Sitting of 29 June 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the
  766
  case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  Southampton Harbour Bill [Lords] (King's consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Ulster and Connaught Light Railways Bill. Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  British Gas Light Company (Norwich) Bill [Lords]; Erith Tramways and Improvement Bill; Hastings Tramways (Extensions) Bill [Lords]; Tynemouth and District Tramways Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time
  Alexandra Park and Palace Bill; Bournemouth Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords]; Carmarthenshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Derby Gas Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Manchester Southern Tramways Bill [Lords]; Rochester Corporation Tramways and Improvements Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  North British Railway (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (East Ham, etc.) Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill (by Order). As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read a second time and committed.
  Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Finance Bill; Grangemouth Water Order Confirmation Bill; Lanarkshire Electricity and Refuse Destruction Order Confirmation Bill; Forth Navigation Order Confirmation Bill; Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Bill; Edinburgh Corporation (Markets, Slaughter Houses, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill; Gorleston and South-town Gas Bill, without Amendment.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of the Working Classes) Bill, with an Amendment.
  New Hunstanton Improvement Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to Belfast Water Bill [Lords]; Shepshed Urban District Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Alder-shot Gas and Water, Amersham, Beaconsfield, and District Water, St. David's Water and Gas, St. Neot's Water, and Wexford Gas." [Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for rendering valid certain Letters Patent granted to William Phillips Thompson in respect of inventions communicated to him from abroad by Frederick Ellsworth Kip (1) for improvements in stop-motions for looms, warping machines, and the like; and (2) for improvements in electrical stop-motions for warps." [Kip's Patents Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the City of Birmingham Tramways Company, Limited, to construct
  768
  additional tramways; and for other purposes." [Birmingham District Tramways Bill (Lords).]
  And, also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer powers on the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Bradford with respect to tramways, waterworks, and gas supply; to enable the Corporation and Urban District Council of Shipley to exchange portions of their respective gas undertakings; and to make further provisions with respect to rating and various matters of local administration and management." [Bradford Corporation Bill (Lords).]
  Kip's Patents Bill [Lords]; Birmingham District Tramways Bill [Lords]; Bradford Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 260.]
  Hexham Gas Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Grangemouth, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petition from Seaton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petition from Durham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Cumnock, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND REGISTERS (SCOTLAND).
  Petition from Perth, against alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petition from Malton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL AND LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from West Cumberland, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from Malton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  Petition of the National Chamber of Trade, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MOTOR-CARS.
  Petition from Renfrewshire, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (AUDIT) BILL.
  Petition from Abergavenny, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  Petition from Wood Green, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  URBAN DISTRICTS (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 10th March—Mr. O'Shee]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 228.]
  MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
  Account presented, of the Receipt and Expenditure under the Seamen's Fund Winding-up Act from 1st January to 31st December, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 229.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3009 to 3015 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  Accounts presented, showing the Interest accrued in respect of the Securities standing in the names of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to the credit of the Post Office Savings Banks Fund for the year ended 31st December, 1902, and of the Fund for the Banks for Savings and the Fund for Friendly Societies for the year ended 20th November, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 230.]

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 22nd June, 1903, declaring that Paul Powell, Royal Carriage Department, War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  LUNACY.
  Copy of Fifty-seventh Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor, with Appendix [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 231.]
  NAVAL EXPENDITURE AND MERCANTILE MARINE (GREAT BRITAIN, ETC.).
  Return ordered, "showing aggregate Naval Expenditure on seagoing force; aggregate revenue; aggregate tonnage of Mercantile Marine; annual clearances of shipping in the foreign trade; annual clearances of shipping in the coasting trade; annual value of imports by sea, including bullion and specie; and annual value of exports by sea, including bullion and specie, of various countries, exclusive of China and South American Republics, but including British Self-governing Colonies, for the year 1902 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 373, of Session 1902)."—(Sir John Colomb.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Labourers in Ireland.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many

  Agricultural Labourers.

  General Labourers.

  1901.

  1891.

  1901.

  1891.

  Males.

  Females.

  Total.

  Males.

  Females.

  Total.

  Males.

  Females.

  Total.

  Males.

  Females.

  Total.

  Leinster

  -

  -

  42,557

  1,765

  44,322

  45,663

  2,868

  48,531

  41,045

  1,233

  42,278

  40,861

  2,358

  43,219

  Munster

  -

  -

  -

  40,937

  1,107

  42,044

  47,093

  2,563

  49,656

  29,638

  530

  30,168

  32,269

  1,208

  33,477

  Ulster

  -

  -

  -

  39,082

  1,347

  40,429

  41,069

  2,541

  43,610

  37,834

  415

  38,249

  32,021

  910

  32,931

  Connaught

  -

  -

  12,773

  748

  13,521

  13,448

  1,233

  14,681

  7,023

  145

  7,168

  8,330

  523

  9,353

  Total for Ireland

  135,349

  4,967

  140,316

  147,273

  9,205

  156,478

  115,540

  2,323

  117,863

  113,981

  4,999

  118,980

  NOTE.—A large Number of the General Labourers may be assumed to be Agricultural Labourers, although not having returned themselves as such in the Census forms.

  Experiments on Dogs.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the certificate given to Professor Schafer, in accordance with the provisions of the Act 39 and 40 Vic, c. 77, permits him partially to drown and then resuscitate the same dog without any anæsthetics more than once; and, if so, how many times; or permits him partially to drown and then resuscitate the same dog without any anæsthetics only once; and, if so, how many dogs has he permission so partially to drown and resuscitate.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The certificates obtained by Professor Schafer for the purpose of testing the best means of effecting resuscitation in cases of apparent drowning are limited to ten experiments. It is not stated whether the experiments shall be on ten separate dogs, or whether the same dog will be used for more than one experiment; but I have ascertained that Professor Schafer does not propose
  agricultural labourers and general labourers respectively are included in the Census returns of 1901 for the four provinces of Ireland, and how many were returned under the Census of 1891.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.)
  to submerse any unanæsthetised animal more than once.

  Prices of Sugar.
  COLONEL DENNY: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade what has been the average price of sugar for each year during the last five years, what has been the average bounty paid by Germany, Austria, and France during that period, what is the present price of sugar, and what is the quoted price for sugar for delivery twelve months from date.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law) The average declared import values of sugar imported into the United Kingdom in the last five years have been—

  Years.

  Of Refined Sugar.

  Of Unrefined Sugar.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  1898

  12

  3¾

  9

  7¼

  1899

  12

  6¾

  10

  5¾

  1900

  12

  10

  10

  5½

  1901

  12

  2¼

  9

  6¼

  1902

  10

  7¼

  7

  7½

  The average bounties on sugar paid by Germany, Austria, and France in each of the same years, as fixed by the United States Government for the purpose of levying countervailing duties, were—

  Per cwt.

  s.

  d.

  For Austria-Hungary—

  During 1898 and 1899—

  Under 93 and at least 88 polarisation

  1

  3¼

  Under 99·5 and at least 93 polarisation

  1

  4½

  At least 99·5 polarisation

  1

  11½

  During 1900–1902—

  Under 99·3 and not less than 90 polarisation

  1

  0

  At least 99·3 polarisation

  1

  5¼

  For Germany—

  Raw, at least 90

  1

  2¾

  Refined, under 98 and at least 90

  1

  3¼

  Candy, and sugar in white, hard loaves, blocks, crystals, etc., testing at least 99·5

  1

  9¼

  All other, at least 98

  1

  6

  For France—

  Raw, 65 to 98 for beet, and 65 to 97 for French Colonial sugars

  4

  3¼

  Candy, and refined sugar in loaves or crushed

  4

  8½

  Raw or refined, in grains or crystals, polarising at least 98

  4

  5¾

  The above estimates of bounties do not include any indirect bounties that may have arisen from the operations of cartels. The price of "88 per cent." beet sugar, f.o.b. Hamburg, was reported about the middle of June, 1903, to be from 7s. 10d. to 8s. 0½d. per cwt. The price quoted at the same time for delivery in January-March next was from 8s. 9½d. to 8s. 11¼d. per cwt.

  Procedure under the Light Railways Act, 1896.
  MR. BIGWOOD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether anything can be done to expedite the procedure under the Light Railways Act, 1896; whether he is aware that an interval of two, three, and more years has in some cases elapsed between the date of the application for the Order and the date of its confirmation by the Board of Trade; and whether there is any prospect of the County of Middlesex Light Railways Order, 1903, for which application was made in May, 1901, being confirmed by the Board of Trade before the prorogation of Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Such delays as have occasionally occurred in
  774
  proceedings upon applications for Light Railway Orders have been due to postponements of stages for the benefit of parties where conflicting interests have had to be reconciled by agreement. In the majority of such cases these delays have occurred before the Light Railway Commissioners have been in a position to settle the Orders and submit them to the Board of Trade. The only way of preventing such delays would be to fix precise limits of time for the several stages, and rigorously to enforce them by the rejection of applications upon failure to proceed within those limits. I do not think this would be advantageous. In the case of the Order mentioned by the hon. Member, it is to be pointed out that it consolidates Orders applied for in November, 1901, and May, 1902, with the Orders applied for in May, 1901. The total length of lines proposed to be authorised by these combined Orders is over twenty miles. The Consolidated Order was submitted to the Board for confirmation on the 23rd of last month; the time limited for lodging objections to confirmation expired on the 20th instant; and the hearing of these objections has been fixed for the 8th of next month. The consideration of conflicting claims and the settlement of the Order will thereafter be proceeded with without delay, but it is quite impossible to fix a date by which confirmation can be given.

  Supply of Poisonous Gases—Suggested Legislation.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill this session similar to the one of last year regulating the supply of water-gas and other poisonous gases.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The answer is in the negative.

  Metropolitan Poor Law Schools—Expenditure on Buildings.
  SIR JOHN GORST: To ask the President of the Local Government Board in which of the Poor Law Schools of the Metropolis expenditure on the buildings has been sanctioned since 1896; what, in each case, is the amount of such expenditure; for what purpose was it sanctioned;

  775
  and what is the reduction in the number of children to be accommodated?
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I append a statement showing the amounts which have been sanctioned by the Local Government Board since March, 1896, in connection with the buildings of the Metropolitan Poor Law Schools, and in each case the purpose

  School.

  Amounts sanctioned.

  Purpose.

  £

  Bethnal Green

  -

  -

  -

  -

  683

  Additions to infants' schoolrooms.

  St. George in the East

  -

  -

  2,463

  Day room and lavatory accommodation.

  354

  120

  Additions to Superintendent's rooms.

  552

  Boundary walls.

  3,489

  Hackney

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  60

  Screens in schoolrooms.

  450

  Laundry machinery.

  450

  Sanitary works.

  235

  Hot water supply, etc.,

  300

  Water tanks.

  62

  Alterations.

  1,100

  Store rooms and servants' accommodation.

  2,250

  Sanitary works, etc.

  5,764

  Workshops, boiler house, etc.

  10,671

  Holborn

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  9,803

  Laundry, etc.

  1,560

  Waiting room and engineer's house.

  62

  Drainage works.

  11,425

  Islington

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  269

  Lavatory accommodation.

  Lambeth

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  60

  Play shed for boys.

  226

  Bathrooms.

  2,043

  Boundary walls.

  800

  Fire escape stairs.

  3,129

  St. Marylebone

  -

  -

  -

  180

  Workshop.

  400

  Fencing.

  13,107

  Receiving wards, etc.

  2,291

  Boilers, etc.

  15,978

  St. Pancras

  -

  -

  -

  -

  332

  Fire escape stairs.

  1,342

  Probation wards.

  340

  Drainage works.

  2,060

  Laundry buildings.

  4,074

  Poplar

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  984

  Receiving wards.

  for which it was sanctioned. The statement does not include the schools belonging to the South Metropolitan school district which is now dissolved. In 1896 the total accommodation of the schools referred to in the statement was, according to the Report of the Poor Law Schools Committee, 8,655. The present accommodation, as fixed by the Board, is 7,702.

  School.

  Amounts sanctioned.

  Purpose.

  Shoreditch

  -

  -

  -

  -

  200

  Alterations in infirmary.

  28

  Paving yards.

  177

  Tar paving.

  405

  Strand

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  475

  Receiving house.

  230

  Lavatory accommodation.

  705

  Central London

  -

  -

  5,690

  Infants' school.

  133

  Repairing gable.

  2,975

  Rainwater storage, etc.

  8,798

  Kensington and Chelsea (Banstead)

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  400

  Lavatory accommodation.

  2,000

  Drill hall, etc.

  2,400

  Kensington and Chelsea (Hammersmith)

  -

  -

  -

  -

  792

  Superintendent's house.

  2,250

  Enlarging schoolrooms.

  3,300

  Class rooms and infants' dormitories.

  550

  Entrance lodge.

  6,892

  West London

  -

  -

  -

  -

  5,365

  Boilers, etc.

  330

  Lavatory accommodation.

  1,830

  Electric lighting.

  170

  Enlarging committee room.

  11,182

  Schoolrooms.

  1,000

  Water supply.

  19,877

  Glycerinated Calf Lymph for Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state why glycerinated calf lymph prepared at the Board's laboratory is not supplied free of charge to the Local Government Board for Scotland for the use of parochial vaccinators in Scotland, having regard to the fact that last year the Scottish Board paid to Dr. Blaxall, a salaried officer of the London Board, the sum of £105 for lymph which was prepared in the Board's laboratory and produced from the Board's calves; and will he explain why Dr. Blaxall is allowed to sell for his own profit lymph prepared in an establishment supported out of Imperial funds.
  778
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Under an arrangement of a provisional character made in 1899, with the consent of the Treasury, the Local Government Board for Scotland pay Dr. Blaxall £105 per annum for a certain quantity of lymph. The lymph is prepared at the laboratory at Chelsea, but as I have previously stated, the cost of its production and preparation is borne by Dr. Blaxall. He is not required to devote his whole time to his duties under my Department, and as the arrangement above referred to does not interfere with those duties and was desired by the Local Government Board for Scotland, my Department offered no objection to it.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate in view of the fact that the Local Government Board for Scotland have paid Dr. Cadell of Edinburgh £15 14s. 3d. for 419 tubes of vaccine lymph, will he state what facilities Dr. Cadell has for its production; and why glycerinated calf lymph is not used for the whole of the work of parochial vaccinators.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am informed that Dr. Cadell, as superintendent of vaccination at the New Town Dispensary, Edinburgh, collects vaccine lymph from the arms of children vaccinated by him, and hitherto has had no difficulty in supplying all the lymph required by the Central Vaccine Institution for Scotland. To the second part of the hon. Member's Question the answer is that there are a few parochial vaccinators who prefer humanised vaccine lymph, and they are supplied with it accordingly.

  Weekly Returns of Infectious Diseases.
  MR. SOAMES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing the advantages that have been derived from the weekly returns of infectious diseases now made in many districts in England, he will make it compulsory on all medical officers of health to make such returns.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The returns on this subject at present furnished to me are made voluntarily by certain urban district councils every week. These councils receive from me weekly a tabulated statement containing the particulars supplied by the returns. It is open to other urban councils to join in the scheme; but the proposal to make it generally compulsory would require careful consideration, and I could not at present promise that this shall be done.

  Wandsworth Infirmary—Death of Michael Sadler.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what has been the result of the communication
  780
  with the guardians which he proposed to make as to the death of Michael Sadler in the Wandsworth Infirmary on 20th April; and what action does he propose to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The guardians desired that an official inquiry should be held on this subject, and this course appeared to me to be desirable. I have accordingly directed a local inquiry to be held, and it will take place to-morrow.

  New Post Office at Southampton—Danger to the Public.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBERLAYNE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the site selected for a new post office at Southampton is within 12 feet of railway lines, over which trains are running at all hours of the day and night; and, seeing that in order to reach it it will be necessary to cross these lines, and, in the opinion of the County Borough Council, who are the local authority, and the Southampton Harbour Board, who are the owners of the railways, such an arrangement will be fraught with danger and inconvenience to the public, will he state what steps he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The new head telegraph office at Southampton, to which is attached a branch post office, is being built, together with a new Custom House, on a site on the south side of Canute Road, acquired for the purpose under the powers of the Post Office Sites Acts of 1897 and 1900, with the assistance of the Corporation. I am informed that that side of the road is already used for foot traffic, and the fact that trains are allowed to pass along the road, which is a main road of the town, seems to show that not much danger is attributed to their presence.

  Telephone Licences to Municipalities.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: To ask the Postmaster-General to what municipalities have licences been

  781
  granted under the Telephone Act of 1899; and whether he can specify the duration of the licence in each case.

  Licencee.

  Date of Licence.

  Date of Expiration of Licence.

  Glasgow Corporation

  -

  -

  -

  1 and 6 March, 1900

  31 December, 1913 (see note)

  Tunbridge Wells Corporation

  -

  30 April, 1900

  Belfast Corporation

  -

  -

  -

  28 February, 1901

  31 December, 1911

  Brighton Corporation

  -

  -

  -

  30 April, 1901

  30 April, 1926

  Chard Corporation

  -

  -

  -

  13 December, 1901

  24 June, 1922

  Grantham Corporation

  -

  -

  18 September, 1900

  31 December, 1911

  Huddersfield Corporation

  -

  -

  22 February, 1901

  28 February, 1926

  Portsmouth Corporation

  -

  -

  21 September, 1901

  31 June, 1926

  Hull Corporation

  -

  -

  -

  -

  8 August, 1902

  31 December, 1911

  Swansea Corporation

  -

  -

  -

  27 September, 1902

  31 December, 1920

  West Hartlepool Corporation

  -

  30 September, 1902

  30 September, 1927

  Oldham Corporation

  -

  -

  -

  31 December, 1902

  31 December, 1920

  Scarborough Corporation

  -

  -

  31 December, 1902

  31 December, 1911

  NOTE.—The system of the Tunbridge Wells Corporation was transferred by consent to the National Telephone Company in November, 1902.

  Promotion in the Customs Service.
  COLONEL SADLER: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if it is the intention of the Board of Customs to pursue the same policy in the selection of officers for the upper section of preventive officers and the higher posts of the waterguard department as in the case of the junior boatmen candidates for preventive officer-ships, viz.: a percentage being given to young and meritorious men possessing marked administrative qualities; and if he will have regard in making such a selection to the local knowledge an officer may have of the port where a vacancy occurs.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) No change is proposed in the method of selection of officers for the upper section of preventive officers and the higher posts of the waterguard department. The selection is made on the combined grounds of length of service and special qualifications.

  Girgenti Inebriates Reformatory.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the reformatory at Girgenti, in Ayrshire, is the only institution certified by the Secretary for Scotland under the provisions of the Inebriates Acts, will he state the amount which this institution received out of the Vote for last year, the number of inmates, and the names
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The information asked for by the hon. Member is as follows—
  of any similar institutions which have applied for certification or pecuniary assistance.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The fact as stated by the hon. Member is not accurate. There are now two such certificated institutions in Scotland, a licence having been granted to the Greenock House of Refuge since the date of the hon. Member's previous question on the subject.† The payments to the managers of the certified inebriate reformatory at Girgenti, in Ayrshire, out of the Vote for the financial year to 31st March, 1903, amounted to £1,285 2s. 6d. Since the opening of the institution in January, 1901, seventy-one inmates have been treated here, and the average number in residence is about forty-three. The correspondence with other authorities has not reached the stage of a formal application for certification.

  International Fisheries Investigation.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the Fishery Board for Scotland will participate in the International Fisheries Investigation in the North Sea, to the extent of superintending the expenditure of half the amount voted, will he state the name of the boat which will be at the Board's disposal; and whether she
  † See (4) Debates, cxxi., 1515.

  783
  will follow up the scientific researches made by the "Garland" in the Moray Firth.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The name of the vessel engaged in the investigations referred to by the hon. Member is the "Goldseeker." The answer to the latter part of the Question is in the affirmative.

  Brussels Sugar Convention—Proceedings of Permanent Commission.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now inform the House what decisions have been arrived at by the Permanent Commission sitting at Brussels; whether the Austro-Hungarian allotment system has been approved; whether the sugar legislation of any other countries has been considered and any orders issued with regard to the treatment of these countries by the nations which are parties to the Convention; and whether arrangements have been made for the publication of the proceedings.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) This inquiry is met by the answer to the Question put by the hon. Member for King's Lynn to the First Lord of the Treasury this afternoon.

  Action of Southport Bench.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask Mr. Attorney-General if his attention has been called to the conduct of the Bench at Southport; and if he proposes to take any action in consequence.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) My attention has been called, by the courtesy of my hon. friend, to the circumstances referred to. The case is not one in which I can take any action.

  Wages in Dockyards.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can hold out hope of an early decision concerning the wages of certain dockyard trades which were recently specified as deserving consideration.
  784
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) It is hoped that the decisions in these cases will be announced at a very early date.

  Irish Land Bill—Return of Advances for Purchase of Holdings.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the alteration in the amount of annuities to be payable under the provisions of the Land Purchase Bill due to the dropping of the perpetual rent-charge, he can arrange for the re-issue of the Return showing particulars with respect to the advances for the purchase of holdings and repayments to Land Commission under Clauses 1 and 40 (No. 183) giving the figures of that Return in italics and the new figures in ordinary type.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Return in question has been issued.

  Irish National Education—Superintendents of Examinations.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Intermediate Commissioners give a preference to intermediate teachers applying for the position of superintendents of examinations; whether in the appointments length of service is taken into consideration, and whether the Commissioners will give the names and length of service of the intermediate teachers appointed for the first time this year to these positions.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The reply to the first Question is in the negative. In making appointments the Commissioners proceed on the principle of selecting those who, in their opinion, are the best qualified. A list containing the names of centre superintendents will be supplied to the hon. Member on application in writing to the office of the Commissioners.

  Irish Resident Magistrates—Action of Mr. C. P. Crane.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. C. P. Crane, resident magistrate,

  785
  interfered with the solicitor for one of the parties in a case at Killarney Petty Sessions on last Tuesday, that three other magistrates protested against his action, and all the solicitors practising in the Court also protested in writing against his action; and seeing that Mr. Crane was formerly a police officer in Killarney, where he has now been sent to exercise judicial functions, and having regard to the action taken by him on this occasion, and the relations existing between the people of Killarney and Mr. Crane, he will prevent Mr. Crane adjudicating in future at Killarney.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Mr. Crane is not the resident magistrate of the Killarney district. On the occasion referred to he was acting as locum tenens for the local resident magistrate, who was absent. The interference of Mr. Crane with the local solicitor merely consisted in his objecting to certain questions being put by the latter to witnesses, on the ground that they were irrelevant to the charge under investigation. The other magistrates disagreed with Mr. Crane on this point of practice, and the questions were accordingly allowed to be put. Mr. Crane, who is a most efficient magistrate, acted within his rights, and has done nothing to disqualify him from acting in future as a resident magistrate at Killarney or any other petty sessions.

  Terminable Leases in Towns—Compensation for Improvements.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the holders of terminable leases in towns are subject to eviction or increase of rent without any compensation for buildings or improvements made at their expense; and whether he can hold out any hope of introducing a Bill to deal with this matter at an early date.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I cannot hold out any hope of legislation in the direction suggested.

  Erection of Pier at Ballyconnell, County Sligo.
  MR. WILLIAM M'KILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  786
  Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the people of Ballyconnell, a congested district on the north coast of Sligo, are at present unable to pursue their calling as fishermen owing to the want of a sheltering pier; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of having a small pier erected for their accommodation.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) If the County Council should propose a reasonable scheme for a useful work at this place, and will show their confidence in the work by voting a sum of money towards it, the Congested Districts Board will be prepared to contribute an equal amount.

  Roughly Congested District (Sligo).
  MR. WILLIAM M'KILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the population of the congested district of Roughly, county Sligo, situate on the north coast of Sligo, are not permitted at present to gather seaweed unless on payment of 1s. per cart for same; that they are unable to take vehicles to the fishing pier erected for their accommodation owing to the want of a road sixty perches in extent; and, if so, whether he will have inquiries instituted with the view of having this state of affairs remedied.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Government has no power to interfere with any private arrangements existing in respect to seaweed. Inquiry will be made as to the alleged want of an accommodation road to the pier.

  Ragging in the Army.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for War what steps he proposes to take to prevent the repetition of civilians being tried by so-called Court-martials; and if any General Orders are to be issued by him, or by his authority, to prevent any further ill-treatment of unpopular officers or civilians by commissioned officers in His Majesty's Army.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Army Act and existing Regulations

  787
  are considered sufficient to deal with the matters alluded to.

  Evasion of Fair Wage Clause by Army Clothing Contractor.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to an alleged evasion of the current wage clause by a firm of clothing contractors; and, if so, what action has been, or is being taken, in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Will the hon. and gallant Member be good enough to give fuller details, including the name of the firm, to enable the case to be traced.

  Field Allowance to Officers in South Africa.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been directed to the fact that field allowances usually given to officers under canvas are at present disallowed to officers in South Africa in temporary huts of corrugated iron or similar material; and, if so, what steps he will take to remedy this state of affairs.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Field allowance is granted in cases when the hut is non-equipped or partially equipped; but in South Africa a large number of superior equipped huts have been provided, in which cases the grant is inadmissible under present regulations.

  Population of Rhodesia.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present estimated white population of Buluwayo, Salisbury, and the districts of Rhodesia outside those towns, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The results of an informal census taken 31st May, 1901, gave the white population of Buluwayo as 4,694; of Salisbury, 1,395; of the rest of Southern Rhodesia, 4,943. These are the latest figures which I am able to give.

  Colonial Tariffs.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in any of the communications that have taken place between all or any of the self-governing colonies, they, or any one of them, have expressed their willingness to surrender their complete tariff autonomy, or to forego the recognition of the custom that has arisen in all recent commercial treaties concluded between this country and any foreign State of inserting an article empowering the self-governing colonies to adhere or not at will to the treaty; whether the self-governing colonies have been informed if it is in contemplation to grant preferential treatment to their natural products or only their food products by the United Kingdom; whether the view expressed in the Report of the Colonial Conference between the Colonial Secretary and the Premiers of the self-governing colonies that, if the colonies cease to be granted most-favoured-nation treatment by any foreign country owing to such country giving a preference to our goods, they have a remedy in their own hands, is still that of the Colonial Secretary and of the Colonial Premiers; and, if so, whether he will state what are these remedies; and whether the self-governing colonies have ever, in any communication addressed to the Colonial Office, suggested that they should be protected against hostile action on the part of any foreign State in regard to their imports into that State, by the imposition of duties on its imports into the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) No suggestion has been made by His Majesty's Government or by any of the colonies that the self-governing colonies should surrender their liberty of framing their own Customs tariffs, or that any alteration should be made in the existing practice in the negotiation of commercial treaties, of leaving it to them to decide whether or not notice of adherence on their behalf should be given by His Majesty's Government. The nature of the remedy which the colonies have in their own hands in the event of their being penalised by a foreign country for granting tariff preference to British

  789
  produce and manufactures is sufficiently indicated by the paragraph of the Report of the Colonial Conference to which the hon. Member refers. There have been no communications with any colony on the subject since the Conference, nor has any colony at any time considered it necessary to indicate to His Majesty's Government the manner in which they should protect the fiscal freedom of the Empire.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The Cape Ragging Court-Martial.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the evidence submitted before the Court-martial at Wellington Barracks for the trial of seven officers in reference to the incident at the Mount Nelson Hotel, Cape Town, and of the fact that the verdict was given solely on the charges of indecency and blasphemy, what action is going to be taken by the War Office in respect to the admitted conduct of the aforesaid officers towards a civilian at Cape Town.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. BRODRICK,): No further action will be taken by the War Office in respect of these officers. They have been tried and acquitted on the charges advanced by Mr. Stanford subsequently to the verdict of the civil Court, and it would not be in accordance with justice or precedent to go back on other charges for which compensation has been paid in a civil Court, and since which the officers have been re-employed in the field.

  Army Post—Missing Registered Letter.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a registered letter, addressed to Private Thomas Edens, 7,059, B Company, 1st Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, Field Force, South Africa, was despatched from the Army Post Office, Middleburg, Transvaal, on the 21st July, 1901, to the Officer Commanding, Benson's Column; and that the registered letter list was returned signed J. Hardmarsh, lance-corporal; whether he can state what has become of
  790
  this letter; and, if not, will the person who registered the letter be compensated.
  MR. BRODRICK: The loss of this letter has been the subject of communications with the War Office. The letter cannot be traced. No responsibility whatever can be accepted by the War Department for the non-delivery of letters on active service.
  MR. WOOD: Seeing that the lance-corporal is still in the service have any inquiries been made of him?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is of no use making inquiries now.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: This was a registered letter. Do the War Office absolutely refuse all responsibility for registered letters?
  MR. BRODRICK: We can only use our best endeavours to trace them.
  MR. FLYNN: Was any champagne consigned to officers lost?

  Mediterranean Fleet—Gunnery Practice.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty has he now received the further Report from the Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet containing the further details required to show to what extent the gunnery practice ordered by the Commander-in-Chief on 29th April last failed to conform to the Admiralty regulations, or what were the reasons for any variation in the regulation practice; and can he now say in what respects this practice departed from the Admiralty regulations for the attainment of good shooting and proficiency in gunnery.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The Report referred to has now been received. The practice conformed in all respects with the Admiralty regulations, except that, for the purpose of practising the crews in rapid firing with several guns at the same time, a certain number of rounds of aiming rifle ammunition were fired simultaneously, and not separately, and the shots, though

  791
  observed, were not individually marked. The practice is one which has frequently been carried out in the Mediterranean Fleet, and, though it is not prescribed by the regulations, it is entirely within the province of the Commander-in-Chief to sanction it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then am I to understand that the Admiralty approve the practice of firing shots without marking?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, under these circumstances.

  Aden Boundary Commission.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what is the state of the proceedings at Aden as regards the Boundary Commission, and what progress is being made; who is responsible for its proceedings; and when will it be possible to lay Papers?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The proceedings of our Boundary Commission in delimiting the frontier between the tribes under our protection and the territory of the Ottoman Empire have not been as rapid as could be wished, as the Commission have had to contend with difficulties of an altogether exceptional character and with obstruction against which His Majesty's Government have been compelled more than once to protest. The survey of the territory of the Amir of Dthali has, however, now been completed, and the Report of the British Commissioners on that survey is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government. I hope that an agreement will shortly be arrived at with the Turkish Government as to the general direction of the line to be adopted for the frontier, which will then be demarcated on the spot by the Turkish and British Commissioners. The proceedings of the British Commission on the spot are primarily under the control of the Government of India, while the negotiations with the Turkish Government are in the hands of His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, and under the conduct of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Every effort will be made by His Majesty's
  792
  Government to expedite the conclusion of the work upon which the Commission are engaged, but until it is concluded, I cannot undertake to lay Papers on the Table of the House.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: How long will it be necessary to retain the extra troops there?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I cannot say. They are kept there as a matter of precaution, and will, I suppose, stay as long as the Commission is there.

  Registration of Clubs.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to state the number of clubs registered in compliance with the provisions of the Licensing Act of 1902 in England and in Wales?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): 6,174 clubs have been registered in England up to the 27th of May last, and 178 in Wales.

  Motor-Cars in Hyde Park.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the speed at which motor-cars are driven through Hyde Park, he will authorise the police to prevent them entering the park until such time as the law is competent to restrain them?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The First Commissioner of Works asks me to invite the hon. Member's attention to the statement made on behalf of the Government in another place on Thursday last,† that the Government intend to proceed with their Bill for the regulation of motor traffic, and hope to introduce it this week. But the First Commissioner is also considering in concert with the police authorities what steps can best be taken to regulate the speed of vehicles in Hyde Park, Constitution-hill, and St. James's Park.
  †See page 538.

  The Maltese Language Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether communications have passed between the British and Italian Governments with reference to the attempt to suppress the teaching or the use of the Italian language in Malta, and with reference to the change in the Council at Malta by constituting the official members the majority of that Council, or placing the elected members, who had formerly been in a majority, in a permanent minority; and whether he is prepared to state the purport of these communications.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CRANBORNE,): No communications have passed between the two Governments since the beginning of last year, when we were informed by the Italian Ambassador of the satisfaction with which he had read the speech of my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary, delivered in this House on the 28th January of that year.†

  Alleged Kurdish Atrocities near Erzeroum.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attentoin has been called to the fact that a convent near Erzeroum has recently been pillaged by Kurds, who killed a number of priests, and the village of Benn also pillaged about the same time; also that the Turkish troops afforded no protection during this action of the Kurds; and what steps the Foreign Office are prepared to take in regard to these occurrences.
  LORD CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has received no report from the Acting British Consul at Erzeroum of any outrages of this kind having occurred near that place. He is, however, making inquiries. The Porte denies that there is any foundation for the reports.
  †See (4) Debates, ci., 1182.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that the telegraphic account of these outrages came from Constantinople on the 23rd June? How is it the Foreign Office is unable to get any information there?
  LORD CRANBORNE: We have information there that there is no truth in the report.
  MR. FLYNN: Will further inquiries be made?
  LORD CRANBORNE: We are making further inquiries.

  Yangtse River Railway.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the negotiations commenced four years ago by the Peking Syndicate to obtain permission to construct a railway to the Yangtse River have advanced beyond the recognition of the claim twelve months ago by Prince Ching to Sir Ernest Satow; if so, what is the present state of the negotiations.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, but the negotiations which are proceeding with the Chinese Government in regard to this as well as to other railway questions are not yet concluded. I am afraid I am not able at this juncture to give any particulars as to the present state of the negotiations.

  Shantung Railways.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German Government claim the monopoly of railway construction in the valley of the Yellow River on account of its being within the Hinterland of the Province of Shantung; if so, whether His Majesty's Government recognise such right.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The position of the British and German Syndicates interested in the development of the valley of the Yellow River and its communications towards the south is described in the Parliamentary Paper, China, No. 1, 1899, p. 214. I have

  795
  nothing to add in explanation of the attitude of the German Government and of His Majesty's Government to what is contained in these Papers.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: What connection has the syndicate with the Government of Germany?
  LORD CRANBORNE: If my hon. friend will read the Paper he will see.

  British Vice-Consuls in Switzerland.
  MR. WOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will explain why the appointment to the office of Vice-Consul which has recently been made at St. Gall, Switzerland, has been given to a foreigner, in view of the fact that British residents with large business interests there were passed over.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The Secretary of State was advised that there was no suitable British subject at St. Gall who could be recommended for the appointment of Vice-Consul. He therefore sanctioned the appointment of a Swiss gentleman, whose business is chiefly connected with this country.

  Congo Free State.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have yet communicated with Foreign Governments on the subject of the Congo Free State in accordance with the Resolution passed by this House on 20th May; and, if so, whether he will state to which countries the despatch has been addressed.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The question of the terms of the communication to be addressed to the signatories of the Act of Berlin on the subject of the Congo Free State is one which requires careful consideration. The terms, however, of one part of this communication are settled, and, in regard to the other part, it is hoped that a decision may be arrived at shortly.

  Ophthalmia in Metropolitan Schools.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his Department will cause a medical examination to be undertaken of the children attending elementary school in the Metropolis, with a view to a Report showing how many children are working in the schools suffering from ophthalmia, and what means may be adopted to prevent this disease spreading to other children.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The Board of Education are not, as at present advised, prepared to undertake the inquiry suggested in the Question. A circular was issued in October 1901 to managers and teachers of urban elementary schools on the subject of the children's eyesight. In this circular attention was particularly called to the symptoms of ophthalmia, to the necessity for immediate and continuous treatment, and to the importance of excluding the children affected from school until a medical certificate of their fitness for readmission had been obtained.

  Assistant Matrons in Irish Prisons.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to state the scale of salaries, dietary, rules of boarding, etc., at present applying to assistant matrons employed in English prisons; and will he say why, in case these conditions do not apply to Ireland, a uniform scale should not be adopted applicable to the assistant prison matrons of both countries.
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The scale of pay for assistant female warders in English prisons is £50, rising by £1 10s. a year to £65 in convict prisons and £45, rising by £1 to £50 in local prisons. Official quarters are provided in the prisons, with a fixed amount of free washing, and fuel and light. The officers board themselves, though they are allowed to have their food cooked by female prisoners. I can give no opinion with regard to Ireland, where the prisons are not under my control; but I can understand that the circumstances may differ so much as to make uniform rules as to these matters in the two countries unnecessary, if not impossible.

  Audit of Irish Public Accounts.
  MR. LUNDON: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that all the Irish public accounts are mainly audited in London and a few of them partially for a few weeks in Dublin, he will state what is the cost of the work in London and Dublin respectively; and whether he will arrange to have the work done entirely in Dublin, in order to avoid the additional cost of travelling and maintenance, which the partial audit in Dublin at present entails.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,): The additional annual cost incurred in travelling to and from Dublin, and in maintenance while there, usually amounts to less than £500. It is not possible to state what is the cost of the audit of Irish public accounts in London, as the officers engaged on it are also employed on other duties. The saving which would accrue from such a change as is suggested would not compensate for the public inconvenience which would result from the impossibility of exercising direct supervision of the work performed and of personal conference with the officers engaged upon it.
  MR. LUNDON: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that audit office officials are permanently employed at Devonport Dockyard and at other places outside of the audit office, he will, with a view to economy and efficiency, have a permanent audit office staff at Dublin.
  MR. ELLIOT: The character of the work at Devonport and the other dockyards is peculiar, and is necessarily carried out on the spot, as the books and documents could not possibly be spared for transmission to London. The establishment of a permanent audit office staff in Dublin would not lead to greater economy and efficiency.
  MR. LUNDON: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's
  798
  Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the present system of mainly auditing all Irish accounts in London causes additional work in keeping duplicate records of payments in London, and that if the work were done entirely in Dublin some of this duplicating could be avoided, that books and documents essential to audit cannot be sent to London for examination, and that reference to these books and documents has to be postponed for months; and, seeing that correspondence between London and Dublin could be avoided if the audit were carried out entirely in Dublin, whether he will make arrangements to have the audit carried out entirely in Dublin.
  MR. ELLIOT: Any additional work in keeping duplicate records is more than compensated for by the opportunities afforded to the Comptroller and Auditor-General of personal access to his officers. No inconvenience arises from the postponement until the annual visit of reference to the books and documents kept in Dublin. The amount of correspondence would in any case not be diminished, but would probably be increased, by the necessity for written instead of personal communication between the officers of the Exchequer and Audit Department and the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

  Tobacco Growing in Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the experiments being made in tobacco growing in Ireland, he could arrange for an abatement of the duty on Irish-grown tobacco in order to encourage the industry.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): While the matter has been in an experimental stage I understand that arrangements have been made by the Department of Agriculture to prevent the burden of the duty falling upon individual growers. I need hardly say that I shall watch the result of the experiments with great interest, but I cannot hold out any hope

  799
  that in the event of the industry developing beyond the experimental stage a lower duty could be charged on homegrown than on imported tobacco.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: In view of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to say that I will put another Question on the Paper on the same subject, but addressed to the Colonial Secretary.

  Salaries of Irish Medical Officers.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can undertake that, in case the existing salaries of Irish medical officers are raised, the Treasury recoupment in aid of those salaries shall be proportionally increased.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): This is a hypothetical Question to which no definite answer can be given. The limits within which recoupment can be made out of the local taxation account are defined by Section 58 of the Local Government Act, 1898, and Section 6 of the Amending Act of last year, to which I would refer the hon. Member.

  Maryborough Prison Staff.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report of an inquiry held recently at Maryborough Prison; and, if so, will he state whether the decision then announced has since been reversed; and whether, in view of the discontent existing in the Maryborough prison service, he would consider the advisability of establishing a regular Court, independent of the officers of the Prisons Board, for trial of breaches of prison rules on the same lines as that provided for the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Inquiries have been held at this prison from time to time. No decisions of the Prisons Board have been reversed, and no discontent exists as alleged. Breaches of prison rules are investigated in the manner provided by Statute, and the system is the same in Ireland as in England.

  Irish Dispensary Appointments.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that resolutions have been forwarded from the Queen's County Branch of the Irish Medical Association to the board of guardians of each union in the county declaring that no qualified practitioner should apply for or accept a dispensary appointment vacated by a doctor who has not received suitable superannuation, or at a lesser salary than £200 per annum, and declining to do duty for or meet in consultation any colleague who contravenes the proposals contained in the resolutions, and further stating that they should use their best endeavours to dissuade any medical practitioner from becoming a candidate for a dispensary or workhouse appointment for which the salary is less than the amount fixed by the Association; and, if so, will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; a resolution to this effect was adopted. The matters referred to cannot properly be discussed within the limits of a reply to a Question.

  Maryborough Prison—Chief Warder Walsh.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the circumstances under which Chief Warder Walsh, of Maryborough Gaol, was recently transferred to Cork, and whether that officer has been reduced in rank or salary; and whether, seeing that the alleged irregularities for which he has been held responsible have been in existence for over three years, and before this officer came to Maryborough, will he state whether the alleged irregularities were known to the Prisons Board or their inspectors; and, if not, what explanation have they to offer for their failure to detect them.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The chief warder was not reduced in rank or salary on his transfer to Cork Local Prison. He was unequal to the physical strain at Maryborough Convict Prison, and on his own

  801
  application he was retired, on pension, on grounds of health.

  Maryborough Prison and Warders' Cottages.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what was the cost of building the new prison at Maryborough; whether the contract for the same was satisfactorily executed; whether, seeing that a number of cottages had been built for warders recently in the vicinity of the prison, he will state the cost of each cottage and if advertisements were inserted in any newspapers inviting tenders for the carrying on of this work; and whether, in view of the character of these cottages, he will grant an inquiry into this matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The cost of the new prison, when completed, will be £27,060. The contract has been satisfactorily executed. The average cost of each of the warders' cottages is £225. Tenders were not invited by advertisement for the erection of the cottages. The work was carried out by the new prison contractor at his contract rates. No complaints have been made in respect to the cottages, which are reported to be suitable and comfortable.

  Maryborough Prison—Traffic with Prisoners.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state by what authority the Governor of Maryborough Prison informed the warders there on parade that the Chairman of the Prisons Board had told him that if he submitted the name of any warder for removal such warder would be immediately removed from the service; and whether, in view of the fact that a number of young men serving at Maryborough Gaol have been discharged from the service without any allegation of incompetency, he will state whether these men will be granted compensation for abolition of office, or inquiry be made by some independent authority into the causes of their removal.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Governor did not make the statement attributed to him. But he did point out to the warders the serious consequences that would result from engaging in traffic with prisoners. This was done with the authority of the Prisons Board. The prison officers who were recently retired consequent on the re-organisation of the Prison Staff, were awarded pensions calculated on actual service. The facts were fully investigated by Government, who approved of the retirement of these officials. It is not proposed to make any further inquiry in the matter.

  Cusack Estate, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of tenants on the Cusack Estate, County Longford, are being deprived of their future tenancies by reason of the failure of the receiver to agree with them as to terms of purchase; and whether he can undertake to make representations to the receiver not to deprive these tenants of their crops and grazing pending the passage of the present Land Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Proceedings for the sale of this estate are pending in the Land Judge's Court. The rental is in course of settlement. No tenant who is legally entitled to the advantages of the Land Purchase Acts is, or can be, deprived of these by the action of the receiver, or any other official.

  Granard Union Nursing Nuns.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in consequence of the decision of the Local Government Board for Ireland in the matter of the recent inquiry held in Granard Union on the subject of the nursing system in that union, the nursing nuns are being withdrawn from the institution; and whether, in view of the importance to the sick poor of the retention of their services, and the fact that the main question of the inquiry was ignored in the Report, he will direct the Local Government Board to take immediate steps to retain the services of these ladies.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board regrets that the nuns have severed their official connection with the Granard Union Hospital. The appointment of nurses rests with the guardians and not with the Board. If the guardians decide to re-elect these ladies or to appoint other qualified nuns to the vacant posts it is very unlikely that the board will raise any objection.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked if the right hon. Gentleman himself would look into the matter. As he understood it the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would hardly meet the difficulty.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLasked, as the matter was of great importance to the locality, would the right hon. Gentleman, in case the nuns were not re-elected, give an undertaking that an opportunity should be afforded at an early date to discuss it on the Vote for the Local Government Board.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that it rested with the First Lord of the Treasury, and not with him, to decide when the Vote would be taken.

  Derelict Evicted Farms in County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to state the number of derelict evicted farms in County Longford to which Clause 2 of the Land Bill, as amended, would apply.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There were six untenanted evicted farms in County Longford on the 1st April last.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to prevent these farms being occupied before the passing of the Land Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAMreplied that it was not convenient to anticipate any discussion on the Land Bill by way of Questions. The hon. Member knew the position of affairs and if he was not satisfied he would have an opportunity of raising his point.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the cities of Londonderry, Cork, Waterford, and Belfast have numbers on their uniforms, he will direct the wearing of numbers on their uniforms by members of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed in country districts.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This question has repeatedly been raised in the House, and, as at present advised, I see no reasons for arriving at a different conclusion from that come to by my predecessors—namely, that the proposed change is inexpedient and undesirable.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What is the police objection?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Officers of the force may be employed in any part of Ireland, and there would be difficulty in working out the scheme.

  Cork Model Schools.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what was the result of the last meeting of the Commissioners of National Education in respect to the occupation of a portion of the Cork Model Schools by the local Technical Committee; whether in regard to the difference between the Commissioners and the Committee as to certain alterations, the Commissioners will send a competent surveyor or inspector to meet the Committee with a view to an arrangement of the existing dispute.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The matter was reconsidered by the Commissioners at their special meeting held on the 26th May. The arrangement under which certain rooms of the Model Schools were placed at the disposal of the Technical Committee was expressly stated to be a temporary one. In November last the Board of Works reported to the Commissioners that very serious structural changes in the premises were being proposed by the Committee. In giving

  805
  their sanction to the temporary use of the school rooms the Commissioners had no idea whatever that the premises were to be interfered with to the extent contemplated, or that arrangements would be made that would interfere with the health of the pupils of the school, or the efficiency of the teaching. It has been found that the school work has been already very adversely affected by the holding of the technical classes in the school, and the encroachments of the Committee on the playgrounds and premises. The Resident Commissioner visited the schools last month and has reported on the defects in the arrangements which he observed at the date of his visit. The Commissioners are of opinion that the full and clear possession of the schools is absolutely necessary for the efficient carrying out of their own work, and they are unable to vary the decision already arrived at, namely, that the temporary arrangement with the Technical Committee should terminate on the 30th instant. Acting on the undertaking given by me on a previous occasion, I communicated with the Commissioners, bringing under their notice the suggestion which had been made that final action be postponed until after the Estimates had been discussed. It appears to me, however, that the Commissioners, for the reasons explained by me, have made out a strong case for the decision at which they have arrived.
  MR. FLYNN: On the strength of the arrangement the local Technical Committee spent a large sum of money.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid the right hon. Gentleman seemed to favour a friendly arrangement, and he hoped he would communicate that view to the Commissioners.
  MR. WYNDHAM: They are the sole authorities in the matter.

  Kilcormac.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the County Council of King's County have restored the ancient name of Kilcormac to the town
  806
  named Frankford; will he state what authority the Local Government Board have for refusing to accept this restoration; and by what authority the ancient name was changed by an English officer less than 100 years ago from Kilcormac to Frankford.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board merely pointed out that there was no authority enabling the County Council to make the proposed change. This was decided by the case of Anderson v. The Corporation of Dublin (Law Reports, Ireland, Vol. 15). I am not aware of the circumstances under which the name of Frankford was given to this town.
  MR. REDDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Frankford is a German name?

  Cork Assizes—Rex v. Moore.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has received a memorial forwarded to His Excellency by the medical witnesses for the Crown in the case of Rex. v. Moore, which ended in a capital conviction at the Cork Spring Assizes, the death sentence being commuted into a sentence of penal servitude for life, praying the exercise of the prerogative of pardon in the case of the prisoner, and expressing their belief that the wound on the body of the deceased was compatible with accidental causes, and the evidence insufficient to warrant a conviction; and whether, having regard to the doubt as to whether a murder was committed at all, and as to whether, if committed, Moore was the perpetrator, His Excellency will be pleased to consider favourably the prayer of the memorial.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A memorial of the nature referred to was received by the Lord Lieutenant during the time the condemned man was under sentence of death. It was carefully considered by the Lord Lieutenant with the assistance of the Lord Chancellor, with the result that the capital sentence was commuted to one of penal servitude for life.

  Carrigeen National Schools.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  807
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why nine months' arrears of salary of the teachers of the Carrigeen (county Kilkenny) National Schools are withheld; and at what date and under what conditions these arrears will be payable.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Salary has been withheld owing to the delay in completing the erection of a suitable schoolhouse. The Commissioners state the salaries will be paid upon the completion of the building.

  Irish Model Schools.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the inquiry promised some time ago into the working of Irish Model Schools has been held; and, if so, what is the result, and has it been published.
  MR WYNDHAM: I am informed that the inquiry is in progress, but that it cannot at present be stated when it will be completed.

  Bankruptcy Administration in Armagh.
  MR. WOOD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the County of Armagh is not included in the bankruptcy jurisdiction of the Recorder of Belfast, notwithstanding that the county of Armagh is much nearer to Belfast than the portion of county Down where the said jurisdiction extends; will he say if any resolutions have been received in favour thereof; and whether the necessary steps will be taken to include county Armagh within the said jurisdiction.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The jurisdiction of the Belfast Court does not extend to Armagh. No representations in favour of the suggested extension have been received. If made they will be considered.

  Irish Motor Car Race.
  MR. LEAMY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if the Government
  808
  have obtained a guarantee from the promoters of the Gordon-Bennett race for the expenses of extra police over the sum of £1,000 which the Treasury is willing to contribute; if any communication has passed between the police authorities and the Kildare County Council on the subject; if he is aware that the Kildare County Council consented to hand over the county roads for the race on the expressed understanding that the county should not be called on to pay for the extra police; and, if so, if it is the intention of the Government to levy any part of the expense on the county of Kildare.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No such guarantee has been obtained. The County Council inquired as to the incidence of the expenses of the extra police, and was informed by the Inspector-General that the matter was receiving attention. The opinion of the Treasury has since been announced, and is at present before the Irish Government. The whole question is one requiring most careful consideration in relation to the interpretation and application of Acts of Parliament, as well as to the other circumstances connected with the race.
  MR. LEAMY: Can we be satisfied that the Kildare County Council will not be called upon by the Irish Government to pay any portion of the cost of the extra police?

  Irish Income Tax Collectors and the Land Bill.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount of the loss of emoluments that will accrue to the income tax collectors under the operations of the Irish Land Bill; and whether he is prepared to introduce a scheme for compensation to these officials on the same lines as that adopted in the case of the county cess collectors under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The amount of the loss of emoluments to income tax collectors is not calculable, and their case is not on all fours with that of the county

  809
  cess collectors. The Government is not aware of any sufficient reason for entertaining the claims of the former officers.

  Irish Local Government Board Report.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the annual Report of the Local Government Board for Ireland, now due, will be issued to Members.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Report will be laid on the Table in the course of a few days.

  Labourers in Ireland.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many agricultural labourers and general labourers respectively are included in the Census Returns of 1901 for the four provinces of Ireland, and how many were returned under the Census of 1891.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The figures, which are very numerous, cannot conveniently be given in answer to an oral Question. In anticipation of the hon. Member's approval, I have sent them to the Journal Office to be printed with the unstarred Questions.

  Tenant Purchaser, Mr. S. Gillmor.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the petty sessions clerk of Dromahair, county Leitrim, Mr. Stewart Gillmor, on the 24th July, 1902, swore an affidavit before the local commissioner for taking oaths, to the effect that he was tenant of lands in Dromahair known as The Acres since 1880; that at the Manorhamilton Quarter Sessions on 2nd June inst., Mr. Gillmor admitted having made this affidavit with the object of obtaining from the Land Commission an advance of £480, but that he was not the tenant then or previously; and that Judge Waters ruled that Mr. Gillmor was not the tenant, and gave a decree for the grazing rent to another man who was in possession of The Acres after the date of Mr. Gillmor's affidavit; and, if so, will he say what action the Law Officers of the Crown intend to take in
  810
  the matter; and whether the advance obtained under such circumstances will be refunded.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): As far as I have been able to ascertain, the facts are as follows: That the vendor of The Acres, Mr. Fox, had previous to the 24th July, 1902, taken in grazing cattle, and put them on this field and another adjoining. On that day he let the field to Mr. Gillmor as he was clearly entitled to do, an arrangement having been made that later he should receive a certain proportion of the grazing money. The inspector of the Land Commission was fully informed of the circumstances. Mr. Gillmor was then negotiating for the purchase of The Acres, together with that of two other fields formerly in his possession. He described himself in an affidavit made after the letting, as tenant of The Acres, which in fact he was. The County Court Judge did not decide that Gillmor was not tenant or that he had sworn falsely, but merely that the grazing contract had been made with Mr. Fox, and the amount due for the grazing could only be received by him. Nothing has occurred, therefore, calling for the intervention of the Crown, nor should the advance be refunded.

  County Down Crown Solicitor.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state who has been or is about to be appointed to the post of Crown Solicitor for County Down, what local knowledge he possesses, and what experience he has had in criminal law.
  The following Question on the same subject also appeared on the Paper.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the secretary of the Belfast Unionist Registration Society has been recommended for the appointment of Crown Solicitor for County Down; and whether he can state if it is intended to give effect to this recommendation.
  MR. ATKINSON: I will at the same time reply to the Question on the

  811
  same subject addressed to my right hon. friend. No appointment has yet been made, and it would be contrary to precedent to announce who the candidates are, or who it is proposed to appoint.
  MR. MACVEAGH: When is the appointment likely to be made?
  MR. ATKINSON: I cannot say.

  Wexford Train Service.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that persons travelling from Wexford desirous of arriving in London on Monday must leave Wexford on Saturday; and will he make inquiries regarding the arrangements of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company, with a view to provide a Sunday evening train leaving Wexford in time to catch the Kingstown or North Wall steamboat.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): I do not think that this is a case where the Board of Trade could usefully interfere with the discretion of the railway company concerned.

  The Fiscal Inquiry.
  MR. BRAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in the inquiry which the Government propose to conduct into the fiscal arrangements of this country, the Prime Ministers of the various colonies will be asked to submit in detail their views in regard to each of the colonies they represent; and, if so, whether the Government will communicate the replies so received to the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question, which I need only do by referring to an answer which I gave to a Question couched in practically identical terms on the 23rd inst.† I then pointed out that the Question, though no doubt an important one, was premature, and that as regards the
  †See page 268.
  812
  second branch of it it dealt with a hypothetical matter.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the inquiry into the fiscal policy of the Empire has yet reached the stage of inquiry into the changes proposed by the Colonial Secretary; and, if so, whether he can state precisely what those changes are.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the inquiry to be instituted into our present fiscal arrangements, representatives of the classes who live on fixed incomes will be heard, in view of the effect on their interests of increases in the price of food, or of articles which they have been able to purchase heretofore in the cheapest markets.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can only repeat what I have said before. I have no information to give the House on these subjects, and I do not think they are proper subjects for cross-examination across the floor of the House.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury is he aware that the Permanent Sugar Commission has decided that the Austro-Hungarian Contingent Law is not in accordance with the Sugar Convention, and that a scale of countervailing duties shall be applied by the Signatory Powers to sugar from the United States, and that this decision has been published in a semi-official newspaper in Brussels, as well as in the European Press generally; can he state what are the countervailing duties against sugars from the United States which, in the exercise of its powers under Article VII., the Permanent Commission has required Great Britain to impose; and do His Majesty's Government propose to impose these countervailing duties on sugars from the United States, or to prohibit altogether the importation of such sugars.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The time has arrived when the findings of the Commission should be communicated to His Majesty's Government fully, and they

  813
  will be received shortly. The Report is accurate so far as the Austro-Hungarian Contingent Law is concerned. The remainder of the Report appears to be unfounded.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That is in regard to the United States?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. LOUGH: Is there any intention to proceed with the Bill before the information is circulated?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not at all convinced that the information desired is relevant to the Second Reading or the discussion. That we shall be anxious to give all the information we can to the House I need not say.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury is he aware that Article VII. of the Brussels Sugar Convention imposes on the Permanent Commission the duty of publishing information of all kinds respecting legislation on and statistics of sugar, as well in the contracting States as in other States; has this Commission, nevertheless, decided to keep its own proceedings and findings secret; if so, will they remain permanently secret; and, if not, when will these proceedings and findings, so far as they relate to British and colonial sugars, or require British action with reference to foreign sugars, be communicated to Parliament; and do His Majesty's Government propose only to communicate them so far as in each case the Commission may permit; is he aware that the findings of the Commission with regard to the Austro-Hungarian contingent system have been generally published in the European Press, with the votes thereon of each delegate to the Commission; and will His Majesty's Government consider the expediency of exercising through their delegate their influence with the Commission to induce it to publish its proceedings and findings in authoritative form.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The answer to the first Question from my hon. friend is in the affirmative. I can best answer
  814
  Questions two, three, four, and five by informing him that it is the duty of the Commission to draw up a Report upon all the questions submitted to it, and to forward that Report to the Belgian Government for communication to the States interested. As to the sixth Question, I am aware that many unauthorised statements have been made in the Press as to the findings of the Commission; as to the seventh Question, I have to say the decisions of the Commission will be furnished in due course in an authoritative form.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: When will the findings of the Commission be communicated to Parliament so far as they affect British and colonial sugars, or have reference to British action in relation to foreign sugar?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As my hon. friend will see, it is impossible to give the findings of the Commission until we receive official information of their character, which will be when the Belgian Government communicate them to us. When they communicate the findings to us I see no reason why they should not as soon as possible be laid before the House and the country.

  Employment of Children Bill.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to take the remaining portion of the Report stage of the Employment of Children Bill; and whether any notice will be given.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot fix a date at present.

  Private Members Bills.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will grant facilities for the remaining stages of the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill and the Church Discipline Bill; and whether he is now prepared to state what steps, if any, he will take to enable private Members, who have obtained Second Readings for Bills by decisive majorities of the House, to carry such Bills through their subsequent stages.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member asks me two Questions, and as to the first I can only repeat what I have often had to say before, and I believe have always said it with the general approval of both sides of the House, that it is quite impossible, and would bring Parliamentary business into hopeless confusion, to attempt to give special facilities to Bills of a highly controversial character promoted by private Members. That has hardly ever been done, and the only case I can remember did not conduce to legislation or the general interest of House of Commons business. The second Question is whether the Government contemplate any fundamental alteration in the rules of the House to give facilities for the later stages of private Members' Bills; and to that I can only say that in my judgment the consideration of that question cannot begin until such Bills are on the same footing with Government Bills.
  MR. CHANNING: Are we to understand that the majority have no remedy against the organised obstruction of a small group of Members?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, the hon. Gentleman is not to understand that.
  MR. CHANNING: Will no remedy be given to the majority of the House against the organised obstruction of a small group of Members?
  *Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the business for Thursday and Friday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is proposed to take Vote 8 of the Navy Estimates on Thursday, following which other Naval Votes will be set down in their order. It will not be desirable to take the Irish Land Bill on Friday; some smaller measure will be put down as first order, as to which I will give an answer to-morrow.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask when the Second Readings of the South African Loan Bill and the Sugar Convention will be taken, and whether the House will have an opportunity of considering the agreements with the Morgan Combination and the Cunard Shipping Company.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is impossible to make a correct calendar of our proceedings, and I am unwilling to make any statement, as to business next week, at this moment.

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.
  Clause 4—
  MR. TULLYmoved to insert after "purchase" the words "by any County or District Council or." This clause, he said, raised very important questions—viz., turbary, pasturage, afforestry, and allotments, and the object of the Amendment was to introduce some element of popular control into the dealing of the Land Commission with these subjects. It was of supreme importance that something should be done in an organised way to provide for tree planting. He had known cases in which landlords, before selling their estates to the tenants, had cut down all the timber in order to get ready cash, and in other cases tenants, immediately on buying their holdings, had cut down all the ornamental trees. The question of tree planting was of vital importance, especially on the western sea-board. In 1885 a very important Committee of that House inquired into the subject of the denudation of Irish forests and plantations, and the failure to take any steps to replace the trees that were cut down. Very important evidence was given as to the effect produced by trees on climatic conditions, and the cases of other countries were cited to show that afforestry prevented the wasting of fertile soil. It was pointed out how,

  817
  in the Basque provinces of France, large and absolutely valueless tracts of country had, thanks to tree-planting inspired by the first Napoleon, been made most prosperous; climatic conditions had been altered, and new industries introduced. Why could not Ireland profit by that example? His suggestion was that the County or District Councils should take this matter in hand. The right hon. Gentleman might suggest that those bodies already had quite enough work on their hands. If so, there were plenty of other means by which the work could be undertaken. Their experience was that when officials were appointed by Dublin Castle, their sole object was to draw their salaries, and they feared that if the Land Commission were appointed the trustees they would not do the work efficiently. Hence the desire to secure the appointment of someone in whom the public had confidence. With regard to the question of turbary, it was a well-known fact that there were large quantities of peat in Ireland which were practically valueless because they were not scientifically worked. There should be some means of eliciting the views of the people with regard to dealing with the large blocks of peat bogs which, under the operation of this Act, were bound to come into the hands of the Land Commission. The trustees would probably be discarded receivers who hung on in the landed interest. With regard to the pastures it must be remembered that many of the pasturage farms were an economic necessity; some even if cut up would not be suitable for tillage purposes, especially those on limestone soils, and if these pasturage farms were cut up into small holdings the small farmers would have nowhere to send their young stock. He suggested that those pasturage farms which were not suitable for tillage should be held by the farmers of the district on the co-operative principle, each farmer having a share of the land equal to the number of cows he possessed. If that were done the objections of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would be got over. This clause also gave power to trustees to acquire land for the purposes of the Labourers Acts. He would give that power to the County or the District Councils. They should have a right to go into the
  818
  public market and purchase land to be devoted to that purpose. He begged to move.
  MR. CLANCYasked on a point of order that only a certain portion of the words should be put; so much of the words as "or any county" because the other words did not appear to be put in the proper place.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid the proper course would be to move, to strike out "District Councils."
  MR. CLANCYsaid that would not suit his purpose because he believed in these powers being given to the District Councils.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid he still thought the proper course for the hon. Member for Dublin County was to move to strike out those words if he thought they ought not to come in there, and move to insert them at a later stage. He was bound to put the Amendment as moved.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 28, after the word 'purchase,' to insert the words 'by any County or District Council, or.'"—(Mr. Tully.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said he was far from saying that the suggestions of the hon. Member were not worthy of consideration. His answer was that they had been fully considered, and after full consideration it was felt that, owing to the financial difficulty intervening, the Government could not bring District Councils into this Bill. The very fact that one hon. Member desired to amend the Amendment showed how hard it would be to engraft on to the Land Purchase Bill a new departure in local government for Ireland. This clause dealt with advances to be made for the purchase of parcels of land. If those advances were to be made to County Councils and District Councils then, of course, in another part of the Bill a clause would have to be inserted giving these public

  819
  bodies power to borrow. "Trustees" would be sufficient for many of the objects the hon. Gentleman had put before the Committee as laudable, and trustees coming forward would naturally be persons who had the confidence of the district as being proper persons to deal with this matter. One hundred tenants might elect to be represented by six or seven men, and, in that case, the financial difficulty would not arise. Those six or seven men might or might not be members of the District Council but if the District Council was put in by name the financial difficulty would arise.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that under the circumstances as the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind on this subject it would only be a waste of time to move his Amendment, or the consequential Amendments on the Amendment. At the same time he might say he was not impressed very much by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He did not see where the financial difficulty arose. At present the Rural District Councils administered the Labourers Acts and the Amendment, so far as that point was concerned, had only the effect of giving them power to purchase land for the purposes of the Labourers Acts. Now, instead of the Rural District Councils, who had the administration of the Labourers Acts, getting property for the purpose of housing labourers, somebody else who did not represent them at all would acquire it and thus they would have two bodies administering the same Acts. He did not understand how that was to be worked out. All that it was desired to do by the Amendment was to give these Rural District Councils power to buy land with the aid of public money. He urged on the Chief Secretary the desirability of considering this question.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that if the right hon. Gentleman made "trustees" to include any local authority this difficulty would be got over. He pointed out that this was also a clause for the purchase of a parcel of land for the planting of trees. Who was to plant them, and where was the
  820
  money to come from? There was no advance to be made for that purpose but only to buy the land to plant the trees on. If the trustees did not plant the trees would it not be sufficient answer for them to say they had no money, and there was no fund from which they could obtain money with which to plant trees. And if there was to be tree planting, they must contemplate the time when there would be tree cutting, and the question was a serious one. The clause, though it mentioned the planting of trees, was really a nullity. Who was to have a property in the trees when planted? It must be in the gentleman who had the advance for the purpose of buying the land. He suggested the insertion, after "Land Commission," of the words "including any local authority." The clause would not then shut out any local authority.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLthought there ought to be a representative of the local authority on any board of trustees.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid there was nothing to prevent that. No sensible body would neglect public opinion in such a matter. It was impossible to provide against every point that might arise in the administration of an Act of the nature and size of the measure under discussion. The objection to inserting the Amendment was that it would mean that these local bodies were to be lent money by the State and to repay it by rate. The Government were not prepared to entertain such a proposal. It was no doubt a suggestion for which a great deal might be said, but it would lead to larger questions. He believed the preservation of trees could be effected without any of the difficulties suggested by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. The trustees would be persons holding the confidence of the district, and they could get the money to plant the trees by entering into an arrangement with the Congested Districts Board or the Board of Agriculture. On that basis, if money was forthcoming from private sources, the County Council might find it within its power to supplement the fund. If not, let there be an Amendment of the Local Government Act later on, giving wider latitude in the matter of the objects for which

  821
  money could be spent; but he was not prepared to enter upon so large a new province at the present stage of the Bill under discussion.
  MR. JORDANsuggested that, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated that money for the planting of trees might be advanced by the Board of Agriculture, the words "from the Board of Agriculture" should be inserted.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the new Department would be a Department of the Irish Government, and they would work in harmony in the endeavour to effect desirable objects, including the planting of trees, turbary, and so forth. All this clause did was to enable the land on which the trees might be planted to be acquired by an advance under the Act in the name of trustees. That gave a platform from which to commence operations.
  MAJOR JAMESONpointed out that the words of the Amendment practically embraced the intentions of the Government as stated by the right hon. Gentleman. The insertion of the words would not fetter the discretion of the Commission.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid there was nothing to prevent the trustees being the District or County Council.
  MR. CLANCYasked whether one body of trustees for the whole of Ireland, or for each county, was contemplated.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Oh, no! You might have a body of trustees for one bunch of trees.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that powers somewhat cognate to those here involved were carried out in England by public bodies. What had moved the right hon. Gentleman was probably the abuse of turbary in some parts of Ireland, and the disappearance of forests to the prejudice, not of individuals, but of the public at large. It seemed to him that these were quasi public duties, which might properly be discharged by public officials. He
  822
  presumed that the trustees were not to be paid; that being so, surely the most effective people for the duty were the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the district.
  MR. TULLYpointed out that, inasmuch as the District Councils had power to spend money for the purposes of the Labourers Act, and the County Council were able to spend money on re-afforestation, the objections of the Chief Secretary on those points fell to the ground. He hoped the Chief Secretary would make a graceful concession in this matter.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid the Amendment he desired to move raised the whole question of the necessity of the provision of labourers' allotments in Ireland. As far back as 1884 a Resolution, contending that facilities for securing allotments similar to those existing in England should obtain in Ireland, was supported by representatives of all parties and unanimously carried. Nothing had been done to give effect to that Resolution. As to the present Bill, in the course of the discussion on the Second Reading, leading members of the Liberal Party had declared it would be unwise to pass the measure without some effort being made to meet the wishes of the labouring classes in this respect. The question was a large one, of which the Amendment, inasmuch as it dealt only with untenanted land, touched but the fringe. In many districts, if the demand for allotments was to be fairly met, provision would have to be made for dealing with tenanted land also. In England the Local Government Act of 1894 gave parish councils power to provide allotments up to four acres, and the reason the power had not been largely availed of was that in England there were many other industries besides agriculture. In Ireland, where the only industry was agriculture, and, practically, all the young men were trained in that industry only, no facilities existed for allotments except under the Labourers Acts. The provisions of those Acts as regarded the labourers in villages and towns had not been largely availed of, and the reason

  823
  for this was the form of procedure which had to be adopted, which was very costly, tedious and wearisome. In connection with this provision for allotments at the same time as the house was provided, up to the present only 15,000 houses had been erected under the Labourers Acts. The result of the operation of the Labourers Acts meant a charge on the local rate. In every case of a house and an allotment provided there was a charge of about £5 upon the ratepayers of the district, and although they could point with pride to the fact that throughout Leinster and Munster the ratepayers had generously and liberally taxed themselves to provide houses and allotments for the labourers, still their powers were necessarily restricted by the fact that each additional cottage meant a taxation of the ratepayers of their district to the extent of £5 per house. It was unreasonable to hope that the Labourers Acts would enable the labourers of Ireland generally, who desired allotments and who might have fairly decent and comfortable houses, to obtain them in view of the costly method of procedure that had to be followed, and the heavy charge on the local rates which the operation of these Acts entailed. Under these circumstances they could not expect that many District Councils would go much further than they had done in the direction of providing allotments. He had gone through the census returns for 1901, which divided those engaged in agriculture into three heads—viz., the number of agricultural labourers, indoor farm servants, and general labourers, the majority of the latter being assumed to be agricultural labourers although not returned as such. Taking these three classes together the total number of males engaged in agriculture in Munster was 87,375. To show the importance of the problem he would compare the numbers of this class with the number of farmers engaged in agricultural work. The number of farmers and their sons and relatives in Munster numbered 127,000. Therefore the proportion was about three farmers to two agricultural labourers. The clause under discussion did not propose in any way to deal with the demand of this vast body of persons engaged in agricultural work, or provide
  824
  them with any means of getting a portion of the land.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he did not think it was necessary to discuss the whole of the Labourers Acts upon this clause.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid if this demand could be met under the Labourers Acts he would not, of course, be justified in bringing forward this Amendment. His argument was that this demand could not be met under the Labourers Acts, and he desired to insert a new provision extending the same facilities as now existed in England to Ireland. Without such a provision they could not hope for any great extension of the operations of these Acts in Ireland, because the ratepayers had already taxed themselves very heavily indeed for the benefit of the labourers. In order to justify his claim that further allotments should be provided he had to show that under the Labourers Acts they could not at present provide sufficient allotments. In Munster the labourers were eagerly looking forward to getting their share of the untenanted lands. The figures he had quoted showed the impossibility of hoping that at any time the District Councils would be able to provide for all those persons under the Labourers Acts because the cost would be so enormous that local taxation could not possibly bear it. He did not suggest that in providing these allotments any charge was to be made on the locality, because in England the policy had been to get from the tenant such an amount of rent as would repay to the parochial authorities the entire cost, and if these untenanted lands were to be vested in trustees to provide allotments for the labourers, there was no reason whatever why the labourers should not pay a rent sufficient to recompense the trustees for the capital cost. The figures he would quote were very remarkable. He had taken out the figures for five counties—viz., Londonderry, Antrim, Monaghan, Cavan and Down. In Londonderry the labourers numbered 9,427 and the farmers 16,064. In Antrim the labourers totalled 14,000 as against 20,000; in Monaghan there were 4,400 labourers and 15,000 farmers; and, taking the five counties together, the labourers totalled 50,901 and the farmers 94,000. In five counties

  825
  in Leinster persons of the labouring classes numbered 37,742, while persons of the farming classes were 47,823. Speaking generally, the Returns indicated that persons of the labouring classes were as two against three of the farming classes. In Ulster the proportion was about 55 per cent. The figures showed that the question of allotments was a large one, which, if it was to be met, would require extensive provisions which would operate widely. He did not mean to suggest that all the persons included in these numbers would require an allotment of land, but assuming that one out of four demanded an allotment the question would be a very large one. In this matter Irish public opinion was unanimous. The experience of England, with reference to the allotments system, was one to which they could point as justifying the contention that the giving of an allotment of land to a labourer always meant increased comfort to him. It meant an incentive to thrift which he otherwise had not. There were several reasons why, at the present time, it was desirable that the demand of the labourers of Ireland for allotments should be satisfied. They had looked forward anxiously to this Bill which was to settle the farmers of Ireland as owners of the land they occupied. They had also looked forward to it as a means of obtaining for themselves some aid in seasons when they could not obtain work and were unable to earn wages. In the County of Cork the figures were very remarkable. The number of persons in the labouring classes was 31,000, and in the farming classes 38,000. In Waterford the figures were even more remarkable. There the number in the labouring classes was 7,437, and in the farming classes 7,443. In Wexford the numbers were, labouring classes 11,700, and farming classes 12,700. In the County of Waterford the persons included in the labouring classes engaged in agriculture under thirty years of age were according, to the last census returns, 3,500 out of a total of 7,743. Unless some adequate provision was made whereby they might be retained in the country a great majority of those 3,500 would have to go and seek a livelihood in America or elsewhere. The diminution in the area of cultivated land in Ireland during the last ten years was close upon 200,000 acres, and while the process of diminution
  826
  had been going on the population of Ireland had been dwindling year by year. During the same ten years 400,000 persons, in round numbers, had left Ireland and gone to other countries to seek a means of subsistence.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBrose to a point of order, and asked whether these figures were relevant to the Amendment.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid they seemed to him to be a great deal beyond the scope of the Amendment, which was limited in character. The hon. Member seemed to think that he could build some elaborate superstructure upon these figures which would be relevant. He thought the hon. Member might compress into a short space that part which was really relevant to this Amendment.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid he would endeavour to comply with that ruling. He did not think the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth had given that amount of attention to the problem of the labourer which it deserved. He contended that the emigration from Ireland during the past ten years was largely due to the diminution in the area of tilled land. Another justification for the Amendment was that farmers throughout the country complained in many places that they could not get labourers at the time when they were wanted, and that those labourers who were in the country were not so well skilled in agriculture as they used to be. The strong and vigorous labourers went away in the stream of emigration, and those who remained in the country were to a large extent men suffering from some physical or mental affliction. The demand now put forward was accepted by the Convention held in Ireland. The assumption of this Bill was that the landlords were to give the untenanted lands to somebody. The landlords, therefore, had no concern in preventing the labourers of Ireland from getting those untenanted lands. This was a vital question for the labourers of Ireland. When an Irish labourer who had a patch of land went to another country to work, he returned with the earnings he had been able to accumulate, but when a young labourer who had no land went away

  827
  he never came back. It was only reasonable that they should have regard for the interests of the young man, who under present conditions had no tie that bound him to the land of his birth and who went away never to return.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 30, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words, 'for the purpose of providing allotments of land for labourers as defined by the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, as amended by this Act, or.'"—(Mr. O'Shee.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said the Amendment was really altogether outside the question. There were certain powers in the Bill regarding the acquisition of land for labourers' allotments. The hon. Member wished, as he understood, to empower trustees to buy land for the provision of allotments which would be larger and of a different kind. There was, however, no statute in existence at present which enabled local authorities to do anything of the kind; and if the Amendment were passed and the Bill retained its present form the provision of the hon. Member would remain perfectly inoperative.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid that when they were discussing Clause 2 the Chief Secretary referred him to Clause 4.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that he had not indicated that Clause 4 was the proper place for dealing with the question of labourers' allotments. In a Bill of eighty-five clauses dealing with Irish land almost any question could be raised in this way without being out of order. In speaking the other day and referring to Clause 4, he had not intended to indicate that this was the proper or possible place to amend the Irish Agricultural Labourers Acts.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he supposed that they were to take it from the Chief Secretary that when they came to Part 4 of the Bill,
  828
  which dealt specifically with the labourers, the question raised by his hon. friend of extending the power of the local authorities to give in certain cases more than one acre to labourers could be discussed. He had a great deal of sympathy with what had been said by his hon. friend, because he believed that the provisions for giving allotments to labourers were altogether inadequate, and he should like to see the subject dealt with in this Bill or in an early Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not give a pledge on that point. When the labourers' portion of the Bill was reached, it would not be possible if this was to be a Land Bill to go in great extent and detail into the Labourers Acts. They might by so doing miss the substance of the Land Bill. It was a matter for consideration whether, when they reached the labourers' portions of the Bill, it would be worth while to go on with them, if hon. Members deemed them inadequate, and if hon. Members thought that it would prejudice the proper consideration of so important a question. He had only put this matter into the Bill in order to help the situation of the labourers in Ireland until the Government could deal more fully with them at another time.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was to understand that if there should not be an opportunity during the passing of the Bill to deal adequately with the labourers question, the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to deal with it soon?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that, of course, he could not undertake to carry another Irish Bill this session; but he expressed the opinion that if the Bill was passed substantially as it stood now, the question of dealing with the labourers would arise, and would be a pressing question. If he were Chief Secretary he would try to deal with it soon. What he had tried to do in this Bill was to ease the situation when there was a certain amount of untenanted land available which could be dealt with.
  MR. J. S. FARRELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman would guarantee that he would be Chief (Secretary next year, or that the same quantity of land would be available next year, and that the labourers would not be shut out altogether from a share of that land. The right hon. Gentleman had given his hon. friend, or some hon. Member, distinctly to understand that when Clause 4 was reached the question of the labourers might be raised.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he appealed to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford to say whether the course which he had proposed was not the most reasonable course. He was prepared to put a clause on the Paper to shorten and simplify the acquisition of land for labourers' allotments, but he wished it to be distinctly understood that he was not prepared to imperil the Bill, in an attempt which he was sure would be defeated, to deal with every point which could be raised on the labourers question.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman's position was reasonable to this extent, that it was not desirable to discuss these labourers questions twice at different parts of the Bill. It would be better to reserve the discussion until it could be effective. He was not expressing any opinion as to the desirability, at this stage, at anyrate, of dropping the labourers question out of the Bill. He thought it would be a great misfortune if it were not possible within the four corners of the Bill to deal with the labourers, and to deal with them in a satisfactory way.
  MR. TULLYsaid he strongly protested against any attempt to drop the labourers out of the Bill.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that there was a very difficult labourers question in Ulster, although the cottage system did not largely prevail there. He only intervened lest his silence might be misunderstood. He was entirely in favour of the position of the Chief Secretary. What was the use of wasting time on an Amendment which could not be effective? Too much time had already
  830
  been wasted. He was not prepared to waste another moment when the Chief Secretary said he proposed to introduce another clause.
  MR. DILLONsaid he agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. It would be a great mistake to contemplate for a moment the possibility of dropping the labourers' case. He did not think time had been wasted in the present discussion, because it was necessary to show that there was great feeling in Ireland as to the necessity of dealing with the labourers' case. The Chief Secretary should put down his proposed new clause on the Paper. They ought to endeavour to arrive at a harmonious settlement, as there was practically no difference of opinion on the question. The representatives of the landlords were as anxious to have the question settled as the representatives of the tenants, and there was no reason why it should require a long, acrimonious discussion. He thought it was extremely likely that a scheme might be agreed upon, which would be unanimously supported, and which would pass through the House after a brief discussion.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he wished to associate himself with the protest against the idea that the interests of the labourers should be dropped out of the Bill. He realised, however, that the labourers question could not be well discussed at that stage of the Bill. All the representatives of the labourers were more or less agreed as to the direction which Amendments should take, and if they were put down and discussed on Clause 82 and the subsequent clauses, there need be no waste of time. He felt very strongly that a large section of the agricultural population in Ireland would hear with the very greatest regret even the hint given by the Chief Secretary that the labourers question should be dropped.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he did not at all accept the interpretation which was being put upon what he had said. He agreed that they ought to do as much as they could in this Bill for the labourers, but it would be impossible to

  831
  deal incidentally with the question, and, therefore, it might be well to save this Bill and have another Bill devoted to the labourers. He took the view that the Committee could not discuss the labourers question on a clause which had nothing to do with the Labourers Acts. Let them do what was possible in this Bill, and have a second Bill if necessary.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid as they were about to have a great national settlement in Ireland, he wished that the labourers should get an allotment of land. When Clause 2, with reference to untenanted land was under discussion, the question of the labourers was brought forward and was shelved, the Committee being told that it should be raised on Clause 4; now apparently it was to be shelved again. He wished to point out that they were not looking for another Labourers Act; they were endeavouring to secure that labourers should get a larger allotment of untenanted land than they were able to get under the present Labourers Acts. Every labourer should have at least five acres of untenanted land; and, if the new clause of the Chief Secretary would provide that, he thought it would give very great satisfaction. Any other arrangement would not be regarded as satisfactory.
  MR. DELANYsaid that one of the greatest difficulties which was experienced in Ireland in the administration of the Labourers Acts was that when allotments were provided near towns or villages, workers in towns entered into competition with agricultural labourers for them. It would facilitate and expedite the work of the Labourers Acts if there were proper provision for allotting land to artisans and labourers in small towns and villages. He spoke in the matter from his experience as chairman of a large District Council.
  MR. POWERsaid that some hon. Members might be inclined to blame his hon. friend for raising this matter; but, in his opinion, his hon. friend was not only justified but called upon to bring the matter forward, having regard
  832
  to the interest he displayed on behalf of the labourers. The hon. Member for South Tyrone seemed to look at the discussion as so much time thrown away; but the discussion manifestly impressed the Committee and the Government. He believed that 80 per cent. of emigrants from Ireland belonged to the labouring classes, and something would be done to stop that emigration if land were provided for labourers. As he understood the Amendment, his hon. friend was anxious to earmark some of the land which might be available for that purpose; and if the right hon. Gentleman would bear that in mind when framing his new clause it would be of the greatest advantage. He could corroborate what had been said by his hon. friend for the Ossory Division with regard to the allotment question. There was no power in Ireland to provide workers in towns with allotments. He asked a few years ago whether the Allotments Act of this country could not be extended to Ireland; and if something were done in that direction it would, to a certain extent lessen the competition which at present existed. He trusted that the clause to be introduced by the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfactory; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that the districts where labourers most needed land were the very districts where the Labourers Acts were inoperative, simply because the ratepayers were almost as poor as the labourers.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he hoped that whatever Amendment was moved by an Irish Member would have some sense and would carry something with it. There was nothing whatever in the Amendment now before the Committee which was not in the Bill; yet an hour had been occupied in discussing a sham Amendment.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that with reference to the suggestion that the labourers should be dropped altogether, he desired to say that the question might and ought to be dealt with to a certain extent in this Bill, but he did not think it was possible to deal wholly with it. It was a question sufficiently large to be dealt with by itself. He thought, however, it was a very important thing in the interests of

  833
  labourers in Ireland that they had now got from the Chief Secretary a statement—which would not have been got were it not for this discussion—that although to a certain extent something would be done in Part 4 of the Bill to deal with the labourers problem, there would yet remain a great deal to be done for the labourers—so much so that the right hon. Gentleman himself suggested that the question should be dealt with in its entirety in a Bill specially introduced for that purpose.
  MR. MURPHYsaid they were all aware that to deal properly with the labourers question would require a complicated and extended Bill. They were led, however, to believe that something would be done in this Bill for the labourers. Hon. Members like himself, who represented labour constituencies, were anxious to be in a position to tell the labourers in their constituencies that their case would be considered on a proper opportunity. If the Chief Secretary, after consultation with the leaders of opinion on both sides of the House, would put down a simple and effective clause dealing with the labourers as far as the present Bill was concerned, that would remove any doubt that might exist in the minds of the labourers.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid he recognised that it would be inconvenient to have several discussions on the same subject. If the present Amendment were carried, it would, of course, be necessary to have subsequent Amendments in Clause 18 providing that legal operation should be given to it. As he understood that the claim of the labourers to share the untenanted lands of Ireland would not be in any way jeopardised by the withdrawal of the Amendment he would ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that an Amendment which had been handed in by the hon. Member for West Kerry with reference to school playgrounds was outside the scope of the present Bill.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBdesired to insert, in line 32, after the word "of" "game,
  834
  fish." His object, he said, was to enable trustees to acquire small portions of land for rearing purposes. The clause would then read "or the preservation of game, fish, woods, or plantations." This was a matter of great importance to both landlords and tenants in Ireland, and the land sought to be acquired would not be either agricultural land or pasturage. He begged to move.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked was it fair, at this stage, to raise this question, when the hon. and gallant Member had the House of Lords to raise it in.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 32, after the word 'of' to insert the words 'game, fish.'"—(Sir John Colomb.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Mr. WYNDHAMsaid, although it was somewhat difficult to follow the Amendment, he thought he had grasped the desire of the hon. Member. This clause dealt with the purchase of land, and the proposal of the hon. Member was to enable trustees to buy such portions as were necessary for hatcheries and so forth, so that persons might be able to get a rood of land for that purpose. It might be a desirable thing, but it was a matter which he would prefer the Committee to decide. It was not advancing money for the preservation of game or fish, but to purchase land. The whole question of sporting lights came up later.
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid it appeared to him to be rather like a bull to talk of fish in connection with purchasing land, and he did not think they should expose themselves to ridicule by accepting the Amendment.
  SIR ROBERT FITZGERALDsaid the Report of the Committee on Salmon Fisheries in Ireland strongly advocated the creation of hatcheries on every river in Ireland. It was only a very small parcel of land that was required to form a hatchery, and it must be remembered that out of small hatcheries great rivers could be stocked.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  MR. MANSFIELDsaid the object of his Amendment was that two-thirds of the tenants on an estate should have the same rights as the landlord. The tenant right in the land was in many instances quite as important as that of the landlord. He thought the tenants should have a right to set in motion the machinery for the sale of an estate. He would not labour the point, because nothing could be gained except by an inquiry into the circumstances of the case. But if it was found that the landlord objected to sell because he was hanging back for a better price, the tenants ought to have a right to have the matter decided. Speaking from an English agricultural point of view, he might say that English agriculturists were anxious that this Bill should have some degree of finality; and speaking as one whose opinions in opposition to this Bill had been greatly modified by the concessions which the right hon. Gentleman had made, he urged the right hon. Gentleman to carry those concessions a little further and accept this Amendment. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 36, after the word 'makes,' to insert the words 'or not less than two-thirds of the tenants of an estate make.'"—(Mr. Mansfield.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid it was very desirable to enable tenants to make some representation as to the state of their minds with regard to purchase. Although the tenants had no right the Land Judge's Court had always tolerated, under the Land Acts, large bodies of tenants coming forward and making applications, and those applications had a most salutary effect on the landlords and encumbrancers. This Bill gave no such opportunity as was given by the Land Court for tenants generally to stir up owners. In many cases it was to the interest of men interested in the management of the estates of absentee landlords to prevent the sale of
  836
  an estate. If this actinic process which was suggested by the Amendment were allowed he thought it would have a very salutary effect.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid it was impossible to accept the Amendment. It would change the whole character of the Bill, and make it a compulsory instead of a voluntary Bill, unless the Land Commissioners embarked in an absolutely useless inquiry. There were two systems of land purchase under the Bill, the first being where the landlord first agreed with his tenants and then came to the Court, and the other system under which he dealt with the Court direct. And it seemed to him to be absolutely useless for the Land Court to-make an inquiry unless they knew the landlord was willing to sell.
  MR. TULLYsaid he thought the Amendment was a most important one. As the clause stood at present, a landlord could go without his tenants knowing a thing about it, and sell direct to the Land Commission.
  MR. ATKINSON, said if the hon. Gentleman looked at the section he would find that three-fourths of the tenants must agree before the landlord could sell.
  MR. TULLYsaid that he wished to give the tenants an opportunity to apply for the sale. When the landlords were getting such princely terms it was only right that the tenants should have such an opportunity. Why should all the compulsion be against the tenants? In addition to getting thirty-two years purchase from the tenants, the landlords were to get a bonus, which meant that Lord de Freyne would get a present of £40,000 for holding out against his tenants. Another serious matter was that if a landlord applied to the Land Commission to have his estate sold, his tenants would be deprived of the right of going into Court to have a fair rent fixed.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDhoped hon. Members would have more sense than to embark on an utterly impracticable discussion such as that to which they were now invited. They all had their own views on compulsory purchase, and if

  837
  it could have been secured many would have preferred it to the present Bill. But anything more unbusinesslike or absurd than to attempt at the present stage to interpose a discussion on the merits of compulsory purchase he could not imagine.
  MR. TULLYsaid all he proposed to do was to give the tenants an option.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the Committee were approaching Amendments which raised questions of great importance, including that of the evicted tenants. He hoped, therefore, the discussion on other matters would not be prolonged.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. TULLY, in moving to insert the word "compulsory" before "sale," said he had often heard the hon. Member for Waterford make the rafters ring with his demand for compulsory sale, and he ought not to turn round and say it was absurd and lacking in common-sense to raise the cry now. The members of the Dunraven Conference made a bad bargain for the tenants, one of the worst features being the surrender of the principle of compulsory sale. If the forces outside had been properly organised he believed a compulsory Bill could have been secured. He had no desire to occupy time unnecessarily, and therefore would formally move his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 38, after the third word 'the' to insert the word 'compulsory.'"—(Mr. Tully.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'compulsory' be there inserted."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that while he sympathised with his hon. friend he thought it was not in the interests of business that Members should propose Amendments which had no chance of being accepted, or Amendments which were essentially "shams." He had been appalled to see an hon. Member come down, armed with a long manuscript, and move an Amendment which occupied nearly an hour in discussion. Let there be fair play all round. While
  838
  he agreed with the hon. Member for Waterford in the suggestion that they should make progress with the Bill, he would suggest that the hon. Member also should take care that some of his own friends did not occupy time by the hour pressing points which were already in the Bill.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. DILLONmoved to insert after the word "inquiry" the words "as to the prices which tenants are prepared to pay for their holdings and such other matters as they deem necessary." His object in proposing the Amendment was to give the Government an opportunity of explaining to the Committee the nature of the inquiry.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 40, after the word 'inquiry' to insert the words 'as to the prices which tenants are prepared to pay for their holdings, and such other matters as they deem necessary.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that this clause dealt with the relations between the Estates Commissioners and the would-be vendor, and then went on to deal with their relations with the would-be purchaser. It was enacted that there could be no bargain unless three-fourths of the tenants agreed; it followed that the Estates Commissioners, in approaching the landlord, must be assured that three-fourths of the tenants were willing to buy on certain terms. But whether it would be wise for the Commissioners to carry on the discussion with the landlord up to a certain point and then go to the tenant, or vice versâ, was a matter which must be left to the discretion of the parties concerned. It was certain that no sale could take place unless three fourths of the tenants, without any pressure whatever, were agreed. It was impossible to lay down in an Act of Parliament all the steps de die in diem which the parties to such a transaction were to take and the order in which they were to be taken. All that preliminary reconnoitring must take place under any voluntary Bill, and it would be futile to

  839
  attempt to foresee the conditions of every landlord and tenant in Ireland. This the Bill, being a voluntary measure, did provide—that the landlord should not be forced to take less than he was prepared to accept, or the tenant to pay more than he was willing to give.
  MR. DILLONsaid the importance of the Amendment lay in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to omit not only a portion of Sub-section (1) but the whole of Sub-section (2) which directed the Estates Commissioners, before fixing the price, to make some inquiry as to what the tenants were prepared to give. By omitting Sub-section 2, that power given to the Land Commission was gone. By Sub-section 3 they could not be compelled to buy at the prices mentioned, but by omitting Clause 2, the procedure contemplated was that the Estates Commissioners might fix the price and communicate with the landlord without consulting the tenants. Therefore the tenants might have a price fixed against them by the Land Commissioners. He was aware that the tenants need not buy, but if they did not they would not afterwards have a chance of buying at all, and that would produce a deadlock. He wished to secure that no right which the tenants had under the Bill should be lost, and the Estates Commissioners should have an indication that before fixing the price they must make some inquiry from the tenants. He did not think the words he suggested would impose any unreasonable restriction on the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLthought there was some necessity for a provision like that contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the Amendment he had on the Paper would meet the case.
  MR. DILLON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid he wished to move an Amendment after the word
  840
  "estate" in line 40 to insert "including any demesne or other land in the occupation of the owner." As he read Clause 5, there was considerable doubt whether the Land Commission had power to purchase any land in the occupation of the owner.
  MR. WYNDHAMpointed out that the word "estate" meant any land which the Estates Commissioners agreed to regard as a settled estate. How his hon. friend made out that that did not mean the demesne or other land in the occupation of the owner he could not understand.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid that in the previous clauses of this Bill the word "estate" had been used in connection with tenanted land only, and he thought a clear distinction should be drawn between tenanted land and demesne land. They did not desire to have litigation, and if he was assured that "estate" included "demesne and other lands" he would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that was so.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid under those circumstances he would not move his Amendment.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that Sub-section 2 of this clause provided that in respect of holdings upon which judicial rents had been fixed, the Commissioners were to be guided by the price within the zone. They had to find out what the tenants wished to give, and if the price fell within the zone then that was the price. Clause 2 laid down a number of provisions guiding the sale of additional land, and Sub-section 2 was brought in to see that the Land Commission should not put up the higher competition price upon the assumption that all the untenanted land was sold to one grazier. In fixing the price they must have regard to the conditions of Clause 2. He did not think the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo was at all necessary, because in estimating the price they were to be guided by the foregoing provisions of the Act. He begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 40, to leave out from the word 'estate,' to end of sub-section, and insert the words 'and in estimating the price shall have regard to the foregoing provisions of this Act in respect of advances.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. DILLONsaid this was a very important matter, for it dealt with the first clause which specifically controlled and directed the action of the Land Commission. This was an enormously important portion of the Bill, for it was the clause under which the whole of the machinery would work. As he read the Bill the provisions of Clause 1 made it a sort of covering clause governing all proceedings under the Act with regard to the price. One sub-section applied to cases where a bargain had been made already between the tenant and the landlord. The Amendment was of great importance because it proposed to substitute an entirely new method of estimating the price for the one that now stood in the Bill. The Attorney-General thought he had removed their objections completely by pointing out that Clause 3 provided that the tenants were safeguarded against all risks because before a bargain could be concluded they had to be consenting parties to the price. He contended that that did not safeguard the tenants, and he desired to safeguard them in the process of estimating the cost. Sub-section 3 only came into operation after the price had been estimated and communicated to the landlord. It was a very poor protection to the tenant, after the public department had estimated the price and communicated it to the landlord, to allow the tenant to say that he would not buy. If the tenant did that he would not get a chance of buying at all afterwards. Consequently Sub-section 3 did not meet his objection. What was the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment? As the clause originally stood Clause 5 provided that—
  "The Land Commission may, after due inquiry, propose to purchase the estate at a price to be estimated as hereinafter mentioned."
  Sub-section 2 proceeded to lay down, in his opinion, very vaguely the ground on
  842
  which the Land Commission were to lay stress in estimating. It provided that—
  "The price of the estate shall be estimated on the assumption that each tenant of a holding thereon will purchase his holding or some other designated parcel of land in lieu thereof, for an amount for which an advance under the Land Purchase Acts can be made.
  How could they assume that unless they had asked the tenants what they were willing to give? Did the Chief Secretary mean that the words "due inquiry" were to be taken to mean that before the price was estimated and communicated to the landlord inquiry must be made from the tenant?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Certainly.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid there was nothing in the Act to indicate it.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that the words "shall have regard to the foregoing provision of this Act in respect of advances" covered the object of the hon. Member. "Advances" were sums which might be advanced where the landlord and tenant agreed to purchase.
  MR. DILLONsaid he did not read it in that way at all. His proposal was to substitute the words "to the price which the tenants on the estate are willing to give for their holdings." He did not think the words proposed by the Chief Secretary gave the Commissioners guidance as to what the tenants were going to pay. The interpretation could be put on the words that the Commissioners, where there was no agreed price, were to be driven back to the zones. The new section gave the Commissioners no guidance because there was no agreed price. He had given careful study to the words, and he believed there was great risk if they stood in the way they were put down on the Paper, that the Commissioners might be forced to the conclusion that the intention was to drive them back to Clause 1, and to the consideration of the zones. This was an important question, because the Amendment proposed by the Chief Secretary substituted a totally new method of estimating the price. He did not see why the words of his Amendment should not be inserted in the clause in order to make the intention of the Government quite

  843
  clear. What he proposed was to insert the words which would make the Amendment read as follows—
  "And in estimating the price shall have regard to the price which the tenants on the estates are willing to give for their holdings."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 2, to leave out from the word 'foregoing' to the end and to insert the words 'price which the tenants on the estates are willing to give for their holdings.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Amendment."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the words which the hon. Member had moved were really narrower than his own words, and did not carry out what the intention of this clause was. He thought the words proposed by the hon. Member were mere surplusage, and he was not prepared to accept them without rather more careful consideration. What would be the real effect of the words proposed by the hon. Member? Did they mean that the Estates Commissioners were not to form a general view of the value of the land sold under the conditions of Clause 2? It appeared to him that if they accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member they would impose on three-fourths of the tenants definite terms which were not to be modified. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] But that was the danger. He thought that his own words covered the whole intention of the hon. Member, and covered the cases under Clause 2, while at the same time leaving some latitude which there must be if any business was to be done. The question of turbary would present great difficulty. He did not see that any danger would arise from adopting the words he had proposed. If the hon. Member could find any words that would not give rise to the danger he referred to he would be prepared to consider them.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that the Chief Secretary might consider whether he could alter his Amendment to read as follows—
  "And in estimating the price shall have regard to the foregoing provisions of this Act in respect of advances, and any other conditions that may be prescribed."
  It was quite impossible to suppose that
  844
  under the words of the clause as they stood the Commissioners would not have regard to the price. At the same time the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo would no doubt be an additional safeguard. He took it that as a matter of course the Commissioners would inquire into the circumstances of the price the tenant was willing to offer. But it was not unnatural that the hon. Member for East Mayo should endeavour to obtain some other safeguard. At all events this was a matter that might well be considered at some later stage of the Bill.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid it seemed to him that the whole thing was to be conducted on the principle of estimate. He was not a lawyer, but he was trying to imagine what the Estates Commissioners would do if the clause were passed as it stood. It appeared to him that the whole thing might be done without consulting a single tenant on the estate. He believed things would be brought to a deadlock unless the words proposed by the hon. Member for East Mayo were put in.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid it would be perfectly impossible for the Land Commission to fulfil these conditions unless they did it in a business-like way. The Commission were to make an offer at which they proposed to purchase, and they were at the same time to see that the proposed scheme would involve no loss, because there was the provision in Section 4, whereby if there was a contemplated loss special permission would have to be obtained from the Lord Lieutenant. How was it conceivable that they could do that without having ascertained what the tenants were willing to give?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Why not put in plain words to that effect?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that unless the Land Commission ascertained first what the tenants were willing to give, they would be at the mercy of the tenants, and the whole thing would be futile.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that more than once within the last few days

  845
  the right hon. Gentleman had appealed to the Committee not to waste time on points on which there was really substantial agreement. Here was an opportunity for him to set a good example. The right hon. Gentleman was apparently in complete agreement with what the hon. Member for East Mayo had in view, but said that the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo was mere surplusage. Surely it was a waste of time to go on opposing what was surplusage.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that although he agreed with all that the hon. Member for East Mayo meant and said that he meant, he was afraid that the words of the Amendment meant more than the hon. Member meant. What he said in his Amendment, quite shortly and simply, was, that in getting a preliminary undertaking from the tenants as to the price they were prepared to pay that was in conformity with Clause 1 as it stood. The Land Commission must find out from the tenants what they were prepared to pay in respect to their different categories of holdings.
  MR. GORDONsaid they were all agreed as to what the Amendment should mean, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was not prepared to consider words, to be introduced at a later stage, which would carry into effect the object on which all were agreed?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was quite ready to accept the object of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo, but he was not prepared to accept the hon. Member's words.
  MR. HEMPHILLasked if the right hon. Gentleman would bring up the amended Amendment on the Report stage.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he considered this Amendment vitally important. He urged on the right hon. Gentleman that there was an enormous difference between first consulting the tenants and
  846
  then, having ascertained their views, fairly offering them the land at the price they were willing to give, and coming to the tenants with a price fixed, because the tenants were then placed in the enormously difficult position of demanding a rebate. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo were adopted the tenants would be masters of the situation; but if the original Amendment were accepted they would be the slaves of the situation. Again, if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment were adopted the danger was that the Land Commission would be driven back to the zones—and he was sure that the Chief Secretary did not intend that. He strongly urged on the right hon. Gentleman that it was not his good intentions that would regulate the interpretation of this Bill when it became an Act. Neither the intention nor the speeches of Ministers who carried a Bill had any effect on the decision of the gentlemen who would interpret the Act. He did not want to use language approaching controversy; but they had heard of the subtlety of gentlemen who gave judicial interpretations in Ireland, and that if there were means by which the language of an Act of Parliament could be diverted even from the honest purpose of the framers of a Bill, that means would be found. He saw no reason why the Committee should not agree to the words of the hon. Member for East Mayo's Amendment. They could be corrected on the Report stage if the right hon. Gentleman found that they went beyond what he himself meant. The clause, more than any other, left the tenants at the mercy of the Land Commission; and he regarded it as most important that the right hon. Gentleman should adopt some form of words which would dissipate any misapprehension.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would suggest that the end in view might be met by the addition of a few words to his Amendment, so that it would read "and in estimating the price shall have regard to the foregoing provisions of this Act in respect of advances and to the price which tenants and other persons are willing to give for holdings and other portions of land comprised in the estate." He

  847
  would be prepared to move the Amendment in that form reserving freedom to reconsider the actual words on the Report stage.
  MR. DILLONsaid he recognised that the offer of the right hon. Gentleman was a very liberal one, and also that the right hon. Gentleman reserved the right to consider the matter on Report. He would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
  Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBmoved to insert in Clause 5, page 4, line 3, after "thereof" "or in addition thereto" He thought the words were necessary.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 3, after the word 'thereof' to insert the words 'or in addition to.'"—(Sir John Colomb.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he ventured to differ from his hon. and gallant friend. He did not think the words proposed were necessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid the Amendment he now proposed to move brought the Committee to the most delicate point in connection with the settlement of the evicted tenants question, namely, how they were to deal with cases in which former holdings of evicted tenants had entered into the possession of new tenants. The Amendment touched the sorest point in connection with the evicted tenants; and for that reason he hoped that every hon. Member who desired tranquillity in Ireland would give the proposal a most careful and sympathetic consideration. He was sure he would not appeal in vain to men who had fought conscientiously on both sides during a long war extending over something like twenty-five years; and he trusted that all language of acrimony would be avoided, as he would endeavour to avoid it himself, and that hon. Members would give all their good sense and good feeling
  848
  to try if they could to eliminate one of the bitterest of all outstanding difficulties in Irish life at the present moment. The proposal which he would submit dealt really with an excessively small matter; but it was like a very small wound which might develop into a very dangerous one if left to mortify. He need not tell any Member of the Committee who knew Ireland how the Irish heart clung to the notion of the old home; and he quite concurred with his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo, that wherever it was possible to restore the evicted tenants to their old homes they would by doing that be doing more than could be accomplished by any other possible means to lay the foundations of peace, goodwill, and contentment in Ireland. He did not propose any hostile action, or any compulsory action whatever against the new occupiers. They accepted the position laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh the other night, that whatever was to be done was to be done by friendly arrangement and inducement. All that the Amendment purported to do was that wherever an estate was sold, and wherever the Commissioners found that there were feuds of this kind existing, that they should have the power of acting as mediators, and in a friendly way composing without any compulsion or injustice these feuds which, if left unsettled, would keep the entire community in a state of ferment. Clause 11 as it stood gave the Commissioners some such power as he now proposed. But his hon. friends and himself could not afford to have any possible doubt on the subject. Undoubtedly Clause 11 gave very wide powers as to estates vested in the Commissioners; but they knew from bitter experience what the Irish Law Courts could do in the way of whittling down powers of this kind unless they were most expressly laid down. In any case, Clause 11 dealt with land vested in the Estates Commissioners; and even if it did give the necessary power with reference to purchase, it would not provide any remedy whatever in the case of a direct transaction between landlord and tenant. He proposed to give similar power to the Commissioners in the case of an estate sold by direct negotiation

  849
  between landlord and tenant. He did not prejudge the question as to whether Clause 11, with certain alterations, might not give the necessary powers; but he submitted that no hon. Member ought to have any objection to these powers being fully and definitely given; and no one could have any real interest in keeping this sore open.
  He quite understood it was a point of honour with landlords not to abandon the men who enabled them to carry on the war. He could quite sympathise with that feeling. On the other hand, on their own side the notion of any terms or truce with men who were known as grabbers was so hateful, that when they proposed to enter into a friendly bargain with them they were running a considerable risk of unpopularity and misconception. They had run an abundance of risks of that kind already, in order to bring about a settlement which they believed would involve the happiness and contentment of the Irish people; and they had not the least fear that the result would justify them in this matter, as it had justified them in other matters. He went further, and said that they were not prepared to stand upon the exact limits of compensation that were indicated in the Amendment, but were quite willing to leave the Estates Commissioners perfectly free to exercise their own discretion and good sense in any case where they saw an opportunity of delivering the community from this most dangerous of all sources of heartburning and disturbance in Ireland. The Committee would have to deal with two classes of new occupiers in connection with this clause. One class, which was extremely small, was what he might call without offence the political planters on the Plan of Campaign estates. The other class was more numerous, but it would be easy to strike up a bargain with them. There were isolated cases all over the country where derelict farms had been taken for mere temporary accommodation by shopkeepers and others who were not farmers, and who had no intention of becoming farmers. As to the political planters on the Plan of Campaign estates, he did not believe that they numbered more than thirty or forty; and he believed no hon. Gentleman opposite would quarrel with the statement that they were planted more with a view to fighting than to agriculture. Mr. Trench, a famous land
  850
  agent, used to say that when he went to Ulster to find planters for the Luggacurran Estate he found plenty of men with capital and no courage, and also plenty of men with courage but no capital. He had a great deal of sympathy with fighting men on whatever side they fought; and he recognised that some of these new occupiers had substantial interests in their holdings, and that it was possible that they might elect to remain in them. In such cases there was nothing more to be said; but as to the greater number of the new occupiers he believed that a friendly hint from the landlord and the judicial interposition of the Estates Commissioners would solve the whole difficulty. There were cases in which more than half the holdings were under £10 valuation, and from which the tenants were evicted not for joining any political combination, but because of poverty, of arrears of rent, and the failure of the Land Acts. That was the most numerous class of evicted tenants; and there should be no difficulty in dealing with the new occupiers in such cases. They might safely trust to the new spirit of goodwill, hopefulness, and buoyancy to bring about a friendly settlement in all such cases without any friction or expense whatever. The process would, however, be greatly accelerated if this Amendment were carried; and if the Estates Commissioners had power to intervene in a friendly way whenever they found it desirable.
  As to the amount of money that would be involved, it was so insignificant a part of a huge transaction that he did not anticipate that either the Government or any hon. Member would offer any objection to it. The Act would provide the reserve fund which would furnish the Estates Commissioners with ample means to bring about this settlement. The tenants' representatives had not been churlish in dealing with the men who had suffered among the landlords, and he hoped and believed no leader of hon. Gentlemen opposite would raise any objection to this Amendment. The Land Conference unanimously declared that the settlement of this question equitably was indispensable to the success of this Bill, and what more equitable basis could there be than this. The

  851
  right hon. Gentleman had already shown that he fully realised the importance of this question as a means of getting the goodwill which would have to be the great driving force of this measure. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 18, at the end, to insert the words, '(4) Where the Estates Commissioners purchase an estate under the provisions of this Act, or where the landlord is selling his estate to the tenants or former tenants thereof under the Land Purchase Acts, and there are upon such estate tenants in occupation of holdings from which other tenants were evicted within twenty-five years before the passing of this Act, it shall be lawful for the said Estates Commissioners to arrange for the surrender to them or to the landlord, as the case may be, of such holdings by the tenants in occupation thereof, on such terms as may be agreed upon, including the transfer of such tenants to other holdings or the payment of such sums of money as compensation for such surrenders as they may think fit, not exceeding in any one case twice the amount of the annual rent payable by each such tenant. And, upon such surrender as aforesaid being made, it shall be lawful for the said Estates Commissioners to reinstate in their holdings the former tenants thereof, and thereupon such former tenants so reinstated shall have the same rights under the Land Purchase Acts as they would have had if they had never been evicted from such holdings.'"—(Mr. William O'Brien.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid the hon. Member for Cork had asked that his Amendment should be considered in a careful and sympathetic spirit. He had considered it carefully, but he could not say sympathetically. The hon. Member for Cork had made very drastic proposals in a very moderate speech, but he had carefully avoided figures. The proposal was about as wide as any he had ever heard proposed in the House. It covered every eviction that had taken place in Ireland in the last twenty-five years. He would like to have heard how many thousand tenants had been evicted for one cause or another in that time. The hon. Member could not seriously propose that the tenants who had been turned out of their farms absolutely, hopelessly impecunious, and unable to work them, should be gathered together from all parts of the world and reinstated, and the tenants who occupied the farms
  852
  and cultivated them to advantage were to go out. If the Committee desired to create in Ireland the most hopeless confusion the mind of man could conceive, they should accept the Amendment. Hon. Members made very mild speeches in this House, but they went to Ireland and gave advice in a very different tone. What would happen if the Amendment were accepted would be that when the Bill was passed a man who held an evicted farm would be "advised" to give up the farm to his predecessor. He recollected the time of the Plan of Campagin when the advice given had sometimes a very unpleasant effect on the person advised.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: That is all old history.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: It was true it was old history, but it was history he did not wish to see repeated. A leopard could not change his spots so easily. (Ironical NATIONALIST cheers). He was glad hon. Members agreed with him. Hon. Members wished these things to be forgotten, and he was willing to forget them, but the acceptance of this Amendment would bring to light these things they wished to forget. He hoped the Government would reject the clause.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he would not allow himself to be drawn by the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite into indulging in any kind of recriminations. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who could hardly be expected to make a speech on this question without giving utterance to irritating remarks, had restrained himself fairly well, but he had made one mistake—viz., that when speaking of what had happened during the last twenty five years, and the strong speeches that had been made, he had forgotten that whereas then they were trying to make war they were now endeavouring to make peace. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be the man to stand in the way of a sincere effort to remove, as far as it could be done, all traces of the bitter conflict of the past. He wished he could impress upon the Chief Secretary an adequate idea of the importance attached to this matter in Ireland. In extent the question was a very

  853
  small one. The picture which had been drawn of all the evicted tenants of the last twenty-five years rushing from the ends of the earth to regain their old homes was absurd. The real object of the Amendment was to enable tenants to be restored to their homes in cases where the new tenants were willing to give up the farms and make other arrangements, and that power for that purpose should be placed in the hands of the Commission. There was no intention to put into the Bill any provision by which pressure, direct or indirect, could be brought to bear upon existing tenants. The number of these new tenants who were real bonâ fide agriculturists, working their farms as ordinary farmers, was comparatively few; and if they desired to continue in their holdings he would not give his sanction to any attempt compulsorily to get them out. That was as things were now. In the last twenty-five years they had tried compulsion, and failed in these cases. But this Amendment was proposed to deal not with these cases but with the others, which for the most part concerned men who were not agriculturists at all, but who had been put into the farms to carry on the war on the part of the landlords, and had probably never been happy or comfortable in their surroundings. The Amendment asked that in these cases the Estates Commissioners should have power to bring out the existing tenants for the purpose of putting others in their places. Was that a revolutionary or improper provision? It would be an absolutely voluntary proceeding, as nothing could be done without the consent of the tenant; and if it was true, as he understood it was, that the Congested Districts Board already possessed a similar power, it would be ridiculous to deny it to this new Commission. The Amendment asked also that the Estates Commissioners should have power in these cases, as they had in the case of all new tenants under the Bill, to spend money for the purpose of rebuilding, restocking, and giving the men a fresh start in life. The necessary money was already in the Bill, as it was provided that what was called the "reserve fund," amounting to £240,000 or £250,000, should be placed at the disposal of the
  854
  Commissioners for this very work. Could it be contended that the unfortunate evicted tenants were to be excluded from that provision? They must be dealt with in the same way as other tenants, and he would be greatly astonished if the Chief Secretary was not forced to take that view. If the right hon. Gentleman went so far, all that remained was that the Estates Commissioners should have the power to buy out existing tenants in order to put in others, and as it was purely a matter of voluntary agreement, but one upon which so much depended for the promotion of the good feeling which all desired in Ireland, he hoped the Chief Secretary would favourably consider the proposal.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh had suggested that the Nationalist Members were playing a part in this matter, their real object being to return to Ireland and rekindle the land war if possible That was an unworthy suspicion. Any intelligent man who had noted their acts and words for months past must know that it was impossible for them to cherish any such design, unless, indeed, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his followers drove them into adopting that course. He entertained no such suspicion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends. He frankly admitted that the present position would have been utterly impossible had it not been for the conciliatory and generous spirit shown by men like Lord Dunraven and others. The least the Nationalist Members could claim was that they should be given credit for equal sincerity. It was in the interests of peace, and of peace alone, they pressed this Amendment, which he hoped the Chief Secretary would deal with in a spirit very different from that of the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsincerely wished this question had been left untouched, but the matter having been raised he was anxious not to impart any heat or rancour into the discussion. He credited hon. Gentlemen opposite with all sincerity, but while they were doubtless anxious that

  855
  there should be no further land war they could not be regarded as absolutely controlling the Irish people. They had rivals in every constituency, and they might not be able to carry their wishes into effect. The hon. Member for Waterford had used words which seemed to imply that if a man was a good agriculturist he was all right.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid his argument was that there were certain classes of these men who would be most anxious to give up their holdings, while others would not. Why should those who were willing to give them up be prevented from doing so?
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that hon. Members opposite claimed the evicted tenants as the wounded in the war because they took a certain line politically. Those tenants allowed themselves to be evicted not because their rents were unfair but because they thought it was good for the national cause. He was not going to be drawn into saying anything that would produce heat, but he claimed that if compensation was given to the wounded it should be given to the wounded on both sides. What about the shopkeepers and other people who had been ruined in this land war, and who were neither landlords nor tenants? He thought the best course to pursue would be to consider this war closed and let each side bury its own dead and cure its own wounded. The proposition which had been put forward was one which the Government ought not to accept. It had been said that the British taxpayer had nothing to do with this question, but it appeared to him that he had a great deal to do with it. They must remember the broad fact that the British taxpayer was practically going to be the landlord in the future, and the British taxpayers would ask why these extra facilities should be given to put on to farms the men who, for political purposes, had allowed themselves to be evicted. There was a body of opinion in the House of Commons which regarded this Bill with apprehension.
  At this point, Mr. WYNDHAM moved to the end of the Treasury bench and whispered an observation to Sir John Colomb.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB, resuming his remarks, said the Chief Secretary did not agree with him, but that was his view, and he had felt it his duty to state it. He had restrained himself in dealing with this question and had tried to deal with a great and a really grave subject with moderation, with reason, and with quietness. He should listen with great interest to what the Chief Secretary had to say.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that perhaps he ought to intervene in the debate at this moment. He should like from the first to take the whole Committee into his confidence as to what was the bearing of the observation he had ventured to make to his hon. and gallant friend Otherwise they might be mystified, and the hon. Member for South Molton might go so far as to say that it was not far to restrain his hon. and gallant friend from showing, what the British taxpayer might not be aware of, what was a real danger to him. The reason why he interrupted his hon. and gallant friend was this, that any money used under Clause 11, whether for this or for any other purpose, was not only Irish money, but, to the extent of £250,000, was money which had been earned by land purchase in Ireland in excess of all that was required to pay interest on the Sinking Fund. Therefore the hon. Member for South Molton should not begrudge them this nest egg, which belonged to Ireland. What they were to do with it, and whether they could use it beneficially without breaking it or spilling its contents on the floor, was another matter; but that it belonged to Ireland and to land purchase in Ireland was beyond dispute. His hon. and gallant friend had said that he had exercised great restraint in speaking on this subject. He thought he had, and he himself rose with trepidation. It was almost impossible to discuss the question of the evicted tenants without finding surging memories rising up in one's mind.

  857
  Upon this subject they were carried back to the Act of 1891. It might be remembered that in the year 1891, just after the Plan of Campaign, when his right hon. friend the Leader of the House had been throwing a good deal of spirit and enterprise into his Irish Government, this House by a large majority put a clause into the Land Bill which opened the door for a period of six months, so that there could be no objection now to the principle of 1891 in regard to a temporary chance of a settlement. Since 1891 a certain number of men had occupied those holdings, and, therefore, although the occasion was a more favourable one now owing to the lapse of time and to the efforts of both sides signing the Conference Report, there were now persons occupying those farms from which others had been evicted. The hon. and learned member for Waterford had said more than once that he and his party had no intention of touching again that part of the question themselves or, so far as they could, of permitting it to be touched by compulsion, direct or indirect, that illegitimately—there could be no legitimate pressure—by any form of pressure at all, no man who owned a holding in Ireland which was once occupied by another was to be led to leave that holding if he desired to remain on it. That was what the hon. and learned Member said, and he accepted his word.
  It might be said that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford could not govern the future, but how high had he put up the standard at this moment? How high was it put up in 1894? In the year 1894 his right hon. friend the Prime Minister and himself were resisting a Bill brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs dealing with this question, and they resisted it to the best of their power. What was the tenor of their remarks upon that occasion? He would not quote what he himself said, but he would quote the remarks of the Prime Minister. His right hon. friend, after rehearsing some of the bitter memories of the past, which they did not wish to allude to that day, said—
  "But no hope is held out to us by those in whose hands rests the decision of the question. They tell us in plain terms that when it suits them they will use the old methods for the old objects; and, in face of declarations of that kind, I confess that this House will be obliged
  858
  to pause before it uses public funds and public legislation for the purpose of succouring the wounded soldiers in this species of civil war."
  The Prime Minister went on to say—
  "If that section or party would hold out to us any hope that we have seen an end of these things, and that we need never look for a repetition of them in future, I for one would not look too closely either into the amount of money which we are asked to vote or into the merits of those who are to receive it."
  (NATIONALIST Cheers.) Hon. Members must not cheer too soon. He admitted that that did not dispose of the difficulty. It only emphasised the fact to which his right hon. friend and other hon. Members had borne witness—that they did wish to settle this question. He took it from the speeches made the other night that they all wished to settle it and they did not mean to leave it, unless they were obliged to do so, outstanding from the four corners of the Bill. It was difficult to bring this question in without using some means which might be held to put some form of pressure upon the men who had taken those farms. It would be his duty to see that the form of words used in the Bill was not capable of being abused in the direction of pressure on those men who had taken these farms—not by the hon. Member for Waterford and his followers, but by persons who might disappoint their intentions. He thought the hon. Member would agree with him that in so difficult a matter—a matter which he found it very difficult to handle without disturbing the happy conditions that had hitherto prevailed—the mere phraseology adopted became a matter of importance. They were all agreed that there must be no compulsion but that, on the other hand, they wanted to settle the evicted tenants question.
  The other night he laid down three principles for dealing with this question. The first was that there should be no compulsion; the second, that they must give equal treatment to all classes of persons with whom the Act would deal; the third, that there must be no special mention of evicted tenants. It might be a question of proper administration, that the evicted tenants difficulty was a thing to be easily settled in one part of Ireland to the satisfaction of all parties, including the landlords; while in another part of

  859
  Ireland such a question as, for example, the labourers' question, might be so acute that no one would suggest that the first and most obvious thing to do was to find farms for the evicted tenants. He held, therefore, that, while they ought not to exclude anything from the Bill which might conduce to the settlement of this question, they ought not to push into the very forefront of the Bill a contentious matter in such a form of words as to leave posterity to think that they held this to be the most vital question of all. It might be so not unnaturally in the minds of some, but in the minds of others other questions were equally vital; and he thought the matter must be left to the tact and good sense of those who had to administer the Bill, and to the absolute harmony of conviction prevailing amongst all classes in Ireland that the sore ought to be healed. In Clause 11 of the Bill, it was undoubted that the Commission had powers to take steps for benefiting and improving an estate. According to the interpretation of the Statutes Act the word "estate" carried the plural and meant estates generally. The first sub-section of Clause 2 was as follows—
  "The Land Commission may, where an estate, or untenanted land, is vested in them, take such steps and execute, or cause to be executed, such works as may appear expedient for the benefit or improvement of the estate, or untenanted land."
  In making provisions for improvement of estates under the clause the Commissioners were not pinned down within the limits of one estate. There was under that clause a fund, which might be used as a roving fund, of £250,000, which was the working capital necessary to fructify the financing of the sum of £5,000,000. He held that they ought not to lay it down that the Commissioners should at once turn their attention to this question of the evicted tenants, and use a large slice of this working capital for that purpose; but it was indubitable that under Clause 11 the working capital might be used for the benefit and improvement of a congerie of estates on which the Estates Commissioners were at work, and in many cases it would be the very object which everybody would wish to carry out. He was convinced that if what he now said was accepted on both sides within a very short time an
  860
  example of peace and harmony given in one place would be rapidly followed in other parts of Ireland. The basis of the whole discussion was that there should be no compulsion; but on the other hand he could not disguise from the Committee that if these words were put in here, drawing such pointed attention to a particular class, then there would be speeches from this side of the House throwing doubt on the possibility of the hon. Members for Waterford and Cork being able to carry out their intention. They would throw down an apple of discord. It would be better to take the clause as it stood, and make no invidious selection, which was bound to throw them back into the futile controversies of the past.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had spoken in the spirit of a statesman. He recognised the delicacy of the question and his own great responsibility. Might he say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the landlords' side, one or two things. The hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth said that there were wounded soldiers on both sides, but had he forgotten that the landlords were to get £12,000,000 to bury their dead? That was a good contribution to the funeral expenses. Certainly on this side of the House they were not so well provided. Let him remind hon. Members opposite that, as the hon. Member for Cork had truly said, they were open to much misrepresentation for proposing what was in reality a grabbers' compensation clause. Then the Government were going to propose by-and-by a land agents' compensation and bailiff's' compensation clause, and even the income tax collectors were to get some consideration. Was it unreasonable for the Irish Members on their part to claim something for the ragged fringes in this question, while they were fully willing to give those men who had taken the farms full compensation, and to provide at the same time the possibility of reinstating the former occupiers of the land? His hon. friend the Member for Waterford, had made to-night as remarkable a declaration as he had ever heard in this House, and the speech of the hon. Member for Cork was couched in the same tone. He did think that Members

  861
  on this side of the House, speaking on their responsibility for their people, regarded their words as good coin in Ireland, and would not be gone back on by those alleged competitors which an hon. Member had said he had in his own constituency. Well, he himself had no competitor in his own constituency except himself. The hon. Member for Waterford had stated that he would guarantee to this House, if this Amendment were accepted, on behalf of his Party and on behalf of his organisation, that those who had taken farms and were not willing to surrender them should be left unmolested in their holdings. The hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth referred to the clause as one which did not cover the case of shopkeepers. No doubt he had in his mind the Tallow case. The clause did cover that case. It applied to the case of Mr. O'Keefe, who took a farm, and it would enable him to get compensation if he surrendered, or, upon the other hand, the very significant promise of the hon. Member for Waterford guaranteed to him, if he failed to surrender the farm, quiet and peaceable possession for the remainder of his days. He thought this capitulation—he did not use the word offensively but in its strict legal meaning—on the part of the hon. Members for Cork and Waterford was well worthy of being entertained by this House. It had been accepted in that sense by the Chief Secretary, and he thought they had a guarantee in the situation created by these declarations, and in the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, which made as much for permanent peace in the country as the Dunraven Treaty itself.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he could add a word or two which might be of use to the Committee. Many years ago, when the land war was at its height, he took an active part in forming what was called the Derelict Land Trust, whch raised thousands of pounds for the purpose of planting men on the evicted tenants' farms. That being so, he did not think he ought to remain silent altogether on this occasion. The first thing he wished to say was that that was done as an act of war. He had followed the course of these planters
  862
  since. He knew many of them, and was brought into contact with them personally. Their career had not been a happy one. They had not achieved any success. As a simple matter of fact, he believed this question was not a large one in the sense the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh said. He thought it was a very small and narrow one, and that, with very little arrangement and inducement, these men would gladly go out of their holdings and make room for those who had lost them, not from bankruptcy, or thriftlessness, or drunkenness, but only because of the land war, and because they stood in the front of the firing line. Very few of these men had succeeded. How could they? He was not very sure but that the people to be most benefited by this Amendment, and who would rejoice most if it were carried, were the planters. He thought it right to say that because he spoke from personal knowledge of many of the planters and their circumstances. The Committee might take it from him that these men were not fixtures as farmers were; they were put in as an act of war, and they would be glad to go out on terms now that peace had been proclaimed. It had been said that hon. Members opposite were very keen upon this question, and some members of the Committee had made comments on that fact. He would think very much worse of hon. Members opposite if they were not keenly and desperately in earnest in trying to get the best terms for these men who had fought with them and for them, and who had suffered the consequences of the war.
  MR. DILLONsaid he had always held that this question was one of the most vital connected with the Bill, and that on its solution would depend in large measure the spirit in which this Act was administered in Ireland, and the attitude of the Irish landlords towards its administration. But, when the right hon. Gentleman asked the Irish Members to accept his fair and agreeable words, his assurance that these men would be humanely and generously dealt with in accordance with the agreement of the Land Conference, he listened in vain to obtain from the representatives of the

  863
  Irish landlords the slightest degree of hope that their voice would be raised in the same direction. What was the use of the right hon. Gentleman's fair and agreeable words if it was stated from the benches opposite that vengeance was still to be the doctrine preached in the administration of this Act. He had hoped that the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh would have shown a willingness to make it possible for them to work for peace in Ireland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about forgetting the past; but how were they to forget the past if the evicted tenants were to be treated in the spirit which had been shown that night?
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: What spirit?
  MR. DILLONsaid he did not want to use strong words; he meant the spirit of want of forgiveness, want of generosity, and want of any genuine desire for peace in Ireland.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he had already stated in the House that he was ready, and he believed that the landlords in Ireland were ready, as far as possible, to see the evicted tenants reinstated, so long as that did not involve the eviction of the present holders.
  MR. DILLONsaid that the eviction of the present holders had not been demanded by the Nationalist Members. Had they made no concession, when they retired from the position which the whole people of Ireland had taken up in saying that these men should be evicted? The right hon. and gallant Member had the singular want of taste and judgment to say that the Nationalist Members might find rivals in their constituencies who would make it hot for them. Yes; that might be true if the right hon. and gallant Member pursued the policy in which he was engaged. If the right hon. and gallant Member wanted them to redeem the pledge sincerely given by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that these men would be secure from all molestation in the future, then he had taken a very bad way to do it. Did he imagine that the Nationalist Members
  864
  were to be sent home to Ireland absolutely empty-handed in this matter? The right hon. and gallant Member must give them something. He had thought that the whole of these discussions were to go on on new lines, that both sides were desirous of seeking peace by mutual concessions, and above all, that both sides were desirous of showing and proving that they had no wish to inflict injury in respect of what was past. What would this concession involve? That no pressure would be put upon any tenant in Ireland who now occupied a holding to go out of it. The only way in which there could be security against pressure was to meet them fairly. He supposed that the amount of money involved would perhaps amount to £100,000. He had listened with curiosity and surprise to the extreme anxiety displayed by the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth in behalf of the British taxpayer, when it came to a gift of £100,000 to the tenants to heal this sore; but there was no anxiety on the hon. and gallant Gentleman's part for the British taxpayer when it came to giving a bonus of £12,000,000 to the Irish landlords, and when he was claiming twenty-five years purchase for his own estate. He was sorry to be obliged to say it, but there seemed to be a feeling on the part of some hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept all the good terms offered to the landlords, and still to retain the base and unworthy pleasure of punishing the evicted tenants. That was not the spirit in which the landlords could bring this question to a peaceful and happy conclusion. In his opinion the landlords were making a very great mistake in that attitude, even from a money point of view. Hon. Members opposite thought it good policy to hint at this particular stage—though it was never heard of at an earlier stage—that the influence of the Nationalist Members in Ireland might disappear, and that other great forces might arise which would set them aside, and carry on the land war. His answer to that was that hon. Gentlemen opposite were taking the very best possible way to make that new fight inevitable and formidable. The passage of the Bill went smoothly and quietly

  865
  until some concessions were asked for the tenants. Then, forgetting the generous terms obtained for themselves, the landlords' representatives immediately showed their teeth, and opposed every concession to the tenants whatever. He put it to these hon. Members opposite, who only appeared to be accessible to the pocket argument, did they think that such a temper as they had displayed would facilitate the bargains which they were to make with the tenants? It was one of the characteristics of the Irish people that they would go a long way to make concessions if these were carried out in an atmosphere of general reconciliation and goodwill; and he believed that in such an atmosphere the landlords would get a higher price for their land than they would if they gave to the tenantry of Ireland, and the general public of Ireland, the impression that they were still animated by bitterness and a spirit of vengeance.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he wished to ask the Chief Secretary whether he was correct in understanding the right hon. Gentleman to say that, under Clause 11, the Estates Commissioners were to have all the powers of the Congested Districts Board, and would have the power to use money at their disposal for rebuilding and restocking any new holdings to be created under the Act. Had the Congested Districts Board the power to buy out the interests of existing tenants in order to put the evicted tenants in; and if so, had the Estate Commissioners that power under Clause 11? Secondly, he wished to know whether the money under Clause 11, which was at the disposal of the Estate Commissioners, was available under the Bill as it stood for the purpose of restocking and rebuilding farms, such as these eviction farms?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that his answer to these two questions was certainly in the affirmative. The use of the powers of the Estates Commissioners was to be governed by all he had said that night, and the other night.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked if the right hon. Gentleman would put words in the Bill which would make that plain.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid it was unfortunate that when the proceedings had gone so harmoniously this heat had been generated. He thought there had been a distinct misunderstanding by the hon. Member for East Mayo as to the position of the Irish landlords on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman had stated that in his opinion the Irish landlords were actuated by hostility to the evicted tenants.
  MR. DILLON: The two representatives who spoke.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid he understood that the hon. Gentleman had referred to the general body of Irish landlords; and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Irish landlords, including the two Gentlemen pointed at, did not retain the least hostility to the evicted tenants. Every landlord in Ireland desired that all cause of trouble and dispute should be buried. Their point was simply that the present tenants should not be coerced, either indirectly or directly, to give up their rights. On the other hand, they had no hostility to the evicted tenants, and were glad to see them placed in the best position consistent with the absence of any coercion towards the present tenants. Under this Bill various powers were given. Money was promised to enable these evicted tenants to secure other holdings. Power was also given to deal with these particular lands; estates might be bought, and tenants' interests might be purchased, and there was nothing whatsoever in the Bill to prevent even the exact scheme drawn up by the Amendment from being carried out. The only exception, perhaps, was that of money. This question could not be settled by mere money. But the Bill gave ample powers for the shifting of tenants. If a tenant was in possession of an evicted holding there was nothing to prevent his changing his holding. The whole of these estates were in the hands of the Land Commission. They might be dealt with as one estate, and it was perfectly possible under the Bill to make a shifting arrangement. The Amendment appeared, to a certain extent, to limit the powers of the Commission rather than to extend them. It said, in fact, they might not make arrangements with

  867
  the tenant of an evicted holding, except under certain limited terms. That was not the way to deal with these tenants. The Commissioners had the power to give them another holding, and the evicted tenant could be replaced by means of the money grant to be given under the Bill. It had been admitted that the Chief Secretary had sympathetically asserted that it was his wish and desire that this question should be settled; but it had been said by the hon. Member for East Mayo that the Irish landlords had not delivered themselves in the same sense. On behalf of the Irish landlords, however, he begged to say that they took exactly the same view as that entertained by the Chief Secretary; they were just as anxious to pour oil on these troubled waters. He felt certain that the object would be better secured by relying on the declarations that had been made than by inserting in the Bill anything to limit rather than increase its powers. He made these observations with a view to, and in the hope of, securing a spirit of tranquillity in Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to state whether, in a case where a farm was occupied by a new tenant, and the latter was willing to go to another farm, or to receive a certain sum as compensation for relinquishing his holding, the Land Commissioners, if they thought it fit an arrangement should be made, would have the power to make such arrangement under Clause 11.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, certainly.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDthought the question was very largely met. He believed, in spite of what had been said to the contrary, that a great majority of the landlords would be glad to have some arrangement by which new tenants of evicted farms would give them up and allow the old tenants to be reinstated. He had been approached by friends of landlords in the county of Clare with regard to bringing about a settlement of that nature. In one case the new tenant had carried on the farm without profit either to himself or the landlord, and they were extremely anxious for an arrangement to be made. A resale was arrived at,
  868
  the new tenant surrendered the farm voluntarily, and the old tenant was restored.
  MR. FLYNNsaid all they desired was to include in the four corners of the Bill the reinstatement of the evicted tenants so far as possible on an equitable basis. There could not be the difficulty that some hon. Members had tried to make out, because he knew of a considerable number of evicted farms which were being worked at the present time by the occupants at a loss, and which were rented at much lower sums than had been paid by the former tenants.
  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.

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.]
  Clause 5:—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 18, at the end, to insert the words, (4) 'Where the Estates Commissioners purchase an estate under the provisions of this Act, or where the landlord is selling his estate to the tenants or former tenants thereof under the Land Purchase Acts, and there are upon such estate tenants in occupation of holdings from which other tenants were evicted within twenty-live years before the passing of this Act, it shall be lawful for the said Estates Commissioners to arrange for the surrender to them or to the landlord, as the case may be, of such holdings by the tenants in occupation thereof, on such terms as may be agreed upon, including the transfer of such tenants to other holdings or the payment of such sums of money as compensation for such surrenders as they may think fit, not exceeding in any one case twice the amount of the annual rent payable by each such tenant. And, upon such surrender as aforesaid being made, it shall be lawful for the said Estates Commissioners to reinstate in their holdings the former tenants thereof, and thereupon such former tenants so reinstated shall have the same rights under

  869
  the Land Purchase Acts as they would have had if they had never been evicted from such holdings.'"—(Mr. William O'Brien.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Mr. FLYNN, continuing his remarks, said he thought on this occasion the representatives of the landlords might have acted more generously. Whatever objections the Irish Nationalists had to the Bill those objections had nothing to do with what the landlords would get out of it, and it was disappointing to find hon. Gentlemen opposite coming forward now and invoking the sacred name of the British taxpayer who, in the language of hon. Members, had been for many years a by-word and reproach, but who, whether they had been right or wrong in their action, were entitled to be considered. This clause would only come into operation when the landlord sold direct to the Land Commission and not when he and his tenants agreed together. He would not prolong the discussion, because he was in hopes that the Government had not really said the last word on this matter. He hoped that before the discussion came to an end they would have a communication from the Government that they were prepared to go somewhat further, or, at any rate, to make Clause 11 more comprehensive. No self-respecting body of public men in Ireland would ever consent to the d liberate abandonment of the evicted tenants of Ireland, who had made those great sacrifices for principle, without trying to do something to prevent them being a by-word and a reproach.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to consider whether before they came to Clause 11 he could not introduce some words that would save them from the possibility of the failure of the object they had so much at heart. He also asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would enlarge the powers of the Commissioners under Clause 11, so that those powers should apply to the case of direct transactions between landlord and tenant, as well as to cases in which the land was vested in the Commissioners.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was quite ready in respect of this question and other questions which might arise to see before Report whether it was possible in all cases to deal with estates, which the landlord sold to his tenants by private arrangement, on all fours with the procedure applicable to estates held by the Commissioners. He was bound to say, however, that there were great practical difficulties, particularly when the expenditure of public money was being dealt with. That did not preclude an arrangement being come to on many of these questions, because where the employment of public funds was proper and desirable the simple plan was for the landlord to sell that part of his property to the Estates Commissioners. He did not think that, as far as principle was concerned, there was any difference between himself and hon. Gentlemen opposite. As far as the easy administration of the Act was concerned, there was a good deal between them however, but they were in far closer agreement than many would have supposed. They practically came to agreement on the previous Wednesday, when he ventured to lay down three principles—(1) that it was desirable to settle the evicted tenants question—(2), that no pressure in favour of the evicted tenants should be put on those holdings now in the occupation of others, and (3) that in using the powers of this Bill to settle the land question they ought not to single out one class for preferential treatment to the detriment of another. All those principles were accepted without dissent. They were affirmed in Clause 2, and must be also affirmed in Clause 11, and if Clause 11 was not perspicuous it must be made so.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid the right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards this Amendment was, under difficult circumstances, a friendly and satisfactory one No one regretted more than he did one or two passages in the rather unhappy speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, but in a matter of this kind he was not disposed to magnify differences, and he preferred to remember the frank and friendly speech of the hon. Member for South Hackney. He could not forget

  871
  also that in this and other critical passages of the Bill those who had a right to speak for the majority of the Irish landlords had not failed to show their sympathy. They recognised that substantially the object of the Amendment was gained, and as they did not wish to fight for shadows he would ask leave to withdraw it; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would devise some means that would save him and them from the lawyers.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DILLONmoved the omission of Sub-section (4), which apparently gave to the Lord Lieutenant under certain circumstances the power to enable the Estates Commissioners to buy an estate without taking any steps to inquire what price the tenants were able to give.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (4)."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the sub-section would be necessary to the proper working of the Act. On many properties in Ireland there were difficulties as to the arrangements for access to turbary and other easements, which were hard to overcome, and the landlord was hung up by quarrels, not between himself and his tenantry, but between two sections of his tenantry. It was to meet such cases that the subsection was intended. But the matter was one which could perhaps be better discussed on Clause 17.
  MR. DILLONsaid the advantage of freely discussing these points was shown by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had completely converted him to the idea that the Amendment was unnecessary. He would therefore ask leave to withdraw it.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would like to point out that they were putting a great deal of responsibility on the
  872
  Estates Commissioners, and they could not undertake to give them minute instructions in all these small matters.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TULLYmoved an Amendment empowering the Lord Lieutenant, where necessary for the preservation of the peace, to dispense with the conditions as to voluntary sale, and to direct the application of the provisions of the Land Clauses Act to the purchase of an estate. He said that the Amendment was to provide for those cases where disturbance resulted from variation in the conditions of neighbouring tenants. He thought it would be very desirable for the Lord Lieutenant to have this power. The Amendment was suggested by hon. Members belonging to the Liberal Party, and he regretted that some were not present at that moment to advocate it. The concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman had practically wiped out the zone system, and he did not believe tenants would purchase unless under Schedule prices. In Galway in 1890 the average price of land was fourteen years purchase; in 1892 it was sixteen years purchase, and in 1894 it was ten years purchase. In 1896 it was eleven years, whereas in 1895 it was thirteen years. In Mayo, Roscommon, and Sligo the averages had varied from six to sixteen years purchase, and it certainly would not be fair to compel new purchasers to purchase under a zone system which would make the price equal to thirty-two years purchase of second-term rents. It could only produce public disturbance. He begged to move—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 23, at end, to insert the words 'and the Lord Lieutenant shall, where it is necessary for the preservation of the peace, dispense with the conditions as to voluntary sale, and direct the provisions of the Land Clauses Act as shall apply to the purchase of an estate by the Land Commission and the resale to the tenants where it can be effected without prospect of loss.'"—(Mr. Tully.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not see how voluntary purchase could lead to disturbance. The Amendment would rather defeat its own object of promoting the peace. All were agreed to give the present Bill a trial; and the whole of Ireland was united in putting compulsion on one side. [Mr. DILLON: For the present.] Then why bring up this question of compulsion again and again when it had no chance of acceptance by any section of the House?
  MR. TULLYsaid he brought it up because on the Second Reading he had no chance of stating his views on it. He would, however, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DILLONrose to move an Amendment to introduce a power of compulsion in dealing with these questions. He said they were making a really serious attempt to deal with the problem of re-settlement in the West of Ireland, and he thought it would be found to be the universal opinion that, unless some form of compulsion was introduced, it would not be possible to settle the question. He had on the Paper an Amendment to Clause 72, to give compulsory powers to the Congested Districts Board.
  *THE CHAIRMANruled that the point could not be discussed at that stage, and the Amendment was not therefore proposed.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 29, to leave out from the word 'case' to end of line 30."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. TULLYnext moved an Amendment extending the definition of an estate under the clause. He pointed out that a large number of small tenants on the fringe of grazing farms were absolutely shut out by the definition given in the sub-section, and he said he was confident that the acceptance of his Amendment would give universal satisfaction in Ireland.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 34, to leave out the words 'an estate,' and to insert the words 'any estate in the province of Connaught, and counties of Donegal, Clare, Kerry, and Cork.'"—(Mr. Tully.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. Gentleman could not have considered the matter very carefully. The Amendment would not effect the object which he had in view, and he ought to remember that congestion was sporadic.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. MURPHYpointed out that according to Sub-section 4 of Clause 1, congested estates were excluded from the zones, and he thought it very necessary to add the words, "or part of an estate situated in a congested districts county." This Amendment would cover such cases as that of the Kenmare estate in the County of Kerry, the congested portion of which would be shut out by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He wanted to protect the tenants of the bad part of that estate.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 38, at end to insert the words 'or part of an estate situated in a congested districts county.'"
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMpointed out that the scheduling of congested districts was somewhat accidental and arbitrary, and it was notorious that in uncongested districts they might have a worse state of affairs than in congested districts. The Government came forward with this plan for defining congestion wherever it existed, and congestion so defined was outside any provision other than that it might be bought, while in order to carry out the improvements which might be necessary to improve the state of affairs, public money to the extent of 10 per cent. on the aggregate transactions might be expended.
  MR. DILLONagreed that the definition ought to extend to all congestion, but the original definition of a congested district was preposterous. He had an Amendment lower on the Paper which he thought was of great importance; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would accept that?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Amendment of the hon. Member is already in the Bill.
  MR. DILLONdoubted whether that was so, but it would be more convenient to explain the point when the Amendment was reached.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid the Committee ought to know exactly where they stood with regard to the zones in congested districts. He was perfectly satisfied that the definition should apply outside the scheduled districts, but he desired to know whether congested parts of the country would be brought within the zones if they were not excluded by the exemptions already made. If so, the tenants, instead of twelve, fourteen, or sixteen years purchase, would have to pay twenty-two years purchase, which was an impossible price for such districts. In County Kerry alone there were 12,000 holdings of under £5 valuation, with a population living upon them of 67,000, or an average of 14s. per head. The same thing obtained in most of the other congested counties. But as they would not be congested under the present definition, they would be compelled to purchase within the zones, a fact which he feared would render the Bill inoperative so far as they were concerned.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that in any case this Amendment would not carry out the objects of which hon. Members had spoken. The portion "or part of an estate" was covered by the provision that an estate was whatever the Commissioners defined as an estate. Districts were at present scheduled having regard to the relation of rateable value to population and various matters other than actual congestion. The Government might have said that the Congested Districts Board should deal with congestion wherever it occurred. They considered that plan and rejected it, because the
  876
  officers of the Board were known in the congested districts but not elsewhere, and there were other difficulties in the way. Another suggestion was to absorb the Board in the new Department, but that would have involved the loss of the valuable asset comprised in the fact that the members and officers of the Congested Districts Board were known in the congested districts. The Government aimed at preserving the Board in the areas where they could work most effectively, and then said that wherever the Land Commission certified it to be a right and proper district an estate should be defined as congested, and should get the advantage of the 10 per cent. for carrying out works and the bonus, but should not have to come within the zones. That plan combined the maximum of the advantages of the existing system with the maximum of the advantages of the system now to be brought in. Sub-section 6 must not be taken without Sub-section 5; the former was really only the Treasury check.
  MR. MURPHYwas afraid the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the point he desired to bring out. Three-fourths of the Kenmare estate, under Clause 1, was non-congested; the remaining one-fourth was scheduled as a congested district, and, judged from every point of view, deserved to be regarded as such. If the landlord wanted to sell to his tenants, would not the tenants on that remaining one-fourth—who would not come under the definition of this sub-section—have to make the same terms as those on the other three-fourths?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Certainly not.
  MR. MURPHYunderstood that as the whole estate would have to be sold the congested portion would have to come to the same terms as the uncongested portion, and remain within the zones.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that was not the case. That matter was decided on Clause 1, upon which they could not go back.
  MR. MURPHYsaid that as the Chief Secretary was so confident on the matter he would not press the Amendment.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked whether he understood that if tenants and landlord on an estate in a congested district as at present scheduled, desired to buy and sell, and the land did not come within the definition of this sub-section, they could do so outside the zones.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid they could do that under Clause 1, subject to the words he had inserted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DILLONsaid that if the Amendment he now desired to move was in the Bill already, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, the discussion would be very brief. He agreed that the definition ought to extend over the whole of Ireland. The Bagot estate might be taken as an example. More than half the area was grass land; it was an ideal estate for the purposes of migration; but under this definition it would not be a congested estate because less than half the area was occupied by holders of less than £5 valuation. There were many estates outside the scheduled congested districts, the greater part of the area of which was held by three or four large grass farmers, but they would not be classified as congested because less than half was held by the poorer people. If the right hon. Gentleman could show that that point was already covered by the Bill, he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 34, to leave out from the second word 'estate,' to the second word 'of,' in line 35, and to insert the words 'whether situated in a congested districts county or not, a substantial part.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENstrongly urged the right hon. Gentleman to extend the definition in the sense proposed by the Amendment. He could scarcely call to mind a score of estates outside the
  878
  scheduled areas that would come under the definition of Sub-section 6. The general configuration of the country had to be borne in mind. In many places there were large stretches of magnificent land which would not come within this definition, but around which there was a regular ring of little villages of poor people who probably had been evicted from the richer land. These people were as congested as they could possibly be, but they would be shut out from the benefits of this clause because of the rich lands which were not theirs, but were in the occupation probably of some large grazier living in Dublin or London. This was really the kernel of the whole difficulty. Unless these rich lands were made available for the people, the Government were simply proposing to feed the dog with its own tail by making the very poverty of the land its disqualification. By accepting the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman would leave the Estates Commissioners the supreme judges of what constituted congestion, a question which could be settled only according to the particular local circumstances of each estate. Unless some such Amendment was accepted there would be a necessity to bring in a subsequent measure to amend the imperfections of this definition.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that this was a question of great complexity, and the Government had carefully considered all the alternatives before deciding on the plan in the Bill. The Commissioners were made the judges of what constituted congestion. The definition of congestion was not in Sub section 6; that was the Treasury check on the definition of congestion. The greater part of the definition was in Sub-section 5, although possibly it was not admirably worded—
  "If the Land Commission certify to the Lord Lieutenant that the purchase and resale of the estate are desirable in view of the wants and circumstances of the tenants thereon …"
  that was the real essential definition of congestion. Then came the next point in this complex matter—What was an estate? According to the Bill, an estate was whatever the Estates Commissioners declared to be fit to be treated as an estate. The Bill, therefore, did what the hon. Member for Cork desired; the

  879
  Commissioners were to be the judges of what was congestion, but the Treasury placed a limit upon their judgment to the extent of saying that at least one-half of the holdings must be of such a character.
  MR. DILLONsaid the question at issue was an exceedingly important one. Sub-section 5 gave a most important power to the Land Commission, but that power was controlled by Sub-section 6. The Treasury check was a very bad one, and it was just the kind of thing against which he and others had been struggling for the last seven or eight years. Three or four times he had been asked by the Chief Secretary to assist in getting through the House after midnight, as unopposed measures, Bills for amending the Congested Districts Act, and there were now seven or eight of those Acts simply because a complete job was not made of the matter at the beginning. What would be the effect of this Treasury check? Suppose an estate, such as the Bagot estate, came into the market, and the Commissioners reported that it was a suitable estate to be treated under this sub-section, they would be met by the Treasury check, and they would be unable so to deal with the estate, because half the area did not consist of bog holdings. Thus, some of the most beneficent work the Commissioners could do would be stopped by this absurd check. In the minds of many hon. Members, who could not follow the technicalities of the Bill, one of its great recommendations was that they had been led to believe that this measure would put an end to this wretched condition of poverty in the west of Ireland. Was it reasonable that the Committee should be asked to assent to this check, which could only have the effect of limiting the power of the Estates Commissioners. The Treasury had the protection of the discretion of a public department in Ireland and if they were not going to trust the Estates Commissioners the position was absurd. They had also the protection of the Lord Lieutenant. They were nevertheless told that this was not sufficient protection and that they must have this Treasury check. He hoped the Chief Secretary would accept this Amendment.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would assume that there was an estate upon which a proportion of not less than one-half in value was badly congested and the rest was good land. This was not a compulsory Bill, and therefore they must assume that the landlord would be contemplating a sale of his property, either going to the tenants himself or to the Estates Commissioners. Let the Committee suppose that this landlord made his own arrangements with his tenants for all the good part of the land, and then proposed to sell only the very bad portion of his property. Supposing it was congested to the worst degree, it was clear that that property ought not to be passed forward under this Bill. The solution in this Bill was that under Clause 85 they would not define such property as an estate at all. As the amount of valuable land in Ireland was distinctly limited, he thought the proportion laid down of not less than half was a fair one. The clause as it stood was necessary to secure that the good land was sold with the bad land, and not separately; that there should be the proportion of good land stipulated in the clause was a necessary security.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that if a grazing farm surrounded by a large number of small holdings exceeded half the rateable value of the area, the Treasury check would prevent the land passing, although it was most desirable that it should be utilised by the neighbouring small holders.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. Member for South Tyrone was stating the reverse of what he had said. Such a property as the hon. Member had described was not an estate, and they would not define it as one.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that those who had seen these Treasury checks in operation knew precisely what they meant and the trouble they gave. This proposal might be clear to the right hon. Gentleman, but unless everything in this Bill was made as clear as possible they might rely upon it that any ambiguity in the intention of the clause would be construed against the tenants in the Irish Courts. Having had painful experience of this in the past, they were determined now to be

  881
  perfectly sure of what they were doing, because they were now dealing with the poorest class of Irish tenants.
  MR. WYNDHAMcontended that by the carrying of this Amendment they would effect nothing, for it did not touch the matter at issue. They touched it under Clause 85, Sub-section 5, and under Clause 7 by getting additional land.
  MR. DILLONsaid that if a landlord was willing to dispose of his grass lands for the sake of the 10 per cent., by this clause they denied to the unfortunate small holders the opportunity of enlarging their holdings. The right hon. Gentleman had now let the cat out of the bag, and this provision was apparently to prevent the landlord from obtaining this 10 per cent. encouragement. He wished to point out the grotesque insufficiency of the Chief Secretary's reply. The right hon. Gentleman said that Clause 85 gave power to insist that the landlord should give a certain amount of the grass lands, or the Commissioners would not allow the estate to pass. Why should that power be confined to getting an area equal in extent to the congested area?
  MR. WYNDHAMcontended that there was nothing to prevent the Commissioners dealing with congestion by the ordinary process, and they could buy three times as much land as that contained in the congested holdings. They could enlarge the holdings and spend money under Clause 11, but they could not in addition to the bonus pay another 10 per cent. upon those transactions. They could put another 10 per cent. on the aggregate of those transactions when the probability of congestion reached a certain pitch.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid he had talked to a great many people in his own constituency, and the cry was "Enlarge your holdings." He suggested to the Chief Secretary that the area should be one-fourth instead of one-half. This was a matter of the most vital consequence to the West of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had been talking about doing a great deal for the
  882
  large tenants, but it was these miserable little holdings of £3 and £4 a year to which he ought to devote his attention.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that if the Chief Secretary kept in the clause this limitation, he would deal with a number of estates which really were, to some extent, congested as not being congested at all, unless under the definition of "estate" in Clause 85 the congested portions would be treated as separate estates. This limit would give rise to a natural suspicion that an attempt might be made to deal with districts which were really not congested as if they were congested. There were districts which were not scheduled as congested districts where the limit mentioned in this clause was not reached, but where there was a great deal of congestion. In such cases care should be taken to treat those districts as though they were in every sense of the word congested districts. In the County of Clare and other districts there was a great deal of congestion, although perhaps it would be hard to find properties where the limit mentioned in his clause was reached. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that this limit should be left to the discretion of the Estates Commissioners, who would be sure to be men amply qualified to discharge their duties. Why should they draw a hard and fast line in this matter?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid they were really discussing particular cases in which it was proper that public money should be lost in ameliorating the condition of these unfortunate places in Ireland. In the congested districts the Congested Districts Board had the power of utilising certain credit transactions. When they got to a later clause hon. Members would see that it was proposed to increase the credit of the Congested Districts Board by adding another £20,000 a year which the Board might lose on its transactions. In addition to the bonus of £12,000,000, it was proposed that there should be an extra Treasury aid of 10 per cent. on the transactions they were dealing with. He thought that was very liberal, and in any case he could not enlarge it.
  MR. TULLYsaid this clause would enable the landlords to dispose of the slum parts of their properties to the ratepayers, while retaining the grazing lands. He instanced the property of Lord De Freyne, in Roscommon, as a case where the congested portion of the estate could be sold and the price obtained out of the ratepayers, and the good land retained in his own possession, or that of his friends. This was one of the most insidious parts of the Bill, and a change should be made to obviate the danger to which he referred.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid there was to his mind no difficulty about the matter. It was true in one sense that Lord De Freyne could sell the congested part of his estate, but on one condition—namely, that he got any man fool enough to buy it. He would assume that Lord De Freyne, or any other landlord, had 1,000 acres of grass land, and 400 acres in the congested portion of his property on which there were 100 families. What could he do with the 400 acres? The Commission would not buy it unless he added 300 acres of grass land. The hon. Member was mistaken as to the nature of the powers of the Land Commission in regard to the enlargement of holdings. The Treasury would only consent to lose money on the 400 acres plus the 300 grass acres. Supposing that the Estates Commissioners were restricted to 300 acres, as far as the enlarging of holdings was concerned, they might add land outside of the estate which had 400 acres in the congested portion.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the addition of 300 acres would obviously not be enough for the 100 families living on the congested portion. The Attorney-General said this could be remedied by getting the land the Commissioners might think necessary to add, but they could not get that additional land on the same terms as the rest. They could not get it by using 10 per cent. of public money. That was their point. They were depriving themselves of the power that was necessary to deal with this problem in a proper and drastic manner. The Chief Secretary stated that this would involve a loss of public money. He admitted the force of that statement, but then
  884
  the whole of this Bill meant a loss of public money. If £12,000,000 were necessary to grease the wheels of the transactions in other parts of Ireland, he did not see why the Government should hesitate at the comparatively small sum that would be required to grease the wheels in dealing with the congested districts.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had in the consideration of the Amendments brought forward by hon. Members from Ireland done his best to meet their views. In this case he did not think there was anything to be gained by continuing the debate, and he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. DILLONsaid he would withdraw his Amendment, but he was still of opinion that the Government had made a very great mistake. The Attorney-General did not know very much about the question. He did not suppose the hon. and learned Gentleman ever crossed the Shannon in his life.
  MR. ATKINSON: Oh, yes, I have.
  MR. DILLONsaid the danger was that the grass lands would pass rapidly into the hands of wealthy graziers and be lost to the people for ever. He was very much surprised that some of the landlords did not back him up in the proposal he had made. The Government had thrown away one of the most powerful means at their command for carrying out the work they professed to be extremely anxious for.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TULLYhoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to accept his Amendment.
  "In page 4, line 35, to leave out the word 'half,' and insert the words 'one-fourth.'"—(Mr. Tully.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'half' stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid this was practically the Amendment they had been discussing for an hour and a half.
  MR. T. M. HEALYappealed to his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment. This was really "tearing a passion to tatters." They heard that every Amendment was "vital," or "important," or "most solemn." They could all be "vital." The important thing was to pass the Bill.
  MR. TULLYsaid he was jumped upon early in the evening for daring to speak of compulsory sale, but hon. Members who did not wish him to press this Amendment had been talking all the evening in favour of compulsory sale. As he did not wish to take up the time of the Committee he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WYNDHAMmoved the omission of the words "ten acres in area and." By leaving out the area his definition of congestion was not affected, but it gave more elasticity to the Treasury check.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 36, to leave out the words 'ten acres in area and.'"—(Mr. Wyndham).
  Amendment agreed to.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBmoved—"In Clause 5, page 4, lines 36 and 37, leave out 'or of mountain or bog land.'" He asked for a definition of mountain or bog land. He thought there would be more elasticity in the clause if these words were left out.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, lines 36 and 37, to leave out the words 'or of mountain or bog land.'"—(Sir John Colomb.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was well aware that there was some mountain land which would be a great additional source of wealth to the tenants on an estate, but on the other hand he had seen mountain lands which would present great difficulty when they were dealing with the Treasury.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SHEEHANmoved—"In Clause 5, page 4, line 38, at end, add 'or an estate in any rural district in which it shall be certified by a chairman of a Rural District Council that labourers, as defined in the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, as amended by this Act, are without suitable homes and allotments." As one sincerely interested in the labourers of Ireland he hoped the Chief Secretary would be able to accept this Amendment. The debate on the question of the labourers which took place in the afternoon would have had one advantage if it had impressed on the Government the importance of the question, and the necessity of dealing with the labourers in a reasonable manner. He held, of course, that the evicted tenants had the first claim on the untenanted land, but once their claims were satisfied the labourers had a claim to the grazing lands.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 38, at end, to add the words 'or an estate in any rural district in which it shall be certified by a chairman of a Rural District Council that labourers, as defined in the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, as amended by this Act, are without suitable homes and allotments.'"—(Mr. Sheehan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he did not go back on what he said in the afternoon. He hoped the hon. Member would not raise any further question about the labourers at present. The Committee had only disposed of two clauses in a whole Parliamentary day.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  CAPTAIN DONELANhad the following Amendment on the Notice Paper—"In Clause 5, page 4, line 38, at end, add, (7) Where the Estates Commissioners, in exercise of the powers vested in them by this Act, sell to a labourer a holding or a parcel of land situated in a rural district which comprises a congested estate as defined by this section, it shall be lawful for them to treat said labourer in all respects as if he had been residing in a congested

  887
  districts county, and they shall have all the powers to improve the said holding and assist said labourers that are possessed by the Congested Districts Board for aiding migrants in a congested districts county under the provisions of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts as amended by this Act."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 38, at end, to add the words '(7) Where the Estates Commissioners, in exercise of the powers vested in them by this Act, sell to a labourer a holding or a parcel of land situated in a rural district which comprises a congested estate as defined by this section, it shall be lawful for them to treat said labourer in all respects as if he had been residing in a congested districts county, and they shall have all the powers to improve the said holding and assist said labourers that are possessed by the Congested Districts Board for aiding migrants in a congested districts county under the provisions of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts as amended by this Act.'"—(Captain Donelan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. WYNDHAMasked the hon. Member to defer the consideration of the question of the labourers.
  CAPTAIN DONELANagreed to the request.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALYappealed to the Chief Secretary to ask his friends below the gangway to be equally moderate.
  Clauses, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  *MR. BUTCHERmoved an Amendment on Clause 6 with the object of limiting the new and drastic method of sale set up by the clause to insolvent estates. In the case of such estates what was proposed was a good method of facilitating sale, but in the case of solvent estates, unless this Amendment were conceded they might have them sold by auction at a great undervalue. He would point out that unless the Amendment was accepted they might have a perfectly solvent estate wrecked. Hon. Members knew that estates in Ireland were constantly sold merely for
  888
  administrative purposes; and in a case like that the owner ought to be allowed to negotiate with the tenants and not be forced to sell the estate by auction, which was recognised on all hands as being an impossible mode of effecting advantageous sales in Ireland.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 2, after the figures 1858 to insert the words 'and to which the provisions of Section 40 of the Act of 1896 apply.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that this Amendment was the greatest satire on the Landed Estate Court ever moved. He asked what business had solvent estates to come into that Court? They were only a nuisance in Judge Ross's Court. Why should not a solvent estate stand the risk of the auctioneer's hammer? The proposal of the Government was really a necessity of the time. The ultimate fate of this Bill was a matter of the time of the House. Again and again the representatives of the tenants had telescoped their remarks in the interests of the Bill, and the landlord party must reciprocate.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he hoped his hon. friend would not persevere with his Amendment. The Land Judge always gave an opportunity to remove a solvent estate out of the Court.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid that if his right hon. friend assured him that what he had in view would be met without any Amendment of this sort, he did not wish to insist upon it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DILLONsaid he had put down on the Paper a series of Amendments, the purpose of which was to modify the procedure of the Land Judge's Court. The first was "Clause 6, page 5, line 3, leave out 'may,' and insert 'shall.'"
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 3, leave out the word 'may,' and insert the word 'shall.'"—Mr. Dillon.
  Question proposed, "That the word may' stand part of the clause."
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that for many months the Land Judge and the Land Commission were at loggerheads upon the 40th Section of the Act of 1896; and it was important to leave as little discretion to the Land Judge as possible.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid if the word "shall" was inserted it would make it impossible for the Judge to have any discretion. There were times when the word "may" was of as much vital importance as the word "shall."
  MR. DILLONsaid he did not wish to take up the time of the House further, and he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DILLONsaid his next Amendment was—"Clause 6, page 5, line 12, after 'loss,' insert 'and after giving all parties interested an opportunity of being heard, fix the price at which, in their opinion, the estate or part thereof should be sold to the tenant in occupation thereof discharged of all superior or intervening interests, and shall accordingly." He moved this Amendment in order to raise what appeared to him an exceedingly important point. The clause, as it stood, would, he contended, do nothing to clear out the Land Judge's Court; in fact, it would leave the matter worse than under the 40th Section of the Act of 1896. There was nothing in the Clause to prevent an estate being kept in the Court and nursed for twenty-five years, so as not to be sold. The Land Judge had persistently refused to give the information to the House of Commons which they had asked for, and they were consequently in the dark as to the condition of the Court. A Question had been asked as to the number of the estates which were in the Land Court, and their rental, and they were told that that information could not be got because the Court was too busy. They were obliged to fall back on some statistics provided by the President of the Board
  890
  of Trade. These showed that in 1894 there were 1,500 estates in the Land Court, that in the case of 1,266 receivers had been appointed, and that the rentals amounted to £648,000. Most of these estates had been in the Court for years, and had been vainly offered to the public, because the Judge did not think the price tendered was sufficient. The Court had in fact drifted more and more into the position of a collector of rents of bankrupt estates; and under the present arrangement he saw no prospect of any reform being brought about. The Prime Minister had said that probably one-sixth or one seventh of the land in Ireland was in the hands of this Judge, and did not properly belong to the Irish landlords at all. How could these estates be properly managed by a Court or a Judge? The thing was so absurd that it would not be tolerated in any other country in the world. What made the system more monstrous was that, in the opinion of good lawyers, it was illegal. The Court was set up under the Encumbered Estates Act of 1849, for the purpose of facilitating and accelerating the transfer of laud in Ireland; but on the passing of the Judicature Act in 1877 the Court was merged with the Court of Chancery, and the practice of the Court of Chancery was incorporated with it. For the first twenty years the interests of the tenants had never been mentioned at all. The practice of the Court had been to sell by auction all the estates that came into the Court at a rough general average of from twelve to fourteen years' purchase of the rental, without the slightest reference to the interests of the tenants. But, after 1879, when the Court availed itself of the Chancery jurisdiction, they blocked all the sales, and they commenced to use the machinery of the Court to nurse bankrupt estates, and to collect rents for the immense number of receivers which were appointed. The sale department was entirely closed, and, when a new judge was appointed in 1885, Judge Boyle, he introduced a more robust system of collecting rents, by sending the tenants to gaol, and by invoking the machinery of contempt of Court, to collect rents.
  He did not think there was any part of the land system of Ireland which needed more remedy than this. He knew that under it men had

  891
  been sent to gaol for an offence which was not known to the criminal law at all, and kept there until they were almost forgotten. He was credibly informed in one case in which the man was kept in prison for two years, and was in danger of losing his mind. He maintained that this was an atrocious system, and a montrous position of affairs. His Amendment would have the effect of enabling the Land Commission to make proposals to the Land Judge for the purchase of an estate in the Land Judge's Court; and that when an agreed price had been offered the Land Judge should make an order vesting the estate in the Land Commission. That, of course, raised the question of compulsory sale; but not any more than it was raised under Section 40 of the Act of 1896. The Amendment would not push the principle of compulsion one inch against the landlord. Section 40 provided that in the case of an estate for which a receiver was appointed there should be compulsory sale as against the landlord; and all his Amendment proposed was to withdraw from the Land Judge's Court the power of blocking the sale of such estates. He thought that was not an unreasonable proposal at that time of day. Section 40 had been in operation for several years; but it absolutely had produced no effect. The condition of things in the Landed Estates Court was just the same; and he thought in that Bill they were entitled to press for an improvement.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 12, after the word 'loss,' to insert the words 'and after giving all parties interested an opportunity of being heard, fix the price at which, in their opinion, the estate or part thereof should be sold to the
  892
  tenant in occupation thereof discharged of all superior or intervening interests, and shall accordingly.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that most of what the hon. Gentleman had stated was merely pushing an open door. The Government desired as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite to clear up the Landed Estates Court. The Estates Commissioners would be empowered to make an offer for an estate, and it would not be competent for a Judge to hang up its affairs. The Judge must bring the estate to auction; but he should not be compelled to accept any offer which appeared to him to be unreasonable or unjust.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that no one knew more about the matter than the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. At the same time, he wished to express sympathy with the hon. Member for East Mayo. It was a matter in which something ought to be done; and if the Government would only take their courage in both hands something would be done. At present it was almost impossible to ascertain what went on in the Court. On the other hand, there was some excuse for the non-making of a Return. A Return was moved for by the late Member for Cork, a relative of his own. He pressed for it very strongly, but found that the congestion in the Court was so enormous, the staff so slender, and the parsimony of the Treasury so awful that it was quite impossible to get the existing clerks to put their heads down and work out the Return that was required. Therefore, on

  893
  the whole, he had given those men some measure of absolution for not providing the Return, yet the fact remained that this House had been denied information with reference to one-seventh of the land of Ireland, and they were absolutely in the dark regarding it. There were questions of tremendous magnitude raised at every moment in connection with this Bill; but the Attorney-General knew the question down to the bottom, and he knew the necessity for an improvement. Owing to the lateness of the hour he would not press the matter further, but he would suggest to the Government that they should to-morrow suspend the twelve o'clock rule in order that they might be able to get on in a friendly manner among themselves.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had had opportunities of discussing this clause with Judge Ross, who he could assure hon. Members wanted to clear his Court. But they could not exercise compulsory action in connection with a Judge of the High Court. He urged hon. Members not to press the Amendment, but to let the clause and the next three clauses pass. If the anticipation that he held out to hon. Members as to there being no difficulty under this clause was not realised, the remedy would be a simple one next session.
  MR. DILLONsaid he was very much inclined to accept the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman; but when the right hon. Gentleman asked him to take it that Judge Ross wanted to clear his Court he absolutely declined. The right hon. Gentleman in consulting Judge Ross could not have consulted a worse man. The answer of the right hon.
  894
  Gentleman enormously strengthened his objection. The right hon. Gentleman said that they could not criticise a Judge of the Supreme Court; but it was an outrage that one-seventh of the land in Ireland should be under a Land Judge who was practically in the position of a landlord, but who could not be criticised. The hon. Gentleman said that the matter could be dealt with next session, but he did not know where the right hon. Gentleman or any other Member of the House would be next session. Did the right hon. Gentleman ask him to seriously believe that there would be another Land Bill next session? Was there to be a new Land Bill every session? That was an absurd prospect. He would not move his Amendment now, but he would reserve to himself the slender consolation of renewing the subject on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELLsaid that having regard to the request of the Chief Secretary he would not move his Amendment.
  Clause 6, agreed to.
  Clauses 7 and 8, agreed to.
  Clause 9.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that the Government might easily dispose of this clause by striking it out altogether.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was willing to leave out all words from "Pastoral" to the end of the clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the whole clause ought to be omitted. They were now agreed on Ashbourne terms, and there fore the definition of an estate was unnecessary.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not strike out the whole of the clause; but he was prepared to omit the latter part.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that the clause was absolutely inconsistent with the new clause which the right hon. Gentleman had undertaken to move.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that it was not a question of holdings, but a question of estates.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 6, line 38, to leave out all words from 'pastoral' to end of Clause."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10, agreed to.
  Clause 11.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that as the hon. Member for Cork City, who had Amendments to move, was not present, he would move to report Progress.
  MR. DILLONasked if the right hon. Gentleman would have the Bill reprinted, as in its present form it was very inconvenient.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he hoped to be able to arrange that.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  POST OFFICE SITES (RECOMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 6.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he wished to ask the Postmaster-General if any arrangements had been made about a generating station.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said he was making inquiries as to whether he could obtain a supply of electricity suitable for Post Office purposes from private contractors, in case he was not able to come to satisfactory terms with the Company.
  Bill reported without Amendment.

  SUPPLY [25TH JUNE].
  Resolution reported.

  CLASS II.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £96,499, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Twelve O'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7); South Shields Corporation.
Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill: Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The order made on Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed.
Brighton Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit again till Tuesday, the 7th of July next.
Kip's Patents Bill [H.L.]; Birmingham District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Bradford Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
North British Railway (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Yarborough, the Lord Middleton, and the Lord Glenesk be proposed to the House as Members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Lytton, the Lord Bolton, and the Lord Hatherton,
722
and that the Lord Glenesk be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.
Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North-Western Railways (Steam Vessels) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Brougham and Vaux be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Earl of Belmore, and that the Lord Brougham and Vaux be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers) Bill; East Ham Improvement Bill; Great Western Railway Bill; Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill; North-Eastern Railway Bill; Wolverhampton and Cannock Chase Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Romford and District Tramways Bill; Wood Green Urban District Council Bill; Beckenham Urban District Council Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; viz.:

D. Bedford,

D. Newcastle,

E. Temple,

L. Berwick,

L. Ribblesdale (chairman);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Thursday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill. Committee of the whole House (which stands appointed for this day), put off till To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill. Brought from the Commons. Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 147.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3009. Japan.
  No. 3010. France (Corsica).
  No. 3011. France (Dunkirk).
  No. 3012. China (Swatow).
  No. 3013. China (Kiungchow).
  No. 3014. Sweden (Stockholm and the Eastern Coast).
  No. 3015. Austria-Hungary (Trieste).
  Presented [by Command]; and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
  Account of the receipts and expenditure under the Seamen's Fund Winding-up Act, from 1st January to 31st December, 1902.
  Fifty-seventh Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy, to the Lord Chancellor.
  SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS FUND) (SAVINGS BANKS FUND) (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES FUND).
  Accounts for the year ended 31st December, 1902.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 22nd June, 1903, declaring that Paul Powell, Royal Carriage Department, War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department.
  Laid before the House [pursuant to Act]; and ordered to lie on the Table.

  GUINEA POSTAL ORDERS BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow (The Earl of Mayo.) (No. 141.)
  County Courts Jurisdiction Extension Bill (No. 142); Military Lands Bill (No. 143); Incest Bill (No. 144); Addenbrooke's Hospital Bill (No. 145); Pistols Bill (No. 146).
  Brought from the Commons. Read 1a, and to be printed.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to Order) and dispensed with. Bill read 3a, and passed.

  IMPERIAL FISCAL POLICY.
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to call the attention of the House to statements made by the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary, and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when His Majesty's Government intend to lay before Parliament their proposals to induce Germany to modify her tariff regulations with the Dominion of Canada. In doing so I must direct attention to statements that have been made by certain eminent men in regard to this matter. The Prime Minister stated a few days ago—
  "I have not hesitated to say that if other methods failed I do not shrink from retaliation."
  And the Colonial Secretary stated, at the same time, in the House of Commons—
  "If there had been nothing in the condition of our colonies which justified allusion to this matter, I agree in that case there would have been no immediate urgency — immediate urgency not arising. But is the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman) so behind the times that he knows of no urgency?"
  Now, we have got a statement which, I think, is of considerable importance, that this question of the tariff arrangements between Germany and Canada is one of urgency. We have been told, and I do not wish to quarrel with that statement, that the general question of our fiscal policy is one which cannot be decided at once, but ought to be left for an open investigation for several months. But then, my Lords, a debate was initiated by a noble Earl in this House. Lord Camperdown, on a question to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for

  725
  Foreign Affairs, and whilst I am sure that was not the intention of my noble friend, yet certainly the effect of his speech was to imply that in this matter Germany had acted in a way which was unduly and unnecessarily hostile both in spirit and intention to the Dominion of Canada. I am confident that there is not one of your Lordships who does not desire to cherish and to strengthen the ties between this country and Canada; but while I would wish to do that, and to do justice in every sense to our fellow-countrymen in Canada, I think it would be very mischievous if a wrong impression got abroad in regard to the conduct of Germany in this matter. The feeling that Germany had been behaving in a rather high-handed manner, to say the least of it, was rather emphasised in the speech of the noble Marquess the Foreign Secretary. In reply to the question and the speech of my noble friend Lord Camperdown, the noble Marquess rather compared the position of this country to that of an unprotected person in a lawless country. He said—
  "To my mind the present position is almost intolerable. If we take the opportunity of supplying ourselves with a revolver, and let it be seen by everybody that we have got one, and that it is rather larger than anybody else's, my own impression is that we shall find ourselves carefully let alone."
  Certainly, the effect of those words in the country, whatever may have been the intention of the noble Marquess, was to emphasise and to give force to the view that in this matter we had a reasonable ground of complaint against the attitude of the German Government.
  Let us examine shortly, but carefully, the history of this matter. Before 1897 the treaty between this country and Germany was in force which had existed since 1865. That treaty contained a stipulation that there should be absolute equality of treatment between German and British goods in British Colonial markets. In 1897 Sir Wilfrid Laurier changed that policy by giving to this country a preferential tariff in respect to goods sent from this country as against Germany. The result of that was that a correspondence arose between the German Government and our Government, and Lord Salisbury, who was at that time Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
  726
  gave notice that he desired to terminate the existing treaty. The treaty was terminated, and Germany declined at the time to enter into a new treaty because she said her whole tariff system was going to be overhauled in 1903. And here I may venture to say that I do most earnestly trust that in any future arrangement with Germany the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will be able to secure the best treatment that can possibly be obtained for Canada. However, the new treaty was, as I say, declined by Germany, but in the meantime a modus vivendi was arrived at between the German Government and the British Government by which the most-favoured-nation clause was retained to this country, but, of course, Canada was exempted from it. The gist of the whole controversy depends upon the answer to the question whether or not Canada has been and is a fiscal unit of the Empire. It was maintained by the Canadian Government that Canadians had a right to be treated in precisely the same way as the States of the German Confederation, and as France, Spain, and Belgium treat their colonies. But, my Lords, the great difference between the two cases is that the colonies of France, Spain, and other European nations are answerable for the fiscal policy of the mother country without their consent. It has always been the policy of this country—I think I may say the admitted and the wise policy of this country ever since we lost the greatest colony we had in America through adopting a different policy—that the colonies should be perfectly independent and free in regard to their fiscal arrangements.
  But apart from this general theory and this general practice, I would remind your Lordships that the Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Charles Tupper, contracted a commercial treaty on behalf of Canada with France only a few years ago—namely, in 1893, and that treaty was ratified by Her Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada but not with the advice and consent of the Legislature in this country. Again, Lord Salisbury himself, in a despatch in reference to the treaty of

  727
  1865, which was being discussed in 1897, said that—
  "For many years past the self-governing colonies have enjoyed complete tariff autonomy, and in all recent commercial treaties concluded by Great Britain it has been customary to insert an article empowering the self-governing colonies to adhere or not at will."
  At that time, and when Germany declined to make a new treaty, the matter dropped. Mr. Buxton was told in the House of Commons that no correspondence passed between the Governments of this country and of the Dominion of Canada, or between this country and Germany, on the subject for 1900, 1901 and 1902. Well, in 1903 came the Colonial Conference, when we all most heartily and cordially welcomed the Colonial Premiers to this country. In the Report of the Colonial Conference, page 39, will be found these words—
  "In connection with the discussion of the question of preferential trade the Conference also considered the point raised by the Commonwealth Government as to the possibility of the colonies losing most-favoured-nation treatment in foreign countries in the event of their giving a tariff preference to British goods. As, however, the exports from the colonies to foreign countries are almost exclusively articles of food, or raw materials for various industries, the possibility of discrimination against them in foreign markets was not regarded as serious, and as the exports from foreign countries to the colonies are mainly manufactured articles it was recognised that if such discrimination did take place the colonies had an effective remedy in their own hands."
  Now, inasmuch as this matter was allowed to drop for several years and is stated in the Report of the Colonial Conference of last summer not to be serious, I cannot understand why now we are told by the Colonial Secretary that this is a matter of urgency.
  I should like also to call your Lordships' attention to another aspect of the question. I am sure that the impression is very largely entertained abroad that the effect of these preferential tariffs is very considerable in regard to our trade with Canada. Sir Wilfrid Laurier started his policy in 1897. The preference that was then given to this country on goods amounted to 12½ per cent.; that, again, was raised in 1900 to 33 per cent., and yet, as I shall be able to show your Lordships, the trade between this country and Canada has
  728
  diminished since these preferential tariffs were in existence. One fact goes, perhaps, some way to explain that, and it is this, that the Canadian Government, before giving us these preferential tariffs, raised the duties on cotton goods and lowered the duties on raw material, which, of course, are the great American imports into Canada. The Canadian tariff rate on printed cottons was raised 30 to 35 per cent. before the preferential tariff came into play. Inasmuch as half the Canadian imports from this country consist of textiles, your Lordships will see that that was retaining the protection to the Canadian manufacturer as against the Lancashire manufacturer. What has been the practical result? Whereas in 1896, the year before the preferential tariff came into force, the percentage of imports from Great Britain into Canada represented 31 per cent. of the total imports, in 1902, that is two years after, the preferential tariff had been raised and we had been given a bonus of 33 per cent., the percentage had fallen to 25 per cent., whilst the percentage of imports from the United States into Canada had risen in the same period from 51 per cent. to 58½ per cent. Or to put it in another way, the average Canadian duty on English goods in 1901, which is the last year I could get at in order to make the calculation, was 18 per cent., whereas the average duty on American goods was only 12 per cent. Do not let it be supposed that in quoting these figures I have any grievance whatever against Canada. Canada has a perfect right to deal with these financial questions and to work out her own financial policy as she pleases; but what I do wish to bring out is this, that we are not gaining under the preferential system, and that Canada, I think most wisely, has taken the precaution in her own interest to do nothing to interfere with or to prevent imports from the United States.
  Let us, on the other hand, compare the trade of this country with Germany. I take my figures from the Annual Trade Statement. In 1902 our imports from Germany were £33,500,000, and our exports £33,000,000. But we must remember that in connection with this trade we ought to add, if we want to arrive

  729
  at the profit to this country, the profit which we make in freights, because almost the whole of the trade is carried by English shipping. I do not want to unduly weary your Lordships with figures, but I should like to remind you that of this £33,500,000 of German imports, about £4,000,000 is represented by cotton and woollen manufactures and machinery. It might be said that we might retaliate upon Germany by putting a heavy duty on those goods which we ourselves are highly interested in, but I find that we export to Germany £9,500,000 of precisely the same class of goods. I want to ask another question with regard to this proposed retaliation on Germany. Is Holland to be included? A very large amount of the goods that come from Germany come through Holland, and it seems to me, on the face of it, rather unreasonable that Holland, with whom we have no commercial quarrels, should be included, and yet, if we do not include Holland, we shall have to resort to a sort of investigation as to origin, and every one connected with trade knows that these vexatious and inquisitorial proceedings hamper and are highly detrimental to general trade.
  Let me, again, ask your Lordships to consider what are the facts and figures in regard to the trade of this country and Canada. I will not occupy your Lordships' time by statements of a general character, but will give you facts and figures, which are unanswerable, from the Statement of Trade of the United Kingdom. We import from Canada, annually, goods to the extent £18,000,000, which I believe represents approximately about half the total export trade of Canada, and we receive these £18,000,000 of Canadian goods without asking them to pay one penny of duty. On the other hand, what is our export trade to Canada? We export to Canada goods amounting to an annual value approximately of £8,000,000. But, my Lords, what is £8,000,000 compared with our exports to India, which amount to £40,000,000, and as compared with our exports to foreign countries, which stand at £178,500,000? In short, our export trade to Canada, having regard to the total export trade of this country,
  730
  represents but 3 per cent. of our total trade. Again I say no one desires more sincerely than I do to encourage trade between this country and Canada in a natural and legitimate way; but, dealing with figures—and this question must be decided upon economic grounds—I do not see how you can treat this Canadian question as apart from the general interests of the Empire at large.
  The total export trade of Australia represents about £56,000,000, of which customers in this country take about £36,000,000. Therefore, in addition to half the export trade of Canada, we take two-thirds of the export trade of Australia, and we take all that trade absolutely free from a single sixpence of duty. When people talk of free trade within the Empire, it should be remembered that we have already free trade with a great part of the Empire, with India, with Hong Kong and with Singapore, while the duties at the Cape are very small; and, therefore, if we are asked to change our policy, it must be in the endeavour to tax the food of this country, because that is the only advantage we can offer to Canada and Australia, as opposed to the interests of the Empire at large. I have no doubt your Lordships have read the interesting letters which have been published in The Times newspaper, written by a gentleman who signs himself "Economist." I am rather surprised that he should have assumed that title, because the arguments in favour of his views are always on political and not on economic lines. But in those letters there are two very considerable admissions, which I do maintain go to the root of the whole question. In one of those letters—I think the first—"Economist" said he did not agree with the methods or views of Viscount Goschen, but at the same time he entirely agreed with him that a tax on food was the key of Mr. Chamberlain's policy; and again, in the second letter, he said—
  "Do not let us be deluded by the idea that the British Empire can for a great number of years depend upon its own production."
  That is to say, "Economist" admits that the keystone of Mr. Chamberlain's policy is taxation on food, and he also admits that it must be years and years before, under any system of protection, the

  731
  people of this country can be supplied with cheap food by and through the colonies. That seems to me to strike at the root and at the heart of the whole matter. I do not for one moment wish to say a word which can give offence to the colonies; but the colonial problem and our problem are totally different. We have to feed, and they have to build up, a population, and that central fact must never be lost sight of and can never be burked.
  I confess that I entirely endorse the expression of opinion which fell from the noble Duke the Leader of the House that this policy—if it is a sound policy—must be decided on economic grounds. What is economically true in this matter is politically right, and what is economically false is politically wrong. We have tried a contrary policy in Ireland with regard to Irish land, and we have had to pay the penalty for our sentimentality and our folly in that respect. If this question is to be decided on political grounds—and that, I believe, is the way in which it will be put before the country—rather than on economic grounds; if Mr. Chamberlain's scheme is to be considered on political in preference to economic reasons I do not see myself how the British Empire, which is a democratic Empire, is to be strengthened or increased in force or in cohesion by such a policy. I am afraid that very awkward Socialistic questions and other questions dangerous to property will be raised if we adopt a policy—for that, after all, is what it would mean—of making this country a land of protective interests and privileged classes. There are vast masses of the people of this country who do not belong to any particular interest that can be protected, and I maintain that the position would be a serious one if the masses of the people are to be told that in order to maintain the Empire their food must be taxed, and that if they object to their food being taxed they must go elsewhere and emigrate either to America or to the Colonies. That is the way in which it will be put to their minds, and that is the way in which I should like to see it answered to-night. It is for these reasons that I do raise a very strong objection to the re-opening of this question, be-
  732
  cause I believe it may revive a great many controversies which we had hoped were settled once for all. I believe a cause of quarrel between the mother country and the colonies will be introduced, and not a bond of cohesion, if there is an attempt to elaborate in this Empire, with its divergent and different interests, one hard and fast fiscal policy.
  *LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I also beg permission to ask a Question of which I have given my noble friend the noble Marquess private notice, and which I think legitimately arises out of the larger part of the subject with which the noble Earl opposite has dealt, although it does not, I admit, directly arise out of the particular Question he has asked. In the course of the debate on the new fiscal policy raised by the noble Viscount on my left the other night, several speakers referred to what they called the remarkable prosperity of the country during the last fifty years, and I do not think I should be using too strong an expression if I said that the general tone was that the progress had been unparalleled. But in the course of the last thirty years, under the system of free imports, one industry has been very nearly ruined. I think it is hardly reasonable to suppose that those who have suffered should look back with complacency to that period as one of unparalleled prosperity. In order to see the effect on a country of a system, one should leave it for some years. I left this country for five years, and when I came back I was able to detect certain changes in the people. I admit at once the folly of attempting to argue from the particular to the general. I am simply giving my experience of my own neighbourhood—a purely agricultural one. I found that the poorer classes—the labouring classes—were undoubtedly better off. There was no question about it. The children were well clothed and shod and looked well, and one could not help being delighted at seeing such a change. I do not mean to say that at the beginning of those five years they had been in a miserable condition; far from it, but there was a distinct improvement in their appearance.

  733
  But, on the other hand, I found that a generation of farmers had been swept out of existence. There were, in fact, no farmers for miles around. So, too, the yeomen's property was absorbed in larger properties in the neighbourhood, or purchased by people of some wealth coming from the towns who might in the course of a generation or two become yeomen themselves, or what we used to regard as yeomen. But the class for the time had disappeared. Large numbers of landowners, in endeavouring to maintain their properties properly, to keep up the buildings, to provide decent lodgings for the poorer classes who lived on those properties, had failed and gone down in the struggle. I do not think there is any stronger Radical than I am on the subject of land. I do not think anyone who cannot do his duty by the land is worth having on it. I prefer to see an old family go if they cannot keep up their property properly, if they cannot keep up their labourers' cottages to that condition which improvement in education requires; but I can imagine those families not regarding the system under which we have lived for fifty years as one of unparalleled prosperity. Therefore I think that when the system of free imports is held up to our admiration as it was the other night by my noble friend on my left, and when we are warned of the danger of taxing the food of the people, we are bound to remember that the one effect of very cheap food has been to seriously impoverish several classes of society; and it has had this additional effect, which I think is far more important, that it has reduced the number of people in certain areas whom the land at one time employed. When I came back after an absence of five years I found thousands of acres in grass, and not good grass at that, where once the plough was at work. The land in the eastern counties to which I am referring is regarded by the expert farmer as good for the grazing of sheep only. A good deal of it is not fit for keeping more than one sheep for every acre, whereas before the days of very low prices each acre used to produce four quarters of wheat, which supports a man for a year. Therefore, land which formerly maintained a man now only
  734
  maintains a sheep. That is not progression. It is retrogression. And when we contemplate the effect of free imports we are bound surely to have regard to the incontestable fact that many thousands of acres of land which used to provide work for the plough, and therefore for a number of men and horses, have gone back to a pastoral condition, and are unable to provide as much food as they used to when prices were better.
  We are promised an inquiry into this most important subject. What the character of that inquiry is to be seems still somewhat vague. From the speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the other night, I certainly did not infer—it was possibly my fault—that it was simply to be an inquiry within the Cabinet, with the presentation from time to time of Papers to Parliament; but I gathered from the speech of the Prime Minister, made a short time after the debate in this House, that that is to be the form of inquiry. I am perfectly certain that His Majesty's Government are most anxious to give all the information they possibly can in order to enable the public to make up its mind on this important subject; and it is very important, I need hardly say, that this information should be given as soon as possible. As your Lordships are aware, the autumn is an important time to agriculturists. It is the time when meetings of agricultural societies and of farmers and landlords are held. I am sure it is the desire of the Government that, before that time comes, those whose business and whose duty it is to address their neighbours on public subjects should be in a position, so far as possible, at any rate, to make up their minds upon some of the points that will have to be decided. As has been already pointed out by the noble Earl opposite, and by the noble Viscount on my left, in its initial stages this controversy will centre on the price of corn, and the agricultural labourer you may be certain has got his ears open, and will want to know how his wages and the price of his food are to be affected. Many of your Lordships are anxious to give your neighbours as clearly as possible your ideas of the

  735
  effect of the proposals that have been made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I do hope that the Government will endeavour to give us as much information as they can and as soon as possible in order that we may be able to discuss with intelligence these questions at such meetings as I have suggested. I am personally not very much alarmed at the idea of an import duty on wheat—I mean an import duty of any reasonable amount. Your Lordships will remember that, when Sir Robert Peel's Bill came up to this House for the abolition of duties, the question was whether an Amendment should be introduced, and the maximum amount discussed was 5s. We know now what amount of revenue a 5s. duty would bring in at this time. I am not suggesting for one moment that His Majesty's Government have any idea in their heads of any such import, but giving that as a possible figure, I confess I am not very much alarmed at the idea of an import duty; and for this reason, that the average effect of an import duty on wheat would be infinitesimal compared with the fluctuations in price brought about by natural causes. In one of the articles in The Times to which the noble Earl referred, reference is made to these variations. The writer points out that the average price of wheat in the English market for the twenty-five years preceding the repeal of the Corn Laws was practically the same—57s.—as that of the early seventies, and that the great fall from 1877, when the price was 56s. 9d., to 1894, when it was 17s. 8d. in October, and, for the year, an average of 22s. 10d., was very remotely connected with the repeal of the Corn Laws. He gives tables showing the price of bread between 1893 and 1898. In September, 1896, the average price for the 4 lb. loaf was 4·22d.; in May, 1898, the average price was 6⅙d. This is a rise of very nearly 50 per cent. brought about by natural causes; and that is the reason why I say I am not very much alarmed at the effect of an import duty. I cannot conceive it possible that the whole of the charge would fall on the consumer.
  What I have quoted leads me to the Question which I wish to put to His
  736
  Majesty's Government—namely, whether the Government can give us some information which will enable us to estimate what has been the effect of freight on the market prices of some of the largest articles of import in the last twenty-five to thirty years. As has been pointed out by the writer in The Times, the principal fall in the price of wheat did not take place in the first twenty years after the abolition of import duties, but only from about the seventies to the present time; and therefore it is obvious to most thinking people that the main factor in producing cheap bread to the people of this country has not been the opening of ports, but the increased supply plus reduction in freight. After the noble Lord opposite [Lord Avebury] had spoken the other night on this subject, I took the liberty of going across and asking him whether he thought it would be possible for the Government to give some information to Parliament on this subject, and he replied that he thought it would be possible. He said he believed that the reduction in the price of the transport of wheat from Dakota to England was no less than 21s. per quarter. The total fall in the last thirty years is only some 30s., and if 21s. of that fall is to be assigned—
  *LORD AVEBURY: I certainly did in conversation give those figures to my noble friend, and believed them to be correct, but if I had known he was going to use them in your Lordships' House I should have verified them.
  LORD HARRIS: I was careful to say that the noble Lord stated that he believed the figures he gave me were correct. I am using them to show how important it is that the public should understand that the main cause of the fall in the price of bread is not the opening of the ports but the reduction in freight, plus, of course, the largely increased area of supply. I think it would be extremely useful from their point of view if the Government could show that one cause of this remarkable fall in prices has been the improvement in the machinery of steam-going vessels. I was told the other day that another reason for steam vessels being able to reduce

  737
  their freights so largely was the introduction of compound engines.
  From the point of the Government, or of those members of it, at any rate, who believe that there is some benefit to the country to be derived from a system of preferential tariffs as compared with free imports, it is highly important, it seems to me, to be able to show that this fall in price is due to these causes; for this reason, that it is highly improbable, so far as one can see, that freights can ever go up to anything like what they were before the seventies. Therefore, whatever effect may be produced by a duty, and whatever its incidence, at any rate it is impossible for bread to rise to such prices as were possible at that period. I put this point before His Majesty's Government solely with the object of helping them, if I can, to add to the useful information which it seems to me it is absolutely essential should be placed before the country if they expect those—and I say this with special feeling—who have supported them for so many years to continue to do so. I was a colleague in a humble position for something like fifteen years of noble Lords below me, and I am most anxious to support them now; but it is impossible for me to go to the meetings I am likely to have to address in the autumn, and to give unfaltering support to this policy, unless I am convinced that some good is coming out of it—not only some good to the Empire, which I put first, but also to the agricultural interest which has suffered so materially during the last thirty years. If it can be shown that the Empire will gain by such a scheme as has been foreshadowed by several members of the Government, then I should have no hesitation in putting the special interests of agriculture in the second place, and I should be prepared to do what I could in urging my agricultural friends in the country that they should, as they have done in the past, consent to suffer for the good of the general community.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, I only venture to interpose for a moment in order to express the hope that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs may feel it possible, in his reply, to say something
  738
  to remove the impression, which, to some extent, is an unfortunate one, that the recent action of Germany in regard to Canada has been such as to justify a feeling of injury on the part of this country, and that a thorough appreciation of Canada and her action in relation to Great Britain involved a somewhat reproachful attitude towards Germany. I quite admit that there has been a feeling of disappointment. That was brought out in the very able Budget speech of the Finance Minister of Canada; but I think that that is a very different matter from the sort of language which I am afraid has been used in this House. It has been said that Germany wanted to terrorise one of our colonies. That seemed to me rather strong language, and what I would hope is that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs may think it prudent and right to indicate that such a feeling is neither necessary nor justifiable. I do not see how we can expect Germany to approach this question with the same sort of sentiment with which we regard our colonies. I give way to no one in my devotion to Canada, but I would feel it to be a regrettable thing if Canada was to be the stalking horse, so to speak, for any suggestions or language which might seem in any way to impair the thoroughly friendly feeling between Germany and this country, which has been so well maintained and which, at the present time, it is most important should be preserved.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I had some difficulty when I saw the notice of the noble Earl's Question on the Paper in divining what particular statements of the Prime Minister's and the Colonial Secretary's he referred to. In these days Ministers are obliged partly in order to satisfy the requirements of their own adherents, and partly in order to meet criticism, to contribute a very large number of statements with regard to matters of this kind, and I was not able intuitively to detect what the statements were to which the noble Earl desired to call attention; but I gather from his speech that the particular statements which he had in view were

  739
  statements in which, in his opinion, both the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary exaggerated the urgency of the case which has arisen as between the German Government and Canada. The noble Earl also referred to the speech delivered in this House by my noble friend Lord Camperdown and to my own remarks. If the noble Earl had listened to, or had had an opportunity of hearing, what I said in following Lord Camperdown on the occasion of the second debate on this subject, he would have noticed that, while agreeing generally with the tenor of Lord Camperdown's remarks, I expressly desired to guard myself from being supposed to concur in what he said in the direction of imputing hostility to the German Government in its action with regard to Canada.
  And when the noble Earl goes on to refer to that passage in my first speech in which I used the simile of the revolver, I must remind him that I was then dealing, not with the case between Canada and Germany, but with the second part of the subject, which I treated quite separately, namely—the question of the manner in which the industries of this country suffered from the competition of foreign goods produced under circumstances which make it impossible for our manufacturers to compete with them in the British market. On that occasion I said that it seemed to me that, if we were to be in a position to resist attacks of that kind, we should supply ourselves with means for doing so. At the conclusion of the passage I find I used these words—
  "I, at any rate, think it our duty to regard, in a tolerant spirit and with an open mind, the proposals for dealing with these important questions."
  That is exactly where the noble Earl and I part company. I desire that these proposals should be examined in a tolerant spirit and with an open mind, and the noble Earl told us just now that what he objected to was the reopening of these discussions. We think the time has come when these discussions should be re-opened; and, though we do not desire for a moment to be dogmatic about it, we do consider that we should endeavour to find some means of ascertaining whether or not it
  740
  is possible to establish closer fiscal relations with the colonies; whether it is or is not possible to find some means of protecting them, when they are subjected to ill-treatment in consequence of preferential advantages granted to ourselves; and, finally, whether it is or is not possible to discover some manner of protecting British industries against that kind of unfair and inequitable competition of which I spoke a moment ago.
  With regard to the German case, the noble Earl gave your Lordships its history at some length; and I could not help regretting that he did not wait to do so until the Papers, which I shall lay on the Table in a day or two, are in your Lordships' hands. I do not desire tonight to anticipate the discussion which those Papers may possibly lead to; but I will only say this, that I adhere to the view I expressed the other evening, namely, that the position with which we were threatened is not one which His Majesty's Government could regard as other than a serious position. It is not merely that we found that Canada was liable to be made to suffer in consequence of the preferential treatment which the Canadian Government had accorded to us; but it was actually adumbrated in an official document, which your Lordships will have an opportunity of reading, that if other colonies acted in the same manner as Canada the result might be that we, the mother country, should find ourselves deprived of most-favoured-nation treatment. That we regarded, and still regard, as an urgent matter. I do not mean urgent so much in point of time, because I have no reason to think that these things are likely to be done in the near future; but urgent in view of the great importance of the issues raised.
  Then I think I understood the noble Earl to say that the preference which Canada has given to us had been of little or no value. [The Earl of PORTSMOUTH nodded assent.] Now, my Lords, the information in my possession is to the effect that if that preference did not lead to a very large or rapid increase in the trade between this country and the Dominion, it had, at all events, the effect of arresting the very perceptible downward movement which was in progress at the time when the preference was given.

  741
  Besides that there is this to be borne in mind, that the main increase in Canadian exports has been in raw material or semi-manufactured articles of a kind in which we could not hope to compete; so that to the extent to which the preference applies to articles in which we do compete, it has been productive, I believe, of solid advantage to the commerce of this country. I will not attempt to follow the noble Earl to-night in prognostications with regard to the scope of any tariff legislation which may or may not be resorted to by His Majesty's Government. That is a matter as to which the noble Earl well knows no decision has been arrived at; and it would be clearly improper that I should take it upon myself to say whether, for example, any such measure, if adopted at all, should apply to Holland, the country to which the noble Earl referred.
  Lord Harris asked the Government whether it was possible for us to give Parliament any information which would enable your Lordships to judge of the effect produced on prices, and particularly on the prices of food-stuffs, by the great fall in the cost of oversea freights. I do not think there can be any doubt whatever that the noble Lord is perfectly correct when he said that amongst the causes which have led to the great fall in the prices of food-stuffs the cheapening of oversea freights has been one. But, my Lords, it is only one of several factors; and, although it would not be difficult to supply figures to show what the movement of freights has been, I do not see how we can supply any information which will enable my noble friend to disentangle the effects of that cause from the effects of other causes which have operated in the same direction. It is clear, for example, that the great fall in the prices of wheat has been due to the development of new grain-producing areas, and to such causes as the invention of labour-saving implements. Besides that there is the question of, not oversea freights, but land freights. The noble Lord knows very well that in no respect have the conditions been more changed, on the American Continent at any rate, than in respect of the extraordinary cheapening of the charge for the carriage by land of grain and other bulky commodities. I have had no time to
  742
  look at the figures, but I believe I am right in saying that the cost of moving a ton of grain a mile in the United States is something less than half a cent; and one can well understand how cheap rates of that kind must tend to bring down prices at the place of delivery.
  The noble Lord is perfectly correct when he says that oversea freights have fallen. I find there is a Board of Trade Return which gives figures up to the year 1895, from which I gather that the freight per cwt. from New York to the United Kingdom, which was 10s. in 1874, has now fallen to 3s. No doubt the noble Lord may claim that that fall is, to some extent, answerable for the great increase in the amount of cereals imported into this country, which, I believe, rose from 10,000,000 cwt. in 1865 to something over 100,000,000 cwt. in 1901.
  The noble Earl opposite has asked me when the Government intend to lay before Parliament their proposals to induce Germany to modify her tariff regulations with the Dominion of Canada. As I said just now, we shall lay Papers carrying the discussion up to the present date; but the noble Earl, of course, must not expect to find in those Papers our proposals for inducing Germany, by negotiations or otherwise, to modify her tariff regulations. Those proposals are obviously of a kind which can only be taken into consideration and determined after the matter has undergone the full discussion which we consider indispensable.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I do not want to intervene for any time in this interesting discussion, but I must condole with my noble friend opposite, Lord Harris, on the very limited amount of consolation he has received in reply to his inquiry from the Government. He made a request of some importance, I think. He said he thought he had a right to be informed as to the nature of the inquiry the Government has instituted; and he drew a somewhat pathetic picture of what his fate would be this autumn in addressing agricultural meetings, at which apparently he is a welcome and frequent guest, without any guidance from the Government. The noble Marquess in reply to that tells him that he has figures, though

  743
  insufficient figures, and can procure more, as to the reduction of the cost of freight between the United States and this country. That is rather a stone to give to the noble Lord, who not merely asks for bread, but apparently for a protective tax on bread.
  LORD HARRIS: I asked for nothing of the kind.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The noble Lord extended his remarks to some very interesting inquiries which I think deserve the attention of the Government. Now what is this inquiry? It is something so impalpable that the human mind refuses to grasp it, and the information which is given by the Government is of such a character that I venture to say no human being in this universe outside the Government, and I am not sure that even all the Members of the Government, can form the faintest idea as to what shape this inquiry is likely to take. I am one of those who consider that an inquiry is now necessary. I did not think it was necessary until the question was raised in an authoritative form by the Colonial Secretary, since when it has become a frequent and public subject of debate between the different Members of the Cabinet in both Houses of Parliament. But the question once being raised, and put as a question of Empire, it does seem to me impossible for the Government to escape inquiry, and I have no doubt that they see that as clearly as all of us. The question is, What is this inquiry going to be? Is it a public inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and communicating them as promptly as possible to the nation, or is it a mechanism for keeping the Cabinet together? I am strongly of opinion that it answers to the second of these descriptions.
  I hear a laugh, and I am not in the least surprised, because the position is grotesque. We have at this moment a Government of all the talents, and all the majorities, repealing a corn tax of a very moderate description — a shilling; and at the moment when the Prime Minister is endeavouring to deal with his irritated followers on the subject of the repeal of this corn tax, and to vindicate that, the Colonial Secretary is making a speech at Birmingham in which he announces
  744
  that the policy of the Government will be, must be—I must be careful about my auxiliary verbs—may be a tax on the food of the people. The question naturally arises why if that is the policy of the Government a negative policy should be pursued with regard to the corn tax at the same time. But that is the position which evidently excited the attention of the Government, and, when followed up by one or two more speeches, caused them to hold a Cabinet, which I do not doubt, like all Cabinets, was a council of quiet and philosophical discussion. The result was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer read out an inspired paper to the House of Commons, in which he announced, or, I suppose, adumbrated, that he was quite ready for an inquiry—and I think that was the first notice we ever had that there was going to be an inquiry—because he was quite convinced that it would only fortify the country in the doctrines of free trade and in hostility to the tax on corn which he proposed to repeal.
  That is where we stand with regard to the matter; frequent Questions have been addressed to the Government since asking what is the nature of the inquiry? Who is inquiring? Is anybody inquiring? Is the noble Duke inquiring? Is it being conducted by the Cabinet? Is it being conducted by a committee of the Civil Service, or by a committee of experts? The noble Duke may think that these questions are impertinent and intrusive, but to my mind they are vital to the matter at issue. This is not an inquiry as to the banker's accounts of the Government, or as to any private domestic affairs which may interest them and them alone; it is by far the most important inquiry that has ever been conducted in the country in my lifetime; and if it is to be conducted, and I think it is inevitable, it should not be a hole-and corner inquiry, but the nation itself should be a party to it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Hear, hear!
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: But in what sense is the nation a party to it? It does not even know the constituent body which is inquiring, it does not

  745
  know the nature of the inquiry, nor what it is inquiring into. If it is an inquiry into the opinions of His Majesty's Government, I can understand its being both lengthy and confidential. But if it is an inquiry into the broad policy on which the fiscal arrangements of this country have been conducted for the last fifty-six or fifty-seven years, I say that it should be a public inquiry. It should be by Royal Commission, or by some recognised method, but it should not be veiled in darkness, without any results to which we may look, without any results at present which are promised, and the slow progress of which is only marked by the milestones of the speeches of the Colonial Secretary and the Prime Minister, who announce doctrines which seem, to us at any rate, utterly irreconcilable to those held, for instance, by the President of the Council and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I appeal to the Government that they should take the country into their confidence in this matter. It is not too much to ask. Lord Harris is a faithful supporter of the Government, as he has reminded them. Has he not a claim to know something of what is going on in reference to this inquiry? And beyond the supporters of the Government, has not the whole nation a right to know something of what is going on? Lord Harris said the agricultural labourers of this country would be all agog to know what is to be proposed by the Government; he also said he had come back after five years' absence and seen the agricultural labourers of this country in a state of unexampled prosperity. I presume the agricultural labourers of this country, when they hear that the first fiscal measure of the Government is to be a tax on food, and when they hear, what is much more, that the continuance of the Empire is impossible without a tax on food—I presume that they, and every one, more especially Imperialists, to whom especially the Empire is dear, if it is dearer to one class than to another, have a right to ask what is being done on this matter.
  I intervened on the spur of the moment, and I admit that what I have said has no direct reference to the speech of the noble Earl who introduced the
  746
  discussion; but it has very direct reference to the speech of the noble Lord behind the Government, who pleads that he may be given some guidance as to what he is to say in rural districts on the subject of the policy of the Government. It is not the noble Lord alone who is in a difficulty in this matter; it will be all the supporters of the Government, aye, and the Government itself. At present, under the new doctrine of Cabinet responsibility which has been revealed to us, the Government are talking in different voices, and presenting different arguments from a totally different standpoint, to the country, and the baffled and puzzled country are to be reassured under circumstances so unexampled and unparalleled as this—by being told that the Government are holding a secret inquiry the nature of which they cannot or will not divulge.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, the noble Earl has made a speech—he assures us on the spur of the moment—which seems to have for its principal object to impress upon his fellow-countrymen how divided, as he opines, the Government are on the question we are now discussing. No one has a greater right than the noble Earl to address your Lordships with authority on what is meant by a disunited Cabinet. I quite admit that there are many on both sides of politics who are desirous to have re-asked and re-answered these questions which, some would like to think, were laid aside sixty years ago. But the noble Earl himself is in the same position; for I defy any one to read his speeches on this question, as I have read them with minute attention, and say what his opinion really is. He began by telling his countrymen that he would never reject without examination any scheme put forward on authority with the object of connecting more closely the colonies and the mother country.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The noble Earl has omitted one rather important word. I said I would not reject any scheme unseen.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: But the noble Earl has since proceeded to construct every possible scheme, and to reject them all. But in this rejection of the schemes which he has himself constructed I have noticed two things. He has very carefully announced, ad urbem et orbem, that the doctrines of the Cobden Club are for him no part of revealed religion, thereby differentiating himself from a large part of the Party with which he usually acts; and I notice that, although he has contributed greatly to the elucidation of the question of a proposed tax on food, he has never so much as mentioned the word retaliation. The noble Earl has told us that if the Liberal Party cannot unite on this question never can they unite again. He is willing to hold out his arm to Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and go forward with him on the march of progress. But at the very moment when they are linked arm-in arm and about to start, with the impetuosity which is characteristic of the noble Earl's companion, the noble Earl says, "My friends, put your arms round the pillar of the Liberal League." That is a fair illustration of the fact that we are all ready to examine this question, and that none of us are prepared to stand exactly where our fathers stood fifty years ago.
  My noble friend Lord Goschen talked of agnostics in this matter, and there he touched the spot. What is the position in which we find ourselves. Brought up almost to regard the doctrines of the Cobden Club as part of revealed religion, and to believe that there could not be any national prosperity or economic truth outside the pamphlets of that body, we have gradually been disillusioned, and we have seen that, though under free trade we have prospered mightily, other countries have prospered no less greatly under a totally different system. Therefore in our minds the doctrines of the Cobden Club have passed from a dogma to a policy; and the question that we now look at is not what is revealed truth, or the natural law, but what is the policy which, under given circumstances, will best suit this country or that. It is in that frame of mind that we desire to approach this inquiry. What are the objects? Are they great
  748
  and noble objects? The noble Earl himself laid stress on the great ideal of closer union with the colonies. The question is, can that be increased by any change in our fiscal policy, and what is the price that we must pay for the change? We apply exactly the same test to the question of retaliation; and the closer we look the more we are impressed with the fact that we are dealing with a question of policy. It is all a question of degree. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Ripon) laughs. In one of the printed despatches of the noble Marquess, when he was Colonial Secretary, in answering the proposal made at the Ottawa Conference—a proposal which he rejected—he dealt with the possibility of an alternative scheme in words of sympathy. He said that—
  "If the proposal had been one for free trade within the Empire it would have merited very careful consideration."
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Hear, hear.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is the exact illustration of my point. If noble Lords were prepared to adopt such a system, could they refuse to give the colonies a preference or accept a preference from them? This inquiry cannot be dealt with by a Royal Commission. It must be an inquest of the nation by all its Parties and by all its Press. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that you cannot have Empire without trade. That is the gist of the question. This country has had great periods of prosperity; and the question we have to ask as guardians of the future is, not What is or has been the condition of the trade of this country, but What, as far as we can foresee, is to be the future of the trade of this country? Are the people to be better off or worse off? That question you cannot refer to a Royal Commission or to a Select Committee. It must be a discussion in which the whole nation takes part, and statistics which the Government Departments work out are only contributions to the knowledge of the nation. This is a revolt against authority; and I am very glad that it has taken place at this moment when trade is prosperous, because if it had taken place at a time of

  749
  trade depression there would have been a danger of conclusions being arrived at which were not justified by the facts of the case.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Would the noble Earl mind telling us what is the nature of the inquiry which he is about to set up?
  *VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I think, my Lords, that the inquiry of the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, has been answered by my noble friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty. We are told that it is an inquest of the nation that is to take place. But if there is an inquest of the nation, we have further to ask of the Government, what are the questions to be submitted to the inquest of the nation? There are many questions which are raised in the speeches of the Colonial Secretary. There is the question of old-age pensions. Is that to be submitted to the inquest of the nation? and are all these questions to be supplemented by the information which is supplied from time to time by the Government themselves? Here I make one appeal to my noble friends, and I am sure that they will listen to it—that all information which is given to the Government should as soon as possible be supplied to the public; that there should not be speeches made in the first instance relying on certain statistics, and that the statistics should not come before us for verification only after the speeches have been delivered and their effect has been produced. That would not be a fair way to proceed; and I should have thought that it was in the interest of the Government themselves that members of the Government should refrain from continuing what I scarcely know whether to regard as a part of the inquest of the nation or a part of a campaign and crusade.
  There is one object which is dear to the heart of a great number of the public and of the Press who support Mr. Chamberlain's proposals. It is that the labourer should be brought back to the land. Lord Harris suggests that the agricultural interest is to be benefited to a material extent by the proposals which will be submitted. Can the Government frankly
  750
  tell us whether a tax of 5s. on corn will form part of the issues that are to be submitted? I think they are bound to come a little more into the open in this matter. There are many persons who refrain from discussing such a tax from the certainty that Parliament will never assent to it. But, on the other hand, there will be others who gather the opposite impression, and from whom support is secured by a kind of distant hope that such a prospect is not out of the question. Will those who distinctly desire to protect agriculture by a 4s. or 5s. duty on corn think themselves to be justified in supporting the proposal of the Government on the ground that it lies within the limits of practical politics? If this be so, will statistics be placed before us elucidating any point as distinct as that? I have doubts whether it would be so, but what I should be anxious to see is a series of distinct propositions which should be put before the public, and that we should know really what we are to discuss, not only as outlined in the Colonial Secretary's scheme, but in far more particulars than are at present before the country.
  Then with regard to the inquest itself. I agree that a great portion of that subject must be decided by the Cabinet; but there will be, and probably are, inquiries in progress among the various Departments of the Government. Are these Departments co-operating together, checking together, investigating with absolute impartiality, without any bias whatever? I think we were told by the Colonial Secretary that he would produce tables with which he would go into the cottage of every labourer, showing what effect would be produced by the increase of the price of food. Will such tables be accessible to the public so that we shall all be able to judge the correctness of the literature which is employed in that respect? I am sure that the whole country feels puzzled at present at the stage in which the inquiry stands. I do not know whether much progress is being made, if indeed any has been made, and I think Lord Rosebery is entitled to our gratitude for having elicited the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and for the endeavour to elicit what the nature of the inquiry is to be. I thought

  751
  it right to make these few observations, as I take the deepest interest in the subject of this inquiry, thinking that it ought to be thorough, while seeing the great difficulties that surround it.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount who has just sat down for having relieved me of one part of the subject with which I desired to deal, namely, that relating to the inquiry. I fully agree with what he has said on that subject, but I feel compelled to make some observations on the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is not for me to suppose that I can defend my noble friend Lord Rosebery, who is so well able to take care of himself, but I must say that I think the noble Earl singularly misrepresented the position my noble friend has taken up in regard to the question now under discussion. He said that Lord Rosebery had taken various views on this subject and had made inconsistent speeches. My noble friend's first speech, after the world was startled by Mr. Chamberlain's proposals, was made at a non-political meeting, if I am not mistaken, and was marked, no doubt, by caution; but whenever my noble friend has spoken since, when he has not been in the position of being hampered, he has expressed sentiments of disapproval of the proposals of Mr. Chamberlain; and I do not think that the noble Earl was justified, by the single fact to which I have alluded, in making the charge he did. Then the noble Earl went on to say that Lord Rosebery must, no doubt, sympathise deeply with a Government which was divided against itself. I should like to ask the noble Earl on what occasion any members of the Government of Lord Rosebery, either in Parliament or out of it, devoted themselves to attacking each other and to answering each other's speeches. That is the position in which His Majesty's Government now stands; and it seems to us who sit on this side of the House to be an objectionable and unconstitutional proceeding. Certainly no precedent can be found for it in the Government of Lord Rosebery.
  My noble friend who introduced this discussion deserves our best thanks for his very able speech and for having raised a debate of so much interest, and if he has done nothing else he has accomplished
  752
  one very useful object in inducing the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to disconnect himself from a considerable portion of the speech made a few days ago by Lord Camperdown, and he has done so in a manner which I am sure the House will have heard with much pleasure. I certainly was under the impression that upon that occasion the noble Marquess did express a wider and more general approval of Lord Camperdown's tone in respect to Germany than he appears to have intended to do, and I am extremely glad an opportunity has been afforded to the noble Marquess to clear away the misapprehension, which I think existed in the minds of many. But the noble Marquess seems still to be hankering after retaliation and to be searching in his pocket for the "revolver". I hope that it is not going to be the old rusty pistol of protection; because, if it is, I am afraid that before long it will burst in his hand. It seems to me to be a clear proposition in economic science that a duty on foreign imports would injure our own people more than the people against whom we are retaliating. Retaliation of this nature must involve considerable industrial and commercial disturbance; it must limit our exports and injure those who rely upon it. Besides, it is a dangerous policy to begin a system of retaliation. Two can play at that game, and we may find that instead of yielding to retaliation, or to threats of it, a war of tariffs would be produced which would lead to great evils industrially and commercially.
  The difficulties that arise between nations in these days arise mainly out of commercial considerations, and therefore it is peculiarly necessary that we should deal cautiously with this question and not place retaliation before us as a thing to which we can run at any time and which will be sure to produce the object in view. I confess that I do not see that the policy that has been pursued since the days when free trade began, has produced any of those evils which we hear talked about on the other side. Lord Harris spoke of the depression of agriculture and of the condition of the agricultural classes. No doubt the condition of the agricultural classes, or of some of them, has been for many years unsatisfactory. Rents have been reduced and profits have been cut down, but the noble Lord himself

  753
  admitted that the condition of the agricultural labourer was greatly improved. In my part of the world, at least, rents and the profits of tenants, no doubt, are much less than they were; but the wages of the agricultural labourers have very considerably risen, and I am bound to say that while I should like to see general and widespread prosperity among all classes of the community, if I had to choose which class was the one whose interests should be most considered, I would not hesitate to select the interests of the great mass of the people.
  This discussion has covered a wide field, and I hope I shall be allowed to discuss some points which do not lie exactly within the limits of the noble Earl's notice, but which have a very serious bearing on the question itself. The First Lord of the Admiralty quoted accurately, except, perhaps, that I may not have used the exact words, from some despatches which I wrote when I held the office of Colonial Secretary, but I do not quite understand what was the conclusion he drew from the statements in those despatches. If the conclusion merely was that I desired to express what I most sincerely entertained, and entertain at this present moment, namely, a feeling of deepest sympathy with the colonies and a most earnest desire to consider their interest to the utmost, then he is quite right. But what I did say was this, that a real Zollverein—not this sham thing which is called a Zollverein, but which is no Zollverein at all—that a real Zollverein (that is to say a real Customs union between all parts of the British Empire), if the taxes levied were upon the principle of free trade and avoided the dangers of protection, would be a perfectly legitimate thing in principle, and I should greatly rejoice if it were possible upon good and fitting terms to make such an arrangement. Nobody knows better than the noble Earl that that is not possible in the present circumstances, the colonies not being willing to accept it. But to argue from that that therefore you are to look at a system of colonial preferences as the same thing as a system of uniform Customs rates, seems to me to be an entire error. The two things are totally
  754
  and entirely distinct. I accepted the one if it were possible, but I rejected the other for the reasons which are contained in those despatches, and with which I need not trouble your Lordships at the present time.
  There was one remark in the speech made by the Colonial Secretary a few days ago, which, having the opportunity, I cannot help commenting upon. Mr. Chamberlain was reported in The Times— and as I have seen no contradiction of the report I consequently assume it to be correct—as having said—
  "A system of preferential tariffs is the only system by which this Empire can be kept together."
  I deeply regret that the Colonial Secretary should have said that. It may be his opinion, for aught I know, but I cannot but feel that it was not a judicious utterance, nor was it fair either to the people of this country or to the colonies. Mr. Chamberlain spoke of himself as the representative of the colonies. No British Minister is specially representative of any part of the Empire—not even the Colonial Secretary. He stands between the colonies and the mother country. He has to promote their union, and to communicate to each part of the Empire the interests of the other in relation to any proposals which may affect the general interests of the Empire. I do not believe that the statement which Mr. Chamberlain made can be accepted as a literal fact. If I did believe it, I should be in a state of despair. It was no doubt a rhetorical statement, but it was a rhetorical statement which, in my judgment, ought not to have been made by any member of a responsible Government. I cannot think that the people of the colonies are so indifferent to the interests of the mother country that they would refuse to listen to a calm and reasoned statement why that which they desire cannot be granted to them. We have given them absolute freedom to make their own fiscal arrangements; they must not claim that there shall be put upon the food of the people of this country a tax more or less heavy in order to enable the colonies to carry out a special class of fiscal arrangements between them and us. I cannot but

  755
  believe that if the case had been fairly put to the colonies they would concede the principle that the control of our own home taxes must remain in our own hands. I do not believe that those great portions of the British Empire, whose interests are supposed to be promoted by this policy, would have dreamt of rejecting an argument of that description, and of claiming for themselves a freedom which they would not give to the mother country.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I had no anticipation that the Question of the noble Earl opposite was intended to form the subject-matter of an adjourned debate on the question raised on a former occasion by my noble friend Lord Goschen; and, for myself, I am bound to say that I do not propose to repeat—which is all I can do—the statement of my own views which I had the opportunity to lay before the House at some length on the former occasion. I should not have risen at all but for the questions of the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, supported by the noble Viscount behind me. Both noble Lords are dissatisfied with the amount of information which they have received as to the nature and scope of the proposed inquiry. I would just remind the House that I do not think any Member of the Government has spoken of this question in the sense of being a mere inquiry. The expression which I certainly used, and which I think other Members of the Government have employed, was "inquiry and discussion." What was announced by Mr. Chamberlain was that, having laid certain views before the country, he invited discussion upon those views. That which is to take place must be partly in the nature of an inquiry, but, to a still greater extent, of a discussion. I endeavoured to state what would be the nature of the inquiry. I said it could not be an inquiry by Royal Commission, still less by Departmental Committee. It must be an inquiry by the members of the Government for themselves. The Government are endeavouring, not so much to obtain information, because all the necessary information, I believe, exists, but to arrange it in a manner which they will be able to consider themselves; and the results
  756
  of the examination of that information will, no doubt, be communicated as soon as possible to Parliament and the country.
  The noble Viscount wishes to know what are to be the subjects of inquiry. He asks whether they are to include old-age pensions. Well, my Lords, how can they be excluded? It has been mentioned, and it must be taken into consideration, if not in the inquiry, in the discussion that must take place on the subject. No doubt it is clear enough that under certain contingencies, if effect is given to the views which have lately been put forward, there may be a considerable sum of revenue raised which might be devoted to old-age pensions. How can such a matter be excluded from the discussion if not from the inquiry? Then the noble Viscount asks whether the discussion was to include a 5s. duty on corn. That would be a definite proposition. That would not be in the nature of an inquiry at all. How can my noble friend ask us to state what definite proposals we are going to make after our inquiry before the inquiry has taken place?
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I do not think my noble friend quite appreciates my meaning.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: No, I do not.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: If you wish to collect statistics as part of the inquiry, if you wish to get information from the parties interested, which is part of the inquiry, it would be entirely otiose if you were to inquire into any matters which were not within the practical range of the suggestions of Mr. Chamberlain; and what I was anxious to know was whether, not only in the discussion, but in the inquiry, such a question as that lay within the area of discussion.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am afraid I do not apprehend my noble friend's point even now. No doubt suggestions have been made that for certain political and economical reasons it may be wise to propose a tax upon food. That tax upon food must be, I

  757
  suppose, in the nature of a duty of 1s. or 2s., or say 5s., on corn; and whatever statistics are obtained on the subject, it seems to me that, whether it be 1s., 2s., or 5s., does not very much matter, and my noble friend will be able to draw his own conclusions from whatever statistics on that subject are produced. However, I quite admit I may not have apprehended the scope of my noble friend's Question, and if I have not, I can only say I very much regret my incapacity to do so. These are the only instances he gave of subjects in regard to which he wished to know whether they were to form part of the inquiry or not. I think I can, without attempting to go into any exhaustive list of subjects which are to form part of the inquiry or discussion, refer my noble friend to the two speeches which were made the other night. I think the noble Viscount objected to the speeches which were made on Friday last by the Prime Minister and Mr. Chamberlain because he thought that in them argument was preceding and taking the place of inquiry and discussion. I read both speeches with very great care; and although, as noble Lords may have gathered from the speech I made the other night, I am not, as at present advised, entirely in agreement with those who think that inquiry and discussion may lead to a very wide departure from the fiscal policy which has hitherto guided the counsels of this nation, I am bound to say that I cannot find in either of those speeches anything whatever of which I can complain. Each of those speeches was in the main devoted to indicating, and further explaining, the objects to which this inquiry and discussion should be addressed.
  The Prime Minister enumerated specifically four dangers which he anticipated from the existing state of things, or four points to the consequences of which in the future our attention ought to be directed. I have not got those four points with me, and I cannot enumerate them now. Then Mr. Chamberlain, in his speech, devoted himself to another part of the question, and specifically mentioned three other points which ought to form the subject of inquiry. I cannot conceive how anyone, assenting to the proposition that there is to be inquiry and discussion, can take exception
  758
  to speeches such as those in which the statesmen who delivered them have gone as far as they could go in defining the subjects for inquiry. I do not say that the subjects enumerated in those speeches cover the whole ground. I do not say that they are the most material points. But they are elements of inquiry, and, so far as the instruction of the public mind is concerned, I cannot conceive speeches more calculated to add to the public knowledge of the nature of the inquiry which is suggested than those two speeches. That is all the answer I can give to the Questions addressed to me on this occasion; but if any noble Lords think that there are other subjects which ought to form part of the inquiry and discussion, and which have not received attention, it is perfectly competent for them to bring them before the House and to obtain such further information as they require.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I am sorry the noble Duke has not seized the point of the noble Viscount opposite. What the noble Viscount specially asked was: Is this inquiry to be directed to the question of whether a tax of 5s. a quarter is to be laid upon corn coming into this country? In other words: Is the inquiry to be directed, in the first instance, to whether the food of the people is to be taxed?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I have said that that question has been raised, and that it must form part of the inquiry.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: It seems to me that it must not form part of the inquiry, but the very foundation of the inquiry. After all, this is to be an inquiry into a policy raised by the Colonial Secretary, and Mr. Chamberlain has stated that policy in the most explicit manner. He has said in one speech that a system of preferential tariffs was the only system by which this Empire could be kept together, and in another speech he said that if we were to give a preference to the colonies we must put a tax on food. The very essence, therefore, of Mr. Chamberlain's policy is a tax on food, and I urge that

  759
  it ought to form the very foundation of the inquiry whether it is desirable that a tax should be put on the food of the people.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: I do not rise to continue this discussion, but to ask the noble Duke a Question. It has been stated, and not contradicted, that the campaign in favour of preferential tariffs is to begin in October. That presupposes that by October the inquiry on the part of the Government will have come to an end; and I therefore trust that before that campaign begins the supporters of the Government in Parliament will have the opportunity of hearing from the Prime Minister or the noble Duke himself what course the Cabinet are determined to adopt in this matter.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It would be impossible for me to state at present what course the Government will take in regard to making any announcement before the close of the session.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: Before the campaign begins?
  [No answer was given.]
  The subject then dropped.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (the Earl of ONSLOW)said the object of the new sub-section standing in his name was to give to the Board of Agriculture the same powers in regard to prosecutions under the Merchandise Marks Act for any misdescription of fish as it now possessed in regard to other articles.
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 17, at end, to insert as a new subsection, 'The Merchandise Marks (Prosecutions) Act, 1894 (which relates to the undertaking by the Board of Agriculture of prosecu-
  760
  tions under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, in certain cases), shall apply to the produce of any fishing industry as it applies to agricultural or horticultural produce.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  LORD HENEAGEexplained that the object of his Amendment was to definitely fix October 1 next as the date on which the Act should come into operation.
  Amendment moved.
  "In page 2, line 39, to leave out from ('three') to the end of the sub-section."—(Lord Heneage.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 140.)

  THE IMPERIAL YEOMANRY.
  *LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government for what reason eligibility for promotion to warrant rank is withheld from the permanent staff of the Imperial Yeomanry, having regard to the statement of the Secretary of State for War on 10th February, 1902, viz.:—
  "Warrant rank is confined to the Regular Army and Militia who are liable to be embodied for long periods,"
  and to the fact that the Yeomanry force is now also liable to be embodied under the Militia and Yeomanry Act, 1902. I put this Question on behalf of a very deserving body of men, who are placed in positions of considerable responsibility in the Yeomanry force—men who are selected for their efficiency and conduct, and who are only retained in the force as long as they are efficient and well behaved. Their comrades holding a similar position in the Militia are eligible for warrant rank, whilst they have been hitherto refused it. It is unnecessary for me to state on what grounds it has

  761
  been refused. I believe every Committee that has sat at the War Office on Yeomanry matters has invariably recommended that the non-commissioned officers on the permanent staff of the Yeomanry should be eligible for this promotion. This privilege, however, has been invariably refused. Last year, as your Lordships will see from the quotation in my Question, the Secretary of State stated distinctly that "warrant rank was confined to the Regular Army and the Militia, who are liable to be embodied for long periods." Since that time, however, the Militia and Yeomanry Act has been passed, and the Yeomanry are now liable for a long period of embodiment. Therefore I am unable to see why eligibility to promotion should any longer be refused to these permanent sergeants in the Yeomanry. So far as the reasons given by the Secretary of State are concerned, it is inconsistent any longer to refuse this privilege; and therefore I ask the Question in the hope that His Majesty's Government will at length admit the reasonableness of this claim.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of HARDWICKE): I have no reason to take exception to anything which the noble Lord has stated in asking this Question, nor can I dispute any of the facts he has mentioned, but I will call attention to the extract from the answer that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War gave in the House of Commons and which appears in the Question. That extract was part of a reply to a Question addressed on the subject of the Volunteers, and not in connection with the Yeomanry at all; and the Secretary of State, in stating that warrant rank was confined to the Regular Army and the Militia, who were liable to be embodied for long periods, merely stated a fact as the facts were at the time. Had the Yeomanry been under the same conditions as the Militia at that time he doubtless would not have made that answer to the Question, because if he did not feel disposed to grant warrant rank to the Yeomanry he would not have stated that it was merely confined to the Militia who were liable to embodiment for long periods. I would like to point out that the conditions of service in the
  762
  Militia and Yeomanry are very different. The Militia non-commissioned officers are eligible for warrant rank, but they are employed practically the whole year.
  *LORD HARRIS: So are the Yeomanry officers.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: But the Militia sergeants are actively employed the whole year.
  *LORD HARRIS: So are the Yeomanry.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: The recruits are at the depots for forty-nine days preliminary drill in addition to the training of one month, and Militiamen are allowed to, and do, go up for preliminary drill, at all periods of the year. Therefore I state, without fear of contradiction, that Militia sergeants are actively employed the whole year round. As regards the Yeomanry sergeants the case is different. The training is only sixteen days. The preliminary drill of a Yeoman consists of twenty drills only, and for an efficient Yeoman ten drills, and the only work that a non-commissioned officer in the Yeomanry has to do during the rest of the year is to instruct Yeomen when they come up for that instruction. I do not think the noble Lord can deny that for the greater part of the year the Yeomanry non-commissioned officer has not a great deal to do. I would also point out to the noble Lord that at present many Yeomanry regiments are under strength; and though I do not wish to shut the door to granting warrant rank to Yeomanry non-commissioned officers, I fear I cannot hold out any immediate prospect of warrant rank being granted. When the Yeomanry regiments are up to strength the matter will be again considered, and it is possible that the Secretary of State may then be able to take a more favourable view of the matter than he is able to do at present.
  LORD WENLOCK: Might I ask the noble Earl how many regiments are below strength? There are regiments to whom neither of the reasons given for withholding warrant rank would apply, and I should like to ask how long it will

  763
  be before those who are already up to their full strength will have the privilege. The noble Earl seemed to consider that Yeomanry non-commissioned officers have very little to do as compared with the Militia, but I believe they have far more work in uncompleted regiments than they would have if the regiments were up to their full strength.
  LORD MONKSWELL: The noble Earl the Under-Secretary tells the House that the Secretary of State will reconsider the question when the Yeomanry regiments are up to strength. I fail to follow the bearing of the answer. Does warrant rank depend on the strength?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: The simple fact is that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, this is not the moment to grant this warrant rank; and for this reason, that when once you have given warrant rank you cannot take it away. You have, therefore, to be very careful in choosing your sergeants for that position. As Yeomanry non-commissioned officers are not always actively employed, and have a great deal of leisure on their hands, it is necessary that care should be exercised not to grant this rank to officers when we have not had sufficient experience of their capacity.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I should like to ask how many Yeomanry regiments are below strength. In many counties I know they are above strength. I hardly think that the answer given by the noble Earl is satisfactory to the Imperial Yeomanry, which fine fighting force ought to be encouraged. They feel that an unmerited snub has been administered to the non-commissioned officers of the Imperial Yeomanry in not putting them on the same footing as Militia non-commissioned officers, especially as the new Act has now come into force.
  *LORD HARRIS: I cannot help expressing regret that I have not received a more favourable answer. The fact is that there are many regiments of Yeomanry at the present moment up to strength, and if it is legitimate some time or other that regiments on full strength should have this privilege
  764
  accorded to them, why should it not be granted now to those regiments which are up to strength? But I think it is unwise to apply that test. The strength of the Yeomanry is a purely arbitrary standard. I can assure my noble friend, who has not had quite so much experience of the Yeomanry as I have had—
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I have had none.
  *LORD HARRIS: I thought so from what the noble Earl said, but I can assure him that a Yeomanry sergeant-major has quite as much work to do as a Militia sergeant-major.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have nothing to add to the reasons that my noble friend has given, but I do not like the remark of my noble friend opposite, that a snub had been administered to Yeomanry non-commissioned officers, to pass unnoticed. It is only quite recently that the Militia have been given warrant officers. They were given warrant officers during the war, and I do not think there is any necessity to institute a comparison between the particular work done by the two classes of officers. The cases of the Yeomanry and the Militia non-commissioned officer are so dissimilar that I greatly doubt whether any just parallel could be drawn between the two. I strongly deprecate the view that any snub has been administered.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I am sorry the noble Lord considers my answer unsatisfactory. I told him distinctly that I did not wish to shut the door to giving this warrant rank, but that it could not be done at the present moment.

  STAFF SERVICE.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the total number of regimental majors and lieutenant-colonels now serving on the Staff and on extra regimental duty unseconded under Regulation 26 of the Royal Warrant of 1903, and if he can state the actual number of squadron majors in the

  765
  Cavalry, and battery majors in the Artillery respectively on the Staff and extra regimental duty, and the difference in the annual pay of those officers, and that of the captains responsible for their duties during their absence from the regiments.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: There are no regimental lieutenant-colonels, and there are 322 regimental majors serving on the Staff and on extra regimental duty unseconded under Regulation 26 of the Royal Warrant of 1903. The actual number of squadron majors in the cavalry on Staff and extra regimental duty is 18, and of battery majors in the Artillery 108. The differences between the pay of these squadron majors and battery majors and that of the captains responsible for their duties during their absence from their regiments are £75 and £107 respectively.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.