reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Humble Address of the 10th day of this instant March, as followeth:—

I have received your Address praying that I will withhold My Assent from the proposed Charter for the Gresham University until it shall have been remitted for further consideration and report, in accordance with the recommendation of the University of London Commission, to the late Royal Commissioners or to such other persons as I may be pleased to appoint.

I will withhold My Assent from the Scheme in conformity with your desire.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in what year, and for what special reason, a police station was established at Glenveagh, County Donegal, and whether that reason still exists; whether he can give the extent of the radius, and the number of habitations within such radius, of the police district, the number of constables in the station, and the total annual cost; and whether it will be continued; and, if so, on what grounds?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the police station referred to was established on 1st November, 1858, owing to the existence of serious agrarian disturbances in the locality. This district is about ten miles by five miles in area, and contains nine habitations. The strength of the station, exclusive of a vacancy which has existed for some time, is one sergeant and three constables. The annual cost is about £350. The authorities responsible for the peace of the county are of opinion that this station cannot at the present time be discontinued, as it is required both for the suppression of illicit distillation which was prevalent in the neighbourhood, and also for general police purposes as being situated on the main road between Letterkenny and Gweedore at a place a long distance from any other station.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the circumstances connected with the landing at Liverpool last week from the steamer Liguria of a large number of returned emigrants from Brazil, who left their homes in England, Scotland, and Ireland about twelve months ago; has his attention been drawn to the complaints of these people as to their treatment in the Brazils, and to their statements as to having suffered from cold, hunger, sickness, and other privations; and whether, in view of the fact that large numbers of poor people have been induced to go to Brazil on the strength of representations made by Brazilian agents, the Foreign Office will make inquiries into the manner in which this system of emigration has been carried out?

My attention has been called from time to time to the sufferings and complaints of emigrants to Brazil, and inquiries have been made as to the manner in which the emigration has been carried out. So far as our information at present goes, it appears that many persons were induced to emigrate to Brazil by the dissemination of prospectuses issued by an office calling itself the Colonisation Office, which seems to have acted as the agent for the Brazilian Government. Inquiries are being made into the matter by Her Majesty's Consul General at Rio. A considerable number of persons were induced to emigrate from Bradford through the agency of a man named Naylor, who, as we have been informed, has recently left the country. I should like to take this opportunity of repeating the warning, given by the Postmaster General last year, as to the unsuitability of Brazil for British immigration, and draw attention to the numerous warnings which have been issued by the Emigrants' Information Office with respect to that country.

I have to thank the Foreign Office for information in respect to a large number of my constituents sent to this place.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Belfast Board of Guardians, at their meeting last week, refused the application of a Roman Catholic inmate, named Mary Sinclair, to be allowed the ministrations of a Roman Catholic priest, when she was seriously ill and believed she was dying, and justified their refusal on the technical ground that this woman, although a Roman Catholic, was registered as a Presbyterian, and that she was an imbecile; whether the request of Mrs. Sinclair was supported by her husband, who is a Presbyterian; and whether, under all the circumstances, he will cause the Board to allow Mrs. Sinclair the consolations of her religion?

I am informed that the medical officer, having reported that he considered the inmate mentioned dangerously ill, the master, in accordance with the rules and regulations for his guidance, requested the attendance of a Roman Catholic chaplain, at the woman's request, supported by her husband, who asked that she might be attended by a Roman Catholic chaplain, irrespective of the manner in which she had been registered.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would explain the grounds on which the British Government has not concurred with other European Governments in joining the International Geodetic Bureau of Vienna, the objects of which are important to commerce, navigation, and science, and comprise the collection and collation of all data furnished by the geodetic surveys of all nations, especially information as to the mass of the earth, its form and dimensions, tides, levels, &c.; and whether the cost of so joining involves little more than £100 per annum?

The question of joining the re-constituted International Geodetic Bureau was raised just five years ago, the condition being an annual contribution of 2,250f. a year for ten years, besides the expense of sending delegates to attend the meetings of the bureau. Our experience of the International Metric Bureau at that time showed that the expenditure upon such undertakings tends to increase out of proportion to their actual utility, and it was considered that the practical advantages of joining the Geodetic Bureau were not sufficient to justify the guaranteeing of the sum named. So far as I am aware, the question has not been mooted since.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether cheques and orders intended for transmission between members of Friendly Societies and their bankers alone, and marked "not negotiable," are liable to Stamp Duty; and whether such liability attaches where the banker is also treasurer of the society; and, if they are so liable, whether, in the interests of the members of such societies, he will consider the possibility of exempting them from such duty?

The words "not negotiable" borne by a crossed cheque have a technical and restricted meaning and operation under Part III. of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. Apart from that meaning and operation, however, it may be stated that, where an order drawn upon his banker by a member of a Friendly Society registered under the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, is so drawn as to be incapable of being carried otherwise than to the credit of the account of the society, that order is not a negotiable cheque, but is exempt from Stamp Duty under Section 15 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, as an order for money contributed to the funds of the society. It is immaterial whether the banker of the society is the treasurer of the society or not. I hope this gives the information my hon. Friend desires.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works how many licences have been granted to work Royal mines in Ireland for silver and for gold; what have been the solicitors' charges and the office fees for such licences; whether any of the licensees have endeavoured to induce the Department to accept royalty on the profits instead of on the gross output; and whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Mining Section of the London Chamber of Commerce has passed a resolution that, in the interest of the industry as well as of the State, royalty should be charged upon profit and not upon product in all Crown metalliferous mines?

Seven licences have been granted to work Royal mines in Ireland within the past ten years. The solicitors' charges and office fees amounted in one case to £16, in two cases to £11 11s., and in four cases to £5 5s. Two of the licensees suggested that the royalty should be on the profits instead of on the value of the minerals obtained. With regard to the resolution of the Mining Section of the London Chamber of Commerce that royalties should be charged on profits, I would refer the hon. Member to what I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Caithness on Friday night. I am aware of the resolution passed by the Mining Section of the London Chamber of Commerce. I have an open mind upon the subject; but I think that the proper course to follow is, in any case, to await the Report of the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with reference to the unsuccessful attempt at exploration for colonisation purposes of the Sir Thomas Elder Expedition, and in view of the recent Reports proving conclusively the vast undeveloped resources of the interior now under the administration of the South Australian Government, and the labour difficulty consequent on the desire of the Colony to people the interior exclusively with British subjects, the Secretary of State has had any scheme recently submitted to him, or is prepared favourably to entertain a scheme which would afford an outlet to the congested population of Great Britain or other British Possessions, such as India?

The question of the introduction of coolies referred to by the hon. Member is under the consideration of the South Australian and Indian Governments, and it is understood that negotiations are now in progress.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that his predecessor in office, on 15th December, 1888, agreed that an inquiry into the state of the Deeds Office, Register House, Edinburgh, would be beneficial, and promised that the matter should be looked into and considered; and whether, as there will shortly be a vacancy in the office of Deputy Keeper of the Records (the Keeper of the Deeds Office being next, in seniority), he will take this opportunity of appointing a Committee of Inquiry into the position of the Deeds Office?

I have been requested by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. The Secretary for Scotland is aware of the statement made in Committee of Supply on the date referred to, and the matter has accordingly been looked into and considered. I have to inform the hon. Member that the Secretary for Scotland proposes to hold an inquiry into the position of the Deeds Office.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received, forwarded according to regulations, a representation, dated 2nd February last, from 69 members of the postal and telegraphic staff at Inverness, complaining in explicit terms of inattention and want of skill on the part of the medical officer of the Department; whether he is aware that several of the signatories have been examined, cross-examined, and intimidated because of signing the Petition; and whether he will take measures to prevent interference and pressure upon the staff in the exercise, in the authorised mode, of their undoubted rights? May I also express my regret that, in giving notice of the question, I used the word "intimidation"?

The representation has been received and examined. No ground has been shown for disapproval of the medical officer. I have no reason to believe that there has been any improper examination of the signatories to the Memorial. Any such action would be disapproved and checked.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the very large increase of population in Cardiff, and to its great commercial importance, as made evident by the late Census and other official Returns; and whether, having regard to the fact that no Lord Mayor exists at present within the Principality, he will consider the advisability of taking the necessary steps for conferring this distinction upon the Chief Magistrate of the County Borough of Cardiff?

Yes, Sir; I am aware of the important position which the Borough of Cardiff occupies both in respect of size and industry. The Government, however, are not prepared to recommend Her Majesty to confer the title of Lord Mayor upon the Chief Magistrate of the borough, in view of the difficulty of distinguishing between the comparative claims of this and of other important towns.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Land Commission were aware, when they sanctioned the sale of the Drapers' Company's estate to the occupying tenants, that one of the terms of sale was, that the expense of conveyancing was to be borne by the Drapers' Company; and, if so, why is Mr. Harbisson, solicitor, of Magherafelt, allowed to charge conveyancing fees to Mr. James Convery, a purchasing tenant on the same estate; and will the Land Commission see that the terms of agreement are carried out by the delivery, without cost to Mr. Convery, of the conveyancing order now held in lieu of fees by Mr. Harbisson?

As I have said, in answer to a previous question, the vendors did, in accordance with agreement, pay the expenses of carrying out the conveyance. But the purchasing tenant referred to employed a solicitor to examine the conveyancing order, for which a charge of 10s. 6d. was made, and is recoverable from the purchasing tenant.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the conveyancing order was delivered to the solicitor, who refused to give it up?

The Land Commissioners report that according to the endorsement on the agreement they delivered the order to Mr. Harbisson, and they know nothing more about it.

But I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say the statement in the question is correct—that the expenses of conveyancing were to be borne by the company?

As I have stated, the Land Commission forwarded the order to the solicitor, whose name was endorsed upon it.

But why is Mr. Harbisson allowed to charge fees against the tenant when the company undertook to pay the cost?

It was arranged between the purchaser and the Drapers' Company that the latter should pay the cost of conveyancing; but, in addition to that, the purchaser employed a solicitor to examine the conveyancing order on his behalf.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total number of Roman Catholic inmates in the Belfast Workhouse who are chargeable on the poor rates; what is the total number of the official staff employed by the Board of Guardians; what number of the official staff are Roman Catholics, and what offices do they fill respectively; and whether he can say if any, and, if so, how many, of the Belfast Board of Guardians are Roman Catholics?

I am informed that the number of Roman Catholic inmates in Belfast Workhouse is at present 1,512. The official staff of the Guardians numbers 102. I am not aware that any official record is kept of the religion of the staff or of the Board.

Are not the Board required to have a certain number of Catholic attendants in proportion to the number of Catholic inmates?

I am not aware that there is any special requirement that the Board shall inquire into the religion of their servants.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the religion of the attendants has to be registered as well as the religion of the inmates?

No; I am not aware of that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the military in Ireland are supplied with certain stores, which come under the heading of groceries, by a London firm; whether tenders were advertised for in Ireland; and on what special grounds was the contract for the whole of the Forces in Ireland given to one, and that an English firm?

Unless the hon. Member can give me rather more specific information I cannot answer his question, as it is not known at the War Office to what it refers. Regiments purchase their own groceries where they think best.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, pending a settlement by arbitration of controversial points connected with the Behring Sea seal fisheries, Her Majesty's Government will accede to the wishes of the Government of the United States to renew for the current season the modus vivendi?

A final understanding with the Government of the United States has not yet been arrived at; but negotiations are proceeding with respect to the matters referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the prosecution of Thomas Hamilton, George Ferguson, and John Ferguson, for assaulting Laurence Holly, at Cookstown Petty Sessions, on Friday 11th March; whether he is aware that the alleged assaults were committed during a party disturbance, and that George Ferguson brought cross charges against Laurence Holly and others; will he explain what were the grounds for prosecuting three instead of all the parties engaged in the disturbance; and whether, in view of the fact that the Chairman stated that it was a party case and that one was as bad as the other, can he exercise any discretionary powers which would enable the Fergusons to appeal?

My attention has been called to this matter by the question of the hon Member. As he is aware, the case was fully examined by the Magistrate at considerable length. As a result the Fergusons were sentenced to one month's imprisonment for the assault and bound over to keep the peace for six months. George Ferguson brought a cross summons for assault which was dismissed on its merits. He complained that he and his brother were assaulted by the police, but he did not know by whom, and no action was taken by the police. I am informed that the Chairman did not say that the "one case was as bad as the other." I have no power to take the course suggested in the latter part of the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether non-commissioned officers in Her Majesty's Service can evade the payment of their just debts, decrees for which have been given by Her Majesty's Courts of Law; and, if not, will he inform the House how such decrees or judgments are to be satisfied?

By the nature of his employment a soldier is useless unless he can be present with his corps; and accordingly the law provides that he may not be arrested or compelled to appear before a Court for a debt of less than £30. The exemption, however, only applies to his person, pay, and equipment, and not to his property, on which a creditor may sue and have execution.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why is it that the historic church of St. Peter ad Vincula, in the Tower of London, is closed against the public, who are not even allowed to approach its outside walls; and whether facilities could be given in future for the inspection of this church?

The church of St. Peter ad Vincula is used daily for Divine service. It is small, plain, and contains but little of public interest. There is only one door, and on free days, when visitors are very numerous, it would be impossible for all to visit the church. On the other hand, a warder is always stationed at the Beauchamp Tower for the express purpose of taking any visitors into the church who may express a wish to see it.

The right hon. Gentleman says this church has little public interest, but there is a difference of opinion on that point. May I ask him to allow greater facilities to visitors who think the church has great historical interest?

A warder is stationed at the Beauchamp Tower to take anyone over the church who wishes to see it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the increase of drinking among the natives in the coast towns of Morocco, arising, as it is alleged, from the absence of almost all restriction and regulation of the liquor traffic; whether it is the fact that the native authorities have no power to interfere, as the countrymen of any of the 14 countries represented in Tangier have only to apply to their respective Consuls to obtain permisson to sell liquor at all hours; and whether Her Majesty's Government would look favourably on proposals which have been made to establish a mixed consular tribunal, to replace the present independent and often conflicting authority of the 14 flags represented at Tangier?

No reports of the character mentioned in the first paragraph have reached the Foreign Office from Morocco. Under the Conventions of 1863 and of 1880 the subjects and citizens of the Powers, who were parties to the latter, enjoy the right of protection in Morocco, and the Moorish authorities might find some difficulty in interfering with the sale of spirituous liquors by such protected persons. Under the Order in Council of 28th November, 1889, power is given to the Consul General to make regulations for certain purposes. The question of the inclusion in such regulations of a power to limit and control the sale of spirituous liquors is now under consideration. Her Majesty's Minister at Tangier has been instructed to bear in mind the question of the establishment of mixed tribunals in Morocco and is giving his attention to the matter.

Has Her Majesty's Minister been instructed to interview the Sultan on the subject?

I do not think that any special instructions have been given to bring this to the notice of the Sultan. Her Majesty's Minister is considering the possibility of establishing mixed tribunals, and if he can see his way to such establishment he will no doubt bring the matter to His Majesty's attention.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, before making any proposition to curtail the grant from the Customs and Excise Duties to the Intermediate Education Board in Ireland, he will take into consideration the fact that the Board's operations have hitherto been circumscribed for want of funds; and whether representations have reached him that any curtailment of the sum placed at the disposal of the Board would seriously injure the cause of higher education in Ireland?

I have received a communication on the subject mentioned, but before making any proposal in regard to the grant, it is the intention of the Government to give the whole matter careful consideration.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether since the grant of £40,000 annually was made to the Board in 1890, the Board have proposed any scheme for the expenditure of their augmented income; and, if not, whether the right hon. Gentleman will request the Board to do so before making any changes in the grant.

Oh, yes. I think they have prepared a scheme, and I rather think it has been laid before Parliament—some revised regulations, I think—but I am not sure. I do not know whether it is possible to give any figures in reference to the subject.

I presume that before proposing to use the money for any other purpose than that for which it was designed the right hon. Gentleman will inform the House how much has been spent on intermediate education?

As I have already said the whole question will be taken into consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the fact that cases exist in which a considerable portion of public opinion does not sanction the punishment of death, but which yet come within the legal definition of murder, he will, on an early day, introduce a Bill to amend the legal definition of murder?

Attempts to amend the definition of murder were made by a Committee of this House in 1874, and by the Royal Commission on Capital Punishments, which reported in 1866. Those attempts were pronounced by the Royal Commissioners who prepared a draft Criminal Code in 1879 to be unsatisfactory. In 1882 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) attempted to frame a Bill amending the definition of murder. He consulted the greatest living authorities, and devoted, much labour to the question; but ultimately, as he informed the House in 1886, he gave up the attempt, as he was satisfied that it could not be satisfactorily accomplished. Warned by these examples, I do not propose to introduce on an early day a Bill on this subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if any representations under the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1891, have been made to the Ballymena Board of Guardians, or to the Local Government Board by labourers in the Poor Law division of Portglenone, and what action has been taken with reference to such representations?

had notice of the following question:—To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, how many, representations under the Labourers' Acts (Ireland), 1883 to 1891, have been presented to the Ballymena Board of Guardians; whether any of these have been made on behalf of and signed by labourers or others living in the Poor Law electoral divisionof Lisnagarron, Union of Ballymena; whether he is aware that numerous deputations of labourers have waited upon the Ballymena Board of Guardians to represent their views in support of these representations; whether any action has been taken by the Board of Guardians; whether the Local Government Board has been required to institute a local inquiry under Section 4 of "The Labourers' (Ireland) Act, 1891;" and what action is proposed to be taken?

With the permission of the House I shall now also reply to Question No. 25, asked by the hon. Member for South Antrim. Representations appear to have been made to the Board of Guardians of the Ballymena Union in respect of the Lisnagarron, Portglenone, and other electoral divisions of the Union, proposing the erection of labourers' cottages. The Guardians appear to have appointed a Committee to visit the districts and to report; and the Guardians are to have a special meeting on the 19th April, to consider the matter. The Local Government Board have within the past few days received complaints from the districts referred to, complaining of the alleged delay of the Guardians in the case. The Board are communicating with the Guardians on the subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman request that an earlier day than 19th April shall be appointed for the consideration of the matter by the Guardians?

Well, I think that if a special meeting has been called for 19th April it would be an unusual course to alter it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state to the House what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to induce the Brazilian Government to improve the sanitary condition of the port of Santos, and for expediting the discharging of vessels at that port; and, if any, and what, steps have been taken to acquaint the mercantile and shipping community of this country of the alarming rate of mortality among British seamen which has already occurred in consequence of the condition of the port of Santos?

Instructions were sent to Her Majesty's Minister at Rio, in October and in February, to bring this matter to the attention of the Brazilian Government, which was accordingly done. Mr. Wyndham was further instructed on the 9th instant to press the matter upon their attention. The insanitary condition of the port of Santos has been made known to the shipping community by the Board of Trade, by notices in the Board of Trade Journal, by means of a notice posted in all the shipping offices, and in other ways.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to his refusal to receive a deputation from the owners and occupiers of land in the district of the River Barrow, for the purpose of bringing under his notice the disastrous effects of the recent Hooding, on the ground that he could not then hope to introduce legislation on the subject this Session, whether the Government will, when opportunity offers, re-introduce the Barrow Drain- age Bill of former Sessions, which was approved of by the owners and occupiers affected?

The ground on which I did not trouble the proposed deputation to see me in regard to the River Barrow drainage was that no preliminary notices were published last year, and, therefore, a measure could not, even if considered practicable, be introduced this Session. As I have stated in reply to a previous question, the Government were anxious to deal with drainage in certain parts of Ireland in a comprehensive manner and, in successive Sessions, took the preliminary steps for the purpose, but they unfortunately failed to secure the co-operation of hon. Members. I do not know if further efforts will meet with a better reception.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what number of rifles were manufactured for the Government at the Small Arms Factories at Sparkbrook, Small Heath, Old Ford, for the years 1884, 1885, 1886, 1887, and 1888 respectively?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I, in accordance with private notice, ask him if he is aware that a sum of over £100,000 was expended on plant at Bow Small Arms Factory in 1888 in order to increase the output and to meet the requirements of the War Office contracts for the new pattern rifle; whether the delivery per week from this establishment, in common with similar factories, has recently been reduced by order of the War Office; and whether, in view of these facts, and having regard to the large number of skilled workmen employed by this private firm in a densely populated district of East London, he will give an assurance that agitation on behalf of Enfield shall not be permitted to override the legitimate claims of private enterprise and of the workmen employed at the Small Arms Factory at Bow?

Before he answers that question I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us who are the owners of the Small Arms Factory at Old Ford?

The rifles made in the establishment at the Small Heath Factory in the years named averaged 18,200 a year, and at Old Ford they averaged 11,600. None were made at Sparkbrook. I am aware that a large sum of money has been expended within the last two years on plant by the Bow Small Arms Factory to enable it to carry out Government contracts. The rate of delivery has recently been reduced under orders from the War Office, as it has been for other similar establishments. The rate now fixed is under the terms of the contract, and I can give the assurance asked for by my hon. Friend. With regard to the question of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fins-bury has given me private notice, I am not able to give him any information.

Can rifles not be turned out more cheaply and more quickly at Enfield than by any private firm; and, in the next place, can they not be made more strongly at Enfield and the work be better done there?

Certainly, Sir, I could not say that the rifles manufactured at Enfield are better than those made by private firms, but we do make them at a cheaper price than is done by the trade.

Then, Sir, what is the reason for giving those private firms these contracts? I presume the conditions under which the men Work in private factories are not equal to those under which they work in Government factories?

I should like the right hon. Gentleman to add something to his previous reply, and to state specifically whether, when he says that the rifles manufactured at Enfield are cheaper than those manufactured by private firms he has taken into account all the money expended at Enfield in the way of capital for plant, and so forth.

Yes, Sir; that is so. Everything that can fairly be taken into consideration has been taken, and, comparing the ordnance factories with the private trade, the former turn out the rifles cheaper. With regard to the question of the hon. Gentleman opposite, I am afraid I could not answer it without going into greater explanation than is ordinarily permitted in answer to a question. But, Sir, on four or five occasions I have already explained to the House that it is the policy of the Government now, as it always has been, to keep a certain amount of private trade available, in order that when some sudden emergency arises we may be able to get some arms from private factories, as well as from the ordnance factories.

Is it not a fact that within the last two or three months a large number of men have been discharged from the Small Arms Factory; and how does the right hon. Gentleman make that fact agree with his statement that it is necessary to give contracts to private firms, in order that sufficient rifles may be obtained in cases of emergency?

Some men have been discharged; but, as I have already explained, they have been discharged equally by all establishments employed by the Government for the manufacture of rifles.

Then, Sir, in reference to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I would wish to ask whether he would have any objection to allowing a Committee to investigate the comparative cost of rifles manufactured in private establishments and those manufactured in Government factories.

I shall, of course, be very glad indeed to give the right hon. Gentleman all the information at my disposal. If, after receiving that information, the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is not satisfactory, I would be perfectly ready to consider whether any further steps should be taken in the direction which he suggests.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consent to the preparation of a Return which could be laid upon the Table showing how many Members of the House are persons interested in private firms employed by the Government for the manufacture of arms?

I am afraid, Sir, that is an inquiry to which I could not agree. If similar steps were taken with reference to all the contracts into which the Government enter they would, I fancy, supply some very curious results.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any allowance has been made in the Estimates for the current year for the Royal Naval Volunteers under the proposed transference from naval to military control; and, if so, what sum; and whether any of the corps or men have applied to be enrolled under the new conditions?

No special provision has been made in the Army Estimates for these corps; there were no means of making any such Estimate. Four corps have made inquiries as to the terms on which they could join the Submarine Miners; and one corps made a direct offer of their services, which, unfortunately, could not be accepted, as the locality did not admit of Submarine Miners.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether complaints have reached him from working men of the powers granted under the Act empowering agents to summon witnesses in cases where remuneration for time, &c., can only be obtained if the pursuer is successful; and whether he will take1 into consideration the introduction of such an amendment to the existing Act as to render the attendance of witnesses compulsory only when in any case reasonable allowance is made for their time and outlays?

The newspaper paragraph which the hon. Member sent to me is the only intimation I have had of the existence of any dissatisfaction in regard to the present practice of summoning witnesses. I do not see my way to recommend an alteration in the procedure. The question relates mainly, if not entirely, to persons suing in forma pauperis. In such cases it would amount to a denial of justice if the pursuer were obliged to pay his witnesses beforehand for their time and outlays.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is now able to say when the evidence taken by Lord Wantage's Committee will be distributed to the Members of the House?

The Secretary to the Committee has not yet completed the revision of the proofs, and until he has done so it is impossible to have the copies printed off and circulated. The volume is very bulky, containing more than 700 pages.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Perry, chief clerk in the office of the Collection of Rates, Dublin, lately appointed to "temporarily discharge" the duties of the vacant office of Collector General, has assumed the style and title of "Collector General of Rates" in all documents issuing from the office; and whether, in consequence, the senior first-class clerk is seeking promotion to the office of chief clerk, as if Mr. Perry had vacated that office and had been appointed Collector General; whether Mr. Perry retains the place of chief clerk, and that the Collector Generalship is vacant; and whether Mr. Perry will be instructed to describe himself as "Collector General pro tem," or "Acting Collector General," in accordance with the provisional arrangement?

Mr. Perry is discharging temporarily the duties of Collector General of Rates in Dublin. The warrant of appointment is absolute in its terms, as we were advised that this was necessary. His Excellency has delayed making a permanent appointment in order to afford the Dublin Corporation the opportunity of saying whether they desire to take over the collection of the municipal rates under the Act of 1890. We have not yet heard the decision of the Corporation, but we shall probably do so very shortly.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury who is the Principal and Actuary in the War Office who also holds the position of Superintendent of the Irish Teachers' Pension Office, receiving in respect of the former office about £900 a year, and of the latter £200; how he divides his time between the War Office and the Pension Office; and whether, considering what is stated in the Treasury Memorandum in regard to the state of the Pension Fund, the superintendence of the Fund will still be left in the hands of an official who is responsible for the valuation of 1885, and whose primary and principal duties are in the War Office?

In reply to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I beg to refer him to Thom's Official Directory, page 786. There is no division of time prescribed. I cannot answer the last question until the Committee of Actuaries has reported.

Considering that the War Office is in London, and that this Pension Office is in Dublin, I should like to know how often the visits of the superintendents are made. I should also like to know whether this official in 1885 reported a surplus in the Pension Fund of £190,000, and this year reports a deficit of a like amount, and whether Ireland is to be fined in that sum?

Until the Committee of Actuaries has reported it would be unfair to express my opinion.

I will take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to this matter, and submitting that this gentleman should no longer hold his office.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to repeated resolutions passed at the Fishery Conferences held in London relative to the wholesale capture and destruction of immature and undersized fish, and to the necessity of legislation for the prohibition of the sale of flat fish below a standard size to be determined by a Select Committee of this House; and whether he will appoint such Committee without delay?

My attention has been called to certain resolutions of the Fishery Conferences and of other bodies on the subject of the capture and destruction of undersized fish, and the matter will be brought up for discussion at the annual statutory meeting of Sea Fisheries Authorities, which will be held at the Board of Trade on the 21st June. After that discussion I shall be in a better position to judge what steps may be desirable in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a speech by Lord Wolseley, reported in the Standard of 16th March, stating that—

"He could put his hand on many barracks in England and Ireland which were a crying disgrace to this great nation. They went on year after year using these barracks, knowing them to be abominable habitations for human beings. The fact had been reported for the last 50 years, but nothing had been done, except by the present Government, who had done a little;"

whether he can specify, or will call upon Lord Wolseley to specify, the particular barracks referred to; and whether the large amount now being expended on barracks will entirely, so far as can be foreseen, remove this state of things; and, if so, within what period of time?

When I saw the paragraph in question, I thought it contained some of those flowers of rhetoric which his fellow-countrymen occasionally employ. But, on referring to a fuller report of Lord Wolseley's speech, I find the paragraph very imperfectly represents what was really said. As regards barracks generally, I have given full information to the House, both as to the urgent cases requiring attention and as to the work that is being done. The amount now being expended on barracks both out of loan funds and out of annual Estimates, though it will not suffice to re-build all our barracks, will practically remove the evils specially brought to my notice.

Yes, Sir; but I want to know whether barracks that are in an insanitary condition are being attended to, and whether no troops will be sent there until they are put into proper sanitary repair?

Yes, Sir; certainly.

Will the right hon. Gentleman find out what Lord Wolseley really did say?

The hon. Baronet has the same means of information on that point as I have.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his promised statement, showing in what manner the recommendations of the Royal Commission with respect to the Civil Service have been dealt with, will be laid upon the Table before the Votes are taken which are affected by these recommendations?

Yes, Sir; I hope so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that the 21st February being the day fixed for lodging property claims to vote at Poor Law Elections fell upon a Sunday, whether these claims to vote were receivable on Monday the 22nd February; and, as four weeks will have elapsed between 22nd February and 21st March (the day for taking up the claims), whether claims lodged on 22nd February are valid, and if instructions to that effect have been issued by the Irish Local Government Board?

The Statute provides that a calendar month shall elapse between the lodgment of claims and the collection of voting papers. Such a period could not elapse between the 22nd February and the 21st March.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade have refused to sanction the Provisional Order applied for by the Kinsale Harbour Authorities; if so, can he state upon what grounds; and, is he aware that the Local Authorities have applied for the Provisional Order, with a view to be placed in a position to meet heavy instalments due to the Irish Board of Works?

I am aware of the reasons for the application to which the hon. Member refers, but I have been unable to sanction the Provisional Order as proposed by the Harbour Commissioners, on account of the excessive burdens which it would impose on the trade of the port. The matter is, however, still before me, and I hope some satisfactory solution may be arrived at.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if any, and, if so, which, of the relief works that have recently been undertaken in India in presence of famine are directed to provide for the storage of water, or otherwise to alleviate the effects of drought?

The Government has received no detailed list of the particular relief works being carried out in different parts of India. Under the Famine Code a programme of works is drawn up for every district and annually revised; and these programmes would include all such tank and irrigation works as could be undertaken with advantage to the district. In the Madras Presidency Lord Wenlock has from the first commencement of scarcity laid immense stress upon the deepening of old and construction of new wells, to which the energies of his Government have been consistently directed. As early as September, 1891, he reported that 2,800 new wells either had been made or were in course of construction, and these figures have since been greatly increased. Some difficulty is, however, experienced in the rapid extension of wells, owing to the preference of natives seeking employment on relief works for other forms of labour, even on a lower scale of wages, and in some cases to the more highly-trained labour that is required.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how soon the Bill will be introduced for enabling County Councils to contribute towards the cost of inquiries into the administration of charities?

Almost immediately.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of rural parishes in which the Free Libraries Acts have been adopted?

Less than two years ago I caused a circular letter to be addressed to the clerks to the Guardians of the several Unions with the view of ascertaining whether the Free Libraries Acts had been adopted in the rural sanitary districts of those Unions. It appeared from the replies that there was no such case, and I have no information as to the Acts having since been adopted in any case in respect of a parish in a rural sanitary district.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has yet received the official Report of the medical officer of the Local Government Board concerning the series of fatal and other injuries following vaccination, in the County of Norfolk, in the months of March and April, 1890; whether the same will be printed and published in the usual manner, and in accordance with such precedents as those of the injury cases at Misterton in 1876, Norwich in 1882, Sudbury in 1886, New Humberstone in 1889, and others; and whether Mrs. Whiting, mother of one of the fatal cases, has since been prosecuted and fined for the non-vaccination of another child?

The Report of the Inspector, by whom the inquiry referred to was made, was received in May, 1890, and was on the same day forwarded to the Royal Commission on Vaccination. It is proposed to leave it to the Commission to determine whether the Report of the Inspector shall be published in connection with the Report of the Commission. As regards the child of Mrs. Whiting, I find that George Whiting has been proceeded against since for the non-vaccination of a child, and that a nominal penalty of 1s., without costs, was imposed, and was at once paid.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the inquest held on 10 March on the body of Louisa Hunt, aged four and a half months, in which the jury returned a verdict of "Death from septicæmia following vaccination"; whether he is aware that the deceased was vaccinated at the station at Lamb's Conduit Street; whether the lymph employed was the pure calf-lymph supplied by the Government; whether the Royal Commission on Vaccination has been advised of the case; whether any independent medical examination had been made at the instance of the Commission; and whether he will recommend the introduction, at the calf-lymph station, of a fresh supply of pure lymph direct from the cow?

My attention has been called to the inquest in the case of the child Louisa Hunt, and the verdict of the jury. The deceased child was vaccinated at the station at Lamb's Conduit Street on the 9th February last. She was vaccinated directly from the calf, and the lymph was pure calf-lymph cultivated by the Government. The first intimation the Local Government Board had of the case was the receipt of the certificate of the Registrar of Births and Deaths after the inquest had been held. The Board, on the 14th inst., informed the Royal Commission on Vaccination of the certificate which had been received. I learn that the Commissioners had no knowledge of the case until after the inquest had been held and it was impossible to have a medical examination of the body. They are, however, inquiring into the case. The Board are aware of no reason for introducing other pure lymph direct from the cow than that at present cultivated at Lamb's Conduit Street Station.

Do I understand the Local Government Board to guarantee the purity of the lymph supplied?

Yes, Sir. The Local Government Board guarantee that the lymph supplied is pure calf-lymph.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the contention that the fares charged between London and Dover by the so-called Club Trains are not illegal is based on the claim that these trains are special trains for which no maxima are fixed by Act of Parliament, or on the ground that the fares charged are not in excess of the statutory maxima; and, if the latter be the case, whether he will state on which of the special Acts of the respective companies such maxima charges can be founded?

I understand the contention of the companies to be that the fares charged between London and Dover by them are within the statutory maxima, and that the Chatham Company also contend that in their Acts the limitation of fare is confined to ordinary and express, and does not extend to special trains. If a passenger, having a ticket from London to Dover, chooses to travel by the so-called "Club Train," he is charged by the International Sleeping Car Company a further sum for the extra accommodation provided by them, in the supply of special rolling stock and attendance, which is beyond the ordinary accommodation provided in the first-class carriages of the companies. It is, however, a legal question, and it is not for me to express an authoritative opinion upon the matter.

With reference to the Motion standing at the head of the Orders of the Day—Mr. Hastings—Motion for his expulsion—I beg to inform the House that I have received through the Home Office a letter from Mr. Hastings, which I think it my duty to read to the House. It is as follows:—

Sir, I submit that the Order of the Day relating to this subject is, by the mode in which it is framed, a violation of the unbroken practice of the House. It is in these terms—Mr. Hastings—Motion for his expulsion. Now, Sir, I have looked into the Records, and I find that in all previous Orders of the Day having regard to the case of a Member, whether for a copy of the evidence or for the consideration of the evidence by the House or for the expulsion of a Member, the terms have always been placed upon the Order Paper. Therefore, Sir, I submit that, in a matter of this kind, involving not only the right of a Member but also of a constituency, the introduction of a novelty of this kind is inexpedient; and I further submit, on the grounds of convenience and practice, that until the reasons upon which the Notice of Motion for expulsion is based are placed upon the Paper, no action can be taken by the House.

Upon the point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I remind you, Sir, that I did give Notice of the full terms of my Resolution? I do not know by what accident the full terms do not appear upon the Paper.

Sufficient notice has been given and the usual course has been followed. But I may remind the hon. Gentleman that expulsion has taken place without the grounds being previously placed upon the Paper. This is not an Order of the Day, but a question of Privilege, which is fixed before the Orders of the Day, and the hon. Gentleman will recollect that I did not call upon the Clerk at the Table to read the Orders of the Day. The whole of the circumstances of this case are before the House.

May I remind you, Sir, that the terms of a Resolution of expulsion have always appeared upon the Orders of the Day?

I beg the hon. Member's pardon; that is not so.

Mr. Speaker, the letter which you, Sir, have just read from the Chair renders a painful duty even more painful than it would otherwise have been; but I apprehend it will not and ought not to modify the course which the House has always taken in questions of this kind. Therefore, Sir, without further preface, I beg to move, "That Mr. George Woodyatt Hastings be expelled this House."

I should not have intervened in this matter but for a special point raised by the letter of Mr. Hastings; but I think as the right hon. Gentleman has a point which may be called one of difficulty to confront, and in respect of which some doubt may be entertained by some hon. Members, I ought to give my opinion upon it. It did, I own, appear to me, as regards the first paragraph of that letter, that it was a plea which it is hardly possible for us in any manner to take into view. The second plea, however, is a perfectly legitimate one for Mr. Hastings to submit to the judgment of the House. Yet I think the right hon. Gentleman has arrived at a right conclusion when he says that it is not possible that a plea of this kind, however much it may appeal to our feelings, can be allowed to affect the course to be taken by the House in a question of this nature. I concur, therefore, with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that the fact that Mr. Hastings has rendered special services to the House in a manner which I believe to have been useful does undoubtedly enhance the pain with which we must all enter into a transaction of this kind, and must increase the regret that we all feel that we have no option except to resort to a measure which is in itself severe, but which it is most necessary we should adopt for the sake of the Public Service and for the maintenance of the honour of this House.

I object, Sir, to the form of this Resolution. I think it is necessary for the protection of Members, under circumstances which can be easily imagined, and which may possibly arise, that in the Resolution, which is the instrument of expulsion, a clear statement of the case should be set forth. That course has been pursued in every case, with the single exception of that of Captain Verney. In the case of Mr. Sadleir, there was set forth in the Resolution a full explanation of the reasons for the expulsion. That precedent was followed in the case of Mr. De Cobain; and, Sir, I think I shall have your concurrence that in a matter involving the right of a constituency, and in the case of a Resolution that may be referred to hereafter, it is manifestly convenient that the House should state in the Resolution the grounds upon which the expulsion was made. Therefore, Sir, I beg to move that after the word "Hastings," these words be inserted—

"Having been convicted on his own confession of having fraudulently converted to his own use property of which he was possessed as trustee."

I would point out that there was no conviction before the House in two of the cases in which action was taken. In the case of Mr. de Cobain there was no conviction, and in the case of Mr. Sadleir there was no conviction. Therefore the reasons for the expulsion had to appear in the Resolution. In the case of Captain Verney and in this case there are convictions reported to the House. It is unnecessary to add further pain to this proceeding. The House has already before it, on its Journals, the conviction which has been supplied by the learned Judge. That record will afford to anyone who may in future desire to know the circumstances of the expulsion and the reasons for it an opportunity of learning that there has been no arbitrary expulsion without reason.

As representing a large agricultural popu- lation who may be benefited by this Bill, I would desire to offer some few remarks on the Second Reading of it. In the first place, I would venture to point out to Her Majesty's Government that the particular occasion which they have chosen for the introduction of this Bill is not the best that could have been chosen. It must be a matter of regret that the Government, if they include in the scope of the general agricultural policy which they have been maturing this question of small holdings—it is a matter of regret that they did not afford an earlier opportunity for the discussion of this important question. This Parliament is possibly—I should almost say certainly—in its last Session; and I venture to think in a moribund Parliament, whose Members are more busy with platform speeches and with electioneering addresses than even with the Business of this House, however important—I think that this is scarcely an Assembly in which it is most fitting and most fortunate to bring forward a Bill of such far-reaching importance as this might be in the agricultural districts, unless, indeed, we are to understand that this Bill is merely part of an electioneering programme put forward for electioneering purposes and for little else. I do not for a single moment hold that view of the position of the Government in the matter. I think, and seriously hope, that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture and hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent constituencies in large rural districts, bring forward this measure with the earnest hope and for the purpose of benefiting their constituents in the rural districts. But I am bound to say that is not the opinion of some of their supporters in the Press and out of the House, because I read a leading article in the Times newspaper this morning, in which it is said this Bill is an experiment merely brought forward to outbid the promises of Liberals and Radicals in rural constituencies, and that Unionists need not trouble themselves whether it succeed or fail. And the article proceeds—

"Experiment however hopeless and however foredoomed to failure is political capital while it lasts."

Therefore, it is quite obvious that in the opinion of the Times newspaper this Small Holdings Bill is merely brought forward for election purposes on the eve of the General Election. I merely quote these words from the Times to emphasise and point out how inconvenient, in my humble judgment, the present opportunity is for bringing forward this matter. And certainly, by so doing, the Government lay themselves open to the criticism not only of their opponents, but of their old supporter and friend the Times newspaper to the effect that they have brought the Bill forward for electioneering purposes. Apart from this very general reason, there is one special reason, in my judgment, why this time is not well chosen for bringing forward this Bill, and why the Government, considering they have been six years in office, should have brought it forward at an earlier date. We have certainly had plenty of opportunities in the last two or three years for the Government to bring in a Bill of this description. We have wasted two or three years in discussing various Tithes Bills, one of which, in the opinion of its authors, was unworkable, and had to be withdrawn. The Government might, during the last two or three years, have taken some opportunity of bringing forward this important question, which should have been thrashed out in this House in a businesslike and statesmanlike manner, and so have led to a solution of the great problem of the Land Question at the present time. But I have a definite and distinct reason why I want to find fault with the Government for bringing forward the Bill at the present moment, and for not having taken an earlier opportunity of doing so. That is that the County Council electors should have had some chance of considering the matter. The Government might certainly very well have taken an opportunity of bringing in this measure before last March, so that the County Council electors might have had some opportunity of considering this subject, which is of such very great importance to them. The Government must know and must feel it to be a most important factor, in the success or failure of their Bill, that not only the County Councils, but every individual County Council elector, whose opinion might be against the creation of small holdings, should have an opportunity of expressing that opinion, and that those opinions would undoubtedly have a great influence on the success or failure of the measure which the right hon. Gentleman has put before the country. I certainly think it was the duty of the Government, seeing it was proposed that the County Councils should have the administration and carrying out of this measure, to have brought it forward at an earlier day, so that it might have been in the hands of the electors in the country with whom lies the election of County Councillors. I think the country, and especially the rural districts, have great cause of complaint against Her Majesty's Government, that they did not, having been six years in office, and having made up their minds that the County Councils were to have the working of this Bill, bring it forward at an earlier date, and not have waited until after the election of County Councils had taken place before putting this Bill into the hands of the electors of the country. Although there are many details in this measure which I do not entirely agree with, and some which I decidedly welcome as legislation, those details appear to me to be much more fitting for discussion in Committee; and therefore I hope that in Committee, which may be presently, there will be afforded us an opportunity of thrashing out the details of the Bill. But there are two principles that are so vital to the Bill that they are fit and proper subjects to be dealt with on the Second Reading, and I shall briefly refer to those two subjects. The two subjects are, first, the Local Body which is to have the administration of this measure; and, secondly, the permissive character of the legislation and the absence of compulsion. In my humble judgment, unless these two very important and vital details are amended in this Bill, the measure, so far as I know, in the rural districts, will be absolutely of no use, and not even worth the paper on which its provisions will be placed. With regard to the Local Body by which the provisions of this measure are to be carried out, we find by Section 4, Sub-section 2—

"That any one or more of these County Council electors may present a petition to the Council of their county alleging that there is a demand for small holdings in the county, and praying that this part of the Act may be put in operation."

It is well-known with reference to County Councils in rural parts they, in the vast majority of instances, meet at places very distant from the residences of some of the electors. Take the County of Essex, with the town of Chelmsford 30 or 40 miles distant from where some of the electors are. These remote districts are districts in which the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, if carried out, would be of great value. And I may say, not only is the district to which I refer situated 30 or 40 miles off, but there is no railway in connection with it. And I may say, in reference to that part of the country, that the people there who desire to do business with the County Council would do far better to come up to London and go back to Chelmsford than to travel across country. According to this Bill, the electors living in this district, and who presumably are poor men, will have to take a most expensive journey some 30 or 40 miles in order to present their petition to the Committee of the County Council. And, after all, the County Council have to satisfy themselves that the petition is presented in good faith and on reasonable grounds. Well, it is quite obvious to me that the County Council will not be able to satisfy themselves of the good faith of the petitioners, and that their petition is presented on reasonable grounds without some inquiry; the County Council may make some objection; they may have to send the petition back again, and it may have to be inquired into. And so it may happen that those two or three electors, who have already borne considerable expense, may have to repeat their journey. I contend it is obvious that unless you create District Councils or Parish Councils, so that it may be possible for the immediate locality to apply to them, this Bill will be of no service in such districts as the one I have pointed out, and which, in my opinion, is similar to other districts. It will be of no service to any of those people who do not reside in the immediate neighbourhood of the County Council, which has to determine the good faith on which these petitions are founded. Therefore I venture to think that, unless District Councils are brought in, or some similar bodies, this measure as it now stands, with reference to County Councils, will certainly be of no benefit to the population. With reference to the second point—namely, the permissive character of the Bill, I venture to think that the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of the Bill will hear a great deal more about that before we get the Bill through Committee, and certainly before the Bill passes into law. It certainly is not necessary to go deeply into that point, and I will not deal with it at any length, because there are in the House many abler men than myself, and who, in fact, on previous occasions, both in the House and out of the House, have shown the absolute necessity that exists for some principle of compulsion in order to make a measure of this description workable in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings), who has been a great champion of small holdings, has often declared in this House the principle that compulsion is absolutely necessary in any measure of this description; and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) has brought it forward in even stronger language, and has thus championed the principle which has been so often expressed on this subject. There is one question on which I should like to have some answer from the Government. It appears to me that the demand for land will almost certainly come from those districts in which the landlords for the moment are net prepared to give the land or sell the land. If a landlord at the present moment is willing to sell land or to give land, this Bill may be usefully worked by the County Council for the good of the country and of the rural districts; but where the landlords will not sell what is to be done? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how he will meet such a position of affairs as I have described? The right hon. Gentleman told us there was a great deal of land in the market, and that landlords would be only too willing to sell their land. I agree with him that there is plenty of land in the market, but what sort of land? I am perfectly well aware that there is a deal of bad land in the market, and that landlords who possess land in the country would be exceedingly glad if Her Majesty's Government afforded an opportunity to part with this land at the highest price they could get. But, if you are going to make the Bill a success, you must provide for small holdings of good land, and not for the mere rubbish which exists in large quantities in that part of the world of which I am myself most cognisant. I therefore think we should apply the principle of compulsion, and that it will be received with great welcome. I should be sorry if some speakers throughout the country, who may be more intemperate in their language than I shall be, should hold up this Bill as a measure for providing landlords with an opportunity of getting rid of their bad land. In my humble opinion, without pledging that administrative body the District Council or any similar body, we should be able to accept this Bill with the principle of compulsion to enable you to force landlords to sell their land in districts where they now refuse to do so, and also to enable you to obtain land in sufficient quantity for agricultural purposes. Without that provision this Bill now before the House would be of no use whatever for the purposes for which it is intended. Still, I intend to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. And I will tell you why—not because I believe that in its immediate effect it will be of the smallest use to the country, for as far as I can see, without the two things I have specified, the Bill will be an absolute failure. It is not on account of immediate benefit that I should vote for the Bill, but because of its value for Radical legislation in the future. I know that the introduction of any measure like this by a Tory Government, supported by Tory Gentlemen opposite, will be of the greatest value to us in future, in order to convince the country of the benefits of these principles, the combining of Liberal principles and the prosecution of Radical ideas, and it will, moreover, force the hands of the Liberal Leaders in the future who may not be willing to go quite so far along the Radical road, in regard to land reform, as we could wish. These are considerations which I have not the slightest doubt have been well weighed by Her Majesty's Government, by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and the Tory Party in the country. For my part, I welcome this Bill on that account. I welcome many clauses in it, and I shall welcome the whole Bill if it contain the principle of compulsion and provision for District Councils. Though I hold it, as it at present stands, to be of no absolute value to the constituencies as a whole, I welcome it because I see a motive power by which Radical ideas will be driven along in future further than they would have been if the right hon. Gentleman had not offered us this Bill. In my opinion right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are simply playing the Radical game, because it must be quite obvious to everyone in this House that measures which contain Liberal principles like this Bill, and which are brought forward by a Tory Government, supported by Tory Members and the Conservative constituencies of the country, must go very far to produce more sweeping measures than could possibly be obtained under any other circumstances. For these reasons I shall certainly vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.

I cannot, Sir, agree with the opinion that because the present Parliament is drawing to a close it is right, simply for that reason, to oppose a useful measure. Last year the general principle of this Bill was unanimously adopted by both sides of the House. Last year the present Parliament was at least one year less moribund than it is just now; and surely, after that general expression of opinion from both sides of the House, it was not only desirable, but it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Agricultural Department in this House to introduce a Bill in correspondence with the expressed views of Parliament. I wish sincerely to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, and I would ask the indulgence of the House whilst I make a few observations with reference to the criticism which has been offered both during the Debate on the First Reading and with reference to what has just been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite, though he has, in reality, only quoted that Debate. The general intention of this measure, and the economic advantages at which it aims, seemed to be so commonly agreed upon on each side during the Debate on the First Reading that there ceased almost to be any Debate on the scope of the principles of the Bill, and the Debate became one on details. The extension of Small Holdings was, in the words of the Committee, a matter of national importance, on which it was desirable that Parliament should interfere. On this the House seemed to be practically unanimous, and the only difference seems to be now how those principles can be most efficiently brought into practice, the policy on both sides of the House having been agreed upon. The question as to whether the Bill should be compulsory or not seems to be almost the only contested point on the Second Reading of the Bill. There is, at least, one prima facie argument which was entirely neglected, during the Debate on the First Reading, against compulsion, and that is that the Select Committee who considered the Bill almost unanimously decided against it. That Committee, admitted on all hands to have been a competent and impartial Committee, gathered the most exhaustive evidence, and reached the most deliberate conclusions. What are the arguments against such a decision? The mass of them are grounded on a kind of reiteration of the evidence on which the Committee itself decided. We are told there will not be enough land in the market, and that if there is the landlords will not sell it, which is in itself a somewhat illogical position. All the evidence goes against both contentions. That there is land and to spare in the market is shown by every newspaper we read. But whether landlords will or will not part with their land is a matter of opinion till it is tested by experience. That may be so with respect to the larger estates, but my opinion is that there is a large class of smaller landowners who are willing to part with a small portion of their estate. That, however, they are unable to do at present, because the class of buyers who are anxious to purchase small plots have no capital to buy with. This Bill will provide the capital, and so, I believe, without any compulsion at all, will not create but render operative that demand for land for which the supply is already waiting. We are told that the principle of compulsion should be put in the Bill, not so much with a view to its active operation as with the view to its influence in the background. The same suggestion was made with regard to the Allotments Bill, and the principle was adopted. The Bill produced satisfactory results; but when hon. Gentlemen opposite hear that the number of allotments has largely increased since the passing of the Act, and that most of the purchases were made by voluntary arrangement, they say the Act is a fraud and a failure. So that hon. Gentlemen, while urging the adoption of the principle in this Bill for the sake of its influence, deny in a similar case that that influence has been of any use at all. This Bill is admitted to be an experimental measure; is it, then, worth while to introduce any vexatious or alarming elements into it? It is possible, and, I think, probable, that it may succeed without compulsion. From listening to the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite on the First Reading of the Bill, one might have supposed that there was a vast choice of popularly-elected bodies to whom the powers under the Bill could be entrusted, and that the only difficulty was to make a happy choice. But at present there are only two such bodies—the County Council and the Board of Guardians or Sanitary Authority. We can fancy the reception which would be given to the proposal to utilise the Boards of Guardians; but the suggestion of the County Council—the only alternative—which is popularly elected on the principle of one man one vote, is received in very much the same way. District and Parish Councils are dinned into our ears, but it is worse than useless to talk about what does not exist. The question of District Councils will probably have to wait some time, and that of the Parish Councils even longer. Is this Bill to be hung up until these Councils are created? But even if the County Council be the only body to which these powers could be entrusted, I believe it would be the best fitted for the purpose. The Committee to carry out the provisions of the Bill must possess three qualifications—they must have local knowledge, credit, and impartiality. Credit and impartiality may, at least, be attributed to the County Councils in larger measure than they would be possessed by the District Councils, from the mere fact that the County Councils command a larger source of income and are less likely to be affected by local influences and parochial jealousies. With respect to the requisite amount of local knowledge, that will be secured by appointing on the Committee the Councillor for the electoral division in which holdings are situated, and by having two allotment managers drawn from the same district; and the Bill provides that three out of the five members of the Committee in Clause 4 shall be men possessing special local knowledge. Supposing these powers were thrown on the Parish Councils—as to the nature or constitution of which we have no more information than of the nature and constitution of an Irish Parliament—of all conceivable areas I cannot conceive one less desirable. Parishes vary in area from 40,000 acres to 80 acres; but even then they have not the merit of stable conditions. Do hon. Gentlemen mean the ecclesiastical parish? If not, what do they mean? Do they mean the Ecclesiastical parish, the Poors Law parish, the Highway parish, the Land Tax parish, or the Burial parish? What the agricultural labourer understands by the parish is the ecclesiastical parish in which he lives; and if in the Bill introduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite dealing with these Councils, hon. Gentlemen mean something different, another term should be used. The right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) said that the Council of his own county represented an area too large for this Bill; but it would be easy to quote a hundred parishes Councils for which would be absurd. There are parishes in my own county ranging from one ratepayer to six. Is it to such a preposterously small parish you propose to give powers under the Bill of voting and raising loans? What credit would that parish have with the Public Works Loan Commissioners? In such a parish the excess of local knowledge would ruin all impartiality—it would stir up every local jealousy and every parochial feud, and would enliven parish life very much as the Communists enlivened the town life of Paris. And when they have all the power to rate and re-rate each other, do you think you will leave the rural population—I will not say more happy and contented—more prosperous than you found them? The County Councils are free from all these inconveniences, and I sincerely trust that, whatever Local Bodies may hereafter be created, the large powers granted under this Bill will be left in the hands of the County Councils. There is one point which I think we shall hear much more about in Committee, and on which I do not think the Bill is adequate to meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. J. Collings)—the quitrent or rent-charge. It is argued that a quit-rent gives the community a permanent interest in the land, and in a manner municipalises it, and that it would stimulate the Local Authorities by the prospect of future profit. It is also argued that it would facilitate the enforcement of the limiting conditions of ownership, and prevent the raising of mortgages. There are other ways of preventing mortgages—by injunction of the County Court, and by the statutory forfeiture of the holding of a defaulting owner, and yet more effectively by a system of registration. I think you will find few mortgagees to advance money on land in the presence of those safeguards. On the other point I cannot bring myself to believe that the prospects of their own or their neighbours' descendants receiving a few pounds a year some time hence will do much to stimulate the imagination of a large body of ratepayers; whereas the prospect of paying those few pounds a year for ever will do a great deal to discourage the would-be small holder. If, in addition to all the other limita- tions, they have an endless annual charge to be punctually and relentlessly levied, whatever the rise or fall in prices or values, I cannot but fear that those in whose interests the Bill is promoted will be deterred from accepting advantages which, without those discouragements in prospect, they would gladly lay hold of. The Bill, so far as I understand, gives the County Council practically a choice of two methods; and by that plan more elasticity will be given to the Bill, and wider adaptability to different men and different districts. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be firm on that point, and that the Bill will not create a new tenure in a rigid form, and so run the risk of discouraging would-be purchasers. We want to facilitate the access of the labourer to the land; but if you limit and cramp his ownership, however you facilitate the access, the labourer will not go on to the land. The Bill is admitted to be experimental; then why not try it honestly on its own merits? If we are sound in our judgment of the character of the small holder, till the instalments are paid off the conditions of sale will be a sufficient safeguard, and afterwards he would be able to stand on his own legs and fight his own battles. If he prefers a quit-rent, he has, practically, a choice under the Bill. You must leave him to follow what he believes to be his best interests, and no amount of restriction or control will avail to save him, because with restrictions and control he will not take the land, and so will not put himself in a position to be saved. Such restrictions would not only be unfair, but they would be unwise. The small holder will embark his all in the enterprise, and if his property increases in value he will benefit; if it decreases he will lose. If it increases in value the public may resume possession by compulsory re-purchase; if its value goes down the public will not interfere. We hear a great deaf about the unearned increment of landed property, but very little about the undeserved detriment in its value, which I believe is the far commoner tendency. Will hon. Members, who are so eager to re-purchase when the value increases, be as eager to purchase if the value decreases? If Parliament really desires to create a large body of small holders, it will be acting unfairly to them and unwisely in view of its own ends if it imposes on these holders checks, controls, and interferences which have never in the history of the country been imposed on landowners before. The questions of settling the price; whether the holdings shall be real or personal property; and buildings are rather questions for Committee than for a Second Reading Debate, but on the question of buildings I should like to say a word. If the experiment is to be fairly tried, I think it would be a pity to damage a large and generous scheme by stinting a small but absolutely essential portion of it. I see no reason why discretionary powers should not be given to the County Councils to lend money for the erection of buildings, which would be more likely to meet the requirements of the owner if erected by himself than if erected by the County Council. There are two small suggestions I should like to make to the right hon. Gentleman before I sit down. The first is a scheme which appears complicated, but is in fact simple, for bringing in all parts of the country small portions of land suitable for the purposes of the Bill into the hands of the Local Authorities. My suggestion is that the successor to landed property should have the option of compounding for the Succession Duty by payment in kind—that is to say in land. At present the successor to landed property has to pay the duty in money, which often he does not possess; and, though four years are allowed for payment, he has frequently to borrow or raise the money on mortgage, frequently at a cost equal to the amount of the tax itself. I would suggest that he should be allowed to offer to the County Council land suitable for the purposes of the Bill at a price 10 per cent. below the actual valuation. The Council could accept or reject as it saw fit. If it accepted the land would pass into the hands of the Council for payment of Succession Duty, and would be credited from the Local Authority to the Treasury under the same conditions as a debt is credited under this Bill. Thus universality would be one of the advantages, and land for small hold- ings would gradually become attainable. Two or three clauses might be easily introduced into the measure to meet the whole case. I will make one other suggestion, and that is on the question of title. The importance which the Select Committee attached to that subject was shown in their Report. The House will remember that in the Bill introduced last Session by the Member for Bordesley (Mr. Collings) a very complete and elaborate system of registration of title was provided for, but I doubt whether that could have been rendered practically effective without incurring great expense. The provisions of the present Bill may produce results equally complex and expensive, and the only allusion to title was a section of Clause 5, which sets forth that the County Council, before purchasing, shall require a satisfactory title, and, having given that title to the purchaser, shall be liable to an action for damages if that title turns out bad. There are two ways of investigating a title: It may be investigated on the spot, which is the cheaper method, or it may be thoroughly and fully investigated up to the 40 years' limit, a process which incurs very heavy expense, and must enormously increase the price at which the holding can be re-sold. Moreover, there is no provision made in the Bill for the registration of title when it has been investigated. In this non-registration I would point out there is always the danger of the question being re-opened, and the most serious complications arising out of the re-settlement. I would suggest that there is a Government Department, very little known and very little used—the Land Registration Department—which would investigate a title and register it. Once so registered, that title would be proved against all possible risk of any action for damages. A duplicate register would be kept by the Land Registration Department and by the County Council, and in every succeeding transfer of the land the mere entering of the transaction in the two registers would be the legal form necessary to complete the sale. It is true that if the operation of the Act became extended the present staff of the Land Registry might prove to be insufficient, but I would point out that the question of registration is of very great importance. I would urge that whenever a County Council gives a title it should be registered and an absolutely Parliamentary title given to the new occupier. I beg to thank the House for the patience with which they have listened to me, but I cannot help feeling that this Bill is the most important proposal in the programme of the Government. I believe if it meets with even a moderate measure of success that it will go some way not only to remove a great source of national danger, but will create a still greater source of national strength. I believe it will assist to fill up the waste districts in the country, and will relieve the congestion of the large towns, and will confer a large and lasting benefit on an uncounted number of agricultural labourers. This is not a Bill which gives any petty temporary advantage to either party, and I am convinced that the House will never regret passing a measure which will increase the prosperity of our common country

I confess I am very glad to see this Bill brought in, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having brought it in. I only consider it as a step, but certainly a step in the right direction. I suppose I ought to be crushed by the remark made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Cust) as to the finding of the Committee on Small Holdings, but it has not altered my opinion as to the necessity of the principle of compulsion being included in this measure. I am not an agricultural labourer, but, at the same time, I happen to have the honour of knowing a large number of labourers and small holders, and I venture to think that the right hon. Gentleman would have done better had he faced his colleagues and introduced into his Bill the principle of compulsion. I think I know the reason why the principle to which I attach so much importance is not included, and that is that the relations of the right hon. Gentleman with his tenantry are of the very cordial and generous character which we should expect from our knowledge of him, and, therefore, he cannot conceive that there are such anomalies in Eng- land at the present day as landlords who will not let to small holders or agricultural labourers. This Bill has been described as experimental; then let us have another experiment—the principle of compulsion. I do not think there is any likelihood of anyone on this side of the House opposing this Bill. We accept it as a small instalment of what we want in the way of rural reform, and we accept it with the clear understanding that we are not debarred from doing that which in us lies to make it a workable Bill, which will do good in the country districts. I must say that I cannot help feeling that this Bill would have been better if it had been more drastic in one respect; and in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on having come to see the necessity for small holdings—which I think on a former occasion he did not quite see—I hope that as his eyes have been opened in one particular, they may also be opened so that he may see the necessity for compulsion.

As representing a constituency mainly agricultural, I beg to thank the Government for the introduction of this Bill, which shall have my cordial support. I am quite sure this is an honest endeavour on the part of the Government, and I would ask Members to contrast the conduct of the Government with that of the other side, which is constantly promising something practical, and yet never does anything. I cannot agree with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gardner), who said that this Government had been in Office for six years and had never done anything for the agriculturist.

I did not say so at all. I referred to this Bill.

The hon. Member for gets two things. He forgets that in that six years the Government have introduced and carried an Allotments Act—a measure which he and his friends may laugh at, but it has been the means of planting the agricultural labourer on the land in many instances. The hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. J. Collings) has stated that the Radical Party have never given a single perch of land to the agricultural labourer; and if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gardner) tells us that we have been in Office six years and have only produced an Allotment Bill for the labourers, I would remind him that the Party to which he belongs have been in Office many years and have not done a single thing yet. But although I believe this to be an honest attempt, yet I am afraid it will not be productive of much good to the agricultural interest, and that it will only lift a small corner of that pall which my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Hermon-Hodge) in moving the Address so eloquently described as hanging over that interest. I fully agree with the principle of increasing the number of occupiers, because I believe that nothing tends to make men more satisfied and less disposed to follow out revolutionary methods. But while I look with satisfaction on the working of the Allotments Act, I must say that I look with considerable doubt on the ability of the small holders to make a living. In the part of the country where I live I know it would be occasionally possible, because we are engaged in fruit culture, which requires small capital, no plant, and not much labour. But even there the very small holders have to live harder and to work harder, and their earnings are probably not greater than those of the average agricultural labourer; and I fail to see, if it is impossible for a farmer with capital to hold up his head, how the labourer without capital can by any possibility do so. In all these attempts to help the labourer and prevent him from leaving the land—proposals some good and some bad, some sensible and some foolish—we ignore the real reason of his unsatisfactory position. The real reason is the low wages which he receives; the reason he gets low wages is agricultural depression; the reason for agricultural depression is low prices; and the reason for low prices is that the country obstinately persists in pursuing a fiscal policy which is rejected and ridiculed by every country except our own. We are in the position of a physician who knows the disease from which his patient is suffer- ing, and knows the remedy other physicians have applied with success to that disease. But he has been all his life opposed to that remedy, and has not the moral courage to own that he is wrong and adopt the methods of his rivals, but continues to use remedies which may alleviate but cannot possibly remove the disease. I am afraid the agricultural interest will continue to feel depression until we come to our senses, and revise our fiscal system.

If the wages are small in the part of the country to which the hon. Member who has just spoken belongs let him go further north, and in the North of England and in Scotland he will find that 18s. is paid in wages as against 10s. in his part of the country, and the reason is that rents are higher. A question has been raised as to the title, but as I understand this Bill the proposal about title is perfectly right. It is that when a County Council gives a farm to a small holder it shall relieve him from all difficulty or anxiety on the score of the title. The County Council takes the whole responsibility, and less could not be expected wherever a Local Authority comes in between the buyer and the seller. Then with respect to the question of registration, the hon. Gentleman will find that he must submit to some restriction in the nature of the estate you carve out of the land. On the subject of compulsion I am aware that the majority of the Select Committee were against the principle being applied, but I do not think we are precluded by that determination of the Committee from introducing the principle in this Bill. It is well known that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), who has prepared and drafted this Report, has all along been in favour of the principle of compulsion; and the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Collings), who has for 20 years supported the principle, supported the proposal on the Committee that compulsion should not be recommended. I do not mention this as a matter of reproach, and I have no doubt they took this action because they desired to see a Small Holdings Bill of some kind, and because half a loaf was better than no bread. Therefore, I do not think that we ought to regard the recommendation of the Committee as necessarily expressing the opinions of the gentlemen who sat on it. But there are reasons why compulsion is needed. In some parts of the country you may get on perfectly well without it, but there are a great many landlords who will not voluntarily part with any of their land. In my own county, for instance, Lord Mansfield will not let a single acre of his land for any purpose; in fact, he even refused to part with a small plot on which it was proposed to erect a police station, the necessity for which was undoubted. I regard the small holder, whose plot is from 4 or 5 up to 15 acres, as the most important man under this measure. I do not wish to say anything about the holders of from 15 to 50 acres, but in the case of the smaller holder you are able to lift the allotment holder one step higher on the ladder. We all know that his small holder must have some other occupation or he will not be able to subsist; and to meet their wants you must have small holdings in small plots diffused throughout the county, and this is the reason for compulsion. You cannot get one vast estate cut up into a variety of pieces; that will not do for those who are to be small holders up to 15 acres. Another reason that I will suggest is one of principle. The whole county is liable to assessment; but if you find in one part a landlord who declines to part with any of his property, you find a section of people who are liable to be called on to pay their share of the expenses of the Act without the smallest chance of ever participating in its benefits. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think I am advocating predatory doctrines when I say something about the price. We do not desire to confiscate the land, but we desire to prevent what we regard as the equivalent of confiscation on the part of some landowners. As an illustration I will mention a case without giving names, in which a landlord, who was receiving 25s. to 30s. an acre for his land, was approached with a view to obtaining a portion of his land for the erection of villas and workmen's dwellings, and he refused to part with a single acre except at a price which was equal to between £10 and £12 a year. There should be a fair process of ascertaining the price by a valuer in the ordinary way. If you do not have compulsory powers, you leave the naming of the price absolutely and without reserve in the hands of the owner of the land. With regard to the Allotments Acts, nobody who has looked into these Acts can doubt that they can be simplified to great advantage, and I cannot understand why these Acts have not been made more simple than they are. As to the question of tenure, I do not think that has been properly understood Nobody, for instance, has found any difficulty with feuing. Then the Select Committee recommended that when the County Council bought land and dealt it out in small lots, a small quit rent should be retained. The President of the Board of Agriculture has departed from that. He has enabled the small holder to pay the full amount of his holding and to acquire the fee-simple in the land. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is accessible on this subject. I feel strongly about this. It is reported that amongst the causes which have produced diminution of small holders near towns, one is that the large capitalists have got on to the land and have bought up the small properties. The temptation has been so irresistible to the small owners that they have been unable to resist the offers of large prices. This is notoriously one of the causes of the diminution. This cause is in operation now as much as ever. Suppose you spend public money to create small holders, and they are able to sell their land, you will have the capitalist coming in and swallowing them up, precisely in the same way as he has swallowed them up in the past. There is in Scotland a process called "lairding," which expresses the process which has been going on. Rich men come into a country side and gradually buy up all the "wee lairds." The small owners will be the prey of the large landowners. There is another result. If the small holder is able to buy land "out and out" under this Bill he becomes free from any restrictions. As soon as the small holder has paid for the land he may proceed to sublet, and the result will be to create a large number of small landlords. It is notorious that the small landlord is a much less practical person to deal with than the large one. There is another point. As soon as the small holders acquire the small holding by the use of public credit they go and sub-divide it. The right hon. Gentleman deprecates the creation of congested districts in England. I do not think that congested districts in England are so dangerous as they are in Ireland. There are so many other occupations in England. At the same time nobody can wish to see congested districts. Then, if we are going to establish small holdings by the use of public credit, which is equivalent to public money, we do not know how soon we may be called upon to use it for other purposes not connected with land. I have always maintained that if we use public credit for the benefit of a particular class of individuals, we must give some other equivalent to the Treasury for the risks they run. In this instance it is the Local Authority that runs the risk. What advantage have you given the Local Authority? In this Bill absolutely nothing. That is not fair to the interest of the community at large. You ought to have some means by which they could get an advantage. It could be done in two ways. One proposal is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley—with which I do not wholly agree—that there should be some quit-rent left at the end of the transaction. My hon. Friend proposed that only one-fourth of the purchase money should be paid by the small holder, and that three-fourths should remain. I, for one, have had my difficulties with my hon. Friend on previous occasions as to this. I think one-fourth is not enough. I do not think a man ought to be restricted to pay one-fourth, but I think there ought always to be left some quit-rent that is payable to the Local Authority after the whole or 70 or 80 per cent. of the purchase money has been paid by the small holder. One other way in which you might give advantage to the Local Authority is by the power of resumption. We are lending public money for a definite purpose, not to create landlords or landowners, but to enable persons to cultivate land more freely all over the country. In the course of eight or ten years the land may become extremely valuable as building land. There is an increment due to the growth of population. There is nothing unfair in saying beforehand to the holders—"If this land should become building land, inasmuch as we gave you facilities to obtain it, we are at full liberty to buy you out at the full price, and we are to have the benefit of the increment." That seems very reasonable. My point is that the Select Committee has recommended all these things. That is a high authority, and we ought not lightly to set it aside. In the first place the Committee say—

"We believe that the objects and advantages of both systems may be combined by a plan which would allow of a periodic reduction of charge until it reached a small proportion of the original amount, when it might be continued at this rate as a perpetual feu or rent-charge. The result would be that the occupier would have constantly in view successive and substantial reductions in his liabilities, and at the end of 50 years he, or his successor, would only be paying a small proportion of the original charge; while the Local Authority at the end of the same period would have nearly repaid their debt to the State, and would be the receivers in perpetuity of a small quit-rent in return for the use of their credit. Your Committee recommend, for the reasons already stated, the adoption of some such scheme as the above in fixing the terms of any loan made by Local Authorities to small owners and cultivators. In the opinion of your Committee, it will be necessary to forbid sub-letting and sub-division of the holding in order to prevent the creation of a new class of small landlords. The power of mortgaging should be restricted to a mortgage of the whole property which must be disposed of, if at all, as a whole, and subject to the conditions of the grant."

Then the Committee

"also recommend the adoption of the provisions of the Small Holhings Bill, by which the Local Authority is empowered to resume possession of the property for public purposes, or for building land, on payment of full compensation based on its value as an agricultural occupation. This right must be reserved to prevent the use of the land from being restricted to agricultural purposes where it may be required for the extension of towns and villages, and by this means what is called the 'unearned increment' will be divided between the occupier and the community; that is to say, that any increase in value arising from improved communications or enhanced price of produce will go to the occupier, while the benefit of a change which would convert agri- cultural into town land, and which is wholly due to the extension of the population, would go to the district in which such an extension has taken place."

That is a strong recommendation, and it is supported by a large majority of the Committee. At one time I thought the President of the Board of Agriculture himself was in sympathy with this recommendation, and that he would have assented to it being incorporated in the Bill. Finally the Committee say—

"Your Committee are aware that the imposition of these conditions may militate somewhat against the acceptance of the terms offered; but as the State and the Local Authority are called upon to offer unexampled facilities to one class in the community, they consider that they are fully justified in insisting on all the conditions necessary to protect the interests of the rest of the population, and to secure the permanency of the system which they have assisted to establish."

I desire to press the second point on the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. The point of compulsion will be pressed from this side of the House; but we will not press it in any obstructive spirit, because we all desire to see the Bill pass. I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot accept the recommendation of the Committee with regard to tenure. We are all anxious to make the Bill as good a measure as we can; and I, therefore, hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep his mind open upon these questions.

In answer to my hon. Friend who has just sat down, I can only say that compulsion, if it had been introduced into the Bill in the first instance, would have prevented it passing. The hon. Gentleman hardly knows what the difficulties of compulsion may be. We have not yet experienced what the County Councils might do with regard to the purchase of land. If my hon. Friend will only wait patiently and see how the Act works; if it is found that large landlords like those he has named are unwilling, and will not part with their land, I have no doubt in times to come there would be a case for some consideration in regard to the principle of compulsion. But, at the present moment, I think it would be a most unwise thing to place compulsion in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman also said that it was absolutely necessary that a man should have some other occupation.

On the smaller holdings under 15 acres.

Quite so, under 15 acres. Holdings under ten acres would be let by the County Council. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. H. Gardner) made out that his part of the country was the most benighted that could possibly be.

I never said anything of the kind.

The House must judge for itself whether the hon. Member did not convey that impression. He said a man might have to walk 40 miles. That meant there were no railways. He evidently forgot there was such a thing as a Post Office, and that a petition signed by a certain number of voters might be placed in the Post Office, and sent to the Clerk of the County Council, who would lay it before the next Council meeting. The suggestion of my hon. Friend with regard to the tenure of land is a good one, and I hope it will receive the favourable consideration of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. As to title, my hon. Friend the Member for the Stamford Division did good service in pointing out how the Land Registry Office might be made useful in registering the title; and if, as suggested, it was also registered by the County Council, it should be a good title for anyone. I believe that people at the present day take a more lenient view with regard to what is necessary with respect to title. The tenure of land for a number of years, without anyone making claims upon it, naturally justifies a man in believing that the property is indisputably his own. My right hon. Friend, in his speech in introducing the Bill, said it was an experiment, but one that ought to be made. We all feel it is an experiment which ought to be made, and we venture to hope and believe that the experiment will be a great success. Our only object is to ameliorate the condition of a large number of our fellow-subjects, and to bring more people on to the land; and surely this is a question that we can debate without any Party heat or Party feeling? I venture to think that this is a question that we can debate without Party heat or feeling, because our object is the amelioration of the condition of a large number of our fellow-subjects, and to place more people on the land. My right hon. Friend in his speech in introducing the Bill said that this experiment could not be made at a better time, and in one sense I agree that it could not, because, no doubt, that land at this moment is cheap. But he forgot to say—and this is an important part of the question—that the price of all produce of the land is so low that you cannot grow it for the money. It is true, as was well stated by Lord Salisbury some time ago, that the landed interest has been sacrificed in the general interest of the country. I am not going into that question now, but I am sure there is no Member on the opposite side of the House who would state that the agricultural interest is in that condition in which he would wish to see it. I will only venture to say this—that the success of this scheme depends enormously upon whether the men who purchase these holdings will be able to make both ends meet. That is a serious consideration, especially when you think of the quantity of grass land which is taking the place of arable land all over the country. I will now refer to the small occupiers. I have a certain number of small occupiers on my property, one or two market gardeners, and a great many who hold small quantities of land ranging from one acre to ten and twelve acres. I have let them their land and houses at a reasonable rent, and not one of them have failed to pay their rent, whilst those men who had only the land to farm did not pay in the same way as the others. I see that the words of the Bill are very strong in regard to that. In the 1st clause we find it stated, "It is for the labouring population only," and in another clause it is laid down that it is to be an agricultural holding, and that the occupier is to live by that agricultural holding. Now, this is a part of the question which deserves the consideration of my right hon. Friend. Are the village blacksmith, the village carpenter, and people of that kind not to have such advantages? There are several of such men who have small quantities of my land, and I will say this—that they have employed more labour and put more work into the land than other occupiers. I believe that you will find that there are a large number of landowners throughout the country who would be most anxious to let their land to such men. I attach a good deal of importance to this part of the question, and I will put it in this way. Suppose a man is going to purchase 20 acres of land, and that he is to give £30 an acre for it. That would come to £600. Well, the man has to put down £150. Now, how is he going to stock it? He must have a horse or horses, cows, machinery, and appliances. I do not think he could purchase all he required for such a holding much under £150 or £160. I calculate the expenditure required to be made at £168, besides which there is the interest to pay. Now, I should like to know whether you think it possible that a man can get so much profit on the 20 acres as to be able to support himself and his family? An industrious man can do a great deal, and I believe many occupiers keep their land in good order and make a profit upon it. I showed two of my Liberal friends the other day a farm of 160 acres in Sussex which was worked by a man who came from the ranks and never failed to pay his rent—which was not very low—and who always made both ends meet. It only shows what a determined man can do, even when he has to deal with a very moderate class of land. But I would warn the House and those who are anxious to take land that they must reckon the cost before they take it. I see there is a provision in this Bill which says unless a man has sufficient means to enable him to cultivate the land he ought not be accepted by the County Council. I believe it is absolutely necessary for a man to be in a position to do justice to the land which he takes. You want stalwart men like the statesmen of Cumberland, who would rather do anything than give up their holdings, and I know there is nothing such men would like better than to have their houses and land as their own absolute property. I venture to believe that there are many men to be found who could be trusted with the land. Now, I would like to ask my right hon. Friend a question. Does he wish to get upon the land the men who have gone into the towns? Does he not think there is something in the towns which attracts them, and which they will not give up in order to return to the land? I should like to see on the land a large number of happy and contented and prosperous yeomen, if they could be found, but everyone knows what has happened to that class of late years; everyone knows the condition of the French agricultural peasant who has got his land but is so needy that he cannot call his soul his own. Now, that is not what one wishes to see in this country. I will only, in conclusion, say that I believe this is a most honest attempt on the part of my right hon. Friend to carry out the views, not only of this House, but of a large number of people in this country. There is only one other question I should like to put to him. It is this—Why, if it is to be carried out, is the burden to be placed upon real property? Why is not all property to be placed in the same category? Why are you not anxious to do for this country as you have done for Ireland. The penny rate you propose to raise on real property, and real property alone, should be raised out of the Consolidated Fund and not placed upon the country districts. I am sure that the one thing which would please the tenants as much as anything would be to take the rate off real property and put it on the Consolidated Fund. They would then think that there was an earnest desire not to burden the land more than it is now burdened. I put it strongly to my right hon. Friend that this point deserves serious consideration. I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I would only, in conclusion, say that if this Bill succeeds you will have created, in the best sense of the word, a Conservative population whose great object will be—having got the land and the houses—to maintain those rights which they possess, and which will more conduce to the prosperity and welfare of the country than anything else.

There is much in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with which I heartily concur. I also agree with the hon. Member for Stamford, who said that the County Council is at the present time—for want of District Councils—the only authority to which the carrying out of this Act can be entrusted. I think there is great force in what he said with reference to the resumption of land by the Local Authority in the event of it becoming useful for building purposes. I do not think that the arguments on this side of the House with regard to compulsion have been appreciated. We have never said on this side of the House that it had failed altogether, but that it had failed in the sense that the Local Authorities had not been able to obtain land for allotments to the extent which they desired. We also stated that the cost of carrying out compulsion is so great that Local Authorities have been unable to avail themselves of it. We further say that the effect of compulsion has been very great, and we have always maintained that until compulsory powers were given previous Acts have failed, and that it was the proposal to give compulsory powers which for the first time caused a great number of landowners to give voluntary allotments to their people which they otherwise would not have given. We believe that landlords would be much more willing to sell their land when they know that compulsion is behind them than would otherwise be the case. Therefore we say that the indirect effects of compulsion are far greater than the direct effects, and it is on this ground that we desire to see compulsion added to the Bill. No one who listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Head of the Agricultural Department (Mr. Chaplin) can doubt that he is fully impressed with the importance of the subject, and that he is desirous, so far as he can, to remedy the great evils connected with tenure in our agricul- tural districts, and to bring back, if possible, the labourers to the land. If, however, we seem to have some doubt as to whether his measure will be effective for this purpose he must not suppose that we at all doubt the sincerity of his motives. Now, the Bill before the House contemplates calling into existence two different kinds of small holders. The first are those who intend to make their living entirely out of the land—25 acres and upwards—and the second the small holders who are not expected to make their livelihood out of their land, but to cultivate it and to hold it in connection with other occupations. I think I have indicated roughly the distinction which the right hon. Gentleman draws between these two classes of holders, and that I rightly appreciate his intentions in that respect. Now I consider the second class of smaller holders to be infinitely the more important of the two. For my part, I am very sceptical as to the possibility of County Councils being able to purchase on any very great scale holdings of the larger character. The transactions will be of a very hazardous nature. The purchase of large estates—say of 400 or 500 acres—in order to convert them into holdings of 25 acres and upwards would be necessarily attended with considerable risk to the Local Authority. In the first place it would not be easy to find estates of that kind without tenants already upon them. Generally speaking, the land without tenants will be the inferior land which has long been out of cultivation. Then again, when the Local Authority has bought the estate it will be necessary to erect farm buildings, to make roads and fences, and the whole operation would be a costly one. When the purchase had been completed, the estate would have to be cut up into small holdings of 25 acres, and it would not be easy to find men in the position of labourers who would have the capital to enable them to come into these holdings. So far as I can make out from calculations, a labouring man, before he could become the owner of one of these small holdings, would have to advance from £200 to £250 for the purchase, and then he would also have to stock his land and to live on it for about a year before there would be any returns from it. I can scarcely reckon that cost at less than £200, so that he would have to provide about £400 before he could come into possession of it. Now I venture to think that there are few men in the position of labouring men who would be able to provide anything like that amount. I cannot, therefore, think that this part of the Bill will have any considerable effect. It is to the other part of the Bill that I look with great hope, and I think that if it is properly amended it will prove of enormous advantage to the labouring men of this country. But I must say with regard to that part of the Bill that I consider that compulsion would be absolutely essential. I am strongly of opinion that unless the land is bought within easy reach of the villages it will not be useful for the purposes for which it is intended; and I feel certain that it will be very difficult without compulsion to obtain the land which will be so required. Now I need hardly point out that the land near the villages generally belongs to the same landowner. I will tell the House of the result of my inquiries with reference to one typical part of the country. The ideal of the English rural system is, that where all the land and all the houses in a parish belong to a single landowner. This ideal is attained in a great many more cases than is generally known. A very large proportion of the rural parishes are in the condition that they are owned each by a single landowner. In one part of the county where I have made specific inquiries the proportion is far greater. In the division of North Dorsetshire, I have ascertained that out of 92 parishes, with a total extent of 162,000 acres, there are 62 which substantially belong each to a single landowner. There are 23 other parishes in which more than half the land belongs to a single landowner, and only seven out of the 92 in which the land was divided among a number of people. In the same district I found that eight whole parishes and half of seven others belonged to a single landowner, and there were two landowners each of whom held the whole of five parishes, whilst two-thirds of the whole land in the district belonged to 26 persons. Now I feel convinced that it would be extremely difficult to persuade the landowners in that district to sell the land. The hon. Baronet who has just spoken has gone so far as to suggest that if the large landowners of this country should, after the passing of this Bill, refuse to give the land for the purposes of small holdings, it would be necessary hereafter to carry out compulsion. My strong belief is that it would be extremely difficult to buy any land which would be suitable for the purpose by agreement, and that it will be necessary, therefore, to give effect to the Bill by adding compulsory powers, not so much with the idea that it would be made use of by the Local Authority, but with the idea that it would be useful in inducing landowners to sell their land in smaller holdings than they have done in the past. Supposing all the land in a parish belongs to a single landowner, and supposing the County Council are unable to induce that landowner to sell, what satisfaction will it be to the labouring people who desire to obtain small holdings to be told that they can have land in another part of the county? It seems to me that the principle of compulsion must be introduced in order that people may be able to buy land within easy reach of the district to which they belong. Now, Sir, there is a clause in the Bill to which I take strong objection—the clause containing the prohibition against small holders building on their holdings unless they can live wholly thereby. That is a very unwise restriction and one very unjust to the labourer. It seems to me that it would be most desirable to encourage the owners of those small holdings to erect houses. Some extremely interesting evidence was given on this point before the Royal Commission. In the County of Cornwall it was said that Sir Thomas Acland divided 478 acres among 70 leaseholders, principally miners. The land at that time was practically worthless, but these men reclaimed it and made it valuable for agricultural purposes, and Mr. Little says it is now valued at £1 per acre. These men built houses on the land which are above the average of labourers' houses, and they put on their holdings stock of a superior kind. Mr. Little says of these men—

"Those who work in mines work alternately day and night, and utilise their spare time on their farms; the wife and the children, however, do most of the farm work. The family have a more comfortable home and many advantages, such as milk, butter, and eggs, which they would not otherwise enjoy. The man has a motive for saving his money and employing his spare time, and if he does not gain a large profit as a farmer, he enjoys a position of independence; he is elevated in the social scale, his self-respect is awakened and stimulated, and he acquires a stake in the country. The holdings represent so much time well-spent, which, without this invention, would have most probably been wasted; and wages, which would otherwise have been squandered, are employed in securing a homestead and some support for the widow and children when the workman dies. I would ask, are there not many places where the same thing might be done if the opportunity offered?"

Is an example of that kind not worth being followed? I could quote many cases; and, notably, one in the neighbourhood of the New Forest, where the landlords sold to some 30 or 40 purchasers about 250 acres of land. Most of these people are employed in other pursuits and do not make their living wholly by the land; but their prospects and their condition show what can be done by a system of small holdings, and show, likewise, how important it is that they should be allowed to build houses. When we get into Committee on this Bill I shall move an Amendment with the object of removing the prohibition against building which is contained in the Bill now before the House. If buildings are allowed they will add to the value of the land, and will increase the security of the Local Authority; and, therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to adopting my Amendment when it is brought forward. Well, Sir, my conclusion, therefore, is that, in respect to compulsion regarding the restrictions on the building of houses and in other matters of importance, the Bill will require serious consideration; but if Amendments on these matters are introduced, I think it will and can be made into an effective measure which will be of great benefit to the people of this country, and more so to the labouring classes and those immediately above them.

Both as an agriculturist and as the Representative of an agricultural Division I should like to say something on this subject. I cannot lose sight of the fact that this measure attempts not to create, but to re-create, a class of small holders. I am old enough to remember in Berkshire the time when there were to be found in large numbers the very class of men whom it is now sought to re-create. The first question, therefore, to a practical mind is, how comes it that these men have faded away? Different answers may be given, some relating to natural, some to economic, and some to legislative causes. No doubt the result was in part due to all, but in any case the difficulties of re-creating this class of men must be enormous; and having regard to that fact, it is a great source of satisfaction to know that this measure is in the hands of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, who is a practical agriculturist, and who knows the conditions of these small holders, and who can speak of and treat their case with sympathy. But in its principle and in its details the Bill is so framed as to give the best possible promise of a successful result. The great difficulty attaching to the discussion on this Bill is that it will be discussed by hon. Members whom, without offence, I may call "Cockneys," and who will be guided by sentiment as distinguished from reason. Bat, Sir, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right, in the interests of this measure, in adhering to the voluntary principle, which is a vital and essential point of the scheme embodied in this Bill. If this measure is to succeed, it is necessary to its success that there should be a good feeling and a good understanding between the large landowner, from whom the holding has been purchased, and the purchaser of that holding, for in order to give him a chance of success the new buyer must look to his larger neighbour very often to supply him with the machinery and horses to enable him to do his work at various times of the year. I look to the voluntary principle and to the easy and cheap transfer of land as means by which this measure will be likely to succeed. The Bill is capable, in a few points of detail, of being amended in Committee; but still it is generally speaking satisfactory, and certainly I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to the voluntary principle.

I am glad that the example of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, who introduced Party spirit into this Debate, has not been followed. It has been asked if this measure is likely to bring back agriculturists from the towns to the land. As the measure now stands, no such result will follow; but with one or two slight alterations there is no doubt it will have that effect. I know scores of people who are now in town and who are only waiting for a measure of this sort to pass into law to go back to an occupation which they like and from which they have only been driven by sheer necessity. Now, Sir, as to the question of compulsion, I may say that I am in favour of it. I was delighted when the Select Committee which inquired into the matter described the subject as one of national importance, and recommended that five millions of money should be spent in making the experiment which is now proposed. I think the recommendations of the Committee, minus compulsion, were of such a character that no man having the interest of the labourers at heart dare to refuse to agree to this Bill, simply because it does not go far enough. Compulsion in this case is different from compulsion under the Allotments Act. It is one case to take a small quantity of land; it is quite another thing to take a whole area; but I have uniformly maintained that compulsion when once introduced into a Bill will be rarely, if ever, applied. It is a great mistake to represent the success of the Allotments Act as simply due to the voluntary supply of land. Between one and two hundred Local Authorities have put the Act directly in force, and I think there are only three or four cases in which their compulsory powers have been exercised, and only one case in which an application of the principle of compulsion has been resisted in Parliament, so that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the Act had not been successful on account of the compulsory part of it has not been proved. Now, Sir, there is one question I should like to ask before sitting down, and it is this—whether this Bill affects owners of settled estates and life owners; if they have the power under Lord Cairns' Act or any other Act to sell lands for the purpose of small holdings? If not, then under this Bill they should be given power to sell. We want to create a class of cultivating owners, men who will be absolute owners for cultivating purposes, and we want to do that, not only for the public good, but in the interest of the labouring classes themselves. As the Bill stands the land may be sold and put to other purposes than cultivation; but if there were a continuous municipal control which can only be secured by the system of a perpetual rent-charge, the ends we have in view can be secured. I quite agree that two-thirds is too large a sum to advance, but it might be two-fifths, which would be reasonable. Besides, that leaves a larger amount of money in the hands of the poorer purchaser to enable him to purchase stock &c., and saves him from the moneylender. Now, Sir, one reason for the failure of many small holders is the gradual consolidation of farms that took place between the years from 1850 to 1881. The real reason for the destruction of these holdings was stated in a letter which I received the other day from one of the most respectable land agents in the County of Cumberland. Here is what he says—

"Economic law had swept away the small holders of Cumberland, whose acres had been bought up by the wealthy. One estate of £15,000 a year had been so aggregated within my own memory. In many cases 40 years' purchase—in some cases 50 years—having been paid."

The reason is found in the enormous price given by those who wish to possess the land. It is a desire which has prevailed among all classes, and there is no objection to its continuance, but I want to prevent the small holdings to be created under this Act from being bought up in that manner, and I wish to save the cultivating class from the competition of manufacturers or small tradesmen in towns, who would compete for the land to call it their own and with the intention of subletting it. I wish to see the creation under this Act of a permanent class in the country districts corresponding in a great degree to the middle class in the large towns, which would be one of the greatest securities for stability this country could have. The County Councils are to be allowed to charge these small holders a larger interest than that which the Councils are to pay the Treasury, and that is a very important point to which I desire to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention. It is not that they seek to make a profit out of the small holder; but it is only to secure to the community the gain which comes from the superior credit of the community, so that there is no harm done to the small holders. Almost the only agitation in the newspapers against this Bill has been addressed to the ratepayers, who have been warned that there is danger of great loss. But, if this extra interest, which might be ¾ per cent., or 1 per cent., is charged by the County Councils, it will immediately become a fund, and an accumulating fund, to guard the ratepayers from any possible loss. Besides that, it will be a sinking fund to gradually pay off the Treasury, and then to secure quitrents for the benefit of the country. I can see no objection to such a plan, which will cause this legislation to be regarded with more favour by the general body of the ratepayers than would be obtained in any other way. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to omit the clause by which County Councils have power to put up buildings, but I would ask him to add another clause, empowering the Councils to advance money to the small holders, in order to enable them to put up buildings in certain cases. We had evidence given before the Select Committee—by Lord Wantage, for instance—that the small holders could put up a building at half the price that the landlord could do so. There is a case in the right hon. Gentleman's district of Sleaford, which I have seen, where farm buildings, and everything except the house, suitable to 25 acres have been put up by Mr. Charles Sharp at a total cost of £35. If a County Council had done that work in the most economical method they could adopt, it would have cost very much more money. The Bill gives no power to County Councils to hire land for leasing or otherwise: but we all know that in the neighbourhood of large towns there is a large amount of most suitable land, which has a value for building and other purposes so high that no County or Borough Council would be warranted in buying it for agricultural purposes. But the owners of such land would be only too glad to let it to the County Councils for, say, five, ten, or 15 years for the purpose of small holdings; and, therefore, to give the County Councils power to hire as well as purchase land would be an advantage to all parties, and would be especially necessary in order to secure the land in certain districts where it is most needed. With regard to the money to be paid down, I think that, instead of one-fourth, 15 per cent. would be ample, for we only want to insure the bona fides of the applicants; and I fix on 15 per cent. because it is the sum which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have adopted. As to the absence of power to re-purchase, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider what has been said by the hon. Member for Dumfries on that head—that where the County Councils acquire holdings for the purpose of the public good they should have power to re-purchase subject to fair compensation. I was rather astonished to find a condition in the Bill that no house should be put up on a holding of less than 25 acres, and that the odd reason given for that restriction was fear of congested districts. I shall be very glad when the fear of congestion in our rural districts is a real one. At present we are a long way off any such difficulty, and, therefore, what we want to do is to encourage men to buy bits of land, however small, in order that they may put up houses in which they and their families may live. With reference to the Local Authority to administer this Act, I am bound to say that if we had district Councils they would be a better body for the purpose, but it would be fatal to substitute the small area of the Parish Council. There are many reasons which might be given in support of that opinion. For instance, there is the question of money; and we hear that there is a great deal of unwholesome influence used by the parson, the squire, and the farmer over the poor labourer. If that be true, to what a far greater extent would you be subjecting the labourer to such influences if you entrusted the administration of an Act like this to representatives of such a small area? The fact is the County Councils have proved themselves able and willing to deal with rural questions, they have shown themselves ready, and intelligently ready, to carry out the Allotments Act of 1890, and we cannot do better, in view of the non-existence of District Councils, than to put it into their hands, especially as the ninth clause the Bill admirably provides that an elected Councillor of the district shall be a member of the Management Committee of each district. While thanking the Government for the measure they have introduced, which contains all the principles we contend for, we have to point out that the introduction of a word or two here and there tends to make those principles of no avail. For example, the right hon. Gentleman has adopted the principle of perpetual quit-rent, but in the next line he says it may be redeemable. How a perpetual quit-rent can be redeemable I am at a loss to know, but I am greatly encouraged to believe that that was only put in to be knocked out, and that the real pith of the proposal was contained in the first part of it. I thank the House for their kind attention to my remarks upon this subject.

Representing as I do a district where the agricultural population is pretty numerous, and from which the migration of the agricultural labourer has been getting more accentuated every year, I should like to say a few words upon this Bill. I congratulate the Government on the introduction of this wise and sagacious measure; but I cannot help expressing a little mild surprise when I remember a Wednesday afternoon, a few years ago, when the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division introduced his Bill, and when it was condemned by the Member for Norfolk, and the right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Board of Agriculture, who quoted statistics to prove that it would never act. The hon. Member for Somersetshire also endeavoured to prove that it was unworkable, and my hon. colleague in the representation of Essex suggested that it was absolutely impossible. It is not, however, for me, a humble supporter of Her Majesty's Government, to labour these points; and I wish now to direct the attention of the President of the Board of Agriculture to the incidence of local taxation. He knows that in Essex and Lincolnshire agriculturists may be divided into two classes—those who are ruined and those who are going to be ruined. We grow wheat at 40s. a quarter and endeavour to sell it at 30s., but that is not owing so much to foreign competition as to the incidence of taxation, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be induced to take off the penny he suggested should be put on the rates. With reference to the principle of compulsion, I have considerable sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Bordesley, because I remember that compulsion was the motive power behind the Allotments Act, although it was only enforced on one occasion; and, although the Allotments Act and the Small Holdings Act are not on all fours, I think that is a matter which may be fairly taken into consideration on both sides of the House.

I have been in communication with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture regarding the terms of this Bill. It is described as a Small Agricultural Holdings Bill. As an Agricultural Holdings Bill this measure would be of comparatively little use to many districts in Scotland. For instance, in the constituency I represent it would be practically of no use, but it would be of immense advantage if it provided in those districts small pastoral holdings. I suppose you could get eight or ten times the acreage of pastoral land for the same money that you could get agricultural land for, and I have made a very careful calculation of what I consider a small pastoral holding would do in Scotland. I believe that for a £50 limit you could get a small pastoral holding which could carry, in all probability, ten score of sheep; and as a practical farmer myself, I have made the calculation which I will submit to the House, and as to which I think the House will admit that if the Bill were extended to pastoral holdings, it would be of great advantage to the people of Scotland. We have in our rural districts a large number of shepherds, who, as a rule, are very thrifty men, and when they came to a certain time of life and retired, they have usually saved a considerable amount of money. If pastoral holdings of this kind were to be got, they would be taken advantage of by these shepherds when they had attained a certain period of life. Let the House take the case of a small holding with ten scores of black-faced sheep, which are pretty well-known in my part of the country. A fifth part, or two scores, would be young sheep, which would not breed in the first year. That would leave eight scores of ewes for breeding purposes. If we deduct two per score not being in lamb, we would have a production upon those remaining of seven scores and four lambs. Taking the sexes as divided, there would be three scores and twelve wedder lambs, which, I believe, could be sold for 10s. a piece. That is a very moderate calculation, and during the time I have been farming I have known them sell as high as 14s. Three scores and twelve wedder lambs at 10s. apiece would produce £26. Then there would be three scores and twelve ewe lambs; but out of that number two scores would be required to keep up the stock, leaving one score and twelve ewe lambs for sale. I take it that these would sell for 13s. apiece, which would bring in £20 16s. Then I calculate that the wool of each sheep would produce 2s. 3d., and that would give £22 10s. There would be the usual sale of draft ewes every year, which should be a fifth of the stock, or two scores. Last, allowing for a certain amount of death—say, four sheep—there would be no more than 36 to sell as draft or cast ewes. Taking these at 18s. each, they would produce £32 8s., so that the aggregate sales of sheep on this small holding would come to £111. But, in addition to that, I believe the small holder would be able to keep a cow, poultry, and pigs, and I put them down as worth £15 a year at least, making the gross revenue from this small holding £126. I will now deal with the outlay. There would be the annual rent charge of £50, the interest at 4 per cent. on capital, or, that is to say, the sheep stock, which I value at £400—and no end of shepherds in my neighbourhood are able to put that down—would amount to £16; on fencing and house, say £250, at 5 per cent., £12 10s.; and taxes and other expenses, £10; giving an outlay of £88 10s., while the revenue would be £126, thus leaving the substantial balance of £38 to the small holder, after getting interest on the capital he has embarked in the undertaking. If the sheep were Cheviot stock, the numbers kept would be fewer; but the value of the lambs, the wool, and the cast ewes would be higher, and I do not think there would be any great difference between the two. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to announce to the House and to the country that this Bill will confer the privileges of small pastoral holdings in Scotland, and I am sure, if he does so, he will earn the eternal gratitude of a very large body of worthy men.

I should like to take this opportunity, as I had not one on the First Reading, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the Bill he has introduced, which is admirable in its conception, and will, I believe, be easily worked. I wish for one moment to call attention to the present system of land tenure, and endeavour to show that, under existing circumstances, as regards the landlord, the tenant farmer, and the labourer, it is a success. We should be most careful in connection with all Land Bills not in any way to interfere with the large farms on large estates, for to them is due the great success which has attended our agriculture. If we trace the origin of our magnificent breeds of cattle, the Scotch, Highland breed, the Polled Angus, the Shorthorn, the Devonshire, the Hereford, or the Suffolk, we shall find that they are not due to the small occupier, but to the capital invested by the wealthy classes in large farms and large estates. So again in regard to our breed of long woolled sheep. You may travel all over the world and find our famous breed of sheep, and this again we trace not to the small occupiers but to the large estates and the enterprise of the great landed proprietors. We breed the most powerful horses the world has ever seen; and foreigners come from all parts of the world to buy our stallions and our mares. And here I would congratulate the hon. Member for Tamworth on having gained nine prizes at the great agricultural show which has just been held. These magnificent results, it will be found, follow from the capital invested by the owners of large estates; and it is the small owners who are dependent on the large owners for their success in agriculture. There is an idea at the present time, promulgated from various platforms—though no greater fallacy exists—that under our existing system of agriculture the labourer is divorced from the soil; but I shall be able to show that there is hardly a single village where the marriage ceremony has not been celebrated. I would call attention to some statistics which have never been produced in this House before, and which, I think, will be found interesting, although they may be criticised because they are not official but amateur statistics. I have taken a radius of about 40 miles round my house in Nottinghamshire, and I have written to gentlemen whom I know personally, residing in the villages, asking the number of farmers in their respective villages who commenced life as agricultural labourers. As we are going to embark on the new principle of giving State aid to the labourer, I think it is well we should know what the present system has done, so that we may have some data to go upon in Committee. I will take typical groups of villages within that 40 miles' radius, which includes the greater part of the north and middle of Nottinghamshire and my division in Lincolnshire. In one group of four villages there are 6,912 acres, of which 1,805 acres are in the hands of men who commenced life as agricultural labourers; that is to say, 25 per cent. of the land is held by them. The holdings vary in size from 2 acres to 289 acres, and are held by 51 men. I will give the names of the villages, and also of the men, to hon. Gentlemen afterwards if they desire them. In a group of five villages in Nottinghamshire represented by 9,217 acres—fairly good land, including some pasture—739 acres are in the hands of men who commenced life as agricultural labourers, and they farm from 60 to 300 acres each. I will take a group of four villages in my division in Lincolnshire representing something like 27,000 acres. There 2,590 acres are in the hands of such men as I have referred to. On an estate near Grantham, which consists of 13,000 acres, 1,400 acres are in the hands of men who started as labourers. In another case in Nottinghamshire, representing 10,000 acres, 2,181 acres are in the hands of men who commenced life as agricultural labourers. I think I have said enough to show that under the present system, which is so much derided by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the labourer is not divorced from the soil, but that he is able to take, has taken, and is prospering on far larger farms than has been contemplated in any Act of Parliament dealing with the question. There is one other case I wish to refer to, because it is a peculiar one. The Isle of Axholme, which has been referred to once or twice to-night, is represented by about 50,000 acres in a ring fence. I will take the town of Epworth, representing about 5,000 acres, and there there are 260 occupiers and owners of land, of whom about 160 commenced life as labourers. The whole of the isle is represented by small owners and occupiers, holding as a rule 200 or 300 acres, and there is only one holding of 3,000 acres. Anyone who went to the Isle of Axholme and advocated compulsion would, in all probability, lose every vote in the island. Supposing the Act were made compulsory, and men in Epworth wanted land, you would give State aid and compulsion to obtain it, and the effect would be to drive out many of these small holders, who were once in the condition of the men desiring the land, but had raised themselves by their energy and industry. I think from that that hon. Gentlemen will see what a dangerous principle they are advocating. Its application in that case would ruin and destroy hundreds of poor men who had gained their position by energy and industry. I believe the voluntary system is the right one, and will do all that is required. If there is no compulsion the County Council will have to feel its way from village to village, and see that it does not injure these small occupiers of land, and find localities where it can buy land to benefit one set of men without injuring another set.

I should like on this Report to refer to several questions which affect Ireland. The Congested Districts Board has the control of a large amount of funds, and exercises powers which, if wisely exercised, may have a most salutary effect on the condition of Ireland. It is expedient, therefore, that the business of that Board should be conducted in public, and I know of no reason why it should come before the public in the guise of a remedial Star Chamber. If the Press cannot be admitted to the meetings, it is desirable that a very full precis of the proceedings should be communicated to the newspapers. That could be no injury to the Board, and the result might be that useful suggestions would be secured from time to time. When the Land Purchase Bill was passing through the House I suggested that this Board might be improved by the introduction of an elected element, but the late Chief Secretary informed me that it was considered advisable to make choice of gentlemen who were unconnected with any political Party. That reply imposed upon me for the time, but I see that one gentleman who was appointed on that Board is now stumping South County Dublin, in the Unionist interest. I presume that if he enters Parliament he will resign his position on that Board. Another matter to which I wish to refer is of great importance to the ratepayers of the City of Dublin. The local rates of Dublin are not collected by a local officer, but by an Imperial official. The Corporation of Dublin have obtained powers to collect themselves the municipal rates, which amount to two-thirds of the whole rate; that is to say, £200,000 out of £300,000. The remainder is divided into the rates required—North and South Unions and the police rate. The office of Collector General is now vacant by death, and we desire an assurance that the Lord Lieutenant shall not fill up the office without having consulted with the Dublin Corporation. I asked to-day that reasonable time should be allowed to the Corporation of Dublin to decide whether they would undertake the collection.

That is an elastic phrase.

It is, but I only ask for reasonable time. It is reasonable to assume that the Corporation will undertake the collection, because their collection would become efficient and cheaper than under the present, system. In that case it would be very unfair that a Collector General should be appointed at a salary of £1,200 a year and a subsequent pension to collect £100,000. I may mention, also, that the two Unions are quite willing that the Corporation should collect their share of the rates, and that would leave only £30,000 for the police rate, to be collected by the Imperial officer. That would probably cost the Government £10,000 to collect, and I would suggest that the whole amount should be left to the Corporation to collect. It may be said that there might be some difficulty in securing prompt payment, but the Government have to pay the Dublin Corporation large sums every year on various accounts, and they might hold this money until an agreed-upon proportion of the police rate had been paid. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman for a decisive answer tonight, but he might consider the matter. Another point on which I have asked a question and received an unsatisfactory answer is with respect to the preparation of the voting lists for the Local Board elections. In many cases the tenants are entitled to more than one vote; but in consequence of the action of the Returning Officers, they were deprived of their additional votes. The right hon. Gentleman told me that the matter was regulated by Statute; but the Returning Officers in Ireland are most of them untrained in the practice of the law, and considerable annoyance has arisen from their having, as we contend, interpreted the Statute improperly. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give instructions on which no mistake can arise, if not in time for the current elections, at all events as early as possible. On the subject of finance, I should like to call attention to the fact that Ireland was entitled to a sum of £40,000, which was the equivalent of what was given to England and Scotland for the relief of taxation. For two or three years we were deprived of that money, and now it has been locked up in the Land Purchase Court to meet a contingency which will never arise and will not be available for five years. We ask that three-quarters of that sum should be taken out of that fund by an Act of the present Session, and that it be applied to the remission of taxation. The Intermediate Education Board, after two years, have done nothing to utilise the grant of £40,000 which was given them. It was at my own instance that the Government agreed to allot this sum of £40,000 out of the produce of the Beer and Whiskey Tax. The Intermediate Education Board have only spent £5,000 of this sum, one-third of which has been spent on administration. The intermediate schools in Ireland have gone to very considerable expense, both in fitting up scientific apparatus and in getting the services of highly-qualified teachers at good salaries; but the money is lying idle, while many of the schools are starving. When in Dublin in the winter of 1890 I inquired at the Intermediate Education Board what they meant to do to utilise the money granted by Parliament, I found that no steps were being taken, and I was informed at the Board that they did not expect the grant would amount to more than £30,000 a year. But the tax on beer and whiskey produced £39,000 odd, and how the Education Board could come to the conclusion that it would only produce £30,000 passes my comprehension. This is a scandalous exhibition of incompetence on the part of the officials of the Board. I should have thought that the Board would have been glad to have the opportunity of providing the means of stimulating intermediate education in Ireland; but the money has been absolutely thrown away, and the Board has done nothing whatever. It appears there was a scheme on the stocks, but nothing has been seen of it. I ask the Chief Secretary to dig up the scheme, if it exist, and urge the Irish Executive to bring it into active operation. Undoubtedly the money must be spent in some way. It might be spent usefully, and if the present Board can not use it, it ought to be taken from them. I wish now to refer to a question affecting the salary of the Superintendent of the Irish Pension Office. We know it is owing to the action of that gentleman that we are about to be deprived of £90,000 which we ought to have for the purpose of primary education. When we opened this discussion in Committee of Supply we were not acquainted with the facts, and the Treasury refused to state them. But bit by bit we have extracted a little information, and now we know that the Superintendent of the Irish Pension Office in Dublin is Mr. Denham Robertson, an actuary at the War Office in London. That gentleman receives a salary of £900 a year as an actuary at the War Office. He resides in London, and I presume his duty is to attend at the War Office from day to day. But he is also Superintendent of another office in Dublin, several hundred miles away, and the question is how he is able to divide his time between his duties in London and Dublin? The whole thing is only fit for the region of opéra bouffe. It is a burlesque mode of conducting the business of an important office in Dublin. This man in 1885 reported that there was a surplus of £190,000 in the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund. If he had been an Irish official in Dublin, acquainting himself with the actual condition of the fund, he could not have made that error. Mr. Denham Robertson paid a holiday visit to Ireland perhaps once or twice a year, and on the strength of these holiday visits he made a return to the Treasury with regard to the state of the fund. The Treasury never checked his return; they were satisfied with his word, and they proceeded to make new rules for dealing with the surplus of £190,000. Mr. Denham Robertson continued to be actuary at the War Office, and at the end of six years—in 1891—he made another holiday visit to Ireland, and made a second valuation of the fund. He found there was a swing of the pendulum, and that the fund was now £190,000 to the bad. There was no reason in the world why the fund should not be in a state of equilibrium. I often think if Tory Members were only present to hear these facts, and could appreciate the injury and insult which are inflicted upon Ireland by giving the control of such large funds and such an important office to a gentleman who only visited Ireland for a holiday, and if the Government Whips would only stand aside when a Division was called, I have no doubt what majority I would have. I have to ask that the services of Mr. Denham Robertson shall be altogether reserved for the War Office, and that the Superintendent of the Irish Pension Office, which has been so disgracefully bungled in the past, shall be confided to some Irishman who could give his whole time to the duties of the office, or if there is no Irishman to be found qualified for the task, and if you must send a Saxon over to Ireland, let him be an Englishman who can devote his whole time to the duties of the office. As long as I am a Member of this House, and as long as Mr. Denham Robertson continues Superintendent of the Irish Pension Office, I will never allow any Vote with which his name and salary are connected to pass this House without question. I wish now to call attention to the case of Patrick Nally, who lately died in prison. Nally was convicted many years ago, in a time of great political excitement, upon the evidence of a paid informer and an instrument of the police. I knew the man years ago, and the opinion of those who were intimate with him was that he was innocent. You put him in prison and you kept him in prison for a longer time than you would have kept any ordinary convict. You brought him to London and subjected him to the torture of solicitations by the agents of the Times newspaper, suggestions being made to him that he should offer evidence to incriminate some of the Irish Members. Offers were held out to him of liberty and reward; but, spurning these overtures, he was taken back to prison in Ireland. When brought away from prison for this purpose he protested indignantly against the treatment to which he had been subjected. It appears he called out "God save Ireland," and for this disorderly exclamation he was punished. After refusing to give evidence or to make evidence at the solicitation of the Times' agent, he was taken back to prison. His health broke down, and repeated requests for his release on the part of Irish Members were disregarded by the Irish Government. He died in prison. His illness was kept a secret from his relatives. His brother, a medical man, was even refused permission to see him; and all our requests that the Government should lay on the Table a copy of the evidence taken before the Coroner have, up to the present, been unavailing. The matter cannot be allowed to rest, as the circumstances of Nally's death are surrounded by grave suspicion. If the Government would lay on the Table the sworn depositions before the Coroner a great deal of time would be saved. I will now call the attention of the Attorney General to the case of the Achill Islanders. It is a wild, rugged barren island on the West of Ireland. The people were kept alive on seed potatoes, relief works instituted by the First Lord, and the contributions of the charitable public. They had, in fact, been kept alive by official and public charity. Within the last few weeks the landlords obtained a decree against these people for rent. They made some resistance, or gave some annoyance to the bailiff, and a prosecution was instituted, in the language of the law, for unlawful assembly. I am not debating the question of the prosecution. What I complain of is the conduct of the Crown Solicitor and the Magistrates after the prosecution was instituted. These poor islanders had to cross seven miles of stormy water for the trial. They were brought before Colonel Stewart and Mr. Horn, who, by his diligence in making up cases under the Coercion régime, was promoted to be a Magistrate. These islanders, ill-fed and half-naked, made their way to the Court. The hearing lasted all day, and although it was known that the prosecution would not be pressed, and that the prosecutor was willing to take the recognisances of the prisoners, the Crown Solicitor said, nothing of this. The Magistrates adjourned the hearing, not to the same Court, but to another town 13 miles inland. These 80 people, men and women, with no food or money in their pockets, had to lie about that town all night, and in the course of the night, and in the midst of a blinding snowstorm, they had to start for another town. They had to cross one of the highest mountains in Ireland. I have heard that the atmosphere of the Court was not sweet enough for the Magistrates, as the poor peasants had come between them and the wind. It has been said there was no snowstorm, and that no women travelled. No women travelled the whole way. They broke down in the storm and took refuge by the wayside. Next morning, when the Court was opened, all the men did not appear, When Mr. Horn called the muster roll he was about to sign a warrant for the attendance of one poor man who had not turned up in time. The man came in at the last moment, and, on being, asked why he had not appeared at the opening of the case, said he had come out of a fever, his feet were blistered, and he could not keep up with the others. There is a picture of civilisation in the view of the officials of the right hon. Gentleman! Surely the Crown Solicitor at the end of the first day might have said the prosecution would not go on and allowed the men to go on bail, but he remained silent and allowed that journey to be taken, as these two Magistrates, with 80 peasants before them who had come over seven miles of water, had adjourned the inquiry to another town, 13 miles inland, in the midst of an inclement winter. We have heard a good deal of the benevolent policy of the First Lord. I will not question that useful results have been produced; but I would press a policy of decency and consistency in the case of people who have maintained life by public charity and by the granting of money by the Government, that an effort should be made to infuse something of the spirit of common humanity in the bosom of the minor agents of the Government in Ireland. There is a minor question relating to the Constabulary Force. Each county is entitled to a full quota. The people of Ireland, as Imperial taxpayers, pay £7,000,000 to the Imperial Purse, and they get back only £4,000,000. They pay for the whole Constabulary Force as contributors to the Imperial Purse, and they are assessed a second time for any men over the force quota. I would not have raised this question if the people were only charged the difference between the free quota and the extra men actually serving. But the Government have some way of juggling the Accounts.

It is according to the Act.

One would think, if a county was entitled to a certain number of men, that only those extra would be charged for; but you make a charge for absentees and for recruits in training at the depôt. I submit that recruits at the depôt are not in the service of the county, and that any charge for them should come out of the Imperial Vote. There is nothing more astonishing in the whole circle of Irish administration than the method of dealing with this question of extra police. It may be called a test of order or disorder, the presence of extra police. It is now quite two years since the First Lord began to say the condition of Ireland was perfectly satisfactory; that exceptional crime had ceased; that there was no longer boycotting, and that wherever we look for confirmation we shall find it, whether in the criminal statistics or the charges of the Judges at the Assize. The Criminal Calendar is almost blank. With only six offences against the person in Ireland in the last Calendar, surely one might expect that extra police had been discontinued. The tax for extra police is most oppressive. It falls entirely upon the cesspayers. The Grand Jurors pay none of it, and they always like to have plenty of police. In the county of Clare, scheduled under the Congested Districts Act for special relief, and in which relief works have been executed, the charge this year for extra police is no less than £6,000, or 5d. in the £1 for every farmer. Why is that charge maintained? There is no special crime, no boycotting, nothing in the criminal statistics, nothing in the speeches of the Judges at Assize, and the declaration of the Government that their policy has succeeded warrants the abandoning of this charge. I find that in the year following the enactment of the Coercion Act in 1888–9 the charge for extra police was £63,000; and now, in the presence of your claim that exceptional crime has ceased, your charge is £56,000. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give more than a mere commonplace answer, and give the House a substantial assurance that the charge for extra police will be discontinued. You cannot boast in England, for the purposes of gathering votes, that Ireland is tranquil, and at the same time impose upon the people the same financial burdens as if Ireland were in a condition of criminal disorder. I wish also to call attention to the case of the Bangor police. A woman was accused of a very grave criminal charge. The police considered it important to have evidence of the handwriting. The District Inspector of Police and the sergeant under his charge entered into a conspiracy or combination to obtain such evidence of the handwriting as might secure a conviction. The result of this combination was that the sergeant went to the house of the woman before she had any notice of the charge. Paying what appeared to be a perfectly unofficial and friendly visit, he requested the woman to write a love letter to assist him in carrying out a hoax, which he wished to deliver to one of the policemen, and if he wrote the letter himself the man would know his writing and the joke would fail. The woman fell into the trap. She wrote the letter, and the letter was actually produced and handed in at the trial as evidence. I hardly blame the sergeant, as the police in Ireland have been so much debauched by the methods of the Government that one can hardly wonder at such conduct. They do things in Ireland which no officer in England would commit. The police in Ireland have been not only encouraged to sail close to the wind in order to make up cases anyhow, but have been promoted for doing so. It is because of such practices that gentlemen like Mr. Horn have been promoted from the ranks of the police to the Bench of Justices. When the papers came before the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland he directed that there should be no prosecution, and that fact should be borne in mind in forming an opinion upon the case. It is absolutely clear that the District Inspector and the sergeant were not able to distinguish between political offences and ordinary crime. I think that a distinction ought to be drawn between them, and I ask that an inquiry should be made into the case, and that a communication should be addressed to the Inspector General, pointing out that the District Inspector has rendered himself liable to dismissal.

This is a matter which practically affects the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, but it has become a feature in his leadership that he is never in his place on the Treasury Bench. I will refer to only one matter, and that is with reference to the Congested Districts Board. It was appointed by the Irish Government, and a vast sum of money has been placed at its disposal. Out of the ten Members composing it eight are Protestants and two are Roman Catholics. Now, I say that this Board has been packed with men who are pronounced Unionists and militant politicians. I am a Protestant myself, but there is a difference in Ireland between a spiritual and a political Protestant.

Which are you?

I am not compelled to give a confession of faith. I am a simple Christian. These men were not chosen because they were able or good administrators, but because they were political Protestants, and were able to carry out Lord Salisbury's views. I will now point out that in a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury he stated that the work of the Board was to be of a decidedly unpolitical character. But is he aware that Mr. Horace Plunkett, one of the Commission, is a Unionist candidate for South Dublin, and that he is relying on what he has done in connection with the Congested Districts Board to be elected to this House? Then, again, on the 14th May, 1891, when the Land Purchase Act was under discussion in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman put on the tone of virtue which has so touched the hearts of Primrose Dames, and said he admitted that that part of the Bill should as far as possible be divorced from anything in the nature of politics. On the evening of the same day the right hon. Gentleman also said that it would not conduce to the good working of the Board if any Member of it were associated with a acrimonious political disputes. Now, who is Mr. H. Plunkett? He is the son of the late Lord Dunsany, a very high-minded man, but a strong politician, and his brother was a Tory Member of this House. Therefore, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman how he has fulfilled his pledges. It is not fair to allow public money to be used for electioneering purposes. Will he at once dismiss this gentleman? He has no right to be a politician on one side, and a philanthropist on the other. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Johnston) was dismissed from the Irish Fishery Board because he took part in politics, and is Mr. H. Plunkett to be made an exception? I charge the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury with deliberately appointing Mr. Plunkett as a Commissioner in order that he might make political capital out of his position.

I have been practically challenged by the hon. Member (Mr. MacNeill) to deal with the question which has just been raised; and as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Jackson) has to reply to an important speech made earlier in the evening, the House will perhaps permit me shortly to do so. The hon. Gentleman has referred to certain utterances of mine in which I expressed the desire that the Congested Districts Board should be as far as possible divorced from all Party and electioneering feeling. That hope I then entertained, and I still entertain it. The hon. Gentleman has charged me with having known that Mr. H. Plunkett was a candidate for South Dublin at the time I suggested his name as a member of the Congested Districts Board. I should have been gifted with a remarkable power of prophecy had I then known that of which Mr. Plunkett himself was unaware. I did not even know that Mr. Plunkett contemplated in any circumstances entering political life. I had known him to be keenly interested in the development of Irish industries, and practically acquainted with the congested districts of Ireland, and I knew that he had given much time, much trouble, and much money to the advancement of Irish interests. I then thought, and I still think, that he is a man eminently qualified to carry out the work of the Congested Districts Board. Some months subsequent to his appointment, and after he had fully determined to devote his time and energy to the work of the Board, Mr. Plunkett was appealed to to become a candidate for South Dublin. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mac Neill) said that Mr. Plunkett had used public money which had been voted for the Congested Districts Board for electioneering purposes.

No; I said nothing of the kind. What I did say was this—that Mr. Plunkett was using the constituency in Dublin as a means by which he could claim benevolence in distributing money in other parts of Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman referred to my speeches to show that I had stated that it would be a very serious thing to allow a Member of one county in which there were congested districts to have the management of the money; but he knows that South Dublin is not one of the congested districts. Therefore, whatever else can be said, at all events it is certain that Mr. H. Plunkett was not obnoxious to the particular suspicion which would undoubtedly have attached to any Representative of a county in which there was a large congested district, or who had the administration of the funds. With regard to the candidature of Mr. Plunkett, I say that I have had nothing to do with suggesting or recommending it. I never urged him to stand; and if my influence was exercised in any way, it was exercised in the way of his not standing.

Put him off the Board.

Even if I had the power to put him off the Board I should certainly hesitate before I asked a gentleman to resign whom I knew from personal knowledge to have the greatest interest in, and the most disinterested zeal for, the welfare of that class in Ireland for which the Board was intended. I agree that the utility of that Board will not be augmented by Mr. Plunkett's candidature for South Dublin, but I would point out that he was a member of the Board long before he became a candidate for the constituency. Although it might be true that had I known that Mr. Plunkett was to be a candidate for South Dublin I might have searched elsewhere for a man to fill his place, I doubt whether I should have found a man more competent than he has proved himself to be. So far as I am aware, the members of the Board were not politicians, and I would point out that one member of it, Mr. Kennedy, shares the political views of the hon. Member.

No; he does not.

Well, he is a very strong Nationalist. I do not profess to know all the shades of Nationalist politics; but Mr. Kennedy has always been a noted Nationalist, and he is a Roman Catholic. If Mr. Kennedy had stood for some Nationalist seat, I should regret it as far as he was a member of the Board, but I would no more think of recommending my right hon. Friend to advise him to resign than I would think of asking him to advise Mr. Plunkett to resign. I have acted, as far as I could, with perfect impartiality in this matter. I think politics should be eschewed from the Board, and, so far as I have seen, they have been rigidly and absolutely excluded.

I think that the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast and of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury must have convinced the House that the affairs of Ireland have been grossly mismanaged during the past twelve months. It has also been clearly shown that Mr. H. Plunkett has used his position as a member of the Congested Districts Board in order to further his political candidature. The right hon. Gentleman has furnished clear evidence that the Boards in Ireland will be maintained as presently constituted so long as it is to the interests of the Government now in office. It has been proved that Mr. Horace Plunkett has used his position as a member of the Congested Districts Board to administer the funds in order to further his canvass for Membership of this House. He has boasted of the manner in which he has been able to serve the people of Ireland as a member of this Board, and his action in that regard, which has alike been characterised by bad taste and by a breach of the Constitution, is still upheld by the Leader of this House. I hold that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman furnishes the House with ample and sufficient evidence that the affairs of Ireland are grossly mismanaged, and that in this particular instance a grievous wrong has been done. These Irish Boards consider it their duty to do nothing as long as they can, to do as little as they can when they do anything, and when they are compelled to act to do it wrongly. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is himself an example of that deterioration which overtakes any Irish official. We used to know the right hon. Gentleman as a kindly disposed Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who made soft and plausible answers to questions that were addressed to him, and who kept himself on good terms with all those with whom he came into contact. But the moment he became an official his heart became hardened, and from that time we detected a change. Sir, there was another matter brought forward by the hon. Member for West Belfast, and that was the case of Mr. Horn. My hon. Friend used the expression "want of common humanity," with regard to the treatment of those people in the West of Ireland who came under the jurisdiction of Mr. Horn. But Sir, what else is to be expected from officials whose conduct is defended by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench irrespective altogether of the wrongs and the evils that these people do? Not only that, but the very officials who abuse their position are selected for promotion. We have an example in the case of Mr. Horn. I have some experience of him. Exactly nine years ago I was summoned before him, although he was not then a Resident Magistrate, and what do you think he suggested to me? Because I did not answer his question, and although I had not committed any crime, this Mr. Horn advised me to leave the country. Why should I leave the country at the bidding of an Irish Magistrate, having as good a right to stay here as he? That was the question I asked myself. I was a good citizen; I had responsibilities of a domestic and of a social nature which I was endeavouring to fulfil, and was I to turn my back on my native land, on my people, because this English official was not pleased with my conduct? In England a man who acted in such a way as Mr. Horn acted would be reprimanded, but in Ireland he is selected for promotion. There is another matter to which I desire to call the attention of the House, and that is in respect of the conduct of those responsible for the death of P. W. Nally. I will read some extracts from a fellow prisoner to show he was unduly done to death. Nally was sentenced about ten years ago; he was found guilty after two juries had disagreed, being at last convicted on the evidence of a common informer. There was no case against him. In consequence of having cried out "God save Ireland," under circumstances of excitement, he lost the beneficial results of his good conduct in prison, and was kept there sufficiently long to be done to death. But for shouting "God save Ireland" he would have been released nine months before he died, and would have been living till this day. He was removed from Downpatrick to Mount-joy, and when he came back he was looking so ill that the doctor directed attention to him. His fellow prisoner writes:—

"The medical officer and Deputy Governor of Mountjoy swore at the inquest that P. W. Nally did not look at all strong, and that he was greatly changed when he returned from Downpatrick. The medical officer, therefore, stands condemned on his own words, for he gave P. W. Nally no medical treatment, and instead of continuing the dietary allowed him by the doctor in Downpatrick, he put him on the ordinary prison fare. Towards the latter end of the summer some filthy disease broke out amongst the pigs—22 of them died; they were all buried in the garden. P. W. Nally had to assist in burying the animals. When the pit was re-opened for the purpose of burying others the stench that arose from the half-decomposed carcases, in the words of another prisoner, who saw Nally at this revolting work, 'would knock down a horse.' A couple of weeks before his admission to the hospital, Nally said, 'I think I have taken the disease from the infernal pigs,' and he added, 'I do not care so much if I live to go home, and see my father and mother."

These were the last words reported to have been used by this unfortunate young man. We have all very strongly felt his death; he was known to most of us. We believe him to have been innocent, and to have been wrongfully convicted. In prison he was treated with unnecessary harshness, and set to work of a disgusting and of a deadly character; for that reason, Sir, I move a reduction in this Vote.

On the Vote the hon. Gentleman would not be in Order in taking that course. The whole Vote has already been put to the House, and the Motion for reduction cannot, therefore, be entertaine.

In view of the fact that there has been an arrangement that the Scotch Resolutions on Report of Supply are to be taken at half-past 10 o'clock, I will content myself by voting against the whole sum involved in the Resolution. I have spoken to many people in Mayo on the subject, and I believe in the perfect innocence of Nally. I believe the evidence against him was not sufficient to justify a conviction. And if we cannot move the reduction of the Vote we will take a Division against the whole Vote.

I will very shortly go through the several points which have been raised. It is unnecessary for me to say more with reference to meetings of the Congested Districts Board—because that has been already replied to by the Leader of the House—than that I have considered the question, and I am strongly of opinion that it would not be in the interests of the Public Service that the Press should be admitted to meetings of the Board. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has suggested that a precis of the work done should be given to the Press. I have talked the matter over with some members of the Board, and I think something of that kind is already done. I see, however, no objection to an announcement being made of the work which has been actually undertaken. As to the question of the Collector General of Rates, the office has been vacant now for some time in order to afford the Dublin Corporation the opportunity of considering the question, and seeing whether they will exercise the powers given them under the Act of 1890. I apprehend that the Corporation will, before very long, be able to give a definite answer to the question, and in the meantime His Excellency has delayed making a permanent appointment to the office. The suggestion has been made that possibly the whole of the rates could be collected by one body. It is true they are collected by one office now, but I think it would be unusual—and not advantageous—that, for instance, rates which were assessed and levied by other bodies such as the Boards of Guardians and other rates should be collected by the Corporation. I do not think that would work well or satisfactorily, but I agree with the hon. Member who asked the question that if the Corporation decided to take over the collection of their own municipal rates, which, as the hon. Member for West Belfast has pointed out, form two-thirds of the whole, then of course the head of the remaining office will be brought into a different position from that which he occupies now, and consideration will have to be given as to the amount of the salary to be paid him. There is no desire to prejudice the due consideration of the question by the Corporation. An hon. Member referred to a question connected with voting for Guardians and the issue of instructions by the Local Government Board with regard to it. If the hon. Gentleman's statements represent the real facts of the case, and there is any chance of different decisions being arrived at upon the same facts by the various officers, it will be desirable that instructions on the subject should be issued by the Local Government Board. I will, however, take the matter into consideration. Then an hon. Member referred to the reserve fund under the Land Purchase Act, and pointed out that the £40,000 a year, which is to accumulate until it reaches £200,000, is out of all proportion to that fund. I need not enter into the question further than to say it is necessary to convince the House and the country that under the Act the British taxpayer will run very little risk and that there will be ample security for the re-payment of the advances made under that Act without calling upon the British taxpayer. And I certainly think that without further experience of the working of that Act it is too early to attempt to interfere with the reserve fund. I do not think that the hon. Member himself will be much disposed to be annoyed if he finds at the end of the year that the Act has been largely availed of by the people of Ireland. The hon. Member also referred to the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise Duties) residue which has been handed over to the Intermediate Education Board. I have made some inquiries as to the amount of money which has been expended, and no doubt up to the present time there has been comparatively little expenditure out of the fund, but I think this should be borne in mind, that the first payment out of it was not made to the Intermediate Education Board until nearly the end of the year. The Board naturally desired further information before settling the terms of their scheme. They have, I believe, settled that scheme, and it is in actual operation. It is confirmed to this extent, that I have had two letters from representative masters of schools interested, which seem to indicate that they themselves take the view that under the scheme which has already been framed there will be a larger expenditure than has hitherto been the case by the Board. I am sure no hon. Member will desire that the Intermediate Education Board should be rushed into trying to expend money, but that they should exercise their calm judgment, proceed cautiously and try to expend the money to the best possible advantage. I would remind the House that when the Act was passed it was distinctly understood that the money was handed over to this Board until Parliament should otherwise order, and, therefore, if it should be found desirable to transfer a portion of it to some other purpose equally advantageous to the people of Ireland, it would not be inconsistent with the original contemplation, as evidenced by the Act itself. The hon. Member referred to the question of the Teachers' Pension Fund and the superintendent. I hope the House will excuse me for not entering upon the question of the Teachers' Pension Fund and their superintendent. The question is under consideration, and I am sure the House will not wish to pass any censure upon a public officer until the whole matter has been thoroughly examined.

The gentleman has given up his own Report for 1885.

I must not be led into discussing that. All I will say in answer to that question is, of course, that the alterations made following 1885 have something to do with it, in addition to which there are other circumstances over which he had no con- trol—namely the raising of the age at which candidates become teachers, and, therefore, limiting to some extent, the period of their contribution to the fund. The hon. Member (Mr. John O'Connor) referred to the case of P. W. Nally. I have read everything connected with that case, so far as the records of my Department have allowed me to do so, and I cannot find the smallest evidence to show that anything was done of which complaint can reasonably be made; and I go further than that and say that, as far as I can judge, from the time Nally was taken ill to the time of his death, the utmost care and attention were shown to him, not only by the two prison doctors but by the eminent doctor who was called in to assist them—Dr. Cruise. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. John O'Connor) seems to doubt whether that was the case.

I admit that they were called in after the case was hopeless

I suppose most of us have experience of illnesses that perhaps in their earlier stages do not assume a very serious character, but that sometimes develop that appearance afterwards. Two trained nurses were in attendance. Dr. Cruise was called in and entirely approved of the course which had been taken by the prison doctors in Nally's case, and, so far as I can judge, there is not the smallest particle of evidence to show that anything was done which should not have been done, or that anything was neglected which could have been done in order to save his life. I, therefore, hope the House will not think it necessary for me to go through the old story again. I will only say the evidence shows—

We only want the evidence.

That is to say you want the evidence which was given to the jury at the Coroner's inquest. But, the hon. Member seemed to make a complaint that the Government were not represented by counsel at the inquest. Well, when I first saw reports of the inquest being held, I was in Dublin, and, the very question I asked was as to whether the Government had been represented at the inquest, and I was told they had not. I asked why, and the answer I thought was an extremely good one; namely, that they desired really to leave the matter entirely and freely to the jury, and not seem to influence them in one way or the other. It seemed to me that that was a very good course of procedure. I think there might be very great difficulty if the Government were called upon to present reports of evidence taken at a Coroner's inquest at which they were not represented, and at which no questions were asked by counsel on behalf of the Government. I can conceive that great inconvenience might arise from such a course of procedure; and I do not think the Government would be justified in presenting reports of the kind unless they were represented at the inquest, and had taken some part in the proceedings before the Coroner. The hon. Member referred to the question of Clare Island. I have read very carefully the whole of the report of what took place, and I think I can explain it in a very few words. I am satisfied that there is no justification for assuming or believing that the Magistrates on that occasion acted otherwise than for what they deemed to be the interests of the people concerned. In the first place, the defendants were represented by a solicitor on the first day. The Court was adjourned in consequence of some illness; that adjournment lasted over a period of time. Subsequently the Court met at Louisburgh, about which I may repeat what I said, that there was no accommodation in the Court. It is a small room over another building without any seating accommodation, except for solicitors and clients, and it was entirely unsuited for accommodating so large a number of people as were there standing three or four deep, it being packed through the whole course of the proceedings. On this particular day it was thought that during the course of the day an arrangement would be come to. It appeared to be extremely probable, so much so that the parish priest recommended a certain course to be taken which would have had the effect of producing the result desired. It therefore became necessary to adjourn the case. According to the appearance of the case at the end of the first day it looked as if it would last six or seven days, and if all these persons had exercised their right of cross-examining the witnesses, and if it had lasted so long, it would have been quite impossible to have conducted it either with comfort or without seriously interfering with the case. I believe the result shows that no harm has been done. There is one more point, and that is about the Constabulary Force. The hon. Member seems to think that the free quota, as it is called, should be represented by the actual number of men serving in a district. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say there was a difference between the free quota and the number actually serving.

They should only pay the difference between the free quota and the number actually serving.

If you take the total force of 10,006 men which have to be allocated to the different counties throughout Ireland, that number must, of course, include not only vacancies and absences on leave, but also recruits. Therefore, I think it would not be possible without a complete alteration to carry out the plan the hon. Gentleman has suggested. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the extra force in Clare. There has been a considerable reduction of the extra force in Clare. With regard to the extra force generally, I find that while in 1887 the number of the extra force was 1,556, it has now been reduced to 1,000—a reduction of more than one-third of the total extra force chargeable upon the counties.

Why do you charge £56,000 on the Vote?

The hon. Member knows that if the £56,000 is not expended it will not be charged. I think I have now attended to all the points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite—

Whatabout Sergeant Boyd?

There is no doubt that the Inspector did give instructions to Sergeant Boyd to obtain a specimen of this woman's handwriting, and he accepts the full responsibility for all he has done. I have already stated that I think in a case like that such a course ought not to have been adopted, and communication has been made to the Inspector expressing the view I have just stated.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were most anxious to leave the whole case to the jury. Our contention has been that that is exactly what they did not do; that they did not place all the information in their possession before the Coroner's jury. My chief reason for rising is to direct the Chief Secretary's attention to a letter from a fellow-prisoner of Mr. Nally, named M'Auley, who has been released since Nally's death. The letter appeared in the newspaper called the Western People. In it Mr. M'Auley says—

"Immediately after Mr. Nally's death five prisoners requested the Deputy Governor to have them examined at the inquest (he gives the names); but, notwithstanding their earnest request that they should be examined, they were refused, and the Governor replied that they had forfeited all their civil rights, and for that reason refused to allow them to go before the jury."

It was to the interest of the Government to put all the evidence they had before the jury, and if M'Auley's statements are true the Governor held back from the jury material evidence. I will read other extracts.

May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and remind him of the arrangements that have been made, and beg of him to condense his remarks as much as possible?

I am most anxious to facilitate the arrangements of the House, but I am also anxious not to see my countrymen dying in gaol. I wish to put the Chief Secretary in possession of information which he can investigate for himself before the case comes on again. I will ask him to appoint a Commission to hold a sworn inquiry into these points. M'Auley also points out in his letter that previous to Mr. Nally being transferred to Mountjoy Prison he was under special treatment on account of his health, but that on reaching Mountjoy Prison he had to clean out a piggery in which 20 or 30 pigs were kept, and connected with which there was a pit closet, which was the worst in the prison. He was engaged in cleaning this place when taken ill. Some of this came out before the jury, but the evidence of these men, who were employed with Mr. Nally, was kept back. As there are in the prison a score of men, many of them respectable and the victims of packed juries, like Nally, I think a sworn inquiry should be held, and the light let in so far that we may see how they are treated. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take this into his consideration.

I do not think I am under any obligation to have a sworn inquiry into the matter, as the hon. Member suggests. I see no reason in the facts brought before me to justify such a course; but if the hon. Member has any further evidence, if he will put it before me I will satisfy myself on the point.