Sitting of 8 July 1907

Preamble
The House met at quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which arc applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.: — Portishead District Water Hill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Brighouse Corporation Bill. — Lords'
  Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Fitzgerald's Divorce Bill [Lords].— Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Heywood and Middleton Water Board Bill [Lords].— Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Wisbech Water Bill [Lords].— As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Colne Valley Water Bill [Lords]; Electric Supply Corporation Bill [Lords]; Killery's Divorce Bill [Lords]; Pasley Children Legitimisation Bill [Lords].— Read a second time and committed.
  Kendal Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order).— As amended, considered; an
  1130
  Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Surrey, etc.) Bill [Lords] (by Order); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (by Order); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords] (by Order).— Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill (by Order); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill (by Order).— Read the third time, and passed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill (by Order); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill (by Order); Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill (by Order).— As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
  Killery's Divorce Bill [Lords].— Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House Copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with Documents deposited, in the case of Killery's Divorce Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses for Killery's Divorce Bill [Lords], and also that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses against the Bill, if the parties concerned think fit to be heard by Counsel and produce Witnesses.—(Mr. Attorney- General.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:— Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment; Rawtenstall Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Herts and Essex Water, Mid-Kent Water, and Twyford (Berks) Gas." [Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].

1131
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Auden-shaw Urban District Council Tramway, Huddersfield Corporation Tramway, Leeds Corporation Tramways, Taunton Tramways (Extension), and West Ham Corporation Tramways." [Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].— Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 269.]
Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].— Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 270.]

PETITIONS.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Tunbridge Wells, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the War Office Committee appointed to discuss certain Militia Questions with Representative Officers of Militia [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATAL.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to the Removal of certain Native Prisoners from Natal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Copy presented, of Papers relating to a Federation of the South African Colonies [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Copy presented, of Return, in pursuance of Section 4 of The Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, of Railway Servants of certain classes who were on one or more occasions during the month of April, 1907, on duty on the railways of the United Kingdom for more than twelve hours at a time; or who, after
  1132
  being on duty more than twelve hours were allowed to resume work with less than nine hours' rest [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Fifty-first Report of the Commissioners, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT LABORATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Principal Chemist upon the work of the Government Laboratory for the year ended 31st March, 1907, with Appendices-[by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd May; Mr. John O'Connor]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 245.]
  SUEZ CANAL (COMMERCIAL, No. 6, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Returns of Shipping and Tonnage passing through the Suez Canal. 1904, 1905, and 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Lunacy. — Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made and the number of patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ending on the 30th of June, 1907 [by Act].
  EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (SECOND CHAMBERS).
  Address for "Return showing in what European Countries possessing Senates, Second Chambers, or Upper Houses, such bodies are constituted on the hereditary principle and generally as to what constitutional disputes (if any) have arisen during the last ten years between the Upper and Lower Houses of the various European Legislatures." —(Mr. Edward Dunn.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Income Tax on Colonial Government Stock.
  MR. SOARES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give a rough

  1133
  estimate of the value of Colonial Government stocks assessed to income-tax in this country.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The aggregate amount of assessments on income from Colonial Government securities is shown in the Table CLXXXVIII. on page 206 of the Forty-ninth Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue [Cd. 3110]. The total in 1904–5 was £ 13,553,540. It is of course, the income derived from the stocks, and not the value of the stocks themselves, which is the subject of assessment, and I have no statistics of the capital value of the stocks affected.

  Overtime Pay in Horsham Post Office.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR (Sussex, Horsham): To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is in a position to state the result of his promised inquiry into the action of his Department in asking telegraphists at Horsham to perform overtime at less than the regulation rate; and whether instructions are to be issued that no supervising official shall in the future attempt to induce his subordinates to accept payment for work performed at a price less than that laid down by the Treasury.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It was proposed to keep open the telephone exchange on Sundays at Horsham. The duty involved was an extremely light one of a very simple character. Practically it was a watching duty, which in the ordinary course, and elsewhere, is paid by a small special allowance. The offer made to the staff was misunderstood. The particular duty is not a duty proper to or performed by a sorting clerk and telegraphist as such, and there is no question of overtime involved. It was thought by the postmaster that some of the staff might like to perform the duty. But no pressure whatever was put upon any officer, acceptance or refusal of the offer was entirely voluntary. I may add that it has been decided that the keeping open of the telephone office at Horsham on Sundays was not justified by the expense involved.

  Supply of Meat to the Army.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War
  1134
  whether he has received a newspaper report and a letter anent the supply of foreign meat to the Army and Navy; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter with a view of giving the Colonists and the Home producers a larger share of the Army meat custom.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Nothing is known in this Department of the newspaper report referred to; but, as I have informed the House on several occasions, I do not propose' to make any alteration in the conditions of contract for the supply of meat to the Army.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has received any communication and newspaper report anent the supply of foreign meat to the Army and Navy from the Secretary of the Irish Cattle Traders and Stock Owners Association; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter with a view of giving the Colonists and the Home producers a larger share of the Navy meat custom.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and a reply has been sent to the association in the usual course. As regards the second part of the Question, a very large proportion of the fresh meat supplied to His Majesty's ships at Home ports is actually home-bred. In the few cases where frozen mutton may be drawn at the option of the men, it is stipulated to be Australian or New Zealand, and there has been no alteration for a long time past in the conditions of the contracts. The letter from the association appears, therefore, to have been written under a misapprehension, and it is not considered that it is necessary for the Admiralty to take any steps in the matter.

  Suggested Construction of a Bridge at the Inner Dundrum Harbour.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an accident occurred recently at Ballykinlar Camp, county Down, which would have resulted in serious consequences had it not been for the action of the East Downshire

  1135
  Steamship Company, Limited, in rendering assistance with one of their barges when a party of men with two Army Service Corps waggons were overtaken by the tide when taking a short cut across Inner Dundrum Harbour; whether he is aware that the waggons had to be anchored and abandoned for a tide and all the baggage had to be taken on board the barge; and seeing that the lives of many soldiers are imperilled at this crossing, whether he will favourably consider making a grant-in-aid, conjointly with other State Departments, towards the construction of a road bridge between Redmond's Point and Dundrum.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Three Army Service Corps waggons stuck when crossing the Inner Dundrum Harbour on the 28th ultimo, and the officer in charge hired a barge from the East Downshire Company to remove the baggage. No lives of horses or men were, however, imperilled. As the hon. and gallant Member was informed by my right hon. friend the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Bryce) on the 10th July last year, a bridge would not be of sufficient importance from a military point of view to justify the expenditure of Army funds upon it.

  Absorption of the Militia into the Regular Army.
  MR. HUNT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in selecting the Militia battalions to be added to the Regular Army, due consideration will be given to those battalions which in the past have sent large numbers of recruits to the Regular forces, and which are in consequence weak in numbers compared with those battalions which have not been in the habit of sending many men into the line regiments.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Every consideration will be given to this point when the time comes for making the selection referred to.

  Delivery of Postal Parcels in Egypt.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will explain why in
  1136
  Egypt inland postal parcels, as likewise those arriving from foreign countries, are not delivered at the address of the consignee, but have to be fetched from the General Post Office unless an addititional fee for delivery is paid.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I am not aware of the fact or of the reason for it, but it is not considered desirable to interfere with the arrangements of the Egyptian Post Office, especially if a change advocated would involve increased expenditure.

  Rateable Value of Rosyth.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what were taken as the annual values for rating at the time of their purchase by the Admiralty in or about 1903, of the 911½ acres of land and 236 acres of foreshore at Rosyth, purchased from Lord Linlithgow for £ 112,250; of the adjacent property of 266 acres of land and 50 acres of foreshore purchased from Mr. Newton for £ 22,500; and of the adjacent 6 ¼ acres of land purchased from the Minister of Inverkeithing and Mr. Newton jointly for £ 4,800, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The total rental of the lands acquired by the Lords of the Admiralty from the Marquess of Linlithgow in 1903 was £ 1,321 19s. 2d., from Mr. Newton in the same year £ 335 3s. 8d., and the rental of the glebe lands of Inverkeithing. the greater part of which was acquired by the Lords of the Admiralty, was £ 16. The extent of the foreshore is not shown in the valuation roll, nor can the acreage given in the Question be guaranteed.

  Money raised in Ireland for the Department of Agriculture.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) how much money has been raised in Ireland since the constitution of the Department for purposes in connection with it by the councils of the counties, county boroughs, and urban districts, taken as a whole up to the most recent date for which the figures are available; how much was so raised in the last financial year; how

  1137
  much has been expended by the Department on services other than those which existed prior to 1899, during the whole period up to the same date and also during the last financial year; how much of these two last-named amounts were contributed by the Department in aid of the agricultural and technical schemes of local committees, and were otherwise expended respectively; what is the present annual income of the Department from all sources; and how much of it is applicable to services other than those which existed prior to 1899.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The reply to the above Question is as follows: —

  £

  (1) Amount raised since constitution of Department, for purposes in connection with it, by councils of counties, county boroughs, and urban districts, to 31st March, 1907 (see Note)

  308,072

  (2) Amount so raised in 1906–7

  55,333

  (3) (a) Amount expended by Department on services other than those which existed prior to 1899 during the whole period to 31st March, 1907

  1,201,876

  (b) Ditto during 1906–7

  229,161

  (4) How much of the two last-named amounts were contributed by the Department in aid of agricultural and technical instruction schemes of local committees—

  (a) In the whole period

  468,204

  (b) In 1906–7

  107,255

  (c) Otherwise expended in the whole period

  733,672

  (d) In 1906–7

  121,906

  (5) Present annual income of the Department from all sources

  350,517

  (6) Amount of income applicable to services other than those which existed prior to 1899

  211,062

  Note. —This amount represents the sum raised by local authorities for the purposes of agriculture and technical instruction under The Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, to which purposes it is presumed the Question refers. The amount does not include the uniform assessments made periodically as required on all local authorities under the Diseases of Animals Acts, i.e., the county and county borough councils, for the purposes of the General Cattle Diseases Fund. This fund was established in 1878 in order to recoup local authorities one-half of their expenditure incurred under these Acts, thus lessening the burden of cost in the districts in which disease was most prevalent. There were three such assessments made since the year 1900, the total amount so raised being £47,508. Each assessment was at the rate of ¼d. in the £ on the net annual value of the property in all the administrative counties.

  Irish Salmon Hatcheries—Expenditure and Contribution.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what amount has been spent out of the funds of the Department (Fisheries Branch) on each of the several salmon hatcheries which have been constructed; and what amount has been contributed locally or by private individuals as regards each such hatchery, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The accompanying statement contains full information regarding the expenditure of the Department on hatcheries up to the present. There was no local contribution to the cost of the construction of the new hatcheries. In cases where the Department contributed to the improvement of existing hatcheries the local expenditure is not known, but it may be taken to have been in excess of the amount expended by the Department on improvement. In the case of all hatcheries the value of the local contribution towards annual maintenance may be taken to be at least double the annual subsidy paid by the Department.

  Amounts expended by the Department in connection with the Artificial Propagation of Salmon.

  Name of hatchery.

  Amount paid by Department in respect of construction of new hatcheries.

  Amount paid by Department in respect of improvement of existing hatcheries.

  Amount paid by Department as subsidies in respect of fry hatched, etc. †

  Total.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Lismore.

  628

  2

  11

  —

  541

  15

  6

  1,169

  18

  5

  The amount entered as subsidy includes £125 not yet paid, but is estimated as payable in respect of fry for season 1906–7.

  Killarney

  213

  0

  6

  —

  26

  6

  6

  239

  7

  0

  Ballinruddery

  11

  11

  10

  —

  20

  0

  0

  31

  11

  10

  The amount entered as subsidy was paid for ova supplied by Department.

  Aasleagh

  500

  0

  0

  —

  7

  0

  0

  507

  0

  0

  The amount entered as subsidy is not yet paid, but is estimated as payable in respect of fry for season 1906–7.

  Screebe

  —

  90

  0

  0

  132

  11

  6

  222

  11

  6

  Killorglin

  —

  108

  0

  0

  77

  19

  1

  185

  19

  1

  Blackcastle

  —

  63

  10

  0

  551

  3

  5

  614

  13

  5

  Belleek

  —

  —

  136

  14

  6

  136

  14

  6

  Kilrea

  —

  —

  253

  1

  1

  253

  1

  1

  Newtownstewart

  —

  —

  195

  8

  3

  195

  8

  3

  Newtownbarry

  —

  —

  25

  5

  6

  25

  5

  6

  Inistioge

  —

  —

  45

  6

  0

  45

  6

  0

  Cahir

  —

  —

  12

  6

  0

  12

  6

  0

  Skibbereen

  —

  —

  70

  14

  9

  70

  14

  9

  The amount entered as subsidy is made up of grants made by the Department towards the cost of ova.

  Muckross

  —

  —

  27

  7

  6

  27

  7

  6

  Rockmills

  228

  7

  8

  —

  40

  18

  9

  269

  6

  5

  The amount entered as subsidy is contribution towards annual working expenses.

  Waterville

  —

  —

  —

  —

  In course of construction.

  1,581

  2

  11

  261

  10

  0

  2,163

  18

  4

  4,006

  11

  3

  † This is the Department's contribution towards annual maintenance, subject to the " observations" above.

  Boracic Acid as a Food Preservative.
  MR. CARR-GOMM: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that borax and boracic acid are largely used in the United Kingdom for the preservation of ham, bacon, milk, and other articles of food; whether their use for this purpose is permitted in the countries exporting such articles of food to the United Kingdom; whether, to be effective, the borax or boracic acid must penetrate the article treated; whether, if so, any deleterious effect can be prevented by superficial washing; and whether be intends to introduce a measure forbidding the application of such preservatives to articles of food intended for consumption in this country.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware of the facts as regards the use in the United Kingdom of borax and boracic acid for the preservation of certain articles of food, and that in some countries from which such articles are sent here use of these preservatives is prohibited, although in certain of these countries the prohibition does not extend to foods prepared for export to the United Kingdom. If boron preservatives are used for packing such articles of food as hams and bacon they usually penetrate the substance of the meat, and would not be removable by superficial washing, whilst penetration must, of course, occur if solutions containing these preservatives are used for pickling or injection. The Public Health ("Regulations as to Food) Bill which I have introduced, and which is now before the House, would enable the Local Government Board to make regulations for the prevention of danger to public health from the importation, preparation, and storage of articles of food intended for human consumption and thus to deal with the matter referred to in the Question.

  Disposal of House Refuse at Seven Kings, Ilford.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received a petition from the ratepayers of Seven Kings, complaining that the whole of the house refuse for the Urban District of Ilford is being shot in a gravel pit in
  1142
  close proximity to one of the council schools where 1,300 children attend, and within a few hundred yards of dwelling-houses; and what steps he is taking to compel the Ilford Council to abate this nuisance, which is a menace to health.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have received the petition referred to, and have been in communication on the subject with the urban district council, who state that no nuisance whatever exists. They referred the matter to their Public Health. Committee, by whose direction I am informed that " the refuse is tipped into a disused gravel pit from which the gravel, etc., has been excavated to the distance of several feet, and it is then levelled and covered over with a good sprinkling of gas lime on which is placed a good layer of loam or earth. The refuse is covered up daily. "I am also informed that the school mentioned in the Question is 500 yards away. I have been furnished with a report of the medical officer of health of the district, in which he states as follows: —" I have paid visits to the shoot several times a week, at all sorts of times, but on no single occasion did I find any condition of things likely to produce a nuisance or to be detrimental to the health of anybody residing in the neighbourhood, and I am of opinion that while it is treated in the same way as it is at present there is no likelihood of anything detrimental to the health of the neighbourhood occurring." I may add that I understand that the disposal of the refuse at the gravel pit is only a temporary measure until the council decide upon the course they will adopt for permanently dealing with it.

  Public Shooting Rights over Foreshore at Muckinish Point, Coope Hill.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ascertain for the benefit for persons who have game licences in the county of Limerick, what is the foreshore at Muckinish Point, Coope Hill, on the Shannon, in the county, so that they may shoot over the place, without being prosecuted for trepass by the owners of the lands adjoining.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) I will make inquiries, and it will assist me in

  1143
  doing so if the hon. Member will bring to my notice full particulars of any proceedings which may be pending or threatened in connection with the shore in question. I may add that the Board of Trade are not prepared to admit that there is any public right of shooting over foreshores.

  Leave of Assistant Clerks.
  Mr. HUNT: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that ex-soldier clerks and presskeepers employed at the War Office are in receipt of twenty and twenty-one days' annual leave, respectively, after five years' service, whereas assistant clerks (new class), a senior class in rank, receive only eighteen days after ten years' service; and whether he will extend to the assistant clerks the privilege of twenty-one days' leave after five years' established service.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The regulations as to the leave of presskeepers and ex-soldier clerks are as stated by the hon. Member. The question of the leave of assistant clerks was fully considered two years ago, when an increase in the amount was granted, and I am not prepared to propose any modification of the existing rule.

  Rebuilding of Licensed Premises.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that there are a good many cases in the county of London of licensed premises being rebuilt or altered not according to the plans approved by the justices of the peace; and whether he can procure a Return as to the number of the same which have been discovered since 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have no information to the effect of the first paragraph of the Question. It is not a matter in which I have any jurisdiction, and I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose to endeavour to obtain a Return such as that suggested. It is provided by Section 11 (2) of The Licensing Act, 1902, that if
  1144
  any alteration in any licensed premises which gives increased facilities for drinking …. is made without the consent of the licensing justices, a court of summary jurisdiction, on complaint, may by order declare the licence to be forfeited, or direct that, within a time fixed by the order, the premises shall be restored to their original condition. It is open to any person in possession of the facts to make complaint. It is also competent for the licensing justices to take any facts of this nature into consideration when the licence comes up for renewal at the general annual meeting.

  Food and Stock Exchange Gambling-Suggested Stamp Duty.
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of imposing a stamp duty upon all time bargains so as to control and check such options; whether he can explain why bonâ fide contracts should be taxed and gambling operations in food stuffs, shares, and warrants should be left free from tax or duty.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The questions in connection with stamp duties generally are of a very complicated character, and the desirability of revising some of the duties is engaging my attention. I do not, however, think it would be practicable, for stamp duty purposes, to draw distinctions between contracts on the basis of the supposed motives of the contracting parties; and the suggestion that speculative contracts, as contracts, receive preferential treatment under the existing law is incorrect. The only difference is that where a contract is followed by a substantive transfer of property that transfer may attract duty, while, of course, if there is no such transfer no transfer duty is payable.

  Deaths from Plague in India.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the total number of deaths in India from plague since it appeared, giving the number in each year: and what measures have been taken with a view of prevention.

  1145
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) According to a Return which the Government of India have lately issued, the deaths are:—

  1896

  1,704

  1897

  56,055

  1898

  117,953

  1899

  134,788

  1900

  93,150

  1901

  273,559

  1902

  577,427

  1903

  851,263

  1904

  1,022,299

  1905

  950,863

  1906

  332,181

  1907(1st January to 31st May)

  991,003

  Total

  5,402,245

  The preventive measures which have proved most successful are (1) the systematic destruction of rats; (2) disinfection of houses and clothing; (3) evacuation of infected localities; (4) inspection of travellers; (5) segregation of the sick; and (6) inoculation. I hope shortly to lay Papers upon the Table which will give fuller a account of the policy of the Government of India.

  Veterinary Surgeons and Medical Officers of Health.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that public, bodies usually take the opinion of veterinary surgeons in preference to medical officers of health on questions of post-mortem symptoms and clinical appearances, he will, in introducing any future legislation on such matters, secure to them the same position as that held by veterinary surgeons under the Public Health Acts of Scotland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The suggestion contained in the Question will be duly considered when further legislation in regard to the public health is in contemplation.

  Evictions at Hillsborough, County Antrim.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Hills-
  1146
  borough District Council, county Antrim, have recently served notices to quit on certain labourers who refused to sign a new agreement for an increase of 25 per cent. of rent on their cottages; and whether, in view of the fact that the council refuse to hear a deputation of these labourers who waited upon them to state their case, and the fact that they are being evicted from their cottages, he can say what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have been in communication with the Hillsborough Rural District Council in reference to this matter, and, as a result, the council have appointed a committee to draft regulations under Section 29 of The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, and have resolved that, in the meantime, the notices to quit referred to in the Question shall be allowed to lapse, and that no further action shall be taken in the matter until regulations have been adopted by the council and confirmed by the Local Government Board.

  Entry and Training of Naval Officers.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the Prime Minister, whether he has received a memorial, signed by over 220 Members of this House, asking for a full inquiry into the scope and effect of the changes which have been introduced of late years in respect of the entry and training of officers of all branches of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and in the system of providing engine-room complements; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) I have received the memorial in question, but I have nothing to add to the statements that have been made in Parliament on behalf of the Admiralty in regard to this matter.

  Government Contracts—Fair Wage Clause.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Prime Minister, if he can inform the House when he intends to appoint the Departmental Committee promised by him to inquire into the working of the Fair Wage Resolution of

  1147
  the House of Commons of 1891, as embodied at present in Government contracts.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) The terms of reference are at present under consideration. There will be no avoidable delay in appointing the Committee.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Fleet Logs.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg-to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware of the custom of the Navy to enter in the signal logs the names of the ships assembled in a fleet and to signal certain information every Sunday; whether he is aware that the logs of the Channel Fleet show that, instead of the nominal strength of fourteen battleships, the Channel Fleet numbered, on each Sunday, 5th May to 23rd June inclusive, 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10, and 10 battleships, so that four battleships have frequently been away without replacement; and whether, under these circumstances, the Board desires to modify the official statement issued on 17th June that, as a rule, not more than two battleships at the most are absent, but three have on occasions been absent.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Edmund Robertson, Dundee): The previous reply referred to by the hon. Member did not profess to give the number of battleships actually present with the flag, but only the number not in dockyard hands. I am surprised at the hon. Member being able to quote from an official book containing confidential information which should not be accessible to persons outside the active service.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in reply to a previous question, on 24th June, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty said that no ships were away from the Channel Fleet, whereas as a matter of fact the "Dominion," the "New Zealand," and the "Triumph" were all away in dockyard hands? Is there any explanation on the part of the Admiralty?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: My reply is strictly correct. If the hon. Member will give me any information which is inconsistent with it I will look into the matter.

  German Naval Returns.
  MR. MOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that the eight ships of the "Hagen" type are in the Return, Fleets (Great Britain and Foreign Countries), enumerated in the list of German battleships of the line; and whether, in view of the fact that in the German official accounts these vessels are described as armoured coast-defence vessels, he can see his way in future Returns to have these vessels transferred from the battleship class to the coast-defence class.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am informed that in the German Navy Estimates for 1907 these ships are classified as battleships.

  Torpedo Boat Wreck off Berry Head.
  MR. LAYLAND-BARRATT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the wreck of torpedo boat 99, which sank in the English Channel oft' Berry Head, lies in the fishing grounds over which the Brixham fishery fleet work, and is a source of danger to the trawling gear employed; and if the Admiralty will take steps to have the wreck efficiently buoyed and to have it raised or removed as soon as practicable.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: A diving party has left Portsmouth to examine the wreck of the torpedo boat, and the future action must depend on the result of this examination.

  Naval Ratings.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many youths, boys, and second-class stokers are on board the "Majestic," of the Nore division of the Homo Feet, and her sister ship the "Illustrious,'' of the Channel Fleet, and the cruiser "Natal," of the Nore division of the Home Fleet, and her sister ship the "Black Prince," of the second cruiser squadron.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The number of youths, boys, and second-class stokers on board the "Majestic," "Illustrious," "Natal" and "Black Prince" are seventy two, thirty, fifty-seven and thirty-one respectively. These numbers are two, forty-four, thirty-eight and sixty-seven below the normal number of these young ratings allowed in the complements. Both the "Illustrious" and "Black Prince" have been in commission over fifteen months, and the smaller number of young ratings borne in them is due to the majority of the boys originally entered having been rated ordinary seamen.

  Fleet Returns.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the Statement explanatory of the Navy Estimates, page 8, when the First Lord of the Admiralty gives the strength of the Navy as fifty-one battleships, as against sixty battleships given in the issued Return of Fleets (Great Britain and Foreign Countries), while unarmoured vessels are given in the Statement as seventy six, whereas the Return puts the number at ninety; and whether the Return appears to the Admiralty to afford as accurate a presentation of the strength of the Navy as can be given without entering into technical details.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The paragraph cited from the First Lord's Statement referred, as may be seen from the context, to ships with full or nucleus crews. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

  H.MS. "Defence."
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the extension of the time fixed for the completion of the armoured cruiser "Defence," in order to prevent undue fluctuation of work in the yard, is an innovation; and, if not, in how many instances during the last five years has the completion of a ship been delayed for a similar purpose; and whether a similar concession is granted in the case of a ship under construction in private yards.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The reply to the first part of the Question is
  1150
  in the affirmative, and to the last part of the Question in the negative.

  Chinese Stokers on British Ships.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board have authorised the employment of Chinese in lieu of British stokers in any of His Majesty's ships; and, if so, under what circumstances.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: In accordance with the custom of the Navy of filling urgent vacancies in ships on distant stations by temporary entries from the shore, the commanding officer of H.M.S. "Shearwater," West Coast of North America, was authorised on the 16th May last to employ three Chinese stokers temporarily, in vacancies caused by desertion, until their places could be filled by men sent from home. The draft sent out for this vessel is due at Esquimalt about the 11th of this month. I have reason to believe, however, that no entries were made on this occasion.
  MR. LEA: Has any official of the Admiralty ever obtained the authority of this House to employ Chinamen on British ships?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes, it has been sanctioned by successive Parliaments.
  MR. LEA: Disgraceful !
  MR. BELLAIRS: With regard to the ship "Shearwater," is she not the only ship along the whole West Coast of North America representing the British Empire?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  The "Blake" and the "Blenheim."
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many vessels whose armament has been or is about to be reduced to fit them as mother ships for destroyers are included in the Return of Fleets as cruisers; and whether he can state what is the reduction of the armaments in the case of the "Blake" and the "Blenheim."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the Question,

  1151
  the vessels are the "Blake" and the "Blenheim." In answer to the second part, their armament will be four 6-inch quick-firing guns, four 12-pounders, and six 6-pounders.

  The Fleet and Cromarty Firth.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that Cromarty Firth affords excellent anchorage for His Majesty's Fleet, and that the harbour at Invergordon, opposite to which the fleet frequently anchors, is in direct railway communication with both the south and north, will he state whether a Report as to the expediency of establishing a naval base at Cromarty Firth has yet been considered by the Defence Committee.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): The natural advantages afforded by the anchorage in Cromarty Firth as a place of shelter for His Majesty's ships are fully recognised; but no need for creating a naval establishment there is likely to arise. The Admiralty, rather than the Defence Committee, would deal with such a question should it arise.

  Foreign Potentates and the British Army.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the following officers of the Army on the active list draw any pay or allowances, and, if so, will he state the amount which each draws respectively: Field-Marshal H.M. the German Emperor, Field-Marshal H.I.M. the Emperor of Austria, General H.R.H. Prince Christian, General H.R.H. the Duke of Cumberland, General H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, General H.M. the King of Spain.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. HALDANE, Haddingtonshire): The appointments held by these distinguished personages are purely honorary and they receive no emoluments as officers of the Army.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the colonelcies-in-chief of four cavalry regiments and three infantry regiments are held by foreign potentates; whether the latter draw any pay and allowances
  1152
  for that office, and, moreover, when deputations from these regiments go abroad to visit their colonels do the expenses incurred in these visits fall on Army funds; and, if so, will he state what has been the amount so incurred during the last ten years, showing the amount against each year respectively.
  MR. HALDANE: The appointments referred to are purely honorary. The expenses involved by the attendance on foreign sovereigns of the authorised representatives of the regiments concerned are borne by Army funds. No special record has been kept of the expenditure incurred in the past ten years, but under the existing procedure the average cost is estimated to be about £65 per annum.
  MR. LEA: Am I to take it that this amount of £65 a year is the whole cost incurred by the British taxpayer for a deputation of four or five officers going to Berlin, or St. Petersburg, or Vienna?
  MR. HALDANE: Yes. I have myself taxed the Bills on several occasions, and they were less than £30.
  MR. LEA: Then do the expenses fall upon the officers themselves who form the deputation?
  MR. HALDANE: No. It must be remembered the officers are entertained when they get there, and this accounts for the small expenditure. The small expenditure we incur is one which I consider is most beneficial in the cause of peace.

  Military Bands at Political Gatherings.
  MR. BRANCH:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it was with his permission that a band of the Royal Artillery was present at a Conservative meeting held on 22nd June at Southgate, Enfield.
  MR. HALDANE: When asking for twelve musicians of the Royal Artillery band to play at Southgate on 22nd ult., the applicant stated that the engagement was a non-political one. It was on those grounds that the engagement of the band was sanctioned.

  Lyddite Shells.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether orders have been issued temporarily suspending the firing of lyddite shell at artillery practice.
  MR. HALDANE: The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Lance Corporals.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can yet say whether lance-corporals will be appointed in the Territorial Force or not?
  MR. HALDANE: There must be lance-corporals in the Territorial Army. I may explain, however, that the permanent rank of a lance-corporal is that of private and that lance-corporals are not shown in establishments.
  MR. ASHLEY: Are these lance-corporals to receive the separation allowance?
  MR. HALDANE: We will consider that when we come to details.
  MR. ASHLEY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion say that they would '?
  MR. HALDANE: These details have not been gone into yet.

  Soldiers' Kits.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can yet say if there will be a free issue of any, and what, necessaries to the territorial soldier on joining the force.
  MR. HALDANE: No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on this point.

  Siege Guns for the Territorial Force-
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can yet say whether any siege guns will be included in the artillery of the Territorial Force.
  MR. HALDANE: No decision has been arrived at as regards this matter.

  Regimental Characteristics.
  *Mr. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether
  1154
  the walking-out uniforms, which it has been decided to issue to the territorial soldier at the public cost, will preserve any national or special characteristics or distinctions which they have at present.
  MR. HALDANE: I may say that every endeavour will be made to meet as far as possible the wishes and feelings of regiments, but points of this kind are not yet ripe for consideration.
  *Mr. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this uncertainty is having a bad effect on recruiting?
  MR. HALDANE: I am not aware of that.

  Bombay Political Service.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that considerable dissatisfaction exists among the military members of the Bombay Political Service owing to comparatively junior members of the Civil Service being placed senior to them on the list; and whether he will take such steps as may remedy the grievance alleged.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs): The proposals of the Government of India for the reorganisation of the Bombay Political Department were sanctioned by the Secretary of State in Council in February last. I understand that effect will very shortly be given to the reorganisation.

  Madras Railway.
  SIR LEWIS McIVER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the decision of the Secretary of State on the proposed dismemberment of the Madras Railway was taken on the recommendation of the Government of India and the Indian Railway Board, and whether the opinion of the Madras Government was taken; and, if so, whether the Madras Government approved of the proposed action.
  MR. MORLEY: The decision of the Secretary of State in Council on the proposed dismemberment of the Madras

  1155
  Railway was taken on the recommendation of the Government of India and of the Indian Railway Board. He also had before him the views and suggestions of the Government of Madras, as communicated by them to the Government of India, though the scheme adopted was not that suggested by the local government.

  Slavery on the Zanzibar Coast.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to put an end to the legal status of slavery in Mombassa and the East African Protectorate.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: At the same time may I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the measures proposed in connection with the abolition of the legal status of slavery in the Zanzibar coast strip and the complete abolition of slavery in the islands.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N. W.): The legal status of slavery in the Zanzibar coast strip will be abolished on 1st October next, and the House will be asked in due course to vote the amount required to meet the compensation awarded by the courts. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question I must refer him to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

  East African Concessions.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state, by a Return or otherwise, what concessions have been granted in East Africa to individuals and syndicates respectively; whether the terms and conditions of the same have been faithfully carried out; and, if not, what measures the Government propose to take to enforce the fulfilment of such conditions.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The information for which the hon. Member asks in the
  1156
  first part of his Question will be furnished in the Return granted on the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. The Secretary of State has approved of the Governor taking action to compel persons who have obtained giants of land to comply with the Crown Lands Regulations respecting the occupation and development of their holdings. Failure to comply with these conditions would ultimately be punished by the forfeiture of the land to the Crown.

  South African Federation—Lord Selborne's Correspondence.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the official correspondence between Lord Selborne and the Cape Colony Government in relation to South African federation will be laid; and, if so, when.
  MR. MOLTENO: I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can see his way to publish Lord Selborne's memorandum on the mutual relations of the various South African Colonies which has recently been laid before the South African Parliaments.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Lord Selborne's memorandum and relative correspondence will be published on Friday afternoon as a Parliamentary Paper.

  Sugar Convention Papers.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if, pending the decision of the Government as to laying Papers on the question of the Sugar Convention upon the Table, the example of the India Office will be followed, and the memorials addressed to this Government from the Colonies on the question will be placed in the Library of the House of Commons for inspection by Members.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The memorials in question will be published as a Parliamentary Paper in the course of this week.

  Chaining of West Australian Aboriginal Prisoners
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary

  1157
  of State for the Colonies what arrangements for the treatment of West Australian Aborigines have made in consequence of the Report of Dr. Roth; and whether the practice of confining Aboriginal prisoners by chaining them and putting collars around their necks has been discontinued.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. Runciman, Dewsbury, for Mr. CHURCHILL): Since the Report to which the hon. Member refers, the State of Western Australia has passed an Act with a view to making better protection and provision for natives, a copy of which I shall be happy to show the hon. Member. The practice of chaining natives by the neck while being brought in for trial still, however, continues. The Protector of Aborigines reports that it is the almost unanimous opinion of all who have had any practical experience that this is the most humane method of preventing such prisoners from escaping. I need scarcely say that such an opinion is not shared by His Majesty's Government, and the Secretary of State will desire the Governor, as opportunity offers, to impress upon the Western Australian Government the objections which the continuance of this practice cannot fail to excite in this country.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Did not Dr. Roth's report recommend that this practice should be discontinued, and has the attention of the Government been drawn to the protest of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Perth? Will inquiry be made with a view to its abolition?
  MR RUNCIMAN: I will call the attention of my right hon. friend to these supplementary Questions.

  Colonial Loans.
  MR. WALROND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is proposed to confer any preferential privileges upon the Transvaal in addition to those entailed by the imperial guarantee of its new loan; how far the Government are prepared to follow the principle of guaranteeing loans to self-governing Colonies, other than the Transvaal, who may require capital sums, so as to avoid the friction which may arise from the special
  1158
  advantages to be conferred on one particular Colony; and whether there is any precedent for a loan raised by the Government of a self-governing Colony being guaranteed by the Imperial Government for the purpose of rendering the Government of that Colony independent of a section of its electorate.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. CHURCHILL): The hon. Member propounds a variety of Questions the Answers to which cannot be compressed into such a short and succinct statement as would be satisfactory to the House at this moment. My right hon. friend has already stated in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Mid Armagh that the Minister responsible for the Transvaal Loan Bill will no doubt be prepared to make a full statement upon the merits of that Bill at the proper time, and he would also refer the hon. Member to an exhaustive reply given by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Question by the right hon. Member for St. George's on 5th June, † in which he gave precedents for Imperial guarantees for loans raised on behalf of self-governing Colonies.

  Great Britain and the Sugar Convention.
  MR. SEAVERNS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he is now in a position to communicate to the House any further information regarding the possible withdrawal of Great Britain from the Sugar Convention.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (for Sir EDWARD GREY): My right hon. friend is not in a position to make any further statement for the present. The proposal which His Majesty's Government has made is before the other Powers, who are parties to the Convention, and it is not known what decision will be arrived at respecting it.

  Sir H. Maclean.
  MR. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he had information as to the safety of Kaid Sir H. Maclean, and what measures were being taken on his behalf.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: According to Reports received from His Majesty's Minister at Tangier no anxiety is felt by
  † See (4) Debates, clxxv., 671.

  1159
  the Moorish Minister of War as to the personal safety of Sir H. Maclean; and, in a telegram received at the Foreign Office on Saturday, Sir G. Lowther states that letters have reached him from Sir H. Maclean dated the 4th inst. His Majesty's Government are urging upon the Moorish Government the necessity of doing their utmost to obtain the Raid's release without delay, and have expressly warned them against taking any measures which may endanger his personal safety.

  Cab Whips.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the use of gutta-percha points on whips is capable of producing much more suffering than would result from the use of whip-cord; and whether he will give special instructions to the police that any driver violently hitting his horse with a whip pointed with gutta-purcha shall be prosecuted.
  The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): The police will take action whenever they see a whip cruelly used. I do not think any special instructions are needed.

  Mines (Eight Hours) Bill
  Sir J. RANDLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state when he expects to introduce the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I hope to do so in the course of next week, but I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement.

  Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of introducing an Amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, to secure that an employer shall not be liable when an accident is due to the workman's serious and wilful misconduct, if the injury results in death or serious and permanent disablement.
  MR GLADSTONEI see no reason to reopen this question, which was discussed and settled only last autumn. The new provision has only been one week in operation, and it would be premature to consider its amendment.

  German Census.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the tact that on 12th June an important census was taken in Germany which will throw important light upon the social condition and vocations of the German people, and which will show,. inter alia, the number of persons engaged in hand-work or machine-work, or both, and the extent to which home labour enters into manufacturing and trade; and whether in view of the fact that no census department exists in this country, he will forthwith sot up a Commission or Committee to take into consideration the British census of 1910, in order that some improvement may be effected upon the methods of the last census.
  I beg also to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the fact that no complete uniform census of the United Kingdom exists, and that the only census information relating to the whole nation is presented in the form of a small section which appears almost at the end of the General Report of the census of England and Wales; and whether he will give consideration to the question of making the census of 1910 uniform for the whole country.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns, Battersea): I am aware of the occupation and industrial census which was taken in Germany on 12th June last. The census of the United Kingdom is taken in accordance with the Census Acts relating to Great Britain and Ireland, and Bills for the census of 1911 will be introduced in the session of 1910. It is the practice, in anticipation of each census, for the Registrar-General to confer with the Government Departments concerned, with the view of considering any improvements which may be thought desirable. It does not seem to me necessary, therefore, that a Commission or Committe of the kind suggested should be

  1161
  appointed. I will call the attention of the Registrar-General to the point raised by my hon. friend as to making the next census uniform for the whole country, but I fear that owing to the different conditions prevailing in the three Kingdoms, it may not be found practicable to bring them exactly into line in this matter.

  Consolidation of the Public Health Acts.
  SIR IVOR HERBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the inconvenience experienced by local authorities in the administration of the Public Health Acts, from the fact that the law has to be sought in a large number of public Acts, and in some cases is affected by private Acts of Parliament, he can hold out any hope of bringing in a Bill next year to consolidate all enactments bearing upon the public health and to confer equal powers in respect thereto on all local authorities.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am afraid it would not be practicable to confer equal powers in respect of public health on all local authorities. This would involve an undue interference with special powers conferred by local Acts. Moreover, powers which might properly be conferred in respect of one district would not always be suitable to another of a different character. I realise the advantage there would be in consolidating the Public Health Acts, though I think it would probably be found necessary in the first instance to amend them in some respects. I cannot give any pledge as to legislation for next year, but I shall be glad, when opportunity offers, to take steps in the direction indicated.

  Imported Match Boxes.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in accordance with his promise given on the 10th December last, he has now made inquiry into the complaint that match boxes manufactured abroad and imported into this country, bearing no mark of origin, are then filled with matches and labelled with the name of a firm of manufacturers in the East End of London, preceded by the words "manufactured by"; and whether he has decided to institute a prosecution in this case.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY To The BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Kearley, Devonport): The Board of Trade have been in communication with the Customs, who are responsible for the detention of goods marked in contravention of the Merchandise Marks Acts, and as there are legal questions of some difficulty involved in the matter referred to it is proposed to take further legal advice.

  Illustrated Journal of Patents.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether in pursuance of the obligation imposed by Section 40, Subsection (1), of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883, to issue periodically an illustrated journal of patented inventions, as well as reports of patent cases decided by courts of law, a contract or contracts has or have been entered into for the preparation or issue of such journal and reports; and, if so, will he state the name or names of the contractor or contractors and what are the terms of the contract or contracts.
  MR. KEARLEY: This is not a Board of Trade matter, but the Stationery Office inform us that they have entered into a contract with Messrs. Darling & Son, Limited, for printing the journal and reports referred to, and the Controller of the Stationery Office will be prepared to show my hon. friend a copy of the contract if he cares to see it.

  Report on German Economic Conditions.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the forthcoming official Report on German economic conditions will give full consideration to the position, progress, and effect upon capital and labour of the various State railway, forest, mine, dock, canal and other collective industrial enterprises; whether it will similarly deal with the electric light and power, tramway, gas, water, market, theatrical and other businesses carried on by the towns; and whether it will examine the effect upon German trade and capital of a graduated State income-tax combined with a civic graduated income-tax.
  MR. KEARLEY: The inquiries now being made will, when complete, throw

  1163
  considerable light on some of the questions enumerated, but it would not be practicable to extend the area of investigation so widely as the Question of my hon. friend suggests without unduly delaying the publication of the results.
  MR. MYER: Will the inquiry also be directed to the particular kinds of food eaten by German workmen, and will a comparison be drawn with the food of British workmen?
  MR. KEARLEY: I can add nothing to my Answer.

  Exports to British Possessions.
  MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the exports to British Possessions of articles completely manufactured and ready for consumption, if he can state the principal items and Colonies which account for the decline from £46,500,000 in 1903 to £41,200,000 in 1904.
  MR. KEARLEY: The principal items are apparel, certain iron and steel manufactures, steam engines, leather wares, railway wagons, and haberdashery. Practically the whole of the decline in question occurred in exports of these articles to South Africa.

  Railway Carriage of Irish Butter.
  Mr. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a case whore a quantity of choicest unsalted creamery butter, sent from Limerick on 24th June, did not arrive at Stony Stratford until the afternoon of 28th June; will he inquire whether this butter arrived in London early on 26th June; if an order is given at 5 p.m. at Stony Stratford to a London firm, whether the butter is delivered next morning; if a box of butter sent from Limerick on 24th June was not delivered at Newport Pagnell on 28th June; and whether, seeing that this conduct on the part of the railway company complained of is tending to kill the Irish trade, pressure will be brought to bear on them by the Board of Trade to forward Irish produce within a reasonable time.
  MR. KEARLEY: We are in communication with the railway company with
  1164
  regard to the matter to which the hon. Member calls attention, but so far have not received their answer. On receipt of it I will see that the hon. Member is furnished with a copy.

  Agricultural Organisation Society of England.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in the event of effect being given to the Report of the Committee on Small Holdings that an annual grant be made to the Agricultural Organisation Society of England, he will endeavour to secure that an equivalent grant be made to the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, Limited.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (SIR EDWARD STRACEHEY, Somersetshire, S.): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. We have already received an application from the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, Limited, for a grant, and we have promised to bear it in mind in the event of funds being placed at our disposal out of which such a grant could be made. There is, however, no prospect of our finding ourselves in a position to make a grant during the present financial year.

  Schools in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will request the inspector of schools for the Island of Lewis to furnish him with a list of schools in the island where there are no arrangements for children's cloaks, when wet, to be hung up, and no shelters to protect the children in wet weather during play hours.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarhire): The inspector for the district reports that all the school lobbies in Lewis have pegs for hats and clothes and that any temporary deficiency of these is made good when discovered. As regards playground shelters, opinion as to their usefulness is divided. Where they do not exist, the children are allowed to make use of the school rooms in play hours during the bad weather, an arrangement approved of by the parents as being more conducive to the comfort than taking shelter under a comfortless open shed.

  Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state when the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) (Application of Penalties) Bill will be taken.
  MR. SINCLAIR: A day will be fixed for Second Reading as soon as there is a prospect of proceeding with the Committee stage.

  Dog Poisoning in Ross-shire.
  Mr. WEIR: I bog to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has yet received from the police a report in regard to the numerous cases of dog poisoning in the Kilmuir and Logie districts of Ross-shire; and will he state what stops have been taken to bring the offenders to justice.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have received the report referred to by my hon. friend and am informed that the information collected has been placed in the hands of the Procurator-Fiscal.
  MR. SMEATON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that dog poisoning is also prevalent in parts of Perthshire?
  MR. SINCLAIR: No, Sir.

  Sanitation in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that it is upwards of two years since Dr. Dittmar. the medical inspector for the Local Government Board for Scotland, reported the sanitary condition of the Island of Lewis as dangerous to the public health, and that the Board are unable to give effect to Dr. Dittmar's recommendation for lack of funds, will he state whether the Treasury has been approached on the subject; and, if so, with what result.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the Local Government Board for Scotland, in their Report published last year, stated that the present condition of affairs in the Island of Lewis cannot be allowed to continue, and that it is essential that there should be in the district a proper staff consisting of a medical officer of health, and at least one sanitary in-
  1166
  spector, giving their whole time to their duties, will he state whether he can now arrange to take action in regard to this recommendation without further delay, especially bearing in mind that it is upwards of two years since the Local Government Board for Scotland received from their medical inspector, Dr. Dittmar, a Report calling attention to the deplorable sanitary condition of the townships in the island.
  MR. SINCLAIR: As my hon. friend is aware, the local authority is raising and expending the full amount of its rate. I desire, if possible, to find means to enable it to do more. But this is not an easy problem. And at present I have nothing to add to my reply of 11th March.?? The whole subject is having my close attention.
  MR. WEIR: Has the Treasury been approached on the subject of funds?
  MR. SINCLAIR: Various proposals have been discussed, but there is no definite proposal before the Treasury.
  *MR. REES: . With reference to the highly insanitary character attributed by the hon. Member to his own constituency, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board if he will consider the propriety of lending to the county council of Ross-shire the services of the medical officer of the district of Colwyn Bay?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Island of Lewis Medical Officer.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that, in defiance of the opinion expressed by the Local Government Board for Scotland that it was not possible for the duties attaching to the office of chief district medical officer in the Island of Lewis to be discharged by anyone resident in Dingwall, the Lewis District Committee, at their meeting on the 26th ult., appointed a medical officer who is resident at Dingwall; and will steps be taken to see that the Board's views on the subject are not overridden by the local authority.
  † See (4) Debates, clxx., 1268.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am aware that the facts are as stated, and the Board are considering what steps should be taken.

  Scarlet Fever at Stornoway.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that, at a recent meeting of the Stornoway Town Council Public Health Sub-Committee, a letter was read from the medical officer, stating that there is reason to believe that there are many cases of scarlet fever in the town which have not been notified, and that these cases are causing the spread of the disease throughout the community; and, in view of the insanitary condition of the Island of Lewis as reported by Dr. Dittmar, the medical inspector of the Local Government Board for Scotland, will he state what steps the Stornoway Town Council are taking to prevent the spread of the scarlet fever epidemic throughout the island.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am aware of the outbreak referred to, and the Local Government Board have been and still are in communication with the local authority as to measures taken to prevent the spread of the disease. The disease was of so mild a type that it was mistaken for a simple sore throat, and a number of cases escaped notification. The junior and infant departments of the public school were closed and will remain so for a further period of three weeks from 24th June.

  Scottish School Inspectorate.
  Mr. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the number of persons who have been added to the staff of the school inspectorate in Scotland for the last ten years, the proportion of those who were assistant teachers immediately before appointment, with the average number of years they taught, and the number of persons who were headmasters when they received appointments.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Since 1st January, 1897, thirty-five persons, exclusive of those (four) transferred from the Science and Art Department, were added to the school inspectorate. Of these, twenty-four were serving as teachers at the time of appointment, sixteen as assistant teachers —the average length of service in their
  1168
  case being eight years—and eight as headmasters.

  Irish Evicted Tenants.
  Mr. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will now grant the Return relating to evicted tenants in Ireland to be moved for in the name of the Member for North Armagh.
  [Return. — Mr. Moore: — Evicted Tenants (Ireland). —Return showing the names and addresses of the tenants whom it is proposed to reinstate under the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill, with particulars of the farms, by townlands and counties, from which they were evicted; name of landlord, and amount of arrears for which they were evicted; and the dates of such evictions.]
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Birrell, Bristol, N.): Although there would be no objection to grant a Return giving particulars of the cases of evicted tenants who have already been reinstated or provided with new holdings, it would be very undesirable to publish particulars of the cases, already stated to number about 2,000, with which it is still proposed to deal. The Estates Commissioners have expressed the strong opinion that the publication of such a Return would lead, on the one hand, to endless pressure for the inclusion of the names of persons whose applications have been refused, and, on the other hand, to long and acrimonious discussion as to the merits of particular persons whose names would appear in the Return. For these reasons the Government are not prepared to consent to the Return asked for.

  Crime in King's County.
  Mr. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the language of Mr. Justice Madden on the state of affairs in the King's County and the prevalence of intimidation there; and if, having regard to the fact that no verdict has been obtained in that county in agrarian cases, what steps the Government intend to take to secure an impartial trial and the vindication of the law.
  MR. BIRRELL: I would refer to my Answer to the similar Question put by the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh on the 4th instant, †There was only one agrarian case for trial at the recent assizes for King's County. In that case the jury disagreed, and the accused persons are to be put on trial again.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these remarks by Justice Madden were made not on sworn testimony or on his own inquiry or personal knowledge, but. were based merely on the private reports of the constables involved, and should not, therefore, carry more weight than the words of any person passing over West-minster Bridge? Is not this a practice unknown in this country?
  MR. BIRRELL: Everybody knows that the Judges of Assize are supplied with police reports in Ireland, and that they comment from time to time on what they conceive to be the state of affairs.

  Mr. Larkin, J.P.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the results of his inquiry into the case of Mr. Larkin, J.P., who was under police surveillance for extradition to the United States for an offence committed there; and will he say for what offence was this man convicted at the assizes.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have already informed the hon. and learned Member that Mr. Larkin was not extradited to the United States, and I have now ascertained that no application for his extradition was ever made. I can make no statement as to his having been under police surveillance with a view to extradition. Mr. Larkin was convicted at Wicklow Assizes about nineteen years ago, and sentenced to six months imprisonment upon a charge of conspiracy to compel a certain person to give up a farm.

  Adare Evicted Tenant.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, can he say whether the Estates Commissioners have sent an
  † See page 880.
  1170
  inspector to examine the claims of Thomas Drew for reinstatement in his holding at Ardshanbally, Adare, county Limerick, from which he was evicted in last September by the Earl of Dunraven; if so, what was the nature of the inspector's report; and will Mr. Drew be soon restored to his holding.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have inquired into this case and have decided that they can take no action in it. The applicant was evicted in September, 1906, that is, more than three years after the passing of the Act of 1903, and in any event the holding is not one to which the Act applies.

  Knockany Evicted Tenant.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that for a number of years Mr. Timothy Corbett, of Rathany, Knockany, county Limerick, has been evicted from his farm on the property of the Earl of Limerick; can he say how the Estates Commissioners' inspector, Mr. Coughlan, regarded the application for reinstatement of Mr. Corbett, as the result of his interview with him in Kilmallock on an early day in January last; and will the Estates Commissioners take steps to put Mr. Corbett back into his holding.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have inquired into Mr. Corbett's case, and have ascertained that the hold ing in which he seeks to be reinstated is in the possession of his son-in-law, the husband of his only child, who has purchased it under the Land Purchase Acts. In the circumstances, the Commissioners have decided that they can take no action in the case.

  Police Protection in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of persons in Ireland to whom special protection is afforded by the constabulary, distinguishing constant protection and protection by patrols, and what is the total number of police detailed for such duty.
  MR. BIRRELL: The number of persons who are receiving constant police

  1171
  protection is fifty, and the number receiving protection by patrols is 166. The number of police engaged in affording constant protection is about 123. The number employed in affording protection by patrols cannot be stated with accuracy. Many of the policemen so employed are also engaged on other duties, and the number varies from day to day.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of additional police at present employed in disturbed districts in Ireland; and what are the names of such districts and the number of additional police employed in each.
  MR. BIRRELL: The number of additional police at present employed on temporary service in disturbed districts in Ireland is one district inspector, three head-constables, and 310 men. The counties and districts in which they are employed are as follows: —County Clare: districts of Ennis, Corofin, Tulla, Sixmilebridge, one head-constable and fifty-six men. County Cork, E.R.: districts of Newmarket and Midleton, seven men. Counties Cavan and Leitrim: districts of Carrick-on-Shannon and Manorhamilton, twenty-two men. County Galway, E.R.: districts of Athenry and Loughrea, seventy men. County Roscommon: districts of Roscommon, Strokestown, Castlerea, and Ballaghadereen, one district inspector, two head constables, and 133 men. King's County: district of Birr, twenty-two men.
  MR. KILBRIDE: How many police will be employed this week in disturbed districts in Belfast??
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: And how many were guarding the Crown jewels stolen at Dublin??

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have under consideration the question of augmenting the existing establishment of Royal Irish Constabulary as fixed by Order in Council, by the issue of proclamations under the Act of 6 Will. 4, c. 13, declaring certain counties or parts of counties to be in a state of disturbance.
  MR. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to his similar Question on 26th June.?? I have nothing to add to that Answer.

  Distribution of Irish Police.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of police stations throughout Ireland that have been depleted to the extent of one, two, three men and upwards, respectively, for employment at the present time in disturbed districts.
  MR. BIRRELL: The number of police stations in Ireland from which men have been withdrawn for temporary duty in disturbed districts of other counties is-eighty. One man has been withdrawn from each of seventy-five stations, and two men from each of five stations.

  Dublin Constabulary Reserve.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of men at present serving on the reserve force at the constabulary depot in Dublin whoso services are available for employment in the country should the necessity for such arise; and what is the number of men constituting the reserve force at present employed in disturbed districts.
  MR. BIRRELL: The number of men of the reserve force of the Royal Irish Constabulary at present serving at the depot is 150. The number employed in disturbed districts throughout the country is 225.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Is the ex-constable who was the associate of Ex-sergeant Sheridan in the cattle-maiming in the West of Ireland still employed at the depot?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL MR. SWIFT MACNEILL? And is he not the head of the swearing class?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Garesbridge Evicted Tenant.
  Mr. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates
  †See (4) Debates, clxxvi., 1402.

  1173
  Commissioners have as yet made inquiries in the case of Philip Bolger, who was evicted from his holding on the estate of Harvey Fleming, esquire, Doninga, Garesbridge, county Kilkenny; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken for his restoration.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have inquired into the case of Philip Bolger, and have decided to take no action upon his application for reinstatement. He is already in occupation of a farm of sixty-four acres.

  Cavehill and White-well Trams, Belfast.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed at an extraordinary general meeting of the shareholders of the Cavehill and White well Tramways Company, held at Belfast on 19th June, confirming an agreement, dated 1st May, 1907, between the company and the corporation of Belfast for the purchase by the latter of the company's tramways and their equipment, exclusive of rolling stock, together with thirty-two acres of land and a car shed, for the sum of £60,000, subject to Parliamentary sanction of the agreement; and whether, seeing that the property in question is practically valueless, and in view of local opposition to its acquisition, he will use his influence to prevent the sanction of Parliament being given to the scheme.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that a resolution to the effect stated has appeared in the newspapers, but the Local Government Board have not yet received a report of the company's meeting at which the resolution is stated to have been passed. It would be quite unprecedented for a Minister to give a decision hostile to a private Bill which he has not yet seen. If a Bill should be introduced, Parliament will have full opportunity for considering it.

  Belfast Municipal Tramways.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a report submitted to and received by the Belfast corporation from Mr. Nance, the manager of the municipal
  1174
  tramways, in which he recommended extensions, estimated to cost £108,000, and advised the corporation when it decided to proceed with these extensions to proceed by Order in Council instead of by Bill in Parliament, on the ground that the expense will be inconsiderable and the perils of opposition will be nil; whether the Privy Council has power to grant such an Order; and, if so, whether, for the protection of the ratepayers, who have not been consulted about the matter, he will insist on a local plebiscite before sanctioning such an Order, or direct that the corporation proceed by Bill in the usual way.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have seen a copy of the report referred to in the first part of the Question. The Privy Council has full power to deal with an application for the extension of the Belfast tramways. No such application, however, has yet been made. I am advised that neither the Privy Council nor I myself have any power to direct a local plebiscite, as suggested in the Question, nor have I power to direct the Belfast corporation to proceed by Bill in Parliament. If the corporation should apply for an Order in Council, any persons who may be opposed to the application, either as representing the ratepayers or as individuals, would have full opportunity of being heard by the Council before a decision should be arrived at.

  The Strike in Belfast.
  MR. J. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention had been called to the fact that, owing to the trade dispute in Belfast and occupation of the streets by armed troops, the trade of the town was almost at a standstill; and whether, in view of the interests involved, he would send a special representative to Belfast to endeavour to bring the dispute to an end by an amicable arrangement of differences.
  MR. BIRRELL: Unless invited by all parties to lend my good offices it would be foolish for me to interfere on a matter in which I have no locus standi. I hope an amicable settlement will shortly be arrived at.

  Loans under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed by the North Dublin Rural District Council protesting against the ad valorem stamp duty, which was imposed by Section 8 of the Finance Act of 1899, being charged on the applications for loans obtained for the purpose of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; and whether, in view of the necessity of carrying those Acts into effect to the utmost extent possible, and of the fact that the ratepayers can not only derive no profit from the provision of houses and plots of land for labourers in Ireland, but will, on the contrary, have to incur loss in respect thereof, he will consider the advisability of amending, by this year's Finance Bill, the j section of the Act of 1899 referred to so as to exclude loans for the purposes of the Labourers Acts from its operation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): I have under consideration the inconveniences which are alleged to arise from the application of this duty in various cases analogous to that referred to in the Question. It is in any ease not possible to deal with the matter in the Finance Bill of the present year.

  Howth Harbour.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the attention of the Board of Works (Ireland) has been called to the condition of the royal harbour of Howth, county of Dublin, which is rapidly becoming filled with sand; whether the Board is bound to maintain this harbour in a state of efficiency, and whether it has a dredger immediately available and suitable for use at Howth; and, if so, whether immediate steps will be taken to prevent the harbour from becoming useless for fishing and other boats.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: It is the case, I understand, that large quantities of sand are deposited in Howth Harbour by the action of the tides; but the Board of Works inform me that by regular dredging they maintain it in a suitable condition for the fishing boats and other
  1176
  vessels which use it. During the year 1906–7 the Board's dredger raised 8,600 tons of spoil.
  MR. CLANCY: Does the hon. Gentleman consider the harbour in a proper state now.?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say, but I will inquire.
  MR. CLANCY: That is the very Question I had on the Paper.

  Hague Conference.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government has authorised the British representative at The Hague Conference to propose or to agree to the abandonment by Great Britain of the right of a belligerent to capture contraband of war at sea; whether His Majesty's Government has authorised him to propose or to agree to the abandonment of the right to capture an enemy's private property at sea or to agree to any condition that if captured it shall not enure to the Crown but shall only be sequestrated and returned to the enemy at the end of the war; and whether he will undertake that, before the abandonment of any of the rights of maritime warfare belonging to Great Britain, the question of their abandonment or retention shall be submitted to a decision of this House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Conference having reserved to itself a discretion as to what information should be published respecting its deliberations, I cannot anticipate such publication. Should any decisions be arrived at which require legislation they would, of course, have to be submitted to Parliament, but I cannot give any pledge with regard to other decisions at any rate till it is known what they are.

  The Government and the Bounty Question
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the statement in the despatch to His Majesty's Minister at Brussels respecting the International Sugar Convention, to the effect that His Majesty's Government-have no desire that there should be a revival of sugar bounties, was intended

  1177
  as a general declaration of policy with regard to bounties; and whether the objection here expressed to sugar bounties given by foreign countries is to be accepted as also applying to shipping bounties provided at the expense of this country.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:My hon. friend will see, if he turns to the despatch, that the declaration in question was concerned with sugar bounties alone. The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards bounties in general is, I think, very well known to my hon. friend, and there is no reason, so far as I am aware, why I should enter into the question now.

  "All-red " Route.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will call the attention of the Ministerial Committee now engaged in considering proposals for an all-red route to the declaration of policy made by himself on 27th March, to the effect that the Government wore no advocates of subsidised services of this kind where an absolute equivalent for the money spent was not received.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no doubt the Committee are aware of that recent expression of opinion from which I have no desire to recede.

  Black Rod's Messages.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked the Speaker whether some arrangement could be made with the officials of the other House whereby business would not be suspended by the arrival of Black Rod. On Thursday there was an exceptional instance of the inconvenience caused, when, the House being in Committee, the proceedings were interrupted, the Chairman left the chair, the Speaker was recalled, and a very interesting speech had to be suspended [a laugh] —yes, a very interesting speech—until, after the return of the Speaker, the Chairman could return to the chair. This difficulty had occurred before, and in 1891 Mr. Speaker Peel, in reply to Mr. Labouchere, said some arrangement should be made to prevent unnecessary interruption of business. Opposed as he was to the use of strong language, he did not like to repeat what Mr. Labouchere said of the "invasion" of the House by Black Rod.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I quite agree with the hon. Member that it is inconvenient to have business interrupted by the delivery of a message by Black Rod, and I have always endeavoured, so far as I have any share in fixing the time, to have the message delivered at a time most convenient for business, I will make further inquiry, and see if it is possible to avoid interruption of business. It sometimes happens that it is necessary or desirable to get the Royal Assent to a Bill rapidly, and, if so, it is rather difficult to find a time at which the business of the House would not be interrupted for a short time. But I will put myself into communication with the authorities of the other House, and try to arrange the time for the delivery of the message.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they have discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) Bill): Mr. Secretary Gladstone; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) Bill): Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.
Report to lie upon the Table.

TELEGRAPH (MONEY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 243.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 243.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed [Bill 268.]

EVIDENCE (COLONIAL STATUTES) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 244.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 244.]
Bill [not amended] to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

RADIOTELEGRAPHIC CONVENTION.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 246.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL).
Motion made, and Question put, " That the proceedings on the Second Reading of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House): "— (Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)
The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 46. (Division List No. 270.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Acland, Francis Dyke

Dewar,Sir J.A. (Inverness-sh.)

Jones,Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dickinson,W.H. (St.Pancras,N.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Alden, Percy

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jowett, F. W.

Allen,A. Acland (Christchurch)

Donelan, Captain A.

Joyce, Michael

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Ambrose, Robert

Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

Kilbride, Denis

Asquith,Rt.Hon Herbert Henry

Elibank, Master of

Kincaid-Smith. Captain

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lambert, George

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Erskine, David C.

Lamont, Norman

Barker, John

Essex, R. W.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Everett, R. Lacey

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras,E.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Ferens, T. R.

Lehmann, R. C.

Barry,Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)

Ffrench, Peter

Lewis, John Herbert

Beale, W. P.

Findlay, Alexander

Lough, Thomas

Beauchamp, E.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lundon, W.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Flynn, James Christopher

Lupton, Arnold

Bethell, SirJ.H. (Essex,Romf'rd

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Billson, Sir Alfred

Furness, Sir Christopher

Maclean. Donald

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gilhooly, James

MacNeill, John Gardon Swift

Boland, John

Ginnell, L.

Macpherson., L. T.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gladstone,Rt,Hn. Herbert John

MacVeigh,charles(Donegal. E.

Branch, James

Gooch, George Peabody

M'Hugh. Patrick A.

Brunner,J.F.L. (Lanes.,Leigh)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Killop. W.

Bryce, J. Annan

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Micking. Major G.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Maddison, Frederick

Burke, E. Haviland

Gulland, John W.

Marks,G. Croydon (Launceston)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gurdon.RtHn. SirW.Brampton

Marnham. F.J.

Buxton, Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Meagher, Michael

Byles, William Pollard

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Cairns, Thomas

Hall, Frederick

Menzies, Walter

Cameron, Robert

Halpin, J.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Mond, A.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hart-Davies, T.

Montagu, E. S.

Chance, Frederick William

Harwood, George

Mooney, J. J.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hayden, John Patrick

Morgan,J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hazleton. Richard

Morley, Rt, Hon. John

Cleland, J. W.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Clough, William

Hedges, A. Paget

Murnaghan, George

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Murray, James

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Henry, Charles S.

Myer, Horatio

Cooper, G. J.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nolan, Joseph

Cox, Harold

Hodge, John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Crean, Eugene

Hogan, Michael

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Crooks, William

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Brien.Kendal (TipperaryMid

Cullinan, J.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Davies, Mr. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Hudson, Walter

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Doherty, Philip

Devlin, Joseph

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Runciman, Walter

Tomkinson, James

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Russell, X. W.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Pearson,Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Ure, Alexander

Pearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Verney, F. W.

Perks, Robert. William

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Philipps,J.Wynford (Pembroke

Sears, J. E.

Wardle, George J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Seaverns, J. H.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Seely, Major J. B.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Price,RobertJohn (Norfolk, E.)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Wason,JohnCathcart (Orkney)

Radford, G. H.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Waterlow, D. S.

Rainy, A. Holland

Sheehy, David

Weir, James Galloway

Raphael, Herbert H.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Whitbread, Howard

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.)

Whitehead, Rowland

Redmond, William (Clare)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Rees, J. D.

Soares, Ernest J.

Williamson, A.

Richards,T.F. (Wolverhampton

Spicer, Sir Albert

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

Ridsdale, E. A.

Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Steadman, W. C.

Young, Samuel

Robertson,Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Stewart-Smith, 1). (Kendal)

Robertson. J. M. (Tyneside)

Strachey, Sir Edward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Sutherland, J. E.

Rose, Charles Day

Tennant,Sir Edward(Salisbury)

Rowlands. J.

Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

NOES.

Acland- Hood,Rt. Hn.SirAlexF.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Govan

Remnant, James Farquharson

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Balfour,Rt Hn.A.J. (CityLond.)

Gordon, J.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Banbury,SirFrederick George

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorge D.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Heaton, John Henniker

Thornton, Percy M.

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Helmsley, Viscount

Valentia, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement. (Shrewsbury)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kennaway,Rt.Hon. Sir JohnH.

Williams, Col. R, (Dorset, W.)

Cavendish. Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Long,Rt.Hn. Walter(Dublin,S.)

Younger, George

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Middlemore,John Throgmorton

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Forster.

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

Moore, William

Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.)

Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington)

Resolution agreed to.

FINANCE (LOCAL TAXATION GRANTS).
Resolution reported: "That if the rate of duty on any local taxation licence (including any duty charged under Subsection (1) of Section 8 of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896) is hereafter increased, there shall be added to the amounts payable to the local taxation account out of the Consolidated Fund such sums (if any) as may be required to bring the amount payable in any year to the local taxation account up to the amount which would have been payable if the proceeds of that duty in that year were taken to be the average proceeds of the duty for three years ending March the thirty-first, nineteen hundred and seven, and if the sum ascertained to have been collected in that year in any county in England in respect
1182
of that duty were taken to be the average sum so ascertained to have been collected for the three years ending March the thirty-first, nineteen hundred and seven."
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not happen to be present in the House the previous Friday when this Resolution was moved in Committee, without, as far as he could ascertain, any explanation having been given or demanded. As a consequence all they had heard about the matter was the statement which had just been read by the Clerk of the Table, which he felt certain that no one had been able to make head or tail of. He gathered that what the Resolution meant was that under the Finance Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made

1183
alterations in local taxation, and that the Resolution was necessary to carry them out. He did not know whether or not he was right in supposing that; nor did he know whether it was the result of a pledge the right hon. Gentleman had given to the Leader of the Opposition during the discussion on the Budget. However, he would venture to suggest that the House should have a full explanation of what the Resolution meant so that hon. Members might know what they were voting for.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith, Fifeshire, E.)said that if the hon. Baronet had read his Parliamentary Papers of last Friday, he would have found the Resolution set out in them. He had had three days in which to study and define it, so that he (Mr. Asquith) failed to see that the hon. Gentleman had any grievance of any sort or kind. The Resolution was in pursuance of a pledge he had given to the Leader of the Opposition, viz., that if licence duties were increased, the Government would take care that local bodies should not suffer, but receive a sum similar to that which they had received on an average for the past three years.

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Heading road.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. MOOREmoved that the Bill be read a second time upon that day three months. He said that, while Unionists wore as anxious as any one not to disturb the eircuikon established by the Land Purchase Act, it did not follow that the objections entertained to the extraordinary and revolutionary proposals in the nature of machinery contained in this Bill should not be placed before the House. The hon. Member for North Louth had appealed to Unionists not to pursue their irreconcilable attitude towards the evicted tenants. But any reasonable man must find himself very seriously opposed to the extraordinary proposals in the nature of machinery— which were practically
1184
revolutionary—contained in this Bill. Several times during the last thirteen years the House had had before it legislation dealing with the position of evicted tenants. At the present time they had in force the legislative powers under the Act of 1903, which he hoped to convince the House would solve the problem if allowed to be worked out. As the opposition was coming from the Unionist Benches, perhaps he might be allowed to point out that it was by Unionist legislation that the House had the means at its hand to deal with the situation. A clear, convincing, and overwhelming case should be brought before the House and proved to its satisfaction, before it invested a body in which Ireland had little confidence with extraordinary and arbitrary powers of acquiring land compulsorily, of fixing their own price, and of leaving the matter without the possibility of appeal from their decision. The Estates Commissioners had published a Report, and be wished to ask the attention of the House to the conclusions which could legitimately be drawn from that Report. Nobody, he thought, would deny that there was not the least chance of the Commissioners understating the case with regard to evicted tenants. The Report was conceived and prepared in that spirit, he had no doubt. Let the House consider what it meant, because it was only by dealing with the results of what had been done in Ireland in this matter that they could form an opinion as to whether existing legislation was adequate. In the Report which the Estates Commissioners had submitted to the House it would be found that they had received 8,400 claims for reinstatement from tenants. Of these 8,400, the Commissioners had found that little over 3,000 were what he might call bonâ fide. When, therefore, it was found that only about 3G per cent. of the claims were bonâ fide he thought it threw a very strong light upon the question of the size and magnitude of the problem which had to be dealt with. Thirty-six per cent. of the whole of the claims were in the opinion of the Commissioners from persons who were entitled to be reinstated. That only applied to the applications received since the passing of the Land Act of 1903. Of those 3,000 cases under the voluntary system now in force they had already reinstated 1,000 tenants, so that it might be

1185
taken that 33 per. cent. of the genuine cases had been reinstated in three and a half years by the Estates Commissioners. He would put it to any fair-minded man whether the Commissioners could have done more in three and a half years had they had compulsory powers in 1903 than had already been done under the voluntary system. The Report dealt only with the work the Estates Commissioners had done since 1903. It certified that there were 2,000 cases to be dealt with. Before the Act of 1903 there was a mutual feeling between all parties concerned in Ireland. Landlord and tenant were sick of the business, and there had been during the past seven or eight years a marked tendency on both sides to come to terms. A general process of voluntary re-instatement had been going on before the Act of 1903 was passed. The Report of the Commissioners on the subject in that year, showed that there were seventeen estates in which tenants had been evicted in connection with the Plan of Campaign. But a recent Report stated that of these evictions in nine cases the tenants had been reinstated in 1903. No suggestion of unfairness was made at the time or during the passing of the Act of 1903, and he did not think the House would now consider what were the terms on which the men were reinstated. They were reinstated in a voluntary manner without any compulsion, and he submitted it ought not to be questioned now. With regard to the Plan of Campaign estates the result at present was that out of the seventeen Plan of Campaign estates there were only two in which the question had not been settled, and out of a total of 1,580 original Plan of Campaign tenants there were only 160 who were not in possession of holdings. That had been done by voluntary agreement, either before or after the passing of the Act of 1903, and when it had come down to a mere matter of 160, so far as the Plan of Campaign tenants were concerned, he did not think a case had been made out which would justify the application of the compulsory powers proposed by the Bill. He wished to say how much he protested against the policy of secrecy which the Government had adopted. No one in Ireland except the members of the United Irish League had any idea who had been selected by the Estates Commissioners to fill the
1186
2,000 vacancies. When this Bill had become an Act they would be told that it was a settlement of the whole question. He would suggest to the Chief Secretary or whoever replied for the Government that if the Bill was not a settlement of the whole question he would still more protest against the. giving of compulsory powers. If it was to be a settlement of the whole question they had a definition of the class of evicted tenants who were to be reinstated, and their names ought to be published. The House ought to know who they were. The men themselves were entitled to know, but according to an answer given by the Chief Secretary they were not entitled to know whether their claims were accepted or not. The Mathew Commission reported on the evicted tenants and in the Blue-books set out the names of the evicted tenants who had made claims before them. If this was to be a settlement, in justice to the tenants and the people who were to be dispossessed of their land, if the Bill became law the taxpayers had a right to know who were the people for whose benefit this extraordinary legislation was carried through the House. But the Government were determined that that should not be the case. Day after day the Question Paper contained Questions as to what was to be the fate of a tenant in this or that county, but no communication was made. The only people who seemed to know what was to be done in any particular case were the members of the United Irish League. He knew a reliable case where a landlord was approached and asked what he would do in regard to some tenants whom he had evicted some time ago. He gave full particulars in regard to eight of them. He gave reasons why five would be eligible for reinstatement and three would not be eligible. He had never been allowed to know what the Commissioners were going to do in the matter, and the evicted tenants had not been allowed to know. But at a meeting of the United Irish League held in his village the actual terms of his letter were quoted by a speaker of the League which showed how very intimate was the bond between them and the inspectors employed by the Estates Commissioners, or the Estates Commissioners themselves, when information of that nature was communicated to the local body and denied

1187
to everybody else. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Who was the landlord?] He did not want the unfortunate man to be either boycotted or shot, and he should certainly refuse to give his name. The House might accept his statement or not as it pleased. This policy of secrecy, this fear of disclosing the names, was apt to make Members anxious to scrutinise very closely the means by which these 2,000 names had been arrived at. There had been inquiries all over the country behind the backs of the people interested, and no information had been vouchsafed to them. He thought in common protection to the rights of minorities and the rights of individuals, and in all fair play, the names of the 2,000 eligible tenants should be put forward instead of the House being confronted with the interminable prospect of having Bills to deal with the residue brought forward year after year. Quite apart from these reasons he would be rather disposed to doubt the finding of the Commissioners that there were 2,000 genuine claims. He said that after careful persual of the speeches made in the House time after time for the last thirteen years by hon. Members below the Gangway, and they would never be able to clear away such doubts until they had the names and particulars of the tenants whom they now sought to reinstate. They were told that 80,000 acres of land would be required for the purpose. Putting it at the lowest figure they would not get it much cheaper, or at any rate they ought not to get it much cheaper, than £25 an acre. That would be a very low figure, and from what he knew of the tenants not one of them would be satisfied with land below that figure. That involved £2,000,000 of money. He did not suggest that that was capital expenditure, but it was an advance of money for which the British taxpayer was ultimately responsible. It was a sum of such magnitude that he thought they could not lightly pass over the creation of such an obligation without very definite information as to the persons for whom it was wanted. In addition to that they were told that there was to be a money grant for the purpose of stocking, furnishing, and fitting these 80,000 acres, or so much as might be required by the Estates Commissioners, for taking them over. He thought it would be a reasonable estimate to say that for these 2,000 the
1188
sum of £150 would be required in each case from the Estates Commissioners. That was a matter of another £300,000. So far as he could make out, of the £2,000,000 which was to be advanced, £250,000 would be a loss, or would certainly be treated as a loss. It would be in the nature of a grant towards the acquisition of land. The evicted tenants would only be asked to pay £1,750,000. When the holdings had been stocked it would be found that £250,000 was also a free grant, so that the upshot was that this would involve £2,750,000 of public money, and there would be an actual expenditure which the country could never expect to see again of at least £500,000. When they were going to give away that sum they had a right to know who were the people for whom the expenditure was intended, and how the names were arrived at. If any hon. Member stood up and said that these people were entitled to the money merely because two of the Estates Commissioners, who unfortunately they happened to know a good deal about, had chosen to recommend it, it would be necessary to give more information before any conscientious man would consent to allow such a largo sum to be diverted for their benefit. In 1894, the then Chief Secretary brought in a Bill dealing with the evicted tenants in Ireland and stated that £100,000 would settle the question. He drew attention to that figure, to show how enormously the number had been magnified for the purpose of this Bill. The unhappy contest when the tenants were evicted took place long before 1894. He did not think it would be contended that there had been many evictions in Ireland since 1894. The Chief Secretary in that year estimated that the total number of all sorts and conditions of evicted tenants be dealt with by the Bill at not exceeding 4,000. He would ask the House to remember what had happened in the nine years between the passing of the Act of 1894 and the Act of 1903, and how the figures had subsequently been dealt with, because, he thought, he would be able to satisfy the House that the 2,000 tenants, the number which the Estates Commissioners had arrived at in the secret chamber inquiry, must necessarily be grossly exaggerated if they were dealing with bona fide evicted tenants. The Nationalist Members prevailed on

1189
the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs, who was then Chief Secretary, to increase the sum to £250,000. They claimed a great deal of credit for doing so, but he did not think it was difficult to get a Liberal Government dependent on their votes to give them anything. At any rate they were entitled to the credit, such as it was. He would not trouble the House by going into the Bill of 1896, except that it proposed to proceed on voluntary lines. The sum then asked was also £250,000. The Bill was supported by hon. Members below the Gangway as being adequate, but it did not go further. Then, in 1899, a Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for the Connemara Division of Galway. It threw a clear light on what the actual number of evicted tenants might be taken to be at that time. He said there were then 600 evicted tenants in Ireland, 400 of whom were Plan of Campaign tenants and 200 who were evicted generally on other grounds. Mr. Michael Davitt, who was certainly an enthusiast on the subject, speaking in the same debate, said he differed from those figures and thought 1,000 would be nearer the number. That was the only difference between them, and the Bill of 1899 dealt with every class of tenants. The then Chief Secretary, Mr. Gerald Balfour, took part in the debate, and stated that the total number of evicted tenants in 1899 could betaken at the figure of 1,000, thereby agreeing with Mr. Davitt. Could anyone suppose that the number of 1,000 had grown into 3,000 between 1899 and 1903, when the Land Act was passed? He ignored the bogus claims of 5,000, which had been too much even for the Estates Commissioners. That Bill also asked for £250,000. It seemed immaterial whether the number went up or down. Next year—1900—another Bill was brought in by the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Cork, and he only asked for£100,000. He also dealt with all classes of evicted tenants, and he explained to the House that he only asked for £100,000 because of the diminished number of such persons. He was supported by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, who said that on the last occasion when the Bill was before the House the number of evicted tenants was estimated at 600, and that since then it had very considerably decreased. Later on, in
1190
one of the debates on the Laud Bill of 1903 the hon. Member for East Mayo —whose absence, and its cause, he deplored—said that in 1894 there were about 800 of these people, but that half of them had disappeared—some of them had emigrated, some had been resettled, and some had died—so that there were only 400 families to be dealt with, and that the whole question could be disposed of for £200,000 in a way which would strike the imagination of Ireland and smooth the passage of the Bill. Yet three and a half years from that time the obedient majority of the Estates Commissioners discovered that there were 3,000 to be compensated at an expense to the British taxpayer of nearly £750,000. More investigation was clearly required, and he submitted that the only way in which it could be done was by putting an end to secrecy and intrigue, and putting on paper in black and white the names of those whose claims the Estates Commissioners regarded as well founded. He had shown, he contended, from these facts and figures that the problem at the present moment had been magnified, that for years past it had been diminishing, and that a settlement was rapidly being arrived at by voluntary means. That wiped away altogether the necessity for the compulsory powers which the present proposals included. He thought it an extravagant idea to assume that every tenant in Ireland who had been evicted, and was to be reinstated, was to receive an average holding of forty acres. Remembering that in district after district in Ireland people had to live on fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five acres, it was a monstrous thing to start the reinstatement of evicted tenants with average holdings of forty acres apiece. He could not imagine anything which would create such dissatisfaction. The dissatisfaction in England at the palaces which the Local Government Board system provided for paupers would be nothing to the dissatisfaction of the small farmer who had fulfilled his own obligations and paid his own rent, on finding an evicted tenant in his neighbourhood getting forty acres, and a present of £150 at least to stock his land. There would be a revolution amongst these people. Again, if they gave the evicted tenant forty acres they would be not indemnifying him, but rewarding him, and the present was least of all the time when

1191
it would be desirable to put a premium on evictions. The State had provided sixty-five millions of British money and had made itself to that extent landlords in Ireland. One of the best securities of the landlord, if instalments were repudiated, was to come down on the holding when default was made. Yet they were setting these people up with the idea that to be evicted was a virtue, that eviction was done with in Ireland, that in future they either would never be evicted, or that if evicted they would be besought to come back again, and given 100 acres next time. He did not think the House should act in any grudging manner, but at the same time they ought not so to act as to imperil the security for the advance of which they were the trustees. They ought to act with economy, without throwing money away on undeserving-persons, of whom he was perfectly satisfied there were a large number, and without endowing evicted tenants unreasonably and beyond their law-respecting neighbours. The personal character of the applicants was always looked into, and was part of the security—the probability of how far by his personal efforts he would be able to carry out the arrangement on which the State made him the advance. He did not wish in a spirit of bitterness to look into the history of these evicted tenants, but the fact remained that they had been unable to meet their obligations, or had repudiated them. In such cases if they looked into personal character they would require more security than with a man who had always met his obligations. He thought also that a proposal which must imply an advance of £2,000,000 would be regarded as a very serious matter by those who were at present looking for the completion of contracts under the land purchase scheme. The Land Act of 1903 proceeded on the basis that it was to effect the conversion of the entire tenanted land of Ireland, and it was estimated that £100,000,000 would be sufficient for that purpose, leaving out the question of bonus. It might be desirable to settle the evicted tenants' question, but where land was to be acquired for that end he claimed it was not legitimate land purchase. They were, in fact, filching from the £100,000,000 provided for the Land Act £2,000,000,and placing it on one side for an object which, however deserving, was not land purchase. If the Government had wished
1192
to carry this scheme through with fair play to those who had signed agreements for land purchase they would have provided the £2,000,000 from other sources, without building a wall across the path of land purchase. He asked the House to look how they stood at the present moment. There were agreements signed for £30,000,000. One would imagine that when the State guaranteed that money should be forthcoming to complete these transactions they would be completed in an ordinary time. The Estates Commissioners, however, seemed unable to complete the work which they had in hand. They had agreements for 1904 in their office, and were unable to complete them, and notwithstanding this fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it was not contemplated to make any further issue of land stock which would enable the Government to carry out their arrangements with the tenant purchasers. The Chief Secretary also contemplated stealing £2,000,000 from the Irish Purchase Fund to complete the expenditure on evicted tenants. He wished to ask whether the evicted tenants question was to be settled at once and whether this £2,000,000 would be provided immediately. If that was to be done the Government would be giving the evicted tenants a priority over legitimate tenant purchasers which they did not deserve. Not only was the £2,000,000 to be taken from the capital value, but one of the funds necessary to the working of the Act—the Reserve Fund—was to be drawn upon for the expenses of the Estate Commissioners in respect to evicted tenants. If the Government exhausted the Reserve Fund for the sake of evicted tenants they would bring themselves into instant collision with every local authority in Ireland, and the ratepayers had a right to be considered before the Government were generous at their expense. He would like to say a few words with regard to the question of compulsory powers. He reminded the House that the law as it stood was. exactly as it would have been if the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs had become law in 1894. In 1894 the right hon. Gentleman said that he could settle the whole question by voluntary methods if he were given the money. At present the law was that the voluntary method was to

1193
be resorted to, and under the Land Purchase Acts the Estates Commissioners had unlimited control in regard to money. They wore, therefore, in exactly the same position as if the right hon. Gentleman's Bill had become law. Under these circumstances the Liberal Party, following the lead of the right hon. Gentleman, pledged themselves against compulsory interference with tenants who had come into the possession of land from which tenants had been evicted, and made it a sine qua non that tenants who had come in on evicted tenants holdings were not to be evicted. The Liberal Party assented to that proposition; they on their part had also assented to it in 1903, and it was part and parcel of the concordat that was arrived at. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill in 1894 the eviction of existing holders was not then demanded by the Nationalist Members, and in the course of the discussion on the Bill of 1903 the hon. and learned Member for Waterford referred to the Bill of 1894 as giving them in substance all they asked for evicted tenants. The hon. and learned Gentleman said repeatedly in 1903 that evictions should not be made to make room for evicted tenants, and, therefore, in his judgment, the compulsory powers of the Bill before the House were in breach of the agreement arrived at in 1903. Colonel Saunderson, speaking on the same occasion, said that he was ready, and he believed the landlords of Ireland were ready, as far as possible, to see the evicted tenants reinstated, so long as that did not involve the eviction of the present holders. After that, the hon. Member for East Mayo said that the eviction of the present holders had not been demanded by the Nationalist Members, and he asked whether they made no concession when they retired from the position which the whole people of Ireland had taken up in saying that these men should be evicted. That was the honourable understanding against compulsion on which the Act of 1903 was passed, but now this Bill containing compulsory powers was brought forward. The landlords had carried out their part of that agreement. [NATIONALIST MEMBERS: Certainly not.] That was the first time he had heard that, and he thought the House would require some evidence of it. If
1194
they were to turn out these men, who on the" faith of the Bill of 1903 became holders, it would be a gross breach of Parliamentary usage, and not consistent with the record of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. It would be a monstrous thing if at this time of day these despotic Estates Commissioners were armed with powers to effect that. If peace was desired in Ireland—and they wished for it—it was not a hopeful position that these tenants were to be made the victims of hon. Members below the gangway and a large Parliamentary majority. If that were done it would only begin the strife again, and the action would never be forgotten. There was no provision in the Bill for compulsory powers which suggested that anyone should get a fair price. In ordinary cases, and under ordinary public Acts, when a man had property taken from him, there was a provision for obtaining for him a fair price. There was no such suggestion here. There was no principle which gave rise to more annoyance than that of pre-emption. Under the Act of 1881, which gave the landlords the right to acquire the tenants' interest, that system was objected to and repudiated by the Nationalist Members, although the values were fixed by the Land Commissioners. Pre-emption was not good enough for hon. Members or their constituents, but it was quite good enough for the new tenant who, against all Parliamentary precedent, was to be evicted. He thought that threw the strongest side-light on the scope and intention of the Bill. The value was to be fixed by the Estates Commissioners, and then there was to be an appeal to the Estates Commissioners from themselves. That was not equal justice; it appeared to be like appealing from Philip drunk to Philip sober. There was no means of checking the Commissioners or rectifying their judgments if they were wrong— even if they were deliberately wrong. In the first place they were to decide who was an evicted tenant, and they could then proceed to evict any tenant they liked in Ireland replace the evicted tenant, and fix the price to be paid. There was no provision against their entering upon demesne and residential land, and finding that it was not land of that character. In the case of an unpopular owner there was no appeal. The Estates Commissioners looked

1195
for their policy to the Freeman's Journal, and took their orders from the brotherhood of the United Irish League. It was proposed that the property of decent law-abiding people in Ireland, and of people who had rendered themselves obnoxious to the United Irish League, either by serving on juries or in other ways, should be placed at the mercy of the Estates Commissioners, which was the central branch of an organisation for intimidating and driving out these men. The majority of the Estates Commissioners were absolutely disqualified by their partisan action from being considered to have the reputation of an impartial tribunal by any section of the public who wished to submit a case to them. The Act of 1903 provided two methods of sale. One was sale through the Estates Commissioners and the other was direct sale from the landlord to the tenant. He put it to those conversant with the facts, Was there any member of the public anxious to sell who was willing to trust the Estate Commissioners with the power of selling an estate? The Act contained another course. It provided by Section 22 in case of dispute between landlord and tenant, that the Estates Commissioners were to have the power of acting as judges with the consent of both parties. How many parties in Ireland would allow the Estates Commissioners to exercise such powers? There was not a man in Ireland at the present time who would be such a fool as to place himself in the hands of the Estates Commissioners. And that was the tribunal which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to invest with these extraordinary powers. The thing was monstrous.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.): Who appointed them?
MR. MOOREcould understand the thirst for information of the hon. Gentleman, and his desire to be informed of all the changes, because he noticed on looking through the division lists on these Evicted Tenants Bills that he voted against every one of them. He was then sitting in Opposition, and adopted in 1894 the then Chief Secretary's determination that there should be no com-
1196
pulsory powers. Had he changed his views since, and was he going to support the compulsory powers in this Bill?
*MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he could support compulsion on a great deal larger area than this Bill.
MR. MOOREwas not discussing what the hon. Member could do, but what he had done. He was an intimate friend of one of these Estates Commissioners, and no doubt was a little nettled at the truth told about these gentlemen. He would forgive him his heat.
*MR. T. W. RUSSELL: You have not answered my question. Who appointed them?
MR. MOOREsaid that if this Bill were worked properly some other tribunal must be obtained than the Estates Commissioners, who were not a judicial but an administrative body and were admittedly unable to overtake their work. These additional duties if thrown upon them would be performed in a partisan manner owing to the environment in which they had placed themselves. The machinery of the Bill should be altered, the appeal should be removed from the Commissioners, and a Judge of the High Court should deal with, the matter. When they considered the tenure of office of these gentlemen, they perceived the real object of the Bill. The plan had been devised by the two Commissioners who were not on the Consolidated Fund, in order that they might be put in the position of County Court Judges. It amounted to this, that no matter what they did, they were to be absolutely permanent in their tenure, and that House would lose all control over them. That would be most unfortunate. The hon. Member for Waterford in 1903 had insisted upon their being subject to the criticisms of that House. He could see no advantage, but positive disadvantage was to be feared by that section, and he hoped the good sense of the House would not allow the clause to become law. In conclusion he would say that if the Estates Commissioners would only devote themselves to their legitimate work, abandon the mesh of intrigue in which they were daily wrapped up, deal with priority, so as not necessarily to put the

1197
evicted tenants or cases laid before them by the priests first; if they would try and gain some of the public confidence they had deservedly lost and allow the evicted tenants question to be disposed of as it had been during the last few years, one-tenth of the evicted tenants' claims having been settled in three years, then there would be no necessity for compulsion; while if compulsion were granted it should only be under such safeguards as would secure justice for all parties concerned. He moved the rejection of the Bill.
MR. BARRIEin seconding the Amendment said he desired to point out to the House the significance of the introduction of such a highly controversial measure in the last month of the session. The programme of the Government at the commencement of the session contained no fewer than thirteen Bills—an unlucky number. Of these, seven had never been introduced. Another had been introduced and dropped. And in connection with that Bill there was one point he desired to emphasise. Perhaps the most important measure of the session was dropped at the request of the Dublin Convention of the United Irish League, and this Bill had been introduced at the request of the same Party. Why, when other measures were not brought forward, was this Bill introduced at this period of the session? The Government promised it should be placed on the Statute-book this session and they had already seen how quick the Government was to obey the mandate of the United Irish League as represented by hon. Members below the gangway. It was just possible that if the Jarrow election had taken place a few weeks earlier this would not have occurred. The Nationalist Party always over-rated their strength. And that had not yet been sufficiently realised by the Government to resist the pressure brought upon them. This was a Bill brought in to reinstate what were termed the evicted tenants. There were of these different classes. He would have great sympathy with evicted tenants who had met with honest misfortune and fallen upon evil days. This was a new form of legislation. They had it on record that the evicted tenants were men who were able to pay rent. He
1198
would quote from the words of the hon. Member for East Mayo—whose absence and the reasons for it he regretted—
"These evicted tenant campaigners are men who can pay and will not pay because I tell them not to pay."
Such was the class for whom the House was asked to pass special legislation. A certain class of persons in Ireland were ready to take advantage of every opportunity of mulcting the British taxpayer. They knew how rapidly the number of evicted tenants had been swelled since there was a prospect of their being reinstated. Let it not be forgotten that although that number had been steadily increasing, a new army last year came forward of not less than 1,457. There had been presented altogether 8,401 claims for reinstatement. It was clear that many of these were of a purely bogus character. Fully 5,000 had already been rejected, and it was very plain that if a really impartial tribunal investigated the claims of the 3,200 which remained a very large further number would be struck off. Another provision of the Bill which he and his friends thought most objectionable was the provision for evicting new tenants who had taken possession of farms from which other tenants had been previously evicted. Under the Bill it was possible for a tenant who had been twenty-eight years on a farm, and who during that long period had paid his rent and taxes, to be evicted on six months notice in order to give place to a farmer who at one time or another had forfeited the holding, but who was at the expense of the State to be provided with a new farm or have his old farm re-provided for him, even though it involved the throwing out of an honest man into the roadway. That was far-reaching legislation, and even the present Government would find it difficult to persuade their followers to place it on the Statute-book. As regarded the terms in which these clauses were put into the Land Act of 1903, the hon. and learned Gentleman for Waterford had stated that the matter only affected a handful of men, but there had evidently been a very considerable advance since then. The right hon. Member for Dover had replied and made his position quite clear by refusing to put evicted tenants in a better

1199
position than other tenants. And, again, the hon. Member for East Mayo had said that he did not suppose there were more than 1,000 or 2,000 acres in dispute. That was only four years ago, and now they had a report presented by the Estates Commissioners stating that it would require 40,000 acres to conclude a settlement, even though a great deal had been done in the meantime. These were demands they were asked to meet in that Bill, and they were asked to leave the whole matter in the hands of three gentlemen. He did not care what might be the standing or qualification of the Estates Commissioners, it was an absolutely new principle that three men should be empowered to fix the price at which they should buy and also the price at which they should sell. That was anew proposal and one. which it would be the duty of Unionists to resist to the utmost of their power. As to the. cost of reinstatement, £218 per farm was the calculation which had been made. He ventured to say that fully £500,000 would be required before the whole work was done. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had said, when challenged for having voted against all measures in this direction, that he was in favour of a larger compulsory purchase than this. The hon. Member was not alone in desiring that policy. There were Members on that side of the House who already saw too clearly that that must be the final solution. He would also remind the hon. Member for South Tyrone that he had secured his return to that House at the last general election by a pledge to introduce a Bill for that specific purpose. That Bill was now four months overdue. He ventured to ask the hon. Member, now that he was in the secrets of the Government and held an honourable position among them, why he had not informed his colleagues before he took office how he was embarrassed by that promise, and why the Government at that time did not bring in the larger measure which the hon. Gentleman had led the farmers of the North of Ireland to expect? The effect of pernicious legislation of this kind was to lead honourable men who regularly paid their rents to put to themselves this question: "Does honesty pay; because we find that men who did not pay
1200
when so requested by their masters are now to be better done by; they are to be put on a footing which they could never have hoped for if they had wanted to be honest men." The Chief Secretary, he submitted, was bound to consider that aspect of the question. The greatest responsibility attached to his office, and he thought that when the right hon. Gentleman considered that the Bill could not truthfully be described as a moral bill, because it was putting a premium on dishonesty, he should remember that in the present state of Ireland he was hardly justified in bringing forward legislation which was bound to have such a detrimental effect so far as honest rate-paying farmers were concerned. He believed thru a further injury would be done by the Bill in the additional delay it would cause to a peaceful settlement, because of the less rapid operation which would be experienced in connection with the settlement of estates under the great Land Act of the right hon. Member for Dover. Many Members of the House would agree that then; was great dissatisfaction at the slow progress being made with the settlement of estates during the last three or four years. He would like to hear that the Government was alive to that growing evil, which prevailed not only in the north of Ireland, but in the south and west, and that something would be done to restore confidence under the Act. It had been developing peacefully and quickly—["No"];—it was a fact that, it was effecting a great revolution in Ireland, in spite of the cold water thrown upon it by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. Let him warn the Government that if they diverted from the purpose of the Act a sum amounting to £2,000,000 at least, which should have been employed to settle these estates years ago, they would incur serious responsibility, and pile up against themselves the charge which must sooner or later be made against them, that they were not openly but secretly doing their best to prevent the tenant farmers from peacefully getting possession of their land and becoming absolute owners of it rapidly and for all time. Those on his side of the House believed this Bill to be pernicious, and that it was assisting people who had no right to look for

1201
further British help. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that when the Bill wan in Committee they would feel it their duty on behalf of those who paid their way to see to it that such a measure did not result in further delay under the Act of 1903. He seconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed,
"To leave out the word 'now and at the end of the (Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.' "—(Mr. Moore.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
*MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that before he dealt with the case for the Bill he would like to glance at one or two of the objections advanced by the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh. Much of his speech would have been as relevant to the Bill of 1903 as it was to the present Bill. Let them take the general question of the estimates of the number of these evicted tenants. The hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed his surprise at the growth of the number that would have to be dealt with. The late Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, on this point said—
"This Bill dealt with all persons who had lost or surrendered their holdings during the last twenty-five years, and it would be invidious if the Government were to endeavour to select from amongst those who had lost their holdings, for reasons good, bad, or indifferent, during that period a limited number. His offer had been to draw no distinction; to let bygones be bygones, and to give the same facilities to those who had lost their holdings as were given to other persons in Ireland who had farms not adequate to the support of their existence."
He submitted that if they were in favour of limitation, no such limitation was to be found in the speeches of the right hon. Member for Dover.
MR. MOOREsaid that what he stated was that they should only allow bona fide claims and not bogus ones, and what the hon. Member had just quoted did not apply to bogus claims.
*MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that what the right hon. Member for Dover
1202
stated was that he would reinstate them from whatever cause, but in this Bill the Government did not even go that length. They had asked the Estates Commissioners to go into all these cases, and it was upon the report of their inspectors who had made individual inquiries that the estimate embodied in the Bill had been arrived at. In regard to the question of the acreage of the proposed farms, the Commissioners gave an estimate of what they considered to be an economic holding, but the Government were not bound by that estimate. It was quite true that many farmers in Ulster managed to live on 15 acres of land. What had now been decided to be an economic holding, and what was being proposed for the congested districts, was a farm varying from 30 to 40 acres. That was a recommendation made by the Estates Commissioners to which the Government were in no way bound. The hon. and learned Member for North Armagh had said that the Land Act of 1903 contemplated the purchase of tenanted land. He did not gather that he stated that the object of the Land Act was confined to that, because he must know that that Act provided for the purchase of untenanted land for the express purpose of restoring these evicted tenants and for enlarging economic holdings. There were other larger matters which he would deal with immediately. What was the case for this Bill? He did not plead for it as an ordinary Bill, because it was nothing of the kind. It was a Bill arising out of great calamities, and he thought he. was entitled to say that so far as the Government were concerned they were merely giving effect to the Land Act of 1903. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] During what was practically a civil war in Ireland which raged for many years thousands of men and women lost their homes, and were evicted from their holdings for non-payment of rent. He was ready to admit that many of them were evicted because they were soldiers in a fierce fight, and it was to that phase of the question he desired first of all to call attention. His own position in the matter had been referred to, and he wished to make that quite clear. He went through the whole of the crisis from beginning to end. He believed the land system at the time both in law

1203
and as it was being worked to be intolerable. He never did and never could support the methods followed to fight the system at that time, and he did not dare to advise people to set themselves against the law. He did, however, his best to alter and amend that law, and to bring succour to those who had suffered under it. The Bill as he understood it professed to eliminate that dangerous issue from the public life of Ireland and to close this struggle for all time. It could be demonstrated that all Parties in that House had declared themselves in favour of the restoration of the evicted tenants, and he did not understand that even the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh opposed that principle. When the Land Purchase Bill of 1891 was being passed he moved a temporary clause, which was now Clause 13 of the Act, and he did that with the entire approval and the full concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition. Under that section the evicted tenants on the Ponsonby and other estates were restored to their holdings, and he was happy to say that he had official knowledge of the fact that many men in those districts who had purchased their holdings were now living under happier influences, and were now engaged not in fighting the law but in growing early potatoes for the Scottish market at £40 an acre. As a member of the Land Conference he ventured to say that the report of that conference never would have seen the light if it had not provided for the restoration of the evicted tenants. The Land Bill of 1903 provided for it, and the late Colonel Saunderson had expressed his desire that this unfortunate chapter in Irish history should be closed. Two such staunch champions of the Irish landlords in that House as Sir John Colomb and Mr. Herbert Robertson used language which was paraphrased by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover in these terms—
"We admit your difficulties, and so far as we are concerned we do not wish to stand in the way of a full settlement."
What had stood in the way? The truth was that while all the Parties concerned agreed as to the principle of restoration some of them differed as to the method of carrying it out. The Land Bill of 1903 was admittedly founded upon the
1204
principle of voluntary sale. Some of them there were in favour of compulsion. They relinquished their view because the right hon. Member for Dover affirmed in the House and in. Ireland that he knew compulsion would not be required, and that the problem could be settled without it. They therefore stood aside for the moment so far as compulsion was concerned. They were resolved that the right hon. Gentleman should try his hand and have every fair play. The truth they had now to face was that in the case of the evicted tenants and in the case, generally speaking, of the whole western area, where the poor were mainly concentrated, voluntary sale had failed, and if these festering wounds were ever to be healed the application of compulsion in several cases—probably not in many—was demonstrated to be a necessity. He asked hon. Gentleman opposite—who agreed that a settlement of the problem was desirable, if it was not essential, as the Government contended, to the peace of Ireland, but who differed from them as to the methods to be employed—was it not proved that the problem was insoluble by means of voluntary sales? [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] Why, he asked, should this or any Government insert compulsory powers in a Bill if it were possible to do without them? Surely, everybody must know that compulsion was only to be arrived at as a last resort, and he would like to ask the House how without this weapon it would be possible to deal with such typical estates as those of the Marquess of Clanricarde and Mr. Lewis in the county of Galway.
MR. MOORE, interrupting, stated that the Lewis estate was offered to the Commissioners for sale, and it appeared afterwards in their Report—and this was a practical instance of the manner in which the Estates Commissioners conducted their administration—that they took on themselves to find that there were no tenancies upon it, and proposed to offer prices for it as being untenanted land. They could have had the whole estate at the ordinary price if they had treated with the occupying tenants.
A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Who were the occupying tenants?
*MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the facts were that Lord Clanricarde would not sell on any terms, and that, as the hon. and learned Member said, terms were submitted to the Lewis's, but it was found to be impossible to bring about a sale. It should be remembered that when they were buying these lands they were bought to be re-sold. Lord Clanricarde would not listen to anything, and that involved 150 tenants, and in the case of the Lewis estate terms could not be arranged, and therefore the tenants could not be re-instated. These were two cases for which he submitted there was no remedy short of compulsion. But they did not stand alone. A few months ago he took part in an adjourned meeting of the Land Conference to consider this very question. According to his recollection there were then some hundreds of evicted farms in the hands of individual landlords. Some were derelict and some were being cultivated by the landlords. Others were in grass, In scores of cases leave for the Estates Commissioners to inspect the land was refused. He was not arguing that the landlords had not a perfect right to refuse leave. His point was how could a settlement of the problem be reached in the presence of such a spirit? It was a question that concerned farms all over the country. In face of facts like these it was impossible to contend that voluntary sale would meet the case. Compulsion was absolutely necessary, although he believed that when that was secured its exercise would be on a very limited scale indeed. He now came to a matter of very great importance to which the hon. and learned Member had referred, and about which there had always been a good deal of feeling. He meant the case of the planters—the men who took the evicted farms. It was proposed in the Bill to give powers to the Estates Commissioners, where they thought fit, to acquire compulsorily these holdings after paying compensation either by way of new holdings or by way of money. It was said that this was right in the teeth of the declaration made by the Irish Leader and by everybody else in 1903. He agreed. It was no part of his case that these declarations were not made. The understanding arrived at in 1903 was that persuasion and
1206
inducement might be applied to those men, but not coercion. It was asked: "Why do you turn round now and break your pledges to those men." His answer was that the whole Bill of 1903 was founded upon the principle of voluntaryism. Compulsion was ruled out all along the line. The principle of voluntaryism as regarded the evicted tenants and as regarded the western estates had broken down, and applying this new principle of compulsion from necessity and not from choice to the landlords, how could the Government refrain from applying it to the planters as well? They were soldiers of fortune—he knew a good deal about them—who went into the fight mainly for what could be got out of it. He failed to see where and at whom the line could be drawn. The Government, believing compulsion to be necessary in certain cases, had applied it alike to landlord and tenant, but as would be seen by the Bill, it would only be applied when inducement failed. Knowing more about the planter race than any man in the House of Common" and more than many men outside it although he was not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, he ventured to think there would be very little difficulty when inducement in the shape of solid cash came in contact with them. As to the case of the planters, he would refer the House to what took place on the Masserene estate the other day. That was the last estate settled of the Plan of Campaign estates. Those of them who were in the old Parliament would remember the fierce conflicts which took place in regard to that estate. Men were evicted and planters were brought from different parts of Ireland and placed on the holdings. They remained there and they had never had one happy or comfortable day since. They had been there in spite of the public opinion of the neighbourhood. No violence had been resorted to, but they had never had one happy or comfortable day because they had never had the esteem of their neighbours and the esteem of one's neighbours counted for something. If they wanted to borrow a horse or a plough they would find if they were well thought of in the neighbourhood how easy it was to do it; but if they were not well thought of they would quickly

1207
discover how difficult it was to obtain the loan of such things. These planters were there for twelve or fifteen years. What had happened? Lord Masserene died recently, and he was succeeded by his son. Efforts were made at once for the reinstatement of those men, and they succeeded. The planters were compensated and they had gone. The old tenants were back and peace had been restored to the neighbourhood. It was merely a question of terms and nothing else. The planting of these men, let the House remember, was not a case of the planting of ordinary farmers. In many cases these men were not farmers at all, and the planting of them was an act of war. The war was now over, and he submitted that although the cases of these planters might strike one as being hard they would go willingly when an adequate inducement was offered to them. He came now to the next and what the hon. and learned Member made his principal attack on the Bill. He meant the tribunal which was to fix the price of the land acquired. He had been in the House of Commons twenty-one years, and he had heard furious attacks made upon public servants. They were always repudiated by the Gentlemen who now sat on the Front Opposition Bench and by the Conservative Party generally. He had never, however, heard a worse attack made upon a public servant than had been made on his friend Mr. Bailey, one of the Estates Commissioners, that night. Mr. Bailey was charged with taking his instructions from the Freeman's Journal, and the late Solicitor-General for Ireland said "Hear hear" to that. What was the Conservative Party coming to? How often had the decisions of the Estates Commissioners been taken to a higher tribunal? Cases had gone to the superior Courts from these gentlemen over and over again. What had happened? The judgments had almost always been in favour of the two Commissioners and against the one. The tribunal to fix the price of the land under the Bill was the Estates Commission, and that was strongly objected to. Let them consider what was the state of matters in Ireland in regard to fixing the price of land. A tenant under the Act of 1881 went into a fair rent Court to get his rent fixed. In
1208
the process the landlord stepped in and called upon the Land Commission to fix what was called in the Act the true value of the holding—that was the true value of the tenant's interest in the holding. There was one lawyer and one farmer to decide that.
AN HON. MEMBER: Not always a farmer.
*MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he was taking things at their best. After the declaration had been made by the Court and placed upon the record, if the tenant desired to sell his interest in the farm on the open market what happened was this: he was offered £1.000 for his interest. The true value had been put at £700. The landlord came in and exercised his right of pre-emption and the tenant's property went at £700 instead of at £1,000. That was one way of deriding the price of land in Ireland. Then there was Judge Ross's Court where land was sold every day by auction. But Judge Ross had the power of fixing the price of land. He had nothing to say against Judge Ross. He was an old colleague of theirs in the House. He was an old friend of his own long before either of them thought of Parliament. But Judge Ross was not an expert on land and he had little or no expert assistance in his Court. Yet to him and to him alone was confided the duty of fixing the price of the land which he sold. What were the Estates Commissioners doing every day under the Act of 1903? These men were appointed by the late Government. What were the powers conferred on them? He left out the zones. Their powers in that respect were certainly limited; some hon. Members wished they were not. But for all sales outside the zones nobody would deny that they were really the arbiters of the price the landlord was to get. They were buying untenanted land every day under the Act. These men were challenged that night, but why were they not challenged in 1903? Why was not Mr. Bailey challenged then? He had been thirteen years in the service of the Land Commission and not a word had been breathed against him. It was impossible to shut out from their consideration that attacks were being made on Mr. Bailey and Mr.

1209
Finucane which were grossly unfair. They were public servants who could not defend themselves. It was said they were prejudiced against landlords. The real truth was that up to the present day the Irish landlords had done uncommonly well and they knew it. Taking the last Report of the Estates Commissioners the facts were that under the decisions of these Commissioners the Irish landlord was securing for his land twenty-five years purchase, with a bonus of 12 per cent. equal to three more years purchase. The Estates Commissioners fixed the price, and the result of their action was that the landlords were receiving twenty-eight years purchase for their land including the bonus. Would not any landlord in England like to get twenty-eight years purchase for his land? It was an outrageous thing to attack the Commissioners on the ground that they were prejudiced against the landlords. They had been called upon to perform most difficult duties, and had been left by the Act itself the largest possible discretion. They were appointed by a Tory and not by a Liberal Government, and believing that they had the experience, the sense of fair play, and the courage to do what was right the Government had placed them in the Bill as the tribunal. They were not purchasers in the ordinary sense of the term. They were purchasers for the State, and as the land must be resold it was evident it must be purchased at a price it could be sold at, or the State must bear the loss. The Commissioners had a sense of fair play. There was not the feeling against them which the hon. and learned Member asserted, and it was absolutely essential they should have something to say as to the price which was to be paid. Another objection to the Bill, urged with considerable force by the hon. and learned Member, was that it would involve a large expenditure of money; though the hon. and learned Member was wrong—not of course intentionally—in suggesting that the improvement expenses would come out of the money for land purchase. The hon. and learned Member thought the money should be spent not upon evicted tenants, but upon respectable men who had paid their way. That language carried a far-off echo. He had heard that argument before. In dark and evil
1210
days, more terrible than these, he was himself wont to make great play with it. However, when he used it there was a good deal to be said for it. It was one thing to plead that the money should be husbanded for tenants who had not violated the law when the money for land purchase was limited to a certain amount. When the Ashbourne Acts placed £10,000,000 at the disposal of the farmer it was not out of place to argue that the man who had kept the law should have a prior chance. Even when the £33,000,000 in the Act of 1901 were given the argument might be applied. Now when it was admitted that land purchase must be seen through to the end, and when there was no limit to the money—there really was no limit either in the Act or in any other way—when there was practically no limit to the money, and when both Parties in the State were bound to see the question through to the end, what was there to be said for the plea that certain men should be selected out of the population of Ireland for this favour? If there was anything in it had not the respectable farmer had a pretty good time of it? £23,000,000 under the old purchase Acts, £53,000,000 applied for under the present Act—was it not time when something might be done for these men who fought when other people did not? Every man on a farm in Ireland believed that the charters he had at his back would never have been won but for the fight they made—he spoke for farmers of the North who believed that as profoundly as he did—and he thought it not unreasonable that the cases of these men should now be frankly and fairly considered. The Bill took money from nobody. These lands would have to be purchased and would have to be sold. The case for the Government was that they proposed to do it now under this Bill. There was another objection that had been stated in Ireland. It had not been mentioned in that debate, but it deserved serious consideration. Three or four years ago when this matter was before the House it was unquestioned that most of those who were concerned in the debate thought the number would be extremely small. He himself thought at the time that it would be practically confined to the Plan of Campaign and similar estates. These estates, with two exceptions, had

1211
now been settled and still something like 2,000 cases remained to be dealt with. The problem, therefore, was somewhat larger than many of them anticipated in 1903. He would point out that the right hon. Member for Dover certainly imposed no limitation. He wanted to take all the evicted tenants who were affected from whatever cause. That was more than the Bill did. He would point out that all had been guesswork up to now. The Government had, however, now found out the exact number. The land war was not confined to the Campaign estates. There were what were called beleaguered outposts all over the country where the fighting for what was believed to be hearth and homestead was maintained. If this question was to be settled at all the only thing to do was to find out who had suffered. The Government claimed to have done that. The hon. and learned Member for North Armagh wanted the names published. He thought the hon. Member knew that there would be a great commotion in Ireland between the five or six thousand who were rejected and the two thousand who were accepted. That would entirely meet the object of the hon. and learned Member. Nobody ever dreamed of restoring men who had lost their farms from inability to conduct their business, from want of thrift, from drunken habits, or from anything of that kind. These men had been remorselessly ruled out of the selected cases, each one of which had been inquired into by the Commissioners.
SIR E. CARSON: Has there been any hearing in these cases?
*MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that what had taken place was this: An inspector had been appointed for a certain district; he had gone over his district; he had discovered those who were evicted; and he had investigated each claim by itself on the spot. There had been no judicial hearing. The Government of the day never proposed to have a judicial hearing in the cases in 1903. The Commissioners had reported on each case separately. In the opinion of the Estates Commissioners, who had not been very reckless,
1212
because they had selected only 2,000 out of 9,000 or 10,000, these men had just claims to reinstatement. They believed the men had these just claims after reading the report on each individual case. What was more, the Estates Commissioners believed that with assistance under the Act of 1903, to which they were entitled, they had a fair chance of redeeming the past, and doing well. It had been said in Ireland, if not in the House of Commons, that some of the tenants who had been evicted and put back on the land, had sold their holdings, and gone to America. It might be so in a few instances. What then? The Estates Commissioners had a solvent purchaser at all events. He would like, before he sat down, having dealt with the main objections to the Bill, to make an appeal to the House, an appeal, not only on the merits of the Bill itself, but of a somewhat different character. The main object of the Act of 1903 was to set up a system of occupying ownership of the land. The very success of the Act brought with it its own embarrassments, as was illustrated last Friday. £51,000,000 had been applied for in the last four years, and one who, like himself, was an enthusiast for land purchase in 1903, must think the result surprising. The right hon. Member for Dover, speaking in that House in 1903, did not guarantee that the progress for the three years would exceed £5,000,000 a year. It had gone far beyond that. No one could deny that the vendors of this land had been treated generously, but there was one fact deplorable in itself, and productive of the greatest friction and trouble. What he called the ameliorative side of the Act, namely. the enlargement of economic holdings, and the restoration of evicted tenants, and all kinds of ameliorative work contemplated by the Act, had almost entirely failed. The enlargement and improvement of uneconomic holdings had not made anything like adequate progress. It had been barred at every step, and the restoration of evicted tenants had not made progress. Yet these two things were aimed at by the Bill of 1903 itself. He believed that the right hon. Member for Dover never contemplated that these people, wearing out their lives on

1213
miserable patches of land on the roadside, should be left ill misery, while wealthy landowners and well-to-do tenants marched off with the whole of the land-purchase money. In by-gone days they heard a great deal about the state of Ireland. They had not heard so much in recent years, but they must not forget that these two things vital to the peace and comfort of the people had been left practically untouched by that great measure, and they could not shut their eyes to the fact that agrarianism was once more raising its head in Ireland. He had recently visited the West of Ireland, and found the people whom he had met long ago sullen and dejected, now cheerful, and many of them content. He saw men transferred from five acres of bog to thirty acres of good land, happy and doing well. He saw an improvement going on in the breeding of horses, cattle, am I poultry, and he visited convents and saw the nuns teaching the theory of domestic economy. He came away profoundedly thankful for what Parliament had been able to do. Lawlessness was confined to a very limited area of the country he visited, and of course the law must be upheld. But the; people were dissatisfied with the administration of the Act, and were waiting for the Government to remedy its defects. On his return, when he was asked about the alleged lawlessness, he simply told his friends to keep their heads. He should be astonished if it extended and he was glad to say not a man or beast had been injured. They had by their legislation acquired land and made numbers of people relatively comfortable. But the work had come to a stand, and the people who saw their neighbours in possession of benefits which they could not get were naturally impatient. These intimations to the Government, however, were not necessary; the Government were aware of the problem, and had promised to deal with it. Let the House now pass this measure with its blessed oblivion of the past and its message of hope for the future. When Parliament had done by legislation all it could do, there would still be left enough for the Irish people to do to build up the walls that had been thrown down. The Irish peasants were not
1214
naturally lawless, but were the most God fearing, purest-minded peasantry on the face of the earth.
MR. WALTER LONGthought that anybody who had listened to the concluding part of the hon. Gentleman's speech must have been astounded how little even in apparently his own mind, he was able to justify his remarks in support of the Bill they were now considering. The hon. Gentleman had tried to do a little too much. He had sought to justify the Bill which was now before the House, but throughout the whole of his speech from beginning to end he had shown, with one or two exceptions, how the very objects which the Government had in view had been achieved or could be achieved under the law as it stood. The hon. Gentleman did not go on to show the grounds upon which this most remarkable Bill was founded. In his peroration he appealed to the House, in terms with which they were now very familiar, to pass this Bill in order to remove the causes of discontent, and he referred incidentally to that which was after all the most important part of this agrarian question, viz., the making of uneconomic holdings into economic holdings. The greater part of his speech dealt with that question, but the Bill would have no effect in regard to it, but left by far the greater part of it untouched. If the speech were to be taken as justifying this legislation it showed that the Government were lacking in that quality which they were supposed greatly to possess, courage, and that they had not the courage of their convictions. If they had they would cover the whole ground. The hon. Gentleman was very severe on the hon. Member for North Armagh for what he said about the Estates Commissioners. The hon. Member seemed to have forgotten that by the Act of 1903 the Estates Commissioners were deliberately put into a position that would leave them open to the criticism of Parliament during the whole of their administration. He presumed the hon. Gentleman meant that although that power of criticism was put in it was not done with the object of Parliament giving effect to it.
*MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that of course he was aware that the Estates Commissioners were subject to Parliamentary criticism, but it was the criticism of the case made against them which was simply abuse.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the hon. Member, who had had an enormous experience of the House of Commons, might have found something stronger in the shape of a reply to the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh than to call it abuse; but the hon. and learned Member spoke for a class who felt rightly or wrongly there was a prejudice on one side on the part of those who had to administer the Act. He was bound to say that when he heard the hon. Gentleman find fault with that, and recalled the part the hon. Member had taken in the debates of that House, he felt that one ought not to be too severe upon him in the matter. The hon. Gentleman's real task was not to justify that Bill so much as to justify his own position in assuming an attitude to-day so different from that assumed in days gone by. The hon. Gentleman dealt with the arguments of the hon. Member for North Armagh and poured contempt on his interpretation of the powers of that Bill. The hon. and learned Member had complained that there were still left and must be still left in Ireland a vast number of uneconomic holdings, which if the agrarian question was to be satisfactorily solved ought to be dealt with before they attempted to deal in a different way with the evicted tenants' question. His hon. friend had pointed out that in this Bill they were going to give plots of 40 acres of land to these evicted tenants. How did they justify that when they left untouched other uneconomic holdings all over Ireland? The Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture said the Government was not bound by these 40 acres, that this was an open question, a question for settlement. But he did not find in the Bill anything about Government administration. That administration passed into the hands of the Commissioners, and what the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh criticised was the power given to the Commissioners to grant these portions of land to these people. However
1216
hard their circumstances and condition might be, they were no harder and no worse than those of men who occupied uneconomic holdings in which they could not by any possibility make a living. His hon. friend was absolutely sound on his criticisms on that part of the Bill, and the Minister's argument in reply fell far short of the mark. The hon. Gentleman described the Bill as, "Not an ordinary Bill, but one to deal with a great calamity and to give effect to the Act of 1893 to restore the wounded soldiers."
*MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I never used the phrase.
MR. WALTER LONG: I took it down at the time.
*MR. T. W. RUSSELL: In a different part of the speech I used the phrase "soldiers in a great fight."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he took the words down at the time, but if the hon. Member withdrew them he would not press it further. He quite accepted the hon. Member's statement, and must have misapprehended him. But they could not justify a Bill of that character solely on the ground that they were going to restore those who had lost their holdings through some action of their own— either through a desire to fight their own cause, or through following bad advice. Yet what did the hon. Gentleman say? What did the whole of the speech point to? It pointed to the fact that marvellous results had followed land legislation, that a great transference of land from the landowner to the occupier had taken place. He had listened with amazement to the hon. Gentleman's condemnation of the sales that had taken place on the property of the Duke of Leinster. It was perfectly true that the Act of 1903 was passed to secure the transfer of land from owner to occupier, and to make the occupier the resident owner of the land. It was quite true that the improvement of the uneconomic holdings and the restoration of the evicted tenants were also objects in view; but the hon. Gentleman criticised that Art of Parliament, and said that, whereas they had men suffering in the West whose condition was not and would not be improved by the, Act, in.

1217
the meantime these great estates would be settled, and he asked was that the intention of the Act? It certainly was. Was it to be a criticism against that Act that the farmers who had become owners of their holdings on those estates were prosperous and had made a good living for themselves, and that the evicted tenants' question had not arisen on these estates? If it was not, why did the hon. Gentleman raise that as a criticism of the Act of 1903? From the beginning to the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman had not attempted to prove that circumstances existed which would alone justify the passing of such a Bill as they were then considering. When they looked forward to the introduction of that Bill by the Chief Secretary they thought he would be able to show the breakdown of the Act of 1903 in respect of the. evicted tenants. The speech of the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture amounted to this, that because when he was in Ireland last time he found fifteen of the seventeen estates had been dealt with, they were now to pass this Bill to deal with the Clanricarde and Lewis estates. The Bill could only be justified by establishing the fact that the opposition of the landlords was so strong that the tenants could not get their land without compulsion. His hon. friend had said that there were some holdings to which tenants had been restored which had been sold by their owners. What was the hon. Gentleman's reply? He said: What did that matter; they had solvent tenants. What an argument to advance to Parliament for a Bill of that sort, which was not to get solvent tenants but to restore evicted tenants ! Everyone knew] that probably the greatest difficulty in this matter was, not to get solvent tenants, but to get sufficient land for those who now occupied uneconomic holdings. That was and ought to be the first consideration, and not to restore evicted tenants, however hard and painful their case might be. In restoring these evicted tenants also, they should create the smallest possible disturbance to evicted tenants. Was that the policy of that Bill? Proceeding as it did to take the land from tenants, who would take the existing farms? The hon. Gentleman dealt rather contemptuously with the new tenants and spoke of them as if they were not entitled
1218
to consideration. This was not the first time that the question of evicting the new tenants, "planters," as they had been called, had been raised. It was raised when the Secretary for India was Chief Secretary, and the right hon. Gentleman had said he would never be a party to an Act that was to turn out those men who had come in under the protection of the law and done their best to make their i farms a success. Did that plan involve, as it ought to involve, the minimum of disturbance? He thought the condition the hon. Gentleman should establish ! was that in the work that the Bill was going to do the fullest possible justice would be done to the people whose property he was going to take away. If it was to be done in the interests of the general community, the Government should be able to show that they were going to do the fullest possible justice —something more than justice—to those whose property they were going to take, not for any fault of their own, not because they had evicted their tenants, or had ever been guilty of wrong-doing in regard to their estates, but because it was necessary to provide holdings for men who had done nothing for the property they were to get. Surely the House should have heard something from the Government in justification for the introduction of compulsion. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had told them that compulsion was absolutely necessary because voluntary sale had failed, but at the end of his speech he had admitted that over £50,000,000 worth of land had been bought under the Land Act. He had also given them a picture of what he had seen in his county in Ireland; how that men, contented and prosperous, were now growing potatoes and making a good profit out of them. That result was admitted, not by those who were responsible for the Act of 1903, but by those who now criticised that Act in order to found a case for saying that voluntary purchase had broken down, and that therefore compulsion must be introduced. Even supposing that compulsion must be introduced, they should have heard something more from the hon. Gentleman in justification of the particular form of compulsion proposed.

1219
So far as he knew, there was no precedent to be found for the particular form of compulsion proposed in this Bill. Surely the Minister speaking for the Government should have not only said that compulsion was necessary and that the Act had broken down, but that compulsion was necessary because of the individual action of those who resisted the reinstatement of evicted tenants. The Estates Commissioners were now purchasing under the Act of 1903. At present it rested with the owner of property to accept or refuse the offer of purchase. But under this Bill there was no such power on the part of the owner; he would be compelled to give up his land because the Estates Commissioners said that that particular piece of land was the piece they wanted. Was it not absurd to ask them to accept the powers under the Act of 1903 which the Commissioners now possessed, as a justification for the extraordinary powers which the Government were seeking to place in their hands? And how much more ridiculous it was to quote Mr. Justice Ross. What Mr. Justice Ross did was to fix the minimum price. That was a totally different thing from selecting a particular piece of land from an estate; and the hon. Gentleman himself had said that, in arriving at the price, the Commissioners had to bear in mind that they had to buy at a price which would enable them to sell upon proper terms. Surely that was responsibility enough for a body to be charged with in the administration of this Bill. Surely it would have been better to have found some system of compulsion by which they would have one body to name the price and purchase and another to sanction the compulsory powers and decide whether the price was fair to the seller or not. The hon. Gentleman had talked about evicted tenants and the view taken by Unionists with regard to them. So far as he had been able to ascertain from the earliest debates which had taken place on this subject, there had always been a frank admission by all parties concerned that it was desirable to put these men back. Nobody denied that the existence on the land of men who had suffered as they believed unjustly, must be a danger to the peace, and a serious
1220
drawback to the prosperity of the locality. The hon. Gentleman had said himself that the existence of these men might lead to the recrudescence of serious agrarian trouble. He hoped that might not be; but he hoped also that the hon. Gentleman's words about the duty of the Government to put down this kind of thing would not end in the phrases the House had heard from him and his colleagues, but that they would be given effect to in their administration. They could, if they would, somewhat alter the form in which they put the case, and say that it was the bounden duty of the Government of the day to put down that sort of thing before proposing legislation which, if it was not successful, would add to instead of lessen existing difficulties. The Government did not realise, he thought, that in dealing with the evicted tenants, it was not merely difficulties connected with the quantity or quality of the land; there was another cause which had been ignored and would be found to be a very serious obstacle in the way of the administration of this Bill if it passed into law, and that difficulty was the keeping of the number of selected tenants down to 2,000. They knew perfectly well that that was not what was meant in Ireland. The demand in Ireland was not for a selected 2,000, or that the number should be rigorously cut down; and it was not that there should be this rigorous investigation by the Estates Commissioners. The demand in Ireland was that all the evicted tenants should be restored before the sales took place; and the hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well, as did all those who had followed this part of the agrarian movement in Ireland, that on many occasions the advice was given that the sales should not take place unless they included the restoration of the evicted tenants. The hon. Gentleman would remember perfectly well that originally the question of the evicted tenants was supposed to be limited to those who had been connected with the Plan of Campaign, or whose eviction had been brought about by some analogous circumstances; but the hon. Gentleman also knew that they had got beyond that limitation altogether, and that the present number which the

1221
Government proposed to take would upset the line of demarcation which had enabled that stand to be taken. The hon. Gentleman had been somewhat indignant, and rather unworthily indignant, with his hon. and learned friend for demanding the names of the men, saying that he had pressed for those names because it served his purpose; but if this Bill passed the Government would find out before very long that, although they declined to give the names now, they would have to be disclosed when the Act was in operation; they might postpone the evil day by declining to give information as to how the 2,000 names had been arrived at, but when the Bill was passed, and put in operation, they would then find out how unstable were the grounds on which the Government rested their contention that they would be able to limit the number to 2,000. Really, when they passed away from the particular form of compulsion, the whole thing turned very largely on this question of the number. The hon. Gentleman believed that his hon. and learned friend was exaggerating when he referred to the probable cost of the Bill. It was a remarkable point to remember that on the previous Friday they were engaged in discussing the finance of the Irish Land Bill, and yet at the very time they knew that there was £30,000,000 worth more property to be sold than there was money or machinery to deal with it. The Government made the present extraordinary proposal which they sought to justify on the ground that the case was pressing and the number limited. He did not believe that the Government would be able to limit the numbers. He very much doubted whether the tenants themselves, or those who had been evicted, would accept the kind of elimination process which the Government had adopted. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had never dealt with that part of his hon. and learned friend's closely and powerfully argued speech, in which he showed that there had been more rapid progress made already in regard to the restoration of evicted tenants than there had been with regard to the transfer of land from owner to occupier; that had been going steadily on, and a number of cases had already been satisfactorily
1222
dealt with. The hon. Gentleman had quoted two cases, the Clanricarde and Lewis estates. In regard to the Lewis estate, he had read the whole of the correspondence that had passed between the Estates Commissioners and the representatives of the estate, and he failed to see that it was a case which justified a Bill of this kind. The Bill proposed to deal with evicted tenants, but what was the main difficulty in the case of the Lewis estate? The owner of the property, a widow, had let a portion of it to two of her sons. They had been in occupation for fifteen years and were content to go on, being able to make a good living for themselves. In the name of fortune why was that estate to be quoted as justifying the introduction of a measure of this kind? Surely what the Government, and what everybody who had studied the agrarian question in Ireland, wanted was that they should have men occupying farms who were able to pay the rent value of them and make a decent living. The only case that remained under the Flan of Campaign was that of the Clanricarde estate. Were they to be told that because the present owner of that estate declined to sell it or to deal further with the evicted tenants, they were justified in taking these special powers? He was told that it would be extremely difficult to deal with the evicted tenants connected with that particular estate by acquiring portions of it. It came to this, that the Government were going to take compulsory powers which could be applied to other estates in order to apply them to this particular property. Could injustice go further? What assurance had they from the Government that those who were going to deal with this matter would seek first of all to get the land they wanted on the estates from which tenants had been evicted? In many cases they could only get it by disturbing the planters, and in other cases they would be unable to get it because suitable land did not exist. It seemed to him extraordinary to try and justify this particular form of compulsion by two cases, one of which did not apply at all, while the other would not be dealt with by the Bill. The question of the number of the evicted tenants presented the

1223
greatest difficulty in the matter. He did not believe the Government would be able to keep it at 2,000 or anything like it. The Vice-President and the Chief Secretary based their case on the proposition that this difficulty was to be dealt with by a final scheme; but what proof was there of finality in the scheme before them? The whole speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone went to show that most of his own hopes had been disappointed by the actual operation of the Act of 1903. If he told them that, how could he expect them to attach importance to an argument today which was based far more upon hope in regard to the future than upon any evidence which he or his Government had given? As he understood it, under this remarkable clause two of the Estates Commissioners were to have full power to go where they would, take what land they liked, and immediately after publication of their notice enter upon the land and do all such things as might be necessary for the purpose of enabling them to determine whether it would be suitable. There was no protection for the unfortunate owner of the estate, who might have had nothing to do with the evicted tenants for whom the land was wanted, and whose only fault might be that he happened to possess land which the Estates Commissioners thought would be desirable. Having gone through these preliminaries, the Commissioners were charged with compulsory powers. The most extraordinary thing of all was Sub-section (7), which dealt with the petition. This was to be presented to the very men who had selected the land and had put the compulsion in order. It was to be heard and determined by the Estates Commissioners, or any two of them, and their decision was to be final. A more extraordinary form of compulsorily taking another man's property he had never heard of. There was no appeal, no opportunity for the owners or sitting tenants to present their case. Whatever might be the necessity for this measure, he could not believe that Parliament would pass these compulsory powers without giving to the people concerned some protection as against the decisions of the Commissioners. He was not making any charge against the Commissioners. He was urging the case
1224
on behalf of them. He thought the Government were putting them not only in a very difficult but in a very unfair position by the powers they were imposing on them under this section. There was no protection against their decision, and if they were unfair there was no appeal to any independent body before whom all parties could be heard and whose decision should be final. He could not believe that this House would approve of a policy of that kind. They had been told that the Estates Commissioners fixed the price now; but that was a totally different case, because their offer might be refused. In this case their offer had to be taken by the landlords: they had no power of refusal. Surely there ought to be some other tribunal to whom an appeal could be made before a final decision was arrived at. In carrying out the reinstatement of these tenants the Government apparently realised that the arrangements might involve some loss, and it had been decided that such loss should be paid out of the bonus fund. That seemed to him to be an extraordinary, a most unfair, and a very uncalled-for proposal, and he hoped the House would hear something more about it when the Chief Secretary replied. Upon what grounds was it sought to justify the laying of this extra burden upon the bonus fund? A great deal had been said about the bargain made under the Act of 1903. Nobody would deny that the creation of that bonus was a very important part of that bargain, but surely that ought not to be impinged upon except for some solid reason. So far they had had absolutely no justification for this most remarkable proposal. With regard to the alteration of the tenure of the Estates Commissioners, he had been much puzzled by it, because the Irish Government were quite aware of the controversy which had arisen over Section 23 of the Act, which put some administrative control over the Estates Commissioners and placed it in the hands of the Lord-Lieutenant. What would be the effect upon Clause 23 of this particular change, and what was its object? Was it intended to put the Estates Commissioners in a position in their relations with the Irish Government and with Parliament which they did not occupy now? If that was not

1225
the intention, what was the justification for this particular change? This Bill was going to give extremely difficult powers and very responsible duties to the Estates Commissioners, who already had very laborious and heavy duties to discharge. It was now proposed to add considerably to those duties powers of a very delicate and extremely responsible character. Were they going to remove the work of these Commissioners from the criticism of Parliament to which it was generally agreed when the Act of 1903 was passed they ought to be subjected? If that provision was necessary in 1903 it was all the more necessary now when they were proposing to add to the duties of the Commissioners and placing upon their shoulders a task of great magnitude. However well they might perform their duties, and however single-minded they might be in considering this question, he was satisfied that both sides desired that there should be this criticism and he could not believe that it was seriously intended that the Estates Commissioners should be removed in the smallest degree from that criticism in Parliament to which they ought to be subjected. It was claimed for the Estates Commissioners that they were civil servants who could not defend themselves, and that was perfectly true. There was, however, a great distinction between civil servants and the Estates Commissioners, because in the former case they were subject to the control of the Minister who presided over their Department, but in regard to a large part of their work the Commissioners acted independently. There was nothing in the Bill to show that the Government of the day was going to control them and nothing which gave the Lord-Lieutenant or his advisers any control, although the duties of the Commissioners were being greatly added to. Therefore they were adding to the duties which these men performed independently of Government control, and the reasons for exposing them to the criticism of Parliament in 1903 were greater still at the present time. He would have been glad if the Government had shown that they could not deal with the evicted tenants under the existing law, but they had not been able to prove that. They had not been able to show that there
1226
was any obstructive action on the part of landowners which had rendered compulsion necessary. There was nothing of that sort in the Bill. They were asked to support it not upon arguments which went to prove that their contentions were wrong, or that the principle of the Bill was a good one, but on the ground that there were agrarian difficulties in Ireland and that those difficulties might be added to if a Bill of this kind was not passed. He was quite certain that no one who had ever been responsible for the Irish Government would deal lightly with the agrarian question, nor lightly pass by any attempt to lessen the suffering and trouble which arose from agrarian difficulties. If he believed that this Bill would settle those difficulties, heal this sore, and produce the result they all so heartily desired, he would be willing to strain his conscience to the utmost in accepting proposals which he believed to be based oh injustice and wrong. But there was no such conviction pressed on his mind, either by a study of the Bill, or by a study of past history and of the present agrarian difficulty in Ireland. He believed they were more likely by the Bill to add to their agrarian difficulties, and create new ones. The Government were resting themselves on the fact that they could limit these evicted tenants within the prescribed number, and comforting themselves with the conviction that that would be accepted as a solution of the difficulty. He believed they would awaken to find that they were not justified in the view they held, but that they were more likely to create among those who were not in the 2,000 a feeling of bitter disappointment and dissatisfaction, which would outweigh anything they might do for the 2,000. For these reasons he should certainly support the Amendment of his hon. friend.
*SIR W. NUGENTsaid he thought when the right hon. Gentleman introduced this Bill that at least it was an Irish Bill on which Members in every part of the House would agree, and least of all did he think that the opposition would spring from that part of the House from which it had come. Day after day during the time he had been a Member of the House, he had heard hon. Members, ask the Chief Secretary if he was aware of

1227
the blood-curdling outrages which had occurred in certain parts of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was not aware of them. If those hon. Gentlemen who asked Questions knew that those outrages were occurring, and if they were really desirous of peace in Ireland, why did they not support this measure, the primary object of which was to make those outrages impossible? The majority of these who had spoken on the question had practically all admitted that the evicted tenants should be reinstated, but the objection made to the Bill to-day was in regard to the compulsion clause. That was a very natural objection on their part, and he must say that under ordinary circumstances they would all share that objection; but they had not to deal with ordinary circumstances. The condition of Ireland was certainly extraordinary. He did not wish to refer to the past, but there was not a single Member of the House who did not know that the position of affairs in Ireland was due to the action of this country in the past. He did not think that anybody would deny that if England had adopted the same policy in other portions of the globe there would not now be any Colonies, and there never would have been a British Empire. If this compulsory clause was omitted from the Bill the result would be that here and there in some portions of Ireland some rich men, with large properties perhaps—he thought the cases would be few—would refuse absolutely to consider this question of reinstatement. But he did not think compulsion would have to be applied in many cases, and where it was necessary nothing else would be of any avail. Those men of great wealth would perhaps try to pursue what the hon. Member for East Mayo described as a campaign of vengeance. Would the majority of this House support them in such a scheme? For his own part he did not think they would. From what they had heard from hon. Members above the gangway that day they might take it that no Act would ever please them, as no Chief Secretary had ever been able to please them. The present Leader of the Opposition it might have been supposed would please them when he was Chief Secretary, but not a bit of it. They said that he did more harm than any Chief Secretary that ever came to Ireland. The right hon. Member for Dover was
1228
credited by the Nationalists with the best intentions, but Unionist Members from Ireland shuddered at the mention of his name. What their opinion was of the present Chief Secretary he would be afraid to suggest to the House, but he thought it was probable that they would not regret if his bones were added to the "dried bones of belated bigotry" which he had advised them not to trouble. It was admitted by the Chief Secretary that crime in the ordinary sense did not exist in Ireland. The misfortune was that the Irish people were not understood by the people of England. Their views of the Irish people were often taken from highly-coloured pictures drawn by men who never missed an opportunity of vilifying their fellow-countrymen. The tenants whom it was proposed to reinstate were men who were evicted at a time when they thought they were carrying on a great agrarian campaign. The right hon. Member for South Dublin, speaking in the House on the 14th February last, said:
"There could be no doubt whatever that in the interest, not merely of those unfortunate-people themselves, whatever their past history might have been, but in the interest of the successful working of the great Purchase Act, their reinstatement was looked upon as an essential element, and as a thing that had been promised by Parliament."
The right hon. Gentleman further said:
"He could not agree to compulsion because in certain cases there had been unwillingness on the part of the landlords to come under the operation of the Purchase Act. But if the Government were in a position to say that the Act could not operate, that there were difficulties in its way even where fair and reasonable terms had been offered, it was a question that would require grave consideration on the part of everyone who was desirous to see the Act operating and restoring peace and order to a country which had been too long distracted by troubles of all sorts."
He and his friends maintained that those circumstances did now exist, and that there was no solution except that proposed in the present Bill. He appreciated the spirit in which it was introduced, and he sincerely hoped that in its simplicity and thoroughness it might serve as a model for another Bill, which would end once and for all all points of dispute between the two countries, by giving to Ireland that place which was hers by rights, among the self-governing Colonies, and by giving the Irish people a chance of being, what he believed they

1229
would all then be, the staunchest supporters and most loyal friends of this country.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGcongratulated the hon. Baronet the Member for South Westmeath on his excellent and spirited speech. Before proceeding to criticise the provisions of the Bill, he would like to refer to a few of the statements made by the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland. They all knew that the hon. Member had been from time immemorial a sworn ally of the tenant farmer in Ireland. The landlord had always been to him a person deserving of no consideration. It was true that by some means or other, of which he himself had never been able to get at the bottom, the hon. Member was persuaded to attend the famous Land Conference, which resulted in the Act of 1903, but the House would have observed that every time the hon. Member made reference to that Conference and to that Act he said he regretted every day of his life that the Conference took place or that the Bill ever became law. The hon. Member, speaking of the results of the Land Conference to his friends below the gangway, said they would understand that it went to his heart to see the prices which were received every day by landlords in Ireland. That was not an altogether honourable or straightforward action for the hon. Member to take, because he was a member of the Land Conference which drew up the terms.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The hon. Member is entirely wrong. The terms of the Land Conference Report are not the terms of the Land Act.
MR. CHARLES CRAIG: The hon. Member acquiesced in the Land Act of 1903.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: That is another thing.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the hon. Member did so on the terms that it was framed to all intents and purposes on the lines laid down by the Conference, and for him now to throw aspersions on the Act of 1903 was not a worthy action for any Member of the House, and much less a Member on the front Ministerial Bench.
1230
The hon. Member asked for the passage; of the Bill on three grounds: first, that two Plans of Campaign estates—the Clanricarde estate and the Lewis estate—had not yet been settled; secondly, because the voluntary system under which the evicted tenants' clause of the Act of 1903 had worked had broken down; and, thirdly, because it would end the disastrous civil war which had been raging in Ireland for years. On the first of these grounds he seriously asked the House of Commons to pass a compulsory Act, carrying the principle of compulsion to an extent which had never been dreamt of before in this or any other House of Commons, because of 135 tenants on the Clanricarde estate and thirty-five on the Lewis estate.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If I mentioned those estates, I also said that there were hundreds of evicted farms of which the landlords would not allow even inspection.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid they had to take it there were 135 on the Clanricarde estate, 35 on the Lewis estate, and hundreds of cases—say 200—elsewhere. He wished to point out that the Bill, so far as he understood, did not necessarily aim at being able to obtain the actual farm from which the tenant had been existed, but at getting power compulsorily to acquire land in any part of Ireland to reinstate these tenants. If it was insisted that the real object of the Bill was to enable the Commissioners to evict the present holders of farms from which the eviction took place, his opposition to the Bill would be stronger than before. The hon. Member also informed them that the voluntary system had broken down; that he (Mr. Craig) would deal with in a moment, when he considered the Bill as a whole. At the end of his speech the hon. Member, after saying he would not make a peroration, perorated on the West of Ireland, where he said he spent a certain part of his holidays when he was last in Ireland, and he drew a picture of the conditions there which, if anything could, would go to prove the complete and entire success of the Land Act of 1903. He said he had not seen even a dirty school child during that time. He did not know whether the dirtiness or cleanliness of a school child could be directly or indirectly

1231
connected with the Land Act, but if it could, that, and the pleasing picture the hon. Member drew of the prosperity in that part of Ireland, seemed to be in favour of leaving the Act as it stood, and giving it a fair chance of carrying out what it was intended to do. To leave the hon. Member and return to the debate, what the ordinary man in the street, whether English, Scottish, or even Irish, understood by the evicted tenants question was the problem of restoring either to their original holdings, or to some suitable holdings in another part of the country, those tenants who had lost their tenancies during what was known as the Land War in Ireland, either on one of the Plan of Campaign estates, or on what had been described as outposts. It was these tenants, and these tenants alone, that the majority of the Members of the House of Commons had their minds fixed upon when the Evicted Tenants Clause of 1903 came to be discussed. If any evidence were needed he could read numerous extracts from the speeches made in 1903. He would give two only. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said on the Second Heading of the Bill—
"I ask the House can they expect that we should accept as a final settlement of the Irish land question any scheme which excludes from its operation the men who have risked and lost everything in the land struggle."
That showed that oven in the mind of the Leader of the Nationalist Party the evicted tenants he thought it his duty to champion were those wounded soldiers of the land war, as they had so frequently been called. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford in the same speech said—
"Their number is very small, and 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 as time had 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."
Again, the hon. Member for East Mayo said the question was a small one from the point of view of the numbers affected. When the Evicted Tenants Act was passed in 1894 there were, he said, about 800 of these people, but only 400 families remained to be dealt with. The whole question, said the hon.
1232
Member for Mayo, could be dealt with in a generous way with £200,000 at the outside, in a manner which would strike the imagination of Ireland, and smooth the passage of the Land Bill. He made these quotations to show that at any rate when the Land Purchase Act was introduced and discussed on its Second Reading in 1903 the prevailing idea on all sides of the House was that it was intended primarily to deal with those tenants who had lost their holdings either on Plan of Campaign estates or for some political cause. He was quite free to admit that the Act as finally passed into law went much further than had been anticipated by hon. Members below the gangway or had even been asked for by them. So I far as he could recollect, it was practically never asked by any hon. Member below the gangway that the Bill should apply to anyone except the so-called wounded soldiers of the land war. But, either rightly or wrongly—and he thought this was a very debateable question—the Act was made to apply to a much larger class. It was made to apply to practically all tenants who had been evicted within twenty-five years before the passing of the Act. A considerable amount of time might be spent in discussing the desirability of that extension, but as it became the law it would be a waste of time to enter into it now. There was at any rate complete agreement that the wounded soldier of the land war should be forthwith admitted to the benefit of the Act, and as soon as it could reasonably be done he should be reinstated in his holding or provided with a new holding. That being the case, he thought the question which the House of Commons had to deal with! Now was simply this: Had the reinstatement of the evicted tenants been prosecuted up to the present with reasonable diligence? Were there any circumstances, in fact, which rendered necessary the passage of the present i Bill? That was really the question they had to study. He thought that after a dispassionate study of that question the House of Commons, if left to itself, would say that great progress had been made. As a matter of fact, the tenant's clauses had worked well. They had worked with much greater rapidity and smoothness than the more important part of the Act—the

1233
purchase clauses. One-third of the total claims which had been admitted by the Government had already been settled. Seeing that the Act had only been in force for three years, he did not think any reasonable person could call that a bad result. They heard that out of seventeen Plan of Campaign estates, fifteen had been completely settled and only two were left. In the speeches in support of the Bill those two estates were held up as a justification for the extraordinary powers which the Government were seeking to obtain from the House of Commons. He did not think that was right. One of the reasons which Members of the Opposition put forward for their objection to the Bill was that the House of Commons was not given any opportunity of judging of the class of cases which the Government were going to admit to its benefits. Any Plan of Campaign tenant, he admitted, ought to be reinstated, and if these other cases were bona fide cases they should be admitted too. But what were they to think of the fact that there had been 8,000 applications, only 3,000 of which the Commissioners thought fit to be reinstated? The House of Commons ought to be allowed an opportunity of judging of the way in which this power of picking and choosing had been exercised by the Commissioners. He believed the Chief Secretary had admitted that the reason why he would not grant there turn asked for was that it would bring down endless trouble both on his own head and on the heads of the Estates Commissioners. Surely the House was entitled to ask for further information on this subject, as that before them they could not make head nor tail of. The House should not be asked to pass a Bill of this magnitude on such meagre details. He thought he could show from the Report of the Commissioners that the Bill was not necessary. Paragraph 41 showed that they had communicated with 1,752 owners of untenanted land; and although they were not informed how they had communicated, he supposed it would be by means of printed letters. He would have thought, however, that it would have been better to have sent down an emissary or inspector, who by conversation might endeavour to arrive at some arrangement or understanding. Although the figures at first sight seemed against
1234
them, they could not be said to be unsatisfactory, because if all the 1,752 had come into negotiation the Estates Commissioners would only have been able to take a little land from each. Out of that number 579 failed to reply and 265 refused to deal, 156 wrote saying they were going to sell the lands on their own account, 372 said their land was demesne land, which they could not be expected to sell, 120 were still corresponding with the Estates Commissioners, and 260 had expressed their willingness to sell. Out of the 260 only 147 had yet sent particulars and were in negotiation, while ten had sold 4,846 acres. Supposing the average holding of the ten was the same as that of the 260 who had expressed their willingness to sell, the Commissioners would have 125,000 acres of land to supply to evicted tenants, which would be 30,000 or 40,000 acres more than they required. Did those figures show any necessity for compulsion? They pointed in exactly the opposite direction, and there was nothing to show that the Act had failed in the short time it had been in operation. Hon. Members below the gangway had shown much concern over the Plan of Campaign tenants, but Clause 40 of the Report showed that they had not much sympathy among the tenants in Ireland. In that clause it was stated that proceedings were pending for the sale to the Commissioners of about 80,000 acres of land, but they had been told that it would be difficult to obtain it because it was needed for the enlargement of small holdings, and the people of the localities would strongly object to part with it to meet the requirements of the evicted tenants, nor would the evicted tenants be willing to take land at a distance from their former homes in places where they would meet with opposition. Although he thought it was desirable that the evicted tenants should be restored, he held that the Government had every right to insist that the evicted tenants should not be too particular as to where the land they got was situated. No necessity had been shown for increasing the power at present vested in the Estates Commissioners, and if they admitted that the evidence went to show that progress had not been sufficiently rapid he entirely dissented from the view that compulsory powers of any such far-reaching character as were proposed in the Bill should be given to any set of men. There was

1235
not a single instance in the English law where such powers as were proposed in this Bill had been conferred on any person. It would be against the instincts of any Englishman to put a person in a position to be able to say, "I require so much of your land," and, whether a man liked it or not, to take it, and also to fix the price. No valid reason had been adduced to show why the procedure incorporated in the Labourers Act should not be adopted, and the matter settled by an independent tribunal. The Estates Commissioners and the Vice-President had always been great champions of the tenants, and the link between them was very apparent. But the landlords had no confidence in them. The Vice-President had waxed warm in defending them, but the fact remained that the landlords of Ireland did not regard them as excellent Commissioners, and that was an end of it. No amount of heat on the part of the Vice-President would alter that fact. Therefore he would ask the Chief Secretary whether it was right to confer upon such persons, who did not enjoy the truest confidence of both parties, such extraordinary powers as this Bill proposed to give them. The first consideration in the appointment of an arbitrator must surely be whether that person was trusted by the two parties who were at variance, and to put this power into the hands of a person who was admittedly lacking the confidence of the parties was extraordinary, not to say outrageous. He also agreed with those who had spoken from that side of the House that from the point of view of the two Commissioners the most important effect of the Bill was that it improved their status and rendered them immune from all discussion in that House. Surely in a matter of such extraordinary difficulty, and on questions which generated great heat from time to time, and in the past had strained all sections of the community, it was admittedly not desirable that the decision of these matters should be left in the hands of two men who were removed absolutely from the criticisms of Parliament. He did not know any similar case where such a proceeding was even suggested, and he was quite sure that such a proposal, had it come from the Party to which he belonged, would have been received with shouts of
1236
derision from other Parties in the House. But because it came from the Chief Secretary, whose knowledge of Ireland extended back for some six months, apparently the House of Commons was going to carry out what, in his opinion, was a most uncalled-for and unnecessary proceeding—namely, the removal of these two questions from the criticism of the House. He would oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. He was quite certain that any hastening of the restoration of the evicted tenants would excite friction, that, passion would be raised, not only among the landlords, but among the tenants, which would more than counterbalance any advantage given by the speed by which the question would be settled. He did not believe it would be settled the more quickly if compulsory powers were given. He believed the whole question would be settled in another six years, that the two-thirds to be restored would be restored in a shorter time than the one-third which had already been restored, and that therefore he was well within the mark in saying the whole thing would be settled in six years. He asked the House to say that it was not at all an unreasonable time to clear up that great blot on the land system which they all agreed in 1903 should be got rid of as soon as possible.
*MR. SHEEHANsaid the argument had been advanced by hon. Members from Ulster that the Government were creating a precedent by introducing the element of compulsion into this measure: but must not a precedent be created some time, and was it not the duty of this House to legislate for necessities '? There had been undoubtedly a breakdown in the voluntary clauses of the Land Act of 1903, in so far at least as they affected the position of the evicted tenants, and in the measure before the House the Government were only endeavouring to carry out the honourable compact to which the late Government were pledged to restore the evicted tenants without any needless delay. The right hon. Member for South Dublin had asked for some concrete evidence of this breakdown, for something beyond mere generalities, for some individual action which would justify the action of the Government in bringing in this measure. Before he was

1237
done he hoped by chapter and book to famish the right hon. Gentleman with the information he required. The underlying principle of this Bill was that land should be acquired compulsorily for the reinstatement of evicted tenants, and, speaking from a wide personal experience of the working of the Land Act of 1903, he had no hesitation whatever in stating that unless the compulsory principle was preserved in the measure they would never see the evicted tenants reinstated in their lifetime. No matter what might be said to the contrary by these who were concerned in maintaining the sanctity of property, the only cure for the present evil state of the evicted tenants' question was compulsion. A noble Lord stated in another place the other day that he would not object to compulsion if the necessity for it could be proved, but that he thought the question could be settled if the Estates Commissioners gave enough for the land. He challenged that assumption. He was well aware that no matter what price was given for land they could not induce certain land lords to part with it for the purpose of providing the evicted tenants with houses and holdings once again. A large pro portion of grabbers, to his own knowledge, could not be got to give up their unlawful possessions unless the strong arm of compulsion was applied to them. That was no mere bald assertion. He could sustain it by facts. For the past three years ho had been hon. secretary of a body in the county of Cork known as the Cork Advisory Committee. That body was established and initiated by the senior Member for Cork City, and its main object was to facilitate land purchase negotiations between landlords and tenants, and to endeavour so far as possible to aid in the speedy reinstatement of evicted tenants. The committee was composed of the leading public men in the county. The chairman of the county council and most of its members took an active interest in its work, and he was happy to say that through the mediation of the committee a very large number of sales indeed were successfully negotiated, and owing to its influence and the standard of prices which it set up the tenants in Cork County had obtained better terms under the Land Act than had been got in any other part of the country. By directly approaching the landlords and their agents, and
1238
reasoning with them in a fair and friendly manner, they had also been successful in getting a large number of evicted tenants reinstated in their old home steads. But their difficulty did not lie primarily with the landlords or their agents. His experience was that the difficulty of reinstatement, in Cork County at least, lay more with the grabbers, who refused to budge unless they were allowed to dictate their own terms and who really acted as if they thought they had the Government behind them in this matter. He hoped that these un-scrupulous and inhuman adventurers would soon learn that there was at least one Irish Secretary who would give them short shrift in their robbery of the people's rights. Let him quote from his own personal experience on this aspect of the question. A few months ago, with an inspector of the Estates Commissioners, he waited upon a landlord named Mr. Robert Pratt, who had property in his constituency from which two persons had been evicted. Negotiations for purchase by the tenants had been practically concluded on the Estate— the only stumbling block in the way being that tenants would not sign the agreements until the grabbers were out of the holdings and the evicted tenants rooted into them. The landlord was quite willing that the evicted tenants should be reinstated. In the presence of the Estates inspector and himself he expressed himself to that effect, but they were all in this dilemma— how was it: going to be brought about? The Estates inspector asked Mr. Pratt if he had any objection to his interviewing the grabbers, and he said he had not, so both the inspector and he (Mr. Sheehan) proceeded to the residences of these people. At the first house at which they called they did not find the grabber him-self at home, a man named But timer, but they met his brother, who gave them a cold and surly reception, and who would not have anything to say to them beyond that ho was aware that his brother would not give him the grabbed farm on any account. He was subsequently informed on most reliable authority that the grabber himself said he was sorry he was not before them, as he would have sot his dogs on them and kicked them out of the place. He put it to the House whether anything short of the use, and the sharp use, of the rod of

1239
compulsion should be applied to such a black-hearted buccaneer as that. They proceeded from that man's house to that of a lady named Mrs. McGivern, whom they found squatted down in her coach- [house engaged in the useful occupation of cutting seed potatoes. She was a stolid lady who knew how to keep a closed mouth— in this quality at least she was a pleasing departure from the rest of her sex. The Estates inspector i explained the object of his visit. It did not ruffle in the slightest the calm of her sphinx-like stolidity. She would discuss nothing with them until her son was present, and he was away from home. The landlord had informed them that he had allowed this lady into the evicted holding at a largely reduced rent as a yearly tenant, on the payment of a sum of £ 50. The inspector asked her if she would give up the holding if she got her £ 50 back, and the only time during the interview that she showed any life or spirit was when she answered with temper that she would not, or if she got ten times £ 50. There were two cases in which the landlord was most anxious that the grabbers should be got out somehow or anyhow— as a matter of fact, he had agreed to the sale to the other tenants, excluding these on conditions that the Estates Commissioners should declare the remainder of the property an estate under the Land Act, carrying the bonus with it. Did not these examples alone prove that they could not now solve this question with out compulsion? Mr. Buttimer and Mrs. McGivern were branches of the same family, and later on the inspector and himself visited another member of this interesting group of relatives, all of whom seemed to have made a trade or profession of grabbing. The grabber's name was Chambers and the holding was on the Hassett estate. The story of that eviction formed one of the tragedies of the agrarian struggle. The former tenant, a man named Kelleher, lost hundreds of pounds on the farm, but notwithstanding all his industry and efforts— and he had it on the most trustworthy authority that he was an industrious man— still he was unable to meet the exorbitant demands of the landlord, and being himself a ruined and broken man, and bowed down with the worries and anxieties of life, what wonder that his mind gave way and that he
1240
committed suicide, leaving a widow and helpless young family behind him. His friends assisted her for some time, but they could not support her for ever, and the inevitable fate befell her. She be came a victim to landlordism, and she and her little ones were cast on the road side. The miserable plight of the widow and her family did not weigh on the conscience of the land grabber. The wretched fellow, Chambers, took it at a rent reduced by one half or more, and he had actually filed an agreement with the Estates Commissioners to purchase the holding, although Mrs. Kelleher had a number of sons, now grown to manhood's years, working as agricultural labourers, who would be well able to manage the farm if they were put back on it. He had placed the whole circumstances of the case repeatedly before the Estates Commissioners, as he thought it one of the harshest cases of eviction which ever came under his notice, and he begged of them not to sanction a sale to Chambers. The only reply he got to his communications was the usual printed form of acknowledgment; and if he put a Question down to the Chief Secretary he dared say he would get the usual stereotyped reply that the matter would be inquired into in due course. The inspector did not meet Chambers himself, but he met one of his sons who laughed at the idea of their being asked to leave their comfort able residence and splendid farm. He said they would not go on any account. He wanted to know whether a man of that type, who filched the widow's and the orphans' portion, deserved any sympathy from humane and Christian people, and whether if strict justice wore done to him he should not be lashed out of the home he had desecrated. by his presence, without a penny of compensation. He could multiply these cases over and over again, but he thought ho had cited enough to prove right up to the hilt the necessity for compulsion. Now he passed from that aspect of the case to another which was agitating the minds of thousands of evicted tenants in all parts of the country at the present time— the largo number of applications, roughly speaking 3,000, which had been rejected by the Commissioners. Whilst he had no doubt that there were a good number of applications which could not stand the test of any honest investigation, still

1241
it appeared to him, at least, an impossible proposition that, for instance, in the county of Cork out of the 957 applications received, only 186 tenants or their representatives should be considered as suitable for reinstatement. That meant that 771 claims in one county alone were to be thrown overboard on the mere reports of a body of inspectors, the vast majority of whom were not and could not be drawn in sympathy with the evicted tenants, as they were from the landowning class. Nothing on earth could convince him that these 771 applications from his own county were rightly or reasonably rejected. He had received a wire from Mr. Daniel O'Connor, chairman of the Cork Evicted Tenants' Association, which read—
" Evicted tenants repudiate official report of the Estates Commissioners on the evicted tenants question as unjust and bitterly disappointing. They protest against un-sympathetic and partisan landlords' inspectors rejecting claims which have been publicly recognised as just. An impartial public investigation demanded."
Hon. Members could see from that that the report of the Estates Commissioners had driven the evicted tenants into a condition of mind bordering upon panic and despair. He had glanced through the reasons why such a large number of applications were rejected by the Commissioners, and he would claim the indulgence of the House whilst he examined a few of them. One of the reasons for rejection was that " applicants voluntarily surrendered their holdings or sold their interest in them." What did this voluntary surrender mean 1 An unfortunate tenant found himself unable to pay the gross rack-rent put upon him— he saw nothing but the workhouse or starvation and ruin staring him in the face if he were evicted,. and he thought it better perhaps to leave quietly with something in his pocket from the landlord for his voluntary surrender rather than be thrown out without a penny between himself and his family and utter poverty. And his experience amounted to this: voluntary surrenders and the soiling of their interests by tenants took place at a time when the national movement in Ireland was ruined by internal dissensions, when the agrarian agitation was more or less at a standstill, and when these unfortunate and helpless men were thrown back on their own resources, with nothing to live on in the present and nothing to hope
1242
for from the future. Could one wonder, when such conditions prevailed, that these unfortunate waifs of fortune and of circumstance should succumb to the immediate temptations of necessity and of hunger, and sell their birthright for a mess of pottage? He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this Bill, and whose humane disposition was recognised on all sides of the House, would see to it that the door of hope should not be rigidly shut upon these wretched men and their families, who surrendered their holdings or signed away their birthright when the gates of promise seemed to be have been for ever barred against them and theirs. He could mention several cases in which evicted tenants, cast down to the depths by the gloom and the despair of the time, sold their interests for any paltry consideration which would bring even the most temporary relief to themselves and their families, and in his view it would be a grave moral wrong doing — it would be the blackest in humanity, if in the great. scheme of pacification which the Land Act of 1903 must eventually consummate, the present i Government were to shelter themselves behind the miserable legalities of the question, and doom a large body of families to irredeemable despair and misery simply because, when ruin was around them and hope itself was dead, when perhaps the cry of their little ones for bread was day and night ringing in their ears, they gave way to the temptations of the moment. Let him just briefly mention one case, that of the man who sent the telegram he had read a little while before. That man, Daniel O'Connor, the Chairman of the Cork Evicted Tenants Association, was evicted from a farm near the city of Cork by the landlord, a Mr. Bass. He had expended over a thousand pounds in hard cash in improvements and so forth. At the time of his eviction he only owed one year's rent, and shortly after his eviction and before the period of redemption had expired, he was offered something like £ 600 for his interest in the farm, but considering it value for several hundreds more he declined the offer, believing in his positive right to the holding. In connection with certain proceedings which took place sub sequent to the eviction O'Connor served a term of imprisonment, and a gentleman who came down from the north of

1243
Ireland and took possession, on being in formed of the circumstances of the eviction by the evicted tenant himself, immediately quitted the place. O'Connor was evicted because he refused to pay on principle what he believed to be a gross rack-rent, and he had the sympathy of the country with him at the time. The unfortunate man had a large and helpless young family dependent on him, and in the circumstances which he had already adumbrated he assigned to his landlord his interest on the holding on which he had expended £ 1,000 of his own money, for which he had refused £ 600, subsequent to his eviction, and from which a grabber who appeared to possess what was some what rare amongst grabbers— a conscience —cleared out when he learnt the true facts of the case. He put it to that House and to the Chief Secretary whether this was a case in which the Government should stand upon strictly legal rights, or whether, on the other hand, they should not deal with this and other cases of a similar nature on the broad grounds of humanity and moral rights— take these men and their families after years of suffering on the highway of the world, mend their broken and wasted lives, and set them on their feet once more, with something of hope in their hearts, by placing them back in their old homes, and providing them with a fresh and fruitful start in life. Another class barred out by the Report of the Estates Commissioners were the representatives of evicted tenants who might be unsuitable to work land from want of farming experience, or were otherwise sufficiently provided for. He questioned the statutory right and power of the Estates Com missioners to reject applications on that ground alone. If parties were the representatives of bona fide evicted tenants coming under Section 2 of the Land Act of 1903, it should not be within the power or the discretion of any Government Department or administrative body to reject the claims of these who were specifically mentioned in an Act of Parliament which purported to deal finally with this great festering evil in the social system. Let him give a personal illustration of how unfairly and unjustly this exclusion might work out. Ho had the terrible experience, when he was a lad of six or seven years, of going through all the dreadful horrors of an Irish eviction. His father was ruthlessly evicted
1244
in 1880 by one of the worst types of landlord he had ever read or heard of, and the memory of that frightful eviction scene was ineffaceably stamped upon his mind—the landlord gloating in person over the misery and anguish of his unfortunate victims, the roof-tree under which he was born set on fire, and the homo in which his tender years were passed burnt to the very ground; the heartlessness and cruelty of the whole proceedings, every incident, stood clearly out in his recollection at that moment, and would remain for ever with him, even when other events and other crises in a rather chequered career had faded into the background of time. And it would show how far they had advanced on the road to a settlement of this question, with all its tears, and all its blood and misery, when he stated that his father did not owe one penny of rent at the time of his eviction; his lease had merely expired, the landlord wanted the farm for himself, and out he had to go. Anyone who knew anything of Ireland knew that the love of the land could never be uprooted from the heart of an Irish peasant, that the early ties and the old associations had ever a potent spelt over him, and though years and distance might separate him from the home of his fathers, there was ever the clinging fondness for the old old where he was born, the spot which was over home to him. And he knew how when the Act of 1903 was passed his father longingly looked forward to the day which would see him back in his own holding once more. It was the dream and the hope of his few remaining years on earth— a dream and a hope which were doomed to be disappointed, because the evicted tenants clauses of the Act were insufficient in themselves without compulsion. His father died last year a disappointed man. What he wanted to know was, were his representives going to be barred out from their inherent: and prescriptive right to the portion of the land which was owned by their forefathers for centuries merely because they might be otherwise sufficiently provided for? To exclude them would be an outrage on the principles of the Act of 1903, and he was certain that there were several others, representatives of real bona fide evicted tenants, who were in a similar position to that in which his family was placed. Much had been made of the question of

1245
pre-emption by the Ulster .Members who had spoken. They did not want that principle to be applied by the State to landlords who did not wish to dispose of their untenanted land for the reinstatement of evicted tenants. But what about the cases of evicted tenants in the south of Ireland, against whom the landlords exercised the right of pre emption given to them by the Act of 1881, and got the Land Commission to fix the purchase price of the tenant's interest, which in every case was less than one half of what it would fetch in the open market? He observed that the Ulster Unionist Members had nothing to say to that, probably because it did not affect their constituencies. He understood that the right of pre-emption did not exist whore the Ulster custom prevailed. But let them take the famous Water grass Hill eviction case, where the tenant, Edmond Murphy, wanted to sell by public auction his interest in his farm. The landlord stopped in and exercised the right of pre-emption, under which the Land Commission would only give Murphy something like £ 400 for what was worth over £ 800. Murphy rightly refused to accept this, the rattling-manhood of the district gathered round him, and when it was sought to evict him twenty-three brave young men made a fight for the homes of the people as heroic as any that was ever made in the whole history of the agrarian struggle, a fight which found its echo even in that House, and for which these who participated in it went through their period of suffering and imprisonment; and what he now wanted to know from the Chief Secretary was whether this man Murphy was to be regarded as an evicted tenant under the Bill or otherwise? He also referred to the case of Cornelius O'Sullivan, of Kilnaclasha, near Skibbereen, who was evicted from his holding under exactly similar circumstances— the right of pre-emption having been exercised by a very reverend gentleman of the Protestant Episcopalian Church. Were these men going to be shut out from the benefits of this Bill? There was one matter in which he was in agreement with these who had spoken from the Unionist Benches, and that was in the demand for the publication of these evicted tenants whose claims were admitted and these whose applications were rejected. The evicted tenants
1246
were loudly clamouring for this information themselves. It would have to be known sooner or later— it would tend to discontent and dissatisfaction quite as much by being kept back as by being made known; and he thought it would be prudent for the right hon. Gentleman to make the information public at the earliest possible moment. In conclusion, he wished the Chief Secretary luck with his Bill. He had been rather unfortunate in dealing with other Irish questions, but he sincerely trusted he would be able to get this measure safely through Parliament. He would, however, earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, if he wished for success, not to go in for any half-settlements or to whittle down the evicted tenants claims, and to have done once and for all with these pettifogging quibbles about legal rights and voluntary surrenders and so forth. Let him leave these things to the Schoolmen of the Law; this was a Bill which if it were to serve its purpose should be dealt with from the heart— there should be a little of the soul of humanity in it. Let him in God's name make it a generous settlement, let no man be excluded who had a shadow of a reasonable claim, let there be fair assurance given that these whose claims were rejected should have some independent and impartial investigation of them, and if he did that he would bring blessings on his own head and joy and happiness to hearts that were long cankered with care, and comfort to bodies that were starved for need of nourishment.
Mr. SLOANsaid he could not claim that he represented an agricultural constituency, but he had the honour of sitting in the House when the Land Act of 1903 was passed, and he listened carefully to all the particulars of the Bill and to the pledges of the Government of the day in regard to the evicted tenants. If ho remembered rightly, the National Party made it a condition of the passage of that Bill that this matter should receive careful and favourable attention. He thought he was right in saying that the Bill would never have passed had that pledge not been given. He could not forget that during the agrarian war in Ireland, when Members of Parliament were being put in prison by the dozen

1247
and people were being shot on the road side, the Unionist Party opposed the scheme of land purchase, and for about eighteen years that trouble and turmoil was kept up in Ireland until public opinion got so hard that this very policy, the Land League policy, was swallowed in one gulp. If that was the experience of eighteen years of administration from one political Party in the State, why should this opposition to the restoration of the evicted tenants to their holdings be proposed for the purpose of carrying on another agrarian war of perhaps less magnitude, but still of not less importance? He could not for the life of him see why, when they were all agreed on the fact that the pledge given for the restoration of evicted tenants was a matter for consideration, they could not give a Second Reading to this Bill, and then go into the different clauses and try and amend it so as to meet the views of these who conscientiously objected to it. He thought the principal objection was taken to its compulsory clauses. The hon. Member for South Antrim had complained of the partiality of the Estates Commissioners and pointed out that it was due to the fact that they were strong advocates of the tenant farmers. When Mr. Bailey and Mr. Finucane were appointed the Government believed they would carry out impartially the duties Parliament put upon them. Did the hon. Member for South Antrim contend that these two Commissioners should be displaced for two landlord representatives? If that were done the war in Ireland would be much greater than it was now. No one could regard Ireland with any degree of sympathy or without prejudice or free from any Party considerations or bigotry without admitting that it was possible to deal not only generously but sincerely and honestly with questions such as this for the purpose of trying to bring peace and contentment into the homes of these poor people who, it was admitted, had sacrificed for a principle the homes which they had hitherto had. He could not see what object was to be gained by rejecting this Bill on Second Reading. He thought the Member for South Dublin might have used his influence with the Unionist Members for Ulster to allow the Bill to have a Second Reading, seeing that it was admitted that they could not go on ignoring the claims of the evicted tenants. They could then have
1248
put their heads together with a view to amending the measure during its further stages. He regretted that the right hon. Member for Dover was not present, because he was quite sure he would have supported the principle of the Bill if not its details. He would be the first to acknowledge his pledge to the House in passing his great land scheme. If they were to have cattle-raiding stopped and a cessation of Questions on the Order Paper of the House, which wore not honourable or creditable to the country, let them take the remedy and as far as possible put an end to the disturbances and grievances by legislation which could i do nobody any harm and which certainly would bring contentment and happiness to these people. It was a regrettable thing that Party spirit was sometimes brought into matters in regard to Ireland on which they could agree to differ. There were important questions of general interest and concern to Ireland in regard to which they should endeavour to mete out justice to all parts of the country impartially and without prejudice. Unless he threw his conscience to the wind and bowed down to every criticism that was made he could not see how any reasonable or sensible man who heard the Land Act of 1903 being discussed and knew the conditions under which it was passed could vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, which was a continuity of the policy of the Unionist Government of that day in respect to which a distinct pledge was made. He did not say that Amendments could be introduced to meet the landlords of Ire land, because that was an-impossibility. He did not complain of the hon. Members for North Armagh and South Antrim speaking up for the landlords, but he did complain of the manner in which others who did not represent the landlords were being attacked for carrying out their conscientious objections. The Bill was needed in Ireland. It would have a tendency to allay the feeling that at present existed in the country, and would restore these poor people to homes which they had sacrificed for the sake of a principle. For all these reasons he supported the Second Reading.
*MR. FFRENCHsaid that two or three days ago he asked a Question in reference to a case which came under his notice, and the reply he

1249
got was that the landlord was in communication with the Estates Commissioners and that he was willing to sell the whole of his estate to the evicted tenants. The landlords had asked too high a price for the land. He believed that the last time the tenants asked to be restored to their homes the landlords asked twenty-seven and a half years purchase on the old rack rents. That was one of the cases which would require compulsion. He hoped the light hon. Gentleman would take note of it, and also that it would nor, escape the notice of the Estates Commissioners.
*MR. ASHLEYsaid he fully admitted that during the debates in 1903 on the Land Purchase Act it was agreed on all hands that everything should be done in reason to reinstate the evicted tenants. He did not know than all evicted tenants should be reinstated; but it was understood that all the evicted tenants on the Plan of Campaign estates should be reinstated. [NATIONALIST cheers.] He was glad that hon. Members below the gangway agreed with him, but surely they would not contend that they had not been mostly reinstated. There were only two outstanding estates at present, namely, the Clanricarde estate and the Lewis estate. He could support compulsion if it was only to be applied to the Plan of Campaign estates, but this Bill went further than that and said that compulsion might be applied to any land lord or new tenant in order that land might be supplied to an evicted tenant. That was going very far indeed. The Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture for Ireland, speaking in the debates in 1894, said he would not only not con sent to any measure containing a compulsory clause, but that he would not vote for any measure to turn out a new tenant and put in another man. Now the hon. Member had put his name on the back of a Bill which proposed to do what in 1894 he said ho would never consent to do. From the outsider's point of view the most objectionable part of the Bill was that in regard to the method of ascertaining what compensation was to be given to a landlord or a new tenant if he was deprived of his land. He could not understand why hon. Members below the gangway should say that a man who bought an article should at the same
1250
time fix the price. A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Not for himself.] Yes, for himself. The Estates Commissioners went round and saw a piece of land which would suit evicted tenants, and they made an offer of so much per acre. If the landlord in that case said he was not getting enough, to whom did the landlord apply for arbitration? He could not appeal to any impartial tribunal; he had to appeal to the Commissioners themselves. It was not fair to put such a duty on the Commissioners. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: They were appointed by a Tory Government.] It did not matter whether they were appointed by a Tory or a Liberal Government, or by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway them selves. He could not imagine why that provision had been put in the Bill, and he hoped that in Committee the Government would accept some reasonable Amendment in order that there might be an impartial arbiter to judge when these compulsory powers were to be put-in force. He could not understand the position taken up now by the government and hon. Members below the Gang way with respect to the landlords in Ireland. Up to and including 1903 the policy pursued on both sides of the House was that the tenants should become free holders and that the landlords should be allowed to retain their houses and demesnes. That was, under the circum stances, a wise policy, but it had been changed. In the Act of 1906 powers were given to the rural district councils, subject to appeal, to the Local Government Board, to compulsorily acquire untenanted land for the erection of labourers cottages. He was not discussing whether that was good or bad, but there they had the first step towards depriving the landlord who had sold his estate to the tenants of part of the untenanted land. Now this Bill was brought in to take away compulsorily more untenanted land from the landlord in order to put the evicted tenants upon it. It seemed to him very unwise on the part of hon. Members below the gangway to support that policy. Surely it was in the interest of Ireland that they should do all they could to keep the late landlords in the country and not drive them away. After all, they had got the money for their estates and it was desirable that they should be kept in the country to spend

1251
the money there, instead of spending it in England or France or some other country. There was an agitation in favour of taking away the sporting rights from the landlords. If such a policy had been pursued in the past in Scotland they would not have seen the amount of money pouring into that country every year from Englishmen and others who did not belong to the country. Hon. Members below the gangway should do all they could to encourage rich people to come to Ireland to enjoy the beauties of the country and the sport to be found there, instead of whittling away what was left to the old landlords and preventing them from letting their places to rich people from abroad who would bring money which would benefit the country generally.
*Mr. JOHN ROCHEsaid one might naturally ask why they were now discussing the question of the restoration of the evicted tenants in view of the pledges which were given from the Treasury Bench four years ago. It was stated then that the question would be settled in a satisfactory and generous manner, and were it not for these pledges the Act of 1903 would not have passed through the House of Commons at all. How had the pledge been kept in regard to the Clanricarde and the Lewis'" estates, both of which were in his neighbourhood? After a lapse of four years not one tenant had been reinstated on either of these estates. It was impossible to deal with Lord Clanricarde except by compulsion. He had refused either to sell his estate as a whole, or to entertain the question of the restoration of the evicted tenants to their former holdings, or to sell for their use the un-tenanted land on the estate. What was the spirit in which the statement made by the Chief Secretary on the First Reading of the Bill was received by Lord Clanricarde? Immediately after that statement — which was to the effect that after careful inquiry he was convinced that he would require compulsory powers— appeared in print the present agent of Lord Clanricarde summoned a meeting-of the planters with the object of trying to get them to pledge themselves that they would resist any legislation which might be introduced. Strange to say, several of the planters told the agent there and then that they would be only too delighted to see these powers conferred on the
1252
Government on the morrow, and they would be very glad to take compensation to clear out. Immediately after that the agent attempted to get them to sign a document pledging them to resist this legislation, but he failed. His next move was to attempt to split up the un-tenanted land on the estate, and plant tenants of his own choice upon it, so that when the Bill was passed there would not be a perch of untenanted land on the estate to provide holdings for the evicted tenants. His last move was that he had offered to change the tenancy of the planters who were only future tenants into judicial. The agent had, in fact, endeavoured to stop every possible gap, and to prevent by every means in his power the application of the powers given under this Bill to that estate. Therefore, by what possible means could this question of the Clanricarde estate be settled unless compulsory powers were given to the Estates Commissioners to deal with it? They had in the parish in which he resided about fifty-six families evicted on the Clanricarde estate, and never more than about seven planters. He could tell the House that during the past twenty years more than half the number of planters upon the estate, after enjoying holdings made up of nine or ten ordinary holdings grouped together, had walked away without paying a penny of rent. One of these planters, a gentleman named Flower, got nine of these holdings, and a house was built for him on the farm, costing about £ 400. He stopped there for about three or four years, and during that time not one four-footed beast of any sort or description did he put upon i the land. Mr. Flower paid no rent, and when he was pressed for it, being unable to pay, he thought the best thing for him to do was to clear out. He knew himself, from persona! experience and from information he had received through many channels, that the vast majority of the planters on the Clanricarde estate would be almost as much pleased as the evicted tenants to see the , Hill passed in its present form. They were afraid to be seen talking to an inspector. They knew very well that the Estates Commissioners had no power whatsoever to compensate them unless they were assured that they could put the evicted tenants on the land, which the planters would be only too glad to give up if they

1253
had compensation. As regarded the Lewis estate, there were about twenty-five Plan of Campaign tenants on that estate. During the time of the late Government, Mr. Stewart, one of the estates inspectors, who, if partial at all, would lean towards the landlords, called upon the representatives of that estate. Immediately afterwards a letter appeared in a Tory newspaper signed by one of the Lewises, complaining that Mr. Stewart had had the audacity to call upon him to ask if he was willing to reinstate the evicted tenants or to sell the estate. Mr. Stewart, he believed, had to write more than one letter in defence of his action. Some time afterwards the Lewises began to think that it might be better for themselves if they adopted the Act. They saw that a good many landlords in the neighbourhood were doing this and they agreed to an inspection. The estate was valued, and after the report had been sent to the Estates Commissioners they wrote to Mr. Lewis offering him the price put upon the estate by the valuer. The result was that Mr. Lewis did not condescend even to acknowledge the letter, and so things had gone on up to the present time. He lived in the district and in the Plan of Campaign days he took his part in that fight. For that straggle he did not repudiate nor would he ever repudiate his responsibility. It was a struggle on behalf of the evicted tenants, and he should be prepared to go through the whole of it over again under similar circumstances. The real cause of that straggle would probably never be known to the public. There wore in the districtnine landlords, and in that bad year an appeal was made to them to try and meet their tenants. There had in that year been a bad drop in the quantity of produce and a bad fall in prices. Every one of the landlords with the exception of Lord Clanricarde and a Mrs. Lewis offered reductions of five and six shillings in the pound. Ultimately after an enormous amount of pressure Lord Clanricarde consented to give twenty per cent. reduction on the last gale of rent, if it were paid, which meant that not one single tenant could enjoy that twenty per cent. reduction, because the were not able to pay up that last gale. That was the real cause of the Plan of Campaign in that district. He hoped that these cases would be dealt with now in a drastic way and in such a manner as to get rid of the trouble, so that
1254
they might spend the few remaining years of their lives in peace and quietness.
Mr. J. DEVLINthought that, in view of some of the speeches that had been made by some of the hostile Unionists from Ulster to this Bill, he as an Ulster Member himself ought to express his heartiest sympathy with its provisions. Ho was glad to find that so far as democratic Ulster was concerned the voice of both Protestant and Catholic had been heard in its favour. He was glad that a Unionist from Belfast and also a Nationalist from the same city bad joined in supporting the measure. This subject was of the utmost importance in dealing with social and economic questions, because the evicted tenants difficulty bore largely upon these matters. It was, therefore, in his opinion, highly important that not only should they hear the opinions of landlords and tenants of Dublin Castle and potential judges, but also the opinion of these democrats in the House who claimed to know what democratic Ireland wanted, and to represent the democratic spirit of the country. One would imagine from the speeches on the Unionist Benches and also from the speech of the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture that this was a question which affected alone the people of the West of Ireland; but it affected not alone that part of Ireland but also the North of Ireland, where it concerned a large and important portion of the population. It not only affected Connaught, Leinster and Munster, but also Ulster. He had looked over the claims which had been lodged by these who sought restoration to their homes, and he found that in Sligo there were nineteen legitimate applications recognised by the Estates Commissioners; Roscommon there were twenty-five; in Clare forty-seven; in Leitrim, seventy-six; in King's County, five; in Westmeath, nine; in Fermanagh, fifty-six; and in Tyrone, forty-four. These figures showed that the question affected the whole of Ireland. There wore twice as many evicted tenants in the counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone as in Sligo and Roscommmon. They had heard a great deal of the motives which inspired the promoters of the Land Act of 1903, and of all who were connected with the passing of that great measure through Parliament. His colleagues had stated,

1255
and it had not been denied, that that Act would never have passed the House but for the definite pledge given that one of the primary purposes of this national agrarian reform should be to restore to their homes these brave men whose great sacrifices and sorrows had been instrumental in forcing the Government to introduce that Bill into the House of Commons. No doubt the abolition of the dual ownership in Irish land was the first purpose of the Act, but they on these benches, who had been, to some extent, responsible for the land agitation, through which these wounded soldiers fought and suffered— they, the representatives of these evicted tenants who had fought by their sides in hours of weary strife for the establishment of the principle of land ownership, would have been unworthy and contemptible, and subject to the scorn of every lover of liberty, if they had accepted any measure of land reform which did not place within its charter a provision that evicted tenants should be restored to their homes Having watched the progress of the measure of the right hon. Member for Dover, he had come to the conclusion that the representatives of officialdom and of the landlords were engaged not only in obstructing social work which was in the interests of Ireland, but in making the passing of useful legislation impossible. When they were not engaged in placing obstacles in the way of Irish progress and pacification, they had been engaged in the equally unholy task of preventing beneficial measures being passed through Parliament. It was not a high example. Unfortunately for legislation in that House, the more stupid a man was the more efficient he became for the purposes of obstruction. He was ashamed that any section of the people of Ireland should send men to Parliament who had no higher conception of their duty than to slander the reputation of their own countrymen. The Bill of 1903 was passed to give the Member for North Armagh thirty years purchase for his land. There would never have been a Land Act of that character if it were not for the sacrifices of the evicted tenants, upon whom the hon. Member now turned round. To his knowledge the hon. Member had offered his land to his tenants at twenty-one years purchase. He was sorry the hon. Member was not in the House— sorry for his
1256
(Mr. Devlin's) sake, but glad for the hon. Member's own sake— though he had no doubt that some intellectual giants among the hon. Member's friends, like the noble Lord, with triumphant mentality, would defend the most indefensible trans action known in the history of the Irish agrarian warfare. There was an agreement at the Land Conference, there was a Parliamentary arrangement in this House, there was, to use the classical expression of the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh, a con cordat in regard to the last Act. It was the Land Conference, no doubt, that was instrumental in inducing the right hon. Member for Dover to introduce his measure. The concordat had now been in operation for a period of three years, and fewer than 1,000 evicted tenants had been restored to their homes. Two thousand still remained by the road side, living under the most squalid conditions, in humble cabins erected for them by the generosity of their country men, while the Irish landlords had walked off with the swag. When he heard hon. Members talk of the British taxpayer he was amused to find it was not the Labour Members who wanted money for various reforms, it was not even the Unionist Members of that House; the gentleman who talked of the British taxpayer was the Irish Unionist landlord who had pocketed thirty years purchase for his land. When the rosy promises of the right hon. Member for Dover were made, after securing the Act for his landlord friends and letting them make the best bargain that ever was made in this world, he continued his task of reinstating the evicted tenants by issuing secret instructions to the Land Commissioners which prevented them from moving for eighteen months. The right hon. Gentleman disappeared from the stormy area of Irish politics. He left Parliament after being success fully impeached by his former secretary. He (Mr. Devlin) never expected to be a Minister or to be able to keep a private secretary, but he hoped if ever he occupied a position of honour and distinction he would not disappear after such an impeachment. The right hon. Member for South Dublin succeeded the right hon. Member for Dover as Chief Secretary. Challenged on the 14th February this year as to the promises made by his predecessor with regard to the evicted tenants he said that

1257
when he succeeded to the Irish Office he accepted the view of his predecessor as to the bargain in regard to the evicted tenants. As the right hon. Gentleman was not present, perhaps the representative of all the intellects, the noble Lord who sat on the second bench, would explain.
VISCOUNT TURNOUR: There is no explanation to give to the hon. Member while such flapdoodle is being talked.
MR. J. DEVLINsaid flapdoodle was a matter of taste, and he had no doubt that when the noble Lord spoke everybody imagined a Darnel had come to judgment. He himself was endeavouring in his own humble way to express his views while suffering from the lack of that intellectual power so largely possessed by the noble Lord. The right hon. Member for South Dublin had said he agreed with the right hon. Member for Dover, and had come to the same conclusion which under the pressing circumstances of the moment was justified by the facts. The facts were that there was a conspiracy in Ire land on the part of the landlords, having secured that large payment, to keep the evicted tenants out of their holdings. A promise so given by every test of public honour must be kept, and they could not allow a little gang of Irish irreconcilables and stupid English lords who depended for their present power on the maintenance of landlordism to stop the way. Let the House remember that if any attempt was made in that or the other House to deny to the evicted tenants the right to enjoy the homes to which they were so passionately attached, dangers and difficulties might arise in Ireland. It would be easy to strike a match and light a torch in Ireland at the present time, but no one desired that. They all hoped that the intentions of Parliament would be carried out; that the right hon. Gentleman would sec that the matter was settled on right lines to the satisfaction of Ireland. If it was it would bring eternal honour to the right hon. Gentleman and be a high and noble monument to the generosity of spirit with which he had approached this question. It was perfectly clear that some thing must be done in regard to the Clanricarde and the Lewis estates. Were they to be told that Lord Clanricarde,
1258
who was the greatest pest that ever cursed the country— a man who had driven the best peasants in the country beyond the sea; who had hunted men to the roadside and the workhouse— were they to be told that such men as he were to be allowed to remain as they were while wise and generous landlords had reinstated their evicted tenants, and that nothing was to be done? To permit that would be a gross national scandal. The sooner this remnant of the Irish landlords was made to feel that Parliament was not going to stand that condition of affairs under which the Irish tax payers were compelled to keep an army of police, not to maintain social order, but to prevent the outrages that these men inspired, the sooner Lord Clanricarde and the owners of the Lewis estate would come to their senses. He did not know why compulsion should be so feared in that House. It existed in Australia and New Zealand— but not to restore evicted tenants, because they did not. there exist. It was used there to take large tracts of land from their owners in order to use them for settlement as a matter of simple justice and for the general prosperity of the country. Surely compulsion ought to be recognised as a just principle when dealing with a great festering sore on the national body of Ireland. He, as one of the representatives from Ireland, had no hesitation in stating frankly that the Chief Secretary had approached the consideration of this question, not only in a statesmanlike, but in a bold and courageous manner. It might be because the right hon. Gentle man had approached it in this spirit that it would be met with opposition all the more intense. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not be intimidated either by the violence of partisans, or by what might occur elsewhere. He was the Governor of Ireland, responsible for social order and for the general government of the country. He had done his duty so far as any sympathetic British Minister could do his duty. He trusted that whatever the right hon. Gentleman's disappointments might have been in the past, he might in this regard, at all events, not be disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman had approached the question with sympathy, courage, and hope, and he trusted that he would succeed in carrying the measure through. By so doing he would bring peace to

1259
many Irish homes, and gratitude to many Irish hearts, and wipe out much of the bitterness which had existed towards England amongst Irish peasants who had suffered from the Irish land system. In carrying this measure, the Chief Secretary would do much to palliate the existing state of affairs, and to make the path clear for the solution of the other great problems with which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be associated before he resigned the office he now occupied.
*MR. BYLESsaid he believed that he was right in saying that every Member who had addressed the House in that debate was the representative of an Irish constituency. There were a great many representatives of English constituencies, and he thought that perhaps it would be well that some articulate support should be given from the benches on which the English Members sat. He had listened to a good deal of the debate, but his chief amusement was to witness the ingenious and skilful way in which the right hon. Member for South Dublin expressed his vehement opposition to this Bill, because he remembered a much shorter speech of the right hon. Gentleman in which he held out a prospect that he would not resist it.
Mr. WALTER LONG: No.
*Mr. BYLESsaid the words which the right hon. Gentleman uttered had been quoted by a previous speaker; and he was bound to say that there was a remarkable contrast between the kindly and hospitable way in which the right hon. Gentleman had entertained the idea of restoring the evicted tenants in Ire land and the speech which he had delivered that night. The right hon. Gentleman had said that all people were more or less agreed, chiefly more, that this question ought now to be settled even if it were necessary to resort to compulsion, to which, for his part, he would offer no objection.
MR. WALTER LONG: Oh, no; I said nothing of the kind.
*MR. BYLESsaid he had not the words by him, but at any rate the method of compulsion was mentioned by him, and was not deprecated. However, he must
1260
acknowledge himself mistaken, and wait until the words were produced against him. He was astonished that the Tory Party should be in opposition to this Bill, for he had hoped that the question had really got to a point when all Parties were more or less agreed that the time had come for a settlement. The evicted tenants question was an old story. But this Parliament was a new Parliament, and there were a great many of his colleagues on these benches who perhaps were not familiar with the earlier debates on this very difficult question, which had upset the relations of England and Ireland for many years. Hon. Members were never tired of reminding them they had not promised Home Rule during this Parliament, and that they had subordinated that question on the election platform. He was anxious, therefore, to put to the test whether his colleagues cherished the old fear which had been so assiduously nourished by their opponents, the fear that Home Rule meant separation, rebellion, priest rule, and so forth; and he could not help thinking that the Bill now before the House would do something to test that issue, and to discover what were their true feelings. He dared say that a good many Members of that House thought that when the Irish Council Bill was with drawn they were done with the Irish question. It had not been long in re appearing; this was the third Parliamentary consecutive day on which the House had been engaged solely on Irish questions. The Irish question was the spectre which haunted every British feast, and which, until it was laid, would go on reappearing. The evicted tenants question was the sorest spot on the wounded body of that distressful country. It was the question which had engendered the sense of injustice amongst the Irish people; it was that which had strengthened anti-British feeling and thwarted every effort at legislation. Twenty years since, he remembered, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India stood at the Table full of hope after he had appointed the Fry Commission to solve the evicted tenants question. It was a long time since, and he was getting weary of waiting. He had visited all the Campaign estates, and he had investigated the merits of the disputes which had existed.

1261
He had seen the poor tenants evicted from their homes, and he had wondered how they would get through the winter, dwelling in huts through which the rain fell, and where they were in sight of the farms from which they had been evicted, the homes of their fathers, the places which had been rendered fruitful by generations of labour. And these men, with their families, had passed through not one winter but twenty winters. What had become of all these poor people? How had their character stood the en forced idleness which had been their lot? The Plan of Campaign he might remind his Labour friends was in reality a strike just as much as any strike against employers, and their claim was just like the claims of other strikers. The hon. and learned Member for North Armagh had stated that nearly all the Plan of Campaign estates had been settled, and that only two now remained to be dealt with. What need, then, he asked, for compulsion? It was just because the thing was nearly settled that there was need for compulsion; and the hon. and learned Gentleman would find that when the Act of 1903 approached its termination the same method would have to be resorted to. He hoped that his Liberal and Labour colleagues, now that they had this Bill before them, would say that they would settle this question, which had been such a long pending trouble, and that they would make a complete job of it, putting it out of the way for ever. He believed that nothing they could do in that House would tend more to produce peace in Ireland than this measure. The hon. Member said it had boon said so often that it had passed into a proverb that Ireland was the most crimeless country in the world; yet they had hon. Members opposite— "Little Irelanders" he called them— who represented constituencies in that country, and who were always ready to belittle their own countrymen. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Armagh laughed derisively at that.
MR. MOORE: I did not laugh.
*MR. BYLESsaid he would gladly withdraw what he had said, but he appealed to him and his colleagues, and to the whole House and every newspaper whether it was not true that the hon.
1262
and learned Gentleman and his colleagues day after day tried hard at Question time to bring discredit on their fellow countrymen? Where did they get their material from? From the agrarian troubles in the West of Ireland, where cattle was driven from the grazing farms in a manner which he could not help regarding as little more than practical joking. [Cries of " Oh, oh ! "] Yes, the intention of the people who carried out these cattle-drives was to show they were able to defeat the police. He knew of a small estate in Roscommon of about 100 acres, and upon one occasion a sergeant and thirteen police were sent down there, and in spite | of their watching, or pretending to watch, all day long the farm was cleared of its cattle, and the population around were delighted because they had defeated the police. It was quite true that Ireland was crimeless at the present moment. It was nonsense to say these events showed that Ireland was in a state of terror. The cattle were well treated; there was no cruelty; it was largely a practical joke at the expense of the police. Behind the cattle-driving there was also a grinding sense of injustice. " Eviction " had been a word of terror in Ireland for sixty years. Many men had died in the ditches, many had eaten their hearts out in the workhouse in consequence. Thousands of men from their evicted homes had fled the country with bitter resentment in their hearts. These evictions had produced what hon. Members opposite had called disloyalty. But the restoration of these tenants would produce loyalty. How was the Irish Nationalist Party maintained? It was notorious that their funds were being constantly replenished from America and Australia, and that money came from Irishmen who had been driven from their own country. What was the motive which led those men to support the Irish Nationalist Party? Nothing but the bitter memories of past evictions. If the leaders of the Irish Party were heartless and sordid, which they were not, they would not desire this Bill to pass. If the hon. Members on the Opposition side were wise, which they were not, they would realise that they would be delaying Home Rule by passing this Bill. He was one of those who was very much disappointed when the Irish Council Bill disappeared, disappointed

1263
but not surprised, because it was born of timid counsel and it failed in consequence. A much bolder policy and a deeper trust of the Irish people were necessary for success. This Bill was a much more courageous one, and the first five lines of it ought to win the support of* all who believed, as he did, that the land belonged to the people, that the cultivator ought to be considered before the lord of the soil, and that private interests must be subordinated to the interests of the public. The compulsory acquisition of land which hon. Members opposite found so much fault with would become in the near future an important precedent for England and Scotland. He hoped that this Bill would bring to those who had fought so hard and suffered so long and patiently, blessing and prosperity. Ho was glad that this, after all, was not going to be for Ireland a barren session. If he might repeat a phrase that he had used before he would say that Ireland was the Cinderella of the Empire. They had given self-government to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, states with which they were not long ago at war, and yet self-government was denied to Ireland. They founded new Universities in the provincial towns of England, Scotland, and Wales, and even in Khartoum, but they left Irish students hungering and thirsting for the higher learning. To-morrow the House was Was going to consider the sugar tax—
VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Hear, hear!
*Mr. BYLESsaid he was not surprised to hear that cheer, because the noble Lord was hoping that the Government would have to resign, and expecting that he would form part of the new administration.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he had not the faintest hope that the Government would be defeated in regard to the sugar tax. They had broken their pledges too often for that.
*Mr. BYLESsaid that a great many people were complaining that the taxes on sugar and tea were pressing very hardly upon the poor. It should not be forgotten that if these taxes were scourges to the English poor they were scorpions
1264
to the Irish poor, who were fleeing by thousands across the Atlantic. Why should they not extend to England as well as to Ireland that blessed word " compulsion." He wished to express his approval of a Government which had the courage to consider the public interest before private interests, and to take land compulsorily from the individual and give it to the community. He heartily supported the Bill before the House be cause he believed it fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, who said—
" They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit thereof; they shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat.''
In the strongest language he could use he expressed approval of the action of the Government and heartily supported the Bill.
Mr. JAMES CAMPBELLcongratulated the Government upon the assistance they had received from the hon. Member who had just spoken, and in whose opinion the outrages in Ireland could be viewed in the light of practical jokes. The hon. Member took the view expressed by a member of the Government in another place that cattle-driving was not a serious crime; he seemed almost to consider it an amusement of the Irish people. He congratulated the hon. Member on the assumption of the role of fairy god mother to the Irish Cinderella.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Who plays the rat?
Mr. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid if there were rats about he could see some of them. At least, hon. Members would give him credit when he said, whatever his failings, he had never either in his professional or public career " ratted."
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I did not refer to you, you know that well enough.
Mr. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he imagined that the hon. Member was referring to those who had ratted. But passing from personal matters, he for one was very glad indeed that part of the scheme of the Land

1265
Conference involved the restoration of the evicted tenants. He was also exceedingly glad that the wishes of the Land Conference were carried out in this House by the Act for 1903. He believed it was in the interest of all classes in Ireland that the question of the evicted tenants, which was a constant source of trouble and annoyance in the districts where they were evicted, should be settled on fair and generous terms. He was pleased to find that in the Act of 1903 ample provisions were made for that purpose. Those provisions were accepted by hon. Members below the gangway and by hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Salford, as a sufficient solution of the question. In the debate on 29th June, 1903, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, speaking on the question of compulsion more particularly in regard to the evicted tenants, used the following remarkable words—
'' There was no intention to put into the Bill any provision by which pressure, direct or in direct, could be. brought to bear on existing tenants. The number of these now tenants who were really bona fide agriculturists working their own farms as ordinary farmers were comparatively few; and if they desired to continue in their holdings he would not give his sanction to any attempt compulsorily to put them out."
He did not observe that that sentiment elicited any cheers from hon. Gentlemen below the gangway; at least if it did they were very faint. Of course, it was quite obvious to those who took part in the debates of 1903, and indeed it was almost certain, that in a few isolated cases there would be considerable difficulty in not compulsorily restoring to their holdings some of the evicted tenants, but notwithstanding that fact and notwithstanding everything that was said with regard to the Clanricarde and Lewis estates, notwithstanding that every factor was in the knowledge of hon. Members in 1903, yet the House by common consent and agreement ratified and passed the Bill of 1903 the essential element of which with regard to new tenants was that there should be no pres sure or compulsion of any kind. What had happened to alter that state of facts It was suggested that the necessity had arisen for going behind and beyond everything that was agreed by common consent in 1903, owing to the inability of the Estates Commissioners to come to terms with certain landlords on whose
1266
estates there were evicted tenants' farms. He asked the attention of hon. Members opposite to the facts because he believed that if they understood what the Bill proposed to do not one of them would give his support to it for a moment, He believed that outside the House if a proposal was made in a matter of business to English Members sitting opposite, on the lines contained in the Bill they would flout and denounce it as dishonest and immoral. Since 1903, out of seventeen Plan of Campaign estates the tenants had been restored to fifteen by voluntary agreement between them selves and the landlords. Let that fact be borne in mind when it was alleged that the landlords had sought to go behind the bargain of 1903. The Mathew Commission Report, presented in 1894, said the Plan of Campaign was started on 116 different estates and that there were only some seventeen left on which any; trouble remained. With the exception of two estates, the seventeen had since been disposed of. A settlement had now been arrived at in 114 out of 116 estates by mutual consent, so that the pretence for the compulsory powers in this Bill, so far as the Plan of Campaign estates were concerned, was narrowed down to two. The entire machinery of compulsion was to be put in force against all the land lords in Ireland, because out of 116 estates there remained two as to which up to the present the Commissioners had failed to come to any agreement. He held no brief for Lord Clanricarde. He had never seen that gentleman. He had even had very grave doubts whether any such person existed; but be that as it might, he did know something about his estates, because of information contained in the Report of the Matthew Commission, of which he thought mention might have been made by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway when they were referring to the difficulties between Lord Clanricarde and his tenants. The beginning of the trouble on Lord Clanricarde's estates was a general strike of all tenants on his property under the Plan of Campaign— an illegal conspiracy, decided by the Judges to be criminal, and denounced by the heads of the Roman Catholic Church as irreligious and immoral. The tenants joined in the Plan of Campaign and formulated a demand against Lord Clanricarde for an all round reduction of 40 per cent. in their rents. Lord Clanricarde considered

1267
that a direct attack on his property, and he resisted it. He (Mr. Campbell) thought Lord Clanricarde was right, but, as he had said, he was not concerned to defend him. What about the other case— the Lewis estate? He ventured to suggest that nothing could be more misleading than the reference to that estate which was contained in the paragraph in the Estates Commissioners' Report, because any fair-minded man reading that paragraph would come to the conclusion that the owners of the Lewis estate had declined to have any dealings whatsoever with the Estates Commissioners. Absolutely the contrary was the truth. The only difference between the owners of the Lewis estate and the Commissioners was a question of amount. There would be absolutely no difficulty at all, assuming that the Estates Commissioners were prepared to give what the owners considered a reasonable price, and he thought the House would agree that that was a question on which there might be a difference of opinion. What he himself did not agree with was that that question — the question of price — was to be solved by one of the parties to the bargain writing a paragraph to say that it was impossible to come to terms. He did not think that was treating the bargain with fairness and candour, seeing that the difference which divided the parties was merely a matter of terms. Of course, there were other evicted tenants. Let there be no mistake on that point. When hon. Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies, and speaking for the Nationalists, intervened in the debate in 1903, they were speaking not merely for the evicted tenants on the Plan of Campaign estates, but for evicted tenants all over Ireland. In season and out of season in the course of that debate they announced their assent to the principle, as regarded each and all of these tenants, that the matter was to be settled by negotiation, and that there was to be no attempt at compulsion. With regard to the evicted tenants on estates other than Plan of Campaign estates there was not a vestige of a case made out in the Report for applying compulsion. There was nothing apparent in that Report which did not lead one to assume that it would be quite easy to arrange and to come to terms with the owners of those lands which' were not on the two Plan of Campaign estates.
1268
What had been done? Already since 1903, out of 3,000 cases the Estates Commissioners had settled over 1,000. That was not bad work in four years, and it had been done without any compulsion whatsoever. They had not only settled all the Plan of Campaign estates except two, but they had also got rid of at least one third of the suitable evicted tenants. Let the House have regard for a moment to the extent of that running sore, as it had been called, and see how-far the Government proposals were competent to deal with the trouble. It was very difficult to follow the arithmetic of the Estates Commissioners' Report, but he was bound to quote a few figures. In round numbers the total number of applications for reinstatement which the Estates Commissioners had received was 8,500. Of those they had examined only 6,400 and left 2,000 wholly unexamined. Of the 6,000 they had examined they had passed 3,000. Summed up in a sentence the result of their operations was: They had accepted 3,000; they had rejected 3,000; and they had not examined at all into 2,000. Did anyone who knew anything of the history of Ireland imagine for one moment that, if the Government were sincere in the suggestion that they intended to limit the application of this Bill to the 3,000, there would not be, the moment the ink was dry on the signature of His Majesty to this Bill as an Act of Parliament, a fresh agitation started on behalf of the 5,000 who were left out in the cold? The Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture had been more than usually unfair when he suggested that the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh had made the suggestion that these 2,000 tenants should be scheduled for some ulterior and improper purpose. Why was it the Opposition insisted, as they did, and as they would continue to do throughout the passage of the Bill, even up to the last hour, upon having these names scheduled? He would tell the House. What was it the Bill proposed? Was it to confer the right of reinstatement upon 2,000 or 3,000 tenants? Nothing of the kind. It gave power to the Estates Commissioners to confer the benefits of the Bill on any one or all of the 8,500 tenants whom they considered fit to be restored. Let there be no mistake about that, and let not the House

1269
pass the Bill thinking that it only dealt -with 3,000 tenants and might only involve £ 2,000,000. As the Bill stood it might involve 8,550 tenants, and there was no limit. Under its terms it was to apply to any person who had already applied for reinstatement to the Estates Commissioners, and that body might consider any of the applicants fit and proper persons to be restored. That was a vital part of the Bill. Speaking for himself, if a reasonable scheme had been brought in which would have settled this question once and for all, even although it involved compulsion, if it reasonably protected the landlord in his property he would have supported it, but so far from providing for finality under this Bill, the Estates Commissioners had power to deal with the number of tenants he had mentioned. But that was not the worst of it. It was said that the Government intended to restore 3,000 tenants, but on what principle they had resolved to exclude the other 5,000 odd was not stated. Surely these 5,550 tenants had a right to know why their claims were rejected. If Parliament passed a Bill for the relief of the evicted tenants, surely it was a common law right that those who were evicted tenants should know why they were not selected to receive the benefit and had a right to challenge the expurte decision of the Commissioners. This Bill, moreover, would make an inroad upon the funds which Parliament had devoted to ordinary land purchase, and there the taxpayer was affected, and the Estates Commissioners had unlimited power to restore all these tenants while nobody knew who the tenants selected were. Anyone who voted for this Bill in the belief or delusion that it would close this sad chapter in Irish agrarian agitation would be making a great mistake. The hon. Member who last spoke from the Treasury Bench did so in conflict with the views he had tittered before, and the explanation of his attitude was not difficult for anyone to understand. Speaking from the front bench opposite he said the application of the Bill would be very limited, and that it would only be necessary in a very few cases to put these compulsory powers into force. That was a plea which hon. Members who were experienced in Irish legislation were accustomed to hear. Mr. Gladstone, in 1881, declared that his Act would only be put in force here and there as the
1270
estates were usually so well managed and the relations between landlord and tenant were generally so harmonious. They now knew what truth there was in that prophesy. They knew what happened once force was given to this policy of confiscation and dishonesty in Ireland. It was rather too late in the day, there fore, to advance such an argument in the House of Commons. Had this measure proposed to deal with the estate of Lord Clanricarde or any other landlord who had been offered reasonable terms by the Estates Commissioners and had refused them, the case would have been different; but it proposed that a man's land should be taken compulsorily without the necessity of any preliminary offer or negotiations. The Commissioners could take any plot of land they liked at their own price. In the whole course of British legislation there could not be found a parallel for what was proposed by this Bill. In all previous statutes where power was given to the War Office or other public departments, local authorities or railway companies, to acquire land compulsorily, not only was there an arbitration as to compensation before a sheriff or an arbitrator and a jury, but there was power to appeal on a case stated to the High Court. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to find any provision in a statute similar to this where there was no power to challenge the value the Estates Commissioners put upon their own bargain. It was really like a provision out of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera. The hon. Gentleman said he was not far wrong. He thought it was quite possible that right hon. Gentlemen opposite who had brought in these Bills had only received them from somebody else and had not taken the trouble to read them. Supposing under Section 6 the Estates Commissioners secured a holding which the landlord thought was part of his demesne, where was the appeal? If the hon. and learned Gentle man could point that out he would give way.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange): If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to Clause 2, Sub-section (7), he will see it.
Mr. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid it was almost an insult to the House to make such

1271
an interruption as that. All that that section did was to bring into operation Section 23 of the Act of 1903, But these were all questions of fact. The provisions for appeal read as if they came out of one of Gilbert and Sullivan's operas. There was not in the whole legislation of England or of the Empire any provision enabling the State to acquire lands of an individual against his will which did not give him some power of appeal or some redress against the public body who put compulsory powers in motion. It was the first time a Government had come forward to propose that not merely should a man's property be taken against his will, but that the price of it should be fixed by the very body who had power to take, and that if he was dissatisfied with their action the only appeal should be to the very body of whose injustice he complained. That was the merest travesty of justice. It was almost incredible, but it was the fact that the Bill did not contain a single clause for the remedy of a mistake or blunder on the part of the administrators of it. The Bill also proposed in the case of properties on which there were planters to give the Estates Commissioners compulsory powers to drive those men out of the holdings, and the extraordinary part was that while the Estates Commissioners complained that they could not get holdings for the evicted tenants, the Bill proposed that they should get holdings for the planters. The whole thing was a farce and a sham, and the Bill was really introduced to confer the tenure of judges upon the Estates Commissioners and so withdraw them from Parliamentary criticism. All this humbug in the Report was simply to make up a case for compulsion, but everyone in Ireland knew that there wore hundreds and thousands of acres of land available for the evicted tenants if only a fair and decent price was given for them by the State. If the expenses connected with the administration of the Bill were added to the poorest purchase price, it would buy up throe times the quantity of land required to restore all the evicted tenants. It was suggested in the Report that there was not land enough in Ireland to be had by free negotiation and sale on which to put the evicted tenants, but the Bill contained a scheme for turning out the planters and getting holdings for them. Why that roundabout process?
1272
Why not give the evicted tenants the holdings they were going to get for the planters? What was the necessity for compulsion it was difficult to understand. They were told that the Bill was to be limited in its application. The Vice-President had said it was only a question of terms; that the landlords were willing to reinstate the evicted tenants; that the planters were willing to go, and the evicted tenants were willing to be rein stated. It was difficult to understand why in a Bill of this kind a postscript should contain this extraordinary pro vision as to the status of the Estates Commissioners. By the Act of 1903 the Commissioners were given purely administrative duties to perform, and in the discharge of those duties they were under the control of the Government of the day. In that way it was secured that there should be direct control by Parliament over them, with direct criticism over their administration; and, speaking of those proposals, when they were first introduced to the House by the right hon. Member for Dover, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford congratulated the then Chief Secretary on the fact that the tribunal was to be non-judicial, that they would be servants of the Government and their conduct subject to criticism in Parliament. But now, in starting the Commissioners on a new career of confiscation and plunder— [laughter]— he was not surprised that it should cause amusement, but he should have thought that the most insatiable would feel their gorge rise at a proposal of this kind— now, by an inconsequential postscript, the Commissioners were to have the tenure of judges, and that he believed was the sole purpose and origin of the Bill. Would the Chief Secretary deny that the Bill was almost a draft from the hands of the Estates Commissioners?
MR. BIRRELL: I do not think I heard a more inaccurate statement, even in this House.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELLaccepted that statement, for there was no better judge of an inaccurate statement than the right hon. Gentleman. But perhaps he would tell the House how much of the Bill was inspired by a majority of the Estate Commissioners. But whether the right

1273
hon. Gentleman cared or not to vouch safe information to the House, the absence of any provision in the Bill for an appeal against their decision was the direct wish and view of the majority of those gentlemen. His chief objection to the Bill, let him say in conclusion, was that it would not settle the question. He would willingly and gladly have co-operated with the right hon. Gentleman, even to the extent of compulsion in the case of those land lords who had had an opportunity of selling on reasonable terms and had refused. But the extraordinary thing about this Bill was that it did not pro fess merely to give compulsory powers over landlords who were invoking the assistance of the State to get rid of their property but that the Estates Commissioners would be enabled, with the grossest injustice, to swoop down on landlords who did not wish to sell their property and to put back on their estates among respectable tenants men who were the ringleaders of disorder and disturbance there. That was a gross injustice. If the Bill had been limited to landlords who had invoked the assistance of the Act of 1903, and were asking the State for sums of money, or a State bonus, he could have understood its being said— " You must accept our terms as to the evicted tenants "; but the gross injustice of the Bill was that it enabled the Estates Commissioners to go to any corner of Ireland and pick out any estate from which they found that tenants had been evicted— although the remainder of the tenants had stuck to their farms and refused to join illegal combinations— and put back the very men who had been the cause of all the trouble, worry, and annoyance. It was all very well to talk about the " wounded soldiers of the war " — and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would have to look to his laurels, for the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture was going to run him close in the matter of poetry and pathos—but this talk of the wounded soldiers and the desolate roof tree and the tireless hearth was but one side of the picture. Did the right hon. Gentle man know, or would he ever learn, that to the Irish question there were two sides They had heard one side of the picture described; let him tell the right non. Gentleman of the other. There ware hundreds of delicate women and
1274
children who had been reduced to poverty and starvation because they were annuitants dependent on property left on the assumption that rents would continue to be paid. For them the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have no sympathy. His pathos and his poetry was expended on men who with their eyes open joined in an illegal and immoral conspiracy. For them the whole machinery of land purchase was to be delayed. Did the House realise what this meant to those paying interest on their agreements to purchase? Honest farmers throughout the length and breadth of Ireland were to be penalised in order that a question might be settled in a few months which would be settled without difficulty in a few years in the ordinary course. He could not think why the Government at this stage of the session should go out of its way to bring forward a measure of this kind, every line of which was saturated with confiscation and would teach the Irish tenants that honesty, after all, was not the best policy. The only conceivable explanation was that the Government had yielded to threats and granted to fear what they would not have granted as a matter of conscience and right The House had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast, in which he informed the Chief Secretary in language with which he was pretty familiar, that if the Government faltered in regard to this Bill or accepted Amendments to alter its spirit or allowed it to be altered elsewhere, Ireland would want to know the reason why, and a match would be set to a flame in Ireland which would teach right hon. Gentlemen opposite that—
MR. DEVLINsaid the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely misrepresenting what he had said.
Mr. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he was not quoting the hon. Member's exact words, but the substance and spirit of them, and if he denied them of course he would withdraw his statement. It was quite plain that hon. Members below the gangway were putting in force the lesson that to get anything out of the present Government it was only necessary to bully them. A strong dose of predatory legislation was necessary to bring back the wandering sheep to the fold, and this Bill supplied it. If English

1275
members could swallow this, there was no possible measure of confiscation or dishonesty which they might not swallow.
Mr. JOHN REDMONDsaid he had listened to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University with the deepest regret. It seemed to him an echo of the speeches that used to be heard fifteen or twenty years ago, the speech of a man quite oblivious of the fact that the Land Act of 1903 had been brought into that House as the result of an agreement between landlords and tenants, designed to bring the land war to an end. It would be easy to reply in the same spirit, but he took too serious a view of the matter to make a controversial speech. His mind went back to the year 1880, when, with a view to bringing conciliation into the land question, Mr. Forster introduced the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. He remembered the fate of that Bill and the consequence. He trusted that an un wise dealing with the present Bill, either in that House or the other, would not have consequences at all comparable with those which followed on that occasion. The restoration of the evicted tenants was a condition precedent of the Land Conference and the passage of the Land Act of 1903. He had been challenged with reference to declarations made during the discussion of the Land Act of 1903 in regard to compulsion. For the purpose of making that experiment, persons who believed compulsory powers would in the end be necessary consented to put that question on one side. The voluntary scheme had been tried and had broken down, so far as the western problem and the evicted tenants' question were concerned, and it was now necessary to have recourse to compulsion. It seemed to him ridiculous to say that compulsory powers were necessary to be applied in the case of landlords, and that no stricter rule should be applied to the new tenants who occupied these farms. So far as he was concerned he agreed in 1903 that the experiment of the voluntary system should be tried. It had been tried, and it had failed, and he said now that the Government were bound to introduce this element of compulsion. The right hon. and learned Member who had just sat down seemed to wish to make the House believe that there was no need for compulsion
1276
because there were only two estates — the Clanricarde and the Lewis estates— where evicted tenants could not be settled. That was an entire misrepresentation of the facts. But it it were true, surely no Government responsible for the peace of Ireland could allow even the owners of those two estates to defy Parliament, and to destroy the great policy which had been adopted by Parliament in 1903. He utterly denied that those were the only cases. He would read the Report of the Commissioners on this point. When the majority of the Commissioners were denounced from the Conservative benches, he would remind the House that the Report was signed by the three Commissioners. The Report was signed by the Commissioner who had the confidence of hon. Gentlemen above the gangway just as it was signed by the other two who had not their confidence. This was what they said with reference to the providing of holdings for these tenants—
"Now, in 1,259 of the 1,609 cases in which the applicants are considered suitable to be provided with holdings, their former holdings are in the possession of other tenants, and in 350 eases they are in the possession of owners all of whom at first refused to allow inspection. In sixty of these 350 cases, the owners, on being again approached by the Commissioners, have consented to an inspection, being made, while as regards the remaining 290 the owners state that in sixty of them the holdings are now comprised in their demesnes, or are being worked by them as home farms. In ten the owners will not consent to reinstatement of the evicted tenants until the arrears of rent due at the date of eviction have been paid. In seventy-live the owners are not prepared to sell their estates. In thirty-two the owners will not sell the lands in their own hands apart from the rest of their estates. In forty-six the owners refuse to reinstate the evicted tenants, as they consider them undesirable tenants, and in sixty-seven cases they have assigned no reason for their refusal to permit an inspection being made of the evicted holdings. Where owners refused at first to consent to allow evicted holdings in their occupation to be inspected, on the ground that they were not prepared to sell the holdings apart from the rest of their estates owing to expense of proving title as regards these individual holdings, which expense would be as great as that of proving title to the entire estate, the Commissioners informed the owners that if the evicted tenants were at once rein stated and purchase agreements entered into at prices estimated by the Commissioners, they would collect from the reinstated tenants interest in lieu of rent, and pay it over as collected to the owners free of charge until such time as the entire estate was being sold. It will be seen from the foregoing statement that there is a very large number of cases

1277
which the Commissioners have inquired into, and in which, although they have not been able to effect the restoration of the applicants to their former holdings, or to provide them with new holdings, they are of opinion that the applicants should be supplied with holdings."
Therefore, they had the declaration, not of two Commissioners, but of all three Commissioners, that there were a large number of cases which, owing to the action of the landlords, it was impossible to deal with by the restoration of these men, although all the Commissioners were of opinion that they ought to be restored. In the face of that, was it not an absurdity for anyone to imagine that compulsion was not required, and that it was only necessary in the case of Lord Clanricarde? The fact was that in 1,259 cases the operations of the Com missioners had come to a standstill and could never proceed unless compulsory powers were given. He had only dealt so far with the action of the landlords in refusing to facilitate the restoration of these tenants, but apart from these land lords altogether the Commissioners were endeavouring elsewhere to get untenated land in order to provide new holdings for those tenants who could not be restored to their old holdings, and their operations were absolutely blocked. Here was what they said in their Report—
" Of these 1,752 persons so approached by the Commissioners, 579 have failed to reply, 265 have refused to sell, 156 have stated that ' they are themselves about to institute proceedings for sale, 372 have replied that the lands are demesne lands or are worked by themselves as homo farms, and in the ease of 120 correspondence is still pending. Two hundred and sixty have intimated their willing- ness to sell, but of these only 147 have up to the present furnished particulars of the lands they are willing to sell. In forty-one of these 147 cases the estimated prices have been notified to the owners, who have in ten cases, comprising an area of 4,846 acres, replied that they will sell at the estimated prices, and formal proceedings for sale have been, or are about to be, instituted. In nine cases they have refused the estimated prices, and in the remaining twenty-two the Commissioners are awaiting replies from the owners."
The right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University in the concluding portion of his speech quoted some words which he himself delivered in 1903, and in which he emphasised the necessity of preserving the right of Parliament to
1278
criticise the action of the Commissioners. He was still of that opinion, and if the clause in the Bill dealing with the tenure of the Commissioners meant that their conduct was to be withdrawn from discussion and criticism in that House, he would not approve of it. But what was the fact? There were three Commissioners. One of them was friendly to hon. Members above the gangway and he had got a permanent tenure; his salary was on the Consolidated Fund. It was true that there was a charge on the Estimates for a portion of his salary, which enabled them to discuss his conduct in the House. The Chief Secretary would correct him if he was wrong, but he presumed that it was intended— in fact, he said so the other day when introducing this Bill— that if Clause 12 was passed, a charge of some sort would be put on the Estimates in the case of Mr. Bailey and Mr. Finucane, as in the case of Mr. Wrench, so that the House might | be able to discuss their conduct on the Estimates. What was the injustice of putting the two gentlemen the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University did not approve of in the same position as to tenure as the; one he did approve of I Was it justice on his part to claim for Mr. Wrench, the one Commissioner who had his | confidence, his own man as it were, a more secure tenure than he was willing to give to the two Commissioners who were supposed to be more friendly to the tenants? It seemed to him after that debate, and after hearing the threats held out to the two Commissioners, that it was only right they should have that security of tenure, because he supposed that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had the courage of his convictions, he would if he came into office to-morrow dismiss these two Commissioners.
MR. MOORE: I should certainly want an inquiry.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that these Commissioners were exercising the most grave and responsible functions. Was it to be supposed, human nature being what it was, that, no matter how honourable or how courageous these

1279
men might be, they were to be impervious to threats of this kind? The interruption of the hon. and learned Member and the threats he and his friends had made that night were conclusive arguments in favour of putting these men on the same terms of tenure as the one who had the honour and glory of possessing the confidence of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would say one word to the Chief Secretary. He desired to say that the right hon. Gentleman had in the spirit and in the letter fulfilled in this Bill the promise he made earlier in the session to Ireland and the evicted tenants. The Bill was a the rough fulfilment of his promise and was a courageous Bill. Ho only wished that the right hon. Gentleman in his other legislative efforts had had as free a hand as ho had evidently had in this case. They on these benches believed that the right hon. Gentleman was a sincere friend of Ireland. They thanked him for this Bill. He was convinced that when the right hon. Gentleman had piloted the Bill through the House, as he was sure he would do, and when, unless most extraordinary counsels of folly prevailed in another place, he had carried it into law, he would have shown to the Irish people that he was sincere in his friendship to them, he would have done a great thing for the peace of Ireland and for the future of that country, and many thousands of Irish people would live to thank him for his courage and his honesty.
Mr. BIRRELLsaid he was not surprised that the hon. and learned Gentle man who had just sat down should have criticised with some severity the tone and temper of the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him in the debate, but ho confessed he should not be a bit surprised, so oddly was human nature compounded,
1280
if the right hon. Gentleman were congratulating himself upon having delivered an eirenicon, a message of peace to Ire land, an olive branch despatched through a catapult. There were parts of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that seemed to him to breathe almost a spirit of love and affection towards the Bill and even towards the evicted tenants. The right hon. Gentleman in one part of his speech held up the evicted tenants to scorn and infamy, and described them as worthless characters, and he (Mr. Birrell) knew not what else; but in other parts of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said it was right even to apply the principle of compulsion to certain landlords simply for the purpose of restoring these persons to the land from which they had once been evicted. Therefore, he, being in a peaceful frame of mind after listening to the debate for eight hours, was disposed to dwell on that portion of the speech to which he had last referred rather than on the more fiery and pugnacious portion. Until the right hon. Gentleman spoke there was in all the speeches he had heard, except one, a full recognition of the fact that having regard to the language of the Act of 1903, to the definitions therein contained of what an evicted tenant was, to the promises made even before that time, and to the assurances given on so many platforms by people of all Parties in Ireland that in this matter they were quite willing to let bygones be bygones— and he thought the debate had only emphasised what had previously been declared by all Parties—the time had come to accomplish this work as speedily as possible. Therefore he was not going back on the Act of 1903. He was not going back on the sub-section in Clause 2 which allowed the vast benefits of the Land Purchase

1281
scheme established by that Act to avail for the benefit of people who within twenty-five years before the passing of the Act were dispossesssed of their holdings. There was nothing in that sub-section about the Plan of Campaign, There was a general indication of a desire which only gave fulfilment to the agreement already arrived at at the Land Conference, that the evicted tenants were to come within the benefit of the voluntary proposals of that Act. Here they were in the year of grace, 1907, and he, at all events, after these evicted tenants had been out in the cold for over twenty-eight years, living in insanitary huts by the side of their old holdings, could not see, without attempting to vindicate their character or to say whether they were right or wrong, but simply recognising their miseries and the social danger to Ireland, how anyone could say that it was not time to consider how the job could be done. It had been a long time to wait in a ditch, and he could not accept the philosophic view that in a few more years the restoration would be accomplished at the present rate of progress. They must accomplish this job quickly. Four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine years was too long a wait for them to contemplate. He was glad that the hon, and learned Member for Waterford had called attention to the fact that the Report of the Estates Commissioners was unanimous. It was Mr. Wrench's Report as much as it was the Report of the other Commissioners. They must apply this principle of compulsion to get the land they required; nobody could read the Report of the Commissioners and doubt it. It was all very well to say that they had got enough untenanted land for their purpose and it was not necessary to acquire any more. The Commissioners were quite
1282
right in saying that they were not pre pared to give up all the untenanted land they had for the benefit of these tenants. They had other interests to consider, other trusts to regard, other duties to discharge with regard to the tenants in possession of uneconomic holdings and wanting land to improve them. The Commissioners had to attend to all these businesses pari passu as well as they could, but they must not overlook the interests of one set of tenants in the interests of another. The task the Bill sought to discharge was to acquire quickly an amount of land estimated at 80,000 acres, to reinstate evicted tenants, either in their own holdings or in other holdings, upon which they might hope to live and thrive, not as tenants, but as purchasers under the beneficent operation of the Act of 1903. That being the task, the first thing they had to do was to find out how many evicted tenants there were. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not hold a brief for Lord Clanricarde, but he held a good brief for the bogus evicted tenants, for he suggested that the probabilities were that of the 8,000 odd people who said they were evicted tenants, a great many more really were than had been found so to be by the Commissioners. All he could say was that the Government did not tell the Commissioners they were to cut the number down to 2,000, but gave them a staff to whom they might say, "Find out as best you can the circumstances of these claimants. We know that many of them will prove to be no more evicted tenants than distressed astronomers. We three will adjudicate." Every case had been properly investigated by an inspector, and reported on to the three Commissioners' one spoken of as a tenants' man, one as the landlords' man, and one, Mr. Finucane, an Anglo-Indian, who, there-

1283
fore, represented nobody and nothing. These three persons, whom the late Government selected and appointed, had been doing nothing since 1903 but garner information as to the circumstances of and tenure in Ireland. If the Government could have found three other persons more competent and less likely to excite the wrath of hon. Gentlemen opposite they would have done so. But they could not. These Commissioners had sifted the facts and given their reasons for rejecting these whom they had rejected, the reason being in most cases that they were not evicted tenants within the meaning of the Act of 1903. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to* rip up all these cases, and it was said that no one would be satisfied with the decision, and that the rejected would demand another trial. It was impossible to do business in such a spirit. The job of dealing with these 8,000 claims had been a difficult one, but it was almost complete. The result was that there were roughly found to be 2,000 of these evicted tenants. That was more than was at one time anticipated, but everything was more than it was at one time anticipated. People entered into a war saying that it would cost £ 10,000,000 and it cost actually £ 250,000,000. Formerly attention was directed to the Plan of Campaign tenants only, but by the Act of 1903 the definition had been enlarged. It was not surprising that the 1,000 who had been talked of should have proved to be 2,000 in fact. All the claims had been investigated, and these had been excluded which it would have been ridiculous to admit. For the first time it was known who the evicted tenants really were. The hon. Gentleman had tried to make out that there would be great dissatisfaction. He dared say there would. Every unsuccessful litigant left the Court dis-
1284
satisfied, sometimes with the Judge, and sometimes with his own counsel. They had found out who the evicted tenants were, and what kind of character they had, and whether they were likely to be benefited by purchase of their holdings. They had been told that the tribunal was shockingly insufficient. Heaven knew, everybody knew who had to do with Ireland, that it was difficult indeed to find three men, or thirty men, or one man who enjoyed the confidence of every body in connection with the value of land. He therefore, could repeat only what he had said— they found these three gentlemen, appointed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It was perfectly well to say in that House, in a manner which he did not care to characterise, that two of them were such disgraceful persons as to take their orders from the United Irish League. If such statements could be framed in that House, then Motions might at once be made for the removal of such persons from office. There had been no case made or set up in that House against any of these three gentlemen. His acquaintance with them was limited to the time when he came into office. He saw all three of them several times. They were three men of singularly different orders and habits, and he thought the three of them together made a very excellent Court, and he could not say from his experience of Irishmen, either in that House or outside it, that he could name three men in whom he should have more confidence in discharging such a very difficult duty as determining the value of land. No one could have a greater respect for a Judge than he had, but they did not get out of their difficulty by importing a Judge. He knew Irish .judges some of whom had not the confidence of the tenants. They would not get rid of

1285
differences of opinion and momentary irritation simply by calling in a man learned in the law. They were quite safe in a matter of this sort by leaving it to the judgment of these three men, and he could not see where he would have been able to get better. He did not believe, honestly, there was a man in that House who really believed that any single Irish landlord would be cheated by the operation of this Bill.
Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL: While I object to the use of the word cheated, I believe, under this Bill, as it stands, injustice will be done to a great many Irish landlords.
MR. BIRRELLsaid that was what he meant. He did not believe that under the operations of this Bill any Irish landlord would receive a less sum than he ought to receive as the value of his land, and he was bound to confess that if he was defrauded of his rights, as a landlord, he would be the first of his class to have so suffered. In the matter of the value of his land bought by way of purchase, if any landlord was defrauded under this Bill, it would be for the first time. He could not believe and did not believe the country would believe, that these three poisons were at all likely to enter upon a campaign that would result in the reducing of the price of the land which they took under the operations of the Bill. He did not speak with any antipathy to landlords. He did not want their land. He had no desire for it. When everybody else had gone back to the land, he and his children would remain in town. He therefore, spoke quite impartially in the matter. Did hon. Gentlemen opposite really believe that these three Land Commissioners appointed by a Conservative Government
1286
who were going about for the purpose of acquiring land for evicted tenants, were likely to cheat or defraud the landlords, or reduce the fair price of their land? | The unanimous Report of the Commissioners showed that compulsion had become necessary in order to complete within a reasonable time the reinstatement too long delayed of these men. Compulsion was necessary, and this tribunal was a satisfactory one. Upon the legal point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, all he could say was that he was advised, and he could say as a lawyer that he also agreed, that there was nothing in the point whatsoever. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman was as wrong as an ex-Solicitor-General ever was, and he could not put it much higher than that. If it should prove, however, on reflection and consideration that there was anything in the point he had made about demesne lands, he did not think there would be any difficulty in setting it light. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman really wanted to settle this matter in the friendly vein that might be occasionally disclosed in a speech otherwise difficult to understand, he asked him not to allow himself to be affected by that point. If there was any thing in it it could be got rid of, and if there was nothing in it it need not disturb him. With regard to the tenure of these three Commissioners, Mr. Wrench occupied the tenure which the late Government gave him, and he had £ 3,000 a year. Mr. Wrench was an exceedingly clever, successful, and wise man. He got £ 500 a year extra in order to be criticised by the House of Commons. He had £ 500 a year added to his salary in order that they might have the pleasure of criticising him. All he could . say was he would have been very

1287
foolish if he had not jumped at the offer. Criticism had not hurt him. The £ 500 he had no doubt had done him good. The other two Commissioners were on the same tenure as he, and the salaries which they received were on the Estimates, and, therefore, all three of them could be criticised; Mr. Wrench could be criticised because of his extra £ 500, and the other two Commissioners could be criticised because of their salaries of £ 2,000 a year. That being so, the House would have complete jurisdiction, as he thought it ought to have, of an administrative and chastening character, over these three gentlemen. He thought that when they were imposing on them new duties of a responsible kind, and which he had no doubt they would discharge in a judicial spirit, it was a most desirable thing that the two of them should be placed in a better position as regarded tenure of office than they were in at present. In conclusion, he would observe that he knew well, and he had it always driven home to him, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland occupied a difficult position. He was not a representative man; he did not represent hon. Gentlemen below the gangway opposite. [NATIONALIST cries of " Yes, you do."] No, he did not represent hon. Gentlemen below the
gangway; he certainly did not represent hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he did represent something which he valued far more than the good-will of hon. Gentle men opposite, and that was the permanent good-will of the British people towards Ireland, that permanent good-will which had not always had justice done to it, and he admitted that language was sometimes used with regard to it which it was rather difficult for Englishmen to bear. but he repeated that he was glad to know that he did represent the permanent good-will of the British people— the Scottish, the English, and the Welsh taxpayers— to the Irish people,— -their willingness, shown again and again, to run pecuniary risks, to take upon them selves pecuniary burdens for the sake of; doing some good to Ireland; and he believed they recognised that in this case of the evicted tenants there was need for doing good. It was in that spirit and that belief that this Bill was introduced, and it was because that spirit and that belief, he was certain, animated the House, that he looked forward with confidence to the division.
Question put.
The House divided:— Ayes, 315; Noes, 98. (Division List No. 271.)

AYES.

Abraham,William (Cork,N.E.)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Brodie, H. C

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Brooke. Stopford

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)

Brunner,J.F.L. (Lancs.,Leigh)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Beale, W. P.

Brunner,RtHnSirJ.T.(Cheshire

Alden, Percy

Beauchamp, E.

Bryce, J. Annan

Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Benn,SirJ. Williams (Devonp'rt

Burke, E Haviland-

Ambrose, Robert

Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bennett, E. N.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

Berridge, T. H. D.

Buxton,Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles

Astbury, John Meir

Billson, Sir Alfred

Byles, William Pollard

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cairns, Thomas

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Boland, John

Cameron, Robert

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brace, William

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Barker, John

Bramsdon, T. A.

Causton,Rt.Hn. RichardKnigh

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Branch, James

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Barnes, G. N.

Brigg, John

Churchill. Rt, Hon. Winston S

Clancy, John Joseph

Healy, Timothy Michael

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Cleland, J. W.

Hedges, A. Paget

Morrell, Philip

Clough, William

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morse, L. L.

Coats,Sir T. Glen (Renfrew,W.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Murnaghan, George

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Henry, Charles S.

Murray, James

Collins, SirWm.J (S.Pancras.W.

Higham, John Sharp

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Condon. Thomas Joseph

Hodge, John

Napier, T. B.

Cooper, G J.

Hogan, Michael

Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)

Corbett.CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Nicholson,CharlesN. (Doncaster

Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nolan, Joseph

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Holt, Richard Durning

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cowan, W. H.

Horniman, Emslie John

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,Mid

Crean, Eugene

Hudson, Walter

O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkennny

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Connor, John (Kildare,N.)

Crooks, William

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Conno., T. P. (Liverpool)

Crosfield, A. H.

Jackson, R. S.

O'Doherty, Philip

Crossley, William J.

Jenkins, J.

O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth)

Cullinan, J.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

Dalziel, James Henry

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Grady, J.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jowett, F. W.

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Joyce, Michael

O'Malley, William

Devlin, Joseph

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh,S.)

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Shee, James John

Dewar,SirJ.A.(Inverness-sh.)

Kilbride, Denis

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Dickinson. W. H.(St.Pancras,N.

Laidlaw, Robert

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Donelan, Captain A.

Lamb,Edmund G.(Leominster)

Pearson.W.H.M. (Suffolk,Eye)

Duffy, William J.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Perks, Robert William

Duncan. C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal)

Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Philipps,J.Wynford (Pembroke

DunneMajorE.Martin(Walsall)

Lea,Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras,E.)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Leese,SirJosehn F.(Accrington)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Elibank, .Master of

Lehmann, R. C.

Pollard, Dr.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lever,A.Levy (Essex,Harwich)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Essex, R. W.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Price, C.E.(Edinb'gh, Central)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lough, Thomas

Price,Robert John (Norfolk.E.)

Evans, Samuel T.

Lundon, W.

Priestley,W. E. B. (Bradford,E.)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lupton, Arnold

Radford, G. H.

Everett, R. Lacey

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rainy, A. Rolland

Farrell, James Patrick

Lyell, Charles Henry

Raphael, Herbert H.

Ferens, T. R.

Lynch, H. B.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Ffrench, Peter

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Field, William

Maclean, Donald

Redmond, William (Clare)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Richards,T.F.(Wolverhampton

Flavin, Michael Joseph

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Rickett, J. Compton

Flynn, James Christopher

Macpherson, J. T.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Foster, Rt Hon. Sir Walter

MacVeigh.Charles (Donegal,E.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Crae, George

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradford

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Kean, John

Robinson, S.

Gilhooly, James

M'Kenna, Rt.Hon. Reginald

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Ginnell, L.

M'Killop, W.

Roche, Angustine (Cork)

Gladstone, Rt.Hn Herbert John

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Glendinning, R. G.

M'Micking, Major G.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Glover, Thomas

Maddison, Frederick

Rose, Charles Day

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mallet, Charles E.

Rowlands, J.

Gooch, George Peabody

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Runciman, Walter

Grant, Corrie

Mansfield,.H. Rendall(Lincoln)

Russell, T.W.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) !

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Grey. Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Marnham, F. J.

Samuel,Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Gulland, John W.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Gurdon, Rt.Hn.SirW.Brampton

Massie, J.

Scarisbrick, T. T. I,.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Meagher, Michael

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Menzies, Walter

Sears, J. E.

Halpin, J.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Seaverns, J. H.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis |

Molteno, Percy Alport

Seddon, J.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Mond, A.

Seely, Major J. B.

Harwood, George

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Shackleton, David James

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Montagu, E. S.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Mooney, J. J.

Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Hazleton, Richard

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Sheehy, David

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Ure, Alexander

Wiles, Thomas

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Vivian, Henry

Wilkie, Alexander

Smyth,Thomas E. (Leitrim, S.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Snowden,P.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarthen

Soames. Arthur Wellesley

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton

Williamson, A.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Wardle, George J.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Steadman, W. C.

Wason.RtHn.E (Clackmannan)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Waterlow, D. S.

Young, Samuel

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Whitbread, Howard

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Sutherland, J. E.

White, Luke (York., E.R.)

Mr. whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Tennant,SirEdward (Salisbury

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Whitehead, Rowland

Thomasson, Franklin

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Du Cros. Harvey

Morpeth, Viscount

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Faber. George Denison (York)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Ashley, W. W.

Faber,Capt, W. V. (Hants, W.)

Nicholson. Wm.G.(Petersfield):

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.SirH.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Nield. Hebert

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Balfour,RtHn.A.J.(CityLond.)

Fletcher, J. S.

Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, J.

Percy, Earl

Baring,Capt.Hn.G(Winchester)

Gretton, John

Rawlinson,JohnFrederickPeel

Barrie,H T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool).

Bowles, G. Stewart

Helmsley, Viscount

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bridgeman, W. Clive:

Hills, J. W.

Sheffield,SirBerkeleyGeorgeD.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Smith,AbelH.(Hertford,East)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Smith.F. E. Liverpool, Walton)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Kennaway,Rt.Hon.SirJohnH.

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

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W.

Starkey. John R.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw, H.

Keswick, William

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Cavendish,Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thomson,W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Liddell, Henry

Thornton, Percy M..

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone E.)

Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.

Turnour, Viscount

Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham)

Valentia, Viscount

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Long,Rt.Hn. Walter (DublinS.,

Walrond. Hon. Lionel

Coates,E.Feetham(Lewisham)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wortley. Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Courthope, G. Loyd

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

Craig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Craik, Sir Henry

Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton

TELLERS FOR THE NOES —Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Fosrter

Dixon-Hartland,SirFredDixon

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Moore, William

Bill read a second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.— (Mr. Birrell.)
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the Clock on Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at one minute after Twelve o'clock

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills: Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Standing Orders Committee—Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Central London Railway Bill ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed.
Read, and agreed to.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H. L.]. Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
London and North Western Railway Bill. Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill. Moved, That the Order made on the 20th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.
Great Central Railway Bill. Read 3a with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Great Northern and City Railway Bill. Read 3a with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [h. l.]; King Edward's Hospital Fund for London Bill [H. l.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Southend Water Bill [H.L.]; Burnham (Somerset) Pier Bill [h. l.]. Returned
1038
from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H. L.]—(Fleetwood Victoria Pier Order); Barry Railway Bill; Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway (General Powers) Bill; North Staffordshire Railway Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill—(Dunstable Order). Report from the Committee of Selection. That the Lord Southampton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Zouche of Haryngworth; read, and agreed to.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H. L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [H. L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Board of Education Scheme (Hulme Trust Estates Educational) Confirmation Bill. Brought from the Commons and read la; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 96.)

PETITIONS.
Board of Education. Petition that in any scheme of the Board, the rights of headmasters in secondary schools may be safeguarded, of Thomas Allen; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Papers relating to a Federation of the South African Colonies.
  NATAL.
  Correspondence relating to the removal of certain native prisoners from Natal. (In continuation of [Cd. 3247.] December, 1906.)
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (TRAINING COLLEGES).
  Regulations for the training of teachers and for the examination of students in training colleges.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) 1907.
  Regulations as to grants to secondary schools.

  ARMY.
  (1) War Office Report on the steps taken to provide technical instruction to soldiers to fit them for civil life; (2) Copies of War Office circular letters relating to the subject.
  Report of the War Office Committee appointed to discuss certain Militia questions with representative officers of Militia.

  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  Fifty-first Report of His Majesty's Civil Service Commissioners; with appendices.
  COMMERCIAL, No. 6 (1907) (SUEZ CANAL).
  Returns of shipping and tonnage, 1904, 1905, and 1906. (In continuation of "Commercial, No. 4, 1906.")

  GOVERNMENT LABORATORY.
  Report of the principal chemist upon the work of the Government Laboratory, for the year ended 31st March, 1907; with appendices.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACTS, 1870.
  Report by the Board of Trade of the grounds upon which they have dispensed with the consent of the Nazeing Parish Council in the case of the Herts and Essex Water Provisional Order.
  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury minute, dated 1st July, 1907, declaring that Richard Blake, labourer, Royal Gun Factory; War Office, was appointed without a civil service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his Department.

  LUNACY.
  Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, and the number
  1040
  of patients seen, by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ended 30th June, 1907.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Return in pursuance of Section 4 of the Regulations of Railways Act, 1889, of railway servants of certain classes who were on one or more occasions during the month of April, 1907, on duty on the railways of the United Kingdom for more than twelve hours at a time, or who after being on duty more than twelve hours were allowed to resume work with less than nine hours rest: Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.
  STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE, ETC.
  Report from the Select Committee (with the proceeding of the Committee) made, and to be printed; Minutes of Evidence, together with an Appendix, laid on the Table, and to be delivered out. (No. 95.)
NEW BILL.
  QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN (COUNTY AND TOWN COUNCILS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the capacity of women to be elected and act as members of county or town councils in Scotland vas presented by the Lord Hamilton of Dalzell; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 97.)

TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL.
Order of the Day read for the House being put into Committee.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
* Viscount HARDINGE: My Lords, before the the House goes into Committee I desire, with your Lordships indulgence, to be allowed to put certain questions to my noble friend the Under-Secretary of

1041
State for War with regard to this Bill. I have given the noble Earl due notice of all the points on which I desire information, and I am indebted to him for his offer to give me the information for which I ask. I must confess that of late many noble Lords, on this side of the House at any rate, have felt that it was not much use asking the noble Earl any military questions, because his answer invariably was that the question should first be placed on the Paper or that the Army Council had not come to any definite decision regarding it.
My object in adopting the course I am following this afternoon is that the House may know more fully what the proposals it the Bill are, especially with regard to the County Associations, which I do not consider are at all clearly defined in the clauses of the Bill. I trust the noble Earl will forgive me for asking for this information before the House goes into Committee, but I do so from the fact that upon the organisation of these associations will depend the efficient carrying out of the Government's scheme. There are in this House many noble lords who are lords-lieutenant of counties, and as we have been led to understand in previous debates that upon their shoulders will rest the responsibility of organising the County Associations, I venture to think we shall be better able to discuss the points which concern those associations when we get into Committee if we have first obtained from the noble Earl the answers to the questions which I shall put to him. I trust that in adopting this course it will not be considered that I am taking an unusual one or acting in any captious spirit, for nothing is further from my mind. My excuse for putting the questions now must be that there was virtually no discussion on the subject of the County Associations in the House of Commons, and it is most essential, therefore, that everything connected with the Bill should be freely and fully discussed here.
The points upon which I desire an answer are as follow:—(1) Have the Government any idea what the cost of the working of the County Associations will be, also what sum will be allocated as the total for each county; (2) will offices have to be engaged for this purpose; (3) what sort of staff will be
1042
needed, and who will provide it; (4) what is to be the position of the deputy-lieutenants in the future, no mention having been made of them in the Bill; (5) what will be the position of the clerk to the lieutenancy; (6) will the lord-lieutenant retain his privilege for inspecting the local corps; (7) if the association raise a loan, what will be the security for it; (8) what steps are to be taken for getting officers and men as recruits; (9) will any pecuniary liability whatever be thrown on the County Associations, and who will pay any deficit; (10) how will their accounts be audited, how often, and by whom; (11) what appeal is there from the Army Council so far as its orders, schemes, and regulations are concerned, and are they bound to carry them out; (12) does not Clause 34 give the Army Council despotic power; (13) why should the commanding officer be only responsible for the training of his unit (Clause 14, b), and not for punishment for failure to fulfil that training which is put down in Clause 20 as the prescribed officer; (14) is it definitely decided that, when this Bill passes, the County Associations are to be formed simultaneously and not separately.
It will be noticed that I have not asked any questions in regard to the Militia, to which I have the honour to belong, as I understand the noble Earl the Undersecretary will shortly make a statement with regard to further concessions. But as a Militia commanding officer I would like to say this, that unless greater concessions are made, the Militia as we have known it in the past is practically dead, for I believe there is no truth in the assertion that the Militia have been saved by the compromise which has been arrived at.
*THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBE: My Lords, I, too, have given private notice to the noble Earl the Undersecretary of three Questions of a very simple character. They are—(1) whether the lord-lieutenant of the county will be constituted president of the County Association ex-officio, if he is able and willing to undertake the duties of president, or whether it is left entirely at the discretion of the Army Council to appoint him or any other person they may think fit: (2) whether the noble Earl will tell the House what are to be

1043
the powers and duties of the president of the association, or by whom they will be defined; and (3) whether the Government will introduce words into the Bill to make those points clear.
I think those are Questions which we, and especially those among your Lord ships who hold the office of lord-lieutenant, have a right to ask. If the duties of president are to be attached to the office of lord-lieutenant, then I think most of us who hold that office would feel that we were bound loyally to accept the additional responsibilities thrown upon us by Parliament, and by His Majesty, by whom we are appointed. But, on the other hand, as having a share in framing the Act, I think we are also bound to ascertain, as far as it is possible for us to do so, what are the additional responsibilities which we are imposing upon ourselves and upon the office which we hold. The first Question will very likely be answered by the noble Earl in dealing with an Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Northumberland. But I find no other place for asking the second Question, because the office of president of the association is nowhere referred to in the Bill beyond this first mention of it, and there is not a word defining the powers and the duties of the president. It is provided that the powers and duties of the chairman and vice-chairman shall be defined in the scheme, and therefore it seems to me all the more remarkable that nothing is said with regard to the powers and duties of the president. There is nothing even said to show that the president will preside at the meetings of the association, and, if he does, how his duties are to be fitted in with those of the chairman, unless the chairman holds virtually the position of vice-president, which would not appear to be the case in the Bill. It is not that I fear the amount of work that will be thrown on lords-lieutenant so much as the uncertain and undefined responsibilities which may devolve upon him, all the more onerous for being uncertain and undefined. I hope that in the course of the debate, the noble Earl will be able to answer the Questions I have put to him.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WARx (The Earl of Ports- mouth): My Lords, in reply to the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe I have to say that the position of lord-lieutenant in these associations will depend on the scheme which will be drawn up in each case, in consultation with the lord-lieutenant and, no doubt, with other important local representatives, by the Army Council. As to whether the lord-lieutenant will be constituted president of the association ex-officio, I think it would be far more convenient that we should deal with that matter when it comes up in Committee on the Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of the Duke of Northumberland. It is our desire to consult the wishes, and certainly the dignity and self-respect in all matters, of the lord-lieutenant.
The replies to the Questions put by the noble Viscount Lord Hardinge are as follows:—(1) As stated on page 4 of the Estimate presented to Parliament (Cd. Paper 3296) the grant of £75 per company of infantry is meant to cover the administration expenses of associations. It is hoped that the cost of the working of the County Associations will be kept as low as possible. It is obvious that no fixed sum can be allocated to each county as the conditions and volume of work will necessarily vary very much. (2) The County Associations will undoubtedly require office accommodation. (3) The Bill provides for the appointment of a secretary, who will, presumably, be a salaried official, and in the larger offices additional clerical assistance for bookkeeping, etc., may be found necessary. The associations will provide what is absolutely required out of the funds at their own disposal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What funds?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: The funds placed at their disposal.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: Who has the selection of the secretary?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: It is our intention that the secretary shall be selected by the Army Council when the scheme is framed.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: When the noble Earl says "funds at

1045
their disposal," does he mean the £75 per company?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: The funds which will be placed at their disposal by the Army Council. The answer to Question (4) is that the existing deputy-lieutenants will not as such necessarily be made members of the associations, though it is quite possible for the schemes to provide for their representation upon the association. In future it is hoped that the honour of a deputy-lieutenancy will only be bestowed upon those who have taken an active part in the work of the Territorial Army. (5) The clerk to the lieutenancy will not by virtue of this appointment hold a position on the association. (6) The reply is in the affirmative. (7) It is not contemplated that associations will raise leans except under the Public Works Loans Act for building headquarters, etc., and the security for such loans will be exactly the same as at present. (8) The Volunteers and the Yeomanry have never found it necessary to have a regular recruiting staff other than the incidental recruiting that may have been done for them by their staff-sergeants in their leisure moments. The real recruiting has all been done by the officers and men themselves, and there can be no question as to the success of the system. It is to the officers and men of the Territorial Army and the active co-operation and influence of the County Associations that we shall look for bringing in recruits. (9) The pecuniary liability of the associations will be similar to that of a corporate body. They can sue or be sued. (10) The accounts of associations will be audited annually under Clause 3 (5) of the Bill by chartered accountants. (11) Initially the appeal is to Parliament when the schemes are first laid, and any subsequent objections may be raised in j Parliament by the same methods as are at present adopted. (12) As regards regulations, Clause 34 merely amounts to a re-enactment of the existing law as set forth in Section 32 of the Interpretation Act of 1889. As regards Orders in Council, orders and schemes, as it might be held that the power of making them having once been exercised was spent, the provision in Clause 34 was inserted to clear up this doubt. (13) The officer described as the prescribed officer will in most cases undoubtedly be the command-
1046
ing officer. The phrase "prescribed officer" was deliberately inserted to admit of variation in the procedure should it, in practice, prove impossible for the commanding officer to do the work. (14) As far as possible, it is the intention of the Army Council to form all associations simultaneously.
LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Earl who has just sat down a Question of which I have given him private notice, and which rather follows from the answer he has given to the last Question. I wish to know whether the lord lieutenant of the county, in all cases, will be consulted by the Army Council as to the formation of the County Associations. My noble friend stated that he would be consulted as to the composition of that association, but I desire to know whether he would be consulted as to the expediency of forming an association at all. In the county from which I come it is doubtful whether a County Association would not be mischievous, for we have no Volunteers in Ireland; and, so far as recruiting is concerned, I do not think it would receive any assistance from the local bodies represented on the association.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: In reply to the noble Lord I have to say that the lord-lieutenant would most certainly be consulted in the matter referred to.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I think the answers we have received from the noble Earl the Under-Secretary have amply justified the action taken by my noble friend behind me (Viscount Hardinge) in putting the Questions to the Government. We have a little more information now than before of this scheme, which is so vaguely expressed in the Bill. But we are in this difficult position. This House does not favour the moving of Amendments of which notice has not been given, and yet even already, after the reply which we have just heard, I can see that it will be desirable that many Amendments should be laid before the House on the very points on which the noble Earl has answered.
The noble Earl said that in large counties it might be necessary to have

1047
clerks. I venture to think that not only will offices and a secretary be required, but that, unless the War Office changes its customs in a remarkable way, a whole army of clerks will be required to deal with the enormous amount of correspondence which will necessarily take place. And the greatest puzzle to my mind is how the Government imagines that £75 per company, or anything in the least like that figure, will pay these expenses. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he can lay on the Table any estimate to show why the Government think that this sum will be sufficient. We know what the establishment expenses of county councils are. Before long many of the local offices working under these County Associations will need nearly as large a staff as the county councils.
I was glad to hear that the funds which were to be at the disposal of the associations were limited to those supplied, as I understood, by Parliament. But I was a little bit alarmed when I heard that the liability of the associations would be the liability of a corporate body. What does that mean? What is the liability of these associations to be? An association will send up an estimate; suppose the expenditure exceeds that estimate, which is exceedingly likely, what will be the liability? Will every member of the association have to put his hand in his pocket and make up the deficit? It is not the same thing as the liability of a local authority, because the local authority has the rates at its back. This association will have no security of that kind. I hope some noble Lord on the Ministerial Bench will explain what is meant by the statement that the liability of these associations will be the same as that of a corporate body, because it is a somewhat alarming dictum. There was another point which struck me very forcibly. The noble Earl was asked what appeal there was against Orders of the Army Council, and he said that the appeal was to Parliament when the schemes were laid before Parliament, and, I suppose I may include, when any alteration in the scheme is made. But there is no provision in the Bill for giving Parliament any power of expressing a voice. The provision simply is that they shall be laid on the Table of the House. It is, of course, a matter
1048
of common knowledge that Parliament has not the power of rejecting unless it be said that the scheme shall not come into force until it has been laid on the Table of Parliament for a certain number of days, and means are provided by which exception can be taken to the scheme. Unless such words are inserted the protection we have is illusory.
The noble Earl, as I understood, stated that Clause 34 only preserves a power which now exists. I do not understand what that means. Is there a power now on the part of the Army Council to make any Order, scheme, or regulation, to vary or revoke any such Order, scheme, or regulation, and to provide that such Orders, schemes, or regulations shall have the effect of an Act of Parliament? I am informed that the effect of those words is that appeal is impossible against those Orders, schemes, or regulations: that no Court of law would entertain any appeal against an Order framed under that section. If that is so, it is really giving to the Army Council the powers of enacting the law of the land. Of course, if the noble Lord tells us that that is already so, I can only confess my ignorance of the fact, for I have been quite unaware that there was any power in any body in this country to make the laws of the land except Parliament. I do not know whether the noble Earl the Under-Secretary or any noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite can satisfy us on those points: but if not, I am afraid we must raise Amendments as the Bill goes on, whether we have given notice of them or not.
No one rising from the Front Ministerial Bench,
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE said: My Lords, are we really to have no answer to the Questions put by the noble Duke? They seem to me to deal with fundamental matters which lie at the very root of this part of the Bill. Lot me repeat them, if I am not unduly wearying your Lordships. We should like to know upon what base of fact this estimate of £75 per company has been arrived at. We also want to know how the corporate liability of the County Associations, which the noble Earl has revealed to a somewhat surprised House this evening, is to work. There is all the difference in the world between the position of these

1049
County Associations and a municipal body of the usual kind. The municipal body has the rates to fall back upon. What source have the County Associations to depend on except this grant of £75 per company? The inference is obvious: it is that the association will have to make good the deficit, if one should arise, out of private benevolence. That is not a very encouraging prospect for those who are to be invited to take their place on these County Associations. There is also the question of appeals; and, lastly, there is the most important question of all—namely, whether the Army Council is to be given the right of making what I would call excrescences on this Act of Parliament without let or hindrance. I do hope that some noble Lord opposite will give us a little enlightenment on these important points before the debate proceeds further.
*THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I have never, I think, in the course of my experience in this House, known a discussion quite so irregular as this. My noble friend behind me was entitled to speak once upon going into Committee, and he has been bombarded with Questions from all quarters by noble Lords who have made beforehand, very kindly, precisely the speeches which they will make when these Amendments are reached. I do not propose to say anything about Clause. 34. I shall be quite prepared to deal with it when the noble Duke's Amendment is reached. When that time comes it will be entirely appropriate to discuss the whole question, but at this stage it seems to me both unusual and irregular to deal with the matter at all.
As regards the first Question, which the noble Marquess put for the second time, about the corporate liability, I think it is undoubtedly contemplated that private funds will be forthcoming for the purpose of these associations, if required. But is that entirely unknown at present? Have none of your Lordships ever been asked to subscribe for Volunteer purposes? I should have thought there are none of your Lordships who have not, and what is an infinitely more serious matter at present is that commanding officers of these bodies in many cases have been forced to incur liability, which they could often ill-afford to meet, in
1050
connection with the regiments which they command. If any liability of that kind is to be incurred it is far more proper that it should fall on the County Associations than on commanding officers.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it was with some astonishment that I heard the noble Earl complain of the irregularity of this discussion. It seems to me one of the most regular discussions that could take place. Upon going into Committee on this Bill we have ventured to put one or two very important questions, and the noble Earl seems to think that a very irregular proceeding. It is neither irregular nor is it inconsiderate, for all my noble friends who have put those questions took the trouble to give private notice to the noble Earl the Under-Secretary.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I only received notice this morning.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But all the information which the noble Earl requires is teeming in the War Office, and ho only had to ask for it. Therefore, I think the complaint that our discussion is an improper one is rather ungenerous. What about this corporate liability? The noble Earl tells us that if the associations spend more than they are granted by Parliament the members will have to find the difference out of their own pockets. That is a very important piece of information from the Government, and any gentleman who proposes to form part of an association will have to consider very carefully before he definitely determines on the line he will take, and one of the considerations that will occur to him will be how much money will be obtainable from Parliament in the first instance. Now, what information have we obtained from the noble Earl the Under-Secretary as to the money which Parliament is going to provide? The noble Earl, with a show of great precision, said he thought £75 per company would be granted. Seventy-five pounds per company, my Lords! Why, there are in the county to which I belong two Volunteer battalions and a Yeomanry regiment—say twenty-four companies in all. Twenty-four times £75 works out at £1,800. Does the noble Earl gravely tell us that all that will be required in the county of Hertford for this purpose will be £1,800, and, if

1051
not, the money must be made up out of private sources?
Let me ask the Government whether they have not formed some estimate in their own minds of what the total cost of this Territorial Army is likely to be. I put that definite question with great respect to noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite. Have they formed any idea whatever of the cost which this Territorial Army is likely to throw on public funds; and, if they have formed such an opinion, will they communicate it to Parliament? I have a further question to put on this matter of cost— How is it going to be arrived at? The Bill is not very clear on this subject. Apparently there are statements of probable expenditure to be sent by the associations to the Army Council, so that it seems that the initiative in this respect is to lie with the associations. I should like to be informed whether that is so, and whether the amount of expenditure which is to be incurred is to be initiated by the associations or by the Army Council. That is a very important matter, and one which seems to mo to be capable of very clear answer.
Then notice it is said that the grant is to be on the basis of this statement. That seems clear so far, but one is thrown into complete confusion by the third subsection of Clause 3, which says that the money so granted—
"shall be applicable to any of the purposes specified in the approved statements in accordance with which the money has been granted."
So that after the money is granted it need not be devoted to the object for which it was asked, but to any of the objects without distinction. It is important to know who will initiate the statements, and whether, when they are sent to the Army Council, the money granted in pursuance of particular subjects will be confined to those subjects. What is the general conclusion from the state of things revealed in your Lordships' House this afternoon I It is this, that the Government would have been well advised if they had adopted the suggestion we made a few weeks ago, and laid before Parliament a model scheme of how they proposed to work this Act. Had that been done, we should have been able to understand far better than we do now what the proposals of the Government are. I would venture to press for answers to
1052
these questions. Upon what principle is the sum of money which is to be granted to these associations to be arrived at? Is the initiative to lie with the associations or with the Army Council? And when the money is granted, will it be applicable only to such purposes contained in each statement, or be used generally for any of the subjects in respect of which a demand has been made?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I do not rise to answer the questions which have been put by the noble Marquess. Indeed, I am not in a very fit state to address your Lordships at all. But I must say one word upon his remark in respect to the objection which was taken by my noble friend behind me to a good deal of what has gone on in this discussion. The noble Marquess called the objection ungenerous. I quite agree with my noble friend behind me that it is not regular that questions relating to particular clauses in the Bill, which are about to be discussed when the House is in Committee, should be discussed at length upon the Motion to go into Committee: and I still further think that it is obviously unfair that a succession of questions should be put to my noble friend the ruder-Secretary, because my noble friend is not entitled to speak more than once in this discussion. In these circumstances, if these questions are put to him one after another it is impossible, consistent with the regulations of this House, for him to reply to them. I do not make any complaint of noble Lords opposite, because we are apt, I think, to get into irregular habits from time to time; but I think it is worth remembering that upon one stage of a Bill noble Lords can speak as often as they like, and upon all other stages they can only speak once.
House in Committee, according to Order.
(The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.)
Clause 1:—
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that before moving the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, it would probably be for the convenience of the

1053
House if he explained more or less the general purposes of the clause. Under this clause a separate scheme would be made for each county in England and Scotland establishing an association for the county. The scheme would fix the date for the establishment of the association and describe it by the appropriate name. Generally speaking it would constitute the lord-lieutenant president of the association exceptional cases some other person might be designated as president. The scheme would fix the total number of members of the association and provide how many members were to be officers of the Territorial Forces, representatives of county and borough councils, and, if there was a University in the county, of the University, and how many were to be co-opted members. The only limitation was that the number of military members must constitute at least half of the whole number of the association. In the first instance, the military members would probably be appointed by the Army Council, and possibly the scheme might provide for the officers of the Territorial Forces being given some voice in the appointment of the military members in the future. The representative members under the Bill would be appointed by the Army Council, but the councils and other bodies to be represented must be consulted before the appointment was made. Probably the scheme would provide for the representatives being members of the bodies or University to be represented by them. The co-opted members would, as the word implied, be appointed by the other members of the association, and the scheme would probably provide for a certain proportion of the co-opted members being representative of employers and labour associations. There was no limitation in the Bill as to the method of appointment of the chairman and vice-chairman of the associations. He had no doubt that in some cases the lord-lieutenant would also be chairman. The scheme could therefore provide for the appointment being made either by the Army Council or by the association, but probably it would be found expedient for the scheme itself to designate who the first chairman and vice-chairman were to be. Then the scheme would provide for the chairman or vice-chairman when presiding at a meeting of the
1054
association to have a casting vote and to be able to decide points of order. The Bill was silent as to whether or not the chairman or vice-chairman must be chosen from amongst the members of the association. It might conceivably be desirable in some counties to go outside the members of the association. The scheme could provide for either of these alternatives. The scheme would also deal with the term of office of members of the association, whether they should go out of office simultaneously, or whether a certain number were to retire in the year. The greater part of the business would be transacted through committees, the chairman and vice-chairman being ex-officio members of every committee. Provision was also made for the appointment of a secretary and other salaried officials of the association, the salary of the secretary coming out of the funds granted by the Army Council to the association. Probably the first secretary would be designated in the scheme, it being of importance that the Army Council should have some control over his appointment. It might be found possible, however, to provide for future appointments being made by the Army Council, after consultation, with the association. It would also probably be found necessary to provide that the secretary should not be removable except with the consent of the Army Council. The scheme would also provide for the accountability of the secretary. There was no power of surcharging the members of the association, and it might be found necessary for the Army Council to exercise a check over the finances of the association through the secretary. This might be done by requiring all cheques to be countersigned by the secretary and holding him responsible for any improper payments, and for that purpose requiring from him a fidelity guarantee. The scheme would further enable certain general officers, such as the general officer commanding the district, to attend the meetings of the association and to give their views on any subject under discussion, but without having the right to vote. Any general officer so authorised by the scheme to attend meetings of the association would, if unable to attend himself, be entitled to send another officer to represent him. In the case of very large and populous counties, such as

1055
Lancashire, and the West Riding of Yorkshire, it might be found impossible for a single association to transact the whole of the business of the county, and the number of members on the association might be so large as to make the body unwieldy. In such cases a country might be divided into two or more parts, and a sub-association constituted for each part. The sub-association would probably consist, solely of members of the central association, and their relations to the central association and to the other sub-associations would be regulated by the scheme. For instance, in matters of finance probably the scheme would provide for each sub-association sending in its estimates to the central association, which would consider and possibly modify them before sending them in to the Army Council as the estimates for the whole county. It was not intended to make use of the power of dividing counties except in very exceptional cases and circumstances, and it was not contemplated splitting up a county into districts corresponding to the present districts of the Volunteers. He added by way of explanation that it was the intention that the County Associations should be established after consultation with the lord-lieutenant. The noble Lord concluded by moving an Amendment by inserting in the first clause, after "other than the Regulars," the words "and their Reserves," with the object of making it clear that the Reserve Forces would not come under the control of the County Associations. The Amendment would not prevent the associations exercising power with regard to the care of Reservists, of which special mention was made in the Bill, and which would be conferred upon them under Clause 2. Subsection (2).
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 8, after the word 'Regulars,' to insert the words 'and their Reserves.'"— (The Earl of portsmouth.)
THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBE: pointed out that the noble Earl had not answered his second Question referring to the powers and duties of the president, whoever the president might be. All reference to that matter was omitted from the Bill and also from the noble Earl's statement.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Those points will be settled by the scheme when it is drawn up.
LORD BELPER:rose to order and asked what the Question was that was before the House and whether the powers and duties of the president had anything to do with the Amendment to insert the words "and. their Reserves."
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid they had been almost called to order by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for doing what he would have thought was a regular thing, namely, discussing the whole of these matters on the Motion to go into Committee. They were told by the noble Marquess that the proper time to ask questions was when the Bill was in Committee, but now they had got into Committee it was complained of if they did not confine themselves strictly to the particular point. The scheme was utterly indefinite. The Bill was one of an entirely novel nature, and two-thirds of it had never been discussed in the House of Commons. Therefore, it was the duty of their Lordships to direct attention to these matters. They could not allow a Cabinet to pass Bills without any discussion whatever.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that any discussion which had reference to the Amendment now before the Committee would be in order. When the subsequent clauses, in which the matters were mentioned upon which Questions had been asked, were reached, the particular points referred to could be dealt with. But he would put it to the noble Earl the Lord Chairman whether the Question now before the Committee was not the insertion of the words, "and their Reserves," and whether it was not necessary for that Amendment to be disposed of before other matters could be discussed.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW)agreed that other opportunities would occur, in the course of the Committee Stage, for raising the various points referred to. At the same time he thought that the statement

1057
which the noble Earl the Under-Secretary had made would have been more appropriate on the, Motion that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved to insert words in Subsection 3 (e), to make it clear that the lord-lieutenant was to be the president of the association. The noble Duke asked for the ruling of the Committee with regard to the putting of questions. He said there was no reference to deputy lieutenants until long after the scheme had been passed. Where, then, was the opportunity of asking questions with regard to deputy lieutenants? The noble Earl the Lord Chairman had expressed the opinion that the statement of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary would have come better at the end of the clause; but then the clause would have been disposed of, and noble Lords would have had no chance of moulding Amendments according to the statement of the Under secretary. He ventured to think, that the course first adopted, of discussing the whole, matter on the Motion to go into Committee, was the proper one, but the Government had deliberately declared that that was out of order. The Under-Secretary had purposely refrained from making the statement he had just made until they were in Committee. The Government had done all they could to prevent a general discussion, and the House was consequently in a difficult position. Noble Lords desired answers to many questions on the whole scheme before they could frame their Amendments. With regard to the Amendment standing in his name, he thought that the position of the lord-lieutenant was such that, until he had shown himself incompetent, he should have the opportunity of being the president of the association. Was the present the right moment to ask what the duties of the president were? The president need not be the chairman. Then what was to be his duty? He (the noble Duke) would confine himself to that question for the moment, but he had a great many more to ask.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 1, after the words 'county or' to insert the words 'if he do not assent then.' "—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHpointed out that the lord-lieutenant might be either unfit or unable to undertake the duties of president, but he suggested that the object of the noble Duke might be met by making the subsection read, "for constituting the lieutenant of the county, or failing him, such other person as the Army Council may think fit, president of the association."
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE:said the point was quite plain. The Government wanted the Army Council to decide whether or not the lord-lieutenant was fit, but the noble Duke wanted the lord-lieutenant himself to say whether he was willing to be the president. Surely it was reasonable that the lord-lieutenant should be allowed this option, and that the matter should not be left to possibly the caprice of the Army Council.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHreplied that the primary object was to have military efficiency, and it might be the case in some counties that the lord-lieutenant, by age or other reasons, was not fit for this work. The Government did not desire that it should be obligatory to appoint such a lord-lieutenant president of the association.
THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBEasked if it was permissible, for him now to put his Question as to what the powers and duties of the president were to be, and by what authority they were to be defined.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid the powers and duties attaching to the position of president would be defined under the scheme. The president, if he was not chairman, would, he understood, be an honorary member of the association, and would always take the chair when he was present.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Over the head of the chairman?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Certainly.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Then, as I understand it, the duty of the president, as apart from that of the chairman, is that he shall take the chair whether the chairman is present or not?
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDthought the lord-lieutenant might be removed altogether from the office if he was not to be competent to take the chair.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: The noble Duke has misunderstood what I said. He would preside if he were present.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I must try and make this matter clear if I can. I think there has been some misapprehension. Of course, it is our object, so far as possible, to respect the great historical and personal position of the lord-lieutenant, but the Government do contemplate cases in which the lord-lieutenant, possibly from age, or from his never having had anything to do with military affairs in any capacity, which is conceivable, would not be the proper person to be the working chairman of the association. That is a position which I think the House will agree is a possible one. But if he were president he would take the chair at a meeting whoever else was there. There are a number of analogies in societies of all descriptions, where some distinguished person takes the chair on the rare occasions when he attends, the real work being done by a working chairman or vice-chairman. That is the position which it is contemplated under certain circumstances that a lord-lieutenant will hold. In constituting these associations you are placing new duties on the lord-lieutenant, and it is hoped that in future lords-lieutenant will be appointed with the view of their being working chairmen of these associations; but meanwhile there may be cases in which the lord-lieutenant is really unable to undertake those duties, even though he might be willing to do so. Therefore we desire to leave this loophole to the Army Council, and I hope the Committee will accept the words proposed as an alternative by my noble friend behind me.
THE EARL OF HAREWOODasked whether, in the case of a county which had been divided, the lord-lieutenant, should he be president of the county association, would also be expected to preside over the sub-associations? This was a somewhat important question, and one which he would like to have cleared up before voting on the Amendment.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH:said that if the lord-lieutenant was president of the association he would also be president of the sub-associations, but he need not be chairman of all or any of the sub-associations unless he so desired.
THE EARL OF HAREWOOD: Then the sub-associations resolve themselves into committees of the large association?
LORD NEWTON:said he was anxious to express a favourable opinion if he could with regard to this Bill. One of the lords-lieutenant whom he knew was a Quaker. It was obviously undesirable that a lord-lieutenant who was a Quaker should be placed at the head of a semi-military organisation, and therefore he thought the Government were exercising a wise discretion in maintaining the provision in the modified form of words suggested by Lord Portsmouth. With regard to the objection which was apparently entertained by the noble Karl on the cross benches, Lord Rosebery to the president occupying the chair when he was present, he could only say that so far as his experience went, this was done in other bodies. He happened to be president of a political association, and when he was present he was allowed to take the chair without protest although the chairman might himself be there. It was a perfectly natural thing under the circumstances, and he was happy to think that on this point he could support His Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The noble Lord is mistaken as to my object. It was not objection or criticism, but elucidation.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not think we are very

1061
far apart on this point. I gather that there will be, in the view of the Government, two kinds of presidents. There is, in the first place, the lord-lieutenant who will be what you might call a real working president. In the second place, there is the lord-lieutenant who will hold the office in a more or less honorary capacity, with a chairman, who has been described in another place as a man of business, to carry on the bulk of the work. What I would rather like to elicit is whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to give a lord-lieutenant at any rate the refusal of the honorary presidency, or whether they desire to preserve to themselves the right of refusing even an honorary presidency in certain cases.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN)said it was the intention of the Bill that the lord-lieutenant should be appointed in all cases in which that would be at all practicable, the only reason for putting in the reservation being that there might be cases in which it was inexpedient or inconvenient for the lord-lieutenant to act. Obviously, if that were so the decision must rest with somebody, and His Majesty's Government thought that, on the whole, this being a scheme for military defence, it was better to put upon the Army Council the responsibility of giving; of withholding approval.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I venture to hope that after what has been said, my noble friend behind me will not press his Amendment.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he would withdraw the Amendment he had moved and substitute the words suggested by the noble Earl the Undersecretary of State for War,
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2. line 1. after the word 'or,' to insert the words 'failing him.' "—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHmoved to leave out "one-half" and to
1062
insert "two-thirds," his object being to ensure that the military element in the proposed County Associations should prevail. He thought this highly desirable, inasmuch as the functions of the associations were almost entirely of a military nature. They would have to do with the administration of a large section of the armed forces of the Crown, and the expression in the Bill that the officers representative of all arms and branches of the Territorial Forces should be not less than one-half of the whole number of the association would rather seem Do indicate that the Government had some idea of this sort in their mind when they framed the section. But it rather depended on the exact meaning of the expression "one-half" and how it was to be worked. In the event of unavoidable absence the one-half might be in a minority in a vote on some important question. It was desirable to make it perfectly clear that the military element should as far as possible prevail for another reason—namely, to prevent any risk in the future of political intrigue or difficulty of that sort in the County Associations. He did not attach any particular virtue or magic to the exact fraction which he moved, and if the Government would introduce words to ensure that as far as possible, the military members were not in a minority, his object would be gained.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 7, to leave out 'one-half,' and to insert ' two-thirds.' "—(Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid the civil and military elements on the association had been very carefuly worked out, and the proviso now in the Bill, that at least one-half should be military representatives, appeared to them thoroughly to safeguard the interests of units from their own especial point of view, and to give them adequate representation. He would direct their Lordships' attention to the subsequent Subsections (e) and (f)—
"(e) For the appointment by the Army Council, where it appears desirable, and after consultation with the authorities to he represented, of representatives of county and county borough councils and Universities wholly or partly within the county.

1063
"(f) For the appointment of such number of co-opted members as the scheme may prescribe, including, if thought desirable, representatives of the interests of employers and workmen."
It was of the utmost importance that the association should embrace the various interests of the county and be thoroughly representative. If the Amendment which the noble Lord had just moved were accepted by the Government the effect would be that interests would in many cases be shut out which ought to be represented if the associations were to be really successful. If it did not have that effect, it would make the association unnecessarily unwieldy, and to secure the necessary number of officers of the territorial units would necessitate bringing on to the association a number of comparatively junior officers. The Government were quite at one with the noble Lord as to the importance of securing that the military opinion should prevail.
LORD RAGLAN: Am I right in thinking that the first military representative on the association will be appointed by the Army Council?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Yes.
LORD RAGLANfurther asked whether this gentleman would have the right of refusing to sit on the association. He could not imagine that it would be much encouragement to officers to join the Territorial Forces if they were told that they were liable to be put on these associations, which might involve the compulsory display of considerable private benevolence on their part. It would be interesting to know whether they would have the right to refuse to serve.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My noble friend need not be alarmed on that point. It will be purely voluntary.
LORD RAGLAN: Then what will happen if the inducements are so few that no persons will go on the associations?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: We do not anticipate such an unsatisfactory state of things.
LORD HARRISinquired if it was contemplated to give any protection to minorities on the associations. He took it that of the military half of the association a very large proportion would be Volunteer commanding officers. He imagined that the idea would be to put on a representative of as many corps as existed in the county. The Yeomanry were in a considerable minority, and as the funds were to be distributed by a vote of the association he would like to know what protection the Yeomanry had. Were the Government going to take care that some protection was given to that arm, the representatives of which would be largely outnumbered in voting power?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid this was a matter which had been in the mind of the Government, and they would do their best under any scheme to protect legitimate minority interests.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The Amendment before the Committee is that of my noble friend behind me, to increase the military element from one-half to two-thirds. I rather hope he will not press this Amendment upon the Committee, and for this reason. We all desire that these County Associations should be made as popular as possible, and we have heard things to-night which have made it clear that we cannot afford to do anything which might diminish that popularity. I cannot help thinking that if they are given a too military complexion public confidence in them will be abated, because, as we all know, there is a great deal of suspicion in the country against anything like militarising tendencies. I am afraid that if as many as two-thirds of the members were to be soldiers we should find that representatives of trade unions, municipal bodies, and Universities, particularly when they knew that their appointment entailed liabilities which might be of an onerous character, would fight shy of taking that part which we all desire they should take in these associations.
*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: intimated that after what had been said he would not press his Amendment to a division. His only object in moving it had been to secure that care should be

1065
taken by the Army Council that the military element should always be in a position to be able to assert its views without running the risk of being swamped by people who had not had technical experience.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BELPERmoved an Amendment to secure that schemes for the appointment by the Army Council of representatives of county and county borough councils and Universities should provide that the appointment should be made not only "after consultation with," but "on the nomination of" the authorities to be represented. He said the Secretary of State had had an interview on this subject with a deputation of the County Councils Association, who thought that these representatives should be real representatives, nominated or suggested in some way by the councils themselves. As the Bill stood, the representatives appointed might not be the best ones. He very much doubted whether the word " representative " interpreted in an Act of Parliament necessarily meant a representative selected by the county or borough council themselves for the purpose of being put on this association. That being the case, it was surely better not to use words which might give rise to misconception when they came to be interpreted. On the other hand, the words in his Amendment were recognised by Parliament as meaning exactly the same as was meant in this clause. It would be remembered that considerable discussion took place upon this particular point in the clauses which dealt with the schemes under the Education Act of 1902. In that case the county council wished to get representatives from certain learned bodies, but desired to keep the appointment of those gentlemen in their own hands; and the words that were used in that Act were that the scheme—
"Shall provide for the appointment by the council, on the nomination or recommendation, where it appears desirable, of the bodies," etc.
The result was that the county council asked the University, for instance, to suggest to them gentlemen whom they thought it would be desirable to appoint, but the county council retained the
1066
appointment in their own hands; and if one of the persons nominated failed, and the other was not one that the county council thought would be a desirable member, they could again approach the University and ask that other names should be suggested. That was, he understood, exactly the process which it was proposed to adopt in this case. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary had stated that "probably" members of the county council would be the representatives placed on the associations. He hoped that the noble Earl meant "certainly," because he did not think it would be at all desirable that somebody outside the county council, and not on the nomination of the county council, should be selected as a representative of the county council. However, that might be, if the intention of the clause was to allow the county councils to suggest names and to give the Army Council the absolute power of appointment, it would be far better to use words which had been recognised by Parliament before, the meaning of which was well known, and which would not give rise to any question hereafter.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 10, after the word 'with,' to insert the words 'and on the nomination of.' " —(Lord Belper.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he could not accept the Amendment in the form in which it was moved. The fact that the councils must be consulted was proof that due regard would be paid to the representations of the county councils. At the same time the Army Council would, at first, best understand the qualifications that were necessary, and they would look to the local authority to help them to obtain the persons possessing those qualifications. It was in deference to the representations of the deputation from the County Councils Association, referred to by Lord Belper, that the clause was amended in the shape in which it now stood. He would accept the words "and on the recommendation of," if that would meet the noble Lord.
LORD BELPERsaid that if the Government approached county councils with an idea that they were suspicious of

1067
them it would not tend to make matters run smoothly. But county councils would co-operate very warmly if it were shown that there would be confidence in their recommendation. He would accept the word "recommendation" now, with the opportunity of reconsidering the point on Report, if necessary.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
*LORD HAVERSHAM: moved to amend Subsection (g) so as to provide that the chairman and vice-chairman should be elected by the County Association and not appointed by the Army Council. He saw no reason why the practice followed in every other local authority, from county council to parish council, should not be adopted in the case of these County Associations. The selection of chairman was a very essential point in the good conduct of the meetings, and it was desirable that the best business men in the counties should preside over these associations. How, he asked, were the officials at the War Office to know who would make the best chairman in a distant county? He ventured to think there was likely to be considerable friction between the County Associations and the Army Council on the question of these appointments, and whenever there was a failure it would be laid to the account of the appointed chairman.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 18, to leave out the word 'appoint' and to insert the word 'election.' "— (Lord Haversham.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid the Army Council felt that it was very important to get an efficient and effective chairman to start the scheme, and they would, therefore, like to reserve the appointment of the first chairman. But he was quite prepared to bring up on Report words which would secure that, apart from the first chairman, the election should be with the association.
THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBEasked whether it was to be an annual or permanent appointment.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he thought the idea was that it would be
1068
from year to year. That point would be dealt with in the scheme.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDasked who would willingly accept the position of chairman when he was to be displaced on occasions by a president chosen by somebody else than the association, with a secretary, chosen by somebody else, who might thwart him at every turn, and with a vice-chairman, who was to be his right-hand man, selected not by the body over whom the chairman was to preside, but by the Army Council.
LORD LUCASdid not think the appointment of the chairman by the Army Council would be arbitrary. It was hoped that in most cases where the lord-lieutenant would accept the position, he would himself act, and the appointment of chairman would only arise where the lord-lieutenant accepted the presidency, but did not take the chairmanship. The reservation of the appointment of the first chairman would prevent the possible tendency to appoint someone more for his social qualifications and power in the county than for his actual capacity to act in that position. As regarded the position of the president, surely the noble Duke would not expect that when the lord-lieutenant of the county attended a meeting he should take a subordinate position to his own chairman. It was the obvious corollary to the requirement that the lord-lieutenant should in every possible case be president, that he should be allowed to attend as often as he could, and, when he did attend, should take the chair.
LORD METHUENthought everything must depend on whether the appointment was for a year or for life.
LORD NEWTONasked what language would have been used by noble Lords opposite, supposing this Bill had been brought in by an effete Conservative administration, and they had proposed that the Army Council should dictate to these associations as to who was to be their chairman? What became of all the talk about trusting the people? The Government dared not trust their

1069
own associations. The only consistent person on the Ministerial side of the House was the noble Lord who had moved this Amendment, and he hoped he would be consistent enough to take a division.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDwished to know why these associations should be thought to be more unfit to choose their chairman than every parish and district council in the country.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid that, as the Government had proposed a compromise, it really was important to know whether the first chairman was to hold office for a year or for life.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: All I said was that he would probably hold office for a year. He will certainly not hold office for life.
LORD MONTAGU Of BEAULIEUsaid that on that point hung the whole question. He hoped the Committee would have more information before they divided.
*LORD HAVERSHAM thoughtthat in view of the compromise suggested by the noble Earl the Under-Secretary— that after the first appointment the selection should rest in the hands of the association—noble Lords opposite would agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not think my noble friend has quite gauged the feeling of this side of the House. We are anxious that these County Associations should start with all the circumstances in their favour, and many of us are under the impression that the circumstances will be much more favourable to them if at the very outset there is not imposed upon them by the Army Council a chairman who may not be in their opinion the most suitable person for the post. Therefore, I for one, should vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord, particularly as we have been unable to elicit from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill particulars as to the length of the term of service which is to be assigned to these chairmen. The position is not to be held for life, but it
1070
may be held for a considerable number of years, and that predisposes me in favour of the noble Lord's Amendment.
THE EARL OF ELGINsaid his noble friend had stated that this might be an annual appointment or for a term of years. If it was not an annual appointment, he should say it would be an appointment for three years or something of that kind. The Government were anxious to start these associations as soon as possible, and they were of opinion that it would facilitate their working, in the first instance, if the Army Council put the first chairmen in the schemes. He could not help thinking that the arrangement explained by his noble friend by which on the first occasion the appointment of chairman would be made by the Army Council, and on subsequent occasions the association would have the right of electing him, would be the most convenient.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsuggested as a compromise that the Army Council should nominate the chairman for a term not exceeding three years.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid this suggestion did not seem to be on the face of it at all an unreasonable one, and he would consider the matter before the Report stage and bring up words then.
LORD HAVERSHAMwas afraid he would be compelled to take a vote after what had been said by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved an Amendment to provide that the appointment of the secretary and other officers should be made by the association. He asked whether he correctly understood the Under-Secretary to say that the salary of the secretary of the association would be paid by the Government. Was it to be outside the £75 per company, or to be included in that amount, and did it also apply to the staff? He did not think that the Army Council were the

1071
best body to select the person who was to act as secretary to the association. The main complaint which county councils had at the present moment against Standing Joint Committees was that those committees selected their own clerk and not the county council. They would have the same feeling with regard to these associations, who would naturally desire to elect their own staffs. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 24, after the word 'appointment' to insert the words 'by the association.' " —(The Duke of Northumberland.)
LORD RAGLAN: gathered that the Secretary was to be appointed by the Army Council, to be paid by the Army Council, and not to be dismissed without the consent of the Army Council. Therefore he would be the servant, not of the association, but of the Army Council. Was that correct?
*LORD BLYTHSWOODsaid he believed he heard from the other side that the secretary was also to look after the pay and finances of the association. He would like to know, if that was to be the case, whether the secretary was to be responsible for the accounts to the association, to the War Office, or to the Army Council.
*EARL FORTESCUEsaid that whoever was responsible for the finances of the association would be accountable to the War Office, on whom the loss would fall if a secretary should bolt. Would the War Office still be responsible for his conduct if the appointment were made by the association?
LORD MONKSWELLsuggested that the noble Earl might tell the House what other officers were to be appointed.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he could not acept the Amendment. It was quite true that if the Army Council appointed the secretary, the War Office would be responsible if, to use the noble Earl's phrase, he bolted with the money. As to the other officers, they had not specified them in the Bill, because they
1072
did not know what other officers might be required. He contended it was essential for the Army Council to retain the appointment of the secretary in its own hands. He was to be the chief medium of communication between the association and the Army Council on matters of administration on the one hand, and between the general commanding and the association on matters of training on the other. It was, therefore, of the greatest importance that he should be a man with knowledge of military procedure as well as of business capacity, and his choice would require a great deal of care.
LORD AMPTHILLsuggested that the appointment of a secretary and other officers of the association should be made "subject to the approval of the Army Council."
LORD RIBBLESDALEasked who would pay for the undetermined number of officers. Were they to be paid by the County Associations?
LORD SALTOUNasked whether the secretary was to be a military officer, a non-commissioned officer, or a civilian.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: said his question—namely, whether the pay of the secretary would be outside the £75—had not been answered.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I cannot exactly answer off-hand the question put by Lord Saltoun, but the secretary may, and probably will, be a retired military officer.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Is the pay of the secretary to come out of the £75 per company?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Yes.
*LORD BLYTHSWOODasked whether the secretary would be accountable to the Army Council for the money that passed through his hands. The £75 per company would not pay for the clerks; it would not pay for anything. The members of the County Associations were apparently to be responsible for all the

1073
money necessary over the £75 per company. He ventured to think the Government would not get a single person to join the associations with such a responsibility as that.
THE DUKE OF RUTLANDinquired what was meant by the "accountability" of the officers. Whom were they to account to, and what were they to be responsible for? What, in fact, was the meaning of the phrase?
LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid he would like an answer to his question regarding the pay for the undetermined number of officers.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONurged the Government to accept the suggestion of Lord Ampthill, for the appointment of the officers by the association would meet the difficulty. It was obvious that for the War Office to appoint all the officers of an association administered by a number of gentlemen who would have very heavy responsibility would place them in a most unusual position. He thought that if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill could see his way to allow the associations to appoint their own officers with the approval of the War Office the difficulty might be met.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsuggested that the noble Duke's Amendment should be withdrawn for the present. Between now and the Report stage he would consider whether he could accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ESHERsuggested that, in lieu of Lord Ampthill's words, Paragraph (i) should be amended on the lines of Paragraph (e) and should read—
"(i) For the appointment of a secretary and other officers of the association, on the recommendation of the association."
LORD AMPTHILL: It is not the same thing.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he would not object to the words if put in the way suggested by the noble Viscount.
LORD AMPTHILL: expressed the hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill
1074
would accept the noble Duke's Amendment, with the words "subject to the approval of the Army Council" added, on the understanding that the wording might be modified on Report if thought necessary, after further consideration.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I accept the Amendment on that understanding.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that, having withdrawn his Amendment as on the Paper, he now moved it in the form in which the noble Earl the Under-Secretary had agreed to accept it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 24, after the word 'appointment,' to insert the words 'by the association, subject to the approval of the Army Council.' " —(The Duke of Northumberland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUexplained that the object of the next Amendment on the Paper in his name was to elicit information from the Undersecretary as to what was meant by the term "sub-association."
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 42, after the word 'another,' to insert the words 'and providing each sub-association shall comprise an area not less than now allocated to a volunteer regiment.' "— —(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHdid not think the Amendment really necessary. The county would be the usual area for each association, and only where the population or the exceptional nature of an area rendered administration by a single association difficult would it be necessary to sub-divide a county. He referred to such counties as Lancashire, the West Riding, and, possibly, London. Such sub-associations would, therefore, obviously administer an area which would have no relation to that now identified with Volunteer regiments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LOVATsaid he brought forward the Amendment standing in his name

1075
in order to ascertain how far it was intended to proceed with the idea of the division as the military unit. If this scheme was to be a success it must have some driving power, and it would be readily admitted that in a great number of counties the driving power could only be secured where there was interest behind it. In grouping such a number of counties together as would produce a division they gave some tangible object at which to aim. He did not see how any county could be interested in producing a portion of a regiment, and when the time of training arrived to lose sight of that unit because it went to train in another county. He suggested that some such paragraph as he had placed on the Paper should be introduced in order definitely to point out that the division was the thing which was aimed at. In many counties there would be difficulty in running the associations because the £75 per company would not more than pay the secretary and other officers, but if power were given of grouping counties together considerable keenness would be excited.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 42, after the word 'another,' to insert the following new paragraph: ' (m) For the grouping of County Associations into divisional associations in the case where the size of counties, numbers of population, or distribution of Territorial Army units makes such grouping desirable.' "—(Lord Lovat.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid the Government considered that it would be better to deal with this matter under Clause 4, Subsection 1, Paragraph (e), which gave ample power for any such , joint action as was necessary in these cases. He could not accept the Amendment as it now stood, because it would interfere with the structure of the Bill. The county must be retained as the unit.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope the Amendment proposed by my noble friend will be considered. It seems eminently reasonable, and it does not touch quite the same point as Paragraph (e) of the first subsection in Clause 4. That subsection has to do with the co-operation of two separate associations already formed, but what my noble friend proposes is that just as in Para
1076
graph (l) you are allowed to divide a county owing to its unwieldy size, so where you have two very small counties, and where for other reasons of practical convenience it is desirable to group the two, they should be so grouped. The proposal seems to be logical and symmetrical, and I hope it will not be put entirely on one side.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: We should be anxious, as far as possible, to meet the cases mentioned by the noble Lord opposite, but there is just this more in reply to what fell from the noble Marquess. The object of the introduction of the lord-lieutenant and of the other provisions is that these associations should be of a county character. The object of the noble Lord, I think, is rather to substitute a regular military organisation for the county character. It is quite possible that the noble Lord might be able to suggest something when we come to Paragraph (e) of Subsection 1 of Clause 4 which would rather stiffen that provision, but we do not want to make it appear that the area should be a military one and not a county one, which would be somewhat the effect of the introduction of the paragraph moved by the noble Lord.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHpointed out that, however useful the power of grouping various associations might be, the Amendment as it stood only allowed this to be done for the purpose of forming a divisional association. He thought the question whether a division was a good unit under which to group an association was one which admitted of a good deal of argument, and he would much prefer the Amendment if the word "divisional" were omitted.
LORD LOVATsaid he was quite prepared to take up the matter, as had been suggested, on Clause 4.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved an Amendment to add, at the end of Subsection 5, words providing that the scheme required by the Act should be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and that if an

1077
Address were presented to His Majesty by either House within the period named praying that any such scheme might be annulled, such scheme should be annulled and should forthwith become void and of no effect, but without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings which might, have been undertaken in the meantime. This Amendment was not on the Paper, but he believed it carried out the intention of the Government as stated by the noble Earl.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 9, after the word 'scheme,' to insert the words: 'Every scheme required by this Act to be laid before each House of Parliament shall be so laid within forty days next after it is made, if Parliament is then sitting;, or if not, within forty days after the commencement of the then next ensuing session; and, if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent forty days on which the said House shall have sat, praying that any such scheme may be annulled, such scheme shall be so annulled and shall thenceforth become void and of no effect, but without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken under the same.' "—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid the Government were prepared to accept, in principle, the proposal of the noble Duke, but they could not accept his words. He asked that he might be allowed to bring up an amended form of words on Report.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid he could produce a very long list of precedents for this Amendment. In one case it was laid down that it was necessary for a Minister in either House of Parliament to move a Vote bringing the Order in Council or the scheme into effect. The provision proposed by the noble Duke was a much less stringent one—it was merely that the scheme should lie for forty days on the Table, and that if during that period any Amendment were made to it by an Address to His Majesty the scheme should be annulled, and no doubt a further scheme would then be put forward. It would save a great deal of debate on these questions if they knew that not merely the scheme would be laid but provision would be made to enable Parliament to pronounce against it in the, he hoped unlikely, contingency
1078
of that being required. The matters discussed under this clause were all important for the success of the scheme, and in dealing with the rest of the Bill it might greatly facilitate progress if it was felt that in each case Parliament would have an opportunity, not of recasting every scheme, but, in an exceptional case, of taking action.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORDmoved an Amendment to strike out the Militia from Clause 1, Subsection 6, this, he said, being consequential on Clause 29 of the Bill, the effect of which clause was to transfer the Militia not to the Territorial Force, but to the Regular Army. If their Lordships would turn to Clause 29 of the Bill they would see that no mention was made of the Militia. The word did not occur in the clause, yet the. result of that clause was to repeal the Militia Act of 1882, and to abolish the whole system and principle of Militia service. Under Clause 29 men might in future be enlisted directly into the Army Reserve, without having previously served with the colours in any branch of the Regular Army. Men so enlisted would be known as Special Reservists in distinction from Regular Reservists. The proposal was to ask all Militiamen now serving to enlist into the Special Reserve under this clause. Militiamen who did not transfer to the Special Reserve were to serve under the Militia Act of 1882 until time expired. When there were no longer any men serving under the Militia Act of 1882, that Act would become obsolete and would be repealed by a Statute Law Revision Act. There were at present about 90,000 Militiamen serving. Now all of those 90,000 men were Militiamen because they did not wish to be Regular soldiers. They were now going to ask those men to change their minds and transfer from Militia to Army service. The conditions of service to which the Militia were now asked to agree were the same as those which were discussed at a conference held last July between fourteen Militia commanding officers and the representatives of the War Office. Those fourteen commanding officers, representing engineers, artillery, and infantry, came from

1079
all parts of the United Kingdom, and were unanimously of opinion that if the conditions now proposed were enforced it would not be possible to enlist the Militia for foreign service. They had the advantage of being able to base their opinion on actual experience. At the moment when the South African War occurred, there existed in the Militia a form of enlistment known as the Militia Reserve. It was a complicated form of enlistment under which men took a new oath and accepted foreign service in the Reserve of the Regular Army and received a sovereign a year. It was then enacted by the Reserve Forces Act that when Militiamen so enlisted were called out for foreign service with the Line they became for all intents and purposes soldiers of the Regular Forces, as they would do now under Clause 29, and were liable to be transferred to any corps. This form of enlistment was accepted by the men in a gambling spirit. Many won in the sense that they got their sovereign a year for many years, completed their term of service in the Militia, and were never sent to the Regular Army. Many were hard hit by the South African War when the Militia Reserve was sent to the Regular Army and drafted in all directions. The men intensely disliked being sent away from their regiments and friends. The noble Lord, Lord Castletown, dwelt on this point in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. But there were many other reasons connected with the campaign which made this form of service most unpopular. He would quote from what Militia Reservists had told him happened in South Africa. First, the Militia non-commissioned officers had to give up their stripes and serve as privates, which meant, amongst other things, a great loss of pay—some £50 or £60— whereas the Volunteer non-commissioned officers retained their rank. Secondly, they saw the Volunteers and Yeomanry, who had agreed to serve as long as the war lasted, going home before its termination, whereas they were retained. To make it worse, they were kept twelve months after their Militia engagement had expired. Thirdly, when the Militia Reserve men belonging to a Militia battalion joined the regimental mounted infantry of the territorial regiment they
1080
received pay at the rate of 1s. 5d. per diem, whereas the Yeomanry received from 5s. to 7s. per diem. In their own words, they were required to do the same work at a much lower rate of wages. If they had not belonged to the Militia at all, and had volunteered for service, they would have got 5s. per diem. But because they had trained with the Militia they were precluded from earning the higher rate of pay which they saw given to men—he was referring to the later contingents who went out—whose quality they despised, because to their knowledge they had never given an hour to military training before their arrival in South Africa. The lesson they learnt on this point by experience was this. If there was a war they would have no trouble in going out if they wanted to, without doing anything so foolish as to tie their hands before the war came; they could make their own bargain with the State when the war had come, and then they would be able to make their own terms. There was a good deal of sense in that. Finally, they considered that they could not be compensated for the losses they had incurred under a bounty of £50 and a good start in civil life. They could not look forward to any pension as a Regular soldier could do. This touched on the most important point of all. Militia Reserve men came back after being several years in Africa; they were at, once discharged from the ranks of the Army into those of the unemployed; they had lost touch with their old employers and with civilian labour, and that spelt in many cases ruin for themselves and their families. They considered themselves not only hardly but unfairly treated, because they never really understood what the Militia Reserve form of enlistment meant. But they did now. Militia commanding officers had another experiment of foreign service enlistment for the Militia to guide them in forming their opinion. In 1898 an attempt was made to enlist a special service section in the Militia for foreign service. The. bounties offered were higher than those offered for the Militia Reserve. It was an annual bounty of £2, and £5 on return from Army service. He remembered that some Militia regiments expected that all their men would take these terms

1081
and that the whole battalion would be enlisted and registered as a foreign-service battalion, as a matter of fact, the men—and this was before the South African War—would not touch that form of service, and the whole proposal dropped. Those, then, were the facts upon which commanding officers based the advice they tendered to His Majesty's Government. A long period of peace had made the form of Militia Reserve service possible. The experience of the South African War had, in the opinion of Militia officers, made it impossible. But the Government were of a contrary opinion, and had decided to try and enforce these conditions of foreign service enlistment on the following terms. The Government proposed to offer the men a bounty of £2 to transfer in the first instance, to be refunded—this was important—if the man joined the Army within a year. He knew well the use and value of bounties, but he hated the system, because it meant that they went to a man—a poor man—with money in their hand, and bribed him into taking conditions from which he would otherwise keep free. He gathered from answers given by the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War last week that the men after transfer would receive 10s. a year less bounty than at present. The noble Earl was not able to say if the Special Reservist would take away as his own property the same articles of clothing after training as the Militiaman now did. The Government, therefore, offered less pay for a far more dangerous and exacting form of service, and one of a kind which might be the man's ruin in civil life. The reason for this extraordinary proposal no doubt was the fact that if they raised the pay of the Special Reserve beyond a certain point they would shut down all recruiting for the Regular Army, because it would pay men much better to enlist in the Special Reserve rather than in the Army. Another point, and it was a most important one, upon which he was not able to get any information from the noble Earl, was the sum of money which would be required from a man to purchase his discharge from the Special Reserve. An Army Reservist was required to pay from £25 to £18, which was, of course, prohibitive. A Militiaman could buy his
1082
discharge for £1. This was the difficulty. If they let men purchase out of the Reserve for £1, men would be constantly buying their discharge, and they would never know how strong the Reserve was. If there was a war scare men might purchase their discharges early and freely. The act of stopping purchases was an act of mobilisation which a Government would be slow to adopt. On the other hand, if they made it very hard for men to buy their discharge from this Special Reserve, they would hesitate about going into it. Young unmarried men would join this Special Reserve, but when they wanted to marry they would desire to buy their discharge. Certainly every Militia commanding officer must explain to the men, not only the terms on which they undertook, but also those on which they could get free from, this serious liability. He was quite sure that His Majesty's Government did not desire that the men should be in any way trapped into the transfer. It would be an easy matter to explain the new conditions of service to the men now serving. They were precisely the same as those of the old Militia Reserve. All they had to do in order to act perfectly fairly by the men —and he would certainly follow this plan himself, was to say—
"These new conditions of service are precisely the same as those of the old Militia Reserve. I advise you to go to the men who served in the Militia Reserve in South Africa and talk the matter over with them. They can tell you about this very much better than I can, because they have had recent and actual experience of this service abroad. Talk the matter over with them and then come back and tell me what you have decided to do."
There was an old proverb that "A scalded cat is afraid of hot water," and that was not inapplicable to the men who had served in the Militia Reserve in South Africa. He thought they were certain of a transfer of upwards of 15,000 boys. That was about the annual transfer from the Militia to the Army; but all they were doing amounted to paying these boys £2 a head to keep out of the Army for a year. What he was most anxious to know was how were the Government, after having abolished the Militia, going to get the 12,000 recruits per year which that force supplied to the Army, and at the same time build up a reserve of 70,000 men—men of over

1083
twenty for foreign service, because a boy reserve for a foreign-service Army was useless? If the Government had not a certain solution for that puzzle, then their scheme must fail. He would regret to see this scheme wrecked at the outset, and he therefore ventured to make this suggestion to His Majesty's Government. There must be a lengthy period of transition whilst they passed from the old order to the new. It would be a period of great military weakness. Let them leave the Militia as a force in being during that period under the Militia Act of 1882. What the Militia thought they could do to help during that transitional period was this. Let them enlist the whole Militia for foreign service, but not seek to deprive the men of their immunity from drafting which they had always enjoyed by Act of Parliament, and to which they attached special importance. That in itself was an immense step in advance. Then he believed all Militia officers would do their best to find some solution for the difficulty of individual drafting to the Line in time of war. In his opinion they could only arrive at a satisfactory solution by first accustoming the men to foreign-service enlistment under a form congenial to them, and then consulting the men themselves, for under voluntary enlistment they were the judges. It was no use to tell the Militiaman that he must accept drafting to the Line, because they could not make him do so. If the Government were not disposed to follow such a plan, then they must be prepared to face a breakdown in the voluntary system of recruiting for the Regular Army.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 12, to leave out the word ' Militia.' ''—(The Duke of Bedford.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he should be glad to accept the Amendment. He did not for one moment complain that the noble Duke had touched upon the question of the Militia generally, and at a later stage, on an Amendment which would be proposed by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to Clause 28, he proposed to explain why the Government were unable to accept the Amendment in
1084
the form proposed by the noble Marquess, and he would at the same time make a general statement respecting the views of the Government on the question of the Militia.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYurged the noble Earl to make the statement which he had foreshadowed on the Amendment now before the Committee, which raised the whole question of the Militia. It was idle to suppose that the men composing the Militia would be induced to transfer to the Special Reserve if they were to be financially worse off after the transfer than they were before. The £4 10s. bounty to which the Militiamen were now entitled would go on being paid, even if the Bill passed into law as it stood, and therefore the Militiaman when asked to transfer would reply that he would enjoy £4 10s. until the end of his engagement, and did not intend to transfer when he would only then be entitled to £4. Unless at least as good terms were offered after the Militiaman had transferred he would continue to receive the £4 10s. and to pursue his civil avocation. That was a very unwise policy, and he did not think the Government would persist in it. Then there was the question of the Militiaman buying his discharge. It had always been considered one of the great inducements to a recruit to enlist in the Militia that it was possible for him by a reasonable payment to escape from the obligation which he had undertaken. He had been told by very experienced Militia officers that they really did not believe Militiamen would enlist in the numbers they did but for that provision. It therefore became very important in starting this new scheme that the Militia should know exactly upon what terms they would be able to buy their discharge. The criticisms he had offered were not submitted in any hostile sense, but unless very reasonable terms could be arrived at on this point he despaired of the success of the policy of the Government. Unless it could be shown to the Militiaman that he was not bound for the whole term without any possible means of getting out of his obligation by reasonable payment, he was convinced that recruiting for the Militia would fall off very considerably. He

1085
hoped the noble Earl the Under-Secretary would see his way to make on this Amendment the general statement on the question of the Militia which he had foreshadowed.
LORD RAGLANsaid that the bounty which the Government were going to give was not £4 a year for a far larger liability than at present, but only £3, because the men would not get the training bounty. The Government and the Secretary of State for War had not hesitated to break faith with the men when it happened to be convenient. Never in the history of the British Army had that fact been so nakedly pushed home as under this Bill. He looked with the greatest fear upon these proposals and to the number of years which it would take to efface from the minds of the men the gross manner in which faith had been broken both with soldiers and with Militiamen under this Bill. He wished to emphasise what had fallen from the noble Marquess with regard to the purchase of discharges. He was fully persuaded that nothing more conduced to the enlistment of a good class of men than the knowledge that it was possible for them to get out of the obligations in an easy manner. In the case of a bad man it did not matter, for he deserted; but, in the case of a good man, if the sum he would have to pay was not within reasonable reach enlistment would be discouraged. If the Government could see their way to leave the Militia out of the Bill for a year or two until they saw how the Territorial Army would work they would do a very wise thing for the country.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that his only desire was to consult the convenience of their Lordships, and if it would clear the air he was prepared to make his general statement now. He hoped that by making a statement now it might to a certain extent obviate the necessity of discussing some points later on.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: We cannot promise that.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that any statement that he might make in respect of the Militia was a statement which
1086
had been very carefully considered and very carefully drawn up in consultation with all the military authorities. It was a matter in which necessarily a great deal of very technical language had to be used, and what he felt with regard to any statement he might make was that what their Lordships would expect—and what they no doubt had a right to expect—would be that it should be a statement which would show that His Majesty's Government were really anxious to meet the view of noble Lords who were interested in the Militia, and to meet that view not merely in the letter but in the spirit. There were many things which could not be put into the Bill, but their Lordships were entitled to have a statement as serious and as plain as possible, as from one gentleman to another, which would shew that it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to meet as far as possible—and he thought in many ways they could meet—the wishes of noble Lords on the other side of the-House in regard to the Militia. His Majesty's Government were anxious to do everything they could to meet the wishes of the Militia, and with that end in view they had put down an Amendment to Clause 29, page 22, line l0, the effect of which would be—as His Majesty's Government believed and intended—that all Militiamen serving as special reservists would be returned to civil employment simultaneously on an order for the disembodiment of the Militia, and not piecemeal, as was the custom with respect to ordinary reservists. His Majesty's Government would also undertake that as far as practicable— subject, of course, to the supreme necessities of war—where the men of the third and fourth battalions were ordered abroad on active service, their own officers should go with them. They would also undertake that of the officers below the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the third and fourth battalions, not more than one half in each rank should be regular officers. There was no present intention to make anything like one half of the subaltern officers of those battalions regular officers. The question of the organisation of the artillery of the special contingent was one of considerable intricacy and difficulty, but the military authorities had been at work

1087
upon it for some time, and they had, he was glad to say, made considerable progress. It seemed probable (he was afraid he could not go beyond that) that those artillery special reservists would be organised in units, and in that case they also would have their own officers, who would have promotion in their units as at present. With regard to the establishment and numbers of the third and fourth infantry battalions, there would be equality, and both the third and fourth battalions would have a chance of being used as units in war, as well as of supplying drafts. In Ireland it was proposed to maintain twenty special contingent battalions out of a total of twenty-eight existing Militia battalions. In Great Britain it was proposed to maintain eighty-one battalions out of a total of ninety-six existing Militia battalions. The remaining battalions — viz., eight in Ireland and fifteen in Great Britain — would, as regarded both officers and militiamen, be absorbed, if they so consented, into the battalions which it was intended to maintain and they would accordingly disappear as battalions. With regard to the transfer of Militia battalions to Reserve, that, of course, was a point of very great importance, and one which had been recognised, and pressed upon His Majesty's Government as one of very great importance, by those who were interested in the Militia.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The existing militiamen?
*THE EARL. OF PORTSMOUTH: Yes. He was about to suggest a clause which it was hoped might meet the views of noble Lords, and perhaps it would be convenient to the House if he read it. It was proposed to insert as a new clause after Clause 32—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not on the Paper, is it?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid it was not on the Paper, but he thought it would be well for him to read it to the House. If it met with the approval of the House it could be inserted either in Committee or at the Report Stage. At any rate, it was part of his statement,
1088
and he wished noble Lords to know the exact words —
"(1) His Majesty may by Order in Council transfer to the Army Reserve such battalions of Militia as may be specified in the Order, and every battalion so transferred shall, from the date mentioned in the Order, be deemed to have been lawfully formed under this part of this Act as a battalion of special reservists. (2) As from the said date every officer of any battalion so transferred shall be deemed to be an officer in the reserve of officers, and every man in such battalion shall be deemed to be a special reservist, and the Order may contain such provisions as may seem necessary for applying the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, as amended by this Act, to those officers and men; provided that if any officer or man in any battalion so transferred at the time of such transfer indicates his objection, nothing in this Order shall affect his existing conditions of service."
He was aware that it had been pressed and held by many noble Lords that for practical purposes it was not desirable — and it was a point which he himself appreciated very much — to make these men sign a new attestation paper. His Majesty's Government were confronted with considerable difficulties in that respect. He supposed it could be done by Act of Parliament, but it appeared to His Majesty's Government that it would be a very strong and high-handed proceeding to transfer all these men in units, subjecting them to new and different terms of service, without their having to sign a new attestation paper. But he thought the difficulty would practically be met, because of course the bounty would not be given until the attestation paper was signed. One of the points on which he had been written to by noble Lords was as to whether he could lay upon the Table of the House the form of attestation paper which was proposed. He was not able to do so at that moment, because it had not yet reached a form which had been finally approved by His Majesty's Government, but he would take the earliest possible opportunity of doing so, and of course as few changes as possible would be made. Before concluding his statement, he would like to refer to a statement which had appeared in The Times newspaper, headed "From our Correspondent," dealing largely with the question of the promotion of officers. While he thought that statement was perfectly accurate at the time, as a description of what might have existed

1089
under the former conditions, it was not accurate now, as regarded the present proposals of the Government. He did not know whether it would be wise — he thought perhaps it would — for him to repeat exactly what was the position of His Majesty's Government in regard to those officers. All field officers would be offered transfers to the special contingent for service as reserve officers with the third or fourth battalions, and would be posted to those battalions. He hoped that was quite clear. The majors would, if they were considered qualified, be available for promotion to the lieut.-colonelcy to command battalions. The lieut.-colonel commanding the third or fourth battalion would be taken either from the majors of the reserve of officers serving in their battalion, if considered fit to take up the command of a battalion, or from the retired regular officers if the reserve officer of field rank was not fit. Not less than one half of the majors serving in the third and fourth battalions would be drawn from the non-regular officers serving in those battalions.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDasked what was to happen to the present Commanding officer of the regiment.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: He goes on; there is no reason why he should not go on. Of the officers below the rank of major in the third and fourth battalions, not more than one half in each rank would be Regulars, but there was no intention of making anything like one half of the subaltern officers Regulars.
LORD RAGLAN: inquired whether the Regular officers would be senior to all the Militia officers, or whether they would rank as from the date of their appointment.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that was a point which he could not answer off-hand. All the officers serving in the third and fourth battalions as Reserve officers would receive £ 20 per annum, in addition to pay, up to the age of thirty-five, on reaching which age they would cease to draw the £ 20 per annum, but might, if they so desired,
1090
remain in the third or fourth battalion, and would be eligible for promotion up to the rank of lieutenant-colonel in those battalions. Captains of over thirty-five now serving in the Militia could remain in their battalions, if they wished, as Reserve officers. They would be eligible for promotion up to the rank of lieutenant-colonel, but would not receive the £ 20 a year. He had beer, perfectly frank and had told the House exactly what were the intentions and proposals of His Majesty's Government. He had, so to speak, put all his cards upon the table, and he hoped and trusted that with regard to this controversy, although there might still be some difficulties to be got over with regard to matters of form, and although they might still have to discuss some further questions, the House would be of opinion that he had shown that, consistent with the principles of their scheme, His Majesty's Government had endeavoured to meet the views of noble Lords on the opposite side of the House in respect to the Militia, because he was sure that the present members of the Army Council were as much in sympathy with, and appreciated quite as much what had been done in the past by, the Militia as any noble Lord on the Opposition side of their Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I understand the noble Lord accepts the Amendment.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I accept the Amendment of the noble Duke.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
*THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH,in moving an Amendment to omit the Yeomanry from the Territorial Force, said he was afraid that his Amendment would not be so easily disposed of as the one which had just been dealt with. His object in moving the Amendment was to ask their Lordships to consider very seriously before they consented drastically to change the whole character and position of the Yeomanry force by levelling it down to the conditions of the infantry of the Territorial Army — which were Volunteers under another name — and by placing it under local civil administration. What was the position?

1091
The Yeomanry force was admittedly in a satisfactory state. It had climbed to its present position after many vicissitudes. Fifteen or more years ago the Yeomanry were in danger of extinction, and he thought it was extremely probable that had it not been for the steadfast belief in the potentialities of that force on the part of His late Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, the Yeomanry would have ceased to exist. The military authorities of that time, however, decided that if the Yeomanry was to justify its existence, and its inclusion in the general mobilisation scheme of home defence, it must be entirely re-organised and increase its efficiency. To that demand there was a ready response; pressure was put on, and this, coupled with the sympathetic treatment which the force received at that time, resulted in its steady improvement; so that in 1899, when the crisis occurred in South Africa, the force was able to furnish, or at any rate to provide the nucleus of, the much-needed mounted reinforcements in the field. He did not think it was too much to say — in fact there could be no question whatever — that if the Yeomanry organisation had not existed in this country at the time of that crisis, the difficulties of Lord Roberts would have been enormously increased and his movements hampered, if not entirely paralysed. He imagined that it was in order to provide against such crises in the future that they were now endeavouring to make arrangements. He believed that was the only question in regard to Army reform that the general public in this country cared a straw about. Noble Lords had to ask themselves how this scheme was going to safeguard national and imperial interests in this respect, how it was going to provide for expansion outside the Regular Army, so that the Regular Army, if need be, in time of stress might be supported in the field. The then Secretary of State, Viscount Midleton, immediately after the war realised the value of the Yeomanry force for this purpose, and he trebled its establishment. He doubled the period of training; he brought the Yeomanry force under the Militia Act of 1882, and required a higher standard of efficiency — all the time, however, treating the force sympathetically. Again, what was the result? That during the past
1092
five years the Yeomanry found itself the only branch of the Auxiliary Forces which was able to maintain its strength; and further he was confident that if general officers commanding-in-chief in their various commands were asked the question they would say that for a partially-trained force the Yeomanry had to-day reached a standard of efficiency which could only be characterised as high, and which ten years ago would have been thought to be absolutely unattainable. How had that been brought about? He thought it was tolerably obvious to those who had taken any interest in the matter, and it was certainly the conviction of commanding officers of Yeomanry, that it was entirely due to liberal treatment, whereby they had been enabled to attract to join the Yeomanry a class of men who had a knowledge of riding and of the care of horses. If they ceased to make the force sufficiently attractive to attract that class, they would cease to tap that class altogether for the purpose of defending the country, because it was-perfectly clear to him that men of that class would not serve in any other branch of the Auxiliary Forces. That was the position to-day, when they were confronted with the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, and, having regard to the efforts that the Yeomanry had recently made, he could only say that as far as that force was concerned the terms offered were most discouraging. They were asked to sacrifice their position under the Militia Act of 1882; to come under civil administration — which was going back to the early days of the history of the force — and to serve under Army rates of pay during the annual training. And, as far as he understood, they were asked to do work outside the annual training — which included the very important annual musketry course — for no pay at all. He would like to get a clear understanding on that point from the Under-Secretary for War. He understood that outside the annual training no pay or allowance of any kind would be given to the force for any work that they might undertake. In addition to that they were to have their training curtailed, but were asked to reach a higher standard of efficiency, and to undertake more obligations, and, apparently, to do — or to

1093
ask the men to do — a certain amount of individual training during the winter months, also without any recompense whatever. In the opinion of the Yeomanry commanding officers that was a retrograde step, and one calculated to reduce the numbers, to impair the efficiency, and to destroy the character of the Yeomanry force. And what were the arguments on the other side which made it worth while running those risks? They were told that it was absolutely essential that there should be rigid uniformity of terms and conditions in the Territorial Army, that they were to be all raised, trained, paid, and organised on one, simple plan. Presumably that was to save money, but he suggested that the only way in which money would be saved over that scheme would be in not getting the. men at all. If some of the elasticity found in the Bill were to be introduced into the scheme itself, there might be a better chance of meeting the reasonable requirements of the men who were willing to serve. No doubt if they had some form of compulsion they could get absolute uniformity of terms and conditions, but not under the voluntary system. They must, under a voluntary system, recognise the variety of classes of men who were willing to come in. That fact had been worked out long ago by Yeomanry regiments in the light of local experience; and he believed that was also the case in regard to the Volunteers. He admitted that it was possible to approach more nearly to uniformity — that was to say uniformity of cost — if they could strike an average for each branch; but that did not appear to have been done, as far as he could gather. Mr. Haldane seemed to have discovered that there were two Yeomanry corps in the Highlands of Scotland who lived a very simple life; they could be fed for very little — he was told under Is. a day — and, moreover, they could provide horses for an extraordinarily small sum. Mr. Haldane seemed to have been inclined to form his opinion as to the general requirements and needs of the Yeomanry force upon his knowledge of those two regiments. It was perhaps natural that he should do so, because the only two representatives of the Yeomanry force on the "Duma" were the two noble
1094
commanders of these two Highland regiments to which he had referred. Their Lordships would, he thought, agree that any bodies of men who were trained and organised by noble Lords like Lord Lovat and Lord Tullibardine were bound to be both useful and efficient; but those regiments could not be taken as a pattern for the purpose of trying to standardise the Yeomanry as a whole, because they did not bear any resemblance, in many essential respects, to the rest of the force. He quite agreed that in some cases — perhaps in many — the messing of Yeomanry regiments was excessive, and ought to be reduced, but if it were reduced to the point which Mr. Haldane desired they would sweep away the class of Yeomanry which they had now got. He would suggest to the noble Lord the Under-Secretary for War that he should see if he could not cause an augmentation of the messing allowance which it was proposed to give, on the ground that the time of training was a period of high pressure and real hard work, and that if it were desired to get the best out of men they must at least be helped to live up to their usual standard. Then there was the question of uniformity of pay, and here the commanding officers submitted that men who joined with a knowledge of riding and of the care of horses were worth paying extra for, and that the practical difference between a Yeoman who had a horse to look after — which he very frequently owned — and saddlery to clean, and a rifleman who had neither, demanded additional remuneration, which might well be given in the form of extra duty pay, or some allowance of that kind. That was a point which those for whom he spoke considered essential. Moreover, if well treated in peace time he would probably undertake greater obligations than at present, and would be perfectly ready to serve at regular rates on mobilization in time of war. There were two more points to which he desired to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary for War. First, it was generally understood that the Yeomanry were to have a reprieve for three years — that the force would not be disturbed for that period. That was only very partially the case. It was true that

1095
recruits and non-commissioned officers were to be allowed to enlist and to reengage under present terms and conditions, which Would practically carry them on — if they were willing — until the year 1910. But that concession was not allowed in the case of privates, and that was a point about which commanding officers felt very strongly. They were particularly anxious that regiments should be kept together during the period of doubt and uncertainty which was bound to be created under the scheme before them. There was already a feeling of unrest, and he could give an instance of one regiment which last year was enabled to re-engage cent. per cent. of its men, while in the month of June in the present year under 20 per cent. of the men came forward to re-engage. What they who were interested in the Yeomanry were anxious about was that the men should not be frightened away; and even for the success of the scheme — if it was going to be a success — he suggested that a period of three years respite would be a great advantage in accustoming the men to the new ideas which they would have to face. Mr. Haldane had likened his scheme, or system, to a cone. Was it too much to ask — was it unreasonable to ask — that he should first turn his attention to the base of that cone, and be sure that he had got a firm foundation of County Associations and territorial infantry, before he interfered with a force which was in being, and in a high state of organisation and efficiency. The noble Duke (the Duke of Bedford), speaking for the Militia, had suggested that the same period of grace might be allowed in the case of that branch of the Auxiliary Forces; and he (the Earl of Scarbrough) suggested that it would be not only possible, but reasonable, that both the Militia and the Yeomanry, for that period of three years, should be allowed to continue to serve under the Act of 1882. The second point he wished to refer to was the question of the Special Contingent which the Yeomanry were asked to provide to the number of a troop from each regiment for the Expeditionary Force. He had very little doubt that those men would be forthcoming, if they were asked for in the right way. But there was a right
1096
way and a wrong way, and it seemed to him that His Majesty's Government had chosen the wrong way. As he understood it, those men were to be supernumerary to Yeomanry regiments, which was quite right. But they were to be obtained under Part III., Clause 29, of the Bill. That meant that they were to be Regular Reservists. Yeomanry regiments would have practically little or nothing to say to them: they would be nominally attached to Yeomanry regiments; they would be enlisted anywhere and everywhere, and as far as he knew many of them might be men who simply came for a job. That was not the class of men required, and if Yeomanry regiments were to be answerable for that Special Contingent, he suggested that they should be obtained not under Part III., but under Part II., Clause 12, Sub-section (2) of the Bill; that was to say, that they should be men actually in a Yeomanry regiment, preferably who had done one training; that they should volunteer with their officers from their regiments, and that when they had done their special terms of service, they should return and be absorbed into their regiments, where they would be extremely valuable as non-commissioned officers. Under the method by which it was now proposed to raise them, he feared that there would be a very poor response indeed. There was one other matter with respect to the Special Contingent about which he would like to ask the noble Earl a question, viz., bounties. He understood that there were to be bounties both in peace time and in war time, but they had heard nothing as to the amount. Perhaps the noble Earl would later on be able to tell them what amount of bounty was to be given in time of peace, and also what amount was to be given in time of war. Then there was the question, How were they going to maintain this Special Contingent in the field? What provision was there for wastage? As far as he could make out, there was none. He desired also to say a word on the much larger question with which the future of the Yeomanry was bound up — namely, the question of expansion in times of great crisis outside the Regular Army. If that contingency was not provided for, he could not see any earthly object in

1097
meddling with the force and interfering with its present position. He knew he would be answered that the Territorial Army must have its quota of cavalry. But he would reply to that that the Territorial Army was restricted in its service to the United Kingdom, and. owing to the nature of the country, 20,000 cyclists would be equally useful and much more economical. The true rôle which the Yeomanry should be asked to play — the rôle that would be of real value to the State — would be this. They should be enlisted in future to serve anywhere within the Empire in times of great stress, and those were the only times when they would ever be asked to do so. He was perfectly certain that military authorities knew and recognised that that was the service which they required of them, and they knew that in times of emergency they would want every man they could get. He was perfectly ready to admit that if they had universal training they could rely on volunteering when the crisis arrived, because men who were partially trained were much more ready to come forward than those who were not trained at all. That had been amply proved in the South African War. While over 50 per cent. of the trained Militia volunteered for active service, only one-tenth of the less-trained Volunteers came forward, and of the untrained and unorganised bulk of the male population of fighting age, only one in 1,000. If they relied on the voluntary system, they trained only a few to do the work of the nation, and that being the case, they must be sure of getting the bulk of those few when the emergency arose, otherwise they were embarking upon a pure gamble. They had recognised this necessity in the case of the Militia, and sooner or later they would have to recognise it in the case of the Yeomanry — unless they were prepared to increase largely the Regular cavalry. He thought the Yeomanry were just as likely to take upon themselves that obligation as they were to accept the offer which Mr. Haldane had now made to them. As he had said before, that offer was most discouraging, and, as his noble friend Lord Harris had said the other night, it was in some respects degrading. In the few words that he had addressed to their Lordships, he had spoken with an
1098
added sense of responsibility, because he had endeavoured, as far as he could, to represent the views of the commanding officers of the Yeomanry. He wished it to be clearly understood that although those officers were ready at all times to do their best, still, as the Yeomanry stood under the scheme in its present form, they must decline to take any responsibility whatever for the ill effects — and possibly the disastrous effects — which they feared these changes would have on the force.
Amendment moved —
"In page 3, line 12, to leave out the word ' Yeomanry.' "— (The Earl of Scarbrough.)
*EARL ROBERTSsaid he could not speak as a commanding officer of Yeomanry, but he could speak as a commander who had had a great deal to do with Yeomanry in the field; and he most earnestly hoped that nothing would be done either in this Bill or in any other Bill to detract from the efficiency of the Imperial Yeomanry as it now existed. It had been for many years past certain that a larger number of mounted troops would be required in war than was formerly the case; much larger areas of ground had to be covered; troops had to be dispersed in greater breadths and lengths than formerly; and under no circumstances could infantry possibly hope to cover the whole extent of ground on which operations would be carried on either before an action, or during an action, or after an action. More mounted troops were essential. He had been so firmly impressed by that necessity that when he came back from South Africa the first thing he did was to impress it upon the authorities at the War Office for having a larger number of mounted troops. And the only way he saw by which that could possibly be effected, without increasing the Regular cavalry — which would be hopeless on account of the expense — was to increase the Yeomanry. It had been his hope then that by appealing to Yeomanry Officers, and pointing out to them what their rôle would be in future wars — not so much the rôle of cavalry as the rôle of mounted rifles — they would be induced to respond.,

1099
and that they would get their regiments fitted to fulfil that rôle; and he must say that they had responded in the most remarkable manner. He himself had seen, he believed, nearly every Yeomanry regiment in the country; he had seen them when he was Commander-in-Chief, and he had constantly seen them since. He thought that the Yeomanry as at present trained was as useful a body of men as they could possibly hope to have; but he much feared that they would not remain such a useful body if they were to be treated in the way in which he understood it was now proposed to treat them. His hope was that the Yeomanry would be classed with the Militia, and that they would be placed next to the Regular Army. Of course, he quite understood that if that was to be done the Yeomanry must undertake the same responsibilities as the Militia; they must train more than, perhaps, they had hitherto done; and they must certainly undertake the obligation to serve abroad in time of war. He understood his noble friend (the Earl of Scarbrough) to admit that; and he hoped it would be settled that they should be enlisted to serve abroad in time of war without any question. A certain number might, if required, be retained in this country in time of need; and he hoped that this would be arranged; but he strongly recommended that the mounted troops required for the Expeditionary Force in addition to the Cavalry and mounted Infantry should be Yeomanry, and not, as proposed, the Special Contingent; for that contingent would not be the valuable body that a unit would be. He most earnestly hoped that nothing would be done to prevent the Yeomanry being increased sufficiently so as to enable it to take the field as units — possibly a short time after war had broken out — as a valuable adjunct to the cavalry in the field. The cavalry required something of that sort. In South Africa they always had with them a certain number of mounted infantry. In future wars, he believed that, whatever arrangements might be made now, the mounted infantry would form the mounted troops of a division of infantry. They were more allied with the infantry than either the cavalry or the Yeomanry could be; they were more accustomed to work
1100
with infantry; and in all respects they would be better fitted for that particular work than either the Regular, cavalry or the Yeomanry would be. On the other hand, the Yeomanry would be a great deal better fitted to take the place of mounted infantry with cavalry; they had better horses, they rode better, they were more used to take care of horses; and, although he had often told them that they could never hope to be cavalry in all respects, still they would form a very valuable adjunct to cavalry and would do a great deal of work which cavalry would be wasted upon. Therefore he hoped that whatever arrangement were come to now the efficiency of the Yeomanry would not be in any way endangered: that they should be kept as a body ready to take the field abroad when necessary, and that they should be looked upon, not as a training ground for any special contingent, for in the Special Contingent, he confessed, he had no faith at all. Re felt that it would be looked upon by the cavalry not as Yeomanry, but as belonging to the cavalry, yet they would not have the training of cavalry — it would be neither cavalry nor Yeomanry, whereas the Yeomanry could take the field as a unit ready to do a great deal of useful work. He had ventured to make those remarks because he thought that he was in a great degree responsible for the Imperial Yeomanry. The very name given to them showed that it was understood to be part of their work to go abroad. He remembered that there had been a great deal of discussion about that name, and that the noble Viscount on the Front Opposition Bench (Viscount Midleton) had often talked the matter over with him; and they had come to the conclusion that the Imperial Yeomanry would be necessarily a part of the Army for the defence of this country as well as to take the field in support of the Regular Army. That was what their origin was, and that was what their object had been; and he sincerely trusted that that object would not in any way be interfered with.
*LORD LEIGHsaid it would be a great pity if anything were done to discourage the present high class of men from joining

1101
the imperial Yeomanry. The Yeomanry in the past few years had been climbing the ladder of efficiency, until they had attained a very high standard indeed. The keenness of both officers and men was undeniable, and, he believed, undenied. The old class that they were sometimes told of — the Yeoman who looked upon his training as a mere joke and as an opportunity of indulging in all play and no work — if it had ever really existed, had now become as extinct as the dodo. But the Yeoman, good as he was, wished to have some few points conceded. He wished the country to recognize that he was a Volunteer soldier, and he wished the country to give him sufficient pay, and surely those demands were not excessive. It would be a great pity if the fabric that had taken so long to raise should be now broken. With regard to the County Associations, the proposals now before the country were liable to lead to great confusion, great expenditure, and great discontent, among the Yeomanry. It had taken a long time to raise the Yeomanry to its present state; in a very few years it might be called upon again, but once destroyed, it could never be restored to its present condition.
THE EARL OF ESSEXsaid that one of the chief objections to the Bill was that it would increase the commanding officers' great difficulty in getting recruits both of officers and of men. In the last three or four months — in fact, ever since the present scheme had been on the tapis — recruiting had been practically at a standstill. There was, he believed, some excuse for the standstill of the recruiting as far as the men were concerned, because there had been great misapprehension as to the date at which this scheme would take effect, and a great many of the men had thought it was going to take effect at once. It had not been thoroughly understood that anybody enlisting now, or before next March, would be able to enlist for three years on the old system of pay. That misunderstanding had been done away with — it had been explained away, rather — and he believed that the recruiting was now going on in a more or less satisfactory 'manner. But in the case of the officer it was quite different. It always had been very difficult indeed to get a suffic
1102
ient number of properly qualified officers to serve in the Yeomanry, and he ventured to say that if this Bill came into force, the difficulty would be increased tenfold, for the very simple reason that anybody now who was thinking of joining the Yeomanry as an officer would think several times before he did so, because he knew that in a year or two the whole character of the regiment he proposed to join would very likely be changed, and also that the class of recruit — the class of men that he had looked to for the last few years — was likely to be changed. He honestly thought — and he spoke from a certain amount of experience in Yeomanry matters — that if this Bill became law, they would lose a very large percentage both of officers and of men whose places would be very difficult indeed to fill. The class of men that they now got in the Yeomanry was a class of men that they could not find every day. It was a class of men quite different from the old class. These men were young, they were keen, they were good riders, they were efficient, and certainly for the time they were out they took a tremendously keen interest in everything that appertained to the work of a soldier. Such men were very difficult to find now. Another point he would like to remark upon was the fact that the commanding officers would be faced in the next two or three years with a very serious and difficult position. They would find themselves in command of a body of men, the old soldiers in which body would be receiving pay at the rate of 5s. a day, while the recruits, after next month, would be receiving pay at 1s. 3d. Was that a possible situation? In his opinion it was an absolute impossibility for anybody to command a regiment under those conditions. It could only lead to jealousy, and it might lead to more serious trouble than jealousy. At any rate, it certainly would not lead to the" efficiency of the regiment. There was no force in the whole of His Majesty's forces that had made such giant strides towards efficiency as the Yeomanry in the last six or seven years. They had had, he might say, a "boom" in Yeomanry or the last seven years. Everybody had been keen about it, and had been talking about it, and everybody

1103
— to use a common expression — had "played up" well, and had done their par t in making the force as efficient as it was at the present moment. Did they not think that it would be almost a calamity if, by the stroke of the pen, the whole of that labour of the last seven years was lost to England for ever? He for one thought it would.
LORD LOVATasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the House was going to have any opportunity of discussing the question of the special contingent. Was the noble Lord going to make a statement on that subject — as to how the Special Contingent were going to be trained, how they were going to be employed when they came into active service, and as to the particulars of their duty in time of peace? He did not think that in either House as yet any statement had been made about the troop of men which each regiment was to furnish for service abroad. He wished to make a few remarks on the subject of the Yeomanry, but before doing so he desired to ask whether the noble Lord was going to make a statement about the probable future of the Special Contingent of Yeomanry.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that His Majesty's Government would be quite prepared to enter into a discussion about the Special Contingent when they came to Part III. of the Bill. Having said that, he would proceed to call the attention of the House to the Amendment of his noble friend Lord Scarbrough, but perhaps before going into the principle of that Amendment he might be allowed to mention some points on which he had gathered in the course of the noble Lord's speech he wished further information. He was afraid he was not in the position to give him all the details he asked for, but he would be very glad indeed to give him all those he could. With reference to the reduction of pay, His Majesty's Government hoped that that reduction would be to some extent compensated for by increased messing allowance and extra duty pay for looking after the horse and saddlery. A camp allowance of Is. a day would be paid to the commanding officer, to be
1104
expended by him in messing, the cost of which the Yeoman now met out of his pay. They had already heard of the suggestion of giving extra duty pay for looking after the horse and saddlery, and he would carefully consider whether it was possible in any way to meet that matter further. It was for the very purpose of considering this question that His Majesty's Government had made the provisional arrangement with regard to the Yeomanry on transfer to the Territorial Army.
*THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: I beg your pardon — I did not quite understand about the extra duty pay. Is there to be extra duty pay, and, if so, how much?
*THE EARL OP PORTSMOUTHsaid he could not give the exact figure, but the extra duty pay was to be for looking after the horse and saddlery. Then his noble friend had asked whether musketry pay and travelling allowance for the annual course was to be given in the future. It had been decided not to give musketry pay in future, but travelling allowance would be given for any travelling that the Yeoman was required to undertake. Next, his noble friend had asked whether the fourteen squadrons which it was proposed to employ in the Expeditionary Force could not be enlisted under Part II., Clause 12, into the Territorial Army instead of into the Special Contingent under Part III. In reply to that, he would point out that Clause 2, Sub-section 2 (a), allowed the men of the Territorial Force to subject themselves to the liability to serve in any place outside the United Kingdom. He might point out to the House that this clause was intended to apply to such persons as doctors, hospital staff, telegraphists, and others who would not require more military training than they would normally get in the Territorial Force, and that it was not intended to apply to men who would require a special course of preliminary training to fit them for their duties. It was for this latter class that the Special contingent, with its six months preliminary training, was specially designed. Under Clause 13, which dealt with the preliminary training of the Territorial

1105
Force, his noble friend would see that continuous training was not to be required unless provided for by Order in Council. It allowed for preliminary training to be given in the form of drills, and was therefore quite unsuited for what was required for the fourteen squadrons, the terms of service, the periods of training, and so forth of which were precisely those of the Special Contingent. There were to be six months preliminary training and six days annual musketry training (he had referred to them before in the House), and they did not in any way resemble those of the Territorial Force. It was therefore very difficult to see why these fourteen squadrons should not belong to the Special Contingent. Another and a further difficulty that would be created by attempting to obtain these fourteen squadrons in a different manner from that employed in obtaining them for the Special Contingent, was that it would to a certain extent disorganise the training machinery to be provided for the Special Contingent — the training squadron which it was proposed to form for these men. He did not want, at that moment, to go into all the details and technicalities; but that was the reason why it would be very inconvenient to accept that proposal. The noble Lord had asked what bounties would be offered to the Special Contingent in peace time and on active service. In reply to that, he would say that it was intended to give an annual bounty of £ 4 and a bonus on mobilisation. The amount of the bonus on mobilisation he was not yet in a position to give to the House, because it had not yet been settled. He would now come to what he thought was rather the point of the Amendment moved by his noble friend; and he thought their Lordships were bound, before supporting that Amendment, to look at its effect. The effect of the Amendment would be to exclude altogether the Yeomanry from the Territorial Army, and to leave them outside both the first and second lines. There was no analogy — no real analogy, as his noble friend had tried to point out — between their condition and the condition of the Militia. The Militia, under the proposals that His Majesty's Government were now
1106
making to the House, were practically to go over to the Regular line. If that were done, and if an Amendment of this kind were carried, he would like their Lordships to consider what the practical effect of it would be. The War Office might find it necessary to raise new cavalry for the Territorial Army and their Lordships might find it extremely difficult — he might say almost impossible — to persuade those in another place to find money for anything outside the two lines. The practical result of that would be that the Yeomanry would cease to exist. He was certain that that was not the wish of his noble friend, and it most certainly was not the wish of anybody at the War Office. He would take that opportunity of saying, in reply both to his noble friend and to what had been said by the very distinguished Field-Marshal who sat upon the cross benches (Earl Roberts) that they at the War Office appreciated most highly the services of the Yeomanry. His right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War had in another place stretched he thought the limits of generosity in the direction of what was possible at the present moment as regards any pledge towards pay; and he most earnestly hoped that their Lordships would not, on a question of that kind, take any step which might possibly arouse a conflict of opinion between the views of their Lordships and of those in another place on the question of pay — a question which, after all, after the proposals that had been made by his right hon. friend respecting the Yeomanry, which were not to disturb the existing conditions for some time, it seemed hardly wise, opportune, or expedient to raise now. He rather hoped that his noble friend's object in moving this Amendment (which he thought he could hardly expect His Majesty's Government to accept) had been to raise the general question of the Yeomanry. The reason why the Yeomanry, with the exception of the fourteen squadrons required for the Special Contingent, should belong to the second line and not to the first, were these: that only 2,254 Yeomanry as compared with the total number of about 25,000 — he was giving merely broad figures and was not binding himself to anything exact — were required in the first

1107
line for the fourteen squadrons of the Expeditionary Force; whereas the whole of the remainder were, in the opinion of the military advisers of the War Office, most urgently required for the cavalry of the Territorial Force, if the latter was to be organised, as was intended, on strict military lines. He would like to point out to his noble friend that the effect of his Amendment being pressed — and if pressed being carried — would be to strike them out of the Territorial Force. They did not want them in the first line — they had no requirements for them there — and supposing, for the sake of argument, that they wanted this large amount of cavalry in the first line, the Yeomanry would themselves be asked to subject themselves to conditions of training which he must confess, speaking with some knowledge of the class from which Yeomen were drawn — and a very admirable class it was — they would find most irksome. If the Yeomanry went into the special contingent as a body they would have to undergo six months training, and he maintained that that would be imposing upon them a condition which would be most irksome, and, as he thought, most repellent to them. Of course, they were not supposed in that House to concern themselves with money, but at the same time money did form a very large part of all practical considerations, and the extra cost which would be involved in a proposal of this kind would be very great. Added to all this, in the opinion of the general staff, it would be unnecessary for those Yeomen who were not going to join to form the fourteen squadrons. He did not want to press it too much, or to go too much into detail, but the terms and conditions of service and training of the Territorial Army approximated far more closely to those of the Yeomanry than to those of any other branch of the Auxiliary Forces. His noble friend had referred to the question of pay. Perhaps he would not be wearying the House if he made some statement upon that point. As regards pay, the facts were as follows: — A private in the Yeomanry now received £ 5 horse allowance and 5s. 6d. a day while he was training, out of which he had to pay for his own messing. The proposed pay
1108
would be £ 5 horse allowance in the case of Yeomen — he was not, of course, speaking of horses for other purposes such as transport — and 2s. 8d. a day made up as follows: — Pay at service rates, 1s. 2d.; allowance in lieu of bread and meat rations, at service rates, 6d. (where feasible, units might be allowed to draw the rations instead of receiving allowance); allowance for groceries, service rates, 3d.; and extra allowances, 9d., making a total of 2s. 8d. Under the organisation which was now being worked out for the Territorial Army by the general staff the functions of cavalry were far more precisely defined than had hitherto been the case. The general staff considered that if the Yeomanry were to be properly trained in these functions it could only be done by organising in brigades and making them the cavalry of an organised force of all arms — that was the Territorial Army. Special attention would be given to their training by means of training squadrons, one of which it was proposed to quarter in every one of the commands, with, of course, the exception of Alder-shot. His noble friend had asked for the extension of the re-engagement of privates on existing terms till the end of the training in 1910. He would like just to mention the very considerable concessions that the Government had already made with regard to the Yeomanry. They had agreed to allow non-commissioned officers of the Yeomanry who transferred to continue their present rates of pay until 1910. With regard to privates, the arrangement made was that all men enlisted or re-enlisted before this Bill became operative in their respective counties should be allowed to continue under present rates of pay until the end of their period of enlistment or re-enlistment. They enlisted or re-enlisted for a period of three years, but if they then re-engaged they would do so under the new rates of pay. All men who re-engaged before the passing of this Bill would receive the present rates of pay until the end of their period of re-engagement. They reengaged for one year and thenceforward at the new rates of pay. He did not think it could be said that the Government had not met, as far as circumstances would possibly permit, the case

1109
of the Yeomanry. He would very much regret if his noble friend pressed this Amendment. It was an Amendment which it was quite impossible for the Government to accept, because it was entirely contrary to the whole spirit and structure of the Bill. Of course, if it were pressed, the result would be that the Yeomanry would go out of the Bill, and he thought it would mean, which he was sure was not their wish, that the Yeomanry would be abolished. On the other hand, while he was not at the present moment in a position to give any pledge beyond the statement which had been made as to giving both the War Office and the Yeomanry time to look about, he thought the Government proposals had been most considerate, if not generous. He was quite sure that any further proposals were not likely to commend themselves to those in another place, and, therefore, he hoped in the interests of the Yeomanry his noble friend, who, he was sure, would appreciate that they at the War Office were most anxious to do all they possibly could for the Yeomanry, would accept the good endeavours they had made, with the distinct understanding which he was quite ready to give, that they would always consider, when the time came again, the claims of the Yeomanry. He could not go beyond that.
LORD METHUENwished to say a few words regarding the Yeomanry. He quite agreed with the Under-Secretary for War that he voiced the feeling of the Committee as regarded the Yeomanry force being transferred to the Territorial Army. He thought their Lordships clearly understood that they required mounted men for the Territorial Army, and they therefore thought it would be quite sufficient if they had the fourteen squadrons which the Under-Secretary of State had mentioned. But the mistake that was made was in reducing the pay of the Yeomanry. He thought that though 5s. 6d. a day was a good deal, they must take into account the stamp of men being recruited in the Yeomanry. These men were farmers who could not afford to leave their farms for pay at the rate of 2s. 8d. a day. Nor could the
1110
men who worked in the city — because there were a great number of clerks in the Yeomanry — afford to leave their work at that figure. He would far rather see the sum of 5s. 6d. continued, at any rate, for three years. His experience of the Yeomanry, both on service and since he came back, led him to believe that there was no better force in Europe than that of the Yeomanry. The stamp of men now in the Yeomanry was as fine as anything to be got in England, even if they had a compulsory force. These men were a stamp of men they would not get if they reduced the pay, and he was certain the 5s. 6d. a day would yield a better result for the money than they would get by reducing it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONthought the speech of the noble and gallant Lord would be a measure of the disappointment with which everybody who loved the Yeomanry force heard the noble Earl's statement. They, of course, realised that this particular word if cut out of the Bill would go to the root of the Government scheme; but after listening to the speeches of noble and gallant friends, several of whom had served in South Africa, who knew the old Yeomanry force as well as the present force, they had expected a more sympathetic reply from the Under-Secretary of State for War. The noble Earl had told them that the Yeomanry were more akin in their training and in their possibilities to the Volunteer force. The Yeomanry as reorganised six years ago had been on a par with the Militia. There had been this difference between the Yeomanry and the other Auxiliary Forces of the Crown, that with all their merits the Militia force had been short of men and officers, and the Volunteer force had been full of men but short of officers, whereas the Yeomanry was the only force which was full in both men and officers, and had responded to the full extent of the demands that were made upon them. Was it not a serious matter? He knew from bitter experience that in matters connected with the military forces we were too fond of pulling up everything to see how it was growing even before it had had time to take root. Only six years had passed away, and this force had

1111
increased from 9,000 to 27,000 men, and he was perfectly certain that if the reports of the inspectors were laid on the Table it would be found that every regiment, without exception, showed an immense improvement on its condition five years ago. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal had told their Lordships that the first concern which he had when he came back from South Africa was to provide the country with some mounted force, on which it could depend to fill up the gaps, and which could be further trained in case of emergency. The present force of Yeomanry was the outcome of Lord Roberts' solicitude, and the Yeomanry was not merely not to be maintained as it was but was to be placed on a totally different, and, he was afraid he must say, a lower basis. The Yeomanry aspired to be classed with the Militia. The Militia was to be made part of the Regular Army. The commanding officers of the Yeomanry met the War Office last year, and in response to the urgent appeal made to them said they were willing — and they believed their force would support them — to place them on the same conditions as those on which it was now proposed to place the Militia, namely, readiness to go on foreign service. But not merely were they not to be allowed to go on foreign service, but they were told that the fourteen squadrons were to be raised separately as a totally distinct force, the Yeomanry being given the go-by, and to be trained at cavalry headquarters, without any connection with the Yeomanry force from which they received in the last war the most efficient help in filling the gaps in the military force in South Africa. What he ventured himself to say was that that was a short-sighted and a short-memory policy. When the noble Earl told them a few moments ago that the general staff did not want more than fourteen squadrons to reinforce the Regular cavalry, which was not numerous, had the noble Earl and the general staff forgotten how this country had to pour into South Africa in the early months of 1901 30,000 mounted men? And that after the war had been supposed by many to be almost over, and after they had exhausted the whole Regular forces of the Crown. Did the noble Earl really think that in the year 1907 they could afford
1112
to forget everything which occurred in the course of that war and to rely on this obiter dictum of the general staff, of whom they heard for the first time, that 2,100 men was all that could be expected to be required to support the Regular mounted forces of the Crown? He confessed that he felt in a very great difficulty when he came to deal with the Motion which had been made by the noble Earl. The noble Earl maintained, and he thought with justice, that the Yeomanry deserved better treatment than to be thrust back instead of being allowed to move forward, as they had shown some right to be by their disposition and training. But he recognised also that to strike them out of the clause might prove fatal, to the Bill. Was it not possible even now for the Government to realise that if they could not grant the Yeomanry their aspirations, they might at least listen to the warnings addressed to them that the action which they proposed to take must result in a serious depletion of the force? What was going to be gained by saving some £ 50,000 or £ 60,000 a year at the outside on the Yeomanry force? They had heard a good deal about the necessity of economy. The economies at present made by the Government had reduced the Estimates from a little under £ 29,000,000 to a little over £ 28,000,000, and of that a large amount was going to be spent on the Territorial Army. The territorial infantry were going to be raised by from 20,000 to 25,000 men. That might be the opinion of the present general staff, but he had served at the War Office under four Commanders-in-Chief — three Commanders-in-Chief and one acting Commander-in-Chief — and on no occasion did any military authority there during that time inform the Secretary of State that they were deficient in the infantry of what was now to be the Territorial Army. On the contrary, they were told time after time that they had a great deficiency in artillery, cavalry, and mounted troops, but they had a surplus age of infantry. The Government were now going, on the grounds of economy, to save £ 100,000 on the Yeomanry and at the same time to add £ 250,000 for these 25,000 additional infantry, who, according to all the authorities, including that of Earl Roberts, were not required, and for 10,000 of

1113
whom the Government were going to spoil a force which was urgently required, and which those who had most to do with the subject said could not stand except on something like its present conditions. He did not wish to waste their Lordships' time at that hour of the evening, but he thought that the depth of feeling displayed on this subject and the conviction of men who had shown themselves patriotic in the past and were anxious to take the most patriotic course in the present instance, should weigh to some extent with the Government, who must feel that some concession was needed. He had endeavoured to consider whether there was any way in which they could meet, not the wishes of his noble friend, but the obvious requirements of the force, without absolutely endangering the fate of the Bill. The arrangement by which the Yeomanry would not be touched for three years gave them some means of compromise; but the Government, acting as they proposed to do against the advice of those who knew most of the Yeomanry, could not expect them to give them a blank cheque in this matter. When the House parted from this portion of the Bill, unless they put something else in it the destruction of the Yeomanry was entirely in the hands of the Government. If the terms the Government proposed were likely, as his noble friends believed, to cause a fresh depletion of officers and men, Parliament would not be able to say a word afterwards, and therefore he ventured to ask whether his noble friend, if he thought it undesirable to strike the Yeomanry out of the Territorial Army, would be inclined to defer to the views of the Government that the Yeomanry could best serve the country as members of the Territorial Army. In that case he would ask his noble friend if he would accept or support a proposal, which he would put forward as an Amendment to Clause 28, that no change in the pay or status of the Yeomanry should be made except by Order in Council, which Order in Council should lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament and be subject to any Motion made in regard to it. At least they had a right to claim for the Yeomanry that during these three years Parliament should have an opportunity of considering what fate was proposed for them; and it was in that conviction and
1114
with the desire to forward in a patriotic spirit the view the Government had taken, though he deeply regretted it, and totally dissented from it, that he made this proposal, to which he earnestly hoped the Government would give their earnest consideration.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Where does the noble Viscount proposed to insert the Amendment?
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: After Subsection 1, Clause 28.
*THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid he felt some diffidence in addressing their Lordships on this subject, although he might say that during the time he served in South Africa he acquired a great knowledge of the Yeomanry serving there, and he, as did others, realised what a great-deal of good the Yeomanry did for this country. So far as he understood the Bill it was intended to form the Yeomanry into two lines — virtually fourteen squadrons to be attached to the first line, and the rest in the Territorial Army consisting of twelve brigades. The whole matter seemed to turn on the question of pay. Noble Lords opposite seemed to think that if they paid 2s. 8d. instead of 5s. 6d., they would not get the men. They must see how that worked out. They intended to allow the men to continue to draw 5s. 6d. a day until they had completed their present engagement — that was, for three years. After that period they would come under the new engagement. Several points had been raised by noble Lords. Lord Lovat asked what particular form of training the Government intended to bring in for the Special Contingent. The form of training of the Special Contingent was not absolutely settled. He understood that the present arrangement was that each unit would have fifteen days training with the Regular division to which it was attached, or, failing that, with some other Regular unit. It was obviously necessary that if the Yeomanry were going to act, as they would do, as divisional cavalry they must have an opportunity of working with that force in the field.
LORD LOVAT: Will they only get fifteen days?
*THE EARL OF GRANARD: They would have six months preliminary training in a training squadron and then probably fifteen days with the divisional cavalry.
LORD LOVAT: But where are the training schools?
*THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid the training squadrons would be set up in each regular divisional headquarters. Lord Essex had pointed out that he was very much afraid that under the new regulations they would lose officers. He did not quite follow him in that respect, for, after all, the officers of the Yeomanry were generally men of a certain standing and pretty well off. He did not for a moment think they would lose a valuable class like that. It had often been said that it was a mistake to substitute Yeomanry for divisional cavalry. He had seen a certain number of the cavalry attached to a regular division, and he must say that the ordinary regular cavalry were absolutely lost there. The functions required of divisional cavalry were not very arduous, and were not such as required highly trained men, but men who could ride well and use their common sense. It seemed, therefore, to be a very sound principle to institute these squadrons, and he was perfectly sure they would work excellently in the future.
LORD LOVATsaid he would like to take up one or two points of the noble Lord who had last spoken. In the first place, with reference to the Special Contingent, he took it they were going to be trained in schools which were to be instituted in each command — that was to say, it was proposed to train fifteen or twenty men for six months in fourteen different places. How were they going to train men if there were only going to be twenty or thirty of them — there would be only 100 if they all went — at different times of the year in fourteen different places? The idea seemed ludicrous. It was impossible to make them efficient unless they could get a large number of them together. The Yeomanry had to do certain drills before going up for annual training, because it was found impossible to train men in two's and three's for regimental work. These men were to fulfil the most difficult functions of divisional cavalry. There was no harder
1116
work in the world than that of divisional cavalry. It was ludicrous to send these men into the field after only fifteen days training with the division. If Lord Scarbrough's excellent idea were carried out they would get a squadron trained every year for six months, and in time people would come back to them as non-commissioned officers, and would undoubtedly add to the efficiency of the unit. He hoped what they had heard from Lord Granard did not really represent the views of the Government on the subject of divisional troops, and that the Government were not persuaded that divisional cavalry work was such an easy matter as he thought, or that the cavalry screen was always ahead of the infantry division. Lord Granard had also stated he did not believe that this reduction of Yeomanry was going to make much difference in the force. Might he tell the noble Earl that one class it would certainly wipe out was the man they wanted in the Yeomanry, namely, the agriculturist who owned his horse? The townsman would take on at 2s. 8d. per day and hire a horse and make a sovereign; but the agriculturist was worth 8s. a day in the summer months, and unless he was paid something corresponding to that he would not take the risk with his horse. The Yeomanry must be trained in June, July, or August, and at that period they had to pay not less than 8s. a day in the private market to hire a man and horse, and it was surely worth more if his horse was to be buffeted about the roads, and tethered outside in a cold camp on wet nights instead of being housed. Which was the man going for? The poor man would go for what he got paid for best, and therefore that class would be knocked out of the Yeomanry entirely by this scheme. He should much regret to support the Amendment of Lord Scarbrough, and yet one felt it was one's duty to do so in defence of the Yeomen one commanded. He felt that if Lord Scarbrough's Amendment was passed it would make a very great difference to the excellence of the work which they could hope for from the Territorial Army, and he thought that if it were possible it was advisable that some compromise should be arrived at. Was it worth while for a saving, by knocking off 2s. a day, of between £ 50,000

1117
and £ 60,000, to turn out these men? A saving of £ 20,000 or £ 30,000 could be made without doing the Yeomanry this irreparable harm. They might, in the first place, do that which many of the Yeomanry had already done, and which made for efficiency, and that was to have ten or fifteen cyclists in every squadron. It would add to efficiency rather than detract from it. All cavalry regiments had a certain number of cyclists attached in every squadron. If his suggestion were adopted it would save something like £ 8,000 or £ 9,000. Then if the horses were hired regimentally a saving of £ 8,000 or £ 10,000 could undoubtedly be effected. If a grant of £ 5 was paid to the man who brought his horse, and a regimental grant of £ 4 was paid for the hired horse, money would undoubtedly be saved. Then there might possibly be saving in one or two points of administration too small to go into then; but he thought from £ 25,000 to £ 30,000 might be saved without the proposed reduction being made at all. He hoped before they tied themselves by passing this clause the noble Lord would at all events try and extract from the Government what was the sum actually to be paid for the extra work of the Yeomanry. He did not think the Government were really dealing fairly with the Yeomanry. They had had innumerable meetings with the officials, and everything that the Yeomanry had been asked to do they had done, and now in the end the Government tried to strike a bargain, and would not say which side theirs was.
*LORD HARRISsaid he understood Lord Granard to say that the cause of their dissatisfaction was the pay of the Yeomanry. That was an entire mistake. It was a cause which might result in a very different class of men joining the force; but the cause of their dissatisfaction was that their traditions were being ignored. What they had done in maintaining the force in the face of opposition of every kind, from Parliament as well as from the War Office, and in raising the force to a condition which had won the enconiums passed upon it by Lord Methuen in that debate — that was all to be ignored. Their regard and affection
1118
for the force and its traditions were to be ignored and they were to be degraded. He hoped it was not misunderstood by gallant comrades in the Volunteers. He meant it in its literal sense — that they were being put on the level of a force which was junior to them, instead of being kept with the force which was senior to them and to which they had belonged for the last seven years. He trusted that the Undersecretary for War would impress on his chief the very strong feeling that had been displayed by members of the force and induce him to believe that what they had said was by way of very serious warning as to what they apprehended might happen. They did not speak from any selfish motive, but because they feared the same class of man would not be secured when these very material alterations were made in the conditions of service, and that in the end it would not be an economy to the Government. They would get men who did not understand about the management of horses and were careless about horses, and to whom it would be far more difficult to teach horsemanship. Consequently a great bulk of the saving would be lost. The Under-Secretary for War had had a suggestion made to him by Lord Midleton and he hoped the noble Earl, before this Bill passed, would be able to give some assurance that it had received favourable consideration from the Cabinet. He admitted that some concessions had been made, but he was sure the noble Earl would see the very great difficulty that would inevitably arise among the Yeomanry if two different rates of pay were in force. It would be very difficult to accommodate all the conditions of life in a regiment to two rates of pay, and if the concession could be made as regarded the present men continuing until 1910 on their present rates of pay — that was to say it would give them three years of grace as regarded every man in the force — it might be possible to come to some compromise which would be far more satisfactory to the Yeomanry and give the Secretary of State a far more efficient force than he was going to get under this Bill. The Committee was at present placed in a serious dilemma in voting upon the Amendment. On the one hand, they were threatened with

1119
the destruction of the Yeomanry Force if they supported the Amendment; on the other hand, they saw the prospect of a much inferior force arising in the future. He was disposed in the circumstances to ask his noble friend whether it was not the duty of their lordships to avoid doing anything which might result in the destruction of the force, and to run the risk of allowing the force to remain, even though it might be hereafter inferior in its composition. That seemed the wise course for them to take, and the more patriotic. They had done their best to show the dangers in which the country was placed if this change took place. If the Government, notwithstanding, was resolved under no circumstances to make this change, then the responsibility was not theirs.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The two noble Lords who spoke last, both with great authority, made very moderate and reasonable speeches. They will, I am sure, forgive me if I do not enter into all the technical points which have been raised. I rather desire to address myself to the general aspect of the debate, and to turn to the Amendment moved by the noble Earl opposite. There are, in fact, two entirely separate questions involved — first, whether the Yeomanry should form part of the first or second line of the force of the country, and, secondly, what are to be the provisions of pay as regards the Yeomanry? That, of course, is important, because I am able to gather from the speech of the noble Viscount, and also from other speeches made in the course of the debate, that if this question of pay could be settled to the satisfaction of the noble Earl opposite they would, I understand, join in asking him to withdraw his Amendment. The noble Viscount Lord Midleton complained that the reply of my noble friend was of an unsympathetic character. That is hardly a fair adjective. It was distinctly of an official character, and it was not reasonable to describe it as more unsympathetic than official replies habitually are. On this question of pay, I take it that it has not been a cheese-paring idea of my right hon. friend to cut off £ 1,000 here, and £ 1,000 there, so much as to endeavour to approximate the pay of the different
1120
parts of the Territorial Army to ordinary service conditions. That has been his idea. It is no doubt true, as stated by the noble Earl, I think, in the course of his very complete opening speech, that it does not do to drive that nail too far home, and that where you have a voluntary Army you are bound to make a certain allowance for the difference between the classes of people who join the different forces. That we fully admit, and, therefore, on this question of pay, my right hon. friend is distinctly open to conviction, and he will consider how far it is possible to meet the views of noble Lords opposite. As to the question whether the Yeomanry should form part of the first line or of the second, I confess I have been somewhat puzzled by the different arguments which have been used. I hear one moment of the Yeomanry being composed of farmers with their farms to manage, of clerks who presumably can only get a limited amount of leave, and who are therefore naturally dependent on receiving a fair rate of pay while they are under service conditions, and then we are told that these men are practically to form part of the Regular Army of the country. That is surely a most puzzling and self-contradictory series of statements. I confess I am entirely unable to understand how, if you propose to go on recruiting the Yeomanry from the farming class and clerks in the towns, you are going to place them in precisely the same position as the Militia, who are recruited from an entirely different stratum of society and who are likely to be able, as we hope, to undertake the obligation of foreign service. I think it is important that that point should be cleared up, because the speech of the noble and gallant Earl, who apparently contemplated that the Yeomanry should be really a foreign-service Army, conveyed to my mind an entirely different impression from that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Methuen, who I think, contemplated the Yeomanry forming part of the Territorial Army at home. I am bound to point out once more that the object of my right hon. friend is to form an Army for home defence, of which the Yeomanry should be the cavalry force, and it was in that connection that my noble friend behind me spoke of the acceptance of this

1121
Amendment as possibly involving the disappearance of the Yeomanry Force; and for this reason, that it would be impossible to have a Territorial Army at all unless some cavalry force is attached to it. It has been suggested that 20,000 cyclists should be substituted for the Yeomanry, but I do not know what the military authorities would say to a home defence Army without a single horseman attached to it. As regards the question of pay, as I have said, my right hon. friend is quite open to consider very carefully the question whether it would be possible to approximate further to the present rate of pay, or, at any rate, of allowances, in the new arrangement, and it is with the view of arriving at a decision on that question that the period of delay has been advised. But I am obliged to give a direct negative to the proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, that no change in the pay of the Yeomanry should be made except by Order in Council, which should be laid upon the Table of both Houses and accepted or refused by either. I can recall no precedent whatever for the proposal that the pay of any branch of His Majesty's Army should be decided by an Order in Council in the first place, afterwards amended by Parliament. The noble Viscount has sat in another place, and I, unfortunately, have not, but I think he must be aware that it would be altogether impossible for those who sit in another place to accept a condition of that kind in relation to the pay of any branch of His Majesty's forces. There is no precedent for anything of the kind, and I am afraid, therefore, that on this matter of pay we must ask the noble Viscount and noble Lords opposite to trust to the common sense of my right hon. friend, and the natural desire both of the Government and of the Army Council that the Yeomanry should prosper. I must tell my noble friend that it is impossible for us to accept the particular Amendment which he desires to place on the Paper later.
LORD MONTAGUE OF BEAULIEUsaid that if the cavalry were withdrawn from the Territorial Army that Army would practically become a farce, for with the exception of companies of mounted infantry, it would have no
1122
cavalry at all. Speaking as a Volunteer, he would like to see the Yeomanry retained in the Territorial Army, but he supported their claim for adequate allowances.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHdesired to say a few words on the Amendment in view of the fact that he had been for many years connected with the Yeomanry. It was his duty the other day to go down and receive instruction in further military duties in the position which he occupied in the Yeomanry Force, and he made careful inquiries on Salisbury Plain as to the exact duties which would be required of the Yeomanry attached to the first line of defence. It was explained to him by those who, he believed, were thoroughly qualified to judge of what would occur in the event of an Army corps being sent abroad, that in the first place there would be a great screen of cavalry under an independent command; they would be supported by a screen of mounted infantry, and behind would march the divisional troops, and the duties of the squadron of Yeomanry attached to each division would be to protect those divisional troops. He inquired what the exact position of the Yeomanry would be, and was assured that the Yeomanry as a unit would never be preserved; the squadron itself would never be preserved, but would be broken up into sections for various duties connected with the division. Therefore the position of the commanding officer would be of no use at all, as he would have nothing whatever to do. If that was the exact position which the Yeomanry were going to occupy with regard to the division to which they would be attached, it seemed to him a considerable waste of time and money that the squadrons which were to be employed in the first line should go through six months training in the various other duties to which noble Lords had referred that evening. With, regard to the pay, of course it was impossible for anyone to say whether they would be able to preserve in the Yeomanry the same class of man they now got if they gave him 2s. 8d. a day instead of the pay he now received. But there was one point in connection with the Yeomanry which he did not think had been alluded to. The evolution of the Yeomanry during the last ten years;

1123
had been very remarkable. When he as a youth first joined, it was the duty of these men simply to learn and practice sword exercises. Since then they had learnt to use a rifle efficiently, and he believed the ultimate employment of the Yeomanry would be that of scouts. It was not for him to dwell upon the lessons of recent wars, because he was not a military authority, but he understood that the branch of the Service to which the military authorities attached as much importance as to any other was the corps of highly educated men with knowledge of wireless telegraphy and other methods of transmitting information. Undoubtedly in the future an endeavour would be made to train the men who would have to act as screens in front of the army in the acquiring and transmission of information as speedily as possible, and he could not help feeling that the duties in the future of the Yeomanry would be to act as scouts, and by the employment of modern machinery transmit information from the front to the troops in the rear. If that were so, he asked the Government to pause before they did anything which would remove from the ranks those highly intelligent and skilled artisans who now entered them, and replace them with men of lower intelligence and less skill. He therefore associated himself with the proposal of his noble friend Lord Midleton that the Government should defer lowering the pay of the Yeomanry, and that they should only do so by Order in Council, the Papers connected with which would be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament.
*EARL FORTESCUEwished to add his plea to those which had already been put forward for sympathetic treatment of the Yeomanry, which was the only force in which what he might call the lower middle classes of the country enlisted. It was the ambition of the Secretary of State, and one with which they must all sympathise, that the Territorial Army in the future should be a national Army, truly representative of the various classes. He did not think that could be said to be the case at present. There were about 4,000,000 people in this country of the class who were assessed for income-tax at anything between £ 160 and £ 700 a year. It was notorious that that class did not provide recruits for the Regular
1124
Army or for the Militia, for, except in the case of a few special regiments, for the Volunteers; and it was equally certain that from lack of means they found very few officers for either the Army or the Auxiliary Forces. The only portion of the national forces in which they enlisted, except a few class regiments of Volunteers, was the Yeomanry, and it would be a great misfortune if anything were done to check the flow of recruits from that quarter. The efficiency of the Yeomanry as a force had been fully shown in the debates, and it was obvious, considering the shortness of the training, that it would have been impossible to obtain such results unless there had been a very intelligent class of men in the ranks. He hoped the Government would do all they could to increase the chances of enlisting such men in the future.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not think that anyone can have listened to this discussion without being deeply impressed by the weight of the arguments which have been advanced by noble Lords who have commanded Yeomanry regiments. They take part in this debate as experts, and as experts they warn us that if the Yeomanry are left where the Bill, as now drawn, leaves them we cannot expect to have either the same number of men, or, if the same number of men, then not the same class of men, in the force in future. My noble friend Lord Scarbrough proposes to meet those objections by an Amendment which would have the effect of removing the Yeomanry from the Territorial Army. If we on this side of the House were responsible for the Bill, I feel little doubt that we should have treated the Yeomanry in a different manner, but we are not responsible for this Bill. It is a Bill for which His Majesty's Government are responsible; it is one which your Lordships have read a second time; and it is impossible to listen to the speeches which have been made from the Front Bench opposite without realising that, in the opinion of noble Lords on that Bench, it is an essential part of their scheme that the Yeomanry should remain in the Territorial Army. That being so, I cannot take upon myself to advise my noble friend to persist in his Amendment. But it is clear that, although the retention of the Yeomanry in the Territorial Army forms

1125
a great part of the grievance upon which my noble friends have dealt to-night, it is not their only grievance. They dwelt also upon the harshness of the bargain which His Majesty's Government mean to impose on the Yeomanry, and I must say it seems to me to be the duty of His Majesty's Government, if they do insist upon keeping the Yeomanry in the Territorial Army, to mitigate the harshness of that bargain so far as it is possible for them to do so. The noble Earl who represents the War Office and my noble friend the Lord President have certainly held out hopes that some improvement in the terms which will be offered to the Yeomanry is to be expected, and I certainly trust that before the debate in Committee is concluded we shall obtain from noble Lords opposite a definite offer in that direction. My noble friend Lord Midleton proposed to deal with the matter by the method which he described to the House just now. I gather that that method does not find favour in the eyes of the noble Earl the Lord President, but it does not by any means follow that that is the only means of obtaining for the Yeomanry that, I will not say generous, but just, treatment which they demand at your hands, and I therefore hope that tomorrow we shall hear from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that it is the intention of the War Office to meet us on those points, as I am bound to say they have endeavoured to meet us at other points in this Bill. It is surely not too much to hope that if economic considerations lie at the root of this proposal it may be possible to effect savings without pressing so heavily upon the Yeomanry as the proposals of His Majesty's Government now press. The sum which is to be saved is, I am told — and on this I do not think my noble friend Lord Midleton has been contradicted — something between £ 50,000 and £ 100,000, and I cannot bring myself to believe that it should be beyond the powers of His Majesty's Government to save that money in some other direction or by some other means.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I am very unwilling to interrupt the noble Marquess, but I did explicitly state that our action was not founded so much upon economical grounds as upon a desire not to differentiate greatly between the different branches of His Majesty's Forces.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am bound to say that argument has been met by some of the speeches made by noble Lords who command Yeomanry regiments, and who have shown, to my mind conclusively, that the class of man you now get belongs to a different social stratum and expects and deserves a somewhat higher rate of remuneration. I therefore hope that as we have been met sympathetically at other points so in regard to this point, to which we on this side attach very great importance, we shall be met not less sympathetically.
*THE EARL OF SCARBROUGHsaid he fully realised the gravity of the situation which would be created if he pressed his Amendment to a division, and after what had been said by the noble Marquess he had no intention of doing so. But ho would once more emphasise the necessity of liberal treatment for the Yeomanry. If the Government would treat them liberally in peace time he was perfectly confident that they would be ready to serve at Army rates in time of war.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
On Question, that Clause 1 as amended, stand part of the Bill,
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREpressed for further information with reference to the position of Ireland under this clause. He did so at the request of his noble friend Lord Shaftesbury, who was very much interested in the matter, but whose other public duties had called him away to Ireland that evening. They wanted to know what the intentions of the Government were with regard to the setting up of County Associations in Ireland. The position there was rather peculiar. There were no Volunteers in Ireland, but there were two regiments of Yeomanry each recruiting over about a dozen counties. Was it the intention of the Government that there should be a County Association to deal with those two units of the Territorial Army? He had understood that it was not the intention to set up County Associations in Ireland, but later in the Bill it appeared t hat the Government intended, under certain conditions, to do so. He thought that, without entering into the controversy whether it

1127
was desirable to have County Associations or not, noble Lords from Ireland were entitled to know definitely what the intentions of His Majesty's Government were, and whether there would be any objection to an Amendment being moved at a later stage saying definitely that Clause 1 was not to apply to Ireland.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he could state definitely that it was not intended to set up County Associations in Ireland. He questioned, however, whether it would be wise actually to insert words in the Bill prohibiting them from doing so.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:—
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUmoved to amend that portion of Clause 2 which provides that —
"An Association shall have, exercise, and discharge such powers and duties connected with the organisation and administration of His Majesty s military forces as may for the time being be transferred or assigned to it,"
by inserting the the word "equipment," after the word "organisation." He had placed this Amendment on the Paper with a view of ascertaining whether it was intended to add the duty of equipping the forces to the other duties of the association. On page 4, line 16, there was a sub-section which referred to the safe custody of arms and equipments; yet equipment was not referred to specifically in the beginning of Clause 2. He thought it was important that equipment should be one of the duties of the County Associations, and he would like to know how, when new equipment had to be provided, it would be allocated between the different portions of the forces under the control of the County Associations.
Amendment moved —
"In page 3, line 23, after the word "organisation," to insert the word ' equipment.' "— (Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid the Amendment was unnecessary as the point was already covered. Administration included maintenance, and this embraced questions of clothing, equipment, and so forth. Therefore the insertion of the word "equipment" where proposed by the noble Lord was unnecessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LOVATmoved to amend paragraph (e) —
"(e) Arranging with employers of labour as to holidays for training, and ascertaining the times of training best suited to the circumstances of civil life,"
by omitting all words after "training" to the end of the paragraph. The recruiting areas of a great many Yeomanry regiments, especially in Scotland, embraced several counties, and if the County Associations could dictate as to the time when Yeomanry regiments were to come out for training, it might easily happen that one county might fix one time and another county covered by the same corps might fix another. He submitted that the question as to the times of training best suited to the circumstances was one for the officers commanding the units.
Amendment moved —
"In page 4, line 6, to leave out from the word ' training' to the end of paragraph (e)."— (Lord Lovat)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH:thought the noble Lord was under some misapprehension as to the necessity for this Amendment. The only object of the latter part of the paragraph in question was to provide assistance to the military authorities with regard to local circumstances, of which they could actually have very little definite knowledge. There were complaints from time to time that the War Office and the local military authorities did not pay sufficient regard to local circumstances in fixing the dates of camps, etc. The omission of the words which the noble Lord had proposed to delete would have no other effect than to leave things in the present unsatisfactory condition. He hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.
LORD LOVATsaid he would not press the Amendment, but he thought the Government might consider the advisability of inserting after the word "ascertaining" the words "from officers commanding units." The paragraph would then read that the County Association should ascertain the times of training best suited to the circumstances of civil life from the officers commanding the various units.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHundertook to consider the point, and, if necessary, to bring up an Amendment regarding it on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee to-morrow.
House adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.