Commons Sitting of 8 April 1881

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Chester County (Western Division), v. Sir Philip De Malpas Grey Egerton, baronet, deceased.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading—Medway Conservancy (No. 1)*.
Considered as amended—Skipton and Kettlewell Railway (Extension to Aysgarth).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Bankruptcy [137].
Second Reading—Local Government (Highways) Provisional Order (York)* [132]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law)* [130]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Bath, &c.)* [131]; Inland Revenue Build-
1010
ings* [125]; Churchwardens (Admission) [47], debate adjourned.
Committee—Teinds (Scotland)* [118]—R.P.; River Floods Prevention* [35], discharged; and Bill committed to the Select Committee on the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill.
Committee—Report—Married Women's Property (Scotland) (re-comm.)* [128].
Report—Inclosure Provisional Order (Thurstaston Common)* [122].

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 129 and 39 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, be extended to Monday the 25th instant.—(The Chairman of Wags and Means.)
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  SKIPTON AND KETTLEWELL RAILWAY (EXTENSION TO AYSGARTII) BILL (by Order.)
  Order for Consideration read.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he had given Notice of his intention to move that the consideration of this Bill, as amended, be deferred until that day six months. The Bill, as it originally stood, proposed to interfere prejudicially with some common lands, and it had not complied with the Standing Orders of the House by giving proper Notice. The promoters, however, had agreed to insert a clause by which they bound themselves not to take any common lands; and, that being the case, he did not intend to offer any further opposition to the progress of the Bill.
  Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the third time.

QUESTIONS.

  STATE OF IRELAND—DISTRESS IN CASTLEBAR.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What steps, if any, the Irish Local Government Board intend to take with a view to relieving the distress of the small farmers in the Castlebar Union, which has been brought under the notice

  1011
  of the Board by the Poor Law Guardians of Castlebar and the Catholic Clergy of the district?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The Local Government Board have under their consideration proposals for proceeding with various public works, the estimated cost of which amounts to a large sum. The Board will consult their Inspector before deciding which of the works should be proceeded with. A decision will be arrived at with as little delay as possible.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—BALLYHANNIS PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true, as alleged, that the attendance of magistrates at the petty sessions court held at Ballyhannis, county Mayo, is very irregular, and inflicts considerable inconvenience on those who are summoned; and, if true, whether steps will be taken to ensure the regular attendance of magistrates in future?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that I find that on nine occasions in the past year the petty sessions referred to could not be held, owing to the non-attendance of magistrates. The Irish Government have called the attention of the lord lieutenant of the county to the inconvenience arising from that fact. I am not aware that we have further power in the matter; but I will confer with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on the subject.

  INDIA—THE CINCHONA PLANT.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the fact that the Indian Government are exporting large quantities of cinchona bark for sale in London; and, whether, in introducing the cinchona plant into India, the Government did so with the object of encouraging private enterprise, or of competing in the market with the private trade?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The object of the Government in introducing the cinchona plant into India was to provide an abundant supply of a cheap febrifuge for the people of that country. Almost all the bark produced in the Bengal plantations is manufac-
  1012
  tured in India for use there. A difficulty has been found in treating the produce of the Madras plantations in the same way, and for this reason the greater part of it has been sent to England. It is believed that the sale of this bark, which has established the reputation of the Indian-grown bark, is of great advantage to private growers; but an experiment is now being made on a large scale with a view to the manufacture of this bark in England on Government account; and, if this prove successful, it is probable that the supply from India will be discontinued.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—REVOCATION OF LETTERS PATENT, 1879.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is intended to revoke the Letters Patent relative to the Transvaal, dated 8th November 1879; and, if so, when; and, whether, if such an intention exists, any opportunity will be afforded to the loyal English, Boer, and Native inhabitants of the Transvaal to show cause against the revocation of such. Letters Patent, and the withdrawal of the Proclamation of Annexation under which they became subjects of the Queen, and entitled to the benefits of the English Constitution, and the security of its Laws?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first Question, I have to say that the manner of giving effect to the final settlement cannot be determined till the Commission has done its work; but, assuming that the settlement is completed on the basis of the agreement made by Sir Evelyn Wood, the revocation of the Letters Patent passed in 1879 for the creation of a temporary Constitution would, I apprehend, follow as a matter of course. In reply to his second Question I have to refer him to the answer given by the Prime Minister on Tuesday to the hon. Member for Carlow County, and to add that the same kind of claim as that to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman alludes was made when the Orange River Territory was relinquished, but that it was not entertained.
  MR. GIBSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to convey to the House

  1013
  that it will be within the power of the Commission to decide that the Letters Patent may continue in existence?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: No, Sir; but I understand that if the settlement of the Commissioners is made upon the lines of the agreement with Sir Evelyn Wood, then the Letters Patent will have to be revoked as a matter of course. The Letters Patent were issued simply for the purpose of calling into existence a temporary Legislature for the Transvaal.
  MR. GIBSON: That is not the point. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to convey that it will be competent to the Commission to depart from the lines of the agreement with Sir Evelyn Wood?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: No; except it be under the instructions of Her Majesty's Government.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—BUCKSHOT.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will consent to lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the number of unarmed persons killed and wounded in Ireland since the introduction of the use of buckshot by the Irish Constabulary?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I cannot give the Return as asked for. I cannot admit that persons who use sticks and stones come under the designation of unarmed persons. In the late sorrowful business in Mayo, one constable was beaten so severely that he has died since; and another man was similarly treated. I have no objection to state the facts with regard to the use of buckshot. On the 24th of February, 1880, the late Government applied to the Treasury to sanction the cost of the issue of buckshot to the Constabulary; on the 3rd of March the Treasury gave the necessary sanction; on the 15th of March the first issue was made; the first occasion on which it was necessary to fire was on the occasion of the Dungannon riot on the 16th of August; there have been only two other cases in the county of Sligo since, and I trust no more will occur.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: Then I understand the real originators of buckshot were the late Government?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The order was issued by the late Government; the
  1014
  inquiry was made by the late Government; and the present Government, after inquiry, did not think it their duty to cancel or withdraw the order.

  INDIA—MADRAS COVENANTED CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been directed to the deadlock in promotion in the Madras Covenanted Civil Service; whether that deadlock is greater there than in the other Presidencies to which favourable terms of retirement and pay have been extended; and, whether, in the event of such terms not having been already extended to the Madras Service, there is any reason why they should be longer withheld?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Early in 1879, the Government of India transmitted to the Secretary of State three Memorials from Madras Civil servants asking to be allowed to retire on special pensions similar to those allowed to officers in Bengal and Bombay in order to accelerate promotion. The Government of India did not recommend compliance with the requests contained in those Memorials; and my Predecessor concurred in the view taken by that Government. I find that in April, 1880, further Memorials from members of the Madras Civil Service were sent to the Government of India; but that Government has not deemed it necessary to forward them for the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council. I am, therefore, unable to answer the Questions put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I will make a communication to the Government of India with reference to these Questions. Any action must be dependent upon the answer which I receive.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—PENALTIES OF PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a Circular has been recently issued to the Constabulary in Ireland instructing them to apply for a portion of the penalties recovered in cases in which prosecutions are brought by them at Petty Sessions; and, if so, whether the said Circular was issued with his knowledge and authority?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: No such Circular has boon issued; and any fine would go, not to the constable himself, but to the Constabulary Force funds. The right of the Constabulary to these fines has been confirmed by the Superior Courts. In a certain case, application was made in accordance with the terms of the Act under which the proceedings were taken for a moiety of the penalty, which the petty sessions clerk refused to pay; and, therefore, advice has been given that the next case of that kind which occurs shall be used as a test case for settling the dispute.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND—MISCELLANEOUS PENSIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he will state who are the persons referred to, at page 49 of the Finance Accounts, as having "suffered by the Rebellion in Ireland in 1798," and for whose pension a sum is still charged on the Consolidated Fund?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The persons referred to are the last two survivors of those who suffered by the Rebellion of 1798, and who received compensation under the Act of the Irish Parliament, 40 Geo. III. c. 49. One of them is Mrs. Anne Collins, daughter of Captain Lister, of the Fifeshire Fencibles. She receives an annuity of £18 9s. 4d. The other is Mrs. Mary Quin, who receives an annuity of £13 17 s. in trust for herself and her sisters, daughters of Sergeant Major Lane, who was killed.

  ARMS ACT (IRELAND)—PROCLAMATION OF THE COUNTY OF LONGFORD.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTILYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can tell the House what has happened since the 25th of January last to render it necessary that the petty sessions district of Granard, county Longford, should be included in the Proclamation under the Arms Act, seeing that on that day he stated that the magistrates of the district bore public witness to its tranquil and orderly condition?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: It is quite true that on the 25th of January I stated that the magistrates had borne witness to the tranquil and orderly con-
  1016
  dition of the district; but we have since considered that the Proclamation under the Arms Act ought to apply to the county generally.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Captain Douglas, a landlord, has served about forty notices of ejectment on tenants in the district of Drumlish, county Longford; and, whether, inasmuch as these tenants were receiving public relief last year, and are therefore presumably unable to pay the rents claimed; and that several other landlords in the same district have announced their intention of serving notices on their tenants, he will advise landlords to delay their action until after the passing of the Irish Land Bill?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have no information on the subject, and it is possible I may not have. I get information of all cases of actual ejectment; but, unless it is necessary to give the protection of the police in the serving of notices, I should not hear. I have no information with regard to these cases; I cannot tell what the position of the tenants was last year; and I am not aware of the present position of the tenants. I do not know that there will be any great advantage in my giving advice; but, if I am asked, I should advise the landlords to be forbearing in the present circumstances, and especially not to servo ejectments upon tenants who they have reason to believe are not able to pay. I am well aware that there are many landlords who are very hard pressed themselves, and who may be in the hands of other persons, making it impossible for them to delay. As the hon. Member alludes to advice, he must allow me to say, respectfully and without offence, that I think other advice might be given, in the interest of the condition of Ireland, by those who have influence, or try to have influence, and that they should advise the tenants to pay when they could. If persons who are interested in the prosperity of the country, and who have influence over their fellow-countrymen, would use it, and advise those tenants who are able to pay their rents to do so, or even if they would refrain from going about the country advising the

  1017
  tenantry not to pay rents, the condition of Ireland would be better, and the difficulty of maintaining law and order greatly diminished.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—THE PROBATE AND LEGACY DUTIES.
  MR. GREGORYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can lay upon the Table of the House the calculation on which the anticipated increase of the Revenue from the new arrangement of Probate and Legacy Duties is founded?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I should not like to set the example of formally laying on the Table a document of this kind, because it would have the tendency to operate adversely to the sound principle that the exclusive responsibility should rest on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the same time, in this case all the particulars that could be produced or asked for are already before the House—both what was produced under the old system and what it is estimated the new system will yield. Placing the losses from one against the gain on the other, and deducting the loss connected with the new arrangement for debts, all the particulars that could be given are arrived at.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Perhaps I may be allowed to repeat the Question I put a few days ago, which is substantially what my hon. Friend asks. What is the real calculation that was made in order to show what the gain upon the Probate Duty would be, and what would be the set-off by loss of debts and deficits? On the Budget night a certain statement was made of a gross gain on the Probate Duties of £576,000, or something of the sort, against which there was a loss of £400,000 for debts, and £150,000 on Legacy Duty, the loss coming to more than the gain. We were told what the net result was; we have not been told how far the statement was misapprehended, nor what was the gain on debts or the loss by Legacy Duties.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware that anything I said should have given rise to misapprehension. I have not read the report of my speech, nor can I think that any man actively engaged in Public Business would have either time
  1018
  or inclination to do so. I have been informed as to the report, and I can only say that I believe I stated exactly what the duty bad produced, and what it was estimated to produce. I also stated the deductions that were to be made from the gross amount, and that showed what the net gain will be. If there is any doubt I shall be most happy to answer any question.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: In the report of the speech there are set forth two sums—one of £400,000 as loss on debts, and another of £150,000 as loss on Legacy Duty. Are those figures correctly stated?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Quite correctly.

  CRIMINAL LAW—THE "IRISH WORLD."
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the last number of the "Irish World," a newspaper, the avowed object of which is to incite the Irish people to sedition and rebellion, and in which the assassination of the Czar is treated as a legitimate incident in a civil war, in a paragraph headed "The War in Russia, the Commander of the Imperialists slain, and a score of Staff Officers and Cossacks killed and wounded," and the "Nihilist Victory" is fully described; wherein also the following paragraphs appear:—
  "England is 'intoxicated with power and robbery, a peace-destroyer and a right-invader. Her record of infamy is not of one period, but of to-day and all time. Her presence is ever a lifelong damnation and curse.' The whole Irish race is exhorted to pray on their knees 'to the Most High for the suppression of the British Empire:
  "The British Government, better known as the 'Pirate Empire,' constructs gallows for Patriots, dungeons for statesmen, and palaces for their criminals. On, Ireland! in the agonies of the starving death—dowered with a curse by a Parliament of the most inhuman fiends known to history. They stand to-day the most perfect embodiment of unrelieved iniquity known since the days of Sodom:
  "My last words to-day are to study the use of arms; form military clubs; keep from whiskey and tobacco. Keep close mouths, and pray to our Heavenly Father fervently for the downfall of the 'British Empire' and the great wrongs it upholds;"
  whether the Government allows the "Irish World" to be freely circulated through the whole length and breadth of Ireland; whether he is aware that

  1019
  the gratuitous circulation is largely subscribed for by the Land League branches in the United States as a means of Socialistic and revolutionary propaganda directed against the maintenance of English rule and the recognition of property in land; and, whether he intends to take any steps to check or put an end to the circulation of such a production?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I must say that I think I answered with sufficient fulness in reply to an inquiry which was put to mo yesterday by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to The Irish World and to the particular copy of it to which the Question of the hon. Gentleman refers; but I would say that nothing is more difficult than to stop the circulation of a foreign newspaper in these Kingdoms. It is easy, and is therefore the duty of the Government where there is a publication of which we have heard recommending assassination, to proceed against the publisher, when they find the Press established in this country; but the difficulty in doing this in the case of the introduction of a foreign newspaper is very great, and I cannot understand any hon. Member failing to see the difference between the two cases.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: What I wish to know is whether there are or are not legal powers to deal with the newspaper; or whether it is not deemed advisable to exercise them?
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANwished to know whether, if there was any such power, it was only intended to use it against persons found in possession of the paper—persons, in fact, in the position of the hon. Member who put the Question.
  MR. HEALY: And is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Questions on this subject were put to the House the circulation of The Irish World has increased?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Member asks what legal measures can be taken? Suppose I were to tell him, does he think it would be to the advantage of law and order?
  MR. TOTTENHAM: The right hon. Gentleman is in error. All I want to know is whether there are legal powers to deal with the matter?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The articles published in The Irish World, and the fact of its circulation in Ireland, are occupying the attention of the Government.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—LETTER OF KING CETEWAYO.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether a joint letter of condolence on the recent disasters to the British Arms in the Transvaal containing advice as to the further prosecution of the War, has been addressed to Her Majesty by Cetewayo, late King of Zululand, and Langalibalele, now in captivity at Robbins island; and, whether the interests of the public service would allow of this letter being laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: The letter from Cetewayo, who, like Langalibalele, is not in Robben Island at all, but in much pleasanter quarters on the main land, will certainly be given to Parliament, and soon.
  MR. GORST: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that there is such a letter, and that it will be laid on the Table of the House?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Most unquestionably there is such a letter from Cetewayo; and I may say it is a very remarkable letter. He speaks of the deaths of soldiers as a soldier should—he speaks of them gravely and seriously. It would be of some advantage, I think, if the hon. and learned Member were to take a lesson from its tone.

  ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION—UNIFORMS—THE BUFFS.
  MAJOR VAUGHAN LEEasked the Secretary of State for War, If, whilst preserving the name of the Buffs to the 3rd Infantry Regiment, he proposes to take away their buff facings, which was the sole reason for this designation; and, if so, if he would explain why?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to remind him that buff facings become white after they are once pipeclayed; so that, practically, the Kentish regiment will have the same facings as now. All the English regiments will have white facings unless they are "Royal," when their facings will be blue.

  TUNIS—THE KROUHMIR TRIBES—MILITARY PREPARATIONS OF FRANCE.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUESTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in view of the important military preparations now being made by France, with the ostensible object of punishing the Krouhmir tribes on the Tunisian frontier, Her Majesty's Government have received or have asked for any assurances from the French Government that the statu quo in Tunis, as recognised by the European Powers, will in no way be interfered with?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The French Government has informed the Government of the Queen that their military operations will be confined to the neighbourhood of the Frontier and to the punishment of the lawless Frontier tribes.

  SALES OF LAND (IRELAND) RETURN.
  MR. ION HAMILTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in consequence of the information contained in Part 2 of the Sales of Land (Ireland) Return, distributed on the 7th of April, not being arranged in order of date, rent, valuation, purchase money, and locality, or alphabetical order of names, he would consider whether he could not reprint same in some form giving greater facilities for reference and comparison, and, at the same time, append the title of the matter in which the sales took place?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The Return has only just been circulated, and I have not had time to examine it carefully. I will do so, and confer with the authorities and see whether it is necessary to make the alteration referred to in the Question of the hon. Member.

  THE SUEZ CANAL COMPANY—THE BRITISH SHARES.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he still adheres to the opinion expressed by him in his speech at Glasgow on the 6th December 1879, that the purchase of the Suez Canal shares was a "delusion," and a "financial operation of a ridiculous description;" and, whether, seeing that the present value of the Suez Canal shares is officially stated to be £8,826,000, he proposes to take steps for realising by their sale the accrued profit of £4,826,000?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The manifest object of the hon. Gentleman's Question is to obtain from me a confession, which I am sorry to say he will fail in obtaining. I am not disposed to make any confession whatever on the subject. I do not wish to repeat all that was said in a very important discussion. My objection to a Question of this kind is, that if a person is not prepared to confess, he cannot do otherwise than seem to revive matters on which I have no desire to go back. I will simply draw this distinction—that all the censures I bestowed on the operation at the time, or the period of the Election, had no reference to the financial operation, considered as a financial operation, conceived and executed by a stockbroker. I took no objection of that kind. I have been from the first a recommender and promoter of the Suez Canal, and was one of those who first encouraged M. Lesseps when he came to this country to persevere in the face of all opposition. The objection I had was that the operation was a complex one, and I cannot recede from that opinion, though I think it would be invidious now to repeat the reasons on which that opinion was based.

  CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, with reference to the Coroners (Ireland) Bill, which at his instance was committed to a Select Committee, Whether it is the fact that no steps have been taken in these six weeks to appoint this Committee; if this delay in appointing Committees is usual; and, if not, whether he can explain it?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW), in reply, said, he hoped it would be possible to appoint the Committee almost immediately after Easter.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—SURRENDER OF POTCHEFSTROOM.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can now inform the House the result of Sir Evelyn Wood's inquiries on the subject of the surrender of Potchefstroom, as to any knowledge which the Boers had of the armistice at the time of the surrender?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: No, Sir. We have no further information, doubtless because Sir Evelyn Wood has gone to Pretoria, and is beyond the range of telegraphic communication.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS—ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION TO MEMBERS—THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
  SIR EDWARD REEDasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he can state to the House the result of the negotiations with the House of Lords with respect to the Rooms proposed to be transferred to the use of the House of Commons?
  MR. O'SHEAalso wished to know whether any further accommodation was to be provided for the reporters?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I am glad to be able to say that the Committee of the House of Lords, to whom my proposals were referred, have agreed to recommend them to the House for adoption. They propose to surrender three Committee Rooms on the main floor of the building for the use of the House of Commons, and to take as compensation the rooms of the residence of one of their officers, who would receive an addition to his salary as compensation. There was, however, a considerable minority in favour of an alternative scheme which was proposed by Lord Aveland, and I understand there will be opposition in the House itself to my proposal. The alternative scheme is that as compensation for the three Committee Rooms on this floor to be surrendered to the Commons, we should give up three Committee Rooms to the House of Lords on the next floor, with the understanding that when not required for the use of the Lords they should be at the disposal of the Commons; and as the pressure of the Lords' Committee work is at the end of the Session, when our Committees are over, the rooms would be generally at our disposal, as now. I think, therefore, there is murk to be said in favour of this alternative; and as the Lords have shown so much desire to meet our wishes in the matter, I think it would be well that we should endeavour, on our part, to meet them half way if we can. I have felt that I could not, on my own behalf, undertake to surrender three Committee Rooms of this House. I propose, therefore, to ask the House after Easter to appoint a small
  1024
  Committee to consider the alternative proposal of Lord Aveland, and also to report as to the disposition of the three rooms on this floor, which in any case wo shall now obtain, and which will, I think, immensely add to the comfort and convenience of Members. I have been unable, at present, to see my way to increasing the accommodation for reporters. The subject is one of considerable importance, and I am very anxious to give such accommodation if possible.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—SMALL-POX.
  MR. PULESTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can give any statistics showing the extent of the present smallpox epidemic; whether this disease is more prevalent than in former years; and, if it is, whether he will cause such temporary hospitals to be erected for small-pox patients as were put up during the epidemic of 1877?
  MR. DODSON: At so short a notice I cannot give precise statistics of the extent of the epidemic; but up to the present time it has not been fatal to any appreciable degree except in the Metropolis. It is, unfortunately, more prevalent in the Metropolis than on an average of years. As compared with recent epidemics, it is believed that the present will about rank with 1877–8 or 1866–7; but that it is not anything like as fatal as that of 1871–2. The Local Government Board have recommended the local authorities to provide temporary accommodation for patients as far as practicable, and this has been already done or is in progress in some instances.
  MR. PULESTONinquired whether the Board had any powers to compel the provision of accommodation?
  MR. DODSON: No.

  THE CENSUS, 1881.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the numerous complaints of the way the Census enumerators have performed their duty; and, if so, whether, in view of the importance of the subject, he will take steps to inquire into, and to I rectify such errors and omissions as are I reported?
  MR. MONTAGUE GUESTalso asked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been directed to several letters which have appeared in the daily papers, stating that in many instances Census papers have not been left, and that the enumerator had failed to call; and, whether, in view of the expense entailed, he will institute inquiries, to insure as accurate a return as possible?
  MR. DODSON: Many of the complaints which have appeared in the public papers or been otherwise made arise from an erroneous impression that it was imperative that the Schedules should be collected on one day—namely, on Monday last. To carry out the enumeration of 26,000,000 of people by the agency of some 35,000 enumerators without some omissions and some mistakes occurring is impossible. But I am informed by the Registrar General that most of them are by this time rectified. All possible expedition has been used in inquiring into and supplying any deficiencies; and I have no reason to doubt that the Census will prove, at any rate, as accurate as any previous Census. As far as the Question of the hon. Member for Wareham is concerned, I may say that an erroneous impression gained currency that all the Schedules must be collected on the same day—namely, Monday last.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—PEACE NEGOTIATIONS—REPAYMENT OF LOAN.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether in the instructions sent to the Commissioners for the settlement of terms with the Boers, provision has been made for the due consideration of the payment of the loan taken charge of by the British Government, which has since paid the interest and provided for the sinking fund, and for which the Crown Lands were specially hypothecated; and, whether, in view of the declaration that the British Government would never give up the Transvaal, which caused the bondholders to consider their investment as guaranteed by our good faith, Her Majesty's Government will, under the present conditions, continue to protect their rights?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: This loan has not been taken charge of by the British
  1026
  Government, and that Government has neither paid the interest nor provided for the sinking fund. The Commission, however, has been instructed to consider what arrangements should be made with reference to this loan and to the other debts of the Transvaal Government.

  STATE OF IRELAND—MR. RANDLE PEYTON.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he can say if Mr. Randle Peyton, Crown Solicitor for Leitrim, Roscommon, and Sligo, is the same Mr. Randle Peyton whose name lately appeared in the "Dublin Mail" as that of a subscriber to the Emergency Committee?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I really cannot give the hon. Member the information he asks for. There are several families of the name of Peyton in the district.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would make inquiry?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I think, Sir, it is scarcely worth while.

  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION (ANNUAL) BILL—SUMMARY PUNISHMENTS.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary of State for War, If the Government have made inquiries as to whether the proposed new corporal punishment of tying the soldier to the tail of a cart is in use in the Army of any other civilised nation; and, if there is any, and what, objection to exhibiting in the Library of the House a model or diagram showing the mode of carrying out the said punishment?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to state that during the discussion of the Army Discipline Bill, and in his hearing, I undertook to consult general officers of experience in command on active service as to the Rules which should be made for summary punishments, and that until I had considered their advice I would make no Rules. Rules so made will be laid on the Table during the present Session; but until then I can give no information on the subject.

  TURKEY AND GREECE (STATISTICS).
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state to the House the number of Greek and non-Greek inhabitants in the three cities of Janina, Larissa, and Prevesa respectively?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: There are no absolutely reliable statements relative to the populations of Janina, Larissa, and Prevesa. Janina is represented as having a population of from 16,000 to 30,000, of whom one-sixth to one-seventh are Jews, one-fourth Mussulman, and the remainder Christians of the Greek Church. Prevesa has a population of about 5,000, of whom 4,000 are Christians. There are no means of ascertaining the exact ethnological character of the inhabitants; but those described as orthodox Christians, as a rule, speak Greek, and call themselves Greek, and have Greek proclivities.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. GIBSON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland the following Questions, of which I have given him private Notice, relating to the Land Bill:—(1.) Whether the Land Bill distributed this morning and the Land Bill of 1870 are to be read together, except where they are inconsistent? (2.) Is the Bill confined to holdings agricultural or pastural in character, or partly agricultural or pastural? (3.) Can a tenant, compelled to quit his holding for nonpayment of rent, claim full compensation for disturbance and improvements?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): In answer to the first Question of my right hon. and learned Friend, I beg to say that, according to the ordinary rule of interpretation, statutes dealing with the same subject-matter are always to be construed together, and the present case forms no exception to that rule. Besides this, the Bill proposes specifically to amend the Land Act of 1870 in at least two material points—one, being an alteration in the scale of compensation for disturbance; and the other, the providing of greatly increased facilities for tenants purchasing the fee-simple of their respective holdings. My reply to the second Question is that the Bill is confined, by its 46th section, to holdings agricultural or
  1028
  pastural, or partly one and partly the other.
  MR. GIBSON: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the exception to that clause?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): The Bill proposes to give a tenant under ejectment for non-payment of rent the power to sell his tenant right at the best price he can get; and, if he does so, he has no claim on his landlord for disturbance or improvements, the value of both of which are obviously included in the purchase money of his tenant right. If, however, the tenant chooses to let himself be absolutely evicted without realizing the value of his tenant right, he remains, as at present, entitled to claim for improvements only.
  MR. GIBSON: Am I to understand, as I wish it to be perfectly clear, that the Land Act of 1870 and all its clauses and provisions in reference to the Bill distributed this morning can be relied on except where they are inconsistent? Secondly, am I to understand that a tenant who is evicted for non-payment of rent cannot claim compensation for disturbance? In other words, is Clause 9 of the Act of 1870 affected, or not affected, by the Bill distributed this morning?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): The two Bills must be read together, and the old Act will prevail so far as it is not inconsistent with the latter one. As to the second Question, a tenant who is evicted for non-payment of rent, if he does not choose to sell and thus avail himself of the power of realizing the value of his tenant right, will not get compensation for disturbance, although he will be entitled to compensation for improvements.
  MR. TOTTENHAM, amid cries of "Notice!" asked, Whether at the expiration of the judicial lease settled by the Court in lieu of the 31 years' lease the parties would be again free to contract; and, if so, whether the tenant would still be able to claim any and what tenant right in the event of his not to coming to terms with his landlord?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I must ask the hon. Member to give Notice of the Question.
  MR. CALLANrose to Order. He wished to know whether it was in accordance with the Rules of the House that the discussion on the second reading of the Land Bill should be anticipated in the guise of Questions put without Notice?
  [No reply was given to the Question.]

  TURKEY AND GREECE—AN EGYPTIAN CONTINGENT.
  MR. ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Turkish Government have applied to the Egptian Government for troops to be used in the event of war breaking out between Turkey and Greece?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: There is no truth in the statement that the Turkish Government has applied to the Egyptian Government for troops to be used in the event of war breaking out between Turkey and Greece.

  THE MINISTRY—RESIGNATION OF THE DUKE OF ARGYLL.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question, of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether it is trite, as reported in the daily Press, that the Duke of Argyll has resigned his Office, and that the cause of his resignation is a difference of opinion between himself and the other Members of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Irish Land Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is with the deepest concern, alike personal and political, that I have to state that it is true that the Duke of Argyll has resigned his Office, and that it is also true that the cause of his resignation has reference to the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. I ought, however, not to allow it to be supposed that his objection is to the whole of the Land Bill as it stands, because there are portions, and very important portions, of the Bill with regard to which the Duke of Argyll is quite at one with his Colleagues. There are, however, other portions which we regard as vital to the Bill, which are opposed to the known principles of the noble Duke, and his objections to those portions are so strong as to lead him to believe that they require his resignation.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: There is another Question, Sir, which I wish to put to the Prime Minister, of which I have also given him private Notice, which is, Whether he will consent to put off the second reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill to a somewhat later day than that which has been mentioned? ["No!"] I, of course, am only speaking on behalf of a number of Gentlemen who are anxious to take sufficient time to consider so very important a measure, and who are strongly of opinion that it would be more convenient and fair to allow a longer time for consideration before the second reading than the first day of the re-assembling of the House after Easter.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am very sorry indeed, in the case of the Question put to me by the right hon. Baronet, to be unable to reply in the sense which he indicates and desires, because I know he is really desirous to expedite the Business of the House, and that the Question he asks is put in entire good faith. At the same time I will appeal, in the circumstances, to his good feeling, and I will ask him to consider a little two or three matters as the ground of the intention of the Government. I am sure, first of all, that no one can be taken by surprise in this matter; because when I first intimated the day of the Budget, and the day of the introduction of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, I said we should propose to take the second reading on the first day after the Recess. I know it may be said it is not a usual step, as in ordinary years the first day after the Easter Recess is generally given to subjects on which it is not necessary for the whole House to be in attendance. But the present Easter Recess is a little longer than the usual Recess. That, however, will not of itself govern us in the course that we propose; and I ant bound to say that the Gentlemen whom I felt most bound to consider were the Irish Members, who might claim a few days after the Easter Recess, having to come a considerable distance, but that claim they have not made in this case. "What, then, were the motives that urged us to take the second reading on the first day after

  1031
  Easter? We have submitted to the House a Bill with regard to which I am of opinion that it contains as much matter for discussion, and that it requires as much discussion in order to its full elucidation and satisfactory settlement in the different quarters of the House, and that it may be expected to take as much time, probably, as any measure that has been laid before the House during the last 10 or 15 years, We introduced it on the very first day in our power; but that day was, unfortunately, only the 7th of April, though the House has sat for more than three months. The time given before the second reading is, undoubtedly, quite equal to that which is ordinarily given, even on most important questions—namely, from the 7th to the 25th of April. But that which we dwell upon is this—that we are under the conviction that it is our duty to omit no step, within our legitimate competence, to secure the disposal of this great subject in the present Session. Looking at the time of the year which we have reached, and desirous as we are not to hurry the House unduly in the discussion of the several stages of the Bill, we feel, to state the matter frankly, that we cannot lose a day, and that we are bound to go forward with the second reading at once. Of course, I have no expectation of obtaining the second reading on the night of the 25th. I anticipate a debate of more than one night, and generally I should say our desire would be that ample time should be afforded for the discussion. But, that being so, and looking forward to the ordinary period of the termination of Session, which, in this year, when we met so early, we ought not to pass if we can help it; looking also to the stock of strength, mental and physical, that Gentlemen bring to the discharge of their labours in this House, I feel it is absolutely necessary for us to omit no opportunity of asking the House to carry forward that great work consistently with other necessary demands, and limited by the necessities of Public Business. On these grounds, I am sorry to say it is a matter of absolute duty for us to adhere to the course we propose.
  MR. CHAPLINwould venture to make one further appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider his decision during the Recess. He quite admitted the difficult situation in which
  1032
  the right hon. Gentleman was placed; but he put to him whether, with a view to facilitate the progress of this measure, it was wise to insist on pressing forward the second reading of a Bill of this exceedingly complex and difficult character at a time manifestly most inconvenient to a very largo section of the House? ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that the Question which has been put to the right hon. Gentleman has been answered. If the hon. Member desires to raise any further question, he will have the opportunity of doing so when the Motion is made for the adjournment of the House.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he would take advantage of that opportunity.

  MALTA—ANCIENT MONUMENTS.
  In reply to Mr. GREGORY,
  MR. GRANT DUFF said: I have to thank my hon. Friend for calling my attention to this subject, as some of the ancient monuments of Malta are known to be of the highest importance. We will communicate with the local Government.

CRIMINAL LAW—THE "FREIHEIT."

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in replying to a Question which the Attorney General put to me, that at the meeting of the House to-day I would ask the leave of the House to make a personal explanation with respect to a Question which I put to the Attorney General yesterday; but after I had made that remark, the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs came to the Table and made a very unqualified and uncompromising statement with respect to the Question I had put. Under these circumstances, I would be the last person in this House to suggest that even a shadow of doubt could possibly remain after the statement of the hon Baronet, and therefore I would not think of pursuing the matter further. But perhaps the House will allow me to remark that the Attorney General, in replying to me, permitted himself to suggest that I had pursued a course of conduct which, in his opinion, was not a proper one. [Sir WILLIAM

  1033
  HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] It appears to be a foregone conclusion in the mind of the Home Secretary. It is a remarkable proof of his judicial mind. I do not wish to be drawn into any controversy with the right hon. Gentleman; but it is a matter of some importance to myself to point out that I put a Question after having received information which, if correct, was of undoubted gravity. On that information I put a Question to the Government, and I venture to say that course was perfectly Parliamentary. The Attorney General said I made charges against individuals; but I made no charges at all. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, in my view, I did not make charges. I asked for information; and I have never heard it laid down before that if an hon. Member upon certain facts or information asks a Question of the Government, he is to be accused of making charges against individuals. The Attorney General stated the course I ought to have pursued was to have conferred with his Colleagues before putting the Question. I venture to say that would not have been a Parliamentary course at all. Whenever it happens to be my good or bad fortune to be in conflict with a political opponent, it is on the floor of this House that the explanation shall take place, and it shall not be by conferences in the Lobby and whisperings in the Corridor, which invariably lead to misunderstandings, and which will inevitably produce a whole crop of insidious and slanderous rumours. That is the course which the Attorney General suggested. It is not the Parliamentary course. It is a course which may suggest itself to a legal mind, but which is not usually adopted by Members in this House. I merely wished to make these remarks in order to defend myself, and to say that in putting the Question I did to the Government across the floor of the House I was pursuing a perfectly Parliamentary and proper course, and one which I shall invariably pursue again in spite of any strictures of the Attorney General.

  IRELAND—THE IRISH CONSTABULARY —THE LAND LEAGUE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a list of suspected persons is kept at each constabulary station in Ireland, comprising the names of farmers,
  1034
  &c. who have never committed any offence except that of being members of the Land League; and, whether each police recruit is bound to learn the description of each suspected person, and is instructed to keep a constant eye upon him?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Constabulary in Ireland were instructed to keep themselves aware of those persons whom they think were likely to commit crime, especially members of the Ribbon Societies or other dangerous secret societies. It could only be in so far as they were suspected persons in that respect that any member of the Land League could come within the category.

  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION ACT—CASE OF PATRICK KING.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that Patrick King, a private soldier in the 16th regiment, stationed at Cardonagh, county Donegal, was tried by district court martial at Ebrington Barracks, Londonderry, on 10th February 1881, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, besides being dismissed Her Majesty's Service, for having at Carndonagh, while in a state of intoxication, cursed the Queen; whether the inquiry was conducted in secret; and, whether, considering that the evidence was of a contradictory character, and all the circumstances of the case, the War Office will re-consider the case, with a view to granting some remission of the sentence?
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN (for Mr. CHILDERS) replied: Private Patrick King, of the 16th Regiment, was tried by district court martial at the place mentioned in the Question, on the 27th of January, 1881, for having at Malin, in the county of Donegal, used traitorous and disloyal words regarding the Sovereign. That I need hardly say is a very grave military offence; and, under the 35th section of the Army Discipline and Regulation Act, renders the offender liable to imprisonment with hard labour. The case was very patiently investigated, the prisoner being allowed four days to bring up witnesses for the defence. I consider that it was amply proved, it being shown that the words used, which were of a coarse and offensive character, were ad-

  1035
  dressed by the prisoner in a loud voice to a crowd of 20 or 30 persons outside the police barracks, and the only real defence being that the prisoner was partially intoxicated. The proceedings were not conducted in secret, but in the usual way in open Court; and the evidence was not, in my opinion, of a contradictory character upon any material point. Under these circumstances, the Court sentenced the prisoner to be imprisoned with hard labour for 672 days, and to be discharged with ignominy from Her Majesty's Service. The sentence was undoubtedly legal, and the matter, therefore, has passed from my jurisdiction to that of the military authorities. I am, however, instructed to say that there is no present intention of interfering with the sentence of the Court, but that the sentence may come under review on the prisoner's petition, when it will be considered whether any remission should be made.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Prime Minister, Whether, in view of his statement the previous night that Ireland was in a peaceable condition, it was his intention to introduce a Bill to repeal the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act passed this Session; and also whether it was his intention to direct that the parties who were imprisoned under that Act would be forthwith released?
  [No reply was given to the Question.]

NOTICE OF RESOLUTIONS.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. BRODRICK (for Lord ELCHO)gave Notice that the noble Earl would move the following Resolution on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill:—
  "That this House, while willing to consider favourably any just measure, founded upon sound principles, that will benefit tenants of land in Ireland, is of opinion that the Land Law (Ireland) Bill is, in its main provisions, economically unsound, unjust, and impolitic."

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I beg to give Notice that on an early day
  1036
  after Easter I shall move the following Resolution:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the course pursued by Tier Majesty's Government with respect to the rising in the Transvaal, so far as it has yet been explained to Parliament, has resulted in the loss of valuable lives without vindicating the authority of the Crown, is fraught with danger to the future tranquillity and safety of Her Majesty's dominions in South Africa, and fails to provide for the fulfilment of the obligations contracted by this Country towards the European settlers and native population of the Transvaal."
  On the first day after Easter on which the House meets I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government what facilities he can afford for the discussion of that Motion.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In the present state of Public Business, without at all declining to take some measures for affording facilities, I certainly feel quite justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman to consult those among whom he sits in order to see whether it would be possible for him, as an independent Member, to find some facilities for himself.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I would beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman that all discussion has been postponed twice on the distinct understanding that an opportunity would be provided.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: With reference to the Notice which has just been given, I beg to give Notice that I will move the following Amendment:—
  "That this House, believing that a prolongation of the struggle with the Doers would have promoted neither the honour nor the interest of this Country, views with satisfaction the peaceful arrangement of the Transvaal difficulty which has been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government."

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—THE EASTER RECESS.
  MR. GLADSTONE, I have to move that the House, at its rising, adjourn to Monday, the 25th of April. I do so in the belief that it will be the wish of the House to adjourn at the close of the Morning Sitting; and I take the opportunity of saying that the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was perfectly correct in his reference to what I stated on a former occasion in connection with a discussion

  1037
  on the subject of the Transvaal. I shall have great pleasure if, as an independent Member, he may be able to find an early day for his Motion after the re-assembling of the House; but I do not recede from what I previously said; and if he is not able to do so in that way, I shall give him the first opportunity I can find for the discussion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn until Monday 25th April."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I think, Sir, I may venture to say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire, that he will readily comply with the suggestion of the Prime Minister, and endeavour in the ballot which is presently to be taken to obtain a day on which to bring forward the important Motion of which he has given Notice. But in case he is not successful, he hopes, and we hope, that an opportunity will be given to him by the Government at no distant day for the discussion of that question. It is one of the very greatest and most pressing importance; it is one that we have abstained from raising during the last few days or few weeks, because we were under the impression that information would probably be given to us, which it now appears we are not likely to receive before we separate. We have abstained until it became impossible to be silent any longer in case of misconstruction, and, consequently, my right hon. Friend has given his Notice. I am sure the feeling of the House will be one of entire accordance with the Motion which has just been made by the Prime Minister. I think the House will be satisfied that the time has come when we may take a little repose after the lengthened and exhausting period which Members have spent in this House; and I could only have wished that our holidays might not have been embittered by such severe holiday tasks as they are likely to be. I can assure the Prime Minister and the House that when I made the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman a few minutes ago to put off the discussion on the second reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill to a somewhat later day than the first Monday after Easter, I did so without the slightest intention of interfering with or postponing
  1038
  the real discussion of that measure, or of impeding the progress of Business. It has been throughout the Session my desire—and the desire of those with whom I have the honour to act—to facilitate, as far as possible, the progress of Business; and I think that the House will do us the justice to admit that, even when we have occasionally found it necessary to oppose the proposals made by the Government, which seemed, perhaps, to be an opposition intended to retard the progress of Business, we were really acting in the best sense in its favour. I undertake to say that if we, the Conservative Party, had not had the courage to stand up some weeks ago to resist the proposal made by the Government for the declaration of "urgency" on Supply, we should at the present time have been in less good temper, and should have done less good work than has been done. I do not wish to go back on that time, or to throw blame on the Government for the proposal; but I am satisfied that it was the duty—and that it will be the duty—of the Conservative Members of this House, while they abstain carefully from anything in the nature of obstruction to the Business of the Government, to insist on their rights as an Opposition to discharge their functions in fully criticizing all the measures which the Government may introduce, and in demanding full time and opportunity for their discussion. We look on the last three months which we have spent within these walls with no feeling of dissatisfaction, as far as we are concerned. We cannot but feel that there have been many important questions raised, and many important statements made, which to us, at all events, have had what I might call rather a refreshing effect. We have seen many charges that were made against us practically disproved and practically abandoned by those who a year or so ago were so free in their language of censure against us. I myself will confess to the House that I have spent some considerable part of this Session—as, indeed, I did of last Session also—in great anxiety of mind, because I understood that one of the principal functions which the present Government were to discharge was that of setting to rights the disordered condition of the finances of the country, and altogether upsetting and reversing the very un-

  1039
  businesslike and unstatesmanlike character of all the proposals of the late Administration. When I heard the magnificent heralding with which the friends of the Government came forward just before the introduction of the Budget, I thought I was to receive a tremendous castigation; but when the event happened, I was pleased to find that, after all, though the Prime Minister made an eloquent speech, and one of great length and great interest, it resulted in almost next to nothing, and certainly very little indeed that we, or I personally can complain of, as a reversal of my own policy, a policy for which I can be held to be responsible. Indeed, I have sometimes almost felt as I could imagine King Richard III. to have felt in his tomb when he found he was to be rehabilitated. For after observations have been made upon one measure and another—and observations have been made which I have received with something more than equanimity—it has been not a little remarkable that in the course of these three months we have had occasion to see the very serious results of the conduct which Her Majesty's Government had promised before they took Office, and the difficulties which they have created for themselves. I do not wish to enter upon such personal questions to which I have alluded; but I think there are questions upon which the country has had serious reason to regret the difference between the course pursued by Ministers before and after they took Office. I cannot exaggerate the importance which I attach to that particular subject to which may right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) is about to draw attention. Certainly, there are many questions in relation to the policy which has been pursued by both Governments in South Africa which are open to fair discussion; but when we are lectured, as we have been, by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Grant Duff), who is such a master of the "tone" that ought to be taken in putting Questions, or in giving Answers, I must say that the tone which has been taken by the right hon. Gentleman himself, as the representative of the Government in this important Department, is a tone which I think ought to be very greatly deprecated. During this Session we have not forgotten some of that fine language, and those quota-
  1040
  tions from Virgil about debellare superbos, &c., which produced a wholly different effect on the minds of the people of this country from that which now, unfortunately for the Government, prevails. I should be entirely unjustified, however, if I were to enter at length into questions of this sort. I am satisfied with pointing generally to the peculiar character of the pre-Easter Session, and assuring the House that we have endeavoured, as they may have seen, to promote, as far as we possibly could, the proper conduct of Business—and that similarly we shall persevere during the remainder of the Session in the discharge of that duty. I am bound to say, with regard to the particular question as to the time of taking the second reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, I do not think it would cause loss, but would rather save time, if we were allowed ample opportunity of considering that measure before we commit ourselves on the second reading. With regard to the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), of which Notice has been given, that is a Motion made entirely on his own responsibility. It is not to be taken as implying that we have been able to make up our minds on the grave questions which have been submitted to us. The statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday was one which involved large considerations of policy of every kind, and which demands the most serious consideration. Demands were made or indicated which the country ought to have a full opportunity of considering, and which we ought to have an opportunity of considering in consultation among ourselves while we are able to freely meet and consult. We are denied that. We shall think it our duty to discuss this matter fully; and if the result of taking the second reading of the Bill immediately upon the House re-assembling causes a longer time to be occupied in its discussion, that will not be our fault—we shall not be responsible for the delay that may take place. But it is not our intention at all to interpose anything in the nature of needless delay in the discussion of a measure of such immense importance and of such great difficulty—a measure which, if we may trust report, has run through no less than 22 editions in the Cabinet, and cost

  1041
  the Government the loss of the services of one of their most eminent Colleagues. We are rejoiced to have so lengthened a holiday, and my right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) will take his chance of finding an independent day on which he may bring forward his Motion relating to the Transvaal; but if he does not succeed in obtaining one, we will trust to the redemption of the pledge given by the Government for facilitating that important discussion.
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, when the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the second reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, he gave as one of the practical reasons why the discussion should not be delayed, that no appeal had been made by the Irish Members, and he glanced towards the seats below the Gangway, as if they were the only Irish Members who sat there. He would remind the House that there were Irish Members and Irish Members. Ho would suggest that the discussion on the second reading should be postponed until, at least, one or two days after re-assembling. And in making this appeal, he felt he was only repeating the sentiments of every Irish Member who sat above the Gangway, the majority of whom came from the North; as otherwise, those who wished to come to Parliament on the Monday would have to start on Saturday, as there were no trains in the North of Ireland on Sunday.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANventured to appeal to the Prime Minister that, while giving all necessary opportunities for consideration, he should not allow any unnecessary delay to interpose, for one reason out of many—namely, the peculiar reason that in the Bill there would be a merciful protection for the unfortunate and wretched people who were now spilling their blood in a struggle with the officers of the law in Ireland, who were carrying out the ejectments which were commenced. If the Bill was passed within a reasonable time, all the ejectment processes now initiated would be brought within the beneficent protection of one of the clauses of the Bill. Therefore, he appealed to the Prime Minister, that while affording to the House all reasonable opportunities for discussion, he would not allow the Bill to be unnecessarily delayed. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the little fusillade he had lot off, which might be indulged in
  1042
  on occasions like the present, took credit to himself that the House was just now in better humour than it would have been if it had allowed the Government to vote "urgency" as to Supply. But he hoped he might be allowed to point out that if "urgency" in Supply had been found unnecessary, it was because of the unusual for bearance of the Irish Members during the past three weeks. ["Oh!"] He fearlessly placed himself on the recollection of the House as to whether it was not true that from the day that the Bill over which they had such protracted contention passed, whether they did not almost absolutely neglect their duties to their constituents in the extent to which they abstained from discussing the various items in Supply? The Home Rule Members could have played a part which would have rendered the finishing of the Government Business impossible; but they did not want to put the Government in that position. On the other hand, if they had interposed, they could have knocked the right hon. Gentleman's (Sir Stafford Northcote's)minute calculations against the adoption of "urgency" in Committee of Supply to the winds; but his Friends had exercised this reticence for certain reasons. And although he did not wish to parade them as benefactors of the House in any exaggerated degree, he thought it right to say what he had on their behalf. He would now take this opportunity of saying a few words in reference to recent arrests in Ireland under the Act passed a short time ago, and he would ask the attention, more especially, of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. A young friend of his, a Mr. Higgins, of Westmeath, who was arrested the other day, was a young man whom ho knew to be well-conducted, respectable, intelligent, kindly, and, he believed, virtuous.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
  The House went;—and being returned;—
  Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to several Bills.
  Question again proposed, "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn until Monday 25th April."
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTFIYwas glad to find that the Government intended to take the discussion upon the Land Law

  1043
  (Ireland) Bill immediately after the Recess; but, in the meantime, he ventured to make an appeal to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the present condition of the country. In the Question he put to the right hon. Gentleman earlier in the day, he called his attention to the fact that in one of the Irish counties—as, indeed, hi most of them—ejectment notices were being served with lavish hand, and the appeal he ventured to make to him was that he should endeavour, as far as possible, by advice or otherwise, to stay the execution of these decrees, and interpose between certain harsh landlords and an unhappy population. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he knew nothing of these decrees until they reached a stage when they had to be put into execution with the assistance of the law; but it did not appear to him to be difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to ascertain, as a matter of private information, that these notices were being scattered in showers over the country, and that the minds of the people were disturbed at the prospect before them. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he would not, as far as possible, hold back the armed assistance of the police and the soldiers in the enforcement of harsh decrees, which would shortly, he trusted, be against the letter of the law, as they were at present against the spirit of all civilized law and equity. He strongly appealed to lam to discourage the carrying out of these decrees so far as to withhold where he could the armed assistance of the military in enabling the landlords to recover their exorbitant rents. The right hon. Gentleman favoured him that afternoon with a somewhat benignant lecture as to the kind of advice he ought to give the people of Ireland. He could only say neither he nor his Colleagues, so far as he was aware, had over advised the Irish people to withhold any payment of just rents; but as the right hon. Gentleman gave some advice to him, he should in return advise the right hon. Gentleman to do his best to discontinue the assistance of the police and military in enforcing the harsh and unjust decrees of the landlords, which he hoped before long would go against the very letter of the law. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, before they entered upon the beginning of this great discussion, to do everything he could to prevent a recurrence of
  1044
  those discouraging, ominous, and terrible warnings which within the last few days had given the Government another proof of the necessity of making the strongest effort to interfere between the Irish tenant population and the enforcement of cruel and unjust evictions.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: To prevent misconception, Sir, I think I ought at Once to state, in reference to an impression which appears to prevail that I and and those with whom I act can say whether the law should be carried out or not, that that is altogether a mistake. The general administration of the law is independent of our control. The magistrates and the police are bound to give assistance to the Sheriff if he calls for it. It is not in the power of the Irish Government to refuse it. If we did refuse it, we would be doing what is unconstitutional, encouraging a breach of the law, and interfering with the enforcement of debts between man and man; and many of the processes referred to are not for rent, but for ordinary debt. It is our duty to see that whatever is done in the way of assisting the Sheriff is done with as much forbearance as possible, and with every precaution to prevent loss of life. No one can more regret than I do what has occurred within the last few days in Ireland; but I must again repeat that if advice were given to the tenants not to oppose the law, it would certainly be advice which would lead to their good, and to the preservation of law and order. I do not wish to make remarks upon what might have happened; but I cannot help saying that it is a notorious fact that Irish tenants have been recommended, and very strongly recommended, not to pay their rents, even if they were able to pay them. This I must say—that, in consequence of what has happened, I have given the strongest possible recommendation, and, as far as it has been in my power, the strongest possible order, that where it is necessary to give protection to persons who have to enforce legal rights, such protection should not be given unless the constabulary and magistracy are able to give it in such force as to prevent the possibility of resistance. That, I think, is the best way to preserve order. But may I not hope, after the measure which was brought in last night, that the Irish people, as well as the people of the United Kingdom,

  1045
  will be convinced that the Government are anxious to do all in their power to promote the interest of the people of Ireland? May I not hope, too, that there will be an effort made on all sides, and by all persons who desire to see the condition of Ireland improved, to have as much quietness and as little disorder and resistance to the law as are possible?
  MR. CHAPLIN: No one doubts, Sir, that the Government have gone to the very limits of concession in the Bill they brought in last night; and I only hope, after what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that he will not weaken the authority of the law by the instructions he has given to such an extent as that it will be difficult to vindicate the law and preserve the peace. I rise to renew the appeal I made just now, which was of a character exactly the opposite of that made by the two hon. Members who spoke on this side. I was under the impression, Sir, that we were about to start for our holidays; but if we are, during the Recess, to be called upon to master the provisions of undoubtedly the most difficult and complex measure I ever remember to have been submitted to this House, in a manner adequate for its proper discussion—then, so far from passing a holiday, we will be engaged in the hardest work of the whole Session. I fully admit the difficulty of the situation. There is, no doubt, the present condition of Ireland to consider; and there is the time which has been consumed by measures of coercion which have been passed this Session to remember; and also the arrears and delay of Business which were thus brought about. But I cannot help pointing out that both for the present state of Ireland, for delay, and for the necessity for coercion, it is the Government, and the Government chiefly, if not entirely, who are responsible. And, no doubt, the Government are responsible for the condition of Ireland to-day. They were warned 10 years ago, at the time of passing their land legislation in 1870, that, in all probability, that legislation would produce a condition and state of affairs such as we have unhappily witnessed. But with regard to delay and arrears of Business, what is our position to-day? Why, the Government undertook in the most solemn manner during last Session—
  1046
  and it is right that this fact should be pointed out—they most solemnly pledged themselves to call Parliament together in the autumn if it was found that the existing laws were not sufficient to maintain order in Ireland. It is acknowledged by the Government that the law was not sufficient. If the law had been sufficient the Government would have maintained order. The question was put to them this Session why they did not fulfil the pledge they had given; and the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant said—"I will make no further allusion to that question, because I have already answered it." I deny that the question has ever been answered by the right hon. Gentleman, or that he has ever justified himself for breaking the pledge he gave. The right hon. Gentleman forfeited his pledge, and the result has been three months' waste, and that measures of the utmost stringency became necessary for Ireland. With reference to some other Business of the Session, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Budget, and I hope it will not be out of place if I refer to that subject. I heard with some surprise and regret the observations which fell from the Prime Minister with regard to the effect of the repeal of the Malt Tax. The right hon. Gentleman seems to me to speak with two voices on this subject. Last year the repeal of the tax was announced as an immense boon for the benefit of the farmers; and now the right hon. Gentleman says it was introduced as a measure for the liberation of trade. I must say that I was astonished when I heard the right hon. Gentleman, apparently in terms of exultation, tell the House how the repeal had already reduced the price of barley by 10 s. a-quarter, and had caused the use of rice and maize, both of which facts must inflict great damage on the farmers. We on this side of the House may have been wrong in our views on the question of the Malt Tax; but I do think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have refrained from using terms of exultation, when he knew that a Bill introduced solely for the interest of the farmers had turned out to be most injurious to their interests. I need hardly remind the House of the recent votes given by the Government and those who sit on their side of the House on two other subjects. I do not

  1047
  think the farmers will thank them for their votes, either on the question of the outbreak of the foot-and-mouth disease, or their more recent vote on the question of the highways. They were accompanied into the Lobby by those who by the name of their organization might be supposed to represent the farmers. I allude to the members of the Farmers' Alliance. Their action confirms a suspicion I have long entertained that the Farmers' Alliance is a political and partizan clique, and that it was not formed by the fanners, but by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard); and when the world at large becomes acquainted with the fact, it will not be surprised at the fact that the votes of the hon. Members to whom I allude are directly against the agricultural interest. There are some other matters for our reflection of a less agreeable character than those which I have mentioned. I will not allude to the latest performance of the Government—the Land Law (Ireland) Bill; but I do trust that never again will an English Parliament separate for an Easter or any other Recess under the sense of shame and humiliation with which we shall separate tonight, when we come to consider the depth of degradation to which we have been brought by the conduct of the Government in relation to South Africa at the bidding of that party of peace at any price, whose false and utterly un-English views have been the cause of more wars and more misfortunes to this country than I believe any Member of this House will care to think of or remember. I do not hesitate to say, in his presence and hearing, that there is no man in this country so responsible for the war in the Transvaal as the present Prime Minister. I say deliberately that by his reckless and inflammatory speeches during the General Election—and, for aught I know, for the purposes of the Election—he directly incited, and was largely instrumental in bringing about, the rising in South Africa, which has been so fatal to the character, prestige, and reputation of this country. Having succeeded in his attempt to grasp at power, the right hon. Gentleman next commenced a war which it is now as clear as day was an unnecessary and wholly unjustifiable war, which has been concluded by a dishonourable
  1048
  peace. I remember that at the close of the General Election, when he had won a fight the sole object of which was the political destruction of his great opponent—whose illness is cause of grief in all circles—the right hon. Gentleman said—"We are now going to open a now and happier chapter in the history of our country." I commend that sentence to the careful attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House and of the country during the Recess. For my part, I have not yet discovered in what part of Her Majesty's Dominions that "new and happier chapter" has begun. Whether it is on the Continent of Europe, where we have already been once led by the Prime Minister to the very verge of war, and where, at this moment, the great issues of peace or war are still trembling in the balance; whether it is in India, where many who are more competent to express an opinion believe the policy of the Government has dealt a fatal blow, not only at the prestige, but at the safety, of our Empire there; whether it is in South Africa; whether it is in Ireland, where we are even now witnessing the scenes to which the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) has called our attention; or, coming nearer home, whether it is in this House, where, under his guidance we have witnessed scenes absolutely unparalleled in this Assembly; whether it is in any of these places I cannot tell; but this I do know—that if the last 12 months' experience under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman constitutes "a new and happier chapter" in the history of England, then I pray God that, so long as the name of England is maintained among the nations of the world, we shall never again enter upon the opening of another new and happy chapter in our history. Unless I utterly mistake the feelings of the people of this country, they will, when they contrast the policy of the present Primo Minister with that of his Predecessors—whose courage, patience, and patriotic generosity when in Opposition, cannot be forgotten—they will be smitten with a feeling of deep remorse, and will hasten to repair the error which they committed in a moment of unequalled political excitement, by pronouncing on the Ministry of the day a just and righteous condemnation, and describing them as the worst and most incapable Adminis-

  1049
  tration that ever encumbered the Treasury Bench or mismanaged the whole Business and dishonoured the name of the Empire of the Queen.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am a great deal too much accustomed to the orations of the hon. Member to feel the smallest surprise, disappointment, or displeasure at that which he has just delivered. It has been an oration entirely in character, and I cannot wish him to depart from himself. It would be an abuse of the time and patience of the House if I were to follow him through all the details of the speech which has drawn forth such marked approbation and audible applause from the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). I will leave the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire under the influence of that shame and humiliation which, in common with the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, he has been endeavouring to heap upon us. I have some consolation in thinking that these are not the sentiments shared by the majority of the Members of this House. I yielded to the desire of the hon. Member who addressed the House at this juncture because I expected to hear from him some original observations of a practical kind as to the proposal I had to make for the date of the second reading of this Bill. I am sorry to say that on that subject, on which my expectations had been highly raised when I knew the hon. Member was about to speak, he has added nothing whatever to the materials for forming a judgment upon the question, and he has not shown the slightest shred or tittle of a reason why I should depart from the decision at which we, as a Government, have arrived. The hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) says that I was not justified in appealing to the judgment of the Irish Members; "for," says he, "there are Irish Members and Irish Members." I am not quite sure of that; but what I admit is that there are Irish Members and an Irish Member. An Irish Member has made an appeal that I believe to be in complete contravention of the sentiments of nine-tenths of those other Members who come from Ireland, and who know that on all grounds, and not the least of all on the ground which has reference to current proceedings for ejectments, it is of the utmost consequence that we should lose no time that we can properly spare in
  1050
  proceeding to the consideration of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, and says that if we do that he shall be obliged—I can hardly command any muscle of my body in repeating his words—that he will have to leave his home on the Saturday preceding the Monday on which Parliament will re-assemble. When I consider what is involved in that statement—the anxiety, the premature action which it will bring about—and when I recollect that on the other side I have nothing to allege but the interests of the Empire and the state of Public Business, I am overwhelmed; but I am bound to say that those considerations which I have last named ought to induce us from their real weight to expect of the hon. Gentleman that he shall rise to the height of this great occasion and leave his home on the Saturday evening. Then, with regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I may say that the right hon. Baronet has introduced an innovation—innovations are generally in favour on the Opposition side of the House—on the present occasion by making the humble occasion of a Motion for the adjournment of the House the opportunity of pronouncing, in the first place, a glowing eulogy upon the proceedings of the Conservative Party. I do not in the least begrudge him the satisfaction of pronouncing that eulogy, and his hearers on that side of the House the pardonable pleasure of hearing it. Indeed, I am almost tempted to follow his example, and to pronounce a corresponding eulogy, which I could with a perfect good conscience, and with equal warmth of tone, on the proceedings during the last three months of the majority of this House. I will, however, exercise self-denial in the matter, and will pass on, refusing to myself the pleasure of speaking such a panegyric, and of giving those who hear me any satisfaction that they would have derived from hearing it. But I must say that when I pass on to the other portion of the speech of the right hon. Baronet, I again find something of a novel character in his choosing the humble occasion of a Motion for the adjournment of the House for making a general attack on, and a denunciation of, the conduct of the Members of Her Majesty's Government, and for asserting that it had inflicted grave mischief on the country. He says

  1051
  that he is astonished at the abandonment of the charges which, before the late General Election, were so loudly pronounced, and which were aimed at those who constituted the late Administration. Sir, I have no desire to intrude into the sanctuary of the right hon. Gentleman's mind, nor to examine into what, in his opinion, are those charges, or what, in his opinion, constitutes their abandonment. For my own part, I think it no part of my duty to go back to a repetition of those charges, though it would be a great satisfaction to me if I could find and feel—which I have not yet found and felt—that there were any of those charges which I could abandon. I am obliged to say so much. It would be invidious to go further. Then my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies is blamed for the answer he gave to a Question that was put to him. I must say that I am always sorry when personal matters of this kind are introduced into a debate; but I must say I vindicate that tone. I think it was thoroughly justified by the occasion which called it forth, and that the opinion which I now express was in the most unequivocal manner at the moment the tone was assumed declared to be the opinion of a large portion of this House; so that I do not think my right hon. Friend need too severely wince under the chastisement he has received. For my part, whether it be upon the Malt Tax, upon the Budget, on South Africa, or on Afghanistan—upon which I must say that I thought that the appetite even of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire would have been tolerably well satiated by what he and his Friends got the other night in the speech of my noble Friend the Secretary—of State for India, not less than even in the remarkable division which followed it—with respect to all these things, on the proper occasion when they come forward in the regular course, we shall be able to meet, and I think to confute, charges such as those of the hon. Member; but I decline to confute them, to deal with them, or to acknowledge them at all upon this Motion for the adjournment of the House to the 25th of April.
  EARL PERCYsaid, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, in his position of Leader of that House, had thought it consistent with his duty to
  1052
  make a personal attack upon the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and also upon the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham), who had said nothing but what he was entitled to say. In his (Earl Percy's) opinion, the latter attack was most unjustifiable and was most uncourteous. The hon. Member for Leitrim had merely stated that the arrangement proposed to be made by the right hon. Gentleman was personally inconvenient to himself, and the right hon. Gentleman had thereupon held the hon. Member up to ridicule as preferring his own personal convenience to the interests of the people of Ireland. That was the first time he (Earl Percy) had heard the Leader of the House hold a Member up to ridicule, not only for the amusement of the House, but in a manner which was scarcely courteous. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the attitude which had been taken by Her Majesty's Government in making these personal attacks upon hon. Members was supported by the majority of hon. Members opposite. In that case, all he (Earl Percy) could say was, the more the pity for hon. Members opposite, and the more the pity for the House of Commons. There were those who were of opinion that the tone of the House of Commons during the present Session was in strong contrast with that of former Houses of Commons. Ho should have thought that the Prime Minister, who, he believed, had a sincere desire to uphold the dignity of that House, would, with his long experience, have asserted his privilege as Leader of Her Majesty's Government, by moderating the zeal of his Followers, and by inducing them to show to lion. Members on the Opposition Benches the fair play and courtesy which one gentleman usually showed to another.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKappealed to hon. Members opposite to allow the discussion to close, in order that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade might make his statement with regard to the Bankruptcy Bill—an important measure, with reference to which the whole mercantile community was extremely anxious. It was very desirable that the Bill should be published before the Recess.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had heard with great pleasure the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief

  1053
  Secretary for Ireland that more care would be exercised in the regulation of the proceedings of the Constabulary shooting parties in Ireland. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that, for the future, the Governmental proceedings for carrying out an unjust and a condemned law would be conducted on such a scale as to render the resistance of the unarmed people to the forces of the Crown still more hopeless than at present. The right hon. Gentleman justified the action of the Government by saying it was the absolute duty of the Executive, in all cases, to carry out any law, however bad, which might be in the Statute Book. There were, however, many laws in the Statute Book which were not carried out. While admitting the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman's position, he ventured to think that, at any rate, when the shooting party was called into requisition, it should be a recognized thing that they should be accompanied by a magistrate, upon whom might fall the duty and glory of ordering the shooting down of the most miserable sections of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland. It was quite clear that the people of Ireland, knowing the Government were bound to redress their grievances, felt all the more keenly the hardship of being now deprived of the rights of property which in a few weeks were to be considered their own. So surely as the Constabulary went forth to hunt the people out of their homes, so surely would the most disastrous occurrences be the result. They had seen several instances of that lately, and he trusted the Government might not consider it derogatory to their authority, or in contravention of any existing laws, to provide that on every occasion a collision might be expected a magistrate should be present to go through the formality of reading the Riot Act, if necessary. He must take that opportunity of protesting against the action of Her Majesty's Government in Afghanistan, which amounted to little more than a mere Party manœuvre. If Her Majesty's Government wished to show that they really desired to consult the feelings of the Afghan people, let them withdraw support from the usurper Abdurrahman. He could not, however, think they did, because they were supplying arms and ammunition to a foreign usurper for the purpose of shooting
  1054
  down the loyal adherents of the rightful Ruler of the country. It was very probable that his opinions might not square with the opinions of the large majority of hon. Members in condemning the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Afghanistan; but he had before in that House had to stand alone, as much against the Liberal Party as against the Tory Party, in condemning the annexation of the Transvaal; and while he was still unshaken in his conviction as to the policy of that annexation, he could not admit that the manner in which the Liberal Party had acted lately was creditable. In fact, it was equally discreditable to the Liberal Party, and injurious and disgraceful to the country at large.
  MR. TOTTENHAMdesired to say a word of personal explanation in reference to the attack which had been made upon him by the Prime Minister. He should not have thought of interposing such a trivial argument as personal inconvenience in the way of a great measure of the Government, had not that line of argument been started by the Prime Minister himself, who distinctly stated that the convenience of Irish Members sitting below the Gangway would be an element in the consideration of Her Majesty's Government in fixing the day for the second reading of the Irish Land Bill, and he thought the convenience of those Members sitting above the Gangway was entitled to as full consideration as those below it.
  MR. HEALYhoped, if the Chief Secretary for Ireland went over to Ireland during the Recess, he would insist on more care being taken in the arrests that were made. In every case of arrest, where the person arrested was a farmer, he had the sympathy of the whole population, who sent their horses and gave all the help in their power; and if the person arrested happened to be a shopkeeper, he had equal sympathy from the townspeople; yet the right hon, Gentleman said these persons were the terror of the population of their districts.
  MR. BIGGARthought the Prime Minister was quite justified in the tone which he adopted in regard to some of the Tory Members. The Tory Party, during the present Session, had succeeded to a wonderful extent in dragging the so-called Liberal Party through the

  1055
  mire. They had succeeded in getting them to abolish trial by jury in Ireland, at the very time that the Prime Minister was giving credit to the Emperor of Russia for introducing trial by jury into Russia. Thus, while Russia was going forward, and being praised for it by the Liberal Party in England, that Party was going in the very opposite direction as regarded Ireland. Then, the so-called Liberal Party had succeeded in abolishing the rights of persons charged with offences in Ireland; and the so-called Liberal Government had succeeded in closing the mouths of Irish Members in that House, when they condemned the dishonest grounds upon which coercion was asked for by that so-called Liberal Government, and when, only last night, the Prime Minister acknowledged that Ireland was in a thoroughly peaceable state, and that coercion was un-called for. He (Mr. Biggar) would lose no opportunity for showing to the people of Ireland the hypocrisy of this self-willed Government, carried out as it was by a tyrannical and mechanical majority.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he would not have risen but for the fact that he had been twice honoured by the Premier's notice. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to shorten debates, the best way to do so was to treat hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side with ordinary civility and courtesy. If he wished to lengthen debates, the best way of doing it was by making rude and personal attacks. He (Mr. Warton) rose to enter a protest, not so much against the personal rudeness of the Premier—he could not help being rude, as he was great in everything but temper—but against the nauseating way in which the right hon. Gentleman talked boastfully about his majority, and would take the liberty of warning him that, as had been the case before, that majority might disappear. He had referred to the division on the Afghan question, on which the Government had a majority once, and once only. On many occasions the Government had only had one-half or one-third of their nominal majority. Moreover, it was well to have a giant's strength, but tyrannous to use it as a giant.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That this House, at its rising, do adjourn until Monday 25th April.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BANKRUPTCY BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th April], "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law of Bankruptcy."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that in asking the House to assent to the introduction of a Bill to amend the Law of Bankruptcy, he must confess that the history of past attempts to deal with that subject was such as to discourage anything like exaggerated or over-sanguine expectations. It was a history of continual, and he might say periodical changes, involving very considerable vacillations on the part of Parliament, following the current of public opinion in this country, each in turn the subject of great expectations, and each in turn also doomed, after a few years' experience, to disappointment and failure. He supposed he might say that, of all that legislative work, the Act of 1869 had been the most unsatisfactory and the most unfortunate. It was the object of the almost unanimous condemnation of all classes. At the present time, Committees of the House of Commons; Chambers of Commerce, representing the commercial interests of the country; the Judges, who had to administer the law; the officials, who had to supervise its execution; bankers; lawyers; accountants; all the representatives of the commercial classes, joined in swelling the universal chorus of dissatisfaction and disapprobation. In those circumstances it was not surprising that since 1869 there had been no fewer than 13 proposals before the House for amending that Act. Six of those proposals had been Government Bills; but, owing to circumstances into which he need not enter, none of them had gone beyond the preliminary stages. He did not think, however, that the delay which had occurred had been altogether without some compensating advantage. In coming to his task he found that the road had, in a large degree, been cleared

    1057
    for him. He would avail himself, with out hesitation, to a very considerable extent, of the labours of his Predecessors; and it would be seen by the provisions of the Bill which he was about to explain that he had largely taken advantage both of the suggestions which he had gathered from the Bills of the late Government, and also from those introduced from time to time by private Members. He had thought it desirable to make himself acquainted with the opinions, sometimes inconsistent, of the different organizations dealing with the subject, and of persons who, from their representative character or from special study, were entitled to be considered as authorities; and he had, as far as he possibly could, to satisfy the desires which their experience had led them to express. He had accordingly had the advantage of communicating with numerous persons who were greatly interested in the subject, and he desired at once to acknowledge the services which many of them had rendered him. He had especially to thank his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley), who had put into his hands a Bill which he had drafted and had intended to introduce, and which contained many useful suggestions. He had likewise had the opportunity of consulting with the experienced County Court Judge of Birmingham, where, perhaps, more bankruptcy cases came up for decision than at any other local Court in the Kingdom; and he was, moreover, indebted to the experience and advice of the President of the Incorporated Law Society; to Mr. John Smith, who was a high authority on that particular subject; to the President of the Institute of Accountants; whilst he had likewise to acknowledge suggestions received from an influential deputation which waited upon him from the Institute of Bankers. On one point there was a concurrence of opinion among the authorities on this subject—all agreed in condemning the Act of 1869. That Act had only been in operation two or three years when discontent began to manifest itself with its working. In consequence of that, the late Lord Chancellor (Earl Cairns) appointed a Committee, experienced in the subject, to consider the matter, who, in 1875, made a Report, in which they said—
    "We find a general concurrence of opinion that the Act of 1869 has not, in its working,
    1058
    satisfied the expectations of the public, inasmuch as it affords great facilities for a debtor to relieve himself of his liabilities, while there is great extravagance in administering and long delay in winding-up estates."
    No legislation followed; but the objections continued to grow; and, in 1879, a Memorial from bankers and merchants of the City of London, one of the most influential ever presented to any Government, was presented to the late Primo Minister. In that Memorial it was said that the defects of the Bankruptcy Law might be stated as follows:—
    "First, it affords new and vicious facilities to insolvent persons to escape from the reasonable control and supervision of their creditors by private arrangements wholly beyond the jurisdiction of any public Court or Judge. And by reason of these facilities it is the fact that every year there is an increasing number of cases in which the grievous and dangerous scandal is exhibited of men failing for vast liabilities, and finding it easy, in consequence of the defects of the present law, to get their speedy discharge by the payment of no dividend, or a dividend of some small fraction of a pound, or even shilling, and without being subjected to any efficient investigation of their affairs, or of the conduct and proceedings which have led to their insolvency-Second, that the present law is rendered practically nugatory by leaving to those who have already incurred losses the investigation of the bankrupt's affairs, and has laid upon them the obligation of exposing the misconduct of bankrupts, which, in the plain interests of public morality and commercial policy, should be dealt with, not as a private matter, but by a public Court and Judge. Experience has amply proved that reliance on creditors to perform these onerous and costly functions is entirely futile. The Bankruptcy Act of 1861 did contain, in Clause 159, provisions for the interference and action of the Court in all cases of misconduct on the part of the bankrupt, with a view to his exposure and punishment; but, in consequence of the failure of legislation to provide an efficient Court and Judge, these most salutary provisions were never enforced."
    These statements were the strongest possible condemnation of the operation of the Act, and they were fully justified by the Reports which had been published from time to time by the Controller General in Bankruptcy, to whom he thought the thanks of the commercial classes were justly due, inasmuch as he was, if not the first, at all events the most prominent person to call attention, not merely to scandals under the Act, but also to the direction in which remedies might be found. From these Reports it appeared that the total bankruptcies and arrangements under insolvency proceedings had increased from 5,002 in 1870, to 13,132 in 1879. The

    1059
    liabilities, during the same period, had increased from £17,456,429 to £29,678,193. The estimated assets had increased from £5,381,533 to £10,193,617, from which it resulted that the loss during the same period had increased. from £12,074,896 to £19,484,576. When he said the loss, he called the attention of the House to the fact that the deficiency was between the estimated assets and liabilities; and inasmuch as the realized assets never came up to anything more than a proportion of the estimated assets, it was probably not too much to say that the loss at the present time under bankruptcy insolvencies was not less than £25,000,000 a-year, and that did not include the losses caused by the failure of Companies, which were administered under a different system. He understood that there was some reduction in the figures for the present year; but he quoted only the published figures coming down to 1879. He found from these same Reports that the bankruptcies proper had diminished from 1,351 to 1,156, while during the same time the liquidations and compositions outside bankruptcy, and which did not come under the control of any judicial authority whatever, had increased from 3,651 to 11,976. A few figures would show what was the character of these arrangements, and why it was that they were so frequently resorted to. He would take the case of compositions, because they had no information on which reliance could be placed as to liquidations. The compositions between 2s. 6d. and 5s. in the pound, in the period he had named, had remained nearly the same in proportion to the total number of compositions; in fact, they had fallen from 30 per cent to 28 per cent of the whole. But the compositions under 2s. 6d. in the pound had increased from 17½ per cent to 50 per cent of the whole; while the compositions above 5s. had decreased in almost equal proportion—namely, from 52½ per cent to 22 per cent of the whole. So it might be asserted that the compositions and liquidations under the Insolvency Acts had rapidly increased in number, and, at the same time, had rapidly deteriorated in quality; and the reason was not far to seek. Of the 1,156 bankruptcies 149 were annulled for some reason or other, and that left 1,007 bankruptcies that had been dealt
    1060
    with in open Court. Therefore, only 7 per cent of the whole of the cases of insolvency were subject, under the present system, to public control, while 93 per cent were left without supervision, and naturally presented the widest possible field for every kind of fraud and abuse. It was, of course, this absence of proper control which tempted and induced debtors who feared it, and professional agents whose gains would be diminished by it, to resort to liquidations and compositions in preference to bankruptcy. The question arose, under what provisions of the existing law this state of things had been permitted to exist? Under Section 125 of the Act, it was possible for a debtor who found himself unable, or who might be unwilling to pay his debts, to have a meeting of creditors summoned on his behalf, at a time and place convenient to himself, and certainly, in very many cases, inconvenient to the majority of the creditors. At that meeting, the creditors present, either by themselves or by proxies, creditors, in some cases, in friendly collusion with the bankrupt, in other cases fictitious, in not a few cases fraudulent, might, by the requisite majority in number and three-fourths in value, elect a trustee, agree to a liquidation, dispense with the security which the Act required the trustee to give, get rid of all investigation of the previous conduct and affairs of the bankrupt, and discharge the debtor, even although he might be guilty of fraud or scandalous negligence, and even although the assets showed no dividend whatever; and this arrangement they were competent to impose upon a dissenting minority of bonâ fide creditors. Under this system there was absolutely no public inquiry whatever, no examination on oath, and no security for the protection of the public interests which were involved in every insolvency. The position of a trustee elected under these circumstances was an exceedingly enviable one, provided he was not troubled with any moral scruples whatever. He was practically uncontrolled as to his disposition of the estate and its administration. He could, and very often did, appoint his own committee of inspection, from whom he was bound to take his instructions. The accounts of the trustee had been in more than one instance audited by persons who could not write

    1061
    their own names. The trustee could make any arrangement for the discharge of the debtor; he could dispose of the funds, he could vote his own remuneration, he could tax his solicitor's bill or not, as he thought proper; he could audit the bills of the other professional persons he employed or not, as he preferred; he could audit his own accounts, and finally grant himself a release, and retire to the bosom of his family, satisfied that he had complied with all the legal requirements of the statute. He might, if he liked, declare a dividend, or he might delay doing so. He might keep the creditors' money in his own hands, and use it for his own purposes; he might appropriate undivided balances and unclaimed dividends; he might assist in the creation of fictitious claims, certain that in such circumstances dividends could not be claimed; and in 50 different ways he might rob the creditors to his own personal advantage. A trustee, fitly named H. J. Sharpe, was tried at the Central Criminal Court on the 3rd of February; and the report of the case was so suggestive that he would read a part of it to the House. The facts of the case were stated by counsel for the prosecution as follows:—
    "Prisoner had formerly been clerk in a solicitor's office, and was well acquainted with the details of the Bankruptcy Law, especially in matters of liquidation. He appeared to have been in the habit of searching The London Gazette for notices of liquidations, and then communicating with solicitors engaged in such cases, representing himself as being interested in the proceedings. By that means he obtained a list of the creditors in several instances. Having noted the names of some of the largest creditors, he informed them that he was a member of a firm of accountants, that he had obtained the proxies of a number of the principal creditors, and was in a position to secure a dividend of 10 s. if the parties to whom he applied would entrust him with their proxy, and allow him to act on their behalf. The prisoner, by those means, armed with the proxies in question, had no difficulty in getting himself appointed trustee by the creditors, and acting for them in recovering the debts of the liquidating debtor. Having succeeded in collecting the debts, he appeared to have kept every farthing of the money, and, by way of delaying the creditors, he caused advertisements to be inserted in the country newspapers to the effect that a first and final dividend of 2s. 6d. in the pound on the petitioner's estate would be payable by a firm of accountants at Peterborough. It was ascertained that no such firm was in existence, and the creditors were unable to get their dividend. The learned counsel stated that the prisoner had been engaged in this system of fraud for several years, and that creditors were perfectly helpless to
    1062
    protect themselves. In his opinion, some amendment in the Bankruptcy Law was required to provide against such proceedings."
    He agreed with the statement of the learned counsel for the prosecution; and although Mr. Sharpe appeared to be in the position of the pitcher that went too often to the well, and though he was finally convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, yet, if he came out of prison and found the law the same, he would be able to secure the same pecuniary benefits to himself without incurring the danger which by a slight imprudence he incurred on the last occasion. That the law, the operation of which was illustrated by this case, might be declared, and truly so, to be a direct incentive to fraud was apparent from the number of estates that were now wound up with no assets at all, and in which the expenses of liquidation swallowed everything up. Such a state of things fully justified the conclusion the Controller General arrived at in the Report, in which he said—
    "Having regard to the state of trade during the last 10 years, and its apparent effect on bankruptcy proper, on Scotch sequestrations, and on the better class of compositions, there should have been in the year 1873 about 2,700 arrangements and compositions, instead of 6,574; and about 5,000 instead of nearly 12,000 in the year 1879. I am unable to suggest any reasonable causes for the excessive numbers attained, except the tendency of easy liquidation to encourage at all times the growth of a too-rapidly growing opinion that it is unnecessary, or even foolish, to pay debts in full, and, in times of commercial prosperity, a large amount of hazardous speculation and consequent insolvency; whatever the cause, the financial result may be represented as a continually increasing tax on English commerce, averaging during the last five years about £20,000,000 per annum from losses by bad debts, exclusively in the class of insolvencies which are at present dealt with under the English Bankruptcy Act."
    There was another clause of the Act of 1869 which was also the source of much abuse; that was the 126th section, which dealt with compositions. In compositions, the stimulus to fraud on the part of professional persons was not so great as in liquidations; because when the composition was accepted the matter was at an end, and there was not the same opportunity of making costs and charges. The increase in the number of compositions, although very large, had accordingly not been so large as in liquidations. The compositions increased from 1,616 in 1870, to 4,809 in 1879;

    1063
    the increase being 3,193, or over 200 per cent. The liquidations increased in the same period from 2,035 to 7,167, an increase of 5,132, or 256 per cent. Under the composition system many abuses prevailed, because there was no public examination of the bankrupt, no security was taken against collusion or fraud, and there was no proper security for the composition that might be promised. He did not wonder that, in these circumstances, it had become customary amongst a certain class of people to say that it was not necessary, and it was foolish, to pay debts. It was not surprising that a learned Judge should have sarcastically observed that no man who was properly conscious of his duty to his family would ever think, under the existing law, of paying 20 s. in the pound. This scandalous state of things had arisen entirely from the assumption underlying the Act of 1869 that insolvency was a matter which solely concerned the creditors in each particular case, and that they could, and would, not only look after their own interests, but could, and would, also protect the interests of the public, which were sometimes quite different from, and inconsistent with, their own. He could show that that assumption was not justified by the facts. In the first place, in a great number of bankruptcies, the interests of creditors were too divided and too minute for them to take anything like complete and organized care of their own interests. They were generally too ready to write off their bad debts at once; and they were not inclined to throw good money after bad, especially under a system which gave them no practical assistance. The Controller General, in his supplemental Report to the Lord Chancellor for 1875, said—
    "Again, the theory that creditors desire to take any active part, either in managing the debtor's affairs, or in choosing a fit and proper person to manage them, is distinctly contradicted by their own evidence, almost daily recorded during the last 14 years in the minutes of proceedings at meetings, which show that, generally speaking, they will do no more than prove their debts and give their proxies to persons whom it is impossible they could have spontaneously chosen. As a rule, to which there are comparatively few exceptions, every creditor considers his own pecuniary interest, and finds it better to write off the amount of his debt to loss; to hand his proof and proxy to a solicitor, or accountant—who sends him forms and instructions, and whom he commonly supposes to be connected with the Court or 'acting in the matter'—and to consider any dividends he may
    1064
    receive as profit. The pecuniary question for a creditor is whether the amount he would gain by such reduction of expenses as he could hope to bring about by close supervision of proceedings during their three or four years' average continuance would remunerate him for his trouble and loss of time. If by the action of creditors present expenses could be reduced one sixth of their amount, the average advantage to each creditor would be about £1 more to a few, and less to the large majority in number.
    "All experience under the present and former Acts proves that whatever is left to the creditors is, as a rule, left undone, even in bankruptcy proper; for example, nothing could be more important under the present system of electing trustees than that they should give security, and Section 14 of the Act provides that the creditors, 'when they appoint a trustee, shall by resolution declare what security is to be given, and to whom, by the person so appointed before he enters on the office of trustee;' but general Rule 106 explains that, 'where no security is specified to be given by the trustee he shall be deemed to be personally responsible,' &c.; and in the last 2,500 bankruptcies security was required to be given by six trustees in one County Court, twice by one person in another Court, and in only six other cases in all the rest of England and Wales."
    A still more important consideration was that the interests of creditors were sometimes inconsistent with the public interests, which it was the duty of Parliament to protect. For instance, it was quite possible that the friends of a debtor might offer a larger composition than the estate would justify in order to avoid exposure; and although he would admit that the estate of a debtor was the property and concern of the creditors, and that they would be benefited by entering into such an arrangement, yet he did not admit that they had the right to compound with felony in order to increase the amount they might receive. There were a great number of cases in which a creditor desired the continuance of business relations with the bankrupt, and was, therefore, disposed to take a favourable view of his proceedings and to avoid inquiry. Even if they could suppose that the creditors were in every case willing to protect their own interests, and patriotic and spirited enough to protect the interests of the public, he would say still that the law as it stood gave them no assistance in the task they would undertake sufficient to enable them to do so successfully. A creditor with the best intentions might find himself powerless. He might be outvoted at meetings by proxies in the hands of the debtor's solicitor, or held by persons

    1065
    interested in the concealment of fraud, or the waste of the estate. Among other abuses of the proxy system, it appeared to be a common custom for certain professional trustees to seek for proxies, and to buy and sell them in order to obtain the control of estates; and the Controller General said that the practice prevailed of holding "knockouts," as they were called, or auctions of proxies, in which they would buy from each other the numbers they required to give them the control of certain estates. The result was that if a bonâ fide creditor attempted to interfere, with the object of securing a thorough investigation, he found himself outvoted and discomfited; and after one or two such experiences he was discouraged and resolved to take no trouble in the future. Having described what were the chief objections and defects of the present system, he would call the attention of the House to the provisions of the Bill by which they hoped to remedy those defects. But before doing so he must say the Bill would apply to England and Wales only. It did not apply to Ireland, for in that country it was doubtful whether the necessity existed for reform to anything like the same extent. He had received an application from the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin that Ireland might be included in the Bill; and, in reply, he had suggested that the Chamber should wait and see its provisions. If they then wished that the Bill should extend to Ireland, the Government would be glad to consider, and, as far as possible, to comply with their wishes. The Bill did not apply to Scotland, because the Scotch had a system with which they appeared to be generally satisfied, and upon which, indeed, the Act of 1869 was professedly based; but the Scotch system differed from the Act of 1869 in many important particulars, and it accordingly had not given rise to anything like the scandals which prevailed under the English system. It was suggestive to consider the main distinctions between the English and the Scotch systems. He did not consider that the Scotch system was theoretically a perfect one, though it was far better than their own. He believed it was much more costly than it was generally supposed to be, on the faith of certain evidence given before the Select Committee of 1869. The idea that the costs of bankruptcy in Scotland
    1066
    were less than in England was chiefly due to the fact that the method of calculating the proportion of the costs to the estates was different from what it was in England. In Scotland, they excluded several charges included in the English calculations, and they took account of the payments to secured creditors in reckoning the percentage of expenses to assets divided, which was not the case in England. There was very little difference between the legitimate cost of bankruptcy in Scotland and in England taken on the same basis; what difference remained arose from the fact that the average of Scotch estates was larger than the average of English estates. The main differences were these:—In the first place, under the Scotch system, a debtor was allowed to petition in bankruptcy; but in England the debtor was compelled to petition for liquidation or composition. Next, the first meeting of creditors under the Scotch system must be held not later than 12 days after the notice of adjudication, and the creditors were put in possession and control of the estate at a much earlier period than was usual in England. At the first meeting in Scotland, the creditors were at liberty either to entertain a deed of arrangement by a majority in number and four-fifths in value, in which case the deed had subsequently to receive the approval of the Court, after hearing any objection that might be made against it on the part of the creditors, or the creditors might entertain a composition. As a matter of fact, the advantages of a deed of arrangement under this system appeared so trifling that only 6 per cent of the Scotch bankruptcies were dealt with in this manner. If they entertained a composition it was to be by a majority in number and nine-tenths in value. The composition had to be confirmed at a second meeting of the creditors, which was held after the public examination of the bankrupt in every case, and after a report which was presented to the Court and to the creditors by the trustees, as to the general character of the composition. The composition had to be approved by the Court, and the Court was authorized to grant or withhold the discharge of the bankrupt, and could only grant it after hearing the objections which creditors took to it, and also the report of the trustee. The

    1067
    general effect of these provisions, as contrasted with the provisions of the English law, was that the Scotch creditors had the fullest information as to the position of the estate, and the conduct of the debtor previous to the insolvency; and, further, the Court had full and efficient control over both the arrangements for the winding up of the insolvency and the discharge of the bankrupt. On consideration of the facts both of the English and Scotch systems, he ventured to ask the assent of the House to three principles, which appeared to him to be essential to a good Bankruptcy Law. In the first place, he said that the assets of the debtor in each insolvency belonged to the creditors, and they should therefore have the promptest and fullest control over those assets, subject to the least possible interference. In the second place, he said that, as it was clear that in many cases the creditors could not give sufficient personal attention to the administration of the estate, and as they must, of necessity, appoint to represent them some person in the position of trustee, it had been proved to be desirable and necessary that this trustee should be subject to official supervision and control as regards his pecuniary administration, and that his accounts should in every case be audited by authority; and, lastly, it appeared to him that, in the interests of the public generally—in the interests of the creditors, not of each separate bankruptcy, but as a class—and in the interest of public morality, which had suffered by those bankruptcy scandals, it had been proved to be necessary that there should be some independent examination into the conduct of the debtor and the circumstances attending his insolvency, and some proper provision for the punishment of fraud and negligence, and of rash and unjustifiable speculation and extravagance. It should be recollected that the public had a direct interest in the great losses which were suffered under the existing system. The £25,000,000 a-year now lost on the profits of business were paid for in the long run by increase of prices, and thus the public paid for the frauds of trustees and bankrupts. Turning from these topics, he would now state the main provisions of the Bill. In the first place, he proposed that Sections 125 and 126 of the Act of 1869, with regard to com-
    1068
    position and liquidation, should be repealed, as they had been the source of the greatest evils. That was recommended by the Committee of the House of Commons which sat last year; it was supported by the opinion of the Incorporated Law Society, by the Bankers' Institute, by the Chambers of Commerce, and, indeed, by all who took an interest in the subject. The Bill proposed next that all proceedings should be commenced by bankruptcy petition, and that the petition should be presented either by the debtor or by a creditor. Some objection had been taken to the debtor being allowed to petition; but it was felt to be very desirable to offer some inducement to the debtor to come at the earliest possible moment to his creditors, and not to postpone his coming until he had little or no assets left. That provision was also approved by the Committee of the House of Commons, and was recommended by the Incorporated Law Society and the Bankers' Institute, and it was a provision existing in the Scotch Act. Then, immediately on adjudication, they proposed that the property should vest in an official receiver, who would be an officer attached to each Bankruptcy Court; and who would be appointed by, and responsible to, the Board of Trade Department of the State. It was provided that this official should not incur any expenses without express authority, and was to consult the creditors as to the administration of the estate. He had also a Proviso in the Bill to meet a case which was brought to his knowledge on behalf of the Association for the Protection of Wholesale Traders, who said it was of the utmost importance that the control of the creditors should begin at the earliest possible moment after the adjudication, so that the free assets or goodwill of the business should not evaporate. It was therefore provided that on the application of the creditors, or any one of their number, the Court might, if it saw fit, appoint a special receiver, who should act as the manager of the estate under the direction of the creditors, in cases where special knowledge was required to preserve the interests of the estate. It was next provided that the bankrupt should make out a full statement of his affairs and a list of his creditors within three days, but without throwing costs on the estate by the em-

    1069
    ployment of professional assistance. This would provide against a bankrupt being thrown into the hands of a professional person before coming to Court at all. The Court, however, might authorize professional assistance, if it was shown to be necessary; but without the authority of the Court the bankrupt was not to incur any such expense. If he did so, the payment of the cost incurred would be in the discretion of the creditors. It was further provided—and he believed the provision would meet with the approbation of the commercial classes—that the first meeting of creditors should be held within seven days after the adjudication. At that meeting proxies might be used, as it would be a great hardship to creditors living at a distance to be forced to attend in person. But the proxies must be on official forms, and be available only for the meeting specified on the form, and must not be given to the solicitor for the bankrupt, or to any of his partners; nor were they to be used by any person for the purpose of voting for the appointment of himself as trustee, unless it were so stated on the face of the proxy. At that meeting the creditors would have two alternatives—either to entertain a composition, or a scheme of arrangement, by resolution passed by a majority in number and three-fourths in value. If a composition was taken, it must not be loss than 5s. in the pound, and the composition or liquidation arrangement must be confirmed at a second meeting of creditors to be specially called with due notice, and at this special meeting there would have to be presented a report by the official receiver as to any proposition that was made. Then the Court would have to approve the composition or liquidation after hearing objections, as in the case of the Scotch law; and if the Court was of opinion that the proposal for liquidation or composition was not in the interest of the creditors generally, or if it was of opinion that the bankrupt had been guilty of fraud, or such misconduct as would justify the Court in withholding his discharge, it might accordingly withhold it. If, however, the first meeting of creditors did not decide to entertain the proposal for a composition or arrangement, they must then, as a second alternative, appoint a trustee who must give security, and might be objected to, and, if necessary, removed by the
    1070
    Board of Trade, on the ground of unfitness or probability of collusion with the bankrupt; and he might also be subsequently removed by the creditors by an ordinary resolution, or he might be removed by the Board of Trade for misconduct; but if he was rejected in the first instance, or dismissed afterwards at the instance of the Board of Trade, he might appeal, or any person interested might appeal, against that decision to the Court. The remuneration of a trustee would be in accordance with a Schedule to the Act in all cases under £3,000. It might be increased in special cases, and in all cases above £3,000 it would be fixed by special resolution, subject to approval by the Board of Trade. The trustee would not be allowed any additional remuneration for the performance by others of services which he ought to perform by himself. In addition to this, all bills—solicitors', auctioneers', accountants', brokers', and others—were to be taxed, and all monies over £50 must be paid into the Bank of England, and the accounts of the trustee were to be audited half-yearly by the Controller General. The effect of these proposals would, he believed, be very beneficial. The Controller reported that in liquidation proceedings only a small proportion of these bills were now taxed; and he estimated that, with the bills of receivers, auctioneers, and other agents, about £100,000 would probably be saved to the creditors by direct taxation alone, besides the probability that many charges were now made and paid which would never be attempted if taxation were the rule. He (Mr. Chamberlain) was also sanguine as to the good results that would follow from the payment into the Bank of England of monies in the hands of trustees. It was estimated that, at the present moment, there were no less than £5,000,000 in the hands of professional trustees, in many cases wrongfully, and in some fraudulently, withheld by trustees from the estates to which they belonged. It had been stated, and he had no doubt upon the matter, that if they were all called upon to produce the money, many of them would find it to their advantage to leave the country if the Bill became law. The next provision of importance to which he called attention was that every bankrupt was to be publicly examined in Court as to his conduct and affairs.

    1071
    On the close of the bankruptcy, or before with the assent of the trustee and a majority of the creditors, the bankrupt might apply for discharge, and the Court would have power to grant, refuse, or suspend such discharge, or to qualify it by any conditions as to after-acquired property—a provision which ran on all fours with one of the proposals contained in the Bill of the late Attorney General (Sir John Volker). The Court might also order a prosecution, if it thought fit, and commit the bankrupt for trial, without applying to a magistrate. These were clauses which, in his opinion, were vital to the Bill. Nothing else would secure the punishment of misconduct or provide a sufficient inducement to honest dealing, and to a full disclosure of his affairs by the debtor. The only objection which he thought could be suggested was that this enforced publicity would press hardly upon the man whose insolvency was entirely the result of misfortune. Let them consider, however, for a moment, what was the position of an insolvent. He was a man who sought relief from obligations which he had voluntarily contracted, and who asked the Courts to impose on a minority of his creditors the acceptance of terms less than their just and legal rights. Surely a person in this position was one from whom explanation and information might be most properly demanded. It was right that he should be compelled to show how he had got into a position which compelled him to ask for this exceptional relief. He (Mr. Chamberlain) had always thought that the position of a bankrupt might in some respects be compared to that of a man who had lost his ship. In all such cases a public inquiry was held, and if the loss were duo to misconduct or negligence the captain was properly punished. If it was shown that the calamity was the result of unavoidable misfortune, his sword was returned to him if he were in the Navy, or his certificate if he were in the Merchant Service, and he left the Court acquitted and absolved in the face of all men. It was, no doubt, desirable that the bankrupt who had been unfortunate, or who had suffered, without any fault of his own, from the fraud of others, should not carry with him in after life anything in the nature of a stigma on his character. But surely the honest debtor would be the
    1072
    first to rejoice at the opportunity of showing in the most open manner that he was not to blame; the more public the inquiry the more complete would be his exoneration, and the only man who had cause to fear such an inquiry was the man whom it would show to have been guilty of misconduct, in which case a stigma would properly attach to him. Under existing arrangements, where there was no sufficient investigation, there would always be a suspicion of improper conduct; and he (Mr. Chamberlain) believed that the provisions of the Bill would be hailed with satisfaction by all who were in a position to prove their innocence as making a distinction between them and the fraudulent or speculative trader. But, as a further provision, and as a premium on good conduct, it was provided that the Court might also, if it was proved that the debts of the bankrupt were fully paid, or when the Court was satisfied that the bankruptcy had been caused by misfortune and not by misconduct, annul the adjudication, and thereby rehabilitate the bankrupt, and relieve him from the stigma and effects of bankruptcy as regarded civil disabilities. In cases where this was not done, bankruptcy would involve civil disabilities. In the case of a Peer, he would be disqualified from sitting in the House of Lords until his bankruptcy was ended. In the case of a Member of the House of Commons, a mayor, an alderman, a member of a local corporation or school board, a town clerk, or clerk of the peace, or any other person holding an official or municipal office, he would at once have to vacate his office, and he would not be re-eligible for the term of seven years afterwards. Magistrates were dealt with by the Crown. He must now draw the special attention of the House to the duties and position of the official receivers created by the Bill, whose functions were somewhat novel and most important. They were to be officers of the Court, but would be appointed by, and subject to, the authority of the Board of Trade. Where possible, the existing
    Registrars might be utilized for this office; and their duties would be, firstly, to protect the interests of the public by inquiring into and exposing and providing for the punishment of fraud, recklessness, and extravagance; secondly, to protect the interests of the creditors at

    1073
    an early stage by obtaining and giving information which experience showed that the creditors were often unable to obtain for themselves; and, lastly, to act as interim receivers until a trustee was appointed. As the Bill provided for the first meeting to be held in seven days, it would be obvious that the shortest possible time would elapse before the creditors had full control through their own trustee of the property and estate. Where, however, the creditors did not desire to appoint a trustee of their own, they might elect the receiver to continue the winding-up and to act as trustee. These were the ordinary duties of the official receiver in all those cases in which it might be hoped that the assets would be sufficient to induce the creditors to take some interest in the matter, and to be willing to look after their own affairs. In such circumstances, the official receiver might be compared to the Queen's Proctor in divorce cases, intervening only when necessary to protect public interests. But the statistics of insolvency showed that there was a large number of estates with no assets, or with assets so small as not to induce the least trouble on the part of any creditor. It was here that the greatest scandals arose, for those estates fell an easy prey to the professional wreckers, who took everything in costs and expenses. It seemed desirable to deal with them separately; and accordingly it was proposed that in the case of small estates, under £300, where the interests of individual creditors were necessarily exceedingly small, the receivers should act as trustees, and wind up the estates as quickly as possible, unless the creditors, by resolution, decided to elect a trustee of their own. The position, then, was this—that in the case of ordinary estates the creditors were to elect their own trustee, unless they specially desired to have the receiver; while in small estates the receiver was to act as a matter of course, unless the creditors specially desired to appoint someone else. The recommendations of the Committee of the House of Commons and of the trading community in favour of the allocation of a special commercial Judge to bankruptcy business would be provided for by the Bill. The London Court was to be merged in the High Court of Justice, and the Registrars would act as chief clerks. The appeal in London cases
    1074
    would be from the Bankruptcy Judge to the Court of Appeal, and in country cases from the County Courts to the Court of Appeal, with the Judge in Bankruptcy sitting as one of its members, so that his special experience might be available for all cases. There were some further incidental provisions in the Bill limiting the rights of bill holders, providing for the administration in bankruptcy of the estates of deceased persons, amending the law with regard to onerous property, and others to which he need not on that occasion more specifically refer. He feared that he had dwelt at too great length upon this Bill, the details of which, however, he hoped he had made sufficiently clear to the House. Perhaps, in conclusion, the House would permit him to estimate the results of the changes which this Bill, if it became law, would bring about in the future. In the first place, with regard to economical administration, it would be seen that it throw upon the bankrupt estate a new charge—namely, the cost of the official receiver, and the increased charge of the Controller's audit department. They provided for that, in the first place, by the interest which would accrue upon the balance which, under existing circumstances, was detained by the trustees; but under the new system would be lodged in the Bank of England. They expected dividends would be more quickly paid, so that the unpaid balances would not be so large as at present; but, on a moderate estimate, the payments by trustees into the bank on that account would always amount to something like £800,000 or £1,000,000, and the interest on that would be at least £25,000 a-year, which they could always rely upon. The remainder of the amount necessary would be provided for by a fixed fee charge in the case of small estates, and by a small percentage in the case of large estates, varying from 5 per cent on estates under £300, but gradually decreasing until it amounted to only ½ per cent on estates of £3,000 and over. When it was remembered that the actual cost of administering bankrupts' estates, which varied according to their amount, was, on an average, in 1871 31½ per cent, and in 1879 44·9 per cent, it would be seen that the small percentage in question would be merely nominal, for the sum was so small that it would not increase in any

    1075
    appreciable way the burden upon estates. Against this small increase they had to set the following—that the bankrupt would not be allowed to incur unnecessary charges before he brought his estate before the Court, the trustees would have to do their own work, and not pay others; and the charges would be on a fixed scale, and would not be left to their own discretion. Every bill would be taxed by the Court, and not left to the discretion of a trustee. They would be able to save considerably by consolidating the advertisements, and the expenses under that head. They would do away with certain proceedings, and save fees which were at present leviable in Bankruptcy Courts; and altogether he was confident they would reduce the legitimate expenses by 10 to 15 per cent. This would be the saving on legitimate expenses; but the gain would be much larger by putting an end to the illegitimate expenses, which, under the present system, swallowed up so large a percentage of the estates. To show the evil of the present system, he might inform the House that, whereas in 1871 the number of estates where there was no dividend was 34 per cent of the whole number of bankruptcies, that number had risen to 46 per cent in 1878, and that the number of estates where the dividend was under 1s. in the pound had risen from 45 per cent in 1872 to 61 per cent in 1879. It was impossible to doubt that the amount of the dividend would have been very much larger in a vast number of cases had it not been for the illegitimate expenses incurred by the trustee. He was afraid that it was not possible to make bankruptcy a satisfactory proceeding under any circumstances; but, by a judicious amendment of the law, fraudulent trading might be largely checked and the tone of commercial morality might be greatly raised, while honest traders would be induced to look after their own interests. He claimed for this Bill that it was at least an honest and a practical attempt to deal with a great and increasing evil. He put it to the House that the matter was not in any sense a Party question, for the interests of commerce affected all of them, and were too great to be subordinated to Party interests. This was not a Party Bill, as he had shown in acknowledging the assistance which he had derived with regard to it from the
    1076
    labours of the late Administration. He trusted, therefore, that the proposals this Bill contained would obtain not merely a fair, but even a favourable consideration at the hands of the House. On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, he should adhere to the main principles of the Bill as he had explained them; but he should welcome suggestions from all sides of the House that the experience of hon. Members might enable them to suggest as in any way tending to amend the details of the measure. He ventured to hope that even that Session, crowded as it was with other and important and urgent Business, would not be suffered to pass without something being done to meet the convenience and the pressing claims of the commercial classes in respect of this subject. They boasted, not without reason, that they were the greatest commercial nation in the world; but they had the worst commercial legislation of any civilized country. He appealed to the House, therefore, to make a beginning of reform on this important subject, so that this Parliament might do something to remove a just cause of national discredit and a fruitful source of unnecessary loss and suffering.
    SIR JOHN HOLKER, as one who had taken considerable interest in the question, said, it was with great pleasure he rose to acknowledge the ability with which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had stated the evils of the present system, and for the excellent explanation he had given of the proposals contained in the Bill before the House; and he quite agreed with him that the question should not be treated in any way as a Party one. It was an unfortunate fact that all the attempts that had hitherto been made to improve their Bankruptcy Law had more or less failed; but, certainly, the Act of 1869 had been generally regarded as having effected a considerable advance in the reform of the law by abolishing officialism in connection with bankruptcy proceedings, and by placing the management of the bankrupt's estate in the hands of his creditors. He was afraid that this Bill would be a retrograde step in that respect, inasmuch as it proposed to take the management of such estates out of the hands of the creditors, and to revive officialism. He was glad to see that the opinions and labours of the late Govern-

    1077
    ment upon the subject had been to a considerable extent made use of by the right hon. Gentleman, and that the suggestions of the Committee last year, of which he (Sir John Holker) was a Member, had also been adopted. Having listened to the statement of the provisions of the Bill as far as he could follow them, it seemed to him they would, on the whole, be found satisfactory. It would be a satisfactory Bill if it did nothing beyond repealing the two clauses referred to of the present Act; but he begged to point out that it was desirable to make the provisions of the measure as simple as possible. He could not see that if a man was not able to pay his debts there should be more than two alternatives—namely, that he should become bankrupt and pass through the Court, or else give a composition to his creditors.
    MR. JOHN BRIGHTappealed to the House to permit at once the introduction of the Bill, so as to allow of its being considered during the Recess, and that would ultimately facilitate the discussion of it. He could assure the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) that every opportunity would be given for canvassing the measure.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law of Bankruptcy, and that Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, and Mr. ASHLEY do prepare and bring it in.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill
    137.]

    CHURCHWARDENS (ADMISSION) BILL.
    (Mr. Monk, Sir Gabriel Goldney.)

    [BILL 47.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Monk.)
    Debate arising;
    And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till Monday 25th April.
    House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock till Monday 25th April.