To call attention to the Taxation of Clerical Incomes; and to move a Resolution.—[Tuesday, 23rd March.]

To call attention to the excessively long hours of labour in shops; and to move a Resolution.—[Tuesday, 23rd March.]

To move, That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether the amount annually received by London under Grants in Aid bears a just proportion to the amount contributed by London to the General Taxes of the Nation.—[Tuesday, 23rd March.]

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with regard to the fact that the cost of Post Office money orders under £3 has recently been raised from 2d. to 3d., whether he will consult the Postmaster General with a view to obtaining an abatement of the rate for members of friendly societies who largely transmit their payments, mostly under £1, by means of Post Office money orders?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the loss inflicted on members of friendly societies by the increase of the commission on money orders under 20s. from 2d. to 3d.; and whether the charge cannot be reduced to what it was before the increase?

So far as I have been able to ascertain it is not the fact that the affiliated societies, who form a large majority of the friendly societies, make any large use of money orders for the transmission of their remittances. It is, however, true that the Hearts of Oak Society, which is organised on a different basis from the other societies, and makes all its remittances from its head office in London, has represented that it has suffered serious inconvenience from the change. I find, however, that the society is in the habit of directing its members to remit small sums of 2s. 6d. and 1s., which could be remitted to them for 1d. and ½d. by postal orders, per money orders made payable at one particular sub-office in London; and I find that they have also given instructions to their members that money orders and postal orders should not be crossed. It is difficult to understand why the society thus deliberately imposes a charge of 2d. or 3d. on its members for the transmission of small sums of this amount, which could be forwarded with absolute security by a crossed postal order. If the case of the society stood alone the Postmaster General would not feel justified in withdrawing the recent alterations in the Money Order Regulations. It is found, however, that very poor persons who have been in the habit of transmitting portions of their wages or other sums to their families complain that they have suffered from the recent changes, and the Postmaster General is therefore prepared to consider whether it is possible, by an alteration in the machinery for the transmission of the smaller orders, so to reduce the cost as to enable him to reduce the commission on a £1 order to 2d. ["Hear, hear!"] Some little time may elapse before it may be possible to make this change, which may require the sanction of the Legislature before it can be effected.

asked whether any representations had been received from banking firms on the subject of these orders?

said he was not aware that there had been any such representations.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to meetings of the National School Teachers of Ireland, where resolutions have been passed requesting that the rate for school teachers' residences be reduced from 5 per cent. to the time extended from 35 to 61 years for repayment; and if the Government will accede to the request?

Resolutions of the nature referred to have been received. I could not, however, say whether the Government are prepared to accede to the request of the teachers without having an opportunity of further considering the proposals put forward, as well as the views thereon of the Commissioners of National Education, who, I understand, have had the subject before them at their meeting today. I may also remind my hon. Friend that the question raised is largely a financial one affecting the Treasury, and that legislation would be necessary, in any event, to give effect to the proposals—even should it be considered desirable to make any alteration in the existing law.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government have any intention to introduce a Bill dealing with the Bann Drainage this year?

The reply to this Question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government maintains the pilot service of Port Stanley, Falkland Islands; whether there is need of a good strong tug boat for life-saving purposes and for assisting vessels in distress; and whether any vessels have been lost in close proximity to the port for lack of such a tug; and, if so, whether one can be placed in the port without delay?

The Colonial Government maintains the pilot service at Port Stanley. My attention has not been called to the need of a tug boat, but I will cause inquiry to be made. Vessels have been lost in the proximity of Port Stanley, but I am not aware that their loss can be attributed to the want of a tug boat.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether complaints have reached him that a tenant farmer named John Ross, who was evicted from a farm at Lugacoppel, near Skibbereen, is continuously annoyed by a police patrol who visit the farm on which he at present resides, enter his house, which is situate several miles from the evicted farm, and question his children as to his (Mr. Ross's) movements; (2) whether he is aware that Mr. Ross repeatedly offered The O'Donovan of Lissard to allow the rent of the evicted farm which was £60, Poor Law valuation £38, to be fixed by the Land Commission or by arbitration, and solvent security given for its payment; and (3) whether, in view of Mr. Ross's offers of amicable arrangement, this action of the police will cease?

It appears to be a fact that on two occasions in October last a police patrol entered the house of John Ross, but there is nothing unusual or exceptional in this, as the police very often when on duty enter houses and are cordially received. Of course when their presence is objected to they leave. I am informed that Ross's children were not questioned by the police as alleged. I have no knowledge as to the truth of the fact alleged in the second paragraph.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Returns of the rants fixed by the Head Commission on appeal in November and December last will be laid upon the Table; and if the Returns will give the rents as fixed by the Sub-Commission and revised by the Head Commission?

The Returns of proceedings for November and December last have been presented to Parliament, but these Returns do not contain the information indicated, which is given in the Animal Report of the Land Commission. The preparation of the Monthly Returns in the form suggested would add considerably to the labour and expense of compilation, and would needlessly change the system of presenting the average annual results which has been followed since 1881. I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press for any alteration in the form of the existing Returns.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Kilkenny (Mr. MCDERMOTT), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the great inconvenience suffered by the tenant farmers of County Kilkenny, owing to the delay in holding a Sub-Commission Court to deal with their cases; and whether he can state about what date these tenants may hope to have their cases inquired into?

A Sub-Commission Court sat in September 1896, and disposed of all cases save two in the county referred to, received up to the 31st July preceding. A further sitting for the county will be held at the earliest date possible having regard to the claims of other districts. The applications received from this county since the 1st August last are not, I am informed, numerous.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received representations from the inhabitants of Cormongan, and adjoining districts, near Drumshanbo, County Leitrim, complaining of the want of postal accommodation; is he aware that the Postmaster at Drumshanbo, who is a shopkeeper, has opposed the establishment of a sub-post office at Cormongan; and will he have the matter inquired into with a view to granting the people of Cormongan the accomodation they ask for?

The Postmaster General has not received any representations in regard to the want of postal accommodation in the district referred to, and he is not aware that the postmaster at Drumshanbo is opposed to the establishment of a sub-post office at Cormongan. Inquiry will be made as to the possibility of establishing a post office at Cormongan, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, is he aware that it is alleged by the Liverpool Steam Ship Owners' Association, in their Annual Report for 1896, that vessels that have been transferred from the British to a foreign flag are sailed in and out of British ports loaded more deeply than they could have been loaded under the British flag; and what steps do the Board of Trade propose to take with a view of securing to British shipping the right to compete on equal terms with foreign shipping in the ports of the United Kingdom?

I have seen the allegations to which my hon. Friend refers. Every effort is made by the Board of Trade to secure equal treatment under the law for British and foreign ships in the matter of loading at ports in the United Kingdom. In 1896 40 foreign ships were detained in our ports for overloading, as against 11 British, and, for bringing in deck loads in contravention of the law, 7 foreign ships were proceeded against as compared with only 1 British. I will cause every case which is brought under my notice to be carefully considered; but I am advised that the present law is not inadequate so far as overloading of foreign ships leaving our ports is concerned.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that, as stated by the Liverpool Steam Ship Owners' Association, in their Annual Report for 1896, a foreign vessel embarking only cabin passengers in this country is exempt from all the regulations applicable to British emigrant vessels, even although such foreign vessel may be carrying emigrants on the voyage upon which such cabin passengers are carried; (2) whether the German Emigrant Regulations permit of 30 per cent. more emigrants being carried with 40 per cent. less boat accommodation than is permitted by the British Regulations; and (3) whether the Board of Trade are prepared to take such steps, so far as British ports are concerned, as will enable British shipowners to compete on equal terms with foreign shipowners using such ports, and to enforce on foreign vessels such Regulations as are deemed necessary according to the British Regulations to insure the safety of the passengers carried from this country?

I am aware of the statements in the Report to which my hon. Friend refers, and I am advised that the effect of the law is as stated in his Question. I have no authentic information with regard to the present German Emigrant Regulations as compared with our own. The Board of Trade have no power under the existing law to interfere with a foreign emigrant ship unless she takes emigrants from a port in the United Kingdom, and as at present advised, I am not prepared to propose an alteration of the law on the subject. With reference to the last Question put to me by my hon. Friend, I have to say that I see great difficulty in applying to the ships of foreign nations without their consent the Regulations which we consider in this country to be desirable in the interests of safety.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the threatened difficulties to the transit of the Indian mails through France and other European countries on account of the plague at Bombay, and the possibility of the existing mail service being interfered with, arrangements will be considered for conveying the Indian mails from Port Said direct to this country; whether he is aware that the distance by sea between Port Said and Plymouth is almost identical with that between New York and Plymouth, which has been done by mail steamers in little more than six days; and whether, in the event of serious interruption of the overland mail service, either in consequence of quarantine regulations or international complications, an expeditious sea service can be provided?

No objection has yet been raised to the transit of mails from India through Italy and France; and in the event of that route being interrupted hereafter the hon. Member may rest assured that every effort will be made to secure the conveyance of the mails to this country by sea as quickly as possible. His calculations as to distances are accurate, but the shortest voyage from New York to Plymouth occupied about six days and a half, and the average length of the passages was nearer seven than six days. He is of course aware that the conditions of the passenger trade have not developed nearly so high a speed on the lines to and from the East as on the New York line; that on the latter there are few steamers afloat that can accomplish the voyage to New York in a little over six days, and these are not available for the Mediterranean and Eastern service.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that under the Truck Act, 1896, several of the large railway companies and some of the printing trades have posted up in their works long lists of new additional fines to be taken from their employees' wages, to which fines the workmen object; and if he will take the necessary steps to remedy the grievances of which the workmen complain.

said before the right hon. Gentleman answered this Question he would ask him another anent this matter—namely, whether deductions are made legal simply by posting a list of them without previous consultation with the workmen and their agreement in such fines being imposed; and whether, as a primary step, workmen were consulted and their assent obtained to the breaking of an existing contract?

I do not quite follow the Question of the hon. Member, but perhaps he will communicate with me afterwards. In reference to the Question on the Paper I have to say no, I am not aware that any new additional fines have been posted up. What has happened is that the companies, under the obligation imposed by the Act, have posted all the fines which they held themselves formerly entitled to inflict. The result of this compulsory publication has been to make these fines subject to criticism and enable such as are objectionable to be abolished. I am taking steps at the present time to obtain information with the view to removing any grievances that may exist under the Act.

repeated his Question.

No posting of notices makes fines legal.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say, does the Truck Act of 1896 impose any fines whatever on the workmen?

No, it imposes no fines whatever. ["Hear, hear!"] What it does, as I have more than once explained, is, it compels the publication of fines not previously illegal in order that it may be seen if those fines are now really legal or not under the other provisions of the Act.

Does not the Act give power to impose fines? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]

No; it does exactly the contrary. ["Hear, hear!"]

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what evidence is there that these fines now posted formerly existed?

said these Questions were travelling into irregularity.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to inform the House of the number of applications under Section 9—

ruled that notice should be given of this Question.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can state the number of prisoners which can be accommodated in Perth and Dundee Prisons respectively, and if he also can state the number of prisoners in each prison on 1st February 1897?

The cell accommodation in Perth is:—

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can state if an addition is now being built at Dundee Prison; and whether, in view of the fact that the journey from Dundee to Perth occupies 30 minutes in the train, Dundee Prison is a feeder for Perth Prison?

Yes, Sir; when Dundee Prison was taken over it had 153 cells, many of which needed improvement. In the alterations 37 cells were lost. The intention is to replace these, and to add 38 more cells by prison labour. Dundee, during 1896, fed Perth Prison with 625 prisoners; but the intention is to make the transfers less frequent.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. JUSTIN MCCARTHY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that, owing to serious defalcations and frauds on the part of the late senior clerk of the Edgwarthstown Loan Fund Society, the Loan Fund Board in Dublin dissolved that Society about a year ago; (2) whether the books of the Society were regularly inspected by the Loan Fund Inspector, who failed to perceive irregularities in the accounts, and expressed no disapproval of the system of management; and (3) whether, having regard to the fact that, owing to the dissolution of the Society and the difficulty of collecting outstanding debts by a receiver, who now desires to be relieved of his duties, the debenture holders are likely to be heavy losers, any relief or compensation will be given to them for the loss of securities through defalcations and frauds which the Inspector of the Loan Fund Board, a body constituted by statute, and whose officers are Government officials, failed, from negligency or other cause, to detect for a long period of time?

The facts, I am informed, are as stated in the first paragraph. The books of the Society were examined periodically by the Inspector of the Loan Fund Board, and, consequent upon his reports to the Board, communications were addressed to the Trustees and Committee of the Society on the 10th March 1893, 21st March 1894, and 11th March 1895, directing their attention to various irregularities in its management and the conduct of the late clerk. As regards the third paragraph, I must repeat that neither the officers of the Loan. Fund Board nor those of the local societies working in connection with the Board are civil servants of the Crown, and that Government exercises no control over the proceedings of the Board or of the local bodies. The Government cannot accept any responsibility in the matter, and cannot relieve or compensate debenture holders who may sustain loss under circumstances such as indicated in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has released Thomas Murray, a police constable at Hampstead, who, on the 24th November last was convicted of perjury at the Central Criminal Court, and sentenced by the Common Serjeant of London to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour; if so, whether Murray has received a free pardon, a conditional pardon, or a remission; and whether he advised the Crown to exercise its prerogative in this case on grounds affecting the conviction, or in simple mitigation of sentence?

Yes, Sir; Murray has been released, Her Majesty being pleased, on my advice, to grant a remission of the remainder of the sentence. The question whether a free pardon should also be granted is now under my consideration. The grounds on which my advice to the Crown was based were grounds affecting the conviction, and included certain important facts which were not before the Court.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury on what grounds the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury have declined to make payments in lieu of local rates in respect of Volunteer drill halls in Aberdeen and elsewhere; and whether, seeing that the local authorities are prevented from recovering such rates from the commandants of the regiments by a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, the Government have considered the desirability of making such payments in future; and, if so, what decision has been arrived at?

The invariable rule is for the contributions in lieu of rates to be charged on the particular fund which has to pay for maintaining the property. The maintenance of Volunteer property falls on Volunteer funds, towards which the taxpayer is only one out of many contributors. In conjunction with, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary of the War Office I have carefully considered the question whether a primâ facie case has, under these circumstances, been made out for imposing a rating contribution on the taxpayer, and we have come to the conclusion that it has not. The general taxpayer already foregoes his similar claims for Income Tax, Schedule A, and Inhabited House Duty; and, considering that the Volunteers are primarily a voluntary and local force, the local ratepayer may reasonably be expected to do the same in regard to the rates. This was the view taken by Parliament in 1863, when it expressly exempted Volunteer storehouses from rates.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that Lord Rathdonnell has declined to accept the offer of purchase made by his evicted tenant, Margaret M'Manus, of Mullanavanog, County Monaghan; (2) on what date was M'Manus's proposal made, and on what date did Lord Rathdonnell communicate to the Land Commission his intention not to entertain the offer; and (3) did any document pass from the Land Commission to M'Manus about the 13th of November last accepting her as tenant at 20 years' purchase?

An application dated 6th October 1896, was made by Margaret M'Manus, but not received by the Land Commission till the 17th of that month. A notice was served on the landlord on the 13th November, and an objection dated the 5th instant was received from him in the office of the Land Commission on the 6th instant. The reply to the last paragraph is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a decision has been arrived at in the matter of holding an Imperial Conference, during the visit of the Colonial Premiers to London, for the discussion and determination of questions of common Colonial concern; and, if so, whether he can give a general indication of the subjects to be discussed?

also asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could now state in outline his scheme, proposed some time ago, for a conference on matters of mutual and Imperial interest between the Premiers of the several self-governing colonies who would visit England in connection with the celebration of the 60th year of Her Majesty's reign?

I will say in answer to both hon. Gentlemen that there is no question of holding what is called an Imperial Conference, but, of course, if the Premiers come, the Government will take the opportunity of discussing with them any matters of common interest which any of them may desire to raise. I may further say that up to the present time I have not received replies from five of the colonies out of the 11. As soon as I receive the whole of the replies I propose to lay them on the Table, with my own letter of invitation, and I think until I am able to do that I should be glad if all other questions would be postponed. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the mail train postal service from this country and from Dublin to Birr, Roscrea, and Nenagh has not been altered for some 40 years, and that the existing arrangements are such as to cause the greatest inconvenience to a district comprising about 70,000 inhabitants; and that owing to the present mail arrangements the practical effect is that for a distance of 60 miles from Dublin it requires two days for sending a letter and receiving a reply over that short distance; whether the claims made by the inhabitants of this district, and contained in a, petition presented to the Postmaster General last July, will be satisfied before the conclusion of any new terms with the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland, and before the issue of any new time table; whether he will enforce the expenditure of some portion of the contract sum with the railway for the purpose of improving the railway connections with the above-named districts; and whether the existing post-offices of Birr, Roscrea, and Nenagh are now self-supporting?

In the short notice which the hon. Member has given of his Question, the Postmaster General has not been able to ascertain whether the postal service from this country and from Dublin to Birr, Roscrea, and Nenagh has or has not been altered for 40 years. He is not aware that the existing arrangements cause the greatest inconvenience to the district, and it certainly is not the fact that in every case it requires two days for sending a letter and receiving a reply to and from Dublin. The difficulty in serving these places is that it would not be desirable to add a stop at Ballybrophy to the time table of the Cork Day Mail, and that hi consequence the Day Mail for Roscrea, Nenagh, and Birr is necessarily forwarded by the succeeding train. Whether any other arrangement can be made at a cost which would be justified will be considered in connection with the revision which is now engaging the attention of the Department. There has been no time to inquire whether the post offices at Birr, Nenagh, and Roscrea are self-supporting.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has received any information regarding the mortality caused in connection with the famine in the Central Provinces and other districts of India up to a recent date; and, if so, to furnish the number and other details regarding the same?

I have received the following information regarding mortality in the Central Provinces:—Total deaths in 1895, 349,137; 1896, 468,469. The latter year was exceptionally unhealthy, and it appears that cholera, deaths were 37,479 in excess over those in 1895; fever, 59,342; diarrhœa and dysentery, 9,566; small-pox, 1,103; other causes, 11,842. This mortality gives for the whole year a death-rate of 36·03 per 1,000 in 1895, and of 49·03 per 1,000 in 1896 on the present population.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the immense extent of the famine area in India and the heavy drain it will entail on the finances of that country, the Government will take into consideration the expediency of making a grant in aid of India from the Exchequer of this country?

said that he had nothing to add to the answer which he gave to a similar question on January 21. He would remind the hon. Member that in a few weeks the Finance Minister of India would make his official statement to the House.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Government would favourably consider a proposal to include Clause 24 of the Education Bill of last Session in the Bill now before the House?

I do not think it would be consistent with the Resolution the House has passed, to enlarge the scope of the Bill in the direction the hon. Gentleman desires. There are other objections also to the course he suggests.

asked the right, hon. Gentleman whether the Government, proposed to take Wednesday, March 10, the day on which the Irish Land Bill was the first order?

I think I indicated in answer to a question put yesterday that we could not interrupt, the business of the Committee stage of the Education Bill for a lengthy discussion on other matters. ["Hear, hear!"] Whether the Education Bill will be finished by the 10th of March it is impossible for me to say. The Bill will be taken on Thursday next and will go on de die in diem. The 10th of March would be the eighth day of discussion in Committee, and I should have thought that after eight days a short Bill might be easily disposed of. ["Hear, hear!"] But perhaps the hon. Gentleman has better information than I have.

said the right hon. Gentleman used a rather ambiguous expression when he said the discussion on the Education Bill could not be interrupted by a lengthened discussion on another Bill. Was the Irish party to receive this treatment as a reward for their support of the Education Bill?

replied that the hon. Member boasted of having supported the Government on the Education Bill, but he would remind him that he opposed every attempt of the Government to find time to discuss it. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]

I beg to ask the Attorney General, the County Council of Cornwall having, in 1894, held an inquiry to decide whether the parish of Egloskerry should be transferred from the Camelford Union to the Launceston Union, in April 1896 the clerk of the County Council sent an account for the expenses to the Chairman of the parish meeting, who has been advised that to pay the same would be illegal, and so, if on no other ground, because the claim was not made within 12 months, and that an auditor would be bound to disallow the payment if made; and, will he say, for the guidance of the parish meeting, whether they legally can pay this claim, and whether they must pay it?

I have been unable from the information contained in the Question of the hon. Member to trace the cause to which he refers, or to obtain sufficient information to answer the Question; but if, as I imagine, it relates to an inquiry at St. Gennys, it appears that the County Council had no power, under Section 36, to make an order for the transfer, and being an application which they had no power to entertain, the expenses of the inquiry were not recoverable from the Parish Council.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in reference to his statement on 16th February, that he saw nothing in the terms of reference to the new Commission on Financial Relations to preclude that body from inquiring into the amounts expended in England, Ireland, and Scotland respectively, of the sums voted for purposes common to the United Kingdom in the event of the Commission thinking the inquiry relevant, whether he will so alter the terms of reference as not to leave the point of relevancy open to doubt?

As I understand the hon. Gentleman's Question he desires me to so alter the terms of the Commission that it should be obligatory on them to inquire into the subject mentioned in the Question. I do not think that would be a proper course to pursue, and I cannot hold out any hope that we shall be able to pursue it. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information as to the conduct the Government of Turkey intend to adopt as towards neutral ships during the state of war now existing between Turkey and Greece; and, in particular, whether Her Majesty's Government have reason to believe that Turkey will exercise her right to issue commissions to privateers and her right to capture Greek merchandise in neutral vessels on the high seas; and whether Her Majesty's Government propose to issue any Proclamation of neutrality?

There is no indication that the Turkish Government are intending to take any hostile measures at sea; and, as the Turkish Representative remains at Athens and the Greek Representative at Constantinople, it cannot be said that a, state of war now exists.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the Powers made arrangements to prevent an attack upon Canea, what steps they took to prevent a sally of the Turkish troops from that town for the purpose of attacking the Cretan position?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I should like to ask him a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether it is tree, as stated in the dispatch of Colonel Vassos, that the Turkish troops sallied from Canea to attack the advanced position of the insurgents, or to defend the position held by Turks, and whether this was done by the order or with the approval of the representatives of the Powers?

I only received the private notice of the hon. Gentleman's question two minutes ago. [Ministerial laughter.] With all respect to him and the House, I cannot undertake to answer these intricate questions on so short a notice, and I must ask him kindly to put it on the Paper. With regard to the question on the Paper, we have received no official intimation of any sally of the Turkish troops from Canea.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the dispatch of Colonel Vassos was reported in The Times of yesterday?

I have no official information of the dispatch in 'The Times.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman who gave the signal for the bombardment of the Cretan position by the combined fleet of the Powers?

We do not know who gave the signal. The course of procedure was arranged between the admirals of the international squadron, and presumably the senior naval officer, who is the Italian admiral, gave the signal.

Is the Italian Admiral in command of the squadron, including the British ships? [Cheers.]

I am not a naval authority. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address his question to another quarter. [Laughter.]

I will ask the First Lord of the Admiralty—

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman must put down notice of the Question, if addressed to another Minister.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs (Sir HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can lay upon the Table the instructions given to the British Admiral in Cretan waters?

It would not be possible under existing circumstances to lay the instructions on the Table of the House. It has never been the practice, so far as I know, to make public the instructions given to military or naval officers on active duty, and the inexpediency of such a course would be greatly augmented in the present case, owing to the fact that we are acting in concert with other Powers, and it is impossible at present to lay on the Table the whole series of Papers bearing on the events in Crete.

Have the Government any official Report from the British Admiral in Cretan waters of what took place on Sunday last?

Does the hon. Gentleman mean telegraphic report?

Yes.

I think any question such as that of the hon. Member should be put upon the Paper.

asked whether the Government had confirmation of the statement in The Times of to-day that over 1,100 Mussulmans, including many women and children, had been massacred in cold blood in Sitia, and that 2,500 Mussulmans were besieged at Selinos by Cretan insurgents and were in great peril, and whether the Great Powers proposed to take effective steps to save these unfortunate people from massacre?

There has been no confirmation of the alleged massacre at Sitia, and Her Majesty's Consul reported on the 19th that the fate of the Mussulmans of one village only in that district—whose population must be far inferior in number—remained unknown. Inquiry on the spot was about to be held. With regard to Selino, the following two telegrams, dated February 22nd, have been received from Sir Alfred Biliotti:—

"Just returned with Russian and Italian Consuls from Selino district, where fight of extermination is carried on between the two sects. Mussulmans in very critical position. 1,700, with 246 soldiers and three mountain guns concentrated at Candamos four hours from sea-shore, where uninterrupted firing is exchanged for the last fortnight. At Spaniaco, an hour from sea, and Selino Castelli, 750 Mussulmans, 242 soldiers, and three mountain guns.

Christians refused provisions being sent to Candamos Mussulmans, but consented in writing to suspension of arms during seven days, and free passage to blockaded Mussulmans, provided that soldiers with arms and baggage were also withdrawn together. This declaration is under reserve of non-appearance of Greek troops. Candamos evacuation, which we shall submit to authorities, very dangerous, owing to hatred and extreme distrust of both races, which has increased after massacre by Christian escort of more than 100 Mussulmans from village of Sara-kina, and of 12 Christians at Selino Castelli. We crossed to Candamos and back under Christian fire, although we had notified arrival and shown two white flags. On return to Selino Castelli found Christians firing from fresh positions above, bullets reaching boats. Organised exchange of prisoners. Doctors attended 10 wounded. Italian and Russian colleagues who went with me to Selinos send identic telegrams." (2.) "My Russian and Italian colleagues and I have done our best to calm the Christians with regard to the Cretan Question, giving them to understand that its solution depended exclusively on the Great Powers. This declaration produced a great impression upon the insurgents, but is not sufficient to save from a certain death the 2,000 Mussulmans blockaded in Candamos, nor perhaps the 1,000 at Spaniaco and Selino Castelli, if a Greek ship of war should make her appearance there. From a lengthy interview which we had with the insurgent chiefs, I gathered that the present outbreak of the Christians has not been caused by any serious local reason, but by the belief that horrible massacres had taken place in Canea, and by encouragement received from the presence of Greek ships of war and soldiers in Crete. Notwithstanding that the Greek flag is flying over the Christian camp of Selino, Christians and Mussulmans, last of whom repeatedly declared that they placed all their hopes in Europe, have openly expressed the wish that mixed occupation by the six Powers should be extended to their district as the only means of restoring order. They both stated that 300 troops would be sufficient for the purpose. My Russian and Italian colleagues are telegraphing similar information to their Governments."

asked whether the Government could not authorise the dispatch of 300 troops to save the lives of these unfortunate men, whose lives, it was said, were in the greatest danger?

That is a matter which clearly depends on an agreement between the Powers as to which I could not give an answer at this moment.

said he would repeat the question on Thursday.

asked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to a passage in the speech of M. Hanotaux in the French Chamber yesterday, as reported in The Times, in which the French Foreign Minister was reported to have said:—

"M. Millerand thinks that we should have entered the Dardanelles and seized in his palace the man responsible for so many calamities. Such a proposal was made by one Power at the end of November, 1895, but it was set aside."

He wished to ask the Under Secretary whether that proposal was made, by what Power it was made, and who the man was it was proposed to seize?

That is not the question of which my hon. Friend gave me notice. [Opposition cries of "Read!"]

I think I did ask whether England was the Power that made the proposal.

The answer to my hon. Friend's Question is in the negative.

asked, since it was not England, would the right hon. Gentleman state what was the Power that made the proposal referred to?

No, Sir. It is no part of my duty to answer in this House for any Foreign Power. ["Hear!"]

said he wished to ask a question of Mr. Speaker relating to the order of proceedings in the House. What was the proper course to be followed on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House being made after Questions? Should not the pleasure of the House first be consulted before the question was put as to the hon. Member moving the Adjournment having the requisite support?

said that the right hon. Baronet had correctly stated the Standing Order, and the course he always endeavoured to pursue. But sometimes he was anticipated by the House. He always first put the question whether it was the pleasure of the House that the Adjournment should be moved, and the proper course for hon. Members was to retain their seats and say "Yes" or "No." If there was no negative the House was taken to consent generally to the discussion. Hon. Members might differ upon the subject matter of the proposed discussion, and yet agree that it was a proper subject for discussion. So he hoped hon. Members would strictly observe the Standing Order, and, on the question whether it was their pleasure that leave be given, retain their seats, only rising, in case of a negative, on his putting the further question whether the hon. Member who wished to move the Adjournment had the requisite support.

rose "to call attention to the unsatisfactory working of the Judicature Acts," and to move:—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying her to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the administration of justice under the Judicature Acts, with a view to secure greater efficiency and economy."

The hon. and learned Member said he was afraid the subject upon which he had the honour to address the House was not of a fascinating character. Therefore he should endeavour to make as small a demand as possible upon its patience. But although the subject was not fascinating itself it was, he was perfectly sure, a very important one, because it affected the administration of justice, which he imagined to be almost paramount to any other institution in the country. He claimed some right for the Motion which stood in his name for the reason that a period of more than 25 years had elapsed since there had been an inquiry into the administration of justice in this country. Prior to that there were frequent inquiries into the mode in which justice was administered, and they from time to time led to changes in procedure not only in the High Court of Justice but also in the inferior Courts. The different changes culminated in the Judicature Act of 1873, which, with the amending Acts, constituted the procedure upon which the business of the High Court was conducted. It was a remarkable fact that, since 1873, there had not only been amending Acts, but rules piled upon rules, constituting a vast volume of detailed procedure and rules under which justice had to be administered. The following conditions were absolutely essential for the effective administration of justice: that it should be honest, expeditious, economic; and that the tribunals of the country should be popular so far as litigation or judicial proceeding could in any sense be considered popular. With the exception of the first condition, honest administration, he believed that every other condition was absolutely violated. He yielded to no one in his appreciation of the integrity of Her Majesty's justice, but the system was so cribbed, cabined, and confined, and so surrounded with technical and detailed obstructions that the result was very little removed from chaos. The system of judicature in this country, possibly with the single exception of France, was the most extravagantly expensive in the world. On the average every year one in 24 of the population of Great Britain was engaged in litigation.

Civil litigation?

said he referred to litigation of a civil character in all the Courts. He believed that percentage was confined to civil proceedings only. They paid to the Law Lords, ex-eluding the Lord Chancellor, no less a sum in salaries than £24,000 a year. The House of Lords as a working tribunal commanded respect, but he pointed out that the number of appeals which came annually before them averaged only between 60 and 70, while the number of appeals annually disposed of averaged only between 40 and 50. Ireland contributed annually only five of these appeals, and the number of appeals sent from the colonies had been steadily decreasing within the last two or three decades. The contrast with other countries, not only in respect of the remuneration paid to the judicial officers, but in respect to the work done, was most startling. He would turn to another tribunal, the continued existence of which was little short of a public scandal—the Railway Commission. In addition to the employment of one of Her Majesty's most distinguished judges on that Commission, there were two judicial officers paid £3,000 a year each, and there was also a staff. The amount of business that was done, however, by that Commission during the last year for which they had a report took only 21 days, and the number of cases disposed of amounted to the magnificent total of 24. He would suggest an immediate reform in regard to that Commission, because they might introduce the system that obtained with the Admiralty—a Judge of the High Court with assessors. The work would then be done at probably one-fiftieth of the present expense. The Attorney General would not deny that the Court of Admiralty performed its work to the satisfaction of litigants. As showing the unpopularity of the administration of justice in this country it was a curious fact, with the single exception of the Chancery Division, there had been an absolute shrinkage of litigious work in all the Courts. On the other hand, the business of the County Courts, which, except in a few isolated cases, did their work with expedition and gave satisfaction, had steadily increased. Going only as far back as the years 1873 and 1877, there was one case in the High Court to every 289 of the inhabitants, whereas now the number of cases had fallen to one in 360. Everybody knew that in the last few years the amount of commercial work had shrank to insignificance, although every effort was made by the High Court Judges properly to encourage commercial work. The universal experience, not merely in the metropolis but throughout the circuits, was that the shrinkage of High Court work was due not so much to the amount of work which had been thrown upon the County Courts, but to the tendency of commercial bodies to withdraw their work from the cognisance of the Courts in favour of those domestic tribunals which they had themselves created, although they recognised that in those domestic tribunals the duties involved were not discharged so effectively as they would be in the High Courts. In the Court of Appeal the Judges were paid no less than £31,000 a year. From 1821 to 1825 there were 814 cases in that Court, and from 1891 to 1894, the number had shrunk to 574 cases. The explanation was that commercial men were shunning the High Court of Justice and were more and more availing themselves of the County Courts. So small was the amount of work to be done in the Court of Appeal that it was a common thing to find in the newspapers at least every fortnight the announcement that the Court was not sitting; and that notwithstanding the increase in population and in National Income, there was a great deal of work to be done, and a large amount of arrears of business to be made up in the Courts could not be denied. But why were not the Law Lords, who only sat for 50 days in the year, employed in assisting in disposing of the congestion of business which constantly arose in the inferior courts of the High Court of Justice. He did not think that the Law Lords, who were paid such large salaries, would be callous to any call made upon them of that kind in the public interest. But perhaps the greatest disgrace in our present judicial system was the vacations. What would be said if they were to close all the hospitals in London for nearly three months in the year, and to say that the doors of those hospitals should not be open except for cases of life and death? Yet that was precisely the position in the High Court of Justice. The doors of the High Court of Justice were closed from the 12th of August to the 24th of October, and for that period of three months no suitor could approach the Courts except in a case of utmost emergency, which was dealt with by the Vacation Judge. There was no parallel for such a state of things in any other civilised country. Was it not an absolute scandal that the Courts should be closed for five months during the whole of the year, and that they should remain closed for three months at one particular period? He did not blame the Judges, he blamed the system. No one grudged the Judges reasonable leisure. Their work was arduous, and they were necessarily men who had been called to their positions at a late period of their lives. But it was incumbent upon the Government to abolish this archaic system of long vacation and substitute for it a system of reasonable vacation. Again, the number of days on which the Judges sat was absolutely insignificant. Would the House believe that the Judges who were paid £5,000 per annum each, and in addition to that, £7 10s. per day for every day they were absent from London on Circuit, did not sit in London on an average for more than 115 days in the year per Judge, and that the total number of days they sit on Circuit or in London was less than 200 days per Judge? A Judge of a foreign country to whom he related these facts, said:—

"Why, we sit in our Courts practically daily throughout the year, and we are not paid anything approaching the remuneration that is paid to your Judges."

It was a great scandal that in this country a complete and exhaustive return of the number of days the Judges sat could not be provided, as they were provided in France, and Italy, and Germany. In this country it was quite a matter of grace whether or not the Judges supplied the information. Indeed, two or three Judges absolutely refused to make such a return, and the consequence was that the number of days the Judges sat was mere guess work. He would also point out that this return of 200 days per annum per Judge was rather delusive. A Judge might only appear in Court or in Chambers for half an hour, and still it was put down as a day's attendance. Again, he did not blame the Judges but the system. But he would point out that though the Judges enjoyed this large amount of leisure their subordinates in the offices were compelled to work all the year round, with short vacations, and if they absented themselves from the office for a day they received a severe letter of condemnation, and if it occurred again they were discharged. He now came to a subject which he ventured to say was about the greatest scandal associated with the judicial system of any country of the world—he referred to the Circuit system. The Circuit work of the country had since 1873 decreased 30 per cent. according to the judicial statistics. In 1865 there were 693 cases on circuit. In 1894, with an almost geometrical increase in population and in wealth, there were only 1,124 cases, and of these 864 came from four Circuits, the Northern, the Midland, the Western, and Southeastern, leaving only 261 cases to be disposed of in the remaining five Circuits. The Judge on Circuit fixed the number of days he would attend in each Assize Town. As an illustration of how that system worked out he might mention the recent Assizes at Newcastle-on-Tyne. The Lord Chief Justice was there, and no one would suggest that he was not most anxious to discharge the duties of his office to the very best of his great capacity. His Lordship had only seven jury cases to dispose of, and these he finished on last. Saturday. But he was not due in the next Assize Town until next Friday; therefore, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday were spent in enforced idleness by the Lord Chief Justice.

What about crime?

said that Mr. Justice Bruce was there to try criminal cases, which were compartively insignificant in number. On the Welsh Circuit there were no cases at many of the towns, yet judges were sent down to give three or four days of public time to each town. At Worcester there was only one prisoner and one cause, and yet four days were given. Was it not scandalous that judges, who were properly paid high salaries, and who received expenses at the rate of £7 10s. a day, should be sent to these towns on the pretence that there was something to do, and should have to spend days in absolute idleness while the Courts in London were waiting for business to be dealt with, and litigants were driven away owing to the manner in which business was transacted? That the local Member insisted on the dignity of the Assize Town being maintained was no sufficient excuse; probably only a few innkeepers and livery-stable owners were concerned. Their interests did not justify this scandalous waste of public money and time on a system which had become a ridiculous anachronism. He would read from the Judicial Statistics a paragraph which was, in effect, the strongest condemnation of the present Assize system:—

"More than 55 per cent. of the causes were entered at four towns—Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, and Manchester. About 50 per cent. of the whole number of actions tried were tried on the Northern and North-eastern Circuits. No actions were entered for trial at the following towns:—Huntingdon, Aylesbury, Oakham, Devizes or Salisbury, Welshpool or Newtown, Lampeter and Brecon. At the Winter Assizes only one action was entered at each of the following towns:—Guildford, Lewes, Hertford, Chelmsford, Bedford, Northampton, Reading, Oxford, Merioneth, Dorchester, Taunton or Wilts, Dolgelly, Ruthin, and Mold. At the Summer Assizes only one action was entered at Hertford, Cambridge, Ipswich, Bury St. Edmunds, Northampton, Carlisle, Oxford, Shrewsbury, Dolgelly, Ruthin, Mold, and Haverfordwest. Of the total amount recovered, more than one-half was recovered on the Northern Circuit. The largest number of days on which actions were tried at any town was 55."

It had been suggested that it would be possible to group towns for Assize purposes. That would be a good but inadequate change. But what was there to prevent the County Courts from being given an equally extensive jurisdiction with the High Court? Such a system already existed in Scotland. The County Courts would form an excellent tribunal; and it was to be remembered that the High Court did not at present do its Assize work efficiently. The Incorporated Law Society showed by figures, which were incontestable, that the commercial communities in Liverpool and Manchester, although favoured with more frequent Assizes, could not be satisfied with the way in which their business was transacted. During the Long Vacation they had to wait three or four months before they could get a cause on, and when the Judges did come down they always worked at high pressure in order to get back to London quickly. Instead of, as in London, sitting from 10.30 to 4 o'clock, the Judges sat from 9.30 in the morning up to 7, 8, 9, and even 10 o'clock at night. No one wanted a case tried in such circumstances, when everyone engaged was worn out. It was an absolute denial of justice; and the feeling in Liverpool was very strong. The Incorporated Law Society was constantly asking the Lord Chancellor to let a Judge sit continuously in Liverpool, but the only response was to send a Judge for a few days, and the, scramble of business resulted in this—that cases of magnitude the Liverpool solicitors preferred to bring to London for trial. There was no reason why a coequal jurisdiction should not be given to the County Courts. They already possessed power to deal with bankruptcy to any amount, to deal with employers' liability, and with Admiralty jurisdiction up to £500. Yet under the present ridiculous system they were forbidden to deal with a suit for more than £50. One of the grossest scandals of the day was that while the poor man bringing an action of tort for £50 damages must go to the High Court, the defendant might turn him out by summons on the ground that the plaintiff had no visible means. Of course litigants might have the option of going to the High Court instead of the County Court; but if a sufficient number of cases were not notified beforehand for an Assize, the business of one centre should be sent to be dealt with at another. There must also be some revision of the system of costs in the County Court. It cost as much to take out a plaint for £15 in the County Court as it took to issue a writ for £15,000 in the High Court. It appeared in the Judicial Statistics for 1893–4 that, including costs and fees, for every pound recovered in the High Court about 7s. was spent in costs. We had lately established the Commercial Court which, presided over by Mr. Justice Mathew and Mr. Justice Henn Collins, was becoming more and more popular, because litigants knew that they could get their causes tried there without unwarrantable delay, and that their cases would be from the beginning to the end, even in the interlocutory stages, under the control of the Judge himself. In the Chancery and the Probate, Matrimonial, and Admiralty Courts the same system was adopted with, equally satisfactory results. Hut things were very different when they came to the Queen's Bench Division. When a cause was set down for trial before a special jury in that Division, it might be sixth or seventh in the clay's list, with the result that if it were not reached that day it would be announced that no more special jury causes would be taken that week, and the witnesses who had been brought up to town would have to be sent back to the country in order to be again brought to London the following week. Again, when a special jury cause was not reached on a particular day when it was in the list for trial, the Judge of the Court might on the following day have to try prisoners at the Old Bailey, or to try Common Jury Causes, or to go on Circuit. Why could not a Special Jury Court be appointed, which should sit from day to day until every Special Jury Cause in the list for the Sittings was disposed of. Causes which were not reached in a day's list often most unaccountably and mysteriously disappeared from the list, and did not reappear for a long time. Such a state of things was a scandal, and amounted to a denial of justice. Turning to the question of costs, he found that in 1893 causes were tried, in which an aggregate sum of some £500,000 was recovered at a cost to the litigants of £200,000. Then there was our ridiculous system of the taxation of costs. In his opinion solicitors as a rule were not adequately rewarded for the trouble they had to take on behalf of their clients, and the result was that their whole object in conducting causes was to pile up costs by multiplying interlocutory proceedings. The consequence of such a system was that a wretched Taxing Master had to go through bills of costs, item by item, striking off a little here and there, with the result that the solicitors were dissatisfied, while the clients had to pay far more than they ought to do. Under the German system a solicitor was paid a sort of percentage upon the amount re-covered, say £20 for each £100 recovered, and an additional sum for extra work. He was conscious that there were many other matters of detail that he ought to touch upon in bringing forward a Motion of this kind, but he felt that he had already trespassed at too great length upon the attention of the House, to whom he was very grateful for having listened to him with so much patience, while he dealt with this very dry subject. He hoped that his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would not reject the very moderate proposal he had put forward, that there should be some inquiry had into this important question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might, perhaps, think that the particular machinery of a Royal Commission was the best adapted for such an inquiry, but he himself would be content to accept any other form of inquiry which the right hon. and learned Gentleman might suggest as better fitted to carry out his object. What was being done at the present time? They were told that the Rule Committee were preparing a new set of Rules, but the late Master of the Rolls had asserted that every fresh body of Rules cost litigants some two millions before its interpretation was complete. The Rules which had been made since 1870 constituted a huge volume, which would surprise the House if he had brought it with him. And yet it was said that it was necessary to make all those Rules in order to simplify and cheapen our legal procedure, while, in fact, they merely multiplied the difficulties of our legal system. Our legal procedure ought to be simplified by a body of men consisting, not only of judges and barristers, but of members of the lower branch of the profession, and of members of our great commercial bodies. In conclusion, he begged to move the Motion which stood upon the Paper in his name. ["Hear, hear!"]

, in seconding the Motion, said that the subject was one which certainly deserved consideration and discussion by that House. Although he did not know that the machinery of a Royal Commission was the best for conducting the inquiry which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite asked for, still he thought that an inquiry of some kind ought to be instituted into the question. He shared with the hon. and learned Gentleman the opinion that the time had come when the country was entitled to have an inquiry into the working of its judicial system, in order to ascertain whether it did or did not conform to the requirements of the day, and if it did not, what change ought to be introduced into it. Some hon. Members would remember the state of things that existed before the Judicature Acts were passed, and would wonder how it had been allowed to endure for so long. The truth was that the old system, with its old-fashioned system of pleading, and its numerous pitfalls, and the mystery which surrounded it, had become entirely out of harmony with common sense, and was intolerable. And yet, it, was simplicity itself compared with some of the things before the procedure of the Courts were altered by the Common Law Procedure Acts and by, he thought, simultaneous changes in Chancery proceedings. And so again, a time had come round when changes must be introduced into the present system, if it was to harmonise with the views of the people. It was almost inevitable that legal procedure would always, he believed, be in advance of public opinion. Until periodical investigations such as were secured by some process of inquiry, similar to a legal commission or committee, could take place, reforms practically could only emanate from Her Majesty's Judges, who were not, necessarily, in close touch, with the views of the public for whose security and benefit those Courts were supposed to exist. It would be the greatest presumption on his part, and very very far from his desire to speak with anything but unfeigned respect of Her Majesty's Judges. He was certain that it was the desire of the present occupants of the Bench, and especially of those of them who had been accustomed to practise at the Bar in recent years, to do everything in their power to devise methods for the simplification of procedure, for the avoidance of delay, and for the abolition of useless expense. ["Hear, hear!"] But it was evident, that they could only act within the limits of the law, and, above all, they could not add to their number. They had reason to be grateful to them for what they had done. They had introduced two of the most useful changes that had been made in procedure, at all events within the last twenty years. He meant the originating summons and the practice introduced in the Admiralty Division, and since adopted in the Commercial Courts. Under these systems, the procedure was in strict, accordance with common sense. It was encumbered with no useless steps, and the result was that its adoption had been attended with complete success. It was capable of great development, ["Hear, hear!"] There was no reason why the principle of an originating summons should not be applied to any case in which the construction of a will or of any contract was involved, and there was no reason why the procedure of the Commercial Court should not, be widely extended. ["Hear, hear!"] These were improvements which, it would be safe to predict, would certainly result from any form of inquiry. Then, again, there was the Assize system. They in Lancashire had urged for years that that, system was utterly out of harmony with the needs of the times. Every commercial body in Lancashire had said so over and over again, but no real change was made, or could be made without legislation, and they should look for legislation as a result of inquiry. They had been made aware that this question had been the subject of deliberation by Her Majesty's Judges. Unfortunately, they were not permitted to have the advantage of reading the expression of their Lordships' opinion, as he learnt in answer to a, question which he addressed to the Attorney General in this House. He could well believe that the Judges found it difficult to propose changes, which, would give Lancashire what she claimed without infringing upon the privileges of other places, and he could well believe that their views would have been different if they had been considering the disposition of the time, not of their own number, but of an increased number of Judges. They had evidence of the goodwill of one of their number (Mr. Justice Kennedy), a member of the Bench whom they in Lancashire had every reason to respect and admire—["hear, hear!"]—in the fact that he had allowed himself to be constituted what he might call the Lancashire Judge for a, period which they hoped was not destined soon to expire. That advance, however grateful they might be for it, did not bring the administration of justice into harmony with the needs of Lancashire, and left the Assize system still in existence, though they believed it to be obsolete. ["Hear, hear!"] Then, again, the County Court system, to which the Mover had referred, was capable of infinite improvement, good though it was. They wanted to see the County Courts made part and parcel of the Supreme Court of Judicature, so that the, system might be harmonious throughout, and this, he thought, could result only from an inquiry. The subject before the House was not one which, from its nature, could ever command great popular enthusiasm, or be a popular topic on election platforms, but it was nevertheless a subject which very vitally affected the interests of the public for whom the administration of justice should be not only absolutely pure—which it was and always would be throughout the Queen's dominions—["hear, hear!"]—but also be unattended with delay and expense, and in harmony with the views of the times in which they lived. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he agreed with his hon. Friend that the aspect of the House did not encourage the thought that great interest, was taken in this matter in the House; at the same time he realised that a, great amount of interest was taken in it outside the House. ["Hear, hear!"] He might say at once that it was not possible for him to accede to the prayer, if he might call it so, of the Motion that a Royal Commission should be appointed to deal with the matter. He did not in any way wish it to be supposed that he thought there was not ample room for inquiry; but, in his opinion, a Royal Commission would be about the worst way of proceeding that could possibly be devised. ["Hear, hear!"] They were not dealing with a single question or a single class of questions, but with a number of different questions, which had to be considered from different points of view. The effect of appointing a Royal Commission would be to hold the matter up, it might be for years, certainly for a considerable time; and, so far as the administration of the law was concerned, no very practical results had come from Royal Commissions in the past. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Durham had travelled over a, great deal of ground, not too much by any means, but he was not sure that it would not have been better if he had confined himself to certain points he had raised in order that hon. Members might have better understood the bearings of the question and the difficulties the hon. Member had to cope with. He was bound to say that he thought his hon. and learned Friend had introduced matters somewhat foreign to the matter immediately before the House, and had rather encumbered the question with criticisms on parts of the system, which, in his opinion, were not open to the attacks he had made upon them. What he had prominently in his mind was the attack made upon the expense of some parts of the system. It seemed to him that they had nothing to do with the expenses incurred in connection with the actual working of the Judicature Acts, and the particular instances the hon. Member had taken did not deserve the somewhat forcible remarks he made upon them. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member started with criticising the constitution of the Privy Council and the appointment of the Lords of Appeal, and he deprecated the expenditure of £24,000 a year which their appointment entailed. He did not hesitate to say that no better reform had been carried out of late years than the establishment of the four Lords of Appeal who sat in the Privy Council and the House of Lords. It was the constant complaint in years gone by that the judicial strength of the House of Lords consisted of the Lord Chancellor and the ex-Chancellors who might be sitting there. Of course from time to time distinguished Judges were created Peers, but it had been a great source of weakness in the House of Lords that there were no Judges there who had been solely trained as lawyers. But that was not by any means the only reason which led to the appointment of the four Lords of Appeal. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Durham had passed very lightly over the question of appeals from the Colonial and Indian Courts. Formerly there were constant complaints from the colonies, from Canada, and Australia, of the weakness of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and that was the case, notwithstanding the fact that there were available for service on the Judicial Committee a good many learned lawyers who were not available for service in the House of Lords. But the members of the Judicial Committee were often Judges who already had judicial duties to perform, or Judges who had done their work and served their time. Consequently there was not formerly a body of men who could be relied upon to sit at all times upon this tribunal and to strengthen it. His hon. and learned Friend talked about 50 or 60 appeals at a cost of £24,000 a year, and said that the Lords of Appeal only sat 50 days in the 12 months. By some error his hon. and learned Friend had been misled into making an inaccurate statement. The whole number of days on which the Lords of Appeal sat in the House of Lords and the Privy Council would be found to be far more than 50—probably 150 or 160.

explained that what he had said was that the Lords of Appeal heard some 50 cases only. He did not say that they only sat on 50 occasions.

did not think that the statement that they heard only 50 eases would be borne out by the statistics; but even if it were, that would not be an unsatisfactory state of things, having regard to the character of, the judgments delivered in the House of Lords. It was absolutely necessary that the highest Court of Appeal should be constituted of men of the highest reputation as lawyers, so that their judgments should command universal respect. The judgments of the House of Lords laid down legal principles and developed, so to speak, our code of law. They formed the foundation of decisions in the United States and in Australia and Canada, and were cited with approval in Continental Courts. Remembering that the Lords of Appeal had to sit in the House of Lords and on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in regular rota, he did not think that their remuneration was at all excessive. The next subject referred to by his hon. and learned Friend had only a very remote connection, if any, with the Judicature Acts. That subject was the constitution of the Railway Commission, and his hon and learned Friend considered it a scandal and abuse that there should be two Railway Commissioners, receiving £3,000 apiece. He had been conversant with the work of this Court ever since its establishment, and it was his opinion that it was not just to measure the work of the Commissioners simply by what was done in court. They had a great deal of work to do in connection with traffic arrangements and in connection with applications that were never heard of in court. But he agreed that the cases that came before the Commissioners for trial would be equally well tried before a Judge and expert assessors appointed ad hoc. The reason why that system had never been adopted was on account of the pressing and increasing demand from commercial litigants that there should be permanent members of the tribunal constituting its popular and commercial element. He was by no means sure that the traders had been wise in making that demand, but it was impossible to connect any failure on the part of the tribunal to transact work with any faults in the Judicature Acts, with which the Railway Commissioners' Court had nothing to do. The Court was established by special Act in 1873, and reestablished in 1889. Dealing next with the Court of Appeal, the hon. and learned Member said that the sum of £31,000 was a great deal for that Court. There were six Judges in the Court, and the sum was £31,000 instead of £30,000, because one of them was now also Master of the Rolls. There were two Appeal Courts sitting continuously during the judicial year. That imposed a severe strain on six Judges. The late Lord Bowen attended on many days when he was not in a fit state to do so; possibly his life might have been spared had he not been so strictly conscientious, and at the present time Judges often went to the Court, although they were in bad health, so strong was their determination to get through the work. His hon. and learned Friend did not suggest that the Judges in the Queen's Bench Division were paid too highly. They received £5,000 a year apiece, and could anyone maintain that the Lords Justices of the Court of Appeal, which stood next in importance to the House of Lords, ought to receive less than ordinary Judges? His view was, that the price the country paid for the services of the Lords Justices was certainly not too much, having regard to their position and the work they had to do. In fact, he was disposed to think that some day or other they might rightly be given higher remuneration. The hon. and learned Member said that there had been several days in recent months when the Court had not sat. That might have been the case in the last few months, but he knew that the learned Judges were making every effort to keep abreast of their work, and if they had found it practicable to sit on fewer days, he was satisfied that they had not allowed their work to get into arrear in consequence. It was a matter for congratulation that the arrears were fewer than they used to be. He remembered the time when it was no uncommon thing to have a huge list of appeals waiting to be heard, but now it was not an uncommon thing to see appeals disposed of within six weeks or two months after their first appearance in the list. Lord Herschell had told him not long ago that he had delivered a judgment in the House of Lords in a case which had gone through the Queen's Bench and the Court of Appeal and in which the writs had been issued within a year of the time when the appeal was heard in the House of Lords. He mentioned this to show that his hon. and learned Friend might have exercised a little more care in his examination of the effects of the Judicature Acts. Great improvements had undoubtedly been made in respect of the expeditious disposal of cases. At the time of his call to the Bar cases often took four and five years in finding their way to the House of Lords; and now they not infrequently took less than two years. The remedy of the hon. and learned Member for the evils which he maintained existed was a very extraordinary one. The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member was that the jurisdiction of the County Courts should be made coextensive with the jurisdiction of the superior Courts, so that any action might be tried in the former. If that system were to be established in this country the practical utility of the County Courts would be doomed. The real object of the County Courts was that there should be a speedy and cheap method of dispensing justice for the recovery of debts and the trial of cases involving no difficult questions of law. If there was a power on the part of the County Courts to take the class of actions confined to the superior Courts they might have the County Courts in business centres like Birmingham, Leeds, and other places blocked for a week or ten days by the hearing of some heavy case which it was thought fit to bring into the County Courts. He was satisfied, having made this subject one of the studies of his life, that they could not possibly engraft on the County Court system any substantial share of the work of the superior Courts. He believed all commercial men would agree that they wanted to have the best Judges and the most expeditious tribunals for the difficult and heavy cases, and that the County Courts should mainly be utilised for the speedy trial of that class of cases which needed a speedy trial and which did not involve great questions of law. The first principle of the County Court should be to do duty as between the poorer suitors and the suitors who required an expeditious remedy; and it would be a retrograde step to provide that the jurisdiction of the County Courts should be co-extensive with the jurisdiction of the superior Courts. It had been urged that suitors were frequently waiting for cases to be tried. He agreed it was necessary that there should be a, better organisation of judicial power and better arrangements with regard to the way in which the cases were heard and the number of Judges that sat from time to time; but a great deal had been done in that direction of late years, and no one was more alive to that necessity than the Lord Chief Justice. There was one matter lost sight of by all persons who spoke on this subject without, he thought, sufficient study of the question—that was the power now given to suitors of fixing their venues wherever they liked. He thought that this most unfortunate rule came into vogue at the time of the Judicature Act, that if the place of trial was not specified the suitor came to London. The consequence was that a great many solicitors and many suitors combined in believing that a visit to London was not so unpleasant after all. But many of these cases might just as well have been tried at many of the circuit towns. This point had not been recently overlooked by the Judges, and one of the reforms which was about to be tried and to be brought speedily into force was in connection with a summons for direction taken out in every case. The Judge who dealt with the matter should have the power of ordering where the action should be tried and not to leave it to the discretion of the plaintiff whether it should be tried in Middlesex or not. No one who had studied the circuit system could be ignorant of the fact that there must occasionally be a waste of judicial strength. At times it undoubtedly led to the necessity of Judges sitting early and late; in his own experience the Court had sat from 9 in the morning until half-past 11 at night in order to finish a case; but this fact showed that the Judges did not spare themselves in order to get through the business. The real fact, however, was that, whichever way they looked at the question, the circuit system was ingrained in our judicial life and ought to be maintained in our judicial work. The Mover of the Resolution said that the persons who were mainly interested were a few innkeepers who desired that the towns should still be occupied with those cases. That was not so. In the first place, there had been an increasing demand for more frequent assizes, not only from Liverpool and Manchester, but from many other centres—first for more criminal assizes; and, secondly, for more opportunities for civil business. The House could not, therefore, disregard what were the wishes of the towns distant from London; and, although they might be very desirous to establish an ideal system of circuits, they could not overlook the natural desire of the towns where the business of assize had been discharged for a great many years to maintain what they believed to be their privilege in this matter. The demand from all parts of the country to have the circuit system maintained in their towns could not be lightly set aside, and he hoped the control which the Courts would exercise in the future over the venues where cases should be tried might have some good effect in restoring to those towns some of the business which had been diverted to other centres. If he was right in this view, then they would hear less of cases being brought to Middlesex; and, if the statistics were examined for the last two or three years, he believed there would be found to be considerably less delay in hearing cases sent down than had been the case four or five years ago. Then it must not be supposed that they were not improving the position. He believed that they had been materially improving their system from the point of view of expedition and facility in getting cases heard. The hon. Gentleman had drawn attention to the Commercial Courts. It was an excellent system—nothing could be better; but the House should remember that they could not apply that system throughout the whole of our procedure. There were many barristers and suitors who would like to see a. Court for Crown Paper cases and railway cases; but the moment they began to break up their system into a number of special Courts they ran the risk of encountering other difficulties and dangers which were extremely embarrassing. In dealing with great commercial cases they not infrequently required the attendance of those who might be captains of ships and witnesses from foreign countries; and it was extremely important that there should be an expeditious method of trial. But while the example of the Commercial Court had been cited, he did not believe that in the interests of the suitors or of our judicial system the High Court of Justice should be broken up into a series of tribunals, a Judge for each, hearing a special part of the case. The effect of this system would be to narrow and dwarf the minds of the Judges and prevent them from becoming the all-round men we had at present. It would be like living on a perpetual diet of the same food, which was one of the most unhealthy courses that could be followed. The hon. Member had further cited the German system of remuneration as one to be followed by us. If a sum of £100 was recovered in an action the solicitor was to have a percentage of it. Then he could go to the Court and say, "I have had a great deal of trouble; give me something more." The Court had then to fix how much extra should be granted; but what was to happen in the case of the solicitor who appeared for the defendant? He did not see what share of the proceeds in this particular instance the solicitors in that case were to have, and he did not know how they could get by a rule of thumb at the work that had really been done—as, for example, scientific investigations and careful inquiries into antecedents. He had hoped his hon. and learned Friend was going to advocate a system of costs which would represent an indemnity to the successful party, controlled, of course, by superior authority. If he would advocate that kind of reform, his hon. and learned Friend would find in him a hearty supporter, but he could not think it a step in the right direction to make a trial of the German system, which was to give the solicitor a certain percentage on the amount recovered, and then by arbitrary rule of thumb to give him so much more if the case had been a particularly troublesome one. Why was it thought, in the language of the Seconder of the Motion, that the circuit system had become obsolete? Lancashire itself was now benefiting largely from the existence of the circuit system. It was the circuit system which enabled Judges to go to Lancashire more frequently than to other parts of the United Kingdom, while at the same time the causes were tried by High Court Judges with a direct appeal to the Court of Appeal. Only in the possible development of that system, he thought, were they likely to satisfy the demands of large centres such as Leeds, Bristol, and other places. ["Hear, hear!"] Before a Royal Commission could come to a conclusion upon the various grievances dealt with in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder they would be at work for two or three years, and they would produce' a Report which might itself be obsolete, having regard to the length of time over which their inquiry had extended. The method of remedying existing defects by the tribunal of Judges might not be altogether an ideal one, but he was satisfied it was far better than a Royal Commission; and, while he joined in the hope that there might be prompt inquiry and a speedy improvement into some of these matters, he submitted that the purpose would not be served if the House were to accede to the Motion.

cordially agreed with the Attorney General with regard to the undesirability of dealing with the matters in question by such a cumbersome piece of machinery as a Royal Commission. The facts were not in dispute. What was the good, then, of subjecting very intricate legal machinery to a long, exhaustive, and probably useless inquiry by Royal Commission? There was no matter upon which the House of Commons had a better right to express criticism, or to exercise its judgment upon than the administration of justice, and they might depend upon it that in calling attention to the necessity for reform time was not being thrown away. Those who were responsible for our legal machinery could not be said to be perfect, and this Debate would probably do them good as well as anybody else. [A laugh.] He hoped it would not be supposed it was the Judges he was speaking of—[laughter]—although perhaps it might be said that even they would be the better for a little prodding. ["Hear, hear!"] Take the criticisms upon the circuit system. Frequently it happened that the Court was called upon to sit for an unconscionable number of hours. He had himself defended a man for murder at 12 o'clock at night. That was not good form either for him or the Crown. [Laughter.] Who was responsible for that? It was the most ridiculous system with regard to the detention of jurors on trial for felony. This was done out of mercy to the jurors. Judges hesitated to keep those men away from their homes all night, and rather than do so they would sit late in order to finish a case. He should like to see the counsel who would have the hardihood to object to sit late in these circumstances. [Laughter.] The criticisms which had been made were in the main criticisms upon administration. Take, again, that most important question to all lawyers—in which he admitted, however, clients had some secondary interest—the question of costs. [Laughter.] He quite agreed with the Attorney General in making costs an indemnity to the successful litigant. He had heard of one of Her Majesty's Judges—not now on the Bench—who was excusing the present system, and when it was pointed out to him how hard it was that the successful litigant should have to pay in respect of his successful litigation, said, with a reminiscence of the sports of bygone days, "Well, you see, even the winning cock loses a few feathers." [Laughter.] He happened to know that the present Lord Chief Justice of England was strongly for making costs an indemnity. Of course lawyers were all for making the Courts as popular as possible—in other words, for increase of business—[laughter]—for that was what his hon. and learned Friend suggested. He did not see that a Royal Commission was needed to determine that point. He did not quite agree that the dealing with costs in the manner suggested by the Attorney General could be done by rule, though it might very well be done by legislation; and he thought the Attorney General might possibly introduce a clause to that effect in one of his Bills dealing with proceedings in the High Court of Justice. Then with regard to the Circuit system, did his hon. and learned Friend propose to abolish it? He only knew that he should be sorry to advocate any such proposal in his constituency. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] He believed there was a strong feeling in the country in favour of serious legal questions being tried by Judges of the High Court of Justice. ["Hear, hear!"] It would be monstrous to suppose that all such cases should be brought up to London, and if they could not bring up those local cases to London, then the Judges must go down to the locality to try them. As to the arrangement of the time at the disposal of the Judges, his hon. and learned Friend said that witnesses might be brought up to London in a special jury case, and the next day the learned Judge concerned might announce that he had to do duty at the Old Bailey. He felt perfectly sure that if his hon. and learned Friend could bring any such instance to the knowledge of the Lord Chief Justice he would make every effort to prevent such a thing occurring again. With all deference to his hon. and learned Friend he did not think that such a circumstance had happened in, the Courts lately. Under the direction of the Lord Chief Justice great pains had been taken to prevent such things happening. Generally speaking, the subject was one on which they were all agreed, and he did not think his hon. and learned Friend, on reflection, would come to the conclusion that in this matter, the facts being ascertained and criticised, a Royal Commission would be a serviceable mode of dealing with the difficulties and anomalies to which he had properly and most effectively drawn the attention of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore he would suggest to his hon. and learned Friend whether he should not be content with having drawn attention to the subject and with the discussion he had elicited. The hon. and learned Member had certainly rendered a service to the country by directing the notice of Parliament to matters which were, unquestionably, of great public interest. [Cheers.]

thought the hon. Member for Durham was entitled to the thanks of the House for having brought forward this subject, which was a matter that came home to a great many suitors. He was sorry that the Attorney General dealt so lightly with what Lancashire thought was a very serious grievance. He endorsed all that his colleague, the hon. Member for the Toxteth Division had said as to the strong local feeling in Liverpool and Manchester with regard to the time now occupied in hearing of commercial cases. The Attorney General thought he gave them some consolation in saying that, in future, there would be a summons for direction as to the venue where a case was to be tried, but the result would be that the grievance of Lancashire would be increased. Their grievance at present was that their cases were so congested in number that an adequate time was not given to each. In Liverpool, in 1894, 144 cases occupied 56 days in consideration, whereas in London these cases would have ocsupied 75 days of the Courts. Therefore, a Lancashire case had only two-thirds of the time given to a case in London. If cases were to be sent back from London to Lancashire, then there would be more hasty consideration at the hands of the Judges. The House would be surprised to hear that it had been known that new cases had been undertaken in Liverpool, sometimes after six o'clock in the evening. Such a state of things was altogether preposterous. ["Hear, hear!"] In London the Judges sat about five hours a day, whereas in Lancashire they sat six or seven hours a day. He submitted that they could not get proper consideration for their cases so long as that was the case. Another grievance arising from the foregoing circumstances was that there was no fixed time for the meeting or rising of the local Courts, and that additional expense was sometimes thereby caused to the suitors, who often had to wait about the Courts uselessly for a long time. He did not entirely associate himself with the opinion of the hon. Member for the Toxteth Division that the Circuit system was obsolete, but undoubtedly it required amendation. As to the Attorney General's argument about the feeling that would be raised if the Circuit system was taken away from the old towns, he would remind him of what was done with the Parliamentary representation of old towns, and would submit that they should consider, not only the feelings of a small community, which had the privilege of the visits of Her Majesty's Judges, but also the legitimate claims of places which had become large centres of business. ["Hear, hear!"] In Liverpool at one Assize the Court sat until past seven o'clock on eleven days, and at another until past nine o'clock on nine days. Hon. Members would see from these facts that it was not merely from a desire to have a Judge to themselves that Liverpool felt so strongly on this question, nor was it from a desire to emulate London, but that there was a real need for this legal business to be transacted in a proper way. ["Hear, hear!"] He assured the Attorney General that he did not speak on this subject in any way from a mere professional point of view. ["Hear, hear!"] He spoke for the commercial men of Liverpool, for the Chamber of Commerce, and for the Corporation, all of whom felt that their interests were prejudiced and expense needlessly incurred by a necessary reform being so long delayed.

said he thought there was one branch of the subject presented by the hon. and learned Member for Durham which had not received the attention it deserved, and which lay at the root of many of the reforms he had suggested. He referred to the present condition of the County Courts, and to the necessity for a, wide extension of their jurisdiction, and of very drastic reform in a great deal of their forms of procedure. The hon. Member who had last spoken had mentioned the opinion of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce on this point of the extension of the powers of the County Courts, and he believed commercial men generally were in favour of such a reform. In Scotland, where the administration of justice was far in advance of that in England, a, much better system prevailed, and he believed that properly qualified Judges of the County Courts in England were quite capable of dealing with many of the cases now dealt with at Assizes. ["Hear, hear!"] The County Courts ought to be something higher and better than mere debt-collecting machines. ["Hear, hear!"] The number of County Court Judges at present might be less numerous. What was wanted in those Courts were men of a high class, with better remuneration and a wider jurisdiction. Reference had been made to the number of days Judges had sat in the year—one Judge had not sat more than 100 days, and others only 70 or 80 days—but power was given that help should be rendered by one Judge to another. He did not think any practical good had resulted from that, simply because the clause had really not been put into force. He should very much demur to the appointment of a Royal Commission. He did not think that the appointment of Royal Commissions, at all events as they were at present constituted, were a very encouraging means of procedure. Royal Commissions used to be bodies of a judicial character—men with unpledged minds hearing evidence and coming to what they thought was a sound conclusion. Royal Commissions nowadays had degenerated into a gathering together of a number of advocates on both sides. Interests were supposed to be represented and not the public—["hear, hear!"]—facts were not to be ascertained, but theories were to be proved, and he should be very sorry to let loose; the administration of justice in this country among a body of that description. The precedent had not been encouraging. He did not think he was exaggerating when he said that the result of the Judicature Acts, which were the product of a. Royal Commission, had been to enormously increase the cost of litigation in this country. The practical question was whether they could do anything to utilise and to better employ the great machinery which their High Court gave them. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought there was a great waste of power in the appropriation of time. He was not going to quarrel with the local sentiment to which the hon. Member for Liverpool had alluded, but he did not think it was necessary to waste all the time that was wasted in what was called the opening of commissions and the other paraphernalia which characterised Circuit life. ["Hear, hear!"] There was another point—he knew he was not treading on very dangerous ground—and that was, Was it not possible that rather too much time was devoted to vacations? ["Hear, hear!"] He certainly thought the Courts of Justice in this country should not be closed for something like 12 or 13 weeks. He thought a readjustment could be made without entrenching on the rest which, of all men, the Judges were entitled to, or on the recreation and rest which the members of that most laborious profession, the Bar, were entitled to have, and, at the same time, without shutting the doors of the Courts of Justice in the face of the whole community. He was under the impression until that Debate that the hours of sitting of the Courts had been very much abbreviated.

They have in London.

said he would not express his own opinion on this point, but he would venture to tell the House what a very distinguished Member of that House, who now occupied a high judicial position in this country, once told him. "If," he said,

"the Courts of Justice sat at the same hour at which they sat when I was called to the Bar, and rose at the same hour, and if they did not have such very long adjournments in the middle of the day, it would be equivalent to two additional Judges."

["Hear, hear!"] All these were minor questions, but he thought that if the attention of Parliament were drawn to them perhaps the attention of other high dignitaries might be drawn to the fact that judicial time was public property, and that the public were entitled to have a just use made of that judicial time. ["Hear, hear!"] He spoke with very great respect of the Lord Chancellor; but he also thought that he might assist the wide feeling for improvement in the administration of justice in this country, in facilitating its progress and in lowering its cost, by means of Rules, if his Lordship and the Rule Committee would devote their time, their attention, and their determination to those Rules. ["Hear, hear!"]

agreed that County Court jurisdiction might be advantageously extended, even beyond the limit suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. He thought a remedy for the congested state of business in the country might be found in a revision of the County Court Circuits, and probably by the appointment of what he might call a superior class of Judges in those circuits. They would relieve the Judges of the High Court, and would render unnecessary their absence from London. It was a matter which would require very considerable attention, and would necessitate legislation. He had brought in a Bill with regard to County Court jurisdiction, and he hoped that during the present Session an opportunity would be afforded of considering that Bill and of sending it to the Standing Committee on Law.

said he did not desire to press his Motion to a. Division. He thought the Debate had been a satisfactory one, and he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

rose to call attention to the serious effects of the long period of agricultural depression, so far as it affected peasant freeholders in Wales; and to move,

"That this House is of opinion that the distressed condition of the peasant and small occupying freeholders in Wales is such as to call for the earliest attention of the Government, and that it is desirable that State loans, subject to a low rate of interest, should be granted to such of the said freeholders as purchased their own holdings with money borrowed on the security of their land to enable them to redeem existing mortgages in respect of which a higher rate of interest is payable than such freeholders are able to pay in the present state of agriculture."

He said that the peasant freeholders were described in the Report of the Royal Commission dealing with the matter as a class '" who are on the verge of financial ruin," and, in the minority Report, as being "in a condition which is positively disastrous." Under these circumstances he felt it his duty to bring the matter before the House in the belief that the Government might see their way to give some relief to this class without doing any injury to the taxpayers or prejudicing their interests in any respect. The Report of the Commissioners, so far as this question was concerned, was a, unanimous one. Indeed, so much impressed were they with the strength of the case put forward on behalf of this class, and so struck were they with the grievances under which these men were suffering and with the hardships they had gone through, that he thought he was right in saying that at one point in their proceedings the Commissioners considered whether or not an interim Report should be published for the purpose of asking the Government of that time to render immediate relief to the small occupying freeholders in Wales. The Commissioners reported that the "freeholders are now in a most precarious position, and they have nothing short of ruin staring them in the face," while in another part of their Report they said, "in the west counties of South Wales their position is most precarious, and the problem of their future is a very difficult one." They therefore recommended that assistance should be granted to them by means of State loans at a low rate of interest. With regard to the question of interest, he would not suggest any more than the Commission had suggested, that money should be granted for the relief of these small freeholders of Wales except upon terms not prejudicial to taxpayers. All he suggested was that loans should be granted at the lowest rate of interest at which the Treasury could lend without any loss to the State. The Report suggested that this relief should be granted to a limited class, to the class who were owners of their freeholds, farming them themselves. He would not go into the details of the scheme the Commissioners suggested, nor would he suggest an alternative scheme in detail; he would only deal generally with the main features of the case. The principle of establishing small occupying freeholders had in Ireland been tried with success, so much so that one Act had followed another in rather rapid succession, for the benefit of this class of peasant proprietors in Ireland. Not only had it been applied to Ireland, the principle had also been adopted in this country by the passing of the Small Holdings Act, which established the principle that it is desirable, even in England and Wales, to facilitate the acquisition of small holdings. It was true the Act had been very little, if at all, availed of, but the principle remained established, the failure of the Act being accounted for by the somewhat cumbrous nature of its provisions, and the difficulty of applying them in many cases. The passing of the Act, however, established the principle, and the Report of the Select Holdings Committee declared that the very reference of the question to the Committee assumed the desirability of extending the class of small cultivating owners in this country. Another principle was laid down in the Report of the Committee, that those who were to be first assisted should be those who had done something to help themselves. The object of Governments then in the past had been to establish this very class in England and Wales, and what he suggested by the Motion was that even so the present Government should continue that policy in Wales, extending assistance to the class whose very existence was at stake. Upon this point the present Colonial Secretary, writing to Mr. Marchant Williams, the Secretary of the Welsh Liberal Unionist Association, on April 23 1895, said:—

"I am not competent to speak dogmatically on the Land Question; but if I might venture an individual opinion it would be that the only permanent and satisfactory road to a better state of things is to be found in an extension of the Land Purchase Act, by which landlords and tenants may agree to make the cultivators the owners upon terms enabling them to support themselves comfortably in their holdings."

The Commissioners had recommended that assistance should be given to a limited class in Wales, and he would, therefore, trouble the House for a few moments in considering the cases which had brought about the difficulties of this class and the condition of affairs which called for reform. Their difficulties were to be attributed to the land hunger which existed in Wales. He would not deal exhaustively with this, the question of land hunger, because hon. Gentlemen opposite representing Welsh constituencies would agree that this land hunger existed. ["Hear, hear!"] It was impossible for an Englishman, unacquainted with the state of agriculture in Wales, to really appreciate what this land hunger meant—this rush for farms, this tremendous bidding at auctions where land was for sale—a state of things that a British landowner would envy if he had had any Welsh experience. This land hunger had led tenants to purchase their holdings at ruinous prices. The reasons which induced this eagerness arose out of the feeling of tenants that if they lost the occupation of their farm, if they did not buy the farm, they would find great difficulty in getting another farm equally suitable on any land at all. Ever present with them was a sense of the insecurity of their tenure. This might be said to be a controversial point, and he would not go into it; but, whatever might be said about it and the causes that had brought it about, it could not be denied that a feeling existed in Wales that tenancies in the past were uncertain. There was a further inducement to tenants to buy their holdings in the fact that they had expended money on the land, they had lived on the land for many years, and improved it much, and if they did not secure the result of this they would have to incur the same expense again. When they bought, prices were high, and in many instances the tenants bought improvements they had themselves carried out on the land. A further inducement to purchase was the feeling that they were handing on the value of their labour to their children, and there was the sentiment strong in Celtic people which a fanner described as a passionate fondness for the familiar features of the farm, the parish, and its surroundings. The land hunger was more pronounced in Cardigan than in any other county; the ratio of freeholders to tenant farmers there was 21 to 78; and in the parish of Penrhyn there were 102 farmer freeholders, and 90 of these had bought their farms during the last 12 years. As a witness said, it would have been much better for them had they not done so, because their interest or mortgages was more than the rent they had previously paid. Owing to the insatiable desire for land in Wales, the prices paid had been ruinously high, and farmers had paid such a price that they found it impossible to keep up the payment of the interest on their mortgages. The Commissioners felt the importance of the question, and they sent out private circulars asking for information on the question of prices paid for land, and from the replies received they selected 100 as examples. Out of these they found that five farmers had bought at 20 years' purchase, 46 at from 20 to 30 years' purchase, 12 at from 40 to 50 years' purchase, and 14 at prices varying from 50 to 100 years' purchase. ["Hear, hear!"] The tenants who had bought these farms had, in most cases, not sufficient capital to complete the purchase, and consequently had to borrow. Sometimes they could pay a half, and in other instances they had to mortgage to the extent of two-thirds of the property. The interest varied from 4 to 4½ per cent., and occasionally rose to 5 per cent. The tenant purchasers therefore found themselves in this position: they that bought the land at a very high price, a large portion of which they had raised on mortgage, and in many cases they found that for the amount they had had to borrow they were paying interest equal to the rent they had previously paid. The whole difficulty then had arisen out of this land hunger, and those who were in the worse position were the farmers who had bought during the last 25 years. The farmers who had bought before that period had passed through an interval of good times, had taken the best advantage of those times, and were now in comparatively easy circumstances. The class who had bought later were in a position worse than that of the tenant farmers, their condition being described by witnesses as "badly off," as "dire necessity," and "straitened in circumstances because of the pressure of mortgage loans." In the year 1888 a letter appeared in The Times which well described the condition of this class of cultivators. The letter was from a gentleman who went as a Commissioner from The Times to report on the state of agriculture in Wales. He said of Cardigan that the shadow of the mortgagee hung over the land, and that the difficulties of the men who had bought their freeholds ten years before had increased year by year, until payment was becoming impossible, and the end could not be far off. There was no doubt that between 1887 and 1894 there was an increase of 1 per cent. in the class of farming owners in Wales; but that slight increase was attributable not to the fact that the small freeholders had become more thriving in those years, but to the fact that the land hunger continued to exist during that time, and existed to the present day. The increase had taken place principally in counties like Anglesea and Carnarvon, where very large sales of property had occurred in recent years, whilst the decrease was to be accounted for by the fact that large numbers of the small freeholders had at length found the burden they had to bear was more than they could carry. An experiment had been tried in Wales by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which threw some light on the question as to how a scheme to assist this class of tenants would work in the Principality. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners commenced in 1885 the sale of farms by means of deferred payments to the tenants. Up to 1895 they had sold 9,500 acres of agricultural land, the price realised being £153,000. The sales were by auction, 15 per cent. of the purchase money had to be paid up, the other 85 per cent. remaining on the land as a terminable mortgage, payable in 30 years. Mr. Bock Porter, the Secretary to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, gave evidence before the Land Commission in regard to the working of the scheme. He stated that there had been no difficulty with the tenants, and that in the whole of the ten years there had not been a single defaulter. During a period of the greatest agricultural depression every one of the tenants paid his instalments and interest with the promptest regularity, and the experiment, Mr. Bock Porter said, had been completely and absolutely justified. Mr. Morgan Richardson, a solicitor, land agent, and land owner in Wales, who had practically made this question his own in some respects, and who had had the widest possible experience of this class of people, said that where they had been enabled to purchase their farms they had paid the interest with regularity even in the very worst of times. That showed that if the Government could establish a system of loans by which this class of farmers could be assisted in Wales, they would receive payment of the instalments promptly and regularly. Whilst the Welsh Land Commissioners differed on many other points, they came to a unanimous conclusion on the question that some scheme in the direction suggested by this Motion should be adopted. At present many of the small freeholders had mortgages on their farms on which they were paying interest of 4 and 4½ per cent., varying according to the character of the security. These freeholders were an industrious class, who, as a rule, paid the mortgage interest punctually, but their position was most unsatisfactory. Having to pay this high rate of interest they were unable to reduce the principal, and they lived in constant terror of having the amount of the mortgage called in. This scheme of assistance by the State would put an end to the uncertainty and insecurity which at present weighed so heavily upon the Welsh peasant owner. He hoped the Government would give this question not only their serious and sympathetic, but also their favourable consideration. He was quite certain if they did they would be helping a most deserving class of people, who year in and year out worked from early morn till late at night, calling their children and their wives to their assistance, but who yet, in spite of all their efforts, were in a state which could only be described as lamentable. He begged to move the Resolution.

seconded the Motion. Those hon. Members who represented such large numbers of small freeholders in Wales asked the Government to adopt some principle of State loans to small freeholders, and if they could get a definite declaration that the system which had worked so well in Ireland would, in the near future, be adopted in Wales, they should have obtained the object they had in view. The Welsh Land Commission had clearly established two things. In the first place they had established the fact that there were genuine grievances in Wales in regard to land tenure which ought to be remedied, and in the second place they had established the right of Wales to separate treatment, for, although there might be hardships of a similar character in England, the Commission were unanimously agreed as to Wales. The Commissioners had arrived at the unanimous conclusion that some scheme of the kind indicated in the Motion was desirable. His hon. Friend had described the insatiable land hunger in Wales, or, as the Commissioners termed it, the sacred attachment to the ancestral home. The Welsh peasant freeholder preferred to give a large sum to purchase his farm rather than be deprived of the place where his father, grandfather, and perhaps his great-grandfather, had lived before him. He might be allowed to quote the following passage on this subject from the report of the Welsh Land Commission, which exactly expressed the condition of things—

"Speaking broadly we are inclined to think that in the majority of cases the depression with winch we have dealt above has affected them from an economic point of view quite as much as the land owning and tenant farming classes. But we have had forcibly brought to our notice in the course of our inquiry the fact that a large percentage of the occupying freeholders are persons who, or whose immediate ancestors have been, tenant farmers, and especially that during the time of the agricultural prosperity in the sixties and in the seventies many tenant farmers purchased their holdings at prices which were probably even then high, but which, owing to the subsequent depression, have proved to be ruinously excessive. It was stated, and we believe with accuracy, that in many cases the purchase money equivalent to fifty years' annual value was given for a farm holding by the tenant who was in possession at the time of the sale. Such cases were perhaps exceptional, but it is perfectly true to say that very high prices—prices quite out of relation to the economic value of the land, considered as an investment—were given by many of those who are now occupying freeholdings in Wales, who were impelled by an intense desire to remain in possession of the holdings on which they had been brought up, and with which the life of their families had been associated for generations and even centuries."

This quotation clearly showed the state of things in Wales. One district of the county of Pembroke consisted largely of small freeholders. In many cases the farms were bought at high prices in prosperous times after the General Election of 1868, when there had been a great deal of irritation between landlord and tenant in Wales, and many unjust evictions. The Report of the Commission showed that many of the freeholders bought their farms when prices were high, that they had struggled for years under great difficulties, and were obliged to buy their farms to save themselves from unjust eviction, and in some cases were compelled to buy the improvements on their farms. A man was in a different position under a mortgagee from what he was under an ordinary landlord. There were in Wales many excellent local landlords, who lived among their tenants and met them in bad times with reductions and remissions of rent. The mortgagee was often a trustee, and no abatement of the high rate of interest could be made by him, because it was not in his power to do so. Mr. Griffith Jones, formerly a solicitor, but now a barrister, in his evidence before the Land Commission, said that in Cardiganshire the small freeholders had greatly increased in numbers of recent years, and he would tell the House what he said:—

"He estimated that the proportion of small owners to occupiers was at any rate one to every three.' There is one district about five miles by six miles occupied almost exclusively by small freeholders. Witness had acted professionally (as solicitor) in the purchase of many of these holdings, and the purchasing price had invariably reached thirty years' purchase, often 35 years or more on the rack rent, The usual course was that the purchaser found one-third or one-fourth, and borrowed the remainder at 4 per cent., with the result that he stood at a higher rent than if he were only a tenant."

He was not going into details, or suggest a scheme, but the Report of the Land Commission recommended that a State loan should be granted in the case of farms not more than 150 acres in extent. For himself, he did not agree in that view. Those who represented Welsh constituencies did not wish so much for any definite declaration by the Government on the subject as the recognition of the principle itself. There were many struggling freeholders in his constituency whose farms were over 150 acres, and he should be sorry to see State loans restricted to farms under that extent. He wished to draw the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to a letter, embodying a suggestion of practical utility, which appeared in the Economist newspaper on 9th January last. It was headed—" Post Office Savings Bank: Interest on Deposits," and read as follows:—

"Sir,—Rumours are abroad to the effect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering how much longer the Post Office can continue to pay 2½ per cent. as interest on money deposited with it. When this question of the rate of interest allowed by the Post Office to depositors comes up for discussion, two points only are generally raised—first, that banks do not like the competition of the Post Office for customers' money at such a rate as 2½ per cent.; secondly, that the public exchequer loses by the transaction, but as this loss is a small one and the 2½ per cent. interest is supposed to encourage thrift, it is regarded as a matter of no great concern to the public. The net result of these two considerations is that little inclination is felt on the part of the public to disturb the existing arrangements. There is, however, a third aspect which is left out of sight, which has a very considerable effect indeed upon the public convenience, and of which the public take apparently no note. The balance sheets of banks show that on the average quite half the money deposited at the bank is loaned out again locally to be employed in business of all kinds. Now the Post Office deposits are reckoned to amount to some £120,000,000 or more. If the Post Office acted like other banks, one-half of this vast amount would be let out again locally to promote business of all kinds. If we could only get a Return published of the amount of money deposited by each county in the Post Office Savings' Bank on, say, January 1st in each year, we should know, by halving that amount, what each district loses by the withdrawal of these large amounts by a bank which does nothing to encourage local trade. This is a matter of the greatest public importance not only to borrowers, but to the infinite number of people who would benefit in countless ways by the business carried on with this capital. If we had a compulsory public registration of land, and the Post Office advanced half their deposits on well-secured mortgages, something would be done to prevent the absolute withdrawal of large sums of money from local industries, but the Post Office will probably not care to trouble itself about any such undertaking. If we could only suppose for a moment other banks acting on the same principle as the Post Office, and while receiving money on deposit, declining all advances, local business would soon come to a deadlock. The wonder is that the public have not long ago seen through the evil of the present large absorption of local capital by the Post Office, and insisted upon a reduction of the rate of interest for the sake of local industry.—I am, yours faithfully, E."

He did not know what the Post Office deposits in the different counties amounted to. He would move for a Return on the subject, which he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would grant him. He submitted that the suggestion contained in the letter he had read was well worth consideration—that these local deposits should be applied for local purposes—and it appeared from what he read that the Post Office could well afford to lend at a low rate—say, 3 per cent., or, at the most, 3⅛. The claims of Welsh peasant freeholders was not a matter of Party. It would be supported by hon. Members opposite. They who represented a large number of freeholders put the matter before the Government as one which Conservative and Unionist candidates at the last Election declared strongly in favour of. He did not think there was a Liberal, Conservative, or Unionist candidate seeking the suffrage of any agricultural constituency at the last Election who did not prominently favour those claims. He hoped the Government would make a declaration in favour of helping them and saving them from the absolute ruin with which for a long time they had been face to face.

, in supporting the Motion, said he knew the small freeholders of Radnorshire intimately. They were thrifty and industrious men, and the reason of their difficulty was they had to pay higher interest than their land enabled them to pay. Their position, although they were freeholders, was worse than that of an ordinary tenant or labourer. Much of their land they bought 25 years ago, when agricultural prosperity was great. The tenant farmers had been met generously by their landlords in reductions and remissions of rent, the repair of buildings, and in other ways, but these unfortunate freeholders had had no help of that kind. There was no class of men in Wales more deserving of support than these peasant freeholders, and he hoped the Government, if they possibly could, would see their way to advance them loans at the present price of money. This was not a Party question, for Members from Wales on both sides of the House were absolutely united on it.

said he was delighted to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Radnorshire. This was no Party question. He himself did not speak as a Party man on that occasion, for in his county amongst these freeholders he found Conservatives and Liberals. It was not a question of Party politics, but a question of the necessity of the people. He had received a letter from a district which would be known to many in the House—the district of Penrhyn—which stated that a tenant farmer who, 25 years ago, bought his farm and became a freeholder, was now actually a pauper. Why was this? They had heard that the land hunger in Wales was the cause of it; but that was not the only cause. In Cardiganshire, where large estates had been sold, the tenant farmer occupied the same farm on which his father and grandfather had lived for years. Under these circumstances a man could not go to an auction and see the farm sold over his head without a struggle to try and keep it in his own hands. That was partly the reason why such large sums had been given in his county for farms—from 50 up to even 70 years' purchase having been given. There was the case of a farmer who, after buying his farm, for which he had paid a rent of £50 a year, had to pay £105 a year in interest on the money and do the repairs. That was an impossible state of affairs. The real cause, however, was the curious position of the tenant farmers in Wales. The English tenant farmer, if turned out of his holding, could go and try to make a living in England, Scotland, Ireland, America, Canada, or any other part of the world where English was spoken, but of these men 90 per cent. could not speak English, and therefore they were tied to their country as were no other tenant farmers. That was the secret of their giving such high prices for the land in Wales. Another trouble was the sweeping number of notices to quit after an election. He could not help thinking that the Government could meet them in the same spirit as had been done in the case of Ireland, where large sums had been lent at 3½ per cent. [Mr. W. LONG shook his head.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head, but it was the case that sums of money had been lent to the tenant farmers in Ireland at that percentage. They were simply asking that what had been done before should be done again; if it was not, these freeholders would end their days in the workhouse.

said he was sure nobody who had spoken sympathised more than the Government did with the condition in which agriculturists in many parts of the country found themselves. No doubt that position had become particularly hard in the case of occupying owners, and the small freeholders, who had to bear the losses both of owner and occupier, had probably felt the depression of agriculture and the consequent decrease in their properties more than any other class of agriculturists. He would point out, however, that some of the speeches which had been made were not altogether in support of the precise Motion that was upon the Paper. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had misinterpreted what he intended to convey by shaking his head when it was asserted that similar assistance had been given to the Irish tenants; what he had intended to indicate was, that in the case of Ireland, as also in regard to the Small Holdings Act which had been quoted, the assistance of the State had been given to the tenant to enable him to become the owner of the soil instead of being the occupier—in other words, turning the tenant into an occupier. But, as he understood this Motion, the recommendation made to the House was that money should be lent by the State at a low rate of interest, to enable, not the occupiers to become owners, but to enable the burdened owners to pay off existing mortgages, which it was admitted they had entered into, in many cases, with their eyes open, giving, as they had done, a much higher price than the property was worth even at the time when they bought it. In consequence of the present depression in agriculture, moreover, the value of the property had been greatly depreciated. The Welsh Land Commission had reported in favour of a limited application of this proposal to lend money, but he did not understand that there was any such limit in the Motion before the House. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion did not confine himself definitely to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but left it open to them to embody generally those recommendations. The Seconder of the Motion, on the other hand, said that any such limitations as those imposed in the recommendations of the Royal Commission found no favour with him. If the Government undertook to lend money upon easy terms to occupying owners to enable them to redeem their mortgages it would not be the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire alone who would ask that the limit should be extended. They would find representatives, not only of Welsh constituencies, but of constituencies in every part of the United Kingdom, making a like request, and proving, as they could undoubtedly prove, that the condition of things in England were similar to those in Wales. He admitted there was a great and strong desire amongst the Welsh farmers to continue to live on their farms and amongst their native surroundings. Generally speaking, that desire might not be so universal in England, but he asserted that on the part of the freeholders in England there had been as close and warm attachment to their land as was to be found in any other part of the United Kingdom, and many of them had bought their properties when land was much more valuable than it was now, and had encumbered themselves with heavy mortgages, with the result that to-day their position was as serious as that of any freeholder in Wales. Whatever the cause of the present condition of things in Wales might be—whether it was land hunger or the fact that many of the men could only speak Welsh—it was not the cause they had to consider, but the result, and whether it was desirable, and, if desirable, possible to deal with the state of affairs. He submitted that to lend men money to discharge their mortgages or to transfer their mortgages from one holder to another, the other being the State, was not a system which could be recommended as a sound one or one which the State could wisely adopt. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to whom reference had been made, had offered occupiers the opportunity of becoming the owners of their holdings by the payment of so much down and the rest by deferred payments spread over a series of years, with the provision of a sinking fund with which to redeem the capital. That was a businesslike proposal. He would always be prepared to look with consideration upon a proposal to enable occupiers to become owners when there was evidence that they desired so to do; but he did not notice any strong desire on the part of occupiers anywhere to become the owners of their land as things were at present. There was an impression, which was not limited to England, that land was not altogether a desirable possession at the present moment, and he was afraid there was some foundation for it. If the present proposal were adopted, the principle embodied in it could not possibly be confined to Wales. Before the Commission on Agricultural Depression abundant evidence was given by Mr. Clare Sewell Read, Mr. Everett, and others, which showed that every word which could be said in respect to occupiers in Wales could with truth be said in regard to occupiers in other parts of the United Kingdom. What did this proposal mean? Did it mean that they were only going to transfer the mortgage from the individual who now held it to the State, who was to hold it on the same terms as it was held now, or did it mean that they were to transfer the mortgage to the State and that the State was to lend money to the freeholder on such terms that he could not only pay the interest, but also redeem the debt at the end of a certain period?

The Commission mention 30, 40, or 50 years.

said he was aware what the Commission said, but he desired to know what hon. Members meant by the Resolution. The Resolution did not on the face of it mean that mortgages should be redeemed by annual payments. But if that was the meaning what would be the result? The wish was to give these poor men, who were suffering severely, present relief. Would they be able to give the men present relief? He found that under the Housing of the Working Classes Act money had never been lent for so long a period of time as 50 years at less than 3½ per cent. interest. If they added to that rate of interest the necessary sinking fund, they would find that for every £100 the State might be willing to lend the tenant would have to pay £4 5s. in place of the interest he was now paying. That was not all. There would be considerable cost attending the transfer of the mortgage. They would have to have the properties certified and examined. In the case of the purchases from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or of those under the Irish Land Act, or of those proposed to be carried out under the Small Holdings Act, the State lent money to the individual with which he was to be able to buy his property at the present value and at the present price. But what the State was asked to do in this instance was to enable men to redeem obligations incurred many years ago at the price at which the land was then bought. He did not wonder that hon. Gentlemen made Motions like this, because no one knew better than he how bitter was the cry which came from many agriculturists. He knew that every word which had been said as to the industrious, hard-working lives of those people was perfectly true, and he did not wonder that hon. Members from Wales, knowing the hard struggle it was for those people to live, should make this appeal on their behalf. But he asked the House not to be led into adopting this Motion by a natural and proper feeling of sympathy with a large and deserving class in distress. The Motion if adopted could not possibly be limited to this particular class of freeholders in Wales alone. It must be extended to the freeholders of the whole country. Any attempt to limit its application to this particular class of freeholders in Wales would be swept away by the force of the representations which would be made to Parliament of sufferings just as keen on the part of freeholders, large and small, throughout England. If they gave this assistance to small freeholders in Wales on the ground that their land-hunger had overcome their prudence, they would have to extend it to all freeholders. Therefore, while the Government made no complaint of the bringing forward of this Motion—for there were excuses for it, and it had been moved in a moderate and temperate manner—they must ask the House to reject it, because it would not have the effect of relieving the burdens of the class it sought to help, because it would be impossible to limit it to that class, and because it would entail an enormous liability on the State.

said the right hon. Gentleman had argued that the Irish case was a case of the Government having turned an occupying tenantry into owners, whereas the Motion proposed to assist landholders who were already owners to pay off their mortgages, which, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman was a totally different matter. The distinction the right hon. Gentleman had drawn between the two cases—the Welsh and the Irish—was totally fallacious. Attention was here called to the fact that there were not forty Members present. The House was thereupon counted, and a quorum having been found,

said the Motion was not to assist small freeholders, as the right hon. Gentleman supposed, but to assist only such freeholders as had already purchased their own holdings.

I am quite aware of that fact, but I pointed out that, whatever your intention might be, it would be quite impossible to maintain that restriction.

said the only difference between the Welsh case and the Irish case was that the Welsh farmers had, unlike the Irish farmers, helped themselves in the first instance by purchasing their own holdings, and surely they were not on that account the less deserving of assistance now that they found themselves unable to adhere to the original terms of purchase. The right hon. Gentleman declared that if the case were admitted it would not be possible to confine it to Wales. But the principle had been admitted in Ireland; it would be impossible to confine it to Ireland, and it must be extended to Wales. The intention was that the advances from the State should be repayable, principal and interest, in a specified term; and the right hon. Gentleman had argued that in that case the burden of the tenants would not be alleviated because they would have to repay at the rate of 4½ per cent. In the case of Ireland the advance was repayable, principal and interest, at the rate of 4 per cent. for forty years. But at the time that advance was made Consols were below par, and now that Consols were at £112, the money could be advanced to the Welsh at a lower rate of interest. The right hon. Gentleman also said that in Ireland the land was bought at the depressed price, whereas the proposal in the case of Wales was that the tenants were to be helped to purchase at the high price, or to relieve themselves of their mortgages at the high price. He ventured to say that in no case did a mortgage amount to more than three-quarters of its value. They were therefore not asking the Government to advance the full price that was got from the land twelve or fourteen years ago, when land was at a very high value; but only three-quarters of that price, which would not be more than the present value of the land in the market. The only questions that remained were—did the necessity for this transaction exist in Wales? and would it be a safe investment for the State? The necessity was proved by the evidence given before the Land Commission, and that it would be safe for the Government to advance the money would be admitted by everyone who knew that the Welsh farmers, like their mountain sheep, could make a living in circumstances that would mean starvation to anybody else. On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,

said that he was sorry that he should have intervened in the Debate so as to have prevented the House from coming to an immediate decision upon this Motion, but the interest he took in this question must be his excuse for having done so. No doubt, the answer to the Motion that had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture was most conclusive, from his point of view; but he thought that there was one point to which he was bound to refer. It was admitted that, in many cases, the position of the Welsh freeholder was almost desperate, and that unless he received substantial and speedy assistance he would be unable to continue to be a freeholder, and must fall back upon the position of a tenant of the land he now owned. That would be the inevitable result if those who held mortgages on these freeholds were to foreclose and sell the land. It had been stated on the part of the Government that it was a principle of public policy that public money could not be used for the purpose of perpetuating the race of freeholders who could not manage to hold their own. But was that contention well founded? During the last 20 years there had been a new departure in this matter, and public money had been used over and over again for the purpose of enabling tenants to become freeholders. The acquisition of their holdings by the Irish tenants had been facilitated by the use of public money, which had also been applied in the case of the Scotch crofters and of the tenants in certain parts of England. He wanted to know why what had been done in the case of Ireland, Scotland and England, could not be done in the case of Wales? Surely it was as important to prevent freeholders from becoming tenants as it was to enable tenants to become freeholders. He admitted that the use of public money for these purposes was a new departure; but still that was the order of the day. For these reasons he should feel bound to support the proposal which was embodied in the Motion. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, in the first place, he must express his deep regret that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, should have felt himself bound to meet this Motion by a direct negative. In the case of tenants whose families had occupied holdings for generations, and had improved the waste land until it was now good land, it was not to be wondered at that they tried to keep a tight grip on their holdings and their homes. Within the last 25 or 35 years large numbers of Welsh tenants had been evicted. When these estates came into the market and the holders had lost the security they had in the honour of their landlords, they did their utmost to secure their homes and their improvements, and it was too subtle a distinction for the right hon. Gentleman to draw between assenting to State loans for farms that were being or were about to be purchased, and refusing absolutely to sanction any State loans in order to ease the burden which lay upon these hard-worked peasant freeholders. ["Hear, hear!"] The first argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that an hon. Friend of his had said that he was unwilling to assent to certain limitations which the Commissioners had laid down. That was not sufficient, to take away the responsibility of the Government for refusing to deal in any shape or form with the unanimous recommendations of the Royal Commission.

said that what he had said had been that it would be impossible for the Government to maintain these limitations. The opinion of the Government was that the case of freeholders in England was as grave as the case of freeholders in Wales, and he said the Government did not see any justification for making any difference between the freeholders in Wales and the freeholders in many parts of England.

said that at any rate the right hon. Gentleman could not say that it was impossible to set up limitations. Limitations were constantly laid down in Bills brought before the House, as, for instance, in the Small Holdings Act of 1892. As to the other shelter the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to get from the case of the freeholders in England, the freeholders in Wales had stated their case before a Royal Commission, and every one of the Members of that Commission signed a recommendation to the Government to ease their burdens. The peasant freeholders in Wales had petitioned the House years and years ago, and every representative of Wales sitting on either side of the House had that night backed the recommendation of the Commissioners. ["Hear, hear!"] He therefore ventured to say that a clear case had been made out for dealing with peasant freeholders in Wales, and so far as he knew, not a single hon. Member had got up to advocate any such case on behalf of England as was now advocated on behalf of Wales. The distressed freeholders in England had presented no petition to the House, and no Royal Commission had made any recommendation on their behalf. To the clear case that had been made out the right hon. Gentleman only gave a blank and decided negative, and he could only express his deep regret that, coming to the House and speaking for the Government was all that the right hon. Gentleman could do.

regretted that in a discussion of this kind the last speaker should have introduced something of the bitter element by referring to events very long past—he meant those disputes between landlords and tenants which had something political in them. ["Hear, hear!"] Those disputes were dead, and he thought it would be better for Wales if all recollection of them were buried. There was one fallacy which underlay what had been said so far concerning the small freeholders in Wales and elsewhere. Speakers had ignored the fact that, after all, a freeholder who was under a heavy mortgage was in effect a tenant, though he happened to be tenant to a mortgagee instead of a superior landlord. The difficulty was this, that years ago they charged their land with heavy mortgages. In many cases they were anxious to buy land they were farming, and had not sufficient capital to buy it, and so borrowed at high rates of interest at a time when agricultural depression began to be a burden on farmers. They thought the depression was only temporary, and that they would be able to repay the money in good years. Their expectations had unfortunately been wrong. They now came before Parliament to ask for special aid on the ground that they represented an industry which the country could not afford to allow to go to rack and ruin. They said that they had an exceptional case. He agreed with that position, but he must say that, when he stood in a Parliament which was supposed to represent all sections in the country, it was impossible for him to say that because the small freeholder who had charged his land happened to hold land in Wales, he was to be preferred to the small freeholder in exactly similar circumstances throughout the English counties. ["Hear, hear!"] Even if limitations were enforced, the opinion of Members of the House must first be obtained as to what those limitations were to be on which such a gigantic scheme as was proposed was to be carried out. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he could carry out a scheme of such magnitude, it would be an undoubted boon to the freeholders throughout the country; but until he was informed that it was possible financially to carry out such a scheme, he was afraid the Motion of his hon. Friend could not result in much good. An attempt was made in the Resolution to establish the position that there was something different in the Land Question in Wales from the Land Question in England. [Opposition cheers.] He knew hon. Gentlemen opposite held that opinion, and wished to add one more to the orthodox ten commandments, the commandment "Be selfish. ["No, no!"] Get everything you can for Wales and do not give it to others who have just as good a, claim to it." Although he sympathised with the small freeholders in England and Wales he could not admit that there was an essential difference between the Welsh and the English Land Question. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down represented a Welsh borough. He presumed that the hon. Member would vote against the Resolution, but would hon. Members who represented Welsh counties do so? ["Hear, hear!"] He denied that the supporters of this Motion were selfish in this matter. They wanted this reform for Wales, but if evidence were adduced showing that England needed a similar reform they would not oppose the demand. In Wales the matter was pressing. There had been great sales of landed estates, and when they took place the tenants were in this dilemma: they had to buy their farms, paying for their improvements over again, or they had to part with their farms and with their improvements. In a great many cases they purchased, paying for their own improvements, and thus putting into the landlords' pockets money to which they were not entitled. Their position now was very precarious, and they came to that House and said, "You have for a great number of years omitted to reform the Land Laws of this country, and under those laws we have been put in a position of great stress, and only a new law can put us fairly right." They asked that in order to improve their position they might be allowed to borrow money in the manner and for the purposes set out in the Resolution. In his opinion their demand was just, and he trusted that the House would accede to it.

, as the representative of a, Welsh agricultural district, supported the Motion that had been brought forward. [Opposition cheers.] At the same time he was fully alive to the fact that what was due to the peasant freeholders in Wales was also due to the small freeholders in England. ["Hear, hear!"] The inquiries of the Land Commission, however, had been confined to the Principality, and therefore Welsh Members were justified in limiting their proposals to the case of the freeholders of that part of the country which they represented. Large advances of public money had been made to Irish tenants to assist them in times of distress, and he could not understand why a similar benefit should not be conferred on small freeholders and tenants in Great Britain. There was no difference of principle between assisting financially a freeholder who had bought his land and assisting a tenant to purchase his holding. In helping the small Welsh freeholders the Government would be assisting a loyal, industrious, and law-abiding portion of the community.

said that the question before the House was regarded as urgent and pressing in Wales. He represented an important agricultural constituency in North Wales, and he could say truly that great interest was taken in this subject by his constituents. The number of small freeholders in Denbighshire was decreasing he was sorry to say. One of his constituents who had given evidence before the Royal Commission, said that he had purchased his farm in two lots, in 1873 and 1880, and that since then he had enjoyed greater liberty of cultivation, and had spent £1,000 on improvements. He had however found it extremely difficult to make the farm pay, although he worked as hard as a man could. That was a typical case. One fact that differentiated the case of the small freeholders of Wales from that of small freeholders of England was that the number of the former was not as large as the number in England. In Wales there were only 424 to each county, but to each English county there were 1,203. Then the area of ground held in England by these freeholders was 14 per cent., whilst in Wales it was only 11 per cent. Reference had already been made to what occurred in 1868, after the historic elections of those days. Notices to quit were showered upon the farmers, many of whom were thus forced to buy their holdings on unfair conditions, and they had suffered in consequence from that time up to the present. He did not agree with the hon. Member opposite, who said "We must leave the past to bury its dead." They could not do so. Large numbers of the inhabitants of Wales remembered too vividly the cruel events of that period. The Royal Commission had recommended powerfully the adoption of the principle of the Motion, and that evening, with the exception of the hon. Member opposite, the whole representatives of Wales in Parliament were in favour of the proposal. In these circumstances he trusted that the House would accept the Resolution.

said he had heard something from hon. Gentlemen about the insatiable hunger for land. The other day he offered for sale in small portions a small estate of his in Wales, but he did not get a single offer. [Laughter.] It was all humbug; this land hunger did not exist. He should like to find those persons who were willing to give 50, 60, 70, and 80 years' purchase for land. It was admitted that this Motion would not, if translated into an Act of Parliament, increase by one the existing number of freeholders in Wales. Hon. Members were asking for assistance on behalf of a certain small section of the people out of the pockets of the artisans, cottagers, and tenant farmers of the whole country. How magnanimous but how far from an economical method of dealing with a financial difficulty! If hon. Gentlemen could do something for the freeholders by relieving them a little of their taxation and by placing them more on an equality with those whose income came from other sources, then they would do some real good to the freeholders in Wales and England. Why did not hon. Gentlemen who professed to be so anxious to help the people of Wales try to relieve them from the inequalities of local taxation? The Radical representatives of Wales did nothing in this respect; they hindered rather than helped the agricultural interest in the Principality. When it was claimed that the State should come to the rescue of those who had made bad bargains, he reminded hon. Members that there was once a certain young man who bought a gross of green spectacles. [Laughter and "That is fiction."] Ought the State to have come to his rescue? If it came to the rescue of one set of people who made bad bargains, ought it not to come to the rescue of all? Wales had suffered less from agricultural depression than any other part of the United Kingdom. An hon. Member said that the end of the mortgaged freeholder was not far off. What did this mean? Simply this: that a freeholder who had bought his land for £100 would have to sell it for £50. His place would be filled by another freeholder, with this difference—that the new man would be unmortgaged. This Resolution might be described as one to indemnify mortgagees and endow moneylenders. Why should the State interfere in order to pay back money lent on a bad security and to pull the mortgagee out of his difficulty? From the economic point of view the State ought not to interfere in a case like this. Though he wished to see as many people become freeholders as possible, he did not wish to see the State come forward and, by use of the taxes, buy their estates for them, or pay their bad debts. He would rather urge hon. Members opposite to help their Welsh fellow-countrymen by endeavouring to teach them the language of the world and the language of commerce—English.

said he could not accept the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. T. Ellis) as representative of that which would have been made by a Welsh Chancellor of the Exchequer had he taken part in this Debate. And he was convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire had happened to have been in his place he would hardly have re-echoed the eloquent sentiments of the hon. Gentleman. He was anxious to put this matter before the House from a point of view which had been neglected—that of the taxpayers of the country. Personally, he thought there was much in this Motion with which he could sympathise. All of them desired to maintain the freeholders, and especially the small freeholders, of the country. He was too well acquainted with many cases where mortgages had compelled, not only small, but large freeholders to part with old family estates, large or small, not to sympathise with the desire that some help should be given to persons in these circumstances. But he was obliged to consider the matter from the point of view in which it must present itself to the taxpayers. What was the position? What was asked by the Motion was not akin to anything that had been done for Ireland. What had been done for Ireland was to pass Act after Act in order, if possible, to substitute a system of small ownership for a system of landlord and tenant. ["Hear, hear!"] Throughout that legislation this had been always required; a valuation of the property to be transferred from landlord to tenant at the time of the transfer by a responsible Department on behalf of the State, so as to secure that the tenant did not give too large a sum for the property which he was purchasing. That was entirely different from the system now proposed. The House was asked to sanction the principle that mortgages of property which had been already purchased, whether by their former tenants or by persons entirely unconnected with those properties, should be redeemed by an advance from the State—in other words, at the expense of the taxpayers. That was a principle which had been, he thought, very wisely refused in advances made for public purposes by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. That body made advances for every kind of work almost that could be suggested, but it was one of their rules never to make advances to pay off old debts. And for this obvious reason, that if the old debt had been incurred, and it was advisable for the person incurring it to come to the State to pay it off, the probability, nay, almost the certainty, was that the value of the property on which the debt had been incurred had depreciated, and therefore nobody else would lend money upon it. That was the very case which hon. Members had put. They said the condition of the freeholders in Wales was so bad, that, in spite of their industry, their honesty, and all their good qualities, they were reduced to such a position that they could not maintain their farms, that they would be sold up and their farms transferred to other persons unless the taxpayers stepped in to help them. The property had depreciated in value since its purchase, and it was part of the case that the purchase was made at a higher value than the property was worth even in prosperous times. In his opinion, the result of any such proposal as this would simply be that the taxpayers would find themselves mortgagees of all the worst properties in the country, while those properties which had increased in value and whose owners were able to borrow on good terms in the public market would take very good care never to come to Government at all. ["Hear, hear!"] He trusted the House of Commons would not initiate a principle which, it seemed to him, would have the greatest possible danger for the taxpayers in the future. Because there was nothing more true than what had bean said by more than one speaker—that Parliament could not adopt this principle and confine it solely to Wales. There might be—he knew there was—a very strong feeling of nationality on the part of hon. Members from Wales. They might contend, and possibly with some truth, that the circumstances of owners and occupiers of land in Wales were in some measure different from those in most parts of England; but of this he was quite sure, that there were parts of England where the depreciation in land had been far greater than in Wales, and if there were a case for the aid of the State to small landowners in Wales, there was a much stronger case on behalf of the landowners in the east and south of England, where the value of land had depreciated 50 per cent., or even more, in some cases. Then it had been admitted that if Parliament once initiated this principle they could not confine it to small landowners only. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion said that 150 acres, the limit recommended by the Royal Commission, could not, in his opinion, be adhered to. No limit of acreage could possibly be adhered to, because the value of 50 acres in one part of the country might be quite as much as that of 1,000 acres in another part. Therefore they would be compelled, if they took any limit, to take a limit of value and not of acreage. But how were they going to adhere to a limit of value? Why was the owner of 500 acres, worth, perhaps, £5,000, not to be as much entitled to assistance in this way as the owner of five or ten acres? He was bound to say that some of the hardest and most painful cases that had come under his notice—and he had had many applications for State assistance of this kind—had come from owners of the larger estates—estates which had been in certain families for many generations, and whose owners, owing to the present depreciation in the value of land, had found themselves in the position of being obliged to part with old family property. What must be the answer in such cases? He was afraid only this—that it was

rose to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,