Sitting of 31 March 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
ORAL, ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Indentured Labour (Trinidad).
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies what are the numbers, respectively, of the European population, of the indentured labour force, and of the coloured population of Trinidad; and whether the indentured labourers have complained of the wages they have received under their indentures?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The total population of the Colony, which, of course, includes Tobago, was estimated on 31st March, 1908, as being 344,000. The East Indian population, including persons of East Indian descent born in the Colony, was estimated at 103,000. Of these, something under 12,000 would be serving under indentures. I cannot give the number of persons of European descent, since the census returns do not make this distinction. No complaints by indentured labourers of the wages received by them have been notified to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. REES: I would like to ask whether the prosperity of the island does not depend in a very large measure upon the treatment of indentured labourers?
  Colonel SEELY: That is a matter of opinion. I understand my hon. Friend is going to give evidence before the Royal Commission on the subject.

  Alien Criminals (Proposed Conference).
  Mr. RUPERT GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has any information as to the intention of the Danish Government to propose a conference of representatives of certain countries to discuss the question of alien criminals in those countries and the cost of their maintenance, with a view either to an exchange of such prisoners or to an arrangement by which the country of origin of a criminal convicted elsewhere would become responsible for the cost of maintaining such a criminal; and whether this country, if invited, will take part
  314
  in the conference contemplated by the Danish Government?
  The UNDER SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. While His Majesty's Government are anxious to assist in making arrangements for the return of criminals to their country of origin, it is impossible to say whether His Majesty's Government would accept such an invitation until it is received and the exact nature of the proposals to be discussed is known.

  German loan to Shah of Persia.
  Mr. SMEATON: I desire to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that the Shah of Persia has received a loan of money from Germany; if so, what is the amount of the loan; whether the money has been advanced by the German Government or by private persons; and, in either case, upon what security?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have received no information to this effect.
  Mr. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has any official information to the effect that the Shah's Government has received a loan through the German bank in Teheran; and whether the anti-Royal party has laid an embargo on the Customs at Bushire, which are assigned as a guarantee for the interest on the British loan?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As regards the first part of the question, I have no official information to this effect. As regards the second point, I have not heard that any embargo has been laid on the Customs at Bushire, though it is a fact that the administration of the Customs has been taken over from the Shah's officials by the Nationalist party. Steps are being taken to secure the continuance of the payments due in respect of British loans out of the proceeds of the Bushire Customs.

  Naval Conference Declaration.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: Will the hon. Member state whether the Declaration of the Naval Conference recently signed by the plenipotentiary appointed by the Government requires further ratification by the Government; and whether it is proposed to give such ratification?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first question is contained in the Declaration itself. If the hon. Member

  315
  will read Article 67 he will see that ratification is required. The question of ratification by this country is under consideration.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: I understand that actual ratification has not been given.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Is it not a fact that ratification is not necessary, and the matter is still open?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, that is so. The matter is still open.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, under the terms of the declaration of the Naval Conference, foodstuffs consigned to German or French Army contractors resident in Antwerp or other neutral ports, and admittedly destined for the armed forces of those countries, would in time of war be immune from capture?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If the hon. Member will read article 35 of the Declaration, he will see that articles of conditional contraband may not, there-under, be seized if consigned to a neutral port.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: May I ask the hon. Member to state whether goods consigned to German or French Army contractors resident in Antwerp would in time of war be immune from capture?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think it would be more advantageous if the hon. Member would give notice of complicated questions of that kind.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: My supplementary question is the same as the latter part of the question which stands on the Paper.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If it is the question standing on the Paper, then it has been answered.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: I will put down my question again for another day, because it has not been answered.

  Co-operative Credit Societies (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) state whether, seeing from Irish statistics that money lending is one of the most flourishing industries in Ireland, and that the prosperity of banks is often in inverse ratio to that of the people for whom they cater, lie has considered the possibility of developing and extending
  316
  throughout the whole country any system of co-operative credit societies or land banks whereby much of the money now wasted in interest could be saved to the people for their immediate benefit, and Irish capitalists would be gradually induced to transfer their investments from foreign to Irish projects?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): The Department are fully alive to the advantages of co-operative credit societies, and they have had for some time a scheme in operation under which they give loans to such societies in suitable cases. The revision of this scheme is at present under consideration.

  Land Purchase Agreements (Fixing of Rents).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney General for Ireland, whether, in practice, judicial tenants and non-judicial who have signed purchase agreements but have not received their vesting orders are allowed, the former at the expiry of the current judicial term and the latter at any time before receipt of the vesting order, to have a fair rent judicially fixed?
  Mr. CHERRY: As a matter of practice, I am informed by the Land Commission that cases such as are mentioned in the question are adjourned pending the completion of the sale. If for any reason the negotiations for sale fall through, the rent is fixed on the application, and the order relates back to the date when the originating notice was served, so that the tenant suffers no loss by the adjournment.

  Sale of Copyright Photographs (Portland Prison).
  Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the sale of copyright photographs of the workshops and convicts of Portland prison; and what steps he proposes to take to stop those who, against orders, allowed such photographs to be taken?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I am obliged to the hon. Member for having called my attention to this matter. The sale of these photographs is, in my opinion, most reprehensible, and involves a gross breach of faith which, I hope, has now been put a stop to. Steps will be taken to render not only the sale, but the taking of such photographs impossible in future.

  Aliens and Hospital Treatment for Trachoma.
  Mr. RUPERT GUINNESS: I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether his attention has been drawn to the number of newly arrived aliens who present themselves at the Royal London Ophthalmic Hospital for treatment for long-standing trachoma, and to the fact that as many as 90 per cent, of the sufferers from this disease during the six months with which the last report of the hospital dealt were aliens, and to the chairman's recommendation that aliens who had contracted this disease should be prevented from landing in this country; and whether, in view of the fact that this disease was being introduced into this country on an extensive scale by aliens who have not submitted themselves to an inspection at an immigration port, he will consider the expediency of lowering the number of alien immigrants who can be carried in a non-immigrant ship, at all events as concerned vessels bringing aliens to the port of London?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I understand that the statement mentioned in the first part of the question was made by the chairman of the Royal London Ophthalmic Hospital at the recent annual general meeting of the governors. Without altogether accepting as correct the further statement made by the hon. Member, I may say that I have the point under my observation, and that I am asking for further and more exact information as regards the general statements contained in the question.

  Industrial Reformatory Fees (Liverpool).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the right hon. Gentleman if he can state the amount of industrial and reformatory schools fees collected last year in the city of Liverpool, together with the cost of collecting the same, and the amount of arrears outstanding against individuals?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The amount of parental contributions towards the cost of maintenance of youthful offenders and children in reformatory and industrial schools collected in the city of Liverpool in 1908 was £2,157; and the amount spent in connection with the collection of these contributions was £315. The amount of arrears outstanding against individuals could not be 'stated without a detailed examination of the numerous cases, which would involve the expenditure of considerable time and labour.

  Uncertified Deaths (Highland Crofting Counties).
  Mr. WEIR: I desire to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the number of uncertified deaths in each of the Highland crofting counties during each of the last five years?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I have obtained the information desired by my hon. Friend, but as the statement of the numbers is lengthy it will he circulated with the Votes.

  Island of Lewis (Congested Districts Board Funds).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, in view of the very small number of new holdings created in the island of Lewis out of the funds of the Congested Districts Board, will arrangements be made for a portion of the Board's funds to be utilised for that purpose during the present year?
  Mr. URE: The needs of Lewis are under the consideration of the Congested Districts Board, but I have no statement to make upon the subject at present.
  Mr. WEIR: I hope some of the money will be spent in that island, and not the whole of it in one county.
  Mr. URE: The subject is under consideration.

  Old Age Pensions (Disqualification).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate whether he was aware that although a widow residing at Ardgay, Ross-shire, was granted an old age pension by the local pension committee, this decision has been overruled by the Local Government Board for Scotland, who have held this widow to be disqualified, on the ground that she had received assistance from the parish council since 1st January, 1908, in the form of a free house; but, seeing that the local authority are still utilising for her support money left to her by her brother prior to the date named, will the Local Government Board reconsider their decision?
  Mr. URE: As this case was presented to the Board there was nothing to show that the parish council were administering the small legacy left to the claimant. If the claimant lodges a fresh claim and it can be shown that the parish council in administering the claimant's fund have taken account of and charged against the legacy the rent of the house which they have allowed her to occupy, the Hoard, if an appeal be taken, will be prepared to reconsider their decision.

  Underground Telephone Lines.
  Viscount VALENTIA (on behalf of Mr. Renwick)asked the Postmaster-General whether he could state if underground telephone lines were as efficient as those above ground for long-distance conversations?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): The answer is emphatically in the negative. The transmission of speech over underground telephone lines is much less efficient than when overhead lines are used, and speech over underground cable becomes practically inaudible at a very moderate distance.

  Sub-Postmasters (Holidays).
  Mr. BENNETTasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that no provision was made for holidays in the case of appointments to sub-postmaster-ships, he could see his way, by the establishment of a system of relief or otherwise, to furnish these public servants with some period of holiday in the year?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Select Committee on Post Office Servants definitely stated that they did not recommend that an annual leave substitute for sub-postmasters should be provided at the public expense.

  Rural Telegraph Sub-offices (Easter Holiday).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Postmaster-General whether he was aware that the recent Parliamentary Committee recommended that rural telegraph sub-offices should have shorter hours on bank holidays; and whether he would give instructions that the staff of the rural telegraph sub-offices in the North of Ireland be granted a half-holiday on Easter Monday next?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Parliamentary Committee recommended that attendance on bank holidays should be restricted as far as possible. The question how far it is possible to restrict hours at country telegraph offices without grave public inconvenience is engaging my attention. Offices must be considered individually, with regard to the amount of telegraph business they do, and I cannot, therefore, issue any such general instruction as my hon. Friend refers to.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the rural post offices in the North of Ireland are not very busy on this particular day, and will he therefore give special facilities for a holiday?
  Mr. BUXTON: Each will be treated individually. I will examine the whole question, and see how far the matter can be arranged.
  Captain CRAIG: There would be great difficulty in treating each of these small offices individually. Would not the right hon. Gentleman grant the small privilege of a half-holiday, which is very much desired?
  Mr. BUXTON: There would be still more difficulty in treating them in the aggregate.

  Alcoholic Liquors in District Post Offices.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS (on behalf of Mr. Arthur Henderson)asked the Postmaster-General whether he was aware that deliberate attempts to promote the sale of alcoholic liquors in refreshment bars in the district offices of London were being organised by a firm of London brewers; and, if so, what action he proposed to take?
  Mr. BUXTON: The refreshment rooms at the London district offices are managed by committees of the staff employed at those offices. Travellers no doubt wait upon the representatives of such committees to induce them to deal with their firms, but I am not aware that undue influence has been brought to bear upon them by London brewers with the view of securing orders.

  Rosyth (Granite).
  Viscount VALENTIA (on behalf of Mr. Renwick)asked whether the contract for the Rosyth works, which gave the contractors the option of using Norwegian granite, contained a clause empowering the Government to cancel such option in case the experiments which were being made into the respective merits of British and Norwegian granite demonstrated that the British article was superior to the foreign?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The Admiralty have had careful inquiry made as regards the relative suitability of British and foreign granite for use in dock construction, and they are quite satisfied that suitable granite can be obtained from abroad. Granite of an adequate quality is stipulated for in the Rosyth specification, and the Admiralty will see that the quality supplied comes up to the specification. The contractors have not yet submitted for approval samples of the granite they propose to use. Under the conditions of the contract the Admiralty can reject any that is inferior to specification.

  Fleet Reserve (Pay).
  Mr. CROOKSasked whether the same arrangements could be made with regard to pay for the Fleet Reserve as in the case of Territorials, viz., the difference between the day-work rate of pay, which they lost while training, and the service allowance?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Royal Fleet Reserve is composed of men who have served in the Royal Navy, and who join this Reserve with the obligation to perform certain service for which they receive certain advantages. There is no analogy between the Royal Fleet Reserve and the Territorial Army. The men of the Reserve receive pay at naval rates when up for drill, and no reason is seen for incurring the expense of such an arrangement as is suggested.

  Fair Wages Resolution (Pottery Trades).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether, having regard to the new Fair Wages Resolution, he would obtain from the trade unions and employers in the pottery trades a schedule of wages for the different classes of workpeople accepted as fair; and, after consideration, would he insert in the forms of tender to be signed by the pottery manufacturers obtaining contracts with his Department a statement of the wages they would be required to pay?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must refer the hon. Member to my printed reply of the 15th March to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Wycombe Division, in which I pointed out in respect of another industry that the policy advocated in the question is one of the methods recommended by the Fair Wages Committee which will receive consideration in special cases, but is not specified in the Fair Wages Resolution of the House. I further pointed out that it is not desirable that the Department should pledge itself to a special course of action in respect of one industry rather than another.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Commissioner of Works, whether, having regard to the new Fair Wages Resolution, he would obtain from the workers' trade unions and the employers in the pottery trades a schedule of wages for the different classes of workers accepted as fair; and, after considering the same, would he insert in the forms of tender to be signed by pottery manufacturers obtaining contracts with his Department a statement of the wages they would be required to pay?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. L. Harcourt): The matter referred to in the hon. Member's question is one which might be considered by the Advisory Committee, which I hope will be immediately appointed in accordance with the Postmaster-General's promise during the debate in this House, and I will take care that the matter is submitted to them.

  Navy (Discharges, etc.).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked what number of sailors of all grades were discharged or left the Navy during 1908; how many of those leaving had performed over 12 years' service and received a pension; and how many joined the Reserve.
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is 8,519, to the second 817, and to the third 1,579.

  Shipbuilding in Germany for Foreign Powers.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could state how many, if any, capital ships and cruisers were being built in Germany for Foreign Powers?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Droitwich Division on 25th March.

  "Dreadnoughts" (Austria).
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE (on behalf of Mr. F. E. Smith)asked how many "Dreadnoughts," or vessels approximating to the "Dreadnought" type, Austria will possess in 1912, 1913, and 1914?
  Mr. McKENNA: According to the Minister of Marine's statement the construction of three "Dreadnought" battleships is under consideration, but we have no official information that any decision has yet been arrived at on this point.

  Messrs. Slack and Brownlow, Gorton.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Commissioner of Works, whether Messrs. Slack and Brownlow, of Abbey Hey Pottery, Gorton, Manchester, were Government contractors; if so, whether they had agreed to observe the usual conditions as to wages and working conditions; and if he could say whether trade unionists were allowed to work for this firm?
  Mr. L. HARCOURT: My Department has no contract with this firm.

  Alien Pilots.
  Mr. RUPERT GUINNESSasked how many aliens hold certificates as pilots for ports in the United Kingdom; and how many such certificates had been issued to aliens in respect of each port to which such certificates applied?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): The number of pilotage certificates now in force enabling alien masters and mates to pilot their own vessels in British pilotage districts is 65, the number in each district being as follows:—

  Bristol

  …

  …

  …

  1

  Harwich

  …

  …

  …

  2

  Humber

  …

  …

  …

  13

  London

  …

  …

  …

  44

  Newhaven

  …

  …

  …

  5

  In 1905 the number was 85.

  Effects of Trawling (Inshore Waters).
  Mr. WEIRasked whether the result of the North Sea fisheries investigations had enabled the Government to form an opinion as to the injurious effects of trawling on inshore fishing beds; and, if so, would the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of recommending the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to call a conference of European Powers interested, for the purpose of determining what waters should be entirely closed against trawlers?
  Mr. URE: No special report has been received from the International Council on the effects of trawling in inshore waters, but the Government adheres to the policy of closing those waters to trawlers. While hoping that the present investigations will lead to international agreement my Noble Friend does not consider the present moment opportune for suggesting a new conference.

  Congestion (Island of Lewis).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the proprietor of the island of Lewis had informed the cottars of South Shabost that he was willing to place the sheep farm of Dalbeg at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board for the creation of new holdings, would he state for what reasons the Board had failed to communicate with the proprietor on the subject, especially bearing in mind that the neglect of the land question by the Government was causing much dissatisfaction in the island, and that some action should be taken in order to obviate the risk
  324
  of land seizures similar to those which had recently taken place at Vatersay and the farm of Glendale?
  Mr. URE: It is not the fact that the Congested Districts Board have failed to communicate with the proprietor of the Island of Lewis on the subject mentioned by my hon. Friend. I cannot admit that the Government are neglecting either the land question in general or the particular suggestion referred to by my hon. Friend, which is receiving full consideration.
  Mr. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary for Scotland to communicate with the proprietor, as the matter is a very serious one?
  Mr. URE: We have done so.

  Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.
  Mr. WEIRasked whether the Government intended to endeavour to pass the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill through the House of Lords during the present Parliament; and, if not, would the Secretary for Scotland introduce during the present Session a short Amendment of The Crofters Act, 1886, especially bearing in mind the demand for land in the Highland crofting counties?
  Mr. URE: The Government certainly retain their discretion to do so; but I have no statement to make upon the subject at the present time. There is no intention of adopting the alternative suggested by my hon. Friend in the latter part of his question.
  Mr. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the Secretary for Scotland the need of doing something of this kind, seeing that Lord Lansdowne, in another place, on 20th August, 1907, said: "We desire—"
  Mr. SPEAKER: Quotations are not permitted in questions.

  Scotch Training College (Remission of Fees, etc.).
  Mr. RENWICKasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention had been called to the fact that a Scotch student attending a Scotch training college was permitted to represent the circumstances of his case to the training college authorities with the object of securing a bursar allowance or the remission of fees, whereas an English student admitted to a Scotch training college in which there was room for his reception was denied the same privilege, notwithstanding that the Imperial grant was paid alike to the training college authori-

  325
  ties upon both classes of students; and, if so, would he take such steps as were necessary to secure equality of opportunity for all students?
  Mr. URE: It is not the case that a student from England is precluded from representing the circumstances of his case to the training college authorities with the object of securing a maintenance allowance, and, in point of fact, such allowances have been given to students from England. But the Department is of opinion that the funds of training college authorities in Scotland should not be used for the purpose of attracting by means of allowances, students from England, so long as any Scotch students would be thereby excluded.

  Suggested Board of Agriculture for Scotland.
  Mr. AINSWORTHasked whether the Government would consider the advisability of bringing in a Bill to establish a separate Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, with a Vice-President with a seat in Parliament, and a land authority with power to create new holdings?
  Mr. URE: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. But the Government have no announcement to make upon this subject at present.

  Deer Forests (Scotland).
  Mr. CLELANDasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention had been directed to the declared intention of the proprietor not to renew the leases of four farms on the Ardkinglas estate (Loch Fyne), employing 12 men each, and to turn these farms into a deer forest; and whether it was the intention of the Government to endeavour to stop such expropriations by re-introducing the Scottish Small Landholders Bill, or similar legislation?
  Mr. URE: The Government have no information on this subject at present, and I fear that the mere introduction of legislation would not have the effect desired by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. WEIR: Is it the intention of the Government to allow deer forests to increase instead of staying their growth?
  Mr. URE: We cannot help it.
  Mr. WEIR: Do you try to?

  Unemployed Grant (Glasgow).
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSONasked what amount had been already allocated to
  326
  the Glasgow distress committee out of the grant for the relief of the unemployed for the current year; was the total amount of that grant to be allocated; and, if not, what was the amount of the balance which was not to be allocated, and how was that balance to be disposed of?
  Mr. URE: Glasgow has already received' £24,200. I am informed that there is a small balance of the grant unallocated, and that it will probably be surrendered.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman know what the amount is?
  Mr. URE: I cannot say at this moment; it depends on an allocation still to be made.

  Alien Masters on British-owned Vessels.
  Mr. RUPERT GUINNESSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state in how many cases the masters of British-owned vessels trading regularly between ports in this country and ports on the Continent are aliens?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): Statistics in the precise form asked for by the hon. Member are not available, but the latest Census Return issued by the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen shows that 764 masters were employed, on the 4th April, 1906, in British vessels trading between this country and ports on the Continent between the River Elbe and Brest, inclusive, and that of these 11, or about 1·4 per cent., were foreigners.

  Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland (Pensions).
  Mr. CLANCYasked the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the admission of the board of directors of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland that they have recently ceased paying pensions to former aged employés, whether they have done so because of the persons affected having availed themselves of the Old Age Pensions Act; whether he will give particulars of the circular to the terms of which the directors refer in justification of their statement that the pensions granted by the company in question were given at the pleasure of the company and that the arrangement regarding pensions is liable to modification at any time; whether the employeés of the company have earned their pensions either directly by making contributions to a pension fund or by accepting lower wages than they would have received

  327
  if there had been no question of pensions; and whether he will make a searching inquiry into the treatment by this company of their former aged employés?
  Mr. H. J. TENNANT: I understand from a letter from the company, of which I have sent the hon. Member a copy, that in a few cases the pensions have been stopped pending inquiries, but I am not aware of the grounds on which such action was taken. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the company's circular to which he refers, which shows the circumstances in which the pensions are granted and the conditions attached to their grant. As the grant of the pensions is a purely voluntary action on the part of the company, I see no useful purpose in instituting an inquiry into the matter, and in this connection I would refer to a reply given to the hon. Member for Cavan West in this House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 21st December last, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
  Mr. CLANCY: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a letter of which he has sent me a copy. Is that a second letter received within the last week? In answer to a previous question, the President of the Board of Trade stated that he would send me a copy of a letter, but he did not send it.
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, I think it is a different letter.
  Mr. CLANCY: Does this letter of which he has sent me a copy state that the company has stopped paying pensions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will see that when he gets the letter.
  Mr. WALTER HUDSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that the stopping of the payment of pensions by the company is owing to the old age pensions scheme of last year having been passed by this House?
  Mr. H. J. TENNANT: I am not able to answer that. I am unaware of the ground on which the action was taken.

  Buoys on the Irish Coast.
  Captain Craigasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the date on which the buoy was moored off Ballyquinton Point, county Down, and the number of times it has been taken away by the Irish Lights Commissioners to be repaired?
  Mr. T. L. CORBETT: Before the hon. Gentleman answers the question perhaps he will also state whether the point chosen for the placing of buoy was chosen after the Commissioners had consulted the local fishermen and pilots and the captains of vessels plying on the coast?
  Mr. H. J. TENNANT: In answer to the supplementary question, I have to say that I believe the choosing of the place was done after consultation.
  Mr. T. L. CORBETT: No.
  Mr. H. J. TENNANT: That is my information. In reply to the question on the Paper, I have to state that I am communicating with the Commissioners of Irish Lights in regard to this and the hon. Member's six other questions affecting the Commissioners, and I will let the hon. Member have the information he desires as soon as I can. That reply will also cover the answer I have to give to the other questions the hon. Member has on the Paper.
  The other questions referred to were:—

  (1) Whether the President of the Board of Trade is aware that the buoy moored 6½ miles from Ballyquinton Point, county Down, is officially designated Strangford Lough buoy; can he state the reason for such a name being given to it, when it was placed in the fairway of coasting vessels 6½ miles from the bar mouth; and whether, when the buoy was so named, it was the intention of the Irish Lights Commissioners to moor it about 1½ miles from the bar mouth?

  (2) Whether he is aware that the Irish Lights Commissioners intended originally placing a lighthouse on Ballyquinton Point, county Down, and, with that object in view, visited the Point, accompanied by some members of the Elder Brethren; and can he state why the scheme was abandoned?

  (3) Whether he can state the number of communications received recommending the Irish Lights Commissioners to moor the Strangford Bar buoy, county Down, as far out as 6½ miles from the bar mouth, and give the names of those tendering the recommendation, and also their reasons?

  (4) Whether he is aware that local feeling is running high with regard to the spot in which the temporary buoy has been moored off Strangford Bar; and whether he will recommend the Irish Lights Commissioners to remove it to a spot about 1½

  329
  miles from the bar mouth, in order to guide not only vessels navigating Strangford Bar, but at the same time to warn coasting vessels of the danger of the insetting tide at that spot?

  (5) Whether he is aware that a vacancy has been created on the Board of Irish Lights Commissioners by the resignation of Viscount Monck; and whether he will represent to the Commissioners the advisability of appointing some representative of the Board of Trade to fill the vacancy, who will be responsible to Parliament in regard to questions affecting the administration of the Board?

  (6) Whether he is aware that the loss of the French barque "Surcouf," off Ballyquinton Point, county Down, made the twenty-fifth fatal disaster off that part of the coast during the past five years, and the sixth fatal disaster during the past winter; whether, under the circumstances, he will make the strongest possible representations to the Irish Lights Commissioners to have the temporary buoy removed from its present position and placed about 1½ miles from the bar mouth; and whether, if the Irish Lights Commissioners refuse to do so, he will appoint a Commission to inquire into the whole matter on the spot, with a view to securing that the permanent buoy is moored in the right place?

  Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether it is a fact that, for three years, I have been putting down these questions, and whether it is not a fact that it would be possible to obtain the information earlier?
  Mr. KILBRIDE: May I ask whether the Irish Lights Commissioners are, in the main, Tories in politics?

  Old Age Tensions (Action of Patriotic Commissioners).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Patriotic Commissioners have issued orders reducing the Commissioner's pensions to aged veterans and their relatives where such have become entitled to a pension under the Old Age Pensions Act of 1908; and, if so, can he state the amount of the reductions and the terms of the orders?
  The SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate the answer, which is a long one, with the Votes. I am Informed that the Royal Patriotic Fund
  330
  Corporation does not, as is suggested in the question of the hon. Member, issue pensions to aged veterans. Seven survivors of those who took part in the charge of the Light Brigade at the Battle of Balaclava and two Army pensioners who took part in the Indian Mutiny are in receipt of charitable allowances from certain special funds raised in connection with the Balaclava survivors and the Indian Mutiny, but these allowances have not in any way been affected by old age pensions, for which these veterans are disqualified by their incomes. The Corporation, under Patriotic Fund Reorganisation Act, 1903, administers a number of special funds raised by public subscription for the benefit of widows whose husbands lost their lives in certain wars and naval disasters. The widows on such funds receive charitable allowances on a scale which precludes their being eligible for old age pensions. The Corporation administers a fund known as the Patriotic General Fund, from which charitable assistance has been granted to aged widows of sailors and soldiers who had given good service in war, and whose husband's deaths took place long after their discharge from the Navy and Army. The Corporation, for want of funds, being only able to an admittedly limited extent to render this service, it was decided that such widows should be required to apply for old age pensions. No widow, however, has suffered any loss of means of existence by this action, any widow in receipt of a higher allowance than the old age pension of 5s. a week having a supplementary allowance issued to her to bring up her means with the old age pension to the same rate as the charitable allowance made from the Patriotic General Fund up to 31st December, 1908. These allowances are not pensions, but are purely charitable allowances.

  Loans for the Erection of Hay-Barns, etc. (Ireland).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in the case of a purchasing tenant applying for a loan to the Board of Works for the erection of hay-barns, etc., the Board requires to be furnished with information as to the amount of the running gale due at the time of purchasing, the difference between the annuity and the old rent, the number of years that elapsed between the date of signing the purchase agreement and the date on which application is made for the loan; and whether he is

  331
  aware that, if the difference between the annuity and the old rent multiplied by the number of years that elapsed between the signing of the agreement and the date of application and added to the running gale exceed one year's rent, the application is thrown out; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am obliged to the hon. Member for calling attention to the question. The Board of Works have recommended that the liability of the tenant for the difference between rent and interest upon purchase money, contingent on the purchase of his lands not being approved by the Land Commission, should not be by itself considered as a reason for postponing a loan when the question of arrears of rent is being examined; and the Treasury have agreed that the present procedure should be altered to this extent.

  Village Green at Kedenham (Hants).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division as representing the Charity Commissioners whether his attention has been called to the enclosure of the village green at Redenham, in the county of Hants; and what action they propose to take to protect the rights of the public in this matter?
  Mr. SOARES: The Commissioners have made inquiries with respect to the village green, but so far as they have ascertained it does not appear to be subject to any charitable trust. If the hon. Member can furnish the Commissioners with primâ facie evidence of a right of user by the inhabitants they will direct a local inquiry to be held by an Assistant Commissioner.

  Small Holdings (Isle of Ely).
  Mr. MONTAGUasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board of Agriculture has received a Report on the working of the Small Holdings Act in Sutton, Haddenham, Witchford, and Stretham, in the isle of Ely; and what action the Board is taking in the matter?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): One of our Inspectors recently visited the parishes named to inquire into the position of affairs there. We are in communication with the county council on the subject, and I will let my hon. Friend know the result.

  Small Holdings Staff.
  Mr. MONTAGUasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, how many appointments it is now intended to make to the small holdings staff; and whether he can say when these appointments are likely to be made?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: An Assistant Commissioner, two Inspectors and two Special Commissioners have recently been appointed. It is proposed to appoint two additional Inspectors—one for Wales—and, if necessary, more Special Commissioners. The clerical staff has also been increased.

  Horses for the Army (Cost of Census).
  Mr. STANIERasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what branch of the Government service is paying for the cost of obtaining the census of the horses suitable for the Army; and what is the estimated cost of obtaining the census?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: In the case of each census of horses suitable for Army purposes that is being made by a county association the cost will fall on Army funds. The, Board themselves are obtaining information as to the class and breed of horses kept on the land and the cost of this inquiry will be defrayed out of the provision made for the Census of Production Act, but it is being carried out in connection with a number of other inquiries, and its cost cannot be separately estimated.
  Mr. STAINER: May I ask whether the owners of agricultural horses are asked for returns, as well as the owners of other horses?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I believe so.
  Captain CRAIG: What course is to be pursued in Ireland, where there are no associations?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I cannot tell you what is happening in Ireland.
  Captain CRAIG: Can you tell me to whom I should address the question?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland.

  Foot and Month Disease (Preventive Regulations).
  Mr. STANIERasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, when the Order preventing the importa-

  333
  tion of animals from those portions of the United States of America infected with foot-and-mouth disease was withdrawn; and if all the States have now been declared free.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board's Order of 28th November last prohibiting the importation of animals from the States of Maryland and Delaware was withdrawn on the 24th instant. The Order affecting the States of Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey is still in operation.

  Pensions of Civil Servants.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he hopes to introduce this Session a Bill to amend the Superannuation Act relating to the pensions of civil servants.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I hope to introduce the Bill at an early date.

  Old Age Pensions Withdrawn (Ireland).
  Sir WALTER NUGENTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if a number of old men in Ireland to whom pensions had been granted have recently been deprived of those pensions on the grounds that they had misstated their age; and if any disqualifications which had occurred were due to the fact that instructions had been given to pension officers to rely solely on the census returns as evidence of age when birth certificates could not be obtained '?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A certain number of old age pensioners in Ireland have been disqualified for the reason stated in the first part of the question. In the absence of other satisfactory documentary evidence of age, there has been no alternative but to fall back upon the census returns, and instructions have been given to pension officers accordingly.
  Mr. BOWLES: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether these disqualifications have been made in each case by the pensions committee?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is really impossible for me to say where there are a great many what has been done in a particular case without notice.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Is it not the practice to refer the matter back to the pensions committee?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand that is so.
  Mr. BOWLES: Has this disqualification been made in each case by the pensions committee?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is impossible for me to say what has been done in any particular case in a great number of cases.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Has any single pension been rescinded?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I did not catch the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: As a matter of fact has any single pension granted in Ireland been taken away, and, if so, has it been done by the machinery of referring it back to the pensions committee and a reference to the Local Government Board?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. And learned Gentleman will put the question on the Paper, I will answer it.
  Sir WALTER NUGENT: On what evidence, other than birth certificates, are old age pensions granted? The hon. Gentleman says there is no evidence except the census returns, but there must have been other evidence, otherwise the pensions would not have been granted originally.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In cases where there was no other evidence the officers had to fall back upon the census returns as some evidence.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: That was not the only evidence.
  Mr. J. J. MOONEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the Local Government said that in one case the only evidence of birth was a sampler?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not.
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say what evidence is required in cases where there is no record in the census returns?

  Royal Irish Constabulary (Income Tax).
  Mr. KETTLEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the allowances made to officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary for the maintenance of servants are exempted from liability to income tax; and whether this practice has the sanction of Statute and the approval of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Payment of income tax on these allowances has been waived since they were first granted, and my right hon. Friend does not think there is ground for modifying the existing practice.
  Mr. KETTLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these exemptions are expressly contrary to the statute?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not aware of that.
  Mr. KETTLE: Under what section are allowances made to officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary for the maintenance exempted from liability to income tax?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand that it has been the practice. I cannot say under what particular section the exemptions are made, but there is no intention to abandon the usual practice.
  Mr. KETTLE: Is not this practice a direct contravention of the statute? Has the Treasury the right to overrule the statute?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There are several cases where the Treasury practice has overruled the statute.
  Mr. MOONEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say in what other cases have the Treasury been allowed to overrule the statute except in the case of the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There are several other cases.
  Mr. BOWLES: Is the House to understand that the Treasury regard themselves as above the law?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not know who started this practice, whether by a Government of my political Friends or not or by a Government supported by the hon. Gentleman. The practice, I may say, has been a long-established one.
  Mr. KETTLE: What other taxation in Ireland is the hon. Gentleman prepared to reduce?

  Estates Commissioners (Streete, Westmeath).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any action in compliance with the memorial lodged with them on behalf of congests and landless people in the parish of Streete, Westmeath, asking them to purchase for distribution the evicted and non-residential grass land of Kilmore, the tenant of which had agreed to sell his interest, and the present landlord of which is Colonel Kavanagh; whether the latter has consented to sell his interest; and, if so, what stage the project has reached?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners have received the memorial referred to but up to the present the owner
  336
  has not instituted proceedings before them for the sale of the estate.

  Untenanted Land (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can arrange between the Estates Commissioners and the Local Government Board that whenever untenanted land is being distributed the district council of the district in which it is situated shall be offered a portion, to enable labourers in cottages to keep cows for the supply of milk for their families?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are advised that, having regard to the provisions of sections 19 and 20 of the Labourers' (Ireland) Act, 1906, they have no power to make an advance to a rural district council for the purchase of a parcel of land to be used for the purposes referred to in the question.

  Ballymore Petty Sessions, County Westmeath.
  Sir WALTER NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that, owing to the non-attendance of magistrates, there has been no Petty Sessions Court held in Ballymore, county Westmeath, since November last; that a number of poor litigants have been put to inconvenience and expense thereby, some of them having attended with solicitors three or four times; and if he will take steps to provide for the more regular attendance of a bench of magistrates at this place in the future?
  Mr. BIRRELL: A Court of Petty Sessions was held at Ballymore on 27th November last, at which all the cases listed for hearing were disposed of No Court was held in December, as the fixed date fell on Christmas Day. In February a Court was held, but some of the cases had to be adjourned, as there was only one magistrate adjudicating. The Courts for January and March fell through owing to the non-attendance of any magistrate. The magistrates will be asked to consent to a slight alteration in regard to the date, which would enable the resident magistrate to attend this Court regularly.

  Arrest at Urachy-Aughrim, County Galway.
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Stephen Quinn, of Urachy-Aughrim, county Galway, was arrested by Constables Lenehan and Reynolds, of Loughrea, and charged with assault, and

  337
  that Quinn was handcuffed to the back rail of the car and taken to Loughrea, about 13 miles distant, and arrived there at 3 a.m.; and, seeing that the magistrates at petty sessions, including two resident magistrates, unanimously condemned the action of the constables as unwarrantable and unnecessary and hoped the matter would not be let drop, will he state what action has since been taken in reference to this matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that the two constables when returning from Ballinasloe to Loughrea on the night of the 5th instant, met Quinn and another man, who threw stones at them, some of which struck the car. The police arrested Quinn, and brought him on the car to Loughrea. Fearing a rescue they handcuffed him to the rail of the car during the journey. Quinn was prosecuted at Ballinasloe Petty Sessions and fined 10s. and costs for assaulting the police. A counter-charge of common assault brought by Quinn against the police was dismissed on the merits. The bench were unanimously of opinion that Quinn should not have been handcuffed to the rail of the car. The facts were fully reported to the Inspector-General, who considered that the constables had acted improperly, and they have been warned against acting in such a way again.

  Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether a magistrate of three years' standing is entitled to vote at an election of petty sessions clerk unless he has four attendances for each of the three years, or resident in the petty sessions district; and whether Edward S. Tenner, agent to Lord Clanricarde, was qualified to vote recently at Woodford, county Galway, being non-resident, and also not having any attendance for two of the preceding three years?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The qualification to vote at the election of a clerk of petty sessions is as stated by the hon. Member. The vote of the gentleman mentioned was disallowed on the ground referred to.

  G. S. O'Connor Estate, County Roscommon
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the estate of George Smyth O'Connor, in the county of Roscommon, has been sold to the tenants or to the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, whether the farm known as Rathconnor, forming portion of this estate, is
  338
  included in the sale to the Commissioners for the purpose of having it distributed among the occupiers of uneconomic holdings?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate has not been sold to the Estates Commissioners, but the owner has entered into purchase agreements under the Act of 1903 for the sale to the tenants of their holdings which lie in the townland of Rathconnor and adjoining townlands.

  Old Age Pension Application (Imprisonment Disqualification).
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the application of Martin Owens, of Ballykilleen, near Cloonfad, in the county of Roscommon, for a pension under the Old Age Pensions Act has been rejected on the ground that he was convicted at Ballinlough petty sessions on the 20th December, 1901, and sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment without the option of a fine, which decision was confirmed by the Court of King's Bench on 3rd February, 1902; whether he is aware that the conviction in question was not at petty sessions, but at a special court under the Crimes Act, for the repeal of which a large majority of this House has voted; whether the circumstance of the crime and conviction were political; and whether, in view of all the facts of the case, this conviction by an exceptional court and under an exceptional law will be permitted to stand in the way of this man, otherwise highly qualified and deserving, receiving a pension?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This claim was rejected by the Local Government Board as it was admitted that Owens had been sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. The Local Government Board could come to no other decision, as the Act gives them no discretion in any circumstances to waive the express requirements on this point.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Are we to understand, therefore, that the fact that a man has been convicted under the Coercion Act is a disqualification for him receiving an old age pension?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is an interpretation put upon the Act by those who are acquainted with the law.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman amend the Act in view of his own expression of opinion on the Coercion Act and the opinions of the Government?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think that I have got enough legislation on my hands already.
  Captain CRAIG: What was the evidence on which the man received this sentence?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know.
  Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question.
  Mr. HAYDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the offence of which this man was convicted was a charge of attending an unlawful assembly which was pronounced by the Lord Chief Baron not to be an unlawful assembly at all?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Chief Secretary says that he does not know.

  Army Horses.
  Mr. REESasked the Secretary of State for War how much money has been allocated to Wales as prizes for horses suitable for Army purposes?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The amount to be allocated to Wales depends upon the applications received and the recommendations of the local military authorities.

  South Africa Garrison.
  Mr. REESasked the Secretary of State for War whether any saving would accrue from removing the present garrison from South Africa or from reducing its strength unless the British Army were simultaneously reduced by the number of men forming the said garrison, or by the number of men by which it was reduced?
  Mr. HALDANE: The reply to my hon. Friend's question is that it probably costs more to maintain the same number of men in South Africa than at home.

  Cavalry Depots (Wales).
  Mr. REESasked the Secretary of State for War, whether any, and, if so, what, places have been selected for cavalry depots in Wales; and whether the exceptional claims of Welshpool in this behalf are receiving due consideration?
  Mr. HALDANE: The stations for cavalry depots have not been finally settled. The comparative advantages of particular places will be fully considered by the Army Council.

  Pottery Trades (Fair Wages Resolution).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the new Fair Wages Resolution, he will obtain from the tirades union and employers in the pottery trades a schedule of wages for the different classes of workpeople accepted as fair; and will he insert in the forms of tender to be signed by the pottery manufacturers obtaining contracts with his Department a statement of the wages they will have to pay?
  Mr. HALDANE: The suggestion of the hon. Member goes beyond the terms of the Resolution of the 10th instant and involves the fixing of schedules of wages by the War Office. This is not contemplated.

  Birmingham Small Arms Company.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for War what number of rifles have been ordered from the Birmingham Small Arms Company for the year ending 31st March, 1910; and what percentage do the orders placed with this company bear to the total orders given out to private contractors?
  Mr. HALDANE: The orders for the year ending 31st March, 1910, have not yet been placed.

  Unemployed Statistics.
  Mr. G. A. GIBBS (for Mr. Staveley-Hill)asked the Prime Minister whether he will have an inquiry instituted to acquire data which would give an accurate idea of the numbers and composition of the unemployed and the duration of their unemployment, in view of the opinion expressed in the Majority Report of the Poor Law Commission that the ascertainment of the particulars is essential to the successful treatment of distress from unemployment?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am well aware of the importance of the matter to which the hon. Member refers, but I understand that no feasible plan for conducting such an inquiry with any prospect of success has yet been suggested. I shall be happy to consider at any time any positive suggestions that the hon. Member may have to offer.

  Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHasked the Prime Minister when the First Reading of the Established Church (Wales) Bill will be taken?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible to make any statement at present.

BLACK ROD—(Royal Assent).

  INTERRUPTION OF COMMONS BUSINESS.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to ask you a question with reference to the conduct of public business in this House. I desire to know whether there is any remedy, or any means, whereby the occurrence of yesterday may not be repeated when in the middle of a speech, on a matter of primary importance, by a Cabinet Minister. This House had its business simply stopped by the intervention, and the invasion of Black Rod. These interventions have been frequently the subject of complaint and protest in this House. Mr. Labouchere, so far back as 1891, protested to Mr. Speaker Peel against the interruption of public business, and Mr. Speaker Peel said he would do his best, and did so make arrangements with the authorities of the House of Lords to have these interventions of Black Rod at intervals, and times, as convenient as possible. Since the present Parliament interventions have been at most inconvenient times. Intervention stopped business in 1907, when the question of Irish education was under debate, but yesterday was really the climax of it all. What I ask you to do is this: I feel, and know, that the authorities of the House of Lords and the authorities of the House of Commons do their best to prevent it, but public business, every moment of which is important, will be subject to this serious interruption unless some stop be put to the matter once and for all. May I suggest it could be done in one of two ways. A message from the Crown, or from the Lords Commissioners, for the Assent to Bills, to this House, constitutes in itself a quorum, and when the Commission has formed notice could be sent to this House and the House could meet at a time when public business is not on, as it frequently meets at Prorogation. That is one way. Another would be that inasmuch as this act of the Royal Assent is, in reality, merely a notification of Assent already given by the Crown, it could easily be arranged that the notification could be given by proclamation, as has been done in the case of Prorogation. I hope you will excuse me bringing this matter under your notice, but I know you have always taken the greatest interest in making public convenience the first object in this House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has spoken to me about this matter privately, and I suggested to him that he himself should suggest the time at which he thinks this House and the other House should meet to hear the Royal Assent. If he can make any valuable suggestion I will forward it to the Lord Chancellor, and I am sure the Lord Chancellor will fall in with his view if possible. I am afraid the hon. Member will find it quite impossible to fix a more convenient time than that fixed yesterday—namely, a quarter to 4. It so happened that yesterday questions numbered 60 or so, and for one reason or another they were over at a very early hour. As a rule, questions continue until a quarter to 4, and the moment would have been in ordinary days an extremely opportune one for a short break to carry through what I am sure the hon. Member will consider a very important part of the public business—namely, listening to> the Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament.

OLD AGE PENSION ACT (IMPRISONMENT DISQUALIFICATION).
Mr. JOHN HAYDEN: I beg to give notice that, in consequence of the answer I received to-day, that at the earliest opportunity I will introduce a Bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act in order to remove the Coercion Act disqualification.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Notices of Motion: to-day will be for Wednesday, 21st April.
Mr. JOWETT: To call attention to the question of immunity of private property at sea from capture in time of war, and to move a Resolution.
Mr. FINDLAY: To call attention to the relations of Church and State in Scotland, and to move a Resolution.
Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: To call attention to the question of immunity of private property at sea in time of war, and to move a Resolution.

PRESENTATION OF BILLS.
The following Bills were presented and read a first time:—
Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT—Necessitous Mothers (Assistance).—Bill to empower Local Authorities to make provision for the assistance of necessitous women in contemplation of, and after, childbirth(To be read a second time, 5th April.)
Sir WILLIAM ANSON—Plumage (Prohibition of Sale or Exchange of).—Bill to prohibit the Sale or Exchange of the Plumage and Skins of certain wild birds. (To be read a second time, 11th May.)
Sir THOMAS ROE—Local Authorities (Advertising).—Bill to enable Local Authorities to advertise the attractions and advantages of their districts. (To be read a second time, 30th April.)
Mr. WILLIAMSON—Foreign Trawlers (Regulation).—Bill to provide for the better prevention of fishing by Foreign Trawl Vessels within areas closed to British Trawl Vessels. (To be read a second time, 22nd April.)
Mr. WILLIAMSON—Absent Voters.—Bill to facilitate the recording of Votes at Parliamentary elections by fishermen, sailors, and other persons liable to habitual absence from their usual residence in pursuit of their calling. (To be read a second time, 22nd April.)
Sir WILLIAM HOLLAND—Mercantile Corporations and Companies (Municipal Franchise).—Bill to confer the municipal franchise upon mercantile corporations and companies. (To be read a second time, 27th April.)

SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOPS).
Sir JOHN KENNAWAY: I ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I ask leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the closing of shops and the prohibition of street trading on Sunday, and while I endeavour to explain the meaning of this Bill, what is the cause of its introduction, and what are the evils it seeks to remove. The subject is not one that has arisen to-day or yesterday. As long ago as the time of Charles II. a Bill was introduced and passed showing the determination of the people of this country that Sunday should be kept a day of rest. That Act has remained on the Statute Book until now, and it is in force at this day. But it is not made use of, because it is supposed to be somewhat out of date, and more especially because the fines under it are so small that any trader who wishes to go against the law can afford to snap his fingers at it. It seems to me that this is a Bill which is required in the interests of the community, and in the interests of the employers and assistants, who find their present position almost intolerable, and have pleaded for an amendment of the law to make it effectual and more in accordance with the conditions of modern times.
344
This question has been dealt with by four Committees. A Committee sat in 1832, another in 1847, another in 1905, and a Select Committee in 1906. The result of that was that a Bill has been introduced by Lord Avebury and carried through another place without opposition. I think I shall best show what the feeling of all these Committees has been by quoting the Report of the Committee of 1905. They say:—
"That the Committee are convinced by the evidence that Sunday trading is on the increase, that the Bill is urgently needed, that it is desired in the shopkeeping interests, and will inflict no serious hardship upon the poorer classes, that it will confer a great benefit on tile country generally, and commends itself to the reason and conscience of the community."
There is no doubt whatever that Sunday trading is very much upon the increase, that whereas it was formerly confined to articles of food, now china, glass, furniture, drapery, and other articles are being sold, and that many shops which were closed formerly are now opened until one p.m., sometimes till four. The question is: Are we asking by this Bill for a change which will go against public opinion? I think I shall be able to show that public opinion is very strongly in favour of the Bill. A deputation waited upon the Home Secretary last autumn, in which no less than 343 tradesmen's associations of every kind, in every part of the kingdom, were interested, representing thousands of shopkeepers and assistants, and asking for the change contemplated. I have received myself the strongest representations from the Meat Trades' Association asking that a Bill might be passed into law, and a very remarkable canvass was held a few weeks ago in the towns of Greenwich and Deptford. In one case 380 shopkeepers petitioned for the change, there being 90 opened at the present time, and in another 364 shopkeepers, 125 being now opened. A large amount of signatures were at the same time obtained from persons pledging themselves not to trade on Sunday.
What does the Bill do? The Bill provides that barrows, shops, and stalls shall be closed on Sunday, but in cases of hardship that there shall be an appeal to the Home Secretary, who shall have power to open them if the measure is found to press upon the poor. The Bill does not interfere with post offices, telephones, and the selling of drugs, or the sale of milk, or cream, or newspapers. Bread, cooked meat, fish, and fruit are allowed to be sold up to 9 o'clock in the morning. The fines are made effective. The first fine is

345
5s., the second 20s., and for a third offence it is £5, and there are other exemptions. We understand that the Home Secretary has this measure very much under his consideration. The matter has not been debated in Parliament, I think, during my time, and this is an attempt to make Parliament and the public realise how keenly the interest and the sympathy of the shopkeepers and assistants are with the proposed change, how much they are in favour of it, and how great a danger there is if no such measure is introduced that Sunday rest will become a thing of the past, and will soon be altogether done away with. In support of this Bill we make no appeal on religious grounds. We do not seek to impose religious truth upon other people, but on social, physical, and national grounds we ask that traders should have an opportunity of protecting themselves against the greed of unscrupulous rivals and the thoughtlessness of the public. The question is so urgent, it has been trifled with so long, the mischief is so spreading, the danger of a secular Sunday is so real, that we would by introducing this Bill at least seek to awaken the attention of the public to it, and to endorse the appeal made by that most influential deputation to the Home Secretary last autumn that the Government should take up this as a real practical measure, intended to pans, and likely to pass, if given a fair chance, and thus sustain the credit of the position that they gained by the passing of the Childrens Bill, which comes into force to-morrow, into law. On these grounds I beg without trespassing further upon the House to ask for leave to introduce this Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed: "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the closing of shops and the prohibition of street trading on Sunday." [Sir John Kennaway.]
Motion agreed to. Bill presented accordingly and read the first time; to be read a second time, 21st April.

ARMY (ANNUAL) [COMPENSATION.]
Further considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. EMMOTT) in the chair.
Motion made and Question proposed: "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money Voted by Parliament for Army Services of compensation for damage and other expenses caused by
346
billeting under any Act of the present Session to provide during twelve months for the discipline and regulation of the Army." [Mr. Secretary Haldane.]
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, in moving to report Progress, said: Under the circumstances in which we stand to-day I make an appeal to the Prime Minister to at once consent to report Progress on this Resolution, and to allow us to proceed with the next order. The Government have only allowed us two days for the discussion of the second reading of a measure of extreme interest and vast importance, and fraught—as many of us think—with the most dangerous consequences, not merely to the prospects of land purchase in Ireland but to the general prospects of good administration in that country. We are allowed only two half-days for second reading, and now, on the second day, without any notice given to the House whatever, we find that this Army Resolution is put down in advance of the Irish Land Bill. I do not wish to speak with any warmth, but I think the Prime Minister himself will agree that it is not desirable to treat the House of Commons in that way—that it is not fair to interpose a stage of this kind without any indication of the intention of the Government given beforehand.
The PATRONAGE SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease): On Thursday last the Prime Minister indicated that he would be prepared to give a morning sitting to the Committee stage of the Army (Annual) Bill. Subsequently it was found necessary that this stage of the Money Resolution would have to be passed between last Thursday and next Tuesday, which is the day finally proposed to be allocated for the purpose of the discussion of the Army (Annual) Bill in Committee. There was no opportunity on Friday after five o'clock or on Monday. I hoped to secure it last night. The only alternative, if it is to be opposed after eleven o'clock and after five o'clock next Friday, was to place it as first order either to-day or tomorrow. It was thought undesirable to interfere with the discussion of the Indian Councils Bill to-morrow, and while the Government recognise the importance of the Irish Bill, having conferred with representatives from Ireland, I thought it was expedient to put it down to-day. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "What representatives?"] It was the Nationalist party. If there is responsibility on any Member of the Government I certainly must assume the-

347
responsibility myself, but I thought, after speaking at any rate with one representative of the Opposition last night, there would have been an opportunity of it passing without any opposition.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is really not convenient to take it now. I think it would be more convenient for the Government to take it to-morrow. Let them suspend the 11 o'clock rule and take it then instead of interrupting the Irish debate.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: It would be necessary then to take it as first order tomorrow. Of course, it will be a debateable motion if put down in any other form.
The SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): May I explain what this amounts to? It is the purest formality. All that is proposed is that the House should be at liberty, if next Tuesday it passes the clause about billeting, to discuss the further question whether it will adopt the clause providing for the expenses of billeting. That cannot take place unless the formal Resolution is now passed. It prejudices neither the question of billeting nor whether the House will authorise the provision of money for the billeting. It is a pure formality to enable us to get the discussion next week.
Mr. W. MOORE: May I explain what this amounts to? It means that we are allowed two half-days nominally for a transaction which involves £180,000,000, and there is not time or opportunity in the limited time which has been given for all those who are anxious to speak to discuss the matter. The Prime Minister, I understand, gave an undertaking that we should be allowed these two half-days. At the last minute, owing to some exigencies of the hon. Gentleman, the Government are put in the position that they must take time from Irish Unionists, because the Nationalist party are quite content, or from the discussion on the Indian Bill, which has has not yet been begun, and in obedience to the Nationalist request they proceed, in breach of the spirit of the undertaking, to deprive the Unionists of the chance of discussing the matter, which they certainly had a right to expect. I hope my right hon. Friend will go to a Division in order that we may register our protest against such singularly unhandsome treatment.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): This is a Resolution which under ordinary
348
circumstances would have been passed without discussion—I speak from considerable experience—and it ought to be passed without any discussion at all. There is not the faintest intention of subtracting five minutes from the time allowed for the discussion of the Irish Land Bill on this purely formal stage. But since the matter has been received in the spirit in which it has I shall not press the Resolution now because I want to give hon. Gentlemen all the opportunity possible for talking about the Irish Land Bill, and I can only hope, as I am obliged to put it down to-morrow—otherwise we cannot proceed with the Army Bill on Tuesday—it will then be allowed to pass without undue discussion.
Lord BALCARRES: There are two or three things which arise under Clause 7 of the Army (Annual) Bill.
The PRIME MINISTER: But you can discuss them on Tuesday.
Lord BALCARRES: Before this clause can come up, the right hon. Gentleman has got to pass through a somewhat long and technical debate, which excites very real interest, and I am afraid that unless we take the opportunity of discussing it in Committee we shall find our chance gone. There are members on this side of the House who are interested in the financial matters.
Mr. SMEATON: Is this to be the first Order to-morrow?
The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to consider that. We must take it to-morrow somehow.
The CHAIRMAN: The Question is that I report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow (1st April).

IRISH LAND BILL.
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question (30th March), "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Which Amendment was to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the question to add the words "upon this day six months."—[Mr. Campbell.]
Question again proposed: "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): Mr. Speaker, I should like, by the indulgence of the House, to correct an impression

349

that might arise from the report of the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend (the Chief Secretary for Ireland) yesterday. I make this statement on behalf of my right hon. Friend. He was speaking of the changes in the financial clauses of the Bill as compared with the Bill of last Session. He referred to the fact that on the crucial date of 24th November there was a great number of pending cases in which the bargain was not actually struck, but in which negotiations had been carried on upon the basis of the 12 per cent, bonus and the old rate of annuity; and he said that under the Bill the Treasury were taking these cases over and the old rates of bonus and annuity would be payable. It would appear from the report of my right hon. Friend's speech that he referred to this state of things as applying to the case of negotiations between landlord and tenants, as well as to the case of sales to the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board. While the Chief Secretary does not dispute the general accuracy of the report of his remarks on this head, he wishes to have it made perfectly clear that the cases to which he was referring were cases of inchoate sales to the Land Commission and Congested Districts Board only, and not to cases in which there may have been negotiations between landlords and tenants for direct sale. The clause of the Bill which deals with this matter is sub-clause (2) of clause 5. That sub-clause provides that agreements for the purchase of an estate or land, though not entered into on or before 24th November, 1908, shall be deemed to have been so entered into if on or before that date in four cases explicitly set out—

(1) The vendor had lodged an originating request for a sale to the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board;

(2) Or if the vendor had accepted a preliminary estimate of price or entered into a preliminary agreement with the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board;

(3) Or if either of these bodies had made an offer to purchase from the Land Judge;

(4) Or if the Estates Commissioners had made an offer for purchase under the Evicted Tenants Act.

The total purchase money of £2,193,000 quoted by the Chief Secretary refers solely to these cases.
The effect of bringing these cases under the head of agreements entered into on
350
or before 24th November is that the 12 per cent, bonus and the 3¼ per cent, annuity will apply to them. The point of these cases is that though the formal statutory agreement was not entered into before 24th November, yet preliminary steps, practically committing the vendors to a sale to these public bodies, had been taken before that date upon the basis that the old rates of bonus and annuity would apply. As regards cases of direct sale from landlord to tenant under Section 1, the Chief Secretary wishes to point out that it would be manifestly impossible to take any account of negotiations for sale which had not realised in an agreement before 24th November. My right hon. Friend thinks it desirable that this explanation should be made at the first moment in order to avoid any misapprehension which may arise from reading the report of his speech. Now, last evening, I was calling attention to what we considered as regards land purchase in Ireland at the present moment is the effect of the situation. We think, in proposing this Bill, that as things stand at present in Ireland under the Act of 1903, an absolute deadlock in land purchase is already taking place, or will come into being within a short time. The Opposition, apparently, wish to suggest that the deadlock which has arisen—or will shortly arise—is to be attributed in some shape or form to the proposals of the Government. But the point which I wish to bring before the House is this: that that deadlock which has arisen, or will shortly arise, is due wholly or solely to the provisions of the Act of 1903. As they stand now, what does it mean? We know that at the present time agreements for the sale of estates to the value of 56 millions have been entered into, and are awaiting money for their completion. How to deal with the problem of getting that money is the most urgent feature of the problem of land purchase at the present moment. The Chief Secretary stated yesterday that the charges already, statutory and otherwise, on the Ireland Development Grant, practically exhausts the whole of that Grant, and such margin as remains will be undoubtedly exhausted by the further issue of a sum not exceeding £5.000,000. and I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that according to the progress they are making in administering the Act that sum of £5,000,000 will be expended by the month of October or November this year. You will have remaining pending

351
agreements of estates for sale of the value of at least £50,000,000, and the question—the question which none of the hon. Members have answered—is how is that money to be realised? The statement was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University last night that every penny of loss, which would amount to £7,000,000 or £8,000,000, would be incurred in raising that £50,000,000 to finance the existing bargains. Every single penny of that loss, if this Bill is not passed, will, according to the Act of 1903, have to be borne by the ratepapers of Ireland. We have been told during the course of this debate that it was not the intention of the Act of 1903 to saddle the Irish ratepayers with that responsibility. Therefore it is well to call the attention of the House to the plain admission made by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, in which he stated that not merely was it the intention but as well the letter and spirit of the Act of 1903 that this loss should fall upon the ratepayers of Ireland.
Mr. WYNDHAM: Who said that was the intention?
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College. His words were:—
"There is no doubt that I, for one, have never attempted to deny that by the letter as well as the spirit of the Act" of 1903 any loss on flotation not covered by the Development Grant was to fall on the ratepayers. But while that is patent on the face of the Act, it was never challenged by any one in this House, but was allowed to go through without objection or attack, and it became part and parcel of the bargain of 1903."
And his conclusion upon the whole proposal of the Government was this:—
"But now that it has occurred, the obvious injustice of it is so apparent that the Prime Minister last year and the right hon. Gentleman to-day in fact, everyone who has spoken on the subject—all assume that no person would ever think of imposing this burden on the ratepayers. Therefore, in so far as this Bill removes that liability and places it on the Imperial credit, it is a good Bill."
And although we have that admission from the right hon. Gentleman, and his admission that the Bill "at any rate to that extent is a good Bill," and a just Bill, and provides relief that is manifestly wanted, it is remarkable that he has moved the rejection of the Bill now before the House. Then I take it as now being beyond cavil that the £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 discount losses that would arise from the attempt to raise this £50,000,000 to finance existing sales, must, according to the Act of 1903, fall upon the ratepayers of Ireland. Does any hon. Gentleman or right hon.
352
Gentleman suggest that the money is to be raised on these terms? I should like an answer to that. Does any hon. Gentleman or right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Government of Ireland or the Treasury at the present moment ought to put in force the powers of the Act of 1903 of raising the necessary 50 millions at the expense to Ireland, the necessary and inevitable expense to Ireland, of seven or eight millions? I take, it from the silence of hon. Gentlemen opposite that no one suggests that any such course as that should be taken.
Mr. LONSDALE: It was never intended to fall upon the ratepayers.
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The law officer at the time tells us that not merely did the Act so provide, but that it was the very spirit of the Act of 1903. That is the position with which the Government are confronted. We are accused of bringing paralysis on land purchase in Ireland. We are accused—the right hon. Gentleman yesterday used the expression—of holding up the British Treasury as defaulters before the world. Why, I conceive that there can be no difficulty on the part of the British Treasury in procuring these 50 millions or more if the provisions of the Act were to be complied with, as they would have to be complied with—namely, that all losses in providing the money must fall on the people of Ireland. That is the crux, the difficulty of the whole situation, and I shall be very much concerned to hear any hon. Gentleman opposite get up in his place and state that his view is, his desire is that willy-nilly, without changing the Act of 1903, the Treasury would go on procuring these 50 millions with the inevitable loss from which there is no escape, every penny of which would have to be borne by the people of Ireland. Then the question arises—what has to be done in that situation? I do not believe that there is a single man in this House or a man outside the House who would venture to say that the money is to be provided on these burdensome terms as far as Ireland is concerned. Then what has to be done? We are then brought face to face with a situation in which legislation becomes absolutely imperative. And the hon. Member for North Londonderry yesterday absolutely amazed me by suggesting that in some way or another it was in the power of the Prime Minister by some act of his to suspend the operations of the Act of 1903,

353
and arrange that these discount losses should fall not upon the Guarantee Fund of Ireland but should fall on moneys to be otherwise provided. Of course, the hon. Member must know perfectly well that no such power resides in the Prime Minister or in any other individual. The Act itself is perfectly clear in its terms. It provides for the payment of these discount losses in a specific way, and no other course could be considered or thought of.
That is the situation with which we have to deal. We are concerned not merely with future transactions but, above all, with the present problems, how to deal with the existing sales. What are the proposals of the Bill which he denounced as iniquitous in that respect? The proposal is this: as regards the outstanding sales the Treasury will and does take over the entire loss on the flotation of the stock requisite to raise the sum of money which the Chief Secretary stated yesterday was required, amounting to an annual charge of about £270,000 a year for a period of 68½ years. Is there anything against that provision of the Bill? Was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University right yesterday when he said that so far as that went the Bill was a good Bill? But what is the reason given for attacking the Bill?—that it is a Treasury Relief Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that at the present moment the Treasury does not stand to lose a single penny on such transactions. One thing that was made manifest and judicially determined in Ireland in the case of the Kildare petition of right was that the Act of 1903 made certain that so far as the Treasury was concerned not one single penny was to be borne by the Treasury in connection with purchase operations except the bonus of 12 millions provided by the Act of 1903. Every single penny of loss otherwise incurred, whether as regards payment of purchase annuities, incidental losses on flotation of stock or discount losses, was, by the terms of the Act as judicially decided, to fall on Ireland and on Ireland alone. So far as regards existing agreements. As regards future agreements, the proposal of the Government which is held up to odium is this, that future transactions are to be financed on the basis of 3 per cent, as distinguished from 2⅔ per cent.
Sir EDWARD CARSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that stock will be issued in immediate future transactions?
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: That is my notion. My present impression of the Act is that that applies to all future transactions. The thing may be divided broadly into two parts—the provision relating to existing transactions and the provision relating to future transactions. All responsibility for existing transactions is taken over by the Treasury without loss to any of them. The provision as regards future transactions, speaking broadly, is that these transactions are to be carried out on a basis of stock yielding 3 per cent, as against 2¾ per cent, before. What is the object of that? Nothing more or less than this, that the finance of future transactions should be self-supporting. It will no doubt to that extent create a new situation for landlords and tenants. There can be no doubt about that. Anyone who knows anything about Ireland can have no hesitation about believing that landlords and tenants in Ireland will at once and without any difficulty be able to accommodate themselves to that new state of affairs, and will be able to make, their bargains accordingly. But what proposal has come from any hon. Gentlemen opposite as regards that? Do they suggest that the finance of the Act of 1903 is still to be continued, and that these future losses will have to be financed at the expense of Ireland? Is that the proposal?
An HON. MEMBER: The Treasury.
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: These are broadly the provisions which the Government make for dealing with this most pressing problem—provisions which, I venture to think, are absolutely necessary if land purchase in Ireland is to be carried one single step further than it has gone up to the present moment. The Act of 1903 made it quite certain that a sum of £12,000,000 would be provided for bonus, and no more. Section 47 of the Act is absolutely distinct upon that. This Government—which was supposed, according to the speech of the hon. Member for Armagh last night, to have before its mind the sinister purpose, by the provisions of this Bill, of bringing land purchase absolutely to a standstill in Ireland—makes the proposal, with a view to facilitating and not hampering land purchase, to remove the limit existing under the Act of 1903 of 12 millions bonus, and to provide that in future, according to a graduated scale provided in the schedule, a bonus should be paid on all future transactions—the calculation of the Chief Secretary being that at least an additional sum of three millions

355
will have to be provided for the purpose. I cannot help saying again what I said last night that, in my view, which I respectfully present to the House, it is the merest travesty of the situation for the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in that state of affairs, to denounce this Bill, as he has done, as a Bill which aims at killing land purchase or bringing it to a standstill, or, indeed, of bringing some relief to the Treasury in respect of a liability under the Act of 1903, which anyone who knows anything of the terms of the Act of 1903 must admit does not exist at all. Therefore, I am prepared to take my stand upon what the right hon. Gentleman, who was the law officer for the Government at the time the Act was passed, has said when he stated that the financial provisions of this Bill were at least deserving of support.
And now I come to the grounds which, I take it, prompted him to take the course which he has taken of moving its rejection. He has asked is it fair or just, in order to give relief which is manifestly wanted and is admittedly just, to saddle it with impossible and unfair conditions and revolutionary proposals which will start a fresh land war and agrarian campaign in Ireland? He says, "I, for one, think that the landlords of Ireland will never accept a bribe of that sort"; again showing plainly that, in the right hon. Gentleman's view—and he has a keen view in these matters—so far as the financial proposals of the Bill are concerned they are worth accepting, and that the question is whether or not they ought to be accepted in view of the revolutionary proposals which, lie says, are otherwise contained in the Bill. I will touch very shortly upon what the right hon. Gentleman referred to as the revolutionary proposals of the Bill. They touch chiefly the proposals relating to the problem of congestion in the counties in Ireland throughout Ireland, facts relating to the Government to deal with the question? What do we find? The right hon. Gentleman yesterday stated that the proposals of the Act of 1903 in relation to congestion were of but a secondary and subordinate character. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, who was the author of the Bill, took, I think, no such view as to the object of the Act of 1903. I think it is plain from the speeches which the right hon. Gentleman made at the time that he, at any rate, regarded the pro-
356
posals to deal with congestion in Ireland as a leading object of that Act. The history of the Dudley Commission and its Report make one thing absolutely plain: it is this—that the Act of 1903 had the relief of congestion in Ireland before it as one of its leading objects, and that the Act in that respect has been a lamentable failure.
The striking paragraphs in the Report of that Commission appear to show that in the opinion of the Commission who investigated this question for 12 months and more the great mass of the people in the congested areas of Ireland who were intended to be reached by this Act of 1903, speaking substantially, received not one particle of benefit under its operation. I do not blame the authors of that Act for that. The Commission pointed out what the true cause was. It was not due either to the provisions of the Act or to the want of skill and care and attention by the Congested Districts Board. It was due to one cause, and one cause only—namely, the insufficiency of funds in the control of the Congested Districts Board, and to meet that difficulty the Commission recommended that the income of the Board should be increased from £86,000 a year, at which figure it stands, to £300,000 a year. And the proposal, which I suppose the lion. Gentleman opposite will denounce as revolutionary, and against which he told us last night for some inscrutable reason he was prepared to vote, is to increase the income to the substantial figure of £250,000 a year. And T confess I was amazed at the hon. Member for North Londonderry when he intimated to the House that it was his fixed resolve to go into the Division Lobby and vote against this proposal. He confirms that view to-night. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University was, I think, too astute to take that view. He makes no objection to this proposal for an increase of income. His first point of objection to our proposals is the inclusion in the Board of the elective element. As I understand him, in the phrase which was a little unfortunate, but which I do not think was meant, he suggested, as a result of that pressure that would be brought to bear upon these local representatives, that corruption—I do not think he intended to use the phrase in that very invidious sense—would follow in the administration of this Act. But he said it; and it was a grave statement to make. It was certainly a statement for which there was no

357
warrant in the experience of anyone in the administration of local affairs in Ireland during the last 10, 11, or 15 years. But I do not want to press it. I think against the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University the House would prefer to fasten its support upon the view of this matter which was presented to the House in that most notable speech—if I may so describe it—of the hon. Member for Carlow, who is a member of the Congested Districts Board. He spoke upon this matter with not merely fullness of knowledge, such as you would expect from one who had taken so great a part in the investigations of the Estates Commissioners, but with an independence of view that, I think, must commend his views to this House. He told us what his view was with regard to the true treatment of congestion in the West of Ireland. He told us, as well what anyone who knows anything about Ireland will be quite prepared to accept and appreciate, that is: that the treatment of the congested problem is one of the greatest difficulty, requiring the greatest delicacy. It is a problem, moreover, that cannot be carried on by a process of migration or otherwise, except by the full consent and actual cooperation of those locally concerned. The proposals of the Congested Districts Board, and of the Dudley Commission, which were unhesitatingly accepted wholeheartedly, as wise in themselves, was that the elective element should be included in the Board, in order by that representation of the local councils you may secure to any scheme dealing with the problem of congestion that local support and co-operation without which it is inevitably doomed from the first to failure. That is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Government are making any revolutionary proposal in introducing the elective element into the Board. He suggested to this House, but it was obviously a misapprehension of the Bill itself, that the elected body will constitute the majority of the Hoard. As a matter of fact, they do not. The members will be ten to nine, and, of course, there is provision in the Bill that all administrative matters are to be vested in an administrative council or committee, two out of six of which are to be selected by the representatives of localities.
I pass to the second objection of the right hon. Gentleman. In the speech by the right hon. Gentleman, to which I listened most carefully yesterday—I am sorry
358
he is out of his place for the moment—the impression left on my mind is this: that, so far as the congested districts area is concerned, so far, therefore, as a ninth, or the B Schedule counties, involving a sixth of the area of Ireland, that the right hon. Gentleman did not offer any opposition to the proposal to give compulsory powers to the Congested Districts Board within that area. [Cries of "Oh."] At any rate, I cannot find in the course of his speech any single objection to that proposal in the Bill. What is the proposal? Everyone in this House is acquainted with the personnel of the Dudley Commission. My own recollection of the Board is that not one or two, not a majority, but every single member of that Commission recommended inclusion in any Bill dealing with congestion in Ireland powers to secure land compulsorily within congested areas. There is not a single objection to that. There was a divergence of opinion with regard to the area outside the congested districts—
Mr. S. H. BUTCHER: Sir Henry McDonnell has said that he would not give compulsory powers to that Board.
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I am dealing for the moment with the question of compulsion within the area.
Mr. BUTCHER: Yes, within the area.
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: There was a divergence of views as to the composition of the Board. That is one matter; but I am now upon what has been referred to as an unprecedented revolutionary proposal. Every single member of that Commission recommended distinctly and clearly the inclusion of any Bill dealing with congestion in Ireland powers of compulsory acquisition in the Board which was to have jurisdiction.
Mr. BUTCHER: Not in this Board.
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: As regards that, I see that the right hon. Gentleman yesterday in his speech referred—I hope I do not misread him—to this matter, and I think he will not be found to have offered any real opposition, if indeed any opposition at all, to that proposal of the Bill. The fact is this: that anyone who knows anything about the problem knows that every rood of untenanted land within that area will be required for the purpose of dealing with the problem. The view taken by everyone acquainted with the facts is that it will be necessary for the Board dealing with the subject to be invested with compulsory powers. Then the right

359
hon. Gentleman, not content with these proposals in support of compulsion within the congested area, says:—
"You are giving the Estates Commissioners in the outride area equal powers."
He asks, What is the justification for that? His chief criticism upon that proposal of the Bill refers, I think, to the form of the Bill itself; the sections of the Bill dealing with that power. The House may remember that he said that the section in that respect was one, and that really he could not conceive any person outside a lunatic asylum, who would make himself responsible for it before the House. He drew a picture of what it meant. He said that anyone, whoever it was, might come along and make an offer, no matter how illusory, and that the Estates Commissioners would at once put these compulsory powers into operation. The view the right hon. Gentleman has taken consistently within the last four or five years of the Estates Commissioners, and which he perhaps entertains quite boná fide, that view I do not think will find support either in this House or in the country. I do not think anyone in this House would be prepared to accept (he view that every mere illusory offer, an offer between landlord and tenant, a suggested bargain, with an illusory price, and under impossible conditions, that in such a case that the Estates Commissioners—this Government Department—which is responsible to this House, will take it upon themselves, as a mere act of oppression, to put into force these powers of compulsion.
Mr. C. C. CRAIG: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that it could be done within the wording of the Bill?
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I cannot absolutely conceive that anyone entrusted with judicial authority should ever so abuse that authority and that power entrusted to them to do anything of the sort.
Mr. LONSDALE: What the hon. Member said was that it "could," not that it "would" be done.
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: So much for the intention the right hon. Gentleman has formed as to the way in which these proposals for compulsory powers were intended in the Bill. What about the principle itself? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University was iii possession of a peculiar advantage with regard to this matter over many of his friends from Ireland. He is under no pledge and no objection, and is in the
360
position to speak out of his own mind. But what about his colleagues from Ulster who represent agricultural constituencies? What would they say? Do they say they are opposed to compulsory purchase?
Mr. C. C. CRAIG: I shall be very pleased to do so if I have the opportunity.
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Amongst them are several representing agricultural constituencies in the north of Ireland. Will they get up and say they object to these proposals per se? I understand that the hon. Member for Mid Armagh yesterday was careful to give his unqualified adherence to compulsion as a matter of principle. I quite admit that with reference to this Bill the suggested case was not made out; but I may claim him as a supporter of the principle of compulsion in the abstract; and I think most of his colleagues who represent agricultural constituencies in the North of Ireland will be found in the same category. Leave aside Munster, Leinster and Connaught—I say boldly, that throughout agricultural Ulster there is a deep earnest view that inasmuch as it is the settled policy of parties in the State that land purchase should go through, that that great policy of transferring the lands to the tenants so that they may become the occupying owners should be completed—I say, there is an all-pervading feeling throughout Ireland that that policy should not be defeated in any single matter by either want of good sense, of want of reason, or by obstinacy of any particular landlord. I think there is much in what the hon. Gentleman opposite said with regard to this matter, that is, with regard to cases of this sort that the power is introduced to give the Estates Commissioners to deal—
Sir EDWARD CARSON: It is a matter of great importance. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these powers can be exercised before the £56,000.000 of agreements have been paid off?
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Yes.
Sir E. CARSON: Out of what money?
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The provision of the Act is distinct with regard to that. Any money that is required must obviously be paid in cash which the Bill provides.
Sir E. CARSON: Will it be out of the £4,000,000?
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: It will come out of the money provided by the Trea-

361
sury. There is nothing whatever about the four or five millions. What was the last point made by the right hon. Gentleman by way of attack upon these proposals as revolutionary? He said:—
"while this extraordinary campaign in favour of the distribution of untenanted land to men who have hitherto never had any claim of any sort or kind to it, no experience or knowledge of its cultivation will not only create friction between themselves and the occupying farmers, but will lead to fierce agrarian war and to troubles in respect of which what has happened in the past will bear only a feeble resemblance."
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with the proposal to divide the land, so as to sell parcels of untenanted land to those whom he called landless men. I understood him that this Bill in some way or other seeks to establish that class, and put before them expectations which may or may not be realised, or may be disappointed, and which may lead to greater agrarian trouble in Ireland. Does the Bill create that class? It is not now created for the first time; it was created by the Bill of 1903, passed at the time when the right hon. Gentleman was one of the Irish law officers. The proposals of this Bill are with reference to the congested areas. The proposals with regard to the sale of parcels of land in the congested counties follow in substance the exact proposals of section 75 of the Land Act of 1903. The provision in that Act was that the Congested Districts Board should have power to sell parcels of untenanted land to the sons of tenants and to the tenants themselves. What is the power with regard to congested districts in this Bill? Section 51 provides:—
"The Board may sell any parcels of land purchased by them whether before or after the passing of this Act, or purchased on their requisition under this Act, to any tenants or proprietors of holdings in a congested districts county. If any parcels of land are not required for, or having regard to the circumstances of the estate, land or district cannot be sold advantageously to such tenants or proprietors, the Board may sell those lands to any sons of tenants or proprietors of holdings situated in any congested districts county and not exceeding £10 in value."
Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: The landless men I referred to are not contained in that section at all. I referred to section 17, clause 4.
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I will deal with section 17 of clause 4.
Mr. CAMPBELL: That is what I did.
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I am dealing at present with the congested districts counties, which at least cover one-sixth of the whole of Ireland. The proposal is to sell parcels of untenanted land within that extensive area, and in substance that is a complete, or nearly complete, copy of the proposals of section 75 of the Act of 1903. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that there was no proposal under section 2 of the Act of 1903 to sell to landless men?
Mr. CAMPBELL: To the sons of farmers.
Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The proposal under section 2 was to sell first of all to the tenants, then to the sons of tenants, to evicted tenants, and to labouring tenants. It will be found that the section of this Bill follows in substance the proposal of the Act of 1903. Section 17 of this Bill provides for an advance being made to "Any person to whom, in the opinion of the Land Commission, after considering the requirements of persons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this sub-section an advance of that to be made" It comes to this: that the revolutionary proposal upon which my right hon. Friend moves the rejection of this Bill, which provides for a manifestly just and urgent relief in Ireland, is that the Estates Commissioners, after considering the requirements of all these other four classes, may dispose of the residuum of land they may have, and they may sell it to any person to whom, in their judgment, a sale ought to be made. Where are the revolutionary proposals as a result of which this Bill is to be rejected, and the deadlock in Ireland is to be allowed to continue for an indefinite time in the nondescript condition described by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday as a condition intolerable both to one class and the other—to the landlord on the one hand who is not getting his money, and to the tenants on the other who are paying their annuities without becoming owners of their holdings? That this is an intolerable condition we all agree. Is any solution to be found, and when is the solution to be found? Will any hon. Member opposite get up and say it is to be found in the Act of 1903? It is to be found only in this Bill which is now before the House. So far the Bill is one to be accepted, unless it is weighed down in the balance by these revolutionary proposals to which the right hon. Gentleman called attention. The House has some idea of what those proposals are. The right hon. Gentleman

363
takes a gloomy view of the prospects of this Bill in Ireland. I know he wishes sincerely, as I do, that no adverse consequences should befall any measure intended for the benefit of Ireland. But the right hon. Gentleman takes a view of this matter which I cannot but think is wholly unjustified by the circumstances. I take no such view as he does. On the contrary I think that the Bill is clamourously called for in Ireland, that those who have even partially considered it approve of it, and it is our expectation and our fixed belief that the passage of this Bill, instead of leading to those gloomy results which the right hon. Gentleman anticipates, will not only enable land purchase to be carried out to a successful and rapid conclusion, but will have the effect also of removing what we consider the last remaining cause of trouble and disturbance in the land situation of Ireland.
Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM: I very much regret that I was not able to be here yesterday to hear the speech of the Chief Secretary, but I think he is aware that the fault was not mine. I certainly do not rise this afternoon for the purpose of trying to persuade the House that the Act of 1903 is a perfect measure, which does not stand in need of amendment. This is not my view. It is rather distasteful to me ever to find it my duty to criticise the policy of any Chief Secretary. I know the difficulties of the situation, and I wish altogether to disclaim the idea of saying that our policy of 1903 is perfect, and that there is no need for further land legislation in Ireland. I do not come here this afternoon to do that, but because for twenty-two years, during the whole period of my political life, I have taken a very deep interest in the question of Irish land purchase. I honestly believe, however, after a careful study of this Bill, that it is not conducive to a proper solution of this difficult problem. Although I did not hear the Chief Secretary's speech, I have read it, and I have had the advantage of listening to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Ireland this afternoon. May I say, with very real respect to both the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that they seem to me to have presented with undue elaboration a point which is not in dispute. Nobody disputes that it is necessary to prevent the contingent losses falling upon the Irish ratepayers. It is not in dispute now. and so far as I am
364
concerned, never has been in dispute. I do not know why they devoted so large a portion of their speeches to labouring and belabouring that point. I am not concerned to repeat what I have often stated in the House that it was not the intention of the authors of the Act of 1903 that such losses should fall upon the ratepayers. I should certainly not have reverted to that question if the right hon. Gentleman had not persisted in turning the attention of the House to it as the issue before us. It is equally certain when tin Act was passed that, with Consols standing at 92 and a fraction, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Ritchie, afterwards Lord Ritchie, did not see his way as guardian of the public purse, to devoting more than the sum of £185,000 a year to those purposes of the Act.
Mr. BIRRELL: £166,000.
Mr. WYNDHAM: The Development Grant was £185,000, but part of that sum was to be devoted to other purposes. The late Lord Ritchie did not see his way at that time, with Consols at over 92, to devoting a larger sum to the purpose, on account of risks which were possible, but which in his opinion were not probable, and when I urged upon him that these contingent losses should be put upon the Votes of this House, or should be divided between the Ireland Development Giant and the Votes of this House, he said sooner than that he would increase the Grant or give a new Grant, but that there was no occasion at the moment. There is no dispute about this. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not dispute my accuracy on a point with which I was intimately connected. There is no dispute about the intentions of the authors of the Act of 1903, and there is no dispute that our intentions are not carried out by the Act of 1903, or, at any rate, will not be carried out after another five millions his been raised. There is no dispute about those points, and I now come to the point about which there is dispute. I wish to put my view as non-controversially as possible in view of the fact that there is a real conflict of opinion between the Chief Secretary and ourselves in these matters. While they have devoted so much time to the point to which I have referred, they seem to me to deal somewhat inadequately, if I may so, with three points which we have urged twice during the last Session and again yesterday afternoon. These points are that in this Bill of the Government they are not making adequate

365
provision for removing the existing block upon the agreements for £56,000,000.
The second point is that they are not, as we think, giving as fair terms as should be offered to those who are coming after the existing block has been removed. The third point which we have urged is, that they, whether designedly or not, are substituting a new policy in respect of dealing with congestion in place of the old policy which we defended in 1903. We believe that their new policy, to which I will come later, is not in the true interests of what I may perhaps be allowed to call, though I know it is an awkward word, the "congester," that is, the actual occupier of a thoroughly bad holding. It is not in the best interests of these men, and it is certain to encourage hopes on the part of men who have not occupying tenancies which cannot be realised, and they will encourage those hopes at the cost of still further arresting the progress of the abolition of dual ownership. That is our case, and I am going to put it as temperately as I can. Those are the points we are urging, and no one is urging that we ought not to legislate to release the Irish ratepayers of the burden of this loss on stock. The object of our policy in 1903 was, as the lion, and learned Gentleman has already said, not a single object, but a two-fold object. In the first place, we intended to take measures for the speedy and smooth abolition of dual ownership in Ireland upon terms to which, in substance, the accredited representatives of the landlords and tenants in Ireland had agreed. Our other object covered a smaller area, but I will not say it is less important. It was to proceed by special provision to do even more than my right hon. Friend had already done to improve the worst class of holdings in the West of Ireland, and in a minor degree elsewhere, prior to the sale of the estates in which those holdings were situated. That was our policy, but it is not the policy of this Bill. The policy of this Bill goes far beyond that, and by going beyond it, in our opinion, it is prejudicial to the chances of the successful accomplishment of the policy which we believed to be in the true interests of Ireland in the year 1903.
Before I come to the new policy of congestion, let me deal with what the Government propose to do in order to further our first object—namely, the speedy and smooth abolition of dual ownership in Ireland. They base their plea for departing from the existing financial facilities given for that pur-
366
pose upon financial inability, and they say that you cannot go on with the finance of the Land Act as it is. That financial inability to proceed with existing financial facilities for the abolition of dual ownership depends according to them upon two things. In the first place, there is the regrettable fact that Consols do not stand now at 92, but at 84 and 85, and that Irish Land Stock, and all other securities, has depreciated greatly in value. That creates the great difficulty, but the Government urge another reason. They say that we altogether mistook the size of the problem in 1903, and those two facts taken together have made it harder to raise the money when more money had to be raised. They argue that that justifies them in throwing over the terms offered to the Irish landlords and tenants which were accepted by their representatives and solemnly confirmed by all parties in this House.
I must devote a few minutes to the question of the size of the problem. Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that that point docs not present itself to my mind as raising any controversy between two amateur actuarial calculations. I think the discrepancy arises because we are not talking about the same thing, and I think I can show that to be the case. The right hon. Gentleman now says that £183,000.000 are required. Now why am I entitled to say that we are not talking about the same thing? Speaking yesterday the right hon. Gentleman said when I mentioned, in a speculative manner, £100,000,000, that the limit had not been raised for the purchase of any one holding to £7,000, and that that was done afterwards. Those who remember the debates on this question will recollect that I gave way on that point with great reluctance, and the limit was raised to £7,000 only in certain cases of an exceptional character, and it was not to apply generally throughout Ireland. When we passed the Act of 1903 the Estates Commissioners were to be under the control of the Government of the day, and the Government were to direct their administrative action. That was a very necessary provision. We had to make the money go round through the different provinces, apportioning some of it to the relief of congestion and some to removing dual ownership, and therefore we kept control over the Estates Commissioners. Since we left office the Government have, rightly or wrongly, removed the control of the Government of the day over the Estates

367
Commissioners, and they are now more of a judicial tribunal than officers exercising administrative duties.
The right hon. Gentleman stated that the inclusion of the £7,000 farms has added £40,000,000 to the total of the estimate. But, at the same time, that the right hon. Gentleman says the amount is now £183,000,000, partly because farms of £7,000 have been included, this Bill limits all future advances to £3,000, which is a lower amount than was the normal sum under the Act of 1903. Is there to be no reduction in the total of £183,000,000 in consequence of a reduction not from £7,000 back to £5,000, but to £3,000 as the amount to be advanced in the future to any purchaser? But the right hon. Gentleman goes further, and he says any man in Ireland who has bought under a previous Act a farm of lower value is in future not to buy any other piece of land upon which money has been advanced if the total value of the property exceeds this symmetrical sum of £3,000. I understand that the total of £183,000,000 is only arrived at because of this new policy. Is it not fair to? assume that the right hon. Gentleman contemplates the sale of almost every acre of land in Ireland not to the occupier, whom we meant to relieve from what has been called the curse of dual ownership, not to the true congest with three or four acres of boggy land around his farm, but to every man in Ireland who thinks he is likely to succeed as a mixed farmer under this symmetrical plan by which it is proposed to divide all the land into farms which can be bought for £3,000 apiece? Speaking only yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman gave other figures which confirm this view. He said that under previous purchase Acts 2,500,000 acres had been transferred. He also said that in respect of proceedings which have already been concluded or initiated under the Act of 1903 a further 7,271,000 acres were covered. Therefore we get a total of 9,750,000 acres of agricultural land covered by past and pending transactions. The Chief Secretary went on to say that that leaves another 9,000,000 about to be dealt with, and he further stated that he thought he was right in saying that we were about in the middle, and only in the middle, of this process. Now, how does he square that with the acreage of Ireland? In round numbers there are 6,000,000 acres of waste land, 3,500,000 acres under crops, and 11,500,000 acres under grass. There are only 15,000,000 acres in all which can
368
be called agricultural land, and that is an outside figure and a round number. According to this statement 9,750,000 acres have already been dealt with, and we are told we are only half-way through the programme. What does it mean? It means that the Government intend under this Bill to sell all the land under crops in Ireland, and all the land under grass, which we expressly stated ought not to be sold. Besides this it is proposed to sell half the waste land in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman is going to sell the land not to the occupier or the benefit of the real congest, but in order to carry through this immense transaction under clause 17 of his Bill he is going to invite any poison at any time to offer his services under this new delectable plan for regenerating Ireland by alloting to every man a farm of exactly £3,000 value, no more and no less. I do not wish to put this point in too controversial a spirit, but surely I may be allowed to claim that our contention that there is a new policy is not one to be laughed aside by the Solicitor-General.
It is clear that the money size of this problem can only be put forward as £183,000,000 if the right hon. Gentleman intends to buy and sell the whole of the land in Ireland irrespective of the present occupiers. That being so, I think we are entitled, as otherwise we should not be entitled, to look a little bit more closely at the provisions of this Bill for dealing with the first part of our policy, namely, the speedy and smooth abolition of dual ownership. We are entitled to ask whether the Government under these circumstances are really doing all they ought to do, in the first place, to remove the present block, and, in the second place, to give fair terms to those who come in afterwards. I wish to address myself to these two points. Obviously, it would not be fair or right, or keeping good faith with Ireland to trench upon some of the facilities given to these persons in order to endow some other purpose which was not before Parliament in 1903. Let us discuss that further purpose on its merits, and if it is a good plan let the House find fresh financial facilities to carry it out. This House is not entitled to trench upon the existing facilities for purposes which were approved in 1903 in order to finance a purpose which I doubt whether many people will approve of when they come to look more closely into it.
Let us see what is being done by the Government under this Bill to remove the

369
existing block of ordinary agreements. There are £56,000,000 worth of such agreements now pending. The Government mean to raise £5,000,000 in cash by issuing 2¾ per cent. Stock. But of this £1,000,000 is to be devoted to compulsory purchase. That is not in the Bill, but it was in the speech made by the Chief Secretary last winter. The Government expected to provide £5,000,000 a year in cash, and it was further stated that in order to remove the block they intended to issue another £5,000,000 a year of the existing stock. Of course they may have some further views, but they have not announced them, and we must suppose that they are going to remove the block with these 5,000,000 sovereigns which they are going to raise, and meet the difficulty by issuing £5,000,000 further of stock. From the £5,000,000 they are going to deduct one million a year for the compulsory provisions of their Bill. That leaves four millions for removing the block, and whatever £5,000,000 stock will realise at 92—that is, about £4,600,000, perhaps not so much, so that for removing this block there will be available in each year at most only £8,600,000. I do not know whether the Government include in that calculation the bonus. If they do not it will take six years to remove the block; if they do it will take eight years. I am dividing the amount available into the £56,000,000. I do not want to elaborate this too far, but I do not think the Chief Secretary will dispute the result of what is, after all, very simple arithmetic. If you have £8,600,000 to deal with, it all depends on whether you are going to finance the bonus out of it or not. The most hopeful view is that with stock at 92, if you do not include the bonus, it will be six years; the less hopeful, and I fear more probable, view is that it will take at least eight years to remove the block, and under these circumstances I am bound to say that the Government are not by this Bill doing all that they might be expected to do to deal with what the Solicitor-General called the cardinal point of the whole situation, and the reason which should induce us to accept the Bill holus-bolus without looking at it is because the Government were doing such wonders to relieve the Irish ratepayers. But that turns out not to be the case. During these six or eight years the tenant purchaser who signed the bargain will be paying at least 3½ per cent, instead of 3¼ per cent., and may be paying more, in some cases even 4 per cent; so that he will be paying from 6s. to 15s. more than
370
was in his bargain, and he will have to pay for at least six or eight years longer than would be the case if the block was not there.
Mr. BIRRELL: But the block is under your Bill.
Mr. WYNDHAM: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that traverses my argument he has already forgotten that I prefaced my speech by saying that I did not come down here to deny that the Act of 1903 required amendment. I came here to say that it did, and that the ratepayers should be relieved. I said also in the debate of last December that the Act required amendment in order to remove this block, and that if we were the persons who had to deal with the situation I was authorised by my colleagues to say that we would take the necessary steps to remove it. Therefore I do not see the relevancy of the interruption.
Mr. BIRRELL: The right hon. Member for South Dublin brought in proposals to remove the block which were not nearly so good as mine.
Mr. WYNDHAM: I make the right hon. Gentleman a present of that. We are discussing here whether by this Bill he is doing all that should be done in order to remove the block, and I say that his proposals are profoundly disappointing to all parties in Ireland. Nobody who expects to get anything by paying £3 5s. for 68 years likes to be told that he may have to pay £3 10s. for nearly eight years before the bargain is concluded. The delay is really a more serious feature in this part of the question than the fact that the tenant may have to pay an exra sum during the period. But the right hon. Gentleman has also asked the tenant during the period of delay to pay the interest covering the period between the gale day on which he paid the first instalment and the day of the first dividend on the stock, so that the position of the tenant who has signed an agreement during the last six years is appreciably worse, and the Government are not doing, as we think, all that might or ought to be done in order to make the position better. But I will say no more about the pending agreements. According to the right hon. Gentleman and his new policy what comes after these agreements is even more important. He has another £93,000,000 to deal with according to his calculation, but not according to ours. How is he going to deal with them, and when? I will deal

371
with that point first. Are you going to proceed with future agreements under any circumstances before you have dealt with all the existing agreements?
Mr. BIRRELL: It is not in the Bill; it is a question of arrangement, which, I think, to a certain extent depends on the terms which may be arranged, either by the Bill or in subsequent discussions in Committee, as to the proportion of stock which the landlords may be disposed to take. If we succeed in getting terms which will make it probable that a large number of landlords will intimate their willingness to come in and relieve the financial situation by taking a considerable proportion of stock instead of cash, we may then be able to continue to some extent with the future agreements under this Bill. But it will depend largely on how far we succeed in persuading landlords to take the option of stock.
Mr. WYNDHAM: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very explicit reply to my question. I think the House will appreciate what a very important point this is, and in what a nebulous condition it is left by the Government. Here are £56,000,000 of agreements, which will take six or eight he has to deal with the pending agreements are to come after that they will be of such a speculative character that I do not believe anybody will enter into them. Let me take that alternative first. Let us assume that the conditions which the Chief Secretary desires do not obtain, and that he has to deal with the pending agreements first. Any man who has not yet signed an agreement will be in this position: he will have to sign an agreement which cannot fructify for at least six years, and which is then to be embodied in a Three per Cent. Stock, the value of which at that time he is no more likely to be able to calculate, when we legislated in 1903, than we are able to calculate the price of Consols now. Who is going to sign such an agreement? No man who is fit to be entrusted with the charge of his own affairs. And I am not speaking for the landlord only; I say it for the tenants also. It is a bad bargain to ask people to enter into such an agreement, which is not to be a contract for them until six years have elapsed, under conditions of the money market which will justify the Government of the day in coming down, as this Government comes down now, and saying that times have changed and the bargain is off. But really, the gravest objection which can
372
be urged against this Bill is that the Government have not been sufficiently careful—I will not say to keep faith, because that is an injurious expression—but to avoid disappointing the hopes which were raised—I take the responsibility—by the Act of 1903. If this Bill passes no landlord or tenant will believe, when the British House of Commons undertakes something in all sincerity, that that will really happen. If they are to enter into a bargain which does not fructify for six years, how can they believe that this Three per Cent. Stock is going to be all that the right hon. Gentleman pictures it to himself in his prophetic vision? He himself admitted yesterday that a stock for an Irish purpose, which ought to be as good as an English stock, does not stand as high as it should. He stated that the existing Two and Three-quarter per Cent. Stock is only at 85, and he cannot imagine why it is not higher. Does he think that this Three per Cent. Stock is going to stand as high as English local loans stock? It will obviously suffer from the same depreciating causes of a general character, and also from another cause which we cannot ignore. We all know that Irish estates are very heavily mortgaged, and that one of the reasons for the policy of 1903 was that men who could not otherwise sell might have something convertible or ready money in order that they might pay off their mortgages. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that, taking the whole country, Irish land is mortgaged up to half its value; some estates are mortgaged up to the limit. That being so, if you pay in Three, per Cent. Stock, one half of that stock will be thrown on the market practically a week after it is issued. That is a peculiar factor in this problem. The result will be that this Three per Cent. Stock will not stand as high as local loans stocks on two scores—on the general score that it is not as popular, and on the particular score that it will be thrown on the market as fast as it is issued. With regard to the first alternative—namely, that the Irish landlords and tenants are to wait in respect of future agreements until the block is liquidated, I do not think the Government can claim that they are making any realisable proposition for dealing with the £93,000,000 at all. I think it is an illusory provision—merely so much print in the Bill—and has no practical bearing on the actual problem we have to solve.
Now I take the other alternative. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to flood the market with this stock, which will bring in

373
95 at the same time that he is asking the landlord who signed the deed four or five years ago to take stock which is only bringing in 92? It is ridiculous.
Mr. BIRRELL: That is a Committee point.
Mr. WYNDHAM: Let us by all means have it out in Committee, but the fact that such points are Committee points emphasises our contention that this is pre-eminently a Bill for a Committee of the whole House.
Mr. BIRRELL: I agree.
Mr. WYNDHAM: The Act of 1903 was passed through a Committee of the whole House. This Bill bristles with large financial points affecting many interests both in Ireland and in this country. Large corporate bodies have lent money on the security of Irish land. You cannot say, "We will see what will happen," and send the Bill to a Committee upstairs.
Mr. BIRRELL: I agree.
Mr. WYNDHAM: I will not press the right lion. Gentleman at this moment, but he assents to the view that there should be a full and adequate discussion in this House on the Committee stage of the Bill. Obviously, the discussion will be somewhat searching with regard to these two alternative policies, namely, whether the people are to wait for a bargaining term which no one can specify, or whether they are going to compete against people who have already been delayed, and who will be further delayed for a period of 10 or 15 years because the administrative staff of the right hon. Gentleman is limited. The right hon. Gentleman says that it will only be possible to deal with £10,000,000 a year. Are you going to float this new issue against £10,000,000 a year which will only result in something more than £8,000,000 a year? I am not overstating my case. If the right hon. Gentleman adopts the alternative plan of dealing with future cases before their time, he is delaying the expectation of those who sent in applications 10 or 12 years ago. So much for that aspect of the future agreements.
There is one other point which I must touch upon. It may be called a Committee point, but I think it has sufficient substance and importance for the tenants of Ireland to be put before the House to-day. It is in regard to the annuity which the tenant is to pay under these future agreements, and also, and perhaps this is even of greater importance, the apportionment of that annuity as between interest and
374
sinking fund. The annuity is to be £3 10s. That is 5s. more than the annuity under the -Act of 1903. How is it to be apportioned between sinking fund and interest; The sinking fund is still only to be 10s. That is not increased. The whole increase is upon the interest the Irish tenant has to pay. For the first time since the Ashburn Act the tenant for the advantage of British credit is to pay more than 3 per cent. Under the Ashburn Act the interest was 3 per cent.
Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL indicated dissent.
Mr. WYNDHAM: I am aware that the annuity was 4 per cent., but I am not troubling the House with too great details of figures. My conclusion is accurate. I am not talking of the total amount under the Ashburn Act. The rate of interest which the Irish tenant purchaser had to give for the advantage of British credit was 3 per cent., and at that time the interest on Consols was 3 per cent. Under the Act of 1891 the interest on Consols was reduced to 2¾ per cent. When we brought in the Act of 1903 the interest on Consols was still, I think, 2¾ per cent., but it was just on the eve of becoming 2½, and I tried very hard to get 2½ per cent, as the rate for the Irish tenant purchaser, but very properly my claim was refused, and as things have turned out wisely, because although the interest on Consols nominally is 2½, we know what the money value is. Still, is that depreciation of Consols to be made a special justification For going back in this matter of interest from the practice for 18 years? I hold it is not. I think you are departing absolutely from the spirit of the Act of 1903 as well as from the terms of that Act when you ask the Irish tenant to give 3 per cent, for what is almost all we can do for Ireland—that is, the use of British credit. In the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman pointed to how much more the working of the Act has cost. He said, "I have had to increase the staff and to increase the money to the congested districts." May I not reply—in fact, I am bound to reply—by parity of reasoning that we ought never to have increased the Imperial grant to education? When the right hon. Gentleman brought in his great. Education Bill it was assumed that £1,400,000 would fall on Imperial resources. It is now well over £3,000,000, but no one would say that that was a reason for not ventilating the schools and paying the teachers. If we have made a bargain, and if there is what may be a temporary

375
depreciation of stocks, that is not a reason for departing altogether from the bargain we have made. It may be a reason for delay; it may be a reason which will make the working of the Act of Parliament impossible; but it is not a reason for repealing a bargain and putting into another Statute conditions which have never been offered to Ireland for a space of 18 years.
There is another question I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman, though I admit it is a less important point. It has been asked at what rate is this sinking fund going to accumulate? Under all previous Acts it has been assumed that the sinking fund increase would be at the rate of interest, and when that was 2¾ per cent, it was assumed that the sinking fund would go rolling up at the rate of 2¾ per cent. I want to ask is this 10s. sinking fund going to accumulate at the rate of 3 per cent., because if it does you will shorten the period of repayment by a good many years. If you are going to maintain the period of repayment then you are putting the difference into the pocket of the British Exchequer. I think that is an important point which ought not to be left out of sight.
Mr. BIRRELL: You will find that it will shorten the period. I will give a proper answer to that later on.
Mr. WYNDHAM: All I wish to observe now is that as a matter of policy, when you have, in so difficult a question as Irish land purchase, got the landlords and the tenants, through their accredited representatives, to accept it at 68 years, it seems to me mere folly to alter the terms of that bargain in order to put more money into the British Exchequer in the immediate future. I think that as a matter of policy it is a mistake to change that detail of the bargain of 1903. The bonus on the new scale does not commend itself very much to my mind, but that is a Committee point. It was a Committee point in the Act of 1903. We started with a sliding scale and found that it would not do. The right hon. Gentleman has started with a sliding scale, and he will find that it will not do. I postpone my remarks on that point until we do get into the Committee stage.
Mr. BIRRELL: It will cost money anyhow.
Mr. WYNDHAM: I hope that the right hon Gentleman does not suppose that I am charging him with not having done his level best to get all he can. I am sure he
376
has. I am arguing at the present moment the financial difficulty. It is unwise to legislate for the far future on terms which depart from the spirit and the letter of the bargain which was agreed to in this House in 1903. I think it is a rash conclusion. I think it would be better to have an intermediate emergency measure dealing with the block. I think it would be bettor to be done with a small Bill to relieve the Irish ratepayer than by tearing up a bargain which was solemnly arrived at in the past. The financial facilities have been reduced. There is also in the judgment of those who were responsible for the Act of 1903 another element in this question. We urged then—and the view was then generally received by hon. Members sitting for all parts of Ireland, although I believe it is no longer entertained by some of them—that besides the financial facilities it was important to get rid of all the delay and cost of litigation. One of the pleas on which we based the Land Act of 1903 was that a great deal of the energy and funds of Irishmen were being diverted into somewhat barren controversies, with respect to such questions as the inherent capabilities of the soil, and we argued that it would be a great boon to Ireland to cut those rather abstruse and unreal questions out of the progress of land purchase. Everyone agreed in that at the time, and if there are some who have changed their opinion, I have not changed mine. I hold that clauses 14 and 20 of this Bill will import the whole of that arid discussion which causes so much cost and delay in the transactions with respect to land purchase. In regard to clauses 14 and 20 the Chief Secretary may tell me that these questions will very rarely arise, and that the Estates Commissioners will only take cognisance of such facts when they are quite sure that there is ground for their intervention. The Chief Secretary thinks so.
Mr. BIRRELL: I do.
Mr. WYNDHAM: But that is exactly what Mr. Gladstone thought when he introduced the previous enactments fixing rents in Ireland. It was supposed then that a certain number of test cases would be brought into court, and that everyone would follow suit when a case had been decided. That is not the way things are done in Ireland. If there is a possible legal point in a case every man feels that he is called upon to take it into court. Applications will be made, and the pressure will be enormous. The Estates Commissioners will intervene in one case, and

377
they will say that a bargain is made for an estate pretty well. But it will be said that you have not taken sufficient account of the value of unexhausted improvements. Will hon. Members from Ireland get up and say that, once that has been done, a large number, if not all the tenants in Ireland, will not feel it incumbent upon them, in order not to fall behind in the duties which they owe to their class, to pay lawyers to see whether they have not unexhausted improvements which ought to be paid for. The landlords will say: "Are we to abandon the sacred doctrine of the inherent capabilities of the land?" All the old friction and delay which formerly prevailed are going to be let in by a back door, as I believe, to the detriment of all classes in Ireland.
Mr. BIRRELL: We are quite willing to strengthen clause 20 if that is the point.
Mr. WYNDHAM: It may be wrong to prophesy, but I do say that we, acting in unity with hon. Members from all parts of Ireland, believed in 1903 that you must, as much as possible, get the opportunities for litigation out of the question of land purchase. In this Bill, as it stands, you open the possibilities of litigation. You have reduced the financial facilities, and you have introduced those possibilities of litigation. On these two grounds we hold that you are not doing in this Bill all that you ought to do in order to continue the policy of the smooth and speedy abolition of dual ownership in Ireland.
Mr. KILBRIDE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the whole of the money should be raised by Consols?
Mr. WYNDHAM: I am afraid it is not proper for anyone who is not a Member of the Government, and even not proper for a Member of the Government who has not ascertained the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to put forward any suggestion on a matter of that kind. I am speaking at much greater length than I intended, but I wish to speak of the effect of this Bill upon the other great branch of land purchase. May I express our experience in dealing with the problem of congestion, that is to say of trying to improve the worst of holdings prior to the sale of an estate? When I was in Ireland I did all that was in my power in that direction, but although we differed from many hon. Members from Ireland I am Sure they would be the last to doubt our earnestness in the desire to cure the evil of
378
congestion. We found that a difficult matter. We found you had to proceed slowly, and with great patience. In dealing with this problem you cannot move what I may call a congest far. You cannot move him on to the grass lands. He is used to getting oats on poor land, and he cannot farm strong land. You must move the man with a larger farm on to as good or a better farm, and then improve the fringe of very bad holdings round the farm so vacated. That is a slow progress. I am afraid that the Government are making it impossible. By clause 55 they deprive you of giving that man a farm outside the scheduled congested districts. That is a strong order. Instead of using all Ireland for helping the solution of that difficulty you say you must not move a man from those non-congested counties. Why limit your policy in that way? Your difficulty is already sufficiently large, but the real difficulty lies in the fact that you have excited the hopes of new men to come in, and thereby increase the burdens of your financial resources and your administrative staff. The hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon says we have not created this crop of men who have to be dealt with. He says: "You created them under the Act of 1903." Under Section 2 we did say that if land was not wanted when an estate was sold, it could be used for the sons of tenants and evicted tenants. The language used by the Chief Secretary and the hon. and learned Member is enough to make one regret that these sensible provisions were put in the Act of 1903. They were closely guarded, and it was made clear that it was not our intention of finding land for new men, and speeches were made to make it clear that the breaking up of grass lands would be a form of economic insanity. Yet the right hon. Gentleman says hopes were excited and hungry eyes cast upon untenanted land by persons living in the district. If such hopes were held—that you can help Ireland by breaking up her permanent pastures and not by the provisions of the Act of 1903—what hopes will be excited by the Ministers who are responsible for this Bill? What hopes will be excited by the finances of the Bill and the proposals to sell all the best land as well as half the waste land as well as the land under crops? Who will get the advantage of all this? It will not be the congest. He is a listless and unlettered man without any initiative. Do you think that he is going to win in a

379
general scramble for land in Ireland? It will be the active and enterprising person who will win, because he will think that it is an excellent thing to get a. good farm at less than the market value on the credit of the State. He is the person with the necessary knowledge and enterprise to pull the ropes. This Bill hangs out a certain number of ropes to be pulled, and then you under clause 58 will get compulsion. Under clause 39, when anybody has made an offer for any land the Estates Commissioners may intervene and make an offer to the present owners. I am not making any criticism of the Estates Commissioners, but I ask who are to pull the ropes'? One man will have enough enterprise to make an offer and say that it is a fair offer. If it is denied he will say: "Are you not going to put your Act into force? Kindly say what is a, fair offer." If the landlord does not accept this, then compulsion will come into play. I have endeavoured to indicate that in respect of the congested districts this Bill will help the active and enterprising man, and that it is not drawn in the true interests of the man whom we had in mind when we drew up the Act of 1903. There are some people who advocate this new policy, and believe that Ireland will gain by breaking up permanent pasture and going in for a new system of mixed farming. That is a very speculative belief, and it is challenged by all those who have made a profound study of this economic question. But if that were desirable, what provision does this Bill make for carrying it out? It provides one million pounds a year to solve a problem which was stated by the Chief Secretary to be a problem of 93 millions. That is the measure of this policy for Ireland, and it will proceed over a period of 93 years. I think that it is a ruinous policy for Ireland. It is ludicrous to put it on the basis of one million pounds a year for 93 years.
Mr. BIRRELL: I thought it right to say what was the present position of the Treasury. I did not say what the position would be 93 years hence.
Mr. WYNDHAM: How is the Treasury to find more than a million sovereigns without reliquishing any attempt to move the block? If you are going to deal with more than a million a year you will have still less for the policy of abolishing dual ownership. This new policy, which we think is thoroughly bad, is also absurd. It
380
can only compete with the policy on which we are all agreed. I cannot doubt that such a plan as this must fail. I may be told that we can retrace our steps. It will not be easy to retrace our steps if this Bill becomes law. It will be difficult, if not impossible, in face of two things which we shall have done. We shall have torn up a treaty arrived at by the accredited representatives of landlords and tenants, and, consequently, we shall have broken the promises made to this House by both parties.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I did not intend to vote for the Bill, but after the very conciliatory speech made last night by the leader of our party I do intend to vote for it. I think that he has made a suggestion of great value. He has suggested that some additional money should be given by way of bonus to the landlords for the purpose of enabling bargains to be more quickly made. In the last 10 years three Parliamentary miracles in legislation for Ireland have taken place. They have all been passed by the consent of all parties in this House. I refer first to that revolutionary measure, the Local Government Act for Ireland. How was that passed? The landlords gave up their powers of local government because they got a certain measure of compensation. Ireland has been blessed by a beneficent system of local government, and we owe that to the Conservative party. Then there was the thorny and entangled question of University education. That was settled by a Parliamentary miracle, and no one could have passed it except the right hon. Gentleman. He passed it for two reasons. Because, having regard to his Nonconformist struggles, he had the confidence of the Liberal party, and because everybody knew he was endeavouring to meet the fair claims of Ireland and because he had to a large extent the support of the Conservative party.
Now I come to the Land Bill. Five or six years ago that was settled to a great extent by the measure of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover. How was that settled? Was that settled by controversy? It was settled practically by the united assent of this House in the same way as the Local Government question was settled, and in the same way as the Irish University question was settled by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. And what happened with regard to this question which is now before the House? I interfere as little as possible in politics at the present time, because there are so

381
many people who disagree with me. But I was induced to do what I had not done now for many a long year—I was induced to appear upon a platform some time ago in Cork with a number of Cork landlords to ask that the block relating to land purchase should be got rid of. The meeting took place; it was a very remarkable meeting, in which a great many Irish landlords, many of whose names have long been a symbol of dislike and controversy, took part, and demanded of the Government, which in this matter needs the assent of the House of Lords and needs the assent of Conservative Members from Ireland, that they should be allowed to present a joint and special case to the Prime Minister by means of respectful deputation, and although the Prime Minister was ready to receive all kinds of persons on the matter of the shorter and longer Catechism and of the Port of London and several other questions, he refused to receive a deputation representative of Ireland both by landlords and tenants, and representing at least one-third of the feeling of the country. He thought, probably, it was political. For my part, I have never, not even now, taken the opportunity of commenting on his action. But where are we to-day? What would have been the advantage of his reception of that deputation? I think it would have been this. I have always been of opinion that since the block arose, and since the great depreciation of the money market, I have always been of opinion that some change should be made in the Act of 1903, and that the landlords should be induced on proper terms to take paper and stock instead of sovereigns. I will tell you why. This House, in the last half-dozen years, has passed two immense measures for London, and, as far as I know—I do not pretend to be a student of the state of the money market in London—but, as far as I know, the London Water Bill, involving £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 of money, and the Port of London Bill, involving £25,000,000, both of them involving something between 60 and 70 millions of money—did not disturb the London money market. This sum of 60 or 70 millions is exactly that amount constituting the demand now of the Irish landlords and the Irish tenants under the Wyndham Act. What was the reply of the London money market as to these two Bills? What happened about the London Water Bill? The Liberals were in opposition at the time, and they insisted on the right that sovereigns should be given in payment; but I
382
am right in saying that six out of every seven of the water companies took paper instead of sovereigns. In most cases it was only a change of investment. They were able to get their price in paper; they did not want sovereigns, because if they got sovereigns they would only have to seek fresh investments and the result was that without any fluctuation of the money market at all you were able to settle this great water question, and to-morrow or next day you will settle the docks question with paper money, just as you did the water question, because investments in the water companies and in the docks are just the same as those in permanent industries. The shareholders do not want sovereigns, because if they got sovereigns they would have to go to Argentina or Jamaica or the South Pole looking for somewhere to put their money. You gave them in connection with this Water Bill and Port of London Bill a Three per Cent. Stock in one case and a 3 or 4 per cent, option in another. And, as I say, the whole transaction did not cause one hour's anxiety on the Stock Exchange of London or in the London money market. Now, if the Prime Minister had received the representative deputation, even from Cork, what would have happened? He would have had his Treasury experts and advisers by Ins side, and he could have put to the representative landlord this question: "You are entitled to sovereigns. Are you willing to give up that option and take paper instead?" And remember this: The Wyndham Act provides for giving £5,000 a year as the free grant to Trinity College, Dublin, though Trinity College land cannot be sold under that Act or under this Bill. But there was an inquiry, and Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, a careful, learned, and prudent man, who has an understanding of money transactions, placed it on record: that as regards his own college, his Alma Mater, it would be desirable that the payment to be made in this way to Trinity College should be paid in paper and not in sovereigns. So that you have with regard to this college as to which the right hon. Gentleman the. Member for Dover has given a free grant of £5,000 a year, and whose land cannot be sold, you have it upon record that the price should be paid in paper and not in cash. Now, where are we to-day. I do not desire to make any attack whatever upon this Bill, and for this reason. My hon. Friends may be right, and I may be entirely wrong. I only represent one man, they represent 80 votes, and they have no apprehension of

383
the result, or how it is to be worked, and accordingly I give them just as much claim to represent public opinion as I have; but where are we? Does any sane man in this House suppose that when this Bill is referred to a Committee of the whole House—I will assume that this Bill is perfection and that there is no difficulty about it—does any man suppose for a moment that when the Budget Bill and the robbery of the henroost—and by the way the first henroost apparently the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to rob is the henroost of the Irish farmer—with the Budget Bill and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill and other measures which were promised, and with the debates that must take place upon the Navy and the Army, and with the country in its present state of tension, much more time will have to be provided for the discussion of these matters, does anybody suppose that without some sort of concordat or agreement between all sections of the House, representing the landlords and the tenants, that this measure will proceed upon its majestic career to the House of Lords, or do you speculate what its fate will be when it reaches that lethal Chamber. It is absurd, and I should regret very much if the spirit in which my hon. Friend's suggestion thrown out, last night was rejected by hon. Members above the Gangway, and if they should proceed to take a hostile division upon this Bill. I watched the speech of the Chief Secretary very closely, and I do not think he said anything of a controversial character, or anything calculated to debar the hope that he was willing to meet in Committee the various feelings that arose on both sides. Now I pass from the defects of this Land Bill, and I assume it has no defects, and I will assume simply that there will be delay. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover put a pertinent inquiry to the Chief Secretary. It is this. He said it will take something like eight or ten years before you have paid off your block of £60,000,000 to £80,000,000—these figures are so big I never can remember them.
Mr. BIRRELL: £56,000,000.
Mr.. T. M. HEALY: Very well, £56,000,000. Will the new agreement begin to take effect until you have cleared off that obstruction. I have read the Bill, and I find it a very intricate Bill to understand. I wished I had the nimble intellect of my hon. Friends to understand it while you wait, but I cannot. Many of these tenants are due to fix their rents for the
384
third time. Are they to be stopped, by signing these agreements, from going into court, and if not, I should like to ask what is to be the legal position of either landlords or tenants who have signed these agreements to take effect in futuro, the futuro being another decade. Am I, having agreed to make my bargain on the supposition that my rent is to be £10, or £20, or £50 a year, and after calculating so many years' purchase, and the landlord assuming that he is going to get so much stock—are both landlords and tenants to be left in this position, that the tenant may pop out of the Land Purchase Court into the Fair Rent Court, and whereas he has agreed to give 20 years' purchase of a 20 years' rent, making £400, is he now to get his rent reduced to £15. What certainty will you have in a country so situated? I say both landlords and tenants will have headache and heartache. Now my last words. I pass over hundreds of things that might be said, because I wish to avoid anything in the nature of controversy. Finally, you are dealing with future tenants. You have in this Bill, I think, a slight, not much, improvement of the Bill of last November, and I know that many landlords would consider it to be an unjust thing to them that the future tenants should have the right to go into court. It is not so in hundreds and thousands of cases. Some tenancies were created 40 or 50 years ago, and have gone on from father to son, and these men are as much at the mercy of the bailiff and the sheriff, as if the Land Act and Mr. Gladstone had never been heard of. They are not isolated cases, they are numerous cases. There are several cases I could name, and the Attorney-General would recognise them at once—cases in which, under the admirable Act of Mr. Gerald Balfour of 1906, I thought we had closed every hole, but there is no getting over human ingenuity, and on the Bennett estate, for instance, men signed agreements and supposed that they were quite rid of their future tenancies, but they were met by the landlords, who said to them: "I never made a bargain with you; my father was only tenant-for-life," and thereby destroyed the hope of agreement. I make this suggestion, and I make it to the landlords as well as to the tenants. You, in the year—I think it was—1888, passed what was called the Redemption of Rent Act, to enable long leaseholders who were excluded from the benefit of the Fair Rent Clause, to purchase, and if the

385
landlord refused the purchase, giving them the alternative of having a fair rent fixed. I suggest that, as to the whole body of future tenants, the number of which—I do not want to put it too high—the number of which is probably anything from 20,000 to 30,000—I suggest that they should be put in the position of the long leaseholders, and if they have not the right to fix a fair rent, they should have the right to purchase from the landlords and be given State money for that purpose. That is all I have to say. I thank the House for having listened to me, and I hope I have said nothing controversial.
Mr. J. GORDON: I desire to say very little, having regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, but I do wish to say this on my own behalf and I think on behalf of all my friends from Ulster, that what we desire first of all in any Bill which is brought in, or any Act which is passed to amend the Act of 1903, is that land purchase should not be in any way interfered with. It is quite likely that this Bill, if it were passed, would give relief with regard to the ratepayers, who might be responsible for any loss upon the sums which would have to be advanced, but in what way does this measure affect those landlords and tenants who have entered into agreements? These agreements must be carried out, and it is a question whether this Government will carry out the honourable understanding which the predecessor in office of the Chief Secretary tells the House to-night was intended in reference to the loss of working out the Land Purchase Act—whether the present Government will repudiate that or give full effect to it. If they give full effect to it, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover says he and his colleagues would do if they were in the position of the Government at the present time, then no question of liability of the ratepayers in Ireland for any loss arises. So far as that is concerned, it is only doing what the Government ought to do, if they give effect to the honourable understanding which was arrived at between the parties when the Act of 1903 was passed. But if they do not do that, then in. violation of the agreement and understanding which has been come to, the ratepayers would have to bear the loss, but the landlords and tenants who have entered into agreements would have the right to have their agreements carried out. Therefore, in reference to the Land Act, strictly speaking, this proposed mea-
386
sure does not make any change. What does, it do in reference to the others—the parties who have not entered into agreements? So far from doing anything to facilitate agreements being entered into—so far from doing anything to bring landlords and tenants more together, so as to have the Land Act carried to its legitimate conclusion, and make the tenants who are occupiers the owners of the farms which they occupy, it will put an end to it, and everybody in Ireland knows that it will put an end to it, until some future legislation restores the position which they would have been in if the Act of 1903 had been carried out in its integrity. You will stop the process of the abolition of dual ownership. Why do I say that? You have, had five years of negotiation going on between landlords and tenants, and they have arrived at a general understanding as to the basis on which they could make their preparations, and although one side think they have to pay too much, and the other side think they ought to have got a little more, yet they are content to go upon that basis which has been arrived at.
What do you do now? If this Bill becomes law in reference to all those cases in which no agreements have been entered into, and which are the most important if you wish to solve this question, you create a gap of 15 per cent. You add practically eight by adding a quarter more to the annuity, which the tenant will have to pay, and you put another 7 per cent, by reducing the bonus which the landlord will receive, because if you take the sliding scale of the years' purchase prevailing under the Act of 1903 you will find the average bonus will be 5 per cent, instead of 12. Therefore you will have created a gap of 15 per cent. How is that to be bridged over? How are the parties to come together? The difficulties of bringing them together have been surely enough without that, but if that is established, it will bring about further difficulties in Ireland. But you say that you have introduced compulsory purchase. I am one of those who believe, and have expressed my belief in this House prior to the Act of 1903, that compulsory purchase would be necessary if the land question was to be settled in Ireland. But the Act of 1903 came in with the assent and goodwill of all parties, and a basis of voluntary agreement was established with which everyone was satisfied. That has been carried on since for five years, and it has resulted in the most enormous success. It is not my own wish, and least of all the

387
wish of those who represent the North of Ireland, to force compulsion when they can secure what is wanted by voluntary agreement. I have never heard it put forward by farmers in the North of Ireland that they wish compulsion if they can get what they want by agreement. It is perfectly obvious, from the way in which this Act of 1903 is drawn, that they may have to wait a year or two longer, but sensible and honest men are willing to have a little patience when they know that by exercising that patience they can avoid something which would be very unpleasant, and lead to a great deal of friction and disturbance.
Take, again, this question of compulsion. "We all know where that clause 39 came from. We can understand it perfectly well, especially those of us who know that an imaginary Bill at the last General Election, containing some clause like that, was hawked about by those whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone brought into the constituencies. That Bill was to become an Act of Parliament in eighteen months if they were returned to this House, and something had to be done to show even an attempted redemption of that pledge. But what does it mean? Does any sane man believe that compulsion is going to be enforced, when you have not the money to pay. That would be a principle which has never been applied anywhere or in reference to any case of acquiring land under compulsory Acts. You must have the money to pay, and is it not absolutely illusory in the present position of financial affairs? Where is the money to pay. It will take J4 years to get rid of the present block, and in the more sanguine view of the Chief Secretary, six or eight years to get rid of it. Therefore there is nothing to benefit the tenant and the landlord who have not entered into their agreement up to the present time. There is another thing. This compulsion which is introduced is of an extraordinary kind. Everybody understood that the compulsory purchase was to enable the tenant of a definite holding to compel his holding to be sold to him, but this is a very different thing indeed. Somebody who has no interest may make the offer. The Land Commission may come in and make a further offer if the landlord will not agree, and it is to be bought and to go, not to the tenants, although it may go to him in the first instance, but to any
388
tenant the Land Commission think proper. I think that the whole of these provisions as to present tenants are absolutely illusory, and that, as was stated by the hon. Member for Cork, they will put an end to land purchase in Ireland. Meetings were held in the South of Ireland and also in the North, at which tenant farmers discussed this question, and a general opinion was expressed that it was a breach of faith on the part of any Government to alter the financial arrangements on which the Act of 1903 was based, and that any change in regard to the position of landlord and tenant, by which the one should be compelled to pay more or the other to receive less, would be fatal to the working out of this Act. A challenge was thrown out by my hon. Friend the Member for North Derry to the Solicitor-General for Ireland to hold a public meeting in his own Constituency of farmers, and put for ward the provisions of this Bill in reference to future purchases in Ireland and see what response he would get. We all know perfectly well, those of us who can get the views of farmers of the North of Ireland, that they are entirely opposed to any such Bill as this.
I do not see why the Chief Secretary should be at such pains to magnify the financial difficulty. It is a very strange thing that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover should, relying on his experts—probably the same as to many of the people around him, as those of the present Chief Secretary, receive information that the problem amounted to about a hundred millions, and that in a few years from the same source apparently the Chief Secretary receives information which makes him say that the problem amounts to 180 millions. The right hon. Gentleman has never told us one or two things which we have asked him about, both by questions and otherwise. Does he include in that sum the value of a very large portion of land which is held either under fee farm grants, perpetuity grants, and leases for lives, renewable very often by leases for lives at low rents, which would never come under this Act at all. I know I speak with no official knowledge, but I have the knowledge of a man concerned as a lawyer with those who are interested in land in Ireland, and my own knowledge leads me to think that the Chief Secretary must have included all the lands in Ireland, whether they come under this Act or not, and if he did I would venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover was

389
very much nearer the mark in his estimate of 100 millions than the present Chief Secretary is in the estimate which makes it up to 180 millions. In fact the probabilities are that £120,000,000 will be the real limit of the amount. But when the right hon. Gentleman had given us this very exaggerated figure as to the amount of property which has to be dealt with, why does he follow that up by exaggerations as to the amount of the annual loss? Let me take his own figures. Under the Development Grant, which was £185,000, he had a charge of £25,000, so that it became £160,000. He told us in November last that there was then only £100,000 of it available. Yesterday he told us there was £160,000 available. He told us in November last that £114,000 of that had been absorbed by grants which amounted in reality, £33,000,000 of stock having been issued, to £29,000,000, £800,000 of cash having been received, and that that absorbed £114,000 a year. He tells us now that £138,000 a year is absorbed by floating £33,000,000 of stock. How do these differences arise? One cannot understand it, but they all tend to make the problem greater.
I take one set of figures, and I think I can show the House that the right hon. Gentleman has placed a figure before the House for which there is no justification in any view of it. He says that the loss on the flotation of stock would mean a loss to the ratepayers in Ireland, over and above what the Development Grant has provided for, of £877,000 a year. I take it on his own figures and on the figures of the returns that on the flotation of £30,000,000 there is a loss of 3½ millions. That £30,000,000 of money has only absorbed £114,000 per annum of the grant. The result is that the balance of £46,000 will produce another £12,000,000, so that you will have £42,000,000 of money produced at the expense of the Development Grant, and without a shilling upon the ratepayers. That would be done, £42,000,000 for £160,000, and if you take it at the same rate you will find that the annual loss that could by any means fall upon the ratepayers would not exceed £500,000, a very large sum, but at the same time it is a very different sum from the £870,000. Why are we told that the Irish ratepayer would have to bear a loss of £875,000 if in reality it would only be £500,000? The whole financial problem is, I think, magnified very unduly, and what is obviously aimed at is to try and carry through the first part of this Bill in order that you may relieve
390
the ratepayers of Ireland from this exaggerated prospective loss, and that in some way that may help you to get through the other part of the Bill, which is really the part that the Chief Secretary and his Nationalist friends wish for.
What would the whole problem be if it were faced, as it ought to be faced, and as it must some day be faced by the British Exchequer, if everything was paid out on the basis of the Act of 1903? It would only come to 21½ millions of money altogether, spread over 68½ years. The right hon. Gentleman works it out upon the basis of issuing at 85. Why should he do that? He has had five years' experience of 88⅝. Why should he go 3⅝ below that? Surely we do not think so poorly of the credit of our country as to imagine that it is going down and going to continue down for a period of 63 years, as it would be at something like 3⅝ below what it has been for the last five years. That is a very unduly low amount to take for the issue of the future stock. I will take it at 88⅝, which it has been for the last five years. I think also that it is incredible almost that those at the head of affairs in connection with the finances of this country cannot devise some means by which the present loss of the issue of Trish Land Stock would be greatly diminished. Consols at 2½ per cent, are selling at 84 11–16ths, and Irish Land Stock at 2¾ per cent, is selling at 87. The security for both is the same, and if Irish Land Stock was selling at the same rate as Consols, having regard to the rate of interest, it ought to produce 93.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): As the hon. Member knows, it is the fear of repeated issues of the same stock.
Mr. GORDON: I do not pretend to understand these financial affairs, but lam a plain man living in Ireland, and I am interested in getting all this money as cheaply as we can, and I am interested that there should be as little loss as possible. Why could not some means be devised either of issuing it as Consols at 2½ and then transferring it to the Irish Land Fund, or by Treasury Bills, or in some other way by which we might avoid an extra loss of 6½ per cent. I think the Chief Secretary might do something to reduce that, and that we might at least divide that loss by two. We cannot do it if the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to the country and tells them that any man with money would put it into a stocking rather than into Irish Land Stock. I do not think that is

391
fair to Ireland. If you pursue that course you will certainly keep down Irish Land Stock. If you have every single thing carried out as it has been up to the present under the Act of 1903, you will incur a loss of 21 millions. What does 21 millions loss mean if you extend it over a period of 68½ years? It would mean less than £300,000 a year. That in itself for the British Government to expend in Ireland in getting rid of this difficult problem would be a comparatively small sum. but what is there more to be considered? Once you get rid of the whole machinery of the Irish Land Commission and the Estates Commissioners you get rid of what has been stated as a cost of £315,000 per annum.
Mr. BIRRELL: The cost of the bonus goes on to that. It is a very heavy cost.
Mr. GORDON: I do not pretend for one moment to accuracy as to the exact cost, but it is a very heavy cost. It would, I think, make up the deficiency under the Act of 1903. Why should something not be done to endeavour to have the Land Act of 1903, so far as the financial parts of it are concerned, carried out on the basis which was agreed to by all the parties who had anything to do with the arrangements for that Act? That is the position that I and those who represent Ulster constituencies take up. We want to have this Bill passed in such a form that it will enable future agreements to be carried out upon the same basis upon which the agreements have been carried out in the past, and we fear that if a Bill is passed which does not provide for that we should have great difficulties, and that it will occupy a longer period of time before any change is made which would put these tenants who have not yet purchased in the same position as their fellow tenants who have purchased.
I cannot understand this particular question You have not merely to deal with the financial question, so far as landlord and tenant are concerned, but you disturb the financial position in connection with the labour question. Why should that change have taken place? Why should it be necessary, because you are passing a Bill of this kind to amend the Act of 1903, to say that in all future cases the money advanced for labourers' cottages shall be repaid with the additional sum of ¼ per cent, to the annuity? I think that is one matter which at all events ought to be omitted from this Bill. It is in no way mixed up with the Land Act of 1903, and
392
great indignation was expressed by the Solicitor-General because the hon. Member for North Derry spoke of this as a Treasury Relief Bill. Surely to that extent, and in reference to this labourers' question, it can be described as nothing else, because there is nothing being given is exchange for what is being taken away.
Now I come to the question of the congested districts. The provisions in reference to land are open to very great objections. One is the way in which this would affect economic questions in the West of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover called attention to this strongly, and in the reports of several Members of the Dudley Commission strong attention is called to it. But you have over and above that the constitution of this Board. Under this Act they are the exclusive purchasers of land through the Land Commission in one-sixth of Ireland, and how do you constitute that Board? This Bill has been called freely in Ireland a Cattle-Drivers Bill, and you make that Board subject to members of the United Irish League, and those who sympathise with cattle driving, and with everything which has been done in defiance of the law for the last two years. It is idle to say you are one of the majority. When the Chief Secretary is here in London, where will the majority be then? You will have these nine gentlemen, who are exceedingly interested in carrying out schemes, which they believe that have been the means of forcing upon the Chief Secretary and the House, actively at work, and you will find you will have no check or restraint upon the measures which they will attempt to enforce upon the owners of land in these districts. Even if you have a Board of this kind the constitution of it must be remodelled very greatly.
Now there is also one thing which I think we ought to know. Are we to be brought down in Ireland to the dead level of uniformity? Is there to be no farmer who is to have land worth more than £3,000? The Bill all points in one direction, and a very dangerous direction indeed. You are introducing a principle into this Bill in regard to the Congested Districts Board which means not that the owner of the land is to be compelled to sell to the tenant who is in occupation of the land, but that he shall be compelled to sell to a body which will distribute it among people who have never had any interest in it—perhaps among people who have never had any land at all. It is very

393
easy to apply that to large tenant farmers who have purchased their holdings and have neighbours who have only a few acres or none at all. The latter can get up an agitation like the cattle-drivers got up last year, and they can force some Chief Secretary to say some board must be appointed to take off three or four acres from this man's land and give it to the man who has insufficient or divide it up among the people. I think that is a very dangerous and a very bad principle to introduce. I can see no more justification for what the Government are doing in their Bill than there would be for bringing in a Bill to make that sort of thing possible. What I ask the House and the Government to do is this: I ask that some real effort should be made to put the issue of Land Stock upon a basis which would not cause as great a loss as there is at present. I ask that the Government should provide for whatever the ultimate loss may be, and to provide it out of the Exchequer. I ask that nothing shall be done to disturb the settled basis of negotiations between landlord and tenant in regard to sales, and I ask that there shall be no such extensive powers given to the Congested Districts Board as are contained in the Bill; but that if such a Board is constituted it should be constituted upon a basis which would not place the real power in the hands of the United Irish League and the cattle-drivers and their friends and allies.
Mr. KETTLE: The distrust of Irish public opinion and of Irish elected bodies displayed by the hon. Members above the Gangway is not a new fact. But it is a new fact, and one which I heartily welcome, to find hon. Gentlemen representing Unionist constituencies in Ulster and other parts of Ireland saying that landlordism in Ireland is an English institution. We have always said that landlordism in Ireland is an English institution, but when it comes to paying the ransom for it part of it should be borne as an Imperial charge. I heartily welcome the attack that has been made by hon. Gentlemen on the English Treasury, and I hope they will live up to it when they come into office, if they ever do. I notice that these right hon. Gentlemen have been rather guarded in their references to the principles of compulsion as embodied in the Bill. They have got a steady and critical eye for the constituencies in Ulster and the next General Election. Compulsory purchase is as eagerly demanded by the Presbyterian and Unionist farmers in the
394
North of Ireland as by Nationalist farmers in any other part. I think hon. I Members who have listened to this debate will agree that the speeches made against this Bill are not really speeches inspired by a sincere desire to have the Bill killed. I think a good deal of it is rather stagey opposition. We had a good deal of it in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, which almost brought us back to the optimistic days of 1903, when everybody was believing in the millennium, and a great deal of rhetoric was being employed by men of all parties. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover disclosed the real nature of the opposition to this Bill when he suggested that what was really wanted was a small money Bill. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to relieve this deadlock of £56,000,000. We all want to do that. It is a deplorable thing that such a deadlock should exist. But land purchase in Ireland is not a matter for the rather high- flown rhetoric of six years ago. It is a business proposition. It has got to be faced. You cannot have two systems of land tenure for any lengthened period without inflicting loss upon everybody. Does that lead us to the conclusion that an amending Bill is to deal merely with the finance of the 1903 Act? There is an old maxim, "Grievances before Supply." We are all eager and anxious to remove the deadlock. We are anxious to have this £56,000,000 provided, to have the vested orders made in tenants, and the landlords paid off. The working of the 1903 Act has revealed defects in the system of land purchase which ought to be cured. The watchword of hon. Members above the Gangway is, "Money for the landlords"; our watchword is, "Yes; money for the landlords, but with it, in the same Bill, amendments for the welfare of the people." We are supporting this Bill. It has been said that this Bill is really a Nationalist Bill; of course that is perfectly true. The Bill of 1903 was a Nationalist Bill. Our programme has been compulsory purchase in Ireland since 1852. This Bill is in its good points a Nationalist Bill. We find in it the principle of compulsion. The failure of the Act of 1903 to relieve congestion of the West was due to another cause besides that mentioned by the Solicitor-General, who said it was due solely to the inadequacy of the funds at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board. That was a large part of the cause; but its failure was also due to the lack of effective compulsory powers. If you settle the land

395
question you must develop industries. It i is a problem of the very greatest complexity and difficulty. I wish to draw the attention of the House to one defect regarding the working of the 1903 Act, which has not been mentioned. All parties think that land purchase is a beneficent process and ought to be completed as quickly as possible; but we cannot consent to the view that the transfer price paid is a negligible element. I think the tenant farmers of Ireland have taken upon themselves an extremely serious burden. As soon as the Bill was introduced last November we procured detailed figures as to the effect of inflated prices. Let me give the House just one figure, to justify our opposition to the automatic zones of 1903. Under previous Acts from 1885 to 1888 the landlords obtained 17 years purchase; under the Acts of 1891–6 the figure was 17·6; under the Act of 1903, without a bonus, it was 22½ years purchase. I must say very frankly that while land purchase ought to go on as speedily and smoothly as possible, I do not think it ought to go on on 1903 prices If the representatives of the landlords in this House want to hasten the process let them agree to equitable terms. When it comes to the question as to how you are to clear off this 56 millions, I find myself in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, who has the somewhat disappointing fashion of stating a problem without offering a solution. The right hon. Gentleman said that if his Government were in power they would take all necessary steps to clear that deadlock away. But why did he not mention what these steps were to be? If Ireland were to have the full use of Imperial credit in this matter of land purchase, we should employ Consols to raise the money. Is that going to be done I Will the Government make an emergency issue of Consols, if necessary, with the object of bringing about peace in Ireland?
The hon. Gentleman who spoke last discussed what has been so often discussed in this House, the mysterious problem how 2¾ per Cent. Land Stock, which ought to stand six or seven points higher than Consols, is only two or three points higher. I suppose the explanation really is that the continual depreciation of everything Irish in this House has had its effect on that very superstitious body, the Stock Exchange. I really think the hon. Gentleman himself will agree with me that he and his party have not done very much
396
to improve the position of Irish Land Stock in the market when they engaged in a campaign of representing Ireland as being at this moment plunged in anarchy. I think that he and his party will have to share part of the burden of that very unhappy state of things. The chief point to which we take exception in this Bill is the increase in the annuity from 3¼ to 3½ per cent. The moment this Bill was introduced in its first form we took exception to that. We shall oppose it in Committee, and shall endeavour to amend it. I sincerely trust we shall have the hearty support of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. Then you are ultimately thrown about on the problem what you are going to do about the flotation losses if you maintain the old system. They are admittedly considerable.
We have said frankly the moment that this situation arose that these losses ought all to be met by way of an Imperial charge. Let me point out as was pointed out a while ago that there is an element on Ireland's side with regard to this matter to which attention is not always directed. The Ireland Development Grant, which was originally £185,000, should really have grown side by side correspondingly with similar grants in England. For my part I believe, without entering into the exact figures, that if you were merely to take the arrears of the Ireland development figure you would have very nearly enough money to pay off any flotation loss without increasing the charge on the taxpayers. We recognise the serious character of the situation. We have protested against it since it was proposed, and I sincerely hope that with the union of parties referred to by the hon. Member for North Louth, who, I may say in passing, has not contributed much to the union of parties, we may succeed in our protest. If by such a union of parties or by any other method we can succeed in bringing the annuity back to the old figure it will be a great improvement. I am sorry to stand between the House and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University; but with regard to the bonus we find that under the schedule to this Bill the promise made in 1903 will not be kept. There has been considerable speculation as to what is called the money side of the problem of land purchase, which remains to be dealt with in Ireland. I think all the figures are very much in the nature of very vague speculation. It is impossible to arrive at anything like certainty, but there was a definite guarantee

397
given by this House of Commons in 1903 that the bonus would amount in all to 12 per cent., whatever the total of the purchase money should be.
The graduated bonus originally proposed by this party in 1903 is now to be adopted. It is obviously reasonable. The bonus in the Act of 1903 was perfectly absurd. It was a sort of endowment fund to exaction. The more a landlord succeeded in inducing or compelling his tenants to pay, the more the State, proportionately, paid him. I see that an hon. Member for an Ulster constituency yesterday wanted to find a purchaser under the Act of 1903 who was dissatisfied with his bargain. I am a purchaser under the Act of 1903, I am sorry to say. I am a victim of compulsory purchase under the Act of 1903, because three-fourths of the tenants compelled a small minority to carry a bargain through, and I am bound to say that if the hon. Gentleman were to take a plebiscite of purchases under the Act of 1903, he would not find them to-day in such a state of beatific satisfaction with themselves, and with the scheme of the universe, as they are commonly represented to be. There is one suggestion with regard to the bonus in addition to that. We think the figures in the schedule will have to be raised. You begin too low, and you do not go high enough. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary contemplated an addition of, I think, three millions to the original twelve millions.
If we take 12 per cent, on his own figures, he must add not three millions, but something more than eight millions. In thus seeking at any rate to modify the bonus with so little, are we opposed to the interests of the landlords in land purchase that we should seek—and I heartily congratulate ourselves in finding them in alliance with us in an attack on the British Treasury—to improve the bonus in that respect.
There is one other suggestion which I would make, speaking for myself. I think this new bonus on the graduated scale should be made subject to a time limit. I think it would be far the most effective form of compulsion. I think there should be a provision in this Bill, subject, of course, to the capacity of the Estates Commissioner's office to clear bargains as they are entered, and unless there be delay on the part of the State Department charged with the transaction, that no bonus at all should be payable on transac-
398
tions with regard to which agreements have not been entered into and lodged before, say, four years. We saw the effect of the anticipated reduction of the bonus in November in the enormous crush of purchase agreements that came into the Estates Commissioner's office in the last month or six weeks before the date mentioned. The other point, which I have already mentioned, and which is intimately connected with the enhanced price, is the provision in the Act of 1903 with regard to the zones, which make sales within certain limits automatic. We expressed our opposition to that particular provision at that time, and we shall endeavour to amend the Bill so as to secure more effective expression of our views in that respect. As regards the Parliamentary fortune of this Bill to which reference has been made, I think the debate has indefinitely revealed a very large area of common interest between the representatives of the landlords and the representatives of the tenants in this House.
There are many misrepresentations in politics that seem to me to be cruel, but a particularly cruel misrepresentation is one that has been launched at this party from various quarters. We have been represented as the assassins of land purchase and as engaged in an attempt to strangle land purchase. By some singular logical process I have not been able to understand, we are supposed to be doing that in the interests of Home Rule. Why you should keep an economic problem of such gravity and urgency open in Ireland in the interests of Home Rule is a question to which I have not been able to find an answer. We are sincerely anxious to have this Bill, with the amendments on these cardinal points that I have mentioned, passed into law. We are sincerely anxious to see the landlords paid off the money which has been promised to them, and to see the tenants receive their vesting orders and placed in occupation and possession of their farms. We sincerely hope for that. But the attitude to be assumed by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway is really a matter for them, and not for us. I suppose that the fate of this Bill, if not in this House, at any rate in another place, does lie in their hands. We are anxious for peace, peace on the basis of equitable prices, and on the basis of the fulfilment by this Empire of its faith to Ireland. Let me assure hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, the representatives of the landlords, that if they reject, I do not say this Bill as it stands, but this Bill as it may be

399
modified, if they decline to work together with us, if they prefer war to peace in Ireland, they will find that Nationalist Ireland is not in the least afraid to fight in that war if they impose it on us, and that she will continue to fight for the welfare of her people at home.
Sir EDWARD CARSON: Nothing but the very grave importance of this subject and the far-reaching effects of the Bill before the House would induce me, after the able and masterly speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, to obtrude myself upon this House. But this is a Bill of very vital importance. I am bound to admit that this somewhat moribund Parliament has not taken much interest in it. During the greater portion of this discussion the benches opposite were absolutely empty, and although the Bill dealt with the most vital interests of Ireland hon. Members do not seem to have taken the slightest interest in either the provisions of the Bill or how far it is necessary that they should be altered. I confess I am one of those who thought and hoped that the question of land policy in Ireland had passed out of the region of political controversy if the Bill of 1903 proved a success. That Bill was founded on general consent, and the outcome of general goodwill of all parties, and if it required any amendment to make it more effective we certainly would have been bound, and we would have been willing to join in any effort in that direction. That general consent, and I think most unfortunately, is being abandoned. The agreement, the basis of the Bill, is being torn up. Compulsion is being introduced, and the new and revolutionary policy is proclaimed, a policy in my opinion—and I speak with a great deal of experience of Ireland and land legislation in Ireland—disastrous to the peace of the country, economically unsound, and unfavourable towards accelerating the purchase which we all so much desire to advance. I admired very much the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in the two speeches he had made on this Bill. He spent the whole of his time in substantiating propositions or proposals which nobody quarrels with. He lauded the Treasury for their generosity in taking over the loss on flotation. Did anybody ever suppose that the loss on flotation was ever contemplated when the Act of 1903 was being passed? I am bound to say for my own part—it may seem
400
ungrateful—that I express no gratitude whatsoever to the English Treasury for their conduct in this matter. I will tell the House why. By general consent the policy of Parliament—and I suppose that policy is, or at all events is supposed—to represent the people; the general policy of the people of the United Kingdom has been that an agrarian revolution should take place in Ireland, and that the land should be transferred from one class of person to another at the expense of the State. They have declared that it was right to throw the whole of the land of Ireland into the melting pot, and to throw the whole of the social condition of Ireland into the same place. If that is the policy of the Government, if that is the policy of the nation, I certainly do not see in the least why I should be grateful to the nation if, in pursuance of this policy, it is incidental in the carrying out of it that expenses occur, and they have to pay the expense. That is all that has happened in this case. The right hon. Gentleman laboured that point, and I am certainly not going to dwell upon it any more than to say that I think it was not only right, but I think it was only just of the Treasury to make this concession.
The right hon. Gentleman never really dealt with the vital part of this Bill. The position he took up was this. He said there is a clause—after long argument and the number of figures—which you are bound to admit is a good clause, therefore you must pass my Bill, no matter what are the proposals, how unfair to landlord and tenant, how suicidal to the policy of transferring the land from the landlord to the tenant, or how unfair as regards the question of compulsion, which, in my own opinion, ought never to have been resorted to, except in the last resort. We are to accept this bribe of the Treasury in doing what is merely a bare act of justice in the carrying out of a great revolution of this kind. Hon. Members below the Gangway seem to me really to forget in considering this question what was the condition of affairs in 1903. The Bill of my right hon. Friend was passed. It is very easy to forget now, after the Bill of my right hon. Friend has been so vast and gigantic a success. It is admitted by everybody, to put it in an Irish way, that the success of it is the failure of it. It is so easy to forget what has happened since 1903. As regards the purchase of stock, the announced policy in regard to that had come to an end. What has happened since? Through the Act of

401
1903, while in the 22 years preceding only 72,000 odd tenants, at a cost of £23,000,000, had been turned into proprietors, in the five years in which this Bill has been in operation 228,958 tenants have signed agreements with the consent of their landlords for turning them into proprietors of their holdings. Now is it not a pity—is it not more than that—is it not almost a clime, not to make some real effort to promote the carrying on of the work which has been done?
What is the real problem? Agreements are waiting completion to the extent of £56,000,000. As regards these agreements, the landlord is merely receiving 3½ per cent, upon his purchase money on giving up his land—not 3½ per cent, secured by the State, as I understand it, but 3½ per cent. At the same time he has to pay 4, 5 and 6 per cent, upon the charges upon his estate, the tenant at the same time paying this 3½ per cent.—I believe in some cases more—in lieu of the instalments which he ought to be yearly paying under the Act of 1903. All the time he is paying this higher rate, he is not, as he ought to be doing, paying that rate for the purpose of the acquisition of the freehold which he has eventually to have. The whole question before us is, I think—it was well put by the Solicitor-General when he said that the cardinal fact is: What are you going to do to relieve this situation—to get rid of this debt? I have looked through this Bill of the right hon. Gentleman—I have read it over and over again—and I venture to assert that there is not one line in it with the exception of the fact of the Treasury taking over the loss on the flotation, which he has already told us of, but there is not one line which will accelerate land purchase. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he proposes to apply four millions per year in cash towards the £56,000,000, so that it will take 14 years before the agreement at present completed can possibly be carried out. That is an appalling state of affairs if it is to be the only result of the Act. What more does he say? He says the landlord can be paid in stock if he will only take it at 92, though it is really of the value only of 85. Was there ever a more monstrous proposition than to say a man who has made his capitulations and entered into his agreement upon the faith of the State of getting cash under a Parliamentary bargain to say, "We propose, as you cannot wait for cash, to give you stock"?
Mr. BIRRELL: He has an option.
Sir E. CARSON: No, he has not an option. The option is to wait for all these years, or to give up 6 per cent, of the purchase money. One half of the bonus—the bonus which has been put forward so much as an advance by this country—one half of the bonus—if he takes 6 per cent.—they will be satisfied to keep his stock. I think the right hon. Gentleman may strike that provision out of his Bill, because to suppose that any landlord in Ireland will say he is willing to transfer his land, on the promise of the State, for £100, and then to offer him terms that mean the loss of £6 to £8, is really to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman has nearly succeeded in driving the landlords into a condition of lunacy.
Mr. BIRRELL: They are better than your own proposals.
Sir E. CARSON: They were never passed. They were never formulated. I ask, therefore, whether there is in this Bill a single provision for the purpose of relieving the deadlock. I say there is none. Then what is to become of it. The right hon. Gentleman says there is general assent with regard to the taking over of the flotation. But he must not coerce us by that in putting in that provision which will not stand the light of argument. Now what is the next provision of the Bill? I ask the Attorney-General to give his attention to this, because it has been already put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover. It is an extremely important point. What is to happen as regards the rest of the land bargains, and future purchase? We are told that in the future no landlord can ask for anything except a Three per Cent stock. I think that is a bad provision, but there it is. What we want to know is, is that to be an immediate transaction, or is it to be deferred until this £56,000,000 have been provided? If deferred, what it really means—seems to mean—practically, according to the view I take of the Bill, is that you say to the landlord: "If you now immediately give up your right to your land and your rents we will promise that at the end of 16 years we will give you a Three per Cent. Stock." That is too absurd and ridiculous. On the other hand, if it is not to be deferred until these £56,000,000 are paid off, just look how unfair you are acting towards those who have already entered into their agreements! Just see what the proposition comes to. The man who has already entered into an agreement in which he is

403
to be paid in cash is told: "You must take a Two and Three-quarter per Cent Stock." The man who now enters into an agreement—that is assuming that this will have immediate operation—is told: "You may take Three per Cent. Stock, although you were never promised cash at all." I do not believe it is possible to work your Act, if there run side by side all these different classes of payment. We want definite information upon this. It is a matter of extreme importance, because so far as I can find from the Bill, from this day onward the purchase is to stop, unless people are willing to take this Three per Cent. Stock in payment. Therefore, I say as regards the acceleration of purchase in the future, so far from there being anything in the Bill which accelerates purchase, it will bring about a deadlock worse than the deadlock already existing. Now I have not time to go into the question, which also will militate against purchase in the future: the abolition of the zone; also the fact that the relative interests are to involve further and long investigation. None of this would accelerate purchase. I think they will destroy it. To my mind the most extraordinary thing in the Bill is that after coming here and saying you are not able to carry out in any reasonable time the contracts which have been entered into voluntarily, you proceed to ask for powers of compulsory purchase! Just consider the situation: £56,000,000 worth to be carried out! Tenants and landlords rushing over each other into the office to try and get their agreements in, and the right hon. Gentleman is so enamoured that he means to bring in these compulsory powers! He has not said a word in justification of those powers. All he said upon the introduction of the Bill was that those compulsory powers were only something for him to cover certain points.
Mr. BIRRELL: I did not say it in the second reading speech, but in another speech.
Sir E. CARSON: When you come to this House for the compulsory expropriation of anybody in relation to their property it requires that a case should be made out. The right hon. Gentleman so far from making his case out, comes and tells us that voluntary purchase has been such a success that he cannot manage it, and that is the reason why he is asking for compulsory. If he had come here to say that voluntary purchase had failed, we could have understood him. I ask him is it be-
404
cause the untenanted land is not available? It cannot be that, because he knows there are thousands upon thousands of acres. I met a landlord the other day who told me that he had actually entered into an arrangement for the sale of untenanted land in connection with which there was some difficulty, because of temporary arrangements with relation to it, and when he came to carry out the bargain the Land Commission told him that they could not take it now, for they had not got the money. Therefore it is not a question as regards untenanted land. What then is the cause for this compulsory purchase? We have not heard yet, but I hope we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman. Is the cause the election pledges of the right hon. Gentleman I see opposite?
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Some of the Gentlemen behind you. ["No."]
Sir E. CARSON: That does not answer my question. Is it because of the promises and pledges of the right hon. Gentleman opposite? The truth of it is the whole of the provisions in regard to compulsory purchase contained in this Bill are absolutely unnecessary; they are absolutely objectionable, and so long as they remain in this Bill we shall never support it. Then to conclude this question of compulsory purchase, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General to answer this question: Is compulsory purchase to commence at once? The Bill certainly puts no limitation. If it is to commence at once, let us see where we are. Are you going to raise loans from time to time for the purpose of carrying out this compulsory purchase? If so, are these loans to be in addition to the stock that is to be floated each year to pay off in cash the 56 millions? We want to know that for this reason: The right hon. Gentleman told us in introducing this Bill, he could only make arrangements for floating five millions cash each year, and one million must go for various matters which he told us of. Therefore, only four millions are left. Is the money to be devoted to compulsory purchase to come out of that four millions, and if it comes out of that four millions, how much will be left to pay off the 56 millions? On the other hand, if the compulsory purchase is not to come into force until some extreme cases arise, or when voluntary purchase is not succeeding, why on earth is it brought into the Bill at all? Could not you wait? Is

405
your love and affection for compulsion so great that you cannot even wait until you have paid the people who have entered into voluntary bargains? The objection to compulsory purchase is, in my opinion, unanswerable. I think the right hon. Gentleman has made a vast mistake with regard to this Bill, which ought to have been, as far as possible, a conciliatory Bill, and which I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member below the Gangway ought to have been, as far as possible, an agreed Bill, because all of us now admit the policy that the question of the transfer from landlords to tenants must be carried out, and the only point remaining is how best to finance the matter. Therefore, the bringing in of this question of compulsion unnecessarily—I think heedlessly, and without proper consideration of what the effect of it upon other portions of the Bill would be—goes very far to destroy any hopes of this Bill for relieving the state of affairs in Ireland.
I pass from the question of compulsory purchase, making only this one observation: when the right hon. Gentleman lays down how the price is to be fixed in ease of compulsory purchase, the only direction to the tribunal who is to fix it is that the tribunal is to have regard to the price which the tenants and "other persons" are willing to give. No regard at all to what, the landlords or the owners might be willing to take, or what they might be able to get outside these provisions. The only provision in this Bill—which, I think, might have been non-contentious—is that regard is to be paid to the price which the tenants and "other persons," that is the cattle-drivers, are willing to give. The other part of compulsion in the Bill—to which I certainly myself equally object—is the compulsory powers given to the Congested Districts Board. I certainly object to giving that Board, under this Bill, which is to be at least half of it an elective Board—power of compulsory purchase, and also entire control over not merely the congested estates in the nine counties, but the whole of the estates in those nine counties. We know that the county councils in each of those counties are to a very large extent the handmaids of the Land League, and such a proposal is really almost an insult to this House. As regards giving them this power at all, I think it is extremely doubtful whether it will work well, even assuming that the question of the composition of the council should not come up at all. I
406
notice in his minute to the Dudley Commission Lord MacDonnell said:—
"I am unable to accept the proposal because its effect would be to overwhelm the Board with work which it could not discharge; to bring under the Board's control, and make lawful objects of public expenditure thousands of estates which are not congested; to exclude the Estates Commissioners from co-operation ill the work of relieving congestion in the West which they are highly competent to execute; and to give to an independent semi-elective body what really amounts to a controlling voice over the administration of the Land Purchase Acts over one-third of Ireland, involving functions which it is entirely unfitted to discharge."
Now there is the opinion of one who was brought into contact from day to day with those county councils which are to elect these members upon the Board, and his opinion is that it will involve functions which they are entirely unfitted to discharge. What reason is there for bringing members of a county council to distribute an Imperial Fund, as this will be? There is none whatever. As to the effect of the elective part of the Board, Lord MacDonnell said:—
"In the constitution of the Congested Districts Board, created as it has been to remedy a most pressing hardship, the elective principle would be entirely out of place, because it would increase the Board to an unwieldy size, and thereby make it inefficient; would convert it from being an executive into a political and' debating body, and would expose it to local pressure of all kinds, not only as regards its policy but as regards its practice and the distribution of funds and patronage. Moreover, in a Board so constituted the elected members would naturally favour the tenant's point of view, and this would lead to pressure being put on the Government to use its power of nomination to establish an equilibrium of opinion. In the result the Board would become a partisan Board, cease to command confidence, and sink into an arena of acrimonious discussions."
And that is the body you propose to set up in Ireland for the whole of the estates of the nine counties, and to whom you give the fullest jurisdiction and power in relation to all dealings between landlord and tenant. That is another provision which I believe we will fight to the bitter end. I have only one word to say on another topic, and that is what I call the agrarian revolution which you are going to create by giving land to those who have been called landless men in Ireland. To my mind no madder policy could be entered upon. I certainly would not lay down that every man in Ireland who sufficiently agitates for it is to get land, and that is what the Bill lays down. It has been described by the hon. Member below the Gangway as the triumph of the cattle-drivers. So it is. Do you contemplate where you are going? Do you contemplate what you are doing when you lay down that principle? Do you contemplate what the extension of it will be? It will' mean that there will not be half enough untenanted land to go round amongst these-

407
people. You will be driven back to this—and you are making a commencement under this Bill—that you will have to take the farms of men who have bought under your purchase Acts. And you are also making a commencement by imposing the limitation of £3,000 in purchase. I say once you enter on that path, once you lay down that you are going to give to men not connected with agriculture, and probably knowing nothing about agriculture, you leave it open to men by agitation to say that, having nothing else they must at least have a portion of land, and you are opening up a vista of lawlessness and agitation in Ireland which you little contemplate. As I said at the commencement of my remarks, I most devoutly wish that the right hon. Gentleman had taken quite a different view of what his duty was in bringing in this Bill, and I wish he had confined his efforts to rendering more easy the work of the Act of 1903, which, by the admission of everybody who has had to deal with the land problem in Ireland, has been the most successful Act this Parliament has ever passed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): Before I deal with the speeches which have been delivered this afternoon and yesterday upon the general merits of this Bill, I wish to reply to a question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover regarding a matter which does not directly arise on this Bill, but which is nevertheless of great importance to the tenants of Ireland. The question the right hon. Gentleman asked was at what rate is the sinking fund to accumulate under the new system that the tenant is to be charged 3 per cent, instead of 2¾ per cent, on the money advanced to him' I have communicated with the Treasury since this question was put, and the answer is very complicated. The substance of it, however, is that the tenants who have purchased will get under a rule the Treasury will make the full advantage of the increased rate of interest as regards the sinking fund. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you not put it into the Bill?"] The reason why it is not put into the Bill is that it is not done by Act of Parliament but by rule. Under the Treasury rule of 1905, made in pursuance of the Act of 1903, it was provided that the sinking fund was to be deemed to be accumulated at the rate of interest of 2¾ per cent., and that was calculated upon
408
the basis that the whole sum would be paid in 68½ years. It has been found, owing to the higher rate of interest as compared with the time when the Act was passed, that the Sinking Fund, as a matter of fact, is accumulating at a somewhat higher rate. Therefore, the actual terms of the repayment of the annuity, if nothing else is done, will be shortened, and the whole thing will be paid off in a less term than 68½ years—possibly in about 65 years. As a matter of fact, I am told the Treasury intend shortly to issue a rule to adopt a similar course to that which was adopted under the Act of 1896, and make the rate on which the money should be deemed to be accumulated 3 per cent, instead of 2¾ per cent. It does not make much difference to the tenant which is done, because whether the rule is made or left as it is the practical effect is the same, because the tenant will get the advantage of the increased rate of interest by the shortening of the term of his annuity.
As regards the speeches I heard yesterday and to-day, I notice that nearly all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who spoke in opposition to this measure commenced by complaining very strongly that the Chief Secretary and the Solicitor-General dwelt too much upon the financial clauses, upon which they agreed there was no difference of opinion. But although they objected to my right hon. Friend devoting so much time to the financial clauses, they have nevertheless devoted a great deal of time themselves to the same question, and they have dwelt at considerable length upon financial matters; in fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover devoted his speech entirely to financial questions. I do not quite understand the attitude taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to these financial clauses. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin admitted and stated that, in his opinion, the measure contained provisions which ought to recommend the Bill to the House.
Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL: Yes, I said that in regard to the proposal about relieving the ratepayers of Ireland of the burden of the loss.
Mr. CHERRY: Yes, and that is a very important proposal—in fact, to my mind, it is the most important proposal in the whole Bill. I do not think there is any clause in the Bill so important as the clause which relieves the ratepayers of Ireland of a liability amounting to something like

409
£279,000 a year. The ratepayers will be relieved of that burden, even if not another single agreement is made in Ireland for the purchase of a holding. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover said that this was deliberately provided by Parliament in language so clear that a child could understand it.
Mr. WYNDHAM: I am sorry to interrupt, but the right hon. Gentleman must not go on repeating that statement. I have said again and again that the loss was never contemplated and never intended, and the right hon. Gentleman must take my word for it.
Mr. CHERRY: Of course I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the loss was never contemplated and never intended, but the reason for that was that it was believed at the time no losses would occur. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman contemplated, the Act of 1903 did place that liability upon the ratepayers, and we were compelled to take proceedings for the recovery of the money. As a matter of fact we have the judgment of the courts, arrived at unanimously, that the Act of Parliament is clear in that respect. There are two things which the right hon. Gentleman repeated; one is that this liability should be transferred from the ratepayers to the State, and the other is that something should be done to remove the block. That does not go so far as the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, who said that nothing is done in the Bill to remove the block. Now if hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite are in favour of these two matters, which are of very great importance, why are they going to vote against the second reading of this Bill? It is nonsense to say that they support only one clause, because that very clause is the most important part of the Bill. By the attitude they are taking up they are going to plunge Ireland into a liability which they admit themselves is reasonable. Because they object to some of our proposals they are going to support the rejection of this Bill, although by that course the ratepayers are to be mulcted to the extent of £279,000 a year. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no."] Do hon. Members opposite think the Government will bring forward another Bill if this is rejected?
I should like to refer to some of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin yesterday. I think the matters he raised
410
would be more properly dealt with in Committee, and not on the second reading; but the interpretation he put upon some of the clauses is such as to be not only absolutely contrary to the intentions of the Government, but contrary to the actual wording of the Bill. He referred to the provision contained in the fourteenth clause dealing with the question of the zones. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of this clause as though it were an entire abolition of the zone system, but I assure him that it is not intended to be an abolition of the zone system at all. The clause as it is drawn is only intended to apply to exceptional cases. I do not suppose that in all Ireland there are 1 per cent, of cases where this clause would be put into effect. It is for the Estates Commissioners to decide whether or not these exceptional circumstances exist. I am aware that the Estates Commissioners have not the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman, and he never loses an opportunity of disparaging them. But the Estates Commissioners are gentlemen appointed by the late Government, and they have discharged their duties with zeal and efficiency during the last six years. That being so, why should we not leave to them the duty of ascertaining whether or not there are exceptional circumstances which render the zones system inappropriate? What are those circumstances?
"If the Land Commission are satisfied that circumstances exist which, in their opinion, necessitate, inquiry as to the security fur the advance or the equity of the price"—
They may make an order. Those are the only two points. I will give an instance which has actually occurred in practice. Suppose there are a great quantity of arrears of rent due by all the tenants on an estate; the very fact that there are those arrears is a proof that the rents are excessive. ["Oh."] If the arrears were due from one tenant alone out of a number, it might be a personal matter; but when there are large arrears on the whole estate—and this has occurred—arrears running to seven or eight years—it is a clear indication that the rents are too high. Under the present system the Land Commission is bound to advance not only the purchase money of the land, but the arrears of rent as well. All we ask by this is power to investigate the case, and if there are found to be exceptional circumstances which render the security insufficient, the Land Commission may ignore the law which takes the case out of the zones.

411
Then, clause 20 has been referred to several times. The right hon. Gentleman said that the object of the clause was to give a roving commission to the Estates Commissioners to wander throughout Ireland for the purpose of revising the orders of the Land Commission. May I read the actual words of the clause?
"The Land Commission in determining under SubSection (2) of Section 1 or under Section 5 of the Act of 1903, whether the agreed price of a holding is equitable shall have regard to the respective interests of the landlord and tenant in the holding and in the improvements thereon, and the price shall not be deemed to be equitable if it appears to the Land Commission that any substantial part thereof represents the value of the improvements made by the tenant or his predecessors in title for which he or they have not been paid or compensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title."
Is that an unreasonable clause? Any question which may arise on these points
"may (subject and without prejudice to any previous determination under the Land Law Acts) he determined by the Land Commission."
That is quite clear. If the improvement has been found by the Land Commission to be the tenant's or the landlord's, that is conclusive. If it has not been so found, the Estates Commissioners may make inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman laughs at that, but that is the intention of the clause. If hon. Members opposite are not satisfied that that is the intention of the clause, we are quite willing to introduce words to make it clear. That is our intention. All we want is to give the power of ascertaining where it has not been previously ascertained who owns an improvement, and, if it is found that a portion of the purchase price consists of an improvement made by the tenant, that it should be considered an inequitable price. These are the two clauses upon which the main attacks have been made, and I suppose, therefore, may be considered the most extreme in the Bill.
Part. III. deals with congestion, and is intended as far as possible to relieve congestion in the West of Ireland. The hon. Member for Mid-Armagh says that nothing has been done in that direction. What have we done? We have adopted the whole of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. That Commission, which was presided over by the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and included in its members gentlemen holding very different views, unanimously recommended for the removal of congestion certain steps, every one of which is embodied in this Bill.
Mr. J. A. BRYCE: Not all.
Mr. CHERRY: Nearly all. The income has been increased, the area extended, compulsory powers of purchase conferred, and provision made for the appointment of two paid members of the Congested Districts Board, so that the business may be carried on not in an amateurish way, but by gentlemen whose whole business it will be to attend to it. But our proposals are objected to by hon. Gentlemen opposite because of the introduction of the elective principle. I notice that the right hon. Member for Dublin University always protests against representative institutions; he seems to have an horror of anything in the nature of representation. We are asked why on earth we have introduced this principle into the Bill. I can give the answer in the words of the late Prime Minister. It is because the Government are anxious to associate the people of Ireland with the administration of their own affairs. We believe that things can be done by representative bodies in Ireland very much better than by non-representative bodies. But we do not go entirely upon theory in this matter. This is not the first time the representative system has been adopted. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is under a complete misapprehension. He said that the Congested Districts Board under the new system could never work properly, because it would come in conflict with the Agricultural Board. As a matter of fact, the Agricultural Board is representative now. The council of the Agricultural Board consists of 103 members, two-thirds of whom are directly nominated by the county councils, and one-third by the Department; and the Board consists of 12 members, of whom two-thirds are elected and only one-third nominated. For nine years that has been the case, and I am told by the Vice-President of the Department that it has worked admirably. There has been none of the corruption which it is said must inevitably follow once you have the county councils brought in to do anything in Ireland.
Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I did not want to make a serious attack on the county councils.
Mr. CHERRY: What the right hon. Gentleman said was that the introduction of a system of representation of county councils would inevitably lead to corruption. I ask any fair-minded man if that is not an attack on the county councils? If the right hon. Gentleman does not regard it as an attack he has a strange idea of what an attack is. The county councils have

413
been in operation for ten years, and I have never heard of a single instance in which one of them has been charged with corruption.
Mr. W. MOORE: The Local Government Board sent down people to take charge of the County Council of Mayo.
Mr. CHERRY: What happened then?
Mr. MOORE: The county council was suspended.
Mr. CHERRY: That was not a case of corruption. I am told that the matter arose about accounts. [Laughter.] Do hon. Members opposite really mean by that laughter that all the county councils of Ireland are corrupt. [Cries of "No."] That shows the way in which charges of this kind are brought up by some hon. Members. I will deal with the remarks of the last speaker on the question of compulsion. He asked why compulsion was wanted, although voluntary agreements cannot be carried out. The answer is very simple. Compulsion may be needed in one place, although voluntary agreements are working well in another. The Act of 1903 operated very rapidly in parts of Ireland where it was least required, and very slowly in parts where it was most required. Roughly speaking, on the east side of Ireland—the east of Ulster, the whole of Leinster, and the east of Munster—land purchase worked splendidly. Large estates were sold, there was no trouble, and there were good tenants. All went through rapidly, but when you come to the west of Ireland there was an entirely different state of affairs. You found there properties which could not be dealt with by the voluntary system. These are the places where congestion is greatest—places where you have large tracts of grazing lands in the hands of owners, and where there are slum properties and uneconomic holdings immediately adjoining. The landlords said that they were willing to sell to the Estates Commissioners certain parts of their properties, but not the whole. The Commissioners said that if the landlords wished them to acquire the bad parts, they must join the good parts as well, and then the landlords said that they would not sell at all. That has occurred again and again. If that problem of congestion is to be met, compulsion is absolutely necessary. That was the unanimous view of the Royal Commission, presided over by the late Lord-Lieutenant. If this congestion is to be dealt with it can only be done by compulsory
414
powers being conferred, at least as regards the congested districts. This Bill has been opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I would ask—on behalf of what persons in Ireland has it been opposed? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University disclaimed yesterday that he spoke for the landlords in this House. He said that, not only for himself, but for his colleagues. Therefore the landlords are not opposed to it apparently. Are the tenants of Ireland opposing it? I think I may appeal to the eighty Members representing the tenants of Ireland. I think I may also appeal to the Ulster Members. I am not aware that any body of the tenants of Ulster have said a word against the Bill. When the hon. Member for North Derry was challenged yesterday, what was his reply. He produced a resolution of the county council of Tyrone protesting, not against the Bill but against the enforcement of the Land Act of 1903.
Mr. HUGH BARRIE: That is absolutely incorrect.
Mr. CHERRY: Of course, if the hen. Member says it is incorrect, I will accept his statement at once. I say this much: that there has been no statement of any kind in the course of the debate on behalf of any body of tenants in Ireland opposed to the Bill. Lastly, are the ratepayers of Ireland who are not agricultural tenants or landlords, opposed to the Bill? So far as one can judge from the course of the Bill in this House, nobody would suppose that there is anybody in Ireland who is opposed to it. If this is so I would appeal to hon. Members opposite not to press their opposition to the Bill. If the Bill is rejected, it may have, as was pointed out by speakers yesterday, representing a great part of Ireland, very serious results. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO threats."] If it passes the second reading, Amendments may be made in Committee, and the Government are anxious that the Bill should be a measure not to destroy landlords or to destroy land purchase, but a Bill to carry out land purchase and enable landlords to get what they are only entitled to get—fair value for their property.
Mr. C. C. CRAIG: I simply get up to protest in the strongest manner possible against the short time we have been given to debate the Bill. Four Members of the party from Ulster have not had an opportunity of 'saying a word on the Bill, and I submit to the House

415
that to give two short sittings to debate a Bill dealing with questions of such gigantic importance as the congested districts and land purchase is not treating the Opposition fairly, and is certainly not cal-
culated to further the interests of the right hon. Gentleman.
Question put: "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." Ayes, 275; Noes, 102.

Division No. 44.]

AYES.

[8.15 p.m.

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

Ffrench, Peter

M'Kean, John

Agnew, George William

Findlay, Alexander

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Flynn, James Christopher

Mallet, Charles E.

Ambrose, Robert

Fuller, John Michael F.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Armitage, R.

Gilhooly, James

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Gill, A. H.

Massie, J.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Ginnell, L.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Meagher, Michael

Barker, Sir John

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

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Glendinning, R. G.

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Barnard, E. B.

Glover, Thomas

Menzies, Walter

Barnes, G. N.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Barran, Sir John Nicholson

Grayson, Albert Victor

Middlebrook, William

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Molteno, Percy Alport

Beale, W. P.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Mond, A.

Beck, A. Cecil

Gulland, John W.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Belloc, Hilalre Joseph Peter R.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Montgomery, H. G.

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Hall, Frederick

Mooney, J. J.

Bennett, E. N.

Halpin, J.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Muldoon, John

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Murnaghan, George

Boland, John

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

Brigg, John

Harrington, Timothy

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Bright, J. A.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Myer, Horatio

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Harwood, George

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Brodie, H. C.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncaster)

Brooke, Stopford

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nolan, Joseph

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

Hayden, John Patrick

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Bryce, J. Annan

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Buchanan, Rt. Hon. Thomas R.

Hazleton, Richard

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Burke, E. Havlland-

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien. Patrick (Kilkenny)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Higham, John Sharp

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Doherty, Philip

Byles, William Pollard

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Cameron, Robert

Hodge, John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hogan, Michael

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

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Hooper, A. G.

O'Dowd, John

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

O'Grady, J.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hudson, Walter

O'Malley, William

Clough, William

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Shee, James John

Clynes, J. R.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Illingworth, Percy H.

Partington, Oswald

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)

Jardine, Sir J.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Crean, Eugene

Kekewich, Sir George

Pirie, Duncan V.

Crooks, William

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Crossley, William J.

Kilbride, Denis

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Kincaid-Smith, Captain M.

Radford, G. H.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Delany, William

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Raphael Herbert H.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lambert, George

Reddy, M.

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

Lamont, Norman

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Richardson, A.

Duncan, c. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Robinson, S.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Erskine, David C.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Essex, R. W.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Rose, Charles Day

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Macpherson, J. T.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Falconer, James

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Ferens, T. R.

M'Callam, John M.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whitbread, S. Howard

Sears, J. E.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Seddon, J.

Summerbell, T.

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

Seely, Colonel

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Shackleton, David James

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Whitehead, Rowland

Shaw, Sir Charles Edward (Stafford)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wiles, Thomas

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

Wilkle, Alexander

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Williamson, A.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Ure, Alexander

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wadsworth, J.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.

Snowden, P.

Walsh, Stephen

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

Soares, Ernest J.

Walters, John Tudor

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Walton, Joseph

Winfrey, R.

Stanger, H. Y.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Wardle, George J.

Steadman, W. C.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Ellbank.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Weir, James Galloway

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Fletcher, J. S.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Ashley, W. W.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baldwin, Stanley

Gordon, J.

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Percy, Earl

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Remnant, James Farquharson

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Helmsley, Viscount

Renwick, George

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hill, Sir Clement

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hills, J. W.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Bull, Sir William James

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hunt, Rowland

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Joynson-Hicks, William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kerry, Earl of

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Keswick, William

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kimber, Sir Henry

Stanier, Beville

Cave, George

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Wor'c.)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Clark, George Smith

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Valentia, Viscount

Clive, Percy Archer

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

MacCaw, Wm. J. Maceagh

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

M'Arthur, Charles

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Dalrymple, Viscount

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Moore, William

Younger, George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Morpeth, Viscount

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord Balcarres and Lord Edmund Talbot.

Fell, Arthur

Newdegate, F. N.

Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time.
Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move: "That the Bill be referred to a Committee of the whole House."
Motion agreed to; Committee of the whole House for Monday next (5th April).

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  GREAT NORTHERN, GREAT CENTRAL, AND GREAT EASTERN RAILWAYS BILL (By order.)

    PROPOSED AMALGAMATION.
    Order for second reading read.
    Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I rise to move the second reading of this Bill. The House is well aware that parties never promote private Bills in this House except in cases where they hope to get some advantage by doing so, and I make no secret of the fact that the promoters are promoting this Bill for the private advantage of the three companies concerned. I take it the House will hardly expect to go at any great length into a description of the advantages which the promoters of this Bill seek to secure for their shareholders. We do not delude ourselves by the belief that the House will require that point to be largely elaborated. We know perfectly well what this House rightly and properly expects is that we should demonstrate to this House that the advantage we seek for ourselves will also be advan-

    419
    tages to all the other great classes principally concerned in the fate of the undertaking we are carrying on. Of course these great classes are perfectly well known. They are the passengers, the traders, and the employés—all of them classes of great magnitude, classes synonomous, almost co-extensive with the great public interests of the great masses of the population. To leave them out of account would be mere madness on the part of any persons trying to promote legislation. If I might at the outset glance for a moment at what we think to be the mischief that requires to be remedied, a mischief which we contend is not only a mischief to us, but also to the public as represented by the three classes I have named, I do not think I can do so better than by referring to some striking words used by the Prime Minister in a speech he made about a year ago at Manchester—a speech in which he referred, glancing particularly at the railways under the existing system—
    "To the enormous waste and unnecessary expense, cut-throat competition."
    —these were his own words—
    "the provision of duplicate and sometimes triplicate facilities in cases where one service would suffice, and a thousand other evils attendant upon the present more or less unregulated system."
    In that case, said the Prime Minister—
    "One could not help saying that an enormous amount of money might be saved, trade would lie better served, shareholders would have better prospects of higher dividends, if only they could introduce greater co-ordination, more simplicity and greater common-sense into the management of the railways."
    We claim by this Bill that we are making an enlightened and progressive effort to initiate a better state of things in the interests of all classes concerned. We seek to diminish our expenditure. Expenses tend always to grow. Gross receipts, unfortunately, do not grow at the same pace. We find ourselves in the position of diminishing dividends, with credit depreciated, and, as the necessary result of all these things, an inability to carry forward those extensions of new lines, the construction of those new stations, the making of those widenings of lines, and all those other hundred and one important improvements the successful and constant development of which are matters of concern quite as much to the public as to the railway shareholders. These things are an advantage, not merely to shareholders, but to each of the three classes I have named and to the State itself. These are some instances of the kind of evil we pro-
    420
    pose to limit. If I might glance by way of anticipation at some of the objections by which I believe this proposal is going to be met, I might recall to the House the fact that if there are two or three big successful systems in this country, as at the present time there are, they are those great systems which we now value so much—the London North-Western and the Great Western, and I think I might include the Midland, all of which are, historically speaking as well as otherwise, great combinations of other lines, such as we propose to create by the Bill now before the House. And remember if it be said we are creating a great combination so gigantic as to be a danger, let us measure this undertaking with that of those other undertakings. We are going to create a railway which will have 2,420 miles of line. The existing Great Western system has more than 2,512 miles of line, while the London North-Western has no less than 1,725 miles of line. If we may measure it in expenditure in the event of the House sanctioning the passage in some form or another of this Bill, it will be seen that we are creating an undertaking, a combination, of which the capital expenditure is £117,000,000 in all, while the capital expenditure on the London North Western is as much as £100,000,000 at the present time. As to gross receipts, the gross receipts of our joint undertaking will not be more than £16,000,000, as against the gross receipts at present enjoyed by the 'London North-Western of £15,250,000 a year. I merely quote these figures to show that some of the statements made by which the public are led to believe we are asking Parliament to create a gigantic industry, such as will disturb the centre of economic gravity are great exaggerations. I began at the outset by saying that we are seeking certain advantages to ourselves, and that we think these advantages are advantages also to the public. I think I need only recount and enumerate some of these advantages and lay them before the House in order to convince those listening to me that they are advantages for the public also. For instance, with regard to passenger traffic, who can deny that tickets available by either of these routes and return tickets, are an immense advantage if you put these railway systems together and get a better connection of trains at all intersecting points on the three railways and get trains more suitable in time and more convenient; more through trains to get from point to point without changing

    421
    carriages, and a better system between the north and east of England and the south and west than at the present time, and a better service by making available to the other companies a certain line which belongs to the Great Eastern at present. And like facilities for south and east. Now let us come to goods and to what is perhaps of the most profound importance of all—that is the food of the people. Is there any article of food more important to the poor than fish—fish fresh, plentiful, and cheap. The greatest fish-importing harbour is Grimsby, which is on the Great Central. They have a line from Grimsby to London. The Great Northern also carry from Grimsby to London. The great market for fish is Billingsgate. The Great Northern is at Billingsgate, but the Great Central can only carry fish to Marylebone, and has to cart its fish from there to Billingsgate, which is a ridiculous state of affairs—so much so that it is hardly necessary to enlarge on it. There is also the case of Lowestoft, where the Great Eastern have a large fish market accommodation, and the Great Northern also have a line from London to Lowestoft. That of the Great Eastern is a much shorter route, and, granted amalgamation, it would be nobody's object to take his fish to London from Lowestoft except by the shorter route. As regards goods generally, it is obvious that by making three lines practically one, there will be nobody interested in carrying any goods except by the shortest and most expeditious route. Another thing that is said against us is that we propose to create a gigantic monopoly. Does it do so? Does it create more of a monopoly than that which was granted when the great amalgamation was sanctioned which created the Great Western Railway, or that between the North-Western and the Midland? When you have created this so-called monopoly, do you eliminate competition altogether in the north and the east of England? Not at all. We shall still have our old friends the Midland Railway in competition with us at many points, and the Midland is right in the heart of the coal district, and capable of offering the most healthy and vigorous form of competition.
    I have detailed some of the advantages. I might go on giving a great many more, but to men conversant with railway matters it must be perfectly plain that the thing which is important for me to dwell upon to-night, is that matters of this kind and all these things are best explained and enlarged upon and made plain by the use
    422
    of maps and figures and experts who stand the fire of hostile questions, and I would ask the House at this stage to bear in mind that, at all events what we are asking for to-night, is that we should be allowed to pass through that door and to have that which every Englishman has a right to a free and impartial inquiry by one of the well-qualified Committees of this House I have to refer to one other matter, and that is the Instruction which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I must not discuss its merits, but there is one thing with regard to it I must discuss at this stage, and that is the possible meaning or meanings of that Instruction. Our consent to it has not been asked, but as we regard it, it is capable of different interpretations, capable of a restricted interpretation on the one hand, capable, on the other of a very extended interpretation. If you look at its actual wording you will see that the only part of it which directs attention to the public and public interest, is tied up in the middle of the Instruction by a connection with the proposals of the Bill, and similarly all through all the proposals of the Government are governed and dominated by the words, "If the powers sought by the Bill were granted." Taking the strict literal interpretation of that, it may be possible to contend that there is nothing in this Instruction, which does not apply to the Instruction to every Private Bill Committee, to which a Railway Bill is sent, and that it would not be possible for the Committee to go beyond the natural provisions of this Bill in this case. But there is another possible interpretation, and that is an extended interpretation, under which we fear that there might be a long and abstract inquiry into the ideal system of the ownership of railways. There might be an inquiry into the unlimited past or the indefinite future. There might be an inquiry in regard to things that were done or apprehended to be done, not only by ourselves, but by other companies with whom it is imagined we should be in competition, or there might be a general inquiry into the question of the Nationalisation of railways.
    I do not say that it would not be extremely well within the jurisdiction of this House to make such an inquiry into all these matters, but we say it should be a public inquiry, and it would be rather hard it should be held at the expense of private parties, as it would involve a very heavy expenditure. It must be obvious

    423
    that the interpretation of this Instruction must lie somewhere between the two extremes I have mentioned to the House. T only refer to it to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who cannot construe the Instruction in the same sense as the Chairman of the Committee, to give his own view of what is intended by it, because, after all, a Committee of this House and the Chairman of a Committee are justified in allowing themselves to be guided by that which passes in the debate on the second reading, and especially on an authority so weighty and authoritative as would be that of the right hon. Gentleman. Our case is shortly that in the present financial state of railways in this country unrestricted and unregulated competition has turned out badly for all parties concerned, and all that we ask for by our Motion to-night is, that we should be allowed to submit our proposal and scheme to an inquiry by that tribunal which alone can subject it to an efficient examination. We invite Parliament to accept it or to look into it in substitution for the unrestricted competition which we consider to have turned out to some extent a failure and to accept in substitution of that system a system of amalgamation of a kind which certainly will not eliminate great competition, and does give security against extortionate monopoly charges, and which goes further than that, and gives direct and immediate concessions, the result of treating three railways as one, which are of very high pecuniary value to the public and to the traders, and which gives, as the result of amalgamation, security for the minimum of facilities and distribution to all parties concerned.
    The last remark I have to make is that I believe arrangements like this between railway companies are apt to be regarded, and always will be regarded, by this House and the public with a great deal of suspicion. I submit that in this case there is not the same ground for this suspicion. We come into the open. We recognise who is our master in this case, and where lies the supreme power, and we come boldly, conscious of a good case, to ask from the supreme power that which we know will be ours with the greatest possible security if we get it from the supreme power, and we come conscious of the goodness of our cause, setting, as we think, the best of all possible examples by asking for what we ask boldly and in the light of day.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us has introduced very considerable matters to the attention of the House, and I am quite sure he will not expect the House to arrive at a complete decision upon the second reading of the Bill and its Instructions within the restricted limits which are at our disposal this evening. I think myself that such a matter requires a longer period for discussion than this evening affords, and, so far as I have anything to do with the decision of the House, my aim and my object will be to give the House the fullest information that the Board of Trade is able to supply upon every point. Therefore, I think, although the debate may extend over the limits of this evening, it will be to the advantage and convenience of the Members who are taking part in it, and who are carefully studying the question, if I indicate at the very beginning the view taken of the Bill as it now stands by the Board of Trade and by the Government.
    This is a very important question, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen that I have done my very best by long and careful consultation, by the study of the question from every point of view open to me, and by discussion with persons who have great opportunities of judging of these matters, to arrive at a position from which I might offer counsel and guidance to the House of Commons. The general question is a very big one. The present position of British railways raises questions of the most extensive and intricate character. I do not think anyone can doubt that in regard to several, if not to a large number of important British railways, we have reached a period of change. The process of growth seems very largely to be arrested, and the safeguard of competition seems very largely to have become illusory. We find that the working expenses are increasing, the material expenses are increasing, and the personnel—the workers and the servants of the railway company—are asking, and I think have a right to look, as the years pass by, for a larger and a more advantageous share in the general development of the wealth of the nation to which the railways contribute so largely. The railways find their expenses increasing; they find the rates on their real property increasing; and they find that the fares and rates which they are entitled to charge are not, in practice, capable

    425
    of being substantially raised—and very glad I am for that—and, in consequence of this, many railways find grave difficulty in raising new capital for the developments which are required, if a better service is to be given to traders and if a more extended railway system is to be given to traders, and if a more extended railway is to be placed across our land; and the consequence of all these forces, operating continuously and reciprocally as they do, is the conclusion to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, sometime President of the Board of Trade, has arrived at, that there is no real economic future—by which I mean a prosperous and expanding future—for British railways apart from amalgamation of one kind or another.
    We hear a great deal of the safeguards of competition. I trust the House will, in the course of this debate, direct a searching gaze upon this subject, so as to seek out reality. Competition in rates is dead, or practically dead—I do not pretend to speak with a knowledge of an expert, but as one who has had an opportunity of consulting many who are experts—competition in rates is largely, almost, if not entirely, at an end; but competition in facilities is continuing, though with this limitation. It is still effective in regard to those portions of the railway service where there are competitive routes. Then there is competition in facilities, always keen, often healthy, and sometimes wasteful in the extreme. Where you have two or more railways between particular points, you get a service which the world cannot equal for comfort and convenience, but very often that service bears no proportion to the revenue derivable between those competitive points. And where does the money come from to support this extremely keen competition? The money is derived from giving in many cases, not in all, not I think in the case of one of the railways which is coming before us now, a less efficient and a less cheap service in districts where there is no choice, but where a single line is the only thing offered to the agriculturists or to the country manufacturer, and that person has to bear an extra burden on account of the competition which between great competitive points often is extended beyond what is economically justifiable. My right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade—the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—studied this question with great attention and care during the last year of
    426
    his administration at the Board of Trade, and he came to the conclusion that it was in a general step forward into the sphere of amalgamation in one form or another, and that alone that a sensible and practical advantage in the immediate future could be secured by the railway systems of this country. Well, if we are to consider the principle of amalgamation, I can say there can be no real difference in the principle of amalgamation apart from the terms of amalgamation. The whole history of British railways is a history of combinations and amalgamations. Other combinations and amalgamations have already reached the dimensions which this present proposal would seek to attain. I cannot see how anyone can say that amalgamation such as is proposed now, apart from the terms, which are another matter altogether, can conflict with the conception of a larger and more extensive grouping of railways. If it be true, as great authorities interested in the railways assure us, that economy is to be secured and advantage conferred upon the travelling public, upon the traders, and upon railway servants, and upon shareholders—by amalgamation of these lines, then it seems to me quite open to us, in proportion as that is proved, to argue that vastly more extensive advantages would follow larger and more extensive amalgamations than the amalgamations now before us. I say that proposals for amalgamation, if properly safeguarded, are not in conflict with immediate national interests. So far from being in antagonism to larger amalgamation, they may pave the way to a much more extensive grouping of railways.
    The Select Committee on Railway Companies' Amalgamation, 1872, came to this conclusion as to competition:—
    "There is little real competition in point of charges between railway companies, and its continuance cannot be relied upon. There is at the present time considerable competition in point of facilities, but the security for its permanence is uncertain";
    and further included the following in their general conclusion:—

    "1. Past amalgamations have not brought with them he evils which were anticipated.

    "2. Competitition between railways exists only to a limited extent, and cannot be maintained by legislation.

    "3. Combination between railway companies is increasing, and is likely to increase, whether by amalgamation or otherwise.

    "4. It is impossible to lay down any general rules determining the limits or the character of future amalgamations."

    The conclusion of that Committee was that each amalgamation had to be dealt with on its merits. Let the House look at the question of amalgamation from the point

    427
    of view of the particular lines now seeking these further privileges. The financial position of these companies does not afford much hope in the future of any great expansion of service, of development, of facilities, or increased prosperity if they were left in their present detached position. The House ought not to look at this question as if it were the attempt of a great group of powerful private capitalists who are making overwhelming profits from the masses of the nation by utilising in a monopolistic form great ways of communication to their own private advantage. The financial position which was disclosed by these companies does not justify that. The total subscribed capital, ordinary and preference, was £117,201,000, and the balance available for dividends last year was £3,487,000, or 2.97 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Over-capitalisation."] The money was honestly subscribed. I do not think it is watered stock which has been artificially expanded.
    The actual results are much worse in regard to many of the classes of stock than an average dividend of 2.9 per cent, which seem to indicate. The Great Central Railway in 1907 and 1908, besides paying no dividend on the ordinary capital of £10,000,000, has also been a defaulter on over £9,000,000 of preference shares. That is, paying no return whatever for the capital invested on three-fifths of the company's ordinary and preference capital shares. The price which the deferred ordinary stock reached during the year—that is, 18¼ for 100—is practically the lowest the stock ever touched. The preference stock issued in 1890 was £37, or £100 originally subscribed. This is one of the preference stocks on which no dividend was paid, and I think an undertaking of this character and in this position is an undertaking which hon. Gentlemen here and which people outside should not look upon as an undertaking to be deprived of any opportunity of getting into a sounder and a stronger position, because from an undertaking of that character there is no real prospect of paying the higher wages to the men which they will expect. As the years go by they will certainly go back, and I certainly think as the development of our industry progresses they should not be deprived of the chance of improving their position.
    They certainly can give no improved facilities to traders who look for them in the stress of worldwide competition in
    428
    which they are engaged. Nor can they provide funds nor attract capital for any further extension of development. There is a very important loop line, 19 miles in length, which was to be constructed from Enfield and Stevenage. It was authorised by Parliament, a beginning was made, the first five miles were constructed, and are to be opened this year, but the rest is at a standstill. That is on the Great Northern line. These developments are checked because capital cannot be raised on attractive terms in the ordinary way, consequently railway development is in a state of starvation, and there is not that expansion of the labour market in connection with railways which ought to be looked for. I am not one of those who indulge in pessimism. I do not share the pessimistic views on many things which are expressed here to-day, nor do I share them with regard to railways; but still it is a very serious fact, and one which the House ought not to overlook that not more than 45 miles of railway were constructed" in the United Kingdom last year.
    A consideration of these general propositions led me to the same conclusion reached by the Select Committee in 1872, that questions of railway amalgamation should be judged on their merits, and should not be condemned without close and careful examination. I am putting before the House no more than that. When this Bill was brought forward some four months ago I was very much interested and very much concerned in the matter, and very anxious to do what would be of the best service to the general interests of the country, and I took the opportunity of consulting at an early date the responsible authorities representing the Bill, and I had at the Board of Trade very careful and prolonged conferences from day to day and correspondence with a view to arriving at what I thought would be the proper form of this Bill in which to submit itself to the House at the second reading, not what necessarily I thought should be the form in which the House should finally agree to pass it. I do not think that any Bill like this should be passed without a much more protracted examination than the House can give in a second reading debate. But there must be on the face of the Bill evidence of a desire to meet the main objection which can be entertained by the special classes concerned before it could, I think, be recommended by the Board of Trade on behalf of the Government to this House, and therefore I sought to procure from the companies concerned

    429
    certain clauses designed to make the Bill, as I thought, a complete proposition to go to the Committee. The House has been placed in possession—and I took care that hon. Members were put in possession at a very early date, so that they had plenty of time to think it all over—of the clauses which we think ought to be inserted in this Bill before the House should be advised to give it a second reading. Those are very important clauses.
    Of course, everything human is imperfect, but the House must not underrate the value of these clauses, and for this reason: In my judgment the clauses to which I have referred as being given by the company are near the limit stepping beyond which would involve the absolute withdrawal of the Bill. There are five clauses. The first clause is the calculation of maximum rates. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to that. The rates over railways, as the House is aware, are charged on the principle of so much for the first 20 miles, so much less for the next 30, and so much less after that, and when a rate comes on a new railway that process is begun over again, and when it comes on a third railway it is begun over again. In the first clause which has been inserted in this Bill the promoters indicate their willingness at the instance of the Board of Trade to provide for the calculation of the rates on the three railways as if they were one railway. That is a very substantial concession. I have been told—and the right hon. Gentleman will contradict me if I am wrong—that it is worth £100,000 a year to the traders of this country. I have been told that on the highest authority, and I think it is important that that fact should be stated in the course of the debate.
    Mr. A. C. MORTON: We ought to have some proof of it.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It was established very clearly that this would be the benefit of the concession which has been enforced. Well, then, there are many important clauses about passenger fares, which secure passenger fares against any alteration—the railway companies have now the power to raise the fares—that can conceivably be due to any change in railway competition due to the passing of this Bill. A similar restriction protects merchandise in general, and in the case of clause 4—the fourth new clause which I suggest should be added—there is protection for existing facilities. You must not deny to the railway company which seeks the
    430

    powers of amalgamation economies that properly belong to that amalgamation.
    At the same time, you have to make sure that in particular districts facilities are not unreasonably withdrawn. Provision has been inserted to that effect.
    Lastly, I have devoted special attention to protecting the position of the railway servants. I think they ought not to suffer through an amalgamation in the public interest. I think there should be an equitable share of the benefits of amalgamation. The railway companies have agreed, at the instance of the Board of Trade, to the insertion of a clause which makes it impossible for them to dismiss any man through the passing of this Bill by reason of economy, or reduction consequent on the amalgamation. I use the word amalgamation wrongly—in consequence of the working union. That is a very important thing. I want the House to realise how important it is. The other day the London and North-Western Railway Company, under an agreement approved by the Railway and Canals Commission, after inquiry, and sanctioned by this House, acquired the North London Railway, or obtained a certain control over it, and in consequence of that dispensed with the services of about 180 employés. The House had no power to make any bargain on the men's behalf at all. The London and North Western Railway Company gave them gratuities, from a fortnight's pay to six months' pay, according to the circumstances of each case. I have secured, if the House is willing to pass this Bill, that no man shall be dismissed or lose his position in consequence of the amalgamation. I am informed that a certain percentage of situations fall vacant every year. By means of that elbow room, which is provided each year, it will be possible to effect economy without inflicting hardship or injustice upon any employés. I am further informed that the developments which are hoped for will set going a current in the direction of expansion and the increase—apart from this mere waiting—to renew the wastage of each particular year which is not guaranteed. I should like to point out that there is the guarantee of the opinion of an impartial arbitrator if it is challenged on any particular occasion. I hope the House will do me the justice of believing that I have exerted myself, so far as the power was in me, to secure, to safeguard the different classes of traders, passengers, and railway servants who are interested in this arrangement. I am of opinion—and I

    431
    offer it respectfully and honestly to the House—that these new clauses justify the House in reading the Bill a second time. I am of opinion—and I state it—that the Bill has been carefully considered by the Government, and that the proposition, as presented to us, could not be properly dealt with by the House except through the agency and medium of a House of Commons Committee. I should like to remind the House that other arrangements are possible. The House must bear that in mind. It is perfectly possible for two or more companies to agree as far as the rates that are charged, the facilities given between competitive areas, are concerned. They can go further, and agree not to run competitive trains, to interchange their railway stock, to use each other's rolling stock, and goods yards, and they can cease the construction of competing lines. It will be difficult to see how legislation can stop these very subtle and very tangible co-operations. Further, the railway companies can and do enter into arrangements to pool competitive and non-competitive traffic under the existing law. No shareholder would not be likely in many cases to move in the matter, and the State can only interfere on proof that the public interest is concerned. Therefore, you must take the law as it exists at the present time. There are very wide possibilities of combination and pooling afforded railway companies, and they can adopt them, and let me say that those powers are being very extensively availed of at the present time. There are seven or eight railway pooling schemes of amalgamation which are in active process at the present time. I mentioned to the House about the London and North-Western Railway, and how serious will be the consequences which they will bring to the humble workers upon their lines. All these powers exist apart from Parliament. I must say I do not think it will be very easy or light to devise a railway Bill in the immediate Parliamentary future which would deal or cope adequately with this situation. I submit to the House that it is a very important thing not to treat a railway combination which comes frankly and boldly before the House of Commons, which courts full public examination, and asks for Parliamentary examination, and which invites the sanction of the House of Commons, and offers all the opportunities afforded by Parliamentary procedure—I say it is not an unimportant thing not to treat that combina-
    432
    tion worse than have been treated combinations which are subterranean, and which are outside the reach and range of our existing legislation, and never could come under the purview of the House of Commons at all. It would never give us an opportunity of making a bargain on behalf of the public or of the traders or of the railways servants. I agree that the House ought not in its treatment of this measure to do anything which discourages private companies in this country to come and lay their cases boldly and frankly before Parliament. Let them feel that if it be not in the public interest to grant them what they ask it will be refused; but, at any rate, give a fair, frank, full, and generous and scientific inquiry free from any element of impatience. It seems to me that the consequences of rejecting this measure—I have to do my duty as President of the Board of Trade charged with responsibility in these matters and I have no other interest, and the Government are not concerned with it from any point of view, politically or financially—I say it seems to me, confronted as we are with this proposition, that we are not responsible in any way, the consequences of the rejection of the Bill would be this: You would drive underground not only this proposal but all other proposals of a similar nature which may come before you in the ordinary course of events. All the dangers would still remain, all the dangers of removing the safeguards of competition would still remain; no increased facilities or assurances for increased facilities or assurances for railway servants would be provided. I hope the House will consider very carefully the Instruction which I have ventured to place upon the Paper. It is an Instruction which goes to the very limits of order. We are dealing with Private Bills procedure, which is governed by special limitations. This Instruction widens the scope of the inquiry in a sensible and notable way. Let me tell the House how I read the Instruction that is placed upon the Paper. The House of Commons, or the Government of this country, do not wish to sponge upon private people to pay the expenses of an inquiry into the theory of railway amalgamation, or nationalisation, or any of the other great questions. If we want an inquiry of that kind we can pay for it ourselves. On the other hand, those who have come to us with a perfectly legitimate demand, in the course of it raise very important general issues apart from the special issues which are to be discussed,

    433
    and which would have to be adjusted before the Committee. Therefore, while we do not want to make this private Bill procedure an Imperial vehicle to obtain discussion on a great national question at the expense of private people, at the same time powers must be taken, and will be given by the Instruction which I have put on the paper in order to enable the whole case for amalgamation to be examined, not only with reference to the special interests affected by this particular Bill, but in the general and national interests. At the same time, it will procure that the Board of Trade shall be represented throughout by Counsel, and that they shall have the power of calling any witnesses they choose on those points of public interest and general interest which might not be represented by the various local and sectional interests which have petitioned in the ordinary course against the Bill. That, I think, is a very important thing. I know some of my friends on this side of the House have a strong view that there should be a Royal Commission. I am not an admirer of Royal Commissions. A Royal Commission would mean the hanging up of this question of railway amalgamation for an indefinite period, for a period when no one can tell what will be the political situation in this country to deal with the situation. The development of a great section of our railway system, and the remedy which it is suggested should be provided, are matters which it is the duty of the House to examine. I hope that the Committee who sit on this Bill—if the House will accept the advice I most respectfully tender to give it a second reading—will investigate it without trespassing on purely abstract theories, and enlarging the inquiry beyond what would be right and fair; still, we nevertheless wish to make this amalgamation proposal a model for the other amalgamation proposals which are on foot in the country. We wish, so to speak, that the Committee shall put its own stamp on these proposals, and will afford to other Sessions, perhaps to other Parliaments, the method of dealing with these great questions—which are coming upon you year after year, which will be driven upon the House of Commons with insistent force year after year—in a model which will be easy and convenient of application. I venture to think that an inquiry of that kind, conducted not in the air, not in the way of a roving commission in regard to abstract questions, but an inquiry in reference to a
    434
    concrete definite proposal which will touch real interests, which will govern real facts, and in which real people will be concerned at every stage of the inquiry, will be of immense value to the general interests of this country. Such inquiry will be absolutely lost, and the whole matter will disappear into subterranean channels and underground vaults if this Bill be rejected upon the second reading. In regard to the Committee I propose that it shall be a hybrid Committee of nine members, and of course among those who are selected there will be no members personally interested in the Bill. I should hope a Committee of this kind will command the services of many of the ablest and most responsible Members of the House, and I propose that the Committee should examine the whole question of railway policy with that care and detail which will be necessary in the long weeks of the inquiry that will ensue. That I say will, in all probability, be absolutely lost, and everything will disappear into thin air and subterranean borrowings if this Bill is rejected. The matter is in the hands of the House, and the Government will not attempt to put any pressure upon hon. Members as to the way they shall vote. I have given my opinion that it would be in the general interests of all classes and the public that this Bill should be properly examined, and not thrown out contemptuously without a proper scrutiny. The matter rests with the House of Commons, and hon. Members must vote as they think best in the general interests of the community and the interests of the constituencies which they represent. Whilst I never hazard too many guesses, I feel certain that the House of Commons will, with great care and great patience, deal with this very elaborate and very important measure now submitted to it for decision.
    Mr. A. MOND: I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name on the Paper: "That this Bill be read a second time upon this day six months." The speech of the President of the Board of Trade must spread dismay into the hearts of traders throughout this country to a large extent. In the long and eloquent speech we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman he seems to me to have appeared more as counsel for the railway company than in the interests of the trading community of this country. The right hon. Gentleman covered to-night a very large amount of ground in his speech, but I would like to

    435
    point out that there seems to be a contradiction between the speech of the President of the Board of Trade and that of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the second reading of this Bill. The mover of the second reading told us it was absolutely necessary in every amalgamation scheme to put an end to cut-throat competition, whilst the President of the Board of Trade told us that competition did not exist. I think they had better make up their minds which of those two propositions they are going to put forward. I am not going to enter into an abstract discussion as to the merits or demerits of railway amalgamation. On this side of the House we have no hostility to railway companies as railway companies, or to railway shareholders as railway shareholders. We have heard a good deal about the interests of railway companies, but we have heard very little about the interests of the traders. It is remarkable that although we hear the representatives of railway interests speak in this House in moderate and measured language, we do not find that language repeated outside to traders when they ask the railway companies for what we might call very moderate consideration. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Select Committee of 1872. That Committee was a very important one, and after reading carefully part of the evidence and the Report I must say that I cannot altogether agree with their decision. I would like to give to the House on this question of competition the opinion of two very great railway men—the late Sir Edward Watkin, who was chairman of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway, said:—
    "There had been great progress in competition, and accommodation had been immensely increased, whilst rates and fares had largely decreased."
    He also expressed the opinion that unconditional amalgamation which destroyed competition would be an unmitigated evil to the public. That is the opinion of one of the most experienced railway directors England ever had. I should like also to give a few words by the then general manager of the Midland Railway Company. He thought that the value of competition to the public was in securing improved competition rather than reduced rates, and he gave a striking instance of the value of railway competition. In the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, it was assumed that competition is of no value to the trader. That is not the view the traders take. The right
    436
    hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware of that fact, if he has ever taken the trouble to read the many petitions addressed to the Board of Trade on the subject, and the views of different congresses and conferences which have been held. Every practical trader knows the enormous value of competition. The competition in rates may not be great, but it is there. I do not think that any practical trader would admit for a moment that competition in rates was bad, nor would he admit that competition in facilities is not of the utmost value. One thing a trader knows is that as soon as there is any understanding or agreement between railway companies he suffers; he seems never to benefit. I should like to give the House a few instances (out of a long list) of the action of railway companies which have come to an agreement. Between 1895 and 1907 the number of articles carried at owner's risk, at most unfair terms to the traders, has been increased from 82 to 180. Direct increases in many of the rates for coal and coke have been made by the leading Scottish and 14 of the principal English railway companies.
    Mr. MARKHAM: The price of coal has advanced several shillings a ton.
    Mr. MOND, after quoting instances of withdrawn facilities, continued: I do not want to weary the House, but those are samples of facilities which have been withdrawn from traders owing to cessation of competition and the pooling arrangements of railway companies, and they make the trading community look with jealousy and anxiety at the attempt of three enormous railway companies to amalgamation three companies whose capital represents about one-eighth of the total railway capital of the country. I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman who attempted to minimise the importance of the amalgamation that Parliament has never in its history sanctioned an amalgamation of three companies of this magnitude. There have been many amalgamations of small lines, but Parliament has never sanctioned an amalgamation of this magnitude, and to pass this Bill would be an entire reversal of Parliamentary practice since railway companies first came into existence. I would like, if I may, without wearying the House, to read one extract from the Report of the Select Committee of 1872 on the subject of how far railway companies may be trusted to look after the interests of the public. The Committee,

    437
    after discussing the matter at some considerable length, said:—
    "It is therefore clear that both regards the amount of charge and the accommodation afforded, the interest of the companies does not give any such complete or sufficient guarantee to the public as is given by competition in cases where competition exists."
    I would like to know whether anyone could point to a single clause in this Bill which gives to the trading community any quid pro quo in compensation for what they are asked to give up. If the railway companies are asking to make economies, ought we not to share? They obtained the right to charge maximum rates on that basis, and now they come here demanding to be treated as a joint line, but they do not propose to revise their maximum charges. Surely that would be only a fair offer. Up to now we have had no fair offer. We are always told that the railway companies are badly off for money. That may be their fault. We are not responsible for the money they have wasted. A good deal of money has been wasted in perfectly futile competition. Let me give an instance. Take the amount of capital sunk by the leading railway companies in this country in building harbours. If you take the amount required to pay the interest on the money expended on these harbours by the Great Western, the London and North-Western, and the Midland companies, you will find that the whole of the traffic would not pay 2 per cent, on the capital they have spent. Why should the trading community be made responsible for the extravagance and absurd management of the railway companies? The railway companies in the past have not been, and I daresay in the present are not, managed on the most economical lines. The right hon. Gentleman spoke at great length about subterranean arrangements. I wonder whether he is aware that his predecessor promised to an important deputation of traders to introduce a Bill to make the publication of all railway agreements absolutely necessary. I would like to give the right hon. Gentleman warning that the traders are not going to recede from the resolution unanimously passed demanding that all these secret understandings should at last be brought to light. I am convinced that if these railway companies could have made an arrangement without a Bill we would never have seen this Bill. But that is no reason for not rejecting the Bill. Clause 17 of the Bill is the greatest octopus clause ever introduced into a private Bill. We know that petitions will be lodged upstairs by way of protest, and we know
    438
    how frequently such petitions are withdrawn and some arrangement made. We do not intend to rely upon such a weak reed. When once the thing goes upstairs the House will take no more interest in it. All that the right hon. Gentleman wishes in the way of inquiry could be obtained a great deal better without the passing of this Bill. If the Bill passes it will admit the principle of amalgamation. No Committee can get away from it. The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not want a roving inquiry. Perhaps not. His Instructions are so narrow and so confined that no Committee could really go away from the proposals of the Bill. They could not consider, for instance, the amalgamation of the Chatham and South Eastern Companies or the Irish railways. He says that the inquiry will be a kind of peg to hang amalgamation upon; but really I do not think the right hon. Gentleman considers the matter very seriously. We have had in this country several amalgamations at work. We have heard of economies that were to be effected, but they have not taken place. The Committee of Inquiry will not be allowed to go into these matters; but we ask that if you appoint a Select Committee, it should be allowed to go into all these questions. This inquiry will lead to confusion worse confounded. Here are some clauses supposed to safeguard the traders, and the Board of Trade is not consulting a single trader's association. The right hon. Gentleman comes down and states that the Board of Trade and the Government are satisfied, but we are not satisfied.
    The London Chamber of Commerce is not satisfied, the Chambers of Commerce throughout the country are not satisfied. It is a most remarkable procedure for the Board of Trade, which is supposed to represent the interests of the traders of the country, to accept clauses supposed to safeguard the interests of the traders without submitting them to the traders. I am coining to those clauses, and when I do I think it will be seen what broken reeds they are for the traders to rely upon. They are not as good as those we got from the London, Chatham, and Dover. Why the Board of Trade did not follow that precedent is more than I can understand. The treatment the traders have received they feel very strongly, and I do not think it can be a matter of surprise to anyone that they should feel such treatment very much.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: May I remind my hon. Friend that the clauses I have been

    439
    dealing with were not intended to be placed in the Bills in this as their final shape. They were but preliminary safeguards to be inserted in order to make the whole a presentable proposition to be made to the House.
    Mr. MOND: I am sorry I cannot agree. Some of them are not safeguards; they are a danger. How can the right hon. Gentleman tell us he has got preliminary safeguards without having consulted the public who are to be safeguarded about them? I cannot follow that line of argument at all. When getting safeguards for the protection of some interest surely you must consult those interested. Take the question of the maximum rates. We were told that they were going to save £100,000 to the trade. Might I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to clauses 16 and 28 of the South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Bill? These clauses laid down—it was forced upon the railway company—that the two should be treated as one, and what is the concession they were supposed to give—
    Mr. CHURCHILLwas understood to say there was nothing wonderful about that amalgamation.
    Mr. MOND: I do not say there was, nor have you any evidence that this is going to be a wonderful amalgamation. The Railway Conference is not yet public property. If I could read to the House from the memorandum presented upon this subject I think it would create considerable diversity of opinion upon this question, but I refrain from doing so because the report is not yet made public. It seems j too bad that the whole result of that conference is private property, and should be locked up in the bosoms of the unfortunate people for months who took part in it. I may read to the House one extract on this very subject which I hope some day will be public property. I will give the House one extract:—
    "While being fully cognisant of these things every railway man knows that most of the good in our railway system is flue to the spirit of emulation and competition. Take away that spur and British railways would soon cease to be, what with all their faults we can claim and boast that they are some of the best in world."
    That is the opinion of one of the leading railway managers in this country. Take away that spur, that emulation will be withdrawn, and that is what has built up our railways. Let those who deny a self-evident proposition such as that produce arguments against it better than we have (heard to-night.
    440
    We are entitled to some protection, the same as we had in the Bill of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, but the clause of the right hon. Gentleman takes away one of the oldest safeguards the traders have in this country, and that is through rates. The power of the trader to ask for through rates, and if they are unreasonable to go to the Railway Commissioners to fix them, is one of the very few important and valuable powers which the trader has in this country, and I am sure the trading community of this country will much sooner do without this proposed clause and leave through rates untouched. The other two clauses seem to me to contain the most remarkable proposition ever advanced even by railway companies. They provide that railway companies shall not increase their passenger fares by reason of this combination. Their combination, which they say is going to effect economies, is, mark you, not to be a reason to reduce fares, but to be a reason not to increase fares. Did any sensible assembly of business men ever have such a proposal advanced to them? They will not have the power before the Railway and Canal Commissioners to apply under Section 1 of the Act of 1894, and say that an increase of their rates, owing to this combination, is reasonable. I should not think they would. I think even their sublime methods before the Railway Commissioners would receive a check if they really appeared before that body and said that, having combined to effect economies was a reason for increasing rates under Section 1 of the Act. If you will look at the clause for facilities, you will find that the great body of traders have no locus standi under that clause, and a very small locus is given to local authorities, who probably would never use it. These four clauses as they stand are no use to us. It is no use pretending they are. If the railway companies cannot give us any more and prefer to withdraw their Bill we do not want the Bill. We did not ask for it. They cannot ask us to accept these four clauses as anything but a huge practical joke. They may think the Board of Trade can be taken in by them, but the traders of the country are not going to be taken in. These four clauses have not made the Bill any better than it was. It is a very bad Bill. It is not even an amalgamation Bill. It has not even that merit. It is a kind of hybrid working union creating a joint committee of directors, without any property, to administer the assets of three separate bodies of shareholders.

    441
    You get no union of capital. You have a remarkable provision that if one director on the joint committee objects to anything there is to be an arbitration. Has anyone ever heard of such a proposition? A joint committee manages three great railway companies, and one cantankerous man can hold up the decision of the Committee and paralyse the business of the country for six months while a standing arbitrator decides whether his view or that of his colleagues is correct. This is a very grave infringement of the rights of debenture holders and mortgagees to which the attention of the House ought to be directed. Under that remarkable clause if the debenture holders appoint a receiver of one of the companies they are not entitled to the net profits of the railway companies, but only to a proportion of them. Though the Great Northern might have a very fine revenue the debenture holders would only have a claim on a portion of the net receipts, which might be very much lower owing to the bad business which the Great Central might be doing.
    If it is true that by secret arrangements they can achieve their object, why should we, at any rate, lay down a principle for the amalgamation of great competing railway lines which only got their powers on the ground that they were going to compete. Why should we reverse our practice? This is a vast and difficult subject, which requires inquiry, and the second reading of the Bill is not necessary but is positively harmful, and stands in the way of inquiry. I ask the House to safeguard the public and the traders of the country. I ask the House, on the broad principle on which our railway system has been built up, to say once for all whether or not they will depart from that principle, and I ask them to reject the Bill and not to give it a second reading.
    Mr. W. HUDSON: I rise to second the Motion which has been moved by the hon. Member for Cheshire. I listened most attentively to the Mover of the Bill and also to the President of the Board of Trade. The whole burden of their speeches was that the railway companies were right up on a dead end of a difficulty, and they must find some way out. I would ask the House who is to blame for the difficulty they are in? The traders are not, neither are the railwaymen. The right hon. Gentleman pleaded very hard with the House to give the Bill a second reading in order that it might be examined in Committee. We know what that means. If it goes to Committee, no matter what shape it is in
    442
    when it comes down here, you will be told it is a very unusual procedure to reject a Bill which has had a second reading and gone through Committee. This is the opportunity, and the only opportunity, this House will have of examining this matter thoroughly, and I entirely differ with the Mover of the second reading of the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman when they say that this amalgamation is of the kind of others which have preceded it in connection with railway companies. There was never any attempt to bring a number of railway companies together in this way, on this basis, and in such proportion since our railways were introduced in 1825. The position is this: these three companies ask for all the benefits of amalgamation, but none of the disadvantages. There are today 313 railway companies in the British Isles, and 250 boards of directors managing the principal railways of the country, and you are asked, by the provisions of this Bill, out of the three directorates—the Great Northern, Great Central, and Great Eastern—to create another board. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade does not hesitate to say that the Bill has for its purpose one effecting of economy; but I think that any business gentleman in this House or outside of it would say that if you want to effect economy among the non-effective producers that you can best do that by wiping out the three boards of directors and leaving only one. But you do not do it. By this Bill you leave them with the whole of their offices and retinue and the whole of their salaries; but you make no secret of the fact that you intend to do without a lot less men. That is most interesting. We are told that if we should refuse a second reading to this Bill there is danger of subterranean passages being traversed, and of agreements over which this House will have no control. So much more the fault of the Board of Trade. I venture to say that in the interests of the trading community of the country, in the interest and welfare of the whole of the workers on the iron roads of this country, that no Bill of this kind should be allowed to pass until the Board of Trade does take effective control over them in the shape of having the necessary powers to check them. What is the position? It is quite possible that the various financial interests of the country can look into this matter quite as deeply as the shareholders, if not the directors of these companies can. I have statements here from the Mayor and Corporation of New-

    443
    castle-on-Tyne and from the Incorporated Chambers of Commerce of Middlesboro', Gateshead, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and the Hartlepools, all declaring that it will be detrimental to the interests of the whole trading community on the north-east coast of England.
    As an old railwayman of over 25 years' experience, let me say it is obvious to anyone who will look at the matter even with one eye that, if you take the northeast coast, by the time the traffic arrives at Doncaster, traders have their choice of three distinct routes into London. These are now to become one and a monopoly, and to dictate their terms. In the clauses it is quite true that certain regulations are made with regard to certain rates. But where does the individual and the small trader come in? It is quite true that in some of these cases the Joint Committee probably, if it were allowed to be created, could be brought before the Railway and Canal Commissioners; but that is a most expensive luxury, and I venture to think that very many people in the country will grin and bear a great deal of hardship before they will indulge in that luxury. I pass to another phase of the question—and it is on these benches a most important one—the question of the future of the workers on these iron roads which has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want to underrate his attempts, and so far as he has been able to go I believe that he has done his best in the matter. But we have not been called into consultation in the matter any more than the traders. It is all very well to lay down that as a result of the amalgamation there will be no displacement of labour, but the fact remains that it is going along all the time. The question of promotion is one of the most important things that are looked forward to by very many of the railway men, and as regards what is going to happen I will give a brief illustration of what is happening now. Take the Great Northern Company, which I venture to say, so far as conditions are concerned, is the best of the three. As vacancies are falling out in some departments they are removing the staff and undermanning in order to get along with the work. The matter is a serious one. By the year 1910, in the event of this Bill becoming an Act, there will be no need to trouble. Everything will be done. That is one of the worst features of the whole thing. This has been going on all the time, and in
    444
    prospect of the future the thing is being worked for all it is worth. Let me give you an illustration. Only about two months ago it took ten men as examiners to deal with the traffic at Grantham. Four have been removed, and six men have got to do the same work. There is an average of about 250 trains in the 24 hours. Six at least—I can speak from memory—have now to take the trains whose first stop is at Grantham. In order to economise two emergency men are made up of greasers, whose wages have been advanced from 19s. to £1 per week. Then let me ask you—the word "permanent" stands in the addition in the twentieth section of the Bill. But the fact remains, and I have it on the authority of the men themselves, that within the radius of a few miles from King's Cross at least 150 to 250 men can be wiped out, and it is said: "Well, you are not permanent." When you take the three railway companies whose termini are in London into consideration, there is no need to bother about a clause in the Bill, for the reduction can be made that they want to make without putting themselves to any trouble whatever.
    Let me say that I quite admit that during the past your the dividends, as appearing to the public eye, have been low, but I say that neither the traders nor the railway men are responsible for the capitalisation that has taken place during many years. It is clearly admitted that in the early years exorbitant charges were made, and they suffered considerably thereby. Take one item: there is £80,000,000 in the capital debt of railway companies under the question of land over-charge. That belongs to the early years chiefly. Take the year 1850. British railways per mile were then capitalised at £34,000 per mile. What do they stand at at the end of 1907? Close upon £56,000 per mile. Who is to blame for it, and who should suffer as a consequence? The people who have rashly spent their capital over the companies. Might I give you an illustration of what has taken place? I refer to the Taff Vale as an illustration of the question of what is meant by spreading over. In 1889 they gave every holder of £100 of their No. 1 preference stock £125 of new four per cent, preference stock, and £150 ordinary stock. Every holder of £100 ordinary stock received £250 of new ordinary stock. Yes, but let us see the result. It is that we want. As a result the four per cent, dividend on the company's ordinary stock does

    445
    not sound out of the way, until one realises that it is actually 10 per cent, dividend on the money really sunk in it. That is a fair illustration of the position. So far as the men are concerned, there is only one method of relief, and it is a fair one. We have been pleading for many years for shorter hours, and there has been no real and substantial reduction in the standard of hours since 1892–3, when there was a satisfactory settlement on the 10-hour basis; but according to the work at present the time they are now engaged, and in proportion to what it was fifteen or twenty years ago, a further reduction of hours is what they ought to get, and there would then be no need to reduce the staff at all. Why not give that reduction? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of wages. Would it be interesting to him to know that the wages to-day, taken on the average over the railways of the United Kingdom, are less than they were in 1900? What is more, the position, so far as hours are concerned, is worse than it was in 1900. It is quite true that in 1907 a certain section of the men gained the eight-hours' day. They were the shunters, but by piecemeal fleecing they nearly lost it again. The unfortunate thing is that we have not only to fight the companies, but we have to fight the Board of Trade also. That is the bad feature of it. They are doing us more injury than any State Department ought to do to any industrial class of the country. We have pleaded with the Board of Trade over and over again to modernise their methods of dealing with these matters. In 1893, as a result of the memorable Scottish strike, into which a Committee of this House made inquiry, you got powers of a discretionary kind in order to administer and re-schedule the hours of working. The House then and there laid it down as a principle of administration that the hours should be on the basis that all hours over 12 per day were excessive. What is the position? No hours are deemed excessive which are under 12 hours per day. How can the men, with all their strenuous efforts expect to get a further reduction of the standard, while the Board of Trade is telling everybody that hours are not excessive if they do not exceed 12 hours a day? The power of the Board of Trade is entirely discretionary. The men are asking for an eight hours day, and they have been asking for it for the last three years. This has been asked for by the engine drivers, the firemen, and the guards employed
    446
    upon the most important lines of travelling, and the Board of Trade is one of the greatest obstacles in the way of the men accomplishing their object. How can any one expect men to work on for a day and a half, because it is out of all reason. Here we find a means of relief, and if the House desires to meet all parties fairly this is the only way in which it can be done. I think I am well within the region of accuracy when I say that the predecessor in office of the President of the Board of Trade, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, said at the end of the year, 1907, when negotiations were going on for a settlement of the great agitation throughout the country that he would take the reins and refuse to allow the railway men to completely strangle the trade and commerce of the country by striking. We all wish to avoid these conflicts because they are hurtful, but when that has occurred, at least we ought to have their help and not their hindrance. I say that this House should not, with the provisions of this Bill as they stand before it, set up a precedent that we have already been told will have to be followed by many of the other companies. I ask the House to take warning in time. This is to be the model, and if it is to be the model then let us make it a good one. Let us take great care that it is not a bad model, because it is certain that the railway companies are studying themselves first, and they have not hesitated to tell us so. Consequently it is the business of this House to look at the general well-being of the community both as regards traders and employés, and at the same time treat the railway companies fairly. I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion for the rejection of this Bill.
    Question proposed: "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: Those who have had the pleasure of listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, whether they agree with his remarks or not, must admit that he endeavoured to place before the House the case in a very impartial and a very fair way. He had not an easy task, and I think it is much to be regretted that he should be lectured by the senior Member for Newcastle for the way in which he has discharged his duties at the Board of Trade generally. The right hon. Gentleman asked the House to consider this question without any feeling, and to look at it as a body of business men. Whether you differ with my view or I differ with yours

    447
    I hope we shall allow each other to present the case to the House as it presents itself to our minds. The President of the Board of Trade has, in my judgment, made several points which have not in any sense been covered by either the Mover or the Seconder of this Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman very truly said that so far as competitive rates are concerned, in a very large district of England outside the area covered by these three railway companies, competitive rates are practically dead. That is a fact. Those largely interested in the commercial affairs of this country know that in many towns where you have three railway companies it matters not which of the railway companies you send your goods by; the same rate, per ton is charged, and the same conditions apply, because there is a great pooling arrangement amongst the different interests in regard to the traffic in that particular town. That is a fact, and, as the President of the Board of Trade pointed out to the House, this group of companies have the same power and rates that other companies have. Under such conditions is it not wiser—indeed, are they not to be commended for having frankly and openly come to the House of Commons and presented this Bill. They are all large interests, employing nearly 100,000 men, with a million, of money belonging to somebody, and they came to the House of Commons, the tribunal of the nation, and present their case to you, and ask you not to laugh it out, but to examine it as it should be examined, in the same spirit that the President of the Board of Trade has already presented the case to the House. We had very much better have an Act of Parliament which will be under the control of the Board of Trade than have secret arrangements and secret methods of dealing as between one company and another. Therefore, I myself think that these three companies, in coming to ask the House to consider their case, have acted in a most frank and honest manner.
    There is another aspect of this question which I earnestly ask the House to consider. It is a most unusual proceeding for the House of Commons to throw out a private Bill on second reading. Since I have been a Member I have known very few cases in which the House has not been prepared to submit a private Bill to the consideration of a body of its own Members. Those who have had a great deal to do with the procedure of the House will
    448
    admit that it is a bad precedent, when a great scheme such as this is presented, that it should not be allowed to go to a Committee for full consideration. The hon. Member opposite shakes his head. I have been in the House many more years than he has, and I submit that what I am saying is absolutely correct, and has been the course followed by whichever party has been in power. The President of the Board of Trade also referred to the question of facilities, and said that in certain districts that was the only matter in regard to which there was real competition. It seems to me that if you deny three great companies such as these the opportunity of raising capital for the purpose of improving their systems you will deny them the power of giving those facilities which are of such great value to the trading community generally. In this question is bound up the matter of finding the necessary finance for the future successful carrying on of these three great railway companies. The President of the Board of Trade made a good point, I thought, in reference to the future prospects of these companies in the matter of their financial position and their finding general facilities for the advantage of every trader with whom they may have to deal. I submit that, on grounds of public policy, and on the ground that Parliament should control this great problem of pooling arrangements, this Bill ought to have an opportunity of being considered and reported upon by a Committee. Neither the Mover nor the Seconder of the Amendment represents any particular interest in. the zone covered by these particular railway companies. I think probably that is the important matter. After all, surely we should try to get back to the point as to the districts where these three great railway companies do their business, and which they will, if the Bill is passed, either help or retard in the matter of facilities. The senior hon. Member for Newcastle and the hon. Member for Chester spoke in opposition to the Bill, but neither can say that his constituents are particularly interested, or are within the zone of these three great railway companies. The opposition came from hon. Gentlemen on the Tyne, and I think also on the Tees, in the North-Eastern system. It would have been wiser if the opponents of the Bill had found support from those districts which will be seriously affected by the carrying out of' this particular Bill. Speaking for a Constituency which is very largely interested

    449
    in this question, I am prepared to say that the Corporation of Grimsby, which I represent, is not opposed to this Bill. [Laughter.] Is there any objection to stating that? I am speaking for a Constituency that is deeply interested and entirely bound up in one of the great railway companies particularly concerned with this grouping system. A great deal was said about the chambers of commerce. Surely the chambers of commerce of those important towns, if they felt there was going to be any injury done, would have expressed their opinion against the Bill. Instead of that the opinion of the chambers of commerce is in favour of the Bill. A great deal has been said about the traders' interests. I would like to point out the traders' interests in the eastern part of England are not necessarily impaired by any clause in this Bill, but materially advantaged by many clauses. For example, there are very many additions, alterations, and improvements of facilities required in the great towns covered by the zone of these three companies which are awaiting the necessary expenditure of capital on those extensions to be carried out. It is because of the present condition of affairs, the earning power of the railways, and their financial position, that it is impossible for those important schemes to be carried out—schemes which would be for the advantage of the traders generally. I would like to point out also that, so far as the trader is concerned, in some of these towns, this amalgamation would be of enormous advantage. For example, it covers three of the large fishing centres in Great Britain, namely, Grimsby, Yarmouth, and Lowestoft. What is the position in regard to Grimsby 1 This is an illustration which I think the House should take into consideration. In Grimsby we have two railway companies—the Great Central and the Great Northern. The whole of the docks belong to one of these companies, but both companies have some sort of running rights. One company has had to spend all the money for the development of the docks, and the other company has enjoyed the advantages of that expenditure without contributing anything to it. You therefore get the minimum of facilities, and the trader cannot expect to get all he ought to have without such an amalgamation as is suggested. Then the whole of the fish trade between London and Grimsby goes over the Central Railway. But the Great Northern is 60 miles nearer London than
    450
    the Great Central, and yet the whole amount of fish is carried 60 miles further to London than it need be, while the quality of the article when it reaches London is depreciated, and at the same time the price is increased. The same condition of things very largely applies to Lowestoft. It belongs to the Great Eastern Company. Great Yarmouth is in the hands of the Great Northern, Midland and Great Eastern Companies, and a great portion of the traffic to London is 70 to 90 miles further than it need be if it went by a direct route, such as would be provided by this joint amalgamation. There is a trader's side to this question. The Great Eastern Railway Company covers an enormous area; but it has no direct communication with any coal pits in Great Britain. The whole of the coal traffic which it gets is handed to it by some of the railway companies. The consequence is that the public of London pay more for their coal than they ought to pay. Therefore, an enormous advantage to coal consumers would be the result in the whole eastern part of London, and also in the eastern part of England, if the proposals with reference to carrying became possible. I hope the House will give those who are interested in the Bill a chance of stating their case, and the House will do an injustice to both parties if no such opportunity is given. I cannot understand why those who represent Labour oppose the second reading of this Bill. The position of the men will be no worse than it is at present. It is admitted that men are now being discharged. The cause of that is the unfortunate and unhappy condition of trade; but the President of the Board of Trade, by the clause for which he has arranged, has secured the provision that no workman shall be discharged if the Bill comes into law, and if discharged he shall be compensated for loss of his employment. I submit, if this Bill comes into law, the workmen employed upon these railways will be in a better position than they are at the present time. I would earnestly say I am sure there may be a side of this question greatly to the advantage of the workers. If you can secure a greater measure of prosperity in great undertakings such as this, you have at least a fair case to expect you will get better payment for your men. But if the dividend earning power of railways is constantly decreasing there is the other natural result. I speak as one who has very great sympathy with railway workers, and I can-

    451
    not help thinking that the passing of this Bill would be a benefit and not a disadvantage to the 100,000 men employed by these three great undertakings. Therefore, I ask the House to give the Bill a fair chance to have it properly examined by a Committee upstairs; and I believe that if this is agreed to those who hesitate as to the value of the Bill now will be convinced that it is a measure that will be of great public service.
    Mr. T. R. FERENS: The hon. Member who has just sat down has said that those who so far have spoken in opposition to this Bill do not represent Constituencies within the zone of the Bill. He cannot make that complaint about myself. He represents a competing port, in reference to the port I represent. He represents Grimsby and I represent Hull, and I represent a very much larger labouring population than he, and the interests of those whom I represent will be jeopardised by the proposals now before the House. The Corporation of Hull and the Chamber of Commerce of Hull are strongly opposed to the proposals of this Bill, and for a very good reason. We in Hull have enormous capital invested in our docks. The traffic that has been coming on the Great Northern Railway to Hull for shipment is very large. If this Bill becomes law then naturally those who represent Grimsby and other ports will divert traffic to Harwich and Grimsby, which are situated on the railway companies interested in this proposal. Two of the railway companies have docks. The Great Central has a very important dock under construction at Iningham; they own Grimsby dock, and the Great Eastern own Harwich dock; they have a line of steamers, and if this Bill becomes law a great deal of the traffic that now finds its way to Hull would be diverted. I am not in the least surprised that the hon. Member for Grimsby heartily supports the Bill. We have had experience at Hull of monopoly and of competition. I remember the time we had only the North-Eastern Railway Company, and when they exercised a monopoly, and I also remember the great difficulty experienced by manufacturers to get their goods dealt with, but when Hull and Barnsley competition was instituted things immensely improved.
    I admit that so far as rates are concerned there is not a great deal of competition between the railway companies. They
    452
    arrange that matter; but in regard to facilities to traders the competition is of the greatest possible importance, and if this Bill became law then I should be sorry for the great tract of country that would be influenced by this measure—viz., one-third of the whole of England, comprising the Eastern counties. I have in my hand an illustration of the evils of these combinations. Our business only this month sent a consignment of goods from Hull to the Midlands, and there was so long a delay—of ten days—that we were obliged to send a duplicate lot of goods. Our customer wrote exonerating us entirely from blame, and adding this: "We know that great delays are general on railways here, and since the amalgamation it is simply terrible." That will be the experience of very many traders supposing this proposal becomes law. To show how very determined the Hull Corporation was to secure competition if possible, they subscribed, when the Hull and Barnsley Railway was formed, £100,000 towards the scheme, and they hold that amount in the Hull and Barnsley to-day. Owing to the arguments I have adduced I shall certainly, under the expression of desire on the part of the Hull Corporation, representing as they do 260,000 inhabitants, and also on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of Hull, representing as they do all the leading merchants and manufacturers of the City of Hull, I shall certainly go into the Lobby against the Bill.
    Mr. F. W. LAMBTON: I beg to move: "That the debate be now adjourned."
    Debate adjourned.

UNDER-SHERIFFS (COUNTY BOROUGHS) (IRELAND) BILL.
Read a second time.
The House adjourned at Five minutes fitter Eleven of the clock.

  Northumberland and Welsh Steam Coal.
  Northumberland and Welsh Steam Coal.
  Shop Hours Bill.
  Shop Hours Bill.
  National Telephone Company.
  National Telephone Company.
  Telegraph Cable (Clare Island, County Mayo).
  Telegraph Cable (Clare Island, County Mayo).
  London Postal Service (Dismissal of Mr. A. C. Careless).
  London Postal Service (Dismissal of Mr. A. C. Careless).
  Royal Navy (Hospital Stoppages).
  Royal Navy (Hospital Stoppages).
  Royal Navy (Non-Substantive Rating).
  Royal Navy (Non-Substantive Rating).
  Imports and Exports (1907, 1908).
  Imports and Exports (1907, 1908).
  Passenger Communication Cords (Midland Railway).
  Passenger Communication Cords (Midland Railway).
  Finchley Urban District (Distress Committee).
  Finchley Urban District (Distress Committee).
  Vaccination (Exemption Certificates).
  Vaccination (Exemption Certificates).
  Old Age Pension Application (Leeds).
  Old Age Pension Application (Leeds).
  Deaths from Burns and Overlaying.
  Deaths from Burns and Overlaying.
  Inspectors of Weights and Measures (County Galway).
  Inspectors of Weights and Measures (County Galway).
  Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906.
  Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906.
  Model School Teachers (Ireland).
  Model School Teachers (Ireland).
  Population (Ireland).
  Population (Ireland).
  Old Age Pension Committees (Ireland).
  Old Age Pension Committees (Ireland).
  Board of Customs (Statistical Office).
  Board of Customs (Statistical Office).
  Old Age Pension Application (Orkney).
  Old Age Pension Application (Orkney).
  Graduated Receipt Duty.
  Graduated Receipt Duty.
  Municipal Corporations (Trading Profits).
  Municipal Corporations (Trading Profits).
  Purchase Agreements (Ireland).
  Purchase Agreements (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions Act (Appeals, Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions Act (Appeals, Ireland).
  Welsh Schools (Mother Tongue).
  Welsh Schools (Mother Tongue).
  Public Elementary Schools (Percentage of Teachers).
  Public Elementary Schools (Percentage of Teachers).
  The Shetland Knitters and Truck.
  The Shetland Knitters and Truck.
  Pensioners in Orkney.
  Pensioners in Orkney.
  An Old Soldier's Case.
  An Old Soldier's Case.
  An Island of Eday Claim.
  An Island of Eday Claim.
  Live Stock and Farm Produce (Market Prices).
  Live Stock and Farm Produce (Market Prices).
  Royal Navy (Battleship Complements).
  Royal Navy (Battleship Complements).
  Highland Crofting Counties (Uncertificated Deaths).
  Highland Crofting Counties (Uncertificated Deaths).
INDIAN RAILWAYS (SINKING FUNDS INVESTMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.
FRIMLEY AND FARNBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with amendments.
HASTINGS HARBOUR BILL. LEYLAND AND FARINGTON GAS BILL.
Read 2a and committed.
NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
Read 2a and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
MALVERN HILLS BILL. [H.L.]
MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
CLEVEDON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
HECKMONDWIKE AND LIVERSEDGE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

DUNOON BURGH BILL. [H.L.]
LORD AVEBURY:My Lords, I rise to move that it be an Instruction to the Committee to which this Bill is referred to leave out Clauses 5 and 8 to 12. The question to which I desire to call your Lordships' attention may seem at first sight a small one, but it really raises a very large problem. Clause 5 of this Bill provides that—
"The Town Council may and they are hereby authorised to carry on and continue the cartage undertaking presently carried on by them for the conveyance and delivery of goods wares merchandise parcels and personal luggage of every kind whatsoever within and beyond the burgh."
544
This, therefore, gives them the power of carrying on an immense cartage business, not only in the burgh of Dunoon, but, as far as I can see, anywhere in Scotland, or, indeed, throughout the world. Clause 8 provides that—
"Subject to the provisions of this Act the Town Council may build purchase hire provide charter employ and maintain steam and other vessels of every or any description and may navigate work and use the same and may therein and thereby convey and carry passengers animals goods merchandise and things of every description between the Burgh and Port of Dunoon and all ports and places on the River and Firth of Clyde and all waters and lochs within a line drawn from the Mull of Kintyre to the Heads of Ayr and may do all acts and things and may employ and hire all such officers and other persons as may be necessary to enable them to carry fully into effect the purposes aforesaid."
The other clauses referred to in my Motion are subsidiary to these two. This really raises the whole question of municipal trading, and is one more step in the direction of Socialism. Although it may be in itself a small one, yet if it is agreed to by your Lordships' House, it is difficult to see how the same powers can be denied to other municipalities. At the annual conference of the Social Democratic Federation, held at Burnley, a resolution was passed supporting all forms of municipal enterprise on the ground that it tended to substitute socialisation for private enterprise. This is another step in that direction.
I submit that municipal trading is undesirable on several grounds. First, the legitimate functions of municipalities are quite sufficient to occupy all their time and attention without going into matters of business; secondly, what has already been done has occasioned an enormous addition to our municipal debt; thirdly, this trading involves municipalities in labour disputes; fourthly, as there will not be in these operations the same stimulus to economy as in private enterprise there will be a great probability, if not a certainty, that one of two things will happen—either there will be a loss which the ratepayers will have to make good, or the service will cost more to the ratepayers; and, lastly, municipal trading is a serious check to progress. I do not think I need occupy your Lordships' time in enlarging upon the great and complicated duties which municipalities have already to perform, nor need I trouble you with any statistics as to the enormous increase in the municipal debt.

545
As regards the question of labour disputes, the report of the conference of municipal employés associations for 1906 contains a very interesting speech by Mr. Keir Hardie, in which he said—
"As a Socialist he was naturally strongly in favour of organisation amongst municipal employés, and he was pleased to see the marvellous progress that had been made. In this country there were already over two million municipal employés, and as the total wage-earners numbered fourteen millions, this was very interesting. He also found that in 1903, when there was a reduction in wages all round, the wages of municipal employés had alone increased; indeed, they had doubled."
As regards loss in municipal trading, a great number of illustrations could be given. In fact, I believe these bodies never make a profit, except where they have a monopoly. I do not know what line His Majesty's Government may be disposed to take on this question. The late Lord Farrer—and no one had greater experience in all these questions—began life strongly in favour of municipal enterprise as against private enterprise, but in later years his experience led him to the opposite conclusion, and in his work on the State and its relation to trade he speaks of the great danger involved in municipal trading. This is another step in that fatal direction. Mr. Meyer, Professor of Political Economy, of Chicago, in his work on municipal ownership, has given interesting statistics showing the effect upon the employment of labour of what has been done in regard to the telephone service, electric lighting, and tramways in the United States as compared with England. He shows that, in consequence of the freedom which was left in the United States, there were 115,000 more persons employed in those three industries there than here.
I submit that municipal trading is very much in opposition to the interests of working-men, and that the tendency of legislation such as that comprised in Clauses 5 and 8 of this Bill is in the direction of increasing unemployment. Why should the Town Council of Dunoon ask for power to engage in shipbuilding? The Clyde is celebrated for its shipbuilders, and surely they can supply any number of ships which Dunoon may require. As regards the running of ships, there, again, the Clyde steamship companies, which send ships all over the world, are surely able to supply the wants of Dunoon. I, therefore, fail to see the need for these
546
additional powers. If we constantly give powers of this kind we shall find it difficult to draw the line. The question arises whether we should pass this Instruction or leave the matter to the Committee. When it is a question between two companies, or between a company and individuals, or a question of fairness to individual rights, then no doubt the matter is best dealt with by a Committee. But this is not a question of detail. The great principle is here raised whether powers of this kind ought to be given to municipalities. I submit that this is a question which really ought to be decided by the House, and it is from that point of view that I venture to move the Instruction which stands in my name.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill is referred to leave out Clauses 5 and 8 to 12.—(Lord Avebury.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH:My Lords, it is impossible, so far as abstract doctrine goes, not to agree with a great deal that the noble Lord has said. I certainly agree that such a departure as this is a matter for the decision of the House itself rather than a Committee, but to enable the House to come to a final decision on the merits, and to feel that it is coming safely to such a decision, it ought to have the full facts before it. My belief is that it would be wiser to allow this Bill to go to Committee to see what evidence is presented upon the matters involved, and not to attempt to come to a decision, as this House would naturally have to come to a decision if it decided to-day to strike out the clauses, in practical ignorance of the merits of the case.
I certainly am not going into a defence of the clauses as they stand. To do that would be to take the House into a discussion on the merits, which is exactly what I want to avoid. But there are special circumstances affecting the burgh of Dunoon, and I think it would be wiser for the House to let this Bill go upstairs, and then, upon Third Reading or a stage subsequent to the Committee, see whether any sort of case has been made out for what I frankly admit is a very large departure in private Bill legislation in the way of giving powers to a municipality. The first point I make, then, is that if we reject this Instruction the House is not parting with control; it is

547
only suspending its judgment until we see the whole facts as they may be proved before the Committee. Dunoon is a small town upon the banks of the Clyde. In the winter it has a population of some 7,000 or 8,000, which in the summer time rises to 25,000 or 30,000, owing to the extent to which Dunoon is used by summer visitors from Glasgow and the larger places on both sides of the Clyde. For this business to be carried on, it is absolutely necessary that there should be convenient modes of communication with Dunoon. There is no possibilty of getting to Dunoon by road, there is no railway communication to it at all, and the only means of communication is by steamboat.
The steamboat service on the Clyde is largely in the hands of two or more railway companies. They have lately, as I venture to think very wisely, combined their services for the purposes of economy. It is alleged by Dunoon that the service either has been or is likely to be unduly restricted. Dunoon burgh have the ownership of a ferry. It is questioned how far they should be allowed to exercise their rights over that ferry, and they are undoubtedly asking for power to compete with the railway companies. I should be the last person to defend that power except upon the very strongest ground, as I think it quite possible that the burgh of Dunoon, like other people, sometimes ask for more than they ought to have or more even, perhaps, than they themselves expect to get. It may be that the railway companies are reasonable or unreasonable. As to that I express no opinion; but, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the situation, the physical characteristics of the place, and the absolute necessity for the livelihood of the inhabitants that communication should be as free, as easy, and as rapid as possible, I think it would be reasonable that the people of Dunoon should have a chance of proving their allegation by means of cross-examination and witnesses before an impartial tribunal like a Committee of your Lordships' House. I do not think it would take a long time, and I believe it would be more satisfactory to all parties that the matter should be thrashed out on its merits upstairs. Your Lordships would then be able to decide with full knowledge on the subject.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES(THE EARL OF ONSLOW)My Lords, the difficulty that I always feel myself in
548
with regard to Motions of the kind now before the House is that it sometimes is difficult to find a way by which a member of your Lordships' House, interested in a private Bill but not about to sit upon it as one of those selected for the Committee, is able to give expression to his views and invite the sense of the House. If he does so before the Second Reading he is told that it is much better to let the Bill go to a Committee and be thrashed out there. If he takes action after the Bill has been considered by a Committee he is invariably told that the Committee has thoroughly looked into it, and that if your Lordships once decide to go behind the decision of the Committee you are creating a dangerous precedent.
But I would point out to my noble friend that, in this case, if he allows the Bill to go to a Committee without this Instruction, his opportunities for further considering the matter will be by no means at an end. I suggest whether it would not be well for him to allow the Bill as it stands to go before the Select Committee, because in this House, at any rate, there is always an opportunity of moving the omission of Clauses on Third Reading, and my noble friend and such of your Lordships as are interested in the matter would then have had the additional advantage of studying the evidence, which, of course, will be printed, given before the Committee. With regard to Clause 5, which affects the question of cartage, that has to a limited extent, at any rate, already been sanctioned by Parliament. The burgh of Dunoon were allowed to purchase the pier undertaking, and with the pier undertaking the cartage establishment used in connection therewith.
Then there is the larger question, namely, the powers which the burgh seek to obtain to run steamboats across the Clyde. Most of your Lordships have fresh in your minds the results of attempting to run steamboats on the River Thames, and I do not think that the success which attended that experiment is such as to lead your Lordships very readily to entrust other local authorities with similar powers; but, in the case of Dunoon, the business of communication by steamer across the Clyde is now, as my noble friend Lord Balfour has said, in the hands of certain railway companies, and it is the fear that these steamboat services may be curtailed,

549
or possibly, during the winter months, taken off altogether, which has led the burgh of Dunoon to some to Parliament with these proposals.
If I may venture to throw out a suggestion to the Town Council of Dunoon as well as to the railway companies concerned, it seems to me that it would be very much better if an arrangement could be come to between them by which a service of steamboats should be guaranteed by the railway companies—a minimum amount of accommodation such as the Town Council of Dunoon would be content with—and that thereupon the burgh should leave these matters to the railway companies and not endeavour to obtain powers for themselves. I throw that out as a suggestion, and if, when the Bill comes back to your Lordships from the Select Committee, it is found that nothing of the kind has been possible, it will then be perfectly competent for the noble Lord to make a Motion similar in effect to that which he has on the Paper, and he would have the additional advantage of the full facts being before him and the House.
LORD AVEBURY:As I gather that we shall not be in any way committed to these Clauses if we allow them to go to the Committee for consideration, I will not put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing, but will accept the suggestion which has been made. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

CONWAY GAS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

HOPS BILL. [H.L.] [SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*VISCOUNT HARDINGE:My Lords, the object of this Bill, to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading, is to prohibit the use of hop substitutes in the brewing and preservation of beer and the importation of hops except in bags pro
550
perly marked. In my advocacy of this Bill I wish to say most emphatically that I am not suggesting anything that savours of Protection; nor do I wish to introduce into this question anything which may be regarded as of a controversial party nature. My reason for introducing this Bill is that I live in the centre of the hop-growing district of Kent, and am daily brought face to face with the sad havoc and ruin which the present depression in the hop industry is making upon the once prosperous villages of the Garden of England.
I have no wish, however, to dilate on the financial embarrassment—in many cases absolute insolvency—of many practical and industrious tenant-farmers and yeomen, with the consequent loss of wages and great increase of unemployment among agricultural labourers. This topic is humiliating to us who live in the hop-growing districts for this reason, that up to the present time nothing of a practical nature has been attempted in order to put an end to this deplorable state of things, although the whole of the hop industry is practically unanimous in regarding the position as one that could easily be mended if only His Majesty's Government would get to the root of the matter and recognise the causes of the depression and adopt the necessary remedies.
Although my own personal experience is mainly derived from Kent, I know, and your Lordships are generally aware, that other hop-growing counties are suffering from the depression in the same degree. From Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Surrey, Sussex, and Hampshire comes the same pitiable tale of grubbed hop gardens, unemployed labourers, and village tradesmen standing helplessly by whilst their businesses are drifting away from them. I venture to think that no one who is brought face to face with the existing condition of the hop-growing districts can fail to recognise the absolute importance of immediate steps being taken to put an end to such a depressing state of things, and prevent the destruction of what was once known as a great English industry, the maintenance of which I believe to be of vital importance to the people of this country. Of all classes, those who suffer most from the ruin of the hop industry are undoubtedly the pickers and the labourers, who are, very naturally,

551
now fast leaving the land. It will, therefore, be the labourers and the pickers who will derive the greatest benefits from the resuscitation of this industry. It is surely our duty to make it again possible for a large acreage of hops to be cultivated in this country, with the payment of a fair living wage and the realisation of a reasonable profit. If we can do this we shall have accomplished a great achievement, because it will have a considerable effect in bringing people back to the land. This is my primary object in appealing to your Lordships to give this Bill a second reading.
The hops question was discussed in your Lordships' House in May of last year, when my noble friend Lord Addington moved the following resolution—
"That the continued cultivation of the hop gardens of England is a matter of national concern, and that the present critical condition of the hop industry deserves the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government."
That resolution, as your Lordships remember, was unanimously agreed to. During that debate many interesting facts were brought to your Lordships' notice. The most reverend Primate, in a short speech, the eloquence and pathos of which I can assure him touched very deeply the hearts of those who are suffering so terribly from the depression in this trade, told us that—
"having to be in touch day by day with the life of the Kentish owns and villages, he was simply aghast at the consternation which was then prevailing in the villages of Kent."
That was the position last May. If that was the position then, how much worse must it be to-day, for everything which has happened since has been of such a character as to intensify the depression, increase the ruin, and magnify the utter despondency which now hangs like a black impenetrable cloud over the whole of the hop-growing counties?
In the course of the discussion last year Lord Eversley, who may be regarded as an expert on this question, having sat as chairman of a previous Hop Commission, told us that the hop acreage had been reduced for the last five years to 48,000 acres. I trust the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that the position then was even worse. From the official returns I find that in 1885 we cultivated in England no fewer than 71,327 acres; in 1907 the acreage was not

552
48,000, but 44,938. Last year's returns showed the astonishing decrease of 6,022 acres, bringing the acreage down to the ridiculously small total of 38,916, and I fear there is worse to follow. From the information constantly coming to my notice it is clear that the losses incurred by the hop growers last year were far worse than could possibly be imagined, with the result that another débácle has taken place by means of the grubbing and destruction of hop gardens. What the acreage will prove to be from the next Government Return it would be difficult to say, but I am assured by an expert that it is not likely to exceed 30,000 acres.
It has frequently been asserted that the depression is caused very largely by overproduction all over the world. In my humble opinion it is nothing of the kind. The truth of the matter is that we have underproduction in England and over-production elsewhere. If it were true that we had overproduction in this country, what excuse would there be for importing, by means of dumping, between. 200,000 and 300,000 cwt. of hops per year? I do not wish to pursue this point, because the Bill does not deal with dumping. This Bill is an honest attempt to assist a struggling and half-dead industry by the only means which still remain, His Majesty's Government having debarred what is generally considered to be the most certain and simple remedy—namely, an import duty. For the same reason I wish to put aside for the time being the contentious question of an import duty, and have introduced this Bill. I believe I am right in saying that this Bill includes no principle which has not already been approved both by the Hop Commission and also by His Majesty's Government.
When the hop deputation went before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade last summer, Sir John Barker, who was one of the principal members of the Hop Commission, said, in introducing the deputation—
"We want to prevent the use of hop substitutes, supplements, and preservatives; we also think that foreign hops should be marked, and we hope the Government will cause foreign hops to be distinguished the same as English hops in the future."
After discussion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade agreed with everything that emanated from the hop deputation. I

553
repeat that I have introduced this Bill solely with the desire to save from annihilation what I know from personal experience to be a dying industry, and one which can only be saved by the immediate application of the best remedies we have at hand to apply. Having unanimously agreed to the Motion proposed by Lord Addington in May of last year, I consider that we had a right to expect, more especially after the issue of the Report of the Hop Commission, and the promises given to the deputation which waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade, that a Bill would have been sent up to us dealing with this matter. As this has not been done and the only excuse given is one of time, it seems to me that we shall be doing a great service, not only to His Majesty's Government but also to the country by passing this measure, and thereby saving a great deal of precious time.
There can be but little doubt that the country is not only ripe for legislation on this matter, but that by passing this Bill we shall be giving effect to the frequently-demonstrated will of the people. The series of meetings held last year throughout the hop-growing districts were unprecedented in the history of this country, and, as your Lordships are aware, they concluded with the absolutely unique demonstration in Trafalgar Square on what was called "Hop Saturday." I believe I am correct in asserting that that demonstration was a pattern of orderliness besides being an example of loyalty. After the resolution had been put from the different platforms and carried the massed bands played the National Anthem, and the tens of thousands of persons stood bare-headed and sang it not once but time after time. Because those people proved themselves to be an example of orderliness and loyalty are we to remain blind to their needs and deaf to their petitions? I say unquestionably, No.
I wish to point out that this Bill is practically on the same lines as the Government Bill of last year. It differs only in one respect. This Bill is strengthened and made more practical, and, therefore, more useful. The Government Bill was undoubtedly weakened owing to its having to be introduced as an agreed Bill; and I believe it is generally understood that the
554
Bill as presented to the House of Commons was nothing more or less than a compromise, in which the best interests of the hop industry were sacrificed in order to save time and secure unanimity. Even then the unnecessary concessions that were made failed in their object. There were only two classes to conciliate—first, such brewers as use hop substitutes in the brewing and preservation of beer; and, secondly, a few foreign merchants who deal in foreign hops. That these two small interests were powerful enough to prevent the House of Commons from passing the Bill was clearly proved by the fact that twenty-one Members put down Amendments of a wrecking nature, and the Bill, according to promise, was therefore withdrawn. We need not, I think, endeavour to legislate for a small minority of brewers who desire to use hop substitutes in brewing or to preserve their beer by chemicals in lieu of hops; nor should we sacrifice the interests of thousands of our own people who are indirectly interested—there are many trades interested in the hop industry—for those of a small handful of foreign dealers who desire to retain the advantages they at present enjoy by not being required to comply with the English marking restrictions.
Was there ever a greater instance of injustice to the English grower? Immediately a foreigner lands on these shores he becomes amenable to our laws, and no exception is shown in his favour. I claim, therefore, that immediately a foreigner lands his hops in this country, those hops should be amenable to our laws, and no exception should be shown in their favour. If a hop grower in Sussex were to sell his produce to a brother grower in Kent, say, at Canterbury, the Canterbury grower is prevented by law from mixing the inferior Sussex hops with his own produce and selling at a good profit. But his foreign competitor, who is ruining both him and his industry, is absolutely free to mix and manipulate different grades and qualities of hops grown in different districts and very often in different countries, and is then allowed to ship them into England unmarked, undated, and absolutely free from any penalty whatever. I ask, again, is that fair, to the English growers? I consider it is a reproach to us that this preference to the foreigner has been allowed to exist so long, and, in all fairness to our English growers, the sooner it is put an end to the

555
better. That is one of the intentions of this Bill.
The first part of the Bill deals with hop substitutes and all preservatives other than hops in the brewing and preservation of beer. The Government Bill of last year was not so clear. It did not mention preservatives, but only hop substitutes. There are, I believe, some interested people who argue that a chemical preservative is not a hop substitute. I submit that their contention is prejudiced and entirely wrong. The Hop Commission of 1890 laid down this fact, that—
"One of the principal uses of the hop is to preserve the beer by preventing a renewal of fermentation during the time before it is fit for consumption."
Therefore I contend that anything which preserves beer other than hops must be a hop substitute.
It has also been asserted that the use of preservatives is necessary for beer intended for export, but the fact that in Bavarian beer exported no preservative or hop substitute of any kind is permitted seems to me to contradict that assertion. It is well known that many brewers in this country at the present time make beer for export to hot climates without any preservative but hops. It is some years since chemists first began to introduce their system in some of our British breweries, and there is little doubt that at the present time they have got a great hold upon the manufacture of beer. It is also a fact that during that period there has been a gradually-diminishing consumption of hops per barrel of beer. How much it has decreased it is difficult to estimate, for there are no official returns further back than 1901; but from the official returns of that year the consumption was 2·02 lbs. of hops per barrel of beer, whilst in 1907 it had fallen to 1·85 lbs. per barrel, and I believe that during the same period the consumption of beer also declined by something like three million barrels per annum. This is a strange coincidence, and should prove a valuable object lesson to brewers. It is contended that this decrease in the use of hops has only been made possible by the use of preservatives other than hops; and the claim, of the grower, that all substitutes for hops should be prohibited, is consequently fair and just. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will have no difficulty in accepting the clause dealing with the prohibition of preserva
556
tives. Such prohibition should meet with the approval of those who favour temperance, for it is surely preferable that beer-drinkers should be supplied with a pure vegetable beverage which has real value as a tonic and a food than run any risk of being drugged with a concoction of chemicals and minerals mixed up with the proper vegetable ingredients of a pure malt liquor. That these chemicals are utterly unnecessary can be proved by reference to the Bavarian beer laws.
I now come to the clause in regard to marking. This clause simply ensures that foreign hops when landed at the different ports of the United Kingdom shall be marked with the same particulars—no more and no less—as are required in the case of English hops. This gives no preference to the English grower, but simply provides that the English grower and his foreign competitor shall trade in the United Kingdom on terms of absolute equality. This to my mind is treating the foreigner with the greatest generosity and liberality. To continue to give him exception in regard to marking would be grossly unfair to the English grower. Subsections 5, 6 and 7 of Clause 2 provide machinery for checking the marking of imported hops. These subsections did not appear in the Government Bill of last year, but it is generally felt that such machinery is necessary and should be provided. I would like to state that I have not had the assistance of a legal draftsman, and that if there are technical errors, as no doubt there are in the Bill, they can easily be adjusted in the Committee stage. I understand that His Majesty's Government have always fully intended to secure absolute equality in regard to marking. I therefore hope that the Government will support this Bill and provide facilities for rapidly passing it into law before it is too late.
I am well aware that this Bill is not a complete remedy for the depression, for it will still leave a great grievance untouched; but it undoubtedly does provide a means of checking the annihilation of this industry by enforcing equal restrictions on the foreigner both with regard to marking and the mixing of hops, thus preventing the possibility of fraud. I believe it will have this other advantage, that it will increase the consumption of hops per barrel of beer. As I said

557
just now, since 1901 the consumption of beer has decreased with the decreased use of hops. Therefore, an increased consumption of hops should result in an increased consumption of beer. Thus the brewers as well as the hop industry will benefit, and so also will the revenue. I trust that your Lordships will agree to pass this Bill, for then we shall have the gratification of knowing that we have done all that at present is in our power to save from absolute extinction what was once a great and thriving industry. Let us, therefore, not be drawn away from the object we have in view by any of those who may be interested, financially or otherwise, in maintaining the present grossly unfair conditions. Let us rather endeavour to amend the fortunes of what the President of the Board of Trade has described as a great and valuable industry, and thus give the best assistance we can to an energetic, long-suffering, and highly-deserving class of our fellow-countrymen. That is my object for asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hardinge.)
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAU-CHAMP)My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will endorse an expression of sympathy at the indisposition which keeps away the genial and popular President of the Board of Agriculture, in whose place I appear to state the position of His Majesty's Government in regard to this Bill. I am certain that the passages which fell from the noble Viscount with regard to the present condition of those interested in the hop industry and the depression in trade from which they are suffering will have found an echo on both sides of the House. I may, however, say that this depression does not exist in this country only. In America there is a great depression in the hop industry, and a large number of acres of hops have been grubbed up. The Consular reports show that in one of the states the acreage has been reduced by from 5,000 to 6,000 acres; in another by 2,500 acres, or some thirty or forty per cent.; and that some of the plantations in California are being rooted up this year.
As to the history of this question, towards the end of last year a Bill dealing with the subject was introduced in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer;
558
but, owing to want of time, it was not dealt with. This year the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture speaking at Canterbury, said that the Bill was received more contentiously than he had anticipated. He added that:—
"If no unreasonable expenditure of Parliamentary time was required, the Government would reintroduce the Bill, as they were still of opinion that the grievance was a real one and one which called urgently for redress."
Your Lordships are to-day asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, as the noble Viscount told the House, is substantially and practically the same as that which was introduced by His Majesty's Government last December. There are, however, one or two changes, but they are only of a Committee kind, and therefore I shall not venture to detain your Lordships by any reference to them at this moment.
In these circumstances the noble Viscount was really preaching to those who were already converted. His Majesty's Government introduced a Bill last year, and have promised to re-introduce it in another place this year. Therefore the action of the noble Viscount, if he will allow me to say so, appears to me to be somewhat superfluous and likely to render legislation more difficult. There is an old phrase on the subject of dishing the Whigs. This seems to me an attempt on the part of the noble Viscount to obtain for those with whom he is associated some of the credit which is due to the authors of the Bill as originally introduced; and the resolutions which have been addressed to your Lordships—I myself have received a large number—asking you to support the Second Reading of this Bill, and holding up the noble Viscount as a saviour of the hop industry, represent an endeavour to ascribe to him merits which are due to His Majesty's Government, and to dress him in plumes borrowed from the Bill of last year.
I am not quite sure that the full position of the hop industry, at any rate on material points, was brought before your Lordships. Like the noble Viscount I am interested in the hop industry. I am in the fortunate position, I am glad to say, of owning some farms on which hops are very largely cultivated, and I may say, in passing, that hop-growers are among the most prosperous of my farmers. I am not, therefore, quite so

559
hopeless in regard to the future of the industry as is the noble Viscount. But there have been certain changes to which I think it is only fair to refer. The first one was only touched upon by the noble Viscount, and then in a different regard. In the first place, fewer hops are used in this country now than in times gone by. Since 1901 there has been a constant diminution in the quantity of hops used in this country, the quantity having fallen in that period from 648,000 cwt. to 571,000 cwt. That, of course, is due in a large measure to a decrease in the quantity of beer brewed; and I am sure that those members of your Lordships' House who are anxious for an increase in temperance in this country would welcome the fact of a reduction in the quantity of beer consumed if they could be assured that it meant that those who had been drinking too much drank less now.
The introduction of cold-storage also has had a great effect upon the industry. It is a matter of common knowledge to all who are interested in the hop industry that the difference in price between one year and another is very large indeed, perhaps larger in regard to this industry than any other connected with agriculture. Cold storage has made a great deal of difference. It is possible in a year of surplus, when hops are cheap, to buy them up at a low price, keep them in cold storage, and use them the following year. In those circumstances, when there are not so many hops it is only natural that brewers should draw upon their reserve in cold storage.
There is another interesting point to which I should like to draw attention. I refer to the quantity of hops imported into this country. There is, of course, the point that you must use a certain quantity of foreign hops because they give a special flavour which some people demand; but it is interesting to notice that the average ratio of home produce to the total supply of hops during the fifteen years 1886–1900 was seventy-two per cent., and for the years of the current century it is exactly the same. That seems to show that the demand for the home produce is the same, and that probably there is not such great distress in the industry as the noble Viscount suggested. The quantity of hops imported is also diminishing. During the ten years 1867–76 it averaged, in round
560
figures 202,000 cwt.; in the following ten years the annual average was 215,000 cwt.; in the next decennial period it fell to 194,000 cwt., and in the ten years 1897-1906 it went down to 186,000 cwt. I am really unwilling to trouble your Lordships with further figures on this subject, because obviously it is very difficult to follow complicated figures in the course of a speech in your Lordships' House.
And, after all, there is no practical difference between the noble Viscount and myself. His Majesty's Government are willing that this Bill should be read a Second Time, but, of course, they are in the usual position of thinking that their own bantling is better than anybody else's, that their own Bill is probably better than that which any other person might introduce. In those circumstances, while the Government will offer no opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, if it is read a Second Time the noble Viscount must not expect that the Government will take any part in passing his Bill. The position will be as it was before this Bill was introduced. The Government will reintroduce their Bill in another place, and they hope that it will meet with acceptance from both sides before the end of the session.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY:My Lords, I have not found it quite easy to follow the arguments of the noble Earl as regards the action of His Majesty's Government in this matter. He told us that the noble Viscount had been preaching to the converted. In some branches of human teaching we believe that conversion is ordinarily followed by action. Action in this particular case, however, has not at present been forthcoming, although the noble Earl has told us that a promise had been given that under certain conditions the Government might introduce such a Bill into the House of Commons again. Is there any practical difficulty in passing the Bill which is before your Lordships and in the Government's affording it facilities in the other House? Those are, however, mysteries into which I do not wish to penetrate; but I cannot understand why it should hinder the matter that a Bill in identically the same terms should have the advantage of passing through this House.
I always feel in a difficulty in speaking upon this subject, because three branches

561
of knowledge are concerned in the question—agriculture, brewing, and finance, and I know little about the first, nothing about the second, and little about the third. I cannot profess to be an expert in the slightest degree on any of the three, and therefore I find it exceedingly hard to weigh or to appraise at their proper value the conflicting statements that are made. But I do know something of Kent. The noble Viscount has recalled to the House certain words that I ventured to say last year on this subject. The only change I would make in those words would be to add that the difficulties are not only not diminishing but are certainly increasing day by day in not a few of the villages and country places throughout Kent. The condition of affairs is pressing with extreme hardship on labourers and farmers, and, presumably, to some extent upon landlords; and I confess that the words used last year by the President of the Board of Agriculture as to the matter being one of national concern and deserving immediate attention seem to me to be more imperatively true now than when the noble Earl spoke.
I did not quite understand the noble Earl the Lord Steward to-night when he said that probably there was not so much distress in this industry as the noble Viscount opposite supposed. I cannot speak for England as a whole, but I can speak for Kent, and I may say that it is not a matter of conjecture at all but a question of stern, hard, daily fact before the eyes of every one who has anything to do with the county. I believe I am right in saying that last year 4,194 acres were grubbed in Kent, and those who are able to form an anticipation for this year estimate that 3,000 acres are likely to be grubbed. That means not merely a change of industry, but a practical cessation of employment for a large number of people and practical ruin to those who have invested their money in this branch of industry.
To give a practical instance, I will take a certain parish of which I have intimate knowledge. There are five considerable farms in that particular parish. One of these, to the great advantage of the neighbourhood, is held and worked by a gentleman whose interest in the well-being of the people is such that, avowedly and obviously at a great loss, he continues to run this
562
hop farm on the ground that were he to cease to do so he would be throwing out of employment a large number of people. Not only so, but he enables one of his neighbours to do the like. The person working the next farm found it impossible to carry it on any longer, there being a steady deficit now from year to year. In connection with the next farm no rent has been paid to the landlord for the last three or four years, owing to the difficulties in making it up; and in the fifth case in this one parish the land has been grubbed, and the farm made into a fruit farm, employing a mere handful of people as compared with the large number formerly engaged. Those are tangible cases. And when we speak of those who are thus employed on the land, we cannot forget that large class who year by year are engaged in the hop-picking industry.
We are face to face with a situation that calls for attention, and, if possible, for remedy. It is quite apparent from the facts that a great historic English industry is perishing. If we were told that that was a disaster which must happen owing to a change in our conditions and that certain people must necessarily suffer in consequence, I suppose we would have to shrug our shoulders and put up with it. But if we are told, as we have been told, that it can be remedied, without departing from any economic or industrial law, by certain enactments which are set forth in this Bill, it is obligatory on us all to endeavour to make those enactments law and thus attempt to stem, at any rate, so grave a disaster as is now imminent, if it has not actually taken place.
As to the temperance aspect of the question, if it be said that what has recently happened has merely been that three million fewer barrels of beer have been drunk during a certain number of recent years, I am not prepared to say that I should regard that as an unmitigated disaster. But I am told that it is not that people are drinking less than they did before, but that they are transferring their attention to spirits instead of beer, and therefore the evil is a very real one. Not merely are those who produce the beer suffering, but those who are consuming the other form of liquid instead are likely also to be harmed. But when I examine into the facts I am unable to accept that explanation. I looked to-day at the speech of the Prime Minister in introducing

563
the Budget of last year. Mr. Asquith said—
"On the other hand, the decline in productivity of the alcoholic group of Customs duties has been maintained. Foreign spirits show a falling off of £80,000 compared with the receipts of the previous year, and of £47,000 as compared with the Budget estimate in the year just ended.… An increase of £153,000 was anticipated from beer, of which only one-half has been realised. Instead of an increase of £110,000 from British spirits, there is a decrease of £90,000.… Although beer in 1907-8 continued to improve, the total revenue from beer, wine, and spirits combined shows a decrease of £151,000."
That does not fit in with the argument that British spirits or foreign spirits are being consumed in lieu of the beer which is not being drunk. I do not myself lay particular stress in favour of this Bill on the argument that the necessity for it is great owing to less beer being drunk. Before I regarded that as an unmitigated disaster I should have to be shown that something else was being drunk which was more injurious. But that is by the way.
It is quite apparent that a great historic English industry is perishing in certain parts, that the workers are reduced to the lowest ebb, and that many of them, particularly those who are advanced in years, can turn to nothing else. I again say that if we are told that this can be, if not altogether prevented, at all events diminished by legislation which seems to be absolutely fair and just and to interfere with no industrial law at all, then I do most heartily hope that we shall give effect to it. The remedies proposed by the Bill are, as I understand, first, that by dealing with what are called hop substitutes and the like we are going to ensure that the ingredients of the particular beverage consumed are beforehand known and described; that is to say, that a beverage is not being sold under one name which is something different from what the consumer believes it to be. That seems to me to correspond with our idea of what is fair and right, and if that is the result of the clauses which deal with substitutes, then I hope those clauses may come into law as speedily as possible.
The second principle involved in the Bill seems to me also a thoroughly sound one, that we must take care that imported hops are not placed at an advantage compared with home-grown hops by being exempted from certain rules which apply to hops grown in England. If it be true that the sale of foreign hops is facilitated in this
564
country to the detriment of home-grown hops, that seems to me to be something which in common fairness, apart altogether from questions of tariff, ought to be prevented forthwith, and that I understand to be the aim of the second limb of the noble Viscount's Bill. If this Bill is, as it seems to me, practically identical with the Bill for which the Government have already accepted responsibility, nothing but good wishes ought to accompany its passage through this House, and I earnestly hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD:My Lords, in response to a very earnest appeal from the hop-growers in Herefordshire and Worcestershire, I rise to support this Bill, and I desire to say with what great satisfaction I have heard that the Government and the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading are practically at one on the subject. Therefore we have very good hope that the Bill may be placed on the Statute Book during the course of the present session. I may say that if I had understood that this Bill in any way contravened the principles of Free Trade I should have felt bound to oppose it, because I have no belief that any benefits will accrue to our working population from the doctrines of Protection; and I sincerely hope, on behalf of the agricultural population and the working classes with whom I come in contact, that we may have no fundamental changes in that respect during my lifetime. I hope, indeed, that the present arrangement may last as long as the Bench of Bishops.
I am informed by those directly interested in the question in my part of England that this Bill, if passed, would bring very material benefits to them, and certainly the main provisions of it seem to me to be altogether reasonable. We should all agree, I think, that it is only reasonable that the foreign hop-grower should be put in the same position as the British grower of hops, and I understand that the English farmer asks for no more than to be put on terms of equality with his foreign competitor. Even if the Bill passes, however, there are many farmers who are not quite sure that they will be put on terms of absolute equality, because I am told that preferential railway rates are given to some of the imported hops over British hops. As an outsider, ignorant of the details, I

565
cannot but feel that if this is the true position of the case then the treatment is unfair.
As to the prohibition of the use of hop substitutes, I think we are only expressing what must be the almost universal view that what is called beer should be what the ordinary English consumer understands when he asks for beer—namely, a drink made from malt and hops. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable proposition that if any brewers make their product from a concoction of different materials it should be made plain to the consumer what it is he is really drinking. I have, of course, no means of knowing whether it would be easy or difficult to carry out any such distinction; but I do think that when a licence is given for the sale of drink we should so far protect the consumer that he may know what it is that is sold to him under that licence. Therefore I am very glad to find that, so far as present indications go, there is good hope of this Bill passing into law.
Whether our farmers will derive all the benefit they anticipate from the provisions of this measure I am not altogether sanguine, because, as the noble Earl the Lord Steward reminded us, there are other causes, such as the new system of cold storage, which keep down the price of hops. Personally I would not be at all sorry to see a large number of acres in the Herefordshire and Worcestershire district change from the growing of hops, say, to the breeding of Hereford cattle. My belief is that if the farmers were to gradually adopt that process of change they might find themselves in a much more prosperous condition than they have been hitherto. I am not sure also that the plea is well founded that the change would necessarily mean a lessening of labour and increase of unemployment. At any rate, if there is any danger of this kind I think the county councils might to a very considerable extent meet it by increasing the facilities for obtaining small holdings. One of the things that have surprised me of late has been the slowness of our county councils in giving facilities to thrifty and rising labourers to obtain small holdings. If our hop farms have to be grubbed, then I hope that at any rate some portion of them may be occupied by the best of the labourers now employed upon them, but occupied by them as small holders, forming
566
the nucleus, let us say, of a new English yeomanry. I beg to support the Bill, and to express the hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY:My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships on this question I feel that I must ask for your indulgence. But though I have no direct acquaintance, like my noble friend behind me and the most reverend Primate, with Kent, I have an indirect connection with that county which has given me an opportunity of appreciating the present serious depression in the hop district and the hardships occasioned thereby. On those grounds I venture to say a few words in support of this Bill.
My noble friend, in the course of his speech, denied that the provisions of the Bill embodied any tendency of a Protectionist character. I support the Bill most cordially on that account. From the earliest days of the proposed reform of our fiscal system I have never held views of a Protectionist character; on the contrary, I have advanced cautiously while following the lead of Mr. Balfour, whose policy in this respect has been explained clearly and lucidly in the various speeches he has made on this subject. But on frequent occasions in various parts of the country, where my attention had been called to any individual industry being injuriously and unjustly treated by unfair competition, I have indicated that I would gladly support any legislation which would remove the injustice and the injury, provided that no injury was caused to any other industry. On this account I think that I am perfectly consistent in supporting this measure.
This Bill is almost identical with the measure introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of the autumn session last year. The noble Earl the Lord Steward described my noble friend in charge of this Bill as preaching to the converted, but I do not think that was absolutely accurate. If he were preaching to the converted, I should like to ask a member of the Ministerial Bench on what ground the important measure introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not carried into law. It was defeated, I imagine, owing to the machinations of certain supporters of His Majesty's Government who sit on the back Benches of the other House, and who, through overwhelming it with Amendments,

567
ran the time so very fine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will not say he was anxious to do so, but, perhaps, not to annoy his supporters, took the opportunity of withdrawing the Bill. These opponents of the measure were in effect extreme temperance reformers and extreme Free Traders; and I would like to know what were the reasons which animated these sections of the Government's supporters in hindering the progress of the Bill on that occasion.
I confess I am at a loss to understand why temperance reformers should wish to crush the Bill, because, however much they might advocate temperance, I should have thought they would like to know that the beer which was being consumed was perfectly pure beer and not made of hop substitutes. As to the extreme Free Traders, they probably entertained some suspicion of their leaders in bringing forward this proposal dealing with hops, and because it seemed to embody a violation of their pure fiscal theories. I am equally at a loss to understand how the question of Free Trade comes into this measure at all. The object of the Bill is to establish absolute equality of treatment in the hop industry. Since 1866 the British hop-grower has been required to mark every package of his produce with his own name, the name of the parish in which the hops were grown, the year of growth, the gross weight and serial number; while the hops imported from abroad escape such marking. If all hops were marked there could be no question of passing off hops of an inferior quality as something better than they were; and noble Lords opposite will not deny that that can be done in the present state of things. If the restrictions are necessary for hops grown in this country, why are they not necessary for hops that are imported? I should like to have an answer to that question.
What is proposed in this Bill is analogous to the legislation passed during the past few years which has equalised the conditions with respect to foreign watches, foreign patents, and foreign ships. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he received a deputation on this subject, said:—
"Whatever conditions you impose upon the British grower should be imposed also upon the foreign grower. That is not a departure from Free Trade."
He went on to say—
568
"I have legislated in three Bills—foreign watches, foreign patents, and foreign ships—each imposing on the foreigner the same conditions as are imposed on the British trader. Therefore I am not afraid of that."
Having spoken so strongly on this subject, I ask again, Why did Mr. Lloyd-George not carry through his Bill at the end of last year? I am not going into the question of preservatives, but it is somewhat curious to contend that hop substitutes should not be allowed in the brewing of beer but should be allowed in the preservation of beer. It seems to me that if damage is done by the one process, the use of substitutes in the preserving of beer is equally damaging. But I will not dwell on that.
I believe that what does most harm to the hop industry is the non-marking of foreign hops. The Committee which sat on the matter reported very strongly with regard to this, and also with regard to the use of hop substitutes in the brewing and preservation of beer. Therefore, if the Government are going to bring in a Bill on this subject they ought to lay great weight on the findings of the Committee regarding those points. Undoubtedly if hops are used instead of substitutes the beer produced will be a much purer article, and the health of the beer-drinking population of the country will benefit. I wish to lay stress on the danger of allowing an important industry in which a vast number of people are employed—the chief industry of a district—to be ruined for the want of a certain amount of legislation.
The noble Earl the Lord Steward consoled himself by saving that the hop industry has suffered equally badly in other countries. That is no consolation whatever. No doubt all industries and all trades must be prepared for depression; but the hop industry has suffered most severely. I read a speech a short time ago delivered at Canterbury by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, whose absence and still more the cause we deeply regret, in which he attributed the depression in the hop industry in Kent to various causes. All these were, if I may use the expression, the fortune of war; but you can do something to prevent still further depreciation by putting British and foreign hops on an equality. When we consider the general depression in trade and the number of people now unemployed, I think the House will consider that it is the bounden

569
duty of the Government to take every step they possibly can to prevent the evil of unemployment and trade depression becoming greater. It is because I know the feeling of terror which exists at the present moment among the large populations dependent on the hop industry that I give this Bill my cordial support.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY:My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say one or two words from a point of view which seems to me to have been entirely neglected—the point of view, broadly speaking, of Free Trade. The noble Viscount who introduced this Bill told us that though this was a palliative, he would be satisfied with nothing as a real remedy except a large duty on imported hops; and there is no doubt that what is underlying the minds of those who are keeping up this agitation is the establishment of a protective duty on British hops.
The right reverend Prelate who spoke on behalf of Herefordshire drifted along in this advocacy which has the essential point of Protectionism—namely, the advocacy of legislation in the interests of the producer and not in the interests of the consumer. He went in the direction of what is known as the Pure Beer Bill, and proposed to strike at the root of what was the concordat between Mr. Gladstone and the brewers when he abolished the malt tax and established the free mash tub. If his argument was sincere about wishing the drinker to know what he was drinking, he ought to prohibit the use of sugar, rice, and maize in brewing. The most reverend Primate told us, first of all, that it was contended that the diminution in the consumption of beer was transferred into an increase in the consumption of spirits. Then afterwards he told us that the revenue figures showed that there had been a diminution in the consumption of spirits, whereas there had been a slight increase in the amount realised from beer. Therefore the most reverend Primate need not have said that the matter was in the region of hypothesis; he got into the region of ascertained fact from the revenue returns.
I was glad to hear the noble Marquess opposite declare his adhesion to Free Trade, but I did not feel very much comforted when he said that he was perfectly satisfied with the Free Trade principles so lucidly expounded by his Parliamentary leader.
570
The service which the noble Marquess rendered with his lips to Free Trade does not give me perfect confidence as to the way in which he would apply those principles when the time should come for putting them into operation. On this Bill we have had a little too much of the Codlin and Short business from the two front Benches. Each side has been anxious to defend the hop-growers and to show that a microscope would be necessary to distinguish the difference between the noble Viscount's Bill and the Bill of the Government. I do not agree. So far as the marking of foreign hops is concerned I do not see any objection to that, although I cannot help thinking that the gain to the English producer would not be very great. In the first place, as every English pocket of hops has to be marked it is clear that any pocket which appears on the market unmarked is branded as foreign. In the second place, I suppose the people who purchase hops are almost exclusively brewers, who have competent and experienced buyers. As I have said I do not see any objection to that part of the Bill.
To the other parts of the Bill, however, I do see serious objections, even to the part which the Government have expressed their willingness to support—namely, the prohibition of the use of hop substitutes for the flavouring or bittering of beer. We have all received a circular from an interest which aroused a great deal of sympathy in this House last year but which has aroused no sympathy on this occasion. They state, among their reasons against the Bill, that its object is to compel them to use a great deal more hops than they use at the present time. I call that the essence of Protection. To force people to use something they would not otherwise use in order to increase the consumption of that article seems to me economically unsound. The Society issuing the circular to which I have referred state that the staple beer of the country is mild ale, and that if more than a certain proportion of hops were used the flavour would be rendered more dry and bitter, and this alteration would not suit the palates of their customers. They give other reasons, such as the fining and clearing of beer, against the large use of hops and in favour of the use of preservatives; and I cannot help regretting that no member of your Lordships' House connected with the great interest of brewing

571
has come forward to enlighten the House in regard to any of those matters. It is all very well to express genial sympathy with a particular industry, but it is quite another thing to embark gaily upon a course of legislation, the root principle of which is, to my mind, thoroughly unsound—namely, to interfere between the consumer and the producer in order to favour the producer.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN:My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of prolonging this debate, but merely to make a suggestion to the noble Earl who spoke for the Government, in answer to a remark which fell from him. The idea which appeared to be uppermost in the noble Earl's mind, so far as I could gather from his speech, was this—Who is to have the credit of dealing with this matter? It is very unfair, he said, that Lord Hardinge should step in and take from the Government credit which properly belongs to them, they having given notice that if they have an opportunity they will at some time or another introduce a Bill in the other House. I merely wish to point out to the noble Earl that there is an obvious course by which he can obtain the credit he appears to desire, and that is by introducing the Government Bill in this House. The noble Viscount will, I suppose, have his Bill read a second time to-day; but, if the Government are in earnest, as no doubt they are, in desiring to pass a Bill on this matter, why do not they introduce their Bill in this House? It certainly cannot, as we all know, be introduced in the other House for at all events a considerable time; but in this House we are not particularly pressed for business, and I am sure that your Lordships would be perfectly ready to give the Government Bill a Second Reading and to consider it at a later stage pari, passu with the Bill of the noble Viscount. It seems to me that that is a very obvious course for the Government to follow if they really desire to push this matter forward.
LORD HINDLIP:My Lords, I should not have intervened in this debate but for the fact that I have been inundated with letters from hop-growers and others interested in the hop industry, and also that last summer when the noble Earl, Lord Carrington, was speaking on the subject he rather left me under the impression that he did not consider that the hop industry in Wor
572
cester was in a very depressed condition. As regards the Bill itself, I believe it will do something for the farmer, though probably not so much as some people anticipate. I do not think anything short of a 40s. duty on hops will be really sufficient to bring about the desired change; but on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread I shall give my vote in support of my noble friend's Bill.
Hop substitutes are not nearly so much used as is supposed. A director of one of the biggest breweries told me this morning that, so far as he was concerned, he would be very glad if hop substitutes were entirely prohibited, and I do not think the prohibition will meet with much opposition from the trade. Brewers have been accused from time immemorial of using chemicals deleterious to health, from deadly poisons downwards, in the brewing of beer, and some of your Lordships may remember that many years ago they were accused of putting strychnine in beer to make it bitter. As to preservatives, I think that is a different matter. For the export trade preservatives are, I understand, considered almost indispensable, and perhaps some amendment of the Bill in this particular may be made in Committee. If preservatives in beer are prohibited, I hope my noble friend or someone else will see that the same prohibition is applied to so-called non-intoxicating liquors such as ginger-beer, in the manufacture of which I understand preservatives are even more largely used.
Farmers in Worcestershire are very anxious for this Bill, or some Bill like it, to be passed. In Worcestershire the hops are gathered by pickers from the Black Country, and the prosperity of the hop industry is very vital to the poor people in those districts. One gentleman who farms some eighty acres of hop-land has stated that unless some legislation is passed for the benefit of the industry he will have to abandon further cultivation. He estimates that his wages-bill will be reduced by £1,000 a year, in addition to some £600 which he pays to hop-pickers and other employés. In one parish in Worcestershire there are ten farms on which during the last few years hop-growing has been altogether given up, with consequent loss to the labouring class. If the farmers in Worcestershire have to give up growing hops, not only will more harm be done to an already decaying industry, but additional people in the Black

573
Country will be thrown out of employment.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (LORD FITZMAURICE)My Lords, this discussion has ranged over a rather larger field than that which is contained within the four corners of the Bill before your Lordships. Of that I make no complaint, because all the topics which have been mentioned are, though not perhaps absolutely and strictly relevant to the proposals in the Bill, so nearly connected that it was not unnatural that noble Lords, especially those coming from the hop-growing districts of this country, should have dwelt upon them.
The most reverend Primate, for example, alluded to the question of whether or not the diminution in the production of beer in this country, to which attention was so strongly called in the Report of the Committee of last year, has or has not been accompanied by a corresponding decrease, or something approaching to a corresponding decrease, in the consumption of spirits; and he pointed out that, however much we may mourn over the troubles of the producers of hops, we might at least console ourselves with the fact that it implied a diminution in the consumption of liquors generally. That is a very large question, and I do not propose to go into it in any detail; but from such figures as I have been able to obtain, I am bound to say that it does appear that there has been not only a diminution, as was pointed out by the Committee, in the barrelage of beer brewed in the United Kingdom, but also in the consumption of spirits. In regard to the barrelage of beer, I find that whereas in 1898 it was thirty-five millions, it had sunk in 1906 to just under thirty-four millions. In regard to spirits, whereas in 1898 there was a consumption of 41,700,000 gallons, in 1906 the consumption had sunk to a fraction above thirty-nine million gallons. That shows that there has been a gratifying diminution in what are generally called the drinking habits of the population; but that series of facts, highly interesting as they are, is, strictly speaking, outside the immediate purview of the Bill.
I am more concerned to try to answer one or two of the points raised especially by the noble Marquess opposite, who asked me a few questions in regard to the position of the Government. I am bound to say that I thought some of his questions were
574
a little peculiar. He called upon me and my noble friends who sit by me, who are members of the Government, to explain the reasons of the opposition to the Government Bill in the House of Commons last year. It is not the business of His Majesty's Government to explain the reasons of the opposition to one of their own Bills. We are responsible for the Bill; we are not responsible for the opposition. We regret that there was opposition. We wish it had been otherwise. I am really not, strictly speaking, called upon to explain the reasons of that opposition, and I am bound to say that, if part of it arose from the temperance party, I am at a loss to understand why any member of the temperance party should object to this Bill. Having been a supporter of temperance measures the whole of my political life, it seems to me that, to a temperance advocate, as long as a man drinks beer or spirits it cannot signify whether the liquor drunk is made from foreign or home-grown hops. As temperance men naturally we would object equally; and I am bound to say that I was not aware that the opposition which did spring up, no doubt, and which was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Carrington in a speech in Kent quite early in this year, was a temperance opposition.
No doubt some members of the House of Commons considered that the Bill was a derogation from the strict principles of Free Trade as they understood them. There it is my misfortune, and that of other members of the Government, to differ from a certain number of our political friends. It appears to me, speaking on behalf of the Government, that the essential doctrine of Free Trade is that where you have to levy, for example, a Customs duty you must levy in the case of articles which can be produced at home a corresponding Excise duty, and in that way obtain equality. I accept the doctrine laid down, that the essential idea of Free Trade in its practical application is the doctrine of equality; and provisions merely intended to secure the purity of an article or to prevent fraud cannot in any way be described as a derogation from the principles of Free Trade as hitherto understood by the great bulk of the supporters of Free Trade in this country. I am quite aware that we have been accused, in regard to legislation relative to patents, to the law relating to shipping, and to the manufacture of watches, of derogating from Free Trade:

575
but I am quite unable to see in what way any of those measures is a derogation from Free Trade, because in all three cases you preserve absolute equality; you simply say that the law which you apply to your own home industries shall, so far as these things are applicable, be applied to the foreigner.
Now I come to what is the principal matter before the House. In the first place, is the condition of things so serious as has been alleged? I am the last person to underrate the anxiety and in some districts—especially, I believe, in Kent—the suffering which certain classes of the population, especially the poorer classes who have depended upon hop-picking, have experienced and are experiencing; but, on the other hand, it must be borne in mind that in certain other districts of England the condition of things is not nearly so serious. We have heard a great deal, in the course of this discussion, of Worcestershire and Herefordshire. We have it from the Report of the Committee that in these counties a somewhat different state of things obtains. The Committee say—
"Up to 1901 the acreage under hops had in these two counties been maintained, and the reduction in hop land had been from 11,000 odd acres in 1901 to 9,000 odd acres in 1907.… There are more acres under hops in Herefordshire and Worcestershire than was the case thirty years ago."
That paragraph shows that in this area, which perhaps next to Kent is the most important hop area in the country, the state of things is not nearly so serious, and that in Worcestershire and Herefordshire there has been a slight increase in the total acreage under hop cultivation as compared with thirty years ago. Nevertheless, the condition of things is serious enough to make the Government wish to do whatever they can.
We have no intention whatever of taking any step in the direction, which, I am afraid, judging from this debate, is desired by some noble Lords opposite, of putting a duty upon foreign hops. But, short of that, any reasonable proposals, such as those which arise from the Report of the Committee, the government are anxious and willing to consider; and I may remind your Lordships that the President of the Board of Agriculture, whose absence and the reason we all deplore, has actually this year given a distinct and specific pledge at a meeting at
576
Canterbury that the Bill will be reintroduced. His words were—
"Last year, at the end of the session, Mr. Asquith brought in a Bill. As regarded that Bill, it certainly was more contentiously received than they anticipated, but he would say that if no unreasonable expenditure of Parliamentary time was required, the Government would reintroduce the Bill—"
that was a specific pledge—
"as they were still of opinion that the grievance was a real one, and one which called urgently for redress."
The noble Lord opposite, Lord Camperdown, asked what was not at all an unnatural question. He inquired the position and intention of the Government, and why it was than the Government Bill could not be introduced in this House. I am in a position to say, that had my noble friend Lord Carrington been here this evening, he would have been able to give an undertaking that the matter was receiving the friendly consideration of the Government, and that there was every probability that he would be able to meet the wishes of my noble friend and other noble Lords by introducing the Bill in your Lordships' House. But I would prefer that your Lordships should receive that pledge from him or from my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, who is also absent this evening. I can, however, say that the matter is receiving the attention of the Government, and I have every hope that the Lord Privy Seal will be able to give a distinct assurance to your Lordships on this subject.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Hardinge is to be congratulated upon having provoked an interesting discussion, and one which must on the whole have been extremely satisfactory to him, because in none of the speeches to which I have listened have I detected any attempt seriously to shake the position which my noble friend assumed. He was, it is true, taken to task at the outset by the noble Earl who spoke first for the Government for having, I think the expression was, arrayed himself in the plumes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not sure that the simile was a particularly appropriate one, because nothing could have exceeded the modesty of my noble friend's statement. Let me venture to point out this, that if any plumes had been appropriated, the plumes are those which were furnished by the Committee, and it

577
would be just as fair to charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer with decorating himself with the plumes of the Committee as to charge my noble friend with doing anything of the kind.
Then my noble friend was also asked why, considering that His Majesty's Government had pledged themselves to legislate upon this subject, he had thought proper to introduce a Bill in your Lordships' House. I think it must have occurred to my noble friend's mind that the Bill of His Majesty's Government was not pressed with any very great earnestness last year, and I think it may have occurred to him that that Bill, resembling perhaps certain battleships of which we have heard a good deal during the last few days, may not have been destined to be produced exactly at the moment when we should have been most glad to see it produced. I understand that no opposition will be offered to the Second Reading of this Bill, and I do not see how, after the debate which took place in this House last year, it would be possible for us to resist the Second Reading. Upon that occasion, as the House will recollect, an overwhelming case was made out to show the piteous and deplorable condition into which the hop industry had fallen, and there was a general feeling all through the House that if anything could be done to improve matters for those interested in that industry it should be attempted.
But last year we were told, and told with very great propriety, that His Majesty's Government had lately appointed a Committee to investigate the whole matter, and we were invited to wait for the Report of the Committee. That was a reasonable request; we have waited for the Report of the Committee, and the Bill of my noble friend is founded upon that Report. It does not attempt to deal with those controversial questions which arise in connection with proposals for the imposition of an import duty upon hops. Even if my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, whose absence and its cause we all of us sincerely regret, had been present we should not have been able to-night to discuss with him whether as he suggested to us last year, an import duty on hops was or was not a tax on the food of the people. The Report of the Committee shows, what I think was evident to most of us last year, that this is by no means a very simple case, and that the present position of the
578
hop industry is due not to any one cause on which you can put your finger, but to a combination of causes, and that it is extremely difficult to assign to each of those causes the exact amount of importance which is due to it. There is the effect of foreign competition, there is the effect of increasing temperance, there is the effect of the more economical use of hops and of the more intensive cultivation of the hop gardens, and last, but not least—because this really seems to me to be almost the most important cause of all—there is the effect of the introduction of cold storage, which undoubtedly must have prevented hop-growers from reaping, as they used to reap, great advantage from an exceptionally abundant harvest of hops.
In those circumstances we have two recommendations, and two recommendations only, before us—the proposal to prohibit hop substitutes and the proposal to require hops to be marked. As to the use of substitutes, I am content to shelter myself behind the Report of the Committee, who seem to have gone very fully into that question. I understand them to advise that these substitutes are somewhat rarely used and not by the large brewers; but they do point out, on the other hand, that prohibition may not have the whole effect expected of it, because if substitutes are used now, it is not believed that they displace a very large quantity of hops. Up to that point I see no difficulty in accepting the advice of the Committee. But I confess that, in regard to the inclusion of preservatives—a point on which the Bill of my noble friend differs from the Bill of His Majesty's Government—I should like to hear a little more evidence before I commit myself to any definite view. We are told that it is believed by many that preservatives are, on the one hand, innocuous, and, on the other hand, indispensable to the manufacture of certain kinds of beer. I understand that the four principal firms of Burton all use preservatives. One question certainly will arise if we seek to prohibit the use of preservatives, which is this—shall we be able to prohibit the use of preservatives in the manufacture of beer without going into the question of the use of preservatives in the case of other kinds of foodstuffs? There is no doubt that a large quantity of foodstuffs is at present made up with preservatives of some kind. With regard to marking, I think that, if English growers of hops are required to mark their goods, it is just and

579
right that the importers of foreign hops should have their goods marked in a corresponding manner. It is surely desirable that a brewer who prefers to use British hops—I am told they do not all prefer to use them—should be able to ascertain at once from the appearance of a package whether the hops it contains are British or foreign. I say, therefore, that this Bill has my best wishes. I freely confess that I am not sanguine enough to believe that it will revolutionise the hop industry; but it may do something, and whatever we can do I think we ought to do. To my mind the most important result that has arisen from the discussion of this question is that we have elicited from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a perfectly distinct assurance upon what I conceive to be a question of policy of the very highest importance—an assurance to the effect that any conditions now imposed upon British producers should be imposed upon foreign producers of the same commodity.
LORD FITZMAURICE:I did not say that; I said legal conditions.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:I am perfectly content to rely upon the ipsissima
580
verba of Mr. Lloyd George when he received the deputation of which mention has been made.
LORD FITZMAURICE:I beg my noble friend's pardon. I thought he was referring to what I said.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly distinct, and I entirely agree that one may hold that view without in the least departing from the strictest orthodoxy of Free Trade principles. I gather that no opposition will be offered to the Second Reading of the Bill. I should certainly vote for it without a moment's hesitation.
On question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Second Report from the Select Committee considered (according to order), and agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.