I was expecting that the First Lord of the Treasury would have made some statement to the House as to the intentions of the Government with regard to one or more disagreements of the Lords to the Amendments in this Bill which were made by this House; and I think, Sir, that such a statement was the more necessary in view of the fact that a vital Amendment has been made in Clause 23 in "another place" on the Motion of the Ministerial Peer in charge of the measure, and evidently by concert with Her Majesty's Government. That is a fact, Sir, which places this House and all those who are interested in this Bill in a very difficult position. We had supposed that the Bill as it went through this House, partly by compromise, and certainly by the abandonment upon our part and upon the part of the Opposition generally of their right to press many vital Amendments, would have been accepted by the Government as the final result so far as this Bill was concerned; and certainly it was the last thing in the world that I expected to find that Lord Cadogan, who had official charge of this measure, should have moved an Amendment of so vital and important a description as that now sent down. I do not exaggerate when I say I regard this Amendment as one which will diminish at least by one-half the value of the Bill to the Irish tenants. It appears to me to fly in the face of all equity and justice, and to be in distinct contradiction of the statements of the Government when the clause was under discussion in this House, and in distinct contradiction of the arguments by which they resisted our arguments. Then it was agreed that full discretion should be left to the Land Commission; but now since the Bill has been taken to "another place" the Land Commission are to be tied up and bound down in such a way as will make it absolutely impossible for than as regards the clause for readjustment of judicial rents to do any sort of justice to the Irish tenants. I had regarded that clause for the readjustment of judicial rents as of a more important and vital character than even the Leaseholders' Clause, and I have discouraged all attempts while the Bill was passing through Committee in this House to put any undue pressure upon the Government in respect of Amendments of a less important character—Amendments which the Government claimed, and probably might fairly claim, should not be pressed. But as regards the question of this readjustment of judicial rents, I have always held it to be the most vital question in connection with the present agrarian situation; and I cannot for a single moment be a party to this tampering with the settlement arrived at in this House, this tampering which was adopted in "another place" on the Motion of Lord Cadogan. Sir, the question of binding the Land Commissioners down by a hard-and-fast-line to re-adjust rents only in the same proportion as the variation in prices is one which strikes at the root of any possibility of settling the agrarian question in Ireland. It was very well pointed out during the debates in Committee in this House that if prices fall 10 per cent a diminution of 10 per cent on some holdings would be too little and on other holdings would be too much, and that the Land Commission would have to take into their consideration the systems of cultivation adopted in different districts, and settle their averages accordingly. But if you put pastoral holdings in the County of Meath, as Lord Cadogan has done, on a level with the tillage holdings in the County of Tyrone, you give to the grazing tenants of Meath an advantage which they are not entitled to, and you take away from the tillage tenants of Londonderry and of Tyrone the advantage to which they are absolutely and more justly entitled. I cannot imagine, Sir, upon what principle the Lords have proceeded in this matter. I was not aware that it was their desire to unsettle this question and prevent the settlement arrived at in this House after infinite trouble and much time being given to obtain fair play. But so far as I have been able to see and to estimate the effects of the Lords' Amendment I would say this—that having regard to the fact that the leaseholders under the Bill as it left this House are deprived of the right of claiming for their improvements the same right which the ordinary yearly tenants possess under the Land Act of 1881, and that now, under Lord Cadogan's Amendment, fully one-half of the benefit which the judicial tenants of Ireland might have reasonably anticipated in the operation of this Bill will have been taken away from them. I think, Sir, and it is my deliberate opinion, that it would be no loss at all to the Land Question or to Ireland if this Bill were postponed for another Session; and if the result of protracted opposition to these Amendments is to postpone the Bill for another Session, all I can say is that I wash my hands of the responsibility—a responsibility which will have been thrown upon us at this end of the Session by an example of, perhaps, the most unjustifiable action, having regard to all the circumstances and the circumstances under which the Bill passed, which the Lords have ever taken even with regard to Ireland. Now, Sir, the action of the right hon. Gentleman in forcing these Amendments on to-night is of another character. The right hon. Gentleman said in reply to my Question that he had consulted the usual channels of information; but, Sir, when he consulted the usual channels of information we had no inkling whatever that Lord Cadogan's Amendment was going to be proposed, much less accepted, or that this Amendment was arrived at after mature deliberation as a Ministerial Amendment. Surely, with this knowledge in their possession, the Government ought to have informed their opponents when initiating this consultation what their intentions were. We did not for a moment suppose that anything more than the ordinary Amendments which had been foreshadowed in the newspapers would have been insisted on. If we had known this settlement, arrived at after such pains, was to be half of it at least undone, the position would have been very different, and we should have claimed from the Government fair time to consider this Amendment and to invite the Members of the House of Commons who are absent to attend in their places in order to discuss the question. Now, Sir, I trust that the Government in the discussion which I suppose will follow will ease our minds in respect to one or two points—that either they will tell us that they do not propose to adhere to Lord Cadogan's Amendment, or else that they will tell us that they will give an adjournment of the debate till Monday. I think, Sir, I am entitled to claim this from every point of view as regards the number of the Amendments and the important character of one or two of them as far as we can see. The questions raised in many of the Amendments, I am not, I confess, sufficiently informed upon. In the short time at my disposal I had to run over them hastily, and I confess I am not able to appreciate their gravity, or weight, or want of weight, so far as to fully understand them. But I look upon the one Amendment which I have particularly singled out as being an Amendment of a vital character, and one to which I wish to direct the attention of the House and the Government. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give us satisfactory assurances on the points I have named.

said, the hon. Member's speech had partly been directed towards the substance of an Amendment introduced in the Lords and partly to a severe criticism—he would not say attack—on the conduct of the Government in allowing the Amendment to be adopted; and he had complained that no adequate Notice had been given to the Opposition of the fact that this important Amendment was to be introduced in the Lords. Now, he admitted that, the latter point had occurred to him, and he had taken some pains to find out something about it. The Government were extremely anxious to proceed speedily with the Bill, not only for their own convenience, but also for the sake of the good government of Ireland, and especially for the benefit of the tenants They had constantly pressed this Bill forward because there were evictions pending, and if these evictions were carried out before the Bill was passed the tenants could not derive any benefit from it, but if it were passed before the evictions the tenants would have the full benefit of the Equitable Clauses. The Government took means to satisfy themselves that the course they were adopting was not inconvenient to hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway. The Amendment introduced by Earl Cadogan the hon. Member rightly regarded as a Government Amendment, and not as an Amendment introduced in consequence of discussion, or as a compromise following the interchange of opinion; and the Government did not shrink from the position they had taken in introducing the Amendment. They maintained emphatically that the Amendment in no sense altered the substance of the clause as it left this House; but it explained and put it in clear, unmistakable, and precise language what in the opinion of the Government was and always would have been the natural operation of the clause. But it did no more than that. He admitted that for the Government to introduce even explanatory words into this clause demanded some justification; and that justification he would give. By this clause Parliament handed over to three gentlemen in Dublin the settlement of the agricultural income of everybody connected with the land in Ireland, either as owner or as occupier. They were made practically a triumvirate of dictators to settle interests of gigantic magnitude. It was not surprising, therefore, that the three gentlemen should shrink from a responsibility so prodigious and unexampled, which had never been placed on any tribunal in the world in the same manner, and that they should ask that in justice to themselves Parliament should be put in the clearest, the most unmistakable, and the most precise form the exact intentions which animated the Legislature in passing this clause. The Commissioners communi- cated their views on this point to the Government; they said—

"Considering the enormous responsibility thrown on the Court by the proposal with regard to the temporary remission of judicial rents now before Parliament, we are of opinion that some precise guidance should be given in the Act of Parliament as to the nature of the principle to be applied."

He presumed that a request of that kind was not one which any Government could take upon themselves the responsibility of disregarding.

Will the right hon. Gentleman read on?

"Signed, John O'Hagan, E. F. Litton, Frederick Wrench."

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the date of the letter?

Were the Commissioners consulted as to the words of Lord Cadogan's Amendment beforehand?

said, he was not going to enter into other questions. He had explained to the House the opinion — in his view a most natural opinion—which the Commissioners entertained of the responsibility thrown upon them by the words of the clause which, although it was tolerably clear, they thought ought to be developed in a more precise manner. This request was one which the Government could not venture to refuse when they were throwing on the Court a new and unique responsibility. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they had been in a position of responsibility with regard to Ireland, could not have ventured to disregard such a representation. This was why the Government felt themselves compelled to introduce the explanatory words moved by Earl Cadogan. He did not wish at this stage to go minutely into the merits of the Amendment. What it did was to substitute a produce rent for a money rent. In other words, it required the tenants in the year 1887 to give to the landlords in the form of rent the same amount of produce as they would have given in 1882, 1883, and 1884. It did not matter what agricultural commodity he chose for the purpose of illustration; but let them suppose that the produce of a farm was oats. If the rent in 1882 or 1883 had been a produce rent—i.e., payable in the form of so many bushels of oats, then, by the Amendment introduced in the House of Lords, that method of payment, was practically extended to the present year. In other words, the tenant had to pay the same amount of oats to his landlord; but, of course, the landlord got a less money value, because oats had fallen in value, and he got a less amount of value in exact proportion to the fall in the value of oats.

But suppose that he had only five bushels to the acre instead of 10?

said, the hon. Gentleman forgot that the one contention made in favour of altering judicial rents was not that there had been any alteration in the quantity of produce, but that there had been a fall in the prices of that which was produced. It was on the same ground that the temporary abatement of judicial rents had been advocated. Therefore, when he claimed for this Amendment which had come from the Lords that it substituted a produce rent for a money rent he claimed for it that it did away with the grievance which had been complained of in judicial rents—namely, that they were fixed at a time when agricultural prices were higher than they were now. Nor would the tenants of Ireland suffer by the change as compared with the revision of rent by the Sub-Commissioners. Looking at the remissions made last month by the Sub-Commissioners he believed that the alterations under the amended clause of the Bill would be quite as great as, if not greater than, they would be if the judicial rents fixed before 1885 were entirely set aside. If Irish Members desired that temporary abatements of rents should be on a much larger scale than alterations made by the Sub-Commissioners, he would not ask them whether that would be just or unjust to the landlords, but he would ask whether it was a method by which peace and contentment could be produced in Ireland. If tenants who had not yet gone into Court and leaseholders who had not been allowed to go were to have their reductions fixed upon a wholly different scale from the tenants who had them fixed before 1885, would not that produce a condition of discontent and irritation in Ireland which would go far to neutralize the remedial effects that were hoped for from this measure? He should be prepared to go into minute examination of the argument the hon. Member had adumbrated in his speech; but he would not do it now. When the hon. Member said he regarded it as a matter of indifference whether the Bill passed this Session or next Session, he would ask him whether he was prepared to tell the tenantry of Ireland that they were not to have the advantages they would derive from the clauses that provided for the stay of evictions and the distribution of arrears over such a period as the County Court might think fit? Was he also going to deprive them of the revision of judicial rents and of the Equitable Clauses, and was he going to exclude leaseholders from the benefits of the 1st clause? Was he going to say that the tenants now under judicial rents should have no remission for an indefinite period? Was he going to deprive great classes of tenants of remission of rent at least as great as they would derive from any provisions such as he proposed last year or such as he placed upon the Paper this year providing that judicial rents should be again revised by the Commission and the Land Commissioners? He did not venture to measure the responsibility of the hon. Member for Cork in this matter; but he did say that if the tenantry of Ireland really understood what it was that hon. Gentlemen opposite were doing, and how great the advantages were which they would be deprived of through the Parliamentary action of their Representatives, then the hon. Member for Cork would go far to destroy the influence and the popularity which, without doubt, he at present possessed among the tenants in Ireland.

said, that they had listened to one of the most extraordinary statements that had ever been made by a responsible Minister of the Crown with reference to the course adopted by a Government in respect of a Bill of first-rate importance. What had happened? After long and careful deliberation in that House a Bill had been settled, and certainly no one could doubt that the most important and most vital portion of that Bill was the clause with reference to the revision of rents. They had heard, day after day, from the First Lord of the Treasury, that he could not brook au hour's delay in the passing of this Bill, and that the peace of Ireland depended upon its being passed in 24 hours. Well, that Bill wont up out of the House of Commons, and they all remembered the hurry and the skurry with which the most vital question was despatched within half-an-hour on Saturday afternoon. The Government might be said, he thought, without disrespect to that Assembly, to have a pretty fair control of the proceedings in the House of Lords. This Government, who were so anxious to pass this Bill, as the peace of Ireland depended on its passing in 24 hours, did not think it worth while to summon their Lordships to consider the Bill until Thursday; they did not mind wasting four days in the House of Lords. The House of Lords had other things to think of besides the peace of Ireland, and Thursday was good enough for them. He had been very much interested to know what Amendments were to be moved in the other House; but it did not enter into his mind that the Government contemplated stabbing their own measure in the back in the House of Lords. He wished to know what the Irish landlords were going to move themselves in the House of Lords. He tried in the proper quarters to get some knowledge of those Amendments, and his information was that that House—even the House of Lords—did not know what Amendments were going to be moved till an hour and a-half before their sitting. That was the deliberate way in which the House of Lords disposed of a measure of this description. Then the Chief Secretary for Ireland had told the House that the Amendment did not affect the substance of the Bill, and that it was only an explanation. What a method for the First Lord of the Treasury, who wanted to facilitate the progress of this Bill, to adopt—to go for an explanation of a vital clause to the House of Lords! But was this an Amendment which was only an explanation and not an actual substance? In his mind, this Amendment was a matter of such vital substance that it destroyed the whole value of the clause and the whole value of the Bill. He hardly required the knowledge and experience of the hon. Member for Cork to enable him to come to the conclusion that it made the Bill worthless. They were told that the Amendment was presented by the Land Commissioners in Dublin; but why was not that stated to the House of Lords? The proceedings of the Government were most mysterious and past finding out. It was a sound rule that when correspondence was produced the whole of it should be brought forward. What he wanted to know was what the Government wrote to the Commissioners before the Commissioners wrote to them? Had the Government asked the Commissioners what sort of remissions the tenants would get; had they found that the remissions would be larger than they had expected; and had this Amendment been introduced to prevent them being made too large? He had been some years in that House, and he was not aware that when they passed a Statute which the Judges had to administer, the Judges ever wrote suggesting alterations in this way. If the Amendment was merely explanatory, the course the Government had taken was the most clumsy he had ever heard of. If, on the other hand, the proposal was a vital and fundamental alteration of a Bill which had been settled in the House of Commons, he could tell the Government that they were only at the beginning of this discussion; and if the Government had explained to the Commissioners how they wished the Bill to be administered, surely hon. Members from Ireland must be entitled to give their explanation. He was amazed at the Chief Secretary saying that the Amendment would give all and more than all that had ever been proposed in an entire revision of rents. Let them suppose that a rent had been fixed in 1882 a great deal too high at the then prices; how did they give a remedy for that by simply altering the rent according to the scale of prices? It was no remedy at all. A mere reduction, according to scale, would do nothing at all. What they understood was that there would be a large and free discretion left to the Commissioners to deal with the matter according to the equity of the case. But the Government had found out what that meant, and they had determined to withdraw the grant which they professed to have made. That, in his opinion, was the real reason for the Amendment. If it was a mere explanation, why then let it be clear and pass the Bill; but if it was of a very different character, and the Government persisted in it, it seemed to him that they were entering upon a sea of trouble. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, he thought not very discreetly, threatened the hon. Member for Cork with a loss of his popularity in rejecting this Amendment.

No; I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I said if he caused by Parliamentary action the Bill to be lost.

Who was it that was losing the Bill? If the Government had stuck to their guns in the House of Lords things would have been different. But the great difficulty which they had with the combined Unionist Party on both sides was that they put down clauses and Amendments and then took measures to defeat them. They made a grand concession, and then got the Privy Seal to knock it on the head in the House of Lords. This farce had been gone through during all the proceedings on this Bill. What was the explanation that had been offered by the Prime Minister? Did he tell the people of Ireland that the Bill was a measure of justice which the Government, on their conviction, had offered to Ireland as a measure of peace? Not at all. He said it was a Bill of which he disapproved; which contained germs of evil which he had always denounced. The fashionable germ theory was introduced. In ordinary cases when a doctor saw germs of a disease he endeavoured to get rid of them; but this political doctor endeavoured to multiply them by passing a measure which he said contained germs of evil. Did Lord Salisbury say—"I sympathize with your sufferings and I am ready to redress your wrongs?" Not at all. He said—"I dislike this Bill; I hate this Bill; I would not give this Bill if I could help it; but it is necessary for me to buy the votes of Ulster." That was the political morality of the Conservative Party. Lord Salisbury said—"I want the votes of Ulster, that they may go against the votes of the majority of the Irish nation; and therefore I will give the tenants of Ireland that which I do not approve or believe to be just." Was that the way to earn the respect of the Irish people? But there was another class, the landlords of Ireland. What did he say to the landlords of Ireland—this great moralist, the Prime Minister of England? Did he say—"I call upon you, indeed, to make great and painful sacrifices. They are sacrifices the burden of which I understand; but I believe they are just; that they are concessions which you ought to make to your tenants in humanity and justice?" Not at all. What Lord Salisbury said was this—"I know that these are unjust demands made upon principles which I cannot approve, involving a system of legislation which I conceive to be detestable; but I will mulct you of hundreds and thousands of pounds because it is necessary for me to buy the Ulster votes." What a remarkable thing that we should have had in both Houses of Parliament on the same night declarations from two of the principal Members of Her Majesty's Government that they were supporting two Bills, both of them affecting the land, and that both Bills were framed upon principles abhorrent to their nature; that in order to buy political support they were ready to support the measures; but that they would be traitors to their consciences if they did not denounce their principles. These were the political ethics of the high-flown moralist of the Exchequer and of the Foreign Office. These were the principles which were going to command the respect of the Irish nation and the support of the English people. In his opinion they would do neither the one nor the other. This Bill had one thing, and only one thing, which was good in it, and that was the clause the Government had taken the trouble to destroy. They had left open, unfortunately, one grievance which he had hoped, from the conversation last Saturday, the Government would have remedied in the House of Lords, especially after the invitation of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). There was a Liberal Unionist who proposed an Amendment which would have done justice. He held his noble Friend the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) personally responsible for having destroyed at the last moment all hope when he came forward and hardened the heart of the Government to refuse accommodation on this subject. He was bound to say that the unfortunate gentleman who was put forward to move the Amendment had the courage to vote for it; but how many of the Liberal Unionists came forward to support it? [An hon. MEMBER: Seven.] Only three on Saturday. But there was one voice they would like to hear on this Amendment from the Lords. Where was the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell)? He wondered whether the hon. Member would say that the interests of Ulster, which were so sacred, so dear to him, had been protected by the Government, and that he believed the explanation which had been given about the alteration in the clause, which was of vital consequence to the people of Ireland. Where was the hon. Member, that he might tell the House what he thought of what had been done about the town parks? They heard the hon. Member for South Tyrone the other night get up and glorify this Bill and the Government of which he was so obedient and humble a supporter. Where was the hon. Member now? He believed the hon. Member was canvassing for the Government somewhere in Cheshire. What did the people of South Tyrone think of that? He did not know how far the hon. Member for South Londonderry (Mr. Lea) was satisfied with the changes. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had said that there would not be a single town park in South Tyrone which would not be relieved by the Bill. All that was knocked on the head, while the hon. Member was canvassing in Northwich. That was the way Liberal Unionists played fast and loose with the principles they professed and the constituents they represented. He protested against the manner in which this Bill had been dealt with. The Government could have done with it what they liked in the House of Lords. They were like the potter—they had the clay in their hands, and could mould if; as they pleased. But they had refused to make any provision for the arrears of exorbitant rents; they had knocked on the head the clause for the temporary readjustment of rents. They had, in spite of the Report of the Cowper Commission, practically excluded town parks from the Act of 1881; and, in his opinion, from the Amendments made in the House of Lords, the Bill, as had been said by the hon. Member for Cork, was hardly worth having or taking. As to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Cork, the view of the hon. Member and his Friends ought to prevail as to the time when this measure should be discussed. If the Government thought they would do any good in Ireland by rushing this Bill through the House of Commons as they had rushed it through the House of Lords, with these Amendments, they would be entirely mistaken. They might just as well not pass this Bill at all as pass it under circumstances in which it could be said, and would be justly said, that they had not given the Representatives of Ireland an opportunity of considering these Amendments, and moving others which they might think fit. The right hon. Gentleman deplored the delaying of the Bill; but the delay was entirely due to the conduct of the Government in attacking the measure in its most vital provision, bringing it down in hot haste, and expecting it to be passed without reflection or deliberation.

said, he would not refer to the description which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had given of the motives which influenced the Prime Minister and the Government in proposing a measure which they believed to be necessary for the peace of Ireland, and which they had designed with the sole object of doing justice to all interests in that country, The representations made by the right hon. Gentleman were precisely in his usual vein, and the country would know how to appreciate them. The Government were accustomed to misrepresentations of their motives and of the course which they followed. The right hon. Gentleman laid great stress upon what he spoke of as the fundamental alteration made in the Bill by the House of Lords. The Government absolutely denied that there was any alteration in spirit or substance made in the Bill by the House of Lords. They had given a complete explanation of the circumstances in which it had been made, and they would be wanting in their duty to Parliament and the country, and especially to the tenantry of Ireland, if they had not introduced words which they believed would carry out all the intentions of Parliament, and certainly all the intentions the Government had in proposing this Bill. Those words were justified by the discussions which had taken place in Parliament, by the Report of the Cowper Commission, and by all the experience that had been gained with regard to the adjustment of rents during the last 12 months. His right hon. Friend had explained the matter so thoroughly and so ably that he did not think it necessary that he should travel over the same ground again. He asserted that under this provision, as guarded in the clause which bad come down from the House of Lords, the tenant would gain everything that it was intended he should have or that he expected to have, and that it would secure a temporary abatement of rent equal to all expectations. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about buying political support. The right hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, endeavouring to buy political support by casting to the winds all his former protestations, and by posing as the friend of those who only a few months ago he denounced in every part of England and in that House. The Government were indifferent to the opprobrium which the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to cast upon them, if they were simply able to do their duty by the people of Ireland and by the people of the United Kingdom and as Ministers of the Crown. The Government had a great responsibility imposed upon them, and they were not inclined to buy support by promising concessions and boons to those to whom they had no right to give more than in justice they were entitled to receive. The right hon. Gentleman had reproached the Government because no provision dealing with the arrears of rent had been introduced into this Bill; but did he remember that the proposal made on Saturday by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland was distinctly repudiated by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite speaking on behalf of Ireland, and was declared to be worthy of determined hostility? He (Mr. W. H. Smith) denied that the House of Lords, by the introduction of these changes in the Bill, had in the slightest degree injured the Bill itself. Was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby going to consider as useless a Bill which admitted 110,000 leaseholders to judicial rents, which placed them in the position of the ordinary tenants of Ireland, which en- titled every tenant subject to notice of eviction to have that eviction stayed, and which permitted every tenant whose judicial rent had been fixed prior to 1885 to obtain a temporary abatement? If the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that such a Bill was worthless, that it mattered little whether it passed this Session or not, then the right hon. Gentleman was assuming a responsibility far greater than any that had been assumed by any individual in that House before.

said, that the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had made a charge of omission as well as of commission against the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had charged it with having neglected to take the opportunity offered to them in the House of Lords of introducing some clause dealing with the arrears of rent. The First Lord of the Treasury had dealt partially with that charge; but as the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the part he (Mr. J. Chamberlain) took in the matter, he should like to say a few words upon it. It was pointed out on Saturday that the Bankruptcy Clauses had been withdrawn, but that the tenant was left without relief from arrears of rent, or if he were insolvent from the embarrassment of his other debts; and he (Mr. J. Chamberlain) suggested that it might be possible to submit some other plan which adopted the principle the Government laid down, and which would relieve the tenant without his going to bankruptcy. His right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, speaking after him, said that although his suggestion was not so good as theirs, which was that the Bill should give power to deal with the arrears of rent only, he thought it ought to be accepted, and for himself and his hon. Friends he would accept it if the Government were prepared to deal with it. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, on behalf of the Government, said they were prepared to accept any such suggestion, provided that all the debts of the tenant were dealt with in the same way and at the same time.

said, he stated that if the plan of the Government meant the revival of the Bankruptcy Clauses under another name, he would have nothing to do with it, and he came to the conclusion, after hearing the speech of the Chief Secretary, that the proposal was a revival of the Bankruptcy Clauses.

said, he had offered on behalf of the Government to adopt any reasonable plan by which the debts of all creditors should be treated alike and on. The same basis. So far, undoubtedly, that was a proceeding in bankruptcy; but he expressed his perfect readiness to drop the name of "bankruptcy," and he said he would adopt as cheap and simple a machinery as could be devised consistent with an equitable arrangement.

said, the Irish Members were willing to agree that where an action was brought against a tenant by landlord or shopkeeper, the County Court Judge should have power to deal with such actions simultaneously, and treat them in the same way; but they were not willing that when actions were brought by the landlord procedure should be adopted which would compel other creditors who had not brought actions to come into Court also.

said, that his proposal on Saturday was that when the tenant was brought into Court, whether for arrears of rent or for the debt of another creditor, if his debts were of small amount the Court should be allowed to call for a schedule of all his creditors and to direct them to enter into a composition, payable by such instalments as the Court might think fit. It was after he had made that suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby said he thought it ought to be accepted. Then the question arose whether the Irish Members would accept the clause without undue discussion; and upon that the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), speaking on their behalf, refused to accept the arrangement, but said that they were quite willing to deal with other creditors as well as with the arrears of rent as the cases of each were brought into Court, but that they would not agree to the simultaneous treatment of all debts. He hoped the hon. Member for East Mayo would admit the correctnes of his statement.

replied, that he had only one correction to make, and it was of slight importance. What he said was that the Irish Members insisted that the debts should be dealt with when the creditors came into Court.

submitted that it was perfectly clear, whatever the intention of the hon. Member might be, that they could not have a simultaneous dealing with all debts. It was absurd to suppose that at one stroke all the creditors, acting independently, would come into Court at the same time with their debts. What would happen would be that either the landlord or a single creditor would come into Court, that thereupon the Court would make a composition, leaving all the other debts to be dealt with subsequently from time to time in a series of proceedings, as the several claims were brought into Court. What he wanted to point out was this—that the suggestion which he ventured to make, which the Government were willing to accept, and which the right hon. Member for Derby, on behalf of himself and his Friends, thought ought to be accepted, was refused on behalf of the Irish Members by the hon. Member for East Mayo. Therefore he said—and he was going to Ireland to say it, and he was glad, therefore, to say it in their presence first—that the whole responsibility for refusing to the tenants of Ireland this enormous boon was wholly upon the hon. Members who professed specially to represent the Irish tenants.

I also refused it.

said, he should be sorry to detract in the slightest degree from the importance of his right hon. Friend. He said he refused it.

The moment I heard the statement of the Chief Secretary I said we would have nothing to do with it.

said, he thought the House would agree that when his right hon. Friend spoke there was very little difficulty in hearing him. He did not hear him refuse that offer, and he did not know whether any other Member of the House did. He should have been very glad, then, if the Government had been able to deal with this matter; but he agreed that it was quite impossible for them to do so in view of the threat of persistent opposition raised to the only suggestion which it was possible for them to adopt. Now with regard to the important change which had been made in the House of Lords in the clause dealing with revision of rent, his right hon. Friend took two objections on the merits. He said, in the first place, that, as the clause was now worded, it would not admit of a revision of rents which might have been unfair at the time they were fixed. But that was a perfectly new contention on the part of his right hon. Friend. All these debates had proceeded on the assumption that at the time the rents were fixed by the Court they must be taken to have been fair rents. Otherwise it was nonsense to refer to a Court to refix rents when they declared that the Court had already shown itself unable to fix fair rents in the first instance. If they might be guided by the Report of the Cowper Commission, there was no pretence in that Report for the argument that it was desirable to revise rents except in relation to the fall in prices. The first objection, he submitted, fell to the ground; it was a perfectly now one evolved from the inner consciousness of his right hon. Friend, and he thought that, on further reflection, he would see that no importance was to be attached to it. Then his right hon. Friend went on to say that a reduction of rent which was determined by the fall in prices was insufficient because, as the fall in prices affected the whole produce of the farm, the reduction of rent ought to be much greater than the proportionate fall in produce. Now, that was a fallacious or at least a very incomplete statement of the facts. He remembered the hon. Member for East Mayo having charged him with having declared that the reduction of rent ought to be exactly the same as the reduction in prices. He had never said anything of the kind. What he had said was that the reduction of prices was shown by the Cowper Commission to be on the average 18 per cent; and, further, he stated that the Cowper Commission also showed that in recent fixings of rent the Commissioners had given reductions from 10 to 14 per cent, and in some cases even more above what they gave in the earlier fixings. From that, no doubt, he gathered that in any abatement of rent which might be made in consequence of the fall in prices it was probable that the reduction in the rent would be not very different from the percentage shown in the reduction in prices. But that was not necessarily the case. He would point out to the hon. Member for East Mayo why the reduction in prices ought not to extend over the whole produce and be deducted from the rent. There were three reasons, in his opinion, against such a course. In the first place—and this was the least important—it was only fair that in crises of this kind the loss should be shared by all parties, and he did not think it had ever been contended, even by the Irish Members, that the whole should fall on the landlord. The second reason was this—if it were true that all prices had fallen, then the tenant had an advantage in everything he bought. In seed, in meal, in everything he had to buy he got the full advantage, and that advantage ought to be deducted from the disadvantage which only accrued from that portion of the produce which he sold himself. And that was the third point—what you had to look at in fixing the rent was not the total amount of produce, but the total amount which was sold off the farm, because it was only on that portion of his stock and produce that he sold off the farm that he suffered by the fall in prices. On that account it appeared to him that nothing could be more unfair than to say, as he thought the hon. Member for East Mayo did, that the rent of a farm was only equal to one-third of the produce, and that, therefore, the reduction in the rent ought to be three times the amount of the percentage of the fall in prices. Any calculation of that kind would be grossly unfair. He had dealt, then, with the two principal grounds upon which, on the merits, his right hon. Friend had condemned this Amendment of the House of Lords. But though he could not follow his reasoning, he confessed he was also sorry that this Amendment had been introduced. He could not feel satisfied that the Government were right in their contention that it made no practical change in the operation of the Bill. If it did not it would have been much better not to have passed it, and he could not doubt that the fact that it had been introduced carried with it the inference that some very considerable change would be introduced in consequence. He could not but point out to the House what, at all events, was the nature of the change which this altera- tion would bring about. In the clause as it stood a large discretion was given to the Court, and as the hon. Member for Cork had very well pointed out, it might well be that the fall in prices which would justify the equivalent reduction of rent in one district in Ireland would not justify so great a reduction in another. As between different classes of tenants the Amendment might effect most considerable injustice. It might be that it would make no difference at all as to the average of reduction, but undoubtedly it would make a very great difference indeed in favour of those pasture tenants in Meath to whose case the hon. Member for Cork had alluded, and against those too ants in other parts whose circumstances demand larger consideration. He confessed he was under the impression that it was the desire of the Government and the House to leave a very large discretion to the Court in dealing with this matter; and he thought it was clearly the right course for the House to take. He did not think the House was competent in a matter so complicated to adopt any unbending rule of reduction throughout the whole of Ireland. If they were, it would be a much simpler thing, instead of a reference to prices, to have adopted the principle of saying that there should be in all the judicial rents fixed previous to 1885 one uniform reduction of 15 or 18 or even 20 per cent. He preferred greatly, then, to leave a large discretion to the Court rather than to tie them up, as this Amendment would do, to adopt the fall in prices uniformly as the one determining factor in the reduction of rents. He would venture to ask the Government to tell the House clearly, in the first place, what was the object which they desired to attain by means of this Amendment. He understood the Land Commissioners had come forward to say that as the Bill was drawn it did not give them sufficient guidance, and he was, perhaps, not wrong in imagining that they felt, if they were to be guided by a strict interpretation of the words of the clause as it left the House, that the result would be that while in some cases, perhaps, they might be unable to do as much as they would like for the tenant, yet—and this was the real point—in other cases they would feel themselves compelled to give to a tenant under this clause a larger abatement and a greater reduction than would be the equivalent of the new rent which they would fix to the tenant who came into Court in 1885. That was to say, to two tenants in exactly the same position—one having his rent fixed in 1882, and another who had not yet applied for a reduction of rent who would come into Court in 1887—they would think it necessary to give an abatement in the case of the first tenant which would leave his rent considerably below the new rent which they were going to fix for the tenant who came into Court in 1887. He did not know whether he appreciated the position, but he thought that would be the difficulty of the Land Commissioners which the Government were trying to meet. If that were the case, clearly the operation of the clause as it originally stood would bring about a state of things not contemplated by the House, not fair to a certain class of tenants, and certainly not fair to a certain class of landlords. But he did not like the method with which it was proposed to meet the difficulty. There appeared to him to be two alternative methods which, might, perhaps, be taken into consideration by the House. One alternative would be instead of limiting the discretion of the Court to leave a larger discretion to it. If the Court found that it was limited and fettered by the reference to the prices which was contained in that clause, the difficulty might be got rid of by taking out the reference to prices and giving such abatement as if they were fixing the rents now for the first time. The other suggestion was this. It would be to leave the clause as it left the House, and to add a Proviso to the effect that the abatement to be given to the tenants under this clause should place them in a position similar to that of tenants in the same circumstances who might have had their rents fixed after 1885. That would put tenants who had their rents fixed before 1885 and tenants who had their rents fixed now, whether leaseholders or not, on the same footing. These were the alternative suggestions which he ventured to offer to Her Majesty's Government. He was bound to say for himself that he conceived there was a real difficulty which the House was called upon to deal with, and which he thought the intelligence and experience of the House ought to be able to deal with, even now at the last moment. He did not like the particular form of dealing with the difficulty proposed by the Government; and certainly if a Division were to be taken that the Lords' Amendment be inserted—which to his mind made so serious a difference in what he understood to be the principle of the clause, and which so considerably fettered the discretion of the Court—he, for one, should feel bound to disagree with the Amendment.

said, he had made a careful study of this question of bankruptcy or no bankruptcy, and he had come to the conclusion that any scheme that could be proposed by the wit of man for dealing with all the debts of the tenants on an equal footing simultaneously and compulsorily would end in a bankruptcy scheme. When the Chief Secretary was appealed to on a former occasion regarding this question, he said that no proposal could be made for dealing with all the debts in the way suggested except one, and that would be a very expensive process. On that occasion he offered—although he and his hon. Friends believed it to be a vicious and unjustifiable principle to adopt—to consent to the treatment of all debts of the Irish tenants on an equal footing and at the same time, if the debtors chose to come into Court at the same time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in his speech now said no simultaneous treatment would be possible on such terms as that; but it would be perfectly easy, after notice had been given to the landlord that the tenant intended to come into Court, if the remaining creditors chose to intimate their intention of coming in, for the Court to postpone the case until all the creditors were represented. The reason why he drew that line between this arrangement and anything involving the principle of bankruptcy was because he felt that if they once passed that line they would be drawn, in spite of themselves, into a system of bankruptcy which would do infinitely more harm than good in Ireland. It would, in fact, lead to the eating up of all the little properties that remained to the tenants by lawyers and officers of the Court, and would leave the tenants bankrupts and paupers. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech en- deavoured to throw the responsibility upon the Irish Members of the failure of dealing with the question of arrears in Ireland. It was not the first time that responsibility was thrown upon their shoulders in that House, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was not the first time that a Chief Secretary for Ireland and other English statesmen had undertaken to destroy their popularity in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) had stated that he would come over to Ireland and state the magnitude of their crime and responsibility. With that wisdom which signally distinguished him, the right hon. Gentleman had selected Belfast as the place of his first appearance. If the right hon. Gentleman carried out his intention, and appeared in Belfast and certain other cities of Ulster, he undoubtedly would have large and enthusiastic audiences, and probably the chair would be taken by the Duke of Abercorn and some other great proprietors in those places. The audiences would be composed of the landlords and agents, and the Orangemen of Ulster, who now recognized in the right hon. Gentleman one of their most ardent and trusty champions. He would be very glad to see him coming over to address the Orangemen of Ulster, and the Irish Members would not be at all disconcerted by his appearance there. It was with the deepest regret that he noted Amendment after Amendment had been inserted in the Bill in the House of Lords, some of the utmost importance and some of the most petty and contemptible character, but every one, without exception, aimed at the interest of the tenant. On the great question of arrears no effort had been made in the House of Lords to deal with it, notwithstanding the professions of the Government. On Saturday last he took means to convey to the Government the information that oven if they would draft roughly any clause dealing with the question it would be considered by the Irish Party in the most friendly spirit and with a desire, if possible, to arrive at some conclusion. But the Government, having that offer before them, were too busy drafting their 42 Amendments to destroy its benefits to give a single moment to deal with this great question, which would prove destructive to the measure as one likely to bring about peace and contentment in Ireland. The Irish Members were prepared to bear their responsibility and to go before the people of Ireland on this question, and they had not the slightest doubt in their minds of the acuteness and intelligence of their countrymen being quite sufficient to place the responsibility on the right shoulders. As the Bill left this House the wording on the whole was satisfactory; and what did the Bill as it left this House ask the Land Commissioners to do? It said—"Having regard to the difference in prices affecting agriculture, they were to determine what reduction ought equitably to be made on the judicial rent," &c. "Ought equitably to be made"—that had a meaning different from what was put upon it by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or it had not. No matter how acute the ingenuity that might be applied to them, they could not take out of these words the meaning that the reduction was to be an arithmetical reduction calculated on the fall of prices. Having regard to the fall of prices the Commissioners were to exercise their own discretion, and to give to the tenant what reduction ought equitably to be made. That principle was absolutely and totally distinct from and irreconcilable with the principle introduced into the Bill by the Amendment in "another place." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham brought forward three reasons why, in his opinion, it would not be just for a greater reduction of rent to be made than the exact amount of the fall of prices. He said it was admitted on all sides that the loss should not be borne by the landlord alone, but that it should be divided between the landlord and tenant. That was the principle on which the Irish Members always proceeded—they never claimed that the loss should be borne by the landlord alone. He did not admit that that was always a just principle when dealing with rack-rented tenants in Ireland, but still they had accepted the principle that the loss should be borne equally by the landlord and tenant. The right hon. Gentleman completely misstated or misunderstood the bearing of this case. Then the right hon. Gentleman accused him of having left out of sight the benefits which the tenant derived from the lowering of agricultural prices. The food on which the tenants lived had hardly altered in price during all those years. They lived largely on Indian meal and other cheap kinds of food; and the difference in the price of their food, therefore, scarcely entered as an element into the determination of the case with which that Bill dealt. The Chief Secretary for Ireland stated that, according to the principle of the Government, if a man gave so much oats in rent three years ago, he would still give the same quantity of oats. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider how that principle would work in relation to the wheat lands in this country to-day? Supposing a man three years ago gave as the rent of his land one-fourth of the wheat he grow, and was able to live and prosper on such a system, would he consider it just that he should give one-fourth of the wheat which he grew to-day? Did he not know that there were hundreds of thousands of acres out of cultivation in this country which they could not get men to cultivate, even if they gave it to them rent free? He was at a loss to understand how the Chief Secretary for Ireland could say that that Amendment of the Lords simply interpreted the original meaning of the clause. It was really a radical and revolutionary change of the principle of the clause; and to expect that the Irish Members should, at a moment's notice, consent to have that great change in one of the most vital parts of the measure debated and decided upon was most unreasonable. The Amendment in relation to town parks and other Amendments striking seriously at the interests of the tenants all sank into insignificance as compared with the present Amendment. He maintained that they had made out an overwhelming case for the adjournment of the debate, to allow them to consult opinion in Ireland, and to get back to the House Members who had left thinking that that great controversy, at least, was settled. A more extraordinary course had never been taken in regard to a Bill which the Government had declaimed to be urgent than the introduction of 42 Amendments at that time of the Session, almost all of them more or less taking away the benefits which the Bill conferred on the tenants. Considering the attitude which the Government took up in that House, considering the intense anxiety they had professed to get the Bill passed quickly in order to prevent eviction, and con- sidering also that they were all-powerful in the House of Lords, surely noble Lords should have been prevented from moving those Amendments. He knew that noble Lords said they were not moved in the interests of the landlords; but that they were all meant for the benefit of the people, even including the Amendment striking out the 2,000 limit from the Town Parks Clause. The Government hurried the Bill through the House at the last Saturday Sitting; then they waited from Saturday till Thursday before bringing it again before the House of Lords, when they allowed 42 Amendments to be made, which would possibly postpone its passing for perhaps a week longer. Without wishing to say anything offensive to the Government, he regarded all their talk about the urgency of the measure as the merest imposture. What, however, was important to the Irish people was that the Bill, when it did pass, whether this week, next week, or three weeks hence, should be a real and substantial Bill, conferring benefits on the people commensurate with the labour expended upon it, and not a Bill which would prove to be a sham, a delusion, and a snare.

maintained that the Bill was distinctly damaged in several points by the Amendments introduced in "another place." It seemed to him about the strangest and even the maddest thing which the friends of the Government in the other House could have done to introduce Amendments to weaken a Bill which had done credit to the Ministry. Benefits were held out to the tenants by the Bill, and then they were taken away again—a course of proceeding which tended to destroy the credit of the Government. If they could even now reject those Amendments, he begged them to do it. The House of Commons had fixed the limit for town parks to towns of 2,000 inhabitants; but the Lords had struck out those words and inserted an Amendment which would cause great consternation to the people of Ireland, and the people of Ulster particularly. It seemed to him absurd to say that the Government could not have prevented this if they had so chosen, and he would ask them now to maintain 2,000 as the limit of the Town Parks Clause. He believed that the 20th clause, as it applied to the Court valuers, was most re- pugnant to the Irish people. Would the Government reject that Amendment? That was the point on which the people of Ulster had a very strong feeling.

said, he intended to move the House to disagree to the Lords' Amendment on this point.

said, that in that case he would not say another word on that point. If the Government would further meet them on the subject of town parks, he believed that two of the most objectionable Amendments of the House of Lords would be disposed of.

said, that when the Bill left that House Irish Members had hoped that it would be of some little benefit to the unfortunate tenants of Ireland, and that it would have enabled them to pass over the intermediate time before a larger and more efficient measure could be introduced. But, judging from the Amendments which had been introduced in the other House, it would seem that the Lords looked on the Bill as so injuring their interests that they felt justified in doing whatever they could to destroy its effect. By no other explanation could the extraordinary Amendments which had been introduced be accounted for. The First Lord of the Treasury had stated that the Bill as amended carried out all the intentions they ever had, and that the tenants would gain everything they had intended them to gain. How it was possible that the Bill, destroyed as they maintained it was, carried out all the intentions the Government ever had was an explanation he must leave to somebody on the Treasury Bench. The Lords had done everything they could to minimize the benefits which the Bill would confer on the tenants, and they had succeeded in doing so. He sincerely regretted the mangling of the Bill in the House of Lords. If the Bill were passed in its present shape he could not look forward to its having any remedial effect in Ireland. The only effect which it would have of any real and permanent character would be the facility with which it would permit evictions to be carried out.

said, he did not rise to go into the details of the Amendments which had been made in "another place." The right hon. Member for West Bir- mingham before he sat down closed his remarks with, the proposal of two alternative suggestions. Those suggestions, both or either of them, appeared to him to be worthy the most serious consideration of the Government and of the House. He had the less difficulty in assenting very cordially to the spirit of those suggestions because they amounted in effect to a recognition of the principle for which he and those who acted with him had been contending from the beginning of the Session. His right hon. Friend's proposals did include a general revision of rents, and that was the principle for which the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment on the Bill (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) and he himself when he moved the Amendment to "Urgency," in the case of the Crimes Bill, endeavoured to press upon the House. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham now advocated the principle from which in the earlier stages of the proceedings on this Bill be emphatically and powerfully dissented. That being the case, and his right hon. Friend having made suggestions of that kind, they in that part of the House were not at all likely to dissent from weighing and considering them, and he ventured to hope that Her Majesty's Government would even now not resist the postponement of this discussion. He did not for a moment make any charge against the Chief Secretary on account of the discussion being brought on that night. The House would believe that the right hon. Gentleman did take all pains last night to ascertain whether it would be agreeable to the House generally that the Bill should be taken that night. But the debate having taken the turn it had, and suggestions having been made of great weight and importance, he thought the Government would be well advised if now, at the eleventh hour, they gave the House further time for the consideration of these proposals. There were one or two remarks which fell from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) as to which he should like to say a word or two. His right hon. Friend informed the House that he was going to Ireland to tell the Irish people that the responsibility for the refusal of great provisions of relief would rest upon hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, because on Saturday evening last the hon. Member for East Mayo pointedly and emphatically rejected the proposals brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman should not forget that all that was necessary for him and his Friends to do was to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay). That Amendment aimed at permitting the composition of one kind of debt—namely, rent, and rent alone. Now, if his right hon. Friend and those who acted with him had adhered to what was in effect their own Amendment, there would have been no necessity for his right hon. Friend to start a new hare, as he did on Saturday afternoon, and there would be no cause for his now throwing blame on Members below the Gangway for resisting a principle to which they have never assented. The right hon. Member for Derby could not have assented to that proposal in the form in which it was made, because it involved the revival of the Bankruptcy Clauses under another name, and with some slight changes of procedure. Now, knowing how resolutely they on that side of the House had resisted in every shape the cumbrous, destructive, and ruinous proceedings in bankruptcy throughout these discussions, it was impossible that the right hon. Member for Derby should have assented for a moment to the introduction of a clause which would have been bankruptcy under another form. He only made these remarks on what fell from the right hon. Member for West Birmingham in order to make clear their position on this matter, and also to make clear the position of his right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham in not supporting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness. His right hon. Friend, and those with whom he acted, had only to have lifted their little finger in order to carry that Amendment. He did not want to go further into controversial matters; but he trusted what he had said on the matter of adjournment would receive the consideration of the Government. The suggestion which his right hon. Friend had now made embodied the principles for which they had been contending throughout the Session, and, as such, he thought they were well worthy of the consideration of the House and the Government; and, bearing in mind the importance of the issue at stake, he hoped that the Government would not for a merely nominal or apparent point of honour lose the chance of making this Bill an efficient and beneficial measure.

said, that the clauses he first put on the Paper would have carried out what was proposed by the House of Lords' Amendment. The clauses he moved would have enabled the Land Commissioners to take into account any serious deficiency of crops in a given area; but the Chief Secretary said there was not time to argue out a scheme of that character. He therefore hoped the Government would now adhere to their original idea, and leave a wide discretion to the Commissioners.

said, he thought it was to be regretted very much if that evening were altogether lost for the purpose of consideration of the Lords' Amendments; and he should like to ask if the Government were inclined to consider the appeal made to them to postpone till Monday the consideration of the Lords' Amendments with regard to the revision of rents, whether the Members from Ireland would have any objection to go on with those other Amendments which did not bear on that question?

said, he should he quite willing to go on with the Amendments until the first really important one was reached—namely, that relating to town parks.

said, the Government desired to act fairly with hon. Members below the Gangway, and to consider any Amendments which they might propose to the Lords' Amendments. They did not wish to take them by surprise, or act unfairly towards them. On a previous night every effort was made to arrange satisfactorily for to-night's proceedings. The Coal Mines Regulation Bill had been fixed for Monday, and, considering the importance of the interests it involved, he did not think he should be justified in further postponing it. It was, therefore, for the House to consider what course it should adopt; but he might say that if the Land Bill were postponed it would not be possible to take it up again until Thursday, and that was a delay which he deprecated in the strongest possible manner. He wished to prevent eviction in Ire- land if he possibly could; and he believed that a postponement till Thursday would be attended with serious consequences to those tenants whom they wished to protect.

said, that to save time he would say that they consented to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman to adjourn the debate, either now or when they reached the Town Parks Amendment, on the understanding that it would be taken up on Thursday.

expressed the hope that if that were agreed to satisfactory progress would be made as far as that clause.

said, he was of opinion that all the clauses might be dealt with except the Town Parks Clause.

said, it would involve a great loss of time if the House did not proceed with the Lords' Amendments to-night. He would suggest that the House should proceed with the consideration of the Amendments, and defer the consideration of the two Amendments relating to town parks and the revision of judicial rents.

said, he would agree to the suggestion, on the understanding that reasonable despatch would be made with the other Amendments during the present Sitting. Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments and Consequential Amendments to the Bill, and Lords Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Commons Amendments considered. Consequential Amendment, to leave out in page 1, line 22 of the Bill ("Every lease limited to continue for any life or lives").

said, that he could not see on what principle leases for lives should be left on a different footing from other leases. He hoped the Government would refuse to agree with the Lords in this Amendment, which displayed the littleness of mind prevailing in the other Legislature.

said, he felt bound to point out that the hon. Gentleman was not speaking in the spirit of the understanding which had been arrived at with regard to the progress of the Bill. It was hardly fair for the hon. Member to waste the time of the House with such observations.

said, that he declined to give way. What he wished to draw attention to was the littleness of mind which the House of Lords had exhibited in dealing with this matter.

was of opinion that the Lords' Amendment made the clause clear, and that it ought to be accepted.

urged that the words "orally or in writing" should be retained, and remarked that when the matter was before the House the insertion of the words was proposed by the Attorney General for England after some discussion had taken place.

said, he hoped that the House would not agree to the Lords' Amendment, as ample precaution had already been taken against sub-letting, and the Land Act of 1881 gave the Land Commission power to sanction sub-letting in certain cases.

said, that the object of the Amendment was to prevent the practice of sub-letting from increasing enormously. It was therefore proposed that the condonation which the Court could give to sub-letting should be limited to cases in which the sub-letting had taken place before the tenant came into Court to get a judicial rent. After the tenant had come into Court to get a judicial rent, he would not be allowed to sub-let.

said, he proposed to strike out of the Amendment the words "sub-letting made by a statutory term nor," so that the Amendment would then apply only to sub-letting made after the passing of the Act.

said, that he had heard no substantial reason for omitting the words.

remarked, that the Lords' Amendment as now proposed to be amended would sufficiently provide for the case of future sub-letting.

said, he was opposed to the Lords' Amendment as a whole. If he had his own way in the matter, so far from any additional restriction being imposed, he would extend the operation of the clause. The clause, as it left this House, was, if anything, too narrow. He moved to disagree with the Lords' Amendment.

said, it was not competent to the hon. Member to make that Motion, as a Motion that the House agree to the Lords' Amendment was already before the House.

said, he would content himself with voting against the acceptance of the Lords' Amendment.

said, he moved to agree to the Lords' Amendment which provided that it should not be necessary to advertise the notice of ejectment in a newspaper circulated in the district in which the holding was situated. He would urge the House to accept the proposal, on the ground that if the provision were adhered to, and there was only one paper in a district, the landlord would be left practically at the mercy of the newspaper proprietor and might be charged a most exorbitant price.

pointed out that when the House was in Committee, the Chief Secretary agreed that notice of the landlord's intention to dispossess a tenant through the post should be published in a newspaper circulating in the district.

said, he thought it would be better to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "and a summary of such notice shall be posted on the police barracks or the court-house." He would propose to amend the Amendment in that way.

said, he protested against the Lords' Amendment, which destroyed the only safeguard of the tenant for obtaining proper notice of the landlord's intention to dispossess him. The publication in the newspaper would be far more efficacious than the mere despatch of the notice of ejectment through the post and the placarding on the walls of the police station. He was perfectly willing that the wording should be so altered that the landlord could discharge his legal obligation by proving that he had delivered in the newspaper office a properly legally drawn notice, and paid the ordinary rate for its insertion, thus throwing the responsibility for its non-insertion upon the proprietor of the newspaper. No newspaper proprietor, he believed, would refuse to insert it.

said, there could be no doubt that the arrangement in the Bill would be effective. Serious difficulties had suggested themselves to their Lordships in "another place," and especially to the noble and learned Lord who knew as much about Ireland as anyone in this House, with regard to publication in a newspaper, and honestly and in the interests of justice he thought the suggestion of the Chief Secretary was not an unreasonable one, that the element of publicity would be sufficiently attained by the posting of the notices on the police barracks or court-house of the district. He might point out that the notice in the first instance would have to be personally served as an ordinary writ, and a copy of it sent to the tenant in a registered letter. If it were made compulsory to publish it in a newspaper the proprietor of a party newspaper might prevent compliance with the necessary formalities by declining to insert the notice, or levying black mail for its insertion.

said, that the hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had not met the point which had been raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo. To require that certain notices should be published in newspapers was nothing new to our law, and such notices were published in the case of Parliamentary elections. They could not secure sufficient publicity by posting these notices on the door of a police barrack, for in many districts in Ireland they would have to travel a great distance before they came to such an institution. He objected to depriving the unfortunate tenants of some slight protection which might still remain to them, and he considered it absolutely necessary that these notices should be published in the newspapers. He must deny that any real hardship would be entailed upon the landlords by requiring them to advertise such notices in the newspapers, and contended that even if any injustice to them was apprehended through the newspapers exacting an excessive price for advertisements of that description that injustice might be easily prevented by the adoption of such a provision as the hon. Member for East Mayo had suggested for limiting the charge to a sum which was reasonable and fair. It was the whole history of landlords in Ireland to confiscate tenants' property. And in Scotland——

Order, order! The hon. Member is travelling beyond the Question before the House.

said, he would only add that he hoped the people would never rest until this odious provision was repealed.

said, according to the clause the eviction would have taken place before the notice could appear in the newspapers. When the personal service of the notice had taken place the eviction would be effected; and he could not, under the circumstances, see that any Amendment was necessary.

said, he must enter a protest against the alteration which had been made, and which was intended to do away with all the outward show of eviction. They held in Ireland that eviction scenes were a protection to the tenants. The tradesmen and the bankers of tenants were entitled to know the position of their customers, and they would be kept in ignorance if eviction could be carried out by the delivery of a registered letter. A tenant might be a ruined man and the shopkeepers know nothing about it. The Attorney General for Ireland had spoken of the probable extortion of Irish newspapers for these advertisements; but he (Mr. E. Harrington) thought the newspapers could bear favourable comparison with the Irish lawyers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must surely know that there was a legal charge, beyond which the newspapers could not go. The Bill, when it left that House, was bad enough as a measure of relief for the Irish tenants; but since then it had been into the lions' den, and returned with the marks of the lions' "clause" upon it.

said, he wished to remind the Government that the object with which this provision was put in the Bill was to prevent the perpetration of frauds and acts of the grossest injustice, and to prevent the landlords from entering into collusion with, their tenants and so depriving creditors of money to which they were entitled. The only object for omitting this provision from the Bill was to enable creditors to be deprived of their rights.

said, he would appeal to hon. Members from Ireland sitting below the Gangway opposite to allow some progress to be made. There was a distinct understanding that the proceedings that evening should not be prolonged, but that a rapid decision should be arrived at on the Amendments. He ventured to suggest that the course which had been pursued on the Amendment now before the House was not in accordance with the understanding to which he had referred. Hon. Gentlemen, no doubt, attached great importance to the question; but their arguments had been stated over and over again with great clearness, and nothing further was to be gained from a continuance of the debate except the postponement of other Business. The Government were anxious to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen in a fair spirit; but only one result would follow from the course now being pursued, and that was the obstruction of the Business of the House.

said, he did not think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was at all warranted by the facts. The Irish Members attached great importance to this matter, and claimed the right to discuss it. He did not think that too much time had been occupied in debating the point. He might point out that seven Amendments had been considered in an hour and a-half, and the right hon. Gentleman might think himself very fortunate if other seven Amendments were agreed to in the same time. The rest of the evening had been spent in discussing the general question. If the discussion had been prolonged, it was simply because no attention whatever had been paid by the Government to the arguments advanced from the Irish Benches.

said, he objected to any secrecy in connection with evictions, and also to the way in which the Bill was being treated. The Bill contained some large and broad principles, but those principles were disfigured by the bad, mean, and pettifogging ways of the noble Lords in "another place."

Order, order! The hon. Member cannot speak in such terms, without disregarding the courtesy due from one House to the other, and, moreover, his remarks are not pertinent to the Amendment before the House.

said, it was absolutely necessary that those transactions should be made known to the public. The Irish Members did not insist upon having these notices inserted in any particular organ. The landlords could have the notices inserted in their own Tory organs if they liked.

Seeing that I have the honour of representing among my constituents a considerable number of agricultural labourers, I hope the House will excuse me if I trespass upon its indulgence for a very short time. In the first place, I would venture, in the name of my constituents, to congratulate the Government and the Conservative Party generally, on their conversion to the principle of compulsion and the substitution of the action of the State for the action of the individual, a principle which, it will be in the remembrance of the House, was bitterly denounced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Parliament. If I may say so without presumption, and at the same time without any intention of recrimination, the bombardment of inconsistency between right hon. Gentlemen on both Front Benches, which we have been accustomed to during this Session as forming the whole of the artillery of right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, has not affected the equanimity of thinking men in the constituencies. They might have been anxious sometimes about the consistency of right hon. Gentlemen on either Front Bench, but they have been much more anxious about the consistency of the measures before the House, affecting, as they do, their own interests. There is, however, one aspect of the inconsistency of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, which is important as regards the nature of the Bill, because if it be true, as it is asserted, that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are opposed in their hearts to the principle of compulsion in regard to these allotments, I can well understand the animus which has inspired the compulsory measure before the House, and why those compulsory clauses are so hedged in and fenced about as to be entirely useless for compulsory purposes. My experience induces me to say that what the agricultural labourer really wants may be summed up under four heads. In the first place, he wants a piece of good land—that is to say, a piece of land which it is possible for him to cultivate, and not a piece of land rejected by everybody else and then given to him. In the second place, and this is a very important point, the labourer wants a piece of land near his cottage, wherever he happens to live. In the third place—and this is a point which has been specially urged upon me by the agricultural labourers with whom I have been in converse—he has a strong desire that the piece of land should be given to him at a fair rent; and, in the fourth place, he wishes to be able to obtain that piece of land by an easy means of compulsion, and not by the very difficult and laborious method laid down for him in the measure now before the House. With regard to the first point, that of good land, I know that it has been stated, especially among my own constituents, that there are at the present moment any number of acres of uncultivated land lying open ready for sale. That was one of the great arguments used by hon. Gentlemen opposite in the Election of 1885 against those of us who argued in favour of small holdings. But I would remind the House that this uncultivated land, especially in the Eastern Counties and in arable dis-stricts, is very often mere heathland which was broken up during the existence of the Corn Laws, when the price of corn was high, and which, now, under the depression in the price of corn, has become absolutely worthless. It is ridiculous to say that the agricultural labourer is to have land which has been rejected by everybody else. I now come to the much more important question put forward by the agricultural labourers—namely, the question of a fair rent. I would especially point out to the House, to borrow a form of expression usually attributed to hon. Members from Ireland, that an agricultural labourer, if he only pays the same rent as a farmer in the neighbourhood, is yet paying more than the farmer, because in the rent which the latter pays are included fencing and landlord's improvements, as well as a good dwelling-house, erected and kept up by the landlord. I come next to the question of compulsion. With regard to compulsion, the principle is a most important one as regards all classes connected with land. If properly carried out, and not as proposed by this Bill, the principle of compulsion will be a benefit to the landlord as well as to the labourer. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite agree with, me in this, that at the present moment even reasonable landlords who wish to give allotments often find great difficulties in their way because a field which is near the labourer's cottage, and which it is desired to give as allotments, is attached to the farm of one of the principal tenants, who, objecting to have the field taken away from him, claims such high compensation that it is impossible to make the allotments. Therefore if there is a good principle of compulsion, it will assist the good landlord who is anxious to meet the wishes of his agricultural labourers, and it will also enable the labourers themselves to get what they want from a bad landlord. But these four points are by no means satisfactorily met by the provisions of the Bill. At the same time I am aware that there is undoubtedly a great necessity that no chance of possible benefit should be missed of giving to the agricultural labourer some relief in his present impoverished condition, and if a Division is taken, I do not propose to register my vote against the Bill, but I would earnestly entreat the Government to try, either by accepting Amendments from this side of the House, or proposing Amendments themselves, to make it a real measure, and not a sham. At present, we have before us a few sheets of well intentioned but useless printed matter, with a very good title put upon them, ably calculated to tickle the ears of such agricultural labourers as have not read the Bill.

The debate last night was so short and so hurried that I feel that, as representing a constituency which is largely agricultural, I need not apologize to the House for wishing to say a few words upon this Bill. I do not think that the English agricultural labourers and artizans will feel much complimented at the manner in which the Bill has been introduced by the Government. I remember that last year we spent many nights in discussing the Bill relating to the Crofters in Scotland. We all know what a great deal of time we have given up both this year and last to the interests of the Irish tenant farmers and labourers, and I wish therefore now on behalf of the English labourers and artizans to complain that the Government think so little of their welfare, that at the fag end of a long and arduous Session we are called upon to deal with a subject of this great importance without its being possible to give to it that consideration which it deserves. Sir, the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained last night that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had imported personal matters into the debate; but I thought that his consure would have been better applied to my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings), whose speech was very little more than a virulent personal attack upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) and those who were his Colleagues in the last Liberal Government. I am aware that the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division has been going about the country and making speeches at ticket meetings—for he does not seem now to care about attending public meetings—in which he has accused the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian of having broken his pledges upon this question of allotments, and of having been guilty of the baseness of using the question merely to turn out the Tory Government last year, and then of abandoning it. The hon. Member for the Bordesley Division said last night that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian and the I right hon. Member for Derby took a great interest in allotments for the purpose of getting into Office; but that this interest ceased when that object had been attained, and that thenceforth they stopped helping forward the question. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: Hear, hear!] My hon. Friend repeats that; but I will show the House that his attacks upon the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian are unjust, and that his charges against him are unfounded. What happened when the Tory Government were defeated in January, 1886? The Liberal Government came in with the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian at its head. Who were the Members of that Govern- ment whose duty it was to deal with the subject of allotments? Of course, the Heads of the Local Government Board. Who were they? My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was the President of the Local Government Board, and the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division was himself the Secretary to the Board. I challenge him now to say whether he can deny that he and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham were engaged, with the full concurrence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and his Cabinet, in framing a measure for local self-government, in which the allotments question was to be dealt with upon a popular basis?

But it was never done.

That was your fault. I have the very best authority for what I say, and that authority is my hon. Friend himself. I remember that in February or March, 1886, I was one of a deputation which waited upon my hon. Friend at the Local Government Board, for the purpose of presenting him with an address from the Tysoe Allotments Association, one of the villages of which I have the honour to represent, thanking him—as indeed he deserved to be thanked—for what he had done for the good of the labourers. I was accompanied by the president of the Association, who presented the address. I remember that my hon. Friend received us with the courtesy and geniality which distinguish him, and he made us such a nice kindly speech, the last nice speech I think which I ever heard him make. That was before the Irish difficulty arose, and he told us how the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian were determined to help the agricultural labourer, and that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham would bring in a Local Government Bill, which would deal with allotments in a complete and popular manner. Unhappily, my hon. Friend was shortly afterwards unseated upon Petition, and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham resigned his place in the Cabinet. The second reading of my hon. Friend's Allotments Bill was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derby (Sir Walter Foster), on March 31st, and on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), so far from ceasing to support the interests of the labourers, as is now alleged by the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division, made a vigorous speech in support of the Bill, in the course of which he used these words—

"In my opinion, a measure of this importance ought to be in the hands of the Government, and its principle ought to be, and will be, dealt with in any measure of local self-government which may be introduced by Her Majesty's Government."—(3 Hansard, [304] 415.)

I remember thinking at the time how similar his words were to those which were used by the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division to the deputation at the Local Government Board. Upon the resignation of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) took his place in the Cabinet. He entered Office on April 7th, and on the following day, April 8th, the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian brought in the Irish Home Rule Bill. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House whether it can be fairly contended that there was any opportunity whatever for the Government, from that time until they were defeated in June, to bring in a Local Government Bill? Therefore I say that I have shown that the charges of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division against the late Liberal Government are absolutely groundless. My hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) seems to think that he is the only man who understands this question of allotments, and that no one else ought to presume to express an opinion; but I must remind him of what he seems to forget, that he has little opportunity of knowing at the present time what are the views of the classes who are principally interested in this question, the artizans in the towns, and the labourers in the villages; because since the Election of 1885, so far as I have been able to gather from the public Press, my hon. Friend has not mixed with those classes, but has spoken exclusively at ticket meetings. He said last night that the Leaders of our Party talked "blarney." What does he think of the Party opposite? I will give him the words of his right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham. The right hon. Gentle- man (Mr. Chamberlain) speaking at the General Meeting of the Allotments Association last year, said—

"The Tories have lied upon this question with a vigour and a persistency and a unanimity which have almost elevated mendacity into the rank of a virtue."

The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) complained last night that the right hon. Member for Derby accused the Government of having brought in this Bill, not because they took any genuine interest in the question, but from electioneering motives, and because the exigencies of the Tory Party demanded it. I believe myself that that accusation is well founded, and that we should never have seen this Bill at all if it had not been for the Spalding Election. The names on the back of the Bill furnish conclusive evidence of this. It is natural and proper that we should find the names of the President and Secretary of the Local Government Board. They are the Ministers who have matters of this kind to deal with; but there is a third name on the Bill, and that is the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. What in the world has war got to do with allotments? Agricultural labourers and artizans are opposed to war. They are men of peace, They are exactly the opposite of the jingo classes. Why then should the Secretary of State for War put his name on the back of the Bill? I will tell the House. The right hon. Gentleman is the Member for the Horn-castle Division of Lincolnshire, and Horncastle is not very far from Spalding. Hence his desire to show his interest in allotments, and I am almost surprised that, when they were about it, the Government did not also put on the back of the Bill the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). Now, Sir, I am not going to detain the House by discussing the details of the Bill to night. I shall have opportunities of criticizing them when we get into Committee; but I will venture to say a few words as to the Local Authorities in whose hands the power of acquiring and the management of allotments ought to be placed, and I will trouble the House with short quotations from the speeches of two eminent politicians. The first is one which I am sure will commend itself to my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, in the same speech to which I have already alluded, said that one of the main principles was that the responsibility of dealing with this question should be thrown upon local representative popular authorities elected by all the ratepayers and voted for under the protection of the ballot. I heartily agree with this, but I find nothing of the kind in this Bill. The other quotation is one which will, I think, find favour with hon. Gentleman opposite. It is from the speech which Lord Salisbury made at Newport in the autumn of 1885 — a speech which, like many others of his, has become historical. He was discussing local government, and he used what seemed to me a very happy expression in speaking of Local Authorities as governing—

"Not necessarily in the most scientific or most accurate fashion, but in a fashion which is liked by the people over whom they rule."

That is all we ask for. But the two authorities to whom power is given by this Bill are neither of them liked by the people over whom they will have to rule. They are the Boards of Guardians and the County Magistrates. I hardly know which of these are the most disliked by the labourers and artizans, by the classes whom this Bill professes to benefit, but I should say the Guardians. In either case it is very much like putting the cat to take care of the milk, or the fox to guard the poultry yard. I believe myself that if there is one question more than another which it is essential should be dealt with locally and in small areas it is this question of allotments. How is this to be done? It is admitted, I believe, on all sides, that the existing authorities do not inspire confidence among the people, and therefore some other authority, of a more popular character, has to be looked for. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board spoke last night in a very disparaging way of any parish authority; but I think he will find that there is a very general concurrence among those who have given attention to the question of local government, that in any comprehensive scheme, the parish must be the unit, and although the right hon. Gentleman seemed to ridicule the Parish Vestry, I believe myself that it is the best assembly in the parish for electing a body to deal with allotments and many other matters, such for instance as parish charities. I do not mean that the Vestry is satisfactory as it is at present constituted. There are many defects in its procedure, which is now uncertain and ill understood, and there is this great defect that the vestry has no continuous existence, and that at the close of one meeting it ceases to exist until another meeting is summoned. These defects want removing, so that the Vestry may be made a really popular assembly, with power to elect a representative parish authority, by ballot, and on the principle of one man one vote. I can tell hon. Gentleman opposite, that among the labouring classes there exists a strong feeling in favour of parishes managing their own affairs. I have some experience as to this. I speak confidently, and I challenge Conservative Members to read that portion of the Press which represents the views of those classes whom this Bill professes to benefit, and to judge if I am not right. I have myself a Bill before the House upon this subject. It is sat down upon the Order Paper to-night, and it has been down for second reading upon many other nights, but, except upon one occasion when they omitted by some mistake to do so, it has invariably been blocked by the Government Whips. [Laugther.] Yes, that shows whether there is any real wish on the part of the Government to treat this question in a popular way. It would be out of Order for me to discuss now the provisions of my Bill, and I am not going to do so, but I may perhaps say that my scheme is to place the power of acquiring, and of managing allotments, in the hands of Parish Committees, which would be corporate bodies, and would be elected freely by the ratepayers upon the popular principle of which I have spoken. The Bill of the Government makes a pretence of giving some sort of popular control by providing that local managers may be appointed, but by whom are they to be elected? Not by the people whose affairs they will have to manage, but by the Guardians, in whom the people have no confidence, and thus the only result of this sham provision would be that in every village there would be created another Tory and Primrose League tyranny. I should have voted for the second reading of this Bill last night, if a Division had been taken, because I think it very important, not only as regards this question, but looking to other questions which may rise in the future, to commit any Government, and especially a Conservative Government, to the two principles which are contained in the Bill—namely, the principle of giving any Local Authority at all the power of acquiring land for a public purpose like this; and, secondly, the conferring of compulsory powers on such Local Authority of acquiring land from private individuals. But, Sir, when I consider whether this measure will, if passed, have, or is intended to have, any practical or useful effect, I cannot help remembering—and I beg the special attention of my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division to this—the closing words of the impressive and eloquent speech which was made last year in this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) upon the Amendment which proved fatal to the Tory Government. My right hon. Friend said—

"We have no confidence that the Government will either do justice to the agricultural labourer or to any other question with which they may be called upon to deal."—(3 Hansard, [302] 517.]

Things have changed since then. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: Hear, hear!] My hon. Friend cheers that remark, but it is not I who have changed. It is he and the select few with whom he acts. It would be affectation on my part if I were to pretend to believe that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham holds such opinions any longer, and especially when we find him praising The Times newspaper, which he formely so bitterly denounced, and pointing out the danger of tampering with judicial rents, although less than a year ago, he told us that there was no sanctity about them. But I hope that he does not expect us to change with him. I still hold the opinion which he so ably expressed in the words which I have quoted, and holding that opinion, and having carefully studied the Bill which we are now discussing, I believe that as it stands it would be absolutely useless, because it is not drawn upon popular lines. I am, I hope, in the habit of saying plainly what I mean, and therefore I will confess that, if I could have had my way, I should have preferred, at this stage of the Bill, to have met it by a Resolution, expressing the principles upon which this important question ought to be dealt with upon a popular and representative basis. Hon. Friends of mine, with whom I am in the habit of acting, and who are far more competent than I am to judge what is the best, think otherwise, and therefore I offer no opposition to the present Motion to go into Committee; but personally I should have been quite prepared to take the consequences of any action for opposing the Bill, and I know that my constituents have confidence in me and would have supported me in that action. I believe that to amend this measure satisfactorily it would be necessary to strike out almost every word of it, and in fact to redraw it; but we shall have to do the best we can. I have already given Notice of a number of Amendments and, when I can find time, I propose to draw some more. They will be bonâ fide Amendments with a view to improving the Bill. If in consequence of the number of necessary Amendments which will be proposed by hon. Members, it should be found impossible to pass any Bill this Session, the fault will not rest with them, but with the Government, who, influenced not by principle but by fear, are attempting in such a hurried way and at this late period of the Session, to deal with this difficult question in such a rough and ready way. I thank the House for the attention which it has given to me and apologize for having taken up so much of its time.

Hon. Members are acting oddly. They profess to welcome the Bill, and to approve the object of it. They then proceed to condemn it in every possible way, and to destroy it by their criticisms. It appears to me that when the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings), and the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derbyshire (Sir Walter Foster) spoke last night, the question of the size of the holding ran very much in their minds. The hon. Member for Bordesley has spoken a good deal, not only last night, but on other occasions, in reference to the supply of milk, and the advantages which agricultural la- bourers would derive from the possession of a cow. Undoubtedly, if that could be brought about, and a cow could be purchased at a reasonable price, no greater boon than a good supply of milk could be given to poor families. But I fear that there are difficulties in the way of the attainment of that object by the means suggested by the hon. Member for Bordesley. The hon. Member appeared to be in favour of small holdings, and of small allotments for agricultural labourers, with a view of enabling them to supply the public with milk. Now, there may be room, in some agricultural districts, for one or two men in a parish who are hardworking and industrious; but any man so situated who is able to carry on the business of selling milk and working it profitably to himself must be very fortunate. There is certainly no room for more than two or three in a population of 400 or 500. At any rate, it would be a most risky business, and an enterprise the success of which would be extremely doubtful, unless the man who undertook it was backed up by some other means of obtaining a livelihood than are at the command of an ordinary agricultural labourer. A poor man who undertakes to sell milk must work very hard and have luck. In a time of drought, such as we are now having, or in a time when cattle plague happens to be rife, the losses which the milk producer would suffer would be very likely to leave him in a worse position than that which he occupied before he took to the business. In my own neighbourhood I have tried to carry into effect an object somewhat similar to that which the hon. Member for Bordesley has suggested, although not precisely in the same way. I made a proposition to my neighbours to keep for them cows with my own herd—I may mention that I am a cheese farmer myself. I offered to any labourer to keep his cow at a very low rent; but in no case was I able to carry out the experiment with success; and the difficulties I experienced may, I think, be interesting to the House, or to those who have not tried a similar experiment, or thought much about it. Many said to me—"No doubt what you suggest would be a great boon; but will you milk the cow for me? Are you willing to take it into your own dairy, and let me buy the milk from you?" I said that that was not part of my scheme; whereupon they thanked me for my offer, but said they saw many objections to it, and the chief one of all was that the people had no time to milk the cows, had no place in which to keep the necessary utensils for making butter, and, lastly, that no member of the family could milk. Many hon. Members who have spoken on the subject evidently think that the art of milking a cow is the easiest possible thing. I can assure them that it is not so at all, and that many of the labourers in my neighbourhood would get far better employment if they were able to milk. A man must commence to milk when young, for it is impossible for him to take it up in his old age. Therefore, there are practical objections to this proposal. In regard to the small holdings, it is undoubtedly a fact that there are no better tenants than those who have small holdings. They are the best payers, their rents are generally ready when they are due, and, in my opinion, they do more good to the land than most of the big farmers; but still, there are objections which cannot be overcome. There is, in the first place, an objection to cutting up farms into holdings on leases and so forth. Then there is the practical objection that roads would have to be prepared to all these small holdings, and that buildings would have to be erected. In addition, if you are going to grant small holdings and not allotments you would be taking up the whole of the ground, and there would not be enough for everyone who applied for a holding. Whereas, with regard to allotments, every man who wants a quarter of an acre can, generally speaking, obtain it. There is another objection which I wish to point out to hon. Members who are in favour of small holdings, and that is, the objection of the Local Authority in regard to the renting and holding of the land. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rugby Division of Warwick (Mr. Cobb) said a great deal about the unpopularity of the Local Authority. Still, he must be aware that the Local Authority which will eventually have the granting of these holdings will be the County Authority that has not yet been formed.

Under this Bill, the Local Authority for which the County Authority is to be substituted is not to have the management of these allotments.

I should hope that, whatever Local Authority is to be selected under the Bill should be the County Authority.

It is expressly provided that the County Authority is not to have the management of the allotments.

I think the Local Authority should not undertake the letting of land unless they are absolutely guaranteed in some way in regard to the rent. There most surely will be a great number of bad debts, all of which must otherwise fall upon the rates. I do not say that those who take the allotments will wilfully decline to pay rents. Far from it; but in a great number of cases the allotments will be let to the most needy in the parish, and the rent will not be secured. If the Local Authority takes the land and sub-lets it, they must make up their mind to have a certain number of bad debts. If they go in for small holdings they will have to increase the number of pieces of land which they have to rent or to buy for that purpose; they must employ a legal gentleman and also surveyors and other officers which will entail additional expense. There is one point in reference to small holdings which I hope the House will seriously consider before it enters into the consideration of the provisions of the Bill at all, and that is the encouragement it will give to labourers who embark in what they are really unfit to undertake. I think they are far better off with regular employment and fair wages and an allotment than they would be with a piece of ground which would take them half of each week to cultivate, while during the rest of the week they would have no time to attend to it at all. I know that no one is more horrified at the idea of being in debt than the agricultural labourer. If the House therefore encourages him to embark in an undertaking which he cannot profitably carry out they will be inflicting on that class not a boon, but a positive injury. There is only one other point I wish to bring before the House, and it has reference to the Compulsory Clauses of this measure. I have never been able to make up my mind to approve of compulsory powers with regard to the purchase of land for this purpose. I believe, however, that they will be very rarely used. On that account, I am ready to record my vote in favour of the Bill. But if it is to be a question, in many cases, of the purchase of land for the requirements of a certain number of people in a parish, I think that many of those who now approve the principle of the measure may, before long, have cause for regret. I sincerely hope that the Bill will pass and become an Act of Parliament without delay this Session, and I believe that the benefits accruing from it to the people will not be merely so much money put into their pockets, but in other ways—in point of health, and the employment of their children, and in point of education for young agricultural labourers the benefits will be very great indeed.

I venture to claim the indulgence of the House in rising to address it for the first time. I know, from the experience of others, that that indulgence is never withheld from one who first ventures to enter the arena of debate in this House. In the first place, I desire to state on behalf of those whom I represent, how cordially I welcome this Bill of the Government. I am not here to throw at right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite any charge for having swerved from their purpose, or having altered their convictions, such Party questions may be better discussed inside this House by those who are more accustomed to its proceedings than I am, but out of doors one can freely express his opinions on the subject. In my judgment there are two reasons which have forced the Government, and which would have forced any Government, whether it were reluctant or not, to deal with this allotment question. The first is the severe depression in agriculture, which any man who has an eye to see with must perceive makes it difficult for farmers and for those in the occupation of their own lands, to pay even the low rate of wages which the agricultural labourer now receives. There is an idea that the land is cultivated simply for the purpose of making rent, and that that is the main purpose of the occupation of the land. I think that is an altogether erroneous point of view from which to approach the consideration of the subject. The land is cultivated for the benefit of the commu- nity. The labourer is the first charge on the land, he is bound to exist, and if he cannot exist in comfort on the land, we are bound to provide for him some means by which he can gain a livelihood by the occupation of a small patch of land. I see no reason why the labourer should not be able to supplement his wages to the extent of 50, 60, or 70 per cent by his skill and labour upon a small holding. I believe there is also another great cause which is operating in favour of the labourer besides agricultural depression, and that is the extension to him of the franchise and the consequent education he has received at the hands of the Press and of those who go into the agricultural districts to tell the labourers their views of the leading political questions of the day; so that now we have the double advantage of having men educated to know what their rights are and inspired with the desire to demand them and to use them rightly with such an intensity and spirit that no Party in this House can very long withhold what is believed to be a real, natural, and inherent right. In accepting this Bill—which I must cordially do—I hope I shall not be transgressing if I venture to criticize some of its leading provisions. But before doing so I trust that I may be allowed to put my finger on the one part of the Bill which gives all its value to me. I do not agree altogether with my hon. Friend the Member for the Rugby Division of Warwick (Mr. Cobb) in his references to the measures and the slight advantage it will be. Although in its provisions and immediate scope, there is not perhaps so much value in the Bill as I could have wished to see, yet, I believe it has in it a potentiality of wealth for the agricultural labourer which will bring him at least within easy reach of what he desires to obtain. The one point which gives it all its value is the word "compulsion," and notwithstanding the "soft impeachment" which has been directed against the measure by hon. Members on that account, I shall not shrink from avowing it as the one word I desired to see. I do not know that the word itself actually exists in the Bill, but its principle lies deep in the measure, and there can be no doubt as to its purport and intent. Although to get at that word we have to go through the arena of the Sanitary Authority, the Quarter Sessions, the Local Government Board, and even Parliament itself; yet there it is. That is really all we desire because we see in it the recognition that the labourer is no longer to be indebted to the generosity of the landlord for the right to live. You give him the fundamental right of existence, and the right to enjoy the reward of his labour if he will only cultivate the land properly. This is what makes the Bill so welcome to me. I venture to challenge the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) when he said that in his view and in that of his supporters the voluntary method is more desirable. Certainly, it there is no other Member who prefers the compulsory method, I am ready to express my preference for it. It is because I desire to see this compulsory principle extended further and further that I welcome its inception in the Bill before the House, and shall vote for the measure to-night. I should like to see many faults in the Bill completely blotted out. I should like to see the procedure simplified, and the quantity of land extended. I would like to see the number of authorities called upon to deal with this question minimized; but above all things there stands the compulsory principle which we have claimed as a right for the labourer. If this Bill is passed, we shall be able to go to our constituencies and tell the agricultural labourer that he is no longer dependent on the goodwill of any man; but that he has an inherent right to his piece of land if it can be shown that there is land which he can cultivate. I wish that the Bill were not so halting and hesitating. I do not see why it should be made necessary to show that there is a general public demand for land in any particular neighbourhood. Why should we wait until there is a great demand? If there are only 10 men in a village who want it; if there are only five; nay, if there is only one, why should he not have it? Why wait for a great public demand? If a man has a right to his piece of land, as I maintain he has, then the right is inherent in any single individual, and the object of the Legislature should be to simplify, if it can, the method of giving the land to this single individual without the necessity for the employment of useless and cumbrous machinery. I hope that before the Bill is passed many Amendments and improvements will be introduced into it in the direction I have indicated; and I believe that when passed it will be the commencement of a new era in agriculture. I trust the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will not only allow allotments, but that he will be prepared to increase the size of the land allotted. I passed through some hundreds of allotments in the town of Nottingham only yesterday, and there I not only saw the allotted land, but the produce of it that would have done credit to highly skilled horticulturists. I believe that in Nottingham altogether there are 6,000 of these allotments, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not shrink from giving the freedom of erecting even a green-house or a vinery to the artizans of towns like Nottingham, where the existing allotments are made a considerable source of income. As I have said, this Bill when passed will be, I believe, the commencement of a new era in our agricultural life. It will give fresh hope to men who find subsistence a difficulty; it will help to get rid of the agricultural and commercial depression which now exists; it will lead to fresh demands being made upon the village shopkeeper, the city merchant, and the manufacturer; and in the end it will be found that Parliament has done more than is anticipated now for a return of prosperity to the country. I thank the House for the indulgence it has extended to me.

I wish the House were accustomed to listen to many more speeches from the Opposition Benches in the tone and temper of the speech which we have just listened to. We should then be able to conduct our debates not only with more pleasure to ourselves, but with a good deal more profit to the country. I am disposed to think, with regard to the discussion which has taken place to-night, that, as Lady Teazle told Joseph Surface, it would be quite as well to leave out of consideration all questions as to consistency. It strikes me that there have been a good many more instances of inconsistency on the other side, and upon far larger and more serious matters, than many on this side can be charged with and blamed for in having changed our minds on the question of allotments. I frankly confess that during the Election of 1885 my mind steadily underwent a change, and that I became a convert to the system advocated by this Allotments Bill. In regard to dealing with English land, Cheshire stands high in the course the landlords have pursued towards the agricultural labourers. If other parts of the country were like Cheshire there would be no need for anything more than voluntary action, and there would be no necessity for the introduction of a Bill of this kind. I admit that in other counties there is a necessity for such a measure, and I venture to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having brought it in. I am quite sure that hon. Members will not take it ill when I say that a great deal is owing in this matter to the exertions, for some years past, of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings). I hare no wish to detain the House with a second reading speech, but I would ask the Government to consider before we go into Committee whether, in view of some of the Amendments which have been put down, they cannot see their way to the extension in certain cases of the patch of land proposed to be given for allotments. Let me again refer to my own county of Cheshire. There we have an enormous number of these allotments, and in many cases they are of a sufficient size to enable the labourer to maintain a cow, and it is felt to be one of the greatest privileges a labourer can possess. On the estate of Lord Tollemache, which is well known for the privileges which the agricultural labourer possesses, in many instances he has a sufficient acreage to permit of his keeping a cow. Having quoted what Lord Tollemache does in respect of his property, perhaps I may be allowed to quote a case of my own. My own estate is a very small one, but nearly 60 per cent of the holdings on that estate are under three acres. I do not mean that the majority have enough land to enable them to keep a cow, but a very considerable minority have, and I am quite certain that no man, looking at the question from a rent receiver's point of view, need have any fear as to the return which a holding of three acres will provide him with. I am glad that everyone in the House—even the malcontents on the other side who profess to treat the Bill as a sham—thoroughly welcomes it, and I trust that the Government will use every effort to pass it, and to make it law during the present Session.

As I have strong feelings for the welfare of the agricultural labourers, especially in the Eastern Counties, I hope the House will allow me to say a few words upon the Bill. I am glad to Cud that the measure has met with hearty approval from Members on both sides of the House, although, in some cases, that approval has beau rather tardily given. It is a measure in regard to which both political Parties may be said to have been pledged in the past. The only difference between the two Parties is this—that whereas the Liberal Government, which came into Office on the Motion of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) last year, failed to proceed with any legislation on the subject, it has now been left to the Conservative Government to bring in a measure which, I am sure, meets the approval of the agricultural labourers generally. I cannot help being reminded of the fact that had it not been for the action of some hon. Members on the other side of the House—and especially of one who is no longer a Member of this House—tho Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) would, in all probability, have passed into law last year. Mr. Arch no longer represents the North-West Division of Norfolk; but it was in consequence chiefly of the opposition of Mr. Arch that the right hon. Gentleman's measure was not passed into law. And his opposition to the Bill was, if I remember rightly, that it was an "insult to his class," and the insult to his class was, if I also remember rightly, contained in a clause copied verbatim from the Bill of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham, which Bill had upon the back of it the name of Mr. Arch himself. Well, Sir, the agricultural labourer of Norfolk was not unmindful of that fact; and when the General Election came the consequence was that Mr. Arch lost his seat, and my noble Friend who now sits for the North-Western Division of the county (Lord Henry Bentinck) reigns in his stead. Now, I think—and here I must disagree with the hon. Member for the Spalding Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Halley Stewart), who has just spoken—that the demand for allotments should be met, if possible, in a voluntary manner. I think it has been proved by the figures submitted to Parliament by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, that a great proportion of the landlords of England and Wales are of the same opinion as myself. The figures submitted to Parliament show that of the number of labourers who were estimated at the last Census, nearly one-half are already provided voluntarily with allotments; but in the Eastern Counties — those which are essentially agricultural, comprising Norfolk, Suffolk. Cambridge, Lincoln, and Huntingdon—only two-fifths of the labourers are provided for. It is, therefore, certain that the Iabourers of the Eastern Counties will hail with satisfaction the proposals of Her Majesty's Government. I am quite satisfied that the passing of this measure will greatly stimulate the voluntary effort. It will give the Local Authority the power of compelling the landlords to provide allotments if they refuse to comply with the demand for them. I am not aware that any such case has already happenned, but I am satisfied that the mere passing of this measure into law will necessarily make the landlords of England and Wales grant these allotments without there being any necessity to have recourse to the compulsory powers of the Bill. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), in a speech which he made on the 29th of last month, tried to throw cold water on the scheme by insinuating that the County Magistrates are the last people in the world to whom the agricultural labourers can look for support in the matter. With all respect, entirely differ from the right hon. Gentleman. I think that the County Magistrates, both as private individuals and also when assembled in Quarter Sessions, have always shown that they are ready and willing to promote the interests of the agricultural labourers, as well as those of all other classes of Her Majesty's subjects; and I think that, should, any case be brought before them as the County Authority under the Bill which the Local Authority are not able to deal with, it will be found that the matter will be dealt with in that same able and business-like manner in which all other business of the County Magistrates is transacted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has adopted his old cry of "the classes and the masses," but I would tell the right hon. Gentleman that in the Eastern Counties, at any rate, the classes and the masses have arrived at the knowledge of the fact that what is for the benefit of the one is equally for the benefit of the other. I think that any attempt to stir up class jealousy in the Eastern Counties will meet with the contempt which it deserves. With regard to the size of allotments, I think that the Government have exercised a very wise discretion in limiting it to one acre, for it cannot be too strongly impressed upon the agricultural labourers that an allotment should be supplementary to, and not a substitute for, their weekly wages. I think it would be wise on their part if the application were for one or two roods rather than for the full limit under the Act. I have had a certain experience of this allotment question myself, and I have always found that when the matter has been put clearly, fairly, and straightforwardly before the agricultural labourers, free from any agitation, and apart from any political feeling—when, in fact, they have been asked to think out the question for themselves — they have come to the conclusion that one or two roods were as much as they could work at a profit, in addition to giving satisfaction to their employers. I think that the great point in regard to the rent of allotments is that the Local Authorities should take care that it should only be the agricultural rent of the particular district in which the allotment is situated. It seems to me a good arrangement that all the outgoings should be included in the rent—such, for instance, as tithes, rates, and taxes—rather than that they should be collected in small sums from each individual occupier. I do not wish to detain the House any further on these matters. I am much obliged to the House for having listened to the few remarks that I thought it my duty to make, and I only hope that the Bill will quickly pass into law this Session, because I am perfectly certain that it will prove a great benefit to all the agricultural labourers in England, and especially those in whom I am chiefly interested—that is to say, the labourers in the Eastern Counties,

I am delighted to find that, not withstanding difference of opinion as to some of the details of the Bill, we are agreed in all parts of the House as to the importance of the subject we have to deal with. I confess that I think it is a most important matter for the agricultural labourer himself. We are all agreed that the condition of our agricultural labourers in England has been one of the great blots in our social and political life. I forget who it was who once said that "an agricultural labourer's life was on an inclined plane, with the workhouse at the bottom." Whether we hold that extreme view or not, I am certain that we are all agreed that everything we can do to raise the condition of this important section of the community will be to the benefit of the nation to which we belong, and to all parties in this House. Not merely from the point of view of the agricultural labourer, but from the point of view of the nation itself, I think there is no more important problem to solve than how to get more out of the soil on which we live than we do at present. I hold the belief very strongly that the soil of the country is not producing anything like the amount of food for the people which it should be made to produce, and I hail this Bill because I think it will help to produce much better results from the soil than have been produced hitherto. I think it will add to the national wealth by enabling better provision to be made for the national wants. So long as we buy more than half our food from abroad there is this great problem to deal with, and I hold that those who are helping to bring more produce from the soil are helping to render this country greater than it has been in the past. While I am grateful to those who bring us sustenance from abroad, I shall be still more grateful to those who help us more and more to grow what we require at home. I certainly think that this Bill giving small allotments to men able and willing to cultivate them will help to solve that problem. An important point to me is that the Bill, though in a somewhat halting manner, recognizes the right which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spalding Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Halley Stewart) referred to with great skill and power just now—the principle that everyone who is born into this world has a right to live. I remember that when that statement was once made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) it was very much ridiculed; but you may depend on it that the longer we live the more we shall have to recognize that principle. When mouths are sent into the world they are intended to be fed, and whatever obstacles there may be in the way, the present and future generations will have to help to remove them. I am not one of those who wish to join in the rebukes of either one side of the House or the other as to the position in which we stand, and the inconsistency of individuals. I think the less said about inconsistency the better; and I do not say that in any bantering spirit. I believe the opinion of the nation is firm on this subject, however our public men may bandy accusations of inconsistency from one side to the other. That hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House did not see their way to entering upon a principle the necessity for which was so evident to us the Division List on the Motion of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) will show. There were very few on the other side of the way who supported that Motion, and that shows that many hon. Gentlemen on that side did not hold the opinions they do now. [Cries of "No, no!"] Then, at any rate, they did not vote as they are going to vote now. I will not taunt them with having changed their opinions, because I am pleased with what they have done. I think the thing we are aiming at now is so important that we may well forget these matters, and all join together in an attempt to give effect to the great principle we have in view. One of the great defects of our social and economic system has been to unduly divorce the people from the soil. The more that defect can be eradicated and the more people can be joined to the soil, the more stable will be our future. I hear with great regret that there are large tracts of land in the country which are going out of cultivation. That is a state of things that we ought never to permit. With a limited area such as ours, and a large and in- creasing population, it is essential to us that the most should be made out of the land in the way of cultivation. I go across land every week within a few miles of London, which is not producing £10 in produce per acre in the year. And yet here are 10,000,000 mouths to be fed. I say it is a disgrace not to utilize the soil for that purpose. We are too much dependent on the foreigner for our food, and we should make greater efforts to grow wheat we require for our sustenance at home. I notice with very great regret the decimation of our village life. I look upon it as one of the darkest features of our present position that our village life is dying out. I want our village life to be revived, and I think that in this Bill we have the means by which that can be done. There are features in our village life we ought not to let die out, and I venture to hope that we shall all continue to give effect, so far as we can, to the resuscitation of that village life, and to help to build up what has been one of the great elements of our strength in the past—the village life of our country. If I were asked to suggest what is the real cause of this Bill, I should say I think the hon. Gentleman who spoke just now hit the right nail on the head. However much some hon. Members may desire to conceal it, the fact still remains that the cause of this Bill is the extension of the franchise. The agricultural labourer has a vote, and because he has a vote we find out that he has wants. I trace back, therefore, to the extension of the franchise the great blessing which I believe will grow out of giving to the labouring portion of our agricultural population the right to occupy and to cultivate a portion of the soil for their own advantage and the advantage of the State. When I come to speak of the Bill itself, I cannot express the same approval of its details as I do of its principle. There are some of the details which not only should be amended, but which are of such a character that unless they are amended the value of the measure will be destroyed. I cannot approve of the principle of having the Bill set in motion by Boards of Guardians. The idea of administration by the Boards of Guardians leads up to the idea of pauperism. Nothing so weakens a nation as the fact, or even the idea, that they have to de- pend on somebody else more than themselves for the supply of their necessities. Anything which will tend to pauperize the people, or tend to give them the idea that they are being pauperized, will tend to decrease the national strength. Well, the idea of requiring the agricultural labourer to go to the Board of Guardians for the purpose of getting land seems to me to be absurd. And as to appealing to the Quarter Sessions, that is worse still; you might as well consult the cat as to how the mice are to be sustained as to expect the Quarter Sessions to regard with anything like generosity the principle on which this Bill is to be carried out. If you wish to make the Bill effective, then create a machinery for carrying it out in which the people can have confidence. They have no confidence in the Boards of Guardians nor in the Quarter Sessions, and they have good reasons for not having it. If you want to make it effectual, you must take care that the rents charged for the allotments are not too high. If you allow anyone to charge a higher rent than the farmers pay in the neighbourhood of the allotments, you are doing what is unjust, and what will destroy the object of the Bill. I believe, moreover, that you should not confine the Bill to one acre, but that you should provide that au agricultural labourer may have even three acres if he can till it, and a cow into the bargain if he can get it. I believe that if this Bill passes the Session will not have been thrown away. I have often gone home from this House with a heavy heart, feeling that to bring 670 men together simply to discuss coercion does not tend to our national greatness; therefore it is that I should like to close the Session with a Bill which will bring comfort, happiness, and prosperity to many a home which is now disgraced by poverty—[Laughter]—I should not have referred, but for that laugh, to one remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). Sitting here last year, and hearing him speak on the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham, I remember his saying with that power which he can put into his arguments, and with that weight he can give by his appearance to his arguments, "The voice is the voice of Jesse, but the hand is the hand of Joseph." I am glad that the voice and the hand, whoever owns them, have got hold of the present Government, and are holding them with a grip which I hope will bring them through this piece of legislation which I feel sure will tend to the happiness of the country. I think that future generations will have to thank this House and this Government for having given them a right too long withheld — the right of bringing people directly and personally into contact with the soil of the country.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Mr. Handel Cossham) on having discovered a gold mine, and if he will kindly state what is the method by which, with wheat at 34s. a-quarter, £10 an acre per annum can be extracted out of the land, I am sure he will be doing the whole community an inestimable benefit. I have noticed that the speeches made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have betrayed a certain feeling of disappointment, and I am not astonished at it, for when the golden opportunity has been passed by, it is not unusual for those who have seen it pass to feel some soreness at seeing others take advantage of it when it presents itself to them. I hope the Government will strive to carry this Bill through. I am perfectly sure that if they do they will not only receive the support of this House and the country, but that they will be doing a great benefit to agriculture and to the labourers of England. There are one or two points in the details of the Bill that I wish to call attention to. I shall detain the House for a very short time; but I do hope the Government will be able to see their way to making some modifications in the Bill in the directions I will point out. One point is that brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) with regard to notice being given to landowners. I trust that the Government will see their way to introduce some clause or provision in the measure requiring notice to be given to landowners who, perhaps, may not know of the desire that exists for the possession of land, in order that they may not have the principle of com- pulsion applied against them. Then there was a question referred to a short time ago by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green. He was speaking of the rates charged by landlords for land let to labourers, when land could be got by farmers in the same neighbourhood at a much lower rate. He did me the honour to quote the name of my father in speaking as he did of Lord Onslow's charge for allotments. He quoted my father as charging a higher rate for land let as allotments than he charged to farmers in the same locality. The hon. Member did not, perhaps, know that, though technically the land is let at a higher rate, yet that ' the land is worth £300 an acre, and that: my father pays the tithes and rates and I taxes. If he had known this, he might not have been surprised at the rent being a little bit higher than that charged for purely agricultural land. I think that this is generally the case with regard to all such land. Land of this character is often accommodation land in the near neighbourhood of towns, and the landlords are compelled to charge slightly higher rates in order to cover the expenses of the property. There is one point in Clause C that, I think, might possibly be altered. I see there that not more than a quarter's rent shall be required to be paid in advance. That will require a great deal of collection, which will have to be done once a quarter, and perhaps more frequently, which is a matter that, I think, will cause great expense. I do not object to it as a principle; but I think no hard-and-fast rule should be laid down, as it may probably cause harm to the labourer instead of good. I also think the Government would do well to consider favourably the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire, and provide that tenants of allotments should have permission to erect toolhouses and pigstyes. I will not consume the time of the House by commenting at any length upon these points, which, however, are very important ones. I will conclude by saying that I feel the labourers of England, and the landowners themselves—who are shrewd enough to understand that the measure will not hurt them—will believe that the Bill is for the benefit of the country, and will do good to those who wish to obtain honest employment, without doing harm either to landlord, farmer, or labourer.

Looking through this Bill, I must say it puts me very much in mind of the Agricultural Holdings Bill brought in by Lord Beaconsfield when Head of the Government. It was a very good Bill in name; but hon. Gentlemen will remember that, like the scorpion, it carried a sting in its tail, for the last clause provided that landed proprietors could contract themselves out of it. I did so myself, following the example of Her Majesty's Department of Woods and Forests. This Bill is so framed that if anyone were to try to work it out in a practical manner, it would be found to show the way how not to do it. We have to apply to the ex officio Guardians; in case of appeal we have to apply to the same persons who are magistrates at Quarter Sessions. Then we have several hon. Members opposite saying that one acre is far too much, or, at all events, one hon. Member said it was quite sufficient. The whole principle of the Bill, as I understand it, is not to take land on which an agricultural labourer is to do spade work, but it is to enable them to keep a cow, so that they and their families may have daily milk. In the North of England every agricultural labourer has a cow, or else he shares the milk of his neighbour's cow; but I was astonished to find in the Midland Districts, on going through the country, that there was a total absence of milk in the food of the labouring people. It is well known how injurious it is to bring up children without milk; and yet we are told that one acre is too much, and in the opinion of some hon. Members that it is quite enough. Now I beg leave to point out to the House that it is not sufficient. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) ever kept a cow, but if he did he would know that at least six acres of land, unless it is very good land, is necessary for the purpose. Grass does not grow all the year round; it is only a six months' growth, and part of the land must be set aside to provide hay for the winter; and we know, besides, that it is a standing covenant in leases that the farmers are not allowed to sell hay, and that they are obliged to consume it upon the farm they rent. The practical result of limiting the land to one acre will be to render it impossible to work out the object in view. I venture to suggest to the House that, instead of the County Authorities with the complicated machinery connected with them, the County Court Judge, assisted by a practical assessor, should value the land and say what is a fair rent and a fair value for it. Most people have considerable confidence in the County Court Judges; they are open to criticism in the Press, their Courts are open; and they will, as it is well known, weigh the circumstances brought before them in an impartial manner, because their appointments do not rest upon fear or favour, and they hold them, as a rule, for a long period. I hope we may get this Bill, so to speak, disembowelled, and that the Government will see their way to accept the Amendments put down on the Paper, so that this Bill may effect a practical reform and make it really a boon to the agricultural classes throughout England.

I am glad that the Government have been enabled to arrange that the discussion on this Bill, which commenced last night, should be continued this evening. We have no reason to complain of the tone which the discussion has taken. A great many valuable observations have been made, which will undoubtedly receive, as they deserve, the consideration of the Government. I can assure the House that we welcome any assistance which, while adhering to the principle of the Bill, will carry out more effectually the object in view—that is, the obtaining of allotments by agricultural or other labourers throughout the land who may stand in need of them. It will not be necessary for me to detain the House for more than a few minutes, as most of the points which have been alluded to to-night have been already dealt with in the course of the discussion which took place yesterday. But there are one or two points on which I desire to say a few words. We have had to-night two speeches, one from the hon. Member for the Rugby Division of Warwick (Mr. Cobb),and the other from the hon. Member for the Spalding Division of Lincoln- shire (Mr. Halley Stewart), to which I wish to refer. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for the Spalding Division of Lincolnshire, I hope he will allow me to congratulate him upon it, and upon the arguments which he has used with reference to this Bill; and although I would very much prefer the hon. Member to sit in another quarter of the House, yet I hope that the fact of his sitting opposite will not prevent my doing justice to the extremely moderate manner in which the hon. Gentleman has dealt with the Bill before us. The hon. Member, unlike the hon. Member for Rugby, on whose speech I shall have to make a few remarks presently, confined the whole of his speech to the Bill, and, while acknowledging that there were certain points in it which he desired to see amended, he was not prevented from giving credit to the Government for what he evidently believes to be an honest effort on our part to provide allotments which we think necessary and desirable for the labouring classes. The hon. Gentleman gave as one of the reasons for the Government dealing with this question the agricultural depression which exists at the present time. No doubt, that is a matter which must in a country like this always be one of anxious consideration for every Government. Never more than at the present time was the question of agriculture deserving of greater attention, and if the proposal we make in the Bill is the means of giving a larger amount of employment to and attaching more closely to the soil the agricultural labourers, at the same time keeping them in the country rather than as at present going in such numbers into our towns, we believe that it will be highly a useful und valuable measure. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the machinery of the Bill; and he asked why is it necessary to proceed through the Sanitary Authority, Quarter Sessions, and Local Government Board? He spoke also specially with reference to the Board of Guardians, saying that it was in some measure degrading to apply to the body having the administration of the Poor Law for the purpose of obtaining allotments. I do not say that the Board of Guardians are my beau-ideal of the authority which ought to deal with this question. All that I have contended for is that having regard to the circumstances of the case, and after looking for other authorities who might possibly be availed of, I am of opinion that they are the best means to our hands in the rural parts of the country. I admit that if we were able to set up some machinery for the purpose of carrying out this Bill, we should considerably alter the means of which we avail ourselves at the present time, and we have never disguised our belief that if we could along with this measure have introduced our Local Government Bill, by which we hoped to make considerable amendment in the matter of allotments throughout the country, it would have been much better and more desirable. But we were very unwilling that this present Bill should be delayed until we had time to deal with the larger question; and, therefore, we thought it better to avail ourselves in the manner we have of this machinery, hoping in due time to set up authorities to which the House and the country will take no exception whatever. With reference to the Boards of Guardians I will point out that, although it happens that the Boards of Guardians would act in this matter, it is not in the capacity of Guardians of the Poor that they are employed in connection with the present Bill; it is as Rural Sanitary Authorities only; and in charging the Rural Sanitary Authorities with this duty at present, we are not at all attaching the stigma which it is said will result from application to the Guardians; for if there be one thing which I maintain to be more necessary than another, it is to separate the action of the Bill from anything which would make it appear that the rates were to be brought in aid of this measure. I am sure that if these allotments are to be a success they must be self-supported and not dependent on the rates, and there is no evidence before me to show that there will be the smallest difficulty in providing at a reasonable rent allotments for all those who are desirous of having them, without the rates being chargeable in any way whatever. Therefore, I hope hon. Members will displace from their minds the idea that the Poor Law Guardians as a body are charged with the administration of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman asks if we would substitute the Local Board for the Quarter Sessions. The Quarter Sessions have been alluded to more than once to-night. I pointed out last evening that it was desirable, in view of setting up the future County Authority, to take the County Authority which already exists—namely, the Quarter Sessions; but to that we attach no importance whatever, and I assure the House that we are prepared to substitute for the Quarter Sessions the Local Government Board. With regard to the observation that the machinery of the Bill is complicated, I may point out that whether it be complicated or not this machinery is only put in force when land is to be purchased compulsorily. But I believe the land will be purchased without compulsion at all. I believe that the existence of the power in the Bill will itself prevent that power being used, and therefore I am of opinion that in 99 cases out of a 100 this machinery, whether complicated or not, will be unnecessary; and, further, looking to the fact that when land is acquired voluntarily no other authority is invoked except the Sanitary Authority, hon. Members will see that it may be anticipated that the machinery to which exception has been taken may not be necessary at all, and that the whole matter will be in the hands of the Sanitary Authority, both in rural and urban districts. But supposing that compulsion were necessary and the complicated machinery referred to, it has not been found in connection with other matters in which land is compulsorily acquired that any difficulty is experienced. As I told the House last night, out of 110 appeals presented to Parliament during the last five years by the Local Government Board 108 have been unopposed; there has been no opposition, no expense, and no trouble whatever. But where compulsion is necessary it will not be that compulsion will be brought into play for the purpose of each particular allotment, as some hon. Members seem to suppose. The hon. Gentleman has asked whether all this machinery will be set in motion. Certainly not. The Local Authorities, if they have reason to believe that there is a demand for allotments in their neighbourhood, will apply for and obtain at one operation the whole of the land which may be necessary to supply the demand, so that I believe, whether you look upon this as a voluntary question or whether you regard it in connection with cases where compulsory powers are necessary, the machinery will be found to be simple, effective, and speedy in its operation. I have now to say a word or two on the speech of the hon. Member for the Rugby Division of Warwick (Mr. Cobb). The hon. Member has undoubtedly for a considerable time taken a very great amount of interest in this question of allotments, and I am bound to say that I was somewhat disappointed at the tone which the hon. Member adopted towards the Bill. It is quite true he told us he would not vote against the Bill.

I said that I should vote for it.

The hon. Member said he would vote for the Bill; but in the same breath he clearly showed that although he would not like to place himself in the position of voting against the Bill or abstaining from voting, he would exercise the whole of his ingenuity in preparing such volumes of Amendments as would practically destroy it.

I said that I would try to make the Bill what I thought it ought to be, by putting down Amendments for that purpose.

I do not think that is quite what the hon. Member said. I have here that he had put down many Amendments, and that he intended to put down many more when he got time. I am not sure that the hon. Member did not go the length of saying that he hoped the Bill would not pass.

I did not use those words. I said that, considering, as I do, that the Bill as it stood was not one which would do any good, although I should not vote against the second reading, I should put down Amendments setting forth the principles on which I thought the Bill ought to proceed.

I am quite aware that the hon. Member said that; and he also said what I have on my note. To my mind the whole tone of the hon. Member's speech went to show that he was thinking much less of the good which the labourers were to derive from the Bill than of the means by which he could throw discredit on the measure. At any rate, the hon. Gentleman cannot deny that, although he said that the labourers had not been paid any compliment by the Government giving so short a time for the discussion of mat- ters in which they were interested, he devoted certainly three-fourths of his speech to matters altogether outside the Bill. He devoted three-fourths of the time during which he addressed the House to recrimination and taunts addressed to hon. Gentlemen on his own side and others for the action they have thought it necessary to take. I should have thought if he had been so extremely anxious to save the time of the House, and so anxious to advance the cause which, he professes to have at heart, he would have devoted himself to practical remarks on the Bill, with the object of assisting the Government in passing it in an improved form, and making such suggestions to the Government as would carry out his wishes; but, instead of that, I maintain that his desire was to throw discredit on the Government for not bringing in a measure which went more thoroughly on the lines which he might choose to approve. Well, Sir, I have no doubt that it is very aggravating to hon. Gentlemen opposite that the present Government should have the settlement of this question. I have no doubt that they would prefer that this matter should stand over to the Greek Kalends rather than that the present Government should deal with it. But we are not going to be intimidated even by the swarms of Amendments the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rugby Division of Warwick has proposed and contemplates proposing.

I said nothing about "swarms."

I withdraw the word "swarms."

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will see that my Amendments are perfectly fair Amendments.

I withdraw the word "swarms," but adhere to what I have said previously. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the Paper of Amendments. I have looked through the Amendments, and I find that the hon. Gentleman has certainly embodied in his Amendments matters which I should have thought would have been sufficient for a separate Act of Parliament in themselves. Well, as I have said, notwithstanding the evident intention of endeavouring to smother this Bill by Amendments at this time of the year, the Government do not intend to be intimidated, but to make the best efforts they can to pass the Bill into law this Session. One very curious statement the hon. Gentleman made, among the many curious statements made in the course of this debate. He said that if one thing showed more clearly than another that this Bill was introduced for electioneering purposes, it was the names which are on the back of it. Then he said I had some little claim to put my name on the back of the Bill, and he also acknowledged that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) might also have some claim to do that; but, in his opinion, it was simply monstrous that the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) should appear on the back of the Bill, and that clearly showed, to his mind, what the object of the Government was. It was not to advance the cause of the labourers by giving them allotments, but to influence elections. Now, as to the appearance of the name of my right hon. Friend (Mr. E. Stanhope) on the back of the Bill, let me say that the right hon. Gentleman has taken an interest in allotments probably for a longer period than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby, and I have a recollection that my right hon. Friend served upon a Royal Commission in connection with. The employment of women and children in agriculture, and that he, as a Sub-Commissioner, made one of the most valuable Reports upon the very question which the hon. Gentleman expresses so much interest about, the provision of grass land for the purpose of obtaining milk for the labouring classes. I must say that I think the hon. Gentleman was driven very hard indeed when he had to advance that as a reason to show that the action of the Government is not an honest one, but an electioneering one. Now, Sir, several of my hon. Friends have made various suggestions to the Government in connection with buildings and other matters of detail, of which I have taken careful note, and will give careful consideration to. I have already stated that in connection with buildings I will take care that Amendments are introduced which will remedy the defect in the Bill which has been pointed out. I think I have now touched upon most of the suggestions and criticisms which have been made to-night, I do not propose to trouble the House further on the subject, having so recently addressed them upon it, but I have again to say that the Government greatly appreciate many of the speeches which have been made from both sides of the House, and warmly welcome the promises which have been made by many hon. Gentlemen to whom they are politically opposed that they will render to the Government every assistance in their power in order to enable them to carry this Bill through with Amendments in the course of the present Session, and at once place within the reach of the labouring classes of this country allotments, which I believe will be fraught with great benefit to themselves and with great benefit to the community.

I do not rise to prolong the debate unnecessarily, although I should have been glad of having an opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, earlier in the evening. I am sure that at this time of the night the House is satisfied with the discussion which has taken place, and that they would now like to go into Committee. But, as the subject is of great interest to the agricultural constituency which I have the honour to represent, and as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Saffron Walden Division of Essex (Mr. H Gardner), who spoke from the opposite Benches earlier in the evening, and who represents the labourers of that constituency, which I had the honour of representing before the passing of the last Reform Bill, expressed the opinion that this Bill was a sham, I should be sorry that such an opinion of the Bill should go forth to the labourers of North Essex without contradiction by one who, at all events, from the bottom of his heart believes that this Bill is not a sham, and will not be a sham, but will be productive of very great benefits to those labourers whom the hon. Gentleman now represents. I will not continue the debate further, because I know the House does not wish for second reading speeches at this period of the evening (12.45); but I do most heartily trust that the Government will do all in their power to bring this Bill to a conclusion. I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) when he proposes to take the Committee stage? I trust he will take that stage as early as possible.

I do not wish to occupy the attention of the House for more than a couple of minutes. I simply desire to say that I believe the agricultural labourers are perfectly satisfied with the Bill as it stands, more particularly as the Government have had the courage to affirm the principle of compulsion. Without that principle I do not think the Bill would have been worth the paper it is printed upon. One word with reference to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst). The hon. Gentleman said some very hard things about the Court of Quarter Sessions, and, although he admitted he did not know much about it, he said that the object of the Court of Quarter Sessions was to prevent labourers having allotments. If the hon. Gentleman had been here, I should have referred him to the fact that this time last year a Return was issued, from which it appeared that something like 650,000 allotments were held among the 800,000 agricultural labourers in the country, and that this fact is owing to the action I of the Courts of Quarter Sessions, which the hon. Member for West Nottingham holds up to derision and contempt. Any further remarks that I have to make I will reserve until the Bill gets into Committee.

In moving the second reading of this Bill I do not intend to detain the House for I many minutes. The matter has been very fully discussed in the public Press and "elsewhere" in the course of the last week or so—in fact, ever since the Bill was introduced; and yesterday my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) made an important announcement with regard to the course the Government intend to take when this Bill gets into Committee, a course which, I understand, is likely to remove many of the objections felt in some parts of the House to the Bill as it was originally introduced. It may be desirable, further, that I should say that this Bill, which is, I think, a very modest one, does not attempt to deal with the question in anything like so ambitious a spirit as characterized some of its predecessors. In the first place, it was addressed to three main points. The first of these was a power which it was proposed to give to depositors in Post Office Savings Banks to deposit a larger sum than £30 annually. That is to say, it was proposed to raise the limits that the existing law fixes for such deposits from £30 to £50. But it was not proposed at any time to increase the total amount which a depositor in the Post Office Savings Bank could have there beyond the sum of £150, which is the existing limit. Further, a certain amount of misconception appears to have arisen upon this point, and a great many gentlemen connected with the banking interest in the country appear to have become much agitated on the subject; they believed that there was under the provision in this Bill some probability that the total deposit of £150 might be indefinitely exceeded. It was also suggested, equally without any sufficient ground, that this Bill contained a provision by which the rule which restricts a depositor at the present time to having only one account at a Post Office Savings Bank might be evaded; and it was suggested, or at least alleged, that under this Bill it would be possible for a depositor to have a multiplicity of these accounts. There was no foundation for that suggestion. I only mention it to show how much misunderstanding has arisen in the country in regard to the provisions of this measure. I dare say some blame attached to the Post Office owing to the form in which the Bill has been drafted not being sufficiently clear. But I have met the opponents of the measure in what I think they admit to be a fair spirit by promising them that, although the Bill does not contain the things they object to, I will make it clear that no such intention existed by introducing words. But hon. Gentlemen still continne to object to the provision, which the Bill undoubtedly did originally contain, that the limit to an annual deposit should be raised from £30 to £50; and as I consider their opposition was not very well founded, and not likely to advance the interests even of those who were the most active in fomenting it, I should have been prepared to ask the House to accept that clause as part of the Bill as far as the original opposition was concerned, because there can be no doubt that even if such a provision was not very largely availed of by the working classes, yet the fact that it had been made a part of the law of the land would have encouraged and stimulated habits of thrift. I believe that at the present time there are very few subjects so largely talked about as the promotion of thrift amongst the working classes. If that clause had been pressed it would have given the House an opportunity of putting the subject to a test as to how far the expressions of sympathy with thrift amongst the working classes which we have heard are genuine and sincere amongst hon. Members. But before the Bill reached this stage we have been confronted with another difficulty. We have to remember that there are not only the Post Office Savings Banks, but other savings banks, which are generally known as Trustee Savings Banks. Those Trustee Savings Banks do a great amount of business, and are in a great many cases extremely well managed, and they come to us with apparently a fair show of reason and ask that we should not give to the Post Office Savings Banks privileges and advantages which were denied to them. That appeared, on the face of it, to be a very reasonable demand. It is quite true that in drawing up this Bill I had reference entirely to those savings banks which were under the control of the Post Office, and that I limited the measure of reform which I introduced in the first instance to those particular institutions. But I could not deny that there was a good deal of force in the contention of those gentlemen who represented Trustee Savings Banks when they claimed for those banks at least fair play in conducting their business in friendly rivalry with the savings banks administered by the Post Office. Well, we have considered their objections, and we are inclined to think that, as regards other clauses of the Bill, there is sufficient ground for admitting them to the equality which they claim. But considerable difficulty was felt with regard to giving them the advantage of this 1st clause. Savings Banks which are managed by Trustees give a larger interest than that given by the Post Office Savings Banks. They are allowed to give £2 15s. as against the £2 10s. which is all that the Post Office has to offer. And then, while the amount of the deposits in any particular year in the Post Office Savings Banks would not be very largely increased by the extension of the limit, it is possible that a considerable addition might be made to the deposits in any particular year with the Trustee Savings Banks, and this might very fairly have been hold to create a new financial aspect in the consideration of the question. There was certainly some additional force to be given to the objection raised by some financiers on the subject of the State receiving savings bank deposits at all if there were, as there might, perhaps, be in this instance, a very large addition to the sums deposited, seeing that in time of financial difficulty or embarrassment the Government might be called upon to repay these deposits. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that it is better on this occasion not to persevere with this particular clause; but, at the same time, I think that the matter is one which clearly must stand over for further consideration, not of course during the present Session, but in some future Session, having regard to the frequent attempts which have been made to legislate upon this question in previous years. I may mention that the late Government only two or three years ago introduced a Bill by which it was proposed not merely to increase the annual deposit, but to increase the total deposit, and also to give greater facilities for the multiplication of accounts. Therefore it is exceedingly probable that future Sessions will not pass without some attempt being made to deal with this subject in a larger manner than. I have attempted to deal with it during the present Session, and those hon. Gentlemen who have been active in their opposition to the present moderate and tentative scheme may at some future time have reason to regret that they did not settle the matter when they could do so in a very easy and a very humble manner However that may be, that part of the scheme is now definitely abandoned by the Government. The two other main provisions which it is intended to press upon the consideration of the House are these. One is contained in Clause 3 of the Bill as it now stands, and gives power to the Postmaster General for the time being to make regulations with regard to the conduct of the business of the banks. I understand that there is a very great demand for greater elasticity in the banks in the interests of the working class depositors. I will only refer to two particular matters as showing the necessity for the change. At the present time, if it is desirable to transfer a deposit—deposits such as are frequently held by friendly societies, and other bodies of that kind—from one account to another it is absolutely necessary to take out all the sum that is deposited, and to close the account so far as that is concerned, and then to open a fresh account in order to deposit in it the sum that is to be transferred. The inconvenience of this system to the working classes is considerable, and I am informed that it even extends to physical inconvenience, where it may be required to transfer an account—say from Liverpool to Rugby. The Secretary may have to take the cash, accompanied by one or two members of his committee, who may have to take the money properly deposited, and take it from one post office to another. In this way great trouble and inconvenience is incurred in the case of working men, who have the right to look to the Legislature for facilities in the way of saving, and who have a right to object to hindrances being placed in their path in connection with such a matter. Another question deserving consideration is the question of nomination. Under the existing law the depositor in a savings bank is allowed to deposit £100 in the shape of a nomination—that is to say, he may nominate a person who is to receive it at his death. The Postmaster General on the death of the depositor can pay over the £100 to the nominee without further trouble, and without the necessity for a will or any other legal formality. But, as the law now stands, if there should happen to be an accumulation of interest, and that £100 has exceeded the limit and maximum of £100, the nomination becomes void, and instead of the depositor's nomination being carried out in favour of any particular person whom he wished to Dominate the money falls into his general estate, and has to be administered under the general law. It is now proposed, in the event of such a sum being slightly increased in such a manner, that it shall be competent for the Postmaster General to frame regulations in order to give effect to the wishes of the depositor. Those are two of the points upon which it is proposed to give to the Post Office power of making regulations. But exception has been taken to the fact that though these regulations are to be laid before Parliament that is the only requirement contained in the Bill as it stands, and I promised the hon. Member for the South-Western Division of Middlesex (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) that words should be introduced which should make it necessary that every such regulation should lie on the Table of the House for a certain time before becoming effective, and that opportunity should be given to Members in cither House of Parliament to take the sense of Parliament before they become law. There is another small provision as to the Government annuities. At the present time, any person may purchase a Government annuity for himself through the Post Office; but it is proposed now to extend that principle so as to enable persons to purchase annuities for the benefit of the person designated, and to transfer such annuities at least for the period until they become payable. It has been thought that those annuities may be purchased for old servants. Well, a person may desire to purchase an annuity for an old servant, but may wish to keep power over it so as to make payment of it dependent upon the good conduct of the recipient. I am told that in the case of Colleges it is thought desirable that provision should be made in this way for old servants, and I am sure we shall all be glad to give such institutions the advantage of the ready method of benefiting their old employés in this way. The only other provision is that with which the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) has been so honourably associated—that is the proposal to enable a smaller sum than £10 to be invested in the public funds through the medium of the Post Offices. At the present time the working man can deposit a sum exceeding £10 through the Post Office in the funds, but he cannot deposit a less sum than £10. I should think there is no point on which there has been such a general consensus of opinion as there is upon this. All of us wish to see the working classes of this country save money and deposit it in the public funds. The result of this system, especially in Prance, has been extremely encouraging, and there is no doubt that at the time of great national embarrassment in Prance the working classes came forward with their savings in the most astonishing manner, and really enabled the country to tide ever an enormous difficulty at the time when the ordinary methods of credit were difficult of application, and, if largely availed of, would have made the position of the country even more embarrassing than it was. I do not know that we shall rapidly induce the working classes of this country to make very large contributions to the public funds in this way; but, at all events, I do not think it a wise thing to deny them the opportunity, and what this Bill aims at amongst other things is to give to the working classes the opportunity of depositing sums of less than £10 in the public funds under such regulations as the Postmaster General may from time to time think desirable. I have only one other thing to say, and that is with reference to the manner in which it is proposed to give Trustee Savings Banks the same advantages as the Bill originally proposed to give the Post Office Savings Banks alone. I apologize to the House for having at this late hour spoken so long as I have done. If the Bill had come on somewhat earlier I should have been prepared to give a somewhat fuller sketch of its provisions than I have. I hope, however, I have said enough to show to the whole of the House that the Bill has been framed with a desire of benefiting the working classes of the country. I should have been glad if I had been able to introduce a more comprehensive measure; but I cannot help thinking that the House will be unwilling to lose the opportunity to pass even such a Bill as this, having regard to the objects to which it is directed, and the machinery by which it is hoped to carry out these objects.

I rise to express regret that the Government should have given way to the opposition, and should have agreed to withdraw the first and most important clause of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has correctly said that it is a very modest proposal—a much more modest proposal than those which have been brought forward by his Predecessors in Office. I cannot but think that there has been much misapprehension on this matter. The sole object of that proposal was to increase the limit of money which might be deposited in the Post Office Savings Banks from £30 to £50. It was not intended, as I understand it, to increase the limit of the maximum amount which any person might deposit in the savings banks. Limited in that way it appears to me that the proposal would have been an exceedingly wise one. It would have been a great encouragement to thrift on the part of a large number of persons in this country, and I believe it was eminently worthy of the consideration of this House. I cannot but think that if the right hon. Gentleman had pressed his proposal he would have obtained general supporters for it in quarters, perhaps, where he does not expect it, and would have been able to defeat the opposition which, to my mind, is of a somewhat interested character. I do not know whether it would be possible for any private Member to raise the question, notwithstanding the decision the Government have arrived at. I do not know whether it would be possible for a private Member to press the Government on, and try and induce them to agree to the clause they have abandoned. Under any circumstances, I trust that the clause is only abandoned for this year, and that next year we shall have the proposal made again. I am not impressed with the argument as to treating the private savings banks on grounds of equality. At the present moment, and after the question that has been raised, I do not, at all events, think it would be wise at this moment to extend to them this power, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is wise in restricting it to Post Office Savings Banks. With regard to the other proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, I have no objection to make to them, although I do not quite understand the arrangement with, regard to the assignment of annuities which he has alluded to; but, no doubt, when we come to the clause in Committee he will explain this point more fully. Finally, I think no one will doubt that there is wisdom underlying the proposal to enable depositors to invest sums of less than £10 in the Government Funds.

I have heard with great pleasure the determination of the Government to give increased facilities to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank for purchasing small portions of Government Stock. We are now all agreed that it is a great social and economical advantage that the mass of the people should become possessors of Consols. It is only a few years since this scheme has been understood by the people. I remember the time when persons were ignorant of the very meaning of the word Consols. When the National Penny Bank, in 1875, commenced selling small portions, we had persons come in and ask whether Consols were a special sort of coals, or something to eat; but since then Government Stock to the extent of no loss a sum than £2,500,000 sterling has been purchased by some 30,000 depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank, and the system has shown itself to be one of the most effective means by which the general well-being of the poorer classes may be promoted. With regard to the £50 limit of deposits, I regret extremely that the Government have been frightened by the shadow of the bankers, and I beg to give Notice that in Committee I shall move that the clause in the Bill which deals with this subject, and which the Government propose to withdraw, be retained in the Bill. I can see no reason why the clause should be given up. In my opinion, the Post Office Savings Banks have been of great advantage to the bankers, because, although the former have collected £50,000,000, the latter have never been in so prosperous a condition as they are now. The fact is clear that the more you promote thrift and habits of economy among the poorer classes, by enabling them to make small investments, the better it is for the bankers and the community at large; and I have no hesitation in saying that many hundreds of people who now have accounts with bankers began by saving in the Post Office Savings Banks. In this way I am sure that millions of money have rolled into the coffers of the bankers; and there never was, in my opinion, a more short-sighted policy on the part of the bankers than that of opposing this proposal of the Government, for, under this clause, the maximum deposit would he reached in three instead of five years, and therefore the depositors would be so much sooner ready to deal with the ordinary banks. This is a question affecting the working classes, whose thrift and well-being we should, particularly in these times, endeavour to promote. With regard to the Trustee Savings Banks, it is, of course, reasonable and proper that they should have similar facilities to those proposed in this Bill; but as regards the question of the £50 limit, I think they stand in a totally different position from that of the Post Office Savings Banks. The latter were really established because the Trustee Savings Banks were not considered so sound and satisfactory as they ought to be; a good many of them had come to grief, and it was in consequence of that that the establishment of Post Office Savings Banks took place. I know that those which now remain are thoroughly good; but the fact is as I have stated it. It was expected that the establishment of the Post Office Savings Banks would shut up all the Trustee Savings Banks; but that has not been found to be the case; on the contrary, the establishment of the Post Office Savings Banks has made those of the Trustee Savings Banks that were sound more prosperous than ever, and the same will continue to be the result with the ordinary banks, as I have endeavoured to show. It must be understood that the liability of the Trustees of the Trustee Savings Banks depends on their voluntary transactions. There is no law which enforces the legal management of these institutions; there is a heavy responsibility on the Trustees, and the question is whether we should increase it in the way that has been proposed. I hope the Government will consider the question as to the £50 limit in the Post Office Savings Banks an open question, and not a Government one, and then I am sure that if a Division is taken on the question of the limit of £50 hon. Members on both sides of the House will approach, the question with open minds. This is not a Party question, and it is one which I think ought to be voted upon by hon. Members solely on the merits of the case. Although we are proud of the savings banks holding £100,000,000, this sum is only, after all, what is spent on alcohol in 40 weeks; and I believe that if you can increase these facilities for thrift among the people, making such institutions as Savings Banks rivals with the public-house which now stands at the corner of every street, you will build up the well-being of the people to a greater extent than you can by many a more pretentious Act of Parliament.

I wish to express my regret that the 1st clause is not to remain in the Bill. The concession that is made by the right hon. Gentleman to the thrifty portion of the working classes is so small that I am not at a loss to under stand how it is that any body of men in the country should have thought it worth while to trouble themselves about it. It seems to me useless to lecture men about thrift, and then deny them the means of exercising it. It has been said that there is no demand for the extension of the limit. I think, if hon. Members will study the Returns issued from time to time to the House, they will gather that there is an absolute necessity for extending the limit, because there are somewhere about 137,000 depositors of £30 each in the Post Office Savings Banks, and it is reasonable to suppose that many of these would have exceeded this amount if the circumstances of the case had not boon against them. The present arrangement is chargeable with this absurdity—that if a man manages to get £30 in the bank in the early part of the year, and through sickness has to withdraw £20, he cannot make the amount up to £30 again during the whole remaining portion of the year. A more absurd restriction was never introduced, and therefore I hope the Government will see their way to retain the 1st clause in the Bill. I have had addressed to me a great number of letters in favour of extending the limit, but not one against extension. I am afraid the Government is placed, however, in a rather awkward position, for they seem to have been beset by the bankers on one hand and by the Trustee Banks on the other. With regard to the bankers, I leave their absurdity to be dealt with by the public by-and-bye; but with regard to the Trustee Savings Banks, I think the Government have acted wisely in not applying to them the provision contained in the 1st clause under existing circumstances. This is Dot the time to go into the question of the constitution and management of these banks; but I could bring before the House some sad facts in connection with them over and above those which I have already brought forward in a series of Questions from February last up to the present. There are some useful things in the Bill, and among them is the concession with regard to the transfer of money. I am glad the Government have made the first step, and I hope we may be able to deal with this matter more completely hereafter. I do not yet like the notion of extending the same facilities to Trustee Banks as are proposed for Post Office Banks, and I shall have to look over the regulations before I can give my consent to them. I wish the Government could now see their way to test the feeling of the House with regard to the 1st clause; but but if it is felt that the pressure is too strong for them to maintain their position with regard to this part of the Bill, I should like them to leave the question to be dealt with by both sides of the House, and then I believe we shall be able to decide it satisfactorily. My wish is that, in the interest of the working classes, the Government will stand firmly on their Bill.

I must dissent at once from some of the remarks of the hon. Member for the North-East Division of Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell), and, at the same time, point out that the Trustee Savings Banks are the pioneers of thrift in this country. I cannot but express my regret that one who professes to represent the working classes, as the hon. Member does, should not have launched into this discussion as the apologist of the Trustee Banks. I must thank most heartily the right Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) for the full consideration he has given to the representations made to him by the Trustee Savings Banks. I shall withdraw my Amendment; but I at once disclaim the arguments which have been used by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and at the proper time I shall give an explanation of them. I do not object to the limit being raised to £50, provided that the provision extends equally to Trustee Savings Banks. Put any restrictions you like as to examination of accounts, or anything of that kind; but I do not see why such valuable institutions as Trustee Savings Banks should be denied the same privileges as the Post Office.

I should like to be permitted to make a few remarks in reply to some observations made in the course of the debate. I, in common with many hon. Members of this House, much regret the opposition which the bankers have made to the 1st clause of this Bill, and I think there was a great deal of force in the observations which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley), that the encroachments of Post Office Savings Banks and also of Trustee Savings Banks would not diminish the custom of banks, but would tend to create a class who might afterwards be a banking class. I can assure the House that the surrender of the 1st clause is not owing to the Memorial signed by 50 hon. Members which has been forwarded to the Government, but in consequence of the difficulty which has arisen in connection with Trustee Savings Banks to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire (Mr. Maclure) has alluded. A very large and influential representative deputation from the Trustee Savings Banks came to the Treasury, and urged in the strongest way upon us the inexpediency, from their point of view of giving facilities to the Post Office Savings Banks which were not to be given pari passu to themselves. I do not entirely accept their argument, on account of several circumstances which have already been pointed out. They do not offer the same absolute security as Post Office Savings Banks, and they give a higher rate of interest. But, at the same time, when we saw these gentlemen, representing large institutions throughout the whole of the country, directing their energies against the 1st clause of this Bill, unless it was extended to them, a course we did not see our way to adopt, we thought it was impossible to press at this period of the Session the 1st clause of this Bill in the face of that opposition, added to the other opposition which otherwise we should not have felt called upon to yield to. That is the reason which has led to the course we have adopted; and with reference to the request that this matter should be treated as an open question, I think I must remind the House that when the Government say, in order to secure the second reading of a Bill, that they surrender a part of the Bill, they must maintain that declaration. It would not be fair for the Government, after having stated upon the second reading that they will agree to the omission of Clause 1 to use their endeavours at subsequent stages to get the clause reinstated. I hope it may not be the case, as it has been alleged, that by sacrificing this clause we are arresting the progress of thrift. I should very much like depositors to be able to increase their annual deposits to £50. It is asserted that the increase from £30 to £50 in the deposits might possibly stand in the way of that investment by depositors which nearly every Member in the House considers a better mode of investment—namely, in Consols for themselves. There is a certain danger in the increased aggregate, not from the point of view of the banker, but from the point of finance. I trust that if there is disappointment in regard to the refusal of the increase, there will be some satisfaction at the opportunity of largely increased investments in Consols. We had a difficulty in refusing the suggestion of the Trustee Savings Banks that the same facilities should be extended to them as were to be given to Post Office Savings Banks. They claimed, and this is certainly an important point, that at the present time you can change an account from a Trustee Savings Bank to the Post Office, and vice versâ, without any trouble whatever; whereas, if Trustee Savings Banks were placed on a different footing, there would arise a difficulty in regard to these transfers which have hitherto taken place without difficulty.

We are accustomed to announcements of alteration of policy on the part of the Government. Sometimes they are made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), and sometimes, as now, by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen). I am not in any way identified with the banking interest; but I am very gratified at the announcement that Clause 1 is to be abandoned, because, whether the clause would be a benefit to England or not, I hold it would be most injurious to Ireland. Either the clause would have no effect at all, or it would increase the amounts of deposits. If it increased the amounts of deposits, it would increase them at the expense of some Irish method of investment. The money would be diverted either from Irish banks or from other sources of investment in Ireland to London, and that would be an injury and an impoverishment of the entire community. Now, having received full notice both from the right hon. Gentleman the present Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes), and also from the right hon. Gentleman the late Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), that this clause is only postponed, and not abandoned, I trust the Irish Members and the Irish public will be warned, and will take care that when the proposal comes on again in an enlarged and, therefore, in a more formidable form, they are prepared for some better organized opposition to it. It is extremely easy for us to show that, while we have no objection to any reasonable method of encouraging thrift, we have the strongest objection to devices which, will deplete whatever poor resources Ireland at present possesses by transferring them to a greater or less extent to England. I wonder the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General made any allusion at all to Clause 2, because the effective portion of Clause 2 is the same as to the increase differently proposed to be made by Clause 1. As I understand the case, it removes the restriction of the total accumulation, which was, I believe, £200. While it is not permissible under the law as it stands, or as it will stand even if this Bill passes, that a single depositor should have more than £150 upon actual direct deposit, it is permissible it should accumulate by another means if he leaves the interest undrawn. The same argument which induced the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General to abandon Clause 1 ought to induce him to leave the law with regard to the total amount of the accumulation unchanged, pending the introduction of his more ambitious scheme next year. I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General to one matter. While I think the restriction of the total amount of deposits most necessary, and while it must be enforced by some sanction, I think the present method of enforcement, and the present punishment inflicted for its breach, is most cruel; and I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the propriety of introducing some clause, cither in his regulations, or, if necessary, in this Bill, by which some lesser punishment will be inflicted upon a depositor who has wrongfully opened two accounts and exceeded the limit of investment. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, instead of confiscating the entire amount invested in such cases, it would be sufficient to confiscate say, 10 per cent, or something of that kind? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General is prepared to reconsider the question raised on both sides of the House as to what reason there is for restricting in any one year the deposits to £30. If a man deposits £30 at the beginning of the year, and he has some necessity for drawing it out, you restrict him from depositing at all during the remainder of the year? If you are inclined to encourage thrift without interfering with the ordinary banking of the country, why not remove that difficulty? Why not permit a man, if he has some necessity for drawing money out of the bank, to put it back again whenever he has the money? Such, a state of things does not prevail in respect to ordinary banks in which a man invests, draws out, and reinvests millions in the course of a year. I would be most delighted to vote with the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General for the removal of this very ridiculous restriction. If, however, the increasing of the total limit is proceeded with it will certainly meet with my strongest opposition, because it can only have the effect of taking away deposits from Irish banks which must be used for the encouragement of Irish industry and Irish trade.

As regards the question of forfeiture, it is questionable how far the Postmaster General has discre- tion at the present time. I have ventured to exercise some discretion in more than one instance. The question of allowing a man to reinvest in the course of the same year up to the maximum of £30 has formed matter for very careful consideration on the part of the Government, and I admit there is a great deal to be said for it. But, at the same time, it cannot be forgotten that if you treat deposits in savings banks as current accounts, and not as deposit accounts, you put them on an entirely new footing. It is quite clear that when the Government pays so large an amount as 2½ per cent upon deposits that must be paid on a deposit account and not on a current account. The Government is certainly not inclined to take up this knotty question upon the present Bill. There is, no doubt, a great deal of weight in what the hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin (Mr. Dwyer Gray) has said with regard to Ireland. I understand that smaller sums are deposited in private banks in Ireland than in private banks in England, and therefore there is more force in what is called the banker's opposition in regard to Ireland than in regard to England, As to raising the accumulated deposit above £200, the Government have, after weighing the various arguments which have been addressed to the point, come to the conclusion that this is a proper and legitimate limit to the power of deposit.

The right hon. Gentleman is rather exceeding the limits of the indulgence accorded to him.

I beg to move the second reading of this Bill. It is a very small measure, affecting two of our Colonies There has been great distress in two of our West Indian Colonies; and it is, therefore, thought desirable to reduce expenditure and the Colonial Establish- ments. This object is best effected by the union of those two Colonies. The Legislative Council of Tobago and the Council of Trinidad have agreed to this Union. The Bill will effect that object; and, therefore, I propose it.