Sitting of 4 May 1903

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.—
  Castleblaney, Keady, and Armagh Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Wolverhampton and Cannock Chase Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.—
  Life Association of Scotland Bill [Lords]; Faversham Gas Bill [Lords]; J Hexham Gas Bill [Lords]; Lima Railway Bill [Lords]; India Rubber, Gutta Percha, and Telegraph Works Company Bill [Lords]; North Navigation Collieries Bill [Lords]; Exeter Railway Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time.
  Great Central Railway Bill—As amended, considered; Amendments made. Bill to be read the third time.
  Queensland Investment and Land Mortgage Bill [Lords]; London County Council (General Powers) Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  London County Council (Money) Bill, read a second time, and committed.
  Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway Order Confirmation Bill, considered; to be read the third time upon Wednesday.
  London, Tilbury, and Southend Rail way Bill, reported, with Amendments Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 4).
  Mr. KEARLEY Mr. KEARLEY reported from the Committee on Group No. 4 of Railway Bills; That the parties opposing the Romford and District Tramways Bill had stated that the evidence of William Creasy, Superintendent of Police, Romford; Herbert W. Gibson, Deputy Clerk of the Essex County Council; and Percy J. Sheldon, Surveyor to the Essex County Council, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said William Creasy, Herbert W. Gibson, and Percy J. Sheldon do attend the said Committee on Thursday, at half-past eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That William Creasy, Herbert W. Gibson, and Percy J. Sheldon do attend the Committee on Group No. 4 of Railway Bills on Thursday, at half-past eleven of the clock.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).
  Mr. NICOL Mr. NICOL reported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills, That the parties promoting the Thames Steamboat Trust Bill had stated that the evidence of Robert Baggalay, 9, Fenchurch Street, E.C., Consulting Engineer, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Robert Baggalay do attend the said Committee to-morrow, at half-past eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Robert Baggalay do attend the Committee on Group D of Private Bills to-morrow, at half-past eleven of the clock.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill, reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to construct additional dock works on the Liverpool side of the River Mersey; to amend in certain respects the Acts relating to that Board; and for other purposes." [Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords].
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Company; and for other purposes." [Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill [Lords].

  HOUSE OF LORDS (MANUSCRIPTS).
  That they communicate Copy of the Manuscripts of the House of Lords, Volume II. (New Series), as desired by this House.
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords], Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill [Lords], read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petition from Elford, against; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Rotherham (No. 2); Holbrook; West Kiveton; Hucknall (No. 1); Senghenydd; Hednesford; West Cannock (No. 3); Cannock Chase; Jerome (No. 11) Pit; Garforth; Mow Cop; Hucknall (No. 2); Newton; and, Pontllanfraith Collieries; to lie upon, the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Logie Pert; and, Auchterhouse; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petition from North Lambeth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIBEL BILL.
  Petition from London, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Dumfries; Ancrum; Glasgow; and, Jedburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Seaton; Elford; Reading (two); and, Charlton on Otmoor; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Petition from Paddington, against (praying to be heard by Counsel); to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Peterborough; and, Badminton; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Glasgow; Dundee; and, Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE UNIONS AND TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petition from Greenock, against; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADES DISPUTES BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Rotherham (No. 2); West Kiveton; Holbrook Senghenydd; Newton; Hednesford; Cannock Chase; Jerome (No. 11) Pit; Garforth; Mow Cop; Hucknall (No. 2) Hucknall (No. 1): and, Pontllanfraith Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LICENCES REFUSED).
  Return presented, relative thereto [address 17th March, Mr. Cochrane]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 141.]
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of a licence to be at large granted to Herbert Arthur Greene, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of a licence to be at large granted to Alfred Edwards, to which are annexed conditions other than
  1182
  those contained in Schedule A of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland for the year 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the Sea and Inland Fisheries of Ireland for 1901. Part. II. Scientific Investigations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND),
  Copy presented, of Four Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland with respect to the Urban County Districts of Bangor, Carrick-on-Suir, and Tullamore [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (CONTRIBUTIONS BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 9th March; Mr. Trevelyan]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 142.)
  SOUTH AFRICAN LOAN AND WAR CONTRIBUTION (GUARANTEE).
  Committee to consider of authorising the Treasury to guarantee on the security of the Consolidated Fund the interest of a loan to be raised by the Transvaal, and the principal of any such loan by means of the guarantee of Sinking Fund payments (King's Recommendation signified), upon Wednesday.—(Sir William Walrond.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Proposed Refreshment Kiosk at Hampton Court Palace.
  Sir THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the Office of Works will arrange to erect a refreshment kiosk in the grounds adjacent to Hampton Court Palace, similar to that already provided for visitors to Kew Gardens.

  1183
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The First Commissioner has personally examined the ground at Hampton Court, and is satisfied that abundant facilities for obtaining refreshment already exist within reasonable reach of the Palace, and that there is no necessity to erect a kiosk for that purpose. The matter will be carefully watched, and should it be found that the accommodation is inadequate the First Commissioner will go into the question again.

  Mosely Mission—Publication of Reports.
  Sir HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can arrange with the chief of the Mission for the publication, at a nominal price, of the reports of the trades union leaders who accompanied Mr. Mosely, C.M.G., on his visit to the industrial centres of the United States.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have communicated with Mr. Mosely, who is willing to issue an edition of his reports at the nominal price of 6d. per copy. Arrangements are being made by the Board of Trade to distribute a large number of copies to persons and bodies likely to be interested in the subject.

  Construction of Pier at Aultbea, Rossshire.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that application has been made to the Board of Trade for powers to construct a pier or quay at Aultbea, Ross-shire, is he now in a position to say what decision has been arrived at on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  The Board of Trade have made a Provisional Order authorising the construction of a pier at Aultbea, and when it has been advertised it will be submitted to Parliament for confirmation.

  Registration of Postal Packets—Payment of Compensation.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that while the public are permitted to use the Post Office for transmission of valuable property in a cover duly registered the Post Office authorities refuse compensation when the contents
  1184
  are stolen in transit and the cover only is delivered at its destination, he will state why the public are not warned of this non-liability of the Post Office by a statement in the rules or on the registered receipts; whether he will state the number and amount of claims made against the Post Office during the past five years, with all particulars in respect of valuable property abstracted from registered covers while in Post Office custody; and whether he will supply a list of particulars of decisions in courts of law respecting the liability or non-liability of the Post Office under such circumstances.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) If the hon. Member is alluding to the Inland service of the United Kingdom, it is not the fact that compensation is refused when the contents of a registered letter are stolen in transit and the cover only is delivered at the place of destination. In such cases payment is made not as a matter of legal liability but as an act of grace, within certain limits and subject to certain conditions which are set forth on the official certificates of posting, and at pages 13 to 17 of the Post Office Guide. In the International post, which is regulated by the Postal Union Convention, there is no liability to compensate in the case of a registered but uninsured packet unless it is entirely lost, in which case an indemnity of fifty francs is payable. Nevertheless, in this country compensation up to that amount would be granted for the loss of contents if it were clear that such loss had occurred while the packet was in the custody of the British Post Office. I regret that I cannot undertake to supply the hon. Member with particulars of all claims and losses of the kind which have arisen during the last five years. It is provided by Section 3 of the Post Office Act, 1875, that the registration of a postal packet shall not render the Postmaster-General or the postal revenue liable for the loss of any such packet or the contents thereof.

  Promotion in the Brighton Post Office.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.): To asK the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why a woman telegraphist from Beckenham has been placed in charge of the branch office at

  1185
  St. James' Street, Brighton, to the disadvantage of the Brighton female staff, seeing that the clerk promoted has performed counter duties for ten years, whilst the Brighton telegraphists have been performing these duties since the office was staffed by women.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on the 7th ultimo.†

  National Expenditure—Extra Expenditure on Account of War.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the expenditure in 1902–3 of £184,484,000 was expenditure on account of the war and how much was ordinary expenditure, calculated on the same basis as the war, and ordinary expenditure for 1901–2, given on page 2 of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.136 of Session 1902, dividing the war expenditure into the three items there detailed.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie) The Exchequer issues in 1902–3, amounting to £184,484,000, comprised ordinary and war expenditure as follows—Total ordinary expenditure £129,352,000; war expenditure as estimated: interest on war debt, £4,282,000; Army Votes, £40,000,000; Civil Service Votes, £10,850,000; total war expenditure as estimated, £55,132,000—total, £184,484,000. The estimated charge of £40,000,000 on Army Votes includes £350,000 for China. The war charge of £10,850,000 on Civil Votes includes the sum of £3,000,000 issued as a temporary advance to the Governments of the new colonies, repayable out of the proceeds of the Guaranteed Loan.

  Transvaal Compensation and Loan.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer from what funds the £5,000,000, estimated to be required for payment by the Imperial Government to the Transvaal, in respect of claims for compensation arising under the proclamations promising protection issued by Lord Roberts and other Generals, has been or will be met; and
  † See (4) Debates, cxx., 1242.
  1186
  what items, voted in respect of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony (and on what dates voted), are included in the sum of £4,000,000 to be repaid by the Transvaal out of the Transvaal Loan.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The £5,000,000 referred to in the first part of the Question is a rough estimate, and towards this sum £3,000,000 is provided from Army funds (£1,000,000 in 1902–3, and £2,000,000 in 1903–4), and the balance is to be provided from the proceeds of the Transvaal Guaranteed Loan. Of the £4,000,000 referred to in the latter part of the Question, £3,000,000 is the repayable portion of the grant-in-aid voted on the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates of July, 1901, and the balance represents in round figures a claim by the War Office in connection with capital expenditure on railways.

  Exchequer Bonds.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to pay off or renew the whole, or any part, of the £10,000,000 Exchequer Bonds, that are repayable in August of the present year.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) I think it would be premature to decide at present.

  Output of Lymph by Local Government Board.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of tubes of glycerinated calf lymph produced during the last financial year at the Local Government Board's vaccine station.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Seven hundred and ninety-nine thousand and ninety-two tubes of glycerinated calf lymph were issued by the Local Government Board during the financial year 1902–3.

  Private Establishments for Smallpox Patients.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of private establishments for the reception of smallpox patients within the county of London area; are they subject to inspection, and, if so, by whom.

  1187
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am am not aware that there are any private establishments in London for the reception of smallpox patients.

  Dogs found by the Police—Cost of Keep.
  Colonel LEGGE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a sum of £38 7s. 6d. was realised by a sale by auction at Aldridge's on 24th April, of lost dogs seized by the police; and, if so, will he say whether this amount is in excess of the cost of the keep of the dogs during the time they have been in the hands of the police; and if so, to what purpose the balance has been applied.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The cost of keeping the dogs at the Dogs' Home, added to the charges in connection with their sale, exceeded by £4 18s. the amount realised by their sale at auction.

  Convicts as Witnesses—Improved fare.
  MR. GUTHRIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that convicts called as witnesses receive the ordinary prison diet whilst in attendance at the Courts of Justice; and whether, considering the strain to which they are subjected by prolonged cross-examination, he can take steps to revise the prison regulations in this respect.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The case can be met without altering the existing rules. I have authorised the governors of prisons to arrange that convicts giving evidence in a court of law shall be allowed some special addition to their diet if, in the particular circumstances, the ordinary diet is insufficient.

  Re-arrest of Escaped Criminal Lunatics —Case of Sheehan.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the police have taken no steps to arrest the man Sheehan, an escaped lunatic from the Dundrum
  1188
  Criminal Asylum, seeing that the Rathduff police were on Sunday, 19th April, informed of this man's whereabouts.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The police at Rathduff have had no opportunity to detain Sheehan. They were informed that he was in the locality; inquiry, however, satisfied the police, as well as the informant, that the latter was quite mistaken.

  Irish Land Purchase Acts—Unexpended Funds.
  MR. GOULDING: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there are any funds still available for land purchase under the Irish Land Purchase Acts, 1885 to 1901; and if so, what is the amount in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There are no funds available for advances under the Acts of 1885 to 1888. With respect to the Acts of 1891 to 1901, the estimated capitalised value of the shares of counties in the Guarantee Fund, when last ascertained, was £39,145,348 (House of Commons Paper, No. 355, of the Session of 1901). The total advances to tenant purchasers under the latter Acts amounted to £12,336,685 on the 31st March last.

  Messrs Vickers, Son and Maxim, and the Fair Wages Resolution.
  MR. KEIRHARDIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at Messrs. Vickers, Son and Maxim's Brightside Works men are employed on Government work at less than the standard wages, whilst competent workmen who were in receipt of the full rate of 38s. per week have been discharged to make room for semi-skilled workmen at lower rates; and, if so, whether he will take steps to secure that the Fair Wages Resolution of this House is observed in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) On inquiry, Messrs. Vickers, Son, and Maxim state that in no case have fully rated men been discharged from the Brightside Works who are employed on. Government work to make room for

  1189
  semi-skilled workmen at lower rates; that the standard rate of wage customary in the district or a rate above that amount is paid, in accordance with the Fair Wages' Resolution, on Government work; and that out of the total number of men employed on ordnance work 31·3 per cent. are in receipt of wages in excess of the standard rate.

  Soldiers in County Asylums—Case of Private Bowers.
  MR. FREDERICK WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the case of Private C. Bowers, No. 3,835, of the 2nd Norfolk Regiment, who came home from South Africa a few months ago and almost immediately had to be taken to the Norfolk County Asylum, where he worked in the kitchen, besides contributing sixpence per day towards his keep; and whether, seeing that this man's Reserve pay has been handed over to the Norfolk County Asylum by the War Office, and in view of his position, he will state whether his treatment is in accordance with the Army Regulations; and whether he can take any steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. Under the regulations no Reserve pay is issuable to a Reservist during his confinement in an asylum, and therefore no Reserve pay has been handed over to the asylum authorities.

  Construction of Docks at Simonstown, South Africa—Fair Wages Resolution.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that the contract held by Sir John Jackson and Company to build docks for the Admiralty at Simonstown, South Africa, is being carried out by low-paid workmen from Continental Europe and coolies from India, whilst British and South African workmen are being discharged; and whether, in view of the terms of the contract, he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) If the hon. Member desires it, inquiry can be made of the contractor as to the nationality of the workmen he is now
  1190
  employing, but under the conditions of contract no restrictions are placed upon the contractors as to the wages paid to their workmen at the Cape. The usual Fair Wages Clause is included, but only refers to the wages of workmen engaged within the limits of the United Kingdom. The amount of wages paid and the source of labour supply (subject to the laws of the colony), are entirely in the hands of the contractors.

  Employment of Children on Tea Estates in Ceylon.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware of the age at which Tamil children are employed on the tea estates of Ceylon, in all weathers, during a work-day of ten or eleven hours; and whether he will consider the advisability of bringing this question of their employment before the Educational Sub-Committee of the Commission on the Incidence of Taxation in Ceylon, now sitting there.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I have no information as to the age at which children are employed on tea estates in Ceylon, but I will ask the Governor for a Report on the subject.

  Destitute English Workmen in Canada.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that a number of men who left England for Canada on the promise of work by the Dominion Iron and Steel Company found, on arriving at St. John that the company had sufficient hands; and whether, seeing that the men upon arrival found themselves without employment, and without the means of paying their passage home again, he can make some arrangement whereby the men might be able to return home.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I am informed by the Canadian Emigration Commissioner that early in the year an application was made to him for labour of various kinds, and the assurance was given that a stated number of additional men arriving at that point would find employment awaiting them. This intimation was conveyed to a gentleman who was taking a very active interest in finding employment for artisans

  1191
  residing in the vicinity of Woolwich. Acting on this information, about 100 mechanics and artisans left Liverpool for St. John, New Brunswick, on their way to Sydney on or about 13th March. On arriving at St. John the men learned that the company declined to advance the transportation charges from St. John to their works at Sydney. Quite a number of them were not possessed of sufficient means to incur this additional expenditure. An intimation of the situation was cabled to the Canadian offices in London, and the Commissioner of Emigration immediately cabled to the Ottawa Government asking special co-operation with a view of making immediate provision for this party. The result was that within a few hours of this action being taken, arrangements were effected to bring all the men to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, where immediate employment was found for every one of them. The accounts which have come from the men, following immediately after their disappointment, indicate that they are abundantly satisfied with their present situations. No intimation has been received, either by the Government at Ottawa or the Commissioner of Emigration for Canada, that the men have any desire whatever to return home.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    65th Battery, Royal Field Artillery.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the actual strength of the 65th Battery, Royal Field Artillery, now stationed at Woolwich, at the present date, and its nominal strength; and whether it is included among the units of the 1st Army Corps.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY To The WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,: The strength of this Battery is five officers and 84 non-commissioned officers and men, as compared with an establishment of five officers and 111 non-commissioned officers and men. This battery is not included among the units of the 1st Army Corps.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: How many guns are there to the Battery?
    LORD STANLEY: I cannot say.

    City of London Artillery Volunteers.
    MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the fiveinch B.L. gun allotted by the War Office to the Loughborough Junction Headquarters of the City of London Artillery Volunteers early in 1900 was not delivered until October, 1902; that it is useless for drill in consequence of a naval instead of a garrison mounting having been supplied; that a similar gun allotted in 1900 for the use of the same corps at the Tower of London is still useless for drill through deficiencies in the fittings; and whether he will see that delay does not occur in equipping the four six-inch B.L. guns recently supplied to their regiment.
    LORD STANLEY: The guns which were taken over from the Navy required alterations and repairs which could not be taken in hand while the Ordnance Factories were fully occupied on services connected with the South African war. The gun issued to the headquarters of the corps being on a naval mounting adapted to land service is not useless for drill purposes. The deficiency in the case of the gun at the Tower was a yard scale; this deficiency did not render the gun useless, and the scale was supplied in January last. Mountings and stores will be issued for the six-inch guns as soon as they are available.

    Donegal Artillery.
    DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War I if he will explain why recruiting has been stopped for the Donegal Artillery, seeing that the regiment is only at half its strength.
    LORD STANLEY: The whole question of the Irish Militia Artillery and its employment in case of war is under consideration. Meanwhile it is considered advisable to suspend recruiting in certain units.

    Army Corps Returns.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant the Return respecting the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Army Corps which appears on to-day's Notice Paper.
    The Return referred to is as follows—
    Army (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Army Corps,—Address for Return showing the

    1st Army Corps.

    Unit.

    Number of effective soldiers with the Colours, excluding recruits under 6 months' service, sick, deserters, and prisoners.

    Nominal peace establishment.

    Horses.

    Strength.

    Establishment.

    1st Cavalry Brigade

    Artillery (by Batteries):

    Horse

    Field

    Infantry:

    First Division:

    1st Brigade

    2nd Brigade

    Second Division:

    3rd Brigade

    4th Brigade

    Third Division:

    5th Brigade

    6th Brigade

    And similarly for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Army Corps.

    composition and effective strength of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Army Corps upon any particular day in April, 1903, in the following form:—
    LORD STANLEY: I have already promised a Return, which is being prepared, covering almost the same ground as the hon. Member's proposal, and I cannot put the military authorities to the trouble of preparing two returns. The Return will be presented as a Command Paper.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: When will this Return be presented?
    LORD STANLEY: I cannot say for certain, but I will use my utmost endeavour to expedite it as much as possible.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Is the noble Lord aware that the specific Return for which I am asking was promised by the Secretary for War not later than the 1st May. Can we have it in a day or two?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The noble Lord has said he will do his best to expedite it.

    Indian Customs Duties.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that the 1st Seaforth Highlanders, on proceeding to India during the present year, were required to pay five per cent. ad valorem Customs duty on the military band instruments of the regiment, and will he state whether this duty is enforced upon all regiments proceeding on service to India, and the grounds on which the duty is imposed; and whether he can take steps to have these articles exempted in future from such duty.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord George Hamilton,): As the Indian tariff regulations now stand, military band instruments are liable to Customs duty, as they are regimental and not Government property. I have been in communication with the Viceroy on the subject, and he tells me that the general question as to whether certain articles of military equipment, among which are regimental band instruments, may not fairly be exempted from import duty, is at present engaging the attention of the Indian Government. I have asked
    1196
    him to inform me as soon as possible as to the opinion arrived at upon the subject of my hon. friend's Question.

    Brussels Sugar Convention.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, when do His Majesty's Government propose to introduce the necessary measures for the alterations in the fiscal system of this country, to which they are pledged by the Brussels Sugar Convention, and especially for imposing the extra charge on the public revenue required by Article VII. of that Convention; and in what shape do they intend to propose the measures in question.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: A Bill will be introduced during the present session, but I am not prepared to name a date at present or to state beforehand what form the Bill will take.

    Congo Free State.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before the forthcoming Debate on the Congo State, it would be possible to lay before the House the recent Reports of His Majesty's representatives in Africa as to the condition of the Congo State, and especially of the territories within that State which are subject to monopoly concessions; and whether His Majesty's representatives have been instructed to make independent inquiries as to the observance or violation of the stipulations of the Berlin Conference for the protection of natives.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CRANBORNE,: There is only one British Consul for the Congo Free State. For various reasons he has been unable to travel to such an extent as to enable him to form anything like a full opinion on the condition of the State. As I stated on March 11th, †it would be premature to consider the propriety of laying Papers before Parliament. There
    † See (4) Debates, cxix., 382.

    1197
    have been no definite instructions upon the points mentioned in the last part of the Question, but they have, in fact, been the subject of repeated attention by the Consul, especially where native British subjects have been concerned.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: May I ask the noble Lord if the Government will consider the desirability of appointing additional British Consuls for the Congo Free State?
    LORD CRANBORNE: Yes, Sir, we shall be very glad to do so.

    Morocco.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what is the present condition of affairs in Morocco; and whether British residents at Tetuan have been warned to leave the place.
    LORD CRANBORNE: The northern part of Morocco is in a condition of rather serious disturbance. According to recent information the tribes in the North and East are in a state of ferment. The country around Tangier is reported to be unsettled, and the road from that town to Tetuan to be unsafe. More recent reports are, however, less disquieting. We have not heard so far that British residents have been warned to leave Tetuan, nor does there appear to be any danger to Europeans residing at other ports.
    MR. LONSDALE: Is it not proposed to give any protection to British residents in Tetuan?
    LORD CRANBORNE: I do not think that any representations have been made by our responsible officials as to the necessity for that, and the Government have not therefore supposed that any protection is required; but of course the Government will watch the course of events and do what is necessary.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is there any British Consul there?
    LORD CRANBORNE: No.
    Later on the noble Lord corrected himself and said there was a British Vice-Consul at the place.

    Royal Commission on the Disposal of Sewage.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to take any steps towards putting into effect the recommendations contained in the Third Report of the Royal Commission on the Disposal of Sewage recently laid before Parliament.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,: The Report referred to has only recently been issued, and the evidence on which it is based has not yet been published. The recommendations contained in the Report involve questions of very considerable importance, and I am not at present in a position to state what course should be adopted in the matter. The subject, however, is receiving my consideration.

    Shrewsbury Election Petition—Prosecutions for Corruption.
    MR SOARES: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Commissioner in the Shrewsbury Election Petition reports that the mere exposure of the system of bribery, unless those responsible for finding or distributing the money are made to understand the personal danger of their proceedings, will not repress the corrupt practices prevalent; and what steps does he propose to take in the matter.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,: The Director of Public Prosecutions instituted proceedings against ten persons for bribery or being parties to bribery. Of these nine have been committed for trial and one discharged by the magistrates.

    The King's Visit to Paris—An Unfounded Rumour.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I wish to ask the Attorney-General a Question of which I have given him private notice. It is with reference to a circular sent by the Exchange Telegraph Company to its subscribers yesterday, to the effect that a rumour was widely prevalent in London that the King had been assassinated in Paris. I wish to ask whether the circulation of intelligence of an alarming character on a public matter, confessedly without verification, is not amenable to the criminal law.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I am sure that everyone will join with my hon. friend in deprecating the circulation of such a rumour, even with the reserve which appears to have accompanied it in the present case. There is no doubt that, under certain circumstances, criminal liability may attach to the circulation of false news, but whether such proceedings can properly be instituted in any particular case must depend upon the full knowledge of all the circumstances.

    Income Tax.
    MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to appoint the Committee to examine into the administration of the Income Tax.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,: It is impossible at the present time to name a date.

    Bury Magistracy.
    MR. TOULMIN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is aware that there was already a preponderance of one political party on the Bury Borough Bench of magistrates, and that the appointments just announced have increased the disproportion of parties; and, if so, will he take steps, by a further appointment of magistrates, to remedy this inequality.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Sir WILLIAM WALROND,: I was not aware that there was a preponderance of one
    1200
    political party on the Bury Bench when I recently added a few gentlemen to that Bench. I certainly did not inquire into the political views of the borough justices. It is my desire to appoint gentlemen who are well qualified, and I must exercise my own discretion and judgment in the appointments I make. I see no reason to reopen the Commissions at present.

    Bishops Froome Charity.
    MR. EDWARDS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Tunbridge, as representing the Charity Commissioners whether the attention of the Charity Commissioners has been drawn to the fact that in the case of a charity at Bishops Froome the trustees have for several years, and in spite of applications, refused to render an annual account to the Parish Council; and, if so, whether the Charity Commissioners will take steps to compel the trustees to comply with the law in this respect.
    MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: The Commissioners were informed on 18th June, 1902, by a letter forwarded to them from the Local Government Board, and written by the chairman of the Parish Council, that up to that time the accounts had been regularly forwarded at the proper time, but that those for the year 1901–2 were not forthcoming. The attention of the trustees was directed to their duties accordingly. On February 17th last, a renewed complaint was received, and on April 9th, the day when the accounts for 1902–3 ought to have been but were not rendered to the Commissioners, the trustees were required to render them accordingly within one calendar month. If the accounts are not so furnished, steps will be taken to compel their delivery. It is the chairman of the Parish Meeting, not the chairman of the Parish Council, who is entitled to receive accounts.

    Marlborough Street Training College, Dublin.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps,

    1201
    if any, have been taken to provide suitable dwelling-house accommodation for the students attending Marlborough Street Training College, Dublin, and if it is intended to place the Government College on an equality in this respect with the denominational training colleges in Dublin and other parts of Ireland.
    In putting the Question the hon. Member congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his recovery from illness.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,: The Government has had under consideration an application from the Commissioners for a grant of £50,000, or an annuity of £2,500 for thirty-five years, for the provision of suitable accommodation for the students of this college. It has not been found practicable to place so considerable a charge upon the Estimates. The proposal, however, will be further considered in relation to other demands in respect to education in Ireland.

    Irish Land Bill—Town Parks.
    MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can see his way to include town parks which are held as yearly tenancies in the coming Irish Land Bill, so that where landlord and tenant agree they may enter into terms of sale and purchase.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The existing law applies to a town park let and used as an agricultural or pastoral holding, or as partly agricultural and partly pastoral. If not so let, it is excluded from the Land Law Acts. No alteration of the existing law is therefore called for.

    Irish Land Bill.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland upon what principle will the first selection be made of Irish tenants to participate in the reductions of payment proposed by the Land Bill.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Land Bill deals chiefly with the purchase of estates. The question of selection does not arise. Bargains, if within the scope of the measure, will be sanctioned in accordance with priority of completion.

    Wicklow Valuation.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the valuation of the licensed premises of Mrs. Catherine Lowe, of Kiltigan, County Wicklow, has been raised from £8 to £15, thereby increasing the licence duty from £4 10s. to £8 a year.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The valuation of these premises was revised in accordance with the principles laid down in the Valuation Acts and was not appealed against.

    Irish Poor Law Medical Officers.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the desirability of including within the scope of the references to the Royal Commission about to be appointed to inquire into the amalgamation of unions in Ireland the question of the position of Poor Law medical officers.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This matter was dealt with in my reply to the similar Question of 30th March by the hon. Member for North Monaghan.†

    Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Sligo Rural District Council at their meeting of the 4th ultimo, wherein they protest against the value placed by the Local Government arbitrator on land sought to be acquired for the purposes of the Labourers Acts; and, if so, what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution has been received. The arbitrator's award does not compare unfavourably with the amounts awarded by other arbitrators in similar circumstances elsewhere. The Local Government Board has every confidence in the fairness of the award in the present case, and it is not proposed to take further action in the matter.
    † See (4) Debates, cxx., 558.

    Royal Irish Constabulary—Destruction of Papers.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why papers in connection with the Royal Irish Constabulary have been destroyed.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Inspector-General, on his inspection of police barracks throughout the country last summer, found large accumulations of useless and obsolete books and Returns, causing much inconvenience and, in some instances, being injurious to health. So far back as 31st October he ordered these to be arranged and examined by local officers, and finally be fixed a period for the destruction of each class of book and Return. Nothing which could be of any possible value as a public record has been destroyed or marked out for destruction under this order.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked whether these papers were not periodically destroyed, so that there was nothing new in this.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, as a matter of routine they are periodically destroyed, generally on the initiative of the officers in the place. In this case a thorough overhauling was undertaken.

    Cunard Agreement.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is in a position to state at what date Parliamentary sanction will be asked to the Cunard Agreement.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD Of The TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: It is not possible yet to name a date.

    Housing Accommodation at Westminster.
    MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the difficulty of obtaining suitable house accommodation at reasonable rents in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament, the Government
    1204
    will take steps to provide such accommodation for Members who may desire such facilities.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am aware that the difficulty to which the hon. Gentleman refers does exist, indeed, I believe that the great growth of public offices in the immediate neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament has created a difficulty in regard to business offices as well. But I think the hon. Gentleman will see that, although a difficulty undoubtedly exists, it would not be possible for the Government to attempt to remedy it; the only remedy I can imagine is that of improved transit from this House at convenient hours, or more inconvenient hours, as the case may be, to places where hon. Gentlemen reside Of course, an immense improvement has been introduced in our practice by the Twelve O'clock Rule, which enables hon. Gentlemen who live at distances to make their arrangements less inconvenient than they used to be in former times.

    The Law Officers and Mr. Whitaker Wright.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to put down the Vote for the Salaries of the Law Officers of the Crown, so as to afford an opportunity of discussing their conduct in regard to the prosecution of Mr. Whitaker Wright.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The manner in which the Attorney-General exercises his responsibilities ought not, I think, to come under the consideration of the House while the prosecution is pending. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have quite understood the situation. It has nothing whatever to do with the Solicitor-General, or anybody but the Attorney-General, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked when the Port of London Bill was to be taken, and if it was to be the first Order of the Day, seeing that a considerable number of Members desired to take part in the debate.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEY(Somersetshire, S.)asked as to the Irish Development Grant Bill.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: And what Supply will be taken on Thursday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will endeavour to give adequate notice of the Second Reading of the London Port and Docks Bill; but I hope the House will not require very long notice, because that would make it very difficult to arrange matters. With regard to the Irish Development Grant Bill, I understand it is possible that the House may desire to conclude the discussion on the Irish Land Bill to-morrow evening at half-past seven. In that event I will put down the Development Grant Bill for the Evening Sitting. With regard to the Supply for next Thursday, I think the Revenue Votes ought to be continued or one of the Navy Votes taken. No demand has been made that a Navy Vote shall be taken, so I will continue the discussion on the Revenue Vote—that is, the Post Office Vote The Budget Resolutions will, I hope, be taken next week. I propose to take the Transvaal Loan on Wednesday afternoon.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot give a little more time to the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill in order that the representatives of the British taxpayer may have an opportunity of saying a word or two on the subject?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not understand my hon. friend. What I said was that if the House desired to conclude the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill by half-past seven to-morrow, I would make such and such arrangements. That is all. I do not wish to limit the discussion.

NEW BILLS.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) BILL.
  "For the acquisition of certain land in Dublin as a site for a proposed Royal College of Science and other offices and buildings for the public service, and for purposes connected therewith," presented
  1206
  by Mr. Arthur Elliot; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 175.]

  AGED PENSIONERS (No. 3) BILL.
  "To provide Pensions for the Aged Deserving Poor," presented by Mr. Goulding; supported by Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Strutt, Mr. Remnant, Major Evans-Gordon, Mr. Griffith-Boscawen, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Bull, Mr. Hay, Colonel Kemp, Mr. Bousfield, and Mr. J. W. Wilson; to be read a second time upon Friday, 22nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 176.]
IRISH LAND BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I rise for the purpose of supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope I shall not be considered wanting in proper courtesy to the two gentlemen who have given notice of opposition to the Bill if I do not treat their notices as very serious. One stands in the name of the hon. Member for South Molton, who gives certain reasons for his opposition which are not given by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. So far as that Motion is a protest against the policy of land purchase in Ireland, I respectfully say that it is at this time of day an absurdity. For good or for evil that policy has been adopted by both Parties of the House. The Liberal Party, with which the hon. Gentleman is associated, by the action of its responsible leaders and their votes in the Division Lobby have made themselves responsible for a policy of land purchase. So, too, has the Unionist Party. Under the operation of that policy close upon 100,000 farmers have been converted into owners, and the State has advanced the sum of £22,000,000 for the purpose, not a single sixpence of which has been lost. Under these circumstances it does seem to me almost puerile to suggest a reversal of that policy at this time of day. The Motion also alludes to what the hon. Member calls large gifts of public money. But the hon. Member, of course, is aware—as he is a well-informed man—that the

  1207
  money proposed to be given is Irish money. The Chief Secretary, in introducing the Measure, candidly and honestly told the House that this sum of £12,000,000 would be more than recouped by economies which could easily be effected, and had, in fact, been already partially effected in the cost of the administration of Ireland; and I respectfully submit to the hon. Member that when he finds Irish representation on both sides of the House absolutely united as to the particular allocation of purely Irish money, he might let his conscience be at rest, and console himself with the reflection that, after all, this is none of his business. Everybody who seriously regards his present situation knows perfectly well that an opportunity has unexpectedly arisen—an unparalleled opportunity—of making an attempt to lay the foundation of social peace in Ireland, and I do not envy the responsibility of hon. Members on either side of the House whose sole contribution to the situation is to propose a Motion, which, if carried, will drive the Irish people back into a perfect hell of conflict, passions, and disappointed hopes, and will destroy the best chance English statesmanship has had for the last hundred years of converting Ireland into a peaceful and prosperous country. It was my duty on the night when the Bill was introduced to speak immediately after the Chief Secretary, and to state there and then the impression the measure made on my mind; it was indeed a difficult task, and I necessarily spoke with the greatest possible reserve and caution. But, speaking now after full consideration of the measure, and after it has been subjected to most searching criticism in Ireland, I may be allowed to congratulate myself on the fact that I have nothing to change and very little to add to what I then said. The general impression, which was created the night the Bill was introduced—the general impression then gathered of the object, the purpose, and the principle of the Bill—was perfectly accurate, and the blots in the Bill which I then and there, in the name of my colleagues, pointed out and condemned, were the very points which have been universally condemned by public opinion in Ireland during these anxious weeks of the close examination of
  1208
  this Bill. I may say that of the real vital defects in this Bill there was scarcely one which was not instantly detected by my hon. friends who sit around me on these Benches, and at once denounced by me in their name. I and my friends and public opinion in Ireland recognise that in purpose and principle this is a great measure—that it is the greatest measure of land purchase reform ever seriously offered to the Irish people, and that it is intended to contain, and may quite easily be made to contain, all the elements of a settlement of the Irish agrarian difficulty, and the ending of the Irish land war, the permanent unity of all classes in Ireland and the laying broad and sure of the foundations of social peace. This impression of the general purpose and principle of the Bill and its possibilities has been intensified by the examination of the measure which has taken place in Ireland. So also has been intensified our conviction that there are defects in the measure of so grave a character that they are calculated, if left without remedy, largely to destroy and defeat the entire purpose and object of the Bill. The presence of those defects in the Bill is a repetition of the old story of the British belief in their superior wisdom, knowledge and experience of the wants of Ireland. In the Land Conference landlord and tenant came together and put forward their mature judgment as to what was necessary for the settlement of this question. But unfortunately, as usual, those who are responsible for this measure thought they knew what was wanted in Ireland better than Irishmen themselves, and the terms of the Land Conference Report have been seriously departed from, and the Bill offered not what the united wisdom of landlord and tenant asked for, but something different.
  The Nationalist Convention held the other day in Dublin passed as its first Resolution a declaration from which I wish to read the following words—
  "That we congratulate the Irish race on the introduction by a British Ministry of a measure which for the first time in the history of land legislation in the Imperial Parliament, with the common assent of all parties in Ireland, accepts the principle that dual ownership in Ireland must end, and that, after centuries of struggle, the land of Ireland should he restored to the people of Ireland; that the acceptance of this principle promises the removal of the uncertainty, turmoil, and antagonism which have so long rendered peace or contentment

  1209
  impossible in Ireland; that we feel it our duty at the same time to declare that the measure require serious amendment in various points of vital importance; and in the earnest desire to make it acceptable to all classes in Ireland, and to be put into a position to present it to our people as a final settlement of the land struggle, we request the United Irish Party to press with all their power for the amendments which this Convention may propose on these points; and that in the confident expectation that the Bill will be largely and favourably amended in Committee, this Convention entrusts to the Irish Parliamentary Party the power and responsibility of deciding the attitude to be adopted towards the measure in the subsequent stages."
  I have read that portion of the Resolution in order to show the House of Commons the spirit in which the Nationalist representatives approached the subject of Amendments to this Bill. Our object and the object of the Government is precisely the same. Both want a settlement of this question. Both want peace between classes in Ireland. Both want a financial arrangement which will be sound and safe alike to the State and to the tenant. Both want the landlords, after they have ceased to be landlords, to have the opportunity, if they desire, to live in their own country and take a share in the management of Irish affairs. We want the whole race to set to work in an earnest effort to repair the ravages of the past. Therefore, our object and the object of the Government are precisely the same, and let me say that we will propose no Amendment in Committee on this Bill hostile to the general purpose and spirit of the measure. We will propose no Amendment that in our judgment is not absolutely necessary in order to carry out the avowed intention and purpose of the Bill, none which, in our opinion, are not really as much in the interest of the landlord as in the interest of the tenants. For my part, I may be allowed to express my earnest hope, and indeed my belief, that there will be found scarcely one of our Amendments which will not receive in the House the support of the representatives of the Irish landlords. I think I know the proper limits of a discussion on the Second Reading of a Bill, and I have therefore no intention whatever of going: seriatim through the Amendments which we intend to propose, and which w believe to be necessary in order to make the measure a final settlement. But
  1210
  there are certain defects in this Bill of so far-reaching and fatal a character that I must be allowed shortly to deal with them. First there is the question of the price which the tenant is to pay and the amount the landlord is to receive. Then there is the exclusion from the operation of the Bill of certain classes of tenants, questions of the interference of this Bill with existing rights of tenants, questions of administration and the important question of the congested districts.
  I put the question of price in the forefront, because it must be manifest to everyone that it is absolutely vital to the success of the Bill, to the welfare of the individual purchaser and the future welfare of the State. The Bill provides a minimum price which every tenant must pay unless he is to be excluded from all the benefits of the Act. We protest against the fixing of a minimum price, holding it to be altogether out of place in a voluntary Bill. We claim that perfect freedom of bargaining must be left under the Bill to the landlords and tenants of Ireland. Clause 1 provides that the purchasing tenant must pay as his purchase instalment instead of rent. 70 per cent. in one class of sale, and at least 60 per cent. in another class of judicial rents. The largest reduction a tenant can obtain under the purchase clause is 30 per cent. in the case of one class of tenants, and 40 per cent. in another. But under the existing purchase system we know that, whatever the average price may have been, there have been cases of reduction as far as 40, 45, and 50 per cent. It may be said that these are extreme cases, in the sense that they are cases of poor holdings on bad land; but no one knows better than the Chief Secretary that such cases are by no means confined to congested districts. There is scarcely an estate in the whole of Ireland, even in Ulster and the richest parts, where you will not find a certain number of these poor holdings. But the Bill only deals with them where they are in great numbers on an estate. The right hon. Gentleman has recognised that it would be ridiculous where a large portion of an estate is made up of such holdings to put the limitations of the Bill as to price in operation, and these limitations are

  1211
  entirely removed in the congested districts, defined as estates, where one-half of the holdings do not exceed ten acres in area and £5 in rateable value, or are of mountain or bog land. But where the holdings of this character are only a third of the estate the limitations will be imposed, with the effect either that the poor holders will be forced to buy at a price which has been proved to be extravagant, or else the Bill will fail by its exclusion of the very class of tenant whose condition constitutes the evils and the dangers of the Irish land system. If this provision remains in the Bill it will, in my opinion, seriously threaten either the security of the State, by forcing these unfortunate tenants to buy at an extravagant price, or else it will threaten the success of the measure by excluding these men from its operation. The Bill abolishes altogether the decadal system of reduction, the system established in 1896, whereby tenants were enabled to get further reductions every ten years after the first thirty. But the retention of this decadal system is that advocated by all parties in Ireland, and I hope that under these circumstances it will be possible to recast the Bill so as to give effect to this general opinion. It might be done by reducing interest from 2¾ to 2½ per cent. The right hon. Gentleman dissents from that, but it is worth his while to consider the matter. A resolution by Lord Dunraven's Committee suggested that economies in Irish administration should be ear-marked, and, instead of going to the reduction of charge for the bonus, should be used go set up the decadal reduction system. This is not the time to press that matter in further detail, but I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to take note of the fact that all parties—every section of the landlords and all the representatives of the tenants—desire this decadal reduction system to be maintained. I hope he will be able to see some way out of this difficulty.
  While I am on the question of finance, let me point out that the Bill provides that the bonus is to be distributed in inverse ratio to the amount of the purchase money. The effect of this will be to keep large estates out of the market, because in such cases, as far as the bonus is concerned, there will cease to be absolutely any inducement to
  1212
  sell at all. Public opinion in Ireland has taken a very decided course on this matter. The National Convention, the Landlords' Convention, and Lord Dunraven's Committee are absolutely at one in urging the desirability of having a uniform bonus, of making that bonus 15 per cent. all round on the purchase money from the beginning, provided that no landlord shall get the advantage of a bonus who does not initiate proceedings for the sale of his estate within five years. I ask the House to note the significance of the fact that, step by step, I am able to quote the recommendations of the landlords, as well as of the tenants, for my suggested alterations in the Bill I hold a very strong opinion as to the necessity for a time limit if this Bill is to work at such a rate as will afford any prospect of the settlement of this question in our lifetime.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: Will the hon. and learned Member state where the landlords of Ireland agreed to a time limit?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Yes, I have got it here. It is paragraph No. 3 where they state—
  "We consider that the grant-in-aid should, he distributed at a uniform rate of not less than 15 per cent. and by transactions initiated by the landlord within a period of five years after the passing of this Act."
  I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I am too old a tactician to attempt to secure a point by making a false statement. Upon all these points I am quoting, not only the opinion of the tenants, but also of the landlords. Allow me now to address a few words on the subject of the evicted tenants. I am most anxious not to rake up any subject of past conflict, controversy, or bitterness, but I ask the House of Commons, composed as it is in the main, I am certain, of fair-minded men, can they expect that we upon these Benches, who have been connected with this Irish land struggle for the last twenty years and have been connected with these evicted tenants, can possibly be expected to accept as a final settlement of the Irish Land Question any scheme which excludes from its operation these men, who have risked and lost everything in the

  1213
  land struggle. Does any sane man inside this House dream that this measure can succeed in its great object of bringing permanent peace to Ireland if it leaves here and there over the country centres of grievance, trouble and disaffection, in the persons of disaffected tenants excluded from the Bill? No sane man can take such a view. Speaking through the mouth of those who sat on the Land Conference and upon Lord Dunraven's Committee, which speaks in the name of a large majority of the landlords, and proved by a very large vote taken some months ago that they are not hostile upon this question. They recognise that you cannot expect to have social peace if these men here and there are discontented, and I cannot conceive for a moment that the Government hold any such insane idea. In answer to an inquiry, it was with great relief to my mind that Sir Antony Macdonnel wrote to me to the effect that it was not the intention of the Government to exclude any evicted tenants from the benefits of this Bill. There are limitations in Clause 2 which, if left in the Bill, must exclude a large proportion indeed of evicted tenants. I take it when we come to the Committee stage there will be no objections to absolutely removing these limits and putting the evicted tenants exactly upon the same footing as other persons, so far as limitation of amount is concerned.
  I have referred to the evicted tenants for the purpose of emphasising another point, because I take it for granted that the limitations must go. The Bill provides nothing at all in the shape of powers to the Estates Commissioners or anybody else to facilitate friendly arrangements to enable old tenants to get back on to the farms which are now in the possession of new tenants; but, vastly important as this is, it is a small and circumscribed question. There are not many such cases, and I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to put compulsion into his Bill. I am not asking that, although I think under the circumstances it would be a wise thing to do. What I am asking is to give to the Estates Commissioners sufficient powers and sufficient money to enable them to facilitate friendly arrangements whereby many of these tenants might get back their old homes. Their number is
  1214
  very small. I know it is very small, although I would not like to commit myself to the exact numbers. We know also from our experience that many of these tenants are not really agriculturists at all, for they are kept there at great expense by the landlord, simply as part of the land war, and we know that the Estates Commissioners, if they were practical and sensible men, if they had the powers and a small sum of money, would be able to effect friendly relations in a great majority of these cases. A suggestion was made, which struck me as a very useful one, by the Freeman's Journal. That journal suggested that the reserve fund should be used partly for this purpose. I may explain to the House that the reserve fund is part of the guarantee fund under the Land Act of 1891, that it was abolished by the Land Act of 1896, and at the time it was abolished it amounted, I think, to about £200,000; and now it amounts probably to not far short of £250,000. What is done with that sum under this Bill? It is given to the Land Commissioners for a purpose analogous to the one I am dealing with. It is given to the Land Commissioners for improvement works where they purchase an estate, and where they enlarge the buildings and so forth, before giving it back to the tenants. I think the suggestion is an admirable one that these Commissioners should have the power of using this £250,000, not only to improve farms before reselling, but also for the purpose of endeavouring to bring about these friendly settlements. The amount required would be very little. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose introduced an Evicted Tenants Bill he proposed £100,000, and he proposed to take it from the Church Fund. As time has gone on the area affected by this question has undoubtedly diminished, and if £100,000 was all that was necessary then a considerably less sum would be all that would be necessary now. I think it only a fair thing to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give this power to the Commissioners, and use this fund for this purpose, as well as that of the improvement and enlargement of buildings.
  This is called a voluntary Bill, and yet in one portion of it there is contained com-

  1215
  pulsion of the most serious and objectionable character upon certain classes of tenants. It is provided that where an estate is sold to the Estates Commissioners, and where three-fourths of the tenants agree to buy their holdings back from the Commissioners, that then the remaining one fourth shall be compelled to buy at a price that, presumably, they think unfair, or else in the alternative they lose once and for ever all their rights to have fair rents fixed under the Act of 1881; but it does not stop there, for it goes on to say that in every case that the Lord Lieutenant approved of, the same thing can take place where a bare majority are in favour of the sale. That has only, I think, to be stated to show what a monstrously unjust proposal it is. The landlord makes a bargain with the Estates Commissioners and sells his estate to them, and out of 100 tenants perhaps fifty-one are willing to buy their holdings at the price named by the Commission; but forty-nine think it exorbitant, and they would be beggared if they paid it. The result will be that the fifty-one men will buy and the forty-nine are deprived of the right of having their rents fixed under the Act. Here again the Irish landlords take the same view that we do. I have the resolution here, if I am challenged, where they declare that Clause 17, to which I am alluding, imposes unjust and oppressive restrictions upon the tenants and constitutes in point of fact compulsion. I think perhaps I ought to quote the words, for they are very short—
  "While recognising that sales and purchase should not be impeded by the unreasonable action of small minorities, we recommend that Clause 17 of the Bill involves compulsion upon tenant to an unwarrantable extent."
  I cannot conceive that the right hon. Gentleman will hesitate for a moment to remove this blot from the Bill. When I complained of this on the first night when this Bill was introduced, the Chief Secretary answered, by means of an interruption by saying, that there was a precedent in the 40th Section of the Act of 1896; but really that is not so, because the 40th Section of that Act is entirely different. What it provides is that where three-fourths of the tenants agree to buy, the remainder, if they refuse the terms, shall be treated as if they had bought,
  1216
  and called upon to pay their instalments on the same basis as if they had bought; but there is no interference at all, except in that way, with their right to get a fair rent fixed under the Act of 1881. What is proposed here? The compulsion is not to compel men to buy if they refuse, the penalty is not that they should pay regular instalments on the basis of purchase, but that they shall remain as tenants, but as tenants deprived of their right under the Act of 1881 to have a fair rent fixed. Everyone must admit that it would be a monstrous thing if a little handful of tenants were able to block the purchase or sale of an estate. We all recognise that some provision of that kind ought to be in the Bill, but we protest most vehemently against giving the power to a bare majority to compel the rest. We protest against even a majority of three-fourths, and we say, whatever the proportion arrived at may be, that penalty ought to be similar to the penalty under the 4th Section of the Act of 1891 and not as provided in this Bill.
  Now I want to say a word or two on the question of administration. There never was a measure proposed which so absolutely depends upon administration as this Bill. On the first night I innocently fell into a very great mistake on this matter. Understanding from the right hon. Gentleman that the administration of this Bill was to be in the hands of a non-judicial tribunal, where the members would be all on an equality, where their salaries would be on the Estimates, so that we could discuss them and criticise them on the floor of the House, I rose and congratulated him heartily on the administration which he proposed in the Bill. I will not say that I was deceived, but I was under an entire misapprehension. It is perfectly true that, so far as two of these gentlemen are concerned they are on an equality, and their salaries are to be on the Estimates and we can discuss them. But the third member of the Commission is not to be on an equality with t lie other two, and whether he is called President or Chairman is a very small matter. He is, as the Bill stands, the superior, the boss of the tribunal. The two gentlemen are to have salaries of £2,000 a year, I think it is, and their salaries are to be on the Estimates and we can all discuss

  1217
  them. But the third gentleman is to have a salary of £3,000 a year, and his salary is to be on the Consolidated Fund, like that of a judge. And who, forsooth, is this gentleman? The one man in all Ireland, I believe, whom the Government could have found, against whom both landlord and tenant object. We have had considerable experience of Mr. Wrench, both on the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board, and we object to his nomination on its merits, even if he were on an equality with the other two. But when he is put in a superior position—in an unassailable position—where, if we want to attack him, all that we can do is to attack Mr. Bailey, or Mr. Finucane on the floor of the House, his position becomes absolutely intolerable, and I feel sure that we will be able to make a united effort in Committee on this point which will show the right hon. Gentleman the absurdity of the position he has put in the Bill. Mr. Wrench is still to be a member of the Congested Districts Board, another most objectionable thing. Mr. Wrench, in the belief of many of us, has been the evil spirit of the Congested Districts Board. In the opinion of many of us Mr. Wrench has been responsible for the dilatoriness, and lack of initiative and courage of that Board, but now he has to be in a dual capacity. He is to be the sacrosanct member of a non-judicial tribunal, whose salary is to be on the Consolidated Fund like that of a judge on the one side, and he is to remain a member of the Congested Districts Board at the same time. The positions are inconsistent. If the right hon. Gentleman values his work on the Congested Districts Board so much, in God's name let him keep him there But if he is to be put into the position of a Land Commissioner he certainly must be taken off the Congested Districts Board.
  In passing from administration, let me in a word call attention to what I cannot help characterising as an exceedingly petty, and an exceedingly mean, action on the part of those responsible for this Bill. There are at this moment besides Judge Meredith, as Land Commissioners, Mr. Wrench, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr.
  1218
  Murrough O'Brien. Will it be believed by this House that one of these gentlemen is to be picked out to be penalised, so to speak, by this Bill? Mr. Lynch is under the ordinary law certain of pension rights. Mr. Wrench gets his pension rights under the Bill, Mr. Fitzgerald gets his pension rights under the Bill, but Mr. Murrough O'Brien, neither under the existing law nor this Bill, is entitled to any pension whatever. Now who is Mr. Murrough O'Brien? He has been a public servant for thirty-three years, and a Land Commissioner for ten years, and I am speaking what everybody connected with Ireland knows is absolutely true, when I say that he is the one member of the Land Commission who, in the past, has had the confidence and goodwill of the tenants. It is a most audacious thing. I do not know who. drafted the clause. It could not have been the right hon. Gentleman himself; he would not have brought petty malice of this kind into the Bill, but somebody in Ireland is responsible for this. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: The Attorney General.] It is a monstrous thing that a clause should be drawn in this way: that ample pensions are provided for three of the Commissioners, and one is deprived of any pension at all, and he the only one who has the confidence and good-will of the Irish tenants. Now let me pass from that matter, simply saying that I feel certain the House of Commons is too fair-minded an assembly to tolerate the exclusion of Mr. Murrough O'Brien when we come to deal with this matter in Committee.
  Let me come now to deal with the question which is the most important and far-reaching of all. I mean the question of the congested districts. There was no portion of this Bill that to me was such a crushing disappointment as the portion dealing with the congested districts. I think now that the House pretty well understands what these congested districts are. Certainly the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary understand the question. They know as well as any man living that to talk about a settlement of the Irish Land Question which does not settle the Connaught question is a rank absurdity. Let me say in two sentences

  1219
  what our view is about the congested districts. I do not believe that you will do any good to the congested districts until you enlarge the constitution of the Congested Districts Board, until you enlarge the powers of the Board, until you give them compulsory power in some cases, and until you schedule the whole of Connaught. One of the resolutions passed by the Nationalist Convention was to the effect that the County Councils of the Congested Districts ought to be given some representation on the Congested Districts Board. That is a suggestion. I do not pin myself to one suggestion, and to one only, but I do say that I am convinced that the constitution of this Board requires to be enlarged and strengthened, that the whole procedure of the Board requires to be accelerated, and animated with a new spirit and new life, and that initiative must be instilled into that Board if it is to do any good. On the question of enlarged powers I think it will be worth my while once again to read what I have read more than once in past years—the unanimous Resolution of the Congested Districts Board themselves, passed in the year 1895, on this question of compulsion. The last time I quoted this I quoted the then Chief Secretary, who is now the President of the Board of Trade, and also the Prime Minister, as having been in favour of this Resolution because their names were signed to it. They interrupted me and said that they signed the Report, but that they did not intend the signature to carry the idea that they were in favour of this Resolution. It will be understood that I read these two names subject to that explanation. The Resolution was as follows—
  "That the Congested Districts Board is in possession of information through their inspectors that there are large tracts of land that could be used to enlarge the holdings of small occupiers and promote schemes of migration in congested districts. The Board are, however, of opinion that it will be impossible for them to give effect to this important department of their work unless more funds are placed at their disposal, and compulsory powers given to them to acquire such lands at their just value."
  The signatures appended to that declaration are, Mr. Gerald Balfour, Sir David Harrel, Mr. Charles Kennedy, the Most Rev. Dr. O'Donnell, Mr. Frederick W. Price, Mr. Horace Plunkett, Mr. James
  1220
  H. Tuke, Mr. Frederick Wrench, Mr. A. J. Balfour, Rev. W. S. Green, and the Rev. Denis O'Hara. I have never heard a satisfactory answer given to this claim. It is quite a different claim from the claim for the settlement of the Land quation all through Ireland by compulsion. This is strictly confined to a small area, and the compulsion is only to be for the purpose of taking possession of lands that are not in possession of people living on, and working on, them, but simply for the purpose of taking possession of great tracts of grazing land where no human beings live at all, and on the very borders of which humanity is seething in misery and wretchedness on the bog and on the mountain. Let me enforce what I have said by a more recent declaration than the one from the Congested Districts Board. Here are two resolutions adopted by a meeting of the Catholic Bishops of the Province of Connaught. Of course everyone who is acquainted with Ireland knows that you could not get information on a question of this kind from that part of Ireland more valuable than information coming from those Prelates. They live there amongst the people and know the facts. Scarcely any of them are political partisans of ours. They do not look at things through political spectacles, but simply look at this question and speak upon it from their own experience of their daily life among the people. Here is the Resolution passed on the 9th of April—
  "That, whilst recognising the immense value of the Land Bill now before Parliament, and earnestly hoping that, in an amended form, it will become law, we desire to record our conviction that the proposals outlined in the Bill for dealing with the great question of congestion, and the cultivation of vast tracts of prairie land in the West of Ireland, are quite inadequate; larger and more extensive powers should be conferred on the Congested Districts Board throughout the entire Province, similar to the powers granted to the Crofters' Commission for Scotland."
  That is a modified kind of compulsion.
  "And, above all, no landlord should be enabled, with the public money, practically to purchase from himself any land outside his residential demesne, nor should any persons be allowed to purchase non-residential holdings except on condition of making them residential, and the money granted for this purpose should not, in any case, exceed£1,000. We feel it our duty to declare that if the Government will not take these, or similar

  1221
  measures to deal with this great question in a thorough-going way, the Land Question will not he settled in the West, nor the tide of emigration checked; nor can peace and contentment be restored until the grazing lands, taken from the people in that part, be given back to the men who are able and willing to work them for the maintenance of themselves and their families."
  That resolution is signed by John Healy, Archbishop of Tuam (in the Chair); Francis Joseph MacCormack, Bishop of Galway; John Lyster, Bishop of Achonry; John Conmy, Bishop of Killala; and John Clancy, Bishop of Elphin. I do not think it is possible for me to exaggerate the importance to a wise Minister who has charge of an Irish Bill of paying attention to a declaration of that kind. Again, we are on the same ground as the landlords in our demands Here, again, I can quote the Irish landlords, because in the Land Conference Report, agreed to by the representatives of the landlords as well as by us, there is a paragraph referring to the congested districts, and outlining almost precisely, what is claimed here now on our behalf at this moment. I must guard myself from wearying the House, and pass from the Congested Districts Board with the simple declaration that its constitution ought to be enlarged and strengthened, its powers increased, and the whole of Connaught ought to be scheduled within its jurisdiction.
  In regard to the Irish labourers in connection with this Bill, I really do not know what to say. Honestly, I cannot fathom the reason which induced the right hon. Gentleman to put his name to these clauses in the Bill. If he had said to us that this was a great measure, and that he could not deal with two or three different subjects at the same time, and that he would leave over the labourers question to be dealt with in a separate Bill, we could have understood the position. But what he has done is to put into this Bill clauses dealing with the Labourers Acts which are absolutely worthless and futile. I say that if the labourers were to be asked to take these clauses as they stand, or nothing at all, they would say, "Strike them out." These clauses are a mockery of the claims of the labourers; they are almost adding
  1222
  insult to injury; and I am convinced that, whoever put them into this Bill, they do not represent the full mind and the intention of the right hon. Gentleman on the labourers question; and I cannot fathom why they were placed in the Bill, unless he is prepared to accept a series of new clauses, which we propose to submit, totally changing the character of these proposals, taking them right out of the Bill, because as they stand they are little better than a mockery. There are innumerable other questions on which I might speak at some length, some of them of vital importance. There is the question of the perpetual rent-charge against which the opinion of Ireland is practically unanimous. There is the question also of making quite sure the position of future tenants and of caretakers, although on that point I am satisfied from declarations which have been made, that the shortcomings of the Bill will be remedied, and that the right hon. Gentleman has no purpose of excluding them from the benefits of the Bill. There are innumerable other points of vital importance which must stand over until we come to consider them in Committee, for it is manifest that it is impossible for me to dwell upon them now at any length. The hon. Member for East Mayo, who, I am glad to say, is back amongst us in restored health, will speak on these questions if he gets the opportunity before the Debate closes to-night, and he, I feel sure, will repair the omissions I have made, and will probably speak more fully and with greater force upon some of the important questions I have dealt with. I must therefore leave the matter at the point to which I have come.
  Let me in conclusion address a few words of advice, and a few words, if I may be allowed to do so, of serious warning to the Chief Secretary. Never before—let him never forget that—since the Act of Union has an English Minister in Ireland the chance that he now has of successfully dealing with this Irish agrarian difficulty. Ireland to-day is united in her demands in almost all essentials. As I have pointed out, landlords and tenants are in agreement. Both sides have made concessions for the sake of peace. The

  1223
  advisers and the leaders of the tenants have incurred great risks and exposed themselves to much misrepresentation; they have undertaken very grave and serious responsibility in their efforts to save their country from a continuation of the land war which for so long has desolated Ireland, and in behalf of peace. They have made many concessions, and I ought to be the first to admit with gratitude and with pride that the people have stood by them with magnificent loyalty. Well, we have come back here now from our country with the mandate of our people on this Bill, and fortified by a vote of complete and absolute confidence. We are asking nothing unreasonable. We are only asking for Amendments on those matters which I have indicated. It is more probable that we Irishmen, the persons concerned, the landlords and tenants combined, take a right view on these matters than you Englishmen. We ask you only to make concessions to the practically united demands of the Irish people of all classes, whose interest in this matter is the same as yours, and must be deeper and higher than yours in the settlement of this question and the pacification of Ireland. I would say to the right hon. the Chief Secretary—"If you listen to the voice of Ireland this matter will be settled, and unborn generations of Englishmen and Irishmen alike will through all time applaud your wisdom and your statesmanship. Do not, I entreat you, lose heart in your efforts. Other efforts of English statesmanship have failed again and again in the past just because they fell a little short of what was necessary to settle the problem. Let it be the glory of the Chief Secretary to be thorough. For the first time in the history of the connection between England and Ireland be thorough in your policy." I am bound at the same time to say that if the right hon. Gentleman rejects the advice which comes to him from the landlords and the tenants alike; if, like so many of his predecessors, he rejects and despises Irish public opinion, and refuses the reasonable Amendments which will come to him with the sanction of both parties to the contest, then I warn him that we shall be forced to wash our hands of all responsibility. Under such circumstances as that, the right hon. Gentleman may pass this measure un-
  1224
  amended into law, but he will be the first to admit that a measure passed under such conditions will not only not close this question, but will only add one more to that long list of well-intentioned but futile efforts to settle the Irish problem by the force of English public opinion and English judgment. With all my heart I pray that that state of things may not arise. I think it would be, in truth, little short of a tragedy if now, under the blessed circumstances of this moment, the right hon. Gentleman were, either through failure to appreciate the various forces at his back and the enormous power he wields, with all classes united behind him, or through an unbending and unreasonable defiance of Irish public opinion—it would be little short of a tragedy if the Government were to throw away this golden opportunity which, once lost, in all human probability will not recur in the lifetime of this generation. If this happens the guilt will not rest on the Irish National representatives. We will go into Committee on this Bill in a friendly, practical, business-like, and reasonable spirit, and I beseech the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to meet the claims which we put forward in a spirit of reason and conciliation.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to move that "This Bill be read this day six months." After listening to the hon. Gentleman for an hour, finding fault with it and discovering so many blemishes in it, I did expect that he would move this Resolution himself. When the Bill was brought before the House for its First Reading, I called at ten ion to the proposed free gift of£12,000,000, and complained of it from the point of view of the British taxpayer; and I wish to speak on behalf of the British taxpayer in dealing with the principles on which this Bill ought to be discussed on its Second Reading. I must say that so far as the free gift of£12,000,000 goes that is a mere bagatelle compared with the loan of£150,000,000, and it is on that loan of£150,000,000 that I wish to dwell now. The right hon. the Chief Secretary told us in bringing in the Bill that he is of Irish descent. He need not have done so; I think we should have discovered that from his statement that we had only two

  1225
  parties to deal with in this matter—the Irish tenants and the Irish landlords. It never seemed to occur to the right hon. Gentleman that he omitted to mention the most important party interested—the general taxpayer. More truly we were told that we ought to bear in mind the union of hearts, This union of hearts we all most earnestly desire, but who would have supposed for a moment that the hon. Member for Donegal and the Chief Secretary had the same end before them although they were travelling by slightly different roads, and that my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Armagh, instead of calling hon. Members opposite moonlighters, assassins, and murderers, now finds in the Irish Members his warmest, closest, and best friends. This is a blessed and very gratifying incident in a situation which is altogether embarrassing and bewildering.
  We have heard this afternoon of the Convention at Dublin. I was not impressed by the proceedings of that Convention. I fully recognise that it was got up with a great deal of solemn theatrical display for the benefit of the very gullible English public. I have seen too much of National Conventions in Ireland, and the conclusions they have come to, to be very much impressed by this one. We are told this Bill is to work a revolution in Ireland—I believe that is admitted on all hands—if this Bill is passed. But I have always understood that it is extremely foolish to bring about a revolution in any country when that country is absolutely quiet and reasonable. Moreover, when a revolution is started it is not easy to stop it. Ireland is, at present, in a state of prosperity which has never been equalled in her history. Indeed, Ireland may be said to be booming. The price of agricultural produce is higher than it was, and the banking and railway statistics show that the prosperity of the country is greater now than at any other period of her history. I do not want to weary the House by quoting all the figures; but I should like to call attention to the returns of the Joint Stock Banks. In 1882 the profit and cash balances of these banks were £32,000,000; and in 1902 they amounted to£44,000,000. That is an
  1226
  increase in twenty years of£12,000,000. The importance of that increase is not to be measured by the figures themselves, as all the time the population of Ireland was steadily decreasing, and, consequently, each man, woman and child had an additional amount of wealth distributed between them. In the Post Office Savings Banks we find exactly the same thing. We find the deposits largely increasing; and again I must remind the House of the diminished population of the country. Further, the railway traffic has been steadily increasing for twenty years. Surely all this is evidence of prosperity which is not to be put on one side. We also know that Ireland is shortly to receive the honour of a Royal visit; and, further, that the great motorcar contest is to be held in Ireland, which means a great influx of capital into the country, an excellent thing for the benefit of Ireland. Then we have been told by the Chief Secretary that certain citizens are to take over a large part of the roads of Ireland, a function which is performed by the ratepayers on this side of the Channel. Last, but not least, we are told that an Institute of Industry is to be established, which, I venture to say, is a brighter augury for the future of Ireland and a better omen, than all the Land Bills which an enthusiastic but visionary Chief Secretary might introduce.
  With regard to the£12,000,000 we have to find, we have been told that it is to be a golden bridge to get over the gap between the demands of the landlords and what the tenants are prepared to pay. How is that amount to be spent? As far as I can make out, it will go entirely into the pockets of the legal profession. With regard to the savings which the Chief Secretary hopes to effect, he has told us that he expects to make a large saving on the Land Commission; but it will be apparent that the Land Commission must go on for a considerable period yet; and I do not think that the Land Commission will allow itself to be disestablished all at once. Then the Chief Secretary also expects to effect a large saving on the police. But the police will be the very people who will be called upon to collect the instalments under the new Land Bill. So far from effecting any saving in regard to the police, the right hon.

  1227
  Gentleman will want more police than ever before. The savings put forward by the right hon. Gentleman are entirely illusory. Then there is the equivalent grant of£185,000; and, as regards that, I merely wish to say that I do not understand why Ireland should have the grant, inasmuch as all the education in the country is paid for out of the Consolidated Fund. The Chief Secretary told us that the grant is to be used to make good the loss to be incurred in issuing land stock. Surely that is a brilliant investment for the British taxpayer. Now, I want to come to my main objections to this Bill. My first objection is that there is no originality in the proposals of the Chief Secretary; because this Bill is exactly the same Bill as was brought in by Mr. Gladstone in 1886, only that it is much worse. I opposed Mr. Gladstone's Bill in 1886, and I oppose this now. I suppose such consistency is exceedingly shocking; indeed, I gather from the English Press that it is very painful. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich told us that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was an enlightened opportunist.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have never changed.
  MR. COGHILL: It is difficult to understand the position of the First Lord of the Treasury, and I look forward with interest to see how he will defend his enlightened opportunism on this occasion. Mr. Gladstone, when he brought forward the Bill of 1886, was absolutely right, from his point of view, when he said that the land question and Home Rule must go together. I entirely agree with Mr. Gladstone. You cannot separate the two subjects. You cannot possibly bring in a Land Bill and then say you are not going to introduce a Home Rule Bill. Might I ask the First Lord of the Treasury pointedly whether the Government mean to bring in a Home Rule Bill or not? We have seen a great deal about it in the papers recently; a great many direct statements have been made that the Government have that intention. May I ask whether the Government intend to bring in a Home Rule Bill or—and that "or" is very important—a modified form
  1228
  of self-government. If I had been asked if the Government were going to bring in a Land Bill based on the lines of Mr. Gladstone's Bill I should have replied in this way: "You are at liberty to say that the story is a fantastic fabrication, which could never have occurred to anybody in the smallest degree acquainted with the opinions, to say nothing of the character, of any single one of His Majesty's present advisers. "The Chief Secretary spoke of the policy of Pitt and Castlereagh; and I think a great many people felt some alarm as to how far the right hon. Gentleman was going in connection with these two statesmen. It reminds me of the celebrated letter written by Mr. Gladstone to one whose name was also George—it was not addressed to the Chief Secretary—in which he spoke of the baseness and blackguardism by which the Union was passed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That George sat for your own constituency.
  MR. COGHILL: As a matter of fact that is not the case. When we try to ascertain whether the Government have any intention of bringing in a Home Rule Bill or not, we have to look at the indications given by the Government. I may remind the House that, since the last election there has been a Gentleman in Dublin, who, in my opinion, is a Home Ruler. I mean Mr. Horace Plunkett. He has never been disavowed by his colleagues, and still remains a Member of the Government. Mr. Plunkett has not been supported whenever he stood as the Unionist candidate; he can hardly be reckoned as a Member of the Unionist Party any longer, though he is still a Member of the Government. I do not care whether the First Lord of the Treasury tells me whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Home Rule Bill or not. My point is this, that by this Bill the Government are giving Home Rule to Ireland. That is the point I wish to impress on the House. If this Bill is once passed it will be impossible for us to refuse Home Rule, or anything else the Irish people demand. This Bill is, from my point of view, giving Ireland Home Rule, not in a straightforward way, which would enable us to oppose it, but by a

  1229
  side wind. That is the chief ground of my opposition to the Bill.
  Again, I fail altogether to find any security for the loan of£150,000,000 which we are asked to advance. I want to know where the security for the loan is. We are told there is the land; but who will guarantee the successors of the present leaders of the Irish Party. They may be quite willing to maintain the bargain they are making with the Government; but what about their successors? Remember the period for which this loan is to be guaranteed is no less a period than sixty eight years—nearly three generations. How are you going to maintain the guarantee during that period? I do not think that the Irish tenant will have such an interest in his grandchildren that he will go very much out of his way to protect their interests when more immediate interests come ready to his hand. Suppose another no-rent agitation is started in Ireland—another plan of campaign. Are you to go to war with the whole of Ireland; are you to evict a whole country-side? It is impossible, and cannot be done. I need not refer to that because it was put in a more able way than I can ever put it by the Colonial Secretary. This is what the right hon. Gentleman said on this very point:—
  "Bear in mind this—you working men of England and Scotland will be the Irish landlords; you will have to evict the tenants; you will have to collect the arrears at the point of the bayonet; and I refuse to be a party to such a transaction."
  These words are as true to-day as when they were spoken.
  There is just one letter I should like to quote—
  "As long as the land exists it must have landlords, and it is only a matter of replacing one class of such by a much worse, or more ignorant, or more greedy one. Again, how is a general strike against Government rents or annuities, to be guarded against, as you cannot evict a whole country-side? When reference is sometimes made to the present annuities being well discharged, it is forgotten that these are all cases carefully selected, many would-be purchasers being rejected as bad security."
  That is the opinion of an Irish landlord [Cries of "Name."] I cannot give the name because I do not know it. Then we are told that besides the land there is another security, and this is the most
  1230
  wonderful security of which I have ever heard. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife said, "Besides the land there is a moral security." I wonder how much the right hon. Gentleman would lend of his own money on "moral security." I do not think very much. The right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton are never tired of going about the country and denouncing the Government for their extravagance, and I think when an opportunity is given to them to take some steps in favour of economy they might give a vote against this enormous sum of£150,000,000, to say nothing of the£12,000,000, and that the speeches of both right hon. Gentlemen outside the House ought to bear some relation to the votes they are going to give in the House.
  There is no finality with regard to this. If it was a really final Bill I daresay most of us, much as we dislike it, would feel compelled to vote for it, but I do not believe for a moment, nor, I believe, does anybody else, that this is a final Bill. But I need not labour that point, because it has been answered by a very able Member of the Government. Speaking at Oxford last Saturday night the Solicitor-General said—
  "He would give it the minimum of his support; he should do so because of his official position, and for the simple reason that he knew of no alternative; having said so much he passed away from the Irish Land Bill, and having so passed away from it, he looked forward to the next Bill."
  The hon. Member for South Tyrone, speaking of the gift of£12,000,000, said very candidly that he thought£12,000,000 was inadequate. He wanted more, and thought the gift ought to be£16,000,000. Under those circumstances there is not much danger in forecasting that in the next Land Bill before this House we shall be asked to reduce the amount of the instalments, and for another loan of£12,000,000. But there is one vital objection to this Bill. We have not the money to carry it out. However benevolent we may feel, there is no money for a Land Purchase Bill. At the present time we are spending£34,000,000 on our Army, and£34,000,000 on our Navy. Where is the money to come from? The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not, if I may

  1231
  say so, deal with this matter in a fair and candid manner. In introducing the Budget he referred to the various demands that had been made upon the Exchequer, but he totally forgot to mention the demand which was going to be made by this Bill. That was not quite candid. Then I may point out that under this Bill we get nothing back whatever. We are told it is to be a final settlement between ourselves and gentlemen in Ireland. They do not abate one jot of their demands. They are willing to take this Bill now, but then they go on for Home Rule as merrily as ever. Where, then, does this conciliation, this settlement, come in? The hon. and learned Member for Waterford deprecated the subject of Home Rule being mixed up with land purchase. I quite see why. We, the simple English people, are to swallow the bait of land purchase, conciliation, and peace, and are not to see the Home Rule hook. On the 9th of April, speaking at Dublin, the hon. Member for Waterford said—
  "I thought it was best for us not to attempt to mislead or hoodwink English public opinion, and I declared emphatically, on the part of the Irish Members of the House of Commons and, as I believe, of the whole nation at home, that a satisfactory settlement of the land question would not mean a settlement of the national question. We believe that a settlement of the land question will remove the most formidable obstacle in the path to Home Rule. We believe a settlement of the land question will mean an enormous step along the road of Home Rule."
  I am against Home Rule, but I agree with the hon. and learned Member. The hon. Member for Clare put the matter still clearer. He said—
  "Twenty-one years ago England denounced the Land League as existing for the purposes of plunder, but now the most powerful Tory Government of modern times had introduced a Bill, every line of which was composed on the platform and programme of the Land League, started in Mayo by Michael Davitt. But though the Government was doing what the Irish Party wanted on the land question, there could be no compromise on the question which stood first of all, the right of Ireland to govern herself."
  How can we believe, in the face of such declarations, that this Bill is going to bring about any settlement in Ireland. So long as hon. Gentlemen take that view it is illusory to tell us there is going to be a final settlement. [An IRISH MEMBER: On the Land Question.] All I can say is that there is no peace,
  1232
  no conciliation, no final settlement, and that the British taxpayer receives back absolutely nothing for the£150,000,000 he is now called upon to find.
  What I want to know is: Why has so much been done for Ireland and so little for England? It is due to the excessive representation which Ireland has in this House. No matter which side is in office, both make a bid for the Irish vote. I know no reason why so much should be done for Ireland. I think the other parts of the United Kingdom have an equal claim, and if we are to have a land nationalisation system let us have it all round, in England, Scotland, and Wales, as well as in Ireland. Looking round this afternoon, I naturally asked myself who would be on my side against the Second Reading of this Bill. First of all I should hope to have the support of the Labour Members. Then we have those who are known, I think as the Fourth Party, who follow the lead of the hon. Member for Whitby. [Cries of "No, no!" and "Greenwich."] Well, whoever they follow, they waxed very eloquent lately on the subject of economy in the Army, and so far as that economy is concerned it is only a question of thousands, while it is in this case a question of millions. I should hope they would be as earnest in this case as they were in favour of economy in the Army. I hope also for the support of all those who were returned to this House in 1886, because this is the same Bill as that which they denounced then. Then I appeal to all those who call themselves Liberal Imperialists—those gentlemen who have wiped Home Rule from their slates. They need not be afraid of giving a straightforward answer to this question, though I am afraid they will have to re-write Home Rule on their slate, even if they have to go to Lord Penrhyn to borrow a slate for the purpose. I do not wish to detain the House too long. There are only one or two questions I wish to ask in conclusion; Right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House are never tired of pointing the finger of scorn at the right hon. Member for Montrose Burghs, but I want to know if, after all these seventeen years of contest and vexation, we are to undergo the shame of feeling that after all the right hon. Member for Montrose

  1233
  Burghs is right. All I can say is, I hope not. I hope there will be no departure from the great principles which have animated the Unionist Party in the past. I hope we shall show ourselves as steadfast on this question as we were in 1886, and that there will be no hauling down of our colours.
  The last question I wish to ask is: If the Bill goes through, will the country be consulted about it? That was the precedent set in 1886. The Bill was referred to and emphatically condemned by the country. Although the verdict was taken on two Bills—the Home Rule Bill and the Land Purchase Bill—everybody knows that the Bill which did the greater damage to the Party opposite was the Land Purchase Bill. I know very well what the feeling was. I myself had a very difficult battle to fight, and I am convinced that the Home Rule Bill, backed by the great authority of Mr. Gladstone, would have undoubtedly been passed had it not been mixed up with this Irish Land Question. Therefore, I say that if this great revolution—as the Chief Secretary himself has called it—is to be passed, the precedent of 1886 ought to be followed, and the country consulted about it. In conclusion, I venture to say that this Bill is a bad Bill. Its finance is utterly unsound and will not stand examination. It is a Bill based on false hopes, false expectations, and false sentiment, and I believe, though it may be too late, that the British taxpayer, when he finds that he has parted with his money and lost control of his millions, will recognise that, by the very men whom he placed in office to safeguard and defend his interests, he has been duped, deluded, defrauded, and betrayed. I beg to move "That the Bill be read a second time this day six months."
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYin seconding the Amendment, said: As a Unionist I feel bound to associate myself with my hon. friend in this matter. The Bill concerns England very largely, and therefore we, as the larger taxpayers, have a right to express our opinion. If I thought that this Bill would lead to the prosperity, contentment, happiness, and loyalty of Ireland, I, for one, would certainly support it, feeling that its enormous cost would be
  1234
  absolutely unimportant compared with those great advantages. I am sure that my constituents would willingly pay their large contribution to this fund if the results I have mentioned were likely to be secured. But, as my hon. friend has pointed out, this is not the first time we have had such a measure to deal with. I have been a Member of this House for many years, and when this Bill was introduced I looked up my election address of 1886. I know that in some quarters consistency is not considered of much importance, but some of us, at any rate, try to be consistent, and I cannot help thinking that, when such a measure as this is introduced, it is right we should look back and see what promises we have given on the matter. These are the words of my election address of1886—
  "The heavy additional burden of taxation which the policy of the Government involves, in buying out the Irish landlords, seems to me to be both unjust and unnecessary to the English, Scotch, and Welsh taxpayers. To add even£50,000,000 to our National Debt—though it will probably be nearer£150,000,000—with a most uncertain return of even the interest on that enormous sum, in these distressed times, seems to me to be quite unwarranted."
  The circumstances now are the same, or worse; taxation is considerably heavier; the National Debt is much larger; and I want to know, seeing that we held those views in 1886, what has changed to make it desirable that we should now depart from them. It is true that the words I have quoted were a statement of my own opinion, but that opinion was shared by the present Government; it was the "authorised version;" and we were emphatically told by our leaders that it was the policy of the Party on this side of the House. What circumstances have so completely changed that the course we held to be absolutely wrong and unfair to the English taxpayers in 1886 should now be the right policy to adopt? We are bound to ask ourselves why we should burden our constituents with this great charge. The Chief Secretary in his speech—to which I listened with interest and admiration—dealt graphically with the condition of many congested parts of Ireland, and from his remarks one would suppose that this Bill would amend that state of affairs. There is not a Member of this House but

  1235
  would do his utmost to achieve such an end. But these people are trying to live upon small patches of ground from which it is impossible to get a living, and all that this Bill will do is probably to reduce their rents. Nobody will say that a system of reducing rents can possibly make these people permanently prosperous. If we were to give them their holdings for nothing it would not place them in the condition in which we wish them to be. This Bill, by reducing the rents and placing an enormous burden on the people of this country, will do nothing to bring about the condition we desire, and I do not think it is quite candid to bring up this question, when the enormous advance of£150,000,000 will do practically nothing to go to the root of the evil in these congested districts. That being so, one of the greatest sources of satisfaction in any land scheme is taken from us.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to emigration, and said it was likely to be stopped by this Bill. He said it would "staunch the fatal stream of emigration." It seems to me that in these districts migration and emigration are the only means by which anything can be done. No doubt migration is at present more fashionable than emigration, but emigration has done a great deal for both Ireland and England. Why should the Irish Secretary, in order to gain a certain amount of superficial applause, run down a source from which, I think, Ireland has derived enormous benefit? Emigration exists in this country. Many of our own friends have gone abroad. Last year about 205,000 persons left Great Britain and Ireland, of which number only 40,000 were from Ireland. There is no doubt that emigration has done, is doing, and will do, a great amount of good, and it seems to me it is a mistake to run it down, seeing that this Bill cannot possibly solve the problem of the congested districts. What will be the result of the Bill for the small men paying about£5 a year rent? It will reduce their rent by about 20 per cent. Will anybody contend that, by reducing their rents by about 5d. per week, and enabling them to buy their holdings in sixty-eight years, you will make them successful and prosperous tenants? Such a small reduc-
  1236
  tion cannot altogether change a man, and make him really prosperous. Is it reasonable or desirable, therefore, that this country should be called on to bear this heavy burden to achieve so small a result? Then take the larger holders, paying£40 or £50 a year rent. No doubt the reduction to them represents an appreciable amount, but I would ask: Are not these the men who do not really require it? They have shown their power of combination and of mutually arranging to look after their own interests, and I say emphatically it is not to the interests of the country that a large sum from public taxation should be applied to the reduction of the rents of that class. There are many people in our own districts who are far worse off, and who yet will be asked to contribute largely for the benefit of these men. I have worked it out carefully, and I find that the poor district which I have the honour to represent will have to guarantee about£500,000 of this money. It is neither fair nor reasonable that the English taxpayer should be asked to find money for this class of the peasantry of Ireland. I will go even farther. If, by reducing rents, you gave prosperity and happiness to Ireland, if that were the whole point of the Bill, I should say-very little about it, and even the cost to the general taxpayer would not be considered so serious. But we know that that is not the whole point. There is the great question of re-sale. That seems to me to be at the bottom of this subject. I think we may ask fairly how this has worked in the past. To an Englishman it seems an extraordinary system by which to endeavour to improve the condition of Ireland. A man for generations has paid£40 a year rent as tenant; he has paid it willingly and is a fairly prosperous man. Mr. Gladstone's Bill came in and created fair rents, re-sale, and so on, and this man's holding was at once reduced to£28. What happened a short time afterwards? He sold his holding to a third party for£475 cash. What does that mean
  MR. T. M. HEALY: He built a house on it
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: That is no part of the argument. The man was paying£40 a year, and he said he was

  1237
  so rack rented that he could not live. The Land Bill reduced the rent to£28, but the successor to that man was paying not only the£28 but£19 in addition, and for all practical purposes he has been, and is, paying£47 a year. I ask, in what way has that individual tenant benefited by Mr. Gladstone's Act. I could give other cases, but that is unnecessary. There have been twenty, thirty, forty, and fifty years purchase, and if that has been the case under the last Act what will be the effect under the present Act? If you further reduce those rents by 20 per cent. the£28 will be reduced to£23; the tenant will give about£200 more for his tenant-right, and 4 per cent. on that will make his rent£31. Surely that is no benefit to the individual tenant. It will not make Ireland more prosperous; it will not improve the tenants or prevent them being more rack-rented. In fact, every Act of this mistaken legislation goes further to increase the burden on the unfortunate tenant, and I, as a practical man, ask, in what manner is a man benefited who under Mr. Gladstone's Bill paid£47 and will now pay£55. Is it worth while for us to embark£150,000,000 of the capital of this country to bring about such a state of things? The next generation of Irish tenants will purchase or they will borrow money on the holdings. Practically speaking this will do no good, and we are encouraging them to borrow on their holdings, and that indebtedness will make them in a worse position than before. Is it therefore worth while to embark an enormous sum of popular credit to increase this evil? Mr. Gladstone's measure no doubt satisfied the Irish people for a short time, and this one may last for a few years. It may last the time of the present Secretary, but it cannot finally settle or put right this question. If you are going on a wrong basis you cannot make it right by a system such as this, and although I know I am speaking quite uselessly I must enter my protest. The hon. Member for Waterford said this is not a settlement, that he wanted a number of things, and that this was regarded as a step to Home Rule—a step this Party will always resist. I say again, as an English Member, is it desirable that we should embark this
  1238
  enormous sum of money when the leaders of the Irish people recognise that it is not a settlement? Even Lord Dunraven's speech suggests the same view. I venture to think that what is wanted in every nation is for the people to make an effort to improve their condition. In this country, if a man is paying£20 a year rent and wants to buy we say to him—"Make an effort and instead of paying£20 pay£25," and in twenty or twenty-five years time the property becomes his own. There is no great merit in a man buying unless it produces greater energy and exertion and industry in the individual. In England we do this class of business in a common sense way, and that effort is the making of the man. It is the thing which induces a tenant to feel every year that he will live to see the time when he has bought his house through his own effort and industry. That improves the man and makes him a better citizen, a better man in every way. But in Ireland we do not adopt a system like that. We say to a man, "Do you want to buy" and he answers, perhaps, that he is not particular. We say, "You are paying£20 a year, and instead of that you shall pay£15 a year for sixty-eight and a half years." It is no inducement to them, because neither he nor his children are likely to take the same interest in looking forward to the end of the term, and it is fatal to do away with that interest. It is a wrong system entirely. If you could get an Irish tenant to pay a higher rent for twenty-five years you would do some good for him and make him a better citizen and a better man, even if he still held to Home Rule.
  Then it is said that this Bill is going to do away with what is recognised as a great evil that was introduced by Mr. Gladstone—that of dual ownership. No doubt that would be a great advantage, but does the Bill do away with it? Certainly it does not do it for sixty-eight and a half years, and what is the difference whether a man pays to the landlord or to the State. He is not the owner until the end of the period. The present landlord is not what can be called a real landlord, as Mr. Gladstone's Bill provided for a rent-charge. In my opinion,

  1239
  this will not get rid of dual ownership, I and we are only living in a fool's paradise if we think it does. You are doing away with the real use of this system of purchase, because if you can induce a tenant to pay a higher rent for a shorter period it would be a bonâfide purchase. I would ask, what will be the consequences of the Act? It is said that 80,000 or 100,000 persons are now purchasing under existing Acts. That is true; but 80,000 or 100,000 persons is a very different thing to the whole of the Irish people. We have heard of a "No Rent" manifesto, and it seems to me quite conceivable that we might have a similar manifesto here. We know when the law is called upon by the present landlords to enforce an eviction what a state of things is created; and is it conceivable that a system like that will be allowed to go on when the State is the landlord. It seems to me that this is an impossible position. Mr. Davitt says most emphatically that he wishes to see the whole matter left as it is; that no one has proposed, or will propose, outside a political lunatic asylum, that the British Government can be got to put itself in the position of a rent collector. When the Irish tenant cannot, or will not, or does not choose to pay his rent, the Imperial Government knows perfectly well that to have tenants evicted by the Government of the day would be a perfectly impossible thing. Then there is the question of saving of expense. We could not stop the police or the judges. And again I ask, is it wise to run the enormous risk of this gigantic sum of money on security such as this, which will not tend in any way to improve the Irish people, but will land us in a very serious position?
  Now I come to another point. How are we to judge of the position of Ireland at the present time? Are we lending Ireland money for the common good of the Empire? No doubt we hear now in Ireland words of pleasantness, but only a few months ago, when we had a war in South Africa, every Irish Member was doing his best against us, and, with this fact before us, surely it is reasonable to hesitate before making an enormous advance to a country which boasts and claims to be disloyal in every possible way. I will refer to the speech of the
  1240
  hon. and learned Member for Waterford upon the occasion of the proposed visit of His Majesty. Surely that is not a satisfactory state of things in a country to which we are proposing to lend these millions. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said that to the Nationalists the King represented a system of government which they regarded as usurpation, and that he was not their constitutional Sovereign; and in his judgment they were absolutely debarred from extending to the King any official reception. Knowing that Home Rule is not abandoned, and that this position of disloyalty is still maintained, it does seem to me, as an Englishman, an extraordinary policy to grant to Ireland£150,000,000 of money with these facts before us. As regards the financial position there is no doubt that the expenditure of this country is growing by leaps and bounds, and we now seem to go out of our way to spend money. I should agree to any expenditure which would have a tendency to make Ireland prosperous, contented, and peaceful, but, considering the points I have raised, it does seem to me an extraordinary thing that we should embark, after the enormous expenditure we have been put to, upon this large sum under the circumstances I have referred to. I represent a constituency, part of which contains people as poor as any of the constituencies in Ireland, and many of them find it hard to live at the present time; and, therefore, to impose upon my constituency another half-million of money is a very large thing to propose. If this sum would make things peaceable in Ireland my constituency would agree to it, but although they are willing and anxious to be generous they do think that there should be a reasonable prospect of success before the Government embark upon this large expenditure of public money. Looking at the past and at the result of the recent measures upon this question, and seeing that this Bill does not promote any self-effort amongst Irishmen but rather tends to prevent it; seeing that it runs the terrible risk of making the State the landlord over a disloyal area, I cannot see why my constituents should alter the decision they arrived at in 1886, by an enormous majority upon this question. I have always put this question forward,

  1241
  and whenever I have done so in my own constituency, I have been enthusiastically supported when I said that we could not run this enormous risk for Ireland. In view of the circumstances I have referred to, and looking to the condition of Ireland and her gradually increasing prosperity, financial and otherwise it does seem to me wrong that we should go out of our way to inflict this enormous burden upon the English, Scotch and Welsh constituencies, and although I should be willing to vote for any sum of money to make Ireland more prosperous, I say that by this Bill we are departing from those rules upon which alone a country can grow, namely, by promoting self-effort and self-reliance, and the only way we can do this is not by reducing the rents but by making them try to pay a higher rent for a short time, by which means alone you can test whether they are willing to make that effort. Under these circumstances I venture with great regret to differ from the Front Bench, I cannot see any circumstances which have happened since 1886 to change my view, and at that time my view was supported by the present Leader of this House. Therefore I am bound to adhere, in order to be consistent, to the position I then took up.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Coghill.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: It is by no means the first time that I have asked the House to listen to observations of mine on the subject of Irish land and on the subject of Irish land purchase. I rise thus early in the debate because on this occasion, unlike some other occasions, it is not I who am in charge of the Bill, and therefore, it is not I who will have to deal with its details. My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary, who is responsible for the framing of the Bill, and whose admirable speech on its introduction is still fresh
  1242
  in the minds of hon. Members, will, of course, conclude the debate on behalf of the Government. Therefore, if at this early stage I trespass upon the time of the House, it is not for the purpose of dealing with the criticisms of the Bill contained in the able speech of the hon. Member for Waterford. That hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that the critical part of his speech was directed, not to the principle of the measure, but to its details. That was what he began by saying, and ended by saying. But, although criticisms coming from such a representative quarter, and couched in terms of such admirable lucidity, give proper food for reflection, I venture to say that their adequate discussion and final solution must be reserved for the Committee stage of the Bill, and cannot be properly dealt with at the present time. It is otherwise with the speeches which followed. The two hon. Gentlemen who rose on this side of the House expressed objections to the measure, based, not upon this clause or upon that, based not upon this or that aspect of the Bill, but cutting down to its very root and affecting its very essence. It is to deal with these broader objections to our scheme that I rise, rather than with the relatively unimportant points which are likely to be raised by Irish Members, because, as I understand, all parties in Ireland are agreed that this Bill is, at all events, of such sufficient merit that it is right and proper to consider it in Committee. But the hon. Members with whom I propose to deal do not allow the Bill even that modest merit, and they think that, even at this early stage, its life should be cut short. Owing to causes over which I had no control, I was obliged to be away during parts of the speeches of the mover and seconder of the rejection of the Bill. They both aimed at the same object, and, as far as I have been able to judge, they both used many arguments of a similar kind. But unless the specimens of the two speeches which I heard very inadequately, conveyed their general tenor, the spirit which moved the seconder appeared to be very different from the spirit which animated the eloquence of the mover. I do not mean

  1243
  to go into this matter in any controversial fashion, nor do I mean to bandy repartees with the hon. Member for Stroke-upon-Trent. But I should like, in the few observations I propose to make, to address myself to the essence of the case; and I hope I shall be able to convince both hon. Gentlemen that the party, of which they are such distinguished ornaments, does not deserve the obloquy which they seemed desirous of pouring upon it.
  If I rightly understood the arguments of the seconder of the Amendment, he seemed to think that the Government in asking him to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill are asking him to vote precisely in contradiction of the policy which that same Government, or many of its members, asked him to support in 1886, when the Home Rule Bill and its accompanying measure of land purchase were before the country. My hon. friend is really quite mistaken. It makes me feel how old a Member of the House I am getting when I find the history of land purchase in Ireland so totally misunderstood by friends of mine on this side of the House. What is the history of land purchase in Ireland, or, rather, let me ask, What is the history of the use of the credit of the country in aid of land purchase in Ireland? Its Parliamentary history, so far as I know, began in 1883. [OPPOSITION cries of"1869."] What national credit was given in 1869? [OPPOSITION cries of "The Church money."] The Church money? But I am dealing with the use of the credit of the country, not of any Irish fund in aid of land purchase; and I say it began, so far as my memory serves me, in 1883. I happened to be concerned in what I believe to be the initial procedure of land purchase, based on the credit of the State; and the fact, therefore, lives in my memory. In 1881 Mr. Gladstone carried out to its extreme issue the policy inaugurated in 1870 with regard to Irish land. The principle of free contract as between landlord and tenant, which was altered by the Act of 1870, was in 1881 wholly destroyed. I am not going to criticise the Act of 1881. Even its most bitter enemies—and I am afraid I must count myself one of them—must in historical fairness
  1244
  admit that the Government of that day had to deal with a crisis of extreme and rpessing difficulty. It is easy to say that the Bill was founded on utterly unsound principles—principles which were seen to be unsound at the time, and which experience has shown year by year to be even more unsound than was anticipated. It is much easier, however, to say that than to say what I should have done, or anybody else should have done, had they been suddenly made responsible for the government of Ireland in 1881, in the middle of the great land revolution. Therefore, I do not approach the subject in any polemical spirit, or with any desire to rake up old Parliamentary controversies. But the Act of 1881 was passed against the strong feeling and the vehement criticism of the Party to which I belong; and we, or some of us, saw that the only possible way of bringing these evils to an end was by promoting land purchase, and that the only way to promote land purchase effectually was to employ the credit of the State to carry out that great national object. In 1883 my noble friend the present Secretary of State for India moved a Motion on a Tuesday afternoon which I had the honour of seconding. He went into the details of a particular scheme and I contented myself with laying down the broad principles, which have stood the test of time and which have been embodied in every land purchase measure since. I claim no credit for it, only it does surprise me to be accused of inconsistency when I reflect that just twenty years ago I began to preach the cause which I am now pleading to the best of my ability. While the Party to which I belong were in opposition we advocated the principle. We came into power in 1885, for the first time after the system of Court-regulated rents was carried into action by the Act of 1881, and in 1885 we passed the first practical measure of land purchase with the use of State credit which is on the Statute-book. That was passed by the present Lord Ashbourne, and by a Ministry of which some on this Bench and, certainly, I was a member.
  MR. COGHILL: For a sum of£5,000,000.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You have to make a beginning. And I suppose the

  1245
  hon. Gentleman's constituents were concerned even with a sum of£5,000,000. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that to lend even£5,000,000 in 1885 might naturally be regarded as a far more risky transaction than lending twenty times that sum now? That was the beginning of the policy of land purchase by the aid of British credit during our short Administration. It lasted, I think, only about seven months. In the Spring of 1886 Mr. Gladstone came in with his Home Rule Bill, and it is quite true that he then proposed, in addition to his Home Rule scheme, to lend£150,000,000 on British credit.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: £50,000,000.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, I do not quarrel over that. I understand every landlord could require his tenants to purchase, and all the agricultural land in Ireland, not merely the land dealt with in this Bill, came within the scope of that Bill.
  MR. LAMBERT: What was the price?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Twenty years purchase on the first-term rents. Mr. Gladstone's proposal involved a potential burden—I do not put it higher than that—on British credit up to the total capital value of every species of agricultural land in Ireland. It is perfectly true that we opposed that proposal; and if such a proposal was made again I should oppose it to the best of my ability. For what was that proposal? It was part of a Home Rule scheme; and one reason, or one great reason, why I think it was right to oppose it was that, even putting aside Home Rule, it gave every landlord the power to compel the tenant to buy at a certain price, whether the tenant wanted to or not, if the landlord wished to sell. Well, I do not think that is a very good basis for the security of a national loan. If you compel a man to borrow from the State, whether he wants to borrow from the State or not, you have less right to complain if you ultimately find that he does not want to pay. That was the first vice in Mr. Gladstone's land purchase scheme. But the second vice was a far greater one. It was
  1246
  associated with Home Rule. What we were lending to was the Irish Government, a separate Irish Government—an Irish Government which by the very fact that we became its creditor had a new motive for quarrelling with us. I confess I still think that, though that Bill was undoubtedly brought forward with the very best motive—I mean the motive of preventing any possible injury to the Irish landlords by the passage of the Home Rule scheme—though the motive was excellent, I think the method was absolutely and essentially vicious, partly because the money was lent on a radically wrong system, and partly because it was inextricably bound up with a system of Home Rule which was not only bad in itself, but which made the security become bad in our view. What is the difference between that scheme and the scheme of my right hon. Friend? I do not want to say a word more against Mr. Gladstone's scheme than I am obliged to, because I do not wish to quarrel with any Gentleman on the other side But surely even the brief outline I have given to the House shows how deep and wide is the difference which separates the present plan from the vast plan which Mr. Gladstone conceived, at the same time fundamentally altering the constitution of the country, and buying out all the landlords of whatsoever character and degree, and having this done by the tenants compulsorily. It is curious that my two hon. friends, who have dwelt so much on the 1886 Bill, which is no parallel to this measure, have absolutely forgotten the 1891 Bill, which is an exact parallel.
  MR. LOUGH: And the Bill of 1888.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, there was another Bill passed in 1888. That was passed by a Unionist Government. The true parallel, however, to this Bill is the 1891 Bill, to which I have not heard a single word of reference from my hon. friends. I am perfectly sure no hon. Member would get up and speak on the subject of land purchase who had not so far mastered the subject as, at all events, to know something of the 1891 Bill; and I am surprised to

  1247
  hear a charge of inconsistency put gently and kindly by my hon. friend the seconder, and put not gently nor kindly by the mover of the Motion. I am amazed to find such a charge brought forward by hon. Members who surely must have known that this Bill is exactly on all fours with, and, indeed, is simply an extension of, a measure I had the honour of bringing in first in 1890, and then of carrying through the House in 1891.
  MR. COGHILL: Was that Bill for£150,000,000?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman does not even know that this Bill is for£150,000,000.
  MR. COGHILL: I think I am right in stating that.
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: No, I think you are wrong. Of course, the hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to his opinion, because it is not a thing you can mathematically demonstrate; but certainly the estimate of my right hon. friend in charge of this Bill is for£100,000,000, and not£150,000,000.
  MR. COGHILL: I notice that at the Landlords' Convention the figure was distinctly stated at£150,000,000.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not wish to say anything painful to Gentlemen in the House on either side, but I should not always go to an Irish source for accurate information. This Bill is, then. not for£150,000,000, but for£100,000,000. The estimate of the Treasury, made two years ago, quite irrespective of this Bill, would have warranted, I think, an advance of£60,000,000, and my right hon. friend informs me that he has in the guarantee fund, without going to the land at all, absolute security for an advance of at least£90,000,000. Then my hon. friend asks, "What is the nature of the security, and can you enforce it?" I think, undoubtedly, we can enforce it under the only conceivable conditions in which it is likely to be required; and those conditions were laid down by my hon. friend himself Supposing you
  1248
  have a conspiracy stretching over the whole of Ireland or the whole of a county, embracing, as it would, the great majority of the population, for the purpose of defrauding the State and the taxpayers of this country who have done their best, at all events, in this matter to treat them with generosity. Do they not know that the Government of Ireland may refuse absolutely, without scruple or remorse, to give a shilling of the guarantee fund? if they will not pay their debts they must find the money to carry on their local government. I see no difficulty at all; and if you ask me about the contingency, I say that it is in the highest degree improbable. I can conjure up a gloomy picture of Ireland where the whole tenantry are conspiring to refuse to pay their debts. In these circumstances, let the tenantry of Ireland, who are the ratepayers of Ireland, manage their own local affairs without coming to the British Exchequer. If they wish to rob the British Exchequer the British Exchequer would be none the worse. But, I after all, why should we disquiet ourselves with these vague imaginings? I quite agree when the Government of 1891 brought forward what I may call the parent Bill, that then there might have been reason for these gloomy vaticinations. Then, indeed, the experience of the Ashbourne Act, satisfactory as far as it went, the experience of land purchase under the old Bright clauses, satisfactory as far as it went, leads me not to view with surprise the fact that many critics, who are now converts to a great extension of the use of British credit for Irish land purchase, looked with disquiet on such a large transaction as was contemplated in that Bill. Ireland was far more disturbed than it is now. The ground swell over the tremendous conflict of the Tithes Act had hardly calmed, and extreme bitterness of feeling raged between the two parties; and I quite understand the unnecessary gloom of any prophet who might have said that it was too great a I risk to throw on the British taxpayer. I did not agree with them then. The Unionist Party of 1891 passed the Bill of which I speak, but since then what has been our experience? Ireland has gone through many changes. Then

  1249
  perhaps all the hopes of hon. Members opposite were raised by the advent to power of Mr. Gladstone in 1893. They were dashed again by the defeat of the Home Rule Party in 1895; but all through that time the instalments had been paid with absolute regularity. We know, and know with a long period of experience behind us, that the public j sentiment in Ireland is not in favour of repudiating debts. We know that the view of what is honest and honourable does not include that species of repudiation. My hon. friend may say that he sees no difference between a debt to a landlord and a debt to the State. I am not disposed to disagree with my hon. friend, but that is not the view of the Irish tenants. For historic reasons, and very painful historic reasons, a state of things has grown up in which undoubtedly in the mind of the Irish tenant there is a broad difference between a debt owed to the landlord and a debt due to the State; and I have no reason whatever to think that the settled view of the Irish tenantry is likely to be disturbed in any event we can foresee, and in which it may be regarded as an honourable or tolerable transaction for the tenantry to repudiate their obligations. Let us suppose that in a county a third or a half of the tenantry repudiate their obligations. Immediately on all the rest of their brethren would be thrown the charge on the rates for carrying out local purposes, because the guarantee fund would be drawn upon automatically. No doubt the tenants would have to be sold up, not in the interests of the British creditor but in the interests of the Irish ratepayer. That is a very different thing. Every Irish ratepayer in the county would have the strongest interest in seeing that he was not burdened with a debt because his neighbour did not choose to fulfil his legal obligations.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: Who would sell him up? What authority?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Estates Commission. Does not my hon. friend see that the Government would have behind them the whole sentiment of the community? And if they did not, the worst that would happen would be
  1250
  that the community would lose its contributions from the Imperial fund for the purpose. So I venture to say, with great respect to my hon. friends, that I have proved, or have gone far to prove, two things. I have absolutely proved one thing. We have shown ourselves consistent in this policy of land purchase. Ever since the great land difficulties in Ireland arose, ever since 1881, and explicitly since 1883 it has been the policy of the Unionist Party to substitute by land purchase a system of single ownership for that system of dual ownership established in 1881, under peculiar circumstances, but having within it the seeds of failure, seeds which have borne an abundant and most dangerous harvest. That is the first thing I have proved; and the second thing I have proved is that there is no danger to British credit or to the hon. Member's constituents for having, we think, proposed in 1903, no more than was actually proposed in 1891. There only remains for me to answer to the best of my ability one further question. It is a question raised by the seconder towards the end of his speech. He said—
  "Here you are conferring a great boon upon a relatively small section of the British community; and what is this section? Is it a loyal or orderly section? No, it is neither loyal nor orderly. Why, then, are you to single them out for this special mark of favour? Are there not poor people in Stoke and in Islington? Why are the people in Stoke and Islington, always loyal and law-abiding, not singled out for this mark of Imperial favour, and why is it given to those who, whatever their benefits may be, are neither loyal nor law-abiding?"
  It is a very plausible, but a very fallacious question. I remember urging on the House in some of the old controversies we had on this subject, when I was fighting side by side with my hon. friend for land purchase against hon. Member opposite, that this question of Irish land could not be regarded as a local question affecting the Irish tenant and landlord alone, it was a question which for various reasons and in consequence of many causes had become a question of Imperial magnitude. That opinion I held twenty years ago; I held it ten years ago; and I hold it now more strongly than ever.
  The Chief Secretary gave some short, account of the condition of Irish land

  1251
  tenure in the speech in which he introduced the Bill. But I hardly know whether hon. Members who are not acquainted personally with Ireland, have in their minds the enormous difference between the land system in that country and the land system which prevails in England and Scotland. I do not believe there is a vital or important point in which these two systems are not at absolute variance. To begin with, English and Scottish land are marketable commodities. I admit, speaking as a landowner. I wish there were more purchasers, and that I could say that the turn of the market was more in our favour than it is at the present moment. But English and Scottish land always has been a marketable commodity. Irish land is not, and has not been for years, a marketable commodity. There are no purchasers for it outside the actual tenants. Why? Partly for reasons going far back into the beginnings of Irish history and the beginnings of English rule in Ireland; partly also from the direct and inevitable result of the two Acts of 1870 and 1881. Who is going to buy a commodity the value of which is settled not by the free play of supply and demand, but by three well-paid Land Commissioners whom each party thinks bear very hardly upon them, but who, at all events, never can give a verdict with which either will be content? Property held in these circumstances never can be a marketable commodity. That is one of the first great differences between English and Irish land. Another great difference closely allied with it, but worthy of separate consideration, is that about one-sixth or one-seventh of the Irish land does not in any sense belong to the landlord at all, but is managed by a Court and by a Judge. How can you manage land by Judges? The Judge may be a Solomon come to judgment, and with every qualification that a Judge can have, but the idea that one-sixth or one seventh of the whole agricultural property of an agricultural community can be and ought to be managed by a Judge sitting in a law Court is surely so absurd that if it did not happen in a country where Englishmen may think that many absurd things happen inevitably, it would not be tolerated for a moment. Another great difference between English and Irish land—and this is most vital—is that in England and
  1252
  Scotland the land is owned by one man, it is cultivated by another, but the capital and the instruments for cultivating it are provided partly by the owner and partly by the farmer; and even that is really a very great understatement of the case, because, speaking from my own experience, the amount of money which a Scotch landlord has to put into his farm in the shape of buildings and permanent improvements is far greater than the tenant is asked to put in. And the tenant's capital is of course recoverable. When he leaves, he takes his capital with him. In Ireland you have a system under which—again for historic reasons—the landlord does not spend a shilling on his property. There was a certain number of what were called English managed estates before 1870, but since then that landlord would be thought a very rash speculator who put money into his land; and since 1881 such a landlord would have been fit to have been shut up. Of course you cannot ask them to put money into their land, and they have not done it. But what is the inevitable result? When a tenant is evicted for not paying his rent, he cannot carry off with him his farm buildings; and there is a sense of proprietary right, which also has its origin in and which has been supplemented and fostered by many historic traditions—a sense of co-ownership which has never existed in England or Scotland, but which may be seen embodied in the Ulster custom, and any one may see it at work there. When to all these differences you add the other great difference which has been alluded to just now for another purpose, that every transaction is regulated by a Court, I declare that you have the most intolerable land system that the world has ever seen.
  I can imagine no fault attaching to any land system which does not attach to the Irish system. It has all the faults of peasant proprietary; it has all the faults of feudal landlordism; it has all the faults incident to a system under which the landlords spend no money on their property and under which a large part of the land is managed by a Court. It has all the faults incident to the fact that it is the tenant's interest to let his farm run out of cultivation as the term for revising the judicial rent approaches. And while you have in the landlords a class of men admirably qualified, in my

  1253
  opinion, to do their duty to and be friendly with the population among whom they live—to be the leaders of thought and social improvement and of the work of local government—you have them ranged permanently in opposition to their tenants, who bring them into Court every fifteen years, to diminish their income by a formidable percentage at each operation. In addition, you have a system under which this country is burdened, and the Irish landlords and tenants are burdened, with a weight of litigation which in itself is intolerable. We have to pay,£140,000 a year for Irish Land Courts to decide rents in Ireland. But what have the Irish landlords and tenants to pay in addition to that£140,000 a year for all the mass of litigation which drags wearily on year after year, embittering both parties, and enriching no one except the lawyers? If any one is ingenious enough to find an additional fault which attaches to some other land system, and which does not attach to the Irish land system, I do not say that I will follow the fashion of the day by giving a prize, but I shall be extremely grateful for the discovery. Are we to sit and see this go on—the evils not diminishing, as Mr. Gladstone hoped, but gradually accumulating? Mr. Gladstone, when he introduced the great Act of 1881, hoped that litigation would be little used, and that when the value of the farm was settled, no further legal process would take place in respect of it, and that the land purchase clauses of that Act would prove to be of some effect. Those hopes have been utterly and absolutely dissipated by experience. The very same experience which has proved how beneficial is land purchase has also proved how pernicious are Court-fixed rents.
  My hon. friend who seconded the Amendment wondered whether land purchase had produced good effects. I believe that no one who has seen the holdings which have been purchased entertains, or can entertain, a moment's doubt on that point. My hon. friend feels that the reduction offered by this Bill to the tenants—not greater than the reduction offered by other Bil's—is too large. Let him remember that a reduction is not like a rent, a thing to be modified in favour
  1254
  of the tenants in bad years, and may be favourable to the landlord in years of good prices. It is a thing fixed for ever. You cannot fix it, and it would be absurd to try, at anything like the rack-rent of the holding. That would inevitably lead to something like, I will not say repudiation, but inevitable failure to pay in some cases. But my hon. friend may rest assured of this—that if the purchaser of Irish land does get a reduction upon the nominal amount of the rent which he pays to the landlord, he puts into the land which is to become his own an amount of work and energy to which even the security given under the Land Bill of 1881, a security not to be despised, was quite unable to stimulate him. I do not see how any one making a survey of these circumstances can doubt the value of the procedure we initiate. But my hon. friend says—Though the plan may be good in itself, although it may have much to recommend it, why is it to be done for these disloyal people? Well, the Bill is not intended to make people loyal I admit that. It is not intended to turn Home Rulers into Unionists. I admit that. But it is intended to take away one of those sores which fester and which aggravate every political movement which might otherwise be innocuous. I do not venture to prophesy when or how soon there will be any widespread revulsion of Irish Nationalist sentiment in favour of this country. Emotions which are the result of long generations of ancient and bitter traditions are not easy to blot out. They die hard. They leave traces of bitterness long after the causes which have first produced them have become only matters of historical and speculative interest. If my hon. friend thinks that loyalty is to be promoted and the Union aided by keeping up in Ireland anything in the nature of the intolerable and absurd system which now prevails there, surely my hon. friend is mistaken. We do not recommend this Bill to the House as the means of converting any man to the political opinions which we hold. We think that good government and contentment ought to end and will end, ought to tend and will tend—I will put it in that more moderate form—to a harmony of feeling between every section of the community, whether in Ireland, Scotland, or England. But the primary object of this measure is to

  1255
  substitute a good system of land tenure for a bad system, and to remove some of those intolerable absurdities, partly due to evils handed down to us from ancient history, and partly due to the well-meant but erring attempts of this country to cure those evils, which resulted in making the Irish land laws a chaos and a by-word. They reflect the utmost discredit upon the powers of British statesmanship, and I trust my right hon. friend's Bill will do much to remove them.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The two speeches from hon. Members opposite to which we have listened have had the most happy effect of evoking from the right hon. Gentleman one of the most masterly vindications of Irish Land Reform that I have ever heard in this House. We could nor, help saying to one another, as the right hon. Gentleman proceeded, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" All the old arguments that were used in favour of the Acts of 1870 and 1881 were again forcibly expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. The tenant, he says, has put his all into the soil, and when he is turned out he cannot carry away his buildings. The right hon. Gentleman says that the system amounted to co-ownership.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should be polemical. What I said was that the peculiarities of the Irish system, by which the tenant did all the improvements, naturally fostered in the bosom of the tenant a sentiment of co-ownership.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: So far from being polemical against the right hon. Gentleman's present mood, I am delighted with it. The arguments which he now uses were the arguments used by the advocates of the Acts of 1870 and 1881; and the position of things which he describes was the position always denied and repudiated by the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs. We do not look a gift horse in the mouth; and when we find the right hon. Gentleman so entirely approving the whole line of argument which was used in defence of Mr. Gladstone's policy, we can only express our obligations to him. But the right hon. Gentleman said
  1256
  that notwithstanding, he was one of the bitterest enemies of the Act of 1881. Where would his Land Purchase Acts have been if it had not been for the Act of 1881? The Act of 1881 not only relieved the Irish tenant from a position of helplessness, in which he was very often harshly treated, it not only gave him fixity of tenure, it also apportioned as between landlord and tenant their respective interests in the soil, and it established Courts to determine them. We hear of first-term and second-term tenants, and it is upon the respective interests of those classes that the whole arrangement of the present Bill is based. Where would the right hon. Gentleman have been with all his Land Purchase Acts, of which he has recited a series, if it had not been for this much denounced Act of 1881? I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, even for a moment, should have thought that I was assuming a polemical tone in reply to his exceedingly conciliatory tone; on the contrary, I am delighted to find that he now appreciates, perhaps a little better than he did thirty years ago, the real situation of the Irish case. In my observations on this Bill I wish to view it from the point of view from which the mover and seconder of the Amendment view it, although I cannot come to the same conclusion. We have heard a great deal in the different conferences and negotiations that have taken place, as far as we have been permitted knowledge of them, of the point of view of the landlord and of the tenant; I want to look at it from the point of view of the Imperial taxpayer. This is the time and place where his case ought to be examined and his interests secured. The main object of this measure is to eliminate the landlord from the agrarian system of Ireland, and, at the same time, and as a necessary consequence, to establish a general system of cultivating and occupying ownership. But it will be asked, why, if the Irish landlords have become by their own faults or misfortunes either superfluous or obnoxious to the agrarian system in Ireland—why must Imperial money be given or credit used for their deliverance? The reason for that is that we are responsible for the landlords, we are responsible for their actions in the past, and if they are subjected, any of them or as a class, to popular odium, that

  1257
  odium attaches to us also. I have here some very plain and forcible words of Mr. Gladstone's which I think put the case very clearly. He said, in introducing his Bill in 1886—
  "The Irish landlords have been the heirs of a sad inheritance. They have taken up, and been compelled to take up, dismal and deplorable traditions; and when oppression has wrought its very painful experience into the heart and mind of the people, it is not in a moment, not in a year, not in a generation, that the traces of that painful, and dreadful process can be effaced. We desire, by exhibiting the utmost consideration for the imperilled class—or, at any rate, for the class impressed deeply with apprehension—the Irish landlords—to do everything on their behalf which duty will allow us to do. The deeds of the Irish landlords are, to a great extent, our deeds. We are participes criminis; we, with power in our hands, looked on; we not only looked on but we encouraged and sustained. I have said that the landlords were our garrison in Ireland. Let me a little unfold that sentence. We planted them there, and we replanted them. In 1641, in 1688, and again in 1798, we re-conquered the country for them."
  That historical fact differentiates the position of the Irish landlord from that of ordinary landlords in any other part of the United Kingdom, and gives them a higher claim to our consideration. That argument used to be familiar to us in the old debates, which with the old arguments are now vanishing from men's minds. It is well to renew them. But, without resorting to these lofty historical reasons, I found myself upon a more humble and practical argument, which in my estimation is really the compelling force for this Bill, namely, that this policy has no alternative and that there is no escape.
  I am not going to enter on a discussion of Mr. Gladstone's Bill in its general merits. The right hon. Gentleman has put the Bill of 1886 aside on the ground of this and that objection. If I remember the circumstances of that day aright, the Land Purchase Bill was the more obnoxious of the two measures; and as the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent rightly said, if the Home Rule Bill had stood alone it would probably have passed into law. It was on the Land Bill that the whole hostility of the self-styled Unionist Party directed itself at that time. That Bill is, of course, no longer heard of, but the Unionist Party thereupon began their series of fragmentary and tentative Acts. What has
  1258
  been the result of those Acts? There are at present some 80,000tenantsunderthem paying instalments at a far lower rate than the tenants who are not purchasing their holdings. We are glad to know from Mr. Bailey's report, and otherwise, that these tenants are doing exceedingly well, and that the whole transaction is succeeding. But what is the effect of it in a locality—and to my mind this is the governing argument in the whole matter. In a locality you had two neighbours each paying the same sum in rent to different landlords. One landlord is able and willing to sell, the other landlord is either unable or unwilling; the man whose landlord can sell receives immediately a large reduction in his annual payment, and has only to pay that for a certain limited period of years and the property becomes his own. Do you expect his neighbour to go on contentedly paying the full rent with no such expectation in prospect? That is the key to the whole position, in my opinion. It has been for some time evident that a large and larger stride forward must be taken, and I have myself on more than one occasion voted for a strenuous resolution to that effect. So long as this inequality exists discontent will exist in proportion to the extent of the inequality; and my feeling with regard to this Bill is not that it is too large, but I have considerable fear whether it will really, on a sufficiently large scale, be sufficient to compel obliteration of the inequality. It appears to me that the interest of the taxpayer is not so much concerned with the landlord's part of the arrangement as with the tenant's. If the idea of compulsion is ruled out, reliance must be placed on inducing the landlord to part with his property—the same sort of gentle influence that we have heard of in South Africa. He is to be "induced"; he is to be tempted by a bonus; and, in my opinion, the amount of the bonus ought to be only sufficient, not more, to effect this object and to acquit the English people of the obligation to which I have referred, the obligation of the reasonable extrication of the landlord from his position. This bonus, of course, is plainly the interest of the taxpayer; but when the landlord has received his money and the arrangement is complete he disappears

  1259
  from the agrarian problem. Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit. He either lives, as I trust the great majority of them will continue to live, in his old home among his old neighbours or he seeks other climes; in any case he is gone; as far as the British taxpayer is concerned he is done with. But the tenant remains for nearly seventy years. This Bill is not merely a great financial operation for effecting an agrarian revolution; it is an international convention, to last for nearly seventy years, during which time we, the taxpayers, shall be the landlord, and the Irish peasantry will date their economical condition, whether it be one of prosperity or misery, from the year in which the terms of the redemption of their holdings were prescribed. The essential lines of such a measure, then, cannot surely be examined too closely.
  I wish to impress on the House this fact, that the interest of the taxpayer is bound up in the interests of the tenant. Let me speak frankly. The people of this Island do not like this Bill—I am sure I shall not be contradicted in any quarter—they are being led quietly and judiciously up to it, but their attitude towards it is that of a shying horse. They shrink from this huge employment of their credit and this huge gift of their cash in order to oust from their property a set of men against whom they themselves have no complaint, and in order to instal in possession those farmers who happen at this juncture to be holding land. But the people of this country are well disposed towards Ireland; they have a notion that they have a duty to do to Ireland; and now they are told that, if some such great scheme as this is adopted, all classes in Ireland will be friends, old feuds will be forgotten, new prosperity and industries will arise, the government of the country will be made easy, the preposterous force of constabulary will be no longer necessary, and other proofs of peace and order and happiness will begin. What I say is, once convince our countrymen that these things will be attained, and I altogether mistake them if they will not support you in the effort to achieve them, and stretch, not one or two, but any number of points to do it. But my point is that this altogether hangs on the terms imposed on the tenants. You have got to satisfy the people of this country that what they
  1260
  desire will be attained. If you satisfy them of that they will support your scheme gladly. The question is, how can you satisfy them of it? You have to show them that the terms to be paid by the tenant are equitable, that they bear the test of matters of business, that they will bear the brunt of low prices and bad seasons, and that they will create substantial equality of conditions among the peasantry throughout Ireland. It will not be enough if the first impression only made on the minds of the peasantry is favourable. A reduction of something you have to pay once a year is always cheerfully taken, and, if I may twist the words of Scripture, I would say that no relaxation of rent for the present seemeth grievous, but joyous. But we have to look forward five, ten, or fifty years hence and see how matters will stand then. I am not thinking of repudiation, but of a possible breakdown. What does this scheme mean—the scheme of the payment of a fixed rent for seventy years before the joys of ownership and independence can be attained? One generation will pass away, and another will come and go, and we shall be in the middle of a third, and still the instalments will be going on; and I will ask hon. Members who have any knowledge of affairs in England and Scotland, where will you get a farmer anywhere who, paying anything that could be dignified by the name of rent, would take a lease for seventy years? In Scotland we had an immemorial system of nineteen years leases. That was almost as fixed an institution as the Sabbath day itself. Now you will not get a farmer to take a nineteen years lease. They do not wish owing to the fluctuation of prices and other reasons, to tie themselves for that time. Therefore it is on this ground that I say that, with the prospect of this long term during which a fixed instalment is demanded, it is most necessary that the terms given to the tenants should be closely looked into. It is only in Committee that this complex question can be sifted and settled; and, to my mind, it depends entirely on the result of the consideration of this and other matters in Committee whether the promises of peace, which alone can justify the demands made on the taxpayer, are secured by the Bill.

  1261
  Now, so far as I can judge the terms, they are not satisfactory as they are stated in the Bill. It is an exceedingly difficult matter to get at unless you go back to the old-fashioned way of calculating by the number of years' purchase. The right hon. Gentleman skillfully avoided any reference to years' purchase in his speech on the introduction of the Bill. If we take that test, and strike the mean between what we now know to be the maximum and the minimum years purchase of the first and second-term tenants, for the first-term tenant I take it to be twenty-two years, and for the second-term tenant and the non-judicial tenant twenty-five and one sixth years. How do these terms compare with the state of things under the Purchase Acts already in operation, under which there are 80,000 men paying annual instalments? They involve an enormous increase. The number of years purchase under the present Acts show, I believe, an average of seventeen years purchase; that is to say, the standard determined by the Land Court as fair to the tenant and safe for the taxpayer may have a wide range of fluctuation, but the average is seventeen years. The disparity is further aggravated when we remember that in cases under the existing Acts the purchaser acquires the fee simple of the property, whereas under this new proposal the purchaser only acquires seven eighths. Therefore, are we to understand that it is expected that the tenants should pay, and that the public Exchequer should advance many millions for a rent which is not there, which is not in the ground? They are paying on a basis, these new purchasers, as it seems to me, of a vanished rent, an imaginary rent, and, of course, we know they are not millionaires able to pay fancy prices. As we all know, sales of agricultural property have not been lively in England and Scotland of late years, but as far as they have gone they have been at about eighteen years purchase. But, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, that is eighteen years purchase of the land with all that the landlord has put into it. How does that compare with twenty-two years and even twenty-five years purchase of land into which the landlord has never put anything? Now, I have some figures
  1262
  which I think bring out these facts very, clearly. I take them from the Freeman's Journal and I think we know enough of the Freeman's Journal and those who conduct it to be sure that they are accurately stated. I have certainly not seen these figures challenged in any quarter, and they bring out more forcibly than any other method the vast difference between the payments that will have to be made by the new purchasers and those made by purchasers under the old Acts. I take three cases of £100 of rent. I do not mean the same £100 rented farm at the two epochs, but, as it were, three classes of people paying £100 worth of rent under whatever law or bargain it may be. Those who pay under the present system have to give seventeen years purchase—that is to say, £1,700 is paid to the landlord—and the length of the term of repayment is forty-two and a half years, the gross total of their annual payments when they have become actual proprietors of their farms being £2,895. Now, a first-term tenant who has had no reduction of his rent for the second term has to pay under the Bill twenty-two years purchase. Therefore he has to pay £2,200 to his landlord. He goes on paying for sixty-eight and a half years, and by the end of that time will have paid £4,795, as, against the first man's £2,890. The third man, the second-term tenant, a class which also includes the non-judicial tenant, has to pay twenty-five and one-sixth years purchase. His landlord receives over £2,500 and the tenant's payments extend over a period of sixty-eight and a half years, and the sum of his payments is £5,480; so that, if these figures are correct——
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: They are not.
  Sir H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: Well, they may be capable of alteration slightly, but they are correct in the main. They are exclusive of the landlord's bonus, and they deal merely with the question of the relations between the tenant and the landlord; and you have the startling contrast between the £2,890, the payment under the present system, and £5,480 paid by the second-term tenant. I have read pretty closely all that has passed, but I have not seen any

  1263
  correction of these figures. I hope there is an explanation of them, because, as they stand, they mean that the conditions proposed are altogether absurd and preposterous. But, short of that, I still doubt whether they are not oppressive. At all events, think they should be explained. If they could be justified they would alter the opinion the strongest advocates have of the arrangements. What I wish to point out is that the question of the terms imposed on the tenant is really the crucial question, not merely from the point of view of the tenant, but also from that of the taxpayer whose money is to be taken. There are one or two other smaller points to which I should like to refer. One has reference to the non-judicial tenant. They are to be treated as second-term tenants, the assumption being that as they have not gone into Court, their rents are fair. But I should imagine there are many in that position who have not gone into Court because they could not afford it. Therefore I wonder whether it is quite fair that those who have had no reduction at all, and the judicial tenants who may have had their rents reduced twice over, should be placed in the same category. Again I would ask what is the necessity of introducing first-term rents at all. I do not appreciate that point believe the Dun raven Conference recommended they should be left out of account. The present fair rents would seem to be the proper basis. If you start from any other basis you seem to make a false start, because the second-term tenant is no better off to-day than he was fifteen years ago as a first-term tenant. Circumstances are assumed to have altered since the first valuation, and, therefore, I do not see why you should refuse to take the second-term tenants' figures as applicable. Let us surely start fair. We are beginning a new partnership between the British taxpayer and the Irish tenant, and it is undesirable, as our interests are identical, to fix anything approaching to a fancy price, which would be too onerous to him and at the same time dangerous to the taxpayer.
  Using the word dangerous, I come to another point, which I think is surely deserving of some attention. For seventy years the British Treasury is to
  1264
  be practically the landlord of Ireland, and the collector of rents in Ireland. What does this mean? It means that in any accident, any default, or in the face of a discovery after some years that the terms are more irksome than they seem to-day, it will fall to the Imperial Exchequer to enforce the payment of the instalments. It means seizure, it means eviction, it means foreclosure. Is that a pleasant or attractive picture of the work which is to be done in the future in the name of the British Treasury? I have not in my mind so much the fear of loss of money as the fear of being brought into the position of friction and conflict with the people in any respect. The Chief Secretary, no doubt, places a guard against that, as he thinks, by saying that he can lay an embargo upon money which goes in aid of local purposes. I doubt very much whether that can be done directly, county by county at all events, because it would be a strange thing to leave lunatics untended, or to allow roads to go to ruin because of this money payment not having been made. Let me contrast the proposal made in the Bill that is so often referred to, that of 1886. In the Bill of 1886 the terms were better in all respects. The number of years purchase chargeable to the tenant was sixteen, instead of twenty-two or twenty-five, and then the great point was, that an Irish State authority was created which not only collected the annual money, but retained it, and made a profit out of it, so that everybody was enlisted on the side of regular payment. Let us consider the two cases. First of all the case without an authority, that is to say, the case of the Bill. Advances are then made to several hundreds of thousands of individual tenants. There is rent collected from each one of them for seventy years. There is a liability to evict if they fail to pay. There is disorganisation of the finances and local government if grants-in-aid are abruptly cancelled. If, on the other hand, you had an authority of this kind, which, in my opinion, you ought to have, the advances would be made to one body, no responsibility would fall upon the British Treasury to collect the instalments, there would be no friction or collision, there would be absolute security by leaving the instalments

  1265
  in the hands of the authority in lieu of the grants in aid, and there would be the identification of Ireland with the administration of the whole scheme, and further, there would be an opportunity for this local authority to assist the poorer classes of tenants, and enable them to do better justice to the land than they can now.
  There are many subordinate points of a technical kind which one could refer to, but these have been dealt with with much energy and force by the hon. Member for Waterford. I wish to concentrate my criticisms on the two principal and vital matters to which I have referred. First of all the equity, and therefore the security—because the security depends upon the equity—of the burden laid upon the tenant. And secondly, the policy, so often denounced by eminent members of the Party opposite, of leaving the British Treasury face to face, as rent collectors, with the whole peasantry of Ireland. The whole future of the harmonious working of this scheme, and therefore the contentment of Ireland, depends upon the alterations which may be made in this Bill in Committee. Let it go into Committee that these may be effected, and it will only be when it emerges from that crucible that we shall be able to judge whether it will really attain the beneficent object which undoubtedly it has in view. I have said that, in the interests of peace in Ireland, the people of England and Scotland are willing to make great efforts and even sacrifices. I was rather surprised to see that this view was scornfully repudiated the other night by a well-known former Member of this House, one of the most high-minded and patriotic of Irishmen, Mr. Horace Plunkett. He said—
  "this great measure ought not to he regarded as a measure for the purpose of purchasing peace in Ireland. If that is the attitude of Englishmen towards the Irish question it will be an attitude undignified for England and demoralising to Ireland."
  I differ entirely from Mr. Plunkett. I hold that blessed in any case are the peacemakers. But it is not only peace that we seek, but the development and the prosperity of Ireland, and there is no lack of desire to see her enjoying prosperity as well as peace. What is lacking at this stage of this Bill is the certainty that we require—
  1266
  the confidence—that its scheme as it now stands will achieve its alleged object.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The right hon. Gentleman has recalled the debate to the Bill itself. I came here prepared to discuss the Bill, and found it in great danger of being switched on to a discussion of the policy of Land Purchase. I thought that had been settled for all time long ago. When this Bill was first introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, I said, speaking with reserve as to details, that it was, in my opinion, "a great, far-reaching, and epoch-making measure." Since then, having devoted both time and attention to its study, having listened to hostile criticism in Ireland, and weighed what can fairly be said against some of its provisions, I see no reason to change the general attitude I then took up. I support the Second Reading -not because I like many of the complicated arrangements of the Bill—because I do not. I think some of them far inferior to Land purchase law as it exists at present. I support the Bill heartily at this stage because it represents to my mind the passing of Irish landlordism, the beginning of the end of as tragic a story as the history of any civilised country presents. The Bill does three great things for which men of all parties in Ireland ought, in my opinion, to speak well of its authors. We have had Land Purchase Bills before. But this is the first time a responsible Government hag ever frankly contemplated and provided for the entire abolition of dual ownership in the soil of Ireland. We have had the use of Imperial credit before now in connection with these measures. This is the first time a responsible Government has deliberately calculated the amount of the rental of Irish land, and proposed facilities, involving £100,000,000 sterling, for redeeming it. We have frequently in Ireland discussed proposals by which the State might bridge the gap between what the tenant could safely pay, and the sum which the landlord, under all the circumstances, could reasonably accept. This is the first time the proposal of a State bonus or grant-in-aid has been submitted to Parliament by a Minister of the Crown. And, because it does these three things, frankly and unequivocally, I have commended the Bill to my friends in Ulster,

  1267
  some of whom were, and are, disposed to overlook the good that it seeks to do in their anxiety regarding some of its undoubted shortcomings. But, fortunately, as things stand, all Ireland is practically for the Second Reading. The after stages of the Bill will be much more serious. If the right hon. Gentleman has and keeps an open mind, if he is prepared to take a reasonable view of Amendments—necessary, in some cases, to protect and secure the State as well as the tenant—all will be well. If, on the other hand, he proposes to force the Bill through practically without Amendment, then the fair promise of to-day will disappear, and future trouble is all but certain to arise.
  The friendly criticism, which I propose to offer at this stage can be grouped under two or three clearly-defined heads. I propose to deal with: first, the finance of the Bill, so far as it affects the price to be paid by the tenant, and the amount the landlord is to receive; second, I propose to dissent from the policy of the Bill, in so far as it puts pressure upon tenants to buy that is not equally applied to landlords to sell; third, I propose to dissent from the change of policy involved in the denial of the freehold to purchasers; and lastly, I propose to offer some criticism upon the portions of the Bill dealing with the labourers and the revision of the Land Law. I hope to be able to confine what I have to say within reasonable limits, and also to make my position clear even to hon. Members who are not familiar with the Irish Land Acts.
  First, then, as to finance. Speaking in October last to a meeting of tenants in County Down, I stated what, in my opinion, were the main essentials of any scheme for the satisfactory settlement of the land question. I said—
  "(a) That it should provide fair terms of purchase for the tenant, who in purchasing must take, in the future, the whole of the risks of Irish agriculture, whatever these may be. (b) That it should secure, so far as it is possible to do so, an equivalent to the landlord of the second term rents now being declared as fair rents by the Land Commission, (c) That it should not unduly tax the Imperial Exchequer. (d) That it should be a complete and final settlement of the question."
  In my judgment, and tested by this standard, the Bill goes too far—not in seeking to give the landlord a full price
  1268
  for his land—he is entitled to that—but in seeking to inflate the security which he is to receive in exchange for the land. Take Clause 1. It is a very difficult clause for any one not intimately acquainted with the Irish Land Question. But when it is mastered it proposes to do this. First term rents—i.e., rents that have been reduced by the Courts 20 per cent.—may be bought and sold upon terms that will reduce the terminable annuity below the rent by not less than 20 and not more than 40 per cent. In the case of second-term rents—i.e., those rents that have been reduced by the Courts 38 per cent.—may be bought and sold upon terms that will reduce the terminable annuity below the rent by 10 and not more than 30 per cent. This means—and the Irish farmer well understood—that first-term rents may be sold at from nineteen to twenty-five years purchase, and second-term rents at from twenty-two to twenty-eight years purchase. I say at once that the first effect of these proposals is to strike people in Ireland dumb. During the seventeen years of the working of Irish Land Purchase Acts, the price paid for the land has been something under eighteen years purchase of first-term rents. The tenant now asks, and naturally enough, why this extraordinary boom in the price? And he will not readily purchase at any such price.
  Now there are several things to be borne in mind here by all those who desire to see a fair settlement arrived at. There is very little use in talking now about land being bought at seventeen or eighteen years purchase of the rent, and for this all-sufficient reason—that there is no more land to be sold at that price. Two classes of landlords have sold at this price in the past—those who were practically bankrupt, who were compelled by circumstances to sell and could not help it; and those who desired to get out of the country at any price, and who could afford to sell at a loss. Practically these two classes represent the sales of land that have taken place since 1885. It cannot be denied by anyone who knows Ireland that these two classes are all but exhausted. No body will now sell at this figure. There is another thing we must bear in mind,

  1269
  and it is, that this extraordinary demand for land has naturally tended to raise the price. Tenants have been keen to buy because the whole country has been breast high for compulsory sale, and of course the landlords have taken advantage to raise the price. This is the play of the natural economic law. We are face to face with the fact that land is not for sale in any large quantities at seventeen or eighteen years' purchase, and we must face the fact that if it were there would be no need for this Bill. There is plenty of credit standing in the Land Commission books, and I believe it amounts to something like £25,000,000 sterling, and if land could be had at seventeen or eighteen years' purchase in abundance this Bill need never have been introduced. It is on this point the right hon. Gentleman has overdone his proposals. Let the House bear in mind that these tremendous operations under this Bill are to be carried through by State aid, and at the entire risk of the State. The State is to guarantee at least £100,000,000 sterling to establish single ownership in the land.
  Bearing this in mind let us see what the Bill does. We all desire on both sides of the House that the landlord should get out of his unfortunate position without loss of income. From first to last this has been my own desire, and it is now admitted to be everybody's aim. Pray bear in mind that the Bill as it stands actually contemplates a possible sale at twenty-eight years' purchase of the second-term rents, plus a bonus to the landlord of from 5 to 15 per cent. on the purchase money. The best way to show how ruinous this is to the tenant, and how extremely risky it is to the State, is to show by an accurate but simple calculation what a lower price than that will do. I take, by way of illustration, a second-term rent of £100. Let us suppose the tenant is willing to pay, not twenty-eight years' purchase, because you will get no tenant to pay that; but let us suppose that he is willing to pay twenty-three years' purchase. This means a capital sum of £2,300. Let the House remember that the landlord does not get this sum in depreciated stock as now, but he is going to get it under this Bill in coin of the realm. What is he to do with it
  1270
  when he gets it? This is the real difficulty of the entire situation. Probably three-fifths of Irish properties are under the Settled Land Acts, and the purchase money represented in this case must be invested in trustee securities. Sections 46 and 47 of the Bill clearly contemplated this difficulty, because they propose to widen and extend the investing powers of trustees; but however this may be, the Irish landlord, I maintain, by electing to take a 3½ per cent. investment for the purchase money, must vastly improve his present security. The most risky of such securities is safer than Irish land. And invested at 3½, his annual income from the capital sum would be £80 10s. 0d. The bonus or grant-in-aid on the capital sum taken at 10 per cent.—the mean between 5 and 15—would amount to £230. This is not part of the settled estate, and invested at 4 per cent. would produce £9 6s. 0d. per annum. The annual income accruing from the investment of the capital sum at 3½ per cent., and the bonus at 4 per cent., would therefore be £89 16s. 0d., or, roughly speaking, £90 in place of the £100 second-term rent. But if, as the landlords agree, 10 per cent. be taken off income for management expenses—and this amount by no means represents the outgoings on an ordinary estate—we get at a result which exactly supplies the equivalent for the second-term rent. We get £90 from invested capital against £90 of net income from rent. Why should the landlord get more? Why should the Government propose to give him more? Why should the Government suggest by these extraordinary limits that he ought to get more? I know the reply that will be made here. The calculation is accurate. It will stand against any amount of criticism. But the landlord insists upon getting a 3 per cent. investment. He desires a gilt-edged security for the ragged title deeds of Irish Land. And he will say further that the Land Conference of which I was a Member recommended that he should get it. I admit that it is all perfectly true. But, speaking for myself, at least, and I think for my three colleagues in this House, we made the recommendation in question on the assumption of a State bonus of £20,000,000. The State bonus stands

  1271
  in the Bill at £12,000,000. Let the House not misunderstand me. I am not complaining. I am not asking that it should at present be increased. But I am not willing to put a load on the tenant's back under which he must entirely break down and involve us all in disaster—in order that the landlord should get, not a fair price, but an inflated security. If there are to be sacrifices in this matter—and there must be—these must be mutual. If the State can go no further, if the tenant, by paying twenty-three years' purchase, has gone the length that is safe—surely the landlord may reasonably be asked to forego a first class security for that which is, perhaps, the most questionable security in the country.
  But I must now ask the House to lift the curtain a little bit further as regards the landlord's position under the Bill. He will get first of all the full economic value of the land, and perhaps more, from the tenant. He will also get £12,000,000 of a free grant from the State in excess of value. Is this all? By no means. Right through the Bill in Sub-section after Sub-section there is a submerged bonus—all of it flowing straight in the same direction. Take the costs of transfer. The whole of these costs, or the main portion, will be borne by the State. This is an enormous bonus in itself, and when the work is completed it will probably represent two or three million pounds sterling. Take next the provision for the sale of demesne lands. A landlord, having sold his tenanted land, may sell his demesne to the Land Commission, buy it back, and pay the money, up to £20,000, in sixty-eight and a half years. He will thus have money at 2¾ per cent. to repay interest on mortgages at 4£ and 5 per cent. This is another submerged bonus. Take again the encumbered landlord—and most of the Irish landlords are in this position. I know an estate where the gross income is £ 2,000—the net is £ 500, owing to heavy interest on all kinds of incumbrances. The mere relief of getting rid of this heavy interest will be in all such cases a bonus in itself. I calculate that on this special estate the net income of the landlord instead of being £500, as now, will be £750, by merely getting rid of the high interest. Again, within the last five years,
  1272
  the landlord has been freed from the half of the poor rate which he formerly paid. He has, within the same period, got £1,000,000 in the matter of tithe-rent charge. And, putting all these items together, I say he leaves the battlefield not beaten and disgraced, not plundered or robbed, but with all the honours of war, his "basket full of all manner of store." He loses nothing—he gains heavily by this bloodless revolution. I do not complain. I do not denounce this measure as a landlords' relief Bill. I have advised all over whom I have influence that it is worth, their while to pay something for the relief which this Bill aims at giving. I have said in my place here that, for the State, agrarian peace in Ireland is worth untold millions to the Empire. But whilst it is right under existing circumstances that these gentlemen should receive just and even generous treatment, they have no right to escape laden with the spoils of war, no right to burden the tenant and leave a legacy of future trouble for the State. And I say now that twenty-three years' purchase of the second and nineteen years of the first-term rents from the tenant is a sufficient maximum to meet all the necessities of the case. It is as much as it is safe to place on the tenant's back. As a matter of simple fact the maximum under the Bill is a little over twenty-eight years of the second-term, and twenty-five of the first-term. Tenants I will not and ought not to give these prices. The State would incur the gravest peril were they to do so, and as such prices are not required to secure the landlord a full equivalent for his rent, I trust the Bill will be altered in this respect and that no such dangerous standard will be set up. The same alteration is necessary in Clause 1. I am afraid this is a very technical part of my criticism, but the amendment is necessary to secure the successful and safe working of the Bill. The limits in both zones as to the minimum reductions ought to be widened from ten to at least fifteen in the case of second-term rents, and from twenty to at least twenty-five in the case of first-terms. This is a matter in which the State has a vital interest. If the limit stands at ten and twenty, as in the Bill, it may well turn out that land may change hand sand a State advance be made

  1273
  for which no real or adequate security exists. Let it be borne in mind that all inspection of the land by skilled valuers, as in the past, is abolished. The entire safety of the State under Clause 1 depends upon the limit of reduction being sufficient.
  The past history of land purchase proves that tenants will, in many cases, give more than they ought to give for the land. Applications for loans, amounting to £70,000, have been rejected upon this very ground last year. And when I tell the House that since the Act commenced applications for something like a million sterling have been rejected by the Land Commission, because the landlords and the tenants agreed to a price for which there was no security in the land, it will be seen that the whole safety of the State, apart from that of the tenant, depends upon the margin not being cut so fine as in the Bill. My contention, on the other hand, is that the limits at the other end of the zone, which establish a maximum reduction, and by so doing enforce a minimum price, ought to be altogether removed. In whose interests are these limits set up? The State proposes that the landlord shall not sell to a tenant unless upon certain conditions. The terms must be 10 per cent. under the second term and 20 per cent. under the first term rent. But they must not be more than 30 or 40 per cent. less. I would like at least an intelligent answer to the question of why this limit stands in the Bill. In whose interest is this limit enforced? Not, surely, in the interest of the State. The lower the price the greater the security of the State. Not, certainly, in the interest of the tenant. His interests are all against the fixing of a minimum price—all in the direction of the play of a free market. The limit is clearly in favour of the landlord. And why should this extraordinary weapon be used in his behalf? Is he incapable of protecting his own interests? He is not compelled to sell. Why should he be legally restrained in arriving at terms with his tenants? Why should the owner of an agricultural slum—and there are agricultural slums in Ireland—be cribbed, cabined, and confined within these limits? I may be told that the judicial rent having been fixed, the slum ought to be subject to the same purchase terms as other land. But that takes a good deal for granted in regard
  1274
  to judicial rents and much more than Irish Members generally will be prepared to concede. The truth is, this minimum limit is indefensible. The State has no right to fix a minimum price. Its primary, if not its sole duty is to secure the safety of the taxpayer. It has no right to inflate the price in the interest of the landlord, and by so doing to imperil the State and unduly burden the tenant.
  Up to this point I have been dealing with judicial tenants. But there are, perhaps, close upon 100,000 tenants who either have not gone into the Land Court, or who have been legally barred from doing so. These tenants can purchase under the present Acts, and it is not proposed to debar them from participating in the benefits of this Bill. How are these people treated under Clause 1? They may be taken all round as the most rack-rented tenants in the country. Their unrevised rack rents are treated, for the purpose of sale, under the Bill as "the existing rent." In thousands of these cases annual abatements have been made by landlords. The rents were too much for the landlords even, and without any pressure they have made annual abate ments. No account is taken of these. All such tenants are dealt with on the basis of "the existing rent." Talk of bonuses! If we take the difference between the judicial rents and these rents, it will be found to amount to something between 30 and 40 per cent. By adhering to the Bill in these 100,000 cases we give the landlord an additional bonus to this extent. This is not just. It is not equitable. And those people, deprived of a fair rent in the past, ought not to be further penalised. These rents ought to be reduced for the purpose of purchase—they ought to be dealt with as a separate class, and the terms of purchase ought to be based upon the fact that these are rack rents. All such rents ought to be placed in a special Subsection with a minimum reduction of at least 33 per cent. I have still another point on finance before I pass to the other parts of the Bill. I desire now to draw the attention of the House to the method of repayment under this Bill. The authors of the measure appear to have been content to secure the landlord a lavish equivalent for his income, and, at the same time, by spreading the repayment over a long period, to assure the tenant

  1275
  a reduction in his annual rent. I do not complain of the working principle embodied in these two propositions. But I do complain of the manner in which it has been worked out. The landlord gets out of the imbroglio, as I have shown, with drums beating and banners waving. But how does the tenant fare? And pray let the House remember, what should never in these discussions be forgotten, that the interest of the State is bound up with fair terms to the tenant. If he is oppressed the State must suffer. The advance to him is made upon terms that are, it may at once be conceded, generous. He gets the whole of the purchase money at 2¾ per cent. And as the operation is calculated upon a 3¼ annuity the redemption period is sixty-eight-and-a-half years, and the Sinking Fund is ten shillings, or ½ per cent. This is one of the things in the Bill to which the more thoughtful amongst the Ulster farmers strongly object. What the Bill really does is to ensure a reduction on the annual payments by spreading these over a very long period of time. We talk of Sinking Funds to people who do not really know what the phrase covers. In this case the Sinking Fund is the tenant's own money—the money which he pays annually to redeem the loan. All the rest of his payment is interest on the advance—and interest, I admit, at a most advantageous rate. Why has the Sinking Fund been reduced in this Bill to 10s? In the Ashbourne Acts it was, I think, 17s. 6d. In the Acts of 1891 and 1896 it was £1. The higher the Sinking Fund the sooner the tenant is clear of his liability. The lower it is the longer he goes on paying—and paying interest as well as capital. I again ask—Why has the Sinking Fund been lowered to 10s. in this Bill? It is not, of course, to deceive people. £That is impossible, because nobody capable of thinking can be deceived. It has been lowered because the whole financial plan of the Bill demanded it. You could not have your results without doing so. And I maintain that by this procedure the Bill will impose a burden upon the tenant, and place the State in some uncertainty if not in actual peril. By the Ashbourne Act of 1885 everything was plain sailing. The tenant redeemed his loan by a 4 per cent.
  1276
  annuity in forty-nine years. In this case the Sinking Fund was 17s. 6d. No vital alteration was made by the Act of 1891, when this House voted credit to the extent of £33,000,000 for this purpose. The Act of 1896, however, did introduce a great change. It first established the principle of decadal redactions. The period of repayment was lengthened from forty-nine to seventy-three years. Stock was to be taken at the close of the first, second, and third decennial periods. Interest was only to be charged on outstanding capital, and, as a result, the reduction on the first decade amounted to 10 per cent. and two further reductions will follow in twenty years. This Bill abolishes this plan, although nearly the whole of the purchasers had elected to accept it. The plan had to be abolished. It could not be carried out with a Sinking Fund of 10s. And I ask the House to consider well this important change. We are carrying out a great revolution. Those of us who know most about Ireland are full of hope. We believe in the magic power of ownership. We believe the land will produce far more in the future than it has produced in the past. We believe that peace will pay everybody concerned better than turmoil. But it is a far cry to Loch Awe. No one can venture to say what the state of agriculture may be thirty, forty, or fifty years hence. A man may now start paying his annuity full of hope. His successor, under different circumstances, may stagger under it, may fall, and then we shall all wish we had never been born. It is on this ground I lament the abolition of the decadal reductions. They were a great encouragement to the tenant. They were a real security to the State. A man will go on amidst difficulties with relief in front. He may go down with no hope of relief. Alike, then, in the interest of the State and the tenant, I ask for the re-consideration of this matter. The Irish tenant will pay a little more cheerfully now—if he can look forward to reductions in the future. This change in the framework of the Bill will cost the State nothing. It will be, in reality, a policy of insurance against future loss. I plead for an increase in the Sinking Fund and the maintenance; of the decadal system of reductions.

  1277
  To sum up on finance, I say that, first, the Bill goes too far in relief of the landlord by seeking in reality to give him a 3 per cent. security—in exchange for that which is not equal to 4 per cent. in the market; second, it does this by fixing a minimum price for the land—and by seeking to secure terms that are at once burdensome, if not impossible, for the tenant, and risky, if not absolutely dangerous, for the State; third, the landlord can get out with perfect safety on receiving a maximum price from the tenant of twenty-three years' purchase of second and of nineteen on first-term rents—which, plus the State bonus, means twenty-two and twenty-six years' purchase. Anything more is dangerous alike for the tenant and the taxpayer; fourth, the financial arrangements ought to be so re-cast as to permit of the system of decadal reductions being maintained, alike in the interest of the State and the tenant purchaser.
  I come now to another vital part of the Bill, viz., the interference which it proposes to sanction with the tenant's rights under the Act of 1881. The right hon. Gentleman apparently carries the Act of 1881 on his brain. He never makes a speech in England without denouncing it. Lately he declared before some audience, more or less ignorant of the question, that by the Act of 1881 Mr. Gladstone gave Ireland litigation instead of justice. This is one of those half truths that avoid a good deal. Let me state this undoubted fact in another way. The Act of 1881 gave to the Irish tenant the right to recover for his own use the property which had been stolen from him for centuries. The Act of 1881 assessed and valued the respective interests of landlord and tenant in the land, and so made a Purchase Bill such as this possible. The Act of 1881 just enabled England to hold Ireland, and no more. This is the real truth about the Act of 1881. And I speak the mind of every holder of land in Ireland when I say that we do not mean to allow that Act to be vitally touched or interfered with until occupying ownership is an established fact. Let me show the House what the Bill proposes to do in this respect. By Clause 5 any landowner desirous of selling his estate can call in the
  1278
  aid of the Land Commission. The Commission thereupon makes all inquiries—thus saving him the trouble of negotiation with the occupiers. It names the price. The landlord is not compelled to accept this price. But, if he does, and three-fourths of the tenants agree to buy, a recalcitrant fourth, who then become the tenants of the Land Commission, are thereupon deprived of all right to enter the Land Court to have their rents revised. Now I do not say that a minority of tenants ought to be able to prevent, or even to endanger, the purchase of an estate. Nothing of the kind. But why is there not mutuality of treatment between the two parties? The tenants—or a minority of them—refuse to purchase on the terms named by the Land Commission. They are forthwith penalised. But the landlord, after setting the Commission in motion, and putting the country to the cost of inspection, is quite at liberty to refuse the terms. He need not sell. He is not penalised in any way. He is not even asked to pay the costs. If compulsion is to be used against the tenants who refuse to accept the Land Commision terms, why is it not used against the landlord who may be guilty of precisely the same conduct? Here you penalise the tenant. There you allow the landlord the exercise of his free and unfettered discretion. Things are even worse—for you allow in certain cases Sub-section B Clause 17 a bare majority to compel or penalise a minority—and you allow the land Judge, of all men in the world, to suspend the Act of 1881 at his will and pleasure. If I am told that such provisions are necessary because in all such cases the Land Commission would be the landlord and could not therefore fix the fair rent of such holdings, several answers may be made. The County Court Judge is, under the Act of 1881, a rent-fixing authority, and all such cases might be dealt with in that Court, or, following the precedents of the 40th Section of the Act of 1896, you might treat these tenants as purchasers. Or, better still, you could treat the consenting tenants as the estate, and leave the not contents as tenants of the landlord. The right hon. Gentleman as a thorough-going opponent of compulsion applied to the landlord to

  1279
  sell He does not object, however, to compel tenants to buy. Well, I say here from my place that we shall resist and fight against all these attacks, covert and above-board, on the Act of 1881. The real strength of the tenant's position lies in the fact that all these rents are liable to revision eight and ten years hence. If we cannot secure legal and direct compulsion in this House, we shall certainly not give away that form of indirect compulsion which the third fixing of the judicial rents secures to us. This is a matter which no tenant's representative can palter with. It admits of no compromise.
  I now come to deal with that which is a new departure in land purchase—the denial of the freehold to the purchaser. Whatever may be said on this head, it cannot be denied that the proposal to make one-eighth of the advance irredeemable is a novelty. The 80,000 men who have already bought are freeholders. And I dare to say that it is this very sense of ownership which has been at the root of all the success that has attended the experiment. What does the Bill propose in this respect? Take a holding the second-term rent of which is £100. It is bought at a reduction of say 10 per cent., viz. £90. The tenant goes on paying £90 for sixty-eight and a half years, and for ever after a rent charge of £11 5s. This is not ownership. This perpetual rent charge establishes a new form of landlordism—that of the Crown. There is no doubt much to be said for the principle of land nationalisation. I have sat under the spell of Mr. Henry George; his was an attractive and an alluring policy. And, given a new country to begin with, I should unhesitatingly adopt the principle of nationalisation of the land, and probably of a good deal else beside. But Ireland is not a new country. You cannot put new wine into old bottles, or they will break. You cannot mend an old garment with new cloth. You must do the best you can under all the circumstances of the case that is to be dealt with, and Ireland with 500,000 tenant occupiers is not an inviting bit of ground on which to start the theory o land nationalisation I object to this provision and this new policy because (a) it perpetuates and does not abolish
  1280
  landlordism, (b) it destroys the sense of ownership upon which we mainly rely for success, (c) because no cause has been shown for such a radical change in policy. I am aware that it has been held to be necessary for the State to maintain control, after the loan has been repaid, over reckless mortgaging, subdividing, and sub-letting of the land. I entirely agree. At the Land Conference I contended for this principle against some of my colleagues. But this control can be secured by a nominal quit rent as effectively as by a policy which, in my judgment, would destroy to a large extent the incentive to exertion which the Land Purchase Acts contain. I trust, therefore, that the reservation of one-eighth will not be persisted in.
  I have not aimed at any detailed examination of the Bill. That would be an impossibility in a speech on the Second Reading. I have tried to indicate points of crucial importance upon which much will have to be said in Committee. And before I sit down I desire to ask for information upon some points that are either not clear in the Bill or are not dealt with. In the first place, I desire to ask whether it is proposed that all holdings such as residential holdings and town parks, which can be purchased under the present Acts, should be under no disability in the new Act? Secondly, is it intended to maintain the limit of advance set up in the Land Purchase Act of 1888—a limit avowedly fixed owing to the advance for the purpose of land purchase being limited in amount? Thirdly, I wish to know whether it is proposed to make any arrangements for the redemption of drainage charges?
  There are, however, two points I have not dealt with—the labourers and the Land Law. I corroborate the remark of the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford, that the Labourers Clauses are perfectly grotesque as a settlement of the question. The labourers do not require new legislation in principle. They require the present Acts to be made workable and effective. Parliament has clothed local authorities in Ireland with adequate powers. These authorities do not always show a disposition to exercise these powers. The labourer requires a decent sanitary house with a plot of ground. Before he can get this he has to go through inquiries before the District

  1281
  and County Councils, the Local Government Board, and finally before the Privy Council. The Acts are therefore strangled by the machinery. This is the evil to be dealt with—and as a remedy for this evil the clauses in the Bill are perfectly useless. During the recent South Antrim Election the right hon. Gentleman sent down his private secretary to announce to the labourers of that constituency, in his name, that the Government intended to drain the Bann and bring in a Labourers' Bill. The floods have not yet subsided in the neighbourhood of the Bann, and the Labourers' Bill, I suppose, is embodied in these three clauses that will do little or nothing to solve a difficult and urgent problem—the housing of the poorest class in Ireland. I have no right to give the right hon. Gentleman advice, but I say frankly that the labourers will not look at these clauses. He will be well advised to withdraw these clauses, and face the problem on the lines of the Labourers' Acts rather than in this Bill.
  Then one word on the Land Law. As regards the Land Law portion of the Bill, I am not disposed seriously to cavil at it. I agree that if money is to be spent largely on land purchase the Government has a right to save it in other directions. And I confess that I shall not be sorry when the army of temporary sub-commissioners, legal and lay, is disbanded. The whole system of temporary employment in fixing rents is indefensible. These men, in the main, are invertebrates who simply follow the lead of the Chief Commissioners—a body of men who are utterly ignorant of the value of land. But I do make objection to one proposal. In Clause 80 there is a provision that an application to fix a fair rent, where the rent does not exceed £5, may be decided on the report of one sub-commissioner, and that an appeal shall only lie upon three grounds: First, that the man has no right to get a rent fixed; secondly, that the order is bad on the face of it; and thirdly, that the rent has been varied more than 20 per cent. Mark the mutuality. The landlord can appeal if the variation is more than 20 per cent., but the tenant cannot appeal if he considers the reduction inadequate. All through
  1282
  the Bill there is this want of mutuality. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford referred to Mr. Wrench. I do not agree with a great deal that has been said about Mr. Wrench. There must be a landlord or a landlords' representative on the Commission. I have known Mr. Wrench for a very long time. He has a great knowledge of the Land Commission work; he is a man of the world, and is quite capable of taking a broad view of things if he has to do it, and I have no doubt when he is not working with Mr. Justice Meredith and Mr. Fitzgerald large views may present themselves. But I wish to state most distinctly that while I raise no objection to Mr. Wrench holding this position, I do raise objection to his remaining a member of the Congested Districts Board. He has enough to do without troubling the Congested Districts Board. There must be one member of the Land Commission on the Congested Districts Board, and as you have so effectually isolated Mr. Murrough O'Brien, you might as well give him that position. I may as well say right out that Clause 76 (4) will be strongly resisted by myself and others. Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald, tested by his merits, has already received at the hands of the State far more than he deserved. He never had the slightest practice at the Irish Bar. In the early days of the Act of 1881 he was literally hunted out of Armagh and Tyrone as an Assistant Legal Commissioner. By methods that are well-known he was pitchforked into the position he now holds. And in that position he has done as much as any of his colleagues to keep the land fire burning and Ireland in trouble. He and his have done very well out of the country—and the Government will in his case do well to let sleeping dogs lie.
  I apologise to the House for the length at which I have trespassed upon its patience. But the Bill deals with a difficult and complicated question to which I have devoted my whole time and strength for years. I have been asked over and over again since this measure was introduced whether it would settle the question. I hope I am under no illusions—and I know that

  1283
  "settle" is a big word, representing a great deal, and it is upon this one thing that the whole question turns. But assuming one thing—that the right hon. Gentleman keeps an open mind in Committee—that the terms of sale and purchase come through that ordeal in a possible shape, fair to tenant and landlord alike—assuming this, I believe that seven-eighths of the Irish landlords will sell. The bonus, in my opinion, will prove irresistible. That there will be a remnant who will fight on I have no manner of doubt. There is not an Irish Member who could not name some of these men. But their position will be utterly untenable. And if the bonus could be limited in time and distributed uniformly, as the Land Conference recommended, a great impetus would be given to sale in all such cases. The right hon. Gentleman thinks he can accomplish this work without compulsion. I disagree with him. This Bill has been born of compulsion. But those of us who have been the strongest in demanding this solution of the question would incur a grave responsibility if we for a moment stood in the way of a Government carrying out a great scheme such as is embodied in this Bill. What I call the remnant can, and will be, dealt with in due season.
  The last point I make has reference to the position of British Members in regard to this question. If I represented a British constituency, I should think very little of the bonus of £12,000,000; but I should think much and long over the advance of £100.000,000 required to carry out this great scheme. Many Members of this House have discussed this matter with me since the Bill was first introduced. And how does the case stand? There are two risks to be run—one real, the other more or less unreal, just as people look at it. I tell the House frankly that if it places an impossible burden upon the tenant, if it induces him to purchase upon impossible terms merely to enrich landlords, then a day of disaster will inevitably come. This is the real and certain risk. If Clause 1 is not amended the House will invite disaster. As to all talk of a general disike against payment—of a combination to enforce political aims by refusal
  1284
  to pay in the future, I treat this as an absolutely unreal risk. It is mere surmise—the mutterings of prophets who do not know Ireland, who do not know the Irish people. Behind you have the past twenty years, with its record of honest payments; in front you have your Guarantee Fund, out of which any loss can be instantly recouped. You have the passion for the land, which is the great governing fact in this question, and, above all, you have that blessed longing for peace and appeasement and reconciliation which distinguishes the Ireland of to-day from the Ireland of the past. You have landlord and tenant, leader and led, northern protestant and southern catholic, all at one all agreed as to this policy. There is not an atom of risk save and except that which this House could itself avoid, and alike in the interest of England and Ireland I support the Second Reading of this Bill, in the confident belief that, when reasonably amended, it opens up a new chapter in the relations of the two countries—so long united in name but separated in heart, feeling and aspiration.
  Mr. ASHTON: This is a matter of interest to the taxpayers as well as to the landlords and tenants. I do not believe there is any great amount of risk to the British ratepayer in regard to the large loan that it is proposed to make to the tenants of Ireland under the Bill. I much prefer the system put forward by Mr. Gladstone's Bill in 1886 When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House told us this afternoon that matters are very much changed, and seemed to argue that the security was as good as it would have been under Mr. Gladstone's Bill, I, for one, did not agree with him. It appears to me that under Mr. Gladstone's Bill you not only had the whole of the security you will get under this Bill, but you had the further security in the fact that an Irish authority collected the rents, and, further, the still more important fact that the whole of the Irish revenue would come into the hands of the Imperial Exchequer before the Irish could spend a single penny, and in case the money had not been paid by the Irish tenants we

  1285
  should distinctly have a lien on the whole of the Irish revenue, which you will not have under this Bill. While I am not afraid of the Irish tenants not paying the instalments in case we lend them all this money. I believe there is greater security under Mr. Gladstone's Bill and the system of an Irish authority. Every year the risk of Irish tenants giving up their holdings and refusing to pay their instalments grows less and less. But leaving the question of security for the £100,000,000, I should like to say a few words about the large amount of money we are proposing to give as a dole to the Irish landlords to induce them to sell under this Bill. £12,000,000 is a sum we cannot expect the British taxpayer to give without a thorough discussion and investigation of the details of this Bill, and it appears to me, looking from the point of view of the British taxpayer, it is a very large bribe to offer to the Irish landlords under the Bill. I am entirely in favour of the principle of land purchase, and of the principle of treating Irish landlords not only fairly but generously, but I think that under this Bill a great deal more than justice is going to be done.
  And, it being half-past seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [4th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Which Amendment was,
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Coghill.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  Mr. ASHTON: The price to be given for this land compares very strangely with the price to be given in 1886 under Mr. Gladstone's Bill. Mr. Gladstone considered twenty years would be sufficient to satisfy the claims of Irish landowners. He took twenty years as his standard.
  1286
  Under the Bill no landlord was to get more than twenty-two years' purchase, and he gave it as his opinion that the average price would not be more than seventeen years' purchase of the rents. That opinion is strongly borne out by the facts, because we heard this afternoon, from the Leader of the Opposition, I think, that the average purchase price under the Land Acts has been almost exactly seventeen and a half years purchase. Well, Sir, that, compared from the British taxpayers' point of view, with the price to be given under this Bill is very much smaller. The price to be given under this Bill is more generous in two ways. In the first place it gives: a bonus to the landlords, and in the second it gives a much larger number of; years' purchase, the total result of the two combined being to give be tween twenty-five and thirty-three years' purchase on the present rental of the land. That is a very large order indeed, and I think it requires some justification at the hands of the Government when we know that land in Ireland under ordinary circumstances is sold at seventeen years' purchase, and when we know that agricultural land in this country will not sell without amenities at anything like that price. We are told we must give this large price in order to induce the landlords to sell. But if we are to give this bonus and these favourable terms we have a right to demand that the landowners shall be coerced into selling; if we are to give these terms we ought to be given the right of compulsory purchase, and I do not believe that this Bill will work satisfactorily unless it provides that this land shall be purchased compulsorily from the landowners. Unless it is made compulsory, I feel sure there will be a large number of landowners who will hold back in the hope that if they hold back long enough better terms will be offered to them. Why could we not have compulsion in this matter? We have compulsion now a days for the purchase of property for the public good; we have admitted on this side for years that where it is in the interest of the public that property should be taken it should be taken at a fair price and no more, and I

  1287
  am glad to notice that in the last year or two the Conservative Party has accepted this view.
  In the session of last year this House thought it was desirable, in the interest of London that the water companies should be purchased, but what was the principle of purchase in that case? They took the companies' property by compulsory purchase, but they provided that no sum was to be given in compensation for compulsory purchase. Again, we have another Bill in the interests of London, under which it is proposed that the property of the dock and pier companies shall be taken, because it is believed it will be for the benefit of London, and there a fair price without compensation is to be given. If that is to be the way in which English property owners are to be treated, I fail to see why Irish owners should be put on an entirely different footing. Why is it right that English owners should have their property taken from them compulsorily, without any bonus being given, and on the other hand, Irish landowners, who are not even compelled to sell, should receive a bonus? I think that requires from the Government some explanation to the taxpayers. Some 'explanation should be given as to why Irish owners are to be put in a superior position to owners of property -in this country. I have tried to see why this difference should be made, and I confess I have been driven to the conclusion that though you might get justice for the landowner and the tenant in Ireland and the taxpayers of this country in this House, when this Bill goes to the House of Lords you cannot get it through unless you give a good bribe to the landowners, and I look on this £12,000,000 as a bribe given to the House of Lords for passing this Bill; and I believe even though we waited till—I had almost said a more satisfactory Government—a Liberal Government was in power we should never be able to get such a Bill as this through the House of Lords without giving a bribe to the owners of land in Ireland. That is the price we have to pay for getting the Bills of the representatives of the People in this House confirmed by the House of Lords.
  I turn now to another part of the Bill, the question of the Demesne Lands. Mr. Gladstone in his Bill of 1886, if I
  1288
  remember right, left the demesne lands entirely out of his Bill. I think he was right, but in this Bill we are giving the landowners power to sell their demesne land and then to buy it back again, and also allow the landowners to have the same benefits as are given to the tenants in the way of borrowing the purchase money. You are going to advance the landowner the money to buy back his own land in sixty-eight and a-half years, and I fail to see why the owners of demesne lands should be dealt with in this way. I would willingly sell £20,000 worth of land and then buy it again in sixty-eight and a-half years. I should get the money advanced from the Government at 3¼ per cent. while I could invest in safe enough securities at 3½ per cent., and at the end of the sixty eight and a-half years I should still have the money for which I was receiving 3½ per cent. and my heirs would have the property free of all obligation. I fail to see why this advantage should be given to Irish landowners if it is not given to English, Scotch and Welsh owners in the same way. I approach this from the point of view of the British taxpayer, and I say, though we are willing to risk our money, we want to limit our risk as far as possible. I know it will be said that many of these lands are heavily encumbered, but my reply to that is, I regret to say, that in England a great many estates are also heavily encumbered. I do not see why these men should be risking their money to pay off encumbered estates in Ireland. The Government talk of a loan of£100,000,000, but I think that amount will probably be increased to £150,000,000. When Mr. Gladstone made his estimate of the cost of the land for the whole of Ireland he estimated that the amount required to be advanced would be £180,000,000. If it was £180,000,000 then, why should it be less now? I do not think even the Chief Secretary can argue that land has so fallen in value that it is now only worth £100,000,000.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,: There have been two revisions of rent.
  Mr. ASHTON: Yes, but that will not account for difference of £80,000,000, and it is only some estates the rent of which have been revised twice.
  MR. ATKINSON: And there have been a lot sold.
  Mr. ASHTON: Now I pass from the demesne lands to the question of mortgaging these holdings. I am glad the Government are not going to allow these small holdings to be divided, but I am sorry to see they are going to allow the small holder to mortgage his holding. We all know that one of the greatest risks run is that of the small holder mortgaging his holding and falling into the hands of the moneylender. This is the case not only in Ireland but all over the world. We have a good example of it in the case of our Indian Empire, the Government of which is never free from trying to evolve some scheme to free the ryot. I should like to see in this Bill a provision that no mortgaging of small holdings should be allowed at all. Looking into the question of mortgage in India I find there a case where a few years ago, the Government had reclaimed some land by means of irrigation and that with respect to that they passed a law that none of that land should be mortgaged at all. That shows that, in the opinion of the officials of India, it is possible to keep these holdings free from mortgages. If it is felt that there ought to be some power of mortgage I feel it would be a more satisfactory condition of things to have some provision in the Act analogous to the American Homesteads Act, so as to prevent a small holder being sold up and cleared off his land. If we are going to spend £100,000,000 in Ireland it is of immense importance to us that the small holders should be satisfied with the arrangement, and if they are to be ejected from their holdings in time to come for mortgage debts it will be a very serious blot on this Act. Therefore I should like to see some such provision as that incorporated in the American Homesteads Act, which provides that the house and a certain number of acres round it, enough to provide for the holders, shall not be taken away from the occupants for debt. It may be said if the occupiers are not to mortgage their property they will not be able to raise money to carry on. I do not think that
  1290
  is so. They can raise money without mortgaging their land.
  In the Native States of India the ryots cannot be ejected from their land, yet the moneylender is as willing to lend money in the Native States as in the British. Such a provision would get rid of a lot of rotten finance. In spite of what I may have said against this Bill I believe, in its present form, and still more if it had dealt more tenderly with the British taxpayers, it will not only be of enormous advantage to Ireland but to the Empire as a whole, and although I dislike very much some of its provisions I shall certainly vote for the Second Reading in the hope that something may be done in Committee to remedy its great defects. It will be of enormous advantage to the peasants of Ireland, who, under the hopes born of the Bill, will, I believe, turn into one of the most industrious sets of peasants in the world. When they feel that all they earn is going into their own pockets we may rest assured that industry will make Ireland a much happier and more prosperous country than she has been in the past. Another advantage that is going to be derived from the Bill is the discontinuance of the landowner as the British garrison. He has felt himself to be one of the British garrison and has placed himself in that position very largely for fear of what might happen to his land. Under this Bill he will take a very different position in Ireland to what he has taken in the past. We shall now, I think, find both working for the common good of Ireland. The landowner up to now has put his personal interest in his property first and his patriotism in the second place, but anyone who knows the Irish landowners knows, however that may be, that there is no one who is fonder of his country and more wishful for its good. I believe that there will be a large number of Irish landowners who, in the future, will take a personal interest in the affairs of their country because the tenants, having no longer any fear of them, will be willing to work with them, and the landlords will take their proper position just as the English landlords do in this country. In future it will not be so much a question of the land, but it will be a question of land Progressives and Conservatives in Ireland, and many landlords will be found to join with the Nationalist

  1291
  Members in their demand for the better Government of Ireland Hither to the landlords have supported the Dublin Castle system because they have looked upon it as the fortress of their land-owning rights, but when that system has disappeared the landlords of Ireland will be as anxious as hon. Gentlemen from Ireland to reform the Government of Ireland But how are you going to get rid of "Castle" rule without setting up some large form of local government—I do not say home Rule, Which stinks in the nostrils of hon. Gentleman opposite but some system of government under which you will get the landowners of Ireland joining with the Nationalists for the better government of Ireland When that time arrives it will be a happy day for Ireland and for Great Britain as well as for the Empire at large.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: While I agree with much that has been said in this debate, many observations have been made with which I disagree Compulsion upon the landlords to sell has been advocated but if the State compels the landlord to sell it must also compel the tenants to buy, and these must be such of the Leader of the Opposition he took up his position on the top of the purchase fence; on the one side of the fence was the ditch of compulsion and on the other the sound ground of voluntary purchase, and when the right hon. Gentleman concluded I could not tell on which side of the fence he was coming down He said that the policy of the Bill altogether hung on the terms offered to the tenant, but that is not a fair way of putting it. What is more important is the terms which the landlord will accept. The principle of this Bill is voluntary purchase, and you can on l carry out that policy by offering a sufficient inducement to both sides inducement to the vendor to sell and to the purchaser to buy Therefore I cannot understand the position taken p by the Leader of the Opposition The right hon. Gentleman also objects to a fixed rent over a long period But how are you to carry out any system of State purchase but by a rent over a long period? That
  1292
  is an unfortunate remark because it leaves us in a state of confusion and doubt I think my interruption in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford was misunderstood When he stated that the landlords of Ireland had agreed to compulsion being applied in the congested districts I ventured to ask him his authority I did not interrupt him unnecessarily and with the intention of laying a trap as he appeared to think In reply to my interruption the hon. and learned Member for Waterford read a statement made by Lord Dunraven's Committee which to the House seemed to settle the question against me That Committee was got together by the spontaneous efforts of two or three men who sent out circulars There are 10,000 or 12,000 landlords in Ireland but these gentlemen only sent out voting papers to about 4,000 Of this total something over 1,100 voted for a conference, about 300 voted against it, and 2,500 never answered at all I think those who did not vote must be regarded as mostly against the proposal because it was popular to vote for and unpopular to vote against.
  The hon. Member for Waterford has stated that the landlords have agreed to sale being made compulsory in the congested districts after five years. But the statement which the hon. Member read in proof of his point was made only by Lord Dunraven's Committee, and not by the Landowners' Convention. Passing to the Bill itself this measure is introduced under most extraordinary circumstances. Be it real, deep and lasting, or simulated and superficial, the fact remains that at the present moment the Irish landlord hon. and the tenant lamb or vice versa seem more inclined to lie down in peace together than ever they have done before. I am obliged to trouble the House with some observations about myself personally. By every material and sentimental tie I am connected with Ireland; but, as the representative of an English constituency, I am bound to look on the Bill as it affects the general taxpayer. If I thought it was a bribe to Ireland to keep quiet or to give up Home Rule, I should not support it. If you once commence paying blackmail you will have to go on with it, and there has been too much tendency in the past to deal

  1293
  with Ireland in this way. The Act of 1881 was looked upon as a bribe to the many out of the pockets of the few. Under these circumstances it did not settle Ireland at all. That Act has had many effects. It failed to quiet the tenants and it has done more, for it has poisoned the social atmosphere of Ireland by the State fixing of rents at an artificial value, and in defiance of all economic laws; it has put a State premium upon deterioration of land and demoralised the people. In consequence of upsetting the economic conditons which exist in all other countries, the Act has had a most deplorable effect upon the artizan class in the rural districts. In the rural districts, carpenters, joiners, and every kind of skilled labourers have lost their employment in consequence, and they have fled to the large towns of this country to add to the congestion in Great Britain. As the Leader of the House stated to-day, the Act of 1881 and this State fixing of rent has made the position in Ireland intolerable. Therefore it has got to be remedied, and must be dealt with. Parliament, representing the people, in 1881 started Ireland on the road to ruin, and has brought her in twenty-one years to the edge of the j abyss of economic perdition which is now visible to all thinking men. No one who knows the real facts can deny that Ireland must be rescued, and it is vital to the interests of the United Kingdom to do this. It is not a mere question of owners and occupiers, or a question of the interests of people of any particular class, but it is the interest of the whole body politic. It was Parliament which made that terrific blunder in 1881, and it is Parliament and the people of the United Kingdom in 1903 who must pay for that blunder. The Act of 1849 was founded upon the security of property in Ireland, and in consequence of that Act millions of British money have been invested in Ireland on the security of Irish land. This Encumbered Estates Act of 1849 had for its object the attraction of British capital to Ireland, and it succeeded because in those days there was a firm faith in the Parliamentary title and rights secured by law. But the Act of 1881 changed all that, and not only repelled more capital from Ireland but locked up the capital already there. Consequently, the landlords were placed between the
  1294
  devil and the deep sea. They had to meet the interest on the security, while there was a constant reduction and whittling down by the State of the value of the land and of the landlords means to pay. Looking at the matter from the point of view of my constituency and the British taxpayer, it is important, not merely to Ireland but to the general public, that some means should be found of releasing that capital and enabling it to be free without disastrous losses. For general reasons, and on behalf of the general taxpayer, I strongly support that principle of this Bill. We have now to consider the remedy. The wholesale repeal of the Act of 1881 is a matter beyond the region of practical politics. That would be another breach of faith on the part of Parliament, and would make confusion worse confounded. To amend the method of State revision, procedure is a necessary palliative, but it would be no cure. Now we come to the question of dual ownership. My hon. friend the Member for Islington dealt with that point, and he showed that this Bill could not abolish dual ownership. Every occupier of a house in London who pays a head rent is a dual owner. Every weekly tenant in the east or south of London is, for the week, a dual owner, and to say that this Bill is going to abolish dual ownership is claiming for it something which is not true. What the Bill does is for sixty-eight and a-half years to make the State a dual owner, and after that period it keeps the State as a dual owner with a smaller interest. The real change proposed is that the contract between the State as a dual owner will be permanent as regards time and invariable as regards rent. The essence of the transformation to be effected by the Bill when it is completely accomplished is the invariability of rent and the abolition of interference by the State in fixing values. The system of the State fixing of values in Ireland I look upon as a real gaoler of British capital invested in land in Ireland, which, if thus released, might be applied to Irish industry but which is now locked up in Ireland and incapable of being applied to that purpose. Speaking as a Member for an English constituency, I am not frightened by the magnitude of the financial transaction involved in this

  1295
  Bill I am more frightened at the growing danger of the economic condition of Ireland if you do nothing at all. That is my ground as an English Member for giving my support to the Bill.
  Now I turn to the principle of the measure, which is designed to relieve us of this incubus of State fixing of rents. As I see the Bill, it is mainly this. It assumes as the basis of correct rental the sum of £4,000,000. The Bill proposes, by loans and cash payments from the Exchequer, to induce the owners to sell and the tenants to buy, and the process is to be this. The owners are to make their lands over to the State, and the State is to vest them in the occupiers on certain conditions. The transaction is to be purely voluntary, and, therefore, to what extent the Bill will become operative entirely depends upon the attractions it offers to both the owners and the occupiers. The terms offered to both—and I shall express my views upon them—are the essence of the Bill. These are matters which I think can be dealt with in Committee, and I shall not make any observations upon the details. What I wish to point out—and it is very important—is that the business of taking over real property from one party and conveying it to another is a tedious, intricate, and costly process. It involves heavy legal and other expenses. In private transactions of such sales of real property this expense falls on both the vendor and the purchaser alike. Under this Bill the State occupies the position of the honest broker, and all the cost and labour and anxiety of the transaction falls upon the owner, while the purchaser entirely escapes. The landlord, if he makes up his mind to sell, has to go through all the labour, toil, anxiety, and cost of putting his property be ore the Commissioners in such a form as to make it possible for them to deal with it. The tenant, having signed his agreement to purchase, has nothing more to do than to go about his farm, attend to his business, and wait until the time when, without any cost or trouble, the State vests the ownership in him. This is very important, and I think the House will see why I have mentioned it. This Bill does provide for meeting the cost of the owners by a grant of
  1296
  £12,000,000—that is about, roughly speaking, 10 per cent. on the total purchase money. It also provides for all the expenses of the State Broker, and the establishment, on such a scale as may be necessary, of a new department of Estates Commissioners with an army of salaried civil servants, all future claimants for pensions. The £12,000,000 grant is called a bonus. The hon. Gentleman who preceded me called it a dole and a bribe to the landlords. Well, hon. Members are entitled to call it by any name they like, but what I am endeavouring to do is to show what this really means in regard to the owners. I really think that those who use the terms "bribe" and "dole" regarding a grant which is to cover costs, are really not conversant with the facts of the position. It is not a dole, it is not a bribe, and it is not a bonus. It is a fund to provide for the payment of the lawyers, costs and conveyance expenses, which are unavoidable. Lawyers must be paid, and when they are satisfied, and the expenses met, very little, I think, will be left out of this £12,000,000 to go into the landlord's pocket as cash to provide interest for the support of his family. I think it will mostly find its way into the lawyer's pocket. Another point which I wish to draw attention to is that when the transaction is complete and the occupier has a reduced rent, having had no disturbance, and no anxiety, the landlord has the anxiety of making and watching investments, and of adapting himself to an entirely new condition of things. I think, therefore, I am entitled to say, on behalf of the landlords of Ireland, that it is neither just nor fair to talk of this twelve millions as a dole, a bribe, or a bonus to the landlords.
  In looking at this Bill with reference to the future of my country the tests I apply to judge of its value are very briefly these. I think that neither time nor money will make this Bill successful unless its provisions work with and not against economic laws. In summarising the position of Ireland you may broadly classify all the land of Ireland under three heads. There are the great grazing farms, there are the large mixed pasture

  1297
  and tillage lands, and there are the multitudinous small holdings. The grazing farms of the big tenants are mostly in the eastern part, and the multitudinous small holdings are mostly in the west. What is the position in the west of these multitudinous small occupiers? It is that of labourers with allotments and no demand for their labour. That is really the true economic position. The grazing farms depend upon not labour, but upon cattle. The big mixed pasture and tillage farms depend upon both labour and stock. In view of the free foreign importation of grain, tillage, except in relation to stock rearing, does not pay, so stock and butter are the mainstays of Irish agricultural industry. Providence has given Ireland natural advanges which favour dairy farming and stock rearing. Given equal knowledge and equal skill Great Britain could not compete against Ireland in a given area in stock rearing and dairy produce. The smaller farmers rear calves, but these calves they must sell as yearlings, for they have not land enough to feed them afterwards. It is the big farmers who buy the yearlings, and a blow struck at the graziers and big farmers would be a blowstruck at the saleandprice of stock in the congested districts. I do attach very great importance to this particular question. When you remember that the big mixed farms require labour, and that the multitude of labourers with allotments in the West have labour to give, it will be seen that any injury done to the big farmer is really an injury to small occupiers in the neighbourhood and in congested districts. Therefore I say that the big farmer is not a man to injure but to encourage, and one condition which is a principle in the Bill, and to which I strongly object, is the exclusion of the big farmers from the operation of the measure. I think it is important to the economic position of Ireland that you should help to improve their position. I think from the point of view of labour, and from the point of view of the reciprocal economic value to the small occupier, the big farmers, who are the advance guard of agriculture in Ireland ought not to be excluded. They are the leaders of thought and example in the localities, and as a good influence
  1298
  for social order and economic stability they ought to be encouraged as a matter of high policy, and, therefore, when the Bill comes to the Committee stage, I shall most certainly move an Amendment to include the big farmers, and enable them to purchase under this Bill.
  There is an important point connected with the finance principle on which this Bill is founded, and that is, that the purchase money is to be calculated on the fixed basis of the second-term rents. That is to say, it is to be based upon rents arbitrarily fixed for the second period by a method and procedure which has been condemned by the impartial Royal Commission presided over by Mr. Justice Fry. For my own part, I do not care about phrases, formulae, and theories, for in practice I believe that the question between the owner and the occupier, contemplating purchase and sale, is not the number of years purchase but the amount the owner will receive in cash, and the annual instalments the occupier will have to pay. I believe the adoption of the second-term rents as the fixed standard of computation will be a dangerous principle if the State fixing of rents is to proceed as before and now on unsold estates. By this Bill it seems that this State fixing of rents is to go on. The sanguine view of my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary is that, under the provisions of this Bill, its administration will be so easily carried out that fifteen years will see the whole of the land of Ireland transferred from the owners to the tenants. I believe that to be altogether too sanguine a view. I believe it will be nearer thirty years, and if you want to expedite it you will have to deal with the agents and the solicitors. You must recollect that they are the advisers of the landlords, and that it is not to their interest that landed property should be sold. As a practical man, I say that if you wish to expedite the transfer contemplated by this Bill you must remember what human nature is, and you must give agents and solicitors an interest in the sale and purchase. If you are going to set up the second-term rents as the permanent standard, I want to show you the position you are going to get into. You will have, side by side with this State

  1299
  rent-fixing method, which has been condemned by the Royal Commission, another system, and in eight years time you will have third-term rents. You will then have rents fixed 20 per cent. below the present figures. You can pretty well judge what the sub-commission courts will do with the third-term rents by what they have done on the second-term. There is no doubt that the Chief Secretary may have an answer to this, and I am only putting it forward as my view of the case. It is essential in a matter like this that all views should be put forward in order to give the Government and the right hon. Gentleman a chance of seeing where they are wrong. In eight years—that is in 1911—only one half of the tenants will, under this Bill, have purchased, that is according to the sanguine calculations of my right hon. friend, and the other half will be waiting to purchase. If, then, in 1911, 20 per cent. is taken off second-term rents, you must face the position that the half who have purchased will consider they have a grievance. The half who have not yet purchased will then expect to be allowed to do so on the basis of third-term rents, 20 per cent. less than the second-term rents. This Bill set up two competing departments, and the Government must find themselves in a position where they must choose between two courses. They now have to choose between Codlin and Short, and say whether the Land Conference second-term rent basis or the revising system of rent is the friend. I urge that this Bill ought to bar the fixing of third-term rents.
  I am in general in favour of the decadal reduction principle of the Act of 1891 as really advantageous to the State. I would remark that the hon. Member for South Tyrone, like all converts to a new faith, is more violent than his new Leader in his demands. I will not congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Waterford on his recruit. The hon. Member for Waterford himself expressed his strong admiration for the principle of the Bill, and his intention to support it, and then he proceeded to name nine points he considered vital and which he will fight to have amended. And then there were many other objections which the hon. Member
  1300
  had to the Bill—so many that he refrained from mentioning them. That is a very-funny way of giving loyal support to the Bill. However, that is a matter for the hon. Member, and not for me. I say, on behalf of the landlords—[Laughter]—I am not ashamed to be a landlord; I have no reason to be so. I do not wish to say anything to disturb the good humour of tion. Members opposite, but I have the right to say what I consider to be the real attitude of the Irish landlords on this Bill. It is this, that they support the measure because it is the only practically possible remedy for the economic collapse of Ireland under the operation of the Act of 1881. They only demand fair play and reasonable and just consideration. They recognise the economic chaos into which the Act of 1881 has plunged their country, and they are ready to sacrifice their sentiment—it is a trial, but they are ready to do so. They, however, consider that the country and Parliament have no right or title to do the State service by robbing them and sacrificing their interests, and they will do what they can, by all constitutional means, to enforce their claims, and they trust to the honour of Parliament to do them simple justice.
  MR. DILLON: According to the Chief Secretary this is the forty first Irish Land Bill that has been introduced into the House of Commons in the last forty years, and of that number I should think at least thirty-five have been introduced since the opening of the present land war, in the year 1879. I think all those Members who were in the House to-night at the time the Prime Minister delivered his most eloquent and powerful speech will recollect that that right hon. Gentleman described the existing land system of Ireland as—I quote his exact words—
  "As bad as could be imagined, and that there was no fault attaching to any land system which does not attach to the present land system in Ireland."
  That was not a very brilliant record of forty years' continuous effort to give us a good land system in Ireland. I venture to say that upon that testimony of the Prime Minister some of the withers of hon. Members opposite must have been wrung, and they must have put to themselves the question, "After all, does the House of Commons rule Ireland?" The Land Question is still unsettled in Ire-

  1301
  land, notwithstanding these years of effort, and now, to-night, we are asked to read for the second time a Land Bill more far-reaching and larger in its provisions than any introduced into the House of Commons since the year 1881. I ask hon. Members at this stage in this most painful and tragic history—I may add, this somewhat disgraceful history to England—why is it that throughout all these years failure has ever dogged every attempt of this House to settle the Land Question in Ireland? Why is it that after forty Land Acts we are now gifted with a system so complicated that the only men who can thrive under it are the lawyers; a system by which the industry of Ireland is cribbed, cabined, confined, ruined, and crushed, and by which poverty and social disorder are made permanent in the country? If this has been the result of all your exertions and debates, it is because that throughout these years it has been the practice and custom of Ministers to disregard and treat with contempt the opinion of those sent across the Channel to speak in the House of Commons on behalf of Ireland. There has been one exception to that long list of dismal failures to which the Prime Minister alluded—one solitary exception, as far as my knowledge goes, one Act which, so far as it went, was an unmitigated success—that was the Ashbourne Act. Why was it a success? Because, so far as I know—for I was absent from the country at the time—it owed its existence to a private arrangement made by the Irish Party with the Tory Government of the day, and because in the case of that Act alone the opinion of the Irish National Party was allowed to prevail.
  I come down for a moment to the last great Land Act, the Act of 1896. When that Act was passed Ireland was peaceable, the forces of the National Party were paralysed, and the Government had Ireland completely in their hands. We were then told that the Land Question was settled in Ireland for many generations; but I myself ventured to prophesy that it was not settled for a single generation, and that as soon as the unfortunate divisions which then paralysed the National forces in Ireland passed away, as I thought they would, the Land Question in Ireland would emerge as acute and as clamorous as ever. Has
  1302
  that prophecy been verified or has it not? I refer to it not for the purpose of glorifying its prescience but in order to impress on Parliament the folly and the madness of attempting to settle this difficult and complicated Irish question, which goes down to the root of Irish life, and at the same time neglecting the opinion of the Irish people. Let me say a word on one great question which always crops up in these debates. The present land system is traced back by certain hon. Members to the Land Act of 1881. I have heard over and over again in this House, and it has been repeated to-night, the Land Act condemned as the root and source of all the trouble in Ireland and the disorganisation of its people. Lord Dunraven, in a speech delivered at the Constitutional Club on the 29th April, said that the Act of 1881 had had disastrous consequences to the landlord class, had demoralised the people, and had been ruinous to the main industry of the country—agriculture. His Lordship said that he could not see how it could have been otherwise. Parliament might shirk its responsibility, but it could not deny that it had, from the best motives, forced upon Ireland legislation which had proved to be demoralising to the people and ruinous to the main industry of the country. What a travesty of the truth! The Act of 1881 had demoralised the people of Ireland ! One would suppose to listen to those who condemn the Land Act of 1881 that Ireland was a paradise of peace and of social and industrial prosperity before the passing of that Act It was a hell; and I say that the Act of 1881 was the first step taken in the emancipation of our people, who before that Act was passed were nothing but serfs. It is from the Act of 1881 that dates the emancipation of our country from agrarian crime, and if to-day a considerable section of Irish landlords has happily attained to a more reasonable frame of mind it is due in large measure to twenty years' experience of that Act. And the Irish people are not so dead to all sense of gratitude for political wisdom exhibited towards them as not to recognise that, after our own right hand and our own organisation, they had to thank that great statesman, Mr. Gladstone, who, in spite of fierce and ferocious opposition, struck the first link from the fetters which had bound them through the ages, and recognised the right of the Irish

  1303
  people to property on their own soil. If to-day we are discussing a great measure which contains the potency and promise of the final emancipation of the Irish people, it is Mr. Gladstone we have to thank for clearing the road. Hon. Members opposite talk about their policy of land purchase. I must correct the Prime Minister himself in that respect. He was wrong to-night when he said that the policy of land purchase, so far as this House was concerned, took its origin in the Secretary of State for India in 1883. That is not true. The policy of land purchase, so far as this House is concerned, took its origin from John Bright during the debates on the Land Act of 1870. It was further extended by the Act of 1881; but, after all, where did the policy of land purchase as the only and final settlement of the Land Question take its real origin? It took its origin from the Land League. I would remind hon. Members that when the Act of 1881 was introduced, the leaders of the Land League declared to this House and to the country that no tinkering with rent would settle this question, and that the only policy giving promise of social peace to Ireland was the policy we are now engaged in discussing in this Bill.
  And now I ask is there not a deep lesson involved in this retrospect of twenty-three years? Now, after twenty-three years of fierce struggle, after the expenditure of many millions of money in Land Courts and in prosecutions, after passing many Coercion Acts, after thousands of imprisonments and evictions, and after twenty-three years of social war you are now asked, so far as the principal object of the Bill is concerned, to carry out a policy which was condemned as socialism and confiscation twenty-three years ago. Many speakers have alluded to the remarkable circumstances under which the present Bill was introduced. No one who knows Ireland, or has been involved in the land struggle for the last score of years, will deny for a moment that the circumstances under which the Government have approached the solution of this problem on the present occasion are entirely unparalleled. There is no doubt that an opportunity presents itself to the present Ministry, such as no Irish Government ever had before, of settling this matter, and the question which everyone in Ireland is asking himself day and night with extra-
  1304
  ordinary and feverish interest is, "Will the Government rise to the occasion, and give us at last social peace in Ireland after all these centuries and generations of war?" The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment asked—
  "What are we going to get, provided we give all this money and this credit? Are we going to get some political result?"
  No, I do not think you are, from the Unionist point of view. The Prime Minister very frankly and very honourably replied—
  "That is not what the Government are looking for; that is not what the Government ought to look for."
  We, on our side, are content to aid the Government, and give them every fair play in endeavouring to settle this great social war. Some Unionists think that by ending the social war in Ireland, by introducing good Government in the sphere of law and order instead of what has so long prevailed, they will strengthen the Union; but they are mistaken; the national demand will survive a land settlement. Let the Union take care of itself in the future. I do not think the Government are looking for political effects in introducing this Bill, and if they are, there is a very poor look-out for such. I believe the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary, is honestly desirous of signalising his tenure of office in Ireland by solving this question, which has proved too hard a nut to crack for many of his predecessors. Now, there are many people in Ireland who still believe that you will never settle this Land Question without the application of the principle of compulsion, and it is to me a very strange and extraordinary thing that the Government should so shrink from the application of compulsion in regard to the minor interests of land purchase, when compulsion, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, and as everybody else acquainted with the Irish Land Laws knows, has been applied for many years to the superior and middle interests. Why should they exempt from its operation the only interest in the land of Ireland which is the source of all the trouble? Now, fortunately, on the present occasion we have an absolutely authoritative expression of the will and opinion of the Irish people in regard to this Bill. That expression

  1305
  was given in detail by the Great Convention which assembled in Dublin on the 17th and 18th of last month. I may say of the Convention, of the character of its delegates, of the order and earnestness of its proceedings, that they extorted, even from the strongest opponents of the tenants' cause, a meed of admiration. Hon. Members will admit that taking into account the fact that the Convention was summoned of delegates belonging to an organisation, the foremost plank in the platform of which was the application of compulsion, and that they were called upon to consider a Bill which appeared to many of the delegates to contemplate an extreme price being paid for the land, it would not have been unnatural to expect strong language and strong resolutions from the Convention. I was not present, but I have read very carefully the testimony of all sections in Ireland as to the sobriety and conciliatory manner of the Convention. What was the decision arrived at? In the first place, it was manifest that the sense of the Convention was that the Bill as it stands cannot be accepted as a settlement of the Irish Land Question, or as offering any fair prospects of working out a settlement of that question. The principle and the objects of the Bill had the warmest sympathy of the Convention, and, without waiving their views as to the possible necessity of compulsion, the members of the Convention evidently were determined to give credit to the Government for honest intentions and for a generous desire for peace; and they resolved not to do or say anything calculated to prevent the Government having full fair play in their present attempt to settle the Land Question. In this spirit the Convention claims only such Amendments as seemed to them essential to make the Bill acceptable and a good working measure for Ireland. What I desire most solemnly to impress on the Government is, that these Amendments honestly represent the minimum of the popular demand. They were not put forward in any captious or critical spirit, but by a body dominated by a very strong desire to smooth the path of the Government and open the doors of Ireland to a course of peace. And if the Government should refuse to
  1306
  adopt these Amendments, I am convinced that the prospects of their measure will be overclouded, that its fate will be the same as those of its predecessors, and that its passage into law will be followed by fresh agitations and further Land Bills in the future.
  I will not go into any elaborate details of criticism on this very complicated measure, but just recapitulate the points of vital importance on which Amendments are necessary. First of all, the maximum limit of reduction must be removed and the system of classification of second term rents. There must be provision for the protection of future tenants and caretakers, and full and generous provision for the evicted tenants, and the insertion of a time limit, after which no landlord shall initiate proceedings for sale or else lose the benefits of the Bill. There is only one other point to which I will allude, and that is the clause dealing with the Land Judges' Court. I say deliberately that no measure proposing to settle the Irish Land Question can be accepted as satisfactory or hopeful which does not contain provisions for reforming or bringing to an end that extraordinary or maleficent institution, the Land Judges' Court. One-sixth of the land of Ireland is in the hands of that Court, and it will thus be seen how vital a matter is this particular portion of the Bill.
  I wish to say a few words with regard to the evicted tenants. The manner and spirit in which this subject is dealt with will have a great effect on the prospects of the Bill and the temper in which it will be received in Ireland when passed into law. From the point of view of the number of people involved this is a small question. When the Evicted Tenants Act was passed there were about 800 of these people. Half of them have since disappeared. Some have emigrated, some have been reinstated, and some have died, so that there are only about 400 families now to be dealt with. I believe the whole question could be settled in a generous way for, at the outside, £200,000, in a way that would strike the imagination of Ireland and enormously smooth the working of this Bill. If you leave any section of the people outside the scope of the Bill you

  1307
  will have, wherever they are, centres of ill-feeling and disturbance, which will prejudice the mind of Irishmen with regard to the working of the Bill When this Bill becomes law the evicted tenants will naturally fall into three classes. There will be those on the estates purchased by the Estates Commission; there will be those on the estates sold by private bargain between landlord and tenant; and there will, in the third place, be those on the estates of the landlords who will not sell at all, or will not sell for seven or eight years. I do urge on the Government that they should introduce a clause dealing with all classes of evicted tenants, and, furthermore, that some effort should be made to get the evicted tenants back into their homes. I believe, and I say it deliberately, that with a reasonable amount of money, and not compulsorily but with authority vested in the Estates Commissioners to approach the parties who may be in possession of these farms, friendly and amicable arrangements to this end could be made in almost every case. Just imagine what a good effect that would have on the public temper of Ireland if this were carried out successfully. We have heard a great deal about conciliation and peace—it would be a pleasant thing for Ireland—and I am waiting to see some striking proof of the desire for it. Here is an opportunity for the representatives of the landlords in this House to show a real spirit of conciliation. It will not do to say to these men that they must wait for fifteen or twenty years. The whole thing can be done in a year if properly approached, and I do hope that one result of this Bill will be to close up this source of weakness.
  Now I come to the question of price. What is the object of putting into a voluntary Bill a minimum price? I have not heard throughout the whole of the discussion any reason given for this minimum. Now, let me give the House just one or two figures to show how absurd the matter is. I have here the Government Return giving the average rates of purchase in Ireland for the last several years. Here are the averages:—In 1886 the figures of purchase were 18 times the rent; 1887, the figures were 17·6; 1888, 17 years;
  1308
  1889. 16·4; 1890, 16·7; 1891, 17 years, and so on, the average always ranging to about 17 years' purchase of land. Down to the 31st December last the rates rose to 18·1 years; but we must remember that that was paid in depreciated Land Stock, and was really only equal to about 16½years' purchase. Now that is the average. But that is not the strongest fact. At page seventy-seven of the Report, taken in counties, the average during the year 1886 varied from 23·6 to 13·8, and so on; and from 20 to 10·7 during the three years ending 31st March, 1894, from 25·1 to 12·5, and from 31st March, 1895, from 21·2 to 6·6. Down as low as six years' purchase, and yet it is proposed to put into this Bill, which is held to be a benefit to the tenants, a minimum price of twenty five years' purchase. Was there ever such a thing heard of? The fact is that the values of these farms are infinite in variety. There are farms worth twenty years' purchase; some there are worth more than twenty years; but the vast majority of them are not worth anything like that. There are some not worth ten years, and some not worth eight years. To tell me that you can put into the Bill a bed of Procrustes is preposterous.
  With regard to the maximum, let me in one word state What is the present protection. You may remember that when you start a system of land purchase such as the present system there is absolutely no protection for the Treasury unless you have some system of inspection. In the first place, tenants may be coerced by arrears or other reasons into bidding prices infinitely beyond the true value, whereupon the Treasury and the taxpayer would suffer. There is no case of repudiation, because everybody will agree there is no danger of repudiation; but what would you do if you had the people manifestly brought to poverty? What would you think if you had a quantity of people here paying more than an equivalent? Therefore the Treasury must have some sort of protection. For the last few years the Treasury must have some protection from collusive and dishonest bargains. I brought before the House some time ago the case of a bad debt in which two relatives were

  1309
  concerned. The mother sold to her son a farm, and made him the tenant, and then they bargained for its sale for about three times its value. The farm was inspected and sold, and the mother and son divided the bargain between them. Therefore, they could have collusive bargains and large sums might be extracted from the Treasury if you have not some procedure of this kind. Between August, 1885, and March, 1895, the advances had been cut down from £11,361,000 to £9,884,000 and more than £1,000,000 had been struck off the prices agreed to by the landlords and the tenants. In one particular instance the tenant agreed to pay £525 and the Land Commission cut it down to £400, and this action was subsequently confirmed. That is the way the Treasury has been protected, and if you abolish inspection you must have some maximum limit, because the lower the price at which the land is sold the better security there will be for the Treasury. If a landlord is willing to sell his land cheaply to the tenant, why is it the business of the State to say: "You shall not sell your property for what you are willing to accept for it?"
  I will pass over the question of future tenants, perpetual rent charges, and also the subject of the Congested Districts Board, but I desire to emphasise as strongly as I can the appeal made by the Chairman in regard to grazing ranches. This is a most burning question, and if you cannot see your way to settle it then your Land Bill cannot do much good. When I heard the hon. Member for Islington declaring that land purchase was doing no good, I wondered if he had read the report of Mr. Bayley in regard to the Dillon Estate. Has the hon. Member Read that Report, which states that up to the date of the purchase of that state the cattle lived in the houses of the people? To anyone who visits that estate now the improvement is manifest,
  1310
  for there you will see the people in the very poorest districts responding to the slightest chance they get to make progress. I think Irish Members are about the only section of this nation who really understand and value the existence of a rural population. Your system of big farms in this country has sacrificed your rural population, and you are suffering for it now in the decline of the physique of your people. The same I thing has been going on in Scotland, and in Ireland alone the people have clung to their small holdings, with the result that it is from Ireland that you get the best soldiers in the world. In spite of emigration, poverty and starvation the physique of the people of Ireland to-day is better than the physique of the people of this country. This really is the great question of preserving the remnant of the population of Ireland and of enabling the people to live in decency and comfort. Your present Bill, however, will do nothing of the sort. The object of the Congested Districts Board is good, but if you pass this Bill in its present state the people of Connaught will be driven back again to commence agitation.
  There is one other subject which I wish to emphasise, and it is in regard to the rural labourers. Upon this point I claim that we are ahead of this country, where you have sacrificed your rural population, with the result that the farmers of England are now suffering accordingly. In Ireland we have invited the labourer into our national organisation, and we have pledged ourselves to make his cause our cause, and where the farmers have shown selfishness in this matter we have brought our organisation to bear upon them, and we have insisted that the labourer shall get fair play. I claim that we are carrying on a great civilising work, but in order to effectively preserve the agriculture of our rural population you must give the labourers decent homes and make their lives worth living. I think

  1311
  it is deplorable that the right hon. Gentleman will not put into this Bill two or three well-drafted clauses that would solve this question of the rural labourers. This labourers question is one which will receive the support of the Ulster Members just as much as our support. The labourers clauses would pass with very little discussion, and I cannot conceive why the right hon. Gentleman does not boldly face that portion of the subject.
  I have now said all that I feel it necessary to say. The situation in is undoubtedly unprecedented and amazing When I left Ireland six months ago every breeze was laden with the sound of battle, and the air resounded with shouts of battle. The prisons were getting crowded, and the leaders of our forces were being put into prison. We were then described by the Government as traitors, with whom there was to be no dealing. When I returned three months later the whole situation was changed. The war had ceased, the prison doors were open, and the leaders of all parties were using expressions of conciliation and showing a desire for peace. The change in the situation was extraordinary, and I must confess that when I came home I sometimes asked myself whether, like an historic character, I had not been asleep for a century, and I wondered whether we had not reached the year 2000. To complete my bewilderment I found myself described by the chief Secretary for Ireland as belonging to a chivalrous nation, the members of which are chiefly characterised by their ardent desire to pay their debts. This is not the time for me to speculate as to what powerful influence has been at work to produce this miraculous change. The situation has been created, and what we
  1312
  have got to do to-day is to deal with it and get the most out of it we can for our country. About one thing there can be no difference of opinion, and that is that the situation offers to the Government such an opportunity as has never occurred since the Act of Union was passed for settling the Irish Land Question. This is a question which you cannot ignore. When I hear men talking about rejecting this Bill, I want to know what they propose to do. Does anyone imagine, after the introduction of this Bill, and after the speech we have listened to from the Prime Minister, that the Irish Land Question can be left alone? I say that so long as it is left unsettled it will remain an ever flowing source of evil and mischief in Ireland, and an equally great source of weakness to this country. When I hear hon. Members talk about the heavy and intolerable burden this Bill will lay on the English taxpayer I reply that it will lay no such burden whatever. As regards the £12,000,000, it is rather a wrench to me to part with it, but I am afraid we should not get that sum in any other way except by combining with the landlords. But that sum is going to be spent in Ireland, and it is really no concern of ours, for that money has to be spent in Ireland in any case, and the only question is whether it shall be spent in criminal prosecutions and upon the police. In conclusion, I would say a word to my Radical friends in this House. I would say to them—I hope you will not oppose this Bill, for it is removing from your path, in that hour which is not far distant when you will cross the floor of this House, a mountain;. it is settling a question which you could not settle, and where you can do good, and where I trust you will do good, is by

  1313
  assisting us to obtain those Amendments which we claim in this Bill, and which will make it a real benefit and the means of restoring peace to Ireland.
  MR. ATKINSON: With the exception of my hon. friends who have respectively moved and seconded this Amendment, almost every hon. Member who has spoken to-night has approved of this Bill, and has expressed his readiness to support the Second Reading. It is only natural that hon. Members should make a protest in reference to the Committee points with which they disagree, but I am sure they will not consider me guilty of any want of courtesy if I refuse upon this occasion to follow them into a discussion upon details of machinery upon which different minds may form different conclusions, and which, more properly, belong to the Committee stage of the Bill. The Government think that when the Committee stage is reached we shall be able to give good reasons for the framing of this measure as it is framed, but at the same time we are willing to give the most fair and candid consideration to every Amendment that may be moved, and to every argument that may be adduced in support of it. I do not propose, therefore, to follow hon. Members who have addressed the House in the many points upon which they have spoken, but I think English Members who speak, or profess to speak, on behalf of the English taxpayers have a right to demand from the Government any arguments that may be forthcoming to defend the financial provisions of the Bill, and to show that they are safe and wise. I do not intend to enter at all upon a discussion of the question as to whether this Bill, if passed, will promote or retard Home Rule, because I contend that if the grievance exists, and if a
  1314
  remedy ought to be provided for it, it is the duty of a Unionist Government, above all other Governments, to provide that remedy irrespective of the effect it may have upon the question of Home Rule. Therefore, I think it is entirely unreasonable that hon. Members who have spoken should argue that although there may be grievances, and although the condition of Ireland is unsatisfactory at the present moment, those grievances should not be remedied until the National Party of Ireland adjure Home Rule aspirations. Therefore, I shall only deal with the question of price as it affects the British taxpayer. I think that those English Members who have discussed this matter have left out of consideration a good deal of what is the actual condition of Ireland at the present moment. I do not propose to follow at all some of those hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me into the discussion of the effects of the Act of 1881, and the evils which have attended it. It may have done much good and it might have been necessary at the time it was passed, and it may have been the only way of preserving order in Ireland, but nobody acquainted with the condition of things in Ireland can deny that it is surrounded with complicated agrarian relations and with exasperating and ever-recurring litigation, that it has certainly impoverished landlords—I do not know that it has enriched tenants in the same degree—that it has evoked a spirit of hostility and suspicion between the two partners in the partnership you have created which retards and prevents improvements.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Was there no exasperation in 1880?
  MR. ATKINSON: I say that it has altogether destroyed any possibility of co-operation between the two. The right hon. Gentleman disagrees with me, in that; he cannot disagree in this—that both parties, landlord and tenant, at the present moment are anxious to sever the bonds that bind them, and to escape from that position. Land purchase has been proceeding for thirty-four years. It has proceeded under the Acts of 1869, 1870, 1881, 1885, 1888, and 1891, until at the present time £24,300,000 has been lent, £830,000 is being paid in annuities, and the arrears are £3,000. The system has been an eminent success. Where there is purchase you will find the social conditions and the standards of comfort of the purchasers have been raised, agriculture has been improved, and, above and beyond all, contentment has been established and peace reigns. The result is that you have every part of Ireland, the Home Rulers of the south as well as the Anti-Home Rulers of the north, demanding that facilities should be given them to escape from the condition into which the Act of, 1881 has placed them, and to enable them to purchase the farms on which they live. No other result could be expected when one man, who is industrious, sober and thrifty, who is faithful to his obligations, can see his more thriftless neighbour on the other side of the hedge prospering as a peasant proprietor, while he himself is paying a rent much in advance of the annuity charged on the other. Something, therefore, must be done. If the system established by the Act of 1881 proceeds, you will have that deterioration which it undoubtedly encourages, and you can never hope to allay the discontent I have described. There are three alter-
  1316
  natives—to leave things as they are, to induce the landlords to sell, or to compel the landlords to sell. The hon. Member for East Mayo complains that we have not taken into account Irish opinion. That complaint can hardly be justified. I do not know what better expression of Irish opinion the Government could obtain before framing their Bill than was furnished by the recent Land Conference, which professed to speak on behalf of both landlords and tenants. I think the hon. Member for East Mayo, when he read all those statistics about sixteen years and seventeen years purchase, and the hon. Member for South Tyrone, when he explained that twenty-three years purchase was all that he could possibly sanction, must have forgotten the proposal of the Land Conference that the tenants should purchase at from 15 to 25 per cent. below second-term rents.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: And decadal reductions.
  MR. ATKINSON: There is nothing there about seventeen or twenty-three years' purchase—and that the landlords should have such a sum as, if invested at 3 per cent. or 3¼ per cent. if guaranteed by the State, would bring them in their present income less, at the most, than 10 per cent. I really cannot understand how the Government are to proceed in the way of consulting Irish feeling if they are to be confronted with these complaints and denunciations when they have taken Irish opinion and in a great degree framed their measure thereon. I was perfectly astounded to hear my hon. friend deliver a long speech to-night, the legitimate conclusion of each part of which would be that the report of the Con-

  1317
  ference was misleading, and that it was one which no Government should select as the basis of their measure. Let us see what the demand is. The demand is that a sum of £100,000,000 should be advanced on loan. Is that likely to be a safe transaction? Endeavour to judge of that, first of all, from the past. If the tenants have paid in the past I think it is a legitimate inference that they will pay in the future. In the past, as I have said, although they had purchased under the different Acts to the extent of nearly £25,000,000, and the annuities amount to £830,000, they are in default only £3,000. Would any commercial business or bank consider such a business unsafe if at the end they were only £3,000 to the bad?
  MR. FLAVIN: The £3,000 are only arrears.
  MR. ATKINSON: And even that sum does not represent irrecoverable debts. I am taking the amount drawn from the guarantee fund to meet the defaults of the year, but it by no means follows that when proceedings are taken the sums will not be recovered, and the guarantee fund recouped. Is there any reason to suppose that if £100,000,000 are advanced to create a peasant proprietary, the same class of men will not observe their obligations with the same honesty and punctuality? Then how does the matter stand with regard to the guarantee fund? The guarantee fund is now nearly £3,000,000 and £280,000 of that is the cash portion. £3,000,000 represents nearly 3¼ per cent. on the entire £100,000,000, so that if the entire loan were outstanding tomorrow, and every tenant in Ireland
  1318
  struck against the payment of his rent, the guarantee fund would be almost sufficient to meet the national defalcations. That is the most unlikely thing that could be conceived, so that English Members may rest assured that, as far as the financial provisions are concerned, they will incur no appreciable risk in consenting to the advance of this money on the terms proposed.
  Several Members have alluded to the bonus, and objected to it, apparently because it was given to the landlords above and beyond the price of what they consider to be the price of the land sold. But hon. Members must remember that although land has been bought in the past at seventeen years purchase of the particular rent then paid, the supply of that land no longer exists. Landlords will not sell at that price, for the good and sufficient reason that they cannot afford to do so. It is no use telling an Irish landlord that Irish land is one of the worst securities in the world, that he should sell it and invest his money in 3 per cents. Gilt-edged securities are the luxury of the rich; risky securities are the necessity of the needy. It is no use telling a man who, after paying his heavy encumbrance, has only £500 or £600 a year, to sell his land, invest it in 3 per cents., from which he will get an income of £300. He will naturally say that it is better to live on £600 a year as long as he can than to starve on £300. That is the condition of almost all Irish landlords. Seventy-five per cent. of the land in Ireland is in settlement. What does that mean? It means that these funds are shut out from investment in anything but trustee securities. One hon. Member spoke to-night about getting 3½ per cent. on trustee securities. Where

  1319
  will you find them? In addition to that the landlords are encumbered up to nearly half their income, so that all they have to live on is half the rent they receive for the land they own. It is therefore absurd to talk about these men investing in gilt-edged securities; they cannot afford to do it; and they prefer to hold to the rent as long as it is there, rather than immediately bring themselves to comparative penury in order to provide a secure fund for those who succeed them That is one of the reasons this bonus must be offered. But it will not go entirely into the landlords' pockets. In Clause 42 it is provided that it should aid them in bearing the expense of paying off superior interests, making a title, and other matters of that description. Some of it may remain, but it will not be by any means a large proportion. The practical question is, will you induce them to sell by these offers, or will you endeavour to coerce them by a compulsory system? Hon. Members sometimes talk very light-heartedly about compulsion. Have they ever tried to draft a Land Bill on a compulsory system? Have they ever thought of attempting to compel tenants to buy, or of establishing a tribunal to fix the price with which tenants so compelled should be satisfied? Have they ever taken into account the fact that of all ways of acquiring landed property that of compulsion is the most expensive? Take as an illustration an estate, part of which is in the possession of the landlord, and part in the possession of the tenants. Are you to compel the landlord to sell what is in the possession of his tenants, and not to be able to sell what is in his own possession? If you are, unless you abandon all sense of justice from your proceedings, you will have to do as you do in every other
  1320
  system of compulsory sale—viz., pay for the consequential injury to what remains. You cannot cut out the best bits of an estate, or compel a man to sell his land and keep the mansion-house, otherwise he will have what is practically a worthless drug in the market. I heard an hon. Member talk of the injustice of selling demesnes, and he said he would be very happy to get an advance made to him. Really, when hon. Members stand up to discuss Irish land legislation in that manner they make the whole agrarian question different in Ireland to that in England. There is no more sense in saying that that should be done in Ireland which is done in England than to suggest that the clothes in which a man shivers in in Labrador should be put on a man that swelters near the Equator. The compulsory system, whatever may be its merits, cannot be cheap, and if it is very expensive there is a great deal of the expense which you cannot put on the purchasing tenants Assuming for the moment that a tenant is purchasing a farm close to the demesne, and that compensation is given to the landlord for the injury done to him, you cannot put that on the purchaser—it must be borne by the seller. I have some knowledge of the procedure and methods by which land is acquired by the State, and am sure that unless you adopt some very different system and banish what has hitherto been regarded as moral justice, you will not have a more costly and more irritating way of acquiring land than by compulsion. The bonus amounts to £30,000,000 at the most, and when all the purchase is carried out it can only be £12,000,000, and will be paid off every year by a Sinking Fund. My right hon. friend says

  1321
  he hopes to introduce economies in Ireland that will more than meet the expenditure and, in addition, bring about a spirit of peace.
  In connection with the question of price the Leader of the Opposition said if the tenant were forced to give an extravagant price the security would be endangered. Several hon Gentlemen object to the limits that have been introduced into the first Clause. In regard to that I wish to remind the House that under the purchase system as it at present exists, the State is secured by the exercise of caution. They are not to advance more than can be secured. The result is that anybody who has watched this can have no doubt that loans have been refused which might with perfect safety have been made. That is conclusive, because those loans were refused at the very time that it was possible to keep the whole purchase money as a guarantee deposit if necessary. That has worked unsatisfactorily. I do not believe either landlord or tenant is satisfied with the exercise of that discretion by the Commissioners. Complaints have been made on both sides that sales have been retarded by over-caution on the part of the Commissioners.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: That only affects the maximum price, not the minimum.
  MR. ATKINSON: They refused sales that might have been made with perfect safety. I do not accuse them of acting improperly, but I think they were supersensitive about incurring possible loss, and refused loans that might have been made with perfect safety.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts his own judgment against that of the Commissioners'?
  MR. ATKINSON: I say that objection was made on both sides. I also say that they did not give satisfaction, not that they were not right.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Satisfaction to the British taxpayer?
  MR. ATKINSON: Therefore in this Bill we have superseded that. We have deprived them of the exercise of that discretion, and we have made it compulsory upon them to advance the money. But if you make that compulsory upon them it is obvious that you must fix limits. We selected the superior limit for two reasons, the first to protect the State, and the second to protect the tenant. Although the landlord and tenant may agree, they shall not get an advance that will jeopardise the interest of the State, or that is so extravagant as to be oppressive. We selected the minimum limit to protect the landlord on his side from possible oppression and coercion of the tenant.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: But that is the reason of the maximum limit.
  MR. ATKINSON: No. We selected the one limit to protect the tenant from coercion on the part of the landlord, and the other limit to protect the landlord from the tenant. The hon. Gentleman has said he will raise that question in Committee. If he does, of course we will be willing to discuss it, and he will not expect me to pursue it further [on this occasion. He also refers to the question

  1323
  of compulsion under Clause 17. I think he will admit himself that it is necessary to apply some kind of compulsion to force a small and reluctant minority of tenants not to impede sale. It is said that in those cases where the Lord-Lieutenant has dispensed with some requirements of price, it is unfair to permit a fair majority of tenants to coerce the remainder. That is also a matter for discussion, but I think it will be seen that it is absolutely necessary to select some fair proportion so as to prevent a small minority bringing things practically to a deadlock. Under Section 40 of the Act of 1896 tenants can be compelled to buy, but we do not wish to exercise any such pressure as that upon them. Under Section 40 of the Act of 1896 you have offered them a farm at a price, and the compulsion you exercise is to compel them to buy it at that price, whereas under this Section you have not offered at any price, none having been arranged. I submit that those English Members who may be apprehensive that the credit of this country will be pledged too largely, and with some risks to the Imperial taxpayers—if they will cast their minds back to what has occurred in the past, and the mode in which the purchase system has been worked in Ireland, and the fidelity with which the purchasers have discharged their obligation, they must come to the conclusion that, large as are the sums which are to be lent and given, it is a safe pecuniary transaction; no ill results will happen to this country, and there is admittedly a fair prospect of bringing peace, prosperity and contentment to Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to move that the debate be adjourned.
  MR. BRYCE: I think I ought to say on this Motion that it is extremely improbable that the debate can be concluded to-morrow. There are a large number of Members desiring to speak upon it, and I think it right to let the Government know the position.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Wyndham,: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is not here. I will convey to him what has been said, but so far as I know, he anticipates that the debate will be concluded by 12 o'clock to-morrow night.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. William O'Brien), put and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

THE BOROUGH FUNDS BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  On the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the principle of the Bill would be extended to Ireland, and whether it was possible to bring in a separate Bill dealing with Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAMreplied that during the last week he had not been in close touch with the matter, but he would make a note of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, and although he could not promise that the Bill should be applied to Ireland, he would be very glad to do what was possible.
  Bill read a third time and passed.
  Adjourned at three minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Burgess Hill and St. John's Common Gas; London Hydraulic Power; Sutton District Water; Winchester Water and Gas.
Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1.)
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
Hove, Worthing, and District Tramways [H.L.]—(Petition for additional Provision).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Lochnell Estate Bill [H.L.]. Judges' Report received; Bill presented, and read 1a
Kips' Patent. Petition of Frederic Ellsworth Kip, praying for leave to introduce a Bill for rendering valid certain Letters Patent granted to William Phillips Thompson in respect of inventions communicated to him from abroad by Frederic 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; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and East Denbighshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; The orders made on the
1138
9th of March and 30th of April last discharged, and Bill committed.
Hove, Worthing, and District Tramways Bill [H.L]. (Petition for additional provision.) Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday next.
Rickmansworth Gas Bill [H.L.],Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Bournemouth Corporation Tramways Bill [H.M.], Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on 9th and 26th March last discharged; and Bill committed.
Poole and District Electric Traction Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on 12th and 26th March last discharged; and Bill committed.
Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [H.L.]. Read3a; an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
South Wales Mineral Railway Bill [H.L.];Milford Docks Bill [H.L.];All Saints, Poplar (Rate Abolition) Bill [H.L.];Knott End Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.] Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Sittingbourne District Gas Bill; Walker and Wallsend Union Gas Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Taff Vale Railway Bill [H.L.]; London and North Western Railway Bill [H.L.]; Aston Manor Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Macclesfield and District Electric Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Torquay Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]; Rochester Corporation Tramways and Improvements Bill [H.L.]; Chatham and District Light

1139
Railways Bill [H.L.]; Brighton Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.].
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—

E. Camperdown (chairman),

E. Lathom,

V. Powerscourt,

L. Cheylesmore,

L. Llangattock.

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 12th instant 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.] (No. 45.) A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Burton-upon-Trent Corporation Tramways, Bury Corporation Tramways, Cardiff Corporation Tramways (Extension), Huddersfield Corporation Tramways, Leeds Corporation Tramways, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Tramways, and Portobello and Musselburgh Tramways.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. (No. 46.) A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Barrow-in-Furness Tramways, Horsforth Urban District Council Tramways, Keighley Corporation Tramways, and Ramsbottom Urban District Council Tramways.
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. (No. 47.) A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Bolsover and District Water, Goring and Streatley District Water, Leatherhead and District Water, Ludgershall Water, and Mid-Kent Water.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. (No. 48.) A Bill to confirm
1140
certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Aldershot Gas and Water, Amersham, Beaconsfield, and District Water, St. David's Gas and Water, St. Neots Water, and Wexford Gas.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. (No. 49.) A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Cobham Gas, Conisbrough Gas, Hailsham Gas, St. Ives (Huntingdonshire) Gas, and Woking District Gas.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. (No. 50.) A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Brading Harbour District Gas, Cross-gates, Halton, and Seacroft Gas, Herne Bay Gas, Pembroke Docks and Town Gas, and Riddings District Gas.
Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. (No. 51.) A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Llandudno, Galway, and Scrabster.
Were presented by the Lord Wolver-ton; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
North British Railway (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the North British Railway, Was presented by the Lord Balfour (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 52.)

PETITIONS.
  LAND REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition against; of Society of Advocates in Aberdeen; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  DECLARATION OF THE SOVEREIGN AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
  Petition for abrogation of; of Roman Catholics residing in Branton and By-shottles District, County Durham; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Petition against the sale of, on Sunday; of inhabitants of Swindon, in the county of Wilts; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 6, 1903.
  Accession of the Republic of Guatemala to the Convention signed at Geneva, 22nd August, 1864, for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in the field, 24th March, 1903.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2967. United States (Boston).
  No. 2968. United States (Texas).

  EDUCATION COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND).
  Annual Report for the year 1902.
  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the Sea and Inland Fisheries of Ireland, for the year 1901 (Part II. Scientific Investigation).

  ARMY (CANTEENS AND REGIMENTAL INSTITUTES).
  Report of the Committee on Canteens and Regimental Institutes.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Four Orders with respect to the urban county districts of Bangor, Carrick-on-Suir, and Tullamore.

  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853 to 1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Licences granted by His Majesty to (1) Herbert Arthur Green, (2) to Alfred Edwardes, under the provisions of the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853 to 1891, to which are annexed conditions other than
  1142
  those contained in Schedule A. of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  The Earl of Belmore added to the Select Committee.
  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Committee of Selection for the Standing Committee that they have added the Earl of Belmore to the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  BERWICKSHIRE COUNTY TOWN BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  NAVAL FORCES BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

  THE CASE OF COLONEL KINLOCH.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORDin rising to call attention to the procedure followed by the Court of inquiry, held on the 14th December, 1902, in reference to events which had taken place in the Grenadier Guards, and to ask—(1) Whether under Sub-section M. of the Rules of Procedure, Part II. Section 124, Colonel Kinloch did not apply for and receive a copy of the report of the Court of inquiry: (2) Whether Sub-sections C, F., G, regulating the procedure of Courts of inquiry, were not violated: (3) Whether it is not a fact that Colonel Kinloch was afforded no opportunity of explaining, completing, or amplifying his statement before he was removed from his command and placed on half-pay: (4) Whether it is not a breach of the Army Act to obtain the publication of, and print as evidence, a voluntary statement made before a Court of inquiry by an officer not on his oath, not on his trial, and assured that his statement is not evidence: (5) Whether the statutory procedure by aggrieved officers for the redress of wrongs as defined in Sections 42 and 27 of the Army Act was followed in the case of Lieutenant Leveson-

  1143
  Gower, who had been called upon to resign his commission by the regimental authorities as being no longer a credit to his regiment, said: My Lords, I must first explain the reason for again bringing this subject before the House. Last Tuesday the noble and gallant Earl the Commander-in-Chief was not in his place. The noble and gallant Earl kindly informed me that it would be possible for him to attend to-day, with a view, I hope, of taking part in the debate. The noble Duke the President of the Council, said that if it was desired to discuss the case of Colonel Kinloch the Government would not object on an explicit notice being given. I hasten to assure the noble Duke and your Lordships that I have no intention of discussing the case of Colonel Kinloch. My intention is to use that case only as an illustration of the injustice which may be perpetrated by disregarding certain provisions of the Army Act, and by secret Courts of Inquiry conducted in a manner contrary to the Rules enacted by Parliament for the vindication of the character and military reputation of officers concerned. I do not discuss the decision of the Commander-in-Chief, I do not care why he acted. I want to know how he acted. I desire to point out to your Lordships that the character of Colonel Kinloch and the state of his regiment have nothing to do with the legality and the justice, of the methods employed in removing him from his command. Those methods affect the position of every officer in His Majesty's service. They involve important constitutional points besides those of military law and procedure. They do not involve any personal points. I call your Lordships' attention to the procedure followed by the court of inquiry held on the 14th December last. This is not a case of rough and ready justice in time of war, when the rights of individuals must yield to the interests of the service. It is an instance of the strict, deliberate administration of justice in time of peace. Parliament has laid down Rules for the conduct of these Courts, protecting officers against the possible abuses of these secret, informal and extra judicial Courts. No discretionary power vested in the Commander-in-Chief entitles him to depart from the Rules by which these
  1144
  Courts are governed. In reference to my first question I quote Sub-section M—
  "An officer or soldier who is tried by Court-martial in respect of any matter or thing which has been reported on by a Court of Inquiry, and, unless the Secretary of State sees reason to order otherwise, an officer or soldier whose character or military reputation is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, affected by anything in the evidence before, or in the report of, a Court of Inquiry, shall be entitled to a copy of the proceedings of the Court, including any report made by the Court, on payment of the actual cost of the copy required, not exceeding twopence for every folio of seventy-two words."
  In accordance with this section, Colonel Kinloch applied for and received a copy of the report of the Court, because, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, his character and military reputation had been affected by the proceedings of the Court. I do not think that there is a noble Lord in this House who would for a moment argue that Colonel Kinloch's character or military reputation had not been affected by the proceedings of the Court. It therefore follows that the Court of inquiry was a Court holding an inquiry which affected the character and military reputation of an officer. Why, then, were all the provisions for the protection of officers so affected absolutely disregarded?
  I now come to Question 2 on the Paper, and quote Sub-section C:
  "The Court will be guided by the written instructions of the officer who assembled the Court. The instructions should be full and explicit, and must state the general character of the information required from the Court in their report."
  We had it from the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary of State for War, on Tuesday last, that there was no mention of the officer's character or military reputation in those written instructions. Neither the Court nor the officer knew that the officer's character or military reputation could be affected by the proceedings. Therefore, my Lords, I contend, that from its inception and by its actual constitution, the Court and all its proceedings are utterly void and illegal. I now quote Sub-section F:
  "Whenever any inquiry affects the character or military reputation of an officer or soldier full opportunity must be afforded to the officer or soldier of being present throughout the inquiry, and of making any statement, and of giving any evidence he may wish to give, and

  1145
  of cross-examining any witness whose evidence, in his opinion, affects his character or military reputation."
  Every one of these safeguards were disregarded. The officer was particularly requested not to be present throughout this Court of Inquiry, because the Court believed that they were inquiring into the conduct of the junior officers, and knew that the junior officers would speak more unrestrainedly if their commanding officer was not present. He was not even allowed to complete his own statement. He mentioned to the Court that his statement was not completed. The Court said he would be called later, but they did not know that the Court was to be suddenly dispersed, and the statement left unfinished. He was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses. He was not allowed to produce witnesses in defence of his character or military reputation. I quote Sub-section G:
  "It is the duty of a Court of Inquiry to put such questions to a witness as they think desirable for testing the truth or accuracy of any evidence he has given, and otherwise for eliciting the truth."
  Now, there was a direct conflict of evidence between the officer affected and his subaltern. That subaltern escaped all examination by the Court and all cross-examination by the officer, because neither the Court nor the officer knew that his character or military reputat on would be affected by the proceedings. That then, my Lords, is the mode under which the Court of Inquiry collected the information on which the Commander-in-Chief deprived an officer of his command, and of his full pay, and of his prospects of pension.
  I now come to Question 3 on the paper. When Colonel Kinloch was informed of the decision of the Commander-in-Chief, he at once pointed out that he had never been heard in his own defence at all, that the statement which he had made was incomplete, and that he had been deprived of those advantages to which he was entitled under the Parliamentary contract. Your Lordships will perceive that this representation at once brought to the notice of the authorities the irregularity of the Court of Inquiry. It is the duty of the Secretary of State to assure himself that accused officers
  1146
  have received all the opportunities for their defence prescribed by the Army Act and the Rules of Procedure. I have shown to your Lordships that to Colonel Kinloch under the procedure adopted every one of these opportunities was denied.
  I now come to Question 4 on the Paper and quote Sub-section L:
  "The proceedings of a Court of Inquiry, or any confession, statement or answer to a question made or given at a Court of Inquiry, shall not be admissible in evidence against an officer or soldier, nor shall any evidence respecting the proceedings of the Court be given against any officer or soldier."
  I hold in my hand a Parliamentary Paper with this heading, "Evidence given by Col. Kinloch before a Court of Inquiry." The word "evidence" should be struck out and replaced by these words, "A voluntary statement made by Colonel Kinloch as a witness, not on his oath, not on his trial, and which is not admissible in evidence against him according to the Army Act, but has been used by the Commander-in-Chief as the basis for his decision." I challenge the noble Earl, the Under Secretary of State, to prove that what I have substituted for the word "evidence" is not absolutely correct according to the Army Act, and I defy the noble Earl to justify the use of this word "evidence" as it stands on this Paper. If this Paper had been published with the heading I have substituted, and the accuracy of which I challenge the noble Earl to disprove, how would it have been received? I think it would have been received with indignation and derision; but stamped with the word "evidence" and published by the authority of the Secretary of State, it has been received by Parliament and the country as though it were the legal evidence of a man who knew himself to be upon his trial before a formal tribunal, and as the legitimate basis for the decision of the Commander-in-Chief.
  I now pass to a question arising out o the speech of the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for War on Tuesday last. I mean the exercise of the Royal Warrant. I apprehend that the right manner of using the Royal Warrant is as follows. The Commander-in-Chief recommends the Secretary of State to remove an officer from his command, and gives no reason to

  1147
  the officer for his removal except that he is removed by exercise of the Royal Warrant; that is, by the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, but on the authority of the Secretary of State, who is responsible that in the procedure adopted, every provision of the Army Act and the Rules of Procedure have been correctly complied with. Now the Commander-in-Chief had decided to proceed by means of the Court of Inquiry, and had based his decision on the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, which had been irregularly conducted, and the irregularities of which had been brought to the notice of the authorities before the sentence was announced. I now quote again Sub-section L—
  "The proceedings of a Court of Inquiry, or any confession, statement, or answer to a question made or given at a Court of Inquiry, shall not be admissible in evidence against an officer or soldier, nor shall any evidence respecting the proceedings of the Court be given against any officer or soldier."
  A further constitutional point which I have to put to your Lordships is—Can the Commander-in-Chief, by virtue of the Royal Warrant, clothe himself with authority to do what Parliament declines to permit him to do, and proceed to an act of annihilation upon the information of a Court of Inquiry—information which is not evidence according to military law; which is not evidence according to civil law; and which is not evidence according to common sense. Can he, in a word, nullify an Act of Parliament by virtue of his Royal Warrant?
  My last question arises under Sections 42 and 27 of the Army Act. I went into this matter at length on Tuesday last, and my remarks are no doubt in the hands of the noble and gallant Earl the Commander-in-Chief. I therefore only state that I base my argument upon the tatement made by the Secretary of State for War on the 11th March, in which he says—
  "Lord De Saumarez would never have gone to the Commander in-Chief had it not been that a relative of his had received notice from the regimental authorities that on the following Monday Mr. Leveson-Gower would be called upon to resign his commission, because he had ceased to be a credit to his regiment."
  Why had Mr. Leveson-Gower been asked by the colonel commanding the three battalions to resign? I under-
  1148
  stand that on the 1st December, in the battalion orderly room and in the presence of the two senior officers of the battalion, Mr. Leveson-Gower admitted having made false statements concerning his commanding officer, and that subsequently in the regimental orderly room he repeated the same admission before the colonel of the regiment and his regimental adjutant. Now there were senior officers of the regiment present on both occasions. I presume that the opinion of these senior officers is known at the War Office. I ask the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for War, did they agree in saying that there was an admission of false statements concerning his commanding officer by Mr. Leveson-Gower on those two occasions?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE for WAR (The Earl of Hardwicke): What are the actual terms of the false statement?
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I ask if inquiries have been made of the senior officers concerning the false statement.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I do not know what the false statement refers to.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: That is not my point. Have the senior officers been questioned concerning the false statement
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, the noble Duke has recapitulated in clear and concise terms the speech he delivered a few days ago, and I would remind the House that on that occasion I asked your Lordships' indulgence if I did not——
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I beg the noble Earl's pardon for interrupting him, but I did not understand that the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Bedford) had concluded his speech.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Yes.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I was reminding the House when the noble Duke interrupted me that I had asked your Lordships' indulgence if I did not reply in detail to all the unexpected and startling statements which the noble Duke made on Tuesday last. He has not withdrawn any of those statements, but has, I am glad to see, placed Questions on the Paper in a clear, concrete form, with the exception, perhaps, of the last, and I propose to answer those Questions as shortly as I can. I must first deplore the fact that the noble Duke has not the courage of his opinions. He states that it is not Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch's case that he is bringing before the House. Well, I leave that to your Lordships' judgment, but I assert that it is Lieut. Colonel Kinloch's case that he is bringing forward. He has suggested to the House that the treatment which Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch received was a grave injustice to that officer; he has implied that he has not received fair play and that he has been removed from the command of his regiment by unworthy methods. I consider this to be the gravest possible charge that could be brought against the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief. I am glad that the Commander-in-Chief is in the House and that he proposes personally to reply to the insinuations made by the noble Duke in his absence the other night. I would point out to the House, before proceeding to answer these Questions in detail, that to remove an officer from the British Army there are three courses open to the military authorities. The first is to try the officer by Court-martial, and the Court can sentence that officer without further reference to a higher authority. The second course is for the Commander-in-Chief to appoint a Court of Inquiry, and on the report of that Court he can judge whether or not a primâfacie case has been made out against an officer sufficient to justify his being sent for trial by Court-martial. The third course open to the military authorities, if they are not satisfied with the circumstances connected with an officer, is to call for an explanation, and if the Commander-in-Chief is satisfied on the documentary evidence placed before him that the complaint is well founded, he has a perfect right, without any
  1150
  further inquiry, to place an officer on half-pay.
  I now turn to the first Question on the Paper, in which the noble Duke asks whether under Sub-section M of the Rules of Procedure, Part II., Section 124. Colonel Kinloch did not apply for, and receive, a copy of the report of the Court of Inquiry. I denied the existence the other night of any such report, and I again deny its existence. I must briefly recapitulate the circumstances which led to the appointment of this so-called Court of Inquiry.
  LORD SALTOUN: Will you kindly state the composition of the Court of Inquiry?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I will come to that. When the Commander-in-Chief had the irregularities that had taken place in the Grenadier Guards brought to his notice he asked the Officer commanding the Home District to report to him as to the truth of those allegations. The noble Duke, the other night, suggested that the Commander-in-Chief was wrong to have acted in that way. He implied, I think, that he should have told Lord De Saumarez, when he approached him directly, that he should have supplied the information through the proper channels. If that is the argument of the noble Duke I would like to ask what action the military authorities should take if they saw in the columns of a newspaper that certain irregularities were going on in any regiment? What is the Commander-in-Chief to do if a Question is asked in the House of Commons as to certain irregularities in a given regiment? Is it suggested that he should take no action? If it is, I think it is a very curious and a very illogical suggestion. The Commander-in-Chief took the only course that was open to him. He sent for the Officer commanding the Home District and said—"Report to me as to whether there is any truth in these allegations." The Commander-in-Chief had actually decided to appoint a Court of Inquiry at Aldershot to inquire into the circumstances of the case, but before that Court could sit it was necessary that he should

  1151
  have a full report from Sir Henry Trotter, the Officer commanding the Home District, in order that he might frame a reference to the Court and know to whom the responsibility for the irregularities that had occurred was due. Sir Henry Trotter, on his own responsibility, without one word to the Commander-in-Chief on the subject—I do not for a moment suggest that he was acting ultra vires—thought that the most convenient way of getting the information which the Commander-in-Chief desired was to appoint a regimental Court of Inquiry—really a regimental investigation—to find out what officers were connected with these irregularities and on whom the responsibility should rest. The Court sat for two days, and immediately they had finished taking the evidence of the various officers they forwarded the proceedings to Sir Henry Trotter.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: May I ask the noble Earl whether the proceedings were not forwarded in the form of "I beg to report," etc.?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: The noble Duke is perfectly correct. It was a single officer's report. Colonel Ricardo was the officer commanding the regiment. He sat as president of the Court of Inquiry, and forwarded the proceedings of the Court with a covering letter, in which he summarised the evidence and gave his own views upon it. He wrote the letter from start to finish; it was in the first person, and he signed it himself. The other two officers constituting the Court did not sign it. The report of a Court of Inquiry must be signed by every officer present at the inquiry. I submit, therefore, that I was perfectly justified in denying the other day that such a thing as a report of the Court of Inquiry was in existence. The proceedings of the Court exist, and they consist of nothing more nor less than the evidence taken by the Court from the various officers in the regiment.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Does the noble Earl consider that this Court was not a properly constituted Court of Inquiry? It has always been con-
  1152
  tended that Colonel Kinloch was heard by a fully constituted Court of Inquiry.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I am not going to state definitely whether the Court was properly or improperly constituted. So far as I am aware it was properly constituted for the purpose for which it was formed; but the point I wish to make is this, that if the Court had reported, every member of the Court would have signed the report, whereas nothing of the kind took place.
  LORD SALTOUN: Did any member of the Court sign it?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: No. Colonel Ricardo was the officer commanding the two battalions of Grenadier Guards, and he was the president of the Court. I do not wish to dwell on this matter, because I think I have explained sufficiently clearly to the House the point as to whether there was a report or not. As a matter of fact, a Court of Inquiry cannot make any recommendation or report unless it is specially called upon to do so. A Court of Inquiry iS an assemblage of officers to collect evidence and report with respect to a transaction into which the Commander-in-Chief cannot conveniently himself make inquiry, and there is this provision, that the Court will give no opinion on the conduct of any officer or soldier unless so directed by the commanding officer. The Court was not so directed. The only reference to the Court was to report upon the alleged bullying in the 1st Battalion of the Grenadier Guards. It must be obvious that no report was called for from the Court and therefore no report was sent. In his first question the noble Duke asks whether Colonel Kinloch applied for a copy of the proceedings of the Court. It is perfectly true that he did apply, and I do not think, after having made inquiry, that the noble Duke was justified the other evening in contending that considerable delay occurred before Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch's request was granted.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I think that in the first instance the existence of the report was denied altogether.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Because there was no report.
  THE EARL OF BEDFORD: But afterwards the report came.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I think it is a mere juggling with words. The moment that Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch applied to see the proceedings of the Court the General Officer commanding the Home District was instructed to show him, not only the evidence that had been given at the Court, but also the covering letter of Colonel Ricardo to Sir Henry Trotter.
  Now I come to the second Question, whether Sub-sections C F G, regulating the procedure of Courts of Inquiry, were not violated. Sub-section C reads as follows—
  "The Court will be guided by the written instructions of the officer who assembled the Court. The instructions should be full and specific, and must state the general character of the information required from the Court in their report."
  I still maintain that the report of a Court of Inquiry can be a report without any recommendations, and that the form of the proceedings of the Court constitutes a report. The reference to the Court was, as I have stated, to inquire into the alleged bullying in the Grenadier Guards; therefore I think I am justified in saying that Sub-section C was not violated. Then we come to Sub-section F, which reads as follows—
  "Whenever any inquiry affects the character or military reputation of an officer or soldier, full opportunity must be afforded to the officer or soldier of being present throughout the inquiry, and of making any statement, and of giving any evidence he may wish to make or give, and of cross-examining any witness whose evidence, in his opinion, affects his character or military reputation, and producing any witnesses in defence of his character or military reputation."
  The answer to that question is that Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch was not on his trial. No charge had been preferred against him, and therefore he was not entitled to claim to be present during the hearing of the evidence given at the Court of Inquiry.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: May I ask why his statement before the Court is published as evidence if his character was not affected by it?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I can only answer by saying that it was evidence.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Not according to the Army Act.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I will come to that. I think the noble Duke has misread the Army Act. The point is that no charge was preferred against Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch and therefore he had no right to claim to be present during the hearing of the Court of Inquiry. As regards Sub-section G, that Sub-section provides that—
  "It is the duty of a Court of Inquiry to put such questions to a witness as they think desirable for testing the truth or accuracy of any evidence he has given, and otherwise for eliciting the truth."
  As far as I know, and I believe I am absolutely correct in stating this, the officers who gave evidence before that Court were asked such questions as the Court chose to put to them; but for the sake of convenience, and in accordance with ordinary practice, their evidence was returned as written statements by each officer who gave evidence.
  Then I come to the third Question, whether it is not a fact that Colonel Kinloch was afforded no opportunity of explaining, completing, or amplifying his statement, before he was removed from his command and placed on half-pay. The answer to that is very simple. An officer is not placed on half-pay until his name appears in the Gazette, and before Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch was gazetted on half-pay he was sent for by the Commander-in-Chief, who, in the presence of the Adjutant-General and of General Oliphant, heard Lieut. Colonel Kinloch in his own defence.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: But this was nine days after Colonel Kinloch was sentenced.
  THE DUKE OF HARDWICKE: It is perfectly true that the Commander-in-Chief had decided to remove Lieutenant-Colonel Kinloch from his command, but he had not gazetted him. His name had not appeared in the Gazette and had Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch been able to adduce anything to show that there were reasons why he should not be

  1155
  deprived of the command of his regiment it would not have been too late. Therefore when the noble Duke suggests that he was given no opportunity of amplifying his evidence or of saying anything in his own defence he is making a statement that is not actually accurate, because Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch did have that opportunity granted him by the Commander-in-Chief as an act of grace. I now pass to Question 4, whether it is not a breach of the Army Act to obtain the publication of, and print as evidence, a voluntary statement made before a Court of Inquiry by an officer not on his oath, not on his trial, and assured that his statement is not evidence. To turn to the latter part of the Question first, I do not know how it comes that the noble Duke thinks he was assured that his statement was not evidence. I understand that no assurance was given him before he gave his evidence that his statement would not be treated as evidence.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: According to the Army Act it is not admissible in evidence against him.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Will the noble Duke read the section of the Army Act again. Sub-section L reads—
  "The proceedings of a Court of Inquiry, or any confession, statement, or answer to a question made or given at a Court of Inquiry, shall not be admissible in evidence against an officer or soldier, nor shall any evidence respecting the proceedings of the Court be given against any officer or soldier."
  But that means that if an officer has been before a Court of Inquiry and gives evidence, and subsequently has to take his trial before a Court-martial, then the evidence he gave before the Court of Inquiry shall not be admissible as evidence before the Court-martial. I would refer the noble Duke to the "Manual of Military Law," Chapter VI., Section 98, which reads—
  "The proceedings of a Court of Inquiry cannot be called for by Courts-martial, nor witnesses examined as to their contents; nor is any confession or statement made at a Court of Inquiry admissible against an officer or soldier before a Court-martial."
  To suggest that, a Court of Inquiry having been appointed and having taken evidence, the Commander-in-Chief is not allowed to pay any attention to that
  1156
  evidence seems to me to be the most illogical and absurd proposition that could possibly be put forward. Then the noble Duke laid large stress on Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch's not having given evidence on oath. Does he suggest that Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch did not speak the truth in the evidence he gave? Does he suggest that he would like to go back on anything he said? Does Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch wish to say, "It is not true that I told Lieutenant Hamilton, in the presence of the Adjutant-General, that he deserved a licking," which, by the way, he got? Is it suggested that he did not hand Lieutenant Leveson-Gower over to be dealt with by the subalterns, he having committed an offence against military discipline. If not, I fail to understand what it is that the noble Duke wishes to urge in favour of Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch. We have his evidence, and on that evidence he was deprived of the command of his regiment, and, until it can be shown that the evidence, for some miraculous reason, was not correct, I can hardly think that the noble Duke is entitled to urge that there was any irregularity in the proceedings because Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch was not on his oath.
  I now come to Question 5, Whether the statutory procedure by aggrieved officers for the redress of wrongs as defined in Sections 42 and 27 of the Army Act was followed in the case of Lieutenant Leveson-Gower, who had been called upon to resign his commission by the regimental authorities as being no longer a credit to his regiment. I have explained that I do not quite understand the Question, and, as regards the last two lines, it is really difficult for me to comprehend the particular twist of the noble Duke's mind in this matter. He comes down to the House with the avowed intention of showing your Lordships that the Commander-in-Chief had exceeded his authority, had practically broken the contract that exists between an officer and the military authorities in having placed Lieut.- Colonel Kinloch on half-pay, and jet he suggests that because the regimental authorities had called upon Lieutenant Leveson-Gower to resign his commission, unless some

  1157
  unknown form of procedure was followed, that recommendation of the regimental authorities cannot be set aside. That would be to say, that what the Commander-in-Chief may not do it is perfectly admissible for a regimental authority to do—a proposition sufficiently preposterous in itself to need no denial, but in the light of military law, and from the point of view of facts as they are, it is perfectly meaningless, because the regimental authorities have no power to call upon an officer to resign his commission. It is only the supreme authority, the Commander-in-Chief, or the Secretary of State, who can call upon an officer to resign his commission. The noble Duke refers to Sections 42 and 27 of the Army Act, but I fail to see where those clauses come in. Lieutenant Leveson-Gower had no grievance to redress. He sent in his resignation voluntarily, but it was not accepted. Where do these sections come in? The noble Duke will not explain, and I therefore regret I must leave that part of the Question. I have nothing to add except to point out to the House, as I pointed out on Tuesday last, that the Commander-in-Chief acted perfectly within his authority and under the King's Regulations. In conclusion, I would read Section 669 of the King's Regulations—
  "A commanding officer is responsible to the King for the maintenance of discipline, efficiency, and proper system in the unit under his command. He will, by advice and by timely influence, endeavour to promote a good understanding and to prevent disputes. He is to discountenance any disposition in his officers to gamble or to extravagance. He is also to check any tendency among his officers to what are termed practical jokes, and, whenever any serious case requiring his interference arises, he is to record the manner in which it was disposed of, and submit the same for the information of the general officer commanding on his next inspection."
  I regret to have to say it, but it is the case, that Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch did not discharge those duties of the high responsibility placed upon him, to the satisfaction of the Commander-in-Chief, and I submit to your Lordships that his removal was a proceeding which was absolutely and wholly correct.
  EARL ROBERTS: My Lords, I had hoped, in the best interests of the Army
  1158
  generally, and those of the Grenadier Guards in particular, that your Lordships and the public had heard the last of a most disagreeable and unedifying episode; and I feel sure that hope was shared by all who are jealous of the honour of our Army, and who, like myself, glory in its grand reputation. I sincerely regret that by the action of the Duke of Bedford I am again forced to trespass on your Lordships' time and patience by a further explanation of my conduct of the painful case under discussion. But, my Lords, the Duke of Bedford in his speech last Tuesday, and in the Questions he has asked to-day, has so adversely criticised my mode of applying the Army Act and Rules of Procedure in dealing with this case, and has placed my action in regard to it in—to say the least of it—such an unfavourable light before your Lordships, that I feel myself constrained to crave your Lordships, indulgence while I state, as briefly as I can, the course I adopted, and my reasons for having followed that course. As I stated when last I had the honour of addressing this House, my interview with Lord De Saumarez took place on the evening of December 12th. The following morning, at the War Office, I told the Adjutant-General what had been brought to my notice as to the bullying of young officers in the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, and I directed Sir Thomas Kelly-Kenny to send for Sir Henry Trotter, the General Officer then in command of the Home District. Sir Henry Trotter was not to be found at the time, and the brigade major—Major Ruggles-Brise—obeyed my summons in his stead. To this officer I repeated the substance of Lord De Saumarez's communication. Major Ruggles-Brise then told me that some of the young officers had been behaving very badly, and had also complained in a body to outsiders of their treatment in the battalion, and that this was looked upon as something like mutiny. I asked Major Ruggles-Brise if there was no reason for the young officers appealing to outsiders, and whether it was true that some of them had been severely beaten by sentence of subaltern Courts-martial. Major Ruggles-Brise admitted that this was true; and I then told him that, as

  1159
  the complaints were of so serious a nature, I considered it necessary that they should be inquired into by a properly constituted Court.
  On Major Ruggles-Brise's leaving the room I discussed the matter with the Adjutant General, and he and I came to the conclusion that it would be advisable to assemble the Court at Alder-shot, where the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards was quartered. During the afternoon of that day, December 13th, Sir Henry Trotter came to the War Office after I had left; and, being informed by the Adjutant-General that a properly constituted Court of Inquiry would be held at Aldershot, he begged that he might first be allowed to inquire into the case regimentally. The Adjutant-General consented to this procedure and impressed upon Sir Henry Trotter certain points on which information was required. Accordingly on the following day, Sunday, Sir Henry Trotter convened a Court of Inquiry with orders—
  "To report upon the circumstances connected with the alleged bullying in the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards."
  The Court consisted of Colonel Ricardo—the colonel of the Grenadier Guards—with Major Ruggles-Brise and Captain Earle, both of the same regiment, as members. It sat all that day and the early part of Monday; and on Monday afternoon Sir Henry Trotter submitted the proceedings to the Adjutant-General, together with a letter from Colonel Ricardo which, to use Sir Henry Trotter's own words, "practically gives a summary of all the evidence adduced." In his forwarding letter Sir Henry Trotter stated that—
  "The subalterns have acted in many cases in a very ungentlemanly manner … that the evidence discloses several instances of minor chastisement, and one or two cases in which the chastisement has been most reprehensible."
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Will the noble Lord consent to lay Sir Henry Trotter's letter on the Table?
  EARL ROBERTS: Certainly. Sir Henry Trotter added—
  "I am satisfied that Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch was perfectly ignorant of this; at the same time, I do not with to suggest he is not
  1160
  to blame; for, apart from his remarks in the orderly room to Lieutenant the Hon. R. Hamilton that he deserved a good licking and he hoped he would get it, he should have satisfied himself by constant inquiry that all was going on well with those under his command."
  Sir Henry Trotter concluded with these words—
  "I most deeply deplore the whole circumstance, which is discreditable in the highest degree."
  My Lords, the Court presided over by Colonel Ricardo was, strictly speaking, a regimental investigation, and not a properly constituted Court of Inquiry such as I had intended to have been, held at Aldershot. But, on reading over the evidence, I came to the conclusion that the report of the bullying, as made to me was absolutely true; and I agree with Sir Henry Trotter that Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch was to blame, even if he were ignorant of what was going on. My Lords, three courses were then open to me, and I had to determine whether (1) to try Lieut.-Col. Kinloch by Court-martial under Section 40 of the Army Act, or (2) to order him to appear before the Court of Inquiry directed to assemble at Aldershot, or (3) to deal with his case, under Article 98 of the Royal Warrant, from the evidence given before the regimental Court. I rejected the first course for two reasons—first, out of consideration for Lieut. Colonel Kinloch's former services, his personal reputation, and the high character of the Brigade of Guards; and, secondly, because I wished to avoid the publicity which a Court-martial would have entailed—an object which, as your Lordships are aware, has been frustrated by the action of Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch'a own friends. I also rejected the second course because, as I have already stated, the evidence recorded in the regimental Court gave me all the information that was needed.
  And here I would explain to you, my Lords, that all a Court of Inquiry is called upon to do is to record evidence; and, whether that evidence be given on oath or not, it is no part of the duty of a Court of Inquiry to suggest that this or that punishment should be awarded. A Court of Inquiry can, if desired to do so, give an opinion, but its raison d'être is to assist the authority concerned to

  1161
  form a correct judgment of the case with which he is called upon to deal. I decided to adopt the third course—namely, to act upon the evidence given before the regimental Court—because it seemed to me by so doing I should be giving Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch every possible chance; for surely, my Lords, I was not wrong in believing that he would receive the fullest justice, and that his conduct would be viewed in the most favourable light by a Court composed entirely of his own brother officers. With reference, my Lords, to the Question put by the Duke of Bedford on 28th April, as to—
  "Whether a Commander-in-Chief was empowered to pronounce sentence against an officer upon his statement made not upon oath, and as a witness before a Court of Inquiry,"
  I would explain to you, my Lords, that in all matters of discipline (not dealt with, by Courts-martial) a Commander-in-Chief is most certainly empowered to pronounce sentence against an officer upon that officer's own statement, though not made on oath, or as a witness before a Court of Inquiry, the Commander-in-Chief being satisfied that the officer had failed to carry out his duty as required by the King's Regulations, and believing, as a Commander-in-Chief naturally would, that the accused, being an officer and a gentleman, would speak the truth whether upon oath or not. I can only hope, my Lords, that the noble Duke did not really mean what his question would seem to imply—namely, that Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch's evidence before the regimental Court of Inquiry was not to be relied upon, and would have been different had it been taken on oath. I would ask you, my Lords, can a man be judged more favourably than out of his own mouth? Paragraph 669 of the King's Regulations, to which I have referred, lays down absolutely clearly what is required of a commanding officer. It is as follows—
  "A commanding officer is responsible to the King for the maintenance of discipline, efficiency, and proper system in the unit under his command. He will, by advice and by kindly influence, endeavour to promote a good understanding and to prevent disputes. He is to discountenance any disposition in his officers to gamble of to extravagance. He is also to check any tendency among his officers to what are termed practical jokes, and when-
  1162
  ever any serious case requiring his interferenc arises, he is to record the manner in which it was disposed of, and submit the same for the information of the general officer commanding at his next inspection."
  I would now put it to you, my Lords whether, in the opinion of this House, Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch fulfilled these requirements, and whether, in accordance with the rules laid down for my guidance, I should have been justified in permitting him to retain the command of his battalion. Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch's appeal against my decision was carefully considered and treated as laid down in Section 42 of the Army Act; and, before the Gazette placing Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch on half-pay was published, I sent for him and gave him full opportunity of putting before me anything further he might have to urge in his defence. Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch, however, failed at this interview to show any reason why my decision should be changed.
  This, my Lords, is an exact account of my action in this unpleasant affair, in the handling of which I had to bear in mind that I was dealing with a famous and popular regiment, the members of which could count on the sympathy of many influential friends. I will not take up your Lordships' time by dwelling upon the absolutely false stories that have been circulated as to my having allowed outside influence to be brought to bear upon me while the case was still sub judice, further than to assure you, my Lords, on my honour as an officer of His Majesty's service and a member of your Lordships' House, that neither directly nor indirectly, neither by word of mouth nor by letter, has any relation or friend, man or woman, of the injured officers ventured to approach me or attempted to bias my judgment in the Kinloch case. Nor will I dwell, my Lords, on the many letters and articles which have appeared in some of the leading journals, written with the object of directing public opinion against the action taken by me as Commander-in-Chief; but I cannot pass unnoticed the insinuation of the noble Duke who began this controversy to the effect that I allowed myself to listen to ex parte statements, nor the noble Duke's assertion that the interview I had with Lords De Saumarez and Belhaven was—
  "a method of presenting the complaints of officers which was nowhere contemplated in

  1163
  the Army Act, and which might be expected to have novel results."
  Nor, my Lords, can I allow to pass unnoticed the Duke of Northumberland's more objectionable insinuation that I had laid myself open to a "sinister suggestion" in not adopting what the noble Duke is pleased to assert is "the usual course." My Lords, I was absolutely ignorant of the object for which Lord De Saumarez sought an interview with me. If it had turned out that the tale he had to tell was one of an ordinary case of what is termed "ragging," I might possibly have followed what the Duke of Northumberland describes as "the usual, the plain, and the straightforward course," and have told Lord De Saumarez that "if the officers have anything to complain of, let them make their report to the commanding officer of the battalion, and if he cannot satisfy them, let the complaint be forwarded to me." But when Lord De Saumarez informed me that the young officers who refused to submit to the punishment awarded them by the subalterns' Courts-martial described their life as "a reign of terror," and that they considered it hopeless to expect protection from the regimental authorities, who, they believed, approved of the system, I decided to send for the General Officer commanding the Home District and tell him what I had heard. This, my Lords, was in my opinion the proper and straightforward course to adopt. I must also refer, my Lords, to the letter which appeared in The Times of February 14th last, signed by three noble Lords—the Duke of Northumberland, Earl Stanhope, and Viscount Duncannon—"fathers of subalterns who have lately served under Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch in the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards," in which they—
  "wish to state most emphatically that the picture of the 'reign of terror' stated to exist in that battalion is absolutely overdrawn and exaggerated."
  My Lords, I do not know whether these three noble Lords were in possession of as full and complete evidence as to what had taken place in the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards as I was when they wrote that letter; if they were, I can only say that their statement as to the picture of the reign of
  1164
  terror being absolutely overdrawn and exaggerated is not in accordance with the evidence placed before me. And it is beyond my power to understand how three noble Lords could be content that such a state of things should be allowed to exist in a regiment to which their sons belonged. If the noble Lords were not in possession of the whole facts, I must express my astonishment that they should have taken a step so absolutely subversive of discipline. I am glad, my Lords, to have this opportunity of telling the three noble Lords that I most emphatically disagree with them, and that I am determined, so long as I am Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Army, not to allow practices to continue which I can only describe as disgusting and degrading. My Lords, I never had the slightest intention of making light of any misconduct on the part of the younger officers which may have called for the condemnation of their brother subalterns or the censure of their colonel. Such condemnation and such censure would have my highest approval, and I should have considered them as signs of a healthy tone in the battalion. I will not weary your Lordships, however, with details connected with the conduct of these young officers; but I cannot, in justice to Second-Lieutenant Leveson-Gower, allow the Duke of Bedford's remarks, so damning to that young officer's character, to pass without comment. In my opinion Second-Lieutenant Leveson-Gower cannot justly be accused of making false statements about his commanding officer. Second-Lieutenant Leveson-Gower was under the impression that Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch had expressed his intention of making him over to the senior subaltern to be dealt with, and he said so under the bonâ fide conviction that such was the case. On Lieut.-Colonel Kinloch's absolutely denying that he had made use of words conveying such a meaning, Second-Lieutenant Leveson-Gower accepted this denial, as in common courtesy to his colonel he was bound to do, and withdrew his statement accordingly. Such, my Lords, was surely the proper course to pursue; and I cannot admit, as an abstract question, that a young officer, having apologised for a statement made under a wrong

  1165
  impression, can justly be accused of making "false statements." My Lords, I have told my story, and I earnestly hope I have made it clear to your Lordships that throughout this intensely disagreeable affair I have acted not only strictly in accordance with the regulations as laid down by Act of Parliament for the administration of the Army, but also in accordance with what I conceive to be the best interests of that Army, and that in carrying out a most painful duty I have been influenced by no ignoble motives, but have worked solely for the good of the service and the upholding of those honourable traditions of the British Army which it ought to be every soldier's highest aim to preserve unsullied.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I think I need make no apology for rising immediately after the noble and gallant Earl who has just sat down, considering that he has brought my name prominently before your Lordships. He was not here last week when the remarks to which he has taken exception were made, and I can assure him that if he had been here he would have felt that there was no intention on my part to impugn, in the slightest degree, his most absolute fairness. What I said was this, that those who had not very delicate feelings of honour were apt to attribute bad motives, perfectly falsely, to those who, apparently without any reason, took courses which were not the usual courses. What I was referring to was not so much the noble and gallant Lord's conduct as the conduct of the Secretary of State, who waxed very indignant over the fact that such charges were made; and I said that though the indignation of the Secretary of State might so far have been justified, for these accusations, as we all knew, had no foundation in fact, yet he could not be very much surprised if they were made, considering the very unusual course that had been adopted in this case. I hope the noble and gallant Earl will feel that in saying that I made no reflection whatever upon his honour and the motives which actuated him in the discharge of his duty.
  The noble and gallant Earl took exception to the letter, which I, in company with two other noble Lords,
  1166
  sent to The Times some time ago. The reason I signed that letter was this. My son had been under Colonel Kinloch's command some two or three years ago. I had had experience of the extreme kindness and interest which Colonel Kinloch took in his young officers, and I thought, when asked whether I would join with others in testifying to this, that I could not in fairness to Colonel Kinloch refuse to do so. I do not wish to enter into a controversy with the noble and gallant Earl as to whether a "reign of terror" is, or is not, a true description of what went on in the 1st Battalion of the Grenadier Guards, but I think that in the circumstances your Lordships will hold that I was justified, in the letter I sent to The Times, in testifying to my own experience of Colonel Kinloch and the gratitude which I felt, to him for his kindness to my son.
  Now I come to the main issue. I think the Commander-in-Chief has put a totally different question to your Lordships from anything which I or the noble Duke behind me have ever brought before the House, for he has actually asked the House whether he; would have been justified in retaining. Colonel Kinloch in his position. That is, a question which I would never have thought of submitting, for I feel most strongly that the decisions of the heads of the Army with regard to officers are not proper subjects for discussion in this; House. I never would be a party to making this House a Court of Appeal from decisions with regard to officers in the Army, but I do think this House has a right—indeed, I think it is its duty—to see that those decisions are arrived at by proper constitutional methods, and, if the means and manner of arriving at those decisions are wrong, the House should ask to be fully informed with regard to them. Before I go any farther, let me say one word with regard to what I do not think was a fair interpretation on the part of the Commander-in-Chief of a remark which fell from the noble Duke behind me. The noble and gallant Lord suggested that the noble Duke behind me inferred that Colonel Kinloch's word was not to be accepted because it was not on oath. I have heard the question asked over and over again in

  1167
  civil cases, "Was this inquiry conducted on oath?" and the importance of the inquiry is largely measured by that fact. But I pass from this personal matter to one question which the noble and gallant Earl touched upon, but which I cannot think he fully answered, and I make no apology for mentioning it again, because the speech of the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for War emphasised very much the importance of it. I asked in the House last Tuesday—
  "Why did the noble and gallant Earl not take the ordinary course of telling these junior officers to send in their complaints through their commanding officers?"
  That is not merely the usual course; it is a course absolutely laid down by the Regulations, which provide that—
  "If any officer who thinks himself wronged by his commanding officer, and on due application to him does not receive the redress to which he may consider himself entitled, he may complain to the Commander-in-Chief in order to obtain justice, who is hereby required to examine into the case, and through the Secretary of State for War to make his Report to His Majesty in order to receive the orders of His Majesty thereon."
  In the "Manual of Military Law," which is printed by authority of the War Office, this note is added to this section—
  "It is the custom of the service to forward every complaint through the officer commanding the regiment, and an officer would not be justified in deviating from this course unless the commanding officer refused or unreason ably delayed to forward. An officer complaining himself to the general in command should apprise his commanding officer of his doing so, and must observe in all channels of approach to the Commander-in-Chief each intermediate gradation as a general of brigade or division."
  These are the rules of the service, and the noble and gallant Earl admits that on the present occasion he has given the go-by absolutely to these rules. What are the noble and gallant Earl's reasons? His reasons are that he gathered that the state of things was so bad in the Brigade of Guards that officers' complaints would not have been forwarded by the commanding officer. That is a very serious charge to make against the commanding officer, but I submit that the answer is perfectly plain. The fathers of these officers had come to complain of the bullying to which their sons were subjected, and the Commander-
  1168
  in-Chief Could perfectly well have said to them, "Tell your sons to send their complaints to me through the proper channels, according to the regulations of the Army, and if the commanding officer refuses to forward them or puts any obstacle in the way of their being forwarded, then come and complain to me." He could then have put in force the whole machinery which he actually did put into operation.
  The importance of this point is very much accentuated by what fell from the noble Earl the Under Secretary. The noble Earl asked: What is the Commander-in-Chief to do if a complaint is made in the newspapers about the conduct of an officer? Does the noble Earl really suggest that the position of any officer in the Army is at the mercy of the canards which appear in the newspapers? I should have thought that newspaper reports might very well be disregarded by those who are in responsible positions, but I again ask why the Commander-in-Chief should not, if he really thinks that newspaper reports are sufficiently important to act upon, get hold of the man who made the complaint and tell him to make it through the commanding officer? That is the method laid down in the Act of Parliament and in the regulations of the service and I humbly protest against the Commander-in-Chief, or the Secretary of State, or any one else, over-riding and disregarding the law of the land and the regulations of the service. The observations of the noble Earl the Under Secretary with regard to this report remind me of the riddle we used to hear in our youth, "When is a lady's shoulder not a lady's shoulder?" and the question now appears to be, "When is a report not a report?" The Section provides that—
  "The Court will be guided by the written instructions of the officer who assembled the Court. The instructions shall be full and explicit, and state the general character of the information required from the Court in their report."
  The instructions are to be full and specific, and state the general character of the information required from the Court in their report. However, I do not think it is worth while detaining your Lordships upon the question whether this is a report or not.

  1169
  I pass to one remark which fell from the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack the other night, and which is rather important, I think, to the bearing of this question. As I understood the noble and learned Earl, he said there could not be a better ground for the conviction of a man than his own evidence. Well, my Lords, I do not know about that. Some time ago we had a Bill before Parliament to enable persons to give evidence on their own behalf, and a great many people doubted extremely whether the evidence given by a person was the best evidence against him. I am not going to put my opinion on legal matters against that of the noble and learned Earl, but I should like to ask him this. Suppose a judge is trying a case and one of the witnesses says something in the course of his evidence which is practically an admission of an offence. Having given his evidence, the witness, thinking he has nothing more to do with the trial, goes home. Would a judge be right in sending immediately for that man, and, without giving him any opportunity of galling witnesses, or of explaining—I will not say of explaining because the noble and gallant Earl says that Colonel Kinloch had an opportunity of explaining—but without giving him any opportunity of calling witnesses—would a judge be justified in those circumstances in committing him to prison? The noble and learned Earl knows perfectly well that he would be entitled to a fresh trial. He might plead "not guilty" if he chose; he might explain away in any manner he liked his evidence; but he would not be convicted upon evidence given as a witness in a case affecting other people. There cannot, of course, be an absolute parallel, because civil and military procedure is so very different, but that is as near as possible a parallel case to Colonel Kinloch's. Colonel Kinloch appeared before this Court of Inquiry as a witness, and the noble Lord himself emphasises the remark that he could not claim to be there the whole while. Yet on his evidence as a witness he is treated as a criminal. That may be military law but it is most monstrously unjust, and the sooner the military law is changed, if such things are possible, the better. What is the summing up of the whole
  1170
  Case? First of all, an officer who has seen a good deal of service, who has behaved hitherto with credit, is complained against by the parents of two officers who think their sons have not been well treated, much in the same way as two fathers would go to the headmaster of a school and complain of the treatment of their sons. This commanding officer is not informed of any charge against him whatever, but is asked to give evidence before a Court of Inquiry as to the conduct of some subalterns, and, having given that evidence—evidence which, as the noble Duke behind me pointed out, it is particularly laid down cannot be used against him in any proceedings, and therefore which he is safe, apparently, in giving—it is taken advantage of, and the officer is condemned on his own evidence without any chance of calling witnesses, of being present at the Inquiry, or of availing himself of the other safeguards which the law intended should obtain in these cases. The whole of the proceedings remind me very unpleasantly of some trials in foreign countries. It does not seem to me that this sort of method is English or fair. I again repeat, before sitting down, that I have not for one moment questioned the decision at which the Commander-in-Chief arrived, but I do say that these methods are most undesirable. I believe them to be unconstitutional, but if they are not unconstitutional they should be so, or else the Army is no longer a profession for an officer. He is a mere puppet, at the will and disposal of any Commander-in-Chief who pleases to dismiss him, and he has practically no redress. This is called a "Guards Scandal" It is a very ugly story, but I cannot think that the greater part of the scandal lies with the Grenadier Guards.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I think it may not be inadvisable that one Member of your Lordships' House who is not connected with the Government, with the Army, or with the regiment concerned, and who stands totally apart from all these proceedings, should state, from the administrative point of view, how the case strikes him. It has fallen to my lot for two separate spells of some years to preside over the

  1171
  Admiralty, and I have had duties to perform there with reference to the short-comings of officers. I have had the opportunity of seeing whether it would be wise to tie the hands of the administrating authority with such meshes of regulations as to prevent them from removing an officer whom they did not consider competent for a particular post. Both of the noble Dukes who have spoken on this subject have accentuated, and properly accentuated, the rights and privileges of officers, but it is important that the privileges of the public, and of the Administration who are responsible for the efficiency of the Army and the Navy, should also be accentuated. Much has been made of the action of the two noble Lords who went to the Commander-in-Chief and informed him that a certain scandal had taken place. The noble Duke who spoke last thinks it was incredible that on such information an immediate inquiry should be made. Well, I will say that if the humblest parent of a sub-lieutenant in the Navy had come to me and told me that his son had been treated in the disgraceful and disgusting way in which some of the officers in the Guards' Regiment had been treated, I should immediately have proceeded not to refer the matter back to the ship, but to call for a report from the captain of ship, or have taken some other means to have an inquiry made.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: The captain of a ship corresponds with the colonel of a regiment.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: The parallel is precise. It was to Major-General Trotter that the Commander-in-Chief referred the matter.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Major-General Trotter was not the head of the regiment. Colonel Kinloch was the head of the regiment, and I think the colonel of a regiment would correspond with the captain of a ship.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: This shows the quasi-legal way in which both noble Dukes treat this question. They say a Ship is not a regiment. What I take is the general common sense view, is that
  1172
  when you hear of a great scandal you take the readiest means to get at the bottom of it. I do not propose to concern myself with these points, which have been argued in such detail. The noble Dukes say that there is a scandal in the conduct of the Court of Inquiry, and they hold the Commander-in-Chief responsible even for such questions as whether a copy was or was not sent, or whether or not the evidence was taken upon oath. I do not know sufficient of the case to know whether the Adjutant-General, or the General Officer commanding the Home District, committed errors in that way; but that the Commander-in-Chief should be almost summoned to the Bar of this House, on account of some small legal difficulties which cannot influence the case, is to be regretted in the interests of discipline in the Army. The case is as simple as possible. The noble Duke has not told us what possible matters might have come out at a further examination. A certain number of Courts-martial have been held, followed by punishments, the record of which, I do not hesitate to say, has outraged public opinion. Those who are acquainted with the regiment, those who say that for years such things have happened there, do not count, I think, that, in the general opinion of the public, for officers of twenty-one years of age to be treated as the officers in question were treated, was a scandal of the gravest kind. It is known that that was the case. It is not denied. If there had been no Court of Inquiry at all that fact would have been known; and what could further inquiry have elicited? The point reduces itself to this: Did Colonel Kinloch know, or did he not know? That seems to me to be the only question that could be at issue. If it had been proved that Colonel Kinloch knew of these proceedings, then I am not certain what course the Commander-in-Chief might not have thought it necessary to take, and whether one of the other alternatives that he mentioned would not have been more natural in such a case. We accept the fact that the colonel of the regiment did not know. But he ought to have known. That is important, I think, not only for officers,

  1173
  but also for the general public to consider. If a practice of this kind goes on for a certain time in a regiment, is the organisation of that regiment what it ought to be, and is the control of the officers what it ought to be, if no hint of such proceedings reaches the colonel commanding the battalion? Is not the colonel responsible for not being sufficiently in touch with the officers in his regiment, and can the Commander-in-Chief be satisfied with his conduct and position in that regiment? That seems to me to be the common-sense issue. Both noble Dukes have spoken of the matter as if the Commander-in-Chief and a judge were in a similar position. The fact is, both noble Dukes have faced the question simply from what I may call the legal point of view. But the Commander-in-Chief is an administrator. A judge's duty finishes when he has heard the evidence and pronounced sentence, but the Commander-in-Chief is responsible for the administration of the Army. Colonel Kinloch was not tried for any misconduct, but the general proceedings of the Court of Inquiry revealed an unsatisfactory state of things in the regiment, and, as I understand, sentence was pronounced on that evidence, the Commander-in-Chief coming to the conclusion that it was desirable that Colonel Kinloch should be removed from his command. The Duke of Bedford has questioned not only the general powers of the Commander-in-Chief acting by Court of Inquiry, but, as I understood him, he questioned even the use of the Royal Warrant, under which the Commander-in-Chief is entitled to remove an officer for other reasons than misconduct. The noble Duke thinks that this was not a case for the exercise of the Royal Warrant. The Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State must surely be allowed to retain the power of dismissing an officer for other reasons than misconduct, and, in a certain sense, in an arbitrary way. With out that power there cannot be efficiency. It is the most painful part of the duty of an administrator, and when my noble friend the Commander-in-Chief is blamed, as he has been blamed, and called to account, as he has been called to account, his accusers—for I must call them so—do not appear to realise that he must have passed through intense pain and sorrow when he had to remove a colonel with
  1174
  the distinction of Colonel Kinloch from his command. I speak with a certain sense of experience, because I know what it is when one has to deal with officers of blameless record up to a certain point, and when the exigencies of the service require strenuous and vigorous treatment.
  I should like to be allowed to recall to your Lordships' attention a case in which I took part thirty years ago, in the very first year that I presided over the Admiralty. A disaster had taken place, a ship had gone aground, and the captain of the ship and two other officers were tried. The captain was censured and severely reprimanded, but he was not removed from his ship. But when the proceedings of the Court-martial came to be reviewed by the Board of Admiralty they thought that the situation was such that they must take vigorous action. I have to-day looked up the Minute of the Board of Admiralty, which was as follows—
  "Perusal of the evidence satisfies my Lords that the material facts connected with the stranding of the ship were fully brought out, and that no further inquiry is necessary. They have, therefore, after careful deliberation, come to a conclusion on the whole case. That conclusion is that, with a view to impressing upon all officers in command the necessity for the utmost vigilance and unremitting attention to the navigation of the ships entrusted to their care, my Lords are constrained to mark their sense of the grave default on the occasion by directing the Vice-Admiral of the Channel Squadron to strike his flag."
  At the same time the Rear-Admiral was directed to strike his flag. These two officers in high command were removed by the Admiralty, after the greatest possible anxiety as to their case, because they held that the efficiency of the service required that they should mark their sense of the default and want of attention which had been shown. If at that time there had been critics like the two noble Dukes who have taken the Commander-in-Chief to task to-day, I think I should have had to recall that I passed through a time even sadder than that through which the Commander-in-Chief has passed during the last few weeks. But the gallant officer in command of the Channel Squadron who had to strike his flag held, with an officer's sense of discipline, that he was responsible because he had been in command of the Fleet, and was responsible for the action of his subordinates, or for any

  1175
  laches on his own part; and, without calling for a Court-martial, and without; murmur, he bent to his fate, showing a splendid example of naval discipline That officer was afterwards sent to a high command and served his country faithfully. This act of default did not ruin him any more than Colonel Kinloch will be ruined for ever by being temporarily put on half-pay because he had no shown sufficient capacity for grappling with the conditions of the Guards regiment in London. That is a sentence that has never been passed on him so far as I understand, and one which I hope never will be passed under such circumstances It is a temporary removal from his command; and it is perfectly conceivable that from an administrative point of view a man who exercised the highest authority for leading a regiment in action or generally in a campaign would not necessarily be the best officer to deal with all the intricacies of the garrison in London, just as those who may be the best administrators in peace may not be the best administrators in war. Therefore, while I have spoken strongly from the point of view of the rights of an administrator to deal summarily with a matter of this kind, yet I must say that nothing I have heard or read diminishes, in the slightest degree, my respect for Colonel Kinloch as an officer generally, or my hope that on some other occasion the War Office may find means of utilising his services in command.
  Terrible difficulty will be imposed on the War Office and on the Commander-in-Chief, and possibly upon other administrators, if this system is to continue, and if, the moment an officer feels that he is aggrieved, even if he is justly aggrieved, the whole of his friends, or the whole of the critics of the Administration should rush at once into the columns of the newspapers. I cannot but think that if these attacks are to be made in both Houses of Parliament the task of the Commander-in-Chief will be greater than even it is at present. Although the noble Duke the Duke of Bedford is a sincere and zealous army reformer, I doubt if he will not undo much of the benefit that he may secure in the way of efficiency, if by such proceedings as these he should shake the authority and the discipline of the
  1176
  Army itself. No one can deny that these proceedings are most detrimental. It is worse in London, I am afraid, than anywhere else. These Admirals were on a distant Mediterranean station. When, however, anything happens to a famous regiment quartered in London, Society takes it up and every social influence is set at work in order to neutralise the effect which the Commander-in-Chief and the War Office desire to produce by the action they take. I assure your Lordships that if I have intervened in the debate it is only owing to the sense which forty years of experience of public life has imposed upon me of the necessity of maintaining the discipline of the two great services to which the country as a whole looks for its strength and safety.
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, may I add one word in support of what has fallen from the noble Viscount, but from an entirely different point of view. The noble Viscount deprecates the publicity that is given to painful cases of this kind. What I deprecate quite as strongly, and perhaps still more strongly, is that your Lordships' House should be used by officers holding His Majesty's commission for challenging the decision of the Commander-in-Chief. I am quite aware that the noble Duke deprecated the idea that he had come here to challenge the disciplinary authority of the Commander-in-Chief, but I leave it to your Lordships to say what the effect upon your minds is of the speeches that have been delivered by the two noble Dukes. To my mind, hey sounded like a distinct challenge of the disciplinary authority of the Commander-in-Chief, and I think the Commander-in-Chief's presence here to-night, and the tone that animated his speech, are sufficient indication of how he regards the matter. Some years ago I challenged the attempt to draw a distinction between a commission in the Regular Forces and a commission in the Auxiliary Forces, and I was successful in my contention. The noble Duke who initiated this discussion holds a command in the Militia, and I deprecate in the strongest terms an officer holding an important position of that and in the Auxiliary Forces, taking advantage of the privileges of Parliament to challenge the disciplinary decisions of he Commander-in-Chief. If it is permissible for a commanding officer in the

  1177
  Auxiliary Forces to challenge the disciplinary decisions of the Commander-in-Chief, it would seem to be equally open to a subordinate officer of the Auxiliary Forces having a seat in Parliament, to challenge any disciplinary decisions of his colonel. The whole object of the authority which is given to the Commander-in-Chief, and to commanders of units, will, it seems to me, be imperilled if noble Lords are encouraged to take the opportunity of membership of this House to call in question the decisions of the Commander-in-Chief on military matters.
  LORD BLYTHSWOOD: My Lords, I should not have risen but for the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. The noble Duke who initiated this discussion deprecated from the very first the introduction of the name of Colonel Kinloch. He has not taken up a position either for or against Colonel Kinloch. What the noble Duke has contended, and, I believe, rightly contended, is that in this case the Army Regulations have not been complied with. If it is thought necessary by the Commander-in-Chief, or anybody else in authority, that the regulations should be changed, let them be changed; but at all events let us know what is our position as officers in the Army, and do not let us have red herrings drawn across the path.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I only join for a moment in the debate as a matter of courtesy, having been referred to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland. I think the noble Duke has been misled in attempting to draw a comparison between this case and the procedure in Courts of Justice. In dealing with the disciplinary power of the Commander-in-Chief, I think the noble Duke has, in this respect, made a grievous error. The facts have no relation to the procedure in a Court of law. If I had a person in my employment who himself admitted that he had been stealing my goods I should not wait for procedure in a court of Justice, or any other procedure, before I dismissed him.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.