To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to a petition presented to His Majesty signed by a large body of Baronets, has he any further information to give respecting the progress made in the consideration of the prayers contained in the petition, beyond that which he gave in December last; and whether he can state the number of unqualified persons at present using the title and assuming the rank of Baronet. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) In answer to the first part of the Question I can only say that the matter is still under consideration. As regards the latter part, I have no information.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether there is any Return giving the area in acres or in square miles of the various Parliamentary Divisions of the counties and boroughs; and if not, whether he would be willing to give such a Return. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. The area of the various Parliamentary constituencies will be found, given in acres, in Table V. of the Summary Tables of the Census of England and Wales, 1901 (Cd. 1523).

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will explain the difference between annual grants to schools from the Government Departments, and contributions from the same Departments. (Answered by Mr. Arthur Elliot.) Annual grants are made annually; contributions are not necessarily annual. They are generally made for some special purpose, though they may be continued in some instances over a period of years.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Ministers can say if they have been able to come to an understanding with the authorities of Corfu, whereby the old British cemetery at Corfu can remain undisturbed. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) His Majesty's Government have made this matter the subject of the most careful inquiry, and have received separate reports from two officials who have visited the island. The result has been to convince them that the most desirable course, and that most in accordance with the wishes of the British community, is to transfer the old cemetery to the local authorities on certain conditions, among which are the following:—(1) The work shall be supervised by a responsible person appointed by His Majesty's Government, who shall be afforded every facility by the Greek authorities in order to ensure the transfer of the remains and the monuments being efficiently and decently carried out; (2) That the proposed assembly rooms shall not be built on the site of the old cemetery, but on the high ground above. I may add that in the new cemetery to which the remains will be transferred it will be possible to watch over the graves much more carefully than has been the case heretofore.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he can see his way to increase the time limit for trunk calls upon the telephone system of the Post Office from three to five minutes. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Owing to the time required to obtain the connection of subscribers' exchange lines with the trunk lines, not more than about twelve conversations an hour are possible under the best conditions on any trunk line with the three minutes limit. An increase in this limit would make the lines available for fewer subscribers, and would involve a proportionate increase in the charges for their use. As about 95 per cent. of the present trunk line conversations are completed within three minutes, and as the traffic is practically confined to business hours, a general extension, such as is suggested, would clearly not be to the advantage of the public. An extension of the limit between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. from three to six minutes was made in March to encourage the use of the trunk lines at hours when hitherto they have been little used.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he can state when an underground cable will be completed to Wakefield, so that telegraphic communications can be carried on independent of climatic conditions. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am not proposing to lay an underground cable to Wakefield. The underground line from Manchester to Leeds, which I hope to lay during the present year will run viâ Bradford, and will render communication with Wakefield, practically secure.

To ask the Lord Advocate what are the numbers of schools under each of the three Sub-sections of Section 1 of the Education Minute of 28th May; and what is the amount estimated to be paid under each Sub-section. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) According to the latest Returns the number of schools with an average attendance of 60 or under is 1,143; that of schools with an attendance between 60 and 100 is 552; and that of schools between 100 and 150 is 322. Of these schools only a small proportion were qualified by their staff for the special grants. But it is impossible to say what number may qualify by fulfilling the conditions during the three months ending 31st December, 1903.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is, or soon will be, a vacancy in the office of chief clerk in the Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin; and whether, seeing that of the four chief officers of the department at present only one is a Roman Catholic, he will, when the occasion arises, appoint a Roman Catholic to the chief clerkship. (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) A vacancy in the office of chief clerk in the Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin, will occur on the 7th July next. The Treasury will appoint the person considered to be best qualified for the position, without reference to the religious denomination to which he may belong.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Treasury have consented to a temporary clerk with approximately two years service in the Department of Agriculture being placed on the permanent establishment and also promoted to a staff post, he will say if in making this staff appointment the claims of gentlemen engaged in the same department who have served for periods from nine to eleven years were considered, and whether any representations were concurrently made to the Treasury as regards these gentlemen; and, if so, whether he can state the nature and result of such representations, the present salaries of the clerk recently promoted, and the other clerks who have longer service. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. Proposals were concurrently made to the Treasury with regard to the remuneration of a considerable number of clerks of six years service and upwards, with the result that in several cases increases of salary were sanctioned. The scale of salary fixed for the staff post referred to is £190—£10—£250. The salaries of the unpromoted clerks with longer service vary from £90 to £200.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will see that the printing of the evidence and the Report on the working of the Irish Poor Law system about to be taken is executed in Ireland. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The printing required to be done by the Poor Law Commission will be executed, in the ordinary course, in Ireland.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why it is that moneys earned by teachers of evening schools have been delayed in many cases over three months; whether some steps will be taken to secure more prompt payment in future. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed by the Commissioners that, in consequence of the very large increase in the number of evening schools in Ireland, it has been found impracticable to deal with the reports as rapidly as had been anticipated. The fees are sent to the managers as soon as possible after the close of the session in every case where the conditions have been complied with and the final reports received from the inspectors. The payments will be completed in all regular cases in a week or ten days.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will inform the House what number of medals with clasps were issued to officers and men who served in South Africa, distinguishing the several classes of medals and recipients, and also the number of medals without clasps issued to nurses who served in the hospitals during the war. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The actual number of medals and clasps issued to officers and men cannot be obtained without a laborious examination of all the medal rolls concerned, a work which would delay the distribution of those still unissued. The number of Queen's South African medals issued to nurses is 962.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he could state on what principle promotions in the Generals List are carried out; and whether he will explain why four officers who received the rank of colonel in 1889 (nine years before the latest appointment), all obtaining promotion as a result of war service, have been superseded. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Promotion to the ranks of Major-General and Lieutenant-General is now given either to officers who have been selected to fill certain specified appointments, which it has been decided shall carry the rank of Major-General or Lieutenant-General respectively, or for distinguished service. The selection of officers for appointment carrying the rank of Major-General is made from the Colonels List, and seniority does not influence the appointments.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the 2nd Battalion Royal Dublin Fusiliers, after losing nearly 400 men and twenty officers in killed and wounded in the late war, were sent from South Africa to Aden, where they have now been for two summers; and whether, in view of the trying character of this station, he will state why the War Office sent a regiment which has rendered the country such services to such a station, and when will the regiment be relieved. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This battalion has been temporarily detained at Aden owing to certain military exigencies which have not yet ceased. It is not yet possible to state when the battalion can be relieved.

To ask the Secretary to the the Board of Education have sanctioned Board of Education in how many cases schemes which make provision for the election of one woman only; and whether he will state on what ground these schemes have been sanctioned, in view of the provision of The Education Act, 1902, requiring the inclusion of women as well as men among the members of the Education Committee. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) While there are a number of schemes, the provisions of which would be satisfied by the presence of one woman on the Committee, there are practically none under the provisions of which, in the opinion of the Board, the presence of more than one woman is impossible. The Board of Education are advised that the requirements of Section 17 (3) (c) are satisfied by the provision in a scheme for the presence of one woman only, especially having regard to the provisions of Section 1 (1) (b) of the Interpretation Act, 1889.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, can he give the details as to amounts and nature of Army rations burned near Pretoria during April last as being unfit for food; did those stores chiefly consist of tinned rations; and, if so, can he state whether they were soldered tins, or what is known in the trade as non-soldered.

The number of rations burned was 1,699,382. They were all "meat and vegetable rations" in tins, of which about two-thirds were soldered and the rest non-soldered.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the rations were all unsound, and will he state the name of the firm that supplied these unsound rations.

They had been landed for a long period, and some complaint having been made of a certain issue, an immediate investigation was made. In consequence, the rations were immediately destroyed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the contractor, and the length of time the rations had been in Africa before they became bad.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received the Report he called for from the General Officer Commanding in South Africa, and will he publish it.

I do not know that there is any fault to be found with the contractor; and I am not sure that the supplies had not been kept for a longer period than was intended. But I do not know that there would be any objection to publishing the names of the contractors when I receive them. As to the Report of the General Officer, there were certain cases in which the rations distributed had been complained of. Thereupon an investigation was made, and it was found that deterioration had taken place in a considerable portion of the rations.

What was the total value of the rations destroyed.

Questions as to the names of the contractors and the value of the rations destroyed ought to be asked for after notice given.

May I explain. I did put such a Question down, and the right hon. Gentleman asked me to postpone it.

Are rations in unsoldered tins still being used?

Tinned meats of various kinds are being used, but I cannot say whether they are unsoldered or not. There is no question as to laying Papers. It is the most simple question in the world. A large amount of supplies was left on our hands at the conclusion of the war. They would have been used in the next three or four months; but owing to the great reduction in the troops they have remained over for more than a year, and some have deteriorated and have been destroyed. There is no objection to giving the names of the contractors and the values of the rations.

rose to put a further Question.

Order, Order! This matter must not be debated by way of Question and Answer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what measures have been taken to give effect to the Resolution of 25th March as to the age for enlistment, agreed to by this House on the Motion of the Secretary of State; and can he state what effect such measures have had upon recruiting for the regular infantry.

If a recruit's "apparent age," as decided by the medical officer, is less than the standard, the recruit is required to produce satisfactory evidence that he is of the necessary age. The recruiting for the regular infantry since 25th March has been somewhat in excess of the average of the last three years.

Am I to understand that no steps have been taken since the Resolution was passed?

I have said the question of age is carefully investigated, and where doubt exists proof is required.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what steps he proposes taking to fill the thirty-five vacancies in the Army Veterinary Department, seeing that only five candidates are forthcoming at present.

I am not yet in a position to state what steps will be taken.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty has he now received the further particulars required to complete the Report called for on 11th May as to the firing away, on 29th April last, in two hours, by eight battleships of the Mediterranean Fleet, of 10,513 rounds of ammunition, valued at £875, at ranges from 600 to 1,800 yards; is he aware that the whole practice took place at over 1,800 yards, and that at that distance it is impossible to see the splash of a one-inch rifle bullet in the water; that there was no marking in respect of 9,615 rounds out of the 10,513, and that it was consequently of no utility in improving marksmanship. In what respects did this practice depart from the Admiralty regulation that the attainment of good shooting and proficiency in gunnery are always to be considered as taking precedence over all other duties. Is the Report already received one made by the Commander-in-Chief himself on his own action in ordering this practice, and have the Admiralty called for or received any other Report or statement thereon from any gunnery or other officer. Why is it that up to 18th May some of the battleships and first-class cruisers in this fleet had only had three half-days gunnery practice since 1st January, and that one ship had not had that; and has any explanation of this been called for from the Commander-in-Chief; and, in view of the practice that the reasons of failure in gunnery practice are considered by the Admiralty, and such steps taken with regard to the individual officers concerned as in the opinion of the Admiralty are required, what steps have been taken in the case of this individual officer.

As I informed my hon. friend on the 9th June, † the Commander-in-Chief has been asked to furnish a further Report with regard to some details of the firing on the occasion referred to. This Report has not yet been received, and until it is received I am unable to state to what extent, if at all, the practice failed to conform to the Admiralty regulations, or what were the reasons which led the Commander-in-Chief to vary the regulation practice, if any such variation occurred. The Report which has been received is from the Commander-in-Chief, and contains the details as to the number of rounds fired and other particulars, which I have already communicated to the House. No Report from any subordinate officer has been called for. The information which the hon. Member seeks in the last paragraph of his Question will not reach the Admiralty until the half-yearly Returns of Progress in Gunnery are sent in. If, when they are received, it be found necessary to take any special action, the Board of Admiralty will take such action in the way, and at the time, which they consider most advantageous to the interests of the Service. I venture to think that it is not desirable that every exercise of the discretion of the Board in respect of any particular ship or officer should be made the subject of Question and Answer in the House of Commons. The action of the Board in this, and in other matters concerning

† See (4) Debates, cxxiii., 324.

Does the hon. Gentleman hold that no Questions should be asked in this House as to the exercise of the discretion of the Board?

That is not the point, I suggest that no Question should be asked as to a particular officer with regard to a hypothetical punishment, and in respect of a contingency which has not yet occurred.

That is not my Question.

The hon. Member asks "in view of the practice that the reasons of failure in gunnery practice are considered by the Admiralty, and such steps taken with regard to the individual officers concerned as, in the opinion of the Admiralty, are required, what steps have been taken in the case of this individual officer." That Question is directed to ascertaining whether any offence has been committed by an individual officer, and whether, if so, any particular action is necessary, and I say that no such contingency has arisen.

I will put the Question down in another form.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the decision which had been arrived at by the Admiralty on 19th May, that no advantage to the service would accrue from causing it to be understood that the retention by admirals and captains of their respective commands will in future depend on the adequate shooting efficiency of the fleets or ships under their orders, he will inform the House what officers of a fleet or ship are held responsible for inadequate shooting efficiency.

The Commander-in-Chief and all officers under his command whose duty it is to superintend and take part in the gunnery exercises of the Fleet are responsible, in their several degrees, for the shooting carried out by them or under their orders.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, how many candidates between the ages of twelve and thirteen for naval cadetships under the new regulations have been nominated for the next examination; and how many of these are candidates whose parents or guardians would not agree that the candidate, if successful, should, at the discretion of the Admiralty, be posted to any one of the three branches of Engineers, Executives, or Marines.

The First Lord has not yet given any nominations for the examination in question. The announcement which appeared in the newspapers of the 26th May, as to the course which the First Lord has decided to follow with regard to these nominations, is being adhered to. The number of candidates who are prepared to join any one of the three branches of the service is so great that no candidate will be nominated on whose behalf this undertaking has not been given.

Then there is to be no option. Every child who is nominated must become interchangeable.

Not necessarily. Circumstances will decide the action of the parents. If the number of candidates entering continues to be as great, parents will see it is useless to enter boys for a single nomination.

Will the candidates who get the highest marks not be given their choice.

No, Sir, nor will it be necessary to make the choice for eight years after the examination has taken place.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if, in the re-adjustment of the relative ranks of medical and accountant officers of the Royal Navy, the position of senior assistant paymasters is to be removed; whether the rank of staff paymaster is to be abolished and an increased rank to be given to the senior officers of the department corresponding with that of chief paymasters in the Army.

As I informed the hon. Member for South Meath on the 27th May,† an announcement on this subject may be expected shortly. I must ask the hon. Gentleman, therefore, to await this announcement, as no useful purpose could be served by giving information on points of detail pending the publication of the scheme as a whole.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have had any diplomatic relations with the new Servian Government; and whether His Majesty's Government intend to recognise in any way the men or the representatives of the men guilty of the recent murders.

I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, can he now state what attitude His Majesty's Government propose to adopt towards the persons now assuming to act as the Government of Servia; and whether any communications are proceeding with Foreign Powers with a view to common or concerted action.

As I stated on Monday, ‡ diplomatic relations between this country and Servia came to an end with the death of King Alexander and have not been renewed. His Majesty's

†See (4) Debates, cxxiii, 17.

‡See page 946.

Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to demand from the new Servian Government the punishment of these murderers; and, in view of what has happened, will the Government remove the regicide's statue from this House?

If the British Minister in Servia is not accredited what will his position be?

That question relates to one of the technical subtleties of diplomatic usage, and should be addressed after notice to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Dutch gunboat "Zeehond" arrested and boarded on the high seas the British steam trawler "Sete," and ordered him to haul his gear and follow him to New Dieppe; that the captain of the trawler protested, and proved that he was fishing between eight and nine miles from the land; that after being arrested and following the gunboat for several hours, the commander released him, stating that he had made a mistake, interpreting the regulation limit line to be twelve miles instead of three miles; and whether, in view of the loss to the owners, the captain, and crew in this case, and of the interference with British fishermen by the gunboats on the Dutch and German coasts, he will cause a full inquiry to be made.

The matter has already been brought to the notice of the Foreign Office by the owners; and His Majesty's Minister at the Hague, under instructions from the Secretary of State, has already called the attention of the Dutch Government to the case, and has asked to be furnished with the results of the official inquiry into the matter.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what arrangements have been made for conducting the promised inquiry to consolidate the commercial and trade interests of the country in one Department; what is the present position of the inquiry; and when he expects it to be completed.

The terms of reference to the proposed Committee will be as follows:—"To consider the position and duties of the Board of Trade and of the Local Government Board, and to report whether any, and, if so, what alterations should be made in the constitution and status of these offices; also whether, in the interests of administrative efficiency, any re-arrangement of duties between these Departments and other Government Departments is desirable." I am glad to say that Lord Jersey has agreed to be Chairman, and I hope to be able to announce very shortly the names of the other members of the Committee.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposed inquiry into the fiscal system is to be undertaken at the public expense; and whether any Vote will appear on the Estimates with regard to it.

The proposed inquiry will be undertaken by the public Departments concerned, and I do not anticipate that it will involve any expenditure which would require a special Vote.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the Report of the Royal Commission on Bovine Tuberculosis has been issued to officials, he will explain the delay in issuing it to the public; and whether the Government are considering the necessity of scheduling tuberculosis and paying compensation for confiscations made in the public interest.

I am informed that no Report has been issued by the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis either to officials or others. As to the last part of the Question I must refer the hon. Member to my replies to previous Questions on this subject.†

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state what reduction it is intended to make in the light dues; and whether the reduction will be retrospective.

It is proposed to reduce the dues levied by the general lighthouse authorities by 12½ per cent., and to make the reduction take effect from the 1st April last.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any figures or further information in relation to our foreign or

† See (4) Debates, cxxii, 1637.

As the hon. Member is aware, the Board of Trade publish a number of Returns and Reports but I do not think that they have in their possession any Return or Report of a similar description which could be added to those already published. If the hon. Member will state any specific information he requires we shall consider whether it can be supplied.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the dates of the treaties by which the United States, Portugal, and other countries levy increased duties on certain classes of British imports; what articles are the subject of such treatment; to what extent has British trade been affected; and whether the Government have admitted it is in accordance with the most-favoured-nation treatment that British goods should be thus penalised.

The dates of the reciprocal agreements under which the United States levy lower rates of duty on certain articles from certain foreign countries than on similar articles from the United Kingdom are:—Agreement with France, May, 1898; agreement with Germany, July, 1900; agreement with Italy, July, 1900. The dates of the Portuguese treaties according lower rates of import duty to foreign countries on certain articles than on similar imports from the United Kingdom are:—Treaty with Russia, July, 1895; treaty with Norway, December, 1894; treaty with Holland, July, 1894. The articles of the United Kingdom production affected are, in the case of the United States, paintings, statuary, and spirits; and, in the case of Portugal, certain classes of leather and of jute manufactures, tin manufactures, candles, and a few other articles of minor importance. It is not possible to state exactly the extent to which British trade has been affected by this differential treatment. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

Is there in existence at present a commercial treaty with Portugal containing a most-favoured nation clause?

I understand not, but the hon. Member will perhaps put down a Question.

Can the hon. Member give an approximate estimate of the British trade affected by the preferential duties?

It would be difficult to give an estimate that would be of any value.

Cannot the hon. Member give the exports of British products before and after these treaties?

Order, order! Notice should be given of that question.

Are these treaties printed in any Government publication, or are they accessible in any way in the library of the House?

I think they are not accessible at present.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received resolutions from various local authorities, including the Kilkenny County Council, advocating the appropriation of a portion of the Equivalent Grant to build a railway or tramway from Castlecomer to Kilkenny; and whether this project is receiving consideration.

The reply to this Question is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commission appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to inquire into the Poor Law system will embrace an inquiry into the proposed change in the union boundaries of the counties Londonderry and Donegal; and, if so, when and where will the investigation take place.

The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. The Commission hope to hold a sitting at Londonderry early in August. Due notice will be given of the actual date of this and all other sittings of the Commission.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Commission of Inquiry into the Irish Poor Law system have power to inquire into the question of vagrancy; and, if so, if he will suggest their considering the methods of dealing with his question in foreign countries, notably in the United States and Germany, with a view to devising some remedy for what is a growing social evil in Ireland.

The Commission will inquire into the subject of vagrancy, and will be glad to receive evidence in respect of the methods adopted in foreign countries for dealing with the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what will be the position of life annuitants under the Land Bill, and especially where annuities are in arrear; and if such will be reckoned under the table of annuities at present existing.

The annuity will be valued, and its value, when ascertained, paid according to its priority out of the purchase-money. The arrears of the annuity are a charge upon the lands, and must be similarly paid. The value of the annuity will be ascertained by the Land Commission or Land Judge, as the case may be, with such actuarial assistance as may be necessary.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of freeholders and leaseholders in the county of the city of Belfast who are voters in South Antrim; whether he can state the number of them who are dead and the number of them who, although returned on the register as freeholders, hold no lands, having disposed of same twenty to forty years ago. I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Belfast freeholders and leaseholders who are on the register of voters for South Antrim are also on the voters' list for the county of the city of Belfast, the revising barrister for the said city having decided that since the passing of the Local Government Act, 1898 (by which the city of Belfast was constitued a county), these freeholders and leaseholders are entitled to vote in the said county of the city of Belfast; whether he can state why were these freeholders and leaseholders not then removed from the list of voters for South Antrim; and whether any, and, if so, what steps will be taken to have them removed.

The number of freeholders and leaseholders in the county of the city of Belfast who are registered as Parliamentary voters in South Antrim is 1,435. The matters referred to in the second part of the Question, and in the next Question also in the name of the same hon. Member, are matters to be investigated and decided upon by the Revising Barrister at the Annual Revision Sessions.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether immediate steps will be taken by him to prevent, pending the passing of the present Land Bill, the letting of derelict farms in county Longford and elsewhere in Ireland to planter tenants with a view to the exclusion of the evicted tenants or their representatives.

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the cause of delay in the transfer to the tenants of the O'Brien, Dundas, and Smyth estates, in the townlands of Corglass and Comakelly, the tenants of which had made arrangements with their landlords to purchase, and the latter being avowedly anxious to sell: whether, seeing that proceedings are now pending in the matter, he will urge the Land Commission to push forward the sales and transfer without any further delay.

Proceedings for the sale of the lands in question have not, so far, been instituted in the Land Commission.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on a previous occasion he promised to make representations on the subject to the Land Judge.

There appears to be some misapprehension. The matter must come before the Land Commission, and I am told it has not yet reached that stage. I will inquire further, however, if the hon. Member desires.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to I the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that farmers in the county Kerry have asked the Congested Districts Board for assistance to procure machines for potato spraying, he will state what will be done to assist them in this much needed work.

Only one such application has been made to the Board from Kerry this year, and it has been complied with on the usual terms. Two of the Board's officers will give demonstrations in spraying in the county.

Has any information been given to the local authorities on the subject?

I think it is a matter of common knowledge.

On what conditions are machines provided?

I must ask for notice of that.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the fact that a proposition was made some years since by an official that the audit of a certain Irish Public Department could be more conveniently and efficiently carried on in Dublin; and, seeing that it was practically decided to appoint a permanent staff for the purpose, will he explain why the intention was not carried into effect.

I have been unable to trace the proposal alluded to by the hon. Member. If he will give me details showing which was the Department in question, and in what year the proposal was made, I will give the matter my attention.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the audit of all Irish Public Accounts is mainly carried on in the Audit Office, London, although Devonport Dockyard Accounts are audited in Devonport by a permanent staff; and whether, with a view to economy and efficiency, he will consider the advisability of applying the same system to the general audit of Irish Public Accounts and provide accommodation for a permanent staff in the new Government buildings about to be erected in Dublin.

Portions of the Irish accounts, such as Public Education and Post Office accounts, are periodically examined in Dublin to avoid the inconvenience of forwarding the local records from Ireland. But it has been found to be more convenient that the ordinary accounts of receipts and expenditure of Irish Departments should be audited in London.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that on the 3rd of March last he intimated to the Commissioners of Irish Lights that they had for some time past neglected their duties as regards periodical inspections, and called upon them to carry out the duties imposed upon them by The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and that this neglect has extended over a considerable period of time, he will state what steps he proposes to take to make the Irish Lights Commissioners carry out the duties imposed upon them by statute.

The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, imposes upon general lighthouse authorities the duty of inspecting lighthouses, buoys, and beacons belonging to local lighthouse authorities, and I have reason to hope that the representation which has been addressed to the Commissioners will receive their attention.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any confirmation of a speech having been made in New Zealand by Mr. Seddon, stating that, if the United Kingdom does not grant certain of the produce of New Zealand preferential fiscal treatment over such produce from foreign sources, New Zealand will enter into reciprocity fiscal treaties with foreign countries; whether the Government of this country has already recognised the right of the self governing colonies to enter into such reciprocity treaties with foreign nations; and whether, if so, this involves the right of foreign countries to regard our self-governing colonies as fiscal entities in all regarding import and export duties.

I have received no confirmation of the speech referred to. Reciprocal arrangements have been in a few special cases negotiated by the Imperial Government on behalf of colonies with foreign Powers, but such arrangements have not in any way impaired the right of such colonies to make such arrangements as they deemed fit with each other or with this country. In reply to a further question by Mr. Labouchere—

said no arrangements can be made between the colonies and foreign countries except through the Imperial Government.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the inquiry by the Government as to the advisability of taxing food, oral evidence will be received; and, if so, before whom and by whom such evidence will be heard; whether the inquiry will commence before the prorogation of Parliament; and, if so, whether a Supplementary Vote will be taken for its cost; whether any portion of the inquiry will devolve on the Treasury.

Certainly I trust that those who look into this matter will not confine themselves to written communications, and if they do not, it is clear that oral communications will be included. I told the hon. Member yesterday that the persons responsible for the inquiry are the Cabinet. The inquiry will certainly commence before the prorogation, and of course has commenced already, and there is no question of a future date. It is now engaging the attention of the Government. I have no reason to believe that a Supplementary Vote will be required; and of course the Treasury, in common with other Departments concerned, will give the best assistance it can to the Government in the prosecution of this investigation.

Is it intended to publish the oral communications and the written communications that are sent to the Departments receiving them?

As we understand this inquiry, it is for the purpose of informing the people of this country, and not the members of the Cabinet only. May I ask what steps will be taken and what course will be followed in order to communicate to the nation the nature and effect of the evidence obtained?

That is a question which is evidently premature. The object of the present investigation is first to enable those at present responsible for the government of the country to deal with a very complicated problem, By what means the discussion in public and the information of the public is to be managed at a subsequent period does not arise now.

Then the first stage of the inquiry is solely for the information of the Cabinet?

Of course it is.

May I ask whether the President of the Council was wrong in saying a day or two ago somewhere, while advocating a public inquiry, that if the question were kept to the end it would have to be submitted to an unprepared Party and to unprepared constituencies, and, if so, how the right hon. Gentleman meets that.

I do not understand the point of the hon. Member's question.

Is the whole question to be referred to a Committee of the Cabinet, or will it be considered by the Government as a whole?

I have gone far beyond what is usual in explaining the course which we intend to pursue. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think that this is the first time in British history that a Cabinet has ever inquired into anything. I can assure them that that is a mistake; and I am not aware that this inquiry differs from previous inquiries conducted by this or by previous Governments on questions at least equally important.

Is this a secret inquiry or is it not?

It is secret precisely to the same extent as, and no further than, all similar inquiries undertaken by other Governments in the past.

Then does the Prime Minister reject the idea of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that it must not be a secret inquiry?

Order, order! That is obviously referring to a debate in the House of Lords.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the inquiry into the proposed new fiscal arrangements with the self-governing colonies is to be limited to the expediency of a duty upon food supplies from them entering the United Kingdom; or whether it is to embrace the consideration of allowing any of their raw materials being also taxed on entry.

I do not propose to suggest any limitations.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any correspondence or negotiations took place between the British and German Governments in each or any of the years 1900, 1901, or 1902, in regard to the fiscal treatment of Canada; whether any such correspondence or negotiations took place within the twelve months ending the 1st of May, 1903; whether the British Government have re-opened negotiations since the 1st of May last; and whether any correspondence took place between the British and German Governments in consequence of the failure of the negotiations between Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the German Consul at Montreal in the autumn of 1901.

No correspondence in regard to the subject mentioned took place with the German Government in the years 1900, 1901, or 1902. Correspondence with the German Government was resumed in 1903, shortly before the date mentioned in the Question. No correspondence took place between the Governments in consequence of the failure of the negotiations in Montreal in 1901.

Then it is not right to say that "persistent representations" have been made to the German Government?

I have given the hon. Member the facts. He can draw his own conclusions.

I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question of which I have given him private notice. I wish to ask whether he is aware that the Premier of New South Wales has now stated that the declarations referred to in the recent message of his Government were contained in the speeches delivered by the Colonial Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman himself, and whether he will take steps to correct by messages to the Government of that colony this misapprehension of those speeches, seeing that the House was assured that, pending inquiry to be undertaken by the Government, no conclusion would be formed and no action would be taken.

Sir, I have received no information confirming the intelligence of the right hon. Gentleman, which I believe appears in the newspapers. There is no telegram at the Colonial Office conveying the information.

The telegram is from the Premier of New South Wales.

Well, it has not been received, I am informed, at the Colonial Office. As regards the second and inferential part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, I can only say that I have nothing either to withdraw, or, so far as I know, to explain in the speech to which he refers.

Does the right hon. Gentleman still think that the declaration refers to some documents of 1897?

I have not the smallest conception, but it might.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the debates on the Irish Land Bill are likely to be resumed after being interrupted by the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

I hope that the questions to be raised on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill are not of a kind to give rise to any prolonged debate, and, so far as I am aware, there will be no difficulty in resuming the Irish Land Bill after the Committee stage of the Budget is passed. Of course the Third Reading will have to be taken before the date I have mentioned, in order to enable the Act to become law before 30th June.

Then, in all probability, so far as I understand, the Irish Land Bill will not be taken next week.

Oh, I hope it will.

May I ask the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the discussion last night and the vote taken he proposes to withdraw the Irish Land Bill?

No, Sir.

rose in hie place and asked leave to move ths adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the misunderstanding created in the mind of the Government of the colony of New South Wales by the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary, and the necessity of making it clear to the Government of New South Wales that these speeches are isolated expressions of opinion to which the Cabinet is in no way committed;" and the pleasure of the House having been signified,

said they had now reached the second of the most important questions raised by the Irish Land Bill. During the first two days the Committee had been discussing the subject of the minimum price, and of course it was fresh in the recollection of everybody what attitude had been taken by the Irish Members towards that provision. He believed that the question he now proposed to raise—viz., the omission of the perpetual rent-charge, was equally as important as the subject of the minimum price. He did not think the Chief Secretary could have been well advised when he sought to impose a perpetual rent-charge on future tenant purchasers in Ireland. This was the sixth Land Purchase Bill which had been introduced to the notice of Parliament, and four of the measures had been passed into law, but in no previous instance had it been sought to impose a perpetual rent-charge on tenant purchasers. They were consequently face to face with what might be described as a new phase of the Irish land question. Neither from the sentimental side nor from the side of utility was the proposal to fix a perpetual rent-charge on tenant purchasers necessary or called for. If there was one thing more absolutely clear to the minds of every Irish Member of Parliament interested in the settlement of the land question than another, it was that the Irish tenant farmers wanted the land, the whole land, and nothing but the land, and would never assent to any proposal to put a never-ending rent-charge burden on their backs, and on the backs of those who followed them in the occupation of their holdings. Let the Committee examine how the proposal would work out. Neither in a sentimental nor in a prosaic way would such a scheme give satisfaction to the Irish tenants. The great interest which had been raised in the Bill, and the great hopes which had been excited in the minds and hearts of the Irish people were based on the fact that for ever and ever they were to be relieved of the presence at their doors of the bailiff, or rent collector, or landlord's agent. But this proposal put another official in the place of the rent collector. He did not know, of course, what machinery it was proposed to create for the collection of the permanent charge, but he ventured to assert that the scheme, whatever it might be, would prove the very foundation of the undoing of the work of the Purchase Acts passed by the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in his speech on the First Reading of the Bill, said one of the objects was to prevent sub-letting and dividing. But he did not think it could for one moment be alleged that that object would be attained by the resurrection of the gombeen system. Why should it be necessary to impose on the tenants a perpetual charge of 2¾ per cent. on the purchase money? He could understand the proposal if the Chief Secretary had provided that the money thus collected, and the fund thereby accumulated, should be used for the development of the country, or for the reduction of taxation, but, so far as he could see, no such proposal was contemplated, and he thought he might fairly describe this permanent rent-charge as an absolutely derelict proposal for the collection of money of which practically they were to get no account. It might be suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that the object was to provide additional security for the British taxpayer. But he felt inclined to agree with the hon. Member who had observed that the British taxpayer was well able to take care of himself. So far as the people of Ireland were concerned, they had it on the authority of a Royal Commission that to the Irish people the British taxpayer represented excessive and over-taxation. The Chief Secretary did not attempt to justify his proposal on the ground that it was necessary to retain one-eighth of the purchase money, and to collect from the tenant farmers 2¾ per cent. as an additional security for John Bull. Then on what ground of equity and justice could the proposal be defended? There was no provision in the Bill for the future administration of the fund thus to be accumulated, or for its application to any purpose which would be of use to the people from whom it was to be collected. On what ground did the right hon. Gentleman make so large a charge upon the tenants? In the whole world there could not be found people so desirous, he might almost say devoted, to keeping their obligations as the Irish. That was admitted over and over again by the right hon. Gentleman. He regarded the proposal of the perpetual rent-charge as unnecessary and unjust and certain to provoke the tenant farmer of Ireland. It would undo the work of land purchase because it placed the tenant in a worse position than his neighbours who had purchased under other Land Acts, and placed over their heads the shadow of another landlordism in the shape of the British collector. This Amendment raised a very important issue. No case had been made for the inclusion of these words in the Bill save the theory that it was good to provide against sub-division, mortgage, and so forth. He desired that as much as anyone, and was perfectly prepared to assent to any moderate proposal which had that object in view, and which would save the farmer from the grabber and the gombeen man. He begged to move.

said he hoped it would not be difficult to convince the Chief Secretary that this notion of a perpetual rent-charge was an unfortunate innovation in Irish land legislation. Nobody asked for it and nobody in Ireland wanted it except those who favoured nationalisation of the land, who were a very small minority. In reference to this proposal there could be no repetition of the somewhat unscrupulous treatment of yesterday by some spokesmen of the landlord party on the minimum prices. This proposal did not come from the landlord quarter. It did not emanate from either the landlords or the tenants in conference, and not a single member of either Irish Party had a single word to say in its favour. They were perfectly willing to accept any additional protection, any nominal reservation, which might be necessary as a protection against excessive mortgaging if there was any necessity. But was there any necessity? For sixty-eight years, at all events, this perpetual rent-charge was superfluous as a check against excessive mortgaging or sub-letting, and if this matter had to be dealt with at the end of that time, it might safely be left to those who came after, who would approach the matter under different conditions. It introduced a new and highly dangerous element into Irish land legislation. To the Irish farmer the whole charm of this Bill was the notion of property and the notion that the holding would be his own and that no man could ever interfere with him, but this perpetual rent-charge would be a perpetual reminder to him that he was not the holder but that some power which was not even denned, could step in and affect his interest in his property, with what object none at present saw, while the purchaser would be always faced with the fact that his 80,000 neighbours who purchased under the Ashbourne Acts were absolute owners of the fee simple. Irish land legislation was complicated enough without this new proposal. This proposal might contain the seeds of considerable trouble in Ireland in the future. There was a considerable feeling and a justifiable feeling of soreness in the minds of the agricultural labourers and the working classes of the towns, who thought too much was being absorbed by the farmers. He sympathised with the agricultural labourers and hoped they would be able in the future to devise means of doing justice to them. If the impression were once created that this perpetual rent-charge was an acknowledgment that one-eighth of the holding did not belong to the tenant at all, then there might be material for a considerable agitation. Ireland was not a new country, it was an old country, and those experiments could not be tried as they might be in a new. In this Bill the Government violated the principle that the holdings should be the complete property of the tenants, and gave nobody in Ireland any interest in the money collected. If they took upon themselves the odium of collecting what amounted to a second rent-charge they would leave the impression in the minds of the tenant that they, instead of being better off than when they were under the Ashbourne Acts, were worse off. He would not further detain the Committee now, as other great questions, such as those dealing with the purchase price, the evicted tenants, and the congested districts, remained to be decided. He would only say that he could not see what attraction this charge, which was so objectionable to the people of Ireland, could have to any party to the bargain, and he begged the Chief Secretary not to force upon them this new and unheard of complication, which was fraught with considerable danger to the peace of Ireland, and would create such discontent in the minds of the tenant farmers as to destroy the virtue of the other proposals.

said he shared the anxiety of the hon. Member to get to the consideration of the important questions to which he referred. It would be inconvenient if they could not in some way avoid a prolonged discussion on the rent-charge at the present stage, when they all desired to get to the subject which was very present to their minds. It had been argued that this rent-charge would perpetuate the idea that the purchaser was still a payer of rent, and that he would own only seven-eighths of his property. All he would say was that the question of the rent-charge would come up in Clause 40, and he suggested that it should be then discussed, he giving an undertaking to approach the question with an open mind, and with a disposition carefully to weigh the reasons which might be urged in favour of or against having such a provision in the Bill. He had previously contended, and was prepared, if necessary, to contend again, that this protection might in some cases be needed during the sixty-eight years. The danger he had in his mind, which might be remote, but was certainly possible, was that of persons other than those who purchased under the Act, buying up holdings, paying off the liabilities, and stealing away with all the advantages of the credit of the general taxpayer, to create holdings of a very undesirable description outside the Land Acts. It would be more convenient now to pass to a subject more germane to that which was under discussion yesterday, and he hoped, with the undertaking he had given, the Committee would agree to discuss the question of the rent-charge on Clause 40.

pointed out that if the words were passed now the Committeee would be committed to the principle of the rent-charge. While he desired to get the Bill for what it might be worth, it was necessary to be very careful where they were going and what they were doing.

explained that if, after discussion on Clause 40, it was decided to abandon the rent-charge, he should bring up a Government Amendment on the Report stage.

said he was exceedingly unwilling that the Committee should sanction a novel principle such as this without debating it. The hon. Member for Cork had implied that the whole of the Irish representatives were opposed to this proposal. But that was no reason for supposing the House of Commons would not pass it. On the contrary, that was the very reason why the House of Commons was likely to pass it. When it was remembered that last night a proposal of a most grave and vital character was carried over the heads of the Irish Members, who were absolutely unanimous against it, what reason was there for supposing that on Clause 40 the unanimity of Irish representatives would be worth a brass farthing? The matter must be threshed out before the principle was affirmed. For seventeen years there had been in operation in Ireland a land code which had been a success because to a large extent it had the assent of the Irish people. It was the one class of Irish legislation for which this House had been responsible in the last twenty years that had worked satisfactorily. There had been none of the bogies conjured up by the Chief Secretary, and why should they be anticipated now? The real secret of the success of past purchase measures had been the sense of ownership. All the while a tenant felt that he was working for another, and that if he improved the land his rent would be raised, the land remained unimproved; but immediately the landlord was got out of the way the tenant began to improve his holding. The Chief Secretary now proposed to destroy that sense of ownership, and to establish for all time the overlordship of the Crown. In his Second Reading speech the right hon. Gentleman said it was necessary to control sub-dividing, sub-letting, and reckless mortgaging. But by Clause 49 sub-dividing was absolutely prohibited for sixty-eight-and-a-half years, and reckless mortgaging was provided against for the same period. Therefore anything that was done now was for the period beyond sixty-eight-and-a-half years. Why should the Committee interest themselves so much in the people who would occupy the land seventy years hence? Unless he was mistaken Ireland would then be in such a position that the people would be able to take care of themselves. It seemed as though a Conservative Government was capable of doing anything. Who would have imagined that the first step towards the nationalisation of land in Ireland would have come from a Conservative Government? That was the principle contended for by Mr. Michael Davitt, and the Chief Secretary was adopting it.

Then there must be something in it.

said there was something in most proposals. He would like, however, to see the hon. Member not only accept the doctrine in the House of Commons, but also go "on stump" in North Monaghan.

said he was not in the least afraid of "taking the stump" in North Monaghan.

said the Conservative Government were actually proposing to insert the thin end of the wedge of land nationalisation in Ireland. That might be done in a new country, but Ireland was the last country in the world where such an experiment ought to be tried. If they were going to differentiate in this matter between the 80,000 tenants who had bought and those who would buy under this Act they would be laying the very seeds of disease that would produce trouble, and they would land themselves in endless difficulties. He was not prepared to wait until Clause 40 was reached, and he hoped the Committee would not consent to leave this question in abeyance.

said that this was one of those questions upon which he attached great importance to the united opinion of Ireland. The hon. Member for South Tyrone seemed to think that his word was not sufficient in regard to this Amendment.

No, no.

said the hon. Member had been discussing in rather a heated manner a subject of far less importance than the subjects discussed yesterday without any heat at all. His suggestion was that they might defer this point to a later clause, but if that was not the view of hon. Members from Ireland, he had such a sense of the importance of saving time that he would accept the Amendment. He deprecated the heated declarations of his hon. friend on a minor point like this, and he had no objection whatever to deleting the words which had been proposed to be struck out.

said he entirely agreed that it was not necessary to introduce the slightest heat into this discussion. The Chief Secretary had stated that he would keep an open mind until Clause 40 was reached, but that was not at all satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman must have considered this matter very carefully, and he knew the unanimity of feeling upon this point in Ireland. He took it for granted that the Chief Secretary had come to some conclusion upon the point, and he thought the best course to pursue would be for him to inform the Committee at once. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's request that they ought to agree to postpone this question, he would remind him that in the case he alluded to, there were certain words in the early part of the clause which limited the amount of advance to be given in certain cases, and they pressed upon the Government that they should insert the words "As amended in this Bill." In this case however the words stated that there should be a perpetual rent-charge, and the right hon. Gentleman asked them to put those words into the clause and then adjourn the question. That was a most inconvenient course. There was an Amendment on the Paper to Clause 40, standing in the name of his hon. friend who had moved this Amendment, dealing with the exact amount of the perpetual rent-charge.

thought if this was carried there could be no discussion of the point again on Clause 40.

thought the simplest way would be to accept the Amendment. [An HON. MEMBER: The Chief Secretary has agreed to delete those words.]

said if that were so he need not proceed.

thought that if they took out these words they would shut out the question for ever, but he agreed that if they left them in they would commit themselves. This was, however, only a minor matter, and he desired to proceed to the discussion of the more important questions. All he desired was to get on, and he was willing to accept the Amendment.

said he had risen to make a complaint. This was the second case already in which the right hon. Gentleman had thrown over safeguards in the Bill. He had up to the present supported the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he was going to stick to what he proposed upon the introduction of this measure. Already the Chief Secretary was beginning to talk about Bills which would have to be brought in during another session in order to amend this.

asked if the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke were germane to the omission of the words which had been proposed.

said the Chief Secretary for Ireland seemed to be afraid of what would take place in the Division Lobby, but he assured him that he need have no such fear. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford could have defeated the Government at any time during the afternoon of yesterday had he been so disposed, but he kept his supporters addressing the House in order to avoid a division.

said there was not one scintilla of truth in that statement.

said that was how the question had struck the outsider. He hoped the Chief Secretary would not make any further concessions. [Ironical NATIONALIST cheers.] After the speeches the Chief Secretary had delivered in this House and after obtaining the sanction of the House to the Second Reading of this Bill upon the distinct pledges he gave to the House, he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to adhere to them.

As the Chief Secretary is now in a giving mood perhaps he could give the hon. Member for Stoke a job.

said this was not a question of zones, but a purely administrative question. Let them get rid of this point and get on with the Bill.

asked if after what had taken place yesterday he should be in order in moving the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper.

The question discussed yesterday was whether there were to be any zones at all. I think this Amendment raises a somewhat different question, and if the hon. Member wishes to move it I do not think I should be justified in ruling that the question had already been discussed, although I know that a considerable amount of debate yesterday turned upon this point.

said he would move to leave out of line 23 of Clause 1 the word "ten," and insert "fifteen." The effect of his Amendment was to alter the minimum reduction in this zone from 10 to 15 per cent. He did not think it was necessary to use many words upon this occasion, because the arguments on this point had already been dealt with by other hon. Members as well as himself. Their belief was that the limit of 10 per cent. was too low, and that, owing to various reasons, certain classes of tenants might perhaps be induced to pay more for their land than from an economical point of view they were justified in doing. This was not a limit to which they attached the most importance. They did attach considerable importance however to this point. Their idea of an ideal settlement would be to raise this limit from ten to fifteen, and abolish the other altogether. He must move the Amendment in order to state his protest, which he had no doubt hon. Members sitting around him would think it their duty to emphasise in this matter. He begged to move.

thought the Government would do well to stand by the limit of ten in the Bill. After all he could not see that by making it fifteen there would be very much gained. If they took the case of a £10 holder it really meant a difference of 10s. and no more. If the Committee looked at the whole question of maximum and minimum he thought that both sides were perhaps attaching exaggerated importance to the question. He knew that English Members were considerably confused by the different methods of stating this question. In some cases it was put as the maximum and minimum reduction, and in other cases it was put as the maximum and minimum price. He would like to show exactly the real meaning of this question, and for that purpose he would take as an illustration the case of the £10 holder. He did not think that the House realised what Parliament had done in the way of benefiting the tenants of Ireland at the expense of the landlords. Great changes had been made in the relations between landlords and tenants. He was not now dealing with the question whether it was right or wrong to make these changes, or whether the landlords had a grievance or not. The question now before the Committee was whether a £10 holder now was to get a minimum reduction of 10 or 15 per cent. He wanted to put before the Committee the history of this £10 holder. In the first place he was at a certain rent in 1881, when an Act was passed and his rent was reduced, according to a Return showing the average, by 20 per cent. After fifteen years under the Act of 1896, his rent was further reduced by 20 per cent., and that brought it to £10. Turned into figures it came to this, that that man's original rent was £16 before the passing of the Act of 1881. The question was whether a man who in 1881 was paying a rent of £16 was now badly treated if he was asked to accept State purchase at a rent 10 per cent. below the £10 which he was paying. It really came to this—that they were asking him to pay half his original rent and to become a State tenant. There were so many important questions dealt with in this Bill that, in connection with this particular matter, he thought they were really justified in saying that the landlords considered that the minimum of 10 per cent. sufficiently safeguarded the interest of the State. The question the Committee had now to consider was whether a difference of 5 per cent. would deter or promote purchase. He presumed that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had only one object in his mind, namely, to promote purchase. If it was the hon. and learned Member's object to induce the tenant to buy, obviously his object must also be to induce landlords to sell. The landlords were the men in position whom they had to show that it would be to their advantage to sell. He put it to the Committee would 5 per cent. make all that difference? They started with this basis that the Government considered after examination of the whole question—that a 10 per cent. minimum was a sufficient safeguard for the State, and therefore they could dismiss the British taxpayer altogether from the question. It was the business of the Government to look after the general taxpayer. Was it worth while to waste a great deal of time over this difference of 5 per cent.? [NATIONALIST laughter.] That was his way of looking at it.

Let the Chief Secretary accept the Amendment and not waste any more time.

The Government considered that 10 per cent. was a sufficient safeguard for the general taxpayer. If he was mis-stating the case the Government, of course, would correct his statement. But he said that so far as this minimum reduction went the security of the State was covered by the figure in the Bill. Hon. Members on the other side of the House who were concerned in the matter said that an addition of 5 per cent. was after all not a very considerable matter. But they considered that by the increase of the minimum reduction above what was necessary to secure, the State was really to do something directed against the interest of the landlord. In regard to this minimum reduction, what the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had got to show was not that it would be beneficial to the tenant—of course, anything they got off the price was beneficial to the tenant—but that under this voluntary Bill the interests of the landlord must also be considered. He reminded the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that at the Conference it was agreed that the general minimum reduction should be only calculated on the basis necessary to secure the landlords income at 3 per cent. He trusted that the Government would adhere, for the reasons he had given, to the 10 per cent. in the clause and not increase it, because that might have the effect of deterring some large landlords from selling.

Fifteen per cent. minimum is the actual figure in the Conference Report which was agreed to by the landlords.

said that somehow or other they had got away from the Conference Report. But they were bound by the Conference declaration, which was exactly in the line of the Landlords' Convention declaration, that the landlord should receive as purchase money a sum which should guarantee an income for him at 3 or 3¼ per cent. An addition of 5 per cent. to the limit stated in the Bill might in some cases prevent the landlord from getting what he should have. He put it to the hon. and learned Member whether the acceptance of the Amendment would not really, instead of encouraging, deter landlords from selling. He asked the hon. and learned Member whether, without prejudice to other questions, they could not arrange to leave the figure at 10 per cent. as it was put in the Bill?

said that the hon. and gallant Member spoke of the desirability of not wasting time, and yet he had occupied an hour and a-half in discussing an Amendment which he himself had described as exceedingly trifling. If 5 per cent. was such a small matter, why did not the Chief Secretary accept the Amendment and have done with it? He confessed he would have been better pleased if the hon. Member for Waterford had moved 20 per cent. instead of 15. The principle involved in the Amendment was important. He was against the principle of these zones and limitations in toto, and after what had occurred the previous night this clause was objectionable from beginning to end. The clause would be used for raising the general level of price of land in Ireland. They had been asked to set up a standard by which the landlords might combine to demand from their tenants a mean price between the two limits. The Chief Secretary spoke of the clause as offering to the tenants an opportunity of purchasing their holdings at eighteen years purchase on first-term rents, and twenty-two years purchase on second-term rents: but did the Chief Secretary ask them to believe that all the tenants of Ireland, or any considerable section of them, were going to get the minimum price? They had heard a great deal about combinations amongst the tenants to bring pressure to bear on the landlords, but nothing of the combination of the landlords. There was such a combination, and what they wanted was twenty-eight years purchase. If the tenants gave them twenty-five years purchase they did not care where the rest came from.

said that twenty-eight years purchase would be on the basis of second-term rents which had been reduced.

said he could not understand the hon. and gallant Member, who did not seem even yet to have grasped the principles of the Bill. As he understood the application of these limits, the maximum price would be twenty-eight years purchase and the minimum about twenty-two on second-term rents as they now stood; and the mean would be twenty-five years purchase. That was what they were told the landlords would combine for. He was speaking of the great mass of the tenants who could not plead exceptional circumstances. What they were, in fact, asked to consent to, was to raise the general average level of second-term rents of tenancies in Ireland to a purchase price of twenty-five years, as against eighteen to nineteen years purchase at the present time. The proposal of the hon. Member for Waterford was most moderate, and he supported it strongly because it tended to bring down the level of the mean price. The hon. and gallant Member said, "Why not consider the case of the poor landlords?" But what would be the effect of this Amendment? The landlord would be debarred from taking from the tenantry more than six years purchase in addition to what they had ever paid before. And the hon. and gallant Member complained that that was a hardship on the landlords! But that was not all, because account had not been taken of the bonus. The hon. and gallant Member's complaint, therefore, was that the landlords were to be penalised by the Amendment because, if it was passed they would not be able to get more than ten years purchase more than they got under the present law. That was the case of the Irish landlords. He had been accustomed to see extraordinary demands put forward in this House on behalf of the Irish landlords, but all paled into insignificance before that of the hon. and gallant Member. He thought it was extremely important that they should make a determined effort by moving Amendments to this clause and discussing them moderately, to set forth to the best of their ability the realities of the clause, which he was convinced had not been grasped by the majority of the English Members of the House.

said he hoped that the Chief Secretary would adhere to the limitations he had proposed. They had been rightly told that it would be desirable to give some more elasticity to the limits than the Land Conference proposed; in other words, to increase the power of bargaining by 5 per cent. on each side of the limits, leaving the average reduction precisely the same as it was before—viz., 20 per cent. It seemed to him that if the hon. Member for Waterford desired to go back to the Conference terms upon one limit, he ought to go back to the Conference terms on the other limit; and if he cut off 5 per cent. extra bargaining power in one direction, he ought to cut it off on the other. No doubt the hon. Member would not like to do it in the second case, but he urged the Government to adhere to the terms which they had given, and which would give effect to an increased power of bargaining to landlord and tenant.

said there was another reason than that already stated why he appealed to the Government and the landlords to accept the Amendment. He thought he was right in saying that the view of the Land Conference was that 10 per cent. was the cost of collection. In his judgment that was an error so far as the tenants were concerned. It erred on the side of generosity and in favour of the landlords. If they took 5 per cent. for agent's fees; if they took the loss by legal expenses whether for the issue of writs or processes; if they took likewise the loss to the tenants through bad seasons and mortality amongst their cattle; if they took the loss which constantly arose from illness of the tenant or death—he was told that on the best estates in Munster that at least would be 15 per cent., and on the slum holdings it would run from 20 to 25 per cent. He thought that when the Conference made the agreement of 10 per cent. all round they arrived at a most generous decision. He appealed to any hon. Gentleman with experience in Irish administration to say, when the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General for Ireland were drawing such a Bill as this, whether they would put the wastage on any estate at less than 20 per cent. Mr. Gladstone's Bill put the losses and the outgoings at 20 per cent., and therefore he thought they were in a position to say that as regarded this Amendment the terms of the Land Conference ought to be insisted upon. In the first instance the Government had taken 20 per cent., and the proposition of the Conference on that head was 15 per cent. Would it not be fair to ask the landlord party opposite whether they were not bound by their own code of honour to adopt the treaty arranged by their own representatives in conference assembled? He personally felt bound by the decision arrived at by the three gentlemen who represented the side of the tenants; and that being so, hon. Members opposite ought to adhere in a similar way to a decision out of which they would obtain numerous benefits. In a treaty of this kind, where persons were taking benefits, they could not approbate and reprobate; and if the tenants in this matter said they were willing to rely upon the Conference figures, surely that bound the landlords. It was not a matter merely for the Chief Secretary, but one of a solemn obligation on both Parties. He appealed to the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh to say whether, under the circumstances he did not feel that he was as much bound as they were.

said that he was not a party to the Conference. He refused to join it; but he acknowledged that the Conference did very good work. He did not, however, feel bound at all by it. It did not represent him, nor, he thought, the majority of the Irish landlords; but he thought that the majority of the Irish landlords acknowledged the merits of the work done at the Conference; and, so far as he was concerned, and he believed also so far as the landlords were concerned, they supported the line taken by the Conference. With regard to the question now before the Committee, the Amendment was not so much against the landlords, but it narrowed the region of bargaining. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would rather not have any zones of any kind; but when they had established zones, to raise the minimum from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. would, in his opinion, narrow the area of bargaining. His own opinion was, that when a landlord made an agreement with a tenant they would probably split the difference. He thought that the feeling of the landlords was that this opportunity of settling the land question should not be lost. He believed that if the Bill were passed into law, probably more than ninety out of every hundred landlords would sell under it. Speaking for himself, he would sell at once, although there might be a temptation to retain property which had been in his family for over 300 years. The Bill was an offer which neither the landlords nor the tenants should throw away. Personally, he was in favour of the 10 per cent. limit; and he did not think that raising it to 15 per cent. would confer any benefit on the tenants, while it would narrow the region of bargaining. He thought that the Irishman who would do anything to wreck this measure would deserve ill of his country.

said there was no question as to the security of the State so far as the alteration proposed by the Amendment was concerned; and therefore the objection of the hon. and gallant Gentleman disappeared. The Amendment should be considered entirely from the point of view of what was the smallest minimum of reduction which would meet all the difficulties that might arise. The Land Conference Report referred to the increased responsibility which would be placed on the tenant. There was every prospect of increased taxation; and the Land Conference had to consider what annual instalment the tenant should pay in future as compared with the rent he paid at present. The Conference came to the conclusion that 15 per cent. was the minimum reduction which the tenant should have. The question the Committee had now to consider was whether that was or was not a reasonable settlement. The proposal in the Report was universally agreed to. No objection was taken to it by the Landlords' Convention, which acknowledged the spirit of fairness of the Report, while declining to commit itself to all the details. He had never heard of any body in Ireland taking exception to the minimum reduction embodied in the Report. In future the tenant would not have assistance from his landlord, which was now given in many cases. He would not be allowed voluntary abatement. His rents would not be allowed to run into arrear; and the question which the Committee had to consider was, not in the average of cases but in extreme cases, what was the minimum of reduction the instalment should represent. Having regard to the fact that in future the tenant would stand entirely on his own basis, and that he would have a harsh and punctual landlord who had no heart, and who would be sure to extort the instalments to a day, the Land Conference came to the conclusion that the smallest figure they could reasonably recommend was 15 per cent. The landlords appeared quite as anxious that a figure should be fixed which would enable the tenant to meet his obligations. The Conference Report was adopted unanimously by the country, and he never heard any repudiation by any landlord body in Ireland of the 15 per cent. recommendation. He appealed to hon. Members, who during the last few days had been quoting the Land Conference Report against them, to at least support this proposal in the Report. So far as broadening the lines of bargaining was concerned, that could be very easily arranged by altering the other limit; but he maintained that, having regard to the obligations that would be imposed on the tenant and his difficulty in meeting them when he had made a hard and fast bargain with the State, the minimum reduction should be 15 per cent.

said if they took the Conference figures and inserted 15 per cent. they at least insured 15 per cent. coming to the tenants at once, and they gave him in exchange for this security the right to get 30 per cent. They were absolutely assured of 15 per cent. instead of 10 per cent., and had a chance of getting 30 instead of 25 per cent. on second-term rents. That was the Irish tenant's point of view, but he wished to point out that the 15 per cent. which the tenant would secure under the minimum of his hon. and learned friend was also a security to the British taxpayer. Over 2,000 bargains had been refused by the Land Commissioners because the security was not sufficient. He thought it was hardly fair for hon. Members on the Unionist side of the House to throw the Land Conference Report at the head of both Irish Parties as they had done, and the moment it came up in a concrete shape and they proposed to accept the figures to say it was only to be taken when it was in favour of the landlords.

said it might be that the lower the price which could be arranged in these transactions the better it would be for the taxpayer, but if this Bill was to be of any effect the price must be one which would induce the landlords to sell. They ought to see that the terms were as fair as possible for both sides, but were such as to induce the landlords to sell. Taking a 3¼ per cent. security, which was an infinitely better security than Irish land at the present time, the capitalised amount that would give the landlord the £90 out of every £100 that they asked for was £2,500 plus the bonus. That was 20 per cent. If the 15 per cent. figures were taken it would be about £2,650, so that £85 rent would mean a capital sum of £2,650, this would give £86, which with the 10 per cent. bonus would be £94 7s. Therefore, if they took the 10 per cent. figure, the landlord would get a trifle over the gross income to which he was now entitled.

regretted that he could not give way. The hon. Member had urged his plea with great ingenuity and force. In reply, he would ask hon. Members who had made reference to the Land Conference Report to recollect the position in which the Government were placed by it. From many points of view it placed them in a most happy position, for it gave them an unexampled opportunity. But also from some points of view it put them in a very difficult position. It was laid down at that Conference that the landlord could not be expected to sell unless he received as the result of the transaction a sum which would secure to him his net income. Whether 10 per cent. was too liberal a calculation he was not competent to decide; but it must be taken that their intention was that the landlord who had received £100 should in future, after he had been paid and had invested his money, receive £90 a year. But the Land Conference went further, and laid it down that the State should bear the whole cost of investigation of title and distribution of purchase money. It was impossible for him to say what that would amount to, but in some cases he knew it had amounted to as much as two or three years purchase. The Government found themselves unable to give such liberal terms; and on all these occasions, he must be allowed to point out, the signatories of the Conference Report happily and properly did not assume the attitude of dictation to the general taxpayer or the Exchequer. If they had their Report would not have made nearly so great an impression on the public imagination. But they said what they thought would solve the situation, and suggested that if what was necessary could not be done by the use of State credit reasonable aid might be added. He had to go closely into this problem and to make an unusual and unprecedented demand on his colleagues. The sum which could properly be allotted had been determined, and he suggested that if the Government had come to a different view as to that amount and made a larger advance he would have had greater difficulty in commending the measure to the House as a whole. Having fixed the amount of aid the State should give at £12,000,000 they were then bound to carry out, as far as they could, the Conference terms in respect both of the landlord and tenant, and he thought they had got much nearer the Conference terms in relation to the tenant than in relation to the landlord. Taking the figures of the hon. Member for Oldham, and assuming that 3¼ per cent. could be got instead of 3 per cent.—although this question must be considered in connection with the increased facilities the Government had now given for investment—he maintained that the landlord could not get his 90 per cent., for nothing had been allowed in the calculations of the hon. Member for costs. If the Amendment were accepted the landlord would get two, three, or four years purchase less than he ought to get by the Conference terms. The pecuniary position of every landlord would vary in accordance with his financial obligations, and if perfect theoretic justice was to be done in every case it would be necessary to sit as a Court upon the private affairs of each party to the transaction. That was one of the reasons for adopting the principle of the zones, and allowing the parties interested to play between the 10 and the 30 per cent. in order that, according to their particular circumstances, they might approach as nearly as they could to the terms of the Conference Report. That being so, the Government from their point of view ought not say to the tenants, "You shall not pay the price you wish to pay" except up to the point which was considered necessary for the security of the State. That point was found at a reduction of 10 per cent. on second-term rents, and the Government would be unnecessarily interfering with the bargaining if they made the reduction greater when they did not consider it need be greater for the security of the State. He therefore opposed the Amendment.

said the Committee could not be controlled by the findings of the Land Conference. The responsibility of Members was to consider each Amendment on its merits as it came before them. If the difference between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. was so inconsiderable as had been urged, why should not the poor men—the tenants—get the benefit of it rather than the comparatively rich men—the landlords? The fact that the existing Government was satisfied with the proposed reduction was no reason why the taxpayers should acquiesce. He certainly refused to pin his faith to the present Administration in the matter of the economy or security of the taxpayers. The duty of the Committee was to see that the security was ample. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Oldham demonstrated that with the minimum reduction at 10 per cent. the purchase annuity might possibly exceed the second-term rents. With what face could the Committee pass a clause having such an effect as that? What security was there that the public purse would not be called upon to make good the deficiency? With the minimum reduction fixed at 10 per cent. there was no margin of security at all. He appealed to the Committee not to listen to the argument that, because of what was done at the Conference, and because the landlords insisted on receiving from gilt-edged securities as much money as they had obtained from the most uncertain and contingent of all incomes—that derived from Irish land, they should be blind to their first duty of seeing that the State was sufficiently protected against future loss.

said that in view of the large amount to be advanced by the British taxpayer for the purpose of carrying out this scheme, the figures produced by the hon. Member for Oldham ought to give every English Member pause before refusing to vote for the Amendment. Those figures showed that with the 10 per cent. reduction the landowner would get as much money as the gross amount of his present rent, whereas everybody who knew anything about land was aware that before the real value could be ascertained large deductions had to be made. Therefore, looking at the matter from the point of view of the British taxpayer, the figures of the hon. Member for Oldham had convinced him that with the 10 per cent. reduction the security was not good enough. It was of enormous importance that the representatives of Ireland should be satisfied in this respect. But the Irish Party had declared, through their leader, that they would not be satisfied with 10 per cent. reduction, and he certainly was not prepared to support the Bill if the Irish Members were not to be satisfied with it. Unless the people of Ireland were satisfied the arrangements would not be worth the paper on which they were written. On these grounds he should support the Amendment.

pointed out that the rents here dealt with had been fixed, not by the landlord, but by a judicial tribunal, by whom all the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member for Oldham had been taken into account. It had also to be remembered that, in addition to the rent, there were the tenants' improvements, and, in many cases, the tenants' houses to be added to the security.

said that it appeared to him that both parties to this dispute were being so handsomely dealt with by the British taxpayer through the exploitation of the national credit, that either of them could well afford to give way on the question of the 5 per cent. A tenant of a £10 second-term rental holding would under the Bill first get a 10 per cent. reduction to £9, and then receive the whole of the twenty-five years purchase money, £225, at 3¼ per cent.—including sinking fund—making his annual payment £7 4s. instead of £10. The landlord, on the other hand, would get enough to yield him his present rent in a 3¼ per cent. investment. At the same time, as it was not a compulsory Bill, some inducements to sale must be held out, and he doubted if the tenants' representatives were wise in pressing for the reduction. If this question came to a division, as it was to the interest of the British taxpayer that no more should be paid than was absolutely necessary, he should vote for the Amendment.

said that upon this question he intended to vote with the hon. Member who had moved this Amendment.

said he knew of hundreds of cases where, in the case of judicial rents fixed within the last three or four years, the landlords had had to give considerable abatements. He knew a case where a landlord had to give 16 per cent. abatement upon a rent which had been recently reduced. Second-term rents had recently been reduced by 6, 8, and 10 per cent., although in some cases the rents had been raised. The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth appeared to represent both the taxpayers of Yarmouth and the landlords of Ireland. They should not forget that after the passing of the Local Government Act Irish landlords were relieved of the payment of the Poor Rate and other local charges, but they were left some special charges for which they were still liable, but when the landlords took themselves bag and baggage out of Ireland those charges would have to be borne by the annuitants.

said he had an Amendment on the Paper increasing the minimum reduction, but after the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford he considered that he would not be justified in moving the Amendment standing in his name. Only two years ago the Landlords Convention demanded that they should be protected so far as to be able to get an equivalent sum which would produce an amount equal to their present net income. That claim had been put forward again to-day on their behalf by the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth. The case of the Irish tenant farmer was identical with the case of the English taxpayer. Apart altogether from the absurd and unreasonable prices contained in the first clause of this Bill, in his opinion the landlords' case could be met, and they could be assured of their present net income if the minimum reduction moved by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford was accepted by the Government. There was another view of the question which had not been brought as yet before the Committee. The Chief Secretary, when he introduced this Bill, told them that he estimated the rental of the estates to be sold at about £4,000,000 per annum. It was estimated that one-third at least of the landlords' interest was mortgaged. Taking those figures as correct, there would be a sum of £40,000,000 as mortgages upon land in Ireland, and the interest upon that would be about 4½ or 5 per cent. Taken at 4½ per cent., it gave a sum of £1,800,000 per annum, as the sum paid by the landlords for interest on mortgages. Of course the cost of collection would have to be considered. At the Landlords Convention, Mr. Montgomery estimated the cost of collection at 12½, per cent., and that meant a sum of £500,000, and if they added that sum to the £1,800,000 interest, it gave a sum of £2,300,000, which they had to deduct from the gross rental of £4,000,000 in order to arrive at the net rental. These figures gave £1,700,000 as the net rental at present enjoyed by the Irish landlords. Looking at this from a landlord's standpoint, how was this sum of £1,700,000 to be secured to them without putting an unnecessary burden upon the tenant purchaser? It was proposed that twenty years purchase of the gross rental would not be an unfair price for the landlords to receive or for the tenants to pay, but if they took it at twenty years purchase the sum required amounted to £80,000,000. There was a bonus of £12,000,000 to be given to the landlords under the Act by the general taxpayer, and thus they got £92,000,000, which was to be made up under the Bill and paid to the landlords. The landlords must pay off their mortgages, and if they deducted from the £92,000,000 the existing mortgages of £40,000,000 that left them £52,000,000 for investment. Under the Bill additional facilities were being conferred upon landlords and trustees for investing this money. The sphere of trustee investments was somewhat enlarged, and he had no doubt whatever when they came to consider the present state of the money market, the landlords would be able to invest this money at 3½ per cent. Three per cent. Corporation stocks were now being issued at a large discount, and under the extended sphere landlords would be easily able to obtain for their money 3½ per cent. The sum of £52,000,000 invested at 3½ per cent. would produce an annual income of £1,820,000 a year, or £120,000 more than the income at present enjoyed by the landlords. He would suggest that the amount of the bonus should not go according to the price of the estates or the gross rentals, but in proportion to the net income derivable from the several estates. The purchasing tenants, on the basis he had given, would pay twenty years purchase in order to secure to the landlords the income which they at present enjoyed. The argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth that it did not matter much to the tenant farmers of Ireland whether they paid ten or twelve years extra purchase so long as they got a reduction of their present rents was not correct. The Irish tenant farmers, as evidenced by their dealings under the Ashbourne Act, had shown themselves as shrewd business men as the farmers of any country in the world, and they would ponder over it before they undertook to pay a price which would place a burden round their necks if they purchased under this Act, and which would place them in a far worse position than their neighbours who had purchased under the Ashbourne Act. As one largely interested in the land question he could assure the Committee that if tenants could not buy in the future under the Ashbourne Act he would advise them to borrow money at 5 per cent. to pay the landlord rather than borrow from the Government under this Act. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would concede the small measure of justice asked for by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. After all, 5 per cent. was not much. It would not break the back of the landlord or tenant even if the Government did not yield, but the acceptance of the Amendment would help to make the working of the Bill practicable. The result of rejecting the Amendment would be that the Bill, instead of facilitating the final settlement of this vexed question, would only be another milestone on the agrarian road in Ireland. He did not think the land question could ever be settled by a voluntary Bill. He believed there must be compulsory sale. Until they had compulsory sale, year after year the same story would be repeated in this House as had been told for the last century. This Bill, from that point of view, would never settle the land question. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to consider the wishes put forward practically unanimously by hon. Members from Ireland in favour of the instalment of justice asked for in the Amendment. Although Irish landlords might, in some cases, be unwilling to sell their estates, he believed they would be induced to do so if they were satisfied that this Bill would settle the question.

said that as one deeply interested in the acceptance of the Amendment, he wished to say a word in favour of it. He was acquainted with the conditions of the districts in County Galway, and he could not understand why some hon. Members had rushed to the conclusion that on the second-term rents the tenants had been granted a reduction of 20 per cent. Two or three years ago when the second-term rents were being fixed a wave of indignation ran over the districts at what was being done by the Sub-Commissioners. The tenantry at that time visited him and asked what they were to do in the circumstances in which they were placed. The landlords before going into Court offered second-term reductions varying from 20 to 25 per cent. On entering the Court the tenants in some cases not only did not get their rents reduced but had them increased. What possibility did that open up to the Irish Government in future? He pointed this out as a reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not take it into account to induce him to accept the Amendment now before the Committee. If the Amendment was passed hon. Members from Ireland would be able to point out to the tenants that there was a prospect of their getting a further reduction of 15 instead of 10 per cent. By retaining the minimum figure yesterday the Government committed a mistake and incorporated one of the greatest possible flaws in the measure. He hoped they would repent that mistake by accepting this Amendment.

said the limit of 10 per cent. had been defended by the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth. He had in his mind a case which occurred last year on the Warden Estate in County Kerry. Mr. Warden was, he understood, connected with the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth. In that case the valuer gave evidence that the value of a holding was £7, but the Sub-Commissioners who might have been expected to stand fairly between the landlord and the tenant fixed the rent at £7 10s. In connection with the fixing of second-term rents the tenant often felt aggrieved at the decisions of the Sub-Commission. He impressed on the Chief Secretary that this Amendment had been supported by every Member who spoke for Ireland. In regard to a previous Amendment the right hon. Gentleman said that on account of the unanimity of opinion on the part of the Irish Members he would give way. He thought that in this matter he ought to do the same thing. By doing so he would ensure that the tenants would be protected and that the interest of the British taxpayer would also be safeguarded.

said he represented a county in the West of Ireland which was deeply interested in the matter under discussion. He could not conceive why the Chief Secretary would not, in the face of what occurred last night, without the slightest hesitation accept the very moderate Amendment proposed by his hon. friend and leader the Member for Waterford. His county, although partially congested, was peculiarly an agricultural county, and the greater portion of it was occupied by farms of between £20 and £50 valuation. The question dealt with by the Amendment concerned them very much indeed, and it would be a grievous disappointment to all classes of farmers in the county if it were not accepted by the Chief Secretary. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that under the Ashbourne Act many estates had been purchased not only in County Kerry but all over the west of Ireland on the basis of sixteen and seventeen years purchase. These purchases were effected on the basis of seventeen years purchase on first-term rents and with decadal reductions. If the limitations, proposed in the clause, to agreements between landlord and tenant were insisted on it would create in his county the same discontent as in the case of the Dillon Estate. If the right hon. Gentleman rejected the Amendment he would leave the great body of the people in Ireland under the impression that the Government had no serious intention of passing this measure into law. Even if it were passed it would become inoperative. All those who had taken part in the agrarian agitation in Ireland during the past fifteen years were as anxious as any hon. or right hon. Gentleman in the House to bring the Irish agrarian war to an end, so that they could press on their case for social reforms, the industrial development of their country and the creation of a Parliament of their own. They were sincere in their wish to bring the agrarian war to a close in the interest of every class and religious section in the community; and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this moderate Amendment and by so doing repair some of the damage he had done the previous night.

said that on a matter of this kind first impressions counted for a very great deal, and if the idea was given to people who were anxious to enter into negotiations for the purchase of their holdings that they would only get a 10 per cent. reduction from what they were now paying, many of them would fight shy. The first question he was asked in the County of Clare was what reduction they could possibly get if they entered into arrangements under the Bill; and if the right hon. Gentleman put him in the position to say that only 10 per cent. was to be given a great many of them would hesitate and hold back. The last second-term rents fixed had not been at all satisfactory, and therefore they expected a larger reduction. If the right hon. Gentleman enabled the Irish Members to go to their constituents and say that they would get a reduction of 15 per cent. on second-term rents straight away, it would greatly facilitate the progress of the Bill and induce people to take action on it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might resist the Amendment on the ground that this was another attempt to extort terms that would not be fair to the landlords; but that was not his idea or that of his hon. friends. On former occasions he could hardly find words strong enough in which to describe the conduct of the landlords, but he recognised that a truce had been called on both sides, and that there was a sincere desire to come to a solution of the land question. They did not want to withhold from the landlords a fair and reasonable share in this bargain, but they also