received by the owner for his whole estate, and they will enable him to retain his demesne lands and his house upon the payment of a moderate annuity. The provision will be of especial value to the owners of small and encumbered estates, inasmuch as they will be able to substitute for mortgages carrying very heavy charges an annuity of a very moderate character. At the same time they will be able to retain the house in which they have resided, and so much of their property as they may desire to keep in their own hands.
  I have said nothing, and I do not think it is necessary that I should say anything, in regard to the financial proposals of the Bill. I conceive that it would not be within the power of this House to alter the chief financial provisions, and in those circumstances I conceive that your Lordships will not desire to discuss them. Those provisions have been accepted, not without question, but with the support of a very large body of opinion in the other House, and unless this debate should show that there is any anxiety to enter upon that particular question, I do not think it necessary for me to waste your Lordships' time by saying anything on the subject. I have thus attempted to explain only one or two or three of the
  1166
  main provision of the Bill. There are a vast number of subsidiary provisions into which it is quite impossible for me to attempt to enter. I said at the outset that it was impossible for me to relate the full history of the Irish land question. It is equally impossible for me to give full details of the suggested settlement. But if there were time, and if I were competent to undertake the task, I do not think it would be necessary for me to do so for my present purpose. It would be, I think, only affectation on my part if I were to suggest to your Lordships' House that this measure comes before it for consideration de novo. There are many occasions on which your Lordships are invited to initiate legislation, and I believe legislation in relation to this very subject has been initiated in this House; but in the present case the functions of this House are essentially those of a second Chamber. It is in your Lordships' power either to confirm or to reject this Bill. It is open to you, within certain limits, to amend it or to suggest amendment; but it is not open to you, without running serious risk of the loss of the measure, substantially to alter its main provisions.
  My Lords, very ample preparation has been made for the introduction of the measure. Preparation has been made for it by the Bill of last year, and by the discussion to which that Bill gave rise. Preparation has been made for it, as I have reminded your Lordships by the conference which took place last autumn, a conference in which the leading part was taken by men who were qualified to speak, not, indeed, in the name of the whole of the classes whom they represented, but of very large numbers of them, and men who were in a position to recommend with authority the conclusions to which they came and the proposals which they made. The measure which followed upon these preparations has met with an unusual amount of acceptance in the other House. It has been accepted by those who must be held to represent, if not the universal Irish opinion, at least—if there is any virtue at all in representative institutions—the opinion of the vast majority of the occupiers of the land. It has been accepted by the scanty number of representatives of the Irish landlords who are to be found in the other House. More important than all, it has been accepted by the great majority of

  1167
  the representatives of England and Scotland, by the assistance of whose credit and whose cash this measure can alone be carried into effect.
  These, my Lords, are the credentials with which this measure comes before you. Here, fortunately, it will find a fair and adequate representation of the other party whose loyal, if not enthusiastic, acceptance of this measure is as necessary to its success as that of the tenants' party. This measure is presented as a treaty or instrument of peace, to the working of which the consent of one party is as necessary as the other; and if, as I expect, the landlords' representatives are prepared to accept this measure in the same spirit as that in which it has been met in the other House, I cannot doubt that the great majority of the English and Scottish Peers who compose the larger proportion of this House will, not by a Party vote, but by a unanimous vote, accept the principle of the Bill. But your Lordships must remember that the Bill is, as I have said, in the nature of a treaty or instrument of peace. It has been arrived at by negotiation. Its main principles are indissolubly connected, and while your Lordships will have a perfect right to reject it, if you think it unwise or unstatesmanlike, any serious alteration of its main provisions would release the contracting parties to this treaty from the obligations which they have mutually undertaken.
  After the failure of so many previous attempts, it would be rash to prophesy that this Bill will offer a final settlement of the Irish land question. But I think we are justified in entertaining a strong hope and a firm trust that it will go far to do so. In our opinion this Bill violates no economic principle. That can hardly be said of all its predecessors. The attempt to settle the fixing of the rent of land by legal procedure in a country where competition for the occupation of land is so keen as it is in Ireland—although, as I have admitted, it may have been necessary in order to stave off still greater evils—was never a hopeful enterprise. Now it is abundantly proved that it cannot be the basis of a final settlement. But I do not know of any economic objection to the employment of the credit of the State in an attempt to relieve the two classes mainly interested
  1168
  in the soil of Ireland from an unsound and an intolerable position. This experiment has already been tried on a limited scale and has met with such success as might be anticipated on that limited scale and under the restrictions to which it was exposed. It will now be tried on a larger scale, and under conditions more liberal both to the owners and to the occupiers. Above all, this experiment is now going to be tried at a time when a new spirit of reason and conciliation appears to prevail in Ireland. Formerly attempts have been made to impose the will of Parliament upon conflicting and contending interests. These attempts have generally been strenuously, and even bitterly, opposed by the representatives of one or other of those interests; sometimes they have been opposed by both. Never before, I believe, have the representatives of those interests approached you with a joint petition that you should give your sanction to a settlement the main principles and provisions of which they have themselves suggested. Therefore I say that this measure comes before us fraught with better hopes for the future of Ireland, for the peace and prosperity of Ireland, than on any previous occasion we have dared to entertain. I move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read, 2a.—(The Duke of Devonshire).
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this Bill, not in any contentious spirit, but in support of it. I rise with feelings of grief mixed with pride—grief in thinking of the extinction that is about to take place under this Bill of what is called the landlord class in Ireland, and the consequent separation that has for so many generations existed between the landowners and their tenantry, and of pride in being connected with that class that has suffered so much and so patiently under the land laws of Ireland. I think it only right that I should publicly recognise the great liberality of the financial provisions of this Bill, the cordiality with which they were received and voted by all political Parties in the House of Commons, and the many expressions of friendly feeling and goodwill towards Ireland, which they have called

  1169
  forth not only in the other branch of the legislature, but at many public meetings and in almost every important organ of public opinion throughout Great Britain.
  My Lords, I believe I may safely undertake to speak not only for the Irish landlords, but also for the Irish tenants, and for all classes of people in Ireland, in saying that Ireland greatly appreciates and heartily reciprocates these proofs of a friendly interest in her welfare from the people of Great Britain. Whether this Bill proves to be a success or a failure as a measure of land purchase, the good effects of these internal expressions and feelings of friendship will endure, and will hear good fruit in many directions in the future. The prospects of the Bill as a measure of land purchase seem to me to depend partly upon the methods and spirit in which it may be administered, and partly upon its being recognised by the Irish tenantry that even the highest prices sanctioned by the Bill would give them better terms than they can expect from a continuance of the rent-fixing system, and that, on the other hand, the great majority of landlords will be unable to sell, unless they receive prices which when invested in trustees' securities will produce at least 90 per cent. of what is called a second-term rental.
  I make no complaint of tenants endeavouring to make the best possible bargains for themselves in every case, but I would remind them and their advisers in every part of the country that up to the present the tenants have received all the benefits, and the landlords have had to bear the evils of the legislation of the last twenty years. Owing to this fact the incomes of the landlords have been so much reduced that the great majority of them will be found neither willing nor able to enter into bargains which would result in any further material reduction of the incomes which they now derive from their estates. The Bill now before your Lordships is one of the most important and far-reaching that has ever been introduced into Parliament for dealing with the land question in Ireland, and for effecting a final settlement, equitable as far as possible, and satisfactory between landlord and tenant. In fact, it tends to perform a social revolution. The feeling in Ireland with regard to purchase has been slowly but gradually increasing, and the country, through its repre-
  1170
  sentatives in the House of Commons, has declared in an unmistakable manner that it is prepared for a great measure of land purchase.
  I wish it to be clearly understood that it was not of the landlords' seeking, but circumstances over which they had no control, and unfortunate legislation in years past, which has brought them to their present position. To part with an estate that has been in your family for generations, to sever your connection with your tenants with whom you have lived on the best of terms, is an unpleasant wrench. Money, even in these days, is not a compensation for everything. Money cannot obliterate the old associations connected with family ties, and, I might almost say, with historic connections. To part with the familiar acres, and to receive in lien thereof money, the investment of which is always attended with anxiety and is never free from risk, is not a very agreeable exchange. A great many people in this country seem to believe that the Irish landlord is receiving money compensation for the injuries inflicted on him in the past, or, in other words, that the bonus under the Bill will be paid to, him on account of these injuries. Nothing could be farther from the truth. No class has been so shamefully treated by legislation as the Irish landlords, and. I believe that in no other civilised country but England would such treatment have been tolerated, and this treatment meted out to the most loyal men, and, taking them as a class, the very backbone of their country.
  My Lords, just contemplate the situation. In the past you allowed the Irish landlords to believe that they were the owners of the soil, subject to terminable tenancies. You allowed estates to be bought and sold on this basis. Worse than that, you warranted the title to purchasers under the Landed Estates, Court Act. On the faith of this Parliamentary title, the purchasers advanced their money. Then, by the Act of 1881, at one blow you transfer half of the-property so guaranteed from the landlord to the tenant. I am not considering the matter from the tenant's point of view. I am merely showing how the State has treated the landlord. The case for the tenant has been ably put

  1171
  forward and treated in the other House by gentlemen far more eloquent than myself, but no one speaks up for the Irish landlord in this country, with very few exceptions. But, as a landlord myself, and as such deeply interested in the welfare of that country and in the affections of its people, I am endeavouring to demonstrate how the State has treated the class to which I belong, and to state that nothing in the shape of money can compensate many of them, and mainly the solvent ones, for the losses they have already sustained, and which they will further feel under the provisions of this Bill.
  Do not imagine that you are heaping gold upon the landlord. Having deprived him of so much, you are mainly by your credit enabling him to use what remains with respect to money. I hope, my Lords, that it will not be inferred from what I have said that I do not join heartily in the almost universal praise which is due to the Chief Secretary for his great achievement in connection with this Bill. The ability, energy, and tact with which he initiated the measure and carried it through the other House is a proof that he possesses the mind of a great and enthusiastic statesman. That the landlord under this Bill will receive the equivalent of his reduced income is a matter upon which I have grave doubts. A great deal will depend upon the Estate Commissioners. Their behaviour will be anxiously watched from the beginning. If the owners of solvent estates see that the work is cheaply and expeditiously done and the purchase money made available they will sell. If they see the process will be slow and expensive they will not sell. That vast quantities of land will be sold I have no doubt, but the distribution of the purchase money is the difficulty, and I cannot think that this difficulty is sufficiently grappled with in the Bill therefore, it will not be surprising if the owners of solvent estates hang back for some time to see how other estates are dealt with.
  There is one thing always present in my mind, and that is how are we to keep in Ireland those who have sold out. The material loss of all the money taken out will be immense, but even that would
  1172
  not be the worst part of the evil. I believe that the disappearance of the country gentry from the various localities in which they hitherto have lived will be an irreparable loss to Ireland. Their example has been beneficial, and their subscriptions have helped to support many institutions and charities. All these must cease, but the one thing to help to keep the Irish gentry as residents is the possession of their sporting rights. Every effort should be made in the House to maintain these, and to make their rights secure, otherwise, if these are thrown away, and the landlords have in addition lost their property, what inducement have they to remain in their country; My Lords, I give my hearty support to this Bill, but we shall move various Amendments, not in any contentious spirit, but simply to make the working of it, according to our views, more satisfactory and efficient, and thereby to carry out its intention in passing the possession of the land from one class to another.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, it cannot, I think, be disputed that in one respect, as the noble Lord has told us, this Bill presents an almost unique spectacle in the fact that it is an Irish measure of the first class, which has come here from another place, with the practical assent of the whole of the other House and with the enthusiastic support of a large majority of it. Most Irish measures of the first class within the memory of all of us have come up from the other House after a fierce struggle there, pursued, so to speak, by a shower of brickbats, and have in this House, unfortunately, been the subject of some measure of the passion which they raised in the other. But in this case this Bill comes before us with a shower of congratulations, in which I cordially join, so far as they concern the manner in which the Chief Secretary for Ireland conducted his Bill. Nothing could exceed the tact, the ability, and the patience with which Mr. Wyndham did his task. It is perfectly true that his ship had behind it a fairer wind than has generally fallen to the lot of Ministers in charge of Irish Bills, but that does not alter the fact that he showed the greatest

  1173
  possible skill and discretion in steering clear of the rocks and shoals which beset his course.
  It is a refreshing instance of our contempt for logical politics that this measure, which has gained such a universal meed of approbation, is a measure among all others which it would be very difficult, I think, to defend on strictly logical principles. The Bill after all is in some respects a gigantic paradox. Here you have in Ireland one class of persons, the landlords, with something which they are not unwilling to sell, and another class, the tenants, who are decidedly anxious to buy that thing. Those two parties cannot come to terms, by the nature of the case. It is always difficult to strike a bargain between a landlord and a tenant, in any country, for the sale of an agricultural estate, for this reason: that the tenant, fearing the future, will not bind himself to pay an amount either by way of rent or annuity equivalent to the rent he is now paying, even though that rent be fair, whereas the landlord does not see why he, receiving a certain rent, should take less, because he hopes for the best and trusts that he may be able to maintain that rent. Consequently; in these circumstances, a third party, the Exchequer, with no direct interest in the matter, is called in to make up the amount between what the landlord is willing to take and what the tenant is willing to give. And then there are minor paradoxes in the Bill. When you come to think of it, it is a remarkable thing to buy a man's house and park from him and sell it back to him on easier terms, lending him the money to pay for it; and, later on in the Bill, you will find another strange paradox, that a great educational corporation, Trinity College, because it fears it may lose in the course of the transaction between those to whom it has let this land and those to whom the land has been sublet, is to receive £5,000 a year of Irish money. I do not say that all those things cannot be defended, although I think the last does require some very definite defence; but at the same time it cannot be denied that these are unusual features to see presented in a Bill to your Lordships' House.
  This may be said to be done to some extent for the sake of peace. Peace, as we all know, is one of the most persistent and successful blackmailers that exist. Whenever we are called upon to expend
  1174
  some large additional sum on armaments of any kind we are always told that it is done in the sacred name of peace. I quite admit, however, that it is worth while to enter upon this singular transaction if it will, as I trust it may, secure a further measure of peace in Ireland. But I think there is another ground on which a defence of this transaction may fairly be based, namely, that we in Great Britain are definitely responsible for the Irish land system. It was we, after all, who first put the Irish landlords there; it was we who allowed the Irish land system to fall into the confusion into which it was before 1870; and it was we who have been responsible for legislation since that year, and consequently it is upon those grounds that, if I had to defend the Bill, I should be disposed to base the greater part of my defence.
  I have no desire to trace back the whole course, or anything like it, of land purchase legislation. So long ago as 1868 Mr. John Stuart Mill proposed a scheme for compulsory expropriation of Irish landlords. What he considered to be fair compensation in that scheme was combated in a very interesting pamphlet by the late Lord Dufferin, mainly on two grounds—one that it was hard upon Irish landlords to remove them from their estates on any terms; and the other, that it was a dangerous thing to place the British Exchequer in direct contact with the Irish tenant. On that last point I will say a word later. I need not go through the various Purchase Acts, but I should like to say one word about the Act of 1881, although it was not a Purchase Act. That Act, in the general atmosphere of benevolence which reigned in another place during the discussion on this Bill, received lass unkindly notice from the Prime Minister than I have ever known it to receive from any member of the present Government, and I think I am right in saying that later on his view was to some considerable extent endorsed by the Chief Secretary. But, after all, this measure is in some distinct degree the child of the Land Act of 1881, because if it had not been for the system of rent fixing then introduced, it is not easy to see how the system of purchase organised under this Bill could have been brought into play. Any scheme for purchasing the whole of the land of Ireland by a system of valuation of each farm, or as the result of a particular bargain with no

  1175
  standard to go upon, would in my opinion have been an impossible business; and, therefore, it is only fair to say that, however much you may dislike the system of rent fixing, to a very great degree it has unquestionably facilitated the Purchase Acts that have been subsequently passed, and will also facilitate this Bill when it passes into law.
  Nor, my Lords, do I wish to spend any time in discussing Mr. Gladstone's Land Purchase Bill of 1886. That measure, of course, was vitiated in the eyes of noble Lords opposite, and others of their Party, by the fact that it formed part of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule scheme, but I, at any rate, am loyal enough to the past to say that I believe that if that Purchase Bill could have become law it would in the great majority of cases have placed Irish landlords in as good a position as they are likely to be placed in under this Bill, and that it might have prevented a great many of the misfortunes which have happened in Ireland between 1886 and now. To come to the present Bill, the one point of serious interest, as it seems to me, to which one can allude on the Second Reading is this:—Will the landlords as a rule sell? because if they do not as a rule sell, I am afraid that a serious state of things may follow. The state of things which will follow will, of course, he that state of things which to some extent is existing now, and which was foretold at the time of the passing of the Land Act of 1891—namely, that you have two sets of tenants, one the pun chasing tenant and the other the tenant who has not purchased, farming identical land, and paying a rent on an entirely different scale for that land; and if this new system of purchase under this Act is only partially adopted, that difficulty will be vastly increased.
  I think it cannot be denied that every landlord who does not sell, supposing his tenants desire him to sell, under this Act, will cause his estate to become a centre of present discontent and the focus of possible disturbance in the future. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords in this House arid every influential landlord in Ireland will use the utmost pressure they can upon their friends in Ireland to induce them to take advantage of the provisions of this Act, and not to allow the possibility of a new land agitation arising owing to the fact that some landlords are unwilling to sell. One knows that there
  1176
  are cantankerous and unreasonable people in every class, and I confess I look forward with some dismay to the possibility of what may happen if some unreasonable landlord is unwilling to sell to his tenants on grounds which to them and to the public at large seem entirely insufficient.
  Now, will the landlords sell on a large scale? It appears to me that there are four reasons which in Great Britain cause the possession of a large agricultural estate to be agreeable and advantageous, and only the first of those reasons applies strongly to Ireland. The first reason is the one which was mentioned by the noble Duke who spoke last, arid whom I heard with great sympathy on that point—the unwillingness of a man who is in possession of an ancestral estate which has come down to him through many generations to sever his connection with it. I quite agree that it must be a severe wrench, as the noble Duke said, for many a man in that position. One does not like to think of historical Irish names like that of the noble Duke opposite, like that of O'Brien, Fitzgerald, Butler, and Beresford altogether severed from the possession of Irish land; but those owners, and others like them, must he content to consider that in selling their estates they are carrying out their part of a great national policy. It so happens that a great many Irish landlords are great British landlords also. Of those who own the first dozen largest valuations in Ireland more than half have an interest in land in England or Scotland, which is always considerable, and in some cases greater than their Irish interests; and therefore in severing their connection with Irish land they will not be severing their connection with land altogether.
  Then I come to the second advantage of the possession of an agricultural estate in England and Scotland, namely, the pleasure which is derived from its management and administration. We know that that pleasure has practically departed from the Irish landlord. Even before 1870 it was not the custom in Ireland to take so direct a part in the management of and expenditure on Irish estates as is taken in the case of British estates, and since 1881 it may be said to have ceased altogether. Therefore, that tie to the land may be in the main struck off in the case of Irish landlords. Then the third advantage to the British landlord is the fact that the possession of a large estate

  1177
  still gives a certain degree of political influence. I am afraid it must be said that in Ireland that attraction has also ceased. I should hope that one of the results of the passing of this measure will be that, whereas at this moment it is not an easy matter for an Irish landlord to be elected on any Irish County Council, after it has passed he will be welcomed on the Council as one of the principal men in his district. But so far as political influence from the possession of land is concerned, that I think must also he struck off. The fourth attraction of owning a large agricultural estate is the sport to be derived from it. The one sport of all others which depends most of all upon the possession of a large agricultural acreage—I mean that of partridge shooting—is not a distinctively Irish sport; and so far as other kind of sports are concerned I sincerely trust that landlords will be able to maintain them as they have them now, under the provisions of this Bill.
  The noble Duke who spoke last told us that he, as representing the landlords in this House, was prepared to present certain Amendments to this Bill. I join with the noble Duke, the Leader of the House, in hoping that these Amendments may not be of so controversial a character as in any way to imperil the passage of the Bill. Of course, I am not in any way able to foresee what form those Amendments may take, but I sincerely hope the noble Duke and his friends will not attempt to interfere with the arrangement which was reached in the other House with respect to the minimum price. It is not necessary, after the clear statement of the noble Duke, to go in any way into the question of the zones. It is perfectly clear that the retention of a maximum price is an advantageous thing from the point of view of the British taxpayer, but if a rigid minimum price was fixed it seems absolutely evident that in some eases it would interfere with the transactions taking place at all. When one considers the enormous difference in the number of years purchase at which land has been sold in Ireland—it has been sold as high as forty-five years purchase—and I remember a case of a small estate being sold on an average of nine years purchase with a minimum of six years—it certainly does seem that the adoption of anything like a fixed minimum price must interfere with certain transactions
  1178
  taking place at all, with the possible result of raising that ill-feeling which I mentioned just now. I am aware, of course, that the argument for limitation is the supposed possibility that some impecunious and unscrupulous landlord may fix a rather ruinous price with his tenant, collar the bonus and retire from the scene with a small amount of ready money, but I should hope that the provisions which have been placed in the Bill under the compromise will prevent the possibility of any occurrence of that kind.
  With regard to sporting rights, I should not be surprised it some of the Amendments of the noble Duke opposite were directed to that point. I do not know whether he will try to secure sporting rights being left by the Bill more definitely the property of the landlord than they are in the measure as presented to us, but I should like to remind him of this, that after all the agreement which is suggested in the Bill as being the proper method of arriving at the possession of sporting rights is an absolutely necessary factor in that question. No amount of donation of sporting rights to a landlord by any Act of Parliament will give him any real enjoyment of those rights unless the people who occupy the land are willing to join in and agree with the arrangement, and consequently, although the wording of the Bill may seem to some extent to take away from landlords without compensation what they have at present, I cannot believe that that will be in ally degree the result of the passing of the Bill as it stands. I must also remind the noble Duke that the words inserted in the other House were the result of a compromise after a long debate, and that they had the peculiar distinction of being suggested by the Solicitor-General for England, forming, I believe, almost his sole contribution to the discussion during the whole time the Bill was in another place.
  I confess that there are one or two points on which I should have liked to have seen the Bill amended. I should have liked, and I believe it would have met the wishes of both parties ill Ireland, to have seen a time limit fixed for the application of the bonus. I think it certainly would have placed the matter in a more satisfactory position if landlords had been obliged, in order to got the bonus, to lodge a notice of their intention to sell within, say, 5 or 6 years. I am aware, of course, of the objection that is

  1179
  taken to this course, and which proved fatal to it in another place, namely, the risk of the disturbance of the money market by a great rush of applications made at the same time. I do not profess to he any authority on that point, and if that objection is so strong I admit that it must be a fatal objection. I cannot help, however, shedding a tear in passing over that time limit, because I think it would have been a distinctly advantageous addition to the Bill.
  I confess also that I should have been glad to see the Congested Districts Board furnished with some stronger powers than these which they possess in the Bill. No one can appreciate more thoroughly than I do the admirable work of the Congested Districts Board. It is the fashion, and I think not without some ground, to say hard things of the system of boards existing in Irish government, as compared with the single man system which we favour in this country, but if I ever join in that condemnation of boards I should especially except the Congested Districts Board, because it has been admirably composed and the work it has done has been of the highest possible value. At the same time it cannot be denied that its particular operations in assisting migration and purchase of estates have been tardy. I do not say it is the fault of the Board, but disappointment has been caused by the slowness and the small number of operations that have taken place in this direction. I should hope that under the Bill the pace will be considerably quickened, but still if some powers of stronger pressure could have been placed on the Congested Districts Board to enable them to acquire, rather more quickly, land suitable for their purpose, I should heartily have welcomed it.
  I desire to say one word now from an entirely different standpoint—that of the British taxpayer. I am inclined to agree with what the Chief Secretary said, that, so far as the cash payment is concerned, it does not very much matter whether we pay cash or pledge our credit. In the existing prosperity of this country, so far as our safety and comfort is concerned, I do not know that there is very much difference between the two things; but I am obliged to say a word with regard to the fact that this Bill will place the British taxpayer in direct contact with the Irish tenant, a proceeding to which Lord Dufferin,
  1180
  thirty five years ago, took such strong exception. What is the security which the British Exchequer has in the case of these sales? In the first place, it has the security of the land itself, but that is the last security of which it would wish to make use, and it cannot be considered, for the purposes of the British taxpayer, as an effective security. Then it has the security of being able to withdraw the Exchequer grants now made to Ireland, but that does not seem a very practical security. By withdrawing those grants you would unquestionably create a revolution in Ireland, if you had not one there as your reason for withdrawing the grants. It is perfectly clear that to withdraw these grants would absolutely dislocate the whole system of local government in Ireland. Then it is said the Exchequer has the security of the difference between what would be the rack rent of the land and the annuity paid by the purchasing tenant. That, of course, is only a moral security. Once the tenant is gone, owing to his not paying his annuity, that security is worth nothing, for this reason, that by the nature of the case the incoming tenant would certainly be unwilling to pay anything more than the annuity, supposing, which is doubtful, you could get an incoming tenant at all.
  But, as a matter of fact, I am not disposed to quarrel with the security. I believe the moral security is an exceedingly good one, and that is the real security which the Government is taking under this Bill. I am bound to point out, however, that in taking that security noble Lords opposite, and the Party to which they belong, seem to be taking a very different view of the Irish tenant from that which they have taken of him in past years. In past years the Irish tenant was apt to be described as a man whose grievance was founded partly upon a simple desire to get more money into his own pocket, and partly upon the statements of designing agitators. He was partly a knave and partly a dupe. If I believed one tithe of the things we have heard in this House, and out of it, of Irish farmers as a class, I should be very much disposed to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill; but a great deal of what was said then was said in the heat of controversy, and I hope we may be able to draw the sponge over the whole of that slate.
  But the fact that you are willing to give this security has a certain bearing on

  1181
  another question. It was asked in the debates in another place, and it has been asked at different times in the country—What is the bearing of this great land change upon the political question of the government of Ireland? Will the concession of this measure increase the Nationalist demand in Ireland, or will it diminish it? I have no desire to argue that point There is something, no doubt, to be said on both sides. After all, the strongest and most active Nationalist agitation has always come in Ireland, not from the country, but from the towns, and I am disposed to doubt whether any settlement of the agrarian question will seriously affect that demand. From one point of view I do not know that it very much matters whether it does or not. If it does affect that demand nobody, at any rate on this side of the House, would desire to force anything in the nature of further self-government on unwilling Irishmen. If the demand is not checked by this legislation, then that demand will have to be met in some form or other. But my point is this, that in giving tins intense proof of confidence in the Irish tenant you are showing inure faith in his honesty, in his self-restraint, and in Ins good sense than if you were to confer upon him some sort of subordinate legislature to sit in Dublin. That is a fact which seems to me to be beyond dispute, and while thoroughly endorsing, as I do, the action of His Majesty's Government in conferring this proof of confidence upon the Irish farmer, I do not wish to disguise from myself what its nature is.
  I cannot help feeling that the progress of the settlement under this measure may be to some extent endangered by the fiscal proposals of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, can altogether regard with a benediction the sudden action of his colleague in this matter. I am not going to argue any point of Mr. Chamberlain's proposals. As those proposals stand they come to this, that a certain preference is to be placed on articles of food coming from the colonies as against those coming from other parts of the world. What the amount of that preference may be we are not yet permitted to know, but it seems to be very difficult to escape from the proposition that if that preference is to be in any way effective it
  1182
  must have an effect on the price of produce in this country. That being so, the uncertainty existing as to the amount of that preference on food, and, even when we know the amount, as to whether that amount will some day be increased or decreased, is likely to retard the action to be taken under this Bill. There is no doubt that a very moderate preference on meat would be a distinct benefit to the Irish farmer. Noble Lords opposite cheer, but will noble Lords be so very ready, while the amount of that preference remains uncertain, to enter into negotiation for the sale of their land? because it certainly seems to me that is might so happen that is some years hence the price of meat was artificially raised by some proposal such as that favoured by the Colonial Secretary, noble Lords and other landlords in Ireland who had started off at once to sell might find that they had made and exceedingly bad bargain. I am very much afraid that the consciousness of that possibility in the minds of landlords and tenants may have some very appreciable effect in retarding operations under this Bill.
  In the conclusion I hope that this great measure will pass very much in the form in which it is presented to your Lordships. The moment for its passage is exceedingly propitious. Nobody, I think, can have listened to or read the debates in another place without seeing the extreme desire for a settlement which exists on both sides of the House. That desire was first exemplified in the conference to which the noble Duke, the Leader of the House, referred, and I certainly desire to join in the congratulation to my noble friend, Lord Dunraven, for the part he took in presiding over that conference. The real value of the conference was by no means only in the positive propositions which it made, but in the fact that it showed the people of this country for the first time that both sides really meant business. That felling of sympathy is one good sign. We have had another very happy sign in the auspicious visit of their Majesties to Ireland, where they received a greeting which must have surpassed almost the highest hopes of those, and their number includes everybody in this country, who took a deep interest in their Majesties' visit. This measure will, I believe, go some way to realize the hopes of those, and I should wish to be numbered among them who regard

  1183
  Ireland and its people with special interest and affection; and I believe that beyond that it will, by pacifying that country, realise the hopes of those of your Lordships and of those all over the Empire who have no internal knowledge or special interest in that country, but who have regarded the distress and disaffection of Ireland as the one dark shadow which has been drawn across our splendid Imperial system.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, though I have some criticisms to make upon the Bill before your Lordships I wish at once to congratulate His Majesty's Government, and especially the Minister more immediately responsible for the Bill, upon having brought up to your Lordships' House a measure of so large and statesmanlike a character. The Bill, even if in some respects not as satisfactory as I and some others might desire, is, we must admit, couched in a broad and statesmanlike spirit, and is a determined effort to solve a problem which is absolutely vital to Ireland, and which, being vital to Ireland, is, I think, of no insignificant importance to the United Kingdom and to the Empire. It is greatly to be regretted that efforts have Been made in various quarters to mis-state and to entirely undervalue the importance of this Bill. It has been described as a kind of Landlords' Relief Bill, and a sort of co-operative brigandage on the part of Irishmen of all classes directed against the Treasury.
  The Bill is nothing of the kind. It is a very large measure dealing with a very vast subject. The development of feudalism which took root and grew up naturally in great Britain, and which has proved satisfactory in this country, has never been deemed satisfactory in Ireland. Ireland has never been tranquil under it. For centuries and centuries she has protested against it more or less vigorously, and in my opinion one of the chief merits of this measure is that it recognises that a system which has worked perfectly well and is suitable to the physical characteristics of the people of Great Britain is unsuitable to the physical characteristics and to the genius and nature of the people of Ireland. This Bill does away with the last remnant of that system, and it does away also with the present utterly absurd system of land tenure in Ireland, a system
  1184
  which is disastrous not only to both classes engaged in agriculture—the main industry—but is also demoralising to the whole country.
  Under the present system it is impossible, of course, for any landowner to lay out any capital on the land, because it is out of the question that he can ever get any value for it or any interest upon it. It is practically compulsory upon the tenant to produce his farm at the expiration of every statutory term in the most dilapidated condition in which it is possible to produce it. What is the inevitable result? To cheek nearly all enterprise and nearly all industry. It is demoralising to the tenant farmers because it forces upon them a system of deception: it is ruinous to the landlords, and it is of no benefit whatever to any class or individual in the country. Whether the Act of 1881 and the subsequent Acts are to he considered as satisfying a necessary transitory condition of things, or whether we are to look upon them as utterly and entirely had, is a question I will not argue, because I do not suppose that any Member of this House, or scarcely any person outside a lunatic asylum, would deny the proposition that the present system is unutterably had in Ireland.
  The Bill aims at abolishing a system which Ireland has protested against for centuries and centuries, and it aims at abolishing the present system which everybody admits to be entirely bad. Of course, in such a large operation as the transfer of practically the whole of the agricultural soil of Ireland from one class to another, accomplishing a great, peaceable and beneficial social revolution, the financial requirements must be very large. My noble friend Lord Crewe has alluded to the effect on the British taxpayer. I do not quite know why the "British" taxpayer specially, because Irishmen pay taxes and are just as much involved in this matter, so far as their numbers and taxable capacity go, as the inhabitants of England, Scotland and Wales. I think your Lordships need be under no misapprehension whatever as to the security which the taxpayers of the United Kingdom have for this great loan of £112,000,000. After all, the best way in which you can possibly judge of the value of their security is by the fact that large sums of money have already been lent on security of precisely similar character.

  1185
  You must remember that something like, I think, 80,000 tenants have purchased, that there has not only been not the slightest indication of any desire of repudiation, but that the deficit form what I may call purely natural causes has been practically nil. I do not believe for a moment that the Irish tenant farmer will ever evince any desire to repudiate, but even suppose for the sake of argument that he is not influenced by a sense of his moral obligations, you have 80,000 men, the great majority of whom have paid off a large proportion of their debt, and many of them are approaching the period when they will become the owners of their farms. It is impossible to conceive that those men would countenance anything like a general repudiation, and precisely the same state of things will grow up under this new loan.
  However well the Act may work, a considerable time must elapse before the whole transfer can be accomplished, and in the meantime the men who buy early will every year be coming nearer and nearer to the redemption of their debt, and every year their property will be becoming more and more valuable; and even if you do not consider that the Irish tenant farmer has any particular moral sense about him, repudiation is, I think, out of the question. They dare not do it. The risk of losing valuable property would be too great. The main question, I think, before us to-night is: Will the Bill as it stands effect those great objects which it is intended to carry out? I need not point out to the House that the Bill will be a dead failure unless the large majority of both classes interested are satisfied. If it is not worth while for the tenant to buy, the Bill will be a failure, however willing the landlords may be to sell; and if, on the other hand, the landlords will not sell, the fact that the tenants are ready to buy will be of no avail whatever.
  The noble Duke who introduced the Bill made some allusion to the report of the Land Conference, and he said, what was perfectly true, that that conference made no attempt to formulate a definite scheme. I think they were very wise not to do so. It was not one of their functions to draw out an absolutely definite scheme, and to do so they would have been obliged to take upon themselves the some-what presumptuous duty of dictating to the Treasury the exact terms and amount
  1186
  of the loan, and so on. They contented themselves, therefore, with laying down general propositions, and, as has been pointed out, the great value of that conference was that it showed that men who knew something about the business they were attending to, who knew something about the requirements and necessities of the classes they represented, came to unanimous conclusions as to the main principles which they drought were necessary for successfully instituting a system of peasant proprietary.
  The Report of the Laud Conference—said and this indicates the general idea that the conference had as to what was necessary for both occupiers and tenants—that for the future welfare of Ireland, and for the smooth working of any measure dealing with the transfer of laud, it was necessary, first, that the occupiers should be started on their new career as owners on a fair and favourable basis ensuring reasonable chances of success; that in view of the responsibilities to be assumed by them, they should receive some inducement to purchase; that owners should receive some recognition of the fact that selling may involve a sacrifice of sentiment, and also of the fact that they have already suffered heavily by the operations of the Land Acts, and should be encouraged to sell; and that for the benefit of the whole community it was of the greatest importance that the income derived from the sale of property in Ireland should be continued to be expended in Ireland. Acting on those principles certain recommendations were made by the conference. I say at once that I regret that the Bill does not carry out those recommendations in their entirety, because I am perfectly confident that if it had been possible to carry them out they would have made a final settlement of this question without any difficulty whatever. But that is past praying for.
  The Bill does not quite come up to the requirements of the Land Conference Report, and we have got to consider how nearly it comes up to it both in respect to the tenants and the owners of the land. There is a great difference after all between the suggestions of the conference and the proposals in the Bill. The conference suggested a system of periodical decadal reductions. The Bill does not provide that, and I regret it, because if a man finds himself in difficulties through a bad season or otherwise, it would be an

  1187
  immense encouragement to him to, feel and know that in the course of a comparatively short time he would get relief by a reduction of his instalments. However, I do not pursue that, because that also is out of the question. I very thankfully admit that the Bill does offer very substantial inducement to tenant farmers to buy. I should imagine that tenant farmers will naturally, in considering whether to buy or not to buy, contrast their position if they do not purchase with their position if they do. It is, of course, impossible to say what reductions may be made on a third or fourth valuation of land in Ireland. All the data we have to go upon are that rents have been reduced by something like, I think, 42 per cent., that the bedrock must be reached some time or other, and that rents coming up recently for revision have received scarcely any reduction at all.
  I will assume, for the sake of argument, what I think is an exaggeration, that rents would be reduced 10 per cent. on third valuation, and 10 per cent. again on fourth valuation, and I will assume that a tenant buying gets the average reduction contemplated in the Bill of 20 per cent. off his second-term rent. Take the case of two men who have had the second-term rent recently fixed. One does not buy and the other does. The man who does not buy will have to wait at any rate thirty years before he gets 20 per cent. off his second-term rent. At the end of forty-five years he will be still paying rent 20 per cent. below his second-term rent, and I think it is safe to assume that he will not have the shadow of a chance of getting any further reduction, and he will still he a tenant under a landlord without any prospect whatever of becoming the owner of the fee-simple of the land. The other man who buys will get his 20 per cent. reduction at once. In forty-five years he will have paid off two-thirds of his loan and will be within measurable distance of acquiring the fee-simple ownership of his farm, and his farm will have increased enormously in value if he wants to sell it or to raise money upon it. I think the advantages to the purchaser are enormous, and I believe that the tenant farmers of Ireland will recognise it, and admit that though the Bill does not come up to their expectations with respect to containing a system of decadal reductions, it is not very far short of the recommendations and suggestions of the Land Conference.
  1188
  As to the landlords, I am bound to say that I do not think the advantages to them are quite so clear, and I should like to state what the position of the landlord is and what I think is due to them. The noble Duke observed in the beginning of his speech that landlords had given up any idea of compensation for the losses inflicted upon them by legislation. I daresay that is so. They have given up any idea of compensation because they find there is no chance of getting it; but, so far as I am concerned, I admit that Irish landlords were treated with the grossest and most iniquitous injustice. All the sophistry of all the sophists who have lived cannot get over the hard fact that solid property—property which had been freely bought and sold, which had been used as security for loans—was taken away from one set of men and given to another without one farthing of compensation. But I put that point on one side. I want to consider the situation as it now is. I have seen it often said that the Bill is extremely favourable to owners of land because under it it is possible, and perhaps certain, that they will get a larger price for their property than the average selling price which landlords' interests have obtained in the past. That is a very plausible argument, but an entirely false one.
  I do not want to allude to the National League and other combinations and organisations of that kind, but I must do so to the extent of saying—and I am sure every one of your Lordships w ho has held the responsible position of Viceroy in Ireland will bear me out—that it is absurd to say that there has been any open and really free and unrestricted market for landlords' property in Ireland for the last thirty years. The primary object of all these combinations was to make the landlords' position untenable and his property unsaleable. I do not argue the point whether the value of the landlords' interests has been or has not been reduced below their true intrinsic value. That is arguable; but I contend that it is impossible to say that the average selling price of landlords' interests has proved to be a fair price because it has been obtained in an open and unrestricted market. The market has not been open, has not been unrestricted, and it would he perfectly idle to imagine that the great majority of landlords now left in Ireland would be prepared to sell

  1189
  at anything like the price that has hitherto been obtained. As a matter of fact, bankrupt stock has been sold out in a restricted market, and at a price which certainly cannot be called its true competitive value. The only way in which the value of the landlord's property can be estimated is the way in which it is estimated in the Bill, and in which it was suggested it ought to be estimated in the Land Conference Report, and that is by the income derived from judicial rents.
  I think I should mention to such of your Lordships as are not conversant with Ireland, that there is a great difference between land in Ireland and land in England in two respects. My rent in England is a very precarious one. It may be varied in any year, almost any day, but my rent is fixed for me by a Judicial Court in Ireland, and is absolutely invariable for many years; and there is this point, that if my rent goes down in England, the selling value of the farm has decreased at least proportionately, but in Ireland the value may not have decreased at all. I think there are other circumstances which ought to be taken account of in considering the position of the landlords. Ought no account to be taken of the enormous sacrifice of sentiment that they will have to make? Is it reasonable to tell me that the Irish landowners are the only Irishmen who attach no importance and have no love for the soil? No man will part with a light heart, or with anything lint a very sore and sad heart, with broad acres which have descended to him from father to son for generations and centuries. The landlords will cling at least as tenaciously as any other Irishman to the soil and to the traditions that cluster round the soil, and it is a heavy sacrifice that the Bill asks of them to ask them to sell.
  It may he said: If landlords attach so much importance to ownership, why are they willing to sell at all? They are willing to sell because the present system in Ireland is a system not only ruining them, but ruining and demoralising the whole country, checking and crippling her industry, and smothering all her aspirations. It is an intolerable state of things, and that is the reason why landlords are willing to make this great sacrifice of sentiment and to sell, but it is not fair and reasonable to ask them also to make an actual sacrifice of income. You cannot
  1190
  expect men to ruin themselves and those dependent upon them. Your Lordships must remember that the very great majority of landowners in Ireland are poor men—men living or trying to live upon a very small margin of income, and they cannot sell at any price that involves a serious loss of income. It would be useless to ask them to do so. What sense would there he in asking a man to sell and make a loss of income because, if he did not, his rents might be reduced in 15 years time? The latter is a possibility, of course, and I dare say a probability; butt there is always the off-chance of his rents being increased and not reduced. But in any case if you are asking a man to go to the workhouse now, and he has an alternative of not going for 15 years, I think it is probable that he would select the latter course.
  This Bill gives the landlords certain collateral advantages, such, for example, as the power to sell and re-purchase their demesne lands, and it contains the grant-in-aid, and the grant-in-aid to my mind is the key of the whole situation. Why the grant-in-aid has been called a gift to landlords I have not the least idea. In the first place, it is not a gift at all, but a loan which will be repaid; and, in the second place, why to the landlords? If I want £100 for a horse, and one of your Lordships wants to buy it, and can only offer me £90, and a beneficent fairy trips on the scene and offers a bonus of a ten-pound note, I should have thought the bonus would have been generally considered to have been given to the purchaser and not to the seller. It matters very little which way you take it, but the grant-in-aid is an absolutely necessary grant to bridge over the gap which must exist between the price that the willing seller can take and the willing purchaser can give, and it is immaterial whether you look at it as a gift to the landlord to enable him to take the price the tenant can give, or to the tenant to enable him to offer the price which the landlord will take.
  The only criticism I have to make on the grant-in-aid is that it is not quite big enough. If it had been a little bigger it would have been much wiser. It would, I believe, have been truer economy, because after all the success of this Bill is the true measure of value received for this gigantic loan that the State is making,

  1191
  and a little stouter and a little stronger bridge would have settled the question without any difficulty. As it is, my Lords, I am bound in honesty to say that I have some doubts whether, under the provisions of the Bill as it stands, it will be possible for the great majority of landlords to give such reduction of rent as a reasonable and prudent tenant ought to receive without making a loss of income which the landlord cannot stand.
  I do not want to worry your Lordships with figures. Your Lordships can work it out for yourselves But if you will assume that the tenant is to receive the average reduction contemplated in the Bill of 20 per cent.; if you assume that the cost of collection is 5 per cent.—and I do not think, as a matter of fact, it ought to be taken at more than 5 per cent., for although the average cost of collection over large estates is 7½ per cent. (5 per cent for agents' fees and 2½ per cent. for other expenses), in a great number of small estates there are no agents at all, with the result that if you want to get at the real effect which the Bill will have on landlords, you ought not to knock off more than 5 per cent. for collection—if you assume that the cost of collection is 5 per cent., and assume a 20 per cent. reduction, and, further, that the purchase money has to be invested in trust securities, and will not bring in more than 3¼ per cent., you will find that the result to the landlord will be a loss of £10 on every £90 of income. And that is too large. It will take, roughly speaking, the whole of the grant-in-aid and the 3½ per cent. investment to enable the landlord to give 20 per cent. off second-term rents and not make a loss. I am not sure that under the Bill as it now stands that can in the great majority of cases be done.
  I do not propose to allude to large portions of the Bill—those which apply to the Congested Districts Board or to labourers. I take it that the sections applying to the Congested Districts Board are more or less experimental; that is to say, that if they do not succeed in the objects the Government aim at, further legislation on that subject may become necessary; and it is admitted that the portions of the Bill dealing with the labourers are more or less of a provisional character, so I will not touch upon them
  1192
  at all. The two points I do wish to bring before the House are, first, the uncertainty that exists as to the amount of legal expenses which will have to be deducted from the grant-in-aid; and, secondly, the rate of distribution of the bonus. I do not understand what the Bill proposes to do about legal expenses incidental to proving title to the purchase money, and if any Member of His Majesty's Government intends to speak on this Bill and will explain what the various clauses which deal with the subject mean I should be very grateful, for I do not understand them. It is obvious that some portion of these legal expenses are to be chargeable to the expenses of the Land Commission, but what portion, and how much, nobody knows.
  Is it not obvious that the one thing more than another likely to deter landowners from selling is the uncertainty as to the income they will have after selling, and I do beg of His Majesty's Government to most seriously consider whether it is not possible, without increasing the money required, to relieve the landlords, not only of the legal expenses incidental to proving title to the land, but also of the legal expenses incidental to proving title to the purchase money, and if that is impossible, at any rate to make it perfectly clear what proportion of those expenses will be chargeable as expenses of the Land Commission. Of course, I do not mean that the State should take over all the legal expenses. There will, of course, always be private legal expenses in connection with the sale, which should be borne by the land lord; but if this measure is to be as successful as we all hope it will be, the requirements of the Land Commission ought to be satisfied by the Land Commission and be chargeable to the expenses of the Land Commission.
  I would remind your Lordships in connection with that, that a not inconsiderable slice has been cut off from the landlords in the other House of Parliament. The instalments are the basis and foundation of the whole transaction, and as the Bill was introduced on the instalment, whatever it might be, a certain advance was made based on the fact that seven-eighths of the loan was to be liquidated in years; but as the Bill comes up to your Lordships' House the whole of

  1193
  the loan, and not seven-eighths of it, has to be liquidated in 68½ years, and, as a necessary consequence, the advance to he made on any instalment, whatever it may be, is proportionately less. That amount, whatever it may be—something between 2 millions and 3 millions—must come out of the landlords' pockets and must go back into the pockets of the Treasury. Well, half of that, or not so much as half of it, would certainly be sufficient to ensure that no portion of the expenses incidental to proving title to land should he borne by the selling landlord. The grant-in-aid is, as I say, the great factor of the situation. It is the one thing that will enable landlords and tenants to come together; and as long as there is this indefinite mortgage hanging over the grant-in-aid, I am afraid that a very serious drag will exist to prevent sales.
  Then I object to the grant-in-aid being distributed at the rate of 12 per cent. The bonus is a definite sum of £12,000,000. The capitalised value of the whole of the property to he dealt with is estimated by His Majesty's Governmentat £100,000,000, and £12,000,000 on £100,000,000 is 12 per cent. Therefore the bonus is to be distributed at the rate of 12 per cent., but there is about £20,000,000 worth of property in the hands of the Land Judge's Court, which is not eligible to receive any bonus at all. The £12,000,000 is therefore distributable on £80,000,000 and not on £100,000,000, and £12,000,000 on £80,000,000 is 15 per cent., and not 12 per cent.; the initial rate of distribution ought, therefore, to be 15, and not 12 per cent. I admit that it may be found after a time that the capitalized value of the property to be dealt with has been underestimated. I admit, too, that it may be found that the value of the property in the Land Judge's Court has been overestimated. I do not think so. But what I would point out to your Lordships is this that the rate of distribution is variable every five years, and if it is found after five, ten, or fifteen years, that the £12,000,000 will not go round, the rate of distribution can be diminished. I do not want one farthing more money from the Treasury. All I want to be certain of is that this £12,000,000 is not only receivable, but is received; and to make sure of that you must commence with an initial rate of 15 per cent. If you find, after five years, that that is too much, you can reduce it
  1194
  to whatever is necessary. That would be a perfectly just, fair, and reasonable thing to do. But if you begin at 12 per cent., it would be manifestly unjust to landlords who had sold to increase it, and it would be offering a distinct inducement to landlords not to sell, but to hold on until they could get more than 12 per cent., and it would tend to destroy the whole value of the operation of the Bill.
  I would ask His Majesty's Government to consider that matter, and see whether, without making any further demand upon the Treasury, which I do not for a moment propose to do, it is not advisable that the initial rate of distribution should be 15 per cent. I believe if the Bill can be amended in that direction it will work smoothly and satisfactorily. If it cannot be so amended, I am bound to say I have some fear that it may prove disappointing to those who, like myself, desire to see a clean, business-like, final settlement of this vexed question. It has often been asked whether this Bill, if successful, will settle the Irish question; and it has been stated that whether the Bill passes or not there will always be an Irish question. I sincerely hope so. But of one thing I am pretty sure, that if this Bill does make a final and amicable settlement of questions of land tenure, the majority of those questions will be settled without any very great difficulty. I should be sorry to prophesy, but I should not mind saying that if this question is finally and amicably settled, all other questions will be approached and discussed and debated in Ireland in a very different spirit from that which has obtained up to the present.
  Whether it will settle the land question depends, I think, to a considerable extent on whether the Bill can be amended in the directions I have indicated. It depends, also, of course, upon the view taken of the Bill, and the attitude assumed towards it, by the two classes mainly interested—the landlords and the tenants. If the landlords are exorbitant in their demands the tenants will not be able to buy, and the Bill will he a failure; if the tenants are exorbitant in their demands the landlords will not be able to sell, and the Bill will be a failure. If, as I believe, the vast majority of both owners and occupiers of land desire to treat each other fairly in this matter, and are honestly anxious to understand each other's position

  1195
  and each other's requirements and difficulties, and will act in that spirit, then the Bill is capable of settling the land question, and, if it does, it would be impossible to exaggerate the good effect that would be produced in Ireland. The Bill is capable of relieving Ireland from the kind of nightmare under which she has struggled for centuries; it is capable of giving her a system of land tenure suitable to the characteristics of the country and to the character and genius of the people; it is capable of acting as a healthy, wholesome stimulus to the main, and almost the only industry of Ireland—agriculture—and, by fostering a more manly, self-dependent spirit, of encouraging Ireland to labour energetically and successfully in developing whatever other industries she is capable of supporting. I believe the Bill has it in it to convert the people of Ireland from a sad and despondent frame of mind to a healthy and energetic one; to foster a real, manly, self-dependent national spirit among them; and if the Bill has that effect it will do even a great deal more than accomplish the regeneration of Ireland—because, although the British Empire is very wealthy and very vast, and Ireland is very small and very poor, still it must not be forgotten that in these islands the heart of the Empire lies.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, although not so closely interested as many of your Lordships in this Bill, I venture to take part in this discussion as an Englishman who nevertheless takes a very deep and sympathetic interest in the affairs of Ireland. The subject of this Bill is not really a political one; it is essentially an economical one. Nevertheless, it is the political consequences which it may have which loom large in the minds of those who are discussing it. Is it going to be final? Does it mean peace? Is it going to terminate that ancient feud between the landlords and tenants of Ireland which has hitherto proved so disastrous to the interests of their common country? How will it affect the question of Home Rule? Will it make the government of Ireland more easy or more difficult in the future? All these are questions which have been very freely debated in this country since the introduction of the Bill, and they are questions round which attention has been concentrated, even, I think, to the exclusion of the real issue, which is the effect
  1196
  the Bill will have on the economic situation in Ireland. For it is with the Irish land system that we are really dealing, and the main subject for consideration is the present system of land tenure in Ireland as compared with the system winch, encouraged by this Bill, is going, we hope, to take its place.
  It is no more possible in this House than it was in the House of Commons to have a perfectly disinterested economic discussion, because those of your Lordships who are Irish landlords cannot ignore the effect which the Bill will have upon themselves personally, and they cannot fail to look to their own interests in this matter. But I feel, and I say it with all deference, that the main interests of the landlords of Ireland are bound up with this Bill. The noble Duke who presides over the Landowners' Convention said that no money could compensate the landlords for the sacrifices of sentiment which they were going to make, and the noble Lord who has just spoken also referred to the position in which the landlords stood. I say at once that I feel the greatest possible sympathy with Irish landlords and with the sacrifices which they may have to make. But are there then no drawbacks to the present position of an Irish landlord, and will there be no compensation if this Bill, as I think it does, affords them an opportunity which they have never had before, of associating themselves with a great national movement, of assuming their rightful position as the leaders of Irish opinion and sympathisers with Irish aspirations, and of surrounding themselves with those feelings of affection and of confidence which, unfortunately, the circumstances attaching to their present position have prevented them from enjoying? For, my Lords, this Bill marks a current of events, an evolution of circumstances, which is absolutely inevitable.
  I do not think that any of your Lordships will defend on economic grounds the present system of dual ownership of land in Ireland. However necessary the Act of 1881 may have been politically, no one, I think, will urge that a system under which it is the interest both of the landlord and the tenant to neglect the land is the best possible system which can he devised in the interests of agriculture generally. The system of periodical revision of rent by a judicial body has

  1197
  done incalculable damage to agriculture in Ireland. It has impoverished the soil, embittered still more the relations between landlord and tenant, and the only outcome of this system has been perpetual litigation and unrest. What, then, are you to do? You cannot take away from the tenant the part ownership of his land which he already enjoys. You cannot sweep away the Act of 1881 and establish in its place a system of tenure such as we have in England, a system which is based on a free and generous competition between landlord and tenant. Past history shows that such a system as that is not workable in Ireland, because such competition is only possible where those who compete for the land have other pursuits to fall back on where they are unsuccessful, and this is not the case in Ireland. There are no other pursuits in that country. The Irish peasant is obliged either to cultivate his land or else to leave the country, and that circumstance alone is sufficient to make the system which we have in England impossible in Ireland. But at the same time you cannot be content with the present situation. You cannot stand still, you must go forward; and the only way out of the present situation is, therefore, by means of purchase.
  We have not to consider what would be an ideal system of land tenure if we were free to choose. The problem with which we are faced is what system is best adapted to existing circumstances, and, therefore, whatever the disadvantage may be of the system of peasant proprietorship, it is the only possible alternative, and that is why we are asked to pass another Land Purchase Bill. I am perfectly aware that there are already some twenty-eight Land Purchase Acts upon the Statute-book, but as compared with this Bill t hey are all tentative and inadequate. This will be the first Act which really aims at making purchase universal upon a voluntary basis. Its provisions for simplifying the proof of title, for the purchase of estates in globo, for the repurchase by owners of their demesne land for dealing with the problem of congestion, these, as well as the cash bonus, all go far beyond anything attempted under any former Act.
  But the most remarkable and most hopeful fact about the present Bill is that
  1198
  it is the outcome of an agreement that it is based upon a concordat between the two parties, which for so long and with such disastrous results have been irreconcilably opposed. This, at any rate, is no act of tardy justice obtained by force, grudgingly conceded on the one hand and grudgingly accepted on the other. It is a piece of legislation which both landlords and tenants have united in asking the Government to pass and winch both have been prepared in their common interests to make some sacrifices to obtain. My Lords, if the spirit that has made this Bill possible had been present in former years we should not have had to wait so long for a measure of this sort; much strife and bitterness might have been prevented, and the energy and ingenuity which has been wasted in unproductive political warfare might, if spent in the cultivation of the land, have made Ireland to-day a rich and prosperous country.
  From first to last in the negotiations which have led up to the introduction of this Bill and during its passage through the House of Commons, largely, we must admit, owing to the tact and ability of the present Chief Secretary, there has been a spirit of co-operation between all parties interested. The landlords and tenants on the one hand have shown a readiness to do each other justice, and England on the other hand has proved herself willing to help Ireland to carry out a great measure of economic reform. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that nothing should he done in this House and that no note should be sounded to impair the harmony which has up to now been the most hopeful feature in in the recent transactions.
  At the same time, we cannot forget that whereas the representatives of the tenants largely predominate in the House of Commons, the landlords not only predominate in this House, but the tenants are not represented at all. There may therefore be a temptation to press unduly the claim of one party, and I venture to hope that those of your Lordships who, as the Duke of Devonshire has reminded us, are loyal to the principle of this Bill and yet regard it with little enthusiasm, will remember that it rests on the basis

  1199
  of an agreement, and twill do nothing, therefore, which, though otherwise desirable, might injure the very foundation on which it rests.
  My Lords, I cannot help feeling that this is an occasion unprecedented in the history of Irish legislation, and that the hopes that we are now on the threshold of a new period of prosperity in Ireland—a period of social peace and industrial activity—are not mere idle fancies, are not the hopes of mere ignorant enthusiasts, but are based on tangible facts and actual experience. First, we have the solid fact of the present conciliatory spirit in Irish politics—a fact which was emphasised during the recent triumphal visit of the King and Queen to Ireland. Secondly, we have the experience of those tenants who have actually bought their holdings under previous Acts.
  Those of your Lordships who have read the report made by Mr. Bailey will realise how satisfactory that experience has been. I have that report here and I had intended to make some quotations from it, but as your Lordships are all aware of the nature of the experience of land purchase in the past in Ireland I shall not trouble you now by recurring to the report. But we have other examples to go upon.
  We have the experience of the working of this system in Denmark. That is an essentially agricultural country, and is full of interest to students of the Irish problem. Crushed and ruined at the beginning of the century, and with nothing but her agriculture to go upon, she has gradually and with the most extraordinary spirit worked her way back into complete prosperity. In 1840 her population was only a little over 1,000,000, whereas to-day it is 2,500,000. Emigration has steadily diminished, and the figures which in 1891 were 10,000 are to-day only 4,000. Fifty years ago the country was on the verge of bankruptcy, but to-day it is not only a flourishing agricultural community, but it stands second among the nations of the world as the richest in average per head of its population. The means by which these results have been attained are so interesting in connection with Ireland that I will venture to refer your Lordships to some of the facts brought to light by a deputation which was sent out to Denmark by the Irish Department of
  1200
  Agriculture. The most important fact which has contributed to Danish prosperity is the establishment of a peasant proprietary, both for the large farmer and the agricultural labourer. It has been found that the consciousness of power and independence which ownership conferred upon the occupier produced a corresponding earnestness of pursuit, and enabled the Danish farmer to triumph over every difficulty. My Lords, if this Bill achieves its object we may look for similar results in Ireland.
  The second factor is the adoption of co-operative methods in every department of agriculture, including credit and loan societies. The principle of co-operation is happily well understood in Ireland, and thanks to the life-work of Mr. Horace Plunkett—Sir Horace Plunkett, as we are now able to call him, and I take this, opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman upon this new distinction—the associative qualities of the Irishman are now being turned to the most profitable account.
  But perhaps the most important of all the forces at work in Denmark is the splendid system of education given in the popular high schools, the influence of which is visible in every phase of the agricultural, industrial, and commercial life of that country, and which has been the chief means of preventing the excessive subdivision and mortgaging of land, which is the greatest danger attaching to any extensive system of land purchase. The education aims not only at providing practical and technical instruction, but also at the formation of character among the peasant workers, inspiring them with zeal to make the most of their newly acquired possessions, and with enlightened views of the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, and above all impressing upon them the dignity which attaches universally in Denmark to agricultural employment. Such a system we have not yet complete in Ireland, but we have the elements out of which it may be formed. In the first place we have the advanced system of technical instruction given by the Department of Agriculture. Then we have the practical, sound educational work performed by the Organisation Society, and if these two systems of education can only be supplemented by and co-ordinated with a sound general elementary system of education, Ireland will have

  1201
  a system complete and well suited to her needs. That, my Lords, is a work for the future, but which I hope will be undertaken before very long after the passage of this Bill.
  Finally there is one other feature which we cannot ignore at this moment, and which seems to bear on the remarks made by Lord Crewe. It is felt by the Danish farmer that the raw material out of which he has to make his industrial successes must belong to him just as much as does the land. He, therefore, attaches the greatest importance to the freedom from duty of imports of agricultural produce. I also find that several years ago, when the question of a general free trade policy for Denmark was discussed in the Danish Parliament, a petition in favour of it was signed by 30,000 farmers in Jutland.
  My only reason for this digression is to show that all the elements which have contributed to the economic development of Denmark, are present to day in Ireland, and with that example before us we can look with some confidence to the future. If your Lordships will not only accept this Bill, but will go further and give encouragement to the carrying out of its provisions, and to the establishment of a peasant proprietary, you will have done much to hasten the arrival of the day when we can cease to look with shame on Ireland as a distracted and disunited country, a standing reproach to British statesmanship, and an abiding menace to the stability of our Empire, but can rather point to it with pride as a country at peace with others and at unity with itself, as the one land in all the British dominions where a people, unspoiled by the vanities and perplexities of modern civilisation, have found, in a cheerful devotion to honourable toil, a new national ideal which they can open their hearts to receive and give their lives to perpetuate.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, it is on this House that the landlords must depend for Amendments and changes to make the Bill a workable measure. In the first place I protest strongly against the suggestion that this Bill is a boon to the Irish landlords. We have no wish to part with our property. In many cases our estates have been held by the same families for
  1202
  centuries, and we have the same affection for our old homes as your lordships feel for your homes in this country. We do not wish to become a sort of glorified villa residents enclosed in our own park wall, and separated in sympathy from the outer world, but we wish to live as Irishmen among Irishmen.
  But to turn from sentiment to a practical point dealt with by Lord Crewe, we have been listening for the last two months to the voice of the charmer in the person of the Colonial Secretary, and many of us have thought to find in his terms an Ireland regenerated without a revolution, to find an increase of agricultural produce and stock, to such an extent as to cause even the Sub-Commissioner to increase our rents, and the tenants to pay with as much alacrity and cheerfulness as the British workmen will doubtless pay for the dearer loaf. But how will it affect the country at large? I do not wish to be a Cassandra then so many Unionists as well as Nationalists look upon the Bill as opening a new era for Ireland. I think that after this Bill is passed a great number of smaller landlords will leave the country, and I doubt whether the loss of so many men of wealth and culture will not be a serious loss to the country.
  Co-operation is not a word that is very popular to the average Irishman, and yet it is co-operation alone, if we are to judge from the experience of other countries, that we must look to for the success of this system.
  Again, take the climate of Ireland, it is a country of moisture-laden breezes wafted from the Atlantic. They give us that rich verdure for which Ireland is so famous, and enable us to raise stock for the English market, but continuous rain is very detrimental to tillage, and seems to point to the fact that the main parts of Ireland are more suitable to be a pastoral rather than an agricultural country.
  I am prepared to vote for the Second Reading because I believe that, bad as the solution is, it is the only practical and possible solution of the Irish land question. The system of dual ownership was sown in 1881, and it has been so richly manured since by Liberal and Tory statesmen that it has borne a plentiful harvest. All that we can do is

  1203
  by Amendments to try and make the measure fair to all parties, and no one will be more pleased than I it that can be done with success, and my prognostications regarding the economic evil come to nothing. To make it a success, not only must the tenants be willing to buy and the landlords to sell, but that they will not be unless they are paid their price. The landlords will have £100,000,000. What will they do with it? It should be used as an asset for the development of the country. Let the Nationalists show that the land war is ended by inviting co-operation in every branch, of public life, of those who are loyal, but are not less Irishmen than themselves. Let there be a reign of law and order instead of one of terror and oppression, and they will find amongst the landlords many who are ready to help on the good work, and who are willing to sacrifice themselves if, by their sacrifice they can benefit the country to which they belong, and make, it as it has been poetically described, the first flower of the earth and the first gem of the sea.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE: My Lords, in the few observations I have to make I do not propose to discuss the general principles of the Bill, but I come to consideration of the question from a different point of view, possibly, from some who have spoken before, because I believe I.have probably as much experience as.any person in Ireland of the practical working of former Land Acts. I began to make preparations to sell parts of my estate so far back as 1881 or 1882, and I only succeeded in getting the final purchase money distributed last year. My experience extends over all the Acts of twenty years past.
  The noble Duke alluded to the question of zones, and expressed the hope that no alteration would be made to them. Lord Crewe expressed the same opinion, and I concur in it. I think the Bill of this year as first introduced was a better Bill than that of last year, and it is still better as it is now before your Lordships. I have not heard any of my noble friends propose such an injudicious course as to alter the provisions of the Bill with regard to zones. The alteration made in the House of Commons on this point cuts both ways.
  1204
  A good many of my Irish friends are afraid they will suffer because of the possibility of the Estates Commissioners being able to sell below the lower limit. But there is another limit to be considered, and I am perfectly satisfied with the alteration made in the House of Commons.
  Another point of great importance which the noble Duke touched upon lightly, about which Lord Dunraven made some remarks, was the omission of the ten years reductions. I am very sorry that these reductions have been abolished. They were first granted some years ago, and it appeared to me that it was a sort of boon granted to the tenants which it was impossible to take away. The tenants thereby knew what bargain they were making, as they knew the price would be reduced in ten years and further reduced ten years afterwards. I am told that these reductions were really a security to the State, and I think that this question is pretty sure to come up again in some future session. All the tenants under the Ashbourne Act of 1896 had a reduction of 9 per cent. The 1896 purchasers will have a reduction of 14 per cent. now, and surely the tenant who buys in the future will think it very hard when he sees his neighbour getting 14 per cent., and feels that he is shut out from the reduction clauses. Our object in passing this Bill is that it should work, and I feel certain that the system of sale reduction is one of the most important in the working of the Bill.
  We come next to the question of sporting rights. In that connection many people tell me that a great many landlords will go from the country when the Bill is passed. My Lords, that is not my opinion, and I know a good deal about the smaller landlords in the North of Ireland. I am told that they will sell if they can without loss. I know the history of many families in that country having incomes ranging from £500 to £1,500 a year, and being of the small landlord class. I am sure if they leave the country and go to England, they will lose in social position, because in Ireland they may take their turns in holding public offices, such, for instance, as the High Sheriff; [which is no longer an office of great expenses], but if they

  1205
  go to an English watering place they would abandon those privileges.
  Lord Crewe alluded to the Act of 1881, and said if that Act had not been passed it would have been impossible to bring in an Act of this kind. I do not agree with him. I regret that Mr. Gladstone in 1881 did not bring in an Act of this kind, because the ordnance valuation of that day was considerably below the letting value of the land, and even Mr. Parnell, the then leader of the Nationalist Party, would have been quite content at that period to take the ordnance surveys as the basis on which the landlords could sell and the tenants could buy. I think the landlords in the long run will sell very generally. Of course they cannot all sell at once, and it is pretty well known that the present system of deeds mid registration in Ireland make it impossible to sell at the rate of more than 1,000,000 per year. It will thus take thirty years before it will be possible for all the landlords to sell, and the thing cannot be completed in less than a generation.
  Then the noble Earl regretted that there was no time limit in which the landlords should be compelled to make up their minds to sell. I think a time limit would have been quite futile, because, if the landlords in five years had not made up their minds there would have been pressure by the tenants and Parliament would then have been asked to extend the time limit.
  Then with regard to the best security with regard to the tenant's improvements. I think the best security is the tenant's self interest. Lord Dunraven pointed out that when a man had repaid a portion of the loan it would be suicidal for a tenant to allow himself to be sold up by the Land Commissioners. I have had a good deal to do with tenants, and excepting one single case I never knew them to act in anything else but their self interest. The noble Lord alluded to Mr. Chamberlain's policy and said if that were carried out it would raise the value of Irish lands so that the landlords would be unwilling to sell.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I said the expectation of the value of land being raised would unsettle the minds of possible sellers arid would discourage them from selling.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE: So far as I understand Mr. Chamberlain's policy, and I am more in agreement with it than most of your Lordships, I do not think it will raise the price of food. I think we may put that argument on one side. We are not changing the method of cultivation, but are merely changing the ownership of existing farms, which will be cultivated in precisely the same manner as before. A great part of the land that has already been sold has been so treated as to be considerably improved.
  My Lords, I have only one other observation to make. Lord Lytton made some remarks with regard to industrial work. He does not seem to be aware that that is much more in existence than he knows of. There is a movement going on in Ireland at the present moment for an industrial revival, and the establishment of exhibitions, and there has been introduced into Ireland what is called technical instruction in the schools. I had the honour a few years ago to be the Chairman of a Commission on Manual and Practical Instruction, and we presented a Report upon this matter. So far as I can learn about one' third of the schools in Ireland are now beginning to put the recommendations of that Report in operation and therefore I think there is every prospect of industrial education being given and industrial avocations meeting with great success in that country. In Committee I may have to move a few non-contentious Amendments, but all I need say now is that I most heartily support the Government in asking the House to read the Bill a second time.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: The subject of this Bill has been very largely discussed, and in the peculiar circumstances of the case of there being no opposition, it naturally follows that the field over which successive speakers can go is a very small one. There is one point I venture to submit to your Lordships. I say that this evening is a very remarkable one in the history of Ireland, more especially as it affects Irish landlords. For the first time we have been offered compensation for all our sufferings from land legislation in the past. What is that compensation? That is offered by Lord Lytton, and it is that we are to enter into Ireland's national aspirations. That is to

  1207
  say, we are to turn good disloyal Home Rulers, we are to fly the green flag, we are to have as a crest a harp without a crown, and Ireland as a nation is to be the motto for us to adopt. I confess that on first acquaintance I do not like the idea at all.
  I rejoice extremely at the extraordinary unanimity with which this Bill has been received in this House and in the country. The reason is perfectly plain. It cannot be denied that this is the first real attempt to grapple with the whole evil set up by the Act of 1881. I do not wish to enter into details of the Act of 188l. The most cursory inspection shows a state of things absolutely grotesque. I do not wish to enter into a free trade discussion, but it is an undoubted fact that whereas free trade may be suited to this country, it has proved most disastrous to Ireland. At the present time the linen industry has been ruined by foreign competition, and although I do not wish to follow Lord Crewe into the future, I really believe if it were a case of a fight between free trade and protection, you w ill find a solid body of Irish farmers in favour of protection.
  I do not wish to belabour a very dead horse, which has met its death through official neglect—I refer to the Report of the Financial Relations Commission. I would only remind your Lordships that there is a debt of £300,000,000 that England owes to Ireland, for which we should be very glad to receive a cheque on account. But leaving that on one side, the cardinal justification of this Bill lies in the evils of the Act of lt81, and it is a remarkable fact that, we have had a noble Lord on the front bench opposite acknowledging those evils. In the course of the discussion on this Bill very little attention has been given to the price the tenants will have to pay. An idea has grown up that sales will go through within the zones and even within the lower part of the zones. I cannot realise the truth of that. Under the Acts of 1885 and 1888 the tenants paid at eighteen years purchase for first-term rents. That is on a very broad assumption for all classes of land, and at that time the price of land stock was very high, it being £115, therefore rents, which were 20 per cent. more than they are now, were being sold, and the landlord got three years purchase more than his nominal price. That is to say, a purchaser of a similar farm now
  1208
  sold at a similar price would have to pay twenty-eight years purchase to give the landlord the same amount of money. The point I wish to make is that if this Bill is to work the tenants of Ireland must realise that they will have to give a fair price, and by a fair price I mean a price larger than they have grown up to the present, if they wish to profit by the unexampled conditions under the Bill.
  Without going into details, as I know this is a Second Reading debate, there are two or three questions to which I wish to refer, and thus clear the ground in view of what may happen in the Committee stage. First, there is a question of sporting rights. I will ask your Lordships to consider what is the state of affairs with reference to these rights. The exact words of the clause show that they may be reserved for the landlord, and may be transferred to the tenant. What does that mean? It means that the sporting rights are to enter into the bargain to, be made between the landlord and tenant. You are entering into a bargain based on the rent price, and that is, in Ireland, nothing more than the agricultural value of the land. And yet the tenant is to, come along and say the Bill gives him the right to bargain, therefore he is going to pay three or four years less purchase if the landlord keeps these rights. I believe the object of the Bill is to carry out the present state of affairs in this respect, but the wording of the Bill as drafted by the Solicitor-General for England does nothing of the kind. The result will be that the price will tend to be lowered, and it naturally follows that the landlord who is not keen to sell will not dream of selling at the tenant's price, and in that way the Bill will defeat itself.
  I hold it is absolutely necessary, in fairness to us, as well as for the good prospects and working of the Bill, that it should be absolutely laid down that the present state of affairs is not to be interfered with, and that these sporting rights are not to enter into the bargain between the landlord anti tenant. It has been said this evening that the landlords should be encouraged to stay in the country. That is a self-evident fact, for the country needs the spending class in it. But there is another thing about these sporting rights. It is to the interest of the whole of the country that they

  1209
  should be kept up, because they bring money into the country from outside. We have all made money over our sporting rights in letting our shooting boxes, and the shooting and fishing. I have a pleasing recollection of receiving rent for fishing in dry seasons when the foreigner was engaged in whipping the streams all day long with very poor effect.
  It is essential to encourage sportsmen of all countries, and these sporting facilities as such are an important asset to the country. Who has looked to the matter in the past? The landlords have kept up the whole thing out of their private pockets and, at the present time we have an organisation ready to do it. We have the necessary keepers and trained watchers, and all necessaries for the work, whereas the tenants know nothing about it whatever. I consider the question of fox covers is particularly important, because that means hunting, and if hunting goes horse breeding goes, and if horse breeding goes the one pre-eminent Irish industry disappears; that is to say, the only thing that keeps a great many heads above water goes, and unless we have these sporting rights the sport will die out in the country. We have an organisation called the Irish Game Protection Association, and they have published a memorandum in connection with this Bill which coincides with my own experience. It runs as follows:—
  "The almost universal experience of the members of the association has been that where the game rights have been vested in the tenants in a sale of their farms under the existing Land Acts, such game rights are utterly neglected and the game rapidly exterminated. For years past the association has been endeavouring to make the tenants realise the money loss which they were suffering by their foolish acts in this respect, but with small success."
  I therefore claim that it is for the good of the country that the sporting rights should be kept as our rights, and that whenever the Land Commission gets bold of them we shall have a right of preemption. I hope an Amendment on this point, if moved, will be received by the Government in a sympathetic manner.
  My only other point is as to the question of mineral rights. At present, in the Bill, they are very unsatisfactory and subject to very unfair conditions. All present rights that we are now using are retained, but all undeveloped and prospective rights go to the Land Commission.
  1210
  In the end the Treasury is to have every thing that is at present not worked under the surface of Ireland, and is to give no payment for it whatever. We cannot blame the Treasury, but I cannot believe that the Government seriously contemplate taking them away from us in a Bill which gives the price of our possessions, calculated merely on the value of the surface of the soil, and afterwards to work under it for their own profit. There are lots of undeveloped minerals in the land, and when the Government get hold of them they are sure to be able to work them under their own conditions, and I do most strongly claim that in the event of their doing so at least 50 per cent. of the profit or rent shall go back to the pockets of the present landlord. If not what landlord with any chance of such development will ever be got to sell Ins property.
  In conclusion I would only point to one thing in support of what the noble Duke said at the conclusion of his speech. There is a great difference in the treatment of the Irish Land Bill in this House and in another place. The Government, of course, is equally represented in both Houses but this Bill concerns three bodies, t he Government, the tenants and the land lords. In another place there is a great body of tenants' representation which is very well able to make its opinion heard. On our side there are four or five very stalwart representatives who do their best, but there are a few very stalwart representatives who never come near the place at all. This is the one opportunity that we have to put our case in any great volume forward, and I can only re; echo the hope expressed by the noble Duke the Duke of Abercorn that the Government will consider our Amendments sympathetically, and after what the noble Duke the Duke of Devonshire has said, I am sure he will do so. I know that the session is far advanced and that we are all very anxious to get away from London but our only object will be to make the Bill a workable measure are I hope that the Government will favourably regard our Amendments which will be put forward with that sole object.
  LORD EMLY: My Lords, the Government have listened to and heard the landlord. They have not sent him empty away. They have listened to and

  1211
  heard the tenant. They have made some concessions to the evicted tenants, they have reconsidered the zone clauses, and they have effected a compromise in the matter of the game clause. The labourer has been kicked downstairs. It is as the duly accredited spokesman of the labouring poor that I venture to address you and to plead in their name that this Bill—this Magna Charta obtained by the farmers of Ireland—may not be defaced by an omission so vital and so monstrous as the total exclusion from its benefits of the artisans and labourers of Ireland. Mr. Wyndham, not very long ago, in the course of a speech delivered when he was the guest of the Manchester Conservative Club, explained that "Ireland was a country mainly agricultural, deprived of mineral wealth, without the alternative open to the rural dwellers in England." In other words that labour in Ireland is handicapped as labour is not handicapped in England; that labour is on a different footing in Ireland to what it is in England. Where is our woollen trade? Where is our cotton industry? Where is our iron trade? Where are our more complicated trades? We are not even firmly founded on jam and pickles. Mr. Wyndham took the Conservative Club into his confidence and explained the reason of all this—that England had not given justice to Ireland. Well, we will let it rest at that. In England the agricultural labourer is better paid and is better housed than in Ireland. His winter wages, his summer wages, are rising; Ids hours of work are shorter than they used to be. Yet in England the land is going out of cultivation and the rural population is migrating and crowding into the towns and cities. The enormous population of England is ever increasing. Well, what do you say to your labourers in England? You invite them to go back to the land. You have them still with you. They are there, and yet you are alarmed, and are right in being alarmed, because you foresee that the depletion of your rural population might, in certain circumstances, easily become a grave national danger. In Ireland the attenuated population is still dwindling. It is not a case of migration, but of emigration. In 1902 the number of emigrants who left Irish ports was 40,401, or 9·1 per 1,000 of the estimated population of Ireland in the middle of that year. In comparison with
  1212
  the year 1901 the number of emigrants, natives of Ireland, shows an increase of 577. Of the 18,893 males who emigrated no less than 14,235 were labourers. There were 774 farmers, Ulster accounting for 494 of these 774 farmers. The remaining 3,884 male emigrants belonged to the artisan class. The 21,508 female emigrants belonged to the agricultural labourer class. It is therefore very obvious what class in Ireland is being maltreated and scourged. It is the class-of agricultural labourers. Now let me return to Mr. Wyndham's speech at Manchester. "It was to our interest," he said, "that Ireland should be prolific and satisfied. It must be the desire and hope of every true Imperialist that she should become a bridge instead of as now a chasm between ourselves and Canada." The blood of Ireland has been poured out like rain. For nigh 100 years the emigration has been going on. It is by millions we count the enforced exodus of our people to the United States. Their seed has increased and multiplied; their children—a brilliant galaxy—are the shrewd, long-headed business men, the merchant princes, the millionaire bankers, the for-most statesmen of America, and while our emigrants are often unskilled in industrial labour, their children, enabled to develop their talents, are second to none in industrial success. I beg you to remember that it is the child of the exile, the child of the labourer, and the child of the artisan who has subsidised every national movement in Ireland. When Mr. Wyndham asks us to be satisfied I say, "Satisfied with what?" Is it satisfied with the back of the hand of the Government? Prolific in what? Prolific in bullocks? And when he talks about a bridge what does he mean? Oh yes, I understand. A bridge, the girders of which will be the 40,000 bright-eyed boy and girl exiles of 1902. I repeat Mr. Wyndham's words, "That Ireland is a country mainly agricultural, deprived of mineral wealth, without the alternative open to the rural dwellers in England." It is therefore to the land that we must look in Ireland. This Bill ignores even the existence of the very class which supplies our emigrants—the artisans and the labourers. They cannot live, like a. snipe, on suction. This Bill will not so much as keep one caubeen or one petticoat from the dire necessity of embarking on the emigrant ship.

  1213
  My Lords, the artisans and the labourers should have their share of the purchased land. The labourers should sit down at the banquet. The same facilities should be afforded to the occupiers of labourers' cottages and plots for the purchase of their cottages and plots as are contemplated to be afforded to the farming community. That is only bare justice. That is a clause which should be inserted in the Land Bill. Is the British taxpayer invited to he kind merely in order to create a new order of landlordism whilst artisans and labourers are told to stand down? Of course such a clause as I have outlined would have unfortunately only a very limited application. The administration of the Labourers Acts is at present a farce and a scandal. The unfortunate labourer, who is looking for a cottage is at the mercy of a board, publicly his sincere good friends, but privately his sincere good enemies, pulling the ropes the other way and working the oracle against him. He is sent from post to pillar like a fool on Fool's Day. He is cornered, he is cajoled, he is tricked, he is often at times threatened many ways—with loss of employment for instance. He is induced to apply for a cottage on the only site where he cannot obtain a cottage. It is the bad bit of land that is flung to him. When his application is opposed, and it is opposed on every and any flimsy pretext, he has no friend to fight his cause for love or money. The weight of officialdom is inexorably thrown in the balance against him. As a matter of fact the Labourers Acts remain a dead letter in the country. In a certain county there are no labourers' cottages, in other counties there are whole districts where there are no labourer's cottages. Where the instituted authorities so neglect their obligations towards the labourers, labourers' cottage schemes should be compulsorily adopted by a specially constituted and impartial authority. The men who have locked up every penny available for the working of the Labourers Acts should be forthwith relieved of their uncongenial responsibilities. The fox should not be left to feed the poultry. My Lords, these are the only observations I wish to make on the subject of the labourers. If I have spoken with a certain amount of heat, all I can say is that I feel very much at heart the present condition of the labourers of Ireland.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I crave your indulgence because this is the first time I have ventured to address your. Lordships' House, but since this measure before you affects Ireland, and so vitally, I venture to place myself before you. The Irish land question, my Lords, is a question which, if we may judge by the forty odd Land Bills of the past forty years, is a riddle which still requires a complete solution, and unlike most riddles it cannot be given up, for each Government in its turn has to find some youthful statesman, or some statesman with the courage of youth, on whom falls the duty of trying to find a successful answer to the riddle. It has long been held that the only road toward the pacification of Ireland lies through the transfer of the freehold in Irish land from the landlord to the tenant, and I believe that this idea has at least been held by the majority of Scotch and English statesmen, who, during comparatively recent years, have, had the control of Irish affairs. I do not wish to be a marplot or to suggest any unhappy idea of the scheme before us, but we must remember that there are many men who by reason of life-long residence in Ireland can claim as much experience and knowledge of that country as anyone, and many of them hold that such a transfer, while proving a temporary panacea will yet plunge the country into, a worse condition. I do not hold either of those opinions myself, because I cannot but think that the transfer is a gigantic experiment the result of which we can only guess at. Although we have many precedents of a peasant proprietorship, the success of such a measure as this must depend upon the national characteristics, which in Ireland are different from any others on the earth. Since the, majority has decided that the transfer should take place I think the only thing that remains is to consider what form the transfer should take. I think the Government are to be congratulated on the Bill they have brought forward, in that it is the most likely to succeed of any such Bills yet presented to the public or to Parliament. They are also to be congratulated in having obtained the financial if the somewhat unenthusiastic aid, of the British taxpayer, because without such aid no such transfer could ever have been temporarily made. The Bill, when it first made its appearance in another place obtained the qualified approval of almost

  1215
  everyone concerned. It obtained the approval of the taxpayer, because he was assured that it would make an end of the Irish land question—the toothache which has troubled him so long; it obtained the approval of the tenant because not only did it assure him that he would obtain the freehold of his land, and for less than he ever paid for the leasehold, but also because after a few changes it opened up an even more glorious vista of possibilities; and it obtained the approval of the landlord because it did not plunder him so much as other Land Bills have done. Our Irish landlord has had to learn by bitter experience that not only must he be grateful for small mercies, but he must be grateful if the cruelties are small also.
  My Lords, there is an opinion held by most Englishmen, who can scarcely have studied the question more than superficially, that the Irish landlord is a grumbling, discontented man who has not much to grumble at, but who is better off than his British neighbour. I would remind such of the forty Land Bills of the last forty years, which have tended to impoverish the landlord and have taken away from him the right to deal with his own; which have instituted tribunals which decide what rent is to be paid to him for his farms, and in the decisions of which he has no voice whatever.
  My Lords, it would be idle to go into the history of Irish land legislation because the majority of your Lordships are already acquainted with it. I think it would be better to consider the measure before you and see whether it produces those conditions without which it cannot be a workable measure, the conditions that will enable the landlords to sell and induce the tenants to buy. I think there is a general feeling throughout the United Kingdom that this Land Bill, whatever else it may do, must at least make the fortunes of the Irish landlords. I do not know what reason there is for this statement; if there is a reason I should like to hear it, because I think that, on the contrary, any landlord who sells under the conditions of this Bill must of necessity make a financial sacrifice. The bonus, of which we hear so much, will do little more than replace lie amount of purchase money devoted to the expenses of sale, to the proving of title and also
  1216
  to providing for those employees who have lost employment thereby. Whatever the Bill may lead us to understand as to the proving of title being simplified, such is not the case. Title has to be proved as fully as ever, and at the expense of the vendor, before he can touch a penny of the money. Although the expenses of management were deducted from the landlord's income before the basis of purchase was arrived at, yet, if we may judge by a speech made by Mr. Wyndham in another place, the landlord, out of his diminished income, will have to pay for his old servants. My Lords, I mention all these things so that this Bill may not be described as the noble Lord the Earl of Dunraven said he had heard it described, as a Landlords' Relief Bill. I think, on the contrary, that every landlord who sells under it must of necessity make a pecuniary sacrifice, and I think in most cases a financial sacrifice also. It must be a matter of sentiment with most men to part with those estates which have been in their possession for generations. If the Bill passes, in order to make it a workable measure most landlords will be making the sacrifices which for the general pacification of Ireland they are willing to make.
  On the appearance of the Bill in another place there were certain limits or zones which prevented any estate being sold below or above a certain figure. I cannot see what objection there could have been to these zones, because after there had been brought together the purchaser and seller they would have removed to a great extent the friction. I do not pretend that I do not think it would have been better if the zones had not been there. But since they were there the fact that they have been taken away might induce a tenant to think that the price that they enforced was too high, and since they have been removed it will lead to friction. I think there ought to be some Amendment which will provide in some way that reasons and grounds should be given for the sale of estates outside the zones. If not, in many cases the Bill will be almost inoperative. I cannot say either that they

  1217
  were ever unfair, because these zones made certain that a tenant should get a reduction in his rent of from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent., and perhaps give him a chance that he might receive a reduction of from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. on his present rent, and at the same time obtain the freehold of his land. That is an excellent bargain for any tenant. We must remember that Ireland was, up to a very little while ago, not in that state which we all of us so much desire, and I think we should protect the smaller landlords against the possibility, though I hope not the probability, of any recurrence of the land war.
  My Lords, there are other matters that I should like to point out in the Bill. There have been comments made in various quarters against the hole and corner policy of Dublin Castle. I think there is nothing so important for the good working of the Bill that such an accusation should not be brought against it. It is for the good of every one concerned that there should be no dealings, no policies, other than the absolutely departmental regulations in the working of this Bill, that should not be open to anybody to inquire into. The power of hearing in rent-fixing cases has also been altered, and I do not know the reason why, because the alteration of this rehearing is as much regretted by the tenants as by the landlords. I do not know what reasons there are for the alteration of it, I have been told that the reason is on account of economy, but I can scarcely believe that to he the case. I suggest that before such alterations are made we should see how the Bill is going to act, because if the Bill does not act there will be just as many rent-fixing cases as before, and the machinery of the law will be desired for them as much as ever. I think this change, at least, should be postponed for two or three years.
  There is another question on which every one feels deeply, namely, the question of planters. The planters have fought the battle of England in Ireland during the last twenty or thirty years, even at the risk of their lives, certainly at the expense of their own comfort and happiness, and at the expense of the comfort and happiness of their families. Although I have heard evicted tenants described
  1218
  as wounded soldiers of the war, yet I think these men, although not wounded I soldiers, have been the faithful servants of the Empire through a very difficult and dangerous time, and I think, that unless they are fully protected from all pressure and annoyance, it would he a betrayal of which our posterity would be ashamed. The definition of congested estates has also been altered, and under this definition there will he nearly four times the number of estates than before, estates that are in reality in a flourishing condition. My Lords; I will not delay you longer except to point out that if this Bill passes into law in a workable form, that if it produces such conditions as will enable the landlord to sell and induce the tenant to buy, his estates, I believe that the Bill will be an operative measure, and that the vast majority of estates in Ireland will be sold. I cannot be certain, and I think no one can be certain, whether such a transfer will lead towards the pacification of Ireland. I think it is a vast experiment, the result of which can only be guessed at. The chief thing I am afraid of is that it is the greatest step towards Home Rule that the country has ever seen, because I do not see how if when the whole country is in possession of the land, they ever demand Home Rule as they are demanding it now, England will be logically able to deny it to them. I am not a Home Ruler: I am a staunch Unionist, and I think this is one of the greatest dangers of the Bill. Under the altered conditions it may be possible that Home Rule would be a blessing instead of a curse, but I think that this will not be so and pray it may never come at all. Unless the Bill passes into law in a form which does not bring forward those conditions to which I have referred so many times, instead of being a measure for the pacification of Ireland it will be the cause of greater misery than we perhaps have ever yet seen.
  THE EARL OF WESTMEATH: My Lords, it is perhaps not unnatural that almost every Irish Peer in your Lord, ships' House feels that it is incumbent upon him to take some part in the momentous debates which are now about to take place, and desires to do what he can to shape this important

  1219
  measure in the way which will be the least disastrous to his own interests. Irish Peers have before now been placed in difficult and embarrassing situations, but I venture, my Lords, to express an opinion that never since British politicians for their own ends and to suit their own purposes, and in pursuance of their own interests, embarked on that career of confiscation and spoliation which has ever since proceeded unchecked and which has brought their victims to their present most cruel and undeserved position, never before, I believe, have the representatives of Irish landlords been called upon to make up their minds upon an issue so vital and momentous to their interests. For, my Lords, the measure which we are now considering was introduced, not as anything in the nature of an emergency, not as a temporary expedient or as a half measure to tide over existing difficulties; it was heralded with a great flourish of trumpets as a Bill which was to bring about the total abolition of dual ownership—a system utterly and universally discredited—and by healing the festering sore caused by perpetual litigation and agitation, to open up an era of universal peace and prosperity, and to convert Ireland from being the cockpit of the Empire into a sort of promised land flowing with milk and honey, where all would be peace—perfect peace—and where the Dillons would cease from troubling and the O'Briens would at last be at rest. This, my Lords, was the delightful prospect opened before our eyes when that truly remarkable gathering the Irish Land Conference took place, and an admiring public was delighted at the pleasing sight of the Nationalist hon lying down amicably beside the Unionist lamb, and was further edified by the fact that the lion apparently made no attempt to growl at, much less to devour, his confiding little neighbour. I think, my Lords, the history of this conference is fairly well known, and I need not weary your Lordships with any details concerning it. It is well known that the Irish Landowners Convention and their executive committee did not feel justified in sending representatives to this conference, and it was felt that the responsibility of agreeing or disagreeing with the
  1220
  Nationalist Members should be left to private and irresponsible landowners. When, however, the result of the meeting was made public, our committee was not slow to recognise that the report was a valuable addition to the various suggestions which have been made for solving this thorny and intricate question, and we had no quarrel to pick with a finding which secured to us our present net incomes, less certain deductions for costs of collection and other matters.
  But, my Lords, the hopes raised by this happy agreement were not destined to last very long. The Bill made its appearance, and though we cannot but recognise that it is in many respects more generous and more advantageous to us than any of its predecessors, yet it falls far short of our expectations, and as it excludes many large tenants from its operations it cannot even lay claim to that finality which was supposed to be its distinguishing feature.
  On one most important point, however, the principle of a recommendation made by the Land Conference has been adopted, and certain limits were recognised above which and below which advances could not be made to the tenants to purchase their holdings. The utility of these zones—as they are commonly called—is simply incalculable, though I have found, and have been frequently surprised to find, that their significance is not as fully understood in this country as it ought to be. But alas, my Lords, the ink was hardly dry on the signatures of the members of the Land Conference, when the Nationalist members of it began to explain away their adhesion to its most important recommendations, and to assert to their anxious constituents that they had only agreed to this concession as to limitations to prevent the conference breaking up, that in reality they I did not consider themselves bound by it, and that they meant nothing whatever when they gave their adhesion to these limitations. A great outcry was got up in the country by constituents of Members in the other House against the minimum price, and, with every disposition to be charitable, I fear it is not possible to refuse to recognise or misconstrue its significance. If there is any doubt on

  1221
  the subject, it would be removed and made clear by the following remarks, which I have extracted from a speech made by Mr. William O'Brien, which I feel perfectly justified in reading to your Lordships. He said—
  "The tenant should be absolutely free to make his own bargain and should not be obliged to pay a larger price than hail been paid by purchasers in the open market during the last fifteen years under the Ash bourne Acts. The tenant should not be obliged to pay three or four years additional purchase above their 80,000 neighbours who had purchased under the Acts of 1885 and 1891."
  The leading Unionist organ in Ireland Comments on his speech as follows—
  "It is no good the tenant offering so low a rice to his landlord that the latter will be unable to accept it. Yet Mr. O'Brien distinctly suggested that that should be their course of action. He wants the tenants to have perfect freedom of bargaining in order that they should pay the same number of years purchase, say, seventeen to twenty, that they have been in the habit of paying under the previous Purchase Acts. 'If the tenants are to be made to pay four or five years more that the present average' he says to the Government, 'you might have spared yourselves the trouble of introducing your Bill.' This, as we have said, is a distinct suggestion that if his Amendment, is carried Mr. O'Brien means to use his influence (and the influence doubtless of the United Irish League exercised in the traditional fashion) to prevent the tenants from offering more than the present number of years purchase. To do this would be to defeat, the object of the Bill and to render its purchase clauses a dead letter."
  Now, my Lords, even assuming that the responsible leaders of the Nationalist Party should wish and mean to deal fairly with us in this matter, will they always be able to control the proceedings of small elected bodies in the far West and all over the country? They have never yet been able to do so. Will they be able to curb the ardour of the fiery young political curate? I fear that past experience forbids us to hope so, and consequently, my Lords, it will ever be a matter of most profound regret to Irish landowners that the Chief Secretary, in spite of Ins strong position and his great majority, should have allowed himself to be terrified by the clamour of those, who, if he had stood firm to his guns, would never have dared to wreck the Bill. He should not have been swayed by the action of individual landowners acting, not, your Lordships may be assured, in concert with respon-
  1222
  sible members of the Landowners Executive Committee, but (if report says truly) after consultation with the leaders of the Nationalist Party. I can assure your Lordships that even after a Parliamentary situation of some difficulty had been created by the unfortunate action which I have referred to, we nevertheless never ceased to press upon His Majesty's Government verbally and in writing our inability to see why these zones should be departed from. We urged that the working of the Bill largely depended upon them and that there was no reason for departing from them. Even when the situation reached an acute stage all that any responsible landlord did was to say that if the Chief Secretary must make some concession on this point they preferred one had Amendment to another which was worse. This, my Lords, is, so far as I know, the only foundation for the extraordinary assertion so often made that this concession was pressed upon the Government by the combined representatives of both parties. I have entered in some detail into this question, my Lords, not from any desire to embarrass the Chief Secretary, for I fully recognise that he has had a difficult task, and his intentions I believe to have been good, but I cannot help thinking that his conduct of this Bill has at times been marked by such a lamentable want of pluck, that the kindest way to account for it seems to be to believe that he was under the influence of some spell cast upon him by the eyes of the dark Rosaleen, of whom we have heard something in another place. I do most earnestly beg His Majesty's Government not to take up a non possumus attitude in this vital matter, and not to forbid us to hope that they may consider some Amendment which will make this clause more nearly resemble its conditions before this most lamentable alteration was accepted by the Chief Secretary. I am aware that it may be difficult, if not impossible to place the matter exactly as it stood before this unfortunate alteration was made. I think there might be still some compromise on the matter, and Amendments will probably be brought forward which will enable the Government to treat us fairly in this matter.

  1223
  I have more than once heard it said that there are several cases in which it would be a hardship that these zones should still apply, and I have made several attempts to discover what they are, but without success. It is, however, asserted that some estates, especially in the North, are so lowly rented that their owners ought not to lose even 10 per cent. of their incomes by selling. I wonder if it was of these estates that the Nationalist Members were thinking when they fought so hard for the abolition of the zones, and if it was anxiety for the possible losses of these poor landlords that inspired them when they denounced a principle which had been approved by the signatures of their representatives. These estates in the North of Ireland may not be so numerous as to justify the departure in this matter. One of the chief dangers which we fear is that there are an undoubtedly small number of landlords who live out of the country and independent of their property, who will rush in and sell at a low price and collar the bonus, and the landlords of neighbouring estates, if not able to sell at the same price will be placed in the same position as Lord De Freyne through the spirited action of the Congested Districts Board. Situations similar to that will be created all over Ireland for which the Government cannot escape responsibility if they do not give way over this matter. One speaker. I think it was the noble Duke the Duke of Abercorn, assured the House that none of the Amendments would be of a controversial character. I heard him with some surprise. I hope he has some assurance that the Amendments we are going to move, and of which he is well aware, will all be accepted by the Government with the cheerfulness he apparently contemplates. We are, indeed, glad to hear that there is no danger of opposition. The questions of the minimum price, the protection of planters, sporting rights, minerals, the rules of procedure in rent fixing, and other most important matters are not at present in an entirely satisfactory state, and I would remind your Lordships that, owing to the smallness of our representation in another place, it is really only in your Lordships' House
  1224
  that we have an opportunity of putting forward our views on these vital points, and I regret very much that the shortness of the time at our disposal may prevent their receiving the full attention which they ought to receive both here and in another place. There is one clause so ridiculous that I do not think there is a single Member of the Government in this House who will have the face to get up and defend it when we move its rejection.
  In conclusion, my Lords, I wish to express a hope that in discussing as we desire to discuss and to a certain extent, if possible, to amend this measure, we shall not be suspected of any wish to obstruct the Government in their anxiety to pass it into law, or to place any needless difficulties in their path. Landowners as a body have become fully converted, my Lords, to the necessity of land purchase, and have more than once officially declared this fact in public. We have not done so from any belief that its adoption will bring about any remarkable change for the better in the condition of the country or because we desire to surrender the properties which we have held in many cases for centuries. We have done so because, since the abolition of dual ownership was adopted by the Government, our position has become every day more unsatisfactory, dangerous and untenable. We are now only limited rent chargers on the properties we once absolutely owned, and that small rent charge is diminishing so rapidly that in many cases it has almost reached a vanishing point. Irish landlords have realised the force of these circumstances, and have resolved to fall in with the policy of the Government, but we ask, and I do not see how any thinking man can deny the justice of our claims, that this great change should he carried out without any further loss to us who have already lost so much, and that we should receive at least as much justice as the publican or the landowners whose property is taken in this country for military or other public purposes. His Majesty's, Government have now an opportunity of carrying out for good and all the policy upon which, whether for good or evil they have embarked, and once more I beg of them not to play

  1225
  fast and loose with the interests of the weaker and the losing party, but to give a sympathetic and careful consideration to the Amendments which we shall bring forward in Committee.
  VISCOUNT HAMPDEN: My Lords, I hardly like to strike a discordant note in the harmonious proceedings of this evening. We have heard a great deal of the interests of the Irish landowner; we have heard also of the interests of the Irish occupier, and I wish to say a few words in the interests of the British taxpayer. The noble Duke, when he addressed the House in the early part of the evening, referred to the cash and credit of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. It is exactly their cash and credit which is to carry this Bill into operation. When he went on to say what advantages the Irish tenant and the landlord were to get I wondered who was to pay for those advantages. I myself, as an individual taxpayer, would not grudge to pay even a larger sum if the Bill were to result, as the noble Duke the Leader of the House said, in peace in Ireland; that is to say, there will be no further agitation on the land question and the landowners and tenants will remain in agreement. If that were so, then I would not grudge myself, and I do not believe any taxpayer in the United Kingdom would grudge, the money to he spent. But I do not believe anything of the kind will happen. The noble Lord the Earl of Crewe in his speech just now referred to the question whether Irish landowners would sell their lands, land, indeed, whether Irish tenants would purchase, as to which I shall have something to say presently. He asked what would happen if some Irish landlords sell and others do not. Of course, we know very well what will happen. The Hill is an optional Bill, but compulsory in its result, and what would happen would be this, that you would have De Freyne and Dillon estates all over Ireland and a fiercer agitation than ever before, until the whole of the landlords were got rid of as a curse and nuisance to the country. I am sorry to express this discordant voice in the harmony which is prevailing this evening, but I believe that will happen, and, what is more, I believe the Government themselves anticipate that it will occur. The noble Lord the Earl of Dunraven, who knows more about this question and has
  1226
  studied it perhaps more than anyone else, gave us his opinion of the present land tenant system in Ireland. He said it was abominable, and hardly to be borne; that it was necessary to get rid of it; that it was the ruin of the Irish landlords, and was the demoralisation of the Irish tenant. With all that I entirely agree. But the noble Lord went on to say that this Bill is going to get rid of this system. I would ask the noble Lord how he supposes that this Bill is going to do it.
  This Bill is only an optional Bill. It will take years to come into operation. It is doubtful if the landlords, or many of them, will sell, and it is extremely doubtful if the tenant will buy. My contention will be this, that really the tenants under the Land Act of 1881 are in a better position than any tenant in the whole world, and I do not suppose the tenants under the Lam Act of 1681 will really be in any better position, as regards the future at any rate, than the tenants under this Act, because the tenants under this Act will get a great advantage in the immediate reduction of their rents, and they will.be finally at a risk of a fall in prices. They have now got their landlords behind them, but if they mean to keep their bargain with the State then the tenants under the Act of 1881 will be in a far better position as regards the future than the tenants under this Act. I know it requires a great deal of courage to espouse a very unpopular cause. It takes even greater courage to plead in this House for principles in legislation of sound economy, of justice, and even of morality. Perhaps these ought to have been the care of His Majesty's Government, but apparently, so far as Irish legislation is concerned, they are not so. It appears that everybody approves of this Bill. There was a consensus of opinion in the other House, with few exceptions, in favour of this Bill. I understand the noble Lords on the Front Bench (indicating the Opposition Front Bench) are supporters of this Bill, and yet I feel it my duty to enter a protest against this Bill as one which is thoroughly mischievous and corrupt, and the result of which will be a land war and an agitation more fierce and more embittered than any that has preceded it. These are strong words, my Lords, but I believe I shall be able to prove the truth of them. The owners of land in Ireland have a fair claim to compensation. I think they have. I

  1227
  think they have a fair claim to compensation, not because of their reduction of rent, because we in England have suffered equal reductions of rent, if not larger in some cases.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): Not compulsory reduction.
  VISCOUNT HAMPDEN: I have some land in which I had 60 per cent. reduction.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Not compulsory.
  VISCOUNT HAMPDEN: Well, but the same result has arrived from natural causes, and probably the same causes would affect yon. However, I pass by all that I say, as a matter of fact, that the reduction has been larger, at any rate as much in England as in Ireland. I was merely saying that the landlords of Ireland have a claim to compensation, not because of reduction of rent but because a certain property was transferred from them to the tenants on their land. Mr. Gladstone himself speaking on this matter said, that if in the course of years it was shown that the result of his Land Acts would be a certain discoverable loss of capital to the owner that then it would be the duty of the State to meet that loss, to meet it boldly and to face it. That is why I complain of the action of His Majesty's Government. I think they knew very well that there has been this loss on the part of the Irish landowner; but instead of meeting it face to face and dealing with it they have given the owner a I onus of £12,000,000, probably on the ground that they had dealt favourably with the tenant. It is impossible to deal with this question without referring to previous legislation. I do not want to carry the House far back in this matter, and will only go as far back as Mr. Gladstone's Land Act of 1870. That gave compensation to the Irish tenants for improvements. Shortly afterwards, in his next administration, Mr. Gladstone carried the Land Act of 1881, which might very well be called the charter of the Irish tenant. It was almost, indeed, a revolutionary measure so far as regards land tenure. It gave the tenant these advantages, firstly, leases renewable for
  1228
  ever at short periods of time, secondly, rents settled not by contracts but by State tribunals, and thirdly, the right to sell their interest. Along with some others who sat behind the Government Benches at that time and who took an interest in this question I endeavoured to modify the operation of that Bill by limiting its effect so far as we could to the then present tenants of Ireland, because we felt that if an unrestricted right was given to the growth of tenant right that the position of future tenants, would be absolutely intolerable, and that their burdens would be too heavy for them to bear and to carry on their farming operations successfully.
  I have a particular instance in my hands which noble Lords having knowledge of. Irish land will confirm. In February, 1903, a farm was sold by public auction near Killarney containing twenty-seven acres, the judicial rent being £8. The purchaser gave £400 for the tenant's interest; thus at 5 per cent. the purchaser reckoned the rent at £28 instead of £8, the amount of the judicial rent. Although we had the support of the Party opposite at that time we were unsuccessful in getting any amendment to this Bill and. Mr. Gladstone practically carried these clauses of the Land Act of 1881 as he had drafted them. The final effect was that the owner in Ireland was turned into a rent charger or rent receiver without any interest in his estate, having really no object in spending another shilling upon it, and the tenant was turned into an owner, with the result that a certain interest was transferred from the landowner to the tenant. That being the case, and looking at the condition of the Irish tenants as compared with any other tenant in any other part of Europe, I want to know why was it necessary for the Government to deal with this question at all? The tenant under the Act of 1881 was, after all, in a position superior to that held by any occupying tenant in the world, and surely he might he left alone to enjoy his advantages. As I said before, the owner-tenant under that Act is not subject to fluctuations of prices, but the tenant under this Bill if he means to keep his bargain with the State will be subject to that risk. If it were absolutely necessary to abolish the system of dual ownership—and I do not think that that necessity can he established—why did not the Government take the more direct course, the

  1229
  simpler course, one which would not involve any risk to the State, or any necessity for a large loan. Taking the owners as having been created rent chargers by the Act of 1881, wily could not the State have turned them into perpetual annuitants at their present rents, or at rents fixed subsequently to the Act of 1896. What would that have meant? It would have meant no necessity to raise a loan, and no risk to the taxpayer whatever. But here is just where the comedy of this situation comes in. The representatives of the tenants say they have always paid and always will pay tinder the Purchase Acts. Upon that matter I shall have to say a few words presently. But, assuming that to be true, why should they not accept that solution? The reason is obvious. They will not accept that solution because prices may fall and the rent-charge will be too high. So that the risk which the tenant will not take, the risk which the owner will not take, is to be thrown upon the British taxpayer. I said the risk was a serious risk. I notice what was stated by the noble Lord, the Earl of Dunraven, and the Leader of the House, who stated as a defence of the Bill that annuities had always been paid under the Ashbourne Act, and under the several Acts dealing with land purchase in Ireland.
  I have looked into this matter and read up the evidence given before the Fry Commission, and I must say that I think the evidence shows directly to the contrary. It shows clearly that there is an appreciable risk to the British taxpayer and that things are not quite so bright as they have been stated. Mr. Commissioner O'Brien, one of the chiefs of the Irish Land Commission, in giving evidence before the Fry Commission in Dublin on October 7th, 1897, stated that:—
  "Of about 2,500 of that time the collection of the instalments in no less that 1,600 or 1,700 cases was then in the hauls of the solicitors."
  and he also put in a list of sale for default on different holdings for the previous ten or eleven years showing by the sums realised at sheriff's sales that the advances made by the State, through the Land Commissioners, had gone very near the margin of security, even under the present system of State inspection of every holding, and that in some cases nothing was got, and there were some holdings on hand. I would like to ask the noble
  1230
  Lord who represents the Irish Office in this House, what was the number of Civil Bill Processes for arrears for May, 1905, instalments issued against tenant purchasers at the October, 1962, Session at Moville, in the county of Londonderry. I am informed that they number several hundreds.
  I yield to no one in my admiration for the ability of the Irish Secretary, for the admirable skill with which he has conducted this Bill through the House of Commons, but I say this, that no amount of skill and no amount of oratory can remove the taint of corruption from this Bill, nor can it prsvent the Bill resulting, as I believe it will result, in a land war, or in an agitation of even a fiercer kind than anything that has preceded it. The Bill is an optional Bill. The Government say that. It is optional in name, but not really in fact. The Government have evaded the responsibility of bringing in a compulsory Bill, but by this Bill they have made compulsion absolutely inevitable. It is true that the Bill is optional in the sense that a landlord need not sell. It is not necessary that they should sell. It is not compulsory on them that they should sell, but some of them will sell, and then von will have the whole business over again of the Dillon and De Freyne estates, for you will have the owner tenants side by side with the other tenants, comparing favourably with them as regards their rent. I do not see that they compare favourably in regard to the future, because there will be a risk of falling prices. The result will be another land war, another agitation, another Government making concessions, and, finally, another Bill brought into this House and your Lordships asked to pass it, dealing with the landlords as a nuisance altogether. And this is a Bill which we am asked to pass in order to bring peace to Ireland. I wish it were even possible to believe so. I do not believe it to be possible. Mr. Bright has often been quoted on this question, and, no doubt, he was in favour to a certain extent of the purchase by tenants of the land from their landlords. But this Bill, as I have endeavoured to prove, will end in compulsion, and must end in compulsion. Mr. Bright's views were not in favour of compulsory purchase. He wrote a letter on November 14th 1887, to Lord Kilmorey, which I hope your

  1231
  Lordships will allow me to quote, because I think it is full of wisdom. He said:—
  The idea of buying up or buying out the proprietary class seems to me monstrous, unnecessary, and unjust. There are hundreds, many hundreds, of proprietors in Ireland who do not wish to be bought but. They would prefer to retain possession of their ancestral mansions and estates, and have no wish to seek homes in Great Britain or elsewhere. For Parliament to insist on compulsory sale would be to gratify the disloyal leaders in Ireland. They wish to get rid of the proprietary class, and then they say, and perhaps they believe, they could unite the whole of Ireland in hostility to England. To get rid of the proprietors will be to establish a wholesale system of absenteeism, and to make the Chancellor of the Exchequer the great receiver of the rents from the great All-Ireland Absentee Estate. Is it possible that any sane statesman will consent to such a scheme, or offer to Parliament and the country so wild a policy as that involved in this? I have no affection for the system of landlordism as it has resented itself in too litany cases in Ireland. I have condemned it and urged its reform in speeches in Parliament and on public platforms, in England and in Ireland, so far back as 30 years ago. I have said there could be no security for landed property in Ireland until land as a property was made free of sale and purchase by a radical change in our laws affecting its sale and purchase and tenure. I have suggested means by which this great reform might be effected, but I have never held the opinion that Government should step in and banish the landlords and make all tenants into owners, if not at the cost, yet at the risk, of the Imperial Exchequer.
  If the result of this Bill is to be what the noble Duke the Leader of the House said, a successful, a free and an unencumbered peasantry in Ireland, I would join the noble Duke in the lobby if there is to be a Division, but I suppose that a Division is not to he hoped for. But does the noble Duke, and does His Majesty's Government, believe that it is possible to have a free and unencumbered peasantry in Ireland? As the Bill originally stood there was a clause which imposed a rent-charge. That was certainly more of a safeguard against the mortgaging of these lands, but that has been thrown aside in response to the Irish vote in the other House. What is left? There is actually in the Bill a clause empowering Irish tenants to mortgage their estates up to ten times the value of the instalments. What will happen? What has happened before? The Irish tenant has to deal with his family, and he has nothing but the land. He will mortgage his land and his general credit will do the rest, and then you will have the old vicious circle
  1232
  again, you will have got rid of the owners but you cannot get rid of ownership, and you will only have changed one set of owners for another and a worse set of owners. On the whole, looking at all these difficulties, and knowing the noble Duke will sympathise with me in that respect, because he was a member of Mr. Gladstone's Government in 1870 and in 1810—knowing all these difficulties and the trouble there has been in connection with Irish land I should have thought that His Majesty's Government would have left the Irish tenant alone. Apart from the question of the position of the Irish landlord the Irish tenant is in a position better than that of any tenant in the world, and, at any rate he can compare favourably with the tenant under your Act. I really doubt whether he will be satisfied, because although he will get a reduction of rent he now has his landlord at the back of him and will not be at the risk of any fall in the price in the market, whereas the tenant under this Act will be at the risk of a falling price if he means to keep his bargain with the State.
  I will give one further reason. The landowners of Ireland, at any rate, have been a buffer between the State and the tenants of Ireland, but under this Act, if it is to be successful, if it is to operate and there is a desire of the whole of the tenantry to come into it, there will be a further and compulsory Bill establishing Land Purchase in Ireland. Then you will have the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought into direct connection with the tenants of Ireland, he will be the collector of rents in the great All-Ireland Absentee Estate. The position might become so absolutely intolerable that finally some other Government will come in and hand over to the Irish County Councils the duty of collecting the rents of Ireland and of administering the funds, and so the Government opposite, which was brought in to protect the Union in Ireland, will have sacrificed it, they will have given up the outworks, they will have surrendered the garrison, they will have made the capture of the citadel inevitable, and I believe the result of this Bill will be, and that the record of the Government will be, that they have betrayed the principal trust which was committed to their charge.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: My Lords, I wish to call attention to one matter in

  1233
  which I think the Government have missed an opportunity, namely, that of allowing the landlords the power of rounding off their demesne lands. We are now asked to part with our properties entirely. In previous cases we have let our properties, in the first instance before the Land Acts. Then the Land Acts have been introduced and have taken away one by one our rights, and now we are asked to part with our properties entirely, and no provision is made for the rounding off of our estates. They spoil our spotting rights. The Government have lost an opportunity of assisting us, but I propose to bring in an Amendment on this subject, because I think it is a point which will induce landlords to remain in the country if they are allowed to buy up from the tenants a part or the whole of the tenancies.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think your Lordships will agree that the discussions and debate which have taken place to-night have been of considerable interest. I think also von will agree that with one or two exceptions, there seems to be a very general consensus of opinion that the Government have acted wisely in introducing a Bill to your Lordships' House which is, at any rate, an endeavour to attempt some solution of the great Irish problem. I address you to-night as a member of His Majesty's Government, responsible to some extent for that measure, and I venture to trespass upon your attention, more especially on the attention of noble Lords from Ireland with whom I have served so long and hope to serve for an equally long period. I wish to speak as one especially interested in Ireland, who resides in Ireland, who hopes to reside in Ireland, and who has the warmest place at the bottom of his heart for the good of the country, and I say that this measure which His Majesty's Government are introducing is for the benefit and welfare of all classes of the community in Ireland. My Lords, I think you will agree with me that the speech delivered by my noble friend the Earl of Dunraven was one of enormous interest, showing a great grasp of the question, and an experience derived not only from living in Ireland, but from presiding over the Land Conference, and as such, it was of the greatest help and in-
  1234
  struction to us. The noble Lord proved to us beyond all doubt, in the words of his own Report, that the present agrarian situation in Ireland is intolerable. He proved to us beyond all doubt that both owners and occupiers of land are dissatisfied with the results of the operation of the Land Act of 1881. That was one of the most important items contained in the Report of the Conference.
  I am not going to complain of the Act of 1881. I need not say that, as a Conservative Member in Ireland at the time, I was opposed to the 1881 Act, and, so far as I could gather form the speeches that have been delivered, not only in this place but also in the other House, there is a consensus of opinion among both sections, the Opposition and the Government, that the Act of 1881 has not realized the opinions and views that were held out, but has proved not only injurious but disastrous to the interests of the land question in Ireland. At the present moment the proof of that is very evident. If we listen to the opinion of owners of property who have spoken here we learn that they were dissatisfied. If we listen to the representatives of the tenants we hear that they are dissatisfied with the Bill of 1881, and, consequently, I venture to say that there is a general consensus of opinion that with regard to the working of the Act of 1881 it is giving dissatisfaction to owners and occupiers alike, and must be considered of a most unsatisfactory character. I ask your Lordships who are landowners to put yourselves in the position of an owner of land in Ireland. What is his position under the administration of the Act of 1881? He may perhaps see land which belonged to him before 1881, and form which, if it were his own now, he could derive a substantial income, allowed to deteriorate, or at any rate not done the fullest justice to. Seeing this, he knows full well that at the expiration of a certain time, when a reduction of rents will take place, owing to the deterioration of the land he is absolutely certain to have his income reduced. In these circum stances undoubtedly any owners of the land would feel himself aggrieved. Anyone would, and therefore he is dissatisfied with the Land Act of 1881. Then, again, the occupier of the land is dissatisfied. I

  1235
  sympathise with him, because he is naturally dissatisfied, and because he knows that if he improves his land and does full justice to it, when the time for his reduction of rent comes round the Commissioner will raise his rent. What is the result of that? That the owner and occupiers, who are equally interested in the land, and ought to be the richer by it, are both the poorer by it; and in addition to that they have enormous legal expenses to pay, all due to the Act of 1881. It not only makes them poorer but antagonistic, and it creates a friction which would not otherwise exist.
  What has been the only alternative? One which I have myself for many years advocated—viz., to establish the principle of enabling the occupier, by a system of voluntary sale and voluntary purchase, to become the owner of his land on terms agreeable to himself, agreeable to the owner and with no appreciable risk to the State. I do not wish to deal with this matter from a personal point of view, but I have given practical proof of my adherence to this principle because I myself have sold almost the whole of my landed property to my tenants within the last fifteen nr sixteen years, and have done so with the most admirable results. This scheme which has been submitted to your Lordships by the noble Duke in a speech so clear and so explicit that I do not think I need trespass at any length upon your time in dealing with it, goes far to realise that scheme which I have propounded. At the same time the noble Lord opposite, the Earl of Crewe, raised a very pregnant, and to my mind practical, argument as to whether or not the landlords will sell. Well, the question of the owner's willingness to sell to my mind rests to a great extent on what terms the owner can get. It has been generally said by noble Lords to-day that during the past twenty years the owners of property in Ireland have suffered enromous reductions. That is not to be contradicted. The noble Lord Viscount Hampden alluded to the fact that English landowners had suffered a proportionate decrease in their rents. I ventured to say that that decrease was not compulsory, but that the English landlords had made voluntary concessions to tenants or that they could have taken the land into their own hands. I have always maintained that the condition of agricul-
  1236
  ture in Ireland has not been so depressed in certain parts as in England. I know the noble Lord has experience in the eastern counties and that he will say there has been a considerable depreciation of land owing to agricultural depression. The noble Lord who owns land in Cheshire will know that in the great grazing counties they have not suffered from depression. What is the position of the Irish landowner at the present moment? He cannot afford to sell unless he has reserved for him at any rate the greater part of that income which has been so reduced during, the past years, and which in many cases leaves him so small a margin, but if it is taken away from him he will eventually find himself, as I think the noble Lord, the Earl of Dunraven has said, in the workhouse.
  To my mind the Chief Secretary, whose praise I am so glad to hear sung by your Lordships to-night, has propounded a scheme which, whether you agree with it or not, goes far to solve that problem. The proposal of the Government is that it is necessary that the State should intervene and advance a sum of money in order to bridge over that gap which would prevent the landowner being in a position to sell, and the tenant being in a position to give the I sum of money which the landlord could afford to take. I particularly want to deal with a certain part of the subject alluded to by the noble Lord the Earl of Crewe and the noble Lord Viscount Hampden. I think that both of them laid stress, especially Viscount Hampden, on the fact that the Imperial Exchequer was running a considerable risk in advancing a large sum of money in order to bridge over this gulf, and thus make the situation possible both for the landowner and for the tenant. To my mind there is no risk whatever to the Imperial Exchequer. I think the securities that I can show, and which I think are understood by those who have thoroughly studied the question, are so apparent and real that there is no risk whatever to the Imperial Exchequer in advancing the sum of money for this purpose. The first security that the Imperial Exchequer has is on the holding of the tenant. But it not only has the security of the holding of the tenant, but it has the additional security in the fact that the Imperial Exchequer possesses the tenant-right plus the whole of the interest. I

  1237
  know a good many cases, and the noble Lords from Ireland will know of a great many cases, in which the tenant's interest is far larger than the landowner's, and has fetched far more than that given for the fee-simple. But there is a second security. That is the annual Imperial grants in aid of local taxation which are already given to Ireland exactly as they are given to England. These Imperial grants amount altogether, I think, to no less than £3,000,000 per annum, out of which guarantee fund, by Section 35, Subsection 4, you will see that the amount in arrear will be charged on or made good out of. I may say that £3,000,000 a year, which is practically 3 per cent. on the amount of money you are prepared to advance, independent of the bonus, is sufficient to be an absolute security for the proposed sum even in the event of a general strike against the payment of instalments. The noble Lord has laid some stress on the question of a general strike. I venture to say that the fear of a general strike is absolutely groundless.
  The noble Lord, Earl Spencer, has had experience of Ireland, and so have other noble Lords opposite, and I do not think they will contradict me when I say that there has never been a general strike against rent in Ireland as a Whole. I am not going to deny that there has been an attempt at a general strike. The noble Lord knows well that there was a no-rent manifesto in the year 1881, but he also knows full well that the no rent manifesto was supported by the strongest Nationalist Party, led by the strongest Nationalist Leader the Party has ever known, Mr. Parnell, then in the height of his power; he also knows well that the strike against rent was made against the old rent, and not against the rents settled in Court, and he knows that it was not taken up, and that it was in fact a failure. We have seen local strikes against rents—strikes under the system of the Plan of Campaign. We have seen strikes against rents on the De Freyne estate, but I venture to say that no one will contradict me when I say that these strikes have been absolute failures. I maintain, as the noble Lord the Earl of Dunraven maintained, that it is impossible that there should be a general combination against the payment of these instalments for the very reason that no two purchasers in any of the cases, past or present, have equivalent interests.
  1238
  The noble Lord said that some had paid bigger instalments than others for their tenant-rights. Some have been paying for a great many years past, and some are only going to begin to pay. It is impossible to believe that one man who has a great stake in his holding is likely to combine with men who may be liable to agitation, but who have only had a holding for a short time, and who invite him to join in a general strike against rent. That is my answer to the noble Lord opposite with regard to any question of repudiation of the instalments, and what he has called the future land war in Ireland. I think the noble Lord in the speech he made prognosticating a general strike against instalments has done but small credit to the honesty of the Irish tenant.
  VISCOUNT HAMPDEN: I did nothing of the kind. I said the result of this Act would be that when tenants found that they were not comparing favourably with others there would be an agitation in the Press and in the whole of Ireland which would lead to a compulsory Act.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDON DERRY: I cannot follow the noble Lord. I think the experience of the past eighteen years, since the Ashbourne Act was introduced, will prove the honesty of the Irish tenant in paying the instalments. I myself have absolute confidence in the honesty of the Irish tenant, and I can point to the punctuality with which the instalments have been paid in the past. My Lords, I dislike troubling von with statistics, but I will quote from our experience since 1885, when you will remember that the Ashbourne Act was introduced and passed, which Act has been taken advantage of by upwards of 80,000 tenants, who are now owners of holdings of which they were previously tenants. How have these instalments been paid? The advances since 1885 for land purchase exceed £22,250,000, and the payment of the purchase instalments has been most regular. Instalments due to the half-year ending November, 1902, amount to close on £430,000, all of which, with the exception of £2,800, were paid by June last, and that is not much more than a half per cent. in arrear. I do not know what the noble Earl's experience is as a landlord, but if I received my rents with as

  1239
  much punctuality I should consider myself an exceedingly fortunate man. With that to guide me I cannot allow that there is any great risk of tenants in the future refusing to pay with the same punctuality as in the past. Even if there were a risk of the Imperial Exchequer having to pay a certain amount of money, I maintain that it would be only justice to Ireland that it should undertake that risk. My Lords, it is but tardy justice to the interests of Ireland. Yon who have studied the Irish question are probably fully aware that if it had not been for the action of the imperial Parliament you could not, to my mind, be asked to accept the responsibility for the agrarian difficulties brought upon Ireland by the Act of 1881, but in that unsuccessful attempt to remedy this matter Parliament was following merely the example of past Parliaments, I would recall that Ireland in the past has grievously suffered at the hands of the Imperial Parliament. There was a time in which the Imperial Parliament crushed out the great manufacturing industries in Ireland in order to benefit England. What was the opinion on the matter of Lord John Russell? I was reading only a short time ago the recollections of Earl Russell, and I came across this paragraph which struck me so forcibly that I wish to quote it to your Lordships. He said:—
  "The soil of Ireland is especially adapted to the feeding of sheep; the price of fleece-wool in Ireland in 1733 was 5d., of combed wool 12d. per pound. In France Irish fleece-wool was sold for 2s. 6d. per pound; combed wool from 4s. 6d. to 6s. It is obvious that if the Irish had been allowed to export their fleece and combed wool to France they would have made an enormous profit by their pastoral industry, and the anarchical spirit would have been vanquished. What stood in the way of these benefits?—benefits for Ireland, benefits for England, benefits for the Empire. The English Parliament. in a spirit of detraction and selfishness resolved to build on a property of Ireland the supremacy of English law and English administration."
  I also read with interest some remarks of Mr. Lecky, whom your Lordships know so well. What does he say with regard to this matter:—
  "The commercial policy of England was grossly selfish and ruinous to Irish interests. Its effects in Ireland were peculiarly disastrous, it not only aggravated the deplorable poverty of the country, but it had a permanent influence of a Host far-reaching kind. It broke down the industrial spirit which it should have been the first object of England to support. It tended to throw the whole population for sub-
  1240
  sistence on the soil, and thus gave agrarian disturbances the peculiarly bitter and persistent character they have ever assumed."
  My Lords, I have merely quoted these words to show that if your Lordships should permit the Imperial Exchequer and the country to take any risk in order to remove Irish grievances, you are only doing ordinary justice to Ireland. I venture to say that the statistics with regard to the regularity of the payments of instalments show that there has been no permanent loss to this country, I hope I have shown that the money advanced for the purpose of enabling occupiers to become owners of their land in Ireland has not only been paid with regularity but has been associated with very satisfactory results. What is the condition of purchasers in Ireland, not only from a financial point of view, but from a social point of view? You know that Mr. Bailey, who will be appointed if you pass this Bill, has recently issued a report on the condition of the tenant purchasers. In that report he says:—
  "The result has been eminently satisfactory. It has introduced above all things a spirit of contentment among the people…The fertility of the land has been increased.…The general solvency of purchasers has been improved…The political unrest which frequently prevailed among occupiers before they came purchasers has become quite quiescent and their intellectual activities are now mainly turned to the improvement of their material circumstances."
  I venture to say, my Lords, that if you sanction the advance of this money to them you will receive your interest paid with punctuality, and achieve the satisfactory results mentioned by Mr. Bailey, and that the system of voluntary sale and purchase of land in Ireland will be an absolute success. These happy results will undoubtedly have been achieved by two things. By sacrifice on the part of that body of men to whom you have listened to-night, the Irish landowners. The Irish landowners have suffered great deprivations in the past, and in accepting the Bill which you are now asked to pass they will undoubtedly suffer in their feelings. I maintain no one can view an Irish landowner selling his land with anything but feelings of sympathy. The landowners will, as the noble Lord, the Earl of Dunraven said with great truth, feel the parting with land which has been in the possession of their

  1241
  ancestors for generations. My Lords, I am one of those singularly tenacious persons. I am singularly tenacious to the land in which I was born and bred, and I do feel this, that the landowners should not, under this measure, be expatriated. I believe that there is a general consensus of opinion on the part of all classes of the community to retain the landowners in the country in which they were born, in which they have lived, and in which they have done so much good work. I believe there is good work yet to be done, and when the friction of the question of raising or lowering of rent is removed, they will find themselves not only welcomed but placed in positions of honour amongst those with whom they dwell.
  My Lords, may I be allowed to say a few words of a personal character? I have parted with most of my property, but there has ever been between myself and my predecessors, most kindly and affectionate relations with the tenants, and since I have parted with my property those feelings have in no way relaxed, for in the past three or four years there have been three cases in which my tenants la ye vied with one another in doing honour to members of my family by making them the recipients of valuable and costly presents. I believe that the landowners will find their tenants as true to them. My Lords, I do not for one moment prognosticate that this Bill will be the finality of the Irish question. I have had thirty years experience of Irish questions and politics, and the man is not alive who can declare that he will settle the Irish question. I think my right hon. friend, Mr. Wyndham, in the Bill which he has introduced, has made an enormous step, the biggest step I have ever seen, and probably the biggest step I shall ever see, towards the finality of that great Irish problem. If both classes carry it out under the auspicious circumstances in which we see the landlords and tenants acting in concert, I believe that we shall find that the Administration of the future will declare that this Government grappled with the problem, which at one time appeared insoluble, with great courage. They rely on the loyalty aril combination of the two classes of the community in Ireland to prove that there is life in the old land yet.
  LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, almost everything that I could say with regard to this measure has been said by the noble Lord who preceded me. Before, however, entering upon the consideration of it, I wish to express my full appreciation of the sincere wish which animated the Government in introducing this Bill for the welfare of my country. I also wish to express my appreciation of the ability with which that Bill has been framed and the liberality of its, financial provisions. But for the very reason that I give full credit to the framers of the Bill I must express my great regret that it is not presented to you in the shape in which it was originally introduced into the other House. I know that this regret is shared by others having greater knowledge and experience, especially by people in the West of Ireland, from which I have only just come. It is in the interests of the Bill itself that I wish to speak. We fear that in its present shape it is not likely to be such an efficiently working measure as it was in its original shape. I allude chiefly to the relaxation of what are called the "zones." The provisions in the original Bill as to the zones one would have thought were liberal enough. They have been so fully explained that I need not go into details. It suffices to say that under the provisions of the section containing the zones the purchaser whose rent was £100 by paying a terminable annuity of £70 could obtain possession of his farm. One might call this almost an extreme case, for it is in the essence of every bargain that no agreement can come to a successful issue unless the terms are acceptable to both parties, anti if they are very favourable to one, they are not quite so likely to commend themselves to the other party. In this particular case the capital sum represented by the £70 would, when paid to the vendor with the additional grant made from the bonus, be only sufficient, in the case of settled property, to produce an income of about £75 a year instead of £100. That is a loss of about 25 per cent. If invested at 3 per cent. it would produce £72, if at 3¼, £78. Anyone who, has no other resources than landed property can hardly be expected to accept these terms. Now that the zones have ban relaxed it is to be feared that the tenant purchasers will expect still more

  1243
  favourable terms, and when they find they are able to get them, we fear that discontent will arise and probably agitation. There are already rumours in the air. We seem to hear ominous sounds like the distant rumbling of a coming storm. We are told on the highest authority that if the demands of the tenants are not acceded to in the smallest particular the land war will be renewed with even greater acrimony than we have experienced in the past. Those, especially from my part of the country, remember well the former war in a not very distant past, and are very naturally apprehensive that the result of this relaxation and arousing of false hopes may lead to most serious consequences. For my own part I should have been content if there had been no zones in the Bill, because there is a certain element of danger in a maximum, which was pointed out on a very different subject the other day when this House was discussing the speed of motorcars. It was then pointed out that the result would be that the maximum would immediately be taken as a minimum. It is much worse when a maximum has been introduced and is then relaxed.
  With regard to the bargains outside the zones, we are told by the noble Duke that these would only occur in exceptional cases, but these exceptions have never been clearly defined and specified. The danger still remains unless clear definitions are given. My Lords, as to the attitude of the landlords in general in regard to this Bill I believe that most landlords are ready and many of them are anxious to sell, but that is on the condition that they are secured from grave financial loss. But the disposition and inclination of the landlords to sell will differ in almost every case. One may take it at one end of the scale. A man who has suffered severely from the administration of the Land Act, who has had trouble of all sorts with Iris tenants, who has no particular affection or attachment to his place or the country, might be glad to escape from his position on almost any terms. We may take another man who never had any trouble with his tenants, who has always maintained the most amicable relations with them, who is bound to them by strong personal and hereditary ties, and who would reluctantly see the connection
  1244
  severed. The inducement to sell in the latter case must be far greater than in the former. It has been urged outside this House that the landlords are to be guided in the price they ask by the sales that have already taken place in what is called the open market. The noble Lord the Earl of Dunraven showed clearly that an open market for rent did not exist now. He said that was based on the agitated state of the country; but one may go further, and say that ever since the Act of 1881 there has been no open market, but that the tenants on any property have had an entire monopoly. For no one else in his senses would buy a rood of Irish land. Apart from this, the market price was put at some eighteen years' purchase. That depends upon what is sometimes called the fallacious doctrine of averages, for one property may have been sold for twenty-four years' purchase and another for twelve. The noble Lord the Earl of Crewe, gave instances in which there was a difference of forty-two and ten years.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Forty-five and six years.
  LORD CLONBROCK: Taking my figures between twenty-four and twelve, that gives an average of eighteen years; but it cannot be contended that that is a fair rule which can be applied to any particular property. That property may be far more like the one sold at twenty-four years purchase than at any other price. Again, as was pointed out by Mr. Wyndham, land property sold at low prices for various reasons. Some landlords were forced into the market by creditor's or mortgagees, others have sold estates in one part of the country to pay off encumbrances on those in another, which amounts to an investment of the purchase money at 4½ or 5 per cent.; and again, some estates were sold when land stocks stood at 112 or higher. The price must depend upon the circumstances of every property. I feel convinced of the sympathy of the Government for Irish landlords of which we have been often assured in this House. I believe that this Bill was introduced partly in the hope of extricating them from a very precarious position. I must not omit to acknowledge one provision

  1245
  distinctly in their favour which admits of their selling and repurchasing demesne lands. I believe that the Government are also prepared to deal fairly with us in regard to sporting rights. I hope these provisions may result in the present owners of property continuing to reside in Ireland. It is most desirable that they should do so, for the withdrawal from any community of a large number of men of education and culture would he a grave calamity. I must observe that there is no moral obligation on the landlord to sell. It is often said outside the House that the landlord is bound to sell, but the Bill was introduced to obviate and get rid of the present system of administration of the land law in Ireland. The landlords are in no way bound to sell. They are not responsible for the state of confusion and anxiety and unrest created by the Act of 1881 and by the administration of that Act. I was glad to hear that as severely spoken of by the noble Duke as I have ever heard it spoken of in Ireland. But if the Government of 1881 were deficient in foresight, there is no reason why Irish landlords should bear the penalty and be made to play the part of the whipping boy of that Government. They have suffered severely already by that Act, and now it is urged that they are hound to sacrifice the remnants of their property. I have said the Bill was introduced as a sort of substitute for the present administration of land law in Ireland, but the misfortune is that it is not a substitute because the two systems have to go on working alongside one another. However well this Act works it is absolutely impossible that the purchases can be thoroughly finished for a considerable number of years, and during that time the same state of demoralisation on the part of the tenants, and anxiety and uncertainty on the part of the landowners must continue. It is very much to he deplored that the Government did not see their way when giving such exceedingly liberal terms of purchase to suspend the rent-fixing clauses of the Act of 1881. My Lords, I have no doubt that I, and those who think with me, will be classed in the irreconcilable section of landlords. To a certain extent this is correct. It is hard to reconcile oneself to unjust demands, to the theory that a man is to only hold property in
  1246
  Ireland until someone else wants it, to the proposition that a vendor is to accept ally terms which a purchaser chooses to offer. But if we are approached in a different spirit, if we are allowed that liberty of action which any man is entitled to in a free country, and if any step is suggested to us which we can fairly take for the advantage of our country and countrymen, we shall not be found irreconcilable.
  LORD CASTLETOWN: My Lords, I wish to divide the aspects of this Bill into three parts. I will deal with the past as it appeared some years ago, I will deal with the present and then with the possible future. In the past soon after the Act of 1881 had passed, I, and I think many other Irishmen, realised that the rent-fixing clauses of that Act must land the country in chaos, legal and financial. Twenty years ago seems a long time now, but, I dare say, if what we had suggested then had been adopted it would have saved a great deal of serious loss, serious financial and legal loss. Twenty years ago I moved a Resolution dealing with this very matter. I had just left the other House, having succeeded my father. I had been a Member of the other House during the period of the passage of the Act of 1881, and I brought forward a Motion which was approved, I am proud to say, on both sides of your Lordships' House. I regret, however, to say no action was taken. I believe that after this there was certainly a period during which attempts were made to bring forward purchase Bills. I assisted with others in Ireland to produce what was eventually the Framework of the Bill which was brought in by the noble and learned Lord Ashbourne, and which was subsequently called the Ashbourne Act of 1886. Then it became daily and yearly more clear that some comprehensive measure of purchase would have to be introduced. But nothing was done except what I might call tinkering with the whole question, and very bad

  1247
  tinkering it was. At last we see a fairly comprehensive measure brought forward, which, so far as its main provisions are concerned, is very much on the lines suggested by myself and other Members of the House, and also by the public Press. Consequently, I hail the advent of this measure with the greatest of pleasure. But, as usual, when the best of laws come in, I am afraid this Bill, though comprehensive and full of excellent intentions, does not, and, in my opinion, will not do the really good work for which its author (and I give the greatest credit to Mr. Wyndham for the able way in which he piloted this Bill through the other House, and the intentions he brought it forward with) intended. I do not think the Bill will work unless the Government will admit of some Amendments of a non-contentious character being introduced into it in your Lordships' House. I only want to see Amendments inserted which will give alternative schemes of purchase to suit different districts and different estates, and also Amendments to give more vigorous effect to the measure, more efficacy, and more latitude generally in the provisions of the Bill. As to the purpose of the Bill I am in thorough sympathy with it.
  I think on many estates it is absolutely necessary to sell, and all over Ireland it is very advisable, if not absolutely necessary, to try and re-introduce gravely, slowly and surely, freedom of contract in the only way in which it can be done, and that is by some system which will displace the rent-fixing portion of the Act of 1881. I find by reference to the figures which have been published on the sales, and of which I will only quote a few, that sales gradually progressed since 1870. The first sale was under the Church Act, and they have progressed since then regularly and progressively. There has been a check lately, during the passage of this Bill in another place, that has interfered with that progress, but that check came from certain causes, which I should like to call attention to. I do not think it was owing to the desire of tenants not to purchase, but that as many of the second-term rents were falling in, that the tenants felt that they would get a larger reduction under the second-term rents than if they purchased, and therefore they held back, thinking that they would be able to extract more from
  1248
  the landlord than if they purchased direct from the Government and had to pay the instalments. That is the reason, I think, of the check in the purchase market. Many of the tenants have arrived at the view that they do not want to purchase at all, and it is noticeable that when a tenant-right is put up for sale, of a tenant who is still under a landlord, that that tenant-right commands a higher price than a tenant-right of a tenant who has purchased his holding. There is also a tendency to use an Act that is brought in up to a certain point, and then the people know that whatever Government are in power will probably bring some other Act that will produce something newer and more tempting to them, and they wait for the more tempting and more fascinating meal. This has been done for a very long time, and I think it has had a very disadvantageous effect on the country, and that is why I hope that this will really be a final measure.
  As to the Bill itself I have some right to criticise it, as I have sold under the Acts of 1886 and 1896, and I have experienced all the difficulties there are in selling settled estates, and all the expenses that are incurred. This Bill, no doubt, has the very best intentions, but I am very doubtful if it is not very carefully amended whether it will work as smoothly as its authors think it will. Let me take the Estates Commissioners in the first case, a new body appointed under this Bill. They have enormous powers, and I am afraid their powers being so great and so drastic, that there will be a tendency to introduce, very much as the Land Commissioners did, such rules and regulations as will interfere with free sale, in the proper acceptation of the term. I am also of opinion that is would have been wiser, if I may say so, to have entrusted such enormous power to gentlemen in no way connected with the Land Commission, and rent-fixing Department, and, if I may say so without disrespect, these should have been men of the caliber of those to whom Mr. Gladstone entrusted the working of the Church of Ireland Act in 1870. This Act worked a great social revolution in Ireland, and it is to my mind a very strong measure, and not a very wise one, to have entrusted to these gentleman who have been lowering rents

  1249
  a power to deal with the new departure. But the arrangement has been made, these men and their attributes have been discussed and accepted in the other House, and those in Ireland must put up with it, but I think if you had so large and so vast a scheme put forward for England or for Scotland, your Lordships would have appointed different administrators to those who have been utilised on this occasion. I wish to say nothing against the gentlemen appointed in the slightest degree, two of them are personal friends of my own, and I have a great opinion of their credit and status, and I believe the other gentleman comes of a very high Indian administrative body also. I only state what is my opinion, and that of a great many other people in Ireland. There is also a tendency under the Bill to make the Estates Commissioners a glorified second edition of the Congested Districts Board. Estates in no sense congested are to be gobbled up by them, and they are even to descend from their Olympian heights to such trivialities as dealing with fire insurance of farm buildings on those estates. It seems to me as if the Estates Commissioners are to govern, to insure, to de-police Ireland of her large body of police, and also to purchase large portions of Ireland at their own sweet will. Whether it is wise to entrust them with such wide powers is for your Lordships to decide. Personally I should be disposed to leave these powers in the hands of the Lands Commissioner, the Land Judge, and the high judicial authorities of Ireland, who are perfectly capable of dealing with them.
  As to the details of the Bill, in the first place there are no alternative schemes of purchase, which, I think, is a great mistake, for the reason that in Ireland there are a large number of estates held on different terms and different conditions of possession; there are estates differing from each other as widely as the Hebrides and Devonshire; and I think it would be wise for an alternative scheme of purchase to be mentioned in the Bill, and I shall attempt to remedy this fault by proposing Amendments upon this matter when we come into Committee. Then with regard to the question of superiorinterests. I deal with those other than the superior interests
  1250
  of Trinity College, which are so carefully guarded by her representatives in the other House. Superior interests are of great value and average as much as £4,000 and £5,000 per annum on some estates. They are as valuable as Consols, fluctuating less, and generally charged in small amounts on large quantities of land, yet they are left in an absolute derelict state. If the landlords are to be induced to sell they must have wider powers of investment. These wider powers exist in nearly all new settlements, and I do appeal to the Lord Chancellor to see if he cannot arrange, when the time comes in Committee, that some such wider powers of investment may be permitted, so that when the Act comes into operation, as we hope it will, on a large scale, it may not dislocate all settled property in Ireland I cannot see why such a provision should not be made so that the tenants for life and remainder men should agree to such wider provision for investment. If that is done your Lordships will enable a number of properties to be sold which otherwise will not come into the market. I have spoken to many landlords in Ireland, and it all comes to the same thing: "If you give wider facilities for investment I will sell, but if you only place trustees' securities at my disposal I will not sell." Then there are the terms which should be given to a desirable class of tenants who, when purchasing, put down a fourth of the price out of their own pockets. No assistance has been given to these tenants by the Bill.
  Now, as to the future. I know it is most unwise to prophesy, but I feel—and this is my opinion as an Irishman—that those who have advocated this great scheme in England have not thought out what may happen in the near future. They hope to keep the landowner, deprived of his estate and of all interest in the land, and, here I agree with the noble Lord Clonbrock in what he said, that it is to be hoped that the Bill will assist in keeping the landlords in Ireland. In my opinion the present generation may live on, in Ireland, but I cannot help thinking that the next generation will not do so. I think the old homes will then pass into the hands of others—rich merchants, rich solicitors and other persons of wealth—and it may be very good for the country, I do not say for a moment that it will

  1251
  not, but in any case I believe that is exactly what will happen, and then will come the great problem which will be forced upon the Government—the condition of the present proprietors that have been created under this Bill. They must be safeguarded, as I have before urged strongly in your Lordships' House, under the best Continental system where these present proprietors have existed for 100 or 150 years. You must try and learn from the Continent how to watch over the interests of these men. I have been told that a Bill will be introduced next year to do this. I strongly urge the Government to accept some Amendment to deal with the question now. Those Amendments will be put down to prepare the ground for the Bill of next year when they choose to introduce it. But it is probable that this Government may not be in power next year, and the Government which is, may not care for this subject. What then will be the result? The whole system of social life is being changed in Ireland, and the change will be more rapid the moment this Bill becomes an Act and comes into operation. Let me implore those in power now, to investigate at once the best means of avoiding what might be a greater land and legal chaos than ever. I believe the Bill will be of benefit undoubtedly, not only to the owners and the occupiers, but to Ireland as a whole. If I did not believe so I certainly would vote against it. I hope also, the great sacrifice of sentiment and love for our homes, which many of us will be called upon to make in selling estates, will be received and returned to us with some thanks and consideration by our countrymen. But the question of the future is not so much the position of the landlords of the country, but that of the tenant purchaser created under this Bill. If they and the country benefit I do not object to the action of the Government, but I ask the Government to see clearly and be mindful and careful of the future of my countrymen; and on the condition that tins measure shall not be regarded only as an expediency measure, but that it shall be treated, as I hope it will be, as a real, permanent, beneficent plan for creating and preserving a bonâ, fide peasant proprietor, I shall support it.
  EARL SPENCER: When I look at the clock I am reminded of one of the
  1252
  most melancholy moments I have ever passed through in your Lordships' House. It was twenty-two years ago that at 11 o'clock in the evening I had, on behalf of the Government, to wind up the first night's debate on one of the great Irish Land Bills, And, with the exception of my noble friend behind me, I do not think there was one of your Lordships present. (Cries of "No, No.") I see two noble Lords opposite who might have been present, but I do not think those noble Lords were present, because, if I recollect rightly, the audience I had to to address on that occasion numbered only four. To-night there seems to be more interest about this great subject, and I am glad to see that greater interest taken in it. I do not think I need apologise to your Lordships, even if I did not hold the official place I hold in this House, for addressing you on the whole question, for, like the noble Duke the Lord President, I have been connected for over thirty years with a great many Irish measures for land legislation, and I have had considerable experience, I will not say more than the noble Duke has had, but I had, when I was in Ireland and he was in England, a great deal to do with the administration and superintendence of one of those great Acts. I do not think I need say much as to why the past legislation on this subject was necessary. I have had, as some of your Lordships have had, sad and grievous experience of ruling in Ireland. I have known times when there was almost armed revolution going on against the Government of the day, and the Government of the day was placed in the greatest possible difficulty. My Lords, I think those who have had similar experience to mine will agree that all the difficulties, perhaps not entirely all but a very great many of them, are to be attributed to the land tenure which prevails in that country. I have often heard people say that it came from wanton agitation. My Lords, I am not in favour or desirous of promoting agitation, but there is never smoke without fire, and there has never been a successful agitation in Ireland without great cause for discontent among the people. That discontent has to a great extent hung about the land. Now, my Lords, legislation with regard to the land is twofold; it falls in two grooves. There is legislation with regard to tenure, and also with regard to the purchase by

  1253
  the tenant occupier. I am not going to say much with regard to the legislation with regard to tenure, but I think it is right to say a few words, for there have been allusions to it to-night, and I could quote to you words which show what has been thought to be the line of policy of the legislation with regard to tenure. At this late hour of the night, what I would say of it is this, the words, used by Mr. Gladstone in another place and elsewhere, were to the effect that he did not attempt to legislate in any degree on any particular rule or to follow any theoretical principle, but he wished to apply in Ireland the customs which prevailed there, and those, I think, are the principles which guided him to a very great extent in the great measures which he passed.
  Allusion has been made to the Act of 1881 by many speakers to-night. I was glad to hear what the noble Duke the Lord President said with regard to it. I agree with him that the legislation of 1881 probably, I may say certainly, could not be defended on the economic ground. I quite admit that, but I think that legislation was necessary to prevent greater evils coming into the country. Those were wise words of the noble Duke. They were repeated also somewhere by the Prime Minister, and allusion has been made to what he said. The Prime Minister said the difficulties were enormous in 1881, and it was difficult to say what ought to have been done by those responsible for the Government of that country, which seemed to be in the middle of a great land revolution. I wish to lay stress upon that. I entirely sympathise with a great deal that has been said about the position of the Irish landlords, and the effect this legislation has had. I lament that freedom of contract with tenants had to be interfered with. I lament that these Acts have interfered to a great extent with the power of sale in the country, but I think there has sometimes been a great deal of exaggeration as to the fall of values under the Land Act. That has been referred to to-night. I must admit that there has been a great distinction between voluntary Acts on the part of the landlords and the Acts of the Courts of the country. I also say with regard to the freedom of sale that the free sale of estates in Ireland since these Acts have come into force, based on the
  1254
  value of the land, depends on the rental of the land, and I do not think that Irish landlords have always considered and taken into account the great economic changes which have necessitated the lowering of rent.
  Allusions have been made to the great difference of rent in this country and in Ireland. I cannot help alluding to it myself. No doubt there are a great many differences in rents in various localities, but there are districts in this country—rich and prosperous agricultural districts—where there has been an enormous fall in the value of rentals owing to the action of economic forces. I do not like to quote my own case, but I will quote that of a friend of mine, a man well known to your Lordships, I mean Lord Wantage. Lord Wantage—and all this appears in the Commission—succeeded through his wife to a very large and fine property in Northamptonshire. It was an old hereditary property which combined all sorts of farms, many of them probably in very bad order. He succeeded to property which comprised excellent land, and all the buildings on which were admirable, and in his evidence before the Commission Lord Wantage stated that the estate comprised 28,000 acres, and the gross rental was £29,000 a year. He compares that rental with what it was twenty years before, and he gives the figure for the year 1873. He says in 1873 the gross rental was £54,000, and in the year 1893 it was £29,000; that was a drop of £25,000 a year, not quite 50 per cent., but not very far off. I would call your Lordships' attention to what the net income of that estate was, and I instance that to show the difference between England and Ireland. In Ireland there are some estates which are managed on the English principle, but in most cases the tenants themselves are responsible for the permanent buildings. In England we have to maintain the buildings, the gates, the fences and the roads, and that makes the difference between the net and the gross income. I cannot give the net income for 1873, because within a few years there was a slight difference of sale and purchase, but I give it for the years 1877 and 1893. In 1877 it was £47,000 a year; in 1893 it was £12,000 a year, that is a very great—an enormous—difference in the value of an estate, and I doubt whether there are many cases in Ireland

  1255
  where so great a change in the value of the rental of land has taken place. As I said before, I do not wish to quote my own smaller property, but I confess, though I have not had as great difficulties as Lord Wantage, the figures I could give would very nearly agree with his. I need not dwell further upon the Act of 1881. Lord Crewe has very properly, and very truly, said that whether you like it or whether you do not, the Act of 1881 did enable, to a great extent, purchase to be taken up, because it gave the basis upon which the purchase could be carried out. With regard to the question of purchase, I have heard it said that the Unionist Party can claim purchase as their own. I deny that. I admit they have been very successful in some of these Acts, particularly that which is known by the name of the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Ashbourne. But purchase commenced at the time of the passing of the Church Act. We had it from the noble Marquess, who stated that what arose then had been the precursor of 1885.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDON DERRY: I quoted the figures because I thought that would make it more clear.
  EARL SPENCER: I know, I know; but I should like to go a little further back than the noble Marquess has gone, and if we go a little further back we shall find that before the Act of 1885, £2,450,178 had been advanced on loans, and I believe that if that large sum is added to the large sum quoted by the noble Marquess you will find a very small proportion of arrears on the part of the tenant. Under the Church Act, £674,841 was advanced, and the number of loans issued was 6,057, and within two years I will venture to say every one of those who borrowed money under that Act will be absolute owners without having any further annuity to pay. We go on, and there have been a variety of Acts of Purchase. There was the Act of 1870, of 1881 and 1885, and then the Acts of 1891 arid 1896. Now, I think, as has been said before, there had not been much done under the Bills which preceded the Bill of 1885. Up to that time the idea was this—it was Bright's idea—not to adopt in any Act the principle of
  1256
  making an owner of any tenant you could find, but only to take the tenants who were thrifty and would make good owners and good citizens, and in order to secure them, a considerable proportion, sometimes one-third and sometimes one-quarter of the value was left to them to pay out of their own pockets. That was the principle introduced in 1870, and that was the first Act which used the credit of the Bill. The Church Act advanced money out of the Church Funds. What happened? It was found that there were very few tenants who could pay a portion of the purchase money, and then the noble and learned Lord, in 1885, carried the first Act which proceeded on the plan of the whole of the money being advanced and for a longer period of repayment. Now I will give the noble Lord and the Government to which he belonged every credit for passing that measure, and the noble Lord will probably remember when he made his statement on its introduction that he referred to a Bill almost entirely forgotten now, which was a Bill for which I was partly responsible. Mr. Trevelyan, of that day, afterwards Sir G. Trevelyan, introduced it in the other House, the Bill of 1884. That Bill was the first Bill which proposed that the whole money should be advanced to the tenant, and it also extended the time of repayment. The Bill did not go to the length of forty-nine years for the repayment, but I believe that it went to forty, so that in the Church Act, in the Act of 1870, in the Act of 1881, and in the Bill of 1884, the principle of purchase had been adopted by the Government to which I had the honour to belong, I remember very well that on the discussions on that Bill I pointed out some of the difficulties which I knew would arise on the manner of payment. I will not read the whole of what I said, but I will read a few words because it will show that I was quite aware of the difficulty that would follow a large extension of the principle of greater assistance being given to the tenants when becoming purchasers of land.
  "It is a new thing to spread the repayment of an advance of this kind over a period of 49 years, and I object to so long a period as it prolongs all the risk that the state must run, besides creating a new and very grave danger to the landlords who do not wish to sell and whose tenants will naturally object to pay £100 a year rent when their neighbours are

  1257
  only paying from £67 10s. to £87 10s. for the fee-simple of the land."
  That is the fons et origo of the Bill that hits now been introduced by the Government. The difficulty has been caused by those tenants who have purchased their land. By the marvellous working of the credit of the State, they not only purchase their land at a lower than their rent, but hold it at a much lower rent than if they had been simply tenants. It seems to be an extraordinary juggle, but it is a great compliment to the credit of the Government of this country that such a thing could be done. I need not now refer more to those Acts. I come now to another Bill. I cannot help alluding to it because I had a great hand in it, and that was the Home Rule Bill of 1886. I am not going to enter into the details of that great measure for Home Rule. It may have been right, and I believe that it was right. It may have been wrong. But I for one made it a condition for my supporting the Home Rule Bill that a great measure of land purchase should be introduced at the same time. I think I have been able to prove that on the great question of land purchase from 1879 to the date w hen this Bill was introduced, I have always been in favour of land purchase. I quite admit that those measures have not been quite so successful as they ought to have been, but I stand here to-night to say I staunchly believe that those defects ought to be remedied, and that if possible a complete and perfect Land Purchase Bill should be passed. I rather think the noble Duke said about that time that a cure for the difficulty of Irish land remained in purchase, and that the Bills which had been introduced had only been of the nature of a modus vivendi.
  I now turn to this measure of the Government. It is a comprehensive and far-reaching measure; it sprang from a very novel and very happy circumstance which occurred in Ireland—namely, the coming together of two bodies who were always considered to be enemies that could never be reconciled, and who were generally in a state of most bitter warfare; I mean the landlords of Ireland and those who represented the tenants. I congratulate those who brought about that settlement. I have alluded on a previous occasion to the part taken in it by Lord Dunraven; he is one of those to whom great credit must be attached for
  1258
  bringing the conference together. But there are others to whom credit is due, I mean the Nationalist leaders of the people who joined the conference to bring matters to a conclusion. The question is whether it will succeed. I do not propose to go into the details—there are a great many—details which have been referred to and to which I might refer—but on the Second Reading of the Bill it would not perhaps be wise for me to do so, and, possibly opportunities to discuss details will be given in Committee. This measure makes a very large demand on the taxpayers of the country, and it involves very greatly the credit of the nation, and makes us incur very large risks. But the dangers of agrarian difficulties are so great, and affect so largely the prosperity of that country, that it will be worth the expenditure of a very large sum of money if those dangers can be overcome. We are asked to give a present to Ireland. I will not say whether it is to go into the landlords or tenants' pockets, but we are asked to give £12,000,000 to make it possible that the sale of the property of the landlords to the tenants can be carried out to the extent of £100,000,000. That is a very large price to be asked to pay, if we are not to buy what is worth securing. But is it to be a reality, or are we merely buying a sham. Are we really securing the peace and prosperity of Ireland, or are we securing a fleeting advantage which will be submerged before long in a fresh sea of trouble. It is impossible to answer with certainty these questions. We cannot be certain what result this Bill will have, but I will join with my noble friends behind me and venture to say I am willing to take the risk, and I believe the risk is not large.
  We have been told to-night, and I have heard over and over again that out of the large sums of annuities paid, under former transactions to the extent of £800,000 a year, hardly any deficiencies have taken place; that fact alone ought to give us confidence. But then it is said, suppose agitation and turmoil should again arise, will the tenants continue to pay? My answer to that is that for thirty-three years these proposals, in a lesser degree, but in a considerable degree, have been tried in Ireland, and that the people of Ireland have had to pay these large annuities for the purchase of their land, and that they have done

  1259
  it through two of the fiercest agitations and land wars that were possible to take place.
  My Lords, I do not think I have much more to say, but there are two or three questions which, perhaps, are rather more than details, to which I should like to refer. With regard to this gift of £12,000,000, I did not quite understand Lord Dunraven, who said it was not a gift, but that it would be repaid in the long run. I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, but all that I understood him to say was that it would be repaid to this country. Well, I understand it is a gift, but it is a noble gift. This gift is to be paid, I understand, in small sums at the rate of £350,000 a year for some time. We are told that this will not all he paid by the British taxpayer, as there will be a saving in Ireland. We are told that something like £250,000 a year will be saved; that first of all the expenditure of the Land Courts will be diminished by over £140,000 a year; but I am afraid there will be considerable expenditure. From what I know of these Acts there will be a large expenditure in administration. Then there is to be less spent on Police and other matters. I say at once I consider this idea a very noble idea, and one that we ought to praise and admire very much. But I am afraid it will he to a very great extent a dream. There is hardly anyone who has been in Ireland who has not tried to diminish expenditure of this kind. In my own humble way I tried, and in some measure succeeded, but I have a very sad recollection even now in the matter. I cut off a Judge in one of the Courts, and at the moment I left Ireland, which I did not very long afterwards, that Judge was replaced by a Conservative Government.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: The noble Lord had not cut him off according to my recollection; he had left him surviving.
  EARL SPENCER: I am speaking of the time before the noble Lord was Lord Chancellor. I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord will introduce great changes in the salaries of the Judges and legal officers in Ireland. Anyhow, I rejoice that now a Conservative Government in Ireland propose economy. I hope his anticipations in that regard may be fulfilled. I may be wrong, and I certainly
  1260
  trust that the present Government may succeed in diminishing the expenditure.
  There is another point to which I attribute very great importance. That is the appointment of Commissioners. Now, I am sorry to say, one of the banes of the administration in Ireland is the continual political pressure and influence that is brought to bear on the Government of the day. I do not say that one party more than another is to blame for that, both the landlords on the one side and the Nationalists on the other are implicated. I was free from that as to the Nationalists because they were not in any communication with me when I was in office, but there is that pressure brought to bear on the work of the Government of that country. I regretted it and I always endeavoured to diminish it when I had the power to do so. When these first Acts were passed and bodies were appointed, the idea of Mr. Gladstone and all others concerned, was to appoint men of the highest position and character and who were entirely removed from all political influence. I do not say who is to blame, but I am afraid your Lordships are somewhat to blame, because I remember that the Bill of 1881 had hardly begun to grow before your Lordships wished to pull up the plant in order to see how the roots were going on. That began the attack, and the Nationalist party were not slow in carrying it out, from the opposite side, and I believe that the Commissioners were a sort of shuttlecock of the parties, and I should be surprised to hear now if that has been altered. Now I readily admit that when you come to consider the positions in which these Commissioners have been placed for some years past, there is a strong desire to alter them, but how can it be done without running the greater risk of political pressure than has existed before I The Government have taken a very curious course. What do they do in this Bill? In this Bill the Chief Commissioner is a man for whom I have great regard and a man of high capacity, although not in office with me. I think he is now a Knight, although knew him as plain Mr. Wrench. His salary is on the Consolidated Fund, and he must be removed from office by an Address. His colleagues, however, the other two Commissioners, are mere servants of the Administration of the day,

  1261
  and I readily foresee that attacks will be raised against them in another place where they are not so particular with regard to attacks as we are in this House. This is a very difficult problem, but I wish to call attention to it and to ask for some modification, at all events of what I call the hot and cold plan adopted by the Government.
  Now I have referred to the Bill of 1884 and also to the Bill of 1886, both of which were unsuccessful, but they contained a principle which I regret is not to be found in this Bill. It is what Lord Salisbury once called "the buffer" between the Imperial Government and the occupiers of land who are going to pay these annuities. In both of these Bills there was a buffer, and Lord Ashbourne pointed out that the buffer of 1884 was the cause of that Bill not going through. In the Bill of 1886 we went a great deal farther, and there was the great interest of the local authorities to get a direct benefit of the annuity. I regret in this Bill that there is no such buffer, and I think that is one of its defects.
  My Lords, I have pointed out the objections to the Bill, but on the whole I support it and I heartily wish it success. I believe if it succeeds the greatest credit will be due to those who introduced it. My Lords, we have indications that there is a better feeling in Ireland with regard to all these disputes which have torn the country in halves in past years. In the other place there seems to be some inclination to accept the solution and we rejoice at the good feeling which has been displayed in Ireland during the visit of our gracious Sovereign. The tact and ability of His Majesty, combined with Her Majesty's grace and charm, has shown the people of Ireland how much they are valued by their Sovereigns. Now my Lords all these signs do not for a moment, to my mind, prove that we are to get rid of the old questions which separate parties in Ireland. There are a great many questions besides the land question which are felt deeply and strongly in that country. These questions will not be swept away by these improvements. What will happen, I hope and believe, will be that the old methods of violence and intimidation will disappear and that the people in Ireland will learn that by free and open discussion and by constitu-
  1262
  tional methods, they may obtain from Parliament any great changes which may be necessary for the welfare of that country.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): We who are responsible for the Bill which we ask your Lordships to read a second time have no reason to complain of the manner in which it has been received by your Lordships' House. The measure has not escaped criticism, and those criticisms have been of the most reasonable description, but I think I am right in saying that with the solitary exception of the noble Lord, Viscount Hampden, not one of your Lordships who has spoken tonight has failed to express a desire that this Bill should become law, and that it should succeed in producing the results desired for it by everyone. My Lords, that aspiration I very cordially echo, and I trust with other noble Lords to-night that the Bill will be received by both landlords and tenants in such a manner as to render it completely successful.
  We have had to-night a considerable number of excursions into the regions of history—the history of that much vexed Irish land question—and into questions which on so many occasions have required attention from your Lordships' House. Nothing is further from my purpose than to revive the old controversies of 1881. No greater waste of time could take place than by an attempt to indulge in idle recriminations, as to the course followed by the legislation of that time. The noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, may be quite right when they tell your Lordships that in 1881 the condition of things in Ireland was such as to render it absolutely necessary that strong measures should be taken. We differed as to the character of those measures, but this fact at any rate remains, that the result of the legislation of 1881, has been to saddle the country with a system of land laws which has proved to be absolutely unworkable and intolerable to those who are most affected by it. My Lords, the noble Earl who spoke last rather suggested to your Lordships that the Irish landlords had no grievance, which the land owners of other parts of the Kingdom had not experienced in this line.
  EARL SPENCER: I must differ from the noble Marquess; I did not say they had no grievance, but that they exaggerated it, and did not sufficiently know the difficulty in which the English landlord was placed.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANDSDOWNE: I think the argument was that the Irish landlords exaggerated their grievance, because the English and Scotch landlords had to submit to reductions of rent; equal to or, in some cases, even greater than those to which Irish land was subject at that time. Now, what we complain of is that not merely were our rents reduced, but we that were deprived of that power of barganing with our tenants which is enjoyed by landlords in other parts of the country.
  EARL SPENCER: I specially excepted that.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANDSDOWNE: That is the grievance we complain of, and which remains. The system is at any rate, cordially distrusted both by the landlords and the tenants. So far as I am aware, there is no system of land tenure at all resembling it in any other part of the world. The landlords find themselves in the position of rent chargers without the security that generally accompanies a rent-charge. The tenants on the other hand have no confidence in the system, and are perpetually looking forward to reductions of rent at the hands of the Land Commission. The result is that there is no inducement to the Irish tenants to farm their land properly or to develop the resources of the country, while both landlords and tenants find themselves condemned to never ceasing litigation, the end of which no one can foresee. That is the position of the landlords and tenants, and, on the other hand, the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, find themselves saddled with the cost of maintaining this immense judicial staff, entrusted with the business of revising rents, and also with that of a large staff of police that, as we know, is generally employed in connection with disputes arising from agrarian cases.
  The defects of the system are admirably summarised in the Report of the Fry Commission, a weighty document
  1264
  which I sometimes think did not receive all the attention it deserved. The Fry Commission say of the system which it was called upon to investigate that it is a complicated system that is characterised by great delay, that it is costly to the country and that it produces in that part of the United Kingdom, which every one knows sorely needs quiet and tranquillity, a sense of abiding unrest. I cannot conceive any stronger condemnation.
  As has been pointed out several times in the course of this debate, there stands out in this great wilderness of failure one point on which our legislation has been completely and triumphantly successful. I mean that part of our system of land law which has reference to purchase and sale. That part of our land system, whether we regard it from a political point of view or with reference to its financial aspects, has been completely successful. My lords, I observe that the noble Earl was careful to point out that the Unionist Party could not claim to themselves the sole credit for having invented this system of purchase and sale. It is pleasant to see that there is a kind of rivalry for the paternity of this part of the measure, but we may at any rate claim that it was our legislation which first brought about the practical results which have attended land purchase in Ireland. The cardinal difficulty with winch purchase in Ireland had hitherto had to contend lay in this. We have been working, in two parallel grooves, namely, the groove of purchase and the groove of tenure. We I have seen that the attractions which our legislation as to tenure has offered have been so great as to render to a great extent the attractions offered by purchase nugatory and inoperative. The position of the tenant as a tenant has been so strong and advantageous that we have found ourselves obliged to offer him something like a bribe in order to induce him to abdicate that position and become the owner of his holding, instead of, as might have been expected under ordinary circumstances, finding that the tenant was willing to pay something additional in order to convert his tenancy into absolute ownership. That is the explanation, which Lord Crewe called a gigantic paradox, of the position in Ireland at this moment. We know that the stream of purchase has lately been drying

  1265
  up and that unless we do something to set it flowing again, purchase will become a dead letter in Ireland. This Bill is frankly a purchase measure, and it seems to me inconceivable that the inducements it offers should not have the effect of bringing in a large number of tenants.
  Some doubts have been expressed as to the results of the measure. I was glad to hear the noble Lord express his entire confidence those results. I believe the public will be amply secured for the advances to be made to the tenants, and that nothing is more improbable than that there should be anything like a general movement amongst them for the purpose of withholding the payment of rent-charges they will owe to the State. I believe that the tenant farmers of Ireland areas a body of men extremely shrewd and alive to their own interests, and it seems to me incredible that the tenants in the position which they will occupy after they have purchased, owning so immensely valuable an interest, acquired on such easy terms, will be found either singly or in combination with others to risk the forfeiture of that interest. I am under the strong impression that the tenants of Ireland have realised the folly of the anti-rent movement into which some of them were unfortunately inveigled, with such unfortunate results. I doubt whether we shall see any revival of those strikes against rent, and I certainly do not expect to see any organised resistance to the performance of the obligations which will be contracted under this Bill.
  One or two noble Lords lamented the fact that this Bill would lead to the extinction of the landlord class in Ireland. I think that was said by the noble Duke who spoke second, and the sentiment was re-echoed by others. That, again, is an anticipation which I do not share. I believe, on the contrary, that the Bill, as it has been framed, contains many inducements to resident owners of land in Ireland to remain in that country arid to interest themselves in its affairs. We have heard several descriptions of the inducements offered to landlords in this way. One noble Lord mentioned amongst them that the Irish landowner who continued to reside upon his property would still have an opportunity of finding himself eligible for the office of High Sheriff. I am not quite sure whether that is an inducement which would operate largely. I seem to recollect taking part in meet-
  1266
  ings held under the presidency of the noble Duke behind me for the purpose of pricking the sheriffs. We did not always find there was a great competition for the honour of filling that high office. But there are other and more substantial inducements in the Bill. One is the provision under which the Irish landowner is allowed to sell and then to repurchase on liberal terms his desmesne and family home. That will have the result of enabling many men, particularly those whose property is of modest extent, and who are unfortunately in the position of having to meet heavy encumbrances to remain in possession of their ancestral homes.
  Another matter dwelt upon in connection with this branch of the case was the question of sporting rights. That question of sporting rights will, no doubt, be discussed in Committee, and all I will say about it now is that the Bill seems to be drawn in such a way as to enable any landlord who really has established exclusive sporting rights over his property to retain those rights. If he can show that he actually has, at the time of sale, an exclusive right to sporting, he is put in the position of retaining that right, and I really suggest to those noble Lords who have pressed this point, that unless the landlord is able to show he has established the exclusive right of sporting, he has very little to gain by endeavouring to secure the survival of partial and imperfect rights enforced against reluctant tenants who would not be likely to give him much assistance in game or fish preservation.
  My Lords, some criticism has been made on that part of the Bill that deals with the question of zones, and regret has been expressed that the Bill as originally framed was not adhered to, and that it now contains a clause under which it will be possible for landlords and tenants to make arrangements outside the limits of the zones. Personally, I should have been very glad if we could have kept the Bill in its original shape, but it was impossible to resist the arguments brought forward to show that in some cases there were likely to be transactions which could not equitably be kept within the limits of the zones, and, as I think, the noble Duke told your Lordships, it is quite obvious that transactions within the zones will be much more tempting to landlords arid tenants,

  1267
  inasmuch as they will be of a much more simple character, and will be carried through with greater rapidity and ease. There is also this to be borne in mind, that permission given for transactions outside the limits of the zones may, upon occasion, enable the landlord to obtain a price in excess of the maximum limit specified in the zone, where the property sold is of exceptional importance or value.
  My Lords, with regard to the bonus upon which the noble Earl briefly touched, he was certainly right in saying that the bonus is a free gift to the vendor, and is intended for the purpose of facilitating sales. Such an inducement is particularly needed in a certain class of cases, in which, in the past, sales have proved impossible; owing to the loss of income occasioned by the stoppage of rent and the necessity of having to pay interest on mortgages, and in which the vendor of the estate was liable to find himself for a time in extremely straightened circumstances, and many owners were no doubt deterred by this apprehension. It is in that class of case precisely that it is most desirable to encourage sales, and in that class of case the bonus will be an immense inducement to the owner to sell.
  At this late hour of the evening I do not desire to take up the time of the House. We have been warned to-night, from several quarters, that we must expect proposals for the amendment of this Bill in Committee, and, no doubt, it is only right and proper that in this House, where the owners of land in Ireland are so numerous and so ably represented, that the Bill should be examined critically and Amendments moved if any weak points can be discovered, but I will venture strongly to urge on your Lordships that it will be most unfortunate if, in this House, any Amendment were to be insisted upon which could be regarded as seriously subversive of the principle on which this Bill is based. This Bill represents the result of a compromise arrived at laboriously and after much discussion between the landlords and tenants, and also between the parties concerned and the taxpayers of this country who are called upon to find the credit and cash which are necessary in order to make this Bill a workable measure. My Lords, it would be to my mind a grave misfortune if any Amendments made in this House were to disturb the careful balance upon which
  1268
  this Bill has been constructed in reference to those three interests.
  To my mind the value of the Bill is to be measured, not only by its contents but also because it is an indication of that better understanding between Irish landlords and Irish tenants which now so happily exists, that better feeling has been again and again this evening attributed to the efforts of the Conference and of the noble Earl whose name is so closely connected with that most useful discussion. My Lords, to me it seems that any changes which might re-open a question now happily settled, or might, by substituting an atmosphere of suspicion and doubt for the environment of good feeling, good will, confidence and hope in which this measure first saw the light, would be a grave misfortune. I earnestly trust that no proceeding to which your Lordships House may be a party will have the effect of in any way diminishing the favourable prospects with which this measure has been brought forward.
  LORD KILMAINE: My Lords, I take a very great interest in the Bill, and my excuse for intervening at this late hour is that great interest. I am one of those who are very sanguine of its going a long way towards settling the land question. In dealing with the Bill your Lordships must bear in mind the results of experience gained in previous Purchase Acts. My experience goes back to the Act of 1885, when the results were so satisfactory to the tenants who purchased that they are an encouragement to other landlords who sell under the Bill. In 1886 and 1887 I sold, in the counties of Mayo and Roscommon, holdings bringing in I some £3,000 or £4,000 a year, and the average term was nineteen years purchase. Out of the 300 purchasing tenants, 100 tenants paid me £5 or less, another 100 from £5 to £10, and a third hundred from £10 to £100. The estate was free from arrears, and rent was paid for twenty-five years punctually up to 1876, but arrears had accrued between 1876 and 1886, so that when the Land Commissioner inspected the holding he was rather alarmed and recommended that I should agree to a deposit of one half. The most encouraging part of my story is that not one of these 300 tenants failed in paying a single instalment to the State, and the guaranteed deposits were

  1269
  safe. Last year I attended on the estate and I found the tenants happy and contented. They were proud of the improvements they had carried out, they had largely increased their stock, and their wives and children were comfortably and tidily dressed. Out of the whole number only six of the holdings had been resold. In all cases the sellers got as much or more than they paid for the farms, and in one farm near Castlebar, which was purchased from me at £1,620 it was resold for £2,150.
  With regard to the sporting rights, I may tell your Lordships that I gave them up with the properties sold, and at that time there was a considerable amount of game on the estate. When two years ago my son visited the estate for the first time all the purchasing tenants welcomed him most warmly, and offered that in the event of his returning there with his wife to live in that part of the country they would give him back the sporting rights and do their best to preserve the game. He has gone back there to live, and they have redeemed their promise. Your Lordships, I find from Mr. Bailey's report that his experience on a large scale is the same as mine, and that the improvements on these purchased estates has been generally maintained. This information is most reassuring, and we have every reason to hope that the present Bill will be even more successful in settling the land question on a large scale. Let us hope it will be the means of bringing peace and contentment to the Irish tenantry, whose future we have at heart so much. My Lords, I believe that in the near future our gracious Sovereign the King will be able to point to Ireland as being as loyal and law-abiding as any other part of his vast Empire.
  On Question, that the Bill be read a second time,
  Agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT, 1882, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amend-
  1270
  ment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, in moving that the House be adjourned, it may be convenient to announce that we propose to take the Committee stage of the Land Bill on Thursday.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock a. m. till a quarter past Four o'clock p.m.