§ MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Royal Commission about to be appointed to inquire into the working of the Irish Land Act of 1870 will be instructed to report in time to enable the Government to bring in a Bill next Session on the tenure of land in Ireland?
§ LORD ELCHOasked, Whether the names of the Commissioners and the instructions given to them would be laid on the Table?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERSir, the noble Lord, from his long experience in this House, ought to be aware that Notice is generally given of such a Question as he has put. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Sligo, I have to say that a Commission will be instructed to report as soon as possible. I trust that the Report will be made before next Session; but, of course, it will be impossible to dictate to a Commission the time which it ought to take for its Inquiry. That must depend, to some measure, upon what the Commission find to inquire into; but I wish the House to be aware that one great object which the Government have in appointing this Commission is to get not only a full put a speedy Report.
§ LORD ELCHObegged to apologize to his right hon. Friend for having put the Question without Notice. He had, however, thought that, under the circumstances, the Question was one which would not require a Notice, for the Government must already have made up 440 its mind in regard to the matter; but he would repeat it. Connected with the same subject, he desired to ask a Question as to the Business for Tuesday. There were two Bills down on the Paper—namely, the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill, and the Tenant Act, 1870, Amendment Bill. The first was that which they now understood to be the Government Bill, and which was down for the second reading; and the other was that of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), the debate on the second reading of which had been adjourned. It was his impression, and the impression of many other hon. Members, that the day had been given for the adjourned debate, and he thought that it was not customary under such circumstances to put another Bill down first. He wished, therefore, to ask the Government, Whether they would take first the adjourned discussion on the Bill of the hon. Member for Mayo, or whether they would go on with their own Bill, which stood first on the Paper; and whether there was any understanding between the Government and the hon. Member for Mayo on the subject?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERSir, no understanding has been come to with the hon. Member for Mayo, or with any hon. Member from Ireland, in regard to this Bill; but both myself and my right hon. Friend would wish that course to be taken which is most convenient to the House, and I have no doubt that all hon. Members will have the same wish. It is quite true that several days ago, on this question being brought forward by the hon. Member for Mayo, my right hon. Friend consented—though at considerable inconvenience to other Government Business—to the discussion on the Bill being postponed until to-morrow. I brought in a Bill on Friday night, and fixed it for to-morrow. But I found the next morning, without having said anything to the Officers of the House, that it being a Government Bill, it took precedence of that of the hon. Member for Mayo. Well, now, I cannot help thinking that, as this is a matter of great importance, it will be for the convenience of the House that I should be allowed to explain at the beginning of the debate the position which we take, and the ground on which we bring forward the Bill. Though I have no understanding 441 with the hon. Member for Mayo, I rather hope that he will not object to this course being taken, and if that hon. Member raises no objection I do not suppose the noble Lord will,