said, lie was sorry, when the House had so much other Business before it, to have to occupy time in moving, "That the Bill, as amended, be considered on that day three months;" but the task he had undertaken was one which he had undertaken entirely as a matter of public duty. He had stated, some time ago, that if the Standing Order were left alone, he would leave the Hull and Barnsley Company to take such course as they approved; but, when the Standing Order was passed and modified most carefully by the Chairman of Ways and Means, he (Sir Joseph Pease) felt it his duty to the House, to the commercial interests of the country, and to the Railway interest in particular, to see that this Bill should have the careful consideration of the House. It was on that ground he moved that the Consideration should be postponed. He might be told that he was opposing the Bill as a Railway man. He was not at all afraid of that charge, because it seemed to him that the House had taken into its hands—rightly he dare say—the question of competition between different Railway interests; and, when the House decreed competition, it behoved Railway Companies to carry out that competition according to the rules and forms laid down by the House, and according to the laws they were obliged, from time to time, to pass. If the House agreed to encourage competition, he, as a Railway man, was quite ready to acquiesce in that view; but he must appeal to the House that the rules regulating competition should not be abrogated by the Act of any Company or private individual. If the House were to decree that this Bill should pass, he should feel that he had done his duty in calling the attention of the House to it; but it seemed to him that there were very grave reasons why it should not be allowed to pass into law. The Bill itself was of a very peculiar and a very remarkable character. No doubt, Bills of a peculiar character had been passed by the House in former years, and, notably, the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill; but that Bill was introduced after an arbitration before Earl Cairns and the Marquess of Salisbury. The present Bill involved the payment of interest out of capital to a very large extent, far outside the Standing Order recently passed at the suggestion of his lion. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, and after the proposal had been supported in a speech by his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Chamberlain). If they passed this Bill, it seemed to him (Sir Joseph Pease) that they would do away with all respect for Statute Law, and all respect for their Standing Orders, and they would deal a death-blow to the observance of that upright and straightforward dealing which ought to characterize all matters connected with trade in this country. The Bill had been very much modified since it had been laid on the Table of the House. It was proposed that 5 per cent should be paid on a capital of £3,000,000 sterling, and it further proposed that 5 per cent should be paid upon an additional share capital of £2,400,000, in accordance with the Act of 1882. That latter clause had since been eliminated from the Bill, and the measure now merely referred to the capital of £3,000,000 sterling of the Hull and Barnsley Railway, and it was to that provision that he desired to call the attention of the House. In 1880, the Hull and Barnsley Company obtained their Act of Parliament, and the Act contained the usual provisions to put in force the Statute Law as sanctioned by the Standing Order of 1845. The promoters accepted the Bill, with the restriction that they should not pay interest out of capital, because that was a clause which had been enacted in every Railway Bill for a long series of years. Having obtained their Bill, they found that they wanted shareholders, and the idea of paying interest out of capital seemed at once to have occurred to the Board. They proceeded, however, with great caution, and this was one of his reasons for finding fault with their proceedings. Before they inserted a clause in their prospectus, in which they proposed to pay interest out of capital, they took the opinion of very eminent counsel. He was not aware what the result of that opinion was; but he had no doubt that it was in accordance with the judgment of the Master of the Rolls which came afterwards. But, in spite of the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, and of the legal opinion thus obtained, a clause was inserted in the prospectus, of which, according to the Hull papers, 300,000, weighing somewhere about 14 tons, were sent out. Advertisements or notices were issued in at least 51 newspapers, and the Company paid something like £55,000 to various brokers, in order to secure the issue of shares. The Board then proceeded to pass a Minute, authorizing them to obtain tenders for a contract in the usual way; and, on the 15th November, they rescinded that resolution, and the Chairman was sent to London to make other arrangements. he made a contract with a highly respectable firm of contractors—Messrs. Lucas and Aird—by whom the works were to be put through, and by whom interest was to be paid, although they had previously obtained the opinion that the payment of interest out of capital was altogether illegal. He would not trouble the House by entering into the contracts. On the 4th March, before any interest had been paid, the Master of the Rolls granted an injunction against the Company, to restrain them from paying interest out of capital, and no interest up to that time had been paid. An expense, however, of £2,200 had been incurred, for a grand celebration in connection with the passing of the Act on the 15th July. No sooner did the Company get notice of the injunction which had been granted by the Master of the Rolls, than they attempted to sail to the windward of it; and they succeeded, through the contractors, in forwarding to the shareholders the dividend which the Master of the Rolls had declared to be an illegal payment. He could not imagine, for a moment, how Messrs. Lucas and Aird men of proverbial intelligence, could have obtained no other security for the payment of their advances than the promise that an Act of Parliament would be subsequently introduced. He saw in the contract between Messrs. Lucas and Aird a curious reference to a sum of £100,000 to be paid to them for the speedy completion of the works; but he could only find one reference in the contract itself to the completion of the works; and it was that they should be finished by the year after next. It would be apparent to the House that the Company had defied the law; that they had made arrangements to go beyond the law; and that, even after the Master of the Rolls had laid down the law, they went, with their eyes open, and made arrangements with the contractors to pay this interest. He was prepared to assert that no Bill was ever introduced into the House in such a position, in order to secure the sanction of Parliament to the payment of interest out of capital. The House knew the nature of the agitation which was got up last year. In that year a Committee was appointed, at the instance of the Chairman of Ways and Means, which reported in favour of altering the Statute Law. This year there had been the same kind of agitation again; and the Chairman of Ways and Means, no doubt considering it advisable to conform to the views of the people behind the agitation, brought in a Standing Order which was most carefully and consistently guarded. That Standing Order was passed by the small majority of 8 in the House; but it was found that even that Standing Order would not allow the Bill to be passed. The Standing Order and the present Bill were diametrically opposed to one another. First of all, the Standing Order of his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means contemplated a Committee of Inquiry; but there had been none. On the 12th of July, his hon. Friend held a Committee on the Bill, and received a Report from the Board of Trade, in pursuance of his own request, and which Report was said to be in pursuance of the Standing Order. But the Standing Order said that no Company should pay more than 4 per cent, and the Bill proposed to pay 5 per cent. The Standing Order was prospective. The Bill was evidently retrospective. The Standing Order said that the 4 per cent should appear in the advertisements and prospectuses; but the advertisements and prospectuses of the Company were issued in 1879 and 1880, when it was illegal to pay interest out of capital altogether. None of the half-yearly Reports of the Company complied with the Standing Orders. The Board of Trade were told that if the provisions of the Bill did not become law, it would be impossible to continue the works for more than two or three months longer. There was another allegation which he wished to call attention to, because it appeared to him that the Report which had been presented from the Committee by the Chairman of Ways and Means was founded on it, and the Report also of the Board of Trade. The statutory accounts were published duly by the Company; and no one could find fault with the form in which they appeared. It appeared from them that on the 31st December no less a sum than £2,130,000 was at the command of the Directors. The amount to be spent, according to the statutory declaration necessary to be made by all Companies, was, up to the 30th June, £533,000; and the Company would require, up to the end of the year, £1,599,000 to complete their obligations with regard to works. The Board of Trade said, very wisely, that the Company seemed to have paid no attention to finance. First of all, the preliminary expenses amounted to the large sum of £72,900; and, in their Report, in order to show what had become of so large a sum, the Company stated that the advertisements had cost £10,000; brokers' receipts for commission, £54,900; whereas the interest on the pre-payment of calls by the Company was only £14,000 during four half-years. The bankers had allowed £12,000 in one year for money in hand; and these figures certainly showed a large amount of transactions which ought to have been investigated by the Board of Trade, or else by the Chairman of Ways and Means, before any Report that could be satisfactory was sent down to the House. The hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means stated in his Report that he was moved to report the Bill by the fact that 8,000 or 10,000 persons would be thrown out of work if the Bill were not passed. Why? Navvy Jack was a creature here to-day and gone to-morrow; and no sooner was he out of work in one place than he got it elsewhere. There was, therefore, no force whatever in that argument. The Board of Trade said the same thing; but he failed to see its bearing. Now, what did the argument of stopping the works amount to? The Bill did not raise a shilling of extra capital in any shape or form. The capital of the Company remained the same as it was by the Act of Parliament already passed. There was still a sum of £300,000 to be borrowed, and £1,113,000 to be called on the shares. There was no question of getting the amount of the capital. The capital had been greedily taken up; and there was no question of getting out of the shares. If this Bill had any effect, it was taking money out of the hands of the Directors and placing it in those of the shareholders. The effect of not giving the Directors power to complete the works would be to place the money again in the hands of the Directors. The Directors did not spend the money, and did not make calls on the shareholders; then it would remain in their pockets until after the works were finished in 1884; so that, within 12 months of the present time, the whole question must come to an end. In his opinion it was much better that the matter should remain as it was. In the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor had made a strong statement as to the propriety of leaving all Bills alone until the Statute Law was altered, indicating that it was intended to repeal it, piecemeal, by legislation. He contended that the House of Commons could not well pass this Bill. The Directors had taken the Act with the usual clause in it; they had taken opinions as to the legality of the prospectus; and they had issued it knowing that the clause they had inserted in it could not be carried out legally. They had issued it on the chance of nobody inquiring into the matter; but, fortunately, somebody had done so. Even after they obtained the decision of the Master of the Rolls, they went on, and, in spite of everything they knew to be right, decided on paying interest out of capital. How much they had paid out he did not know; but he thought he had proved conclusively that, in effect, this Bill would not be to further the works, but rather to take money away from the works out of the pockets of the Directors for the purpose of paying interest on capital, and placing it in the pockets of the shareholders. The case was of so strong a character, and so well exemplified the danger of interfering with the Standing Orders of the House, that he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

said, he would not delay the House more than a minute in seconding the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease). The whole merits of the case were discussed a short time ago, on the 6th June; and, therefore, there was nothing to be gained by entering again into any argument as to the question of paying interest out of capital. But the case seemed to go a great deal too far in advance of the decision which he thought the House came to wrongly five weeks ago. Not content with taking the 4 per cent allowed by the Standing Order, the Bill, in advance of the decision of the House, claimed 5 per cent; and, as the hon. Member for South Durham had shown, the Company proposed to raise an additional share capital of £2,400,000 on the same terms. He felt that everything his hon. Friend had stated deserved the attention of the House, and he had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

said, he had listened to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) with much surprise. He (Colonel Smith) had regarded the Bill as an unopposed Bill; and, according to the Rules of the House, unopposed Bills — that was to say, Bills against which no party bad a locus standi, on a matter of Petition, went before the Chairman of Ways and Means, assisted by other hon. Members and the Speaker's Counsel, who took the matter into their consideration. Under those circumstances, he trusted that the House would hesitate before it attempted to upset a decision arrived at after full inquiry by a Committee presided over by the Chairman of Ways and Means. He did not intend to follow the hon. Baronet in a single word he had said as to the purely personal matters which the hon. Baronet had thought it right to bring before the House. He (Colonel Smith), for one, would be no party to wasting the valuable time of the House in the discussion of a purely personal matter; but the House ought to know that the hon. Baronet was a Director of the Board of the only Railway which was in direct opposition to this Company. The hon. Baronet had done all that he could to damage the Company which he (Colonel Smith) represented; but he knew very well that, in circles where these matters were understood, the statements of the hon. Baronet would damage the Company the hon. Baronet himself represented much more than the Hull and Barnsley Company. The Bill had been carefully amended, and, in deference to the decision of the other House, various provisions of the Bill had been cut out, in order not to prejudice a question which was still sub judice, the Houses of Lords and Commons not being entirely agreed upon it. He should have thought that this would have satisfied the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham—namely, the cutting out of every provision of the Bill which could be objectionable, leaving such matters to be settled another year. But the hon. Baronet was not satisfied, and he came down to the House, in a strange spirit of inconsistency, to try and oppose the Bill. And why was the hon. Baronet inconsistent? It was because, on the 6th June, when the question was previously discussed, he had made use of these words—

"He believed that the representations which had been made by the promoters of the Bill had been owing to an entire want of knowledge of the law."—(3 Hansard, [279] 1855.)

The hon. Baronet now said that they had taken the opinion of eminent counsel, and that they know the law. Which was right? Then, again, the hon. Baronet said on the 6th June—

"If the Hull and Barnsley Company had made a mistake, he, for one, should not for a moment object to their coming in a white sheet, with a candle in their hands, asking to be put right, after due inquiry, with their shareholders. He would not oppose them if they did that—he should pass no opinion on the Hull and Barnsley scheme as a railway enterprize; but he said this—if they had made a mistake, by all means let them acknowledge it."—(Ibid.)

Now, the hon. Baronet seemed to have changed his mind, and he came down to the House, in defiance of the pledge he had given to support the Bill.

said, that, on the occasion referred to, he was arguing against the Standing Order and what lie said was that, if there had been no Standing Order, he should not have opposed the Bill; but as there was a Standing Order, and this Bill did not comply with it, he thought it ought not to be allowed to go on.

said, he declined to follow the hon. Member into the statement he had just made. He would rather follow the previous declaration of the hon. Member. It certainly seemed strange, after the words used by the hon. Baronet on the 6th June, that he should come down to the House now with a violent opposition to the Bill. He would not waste the valuable time of the House, on a day when they had other important matters to discuss. This was an attempt by a side-wind to upset the decision come to in June for the establishment of a principle which would not only help the development of railway enterprize in this country, but, if applied to Ireland—with probably similar results — would tend as much as anything to the establishment of tranquillity and peace in that country. He opposed the proposition of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham, on the ground that it would weaken the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means, if the House consented to adopt the practice—now, he regretted to say, too common—of upsetting the decision of Committees upstairs. If they did nothing else, by rejecting the Amendment, they would show the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham that the House of Commons was not the place for the ventilation of private grievances between opposing Railway Companies.

said, he was altogether in a different position from the hon. Baronet who first addressed the House (Sir Joseph Pease), or the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down (Colonel Smith). He had no interest whatever in the question, beyond that of doing what he considered to be right in the performance of his duty towards the House. He must say, in regard to this Bill, that lie was somewhat surprised at the quarter from which the opposition had arisen, when he recalled the observations of the hon. Baronet on the 6th June, and he concurred in the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for High Wycombe, because the hon. Baronet, on that occasion, most distinctly stated—and he (Sir Arthur Otway) held in his hands a copy of the hon. Baronet's words—that if the Hull and Barnsley Company had made a mistake and would bring their Bill before the House, he, for one, would not oppose it.

said, he would ask his hon. Friend (Sir Arthur Otway) to quote the whole of his speech. This argument was addressed entirely to the Standing Order; and what lie had said was that, if the Company had made a mistake, let them acknowledge it. But he found they had not made a mistake. They knew very well what they were doing.

said, it would be very hard upon the House if he were required to quote the whole of the speech of the hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet certainly did make a serious assertion, that if the Hull and Barnsley Company brought in the provision they were now asking for, he would not oppose it. He (Sir Arthur Otway) only did what he considered he was bound to do in asking the House to amend the Standing Order. When the Bill was brought before him, he had to consider the circumstances of the case, and the Board of Trade were directed to make a Report upon the matter. On receiving that Report from the Board of Trade, the Committee came to the conclusion I that, under the circumstances, the relief sought for by the Bill ought to be granted. What did the Board of Trade say in their Report? The Board of Trade recited the circumstance, that the capital had been supplied both privately and by the shareholders; and they then went on to say—

"In these circumstances, and without offering any opinion as to the course which the Directors have taken in raising the capital under the Act of 1880, or as to the arrangements entered. into with the contractors—a statement relating to which is given in the Preamble of the Bill, the Board of Trade are of opinion that no impediment should be placed in the way of the early completion of the railways which were authorized by Parliament, after lengthened and exhaustive inquiries, as being of great public utility, and that the powers sought by the Bill should be sanctioned. The shares in the first capital of £3,000,000, having been issued, with the understanding that the shareholders were to receive 5 per cent, it would appear desirable that that rate should be sanctioned, and that the same rate should be authorized for the share capital of £2,400,000 under the Act of 1882, as proposed by the Bill."

The Board of Trade, it would be seen, suggested that interest might be allowed at the rate of 5 per cent; but the Committee were not of the same opinion, and as, in amending the Standing Order, the House had suggested 4 per cent, the Committee struck out the higher rate of interest. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham had put words into his (Sir Arthur Otway's) mouth which he could not find in the Report of the Committee, to the effect that 8,000 or 10,000 men would be thrown out of employment; but all that he would say was that it was all very well for the Chairman of a great and promising concern to look with equanimity upon a proposal which-might involve the throwing of 8,000 or 10,000 men out of employment, and regard it as a matter of very little consequence. He (Sir Arthur Otway) regarded it as a matter of very considerable importance; and when he was told that, if this Company did not obtain the relief they sought, 8,000 or 10,000 men engaged in a useful and great work would be thrown out of employment, it was certainly not a matter which was without its influence upon him. The Committee thereupon had come to the conclusion stated in their Report, and he saw no reason for departing from the conclusion come to on that occasion. Certainly, nothing which had been brought forward by the hon. Baronet would induce him to change his opinion. The hon. Baronet was one who was opposed to all enterprize on the part of people who were not so well established as himself; but considerations of that kind would have very little weight with the public or the House. As he had said, he was perfectly indifferent in this matter. If the House thought fit to pass by what had come down from the Committee, he should not feel in the least degree mortified. He had done what he thought it right to do. The Committee were satisfied with the conclusion they had come to, and they left the question in the hands of the House. He had no feeling whatever in the matter; and if the House thought fit to decide in favour of the proposition of the hon. Baronet, all that he could say was that it would give him some surprise, but no dissatisfaction whatever.

said, he thought the House was very much indebted to the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) I for having brought the matter forward. It seemed to him to be a question of public policy, to be decided by the House, rather than by the Chairman of Committees. The question was, whether a Railway Company, having knowingly and wilfully broken the law, should now come down for a special Act of Parliament, to set themselves right in the teeth of the breach of the law they had already committed? It was a great question whether this power ought, on any occasion, to be granted; and, if it was, it ought to be prospective and not retrospective. He objected to the condonation of a fault openly and wilfully committed by per sons who ought to know better. On that ground alone, without entering into the question of paying interest out of capital, the should support he Motion of the hon. Baronet.

said, the hon. Baronet the Chairman of Committees had stated that he was perfectly indifferent in this matter. Now, he (Mr. C. H. Wilson) was not indifferent in it at all. He took a very deep interest in it as one of the Representatives of the town of Hull; and he might say that this was really an attempt to destroy the united feeling and desire of the town of Hull to relieve themselves of a great Railway monopoly. All those hon. Members who were in favour of sanctioning a great Railway monopoly in that part of the country would support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet below him (Sir Joseph Pease); but he did not see how those who regarded the efforts of the community to relieve themselves of the weight of that monopoly were to proceed if these difficulties were to be placed in their way by Parliament? They had had to raise millions of money already; and everyone knew that it was utterly impossible to induce shareholders to invest, unless they could see a prospect of some immediate return for their money. This was actually a question whether the Port of Hull should deal with a monopoly they had suffered from for a number of years, or whether they should be allowed to remain in the hands of one Railway Company, which had for some years favoured other ports in preference to Hull. This feeling was so strong that the Port of Hull was unanimous in the matter; and it appeared to him that it would be monstrous for the House of Commons to object to this measure, and, by doing so, to throw out of employment the large number of men who were at present engaged in constructing one of the most important Railways and one of the finest docks in the country. That might possibly be considered by the hon. Baronet a matter that would be for the advantage of the Railway Company which he represented; but he (Mr. C. H. Wilson), as a large trader and shipowner connected with the town of Hull, felt sure that even the North-Eastern Railway would benefit by this addition to the trading interests of the Port of Hull. It was all very well for a Director of the North-Eastern Railway, who happened to possess a seat in the House of Commons, to take this course; but he (Mr. C. H. Wilson) did not think it right that matters that were really of private interest should be put upon public grounds, for that was what that opposition virtually amounted to. ["No, no!"] They might cry "No;" but he was speaking of what he knew to be a fact; and he hoped that this measure would receive the support of all those who regarded the interests of the community, and who believed that they ought not to be compelled to suffer a disadvantage in consequence of a monopoly of any sort or kind.

said, he could not help reminding the House that, in these matters, they were guided very much by precedent; and he felt that, if they were to go into the merits and demerits of a scheme which had been thoroughly thrashed out by a Committee of the House of Commons, and upset the decision of that Committee by a side wind, they would establish a very awkward precedent. If payment of interest out of capital was going to be stopped, they might say good bye to the grand public works of the country. This country was noted for its grand public works, and he ventured to say that there were no greater works being executed at the present time than the new dock at Hull, and the Hull and Barnsley Railway. This new dock was made because the Port of Hull was not capable of accommodating the shipping of the present day; for, though there were many good docks at Hull, there were none capable of accommodating the largest merchant ships of modern construction. He hoped the House would reject the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease).

said, he thought the hon. Baronet the Chairman of Committees had departed a little from his usual impartiality, when he brought such a general charge against the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), as saying that the hon. Baronet opposed every scheme of this kind, and that lie had discussed it as a mere partizan. The hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means had departed somewhat from his judicial position of a Judge. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham had not allowed himself to be influenced by the payment of interest out of capital. That was not the question; the question was one of public honesty; and for that the hon. Member for South Durham had always stood up. Had this Company acted honestly or not? That was the only matter that was worthy of the consideration of the House; and, so far as the statement made by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. H. Wilson) was concerned, that the unanimous feeling of Hull was in favour of this Railway, all he (Mr. Warton) could say was, that as Hull was a large and wealthy place, the people there should start a Company to make this line on an honest principle. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham appeared to him to be standing up for the principles of common honesty; and on that ground he thought the house was indebted to the hon. Baronet for the action he had taken in the matter.

said, that in consequence of the communication which had been made to the House yesterday by the Serjeant-at-Arms, he had now to move—

"That leave be given to Ralph Allen Gosset, esquire, Serjeant-at-Arms, to appear and plead in the Action brought against him by Charles Bradlaugh, esquire."

He believed that it would be only necessary very briefly to state that the Motion was made not only on account of its necessity and prudence, which he thought would cause it to be accepted by the House, but also because this course was entirely governed by precedent. He was sure that the House would desire to maintain, to the fullest extent, its right to control its own action within its walls, and that no interference would be willingly allowed with such action by any Court, under any circumstances whatever. But he was sure the House would see that, on the other hand, there was a primâ facie right in any and every subject of this Realm to institute proceedings in any Court of Justice. Therefore it was necessary, if such action was instituted, that the Court should be informed, in some way or other, that the suit which was brought was an interference with the rights and Privileges of this House; and, until that was done, the Court would be uninformed as to the fact that any question as to the Privileges of that House was involved. In former times, he believed that the attempt was made to communicate that fact—namely, that the Privileges of that House were involved in the question in dispute—by means of a certificate from the Speaker in the Chair; but such a method of communication had been found to be very inconvenient and very insufficient, and, therefore, many years ago, as early as 1810 at least, when an action was brought against one of the Predecessors of' the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair (Mr. Speaker Abbot), and also against the then Serjeant-at-Arms, by Sir Francis Burdett, the House resolved in terms very similar to those which he (the Attorney General) was now submitting to the House. Since that time some six or seven occasions had occurred of actions having been brought, when the like course had been pursued, and that House had always directed that a plea should be entered, on behalf of the officer of the House, to ensure that the Court might be informed that the officer was acting in accordance with the Orders of the House, and that, therefore, the Court could not interfere to stop the operation of or question those Orders. He would not dwell upon these precedents, neither did he enter very much into the question at large, whether it was, as he said it was, a prudent course to pursue, because the House would recollect that, as late as May of last year, an action was brought, in many respects similar to the present one—although this one seemed to be an action in anticipation of events that might occur, whereas the action of 1882 had reference to events that had occurred—but the same principle was involved, and he had then, when the question came before the House, stated the reasons why he thought a Motion similar in its terms to the present should be submitted to the House, and the House resolved unanimously that that was a proper and fit course to pursue. The result was, that in accordance with the Orders of the House, the defence of the Deputy-Serjeant-at-Arms was brought to the notice of the Court. That defence was held by the Court to be sufficient, inasmuch as the Courts had no power to interfere with the action of the House, and that the House, forming as it did a part of Parliament, constituted ono of the highest Courts in the Realm, and, therefore, had a right to determine its own action within its own walls. That being the course then taken, he could perceive no reason why a similar course should not be pursued now. He must point out that, if this course were not taken, and the House refused to interfere, great inconvenience or something worse might arise, and the result would be that they would leave the officer of the House unprotected. Either that officer would have to appear personally—and he presumed that that was not a course which the House would desire that should be taken, when an officer was acting in obedience to an Order of the House—or he would not appear, and then the action which had been commenced would be entirely unanswered. The result would be, that the Court would not be informed of the fact that the officer of the House had acted in obedience to the Orders of the House, and the plaintiff would be able to state any circumstances he thought proper, entirely uncontradicted, and the judgment would go by default, in consequence of the Court not being informed of the real state of the facts, and then, when the process of the Court was attempted to be executed, they would have to take action to prevent a grave inconvenience and confusion from arising. He might point out that in the case of "Stockdale v. Hansard" that course was practically followed. The officer was, in the first instance, allowed to plead in person; but the matter was not followed up in the way he had indicated, and the consequence was that, afterwards, the House came into collision with the Courts of the country, a circumstance which gave rise to many debates, and involved a difficulty from which the House had much trouble in escaping. Under those circumstances, he could not anticipate that any objection would be raised to the adoption of the course which he now proposed should be taken. If they did not adopt that course, he feared that consequences might arise of grave inconvenience, which they could not at that moment foresee, but which could not possibly occur if they followed the course which was taken last year. The House would, he trusted, excuse him for being so brief in this matter. He begged to move the Resolution which he had already submitted to the House.

said, that a great deal had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in which he concurred; but he thought that before the House agreed to what seemed to him the very grave precedent which it was now invited to adopt, it should have distinctly before it a statement by which it could understand what was really the question at issue. Doubtless the course suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman had been adopted in a great many cases, and for this obvious reason—that, judicially, it could not be known what was the subject matter of complaint; for, although, in the first instance, authority might have been given by the House, it might well have been, as in one or two instances it was decided to have been, that the authority so given to the officer had been exceeded; and therefore, in so far as what he had done in excess of that authority, he was liable to be dealt with by an action in the Courts of Law. But that was not the case now. The case now was one in which, from the correspondence which had been read, and from the form of writ which had been read also, it appeared that, for the first time, it was sought to bring into a Court of Law the question whether the House of Com- mons had authority—conclusive and exclusive authority deal with matters arising within its own walls. That was not a complaint of anything which had been done, and therefore was not a complaint that could possibly have reference to any excess of authority by any of the officers of the House. That which was sought to be obtained was an injunction, and it was sought to bring the matter into the Courts of Law for the purpose of an inquiry whether the House of Commons had power to make an Order upon its own officers with reference to proceedings occurring within its own walls. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman might be right or he might be wrong as to the convenience of the course which he suggested; but what occurred to him (Sir Hardinge Giffard) was, that it was far too grave a matter to be decided at such a short Notice, and he would be disposed to move either the adjournment of the Debate, or the appointment of a Committee to inquire and determine what should be done in the matter. He must say, at the present moment, he regarded with very considerable apprehension that what the House would do by this course of proceeding would be tantamount to a surrender of the Privilege which the House of Commons had certainly, for the last 200 years, claimed—to treat an action brought against an officer of the House, for anything done or to be done in obedience to its Orders, as an absolute breach of Privilege. He did not want to go back into any precedents, but there was one in which the House sent two Judges to the Tower for having tried a case affecting the Privileges of the House; and, even if he did, he need not go further back than 1844, in which year, if his recollection was correct, Mr. Howard, a solicitor, for having brought an action against Mr. Gosset, the then Serjeant-at-Arms, was himself brought to the Bar on the charge of having been guilty of committing a breach of Privilege. Now, it might be right or it might be wrong that the House should surrender their Privilege in such matters; but he could not help thinking that when a question now, for the first time, arose, in a definite and clear form, that the plaintiff had complained, not of something that had been done, but statedly as to something the Serjeant-at-Arms had said he would do in obedience to the Orders of the House of Commons, whether the House ought to permit such an action to go on. The claim was that an injunction should be issued, and that it should be argued in a Court of Law as to whether the House of Commons had the right to give such a direction to its officers. That writ claimed an injunction, and, nothing else, and, coupled with the letters which had been read to the House, it came to this, that the Speaker having, by the authority of the House, directed the Serjeant-at-Arms to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the House, an injunction should be issued by the Courts of Law to restrain the Serjeant-at-Arms from obeying the Orders of the House. It seemed to him that was far too serious and important a question to be decided in this very light and cavalier manner, and for that reason he now moved the adjournment of the Debate.

said, he could not help thinking that his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hardinge Giffard) must be under some misapprehension when he said the question was whether they would allow the action to go on. That was not the question. The House could not help the action going on. What his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General proposed was, that the action should not go on on the ex parte statement of the person who had brought it, without any security that the facts should be brought to the attention of the Court. Of course, the action would go on, whether the House wished it or not, and he did not understand what the hon. and learned Member for Launceston meant. He supposed the hon. and learned Gentleman meant that if, upon the statement of the case which the plaintiff made, the learned Judge should decide in the plaintiff's favour, that then the House might send the Judge to prison, and any of the officials who carried out his judgment. [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member assented to that, and cheered it; but was that really the course upon which the House of Commons at the present time, in its cool senses, was going to embark? He should have thought that the experience of the past would have shown that such a course would be a foolish one in the extreme. There was no need to bring the House into a needless conflict with the Courts of Law, which would not conduce to the dignity of the House or to the benefit or advantage of anybody. The only question was whether they should now take such a course; or whether the House should take the precaution, as on the previous occasion, of seeing that the facts were brought before the Courts of Law, in order that they might not be ignorant of the circumstances of the ease, and so come into conflict with the rights of that House? No inconvenience or difficulty resulted from a defence being made to the previous action, and there was no abandonment of the rights of the House. The House was now asked by the Government Motion really to enforce its rights. The Serjeant-at-Arms could not appear to the action without their leave. Was it not a sensible thing to give him leave to appear, so as to lot the facts be brought before the Court? Surely that was likely to lead to a better result than if they did not give him leave, and if, on an erroneous representation of the facts, the Courts decided the case against their own jurisdiction, it would be then that the conflict would arise; and it was to avoid that inconvenience that the present course, recommended by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, was proposed to the House. He submitted that, by adopting such a course, they would abandon no right, but only be exercising the same discretion as when they determined, a year ago, that the Serjeant-at-Arms should have leave to appear, and when the matter at issue was decided in full knowledge of all the circumstances.

said, he did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) was dealing with the matter on a proper footing. He said that the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) wished the case to go on without the Court being properly informed; but it was the business of the Court to inform itself whether it had jurisdiction. Supposing that the Serjeant-at-Arms did not appear, on the ground that the writ showed that the plaintiff was seeking to invoke the action of the Courts in a matter in which the Courts had no jurisdiction, the course that would be taken by the learned Judge would be this—that when the plaintiff appeared before him, and asked for an injunction to forbid the Serjeant-at-Arms obeying the Orders of the Speaker, the Judge would at once say—"I have no jurisdiction to issue an injunction in this matter," and would at once dismiss the the case. He thought there was no doubt that would be the course that would be taken by the learned Judge. The question for the House was, whether they should give their sanction to one of their officers condescending to appear to take any part in a proceeding, the nature of which he knew to be an injunction craved from the Courts of Law, directing him to disobey the Orders of that House? He thought there was so much doubt on the question as to justify the House in accepting the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston, and adjourning the debate, in order to give the House a little more time to consider the question.

Before this matter goes any further, it is right that I should remind the House that the immediate Question before it is the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate. If the House desires to debate the Main Question, then the Motion for Adjournment must first be disposed of by being withdrawn.

asked the Speaker whether, on a Question of Privilege, the debate could be adjourned? He was under the impression that it must be carried on until the Question was decided.

It is quite open to the House to adjourn the debate on this matter, if it thinks proper; but, as I have already pointed out, the debate on the Main Question cannot proceed before the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate has been disposed of.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that Mr. Bradlaugh, by this action, had—

rose to Order.

The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newde- gate) does not appear to have taken note of my observation that the debate on the Main Question cannot proceed until the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate has been disposed of.

Then, may I ask the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), who moved the adjournment, to tell us to what day he proposes to adjourn the debate?

Speaking strictly on the question of Adjournment, to which I will confine myself, I imagine that the matter stands thus. A certain course has been taken which has been brought under the notice of the House. The hon. and learned Gentlemen the Attorney General has moved that, in this case, we should proceed in the same manner as that in which we proceeded in another case last year. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) considers that there is a distinction between that case and the present. He also considers that the question which is raised is one which touches so nearly the question of the rights and Privileges of this House, that it ought not to be decided, at all events, without some discussion, in order to show how far we have raised and clearly considered questions which may affect the Privileges of this House for all time. My hon. and learned Friend thought that it would be better that the discussion should take place after an interval for consideration; but it seems to me that the House is in a position in which it might be very fairly, if it so pleased, discuss the question, and so settle it at once; and, in order that this decision should not be hampered by a Motion for Adjournment, upon which the merits of the case cannot be entered upon, I would suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that he should withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate, and let us continue the discussion on the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General.

said, he was willing, with the leave of the House, to withdraw his Motion; but wished to point out, by way of explanation, that he had suggested two alternative courses—either to refer the matter to a Committee, or to move the Adjournment. He understood, from a gesture that he made, that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General objected to a Committee, and therefore he moved the adjournment.

said, he wished to call attention to the course Mr. Brad-laugh was pursuing in the country. He had been proceeding from place to place accusing that House of being the source of illegality. Last year be issued an address, in which he impugned the right of that House to exercise any jurisdiction over the admission of those elected to be its Members; while, by law, it was the duty of that House to witness the swearing in of all Members, and to see that they took the Oath or Affimation of Allegiance, according to the spirit and intent of the Statutes imposing these obligations. Mr. Bradlaugh seemed to imagine that that House had ceased to be a portion of the High Court of Parliament, and appealed to "our masters," the constituencies of the country. Mr. Bradlaugh was doing everything he could to derogate from the position of the House of Commons, and was doing that during the Session of Parliament. Surely, the first duty of the Members of that House was to preserve the rights and efficiency of the Assembly to which they were returned by the constituencies; and, if the House was worthy of the confidence reposed in it by the constituents, it would deal with Mr. Brad-laugh's conduct as a matter of violated discipline, and of insult, directed against one branch of the highest Court existing in this country. In that view he was supported by a leading Member of the Liberal Party and ex-Cabinet Minister. In speaking on the Parliamentary Oaths Act Amendment Bill in 1882, the Duke of Argyll said—

"On the 10th of March Mr. Bradlaugh circulated by post—it came to me by post, and I suppose it came to other noble Lords—a most violent and scurrilous attack upon the House of Commons in consequence of the vote of the 6th of March. I will not take up the time of the House by reading any part of that address. It was called An Address to the Majority of the House of Commons,' and, as far as I can judge, it is full of matter insulting to the House of Commons and if the House should be of that opinion, there is nothing whatever in this Bill, or in any Bill which we should pass, which would prevent the House of Commons from continuing the exclusion of this particular Member on the ground of discipline."—(3 Hansard, [271] 1369.)

That was spoken by the noble Duke, while he was proposing a Bill to admit Atheists to this House. No one, therefore, could doubt that the noble Duke spoke with perfect impartiality.

said, he had not risen for the purpose of opposing the Motion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, for it was very evident that if Mr. Bradlaugh brought an action against one of the officers of the House they were bound to cover that officer with the protection of the Law Officers of the Crown, and to see to their appearing in answer to the suit. But he took exception to the mode in which the hon. and learned Attorney General asked the House to instruct him to plead that the Orders of the House to its officers were over and above the law. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not propose to allow the Court to inquire whether those Orders were legal or illegal, but simply asked the House to pledge itself to a prejudice, and to assert that no Court of Law in this country had any right to interfere with the disciplinary power of the House of Commons within its walls. It appeared to him (Mr. Labouchere), however, that if such a docrine were allowed it would be open to the House to pass a Resolution directing the Serjeant-at Arms to kill him (Mr. Labouchere) within its precincts. That being done, the Attorney General for the time being—perhaps it might be the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard)—might appear and say that he had been justly and properly killed, and that the Sergeant-at-Arms was covered by the Order of the House. It seemed to him (Mr. Labouchere) that it would be only reasonable that the hon. and learned Attorney General should allow the question to be raised that was at the bottom of the whole of this dispute—namely, whether the Order of the House was legal or illegal? That had been the desire of Mr. Bradlaugh from the commencement of his dispute with the House. He had all along wished to carry the matter before a Court of Law, and in every way in his power he had sought to attain this object. The case really was not one of "The Serjeant-at-Arms v. Mr. Bradlaugh," but "The People of England?. the House of Commons." ["No, no!" and laughter.] Well, such was the view unquestionably taken by a very large number of persons out of the House, who could not understand why it was that the House should claim—just as Sovereigns used to claim in days of old—to be superior to the law, and should decline to allow the question of whether the Order of the House was legal or not to be submitted to the tribunals of the country. This was the contention of Mr. Brad-laugh. He held that the disciplinary power of the House over a Member commenced as soon as he was a complete Member, and that he derived his right to go up to the Table, and to do what the House had declared was requisite to qualify him to sit and vote in the House, from the fact of his being elected; and that the House possessed no right to interfere with him, or in any way to interfere with his going up to the Table and performing those acts which were necessary to enable him to take his seat. Having performed those acts, Mr. Bradlaugh did not deny for a moment that he came entirely under the disciplinary power of the House, or that the House would have a perfect right the next day to order him to be excluded from the House. He (Mr. Labouchere) would place before the House a hypothetical case to show the absurdity of the denial that a Member derived his right to sit and vote from the fact of his election. Let the House suppose that this Parliament were dissolved, and that another House of Commons came into existence. Then, as soon as there were 40 Members sworn, and a quorum was constituted, they might, without giving any reason for so doing, pass a Resolution directing the Sorjeant-at-Arms to exclude every other Member. This quorum of 40 might then proceed to legislate as the House of Commons of this country. ["No, no!"] He asserted, and defied anyone to deny, that if the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was correct, the House of Commons had an inherent right to prevent any duly elected Member who was not disqualified by law—[Mr. NEWDEGATE: That is the point.]—from coming up to the Table of the House, from taking the Oath, and then taking his seat. Then, no one could deny the fact that 40 Members of the House, being a quorum, might exclude every other Member who was elected. He thought it was right, in stating that proposition, to make clear to the country the utter absurdity, injustice, and illegality of the course of action that had been pursued, and was still being pursued, by the House towards Mr. Bradlaugh.

said, he thought the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) clearly showed how very injudicious and impolitic was the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, for it appeared, from what the hon. Member had just said, that it was the wish of Mr. Bradlaugh to bring this question before a Court of Law, in order to test the legality of the proceedings of that House, and he wished to obtain the decision of a Court of Justice on the rights of that House, which was a higher Court than any other Court in this country. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) did not think much of the arguments used by the hon. and learned Attorney General, nor did he think he was ever more astounded than when he heard the comparisons drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman between the proceedings this year and those of last year. It was impossible to have two cases standing upon more widely different footings. Last year the Serjeant-at-Arms had acted, and, consequently, it might have been right for a Court of Law to inquire whether that officer had, or had not, exceeded the instructions received by him from the House of Commons. But here Mr. Bradlaugh endeavoured to anticipate the action of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and to stand between the House of Commons and the Orders it had given to one of its servants. If the servant exceeded his duty, then it was perfectly legal for the Judges to inquire into it; but until some act had been performed by the Serjeant-at-Arms, in obedince to the Orders of the House, it seemed utterly irrational, as well as illegal, for a Court of Law to step in to say that the House had no right to give those Orders, and that they should not be executed for fear of committing some illegality of which Mr. Bradlaugh might afterwards take advantage. He trusted that the Government, notwithstanding their eternal desire to force Mr. Brad-laugh into the House, would not carry their proposal.

said, that he did not understand what was the alternative course recommended by the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), or by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), to that which was proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. The hon. Member for Portsmouth said it would be irrational and illegal to allow a Court of Law to stand between this House and the Orders which it had thought fit to give to one of its officers. There might be a great deal of truth in that; but he (Mr. Horace Davey) contended that the alternative course which was proposed was the very course which would enable that to be done, and that the course proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General was exactly that which was best calculated to put the Courts of Law in possession of all the circumstances and the proper aspect of the case. The hon. and learned Attorney General proposed that the House should instruct its Law Officers to put in a plea, that the act which it was said Mr. Bradlaugh desired to restrain the Serjeant-at-Arms from committing was an act which he had been ordered by the House to do, and that the Serjeant-at-Arms should plead the Orders of the House as a complete justification. He did not understand his hon. and learned Friend to propose, or suggest, that any pleading should be put in on behalf of the Serjeant-at-Arms, or that any issue should be taken or raised, as to the legality of the Order made by the House. All that was to be pleaded was, that the House having given its Order to its own officer, no Court of Law had any jurisdiction or authority to interfere with the execution of that Order. That appeared to him to be a perfectly proper defence. He thought the House was bound to support its own officers in executing its own Orders; and it was simply because he thought the course recommended by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General best fitted to confine the issue before the Court of Law to that question, that he intended to support the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend now before the House. It had been said—"Why should we condescend to appear before a Court of Law at all? We should not sacrifice our dignity by condescending to appear before a Court of Law." Such language might be applicable to other times; but he did not think its weight had continued down to the present time. For his own part, he saw no condescension, but only the manifestation of a proper respect for the Courts of Law, in authorizing, or ordering, if necessary, their officers to appear in proper mode before them. The alternative course for the House to adopt was, that they should not put in any plea at all, and that they should leave Mr. Bradlaugh at liberty to move on the proper Motion day, making such statements as he might think proper to make in any affidavits that he might choose to file. But, in that case, there was no security that the true facts of the case would be brought to the attention of the Court; and it might be asked to adjudicate on a question involving grave Constitutional issues. Such, proceedings might bring the House into collision with the Courts of Law, or rather the Courts of Law into collision with the House, simply because the House of Commons had not taken the trouble, or had not "condescended," to lay before them the proper state of the facts. In his opinion, therefore, it was much more consonant with their own dignity and respect, and much more respectful to the Courts of Law, that they should authorize their officer not to raise any question as to whether the Order of the House was legal or illegal, but that he should merely plead the Order of the House. The course proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was perfectly consonant with precedent, and was best calculated to maintain the dignity of the House.

said, he thought it would be very much to be regretted if, upon a question of that kind, there should be anything like a considerable division of opinion, or any apparently sharp antagonism of feeling, as to what was the right course to adopt. He felt sure that every hon. Member of the House only desired to vindicate fairly the position of the House in reference to this transaction. When his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) spoke, he pointed out the truism that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had not had an opportunity of testing the judgment of the House, and said he thought that he and his Colleague the Solicitor General ought to have every opportunity of conversing over the matter, and of making up their own minds about it. Under those circumstances, he (Mr. Gibson) would have been very glad to have had an opportunity of thinking out the matter more fully; and if time had permitted, and it had arisen at an earlier period of the Session, he should have been very glad to have seen the course taken of referring the subject to the care and calm consideration of a Committee to see exactly how they stood; or, if not that, to defer further proceedings as regarded it to another and a later day. But his right. hon Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) had given good reasons why the matter should now be put into a train of final decision, if possible, and especially after the way in which the matter had been presented to the House, and after the short and temperate discussion that had taken place upon it. Personally, he (Mr. Gibson) was very much disposed to think that, had the matter been left to the Judge alone, as in the case of what he might term a collusive action against Mr. Bradlaugh, by a plaintiff selected by himself, the Court would at once challenge legal evidence from Mr. Bradlaugh. He had very little doubt that, if this case were now brought before the Court, the Judge would very likely take up this point, and put Mr. Bradlaugh to prove that the Order of the House was not a full and complete justification for their officer in what he had to do. But his hon. and learned Friends the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Law Officers, whose duty it was to look into this matter, advised the House that they, themselves, would be the masters of the pleadings put in in the action; and they had arrived at the conclusion that the best advice they could give to the House was that they should allow their officer to appear and to plead like an ordinary suitor, subject only to this difference—that the hon. and learned Attorney General had given the House a clear and distinct understanding that the question of the legality of the Orders and proceedings of the House were not to be submitted to the judgment or arbitration of the Courts. Under those circumstances, he apprehended that the best and wisest course for the House to adopt was not unduly to prolong the discussion, and to avoid anything in the shape of difference of opinion, and much less any chance of collision or disagreement, by assenting to the Motion.

moved to amend the Motion by leaving out "the Attorney General," and inserting instead "Sir Hardinge Giffard." In doing so, the hon. Member said, the position in which they were placed was the direct result of the unconstitutional action of the majority. The reason why he made this proposal was that, while there was no stouter opponent of the action of the House that had been taken on this question from the first than the former hon. and learned Gentleman, it had no more enthusiastic supporter than the latter; and because it would not tend to raise the present high standard of morality at the Bar, that the House should instruct one of its most eminent Members to plead in a manner known to be in direct opposition to his own feelings and opinions.

said, he wished to move an addition to the Motion, as an Instruction to the Attorney General—

"but that the ordinary fulfilment of his statutory obligation by a duly elected Member of this House is not to be held as disturbing the proceedings of the House."

All this discussion, and all those proceedings arose, in the first place, from the Motion which the right hon. Baronet opposite the Leader of the Opposition persuaded the House to accept. ["No, no!"] It appeared to him the Motion went directly in the teeth of the law. ["No, no!"] When this matter was previously before the House, and the Previous Question was proposed, the Speaker, replying to a question as to what would be the effect of carrying "the Previous Question" against the Resolution of the Leader of the Opposition to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh, said, that—

"In the event of the Resolution being set aside by the Previous Question, there would be no Resolution before the House adverse to the operation of the law by which the hon. Member for Northampton would undoubtedly be entitled to take his seat." — (3 Hansard, [278] 1856.)

Therefore, upon the authority of the Speaker, the Resolution was adverse to the operation of the law. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) most strongly objected to Resolutions overriding the law of the land; and, therefore, he proposed the Amendment. What, he would ask, was the meaning of the words "not further to disturb the proceedings of the House" in the Resolution which the House had passed?

I must remind the hon. Baronet that the Question before the House is, that the Attorney General be directed to defend the Serjeant-at-Arms against the said Action, and that he is going beyond the Question before the House.

said, he would say no more, but would conclude by moving his Amendment.

seconded the Amendment.

I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) has felt himself called upon, by political consistency, to make this Motion. There are very few hon. Members whose convictions carry them further than myself in their opposition to the original proceedings of the House. I do not know that I ever used the expression that the action of the House had, in my view, been illegal; but certainly I have said, and I have not the slightest hesitation in repeating it, that I am unable to reconcile the action of the majority with my conception of the law. But in all Parliamentary proceedings there is a point at which it becomes necessary to recognize the decisions of the House as regards their consequences, and as regards matters which are subsidiary to them. It is upon that principle that we, I think, on this side of the House have very generally, even where we disapproved of the Motion on which the proceedings were founded, recognised the highest Executive authority of the House, and that the officers of the House must be sustained in their obedience to the Orders of the House. This is a question of proceeding altogether consequential and auxiliary. There is no principle going to be laid down anew as against the view of my hon. Friend; and I would, therefore, submit to him that nothing is gained in point of principle, and much is lost in point of practice, to the general convenience and the general conditions under which alone the Business of a great Assembly like this can be carried on, if a Motion of this kind is pressed for the purpose of introducing a novel principle with regard to a question which really raises no principle, but simply expresses the intention of the House to act upon its own deliberative Resolutions. If that question is to be re-tried, it ought to be re-tried, not by a collateral proposition of this kind, but by an attempt made to overset the original decision which lies at the root of all these proceedings. I think my hon. Friend will feel that there is an objection, from his own point of view, to the form of his proceeding, and that I am right in saying that, if we are to question what is now proposed, we ought to question it by going to the root of the matter, and getting rid, if we can, of the original proposition, to which this is merely secondary and consequential. I hope, under these circumstances, my hon. Friend will not press his Motion. [Cries of "Withdraw!"]

said, he was anxious to take a vote, because he wished to show who was the revolutionary Party in that House. However, he would, at the request of the Prime Minister, yield to what appeared to be the general feeling, and not press his Amendment.

, in rising to move, as an Amendment—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable, in order to increase the productiveness of the land, to arrest the decline of the rural population, and to promote the interests of the commercial industries of the Country, that provision should be made by Parliament to facilitate the acquirement by agricultural labourers, tenant farmers, and others, of proprietary rights in agricultural land,"

said, that in the direction which he indicated by his Resolution would be found an important means of arriving at a permanent settlement of the Land Question. The present land system which obtained in this country, and whose tendency was to place land in the hands of an ever-decreasing number of proprietors, had been abolished in every other part of the world, and had entirely broken down as far as England was concerned. Its effect had been such that at the present time one fourth of the land in England and Wales was in the hands of less than 1,000 persons; while, owing to the existence of that system, the farmers of this country were unable to compete either with the American farmers, or with the small land proprietors on the Continent, the result of which was that the farmers in England had fallen into a very bad condition, and labourers, notwithstanding their increased wages, were relatively little better off than they were before. In 1880, out of 1,366 bankruptcies, 9 per cent of the whole were farmers. Then, taking a lower class, that of the agricultural labourers, they were still in a starvation circle, and practically cut off from the land, for the poor farm labourer had no possibility of becoming proprietor of the land he tilled. The effect of all this was to reduce the productiveness of the land. It was said that the produce of all our farms and homesteads was £300,000,000 per annum, and public authorities on that question confirmed the statement that the productiveness of the country could be enormously increased under another land system. For instance, Sir John Laws, in a speech at Berwick, said there was no doubt the

"Soil of this country could produce far more wheat and meat for the support of the population than it did—if not, indeed, all that is required to support the population."

Countries like Friesland and Belgium, supporting a dense population, sent us large quantities of produce, and the supplies derived from other foreign lands were largely increasing. Political economists said—"Why not buy food in the cheapest market?" That question, he thought, ought not to be asked with regard to commodities for the pro- duction of which our soil was suitable, when there were in this country tens of thousands of unemployed and insufficiently - employed people, and, at the same time, tens of thousands of untilled acres, and when the demand for food was always ahead of the supply. During the past 10 years labour on farms had diminished in the majority of cases to only a quarter, or half the number of men, the production having decreased in like proportion. How was it that the productiveness of the soil had diminished? Many farmers talked of bad weather and want of sunshine; but, in many cases, the foul condition of the land was largely the cause of the unproductiveness of the soil. With regard to the rural population, the last Census allowed that it had extensively decreased in almost every parish throughout the country. The number of paupers, however, had not decreased. That showed that a spasmodic increase of prosperity in trade was no true index of the general welfare of the country. What had become of these labourers, who had been "squeezed off the land." Some, and a considerable number, had emigrated, and political enonomists said they had become our customers, because they were cultivating the waste lands in Queensland and Canada. But they would surely have been as good customers, if allowed to remain here and cultivate the waste lands of Devonshire and Warwickshire. What would our wealth do for us, if we got rid of the very backbone of our country, which these men were, by emigration? Then, large numbers of those who were reared in agricultural districts sought their fortunes in towns, where the competition for the means of sustaining life became proportionately keener, and where they were obliged to herd together in dense masses, and ultimately swelled, by the displacement of others who had grown older and less able to labour, the list of paupers. That was a workman's question; and, though they might have their trades unions, strikes, and regulation of out-put, so long as there was this perpetual influx into the great towns they would never have anything but competition in wages. The result to the towns very few knew; but he feared the people of this country would find it out before long if they did not mind what they were about. The condition of the large towns of this country was such as would astonish many men. During the severe winter of 1878–9 he happened to be Mayor of Birmingham; and he found that there were empty cupboards and starvation in the homes, not of chronic paupers, but of very respectable men of the industrial class. That showed him that a few weeks of illness, or of frost, sent them down to pauper condition. If we had an English Zola to put before us a picture of our great towns, people would be very much surprised, especially considering that we were the wealthiest nation in the world. And now he came to the remedy, which was that—

"Provision should be made by Parliament to facilitate the acquirement by agricultural labourers, tenant farmers, and others, of proprietary rights in agricultural land;"

and he claimed for it that it would, to a large extent, remove these evils. His proposal generally meant occupying-ownership. According to an eminent writer, peasant proprietary was an art—as far as England was concerned, it was a lost art. It was the art of living and saving on a small farm, and making the land produce more by the superior industry and care of the man who was proprietor of it. No doubt an easy system of land transfer would do a great deal; but they were not likely to have that for a long time, seeing how difficult it was to get the little that was now asked for. There was plenty of land in the market. A writer in The Times of July 5 said that there were 50,000 acres advertised in one day, and he had no doubt that there was five times that amount in the market; but who were the buyers? They were landowners, capitalists, almost anybody but the cultivator. The fact was, as a rule, he had not the money; and while land was bought, not for the primary object of cultivation and production, but as an element of social distinction and importance, there would always be higher prices given for it. And that brought him to the last proposal in his Resolution—that the State should assist certain classes in the purchase of it. In other words, his remedy for the ills of the country was to create a peasant proprietary by State aid. That principle was not new. It had been successfully carried out in the Church Act of 1869. It was carried out by Stein in Prussia, the burden of whose argument was, that he had a duty towards the people of the country; and that was an argument which he (Mr. Jesse Collings) too, in his feeble manner, would wish to place before the House. The principle had been lately advocated by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) with reference to Ireland. The noble Lord proposed that the entire purchase money should be advanced to any suitable buyer at 3½ per cent, to be paid back, both interest and capital, at 5 per cent in 35 years. For his own part, he would not go so far as the noble Lord. He thought one-fourth would be sufficient for the State to advance. If his proposal were accepted, it would be necessary for the State to advance money; and he would insist that one-fourth, or, at any rate, a substantial sum, should be found by the purchaser, in order to secure that they had the right man—a man who had an interest in seeing that the price at which ground was bought was not too high, and to secure the public against loss by the transaction. Again, he did not agree with the noble Lord as to the machinery. The noble Lord would have central authorities. But a central authority would require a large Staff, and would not be as economical as a local authority. Everything that concerned the social well-being of the people must be better done by local authorities than by Imperial authorities; and the more important the duties of local authorities were made, the higher would be the qualifications of the men who would undertake them. They were promised County Boards, and he would lot them raise money for this purpose on the security of the rates. The credit of some Municipal Corporations was so good that they could borrow money almost as cheaply as the State. In the first place, he would allot a piece of ground to each village school, where the children might learn the art of raising their own vegetables, and acquire a love for the soil, which would keep them in the rural districts, and so check the overflowing of the rural populations into the great towns. He would limit the farms so bought to 120 acres. There were, however, a smaller class, the best of the labourers and villagers, who had saved a little money, small tradesmen, and others, whom it was desirable to reach. In order to go down lower, and moot the wants of these classes, be would allow the local authorities to buy estates, and on them do nothing but make roads and drain the land, and then let it out in perpetual tenancies to suitable persons in plots from five to 20 or 30 acres. The local authorities could charge 1 per cent over the interest they paid on the money they borrowed. This difference of 1 per cent, invested at 3 per cent per annum, would, in 47 years, recoup the whole amount; and the local authority would be the owners of the ground rents in perpetuity. He should forbid mortgages altogether on those national farms, or limit them to a small extent; but he would allow proprietors to borrow on their stock, furniture, or personal security. The holders would be virtual owners, subject to a ground rent, which would be collected with the rates. It would be said this was a system of land nationalization, and so it was. The remarkable book of Mr. Henry George was being studied so much, and the opinions contained in it were going so far and wide into the minds of the working classes of the country, that it must be answered by some system of Land Reform, which, while just to all parties, would restore, in some shape or another, the land to the people. Unless that was done, in a few years land nationalization on Mr. Henry George's lines would be found to be a formidable power, and the landlords were too few to protect themselves from such an agitation. It was objected that there would be sub-letting; but that he would prohibit; if a man could not cultivate the land let to him, he must sell. It was objected that, in France and Belgium, land hunger and acquisition drove the occupier to the money lender, and that mortgages reduced productiveness; and he would, as he had already said, forbid mortgages altogether in these cases; the holder might borrow on any other security, but the land should be free from debt. It was questioned whether men would pay 3 or 4 per cent if there were landowners who would be content with 2½. Owners who had held any length of time were getting more than 2½ per cent; but the advantages of ownership to the cultivator more than compensated for the difference. The soil would, in fact, become the savings bank of the cultivator. On that point he could produce several instances, in which farms cultivated by their owners had been greatly improved in value through increased productiveness, while there was no such advance in the surrounding farms occupied by tenants. One small owner wrote to him that some people thought Lord Derby was drawing the long bow when he said the production of the soil could be doubled but experience showed that this could be done easily. He had a mass of evidence on every point, and he believed that evidence would fully justify his claim, that this system would cause a larger amount of capital to be invested in the purchase of the land and in its cultivation; that it would increase the productiveness of the soil, both by improved cultivation and by the return of the farmers' savings to the land; that it would give new life to villages and market towns; that it would check the influx into the towns; that it would benefit industry by increasing the demand for manufactured goods; that it would diminish pauperism, and promote the comfort and well-being of the whole population. The existing evils, he maintained, were tending to a war of classes, which he, for one, wished to avoid. He would ask men who read of Social and Communistic doings in Lyons and Marseilles why those doings never went further in Franco than the large towns? It was because they were met by 5,000,000 owners of the soil. In England, there were a few lauded proprietors, and a vast proletariat, larger than any that existed in Europe. These asked for a fair share of the comforts, enjoyments, and material benefits of life. Parliament had to find oat how that could be brought about; and he believed the proposal he had introduced, if accepted, would go a long way towards solving these social questions, and which, if it did not solve them altogether, would, he believed, add to the comfort of the people, and to the safety of the nation generally. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

, in rising to second the Motion, said, that in doing so he did not wish it to be understood that he was at one with his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) as regarded all the details of his scheme, but rather that he fully agreed with the broad principle he had laid down in his Resolution. He sincerely regretted the necessity under which they had been obliged to bring so important a subject forward at so late a period of the Session. He should not attempt, therefore, to detain the attention of the House for other than a short time. In the few remarks he should make he would address himself to those who had no objection to peasant proprietary on principle, but doubted whether the State could properly aid in bringing it about. It was, of course, obvious that the first step in the matter was to cheapen the legal transfer of land. That, he was aware, was a matter about which there was no difficulty in agreeing; but as it would have to be preceded by the simplification of title, it must take a considerable time before it could be generally adopted. There was one argument against the Resolution—namely, with regard to the extent to which it would compromise the State; but that, he thought, should be met by a very strict limit as to the size of the holding above which tile State should not render assistance in the process of purchase; and for these reasons—first, the vicissitudes of agriculture accompanying holdings of a certain size, where the agriculturist looked to his land for corn and produce to sell, rather than for his own consumption. Small holdings cultivated by the personal labour of the owner, and looking to small items for profit, were not affected by foreign competition, but by the increasing home market, and the increase of population. It was reasonable to suppose that what was called agricultural depression would not affect them. Secondly, the man who could afford to buy a small farm had no claim to State assistance. As to the risk of the State, he thought they might consider it would ensue in two ways—namely, through the insolvency of the purchaser, and the fact that a political agitation might ensue. As regarded the insolvency, that might be considered from two points of view — first, how individual character stood in that respect; and, secondly, the results of experience from the working of the "Bright Clauses" in Ireland. In evidence of the first, he would take the amount standing to the credit of the working classes in the savings banks, which amounted to no less than £35,000,000; and, in regard to the second, those who studied the Returns would see that the "Bright Clauses" had, so far as the security of the State was concerned, proved a success, and were a proof of the practicability of the scheme, and of its ultimately beneficial effects. Another objection raised to the proposition of his hon. Friend was that, after all, the markets at the present moment were flooded with land, that there was any amount of land to be bought; and why should not the principle be carried out through the agency of private Companies, through bankers, and in other ways, and that the State should not interfere in the matter? As regarded that point, it must be borne in mind that the labourer was, of necessity, never in a position to make any large contribution of money until, probably, he attained an age when the desire to become a freeholder had entirely passed. It must be borne in mind, too, that the security of the money invested in these Joint Stock Companies was, as was proved by a recent Parliamentary Return, not of a very high order; that those which were already in existence had not proved generally successful; for while he did not wish to infer that there were not many sound ones, still there were a sufficient number of rotten ones to dissuade the working man front investing, and also to seriously damage, in the case of those who had lost their savings, the general cause of thrift. Besides, no private Company could carry on its business as the State could in the scattered parts of England. He quite agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Friend that the agricultural question was both a political and economic one. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

, in continuation, said, that it was not only the insecurity of prices and of seasons that had brought the agricultural question into acute relief; it was from the foundation of our landed system that the troubles and anxieties of the agricultural question arose. He believed it was for political and social reasons that the agitation of the present moment was raised in regard to the land; and he entirely endorsed the view of his hon. Friend that it was not wise for them to shut their eyes to the cry, indistinct as to its practical methods, and unreasoning as it was, of the nationalization of the land. That was a great fact, and would be a great political force in the future; and the only way we should be able to meet it would be to satisfy just and equitable demands by legislation. Bearing all this in mind, he would ask—Was it in the interests of those who wished to retain the rights of landed property to suppose that this great movement was to be diverted from dangerous and turned into safe channels by any mere tinkering of the relations between landlord and tenant, or by any attempt to establish in this country the plausible but conflicting principle of dual ownership. On the other hand, what they saw of the agitation proceeding among the labouring class must convince them that the change proposed by the hon. Member for Ipswich was what they wished. He believed that the popular forces of this country were not more united upon any question than that of the enfranchisement of the labourers. That was a legacy which could not be long deferred from the Reform Bill of 1867. But, while he looked on the county franchise as a necessary consequence of that Reform Bill, it was a leap of increased uncertainty and far greater boldness. If the late Lord Derby considered the Reform Bill of 1867 a leap in the dark, would not the enfranchisement of the agricultural labourer be an infinitely greater one? In the case of the Bill of 1867, the class that were enfranchised were attached to diverse interests and occupations, identical only in their belonging to the same standard of living and of social conditions. The objections which were raised against the Reform Bill of 1867 were simply the commonplaces against a popular and democratic suffrage; but the enfranchisement of the labourer, he confessed, involved a grave political risk. We were about to transfer—and the fact was inevitable—potentially, even it were not at once realized, the political power of the agricultural constituencies into the hands of a class who were not affected by any association or any interest of a substantial character towards the prosperity of the permanent rights of landed property, and this at a time when the Land Question occupied a most prominent place in the public mind, and lent itself to all kinds of ill-considered and revolutionary schemes. 'Whatever might be thought of the nationalization of the land, or of the proposals of Mr. George, it was impossible to be oblivious to the Socialistic ideas in regard to land which were permeating the minds of the people and the literature of' intellectual rather than practical reformers, both in journalism and magazines. In conclusion, he would say that meetings had been held in support of the Resolution of his hon. Friend in various parts of the country. The Agricultural Labourers' Union had held a large meeting at which they passed an unanimous decision in its favour; and it was because he believed it would confer an immense boon upon the country, and one that was desired, that lie should give it his hearty support.

said, he was actuated by no feeling of hostility to the view that, in many respects, it was desirable to increase the number of landed proprietors in this country. If he consulted his own feelings and interests, lie should lend whatever influence he could bring to bear to the support of the Motion of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Jesse Collings), because he (Mr. Chaplin) did not scruple to say that it was in that direction that he, as a landed proprietor, looked in a large degree for safeguards against what might be called the predatory instincts of men like the hon. Member and many of his Friends. In spite of that inclination, however, he could not vote for the Resolution. The Motion of the hon. Member desired an increase of the productiveness of the soil, the arrest of the decline of rural populations, and the promotion of the in- terests of the commercial industries of the Kingdom. This was to be done by what the lion. Member spoke of as the establishment of a peasant proprietary; but the whole object the hon. Member had in view was included in the first of the three portions into which he divided it; for if the productiveness of the soil were increased the rest would follow. The Earl of Derby, he (Mr. Chaplin) know, had made a speech a long time ago in which he declared that the productiveness of the soil might be doubled; but he denied that the noble Earl had ever said it might be doubled with profit. How did the hon. Member establish his proposition that the creation of a peasant proprietary would increase the productiveness of the soil? The hon. Member attributed the decline of the rural population to the present system of land tenure; when that decline was due to a variety of circumstances, prominent among which was the period of agricultural depression through which we had passed. The hon. Member produced a formidable indictment, if it were true, against the English land system; but he offered nothing in support of that indictment, but certain statistics of foreign imports. For that purpose they were absolutely worthless, unless they could be compared with the whole home produce of the country. The hon. Member would lead the House to believe that agriculture was far more flourishing abroad than in England. He (Mr. Chaplin) denied that that was the ease; but supposing it were so, and that the favourable view which the hon. Member took of peasant proprietors in other countries were sustained by facts, it would not prove that the system would prosper in this country. The hon. Member ought to have told the House that agriculture abroad flourished under a system of protection, which was denied to this country. The hon. Member complained that on the Royal Agricultural Commission there were no representatives of labour. To that he (Mr. Chaplin) would reply, that no man was more anxious than Lord Beaconsfield that the labourers should be represented directly on that Commission; but, though several persons were suggested, it was found that not ono of them commanded the confidence of the labourers. The evidence given before the Commission dealt largely with the question of peasant pro- prietors abroad, and the latest information on the subject was undoubtedly to be found in the Reports of Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Sutherland, Sub-Commissioners. In Mr. Sutherland's Report, which referred specially to Western and Central France, he said that in France there were 2,826,388 properties which were worked directly by their owners, the average area of each property being 15 acres. He then went on to describe the condition of the owners in the following words:—

"The peasant proprietor exists rather than lives. He has no pride in keeping himself or his cottage clean and presentable. His food chiefly consists of bread made from buckwheat or rye, although wheaten bread is gradually coming into more general use. He very rarely tastes meat, except in the form of pork. His drink, if in a wine country, is made from water poured over the already pressed grapes, from which the juice has been extracted and sold. … The peasant owners, examples of industry and thrift carried to excess, slave to get as much out of the land as it can be made to yield, starving themselves and their family to add something to their hoard.; their wives becoming prematurely old. from field labour, and bent from carrying heavy loads of fodder to the cow at home, content if at the year's end the tale of silver pieces be increased … at a sacrifice of all that makes life worth living for."

Mr. Jenkins in his Report compared the produce of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark. He said he agreed. with Mr. Littlehurst's opinion, and especially with the statement that the peasants of Franco were indebted to the extent of £480,000,000 sterling. Mr. Jenkins, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on Production Abroad as compared with Production at Home, in answer to Question 68,106, said that the compulsory division of land in France he found diminished the produce considerably. And, in answer to Question 67,899, he said—

"If you go to a foreign farmer, and say that you have gone to him to learn something of the agriculture of the country (he will know at once you are an Englishman), he will laugh at you and say—'All the world goes to England to learn farming; you must be making fun of me.' "

Question 67,900 was—

"Speaking generally, there is more food produced in England. upon the same acreage than there is in the foreign countries which you have visited?"

His answer was, "Quite so." That was a conclusive reply to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that the land sys- tem in England had broken down. With regard to the serfs who were made landlords and peasant proprietors in Russia, a writer in The Quarterly Review) of April, 1881 (p. 446), said—

"From one end of the country to the other, the so-called. peasant proprietors—that Radical idea of the agrarian states—are in a state of semi-starvation; while in several of the Volga Provinces, once the richest in agricultural produce, the starvation has assumed the form of a widespread famine, which the Government is engaged. in alleviating by considerable grants of money …"

But the hon. Member for Ipswich appeared not to know that they had peasant proprietors at home; but the fact was, that is Lincolnshire and other counties there were a large number of small freeholders, and another Sub-Commissioner, Mr. Druce, was appointed to report upon their condition in a large number of counties. Mr. Druce was well known in the agricultural world, and at one time had, he believed, been Secretary to the Farmers' Alliance. In his Report of the 1st of January, 1881, on the acquisition and tenure of small holdings, especially in Lincolnshire, and the Island of Axholme, he said—

"I came across one case, and. I think it was the only one, where the owner of a six-acre plot, with a house and. buildings upon it, had been able to buy his land without borrowing any money; he had been a farm servant. … Under the influence of good times, he had. added to his little farm some 18 acres, which he rented; but he had done no good with them, he said, and. he wished he was back again at farm work."

Dealing with the condition of the small freeholders and the character of their cultivation, Mr. Druce said—

"The small freeholders are poor, and now especially so. … Vast numbers of them are in arrear with the interest on their mortages. … Everybody of whom I inquired, in fact, told. me the same thing. The small proprietors were in a very bad way."

Again, he said—

"It was universally agreed that the harvest of the last few years, including 1880, had teen very deficient, and that the prices had been so low as to be ruinous. … From all quarters I heard the same account. The small freeholders themselves told. me so. Persons who live among them and know them well all said the same thing. Times were very bad with them. … Many led me to infer that their land was mortgaged, without actually saying so, by such answers as the following to my question:—'Does the land belong to you?' 'Well, it belongs to me and. the monkey.' Monkey means mortgagee."

As to individual instances, Mr. Druce gave the following, of course suppressing names. This was the case of one man, who said—

"He could not make both ends meet; he was much better off as labourer, but bought his land, because he considered that his master was getting 3d. a-day out of him, which, he thought, he ought to get himself."

Here was another—

"B., at Foxhill, was an occupier of 13 acres at a rent of £40 a-year. His place was kept very neat and tidy, and his land looked well farmed and managed. With the exception of occasional help, he did all his farm work himself, and 'worked,' he said, 'harder than any labourer,' and working so was just able to make both ends meet. he thought he would have been better off had he remained a farm labourer. he would have been able to save money, and would have worked less."

Now, with regard to their cultivation, as compared with the cultivation carried on under the old system, which the hon. Member despised. There was a great deal of evidence on the question, which the hon. Member would have done well to study before introducing the subject. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: I have studied it.] Then, why did not the hon. Member bring it forward? That showed a want of candour on the part of the lion. Member, who had deliberately suppressed it, and made it the more necessary for himself to submit that evidence to the House. Mr. Druce, speaking of the absence of live stock on small holdings, said—

"The absence of live stock on the small holdings is very striking. A sheep is rarely seen. I myself saw none, nor do there appear to lie many cows or other horned stock on them; there are, indeed, some, but neither dairying or cattle breeding or feeding is carried on to any extent in the Isle."

And in answer to questions proposed, as to which class grows the most produce, and which cultivates the land to the greater advantage, Mr. Druce said—

"In my opinion these questions must be answered in favour of the large farmers. From my observations, I cannot give any other answer. … On no large farm, on no moderate-sized farm did I see land so foul and so poorly cultivated as are some of the small occupations. As a rule, the lands in the occupation of the large farmers were well drained and well cared for; but, on the lands of the small owners, I saw the water standing in the furrows, no trenches cut to let it off, the ditches full of weeds, choking up the outfalls, and reeds and other plants in many places growing in the furrows among the corn."

A vast number of circulars were sent out by Mr. Druce asking for information with regard to the condition of these men; and of the answers he said—

"These answers were, with one exception, only, to the effect that in the districts where peasant proprietors existed they were less prosperous than tenant farmers."

Although it was most desirable that this important subject should be discussed in the House of Commons, yet he (Mr. Chaplin) must say he could not conceive what there was in the condition of peasant proprietors in this country to give satisfaction, or to produce the desire to make peasant farming general. he had conversed with many of them and inspected their farms; and, as the result of a long and intimate personal acquaintance with them, he was reluctantly obliged to confess that he was convinced that their position was one of hardship, toil, trial, and trouble, which he very much regretted to see, and which he could not conscientiously endeavour to impose upon a larger part of the population. His opinion was that the proposition of the hon. Member was; radically unsound, as well as economically mischievous, and founded upon information which he believed to be entirely erroneous.

said, that lie agreed so far with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), that he considered it to be the true interest of every landlord to make the land as free as possible, to place no impediments in the way of its division, or else the people would divide it for themselves. However, as to tenants buying their holdings, and paying interest to the Government or local authority on the purchase money at the rate of 5 per cent, when land at present only yielded 2½ per cent, it was simply nonsense; the agricultural community would be bankrupt in a few years. If his tenants were to pay him 5 per cent, what would become of them? He (Mr. D. Davies) knew something of the matter, and he could say that the men who lived on their own farms in Wales were not fit to be in the same parish with those who were tenants; the owners were the worst farmers in the country. A discouraging element in the case was the eagerness there was to sell farms, either on the part of widows, or on that of elderly people, who wished to divide their property among their children. He was pestered with letters from people who were anxious to sell, for those reasons. If the hon. Member for Ipswich would spend a week with him, lie would take him to scores of such farms. He should like to see some such scheme as that of the hon. Member carried out; but it seemed to him to be a hopeless one, for he could not see that it was of any use spending 30s. on the land in order to realize 20s., and yet that was all it amounted to. He had in his employ 4,000 men, most of whom had left the land, and they would not go back to it for the wages they could earn upon it. Millions of money could be spent by landlords in building proper houses for their men; but it was useless to try and tempt them from the towns unless you offered them a greater inducement than 8s. a-week. There was another remark of the hon. Member which was most absurd. He wanted good buildings erected on farms of £50 a-year. If he would try it himself for two years or so, and spend £50,000 or £60,000 of his own money on them, on land which would not pay for the expense, it would soon cure him. If he would only try it, he would very soon change his story. All these statements about the grand crops turned out were all theory. The poor lands were going out of cultivation, because labourers could not be got at a low enough rate of wages to work them at a profit. These poor lauds might be drained and made to grow a little grass; but that was all they were good for. On the other hand, good land was worth as much now as over it was. Then, again, speaking from his own experience, when people had their farms, they wanted to sell them, and that was the most discouraging thing of all. In short, the hon. Member's Motion was simply ridiculous, and he (Mr. D. Davies) hoped he would trouble his brains with something better than what he was doing by this Resolution. He regarded the remarks of the hon. Member as mere theory, the result of a want of practical acquaintanceship with the subject, and he looked upon the whole scheme as rubbish and nonsense, ridiculous and absurd.

said, he thought the task of enticing men receiving good wages in town to work in the country on clay land was hopeless enough; but it was not the well-employed artizan class whom the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) referred to. He referred to those poor creatures who were perpetually flocking into the towns from the country, and who lived in a chronic state of poverty, and were a constant source of danger to the State. With regard to the farms mentioned, lie not only desired to see an increase in the number of small farms, but there was also room in this country for a great number of small holdings with large gardens, from a quarter of an acre to those of four or five acres; and he would rather see an increase in the number of these holdings than an increase in the number of farms of 160 acres. Upwards of £11,000,000 or £12,000,000 worth of fruit and vegetables was imported every year into this country from abroad; and it was in order that a portion, or the whole, of that enormous quantity of daily food might he supplied in England, which he maintained could be very easily clone, that he wished to see small holdings created in the country. He was not a landowner, and, therefore, could not speak on the subject with the authority of the hon. Members for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) and Cardiganshire (Mr. D. Davies); but he had had some experience of small allotment holdings, and with the care and labour that, as a rule, were devoted to them they were made remarkably productive and successful. He was himself the youngest of a family of 13 or 14 children; and, when a boy, the yearly averaging wages of his father never exceeded 18s. a-week. But adjoining their house, and attached to it, was a quarter of an acre of garden land, the produce of which was of material importance in the maintenance of so large a family. There was wee in the year in which something could not be gathered from that garden that could be turned into money, in addition to sup! plying he whole wants of the family. What he wanted to point out was that, having himself derived the benefit of that small holding, he was anxious that equal benefits should be extended to his fellow-countrymen. They would never get the same proportion of production out of a 50 or 100 acre holding as from a small holding, cultivated by the man who owned it, simply because it was not in the nature of things that a man would give the same care and attention to the work of cultivation that he would do if he was immediately interested in the results of it as owner. It was on those grounds that he supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Ipswich, which was a very reasonable and highly Conservative proposal, affecting, to a large extent, the welfare of the whole community. He fully concurred in the opinion of his hon. Friend that, unless something was done in the direction of this very modest proposal, there would be set on foot a movement in favour of the adoption of far more radical measures than any now submitted to the consideration of Parliament. There was no denying the fact that Mr. Henry George's book had made a great and lasting impression upon the minds of English working-men readers, who were anxious to secure a larger share in the wealth which their labour created, and they desired to accomplish their object not by force or robbery, but by fair and just means. There was no more true or more lasting Conservative proposal than that those who were possessed of vast landed estates should seek to create as many small holdings as they could; because then, when the great storm reached this country, if ever it did come, the upper classes would find themselves backed by a great army of sturdy, honest, well-to-do, and well-disposed citizens, who would be equally interested with themselves in the defence of that which was called property, and law, and order. He asked the Government to give their earnest attention to this subject, and, at some early date, to do their utmost to give effect to the views which had been so ably put forward by the hon. Member for Ipswich. Where the allotment system had been fully tried and carried out, it had been invariably attended with a successful result, and with the greatest benefit to those participating; and if the Labourers' Friend Society, which came into existence about 50 years ago, and adopted that system, had continued to exist, the labouring classes would be the most contented to be found in England; but, notwithstanding its great success, it fell to pieces because its management was in the hands of members of a particular religious Body in whom the agricultural labourers had no confidence. He saw no reason why what was done 50 years ago should not be done now. Had that system been continued, the country would have been more prosperous and contented that it was at the present time.

said, he regarded with great satisfaction the fact that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) had brought this subject under the notice of the House. The reason why the inhabitants of the rural districts flowed into the towns was, because their labour was no longer profitable to those who employed them. He denied they were in that starving condition described by the hon. Gentleman opposite. On the contrary, their condition had greatly improved. They were now better housed; indeed, there were many indications that they were better off than they were. They were certainly better clothed than they used to be; and, from his own experience, he knew that the cost of agricultural labour had risen 40 per cent. The persons who wanted the sympathy of the House were the corn growers, whose market had been ruined by a policy, the effects of which were now being felt in Birmingham itself. When he walked through that town and saw shop after shop closed, and those very articles which Birmingham once shone in coming from America, he thought that there they must feel there was something in affording Protection to native industry. It was absurd to suggest that there was any monopoly in land; there was plenty of land in the public market, and far more in the private market, for anyone who would buy it. The hon. Member might extend his charity to those who were nearer home. Thousands of families in London and other large towns lived each in one room. Labourers in the country were far better off than in the towns, and many in his (Mr. Biddell's) own employment, after going to a town, had returned and asked to be taken back into their old positions. He should be glad, although he had very little confidence in the matter, to see a larger number of peasant proprietors; but with regard to advancing State money for the purchase of the land, lie doubted whether any of it would come back, or whether it would very much benefit those for whose benefit it was intended.

said, he thought the Motion was one which ought to be supported.

rose to address the House, when—