the occupiers of land, and certainly it would have no effect upon labourers. His hon. Friend had stated a good deal about encumbered property. The worst farms in his own neighbourhood were farms in the hands of small proprietors, who clung to them with great tenacity. Those farms were mortgaged up to the hilt; therefore, a person who owned a small property, worth £50 or £150 a-year, was borrowing money at £4 or £5 per cent, and thus rented his land at a much higher rate than if it were let to a tenant. He was practically the tenant of a banker or a mortgagee. The buildings on small estates were in a far more dilapidated state than the buildings on the property of a neighbouring squire. It must necessarily be so, because the owners of the small estates were practically not the owners. He hoped the House would not consent to the Motion in its present crude shape. He thought the Bill of Lord Cairns, which his hon. Friend spoke of rather slightingly, would work very beneficially, because wherever property was encumbered, the debts might be cleared off by a sale of part of the estate. He was opposed to any alteration with reference to the settlement of land which would not equally apply to the settlement of money. MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I will not attempt to traverse the wide field opened up by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler.) I think, however, the speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins) is, in some degree, a sign of the times, because the hon. Member is disposed to make admissions that there might be strong reasons-though he did not think the proposition before House is proved-social and political, for a great change in the law with reference to land. I do not agree with the rather disparaging remarks in which he spoke of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, which appeared to me a speech of great interest, and by no means deficient in originality. With respect to originality, I think it would be a bad sign, indeed, if everything that were said on a subject of this kind had to be altogether new. It is necessary to go back to the fountainhead of truth, and bring out matter which, although it may have been previously produced, has yet not obtained Mr. T. Collins its full currency, nor the full command over the public mind; and in the mode of presenting his contribution, and the many collateral considerations which it opened up, I must say that the hon. Member for Cambridge conferred a service upon us by the able address he delivered. I said that a still wider field is really opened by this subject, because I believe we all feel-certainly many of us feel--that this question of life estate is one upon which really hang a number of other very great questions of vital interest to landed proprietors, and of vital interest, through them, to the public such as the great questions of the transfer of land, and the whole system by which a person who possesses land may borrow upon his land, just as other possessors of property may borrow upon their property-which questions, when they come to be dealt with by Parliament, may lead to fundamental alterations in our law of landed property. All these questions are of the greatest importance; and there is one observation which, although it is no part of my business to attempt any full discussion of the subject to-night, lies at the very root and threshold of this subject. Do not let it be supposed that this is a question of hostility to the owners of land. Whatever system gives the greatest freedom to the descent of land, to the transfer of land, to the holding of land, and to raising money upon land, is the system that will be far the best for the interest of the owners of the land, and for the interest of the entire public. I do not deny that there are difficult questions connected with this subject. The legal aspects themselves are difficult. There are difficulties as to the economical aspects, on which I agree with my hon. Friend, that much economical loss attends the present limitations upon ownership, and devolution, and transfer of land; and as to the domestic and social aspects, on which I confess that I have a very strong opinion, I believe that nothing can be more mischievous than the present system of settlement and entail, and that nothing would more. tend to the moral strength of the aristocracy of this country than a great and fundamental change. I must say I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) that in small changes there is very little advantage; that this is a subject which, when Parliament pro country, and the laws which govern in that respect the rapid creation of large fortunes, the social distinction attached to the possession of land, the constant pressure and competition amongst possessors of large new fortunes to take rank with the possessors of old fortunes that is, the landed proprietors of the ceeds to deal with it, should be dealt | crop, and the great economy of human with broadly. I am not able, I confess, labour, aided by great ingenuity in the to feel very great enthusiasm for the employment of machinery, and of cheap Bills of Lord Cairns. I am not able to and useful contrivances for the saving of follow the reasoning that led to the in-human labour, there has resulted an extroduction of those Bills. In the first traordinary advantage to America, the place, I do not understand those Bills-effects of which, when competing with although, of course, it is not for me to ourselves, have not even yet been fully be an expounder of Conservative prin- felt. My hon. Friend is in some respect, ciples. I must confess, however, that I perhaps, more sanguine than I am mydo not quite comprehend how those who self as to the consequences of his support Conservative principles can ap- Motion, for I own I am by no means prove the extraordinary liberties which, convinced that any very great or very under Lord Cairns' Bills, the tenant for general dispersion of landed properties life would be able to take with the in- would follow the abolition of life estate terests of the remainder-man. My hon. in this country. I believe that the ecoFriend the Member for Cambridge, Inomical circumstances and laws of the think, did very wisely in opening this subject with a reference to the important question of foreign competition. We are not, I think, to take, under any circumstances, a desponding view of the prospects of British agriculture. But, at the same time, it is right, I think, that we should lay to heart this fact, that in dealing with American competi-country-will always induce a very tion we are dealing with something that is different from any competition we have ever had to deal with yet. Not different absolutely in kind, yet so different in circumstances that we should commit a serious error if we thought that this competition is as comparatively transitory as was the competition with the wheat of the Baltic or of the Black Sea. Many circumstances which give this exceptional character to the growth of agricultural products in America are constantly in the public view; but there is one which I do not think is so often mentioned as it deserves to be. America is a country which is almost or altogether distinguished from all other countries of the world in this respect, that, with unbounded command of natural resources, she has united most severe discipline for producers. By that I mean that the scarcity of labour, and its exceptionally high price in America, has driven that people, beyond every other people on the face of the earth, upon the multiplication of labour-saving contrivances, and that at this moment the American farmer is far more economically efficient in the command and application of laboursaving contrivances than the farmers of old countries, and notably of our own country. By a combination of great fertility of soil, which the farmer has merely to scratch in order to secure a large body of purchasers to give for land prices far higher than it is worth as an economical product, and will, therefore, keep together, in the main, the large estates of this country. No doubt, there are particular sets of circumstances where we have constantly at work very healthful agencies in this matter. For example, every flourishing town in this country where men of the middle class are continually acquiring property is a centre from which there are men why buy their 50, or 100, or 200 acres, partly for residential purposes, partly for agricultural purposes; and considerable breaking up of landed properties goes on from that cause alone. I believe that after the experience we have had in commercial legislation, we may come, perhaps, with some safety to two conclusions-first of all, that it is impossible to forecast with any precision or minuteness what the results of the change recommended in the Motion would be; but, on the other hand, that the virtue of freedom has proved itself to be so great when applied to the subjects in which human enterprize develops itself, that we are justified to expect much from the removal of the fetters that now attach to the ownership and to the inci dence of landed property. My hon Friend asks us to affirm a Resolution, the main effect of which is to condemn the life estate in land. He does, indeed, | I wish to explain that what I have said say that he proposes to leave a very has been in my individual capacity. I limited field of exception. I do not do not think it is generally desirable think, if I followed him with accuracy, that Governments should announce, or that he distinctly explained to us what even affirm, fixed and irrevocable conthese exceptions would be. [Mr. W. clusions upon matters of public policy FOWLER For widows and minors.] and legislation until the time is at hand That does not seriously interfere with when they can act upon those concluwhat I was about to say. The Resolu- sions. I should think it a most dangertion is a Resolution against life estates ous proposition to lay down, and a most in land. In the main, I must own I dangerous practice to adopt, if Governam prepared individually to go with ments were encouraged or permitted to my hon. Friend. For reasons which it deal in loose and vague promises of would be out of place to enter upon at what they will do at some future period, full length, I have arrived at the con- and thereby to earn, or endeavour to clusion that that proposition is a wise earn, some favour and popularity attachone; and I agree with my hon. Friend ing to these plans, without having to in thinking that there are undoubtedly confront and to deal with the practical some difficulties connected with the con- difficulties that must be met in giving stitution of the other House of Parlia- them effect. We have not made this ment which must be looked in the face Bill a subject, and we have not thought when we come to face this question. Iit our duty to make it a matter of pracdo not know how to resist the propo- tical consideration, as we should have sition of my hon. Friend, which is this done had it been one pressing for imthat if it be true that with a view to the mediate settlement. I need not tell my maintenance of a hereditary Chamber hon. Friend that we have had to deal it was necessary that the system of set- since the time that we took Office with tlement and entail should continue sub- quite a sufficient number of grave matstantially as it is, yet that can be no good ters demanding the best resources and reason for maintaining the system of faculties of mind that we could apply to entail and settlement all over the coun- them; and I hope that when we do aptry. That appears to me undeniable. proach the consideration of this question I am not able to accede to the doctrine also, we shall approach it in a spirit which of the perfect parallelism between landed will be liberal, impartial, and fearless. and personal property. In the first place, At the same time, I could not venture to I do not believe that the system of set- say, and I am very far indeed from detlement ever will prevail, with regard to siring to convey any unfavourable impersonal property, to the same extent pression in regard to the convictions of to which it now applies to land; and, anyone. Yet I must hold the Cabinet even if it did, it is a totally different free to form its own opinion on this submatter. The hand of Providence has ject. My own feelings I do not think are placed a limitation upon the stock of likely to be changed, and substantially land in the country that has not been they are in accordance with what has placed upon the stock of personal pro- been propounded by my hon. Friend. perty, and the interest of the people in That being so, I should be sorry if we the land of the country is entirely dis- are driven to vote on this subject, which tinct from, and far greater and deeper might be misunderstood to imply some than, the interest they possess in any disinclination to make changes in the part of its personal property. My hon. law of devolution of land. I hope, Friend will ask-"With these views, therefore, my hon. Friend will not seek what do you say to my Motion considered to put the House in that position. I as a proposition addressed to the House think it will not be for the interest of of Commons?" Well, I hope that he the cause he has taken in hand if he has proposed this Motion rather for the should seek to place it in that position. sake of helping onwards the public mind There are, no doubt, matters which unin the consideration of a very wide and doubtedly are of great difficulty to be difficult question than for the sake of faced, and, no doubt, my hon. Friend eliciting a judgment from the House of knows there are many persons the sinCommons, for which, probably, it is not cerity of whose political concurrence yet altogether prepared. At any rate, with himself-of political orthodoxy, if Mr. Gladstone I may so say-could not be questioned, I money for the necessary improvements, and who are not prepared to accompany and to charge it on the inheritance. He him the whole length of the journey that could not see that there was any obhe himself has performed; and it would jection to settle estates if power were be a great pity if there was to be re- given to the limited owner to sell when corded against him a vote against any necessary, with the condition that the interference with this subject. For my purchase money should be applied to own part, it would be my duty, with no the trusts of the settlement. He beill-will towards his general views, but, lieved that if the Bill of Lord Cairns on the contrary, with convictions founded were adopted, every improvement that upon reasons that I think are strong and was required could be carried out by deep, not to join in any merely abstract the tenant for life. declaration of policy on this subject. I wish to make no declaration binding in form upon it till the time comes, if the time does come-it would be daring to say it will come, but for some of us I hope it will come soon-when there will be an opportunity and possibility of giving effect to that which is proposed. In the meantime, I, for one, sincerely thank my hon. Friend for the Motion he has made and the speech he delivered. I think there was nothing in it to excite what may be called Party or sectarian feeling in this House, but that it was made with no other view than that of promoting the interest of the entire country and the interest, I will venture to add, of all classes of the country. I believe the more feeedom we have in our land system the better it will be for all, and the better any beneficial changes will be for those who are the owners of land. I hope, having given this opportunity of free and open discussion, my hon. Friend will not be disposed to press the House to adopt the Resolution, inasmuch as, even if it were adopted, there is no present opportunity of acting upon it. MR. GREGORY said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House that the question was one of great importance, for he could say, as matter of personal experience, that under the present circumstances of the law there was a large number of estates in this country which could not find purchasers. Under the existing law a tenant for life who found himself embarrassed by the encumbrances on the estate not of his own creation, and who could not, therefore, effect improvements, could apply to the Court of Chancery for reliet, and, if a proper case was made out, relief would be afforded to him. The Bill, too, recently introduced by Lord Cairns extended the present system and would MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD said, he knew that the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had a deep admiration for a good settlement. He agreed with the statement of the hon. Member that large estates were generally well cultivated. The hon. Member admitted that there was a wide extent of land in the market, and spoke of the parcels that were in hand. The hon. Member could not doubt that the Law of Settlement was an obstacle to transfer, and that land would pass out of his hands at a higher price if the law were reformed. There was no doubt that the present depression in agriculture, and the want of confidence that prevailed on the part of owners and occupiers of land, was mainly due to American competition. Corn could be carried from New York to Liverpool at a smaller price than it could be carried from Lincoln to London. In that fact alone there was matter for very careful consideration. We had arrived at this point, that a year's supply of food for a man could be carried from Chicago to Liverpool for 108. He had heard statements made as to the advantages that would be derived from the introduction of implements such as Darby's Digger; but these machines would be of far greater advantage to the farmers of the prairies. The evidence of experts given to the Duke of Richmond's Commission showed that out of 17,000,000 acres in England and Wales which needed land drainage only 3,000,000 had been drained. It could not be contended that our system of limited ownership had been productive of rapid improvement in the soil. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present, House adjourned at a quarter after Eleven o'clock till HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, 13th June, 1881. MINUTES.]--PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading- REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND. Writs and Returns electing the Earl of Bandon a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the late Lord Dunboyne, deceased, with the Certificate. of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on oath), and Certificate read. TURKEY AND GREECE-THE FRON TIER. POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION FOR PAPERS. QUESTION. LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, who had a Notice on the Paper, "To call attention to the further correspondence on the Greek frontier; and to move for any protocol or treaty which forms the basis of the European concert alluded to in several despatches, said, with the permission of the House, he would postpone the Motion until Thursday. THE EARL OF ROSEBERY said, seeing that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was in his place, he begged to ask him, Whether all the Papers relating to the affairs of Greece had been laid upon the Table, or, if there were more to be presented, when he intended to lay them on the Table? EARL GRANVILLE: Your Lordships are aware that a series of Papers have already been presented on this question; but some other important Papers have not been, and cannot be at present, for the simple reason that it will be necessary to communicate with foreign Governments and to obtain their permission before those Papers can be laid on the Table. I am quite ready to proceed with the discussion of the question, and am, therefore, very unwilling to interfere with the noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell), whom I do not see present, in the Motion which he has on the Paper; but, at the same time, I think there are reasons why the subject should not be discussed until the Papers to which I have referred are in the possession of your Lordships. We are now engaged in ascertaining whether foreign Governments have any objection to the presentation of those Papers. I am glad to say that I now see the noble Lord present. I was not aware that the Motion was fixed for to-night until after the House had adjourned; and it is for the noble Lord to say whether he will bring it forward to-night, or whether he will defer it until all the Papers are presented. LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL said, the remarks of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) gave him an opportunity of repeating a statement which he had made before a much smaller number of their Lordshipsnamely, that he had determined to postpone his Motion until Thursday. EARL GRANVILLE: I cannot promise that the Papers will be in the hands of your Lordships by Thursday. LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL said, in that case, he was willing not to bring on the Motion until some day next week. MINISTER FOR SCOTLAND. THE EARL OF FIFE said, that in rising to ask the Question of which he had given Notice, he wished to say, in starting, that he claimed no novelty for the proposal to which he was about to refer, as, indeed, it was one which had been for many years continually discussed in Scotland, and he felt sure that if the Government would only seriously consider it they would see their way to carry it out eventually. He had not the presumption of wishing to pledge the Government that Session to any definite scheme for the government of Scotland. It was, no doubt, a large question, and had many bearings-legal, administra |