very well managed; and three-fourths of | without the assistance of the Governthe expense, speaking in round numbers, ment of the day. At this late hour I has been met by the fees paid by the have no wish to detain the House; but landed proprietors who got the advances. there are one or two points which I Now I hope that Her Majesty's Govern- would like to mention. I am informed ment will feel disposed to look into this that the actual cost of the Inclosure matter, and grant the advance which I Commission last year for the adminisask for. But there are one or two points tration of the Commission was £23,000, in which an alteration would be required and that there was received by fees a in the system under which former ad- sum of £17,000. I do not think that vances were made. In the first place, the additional work which my proposal it would be necessary to lend small would entail upon the Commissioners sums in advance by the State without would very materially add to the work waiting for any part of the work to be of that Office; but it would greatly indone in the first instance; because at crease the amount of fees received. I present, when a proprietor receives aid dare say the Government will say that it is from a private Company, he has to impossible to advance the public money borrow from his bankers, in the first for this purpose without an Act of place, until the first instalment of the Parliament; but in this House we are work is completed. There are many de- constantly asked to vote hundreds of tails in connection with the question thousands of pounds which have already with which I will not trouble the House. been spent in war, and I do think it is My main point is that the State should do not too much to ask Her Majesty's now as it did in 1846, when it advanced | Government to allow £100,000, or £2,000,000 sterling, and as it did £50,000, or even £20,000, to be adagain in 1850, when a further advance vanced at once for this purpose, while of £2,000,000 was made to the landed an Act of Parliament is being brought proprietors of Great Britain. I will not forward, out of consideration for the refer to the case of Ireland, because that starving multitudes to be found now in country has had special facilities for pur- every city throughout Great Britain. chasing land and improving property If the Treasury were to allow advances granted to it only last year, when I on the old system, which did so well, think the sum of no less £5,000,000 was and by which the State actually realized voted by Parliament for the purchase of a profit, I believe it would have the land at the extraordinarily low rate of effect of immediately drawing out of 4 per cent, spread over 49 years, such the towns those starving masses who payment for 49 years extinguishing both are now crowding them, and who principal and interest. I do not grudge are increasing the distress of the rethe people of Ireland their good fortune gular population of our large cities. in obtaining that advance, because I Not only that, but it would afford an think it was no more than justice to Ire- opportunity for properly housing the land for the State to make it; but I do labouring population, and keeping the say that we poor Saxons should receive labouring men of the country fully and some benefit from the State, especially well employed, an end we all desire when we consider that the advance, such to see accomplished. Then, again, let as I suggest, would not cost the tax- me turn for a moment to the allotment payers of Great Britain anything; but, question. I believe there is an anxiety on the contrary, there would be a on both sides of the House to provide profit to the State from the trans- allotments for the labouring classes in action. No doubt, right hon. Mem- some shape or other. At all events, I bers on the Treasury Bench will ask know a very strong feeling on this side why I do not bring in a Private or a of the House does exist in favour of Public Bill to carry out this object, and allotments. But what is the use of they will point out that such a course is allotting to anybody land which requite open to me. I have made careful quires draining? It must be drained inquiry, and, from the information I in plots of 40 or 50 acres before it can have received, I find that it would be be rendered of any service. Perhaps utterly impossible for any private Mem- hon. Members are not aware that in ber to succeed in passing a Bill of this the North of England, and even in nature through the House of Commons some parts of the South, there are

Sir John Swinburne

know that it is now so heavily suffering, for the cottage it is certainly a high I feel certain it would command the rent. If you could, your experience sympathy of the House and the Govern- must have been particularly fortunate. ment. But the question is, whether the £5 a-year is much nearer the rent that proposal of my hon. Friend (Sir John would be charged, and that would inSwinburne) is really calculated to re- volve a loss of £8 a-year on every cotlieve that distress? It is quite true tage for 22 years. It is not, therefore, that soon after the repeal of the Corn a transaction that can be engaged in, to Laws Sir Robert Peel proposed and car- any large extent, without seriously ried, first of all, one grant of £2,000,000, diminishing the landlord's income; and and then another of £2,000,000 more, I doubt, therefore, whether there would which I believe were very usefully em- be any large demand for advances at ployed in effecting improvements on land; £6 10s. per cent. Indeed, I doubt very but we know at that time the land of Eng- much, from what I know of the present land was comparatively undeveloped; it condition of the agricultural interest, was in a condition of hope and expecta- whether there would be any real demand tion; and there was a general confidence, for money on such terms for purposes of and I think, also, a disposition to invest this character. I quite admit, however, money in the improvement of land. I that if advances were made without am afraid that that sentiment hardly disadvantage to the country or to the exists now. What were the terms on Exchequer it would be faithfully rewhich money was advanced at that time? paid; and I believe that of the loans The advances were repayable by Annui- made in 1846 and 1850 there is only a ties at £6 10s. per cent. I cannot help sum of £17,000 still outstanding. That asking myself whether the landed pro- is not absolutely arrears; but it is money prietors of Great Britain would be dis- still due, and will be repaid. There has posed to borrow money at £6 108. per been no loss; but when one is asked to cent in order to invest it in improve- embark in a large loan of this descripments in land? I am afraid they would tion, one asks one's self what profit will not do so at the present time. I do not accrue to the borrowers at such a rate think they would see their way, on such of interest; and I confess I did not think terms, to any improvements on which that there would be any great demand they are now likely to receive a return. for money for these purposes. There is [Mr. McCULLOCH: Capital and interest.] no reason to suppose that the State can No doubt it was capital and interest. supply money for all purposes for the There was a Sinking Fund. That is advantage of various sections of the what was meant by Terminable Annui- community. Be it remembered that it ties. But that was what the landowners is not to be taken from the local rates, would have to pay for 22 years. I ask but from the Consolidated Fund. People whether it is likely, if a measure of that do not seem to know where the money kind were proposed, the Government of the Consolidated Fund comes from, would have any demand for investments but seem to have a belief that it comes of that sort. My hon. Friend behind from the pocket of the Chancellor of me (Sir John Swinburne) has held out the Exchequer personally and his Cola tempting picture of a number of leagues, and that the Treasury have a things that would be done-of cottages well from which money can always be that would be built, and the many other drawn. Persons who are continually improvements that would be carried out asking for grants from the Consolidated under his proposal. But I suppose that Fund do not realize the fact that it comes few persons can build a house that is out of the pockets of the people. If suitable for a man and his family for hon. Members realized that the Conmuch less than £200. [An hon. MEM- solidated Fund is made up from the BER: Yes. Then my hon. Friend's ex- taxes of the people whom they repreperience is better than my own. I doubt sent-if that were more frequently whether a cottage can be built for a la- realized, I do not think they would bouring man and his family for much show such a constant desire to draw less than that. And the interest at upon it. I do not say that to advance £6 108. on £200 is £13 a-year. If, the money for the purpose which my therefore, you only charge the interest hon. Friend has in view would be a loss

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

Per

Local Government Board are not pre- and these he can dispose of. pared to make advances on the part of haps he would not be in so unfortunate the Government to assist those landlords a position if he had not the electioneerwho are anxious to give good cottage ing bills of the last century to pay. I accommodation. For the reasons I have could quote more than one instance in stated, I cannot support the Amend- which those debts have not yet been paid, ment; and I certainly do not suppose but where they remain to this day as that the hon. Baronet who moved it will, a charge on the estate. If an embaralthough not coinciding with the views rassed landowner really wants to do his which I have expressed, divide the House. duty to the estate let him sell one-half CAPTAIN VERNEY: I rise to answer of it, and let some self-made man with the challenge of the hon. Member the ample capital buy up the other portion, Seconder of the Amendment (Mr. found a new family, and do his duty to McCulloch), who assured us that there the country more in accordance with the was no landlord to be found in this tone and feeling of the 19th century. So House who would oppose the Resolution. | far as the old historic families are conNow, I beg to say that I am a land-cerned, they would be able in that case lord, and I oppose it with all my heart to do their duty on that smaller scale to and soul. I consider that nothing which they have been so justly and could be more disastrous than to adopt righteously reduced by their own want this system of outdoor relief by the of thrift and foresight. way of loan for the advantage of landed proprietors. I think that the suggestion made to us to-night is one which belongs to a bygone House of Commons, in the days when Members were returned by the landlords, and when the people had no voice in controlling affairs. We all admit the evil of which complaint is made. It is quite true that the landowners are, to a great extent, a poor, miserable, and wretched class, and many of those who drive about in their carriages have not a sixpence to bless themselves with. I do not know any class of the community, taken as a class, who live a more improvident life than the average landowner. In the various professions and businesses of life something is usually done for posterity; some provision is made for widows; some selfdenial is exercised, and something, however small, is put by for successors. But in the case of the landed proprietor he never saves a penny; he habitually provides for his widow and younger children by further burdening his property; he lives up to his income; and when any work is to be done on the estate he cannot find the money to do it with, and in times of depression he is sorely pressed. I cannot forget that an Act was passed by a Tory Lord Chancellor, the late Lord Cairns, to relieve the landed proprietor in the hour of his necessity; and it is by availing himself of this Act, and not by further burdening his property, that he must seek relief. He has possession of the plate and pictures which have been 400 or 500 years in the family, Mr. Mark Stewart

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL : The remarks which have fallen from the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Verney) who has just sat down, combined with those which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt), induce me to ask the House to allow me to offer one or two remarks which possibly did not occur to those hon. Members before they addressed the House. The last speaker, I have every reason to believe, is a great friend of the agricultural interest. He was returned to Parliament by a portion of a very important county, and he came into Parliament as one whose constituents were fully assured that he would coufer, if he could, great benefits upon the agricultural interest as a whole. Now, Sir, I see sitting opposite to me the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), who is also a friend of the agricultural interest whole, and who wishes to restore the prosperity of the land in England. I wish, therefore, to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) to, and, indeed, I will invite him, if possible, to make some remarks on this subject as it now presents itself to the House of Commons. It is proposed to give to landlords facilities for the development of their land by loans. How did the hon. Member who has just sat down describe it? He said it was a gigantic project of outdoor relief. Yet the hon. Member who said that supported the hon. Member for Ipswich on the Amendment to

as 8