Sitting of 17 June 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Winchester Water and Gas Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Wirral Railway Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petitions against: from Clevedon; Sidcup; and Birmingham (two); lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Hurlford; and Roberton; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Oxford; and Durham; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 AND 1884.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 16th June—Mr. Cochrane] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 209.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2996 to 3000 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST AFRICA (CONCESSIONS).
  Address for "Return, showing the names of the firms or individuals to whom concessions have been granted in East Africa or Uganda; the exact nature and terms of those concessions; and the exact localities and areas of their operation."—(Mr. Malcolm.)
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  Return ordered, "showing the imports and exports of the United Kingdom with foreign countries, self-governing colonies, India, and other British possessions separately, for the periods 1881–5, 1886–90; and for each year since."—(Mr. Lambert.)
  PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
  Return ordered, "of net public income and net public expenditure under certain specified heads, as represented by receipts into and issued out of the Exchequer from 1880–81 to 1902–3, inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 323, of Session 1902)."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Unauthorised Baronets.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to a petition presented to His Majesty signed by a large body of Baronets, has he any further information to give respecting the progress made in the consideration of the prayers contained in the petition, beyond that which he gave in December last; and whether he can state the number of unqualified persons at present using the title and assuming the rank of Baronet.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) In answer to the first part of the Question I can only say that the matter is still under consideration. As regards the latter part, I have no information.

  Areas of Parliamentary Divisions.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether

  1159
  there is any Return giving the area in acres or in square miles of the various Parliamentary Divisions of the counties and boroughs; and if not, whether he would be willing to give such a Return.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. The area of the various Parliamentary constituencies will be found, given in acres, in Table V. of the Summary Tables of the Census of England and Wales, 1901 (Cd. 1523).

  Board of Education—Grants and Contributions.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will explain the difference between annual grants to schools from the Government Departments, and contributions from the same Departments.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Elliot.) Annual grants are made annually; contributions are not necessarily annual. They are generally made for some special purpose, though they may be continued in some instances over a period of years.

  British Cemetery at Corfu.
  MR. BROTHERTON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Ministers can say if they have been able to come to an understanding with the authorities of Corfu, whereby the old British cemetery at Corfu can remain undisturbed.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) His Majesty's Government have made this matter the subject of the most careful inquiry, and have received separate reports from two officials who have visited the island. The result has been to convince them that the most desirable course, and that most in accordance with the wishes of the British community, is to transfer the old cemetery to the local authorities on certain conditions, among which are the following:—(1) The work shall be supervised by a responsible person appointed by His Majesty's Government, who shall be afforded every facility by the Greek authorities in order to ensure the transfer of the remains and
  1160
  the monuments being efficiently and decently carried out; (2) That the proposed assembly rooms shall not be built on the site of the old cemetery, but on the high ground above. I may add that in the new cemetery to which the remains will be transferred it will be possible to watch over the graves much more carefully than has been the case heretofore.

  Time Limit of Telephone Trunk Calls.
  MR. BROTHERTON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can see his way to increase the time limit for trunk calls upon the telephone system of the Post Office from three to five minutes.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Owing to the time required to obtain the connection of subscribers' exchange lines with the trunk lines, not more than about twelve conversations an hour are possible under the best conditions on any trunk line with the three minutes limit. An increase in this limit would make the lines available for fewer subscribers, and would involve a proportionate increase in the charges for their use. As about 95 per cent. of the present trunk line conversations are completed within three minutes, and as the traffic is practically confined to business hours, a general extension, such as is suggested, would clearly not be to the advantage of the public. An extension of the limit between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. from three to six minutes was made in March to encourage the use of the trunk lines at hours when hitherto they have been little used.

  Underground Telegraph Cable to Wakefield.
  MR. BROTHERTON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can state when an underground cable will be completed to Wakefield, so that telegraphic communications can be carried on independent of climatic conditions.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am not proposing to lay an underground cable to Wakefield. The underground line from Manchester to Leeds, which I hope to lay during the present year will run viâ Bradford, and will render communication with Wakefield, practically secure.

  Schools under Section 1—Education Minute of 28th May.
  MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS: To ask the Lord Advocate what are the numbers of schools under each of the three Sub-sections of Section 1 of the Education Minute of 28th May; and what is the amount estimated to be paid under each Sub-section.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) According to the latest Returns the number of schools with an average attendance of 60 or under is 1,143; that of schools with an attendance between 60 and 100 is 552; and that of schools between 100 and 150 is 322. Of these schools only a small proportion were qualified by their staff for the special grants. But it is impossible to say what number may qualify by fulfilling the conditions during the three months ending 31st December, 1903.

  Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin—Chief Clerkship.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is, or soon will be, a vacancy in the office of chief clerk in the Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin; and whether, seeing that of the four chief officers of the department at present only one is a Roman Catholic, he will, when the occasion arises, appoint a Roman Catholic to the chief clerkship.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) A vacancy in the office of chief clerk in the Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin, will occur on the 7th July next. The Treasury will appoint the person considered to be best qualified for the position, without reference to the religious denomination to which he may belong.

  Board of Agriculture—Promotion of Temporary Clerk to a Staff Appointment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Treasury have consented to a temporary clerk with approximately two years service in the Department of Agriculture being placed on the permanent establishment and also promoted
  1162
  to a staff post, he will say if in making this staff appointment the claims of gentlemen engaged in the same department who have served for periods from nine to eleven years were considered, and whether any representations were concurrently made to the Treasury as regards these gentlemen; and, if so, whether he can state the nature and result of such representations, the present salaries of the clerk recently promoted, and the other clerks who have longer service.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. Proposals were concurrently made to the Treasury with regard to the remuneration of a considerable number of clerks of six years service and upwards, with the result that in several cases increases of salary were sanctioned. The scale of salary fixed for the staff post referred to is £190—£10—£250. The salaries of the unpromoted clerks with longer service vary from £90 to £200.

  Irish Poor Law Inquiry—Printing of Evidence.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will see that the printing of the evidence and the Report on the working of the Irish Poor Law system about to be taken is executed in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The printing required to be done by the Poor Law Commission will be executed, in the ordinary course, in Ireland.

  Evening Schools in Ireland—Delay in Payment of Teachers' Salaries.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why it is that moneys earned by teachers of evening schools have been delayed in many cases over three months; whether some steps will be taken to secure more prompt payment in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed by the Commissioners that, in consequence of the very large increase in the number of evening schools in Ireland, it has been found impracticable

  1163
  to deal with the reports as rapidly as had been anticipated. The fees are sent to the managers as soon as possible after the close of the session in every case where the conditions have been complied with and the final reports received from the inspectors. The payments will be completed in all regular cases in a week or ten days.

  South African War Medals.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will inform the House what number of medals with clasps were issued to officers and men who served in South Africa, distinguishing the several classes of medals and recipients, and also the number of medals without clasps issued to nurses who served in the hospitals during the war.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The actual number of medals and clasps issued to officers and men cannot be obtained without a laborious examination of all the medal rolls concerned, a work which would delay the distribution of those still unissued. The number of Queen's South African medals issued to nurses is 962.

  Army—Promotion of Colonels.
  MAJOR RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he could state on what principle promotions in the Generals List are carried out; and whether he will explain why four officers who received the rank of colonel in 1889 (nine years before the latest appointment), all obtaining promotion as a result of war service, have been superseded.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Promotion to the ranks of Major-General and Lieutenant-General is now given either to officers who have been selected to fill certain specified appointments, which it has been decided shall carry the rank of Major-General or Lieutenant-General respectively, or for distinguished service. The selection of officers for appointment carrying the rank of Major-General
  1164
  is made from the Colonels List, and seniority does not influence the appointments.

  Home Service for 2nd Battalion Royal Dublin Fusiliers.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the 2nd Battalion Royal Dublin Fusiliers, after losing nearly 400 men and twenty officers in killed and wounded in the late war, were sent from South Africa to Aden, where they have now been for two summers; and whether, in view of the trying character of this station, he will state why the War Office sent a regiment which has rendered the country such services to such a station, and when will the regiment be relieved.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This battalion has been temporarily detained at Aden owing to certain military exigencies which have not yet ceased. It is not yet possible to state when the battalion can be relieved.

  Women on Education Committees.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: To ask the Secretary to the the Board of Education have sanctioned Board of Education in how many cases schemes which make provision for the election of one woman only; and whether he will state on what ground these schemes have been sanctioned, in view of the provision of The Education Act, 1902, requiring the inclusion of women as well as men among the members of the Education Committee.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) While there are a number of schemes, the provisions of which would be satisfied by the presence of one woman on the Committee, there are practically none under the provisions of which, in the opinion of the Board, the presence of more than one woman is impossible. The Board of Education are advised that the requirements of Section 17 (3) (c) are satisfied by the provision in a scheme for the presence of one woman only, especially having regard to the provisions of Section 1 (1) (b) of the Interpretation Act, 1889.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Condemned Army Rations.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, can he give the details as to amounts and nature of Army rations burned near Pretoria during April last as being unfit for food; did those stores chiefly consist of tinned rations; and, if so, can he state whether they were soldered tins, or what is known in the trade as non-soldered.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The number of rations burned was 1,699,382. They were all "meat and vegetable rations" in tins, of which about two-thirds were soldered and the rest non-soldered.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the rations were all unsound, and will he state the name of the firm that supplied these unsound rations.
  MR. BRODRICK: They had been landed for a long period, and some complaint having been made of a certain issue, an immediate investigation was made. In consequence, the rations were immediately destroyed.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the contractor, and the length of time the rations had been in Africa before they became bad.
  MR. PIRIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received the Report he called for from the General Officer Commanding in South Africa, and will he publish it.
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not know that there is any fault to be found with the contractor; and I am not sure that the supplies had not been kept for a longer period than was intended. But I do not know that there would be any objection to publishing the names of the contractors when I receive them. As to the Report of the General Officer, there were certain cases in which the rations distributed had been complained of. Thereupon an investigation was made,
  1166
  and it was found that deterioration had taken place in a considerable portion of the rations.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: What was the total value of the rations destroyed.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Questions as to the names of the contractors and the value of the rations destroyed ought to be asked for after notice given.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I explain. I did put such a Question down, and the right hon. Gentleman asked me to postpone it.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Are rations in unsoldered tins still being used?
  MR. BRODRICK: Tinned meats of various kinds are being used, but I cannot say whether they are unsoldered or not. There is no question as to laying Papers. It is the most simple question in the world. A large amount of supplies was left on our hands at the conclusion of the war. They would have been used in the next three or four months; but owing to the great reduction in the troops they have remained over for more than a year, and some have deteriorated and have been destroyed. There is no objection to giving the names of the contractors and the values of the rations.
  MR. EUGENE WASONrose to put a further Question.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! This matter must not be debated by way of Question and Answer.

  Enlistment of Recruits—Age Regulations.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what measures have been taken to give effect to the Resolution of 25th March as to the age for enlistment, agreed to by this House on the Motion of the Secretary of State; and can he state what effect such measures have had upon recruiting for the regular infantry.
  MR. BRODRICK: If a recruit's "apparent age," as decided by the medical officer, is less than the standard, the recruit is required to produce satisfactory evidence that he is of the necessary age. The recruiting for the regular infantry since 25th March has been somewhat in excess of the average of the last three years.
  MR. PIRIE: Am I to understand that no steps have been taken since the Resolution was passed?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have said the question of age is carefully investigated, and where doubt exists proof is required.

  Army Veterinary Department.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what steps he proposes taking to fill the thirty-five vacancies in the Army Veterinary Department, seeing that only five candidates are forthcoming at present.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not yet in a position to state what steps will be taken.

  Gunnery in the Mediterranean Fleet.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty has he now received the further particulars required to complete the Report called for on 11th May as to the firing away, on 29th April last, in two hours, by eight battleships of the Mediterranean Fleet, of 10,513 rounds of ammunition, valued at £875, at ranges from 600 to 1,800 yards; is he aware that the whole practice took place at over 1,800 yards, and that at that distance it is impossible to see the splash of a one-inch rifle bullet in the water; that there was no marking in respect of 9,615 rounds out of the 10,513, and that it was consequently of no utility in improving marksmanship. In what respects did this practice depart from the Admiralty regulation that the attainment of good shooting and proficiency in gunnery are always to be considered as taking precedence over all other duties. Is the Report already received one made by the Commander-in-Chief himself on his own action in ordering this practice, and have the Admiralty called for or received any
  1168
  other Report or statement thereon from any gunnery or other officer. Why is it that up to 18th May some of the battleships and first-class cruisers in this fleet had only had three half-days gunnery practice since 1st January, and that one ship had not had that; and has any explanation of this been called for from the Commander-in-Chief; and, in view of the practice that the reasons of failure in gunnery practice are considered by the Admiralty, and such steps taken with regard to the individual officers concerned as in the opinion of the Admiralty are required, what steps have been taken in the case of this individual officer.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): As I informed my hon. friend on the 9th June, † the Commander-in-Chief has been asked to furnish a further Report with regard to some details of the firing on the occasion referred to. This Report has not yet been received, and until it is received I am unable to state to what extent, if at all, the practice failed to conform to the Admiralty regulations, or what were the reasons which led the Commander-in-Chief to vary the regulation practice, if any such variation occurred. The Report which has been received is from the Commander-in-Chief, and contains the details as to the number of rounds fired and other particulars, which I have already communicated to the House. No Report from any subordinate officer has been called for. The information which the hon. Member seeks in the last paragraph of his Question will not reach the Admiralty until the half-yearly Returns of Progress in Gunnery are sent in. If, when they are received, it be found necessary to take any special action, the Board of Admiralty will take such action in the way, and at the time, which they consider most advantageous to the interests of the Service. I venture to think that it is not desirable that every exercise of the discretion of the Board in respect of any particular ship or officer should be made the subject of Question and Answer in the House of Commons. The action of the Board in this, and in other matters concerning
  † See (4) Debates, cxxiii., 324.

  1169
  the discipline and order of the Fleet must, I submit, be judged as a whole, and, as long as the Board retains the confidence of Parliament, it must be trusted to exercise the discretion which is conferred upon it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the hon. Gentleman hold that no Questions should be asked in this House as to the exercise of the discretion of the Board?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is not the point, I suggest that no Question should be asked as to a particular officer with regard to a hypothetical punishment, and in respect of a contingency which has not yet occurred.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That is not my Question.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Member asks "in view of the practice that the reasons of failure in gunnery practice are considered by the Admiralty, and such steps taken with regard to the individual officers concerned as, in the opinion of the Admiralty, are required, what steps have been taken in the case of this individual officer." That Question is directed to ascertaining whether any offence has been committed by an individual officer, and whether, if so, any particular action is necessary, and I say that no such contingency has arisen.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I will put the Question down in another form.

  Efficiency in Naval Gunnery.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the decision which had been arrived at by the Admiralty on 19th May, that no advantage to the service would accrue from causing it to be understood that the retention by admirals and captains of their respective commands will in future depend on the adequate shooting efficiency of the fleets or ships under their orders, he will inform the House what officers of a fleet or ship are held responsible for inadequate shooting efficiency.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Commander-in-Chief and all officers under
  1170
  his command whose duty it is to superintend and take part in the gunnery exercises of the Fleet are responsible, in their several degrees, for the shooting carried out by them or under their orders.

  Naval Cadets.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, how many candidates between the ages of twelve and thirteen for naval cadetships under the new regulations have been nominated for the next examination; and how many of these are candidates whose parents or guardians would not agree that the candidate, if successful, should, at the discretion of the Admiralty, be posted to any one of the three branches of Engineers, Executives, or Marines.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The First Lord has not yet given any nominations for the examination in question. The announcement which appeared in the newspapers of the 26th May, as to the course which the First Lord has decided to follow with regard to these nominations, is being adhered to. The number of candidates who are prepared to join any one of the three branches of the service is so great that no candidate will be nominated on whose behalf this undertaking has not been given.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then there is to be no option. Every child who is nominated must become interchangeable.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Not necessarily. Circumstances will decide the action of the parents. If the number of candidates entering continues to be as great, parents will see it is useless to enter boys for a single nomination.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the candidates who get the highest marks not be given their choice.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir, nor will it be necessary to make the choice for eight years after the examination has taken place.

  Naval Medical and Accountant Officers.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if, in the re-adjustment of the relative ranks of medical and accountant officers of the Royal Navy, the position of senior assistant paymasters is to be removed; whether the rank of staff paymaster is to be abolished and an increased rank to be given to the senior officers of the department corresponding with that of chief paymasters in the Army.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As I informed the hon. Member for South Meath on the 27th May,† an announcement on this subject may be expected shortly. I must ask the hon. Gentleman, therefore, to await this announcement, as no useful purpose could be served by giving information on points of detail pending the publication of the scheme as a whole.

  Great Britain and Servia.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have had any diplomatic relations with the new Servian Government; and whether His Majesty's Government intend to recognise in any way the men or the representatives of the men guilty of the recent murders.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, can he now state what attitude His Majesty's Government propose to adopt towards the persons now assuming to act as the Government of Servia; and whether any communications are proceeding with Foreign Powers with a view to common or concerted action.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): As I stated on Monday, ‡ diplomatic relations between this country and Servia came to an end with the death of King Alexander and have not been renewed. His Majesty's
  †See (4) Debates, cxxiii, 17.
  ‡See page 946.
  1172
  Government have considered whether they should mark their reprobation of the crime which has disgraced the Servian capital by withdrawing His Majesty's representative at Belgrade. It has, however, been thought that, for the present, Sir G. Bonham should remain at his post, in order that he may watch and report upon events and that he may take whatever steps are necessary to protect British interests. He will not be accredited to the new Government nor will any steps be taken to accord official recognition to it until we are in possession of fuller information as to the circumstances under which it has come into power. We understand that the Powers in regard to whose attitude His Majesty's Government have received information are instructing their representatives to accept the provisional Government as the de facto authority with which current business is to be transacted.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to demand from the new Servian Government the punishment of these murderers; and, in view of what has happened, will the Government remove the regicide's statue from this House?
  MR. MALCOLM: If the British Minister in Servia is not accredited what will his position be?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That question relates to one of the technical subtleties of diplomatic usage, and should be addressed after notice to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

  Interference with British Fishermen on the Dutch Coasts.
  MR. DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Dutch gunboat "Zeehond" arrested and boarded on the high seas the British steam trawler "Sete," and ordered him to haul his gear and follow him to New Dieppe; that the captain of the trawler protested, and proved that he was fishing between eight and nine miles from the land; that after being arrested and following the gunboat for several hours, the commander released

  1173
  him, stating that he had made a mistake, interpreting the regulation limit line to be twelve miles instead of three miles; and whether, in view of the loss to the owners, the captain, and crew in this case, and of the interference with British fishermen by the gunboats on the Dutch and German coasts, he will cause a full inquiry to be made.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The matter has already been brought to the notice of the Foreign Office by the owners; and His Majesty's Minister at the Hague, under instructions from the Secretary of State, has already called the attention of the Dutch Government to the case, and has asked to be furnished with the results of the official inquiry into the matter.

  Ministry of Commerce.
  MR. HOULT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what arrangements have been made for conducting the promised inquiry to consolidate the commercial and trade interests of the country in one Department; what is the present position of the inquiry; and when he expects it to be completed.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): The terms of reference to the proposed Committee will be as follows:—"To consider the position and duties of the Board of Trade and of the Local Government Board, and to report whether any, and, if so, what alterations should be made in the constitution and status of these offices; also whether, in the interests of administrative efficiency, any re-arrangement of duties between these Departments and other Government Departments is desirable." I am glad to say that Lord Jersey has agreed to be Chairman, and I hope to be able to announce very shortly the names of the other members of the Committee.

  The Fiscal Inquiry.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposed inquiry into the fiscal system is to be
  1174
  undertaken at the public expense; and whether any Vote will appear on the Estimates with regard to it.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The proposed inquiry will be undertaken by the public Departments concerned, and I do not anticipate that it will involve any expenditure which would require a special Vote.

  Bovine Tuberculosis—Report of Royal Commission.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the Report of the Royal Commission on Bovine Tuberculosis has been issued to officials, he will explain the delay in issuing it to the public; and whether the Government are considering the necessity of scheduling tuberculosis and paying compensation for confiscations made in the public interest.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I am informed that no Report has been issued by the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis either to officials or others. As to the last part of the Question I must refer the hon. Member to my replies to previous Questions on this subject.†

  Light Dues Reductions.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state what reduction it is intended to make in the light dues; and whether the reduction will be retrospective.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): It is proposed to reduce the dues levied by the general lighthouse authorities by 12½ per cent., and to make the reduction take effect from the 1st April last.

  Trade Statistics.
  MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any figures or further information in relation to our foreign or
  † See (4) Debates, cxxii, 1637.

  1175
  colonial trade, not to be found in the Board of Trade Returns or Blue-books, which will facilitate the formation of public opinion as to the advisability or otherwise of adopting a preferential tariff in favour of our colonies; and, if so, if he will publish it.
  MR. BONAR LAW: As the hon. Member is aware, the Board of Trade publish a number of Returns and Reports but I do not think that they have in their possession any Return or Report of a similar description which could be added to those already published. If the hon. Member will state any specific information he requires we shall consider whether it can be supplied.

  Duties on British Goods Abroad.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the dates of the treaties by which the United States, Portugal, and other countries levy increased duties on certain classes of British imports; what articles are the subject of such treatment; to what extent has British trade been affected; and whether the Government have admitted it is in accordance with the most-favoured-nation treatment that British goods should be thus penalised.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The dates of the reciprocal agreements under which the United States levy lower rates of duty on certain articles from certain foreign countries than on similar articles from the United Kingdom are:—Agreement with France, May, 1898; agreement with Germany, July, 1900; agreement with Italy, July, 1900. The dates of the Portuguese treaties according lower rates of import duty to foreign countries on certain articles than on similar imports from the United Kingdom are:—Treaty with Russia, July, 1895; treaty with Norway, December, 1894; treaty with Holland, July, 1894. The articles of the United Kingdom production affected are, in the case of the United States, paintings, statuary, and spirits; and, in the case of Portugal, certain classes of leather and of jute manufactures, tin manufactures, candles, and a few other articles of minor importance. It is not possible to state exactly the extent to which British trade has been affected by this differential
  1176
  treatment. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is there in existence at present a commercial treaty with Portugal containing a most-favoured nation clause?
  MR. BONAR LAW: I understand not, but the hon. Member will perhaps put down a Question.
  MR. LAMBERT: Can the hon. Member give an approximate estimate of the British trade affected by the preferential duties?
  MR. BONAR LAW: It would be difficult to give an estimate that would be of any value.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Cannot the hon. Member give the exports of British products before and after these treaties?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice should be given of that question.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: Are these treaties printed in any Government publication, or are they accessible in any way in the library of the House?
  MR. BONAR LAW: I think they are not accessible at present.

  Castlecomer and Kilkenny Tramway.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received resolutions from various local authorities, including the Kilkenny County Council, advocating the appropriation of a portion of the Equivalent Grant to build a railway or tramway from Castlecomer to Kilkenny; and whether this project is receiving consideration.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The reply to this Question is in the affirmative.

  Londonderry and Donegal Union Boundaries.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commission

  1177
  appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to inquire into the Poor Law system will embrace an inquiry into the proposed change in the union boundaries of the counties Londonderry and Donegal; and, if so, when and where will the investigation take place.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. The Commission hope to hold a sitting at Londonderry early in August. Due notice will be given of the actual date of this and all other sittings of the Commission.

  Vagrancy in Ireland.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Commission of Inquiry into the Irish Poor Law system have power to inquire into the question of vagrancy; and, if so, if he will suggest their considering the methods of dealing with his question in foreign countries, notably in the United States and Germany, with a view to devising some remedy for what is a growing social evil in Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commission will inquire into the subject of vagrancy, and will be glad to receive evidence in respect of the methods adopted in foreign countries for dealing with the question.

  The Land Bill and Life Annuitants.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what will be the position of life annuitants under the Land Bill, and especially where annuities are in arrear; and if such will be reckoned under the table of annuities at present existing.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The annuity will be valued, and its value, when ascertained, paid according to its priority out of the purchase-money. The arrears of the annuity are a charge upon the lands, and must be similarly paid. The value of the annuity will be ascertained by the Land Commission or Land Judge, as the case may be, with such actuarial assistance as may be necessary.

  South Antrim Register of Voters.
  MR. WOOD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of freeholders and leaseholders in the county of the city of Belfast who are voters in South Antrim; whether he can state the number of them who are dead and the number of them who, although returned on the register as freeholders, hold no lands, having disposed of same twenty to forty years ago.
  I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Belfast freeholders and leaseholders who are on the register of voters for South Antrim are also on the voters' list for the county of the city of Belfast, the revising barrister for the said city having decided that since the passing of the Local Government Act, 1898 (by which the city of Belfast was constitued a county), these freeholders and leaseholders are entitled to vote in the said county of the city of Belfast; whether he can state why were these freeholders and leaseholders not then removed from the list of voters for South Antrim; and whether any, and, if so, what steps will be taken to have them removed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of freeholders and leaseholders in the county of the city of Belfast who are registered as Parliamentary voters in South Antrim is 1,435. The matters referred to in the second part of the Question, and in the next Question also in the name of the same hon. Member, are matters to be investigated and decided upon by the Revising Barrister at the Annual Revision Sessions.

  Planter Tenants and Derelict Farms.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether immediate steps will be taken by him to prevent, pending the passing of the present Land Bill, the letting of derelict farms in county Longford and elsewhere in Ireland to planter tenants with a view to the exclusion of the evicted tenants or their representatives.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.

  Corglass and Comakelly Townland Tenants.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the cause of delay in the transfer to the tenants of the O'Brien, Dundas, and Smyth estates, in the townlands of Corglass and Comakelly, the tenants of which had made arrangements with their landlords to purchase, and the latter being avowedly anxious to sell: whether, seeing that proceedings are now pending in the matter, he will urge the Land Commission to push forward the sales and transfer without any further delay.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Proceedings for the sale of the lands in question have not, so far, been instituted in the Land Commission.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on a previous occasion he promised to make representations on the subject to the Land Judge.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There appears to be some misapprehension. The matter must come before the Land Commission, and I am told it has not yet reached that stage. I will inquire further, however, if the hon. Member desires.

  Potato Spraying in Co. Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to I the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that farmers in the county Kerry have asked the Congested Districts Board for assistance to procure machines for potato spraying, he will state what will be done to assist them in this much needed work.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Only one such application has been made to the Board from Kerry this year, and it has been complied with on the usual terms. Two of the Board's officers will give demonstrations in spraying in the county.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Has any information been given to the local authorities on the subject?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think it is a matter of common knowledge.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: On what conditions are machines provided?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must ask for notice of that.

  Irish Public Department Audits.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the fact that a proposition was made some years since by an official that the audit of a certain Irish Public Department could be more conveniently and efficiently carried on in Dublin; and, seeing that it was practically decided to appoint a permanent staff for the purpose, will he explain why the intention was not carried into effect.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,): I have been unable to trace the proposal alluded to by the hon. Member. If he will give me details showing which was the Department in question, and in what year the proposal was made, I will give the matter my attention.

  Audit of Irish Public Accounts.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the audit of all Irish Public Accounts is mainly carried on in the Audit Office, London, although Devonport Dockyard Accounts are audited in Devonport by a permanent staff; and whether, with a view to economy and efficiency, he will consider the advisability of applying the same system to the general audit of Irish Public Accounts and provide accommodation for a permanent staff in the new Government buildings about to be erected in Dublin.
  MR. ELLIOT: Portions of the Irish accounts, such as Public Education and Post Office accounts, are periodically examined in Dublin to avoid the inconvenience of forwarding the local records from Ireland. But it has been found to be more convenient that the ordinary accounts of receipts and expenditure of Irish Departments should be audited in London.

  Irish Lights.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that on the 3rd of March last he intimated to the Commissioners of Irish Lights that they had for some time past neglected their duties as regards periodical inspections, and called upon them to carry out the duties imposed upon them by The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and that this neglect has extended over a considerable period of time, he will state what steps he proposes to take to make the Irish Lights Commissioners carry out the duties imposed upon them by statute.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, imposes upon general lighthouse authorities the duty of inspecting lighthouses, buoys, and beacons belonging to local lighthouse authorities, and I have reason to hope that the representation which has been addressed to the Commissioners will receive their attention.

  Preferential Tariffs—Mr. Seddon's Speech in New Zealand.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any confirmation of a speech having been made in New Zealand by Mr. Seddon, stating that, if the United Kingdom does not grant certain of the produce of New Zealand preferential fiscal treatment over such produce from foreign sources, New Zealand will enter into reciprocity fiscal treaties with foreign countries; whether the Government of this country has already recognised the right of the self governing colonies to enter into such reciprocity treaties with foreign nations; and whether, if so, this involves the right of foreign countries to regard our self-governing colonies as fiscal entities in all regarding import and export duties.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have received no confirmation of the speech referred to. Reciprocal arrangements have been in a few special cases negotiated by the Imperial Government on behalf of colonies
  1182
  with foreign Powers, but such arrangements have not in any way impaired the right of such colonies to make such arrangements as they deemed fit with each other or with this country.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. Labouchere—
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid no arrangements can be made between the colonies and foreign countries except through the Imperial Government.

  The Government Fiscal Inquiry.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the inquiry by the Government as to the advisability of taxing food, oral evidence will be received; and, if so, before whom and by whom such evidence will be heard; whether the inquiry will commence before the prorogation of Parliament; and, if so, whether a Supplementary Vote will be taken for its cost; whether any portion of the inquiry will devolve on the Treasury.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly I trust that those who look into this matter will not confine themselves to written communications, and if they do not, it is clear that oral communications will be included. I told the hon. Member yesterday that the persons responsible for the inquiry are the Cabinet. The inquiry will certainly commence before the prorogation, and of course has commenced already, and there is no question of a future date. It is now engaging the attention of the Government. I have no reason to believe that a Supplementary Vote will be required; and of course the Treasury, in common with other Departments concerned, will give the best assistance it can to the Government in the prosecution of this investigation.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is it intended to publish the oral communications and the written communications that are sent to the Departments receiving them?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As we understand this inquiry, it is for the purpose of informing the people of this country, and not the members of the Cabinet only.

  1183
  May I ask what steps will be taken and what course will be followed in order to communicate to the nation the nature and effect of the evidence obtained?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a question which is evidently premature. The object of the present investigation is first to enable those at present responsible for the government of the country to deal with a very complicated problem, By what means the discussion in public and the information of the public is to be managed at a subsequent period does not arise now.
  SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Then the first stage of the inquiry is solely for the information of the Cabinet?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course it is.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: May I ask whether the President of the Council was wrong in saying a day or two ago somewhere, while advocating a public inquiry, that if the question were kept to the end it would have to be submitted to an unprepared Party and to unprepared constituencies, and, if so, how the right hon. Gentleman meets that.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not understand the point of the hon. Member's question.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: Is the whole question to be referred to a Committee of the Cabinet, or will it be considered by the Government as a whole?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have gone far beyond what is usual in explaining the course which we intend to pursue. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think that this is the first time in British history that a Cabinet has ever inquired into anything. I can assure them that that is a mistake; and I am not aware that this inquiry differs from previous inquiries conducted by this or by previous Governments on questions at least equally important.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is this a secret inquiry or is it not?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is secret precisely to the same extent as, and no further than, all similar inquiries undertaken by other Governments in the past.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Then does the Prime Minister reject the idea of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that it must not be a secret inquiry?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is obviously referring to a debate in the House of Lords.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the inquiry into the proposed new fiscal arrangements with the self-governing colonies is to be limited to the expediency of a duty upon food supplies from them entering the United Kingdom; or whether it is to embrace the consideration of allowing any of their raw materials being also taxed on entry.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not propose to suggest any limitations.

  Canada and the German Tariff.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any correspondence or negotiations took place between the British and German Governments in each or any of the years 1900, 1901, or 1902, in regard to the fiscal treatment of Canada; whether any such correspondence or negotiations took place within the twelve months ending the 1st of May, 1903; whether the British Government have re-opened negotiations since the 1st of May last; and whether any correspondence took place between the British and German Governments in consequence of the failure of the negotiations between Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the German Consul at Montreal in the autumn of 1901.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No correspondence in regard to the subject mentioned took place with the German Government in the years 1900, 1901, or 1902. Correspondence with the German Government was resumed in 1903, shortly before the date mentioned in the Question. No correspondence took place between the

  1185
  Governments in consequence of the failure of the negotiations in Montreal in 1901.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Then it is not right to say that "persistent representations" have been made to the German Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have given the hon. Member the facts. He can draw his own conclusions.

  New South Wales and the Government Declarations.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question of which I have given him private notice. I wish to ask whether he is aware that the Premier of New South Wales has now stated that the declarations referred to in the recent message of his Government were contained in the speeches delivered by the Colonial Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman himself, and whether he will take steps to correct by messages to the Government of that colony this misapprehension of those speeches, seeing that the House was assured that, pending inquiry to be undertaken by the Government, no conclusion would be formed and no action would be taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Sir, I have received no information confirming the intelligence of the right hon. Gentleman, which I believe appears in the newspapers. There is no telegram at the Colonial Office conveying the information.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The telegram is from the Premier of New South Wales.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, it has not been received, I am informed, at the Colonial Office. As regards the second and inferential part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, I can only say that I have nothing either to withdraw, or, so far as I know, to explain in the speech to which he refers.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman still think that the declaration refers to some documents of 1897?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not the smallest conception, but it might.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the debates on the Irish Land Bill are likely to be resumed after being interrupted by the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope that the questions to be raised on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill are not of a kind to give rise to any prolonged debate, and, so far as I am aware, there will be no difficulty in resuming the Irish Land Bill after the Committee stage of the Budget is passed. Of course the Third Reading will have to be taken before the date I have mentioned, in order to enable the Act to become law before 30th June.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then, in all probability, so far as I understand, the Irish Land Bill will not be taken next week.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, I hope it will.
  MR. DELANY: May I ask the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the discussion last night and the vote taken he proposes to withdraw the Irish Land Bill?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.

  NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT AND PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS—MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANrose in hie place and asked leave to move ths adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the misunderstanding created in the mind of the Government of the colony of New South Wales by the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary, and the necessity of making it clear to the Government of New South Wales that these speeches are isolated expressions of opinion to which the Cabinet is in no way committed;" and the pleasure of the House having been signified,
  The Motion stood over, understanding Order No. 10, until the Evening Sitting this day.

  SELECTION.
  Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on the Port of London Bill: Sir Alexander Henderson; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Charles Renshaw.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  UNION OF BENEFICES ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 247.]
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Ordered, That Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Sir Thomas Firbank, and Mr. Rose be Members of the Select Committee on the Post Office Sites Bill.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
  PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) BILL.
  Ordered, That Mr. Elliot, Mr. Boland, and Mr. Charles Allen be Members of the Select Committee on the Public Offices (Dublin) Bill—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid they had now reached the second of the most important questions raised by the Irish Land Bill. During the first two days the Committee had been discussing the subject of the minimum price, and of course it was fresh in the recollection of everybody what attitude had been taken by the Irish Members towards that provision. He believed that the question he now proposed to raise—viz., the omission of the perpetual rent-charge, was equally as important as the subject of the minimum price. He did not think the Chief Secretary could have been well advised when he sought to impose a perpetual rent-charge on future tenant purchasers in
  1188
  Ireland. This was the sixth Land Purchase Bill which had been introduced to the notice of Parliament, and four of the measures had been passed into law, but in no previous instance had it been sought to impose a perpetual rent-charge on tenant purchasers. They were consequently face to face with what might be described as a new phase of the Irish land question. Neither from the sentimental side nor from the side of utility was the proposal to fix a perpetual rent-charge on tenant purchasers necessary or called for. If there was one thing more absolutely clear to the minds of every Irish Member of Parliament interested in the settlement of the land question than another, it was that the Irish tenant farmers wanted the land, the whole land, and nothing but the land, and would never assent to any proposal to put a never-ending rent-charge burden on their backs, and on the backs of those who followed them in the occupation of their holdings. Let the Committee examine how the proposal would work out. Neither in a sentimental nor in a prosaic way would such a scheme give satisfaction to the Irish tenants. The great interest which had been raised in the Bill, and the great hopes which had been excited in the minds and hearts of the Irish people were based on the fact that for ever and ever they were to be relieved of the presence at their doors of the bailiff, or rent collector, or landlord's agent. But this proposal put another official in the place of the rent collector. He did not know, of course, what machinery it was proposed to create for the collection of the permanent charge, but he ventured to assert that the scheme, whatever it might be, would prove the very foundation of the undoing of the work of the Purchase Acts passed by the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in his speech on the First Reading of the Bill, said one of the objects was to prevent sub-letting and dividing. But he did not think it could for one moment be alleged that that object would be attained by the resurrection of the gombeen system. Why should it be necessary to impose on the tenants a perpetual charge of 2¾ per cent. on the purchase money? He could understand the proposal if the Chief Secretary had provided that the money thus collected, and the fund thereby accumulated, should be used for the

  1189
  development of the country, or for the reduction of taxation, but, so far as he could see, no such proposal was contemplated, and he thought he might fairly describe this permanent rent-charge as an absolutely derelict proposal for the collection of money of which practically they were to get no account. It might be suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that the object was to provide additional security for the British taxpayer. But he felt inclined to agree with the hon. Member who had observed that the British taxpayer was well able to take care of himself. So far as the people of Ireland were concerned, they had it on the authority of a Royal Commission that to the Irish people the British taxpayer represented excessive and over-taxation.
  The Chief Secretary did not attempt to justify his proposal on the ground that it was necessary to retain one-eighth of the purchase money, and to collect from the tenant farmers 2¾ per cent. as an additional security for John Bull. Then on what ground of equity and justice could the proposal be defended? There was no provision in the Bill for the future administration of the fund thus to be accumulated, or for its application to any purpose which would be of use to the people from whom it was to be collected. On what ground did the right hon. Gentleman make so large a charge upon the tenants? In the whole world there could not be found people so desirous, he might almost say devoted, to keeping their obligations as the Irish. That was admitted over and over again by the right hon. Gentleman. He regarded the proposal of the perpetual rent-charge as unnecessary and unjust and certain to provoke the tenant farmer of Ireland. It would undo the work of land purchase because it placed the tenant in a worse position than his neighbours who had purchased under other Land Acts, and placed over their heads the shadow of another landlordism in the shape of the British collector. This Amendment raised a very important issue. No case had been made for the inclusion of these words in the Bill save the theory that it was good to provide against sub-division, mortgage, and so forth. He desired that as much as anyone, and was perfectly prepared to assent to any moderate proposal which had that object in view, and which would
  1190
  save the farmer from the grabber and the gombeen man. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, lines 21 and 22, to leave out the words and perpetual rent-charge.'"—(Mr. J. B. Farrell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid he hoped it would not be difficult to convince the Chief Secretary that this notion of a perpetual rent-charge was an unfortunate innovation in Irish land legislation. Nobody asked for it and nobody in Ireland wanted it except those who favoured nationalisation of the land, who were a very small minority. In reference to this proposal there could be no repetition of the somewhat unscrupulous treatment of yesterday by some spokesmen of the landlord party on the minimum prices. This proposal did not come from the landlord quarter. It did not emanate from either the landlords or the tenants in conference, and not a single member of either Irish Party had a single word to say in its favour. They were perfectly willing to accept any additional protection, any nominal reservation, which might be necessary as a protection against excessive mortgaging if there was any necessity. But was there any necessity? For sixty-eight years, at all events, this perpetual rent-charge was superfluous as a check against excessive mortgaging or sub-letting, and if this matter had to be dealt with at the end of that time, it might safely be left to those who came after, who would approach the matter under different conditions. It introduced a new and highly dangerous element into Irish land legislation. To the Irish farmer the whole charm of this Bill was the notion of property and the notion that the holding would be his own and that no man could ever interfere with him, but this perpetual rent-charge would be a perpetual reminder to him that he was not the holder but that some power which was not even denned, could step in and affect his interest in his property, with what object none at present saw, while the purchaser would be always faced with the fact that his 80,000 neighbours who purchased under the Ashbourne Acts were absolute owners of the fee simple.

  1191
  Irish land legislation was complicated enough without this new proposal. This proposal might contain the seeds of considerable trouble in Ireland in the future. There was a considerable feeling and a justifiable feeling of soreness in the minds of the agricultural labourers and the working classes of the towns, who thought too much was being absorbed by the farmers. He sympathised with the agricultural labourers and hoped they would be able in the future to devise means of doing justice to them. If the impression were once created that this perpetual rent-charge was an acknowledgment that one-eighth of the holding did not belong to the tenant at all, then there might be material for a considerable agitation. Ireland was not a new country, it was an old country, and those experiments could not be tried as they might be in a new. In this Bill the Government violated the principle that the holdings should be the complete property of the tenants, and gave nobody in Ireland any interest in the money collected. If they took upon themselves the odium of collecting what amounted to a second rent-charge they would leave the impression in the minds of the tenant that they, instead of being better off than when they were under the Ashbourne Acts, were worse off. He would not further detain the Committee now, as other great questions, such as those dealing with the purchase price, the evicted tenants, and the congested districts, remained to be decided. He would only say that he could not see what attraction this charge, which was so objectionable to the people of Ireland, could have to any party to the bargain, and he begged the Chief Secretary not to force upon them this new and unheard of complication, which was fraught with considerable danger to the peace of Ireland, and would create such discontent in the minds of the tenant farmers as to destroy the virtue of the other proposals.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said he shared the anxiety of the hon. Member to get to the consideration of the important questions to which he referred. It would be inconvenient if they could not in some way avoid a prolonged discussion on the rent-charge at the present stage, when they all desired to get to the
  1192
  subject which was very present to their minds. It had been argued that this rent-charge would perpetuate the idea that the purchaser was still a payer of rent, and that he would own only seven-eighths of his property. All he would say was that the question of the rent-charge would come up in Clause 40, and he suggested that it should be then discussed, he giving an undertaking to approach the question with an open mind, and with a disposition carefully to weigh the reasons which might be urged in favour of or against having such a provision in the Bill. He had previously contended, and was prepared, if necessary, to contend again, that this protection might in some cases be needed during the sixty-eight years. The danger he had in his mind, which might be remote, but was certainly possible, was that of persons other than those who purchased under the Act, buying up holdings, paying off the liabilities, and stealing away with all the advantages of the credit of the general taxpayer, to create holdings of a very undesirable description outside the Land Acts. It would be more convenient now to pass to a subject more germane to that which was under discussion yesterday, and he hoped, with the undertaking he had given, the Committee would agree to discuss the question of the rent-charge on Clause 40.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLpointed out that if the words were passed now the Committeee would be committed to the principle of the rent-charge. While he desired to get the Bill for what it might be worth, it was necessary to be very careful where they were going and what they were doing.
  MR. WYNDHAMexplained that if, after discussion on Clause 40, it was decided to abandon the rent-charge, he should bring up a Government Amendment on the Report stage.
  *MR T. W. RUSSELLsaid he was exceedingly unwilling that the Committee should sanction a novel principle such as this without debating it. The hon. Member for Cork had implied that the whole of the Irish representatives were opposed to this proposal. But that

  1193
  was no reason for supposing the House of Commons would not pass it. On the contrary, that was the very reason why the House of Commons was likely to pass it. When it was remembered that last night a proposal of a most grave and vital character was carried over the heads of the Irish Members, who were absolutely unanimous against it, what reason was there for supposing that on Clause 40 the unanimity of Irish representatives would be worth a brass farthing? The matter must be threshed out before the principle was affirmed. For seventeen years there had been in operation in Ireland a land code which had been a success because to a large extent it had the assent of the Irish people. It was the one class of Irish legislation for which this House had been responsible in the last twenty years that had worked satisfactorily. There had been none of the bogies conjured up by the Chief Secretary, and why should they be anticipated now? The real secret of the success of past purchase measures had been the sense of ownership. All the while a tenant felt that he was working for another, and that if he improved the land his rent would be raised, the land remained unimproved; but immediately the landlord was got out of the way the tenant began to improve his holding. The Chief Secretary now proposed to destroy that sense of ownership, and to establish for all time the overlordship of the Crown. In his Second Reading speech the right hon. Gentleman said it was necessary to control sub-dividing, sub-letting, and reckless mortgaging. But by Clause 49 sub-dividing was absolutely prohibited for sixty-eight-and-a-half years, and reckless mortgaging was provided against for the same period. Therefore anything that was done now was for the period beyond sixty-eight-and-a-half years. Why should the Committee interest themselves so much in the people who would occupy the land seventy years hence? Unless he was mistaken Ireland would then be in such a position that the people would be able to take care of themselves. It seemed as though a Conservative Government was capable of doing anything. Who would have imagined that the first step towards the nationalisation of land in Ireland would
  1194
  have come from a Conservative Government? That was the principle contended for by Mr. Michael Davitt, and the Chief Secretary was adopting it.
  DR. THOMPSON: Then there must be something in it.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid there was something in most proposals. He would like, however, to see the hon. Member not only accept the doctrine in the House of Commons, but also go "on stump" in North Monaghan.
  DR. THOMPSONsaid he was not in the least afraid of "taking the stump" in North Monaghan.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the Conservative Government were actually proposing to insert the thin end of the wedge of land nationalisation in Ireland. That might be done in a new country, but Ireland was the last country in the world where such an experiment ought to be tried. If they were going to differentiate in this matter between the 80,000 tenants who had bought and those who would buy under this Act they would be laying the very seeds of disease that would produce trouble, and they would land themselves in endless difficulties. He was not prepared to wait until Clause 40 was reached, and he hoped the Committee would not consent to leave this question in abeyance.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that this was one of those questions upon which he attached great importance to the united opinion of Ireland. The hon. Member for South Tyrone seemed to think that his word was not sufficient in regard to this Amendment.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: No, no.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. Member had been discussing in rather a heated manner a subject of far less importance than the subjects discussed yesterday without any heat at all. His suggestion was that they might defer this point to a later clause, but if that was not the view of hon. Members from

  1195
  Ireland, he had such a sense of the importance of saving time that he would accept the Amendment. He deprecated the heated declarations of his hon. friend on a minor point like this, and he had no objection whatever to deleting the words which had been proposed to be struck out.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he entirely agreed that it was not necessary to introduce the slightest heat into this discussion. The Chief Secretary had stated that he would keep an open mind until Clause 40 was reached, but that was not at all satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman must have considered this matter very carefully, and he knew the unanimity of feeling upon this point in Ireland. He took it for granted that the Chief Secretary had come to some conclusion upon the point, and he thought the best course to pursue would be for him to inform the Committee at once. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's request that they ought to agree to postpone this question, he would remind him that in the case he alluded to, there were certain words in the early part of the clause which limited the amount of advance to be given in certain cases, and they pressed upon the Government that they should insert the words "As amended in this Bill." In this case however the words stated that there should be a perpetual rent-charge, and the right hon. Gentleman asked them to put those words into the clause and then adjourn the question. That was a most inconvenient course. There was an Amendment on the Paper to Clause 40, standing in the name of his hon. friend who had moved this Amendment, dealing with the exact amount of the perpetual rent-charge.
  MR. WYNDHAMthought if this was carried there could be no discussion of the point again on Clause 40.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDthought the simplest way would be to accept the Amendment. [An HON. MEMBER: The Chief Secretary has agreed to delete those words.]
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid if that were so he need not proceed.
  MR. WYNDHAMthought that if they took out these words they
  1196
  would shut out the question for ever, but he agreed that if they left them in they would commit themselves. This was, however, only a minor matter, and he desired to proceed to the discussion of the more important questions. All he desired was to get on, and he was willing to accept the Amendment.
  MR. COGHILLsaid he had risen to make a complaint. This was the second case already in which the right hon. Gentleman had thrown over safeguards in the Bill. He had up to the present supported the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he was going to stick to what he proposed upon the introduction of this measure. Already the Chief Secretary was beginning to talk about Bills which would have to be brought in during another session in order to amend this.
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked if the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke were germane to the omission of the words which had been proposed.
  MR. COGHILLsaid the Chief Secretary for Ireland seemed to be afraid of what would take place in the Division Lobby, but he assured him that he need have no such fear. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford could have defeated the Government at any time during the afternoon of yesterday had he been so disposed, but he kept his supporters addressing the House in order to avoid a division.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid there was not one scintilla of truth in that statement.
  MR. COGHILLsaid that was how the question had struck the outsider. He hoped the Chief Secretary would not make any further concessions. [Ironical NATIONALIST cheers.] After the speeches the Chief Secretary had delivered in this House and after obtaining the sanction of the House to the Second Reading of this Bill upon the distinct pledges he gave to the House, he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to adhere to them.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As the Chief Secretary is now in a giving mood perhaps he could give the hon. Member for Stoke a job.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid this was not a question of zones, but a purely administrative question. Let them get rid of this point and get on with the Bill.
  Question put and negatived.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked if after what had taken place yesterday he should be in order in moving the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The question discussed yesterday was whether there were to be any zones at all. I think this Amendment raises a somewhat different question, and if the hon. Member wishes to move it I do not think I should be justified in ruling that the question had already been discussed, although I know that a considerable amount of debate yesterday turned upon this point.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he would move to leave out of line 23 of Clause 1 the word "ten," and insert "fifteen." The effect of his Amendment was to alter the minimum reduction in this zone from 10 to 15 per cent. He did not think it was necessary to use many words upon this occasion, because the arguments on this point had already been dealt with by other hon. Members as well as himself. Their belief was that the limit of 10 per cent. was too low, and that, owing to various reasons, certain classes of tenants might perhaps be induced to pay more for their land than from an economical point of view they were justified in doing. This was not a limit to which they attached the most importance. They did attach considerable importance however to this point. Their idea of an ideal settlement would be to raise this limit from ten to fifteen, and abolish the other altogether. He must move the Amendment in order to state his protest, which he had no doubt hon. Members sitting around him would think it their duty to emphasise
  1198
  in this matter. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 23, to leave out the word 'ten,' and insert the word 'fifteen.'"—(Mr. John Redmond.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBthought the Government would do well to stand by the limit of ten in the Bill. After all he could not see that by making it fifteen there would be very much gained. If they took the case of a £10 holder it really meant a difference of 10s. and no more. If the Committee looked at the whole question of maximum and minimum he thought that both sides were perhaps attaching exaggerated importance to the question. He knew that English Members were considerably confused by the different methods of stating this question. In some cases it was put as the maximum and minimum reduction, and in other cases it was put as the maximum and minimum price. He would like to show exactly the real meaning of this question, and for that purpose he would take as an illustration the case of the £10 holder. He did not think that the House realised what Parliament had done in the way of benefiting the tenants of Ireland at the expense of the landlords. Great changes had been made in the relations between landlords and tenants. He was not now dealing with the question whether it was right or wrong to make these changes, or whether the landlords had a grievance or not. The question now before the Committee was whether a £10 holder now was to get a minimum reduction of 10 or 15 per cent. He wanted to put before the Committee the history of this £10 holder. In the first place he was at a certain rent in 1881, when an Act was passed and his rent was reduced, according to a Return showing the average, by 20 per cent. After fifteen years under the Act of 1896, his rent was further reduced by 20 per cent., and that brought it to £10. Turned into figures it came to this, that that man's original rent was £16 before the passing

  1199
  of the Act of 1881. The question was whether a man who in 1881 was paying a rent of £16 was now badly treated if he was asked to accept State purchase at a rent 10 per cent. below the £10 which he was paying. It really came to this—that they were asking him to pay half his original rent and to become a State tenant. There were so many important questions dealt with in this Bill that, in connection with this particular matter, he thought they were really justified in saying that the landlords considered that the minimum of 10 per cent. sufficiently safeguarded the interest of the State. The question the Committee had now to consider was whether a difference of 5 per cent. would deter or promote purchase. He presumed that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had only one object in his mind, namely, to promote purchase. If it was the hon. and learned Member's object to induce the tenant to buy, obviously his object must also be to induce landlords to sell. The landlords were the men in position whom they had to show that it would be to their advantage to sell. He put it to the Committee would 5 per cent. make all that difference? They started with this basis that the Government considered after examination of the whole question—that a 10 per cent. minimum was a sufficient safeguard for the State, and therefore they could dismiss the British taxpayer altogether from the question. It was the business of the Government to look after the general taxpayer. Was it worth while to waste a great deal of time over this difference of 5 per cent.? [NATIONALIST laughter.] That was his way of looking at it.
  MR. FLAVIN: Let the Chief Secretary accept the Amendment and not waste any more time.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: The Government considered that 10 per cent. was a sufficient safeguard for the general taxpayer. If he was mis-stating the case the Government, of course, would correct his statement. But he said that so far as this minimum reduction went the security of the State was covered by the figure in the Bill. Hon. Members on the other side of the House who were concerned in the matter said that an addition of 5 per cent. was after all not a very considerable
  1200
  matter. But they considered that by the increase of the minimum reduction above what was necessary to secure, the State was really to do something directed against the interest of the landlord. In regard to this minimum reduction, what the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had got to show was not that it would be beneficial to the tenant—of course, anything they got off the price was beneficial to the tenant—but that under this voluntary Bill the interests of the landlord must also be considered. He reminded the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that at the Conference it was agreed that the general minimum reduction should be only calculated on the basis necessary to secure the landlords income at 3 per cent. He trusted that the Government would adhere, for the reasons he had given, to the 10 per cent. in the clause and not increase it, because that might have the effect of deterring some large landlords from selling.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Fifteen per cent. minimum is the actual figure in the Conference Report which was agreed to by the landlords.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that somehow or other they had got away from the Conference Report. But they were bound by the Conference declaration, which was exactly in the line of the Landlords' Convention declaration, that the landlord should receive as purchase money a sum which should guarantee an income for him at 3 or 3¼ per cent. An addition of 5 per cent. to the limit stated in the Bill might in some cases prevent the landlord from getting what he should have. He put it to the hon. and learned Member whether the acceptance of the Amendment would not really, instead of encouraging, deter landlords from selling. He asked the hon. and learned Member whether, without prejudice to other questions, they could not arrange to leave the figure at 10 per cent. as it was put in the Bill?
  MR. DILLONsaid that the hon. and gallant Member spoke of the desirability of not wasting time, and yet he had occupied an hour and a-half in discussing an Amendment which he himself had described as

  1201
  exceedingly trifling. If 5 per cent. was such a small matter, why did not the Chief Secretary accept the Amendment and have done with it? He confessed he would have been better pleased if the hon. Member for Waterford had moved 20 per cent. instead of 15. The principle involved in the Amendment was important. He was against the principle of these zones and limitations in toto, and after what had occurred the previous night this clause was objectionable from beginning to end. The clause would be used for raising the general level of price of land in Ireland. They had been asked to set up a standard by which the landlords might combine to demand from their tenants a mean price between the two limits. The Chief Secretary spoke of the clause as offering to the tenants an opportunity of purchasing their holdings at eighteen years purchase on first-term rents, and twenty-two years purchase on second-term rents: but did the Chief Secretary ask them to believe that all the tenants of Ireland, or any considerable section of them, were going to get the minimum price? They had heard a great deal about combinations amongst the tenants to bring pressure to bear on the landlords, but nothing of the combination of the landlords. There was such a combination, and what they wanted was twenty-eight years purchase. If the tenants gave them twenty-five years purchase they did not care where the rest came from.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that twenty-eight years purchase would be on the basis of second-term rents which had been reduced.
  MR. DILLONsaid he could not understand the hon. and gallant Member, who did not seem even yet to have grasped the principles of the Bill. As he understood the application of these limits, the maximum price would be twenty-eight years purchase and the minimum about twenty-two on second-term rents as they now stood; and the mean would be twenty-five years purchase. That was what they were told the landlords would combine for. He was speaking of the great mass of the tenants who could not plead exceptional circumstances. What
  1202
  they were, in fact, asked to consent to, was to raise the general average level of second-term rents of tenancies in Ireland to a purchase price of twenty-five years, as against eighteen to nineteen years purchase at the present time. The proposal of the hon. Member for Waterford was most moderate, and he supported it strongly because it tended to bring down the level of the mean price. The hon. and gallant Member said, "Why not consider the case of the poor landlords?" But what would be the effect of this Amendment? The landlord would be debarred from taking from the tenantry more than six years purchase in addition to what they had ever paid before. And the hon. and gallant Member complained that that was a hardship on the landlords! But that was not all, because account had not been taken of the bonus. The hon. and gallant Member's complaint, therefore, was that the landlords were to be penalised by the Amendment because, if it was passed they would not be able to get more than ten years purchase more than they got under the present law. That was the case of the Irish landlords. He had been accustomed to see extraordinary demands put forward in this House on behalf of the Irish landlords, but all paled into insignificance before that of the hon. and gallant Member. He thought it was extremely important that they should make a determined effort by moving Amendments to this clause and discussing them moderately, to set forth to the best of their ability the realities of the clause, which he was convinced had not been grasped by the majority of the English Members of the House.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid he hoped that the Chief Secretary would adhere to the limitations he had proposed. They had been rightly told that it would be desirable to give some more elasticity to the limits than the Land Conference proposed; in other words, to increase the power of bargaining by 5 per cent. on each side of the limits, leaving the average reduction precisely the same as it was before—viz., 20 per cent. It seemed to him that if the hon. Member for Waterford desired to go back to the Conference terms upon one limit,

  1203
  he ought to go back to the Conference terms on the other limit; and if he cut off 5 per cent. extra bargaining power in one direction, he ought to cut it off on the other. No doubt the hon. Member would not like to do it in the second case, but he urged the Government to adhere to the terms which they had given, and which would give effect to an increased power of bargaining to landlord and tenant.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid there was another reason than that already stated why he appealed to the Government and the landlords to accept the Amendment. He thought he was right in saying that the view of the Land Conference was that 10 per cent. was the cost of collection. In his judgment that was an error so far as the tenants were concerned. It erred on the side of generosity and in favour of the landlords. If they took 5 per cent. for agent's fees; if they took the loss by legal expenses whether for the issue of writs or processes; if they took likewise the loss to the tenants through bad seasons and mortality amongst their cattle; if they took the loss which constantly arose from illness of the tenant or death—he was told that on the best estates in Munster that at least would be 15 per cent., and on the slum holdings it would run from 20 to 25 per cent. He thought that when the Conference made the agreement of 10 per cent. all round they arrived at a most generous decision. He appealed to any hon. Gentleman with experience in Irish administration to say, when the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General for Ireland were drawing such a Bill as this, whether they would put the wastage on any estate at less than 20 per cent. Mr. Gladstone's Bill put the losses and the outgoings at 20 per cent., and therefore he thought they were in a position to say that as regarded this Amendment the terms of the Land Conference ought to be insisted upon. In the first instance the Government had taken 20 per cent., and the proposition of the Conference on that head was 15 per cent. Would it not be fair to ask the landlord party opposite whether they were not bound by their own code of honour to adopt the treaty arranged by their own
  1204
  representatives in conference assembled? He personally felt bound by the decision arrived at by the three gentlemen who represented the side of the tenants; and that being so, hon. Members opposite ought to adhere in a similar way to a decision out of which they would obtain numerous benefits. In a treaty of this kind, where persons were taking benefits, they could not approbate and reprobate; and if the tenants in this matter said they were willing to rely upon the Conference figures, surely that bound the landlords. It was not a matter merely for the Chief Secretary, but one of a solemn obligation on both Parties. He appealed to the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh to say whether, under the circumstances he did not feel that he was as much bound as they were.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that he was not a party to the Conference. He refused to join it; but he acknowledged that the Conference did very good work. He did not, however, feel bound at all by it. It did not represent him, nor, he thought, the majority of the Irish landlords; but he thought that the majority of the Irish landlords acknowledged the merits of the work done at the Conference; and, so far as he was concerned, and he believed also so far as the landlords were concerned, they supported the line taken by the Conference. With regard to the question now before the Committee, the Amendment was not so much against the landlords, but it narrowed the region of bargaining. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would rather not have any zones of any kind; but when they had established zones, to raise the minimum from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. would, in his opinion, narrow the area of bargaining. His own opinion was, that when a landlord made an agreement with a tenant they would probably split the difference. He thought that the feeling of the landlords was that this opportunity of settling the land question should not be lost. He believed that if the Bill were passed into law, probably more than ninety out of every hundred landlords would sell under it. Speaking for himself, he would sell at once, although there might be a temptation to retain property which had been in his family for over 300 years. The Bill was an offer which neither the landlords nor the

  1205
  tenants should throw away. Personally, he was in favour of the 10 per cent. limit; and he did not think that raising it to 15 per cent. would confer any benefit on the tenants, while it would narrow the region of bargaining. He thought that the Irishman who would do anything to wreck this measure would deserve ill of his country.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid there was no question as to the security of the State so far as the alteration proposed by the Amendment was concerned; and therefore the objection of the hon. and gallant Gentleman disappeared. The Amendment should be considered entirely from the point of view of what was the smallest minimum of reduction which would meet all the difficulties that might arise. The Land Conference Report referred to the increased responsibility which would be placed on the tenant. There was every prospect of increased taxation; and the Land Conference had to consider what annual instalment the tenant should pay in future as compared with the rent he paid at present. The Conference came to the conclusion that 15 per cent. was the minimum reduction which the tenant should have. The question the Committee had now to consider was whether that was or was not a reasonable settlement. The proposal in the Report was universally agreed to. No objection was taken to it by the Landlords' Convention, which acknowledged the spirit of fairness of the Report, while declining to commit itself to all the details. He had never heard of any body in Ireland taking exception to the minimum reduction embodied in the Report. In future the tenant would not have assistance from his landlord, which was now given in many cases. He would not be allowed voluntary abatement. His rents would not be allowed to run into arrear; and the question which the Committee had to consider was, not in the average of cases but in extreme cases, what was the minimum of reduction the instalment should represent. Having regard to the fact that in future the tenant would stand entirely on his own basis, and that he would have a harsh and punctual landlord who had no heart, and who would be sure to extort the instalments to a day, the Land Conference came to the conclusion that the smallest figure they could reasonably recommend
  1206
  was 15 per cent. The landlords appeared quite as anxious that a figure should be fixed which would enable the tenant to meet his obligations. The Conference Report was adopted unanimously by the country, and he never heard any repudiation by any landlord body in Ireland of the 15 per cent. recommendation. He appealed to hon. Members, who during the last few days had been quoting the Land Conference Report against them, to at least support this proposal in the Report. So far as broadening the lines of bargaining was concerned, that could be very easily arranged by altering the other limit; but he maintained that, having regard to the obligations that would be imposed on the tenant and his difficulty in meeting them when he had made a hard and fast bargain with the State, the minimum reduction should be 15 per cent.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid if they took the Conference figures and inserted 15 per cent. they at least insured 15 per cent. coming to the tenants at once, and they gave him in exchange for this security the right to get 30 per cent. They were absolutely assured of 15 per cent. instead of 10 per cent., and had a chance of getting 30 instead of 25 per cent. on second-term rents. That was the Irish tenant's point of view, but he wished to point out that the 15 per cent. which the tenant would secure under the minimum of his hon. and learned friend was also a security to the British taxpayer. Over 2,000 bargains had been refused by the Land Commissioners because the security was not sufficient. He thought it was hardly fair for hon. Members on the Unionist side of the House to throw the Land Conference Report at the head of both Irish Parties as they had done, and the moment it came up in a concrete shape and they proposed to accept the figures to say it was only to be taken when it was in favour of the landlords.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid it might be that the lower the price which could be arranged in these transactions the better it would be for the taxpayer, but if this Bill was to be of any effect the price must be one which would induce the landlords to sell. They ought to see that the terms were as fair as possible

  1207
  for both sides, but were such as to induce the landlords to sell. Taking a 3¼ per cent. security, which was an infinitely better security than Irish land at the present time, the capitalised amount that would give the landlord the £90 out of every £100 that they asked for was £2,500 plus the bonus. That was 20 per cent. If the 15 per cent. figures were taken it would be about £2,650, so that £85 rent would mean a capital sum of £2,650, this would give £86, which with the 10 per cent. bonus would be £94 7s. Therefore, if they took the 10 per cent. figure, the landlord would get a trifle over the gross income to which he was now entitled.
  MR. WYNDHAMregretted that he could not give way. The hon. Member had urged his plea with great ingenuity and force. In reply, he would ask hon. Members who had made reference to the Land Conference Report to recollect the position in which the Government were placed by it. From many points of view it placed them in a most happy position, for it gave them an unexampled opportunity. But also from some points of view it put them in a very difficult position. It was laid down at that Conference that the landlord could not be expected to sell unless he received as the result of the transaction a sum which would secure to him his net income. Whether 10 per cent. was too liberal a calculation he was not competent to decide; but it must be taken that their intention was that the landlord who had received £100 should in future, after he had been paid and had invested his money, receive £90 a year. But the Land Conference went further, and laid it down that the State should bear the whole cost of investigation of title and distribution of purchase money. It was impossible for him to say what that would amount to, but in some cases he knew it had amounted to as much as two or three years purchase. The Government found themselves unable to give such liberal terms; and on all these occasions, he must be allowed to point out, the signatories of the Conference Report happily and properly did not assume the attitude of dictation to the general taxpayer or the
  1208
  Exchequer. If they had their Report would not have made nearly so great an impression on the public imagination. But they said what they thought would solve the situation, and suggested that if what was necessary could not be done by the use of State credit reasonable aid might be added. He had to go closely into this problem and to make an unusual and unprecedented demand on his colleagues. The sum which could properly be allotted had been determined, and he suggested that if the Government had come to a different view as to that amount and made a larger advance he would have had greater difficulty in commending the measure to the House as a whole. Having fixed the amount of aid the State should give at £12,000,000 they were then bound to carry out, as far as they could, the Conference terms in respect both of the landlord and tenant, and he thought they had got much nearer the Conference terms in relation to the tenant than in relation to the landlord. Taking the figures of the hon. Member for Oldham, and assuming that 3¼ per cent. could be got instead of 3 per cent.—although this question must be considered in connection with the increased facilities the Government had now given for investment—he maintained that the landlord could not get his 90 per cent., for nothing had been allowed in the calculations of the hon. Member for costs. If the Amendment were accepted the landlord would get two, three, or four years purchase less than he ought to get by the Conference terms. The pecuniary position of every landlord would vary in accordance with his financial obligations, and if perfect theoretic justice was to be done in every case it would be necessary to sit as a Court upon the private affairs of each party to the transaction. That was one of the reasons for adopting the principle of the zones, and allowing the parties interested to play between the 10 and the 30 per cent. in order that, according to their particular circumstances, they might approach as nearly as they could to the terms of the Conference Report. That being so, the Government from their point of view ought not say to the tenants, "You shall not pay the price you wish to pay" except up to the point which was considered necessary for the security of the

  1209
  State. That point was found at a reduction of 10 per cent. on second-term rents, and the Government would be unnecessarily interfering with the bargaining if they made the reduction greater when they did not consider it need be greater for the security of the State. He therefore opposed the Amendment.
  *MR. HEMPHILLsaid the Committee could not be controlled by the findings of the Land Conference. The responsibility of Members was to consider each Amendment on its merits as it came before them. If the difference between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. was so inconsiderable as had been urged, why should not the poor men—the tenants—get the benefit of it rather than the comparatively rich men—the landlords? The fact that the existing Government was satisfied with the proposed reduction was no reason why the taxpayers should acquiesce. He certainly refused to pin his faith to the present Administration in the matter of the economy or security of the taxpayers. The duty of the Committee was to see that the security was ample. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Oldham demonstrated that with the minimum reduction at 10 per cent. the purchase annuity might possibly exceed the second-term rents. With what face could the Committee pass a clause having such an effect as that? What security was there that the public purse would not be called upon to make good the deficiency? With the minimum reduction fixed at 10 per cent. there was no margin of security at all. He appealed to the Committee not to listen to the argument that, because of what was done at the Conference, and because the landlords insisted on receiving from gilt-edged securities as much money as they had obtained from the most uncertain and contingent of all incomes—that derived from Irish land, they should be blind to their first duty of seeing that the State was sufficiently protected against future loss.
  MR. ASHTONsaid that in view of the large amount to be advanced by the British taxpayer for the purpose of carrying out this scheme, the figures produced by the hon. Member for Oldham ought to give every
  1210
  English Member pause before refusing to vote for the Amendment. Those figures showed that with the 10 per cent. reduction the landowner would get as much money as the gross amount of his present rent, whereas everybody who knew anything about land was aware that before the real value could be ascertained large deductions had to be made. Therefore, looking at the matter from the point of view of the British taxpayer, the figures of the hon. Member for Oldham had convinced him that with the 10 per cent. reduction the security was not good enough. It was of enormous importance that the representatives of Ireland should be satisfied in this respect. But the Irish Party had declared, through their leader, that they would not be satisfied with 10 per cent. reduction, and he certainly was not prepared to support the Bill if the Irish Members were not to be satisfied with it. Unless the people of Ireland were satisfied the arrangements would not be worth the paper on which they were written. On these grounds he should support the Amendment.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBpointed out that the rents here dealt with had been fixed, not by the landlord, but by a judicial tribunal, by whom all the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member for Oldham had been taken into account. It had also to be remembered that, in addition to the rent, there were the tenants' improvements, and, in many cases, the tenants' houses to be added to the security.
  *MR. TOMKINSONsaid that it appeared to him that both parties to this dispute were being so handsomely dealt with by the British taxpayer through the exploitation of the national credit, that either of them could well afford to give way on the question of the 5 per cent. A tenant of a £10 second-term rental holding would under the Bill first get a 10 per cent. reduction to £9, and then receive the whole of the twenty-five years purchase money, £225, at 3¼ per cent.—including sinking fund—making his annual payment £7 4s. instead of £10. The landlord, on the other hand, would get enough to yield him his present rent in a 3¼ per cent. investment. At the same time, as it was

  1211
  not a compulsory Bill, some inducements to sale must be held out, and he doubted if the tenants' representatives were wise in pressing for the reduction. If this question came to a division, as it was to the interest of the British taxpayer that no more should be paid than was absolutely necessary, he should vote for the Amendment.
  MR. COGHILLsaid that upon this question he intended to vote with the hon. Member who had moved this Amendment.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he knew of hundreds of cases where, in the case of judicial rents fixed within the last three or four years, the landlords had had to give considerable abatements. He knew a case where a landlord had to give 16 per cent. abatement upon a rent which had been recently reduced. Second-term rents had recently been reduced by 6, 8, and 10 per cent., although in some cases the rents had been raised. The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth appeared to represent both the taxpayers of Yarmouth and the landlords of Ireland. They should not forget that after the passing of the Local Government Act Irish landlords were relieved of the payment of the Poor Rate and other local charges, but they were left some special charges for which they were still liable, but when the landlords took themselves bag and baggage out of Ireland those charges would have to be borne by the annuitants.
  *MR. O'DOHERTYsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper increasing the minimum reduction, but after the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford he considered that he would not be justified in moving the Amendment standing in his name. Only two years ago the Landlords Convention demanded that they should be protected so far as to be able to get an equivalent sum which would produce an amount equal to their present net income. That claim had been put forward again to-day on their behalf by the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth. The case of the Irish tenant farmer was identical with the case of the English
  1212
  taxpayer. Apart altogether from the absurd and unreasonable prices contained in the first clause of this Bill, in his opinion the landlords' case could be met, and they could be assured of their present net income if the minimum reduction moved by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford was accepted by the Government. There was another view of the question which had not been brought as yet before the Committee. The Chief Secretary, when he introduced this Bill, told them that he estimated the rental of the estates to be sold at about £4,000,000 per annum. It was estimated that one-third at least of the landlords' interest was mortgaged. Taking those figures as correct, there would be a sum of £40,000,000 as mortgages upon land in Ireland, and the interest upon that would be about 4½ or 5 per cent. Taken at 4½ per cent., it gave a sum of £1,800,000 per annum, as the sum paid by the landlords for interest on mortgages. Of course the cost of collection would have to be considered. At the Landlords Convention, Mr. Montgomery estimated the cost of collection at 12½, per cent., and that meant a sum of £500,000, and if they added that sum to the £1,800,000 interest, it gave a sum of £2,300,000, which they had to deduct from the gross rental of £4,000,000 in order to arrive at the net rental. These figures gave £1,700,000 as the net rental at present enjoyed by the Irish landlords. Looking at this from a landlord's standpoint, how was this sum of £1,700,000 to be secured to them without putting an unnecessary burden upon the tenant purchaser? It was proposed that twenty years purchase of the gross rental would not be an unfair price for the landlords to receive or for the tenants to pay, but if they took it at twenty years purchase the sum required amounted to £80,000,000. There was a bonus of £12,000,000 to be given to the landlords under the Act by the general taxpayer, and thus they got £92,000,000, which was to be made up under the Bill and paid to the landlords. The landlords must pay off their mortgages, and if they deducted from the £92,000,000 the existing mortgages of £40,000,000 that left them £52,000,000 for investment.
  Under the Bill additional facilities were being conferred upon landlords and trustees for investing this money. The

  1213
  sphere of trustee investments was somewhat enlarged, and he had no doubt whatever when they came to consider the present state of the money market, the landlords would be able to invest this money at 3½ per cent. Three per cent. Corporation stocks were now being issued at a large discount, and under the extended sphere landlords would be easily able to obtain for their money 3½ per cent. The sum of £52,000,000 invested at 3½ per cent. would produce an annual income of £1,820,000 a year, or £120,000 more than the income at present enjoyed by the landlords. He would suggest that the amount of the bonus should not go according to the price of the estates or the gross rentals, but in proportion to the net income derivable from the several estates. The purchasing tenants, on the basis he had given, would pay twenty years purchase in order to secure to the landlords the income which they at present enjoyed. The argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth that it did not matter much to the tenant farmers of Ireland whether they paid ten or twelve years extra purchase so long as they got a reduction of their present rents was not correct. The Irish tenant farmers, as evidenced by their dealings under the Ashbourne Act, had shown themselves as shrewd business men as the farmers of any country in the world, and they would ponder over it before they undertook to pay a price which would place a burden round their necks if they purchased under this Act, and which would place them in a far worse position than their neighbours who had purchased under the Ashbourne Act. As one largely interested in the land question he could assure the Committee that if tenants could not buy in the future under the Ashbourne Act he would advise them to borrow money at 5 per cent. to pay the landlord rather than borrow from the Government under this Act.
  He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would concede the small measure of justice asked for by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. After all, 5 per cent. was not much. It would not break the back of the landlord or tenant even if the Government did not yield, but the acceptance of the Amendment would help to make the working of the Bill practicable. The result of rejecting
  1214
  the Amendment would be that the Bill, instead of facilitating the final settlement of this vexed question, would only be another milestone on the agrarian road in Ireland. He did not think the land question could ever be settled by a voluntary Bill. He believed there must be compulsory sale. Until they had compulsory sale, year after year the same story would be repeated in this House as had been told for the last century. This Bill, from that point of view, would never settle the land question. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to consider the wishes put forward practically unanimously by hon. Members from Ireland in favour of the instalment of justice asked for in the Amendment. Although Irish landlords might, in some cases, be unwilling to sell their estates, he believed they would be induced to do so if they were satisfied that this Bill would settle the question.
  MR. DUFFYsaid that as one deeply interested in the acceptance of the Amendment, he wished to say a word in favour of it. He was acquainted with the conditions of the districts in County Galway, and he could not understand why some hon. Members had rushed to the conclusion that on the second-term rents the tenants had been granted a reduction of 20 per cent. Two or three years ago when the second-term rents were being fixed a wave of indignation ran over the districts at what was being done by the Sub-Commissioners. The tenantry at that time visited him and asked what they were to do in the circumstances in which they were placed. The landlords before going into Court offered second-term reductions varying from 20 to 25 per cent. On entering the Court the tenants in some cases not only did not get their rents reduced but had them increased. What possibility did that open up to the Irish Government in future? He pointed this out as a reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not take it into account to induce him to accept the Amendment now before the Committee. If the Amendment was passed hon. Members from Ireland would be able to point out to the tenants that there was a prospect of their getting a further reduction of 15 instead of 10 per cent. By retaining the

  1215
  minimum figure yesterday the Government committed a mistake and incorporated one of the greatest possible flaws in the measure. He hoped they would repent that mistake by accepting this Amendment.
  MR. MURPHYsaid the limit of 10 per cent. had been defended by the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth. He had in his mind a case which occurred last year on the Warden Estate in County Kerry. Mr. Warden was, he understood, connected with the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth. In that case the valuer gave evidence that the value of a holding was £7, but the Sub-Commissioners who might have been expected to stand fairly between the landlord and the tenant fixed the rent at £7 10s. In connection with the fixing of second-term rents the tenant often felt aggrieved at the decisions of the Sub-Commission. He impressed on the Chief Secretary that this Amendment had been supported by every Member who spoke for Ireland. In regard to a previous Amendment the right hon. Gentleman said that on account of the unanimity of opinion on the part of the Irish Members he would give way. He thought that in this matter he ought to do the same thing. By doing so he would ensure that the tenants would be protected and that the interest of the British taxpayer would also be safeguarded.
  MR. O'DOWDsaid he represented a county in the West of Ireland which was deeply interested in the matter under discussion. He could not conceive why the Chief Secretary would not, in the face of what occurred last night, without the slightest hesitation accept the very moderate Amendment proposed by his hon. friend and leader the Member for Waterford. His county, although partially congested, was peculiarly an agricultural county, and the greater portion of it was occupied by farms of between £20 and £50 valuation. The question dealt with by the Amendment concerned them very much indeed, and it would be a grievous disappointment to all classes of farmers in the county if it were not accepted by the Chief Secretary. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that under the Ashbourne Act many estates had been purchased not
  1216
  only in County Kerry but all over the west of Ireland on the basis of sixteen and seventeen years purchase. These purchases were effected on the basis of seventeen years purchase on first-term rents and with decadal reductions. If the limitations, proposed in the clause, to agreements between landlord and tenant were insisted on it would create in his county the same discontent as in the case of the Dillon Estate. If the right hon. Gentleman rejected the Amendment he would leave the great body of the people in Ireland under the impression that the Government had no serious intention of passing this measure into law. Even if it were passed it would become inoperative. All those who had taken part in the agrarian agitation in Ireland during the past fifteen years were as anxious as any hon. or right hon. Gentleman in the House to bring the Irish agrarian war to an end, so that they could press on their case for social reforms, the industrial development of their country and the creation of a Parliament of their own. They were sincere in their wish to bring the agrarian war to a close in the interest of every class and religious section in the community; and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this moderate Amendment and by so doing repair some of the damage he had done the previous night.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that on a matter of this kind first impressions counted for a very great deal, and if the idea was given to people who were anxious to enter into negotiations for the purchase of their holdings that they would only get a 10 per cent. reduction from what they were now paying, many of them would fight shy. The first question he was asked in the County of Clare was what reduction they could possibly get if they entered into arrangements under the Bill; and if the right hon. Gentleman put him in the position to say that only 10 per cent. was to be given a great many of them would hesitate and hold back. The last second-term rents fixed had not been at all satisfactory, and therefore they expected a larger reduction. If the right hon. Gentleman enabled the Irish Members to go to their constituents and say that they would get a reduction of 15 per cent. on second-term rents straight away, it would greatly facilitate

  1217
  the progress of the Bill and induce people to take action on it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might resist the Amendment on the ground that this was another attempt to extort terms that would not be fair to the landlords; but that was not his idea or that of his hon. friends. On former occasions he could hardly find words strong enough in which to describe the conduct of the landlords, but he recognised that a truce had been called on both sides, and that there was a sincere desire to come to a solution of the land question. They did not want to withhold from the landlords a fair and reasonable share in this bargain, but they also
  wanted the vast majority of the small farmers to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill when it passed into law, and to become the owners of their own soil. If the tenants did not get a reduction of 15 per cent., which was fair, they would say that they preferred to hold out to a future time when they would be able to get infinitely better terms than those now proposed in the Bill.
  Question put.
  Committee divided:—Ayes, 217; Noes, 175. (Division List No. 119.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoult, Joseph

  Aird, Sir John

  Denny, Colonel

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kerr, John

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Balcarres, Lord

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Fergusson, Rt. Hon Sir J. (Man'r)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bignold, Arthur

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Bigwood, James

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

  Bill, Charles

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lowe, Francis William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Brassey, Albert

  Flower, Ernest

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W.

  Bull, William James

  Garfit, William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Butcher, John George

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

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

  Milvain, Thomas

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J. (Birm

  Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Chapman, Edward

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midd'x

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Coddington, Sir William

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Myers, William Henry

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Craig, Charles C. (Antrim, S.)

  Helder, Augustus

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Percy, Earl

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Vincent Col. Sir C. E. H. Sheffi'd

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Pym, C. Guy

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Randles John S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

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

  Renwick, George

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Stroyan, John

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther-

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork N. E.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Lundon, W.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Ambrose, Robert

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Asher, Alexander

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Govern, T.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Field, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Austin, Sir John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Mitchell, Edw (Fermanagh, N.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mooney, John J.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Gilhooly, James

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Black, Alexander William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Murnaghan, George

  Blake, Edward

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Murphy, John

  Boland, John

  Grant, Corrie

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

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

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Hammond, John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork

  Burns, John

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Caldwell, James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cameron, Robert

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

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

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas H.

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

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Doherty, William

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Dowd, John

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Malley, William

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Crean, Eugene

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crombie, John William

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Shee, James John

  Crooks, William

  Kitson, Sir James

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Cullinan, J.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Delany, William

  Lambert, George

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dillon, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Price, Robert John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Rea, Russell

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Reddy, M.

  Duffy, William J.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Leng, Sir John

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Levy, Maurice

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Edwards, Frank

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Lough, Thomas

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  1220

  1221

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Roche, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Russell, T. W.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Thompson, Dr E. C. (Monagh'n, N.

  Young, Samuel

  Shackleton, David James

  Tomkinson, James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Toulmin, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Tully, Jasper

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wallace, Robert

  Captain Donelan.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether the next Amendment standing in his name would be in order?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: No. I do not think it would. I think it would cover the same ground as was taken yesterday, but it would be in order to move to omit "thirty "and insert "forty."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he would accordingly propose to omit "thirty" and insert "forty." After what had taken place the previous day, every one knew that they had endeavoured to put before the Committee in the most forcible manner their opposition to this maximum reduction limit. For the present the Government were obdurate in this matter, and although he hoped before the Bill left the House they would change their minds, he thought the best thing they could do was to improve the limitation. No object would be gained by repeating the arguments already put before the Committee, and he therefore contented himself by simply moving the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 24, to leave out the word 'thirty' and insert the word 'forty.'"—(Mr. John Redmond.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMwas unable to accept the Amendment. He agreed that the matter had already been discussed at great length, but if hon. Gentlemen opposite thought he ought to add something he was prepared to do so.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDdirected the right hon. gentleman's attention to the point of the modification of the figures.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would confine his attention to that point, although other points would be raised by subsequent Amendments. In order to justify the figure thirty he would take up the argument which he had with the hon. Member for Oldham on an earlier Amendment. A reduction of 30 per cent. would mean £70 instead of £100, and that would produce a capital sum from the tenant of £2,154. But he ought to add something for the bonus. How much should be added it was impossible to say, but he would add 10 per cent., and then the landlord, from the tenant and the State, would receive in all £2,369. In order to get the terms which the Conference desired the landlord to get, and the terms which would induce landlords to sell, he would have to invest that sum, not at 3 per cent. or 3¼ per cent., but at more than 3¾ per cent., and he thought he should be going very far away from the Conference terms, and further than he ought to go, if he did not attempt to prevent the landlord's future income falling, as it would, below £77 instead of £90. Waiving altogether the question that the Conference proposed to pay the 10 per cent. bonus for the investigation of title, if the tenants got a reduction of 30 per cent. and the landlord invested the money at 3¼ per cent. he would only get £77 instead of £90 as proposed by the Conference. He felt bound as far as he could to carry out the spirit of that Report and to consider the rights of both parties. In this case the tenant would be getting 5 per cent. more than he would get under the Conference terms, and there would be a prospect of further reductions. They had tried to do justice in this matter between the two parties, but that was not his main defence for keeping the figures as they appeared in the Bill. His main defence of those zones was that if they abandoned them, or even altered them materially, they would inevitably go back to the procedure of the Landed

  1223
  Estates Court. Even if the Amendment were to be carried, when they came to work the Bill did anyone suppose that the great English Societies, who had large sums of money invested in Irish land, and who knew nothing of the system of land tenure in Ireland, would not, on hearing that their property was jeopardised, move for an injunction to restrain the sale of properties at a figure which would imperil their securities. The hon. Member for Waterford was not convinced on that point, but if necessary he could be furnished with full details, facts and figures. He had found, contrary to his expectations, that this Bill had caused a great deal of commotion and apprehension throughout the ranks of those who had interests in Irish land other than those of the landlord. The Irish Church body alone had £8,000,000 of money invested in mortgages in Ireland. If he took away this safeguard of the interests of those who had mortgages in Irish land some others would be found, and these might so delay and impede the sales as to defeat the object of the Bill. It had been asserted that in this matter the Government were mainly concerned in seeing that the landlords got a certain price. He had never denied that, in his opinion, they were bound to see that to a certain extent the terms of the Conference were carried out. But he had contended that the landlord would not get as much as the tenant. Behind all that stood these legal difficulties and the dangers of delay. They could be best met by statutory enactment, and they must be met if they wished to avoid great disappointment in Ireland and elsewhere.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he desired to recall to the Committee the fact that in 1896 when the Bill was going through the House he moved an Amendment to give the mortgagees and encumbrancers the power to sell in the Land Court. That Amendment was opposed by the Government and rejected. The Government having refused to take the advice offered in 1896, which would have got rid of the whole difficulty, now turned round and told the Committee that the mortgagees and encumbrancers were the chief reason why the zone system was invented. It was foolish to be wise before their time. They were too wise in 1896 and were then scoffed at; they were told it would not be right to give a mortgagee power
  1224
  to sell the landlord out of his house and home, although the landlord, as they now knew from the right hon. Gentleman, was in many cases in the Westport Union. He had never taken up the position that some defence could not be made in respect of the zone system, and his friends in the Conference would not have come to the conclusion that there might be a zone system had they not had some reason for it. He acknowledged that in the Bill as drawn there must be some system; they might have some system of notice by which the mortgagee could come in and the whole question of priority of charge settled when they were selling what might be a bankrupt estate, a system which would involve a long procedure; or they might have a zone system. They debated that question on the previous day and decided it, and to-day they were not dealing so much with the zone system but what the limits of the zone ought to be.
  Accepting the proposition of the zone system, and leaving the mortgagees and encumbrancers out of the case, he desired to ask why the right hon. Gentleman had given no answer to the question why the unencumbered land had required a zone system. The right hon. Gentleman had given no reply to that; he would give it himself. The reply was "Trinity College, Dublin." The case of the Irish Church body was an entirely different case because the Irish Church body was a genuine encumbrancer. That was not the case of Trinity College at all. The middleman in Trinity College was the owner of the fee simple, and, having been created the fee simple owner, Trinity College was in the position that it was not an encumbrancer and it was not the head landlord. It was in the position of a quasi-charger. Trinity College was in an unusual position in the eye of the law, and when he asked why was not the owner of the fee simple allowed to do what he liked he received no reply. For the sake of Trinity College, an undisclosed principal, the whole independence of the landlord was to be fettered. Let them put Trinity College in a separate and distinct category. It occupied a position abhorrent to the real principles of law; it was a creature of special Acts of Parliament with a special status given to it. Let them exempt it not from the

  1225
  Bill, but from the operation of this system of zones, and deal with it under some special and separate clause. The result would be that the two guardian angels of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary might fairly lead the House and not be embarrassing the Government at every turn, and they would be able to discuss Trinity College in a separate clause. If that suggestion met the view of Irish Members it might be the means of creating some freedom for the Government and the landlords and tenants of Ireland with regard to the rest of the Bill. At the present moment they were discussing the zone not as an Irish zone in truth but as a zone governed and fettered by the position of Trinity College. He wished Irish landlords in this matter would form a special group among themselves to speak in this House upon this matter, in which case the Government would be much less fettered. The Irish landlords were advising the Government from what they believed to be the point of view of their own interests, but the more he contemplated the action of the Government the less he was satisfied that the interests of the landlords were best advocated in this. The interests of the landlords did not conflict in this Bill, and therefore it was that they could approach this matter better from the position of judicious bottle-holders than as partisans. The Government should ask the landlords whether they were in the position of an Œcumenical Council giving infallible advice in this matter.
  MR. DILLONsaid this Amendment raised a most important question. The right hon. Gentleman put forward the appeal that he was in a measure bound to maintain the income of the landlords at the net return of the second-term rentals and not allow any freedom of bargaining which would reduce them below that level. That introduced the question of the basis on which the income was to be estimated. Under the provisions of the Bill, it would be easy for landlords to invest the proceeds of the sale of their estates at certainly 3¾ per cent., so that the estimate of the Chief Secretary was entirely wrong. That made a considerable difference in the question of the
  1226
  net income. Then speakers on the other side had altogether ignored the payments to mortgagees. The normal condition of landlords in Ireland was that their estates were mortgaged to at least one-third of their value, and many of them to the extent of two-thirds. The truth of the matter was that it would not be under the mark to say that the landlords would be able to invest their proceeds at an average of 4 per cent.; and it was absurd to carry on the argument on the assumption that the landlords were really compelled, in order to get their present net income, to invest the proceeds of their estates at 3¼ per cent. In many cases, instead of suffering a reduction of net income, the landlords, in addition to exchanging an absolutely rotten security for a gilt-edged security, would considerably increase their net income. What English or Scotch Member was there who, if dependent on an income from land, would not, in the present condition of agriculture, gladly exchange that income at a considerable net loss for an income from a gilt-edged security? The argument of the Chief Secretary on that point absolutely fell to the ground.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the old question of legal delay, and urged the necessity, unless there was a statutory enactment, of giving notice to all the interests concerned. But why should the statutory enactment take the particular form proposed in Clause 1? Moreover, that was no argument against extending this limit, because, even if it were increased to 40, or 50, or 60 per cent., the statutory enactment would still remain. The question of legal delay had been grossly exaggerated. The delay in the Landed Estates Court, of which the right hon. Gentleman had drawn appalling pictures, was largely due to the fact that the Court had been perverted, he believed illegally, from the purpose for which it was established, into a rent-collecting machine, a nursery for bankrupt estates, and a means of preventing rather than expediting sales. It was really monstrous to quote the Landed Estates Court as an example of what might occur. Had the right hon. Gentleman ever read the history of the Encumbered Estates Court, the parent

  1227
  of the Landed Estates Court? In those days, when the fate of the old gentry of Ireland—many of whom, bad as they were, were better than those who had come after them—was at stake, none of this tenderness was shown, nor were the net incomes so carefully nursed. The transactions were executed with a rapidity that would make real property lawyers in England go into fits. The estates were sold at knock-out auction in Court for ten, eight, or even seven years purchase, without the slightest consideration for the interests of the owner or the encumbered person. There was no reality in this talk about legal delay. The machine could easily be made to move if so desired. All that was wanted were officials who really desired to get the work done, and not officials whose one object was to prevent the work being done for fear of it being found that their salaries were unnecessary. But the question of legal delay did not arise on this Amendment, which was simply a question of giving a little more elbow-room to the bargainers. How was it that the Ashbourne Act had worked so well if this enormous difficulty existed? For ten or twelve years that Act worked admirably, and it would have worked better if the members of the Land Commission had stuck to their work instead of wandering over Europe inspecting stud farms in Germany, or receiving the King at Hackney Substantially the old machinery worked well, and all that was necessary to make it work more rapidly was a clearance of the old officials, the introduction of fresh blood, a sufficient number of men to do the work of minor officials—such as inspection and detail work—and some inducement to the landlords additional to the prices which the tenants had been willing or able to offer in the past. The Irish party still held that compulsion was the proper course. In the face of what had occurred, however, he was content to try the experiment of offering to the landlords three or four years purchase more than they had been in the habit of receiving, and then putting a limit to the period during which that offer should hold good. If that system gave a prospect of settling the question so much the better; but if it failed the
  1228
  cry for compulsion would be irresistible. That system, he contended, could get a perfectly fair trial under the old machinery. For his part he could only say that even if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford were accepted, he should still feel bound, so long as this limit to the maximum reduction remained, to oppose the whole clause.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said the hon. Member who had just sat down had expressed for the first time thorough approval of the existing system under the Ashbourne Act. Hardly a day went past in which his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not asked questions as to how it was that such and such a purchase had not been carried out, what had been the meaning of the delay, and whether nothing could be done to stir up the Land Commission. The Conference Report stated that one of the main conditions of success in reference to any land purchase scheme must be its prompt application, and the avoidance of investigations and delays which had hitherto taken place in all the legislative proposals for settling the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland. There were one or two matters which had been left out of consideration. The hon. Member opposite had urged the lowering of the minimum price. They should, however, remember that they had got to deal with a number of landlords who could not afford to sell at a low price. There was no practical use in fixing a minimum of 40 or 50 per cent. below the rent, because then the choice would only be either to accept those terms with beggary or stay on and take their chance. His right hon. friend the Chief Secretary had asked him to endeavour to assist the Committee to come to a correct appreciation of the delays which it was sought to avoid by the money limit in the Bill. There were, of course, the delays necessarily incident to the ordinary procedure of the Landed Estates Court. They had to ascertain every encumbrance, fix the extent of every tenant's holding, ascertain the rights inter se of all the tenants,

  1229
  and every easement. It was necessary that the utmost care should be taken, and he was certain that formerly no estate was ever brought to sale in the Landed Estates Court within one or two years from the date when the petition was filed. For the first time in the history of the world they were enabling a man by this Bill, who might only have an interest for £60 a year in his property, to sell without anybody's consent or concurrence, and behind everybody's back, to the tenantry, property of which he might only hold a very small part. It was a great invasion of the right of private property as generally understood. If a Bill were passed enabling his hon. friend's neighbour to sell him out without consulting him at all, surely it would not be sufficient to be assured that he was not a "scallywag" but that he was an honourable man. Without asking anybody's consent this man might sell a property of which he did not own one-thousandth part. If they did not want robbery to take place they must give effect to these powers.
  In order to maintain the interest of the tenant, the landlord, the Government, society, and the public peace and contentment of the country, it was absolutely necessary to diminish as much as possible the interval before a sale could be concluded. The ordinary legal protection was both costly and cumbrous, and the best way would be to bring every person interested before the Court. They should bring everybody whose property they were disposing of before the Court in order to ascertain whether they consented or not to the proposed sale. There was scarcely a single estate in Ireland in which that process would not involve the consideration of a couple of marriage settlements, and probably one or two wills. He would take as an example the case of a man who settled his estate upon his son. The tenant for life exercised power of appointment and appointed his second son. Therefore the tenant for life, the eldest son, and the second son were the only two persons interested. Afterwards one of the other children might come in and declare that the appointment of the brother was fraudulent because his father gained some
  1230
  pecuniary interest by it, and he might claim that the estate belonged to the three of them. There was scarcely a question which could be raised in a Court of law which was more difficult than to decide when an appointment was void from corrupt influence. That was why this tribunal was absolutely incompetent to deal with such a question of law, which must under those circumstances necessarily be transferred to some legal tribunal. Speaking from practical knowledge of the mode of procedure, he had no hesitation in saying that it would be absolutely impossible to get the consent of all the parties interested in a less interval than one or two years. Take another case. A lady might have an interest of £5,000 in an estate, but to sell at this low figure she would only get £2,000. When they came to look for her they might discover that she had gone to India. The first thing they had to do was to appoint a new trustee, and he had seen cases of that kind take five years. If they could not have that steady and safe protection they must have some pecuniary protection.
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid that condition also arose in the distribution of the purchase money under the Ashbourne Act.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that if it was proposed there should be a sale they had to ascertain whether the parties interested would consent, and therefore there must be a preliminary examination. Did his hon. friend mean to say that there had not been delays of one or two years under the Ashbourne Act? They must have some kind of protection, and it was obvious that if there was to be protection at all it could not be an extremely low figure. He should say that to lower the limit below the rent was no protection at all, because a part owner might sacrifice everybody by such a limit. There must be a money limit, which would be a fair and adequate substitute either for the care, caution, and supervision of the trustee whom they got rid of, or the protection given by the Landed Estates Court. There must be an adequate limit in order to facilitate the proceedings with respect to sale and purchase.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that one of the charms of this Assembly was that they were liable to get a lecture by a competent expert on almost any subject under Heaven. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for London University had an opportunity he was sure that he could charm the House by a lecture on bacteriology. That lecture would be quite as relevant to the particular Amendment with which the Committee were now dealing as the lecture of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland. He yielded to no man in his admiration of the lucidity with which the right hon. Gentleman managed to thread his way through the labyrinth of legal subtleties. He really regretted that he was not a member of the Bar, and better able to appreciate the lecture, but, still, its natural charm and literary flavour appealed even to a man who was not a barrister. But he was an old Parliamentarian, and what the lecture had to do with the matter before the Committee he did not understand. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if this Amendment were carried it would bring in the Landed Estates Court, and the Chief Secretary had practically made use of the same argument. It was said that the result would be that they would have all the delay of the Landed Estates Court. He could not understand why both of these right hon. Gentlemen did not see how that argument bore against their own position. Assuming that a mortgagee thought he was going to be wronged by the price to be paid for the land, what was his remedy? He under stood the Attorney-General to suggest that, in order to save himself from wrong, he must proceed to the Landed Estates Court. That was the very last thing he would think of doing if he were a sane man, because he knew that the right hon: Gentleman, or some other member of the legal profession, would get a great deal of the money that ought to go to the mortgagee; and therefore the whole force of the Attorney-General's argument would mean that the mortgagee would be an unmitigated fool if he went into the Landed Estates Court to deal with this matter. The Attorney-General had employed all his skill as an advocate
  1232
  to throw dust in the eyes of the Committee. If the remainder man or the mortgagee were to be put under those perils, let the Attorney-General raisethem on the Amendment of which the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth had given notice. The Amendment raised in a substantial and definite form the danger to the mortgagee and the remainder man, and if the right hon. Gentleman thought those dangers to be as real as the Member for Plymouth believed, there was no reason why he should not support the Amendment. He did not himself see why if the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth was able to make out a case, the Nationalist Members should not support his Amendment. It raised the question in a proper shape, because the only proper protection was by giving the right of appeal. If they imagined that they were being unfairly dealt with that was their remedy, but the remedy of the Attorney-General was that the tenant should be compelled to pay two or three more years purchase of the land than he was entitled to pay.
  MR. ATKINSON: He has not the opportunity of appeal. The land will probably be sold before he knows anything about it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the property would be sold but the money would not be disposed of. This was an argument in favour of the "scallywag" landlord. The Nationalist Members had used some strong language on these benches with regard to landlords, but they had never erected the "scallywag" landlord into a main factor in the settlement of the Irish land question, as had been done by the Attorney-General. The right hon. Gentleman had brought forward the subtleties of his profession, and used his trained advocate's tongue to try to induce the House to think that the real question at issue was not whether the tenants should be compelled to pay more money than they ought to do, but that there would be these extraordinary difficulties in the way of the settlement of the question if the Committee accepted the Amendment. When he heard the right hon. Gentleman talk he almost thought that there had never been and purchase in Ireland. If the

  1233
  right hon. Gentleman believed in the almost metaphysical impossibilities of selling land in Ireland he could tell him that many of the landlords did not share his views. Many of them thought that this insistence upon these zones would in the end turn out to the prejudice of the landlord and not to their benefit in some cases at least. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be determined to artificially fix both the minimum and the average price of land in Ireland at four or five years purchase beyond what had ever been given for it before. Such an extraordinary proposition would have been incredible had not the Attorney-General tried to defend it. It was an attempt on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to darken the councils of the House by legal subtleties.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he regretted with the hon. Member for Scotland Division of Liverpool what he called the lecture of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General. When the Bill was being read a second time the right hon. Gentleman was pressed to account for these zones, and the only explanation he had to offer for the maximum reduction was that it was placed there to prevent the coercion of the landlords by the tenants. They had been diligently trying ever since the Bill was printed to find out the real defence of the maximum price, and they had only discovered it that night.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the hon. Member tell the Committee why there were zones put into the Land Conference Report?
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that they were not dealing now with the principle of zones, but with the maximum reduction within the zones. His right hon. and learned friend had given the Committee for the first time the intelligent and real reason for the maximum reduction of the price which the tenant was to pay; and he was grateful for it, because some of them would now be able to tell their own people why it had been done. Why should the Front Bench mix up the Land Judge's Court and the Landed Estates Court as if they
  1234
  were one and the same thing? Almost every day questions were asked about the delay in selling this, that, and the other estate in every part of Ireland. Where did the delay take place? Not in the Land Commission, but mainly in the Irish Land Judge's Court. Motion after Motion had been made in the House in regard to these delays, but they had never had the support of the Attorney-General to try and obviate the notorious delays in the Land Judge's Court. In fact that Court had ceased to be a Court, and had become a great rent-collecting machine for bankrupt Irish landlords. As he understood the Attorney-General, the real reason for the maximum reduction was that under the previous Purchase Acts numerous inquiries were indispensable before a sale could be effected. All sorts of legal difficulties arose, and unless these were settled the limited owner could not sell. The learned Attorney-General had not answered the question of the hon. and learned Member for Louth as to unencumbered estates where there was no limited owner to arrest a sale. Because of these delays, vexatious and absurd, it was impossible to adopt the machinery of the Land Purchase Acts in this Bill. The system adopted in this Bill was much speedier, more drastic, more thorough; and it was because that had been done, and because the limited owner had been enabled to sell, therefore, the tenant who bought must pay for this easing of the machine. The conclusion to which the hon. Member for Scotland Division had arrived was irresistible. He did not say that the limited owner ought to be allowed to sell, if he had only a very small interest, over the heads of the other parties concerned; but then the remedy for that was not to tax the tenant but clearly to allow bargains to be made outside these limits subject to the decision of the Estates Commission as to the position of the remainder man. When the full effect of that part of the Bill was known it would be scouted in Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he was most anxious to get an answer from the right hon. the Attorney-General to his question; and he was also very anxious that they should know, what

  1235
  nobody now knew, who the gentlemen were belonging to the Land Conference who approved of the zones. Surely a great historic matter like that should be made known to the Irish people. There must have been some reason in the mind of these strong advocates of zones. He was prepared to make a statement in reference to the services of these gentlemen to the Irish cause. Nobody more readily recognised these services than he did. But the general Irish public remained in the dark as to the inventor or inventors of these zones and as to the reason for them. He always felt as if he had one hand tied behind his back in discussing this question, because the people who invented these zones were the strongest on the tenants' side. Where was the answer from the Irish Attorney-General? That right hon. and learned Gentleman was at all events paid for answering questions. He acknowledged the very powerful and luminous speech the Attorney-General had made, so far as one portion of the case was concerned. He admitted the tremendous force of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and he could see no answer to a large portion of it. But, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman had left a portion of his inquiry unanswered. He had given a reason for the protection of the remainder man, of the chargeants under a settlement when a person was allowed to sell an estate in which he had only an interest to the extent of, say, a quarter or less. The right hon. Gentleman had given a reason which was, from a lawyer's point of view, sufficient; but he had given no reason whatever why an unencumbered owner—and it must be assumed that there were some unencumbered estates in Ireland—should not be allowed to sell.
  There were large unencumbered estates—those of the great London Companies—in the right hon. Gentleman's own country. When he himself fixed seventeen years purchase for the sale of the Drapers Company's estate, in the county of Derry, on the tenants' side, the Land Commission thought the price too high in a number of cases. The Mercers Company and the Drapers Company, two of the
  1236
  richest corporations in the world, had large estates in the county of Derry and in the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency. These estates had been acquired practically by conquest. He wanted to know why the Mercers Company, if they wanted to realise their property of a morning and pack off to London to invest the proceeds there, were fettered and compelled to sell at the price in this Bill? The Mercers Company had no maiden aunts. They had not made a will appointing a charge of £40,000 on their property to a younger son. They had made no deeds or had done nothing in any way to affect the ownership of their property; but so far as this Bill was concerned the estate of the Mercers Company, and every other unencumbered estate in Ireland, was as much bound to insist on getting this high price as a man with the most complicated encumbered estate in Ireland. Was that reasonable? No. The answer was, it was the case of Trinity College and their legal rights. The right hon. Gentleman dared not open his lips on that point, for if he did, his own colleague, the Solicitor-General, would rise up in revolution against him. He had no doubt there were many long anxious colloquies behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. They had seen them returning to the House, now with glowering looks, now with hopeful visages, apparently as the fate of the question of the minimum price went up and down in the counsels of the Government. He maintained that Trinity College occupied a legal position, the like of which did not exist on sea or land in any other country on the civilised globe. Because its case, as he understood it—and he did not pretend to understand very much about it—was that the middleman under Trinity College had been created by law the owner of the fee simple, and, therefore, in legal language, giving the unencumbered fee-simple owner the right to sell his estate outside these zones was to the prejudice of Trinity College, because Trinity College was, by some curious decision, above the fee simple owner as chargeant. Was that not the case? He saw that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General did not dissent from that statement.
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman is misrepresenting me to this extent, that he has not stated that, as the result of the Purchase Acts, Trinity College property would be sold compulsorily, without their having any voice whatsoever in the sale, and at a price which would be fixed by the Land Commission, and not by any bargain which Trinity College made at all. All I say with regard to myself is that I ever attempted and will, to the best of my ability, attempt to protect Trinity College, which has sent me here.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that now the murder was out. He agreed that was the position, and yet that anomalous position of Trinity College was to be allowed to prejudice the case of all unencumbered landlords throughout the
  length and breadth of the country. He did not blame the Solicitors General for either England or Ireland for being loyal sons of their alma mater; but he held that Trinity College ought to be dealt with in a special category. He also recognised that it was the most natural thing for a draftsman, when drafting a Bill, to do so in the most condensed and workmanlike way possible; but let the Chief Secretary entrust to the Solicitors-General for England and Ireland respectively the drafting of a clause which would compel those who were selling Trinity College land to give notice to the College and see that it obtained a fair price.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 214; Noes, 156. (Division List No. 120.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Helder, Augustus

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

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

  Doughty, George

  Hoult, Joseph

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bignold, Arthur

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Bill, Charles

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Kerr, John

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon St. John

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Keswick, William

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Bull, William James

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Butcher, John George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Forster, Henry William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Garfit, William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Lovd, Archie Kirkman

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Chapman, Edward

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Milvain, Thomas

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midd'x

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londond'y

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstw)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Mount, William Arthur

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Webb, Col. William George

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

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

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Percy, Earl

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Wylie, Alexander

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Younger, William

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Stock, James Henry

  Randles, John S.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Renwick, George

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

  NOES.

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

  Edwards, Frank

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Levy, Maurice

  Ambrose, Robert

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Asher, Alexander

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lundon, W.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Austin, Sir John

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Field, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Govern, T.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Black, Alexander William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Blake, Edward

  Gilhooly, James

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Boland, John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Mooney, John J.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Murnaghan, George

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Grant, Corrie

  Murphy, John

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Burns, John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  Caldwell, James

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Hammond, John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

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

  Carew, James Laurence

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

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

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Doherty, William

  Corbett, T. L. (Down. North)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Dowd, John

  Crooks, William

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

  Delany, William

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Malley, William

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Mara, James

  Dillon, John

  Lambert, George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Shee, James John

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Duffy, William J.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Dunn, Sir William

  Leamy, Edmund

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  1240

  1241

  Reddy, M.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Taylor, Theo. G. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Roche, John

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

  Young, Samuel

  Russell, T. W.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Thompson Dr E. C. (Monagh'n, N.

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

  Shackleton, David James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Captain Donelan.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Tully, Jasper

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wallace, Robert

  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  NEW SOUTH WALES AND PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS—MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT (UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 10.)
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I rise to move the Motion for which I obtained leave this afternoon, and I do so in order, in the first place, that we may get fuller information on the subject to which it refers than it is possible to obtain by question and answer across the floor of the House, and also because this is the most emphatic manner in which attention can be called to the extraordinary situation which has been created by the recent conduct of His Majesty's Government in dealing with a vital interest of the country. I wish to say at the outset that I have no criticism whatever to pass upon the Government of New South Wales. I have no surprise to express at their action, and still less any blame to attribute to them in the matter. I need not dwell on what are become axioms in this House and in the country, the pride and satisfaction with which we all view the cordial and friendly relations between us and our colonies. There is not a man among us who would not do all that lies in his power to maintain the sense of union and solidarity which exists between the mother country and the colonies. But upon what is that sense of union founded? It is founded upon freedom—upon administrative and fiscal freedom. Anyone who goes back on the history
  1242
  of the past will soon become aware that before that freedom was established there were constant bickerings, constant friction, and constant irritation. And among the objections which I entertain to certain proposals which are now in the air is that they seem to me to narrow, repress, and embarrass this essential freedom in fiscal matters, and therefore may be the cause of irritation among the colonies, though, as we know, these proposals are designed for an entirely different purpose. The colonial Governments are not only entitled, but are required, in the exercise of this fiscal freedom, to seek every advantage for their own people. Therefore no one could be surprised at the intense interest that was displayed by these Governments in recent events and recent utterances in this country. I am aware that I am greatly circumscribed by the rules of order as to the breadth and length of the topic to which I wish to refer in dealing with this matter. But the message from the New South Wales Government, to which I desire to direct attention, has two parts. One expresses approval of preferential trade, and the other expresses satisfaction at the prospect of special trade relations with the mother country, which involve, of course, retaliatory duties against other countries. These are two parts, it seems to me, of one policy. They are intertwined with each other, and almost inseparable from each other. But that policy is not before the House in the Motion I am about to make, and therefore we cannot discuss it. It is sufficient for me to say that I am entirely opposed to it, not only as being unsuited to the circumstances of the country, but as being also most prejudicial to its best interests. But what is before us is this—why are we called upon to deal with this great question, going down to the very roots of our commerce and our fiscal arrangements, at this present moment? Here is a colony at the other

  1243
  end of the world approving of certain schemes. Are these schemes definitely before the country and the world, or are they not?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of the House, and the proper conduct of this debate, I beg to ask your ruling. Is it in order to discuss the fiscal policy of the country on this Motion for the adjournment of the House, on a matter of urgent and definite public importance which has been defined by the right hon. Gentleman opposite?
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is not in order to discuss that. The question for the discussion of which the leave of the House has been given is a somewhat narrow one. As I understand it, it is whether the Government of the Colony of New South Wales have understood the speeches of the Prime Minister and Colonial Secretary as expressing the opinion of the Government, and, if they have so understood them, whether their view is correct.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is precisely the point to which I intend to address myself; and the right hon. Gentleman would have known that if he had favoured me with his attention to what I said a couple of sentences back expressing my perfect acquaintance with the circumstance that we cannot enter in this debate on the merits of the new fiscal policy. What I say is, here is this message from the Government of New South Wales, expressing its approval of certain schemes. Are those schemes definitely before the country and the world? Is there a Government in power which has announced its policy on the subject? No, Sir; notoriously not. Among Ministers there are conflicting views. Among their supporters there is a good deal of dismay and bewilderment. [MINISTERIAL Cries of "No, no."] Apparently there are some fortunate gentlemen opposite who are neither dismayed nor bewildered. The Prime Minister himself has proclaimed that he has no settled convictions in the matter. And yet these are the circumstances in which the Colonial Secretary has expressly invited
  1244
  expressions of opinion from the colonies on the subject—opinion, that is, on a policy to which we understood the Government was not committed, and on which Ministers, according to their own declarations and disavowals, differ seriously among themselves. The right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter in which he called for that expression of colonial opinion, and in which he said that if colonial opinion was hostile or apathetic "there would not be the slightest possibility of carrying through so great a reform." Therefore we need not be surprised that the Government of New South Wales responded to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman and expressed its opinion on the subject. The necessity which compels me to-night to bring this question before the House arises from a two-fold danger to which the country may not be fully alive—a danger arising, from the present situation. In the first place, hopes and expectations are, by this process, being awakened among the colonies—
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Question, question.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This is the question.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to put a question of order to you. I need not say that I desire the most open discussion of this question. But I wish to know what those who may have to reply to the right hon. Gentleman will be in order in saying. Up to the present moment the right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the only point upon which there could possibly be any expression of opinion on the part of the New South Wales Government—namely, "the declaration of the British Government that every self-governing colony shall be secured in the free exercise of its right"—I am quoting from the message, Sir—"to enter into closer trade relations with the mother country." The point I desire to put to you, Sir, is this, that while under the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman it is perfectly competent for him to enter into any question connected with any declaration of the British Government, it is not competent for him to enter into the question of the opinions of the New

  1245
  South Wales Government regarding preferential trade which they do not attribute to the British Government.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is putting rather a wide interpretation on his own Motion. If the right hon. Gentleman had secured the leave of the House for a Motion in wider terms than this, which he might have done, he could have spoken more widely; but the Motion for the adjournment to which he has chosen to confine himself consists of the suggestion that the New South Wales Government misunderstood certain statements made in this House in assuming them to be expressions of the opinion of the Cabinet as such, and that that is a thing which ought to be cleared up. That is a question within very narrow limits indeed. It does not raise the question of the opinion of the colonies as to fiscal policy, nor does it raise the merits of the fiscal question between this country and the colonies. It is drawn within narrow limits, and I think the discussion should be confined to those limits.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My contention, Sir, will be this, that the Government have contrived so that the New South Wales Government have formed the opinion that this is the definite policy of His Majesty's Government.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: "Question."
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: And I was proceeding to say that if that was so hopes and expectations—I think that was the phrase I used—had been raised and might be raised in other colonies which would stand a good chance in certain contingencies of being subject to bitter disappointment, and that calamitous results would be caused to the sentiment existing between the colonies and this country.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting him, but it will be my duty, I suppose, to reply to him, and I want, on a point of order, to know exactly what it is to which I shall be entitled to reply. May I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that the message
  1246
  which is the basis of this Motion for adjournment consists of two paragraphs? The first paragraph deals with preferential duties, and attributes no opinion to His Majesty's Government at all; the second does not deal with preferential duties, but does deal with the case in which a colony is penalised for giving preferential duties. Now that is attributed to His Majesty's Government; and I want to know whether the attack on the obscurity of the utterances from this bench is to be carried over into the first paragraph, or whether it ought to be confined to the second paragraph, which deals simply and solely with the method of dealing with the case in which a foreign country might penalise a British colony which has given preferential tariffs to this country.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have not seen the message; I have only looked at the Motion on the Paper. With reference to the Motion on the Paper, I am clear that the matter for discussion is the misunderstanding caused by two certain speeches upon one certain point, that point being whether these speeches are isolated expressions of opinion to which the Cabinet is in no way committed. That is the only question which the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to discuss.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What we wish to do, Sir—and this is a peculiar method of conducting business—the question I wish to put before the House, and especially to address to the Prime Minister, is whether the message from the Government of New South Wales involves a misapprehension of the speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is only the second paragraph which deals with it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The second paragraph and the first paragraph are indissolubly associated, and the second paragraph contains more than the part which the right hon. Gentleman read. It contains an explicit reference to the case of Canada, which points directly—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not the first paragraph.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Which points directly, as the means of achieving what is required, to the establishment of retaliatory duties against other countries. Therefore we have the whole scheme, the definite scheme, approved of by the New South Wales Government and attributed to his Majesty's Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We wish to know whether they have understood them rightly in that or not; and if the right hon. Gentleman would explain to us now what he really did mean and what his colleague meant in those speeches I might sit down, for it was to explore that circumstance and for no other purpose that I moved the adjournment. I have not moved the adjournment to bring any cavilling accusation against the Government. I have moved it in order that we may understand how the truth really lies in a matter which is not a mere question of idle curiosity, but which really may have the most extended and pernicious effect upon the relations between the colonies and the mother country. I say that if such an effect as was produced on the mind of the Government of New South Wales is really deducible from the speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen then they have, as I said before, had hopes raised which may lead to bitter disappointment in the end. This is only the beginning, Sir. This is the first response from the colonial Governments to the appeal which has been made to them; but other colonies will also wish to express their opinions, under the assumption, or the delusion, that they were fulfilling the desire of His Majesty's Government in doing so. We have as great a regard and esteem for our fellow subjects of the colonies as they have for us in the mother country—and I could not put it in stronger terms—but we desire above all things that there should be no disappointment on their part in this matter in which they take so deep an interest. Let it be perfectly clear from the first how this country stands. We have been led to understand by right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have no policy, that they are looking for
  1248
  a policy. I will not dwell upon that, lest I should be immediately corrected and made to sit down as being outside the terms of the Motion, not by you, Sir, but by the two Members on the other side who are determined to keep this question within as narrow limits as possible. I also desire to keep within the limits of the rules of the House, but, I trust, within no narrower limits. The last thing we desire is to inflict disappointment on the colonies, with all the irritation and estrangement that may ensue, and if there is a misapprehension really conveyed to the Government of one of the oldest and most famous and best-equipped of our colonies, if that is the effect upon them, then how dangerous it may be if such a misconception prevails when it is entirely in conflict with that which has been represented to the people of this country, and which the people understand to be the present position of affairs. I say that there are two dangers. There is first of all the danger of disappointment to the colonies to which I have referred; but there is another danger which comes closer to us arising from these processes. It is the danger that the people of this country may, step by step and unconsciously, find themselves committed by these processes to a policy which they have never approved, and which a large portion of them—the majority of them—view either with disapproval or with doubt. I do not think that can be doubted. These two dangers which I foresee are the consequences of the loose and vague way in which this great fiscal revolution—it is nothing less—that has been foreshadowed has been launched upon us, in defiance of Constitutional rule, without the approval of the Cabinet, and in opposition to the avowed opinion of the Finance Minister, not under a plea of urgent necessity—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I think the right hon. Gentleman is opening up, or endeavouring to open up, the whole question of the merits of the fiscal policy. It is possible that he might have framed his question to meet that, but that is not what he has done. I must ask him to endeavour to confine himself to the question of the necessity of correcting any misapprehension that may

  1249
  have been caused in the mind of the Government of New South Wales by the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I can only repeat that my object is to obtain from the Government an explicit statement of their actual position in this matter. If we get that I may renounce all those little observations upon their mode of conducting business into which I was led to indulge when you, Sir, corrected me. We want to know precisely—and having said this I shall sit down—we want to know precisely what the position of the Government in this matter is, and whether they have, as the New South Wales Government think they have, a definite policy, covering the matters referred to in this message. I think that something at least will have been gained if we can obtain from the Prime Minister a positive declaration that the changes indicated in this message and assumed in New South Wales to represent the policy of His Majesty's Government are not and may possibly never be their accepted policy, and also that the Government will secure this country from being committed, against its knowledge and will, to a change so vast and so critical to the fortunes of this country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman did not think that we, my right hon. friend and I, were guilty of any discourtesy to himself by rising to a point of order at the beginning of his speech. I can assure him that that is not the case; but in a Motion drawn as his is drawn, and in reference to such a message as that received from the Governor of New South Wales, it is really extremely difficult for us to know without rising to a point of order what exactly is included within the limits of the right hon. Gentleman's question, or what we are expected to reply to. The right hon. Gentleman is pursuing, I think, in the present case a very extraordinary course. I do not think that in my experience the Leader of the Opposition has ever moved the
  1250
  adjournment of the House. It is possible that a case may be found in the past. Whether it has been done I do not know. But whether that be the case or not, I confess I should have thought that if the right hon. Gentleman wanted to challenge His Majesty's Government there was at his disposal a perfectly well-known Constitutional method by which the whole question could have been raised, on which no question of order could have been raised, upon which the limitations or the extent of the debate would have been beyond doubt, and on which every statement made by His Majesty's Government, or by any member of it, could have been challenged by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. But they have adopted a more prudent course. I congratulate them upon their wisdom. They have not, I will not say dared, because that would be a suggestion of want of courage, which is the last thing I should ever think of suggesting of them, but they have not thought it wise, they have not thought it strategically and technically prudent to meet us face to face. They have preferred a Motion for the adjournment of the House, a Motion in its nature always inconclusive, a Motion which raises no definite issue, which is and must be narrowly restricted in its scope, and which, above all, must be narrowly restricted as to the length of the debate which it can occasion. I do not mean to say that they were unwise. I am not at all sure that if I were in their place I would not have done exactly the same thing. But, at all events, that is what they have done, and it is really ludicrous, if I may say so, for the right hon. Gentleman, who does not dare, or does not choose, to take the bolder course to comedown—I hear muttered disapproval from hon. Gentlemen opposite of what I am saying—but if the right hon. Gentlemen thinks the course His Majesty's Government is pursuing is so inimical to the interests of this country—[An HON. MEMBER: He does not know what it is.]—if he thinks the speeches we have been making and the hopes he alleges we are raising are inimical to the interests of this country, to the interests of the colonies, and to the interests of the Empire as a whole, let him take the obvious course, let him challenge us to a debate in which the whole question can be raised.
  MR. SOARES: Will you let your Party vote as they like?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman is a new Member of the House, and probably he is not acquainted with the traditions of this assembly on questions of this import. The hon. Gentleman has, however, made a suggestion which I am sure he meant for the best. Now, Sir, I pass from the extraordinary course which the right hon. Gentleman has taken on the present occasion to the substance of the speech which he has just delivered; and I may preface the observations I have to make on that speech by reading the message from the Colony of New South Wales which has been the occasion of the right hon. Gentleman's incursion into the time which was to be devoted to the discussion of the Irish Land Bill. The message reads as follows—
  "My Government recognise that preferential trade will be directly advantageous to Australia by securing her a market for her natural products, and, believing that this policy is in the highest degree conducive to the welfare and solidarity of the Empire and the union of British-speaking people, strongly support your proposal to investigate the practicability of such a preference."
  That is the first paragraph, and I may say on that paragraph the right hon. Gentleman appears to suppose that the Government, on the subject of investigation, have spoken with a doubtful voice; I can assure him that that is not so. We are all unanimously in favour of an investigation, which is the only thing that the Colony of New South Wales refers to in the paragraph I have just read. I venture to say that paragraph may be put aside, because it is perfectly clear that the Governor and the Government of New South Wales absolutely apprehend, and with perfect accuracy, the views of His Majesty's Government on this point. We think there ought to be an investigation. The Government of New South Wales think there ought to be an investigation. There is therefore an absolute concordat not only between the Government of New South Wales and my right hon. friend and myself, but between the Government of New South Wales and the whole of His Majesty's Government. Therefore there is no
  1252
  question about the first paragraph, which I do not think was referred to in the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman which was put into your hands, Sir. But, even if I am wrong in that, I venture to say we may dismiss that paragraph, because the Government of New South Wales have, with absolute precision, understood the views of His Majesty's Government on that subject. We agree with them and they agree with us. Now, I come to the second paragraph, which, if I rightly understood the right hon. Gentleman, was the subject on which he desired to move the adjournment. The second paragraph reads as follows—
  "Also, realising that what is Canada's turn to-day may be Australia's to-morrow, they express great satisfaction at the declaration by the British Government that every self-governing colony shall be secured in the free exercise of its right to enter into closer trade relations with the mother country."
  That, I understand, is what the right hon. Gentleman quarrels with; that is the paragraph which he says raises false hopes. That is the paragraph which the right hon. Gentleman says is ultimately to cause disappointment in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Cape, and so forth. I hope that paragraph will cause no disappointment and raise no false hopes anywhere. What false hopes does it raise? Am I to understand at this moment that, if the right hon. Gentleman were head of the Government to-morrow, he would say that if a colony endeavoured to enter into special fiscal relations with the mother country, and foreign countries penalised them for taking that course, he and his friends would sit silently by and watch that process of intimidation going on in the case of colony after colony? If he does not mean that, what are the false hopes that have been raised? If there is no difference between right hon. Gentlemen who sit on that Bench and those who sit on this Bench on that subject, how can there be false hopes raised? Let Governments change, let Party power be transferred from one of the great centres of public opinion to the other in this House, and if the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his friends agree with us on that subject there will be no disappointment. In that case the policy of this country will be a continuous policy.

  1253
  It will be a policy of supporting the colonies in any endeavour they may make to give preferential treatment to the manufactures of this country. There is, indeed, one hypothesis on which disappointment may occur, but am I to believe it is an hypothesis which we are seriously to entertain? Are we to believe that if a General Election took place to-morrow and right hon. Gentlemen opposite came into power, they would tell the colonies, "You have nothing more to hope for from us. You have, indeed, expressed a desire to enter into closer fiscal union with us. You have expressed jour intention of introducing a preferential tariff in our favour"—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is now following the error of the right hon. Baronet.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I read again, Sir, the paragraph to which the right hon. Gentleman referred as the one which raised false hopes? That is the point. The right hon. Gentleman's point was that in the statement referred to in the second paragraph of that message we had raised false hopes. Let me read the paragraph again. [The right hon. Gentleman then read the second paragraph of the message.] Now, Sir, I understood that the right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, asked me whether that was the view of the Government, and, in the second place, proceeded to criticise that view, if it was the view of the Government, on the ground that it raised false hopes. It was to the latter point I was addressing myself, and I should be glad to know whether I am in order in answering it.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman is in order in explaining whether this paragraph does or does not evince a mistake on the part of the colony; that is the point to which I understand him to refer. But I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was going somewhat beyond that, and was adverting to the general fiscal policy.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Very well, Sir, I quite understand, and entirely bow to your ruling. Let me say, and I shall confine what I have to say to one
  1254
  sentence, the last paragraph of this message does express the opinion of His Majesty's Government; we think it does not raise false hopes in the colonies, and that it can never raise false hopes in the colonies unless hon. Gentlemen opposite mean to abandon every colony.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: The Prime Minister's speech contains the most momentous declaration of any that has been made up to the present time. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by taunting the Opposition with not proposing a Vote of Censure. Sitting next to the Prime Minister is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would vote with the right hon. Gentleman on a Vote of Censure, but who agrees with the Opposition on the main points of the question at issue. In a Vote of Censure at this moment in the House of Lords the Duke of Devonshire and Lord Balfour of Burleigh would vote with the Administration. Yet their speeches have given unqualified satisfaction to the Opposition on the questions at issue. Surely these facts alone show that on a national issue of this kind, involving the most momentous new departure we have seen in our time, the opinion of Parliament would be hopelessly misrepresented by a Party division. The Prime Minister went on to make the most startling of the new departures which have been made—leaving aside those matters which we cannot discuss to-night, the duties on food and preferential tariffs — the right hon. Gentleman informed us that the Government are in favour of retaliation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never mentioned the word "retaliation." What I said was, and I should be glad to know the right hon. Baronet's opinion upon it, that we did not mean to leave a colony in the lurch simply because it gave preferential duties in favour of this country.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: If the Government mean that they are going to war of course I can understand the distinction the Prime Minister has drawn; but I confess I thought that in these declarations of their policy the

  1255
  Government were dealing with fiscal policy alone. If that is so, I will point out that no suggestion has ever been made in regard to penalising except by retaliation. A very brilliant Member on the other side has described recent speeches of the Prime Minister on these questions as reminding him of the last series of sermons preached by an Anglican clergyman before he went over to the Church of Rome. The declaration to-night has been one which those who are students of the Prime Minister's speeches and of his past were led to expect from him personally, but not from the Government of which he is a Member. The Prime Minister has always been in favour of retaliation, and the other night he quoted his own speeches of 1880–81 in favour of it; but on those occasions the right hon. Gentleman received his answer and, I should have thought, his quietus from the present Colonial Secretary, who pointed out that to penalise foreign countries would hurt ourselves alone. Such are our interests that the measures taken would fall with redoubled force on ourselves. The policy of retaliation has often been fatal to the trade of those who have employed it, and it has never in any case in the history of the world's tariffs been a step towards free trade, but always a step towards avowed protection. The Prime Minister has said that New South Wales is a free trade colony; but it is no longer either a free trade or a protectionist colony. I believe its Prime Minister is a protectionist, and that there are Members of the Cabinet who are free traders, but New South Wales has nothing whatever to do with these questions under the Federal Constitution, under which they are remitted to the Government of the Commonwealth. We are so tightly tied up in this debate that we cannot discuss on its merits even the question of retaliation, although that, owing to the declaration of the Prime Minister, is the question at stake. But this Motion, which can only be inadequately supported on the present occasion, is necessary because of the manner in which, up to to-night, the Prime Minister has fenced with all the questions at issue. On this occasion, the Prime Minister has been faithful to his past opinions, and undoubtedly he has
  1256
  settled opinions on this one particular point, at any rate. In 1880–81 the sole supporter in argument of the right hon. Gentleman in this house was the present Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool. At that time Spain had penalised us, and it was conclusively proved that that action on the part of Spain did not damage our trade, and Spain tired of her action and dropped it. In those debates the Colonial Secretary in reply to the present Prime Minister called this doctrine of retaliation by the name of the new heterodoxy. Our trade had increased in Spain, and we had not suffered.
  *MR. SPEAKER: This does not arise upon the Motion.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Notoriously the majority of Members on the Ministerial benches who have expressed their views at the present juncture are opposed to this new departure. The Government have assured us that they are making no change in fiscal policy without inquiry, yet without and before inquiry the Prime Minister has announced that the Government are in favour of retaliation.
  MR. ROBSON: Before dealing with the merits of the Resolution itself, perhaps I may add one word to what has been said by my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean as to the suggestion that we ought to have proceeded by way of a Vote of Censure. The Prime Minister told us that we were unable or afraid to meet him face to face. I think that taunt is disposed of by the question, "Which face?" We may be accused of lack of courage, I think unjustly, but I do not think that any political party could be so utterly lacking in courage as to be afraid to meet face to face in debate those whose convictions are absolutely unsettled. What is the Motion before the House? It is a Motion which condemns and deplores the misconceptions likely to arise in the colonies by reason of the unsettled and unsatisfactory attitude of His Majesty's Government. The Government have made declarations which the colonies appear to have misunderstood.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; they have apprehended them absolutely accurately.
  MR. ROBSON: So the Prime Minister says, but I hope I may be allowed to proceed—and perhaps without further interruption—to make good what I have just alleged. Let us take the Prime Minister's attitude to-night. He has made, in explicit terms, a most momentous declaration. He has told us, in terms that will go forth to the colonies, that the last paragraph of this message is correct, and that the Government do declare that—
  "Every self-governing colony shall be secured in the free exercise of its right to enter into closer trade relations with the mother country."
  Let us not, in the great controversy that is about to begin, stop short at the use of mere phrases. We are about to enter upon a controversy such as we have not had for fifty years, and we must get into the way of analysing these pretentious generalities. What is meant by the Gentleman who framed this message when he uses the words "securing the colonies in the free exercise of their right to enter into closer trade relations with the mother country" What is the substance of the phrase? For that we have to go back to the two speeches which are referred to and see what the speakers themselves referred to. What are the indications that His Majesty's Government have given of the means by which they think these closer trade relations ought to be secured? The right hon. Gentleman to-night has disclaimed having made any pronouncement in favour of retaliation. If that be so, the colonies may well complain that they have been misled, and this Motion is supremely necessary. What has the right hon. Gentleman said himself? Let us take his own words, with which I have come prepared. He said—
  "I go further—
  That is than some suggestion made by the Colonial Secretary,
  "And say that if there is really to be an attempt on the part of foreign countries to declare that we are so separated from our self-governing colonies that they will be treated as separate nations—"
  And here I pause for a moment to invite the House to consider what that means. For fiscal purposes our colonies, little as we may like the phrase, are indeed, in constitutional position, separate nations. The right hon. Gentleman continued—and I ask the House to mark these
  1258
  words in view of his declaration to-night—
  "Then I say we shall be forced, by patriotism, by public opinion, by every regard for ourselves and our colonies, to resist this, and if need be, by retaliatory tariffs. Why not?"
  Why not? By all means do it, but have the honesty and candour to say you are going to do it. Do not imagine that I am complaining of the policy of the Government; that would be out of order; but it is not out of order to complain of their lack of courage or candour. That is the proposal of the Prime Minister. Retaliatory tariffs is the one definite item of policy to which he has committed himself. He has no settled convictions on the question of taxing the food of the people; that is not a matter which has ever disturbed his serenity; but he has a settled conviction on this very point—which the colonies appreciate as a settled conviction; he has pronounced in favour of retaliation. Now let me ask again what it is which has brought this message from the colonies by referring to the speech of the Colonial Secretary. He has dealt with this question even more fully, but not more explicitly, than the Prime Minister. In his speech at Birmingham the right hon. Gentleman described and condemned the policy of Germany in treating Canada as a separate fiscal unit; and he said that in our present condition we were practically helpless so far as the defence of our colonies was concerned, and he went on to indicate that he thought our present position a humiliating one. He proceeded to say how that position was to be met. He said there were two alternatives. The first, which he mentioned only for the purpose of excluding, was to stand by the definition of free trade "as interpreted by Little Englanders of the Manchester school"—meaning, of course, the right hon. Gentleman whom the Prime Minister keeps in his place—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Goschen, and, I believe, the majority of the Party opposite. That is an alternative which the Government disclaim, and the colonies note the fact. They have noted that according to the Colonial Secretary the old-fashioned definition of free trade is no longer to

  1259
  prevail; that belongs only to Little Englanders; they naturally think that the declaration of the Colonial Secretary binds his Government. If it does not bind the Government, what does the right hon. Gentleman mean, and what does the Government mean by permitting such language to be used in the ears of the colonies? Now we see how the colonies were likely to be misled. On the confession of the Prime Minister to-night, they have been misled, because the right hon. Gentleman has made an interruption which can have been meant only to disclaim adhesion to a policy of retaliation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is mistaken. I have distinctly said with regard to both the paragraphs in the message that has been sent that I agree with them. There is no question of misleading there.
  MR. ROBSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not exactly met the allegation with regard to his consistency. He may agree with both paragraphs to-night, but we have to deal with what he has said on other occasions. On a previous occasion he was in favour of retaliation; to-night—and this is what I was pointing out—he has made an interruption which, if it is to be treated as an orderly and a significant interruption, means that so far as he is concerned nobody has a right to assume that he is in favour of retaliation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I have said is that I agree with the statement that every self-governing colony shall be secured, as far as we can do it, in the free exercise of its right to enter into closer trade relations. [OPPOSITION cries of "How?"] I have not said a word about retaliation. I have certainly not committed myself to the proposition that there is no other method of attaining that object. Of course the hon. Member knows I do not shrink from retaliation if necessary. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."]
  MR. ROBSON: With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I fail to see how his interruption is an answer, or even relevant to the point I was making. The point with which I am dealing is not the phrase which the right hon.
  1260
  Gentleman keeps repeating, but his own declaration as to what his policy would be in a given contingency—a contingency, indeed, which has arisen, viz., a fiscal conflict between Germany and one of our colonies—and that declaration is in favour of retaliation. I am also dealing with a speech of the Colonial Secretary. I have mentioned one alternative; the second is, and he stated it quite clearly, "retaliation, if necessary." He excluded the first alternative; what did he say about the second? He had reached a point in his speech at which a little candour and courage would have been serviceable to the country. He said, "I leave it in your hands"—leaving his audience, the country, and the colonies, under the distinct impression that he, speaking with all the authority of Colonial Secretary, was in favour of retaliation, but afraid to commit himself by a definite declaration. And we are taunted with want of courage! I wonder that any gentleman sitting on that bench can use the word "courage" without a blush. The Prime Minister, at deputations and so forth, speaks of retaliation; to-night he is most hurt if anyone suggests that he has said anything in its favour. That is courage!
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is rather hard that the hon. and learned Gentleman should make a use of my speeches and interruptions, which is rather in excess of his privileges as a debater. I have stated that I agree with the second paragraph of the message. That does not touch retaliation. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] Well, wait a moment. I have not hesitated to say that, if other methods failed, I do not shrink from retaliation; but I am not certain that there are not other methods. That is the only thing I complain of.
  MR. ROBSON: Possibly I have not made my point clear to the right hon. Gentleman. What I was pointing out was that we have got to take the language of the Colonial Prime Minister in reference to the proposals of the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and when the message talks of "securing the colonies in the free exercise of their right," that language must be read in connection with the proposals which I

  1261
  am reading from the speech of the Colonial Secretary, but which the right hon. Gentleman ignores in order to read to me time after time this message. Now let me go back to the speech of the Colonial Secretary. I have said that he does not appear in his speech to have suffered from courage or candour. No doubt he is supposed by many to be the incarnation of courage and candour in debate, and I daresay he is, judged by the standard of those among whom he sits. But what a standard of comparison! Let us take what the right hon. Gentleman said in another part of his speech, because the right hon. Gentleman is inconsistent not only from year to year, and from month to month, but also from moment to moment, and from sentence to sentence. In the course of his speech he put a very remarkable meaning on the policy he was propounding. In his peroration—and nothing is more dangerous to the consistency of an argument than a peroration—he made the declaration, which also has gone forth to the colonies and has been considered by them as something to be taken in reference to all these suggestions of retaliation, "I am in favour of a self-sufficient and self-sustaining Empire." Perhaps I had better quote his words—
  "I believe in a British Empire."
  AN HON. MEMBER: Do you?
  MR. ROBSON: There are some persons belonging to the Party opposite who are always anxious to convince foreigners that one half of the people of this country are against England. It seems to be the one object of their lives to convince the world at large that those who take pride, as we do, in our country are anxious to injure her. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the first duty of the British Empire was to maintain friendly relations with all the nations of the world, and yet, even if alone, to be self-sustaining and self sufficient. That sentence deals with two questions: our friendship with all the world, and our position if alone. According to the Colonial Secretary there is no other alternative. "I believe in an Empire which is self-sustaining and self-sufficient." That is a fine phrase, but what does it
  1262
  mean? Do not accuse us of misrepresentation if we tell the country that hon. Members opposite believe in an Empire self-sustaining and self-sufficient, which means an Empire without any Continental or world-wide trade. That is the phrase which goes forth to the colonies, and encourages every senseless Protectionist in the British dominions to believe that this great Empire can sustain its strength, maintain its population, keep up its vigour, power, and position, without its trade. It is a misunderstanding to which an end should be put at once. I do not expect the Government will put an end to it. We should have to drag out of them, bit by bit, something in the nature, if not of a settled conviction, at all events of a definite policy. I only hope they will reach their policy long before they reach their conviction. In the meantime I think my right hon. friend has done well to bring forward this motion to-night, and to take yet another step forward in that which I am proud to think has now become the great mission and function of this Party—the defence of the food, the trade, and the Empire of our people.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I confess I have listened to this discussion with very great regret. I do not say that in any spirit of censure—it would be presumptuous on my part to do so—on any of those who have spoken on one side or the other. It is natural and inevitable, in the condition of public life and the ordinary circumstances of debates in this House, that a question of this kind should at once become the opportunity for one Party to attack the other and for the other Party to retort upon its assailants. And, of course, that opportunity has been abundantly used on both sides during this discussion. But I think we shall be very foolish, and that we shall perform very badly our duty to the country, if we conceal from ourselves that this is a question of gravity, portentously greater than those which generally occupy our attention. The particular aspect of the matter which is in our minds, and which is raised by the Motion for adjournment, is a misunderstanding with the colonies; and that is a very grave matter. I should

  1263
  not be in order, of course, in pointing out how very grave are all the other aspects of the matter, and how closely they affect the well-being of the people and the unity of the Empire. It is impossible to forget how far-reaching the effects of this discussion are likely to be, and it is impossible to keep out of our minds how disastrous and ruinous this controversy is likely to be to the great Unionist Party. I regret this, but I recognise that it is inevitable that the tone of the debate should be what it has been. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that, although this debate has been raised in a partisan manner, I think the Leader of the Opposition has called attention to a real danger. Whatever may be the merits of the Government policy of inquiry, while some Ministers entertain a definite opinion on the one side and some on the other as to what will be the upshot of this inquiry, I do think that it is likely to have a profoundly misleading effect in the colonies, in regard to the real circumstances of the case. So far as an individual Member of the House is likely to make any difference in a matter of this kind, I should like to say how the declarations of the Government sound in ears which are not prejudiced against them and in the ears of one who is strongly convinced of the unwisdom of the policy of the Colonial Secretary. It seems to me that there is an unconcealed ambiguity in the declaration that the Government is in favour of inquiry. It is not concealed from the public that to a portion of the Cabinet it is clear that the inquiry will end in one way, and that to another portion it is equally clear that the inquiry will end in another way; while to a certain portion of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister himself, there seems some doubt as to what the upshot of the inquiry will be. The Prime Minister, alone among his colleagues, approached the subject with a really open mind. What then is the impression likely to be in the colonies? Most people, when they hear that a subject is going to be inquired into, are inclined to think that such inquiry is the immediate precursor of a great change of policy; and I regret that the other day the Prime Minister in a brilliant speech quoted the analogies of 1845 and 1886, because it might lead those who read his speech to
  1264
  the conclusion that the Government are contemplating a change of policy. But so far I, and many on the Ministerial side of the House, distinctly understand that the Cabinet is absolutely uncommitted in any way whatever to any policy either of retaliation or preferential duties or general protection, such as may be thought to come within some of the phrases the Colonial Secretary has used. I understand the Prime Minister has this evening only expressed his personal opinion that in certain cases retaliation might be useful, and that even in this extreme case, in which many hon. Members would be prepared to recognise that retaliation might be accepted, speaking only in regard to that case and speaking only for himself, the Government as a Government is absolutely uncommitted, and those who support the Government are in like manner absolutely uncommitted to this policy in the slightest degree. It is very important that this should be understood in this country and in the colonies, and especially in New South Wales. I fear that my words will not reach so far, and that the words of those who will be heard there will create a profoundly misleading impression. Gentlemen opposite, following their party advantage, have tried to carry the words of the Prime Minister far beyond their natural meaning, and they will thereby contribute to that very misunderstanding on the other side of the world which it is their avowed object to prevent. I hope that the inquiry will be a genuine inquiry, and will be quite frankly and candidly undertaken; and that it will not be made the opportunity of hurrying those who are doubtful into premature support of a policy which many believe to be no less destructive of the well-being of this country than the policy of Home Rule, which the great Unionist Party has so long successfully resisted.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I should not have risen to take part in this debate if it had not been for the, in manner very stirring, and in substance very interesting, speech of the Prime Minister, which raised in my mind certain considerations that I should like to follow a little further. The Prime Minister is singularly unfortunate in this matter. To-night he gave two entirely different impressions—one to the right hon. Member for the Forest of

  1265
  Dean and another to the noble Lord who has just sat down. The Prime Minister began by deprecating this debate as ill-timed and unreasonable. The other day he pointed out strongly the disadvantages of a Government's coming to a conclusion secretly and then announcing it to the country. The right hon. Gentleman must be beginning to realise—though I fear he is only beginning—the inconvenience of a Government appealing publicly for inquiry and discussion on a subject on which the Members of the Government are diametrically opposed to each other. That is the origin of the telegrams of the Premier of New South Wales. The right hon. Gentleman has taunted us with having moved the adjournment instead of challenging the policy of the Government directly. One course is not the alternative of the other. By challenging his policy, the right hon. Gentleman must mean a Vote of Censure. You may have a Vote of Censure when the Government is prepared to do something or when they have a policy. But this Government is not prepared to do anything, and it has no policy. I will go further and ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. The time of the House is at the right hon. Gentleman's disposal, and, if he disapproves of this Motion, I ask him to remember that the Colonial Secretary publicly invited this House to a discussion of the question. It is not in the interests of any individual or any one Party more than another to have such a discussion. When the Prime Minister taunts us in this way, will he state distinctly whether, before the Session is over, he will respond to the invitation of the Colonial Secretary by giving the House the opportunity of a discussion, and, if so, whether the Government will be prepared to take full part in that discussion? I think that is a fair demand to make in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  Now I will follow him a little further into the subject matter of his speech. The Prime Minister asked us another question. When you, Mr. Speaker, intervened in the interests of the limits of debate, he had already asked us whether under certain conditions which might arise we would sit silently by. What conditions did he contemplate? I assume he had in his mind a really
  1266
  hostile discrimination against the United Kingdom or some part of the British Empire. There are contingencies which have not arisen yet, and which, I trust, will never arise, which are really equivalent to acts of war. Suppose a foreign country were to say, "We hate you and we will not have your goods, and will prohibit their entry into our country," that would be a position under which the country could not sit silent. If such a condition did arise, no Government with any courage would ask for discussion, or inquiry, or mandate, but would come forward with their proposals. If that was the sort of consideration which was in the mind of the Prime Minister—a really hostile discrimination—has that condition yet arisen or not? Has it arisen in the case of Germany and Canada to-day? If it has not arisen; then the right hon. Gentleman is really putting a purely hypothetical case before the House. If it has arisen, what does the Prime Minister intend to do? I assume from the silence of the Government they do not consider it has arisen. I am afraid the Prime Minister has not succeeded in clearing up the mystification of the Government of New South Wales. He accepts their statement that
  "There is a declaration that every self-governing colony shall be secured in the free exercise of its rights to enter into closer trade relations with the mother country."
  Has the Government any policy with regard to carrying out this declaration? The question in the mind of the Government of New South Wales, with regard to which it is assumed they have become confused, is how far personal declarations by members of the Government represent the Government or only individual members of the Government. Was what the Prime Minister said to-night said for himself or for the Government? Is he prepared to give this guarantee to the colonies? The words he endorsed—and they amount to a promise—are these—
  "That every self-governing colony will be cecured in the free exercise or its right to enter into closer trade relations with the mother sountry."
  That is the promise. Is there any danger of the promise being incurred? Has the case yet arisen? If it has arisen, what are you prepared to do? If it has not arisen, why is the question

  1267
  urgent at the present time? The Prime Minister has expressly said that he is prepared if the contingency arose to secure free exercise of the right. Would he do it by retaliatory measures? Has the Government agreed upon any measure in such a case? Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to endorse retaliatory measures? What ought to be made clear to the House especially after the speech of the noble Lord, is, when the Prime Minister made this promise had he any idea in his own mind as to what measures he would take, and, if he had an idea, did he speak for himself or for a Government that was agreed upon the question, or had the Government, in making a definite promise to the colonies, any settled policy whatever?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am quite sure that those Members of the House, who were present earlier in the debate, will now acquit me of any discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman opposite in interrupting him as I did on a point of order, with the view of ascertaining from you, Sir, within what limits it would be necessary that this debate should be kept. I have to say, on behalf of the Government, that we welcome discussion on this important matter, but, naturally, we do not desire that the discussion should be confined to one side; and we were anxious to know how far we should be justified in following the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in replying to a matter which appeared to us to be outside the scope of the Resolution. The Resolution, and all it referred to, has already disappeared in the course of the debate. I have often heard debates raised in this House on a Motion for the adjournment which seemed very difficult to reconcile with the Rule of Order which prescribes that it should refer to a "definite matter of urgent public importance;" but this debate is, of all those that I can recollect in the whole course of my experience, one which has the least foundation, and which, in fact, is only based on what I may call the dialectical pin-point. The Motion, which it is "urgent" and of "public importance" to discuss, is whether or not the New South Wales Government are mistaken in expressing their
  "Great satisfaction with the declaration by the British Government that all the self-governing
  1268
  colonies should be secured in the free exercise of the right to enter into closer trade relations with the mother country."
  That has been settled by the declaration of the Prime Minister. They are not mistaken. The Prime Minister expressed the opinion of the whole Government. So far as that goes the answer is complete, and the debate might there come to an end. But a great deal more has been raised by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I will promise not to go one atom beyond anything which has already been said; but I find it very difficult to understand how some of the things which have been said arise—[Cries of "Order," and an HON. MEMBER: You are not Mr. Speaker.]—upon the terms of the Motion. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Northumberland having received the answer of the Prime Minister and not being satisfied, goes altogether beyond this Motion and puts a Question which I am prepared to answer, but to which I apply what I have just said. He says: Under these circumstances, does the Government contemplate in the future a hostile discrimination which will come within the terms of the minute of the Government of New South Wales that has been communicated to us? Does he consider that up to the present time there has been any hostile discrimination against a self-governing colony which is calculated to prevent the free exercise of its right to enter into closer trade relations with the mother country? Yes, Sir, we do. What has happened? Before I come to that, let me say this. In nothing that I say am I imputing the slightest blame to Germany, the country which has exercised this undoubted right to discriminate. I make no complaint whatever. Under existing circumstances, not only have they a perfect right to do what they have done, but we have no right to consider it as an unfriendly action or to expect any different treatment. So long as the policy of this country is to lie down under that treatment so long we have no complaint either against Germany or against any other nation which treats our colonies in this way.
  What are the facts? It is perfectly true that the self-governing colonies claim the right—subject, of

  1269
  course, to exercising it through the Imperial Government—to represent their special views to foreign countries; and, if necessary. I have no doubt they would ask to make special treaties of reciprocity or otherwise. In that sense it is perfectly open to foreign countries to treat them separately. But what has happened in this case is that the greatest of all our colonies has, of its own accord, voluntarily and without any application from us, desired to show its appreciation of the action of the mother country—the value which it attaches to the greatest free market which it enjoys—by giving to us a special preference upon the goods which it imports of our manufacture. Thereupon, in the full exercise of her right, Germany immediately removes Canada from the position in which it was placed as a member of the British Empire, and places it under a different scheme of tariff regulations by which Canadian goods are visited with a much heavier duty in Germany. Germany has a perfect right to do that. Why does she do it? Her papers tell us. Only a few weeks ago every paper in Germany was explaining to the world the policy of Germany, which was to penalise Canada for having given special advantages to the mother country, and to do that not so much or not only to punish Canada but to deter other colonies. The German papers told us in so many words that they saw a proposal for giving a preference of this kind in South Africa, and that they wished to stop it. The method which they suggested as likely to stop it was to place discrimination after discrimination upon the goods coming from Canada; if what they had done already was not sufficient, to increase that discrimination, and thereby, as they hoped, to give very great assistance to those of their friends who in South Africa were protesting against the preference which it was proposed to give there also. They thought that the lesson would be read, in South Africa, in Australia, and in New Zealand, that no British colony would dare to discriminate in favour of the mother country when it was known that Germany would take the course which was indicated in these papers. And then the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Berwick division of Northumberland comes down to the House and asks, with an air of ingenuous
  1270
  ignorance, "Do you know of any hostile discrimination against a British colony?" I say, Yes, we do; and I say we resent it, not in the sense that we make any complaint under existing circumstances, but we resent the policy which makes this possible. The Resolution of the New South Wales Government speaks of the declarations of the British Government, and the Prime Minister of the Colony has said that in referring to the declarations of the British Government he referred to the speeches of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and myself. What did I say? What I said was this. I stated the facts as I have now stated them to the House; and I said that, so long as our present system continued, the only answer we could make to our colonies, if they complained, would be that our fiscal system prevented us from going to their assistance; and I went on to say that, to my mind, that was a humiliating position. I said I did not like it. I said that as long as it continued I did not believe in the future union of the Empire. I say so now, and the Government has asked for discussion on the question.
  The right hon. Baronet rose for the purpose of putting two questions to the Government. He first asked, as I have said, whether any case had arisen. I have answered that question. He then asked whether and how we were going to prevent such cases. He said something about not dealing with hypotheses. It is an hypothesis whether or not we shall have to deal with such a case. I have stated what was the case a few weeks ago. Look at the German papers now. It is, of course, very difficult to understand the cause of the sudden change of opinion. But there can be no doubt about the change. We hear no more in the German papers of further discrimination against our colony of Canada. We see in all of them a recognition of the fact that public opinion in this country is directed to this question and that apparently the patience of this country has been exhausted. I am quoting—I am not giving my own opinion—the effect of articles that have appeared in the leading German Press; and I find, on the one hand, recognition, generous appreciation of our motives, recognition of our right to protect the unity of the British Empire, and, further, the expression of the opinion that if a

  1271
  change in our fiscal policy is involved, then German interests need not be injured thereby, because German policy could be changed to meet it, because Germany would then seek to arrange a modus vivendi with us, and we should have something to negotiate with. That is the answer. At the present moment I see no reason whatever to fear that our allies in Germany will put us in the position of having to consider retaliatory measures in consequence of action taken by them against our colony of Canada; but if they do, then I rest upon the statement of the Prime Minister—we should not regard that action with indifference, we should think it our duty to find a remedy. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has shown an extraordinary anxiety in this debate lest the colonies should be disappointed; the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has also expressed his surprise that the attention of the country should have been called to this matter as one of urgency. Well, Sir, in my present office I ought, at any rate, to have the means of forming a fairly correct judgment of the general trend of opinion in our colonies. If there had been nothing in the condition of our colonies, in the state of opinion in our great self-governing colonies which justified allusion to this matter, I agree in that case there would have been no immediate urgency, and the matter might or might not have been left for a future period sooner or later, immediate necessity not arising.
  But is the right hon. Gentleman so behind the times that he knows of no urgency? Is there nothing in the state of opinion in our great self-governing colonies at the present time which makes it essential—which makes it the duty of the Minister representing the colonies—to call attention to this subject? Will he allow me to call his attention to a paragraph in the newspapers? It is to the following effect—
  "The Government of Canada have given notice to the Government of the United States that they are not at present disposed to receive the Commission for the establishment of a Reciprocity Treaty."
  What does that mean? That also occurred, curiously enough, within the last few weeks. Now, let me call attention to this fact. Suppose a great colony—not necessarily Canada — suppose a
  1272
  Crown colony such as Jamaica or Trinidad wishes to make a treaty of reciprocity with the United States of America; necessarily the first condition for making a satisfactory treaty is that the colony in question should give preference to the United States over and above any that may be given to British manufacturers; without that it is perfectly clear the United States has no interest in such a treaty. The United States is not likely to give something for nothing, and it would be something if it gave a great advantage to the colony without receiving in return this preference over its greatest competitor. Therefore if Canada is to make a reciprocity treaty with the United States or any other country it must be detrimental to the manufactures of this country. I do not desire to force Canada into such a position. I say that as long as Canada could say, or think, we were indifferent to her offers when she offered us 33⅓ per cent., that we cared not for it when she offered more if we gave her some slight preference in return, and that we rejected her offers with contumely, or, at all events, with indifference—I say I do not want Canada to be in that position and to be forced, as it were, by the public opinion of the country to seek elsewhere for the reciprocal trade which the mother country refused to her. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite are afraid lest the colonies should be disappointed. Sir, the colonies have been disappointed with our policy hitherto. Is it we who raise the question? No, it is they. They raised it, and not one colony alone. Every individual colony raised it by the mouth of its Prime Minister at the recent Conference, when a resolution was unanimously passed asking the Government of His Britannic Majesty to call attention to this matter, to consider the matter, and see if they could not do something to meet the desire of the colonies for this closer commercial union, which in my heart and soul I believe is absolutely essential—if hereafter you are to have that closer federal union I believe to be the real destiny of the British race—and without which the Empire will fall to pieces and separate atoms.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the Motion of my

  1273
  right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has been amply justified, were it only for having elicited the speech delivered by the Colonial Secretary. The Colonial Secretary has made two things perfectly clear in that speech. He has made it perfectly clear, first of all, that he adheres to his own opinion, and he has also made it equally clear that the Government has no opinion at all. The Colonial Secretary has declared once more in favour of retaliation and preferential tariffs. But what did he say when he came to make a declaration of the policy of the Government? We are on the question of the message of the New South Wales Premier to this country. That message expresses satisfaction with the declaration of His Majesty's Government. My hon. and learned friend the Member for South Shields has read out the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in which he said that if necessary there shall be retaliatory tariffs. What does the Colonial Secretary, speaking for the Government, say? Here, he says, is Germany, which is threatening retaliation against Canadian goods because that colony has given a preference to this country—but what the Colonial Secretary forgot to say is that that retaliation by Germany is a matter of years. What have His Majesty's Government been doing during the whole of these years? Canada has within the last few months declared war against Germany. The question put by my right hon. friend the Member for Berwick is whether, as a matter of practical policy, the Colonial Secretary and the Government are going to back up Canada in that respect. We are entitled to know. It is not a hypothetical question at all. It is a matter which has arisen as a matter of practical policy. What are the Government asking us to do? They say: "We have got to back up Canada, we must do something to protect the colony, and, therefore, we will fire great speeches at
  each other." That is the answer. This is the policy of the big revolver to protect the colonies. That is their opinion of protection for the colonies. That is the policy declared by the Colonial Secretary to-night. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] If it is not, then he has declared on behalf of His Majesty's Government a policy of retaliatory tariffs against Germany. Is that the policy of His Majesty's Government? Hon. Members opposite do not seem to know, and if they do not know how are we possibly to know? The fact of the matter is that the Government have lost their bearings in a fog, and they are appointing a Committee to inquire where they are. A question has been put by my right hon. friend the Member for Berwick which has not been answered by the Government. The Colonial Secretary evaded the whole position. My right hon. friend asked the Prime Minister whether he was prepared to give an opportunity for the discussion of this question in the House of Commons The House of Lords have had an opportunity, and they have discussed the question on its merits. I think we are entitled to an answer to the question of my right hon. friend whether the Government are prepared to extend the same privilege to the House of Commons, as the House of Lords have already enjoyed, of discussing this great question. It is more a matter for the House of Commons than the House of Lords. It is a matter of finance; it is a matter of our fiscal policy which, according to the traditions of Parliament, are concerns of this House. I trust that, if we do not get an answer to the question to-night from the Government, the Leader of the Opposition will press for an answer to-morrow.
  Question put.
  House divided:—Ayes, 132; Noes, 252. (Division List, No. 121.)

  AYES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Asher, Alexander

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Crombie, John William

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Burns, John

  Crooks, William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Cameron, Robert

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Bell, Richard

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Black, Alexander William

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Edwards, Frank

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Emmott, Alfred

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Lough, Thomas

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

  Grant, Corrie

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Norman, Henry

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam. Gower)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Tomkinson, James

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Toulmin, George

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harwood, George

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Price, Robert John

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfr)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

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

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Young, Samuel

  Kitson, Sir James

  Runciman, Walter

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Labouchere, Henry

  Russell, T. W.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shackleton, David James

  Levy, Maurice

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Chapman, Edward

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Flower, Ernest

  Bain Colonel, James Robert

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Forster, Henry William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Garfit, William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

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

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cranborne, Lord

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

  Bigwood, James

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Bill, Charles

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bond, Edward

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Denny, Colonel

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Brassey, Albert

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts

  Groves, James Grimble

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hain, Edward

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midd'x

  Bull, William James

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Butcher, John George

  Doughty, George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Carlile, William Walter

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Heaton, John Henniker

  1276

  1277

  Helder, Augustus

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff., Bt'side.)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Horner, Frederick William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stock, James Henry

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stroyan, John

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Thompson, Dr. E. C. (Monagh'n, N.

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Myers, William Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Kerr, John

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Keswick, William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Percy, Earl

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Purvis, Robert

  Webb, Col. William George

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Randles, John S.

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Renwick, George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Robinson, Brooke

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Wylie, Alexander

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Younger, William

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh, W.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Majendie, James A. H.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Malcolm, Ian

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  *MR. DUKEsaid he rose to move an Amendment which, while retaining the zones, which he thought were to be regarded as the prime characteristic of the Bill, would place in the hands of the Land Commission to be appointed under the Bill the power to extend the benefits of the measure in exceptional cases to classes of tenants of land in Ireland which were, as the Bill stood, prohibited from receiving its benefits. He proposed to add at the end
  1278
  of Sub-section (a) the following proviso: "Or if it will be more than thirty per cent., and the Land Commission are satisfied upon inquiry that the purchase price does not unduly affect the interests of the person entitled to the first estate in tail in remainder expectant on the estate of the vendor at the time of the proposed sale or any other remainderman or incumbrancer."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Page 1, line 23, after the word "ten" to insert the words "Per cent. below the existing rent, but will be more than thirty per cent. below the existing rent, and the Land Commission are satisfied upon inquiry that the purchase price does not unduly affect the interests of the person entitled to the first estate in tail in remainder expectant on the estate of the vendor at the time of the proposed sale or any other remainderman or incumbrancer." (Mr. Duke.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsuggested that it might be more convenient if his hon. friend were to move his Amendment when they came to discuss Sub-section (b). If the hon. Member were successful in carrying this proviso, he would require to move another proviso on Sub-section (b), and the whole of the first Clause would then have to be re-cast on the Report stage.
  *MR. DUKEsaid he thought it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman would draft a proviso in the direction of the one contained in his Amendment, and submit it to the Committee at the next sitting when the Irish Land Bill was under discussion?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid as there was now only less than half an hour for discussion, he did not think it would be at all proper to enter into the merits of the hon. Member's proposal. It would be only half an hour wasted.
  *MR. DUKEsaid that under the circumstances, and in the interest of the progress of the Bill, he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment for the present.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDmoved another Amendment. The purpose of this Amendment, he said, was to increase the minimum reduction of the first-term rents, just as he had already moved the increase of the minimum in the second-term rents.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 28, to leave out the word 'twenty,' and insert the word 'twenty-five.'"(Mr. John Redmond.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that he must oppose the Amendment on the same grounds as he had urged in the case of the Amendment on the second-term rents. The object of having a minimum reduction was to give security to the taxpayer; and as long as they were satisfied that no bargain entered into between landlord and tenant would be prejudicial to the taxpayer, the Government held, rightly or wrongly, that the greater the latitude the better.
  MR. DILLONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman alleged that he desired to give
  1280
  the utmost possible liberty for bargaining; but it was a very curious thing that that liberty was always in favour of the landlord, and when it was proposed to extend that liberty in favour of the tenants, then the Government was all against liberty. This was only another illustration of the extreme mischief of the limits in this clause. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment raised two vitally important questions totally different from those raised by the Amendment on the second-term rents. In the first place, since the first-term rents were settled, there had been an important alteration in the law by the Act of 1896, which had improved the position of the tenantry of Ireland. The Committee should remember that first-term tenants were different from second term tenants. The right hon. Gentleman said that the basis of the Bill was rent ascertained by a Court; but that was precisely what the right hon. Gentleman was not now proposing. He maintained that the limits as at present fixed in the Bill with regard to first-term tenants would have the effect of making the tenant, as had often happened before in the history of land purchase, pay for his own improvements in hard cash. There was another important point in which the case of the first-term tenants differentiated from that of the second-term tenants. Hon. Members would notice, on referring to the Bill, that as regarded the two classes of tenants there was only a difference of 10 per cent. in the limits fixed for each. The right hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members opposite were in the habit, during the debate, of referring to what were called Conference terms; but the provision in the Conference Report which appeared to him to be most vital in the interests of the tenants was that the whole system of purchase should be based on second-term rents or their fair equivalent. That meant that before the price of a holding held under a first-term rent was calculated, a fair equivalent to a second-term rent should first be ascertained. There were two ways of doing that. One was to submit the rent of the holding to a judicial inquiry; and the other was to apply to that holding the average reduction obtained all over

  1281
  Ireland on first-term rents, namely, 22 per cent. If justice were to be done to the first-term tenants the limits ought to be 22 per cent. greater than in the case of second-term tenants. In that case the limits would work out at about 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. instead of at 20 per cent. and 40 per cent as in the Bill. That was a bare statement of the justice of the case.
  He objected to the principle altogether; and unless the limits were very much extended, he would vote against the clause. There was another alternative. A first-term holding might be inspected by the Land Commission, who would estimate what a fair second-term rent would be, and the purchase price could be calculated on that. That was a procedure which was actually in force at present, because sales under the 40th Section were carried out in that way. The holding was inspected by the Land Commission, who reported what a fair price would be to the Judge of the Landed Estates Court, and the price was based on that. He did not put that forward, however, as an alternative he would recommend, because undoubtedly it would lead to delay, and he did not think it would be quite as fair to the tenants as an investigation in open Court, because in most private investigations the improvements of the tenants were commonly overlooked and ignored. His proposal was that the purchase price should be based in the case of first-term holdings on a fair equivalent to what a second-term rent would be. The surest guide they had to that was the general average reduction obtained throughout Ireland. Further, there might be the right of appeal if either the landlord or the tenant thought he was hardly treated. What he wished to impress upon the Chief Secretary was that this was not a matter to be dismissed perfunctorily. It raised most important considerations; and there was no doubt whatever that the limits as they stood in the Bill would place the first-term tenants at a very great disadvantage.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had no intention of dismissing the matter perfunctorily, nor did he contend that first-term
  1282
  rents should be treated on an analogy with second-term rents. What he would say was that with respect to the minimum reduction, the Government held, rightly or wrongly, that all they had to consider was the security of the taxpayer. It was notorious that the standard on which first-term rents were fixed in the early stages of land legislation differed from the standard on which rents were fixed after 1887. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the general average reduction all over the country should be taken; but that would be a very cumbrous proceeding, and would involve delay.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid that, of course, the question of the security of the State was of importance as long as it was directed towards the reduction which the tenant would obtain; but the moment a sale was enforced the question of the security of the State went by the board. If the reduction which the tenant could obtain was increased from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. the security he would be able to offer to the State would be proportionately greater. He thought it would be a very cumbrous system to give the Land Commission power to hear first-term cases. If such cases were to be heard at all, there would have to be the right of appeal, and he did not know where it would end. He repudiated the idea that the proposal in the Bill was in any way a fair equivalent to second-term rents, as proposed by the Land Conference. The language used at the Conference Report was advisedly vague; but the Confer-had before it the average reduction all over the country, and it was hoped that there would not be any doubt as to the meaning of a fair equivalent of a second-term rent.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that undoubtedly the Land Commission had, since 1887, taken into account the fall in prices which they had not taken into account previously. What he desired to point out was that there had been no effort on the part of the Government to carry out the proposal in the Land Conference Report that there should be a fair equivalent to second-term rents. So far as the Conference terms applied in favour of the landlords they had been

  1283
  followed, but where they would apply in favour of the tenants they had been ignored. That was really what had taken place, and there was no use in attempting to disguise it. His right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland would remember that the policy of Irish land legislation, with regard to improvements, was reversed by the Court of Appeal in 1882 in the case of Adams v. Dunseath, and for fourteen years rents were fixed on a totally false idea as to improvements. So false was that idea that the House of Commons reversed the policy of the Court of Appeal in 1896 but millions of money had, in the meantime, been taken from the tenants and given to the landlords by that decision. The Government in this Bill did not take the slightest interest in the case of those tenants; and to effect a settlement in those cases it was the duty of the Government to try, at all events, and get a fair equivalent to second-term rents. The case of those tenants whose rents should be very much reduced on the question of improvements alone should not be passed over. This question was more serious than the question of second-term rents. There were 250,000 first-term holdings in Ireland; and he was not sure, considering the importance of the question, that the Committee should pass away from it to-night. It affected such a large number of tenants that the Committee ought to be permitted to consider it further.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid several of his hon. friends desired a further opportunity of discussing the matter, and he suggested that Progress should now be reported. He asked the Chief Secretary if he could put on the Paper his proposed proviso or new clause dealing with non-judicial tenants before they took up the discussion of the Bill again.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he thought the hon. Gentleman attached undue importance to the new clause, which, however, he should be glad to put on the Paper before the discussion was resumed. He would accept the hon. Gentleman's Motion to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress;
  1284
  and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. John Redmond.) Put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  MILITARY LANDS BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, 25th June.

  THE CANADIAN PACIFIC MAIL CONTRACT.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)formally moved that the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, dated 12th October, 1901, for the conveyance of mails, troops, and stores between Halifax and Hong Kong for the period between 7th April, 1901, and 6th April, 1906, be approved.
  MR. CALDWELLexpressed the hope that the Postmaster General would take the first opportunity open to him of terminating this contract.

  POST OFFICE (HALIFAX (OR QUEBEC) AND HONG KONG MAIL CONTRACT).
  Resolved, That the Contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, dated the 12th day of October, 1901, for the conveyance of His Majesty's mails, troops, and stores between Halifax (or Quebec) and Hong Kong, for the period from the 7th day of April, 1901, to the 6th day of April, 1906, printed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 21, of Session 1902, be approved.—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  POOR PRISONERS DEFENCE BILL.
  Ordered, That Mr. Arkwright and Mr. Nussey be added to the Select Committee on the Poor Prisoners Defence Bill.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood).

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the ventilation of the House.
  Mr. Dillon, Dr. Farquharson, Sir Michael Foster, Mr. Goddard, Sir J. Batty Tuke, Mr. A. H. Smith, and Mr. Victor Cavendish were accordingly nominated members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.