Commons Sitting of 28 July 1881

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Contagious Diseases Acts [No. 351].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Rending—Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, Amendment [226].
Committee—Report—Summary Procedure (Scotland) Amendment [216].
Considered as amended—Land Law (Ireland) [225]; Public Works Loans * [211].
Withdrawn—Lunacy Law Amendment (recomm.) [192]; Poor Removal (Ireland)* [89].

QUESTIONS.

  METROPOLIS—THE PARKS—COST OF WATERING HYDE, ST. JAMES'S, AND THE GREEN PARKS.
  MR. LOWTHERasked the First Commissioner of Works, What is the
  16
  amount paid annually to Messrs. Mead and Company for watering Rotten Row; and, whether there can be furnished to the House a detailed copy of the contract with that firm for the performance of this duty, including when such contract was made, and the duration of the contract?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVER, in reply, said, that the contract for watering Hyde, St. James's, and the Green Parks for the present year was £790. The contract was only taken for a year, and was open to competition.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF ARMY OFFICERS.
  MAJOR GENERAL BURNABY MAJOR GENERAL BURNABY, who read his Question in full, amid considerable interruption, asked the Secretary of State for War, If the following statement is substantially correct, viz.:—
  "Many Colonels have asked the Secretary of State for War to define their exact position and income on compulsory retirement, inasmuch as they wish to understand at once, whether it is better for them to hold office and appointment up to the latest date offered, or to retire on their 59th birthday. The only reply, so far, has been that on their compulsory retirement they will be informed of the amount of pension, &c. which will be granted;"
  and, if he can state to the House what will be the exact financial position of such of those officers who held saleable commissions on the 1st of November 1871, when their time comes for compulsory retirement from their Regiment or from the Army?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I am sorry the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have taken the trouble to read his Question. It is one of a very ordinary character, and appears in full on the Paper. In reply to the first part of the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to say that the paragraph in the newspaper which he has quoted does not state the whole case. Any colonel, who may either retire at once or wait until he is compulsorily retired, can ascertain exactly the retired pay he can now get, and the formula for calculating the rate of compulsorily retired pay; but it may be impossible in many cases to calculate now the exact amount of the latter, which will depend on the circumstances at the time of his retirement with reference to non-employment, and also to the prospects of reaching the

  17
  major-general's list. I have given instructions that all the information possible may be given to colonels who apply, to assist them in making their election. As to the second part of the hon. and gallant Member's Question, I can only say that the exact position of colonels on retirement is clearly defined in Articles 972 and 978 of the new Warrant. No rights under the Act of 1871 are affected in any way.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—THE SPANISH CUSTOM HOUSE.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, since the accession of the Sagasta Cabinet to power in Spain, any fresh representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government as to the system under which enormous fines are imposed by the local custom-houses in cases of errors, however trivial, in ships' papers; and, if so, with what result?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, on the 24th of February last, Mr. West inclosed a copy of a Note from the new Minister of State, stating that the representations which Her Majesty's Minister had made to the late Spanish Government on the subject had been referred to the proper Department; and the tone of that Note was such as to lead to the hope that some satisfactory arrangement might ultimately be come to. In several recent cases fines imposed by the local authorities have been remitted by the Spanish Government. This subject will be dealt with in the course of any commercial negotiations between Great Britain and Spain.

  IRELAND—LOANS, &c.—THE RETURN.
  MR. LOWTHERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When a Return, ordered on the 12th February 1880,
  "Of all moneys charged on the Consolidated Fund, or voted by Parliament, or advanced out of the Consolidated Fund or Public Revenues since the Union, to or for the benefit of Ireland, distinguishing what sums have been given and what sums have been lent, and how much of the money lent has been repaid and how much forgiven, and what remains due,"
  will be given to the House?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, as I have already stated in a reply to a Question from the hon. Member, the Return is one which involves a great
  18
  amount of labour in its preparation, and the terms of the Order are so wide as to leave much discretion to those who have to prepare the figures. I regret that, owing to the pressure of work during the Session, the Return has not yet been completed. I hope, however, to be able to present it before the House rises, so that it may be distributed during the Recess.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the county and sub-inspectors of the Londonderry Royal Irish Constabulary force do not receive the same pay and allowances as the officers in the same position at Belfast, though the Act 37 and 38 Vic. c. 80, s. 8, places both towns on the same footing as regards requiring extra expense on the force; whether the ordinary constables of both forces do not receive the same amount of extra pay; and, whether a recommendation in favour of the increase of pay of Londonderry officers was not made by the late and. present Inspector General?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the Royal Irish Constabulary of Belfast and Londonderry were appointed under similar Acts of Parliament as regarded pay and allowances, and the duties of both forces were precisely similar. The men of Belfast and Londonderry received the same rates of extra pay and allowances; but the officers of Londonderry did not receive the special allowances which had been granted to the officers in Belfast. The late and the present Inspector General had made recommendations in favour of the increase of pay of the officers quartered in Londonderry, and those recommendations had been forwarded to the Treasury. He must refer the hon. Member to the Treasury for any further answer.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PRESCRIBING THE CITY OF WATERFORD.
  MR. R. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the charge of Lord Justice Deasy

  19
  to the Waterford City Grand Jury, in which he said—
  "I am very glad to tell you that your labours on this occasion will be very light. There is one bill only to be sent up to you; it is a case in which a young lad or boy is charged with larceny. He was returned for trial yesterday, and there is nothing on the Constabulary Reports, no serious offence in the city; and, when you have disposed of that bill, which will not occupy much of your valuable time, you may return to your homes;"
  and, if he still maintains the necessity of declaring the city a prescribed district?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had no doubt that the Charge of Lord Justice Deasy to the Waterford City Grand Jury was correctly reported. He (Mr. W. E. Forster), however, was still obliged to say that the Executive did not feel that they could cancel the prescription of the City of Waterford.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—JAMES KILLEN, CARDENSTOWN, CO. HEATH.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the eviction of James Killen, a tenant on the estate of Mark Antony Levinge, at Cardenstown, county Meath, for non-payment of one year's rent due in respect of the disastrous season of 1879, such rent having been raised in 1872 from £64 8s. 1d. to £100: whether, since the date of the eviction, three policemen have been kept continuously on the premises; whether it is the fact that the district is and has at all times been most peaceable and orderly; and, whether he will state upon what grounds and at whose request these policemen were stationed there, and at whose expense they have since been maintained?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the person referred to in the Question had been evicted for non-payment of one year's rent. He believed it was a fact that such rent had been raised in 1872 from £64 8s. 1d. to £100. Since the date of the eviction three policemen had been kept continuously on the premises in order to protect the caretaker, against whom great animosity was evinced. He was informed by the police that the landlord made an effort to settle amicably with Killen, offering a reduction in the amount due; but the tenant refused it. It was not considered safe to withdraw the police yet.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: The part of the Question with reference to the district being peaceable and orderly has not been answered.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Well, I cannot think that can be the case when I find that the life of this caretaker is endangered, and it is necessary to have police to protect him.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: May I ask if it is the practice at Dublin Castle to consider a district disturbed when there has been no disturbance in it for five years?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I think the hon. and learned Member must be aware that there is danger in such a case as this, where a very hostile feeling is believed—
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: Believed! Will the right hon. Gentleman state on what facts it is believed to be necessary?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Would the hon. and learned Member wish us to wait till the man was either injured or killed?
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANgave Notice that next day he would ask on what grounds the Government had determined to act in this way in a county in which there had been no crime or outrage for many years?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I will answer the Question at once. I did not say we had grounds. What I said was that we had reason to believe that the man's life was in danger, and that it was our duty to protect him. I do not think we are called on to give the exact reasons for these proceedings. Acting under our sense of responsibility, we believe that the man would not be safe unless he was protected.
  MR. REDMOND: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to state that the police were maintained in this instance at the expense of the district?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: No.
  MR. REDMOND: At the landlords'?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: They are maintained in the same way as the other police, at the public expense.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: They are maintained at the expense of the British taxpayer.

  POOR LAW RELIEF (IRELAND)—THE SWINFORD UNION.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

  21
  of Ireland, What is the amount of the loans obtained by the vice guardians of the Swinford Union, on the security of the rateable property of the union, and the purposes to which these loans are applied?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the amount was £5,894, and the money was expended as part of the ordinary funds of the Union in the administration of the Poor Relief Acts. No reservation was made as to the application of the money to any specific purpose.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—SERGEANT MAJORS OF MILITIA.
  SIR JOHN HAY (for Sir HERBERT MAXWELL)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Sergeant Majors of Militia battalions will receive the rank of Warrant Officers in common with those of Line battalions; and, if not, whether he does not recognise some cause for dissatisfaction in the rank being withheld from Militia Sergeant Majors who have served in nearly every case much longer than those of the Line battalions?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the right hon. and gallant Baronet, I have to say that those Militia Sergeant Majors who are still serving under their Army engagements will be eligible for the position of Warrant Officer with the rank of Sergeant Major, and that, if confirmed in those appointments and ranks, they will receive the pay allowed for similar positions in the Line battalions of the territorial regiments, being available for all Army duties within the regimental district. But it is not intended to alter the position of those noncommissioned officers of the Militia who are not now serving under their Army engagements; they are in receipt of pensions for their past Army service in addition to their pay, and I cannot admit that they have any cause whatever for dissatisfaction.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— INSPECTOR SMITH, MOVILLE, CO. DONEGAL.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any complaints have been made against Inspector Smith, R.I.C., of Moville, county Donegal, by the men under his command; whether there is
  22
  any objection to grant an inquiry into the complaints alleged; and, if the Government would have any objection to furnish a Return of the duty done by Inspector Smith since his appointment to Moville?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, some complaints had been made against the officer referred to by a sub-constable under his command. The sub-constable subsequently withdrew them in writing. Had they not been withdrawn, they would have been investigated by a Constabulary Court appointed for that purpose. He did not think it necessary to furnish a Return of the duty done by Inspector Smith since his appointment to Moville. He had been in the full performance of his duties except on two occasions of a month each—once on account of sick leave, and once from inability to perform night work.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PATRICK SLATTERY, A PRISONER UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Patrick Slattery who has just been arrested under the Coercion Act in county Clare is the same Patrick Slattery who recently gave evidence at the Parliamentary investigation into the murder of a farmer at Bodyke identifying a member of the constabulary force as having struck the fatal blow?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; he is the same person.
  MR. O'DONNELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if the arrest of a witness is intended to encourage the giving of evidence in that country?
  [No reply was given to the Question.]

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—GUN LICENCES.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. John Kelly, Currowinna, Ballyforan, Ballinasloe, has, on April 26th, been refused a gun licence by Mr. Paul, resident magistrate of his district, although he brought before Mr. Paul recommendations from three respectable gentlemen of his neighbourhood as to character, &c.;

  23
  whether Mr. Kelly, when the late Arms Act came into force, delivered up his gun to the police, and in every way complied with the requirements of the Law; whether Mr. Paul said he could not grant him (Kelly) a licence unless he was recommended by two local magistrates, and on its being pointed out to him that there was only one local magistrate in Mr. Kelly's district, and as he was not acquainted with him, he would not therefore recommend him, Mr. Paul then said that he should get a recommendation from the Chief Constable; whether the Chief Constable, on being asked if he knew of any reason why Mr. Kelly should not have a gun, replied that he did not know of anything against his character, but that he would not recommend him; whether he is aware that, in consequence of Mr. Kelly not having his gun, he will lose a considerable part of his crop, as there is a rookery within a quarter of a mile of his farm; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will consider the necessity of the application, and give instructions to the local authorities to grant him a licence?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, it was true that that John Kelly, of Currowinna, Ballinasloe, had been refused a gun licence by Mr. Paul, the resident magistrate of his district. His application was opposed by the parish priest of the district and the Constabulary. Two local magistrates who were on the bench declined to recommend him; and the licensing officer consequently declined, on his own responsibility, to grant him a licence, and he (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not intend to interfere with his discretion.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MICHAEL DONOVAN, A PRISONER UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. DALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that on July 14th Mr. Michael Donovan, of Grenagh, near the city of Cork, was arrested at Blarney, Cork, under a warrant charging him
  "With having been guilty as accessory of a crime punishable "by law, that is to say, unlawfully assembling with others by night, and maliciously assaulting dwelling-houses;"
  24
  whether he is aware that the aforesaid Mr. Donovan is a man of nearly sixty years of age, with a large family dependent upon him, and is one of the most extensive farmers in the vicinity; whether he has inquired whether the alleged charge against Mr. Donovan is accurate, and that it does not arise from vindictiveness; whether his attention has been called to Mr. Justice Lawson's words, at the Summer Assizes held at Cork on July 21st, in addressing the Grand Jury of the City of Cork:—
  "The best address that a Judge can make to a Grand Jury on an occasion like the present, is when he has very little to say, which I am glad to say is my condition on the present occasion. Your business is almost nil. Two cases stand over from last assizes, and one very small one is to be sent before you which constitute the entire criminal business for these assizes of the City of Cork;"
  and, whether, in face of the state of things deposed to by Mr. Justice Lawson, he still maintains the necessity of continuing to deprive the citizens of Cork of their constitutional liberties?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the ground of the arrest of Michael Donovan at Blarney, County Cork, was correctly stated in the Question to be "assembling with others by night and maliciously assaulting dwelling-houses.'" Donovan was 55 years of age, and had a large family depending upon him; but he was a well-to-do farmer. The Government were satisfied of the reasonableness of the suspicion against him before deciding on his arrest. With reference to the Charge of Judge Law-son to the Grand Jury of Cork City, he should observe that his Lordship's remarks on the absence of criminal business were considerably modified by the statement that the Recorder had a short time before tried nearly all the prisoners in custody.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CUMULATIVE SENTENCES.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Hodnett, junior, has been found guilty, at the Petty Sessions, by Mr. Plunkett, the stipendiary magistrate, of six different offences committed in connection with the attempted rescue of Mr. Mahony, and sentenced for each offence to a month's imprisonment, making six months alto-

  25
  gether; whether one of the results of this cumulative sentence will be that Mr. Hodnett will have to sleep on a plank bed during the whole period of these six months; and, whether he approves of the infliction of cumulative sentences of imprisonment by Courts of Petty Sessions in Ireland?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that Mr. Hodnett, junior, on the 4th June, was the leader of a riotous mob at Clonakilty which rescued Mr. O'Mahony from the police, he having been arrested under the Coercion Act. Hodnett was convicted at the petty sessions on the 1st July for assaulting two constables on that occasion, and was sentenced to one month's imprisonment for each assault. The police were again attacked on the 7th June by a mob, led by Hodnett, and he was convicted of assaulting four constables on that occasion, and was sentenced to one month's imprisonment for each assault. The effect of the sentence was that he would have to sleep on a plank bed for one month out of the six months only. It was not his (Mr. Forster's) business to approve or disapprove of these sentences, as the magistrates acted legally, and he could not review their decisions.
  MR. PARNELLasked who had the authority to review them?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, and the Queen in England; but they only interfered in very rare cases.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF MARGARET COLEMAN.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the period for which Mr. Clifford Lloyd originally committed the woman Margaret Coleman to prison in default of finding bail?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that Margaret Coleman was ordered to find two sureties in £ 10, and herself in £20, to be of good behaviour for six months. The order was made out at petty sessions and was legal. In default, she was actually imprisoned from the 28th June to the 8th of July, when she was released on bail.
  MR. PARNELLasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the order was a legal one, being made out of petty sessions, and as having been passed by one magistrate only?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW), in reply, said, it was quite legal.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT— TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  MR. BORLASE (for Mr. LYULPH STANLEY)asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, in consideration of the inadequacy of the sum now voted by Parliament for Teachers' Pensions, under Art. 118 of the Education Code, and the consequent distress among the older teachers, who entered upon their duties between 1846 and 1862 in the hope of retiring pensions, under the then existing Minutes of Council, the Government are prepared to recommend a larger vote than the present sum of £6,500 per annum; and, if so, to what extent?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I should personally be very glad to be relieved of an anxious and painful duty in awarding pensions to a limited number of teachers out of the large number who annually apply for assistance from a fund which is totally inadequate. But, after the Report made to this House by Mr. Whitwell's Committee in 1872, I feel that I should not be warranted in holding out hopes that the Government will be able to increase the present Vote. I will promise, however, that during the Recess the whole question shall receive very careful consideration.

  NAVY—THE COASTGUARD SERVICE.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he would state whether Coastguard Boatmen of good character whose pay was less than £120 a year, and who were compelled to retire because of the reorganisation of their department and abolition of office, are or are not equally entitled to compensation for loss of office under the Superannuation Act of 1859 with the higher paid servants of the same department?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, the Treasury had always laid down a distinction between public servants paid by salary and those paid by daily wages. They granted compensation on the abolition of office to the salaried class, and not to those who were paid by daily wages. He did not think there was the slightest

  27
  chance that the Treasury would reconsider their policy, for which, he thought, there were good and obvious reasons.

  ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT—HOSPITAL QUARTERMASTERS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that the Director General of the Army Medical Department represented to the authorities that the title of Hospital Quartermaster is most distasteful to the officers of the Army Hospital Corps, and recommended its abolition or withdrawal; whether he is aware that very many officers of the Army Hospital Corps, not only prefer their present titles as Captains and Lieutenants of Orderlies of the Army Hospital Corps, even though remaining such entails remaining on their old rate of pay and pension, but that they have petitioned the authorities to this effect; whether, if he is unaware of these facts, he will inquire why these representations have not been submitted to him; and, whether, meanwhile, he will order that no officer of the Army Hospital Corps shall be gazetted Hospital Quartermaster pending further inquiry?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I have to say that the Director General of the Army Medical Department is himself "one of the authorities" at the War Office with whom I am in constant confidential communication, and that I must decline to state what advice he may from time to time give to me. I must, at the same time, beg the hon. Member not to assume from this answer that his Question is well founded. As to the second part of the Question, I find that two of these officers who belonged to the old class of apothecaries, and one lieutenant of orderlies, have applied to retain their former titles and conditions of service. These three applications have been received since my former answer to the hon. Member, and have been submitted to me in due course. I have not yet decided what action to take upon them. Other applications to retain the old title, but not the old emoluments, have been received; but I have no intention to entertain them. I do not propose to delay the gazetting of the hospital quartermasters.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT—THE HULME TRUST.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Vice President of the Council, What is the position of the scheme for the Hulme Trust?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I am glad to say that this important scheme has now passed through all its stages, and only awaits the next meeting of Council, when it will be submitted for Her Majesty's sanction. On receiving this it will become law.

  POST OFFICE—POSTMASTERS— DISTRIBUTION OF WAR OFFICE CIRCULAR.
  MR. BURTasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that all Postmasters are obliged to distribute papers and pamphlets showing the advantages of the Army, and inviting young men to apply to them for forms of application to enlist; and, if so, whether Postmasters are informed before their appointment that, in addition to the regular duties of their own office, they are to distribute papers of this description?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, I have been asked by my right hon. Friend—who is compelled by indisposition to be absent—to answer this Question. Placards and circulars connected with the Army and other Government Departments have, on many occasions, been exhibited and distributed at post offices. The Post Office was asked last year by the War Office to have the notices referred to in the Question exhibited; but the arrangement only came into force on the 1st of this month. It is not thought that the exhibiting of a placard, and the handing of a small pamphlet across the counter, can appreciably increase the work of the postmasters. At any rate, I learn from my right hon. Friend that no complaints have reached the Post Office on the subject.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— TRIAL BY JURY.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the Report in the "Times" of 20th July of a case tried

  29
  on the Munster Circuit by Judge Barry, which contains the following words:—
  "The jury finally announced that there was no chance of their agreeing. Mr. Justice Barry—Well, I hear that with the deepest sorrow; indeed, I might safely say I hear it more in sorrow than in anger. I am sorry for the sake of the country that I have been so long associated with in various ways; I am sorry for the sake of trial by jury, an institution which I prize a great deal more than any of you on the jury can prize it. Let it be understood that the question which is submitted to you being absolutely conceded, and you being sworn on your oaths on the gospel of God to find a verdict according to the evidence, and that evidence not being impeached, the jury of the county of Cork have under the circumstances refused to agree to a verdict. Gentlemen, I have no option but to discharge you;"
  and, whether he intends to take steps to remedy this state of affairs?
  MR. HEALYwished to ask, before the Question was answered, Whether the Grand Jury at Sligo Assizes had thrown out the bills against Sub-Constables Donnelly and M'Knight and a process server for murder, against Sub-Constable Hayes for manslaughter, and had found true bills against three peasants for riot; and, whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to take any steps to remedy this state of affairs?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), said, it was quite correct that "no bills" were found in the one case, and "true bills" in the other. In reply to the noble Viscount (Viscount Folkestone), there was no reason to doubt that Mr. Justice Barry had used the words attributed to him. But he need not tell the noble Viscount that the Irish Government had no power to control a jury one way or the other.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE VOLUNTEER REVIEW AT WINDSOR —THE REPORTS.
  MR. MACLIVERasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will lay upon the Table the Reports presented to him by the commanding officers at the recent review at Windsor of the Volunteers?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I may state that I have received the Report of the general commanding one of the two Army corps, but not the other. When the latter reaches me I will consider whether I can lay them both on the Table; but I do not anticipate any objection.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—CATTLE PLAGUE IN RUSSIA.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to the very serious and widespread outbreak of cattle plague in the Baltic provinces of Russia; and, whether every precaution has been taken against the possibility of its importation into this Country?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, no reports have been received of an unusual prevalence of cattle plague (rinderpest) in the Baltic Provinces of Russia. The disease has a constant existence in Russia, and, consequently, the importation of animals from that country is entirely prohibited. The importation of cattle from Germany and Belgium is also prohibited. Siberian plague, which is a form of anthrax, and quite distinct from Cattle Plague, is now prevalent in the Provinces of Novgorod, St. Petersburg, Dorpat, and Riga; but, considering that no animals can be introduced into this country from Russia, and no cattle from Germany and Belgium, there appears little or no probability of the introduction of any contagious cattle disease from Russia into this country.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS —THE BOSTON ELECTION.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the case that all the Crown prosecutions for bribery and corrupt practices at Boston have failed in consequence of the juries refusing to convict; and, if he proposes to take any further steps to vindicate the Law?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he should take no further steps to vindicate the law, which, in this case, would take its course.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL—THE 42ND SECTION AND SECTION 24 OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT, 1870.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the repeal of section 21 of the Land Act of 1870 by the 42nd section of the Land Law Bill, in putting an end to the powers of the Court for Land Cases Reserved created by the former section and since

  31
  merged by the Judicature Act in the Court of Appeal, ipso facto annuls the code of rules devised by that Court under section 31 of the said Act, and which form the machinery for the working of the whole of that Act; whether the repeal of section 24 involves the repeal of section 31; whether, if said rules will not continue in force, it is not desirable to make some provision for their revival; and, in case they should continue in force, what tribunal will in future have the power of rescinding, annulling, or adding to them, pursuant to the provisions of section 31 already referred to; and, whether it is not desirable to vest the powers created by section 31 in the Land Commission in future?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW), in reply, said, the repeal of the section in question did not in any respect annul the Code of Rules made by the Court for Land Cases Reserved under Section 31 of the Land Act. The Rules would still remain in force. The authority for altering them would be the Court of Appeal. It was, however, under consideration whether it might not be convenient to transfer that power to the Land Commission.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), Whether it is his intention to proceed with his Motion with reference to the third reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, in reply, said, most certainly, if the opportunity arose; but he did not wish to interpose his Motion between that for the third reading and the Motion of which Notice had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) to recommit the Bill. If that Motion was not made, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) would make his.

  TURKEY (FINANCE, &c.)—TURKISH BONDHOLDERS.
  MR. BUXTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is within the cognizance and has the approval of Her Majesty's Government that a Member of this House is to proceed shortly to Constantinople in the interests and as the representative
  32
  of Turkish Bondholders; and, whether the policy of Her Majesty's Government, with regard to the many questions still pending with the Porte as to reforms in Asia Minor and other matters of Imperial interest, will be in any way affected by this attempt to advance the interests of a special and limited class of speculators?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, no notification has been made to Her Majesty's Government, who have not offered any opinion on the matter. The policy of Her Majesty's Government will not be affected in any way.

  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. BOLTONasked the Prime Minister, If he can say whether the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill is likely to come on this Session; and, if so, at what time?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have, Sir, to apologize for asking more time yet in regard to this question; but if my hon. Friend will be kind enough to give me one or two days, I hope to be able to make a positive statement on the subject. It may be my duty on Monday to make a proposal to the House in regard to the course of Public Business, and I shall then state our intentions with reference to the Bill.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—TREATY ENGAGEMENTS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is in the power of the Government, without the sanction of Parliament, to enter into Treaty engagements with a Foreign State binding this Country for a certain term of years not to increase the duties on goods imported from such State into the United Kingdom; and, inasmuch as the engagements taken by this Country towards France in 1860 were sanctioned by Parliament in consideration of the Treaty engagements contracted by France towards this Country, and as the Treaty has been denounced by France, whether Her Majesty's Government will undertake not to enter into a renewal of our engagements towards France, or to accept any variation of the engagements of France towards this Country, without the sanction of Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I do not believe, with regard to the first portion of the Question, that there are any absolute limits to the power of the Crown to bind the country; but, practically, it is the well-understood usage—and no Government, I apprehend, would depart from it—that where a question of our own fiscal arrangements, or a question of money is involved, invariably the jurisdiction of Parliament is reserved, and covenants of the Treaties are made conditional. That was the case in regard to the Treaty of 1860. Very important changes on our part in the Customs and Excise duties of the country were part of the stipulations of that Treaty, and, therefore, as a matter of course, it came before Parliament. The case is now different. It is quite evident that, under the present negotiations, if they should land us in a Treaty, as I hope may be the case, provided the terms are satisfactory, at the very least, the principal matter would really be the duties to be levied in France; and it is very doubtful whether any question relating to duties in this country would be involved. If it were to be so, the matter would, of course, have to be laid before Parliament. If it were not so, I am not sure that we could undertake in the terms here specified—
  "Not to enter into a renewal of our engagements towards France, or to accept any variation of the engagements of France towards this country without the sanction of Parliament."
  I think that would be an engagement which is not supported by precedent, and which would be of inconvenient consequences. We are under great responsibility in this matter to be sure as to the ground under our feet—as to the state of public opinion, and the views of those interested and competent to judge. I do not believe we are likely to do wrong in that respect, or to go in advance of public opinion; but I do not think we can enter into any engagement in the matter at the present moment.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the object of his Question was this. In 1860 it was necessary that the Treaty should be laid before Parliament, inasmuch as the duties in England had to be lowered; but if an arrangement were now made with France that the existing duties should be retained for a certain number of years against new variations to be introduced into the French Tariff,
  34
  it was perfectly plain that the conditions on which the Treaty of 1860 was based would be changed; and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if, in consequence of that change, he would lay the new Treaty before Parliament previous to its ratification?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is rather a nice question, Sir; but I am afraid I cannot enter into any engagement beyond what I have said. I think we have been very cautious not to proceed without ascertaining our ground, and we shall continue to be so.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Prime Minister arising out of the proceedings of the House in 1860. In that year, the Treaty with France involved an alteration of existing duties. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the answer he had jnst given, with respect to reserving the functions of the House, was to be understood to extend to reserving the power of imposing duties, as well as of altering existing duties, in accordance with any agreement contemplated by the Government with France?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, as a matter of course, in a negotiation of this kind, if the power of Parliament was reserved, that reservation would preserve the power of Parliament intact and entire, either to lower, raise, or do anything else.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Prime Minister, what would be the course of Public Business to-morrow; whether he had in contemplation to make any exceptional proposal with regard to the Business of Supply, and what would be the order of the different Departments?
  MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that with regard to the order of Supply, they would proceed with the Civil Service Votes to-morrow; presuming they were able to achieve the third reading of the Land Bill to-night, as they all seemed to hope, the Business would be Supply. He thought, perhaps, that that statement almost dispensed with the necessity at the present time for any further explanation.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked, whether it was the intention of the Government to take the 27 Votes of the Army Estimates,

  35
  or the four Votes of the Navy Estimates first?
  MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he believed the Army Votes were of greater urgency than those of the Navy. Notice of the intentions of the Government in this respect would, however, be given in the course of the evening.
  MR. CALLANasked the Prime Minister, whether it was the intention of the Government to re-commit the Land Bill after Report for the purpose of enabling the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) to move the insertion of the clause of which he had given Notice? He put the Question, because, if this were the intention of the Government, his hon. Friends wished to move the insertion of clauses respecting the labourers.
  MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, there was no Question at all before the House for the re-committal of the Bill, except the limited Question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The proposal of the re-committal would be over the clause relating to the retirement of the Commissioners, enabling a discussion to be taken upon it, and for no other purpose whatever. It would in no way reopen the whole subject of the Bill.
  MR. CALLANasked, whether it would not be open to any hon. Member to move an Amendment upon the clause intended to be moved by the right hon. Member for Westminster? He would suggest that the Instruction could be amended, in order to include the Question he had indicated.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The prospect which the hon. Member holds out is really so grave, and I might almost say so appalling, that I do not know what answer to make; but I really hope that when the time comes, he will be in a more reasonable frame of mind. No doubt, he has the abstract right to move to extend the purpose for which the Bill is being re-committed, but I trust that he will not exercise it.

  RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION BILL.
  MR. HENEAGEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is in a position to state definitely for the convenience of Members, at this late period of the Session, whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed
  36
  with the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill this Session?
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he also wished to put a Question on this subject to the Prime Minister, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would forgive him (Mr. Arnold) for doing so without Notice, because he had never put one Question to him before. Was it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman had received a Memorial in relation to the Bill, signed by a large number of Members of all Parties of the House, begging him to proceed with the measure; whether the signatures of those in favour were not of a greater value than those of hon. Members opposed to the Bill on the ground of the inconvenience which would result from the postponement of the holidays; and, whether it would not be a circumstance almost without precedent for the Government to abandon a measure of this importance, which had passed the House of Lords, had been read a second time in that House, and been approved of by two Select Committees?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it will, undoubtedly, be admitted by all persons whatsoever that this Bill has a considerable advantage in having passed the House of Lords, in having been approved by two Select Committees, and in having reached a certain stage in this House. At the same time, I am under a pledge to the House not to proceed with any measures which are not absolutely necessary. The shock of arms between opposing parties in relation to this Bill is very interesting; but, at this period of the Session, I may remind hon. Members that it is absolutely necessary that we should make rapid progress with Public Business. I must ask the indulgence of both the hon. Members in this matter, seeing that it is under the careful consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. I will give a more definite answer to the Questions of the hon. Members on Monday next.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THOMAS CONNELY, A PRISONER UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-

  37
  land, Whether it is true that Thomas Connely, of Rosmuck, county Galway, was on the 16th instant arrested under the Coercion Act on a charge of intimidation; whether he is aware that Mr. Connely is an old and feeble man of advanced years, and of good character and peaceable disposition; whether in consequence of his arrest there is no one at home to look after his holding but his son and daughter, who are both deaf and dumb, and their mother, a very old woman; and, whether, as there is no case of intimidation known to have occurred in the neighbourhood of Rosmuck, he will state the real cause for the arrest of a man so far advanced in years as Mr. Connely is?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the person named in the Question was arrested under the Coercion Act at Eos-muck, in the County Galway, on the 15th instant. He was reasonably suspected of having intimidated a certain person for the purpose of compelling him to give up possession of a farm. He was informed that Connolly was only 60 years of age, and was strong and active. He was of a quarrelsome disposition, having been convicted in April last of having used threatening and abusive language. His holding was now managed by his wife, who was a strong, healthy woman, of the same age, and his son and daughter, who were, as stated, both deaf and dumb. They were accustomed to managing the farm. The locality of Rosmuck, he was informed, was one of the most lawless in the Oughterard district.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was informed the man was over 80 years of age, and he should feel obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would make further inquiries on the subject.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. MATTHEW HARRIS, A PRISONER UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutent of Ireland, Whether the charge against Mr. Matthew Harris, now in Galway Gaol, committed on the 16th April under the Peace Preservation Act, be that he is "suspected of inciting others to assault and injure a certain person;" and, if so, whether His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant had all the facts put before him upon which this charge is founded; if said informa-
  38
  tion was supplied to His Excellency previous to his deciding that the term of Mr. Harris' imprisonment should extend beyond three months, as communicated to Mr. Harris on the 18th instant; if a verbatim Report, taken by a competent person at the time the supposed offence was thought to have been committed, was given to His Excellency; and, would the Government give information as to whether the "certain person" that Mr. Harris is suspected of inciting others to "assault and injure" has up to the present time been assaulted or injured; and, if not, whether that circumstance was made know to His Excellency?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the warrant upon which Mr. Harris was imprisoned in Galway Gaol set forth that he was reasonably suspected of inciting others to commit an assault. He (Mr. Forster), as the hon. Member was aware, could not enter upon the general grounds of the arrest, and he could not give any more complete answer to the Question without doing so.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 225.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 225.]

    CONSIDERATION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    [THIRD NIGHT.]
    Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.
    Clause 44 (Service of civil bill processes and limitation of costs).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 28, line 8, after the word "action," to insert the words "for the recovery of rent, or."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GIBSON, resuming the debate, said, the Amendment was opposed to fairness and justice, and he asked the House, without hesitation, to decline it. The Government had over and over again refused to allow the landlords to be placed in a worse position as regarded the recovery of their rent than other creditors occupied; and unless it was to be laid down that the landlord creditor was to be treated exceptionally, and

    39
    have no consideration—that he was to be penalized and treated as an outlaw—he could not see the object of the Amendment. It would affect the existing law in an unsatisfactory manner, inasmuch as at present there was a discretion vested in the Court as to granting costs, which the Amendment would, in some cases, fetter and confuse; but he should not base his opposition to it on technicalities. He took his stand on the broad basis of justice. The landlord was entitled as a creditor to deal with his debtor like any other member of the community, and therefore he asked the Government to adhere to the rules which they had laid down over and over again, and to decline to accept the proposal.
    MR. LEAMYthought that the advantages conferred by the Amendment were so apparent that the case did not require argument. It simply provided that if the Judge declared that an action by a landlord in a Superior Court for the recovery of rent should have been brought in an inferior Court, the landlord should not be entitled to costs.
    MR. MARUMsaid, he would remind the House that yesterday the Government assented to this Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)asked the indulgence of the House while he made an explanation on the matter. As he stated yesterday, he accepted the Amendment, because he was under the impression that it made no material alteration in the existing law. He now found that it did make such a change; but he thought they might adjust the matter so as to meet the views of all reasonable persons. The Amendment under consideration would operate unfairly in actions for sums over £20. He should, therefore, propose a new Amendment which would limit the clause to actions for sums not exceeding £20.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the word "rent," to insert the words "not exceeding twenty pounds."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was sorry the Government had not adhered to their original determination. He asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland yesterday
    40
    whether under the Bill, when it became law, the Court would have power to stay actions for the recovery of rent instituted in a Superior Court or otherwise, under a writ of fieri facias? The right hon. and learned Gentleman stated the Court had no such power, and consequently, after the passing of the Bill, it would be possible for a landlord, where no application had been made by the tenant to the Court in regard to the fixing of a rent, to issue such a writ for arrears. Under such circumstances, was it not reasonable to suppose that many landlords would evade the provisions of the Bill, and would proceed in that way against the tenants where no application had been made? That was such a plain injustice, that he thought the Government ought to re-consider the matter and accept the Amendment as it was originally proposed.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he failed to see, even from the landlord's point of view, any reasonable objection there could be to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), which was to discourage the bringing of actions to the Superior Courts, which could be as well tried in the Inferior Courts, and at much less cost. He hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, he deeply regretted that the Government proposed to modify their concession on this point. He thought they had paid too much attention to the vehement speeches made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), and saw no reason why the clause should be limited to actions under £20. He trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would not insist upon the limitation. In fact, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford proposed in part to embody in the clauses the spirit and intention of the Limitation of Costs Bill which had passed the Houses last Session. It was not right the landlord should, except unless special circumstances, cast on the tenant the burden of costs incidental to proceedings in the Superior Courts, when the law had given him the power of suit in the County Court.
    MR. LEWISthought the proposal of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was a very fair one. It covered the whole ground, and would secure the tenant against being unduly

    41
    harassed by the landlord in respect of costs.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the question was not being argued on the most important grounds. It was not whether the amount should be £20 or £50; and if they were debating whether to raise the sum, he should be inclined to take the view of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). The question he had to consider was, first of all, whether it was just; and, in the second place, whether, in the present state of feeling, it was politic, for the sake of this rather limited but not unimportant matter, to introduce a distinction between the power of the landlord in regard to the recovery of what was due to him and the power of other creditors. The Bill had to undergo another ordeal after it left the House of Commons, for it would be subjected to a scrutiny in "another place," and would be examined from the landlords' point of view; and what he felt in point of policy was this. It was very doubtful policy for the Government, for the sake of such an object as the hon. Member for Wexford had in view, to send the Bill to the House of Lords with an enactment, introducing into the Bill, for the first time, a distinction which placed the landlord at a disadvantage in comparison with other creditors. What they had to look at was the interest of the whole Bill, and not whether they had a preference for this or that particular form of law on a matter of secondary importance. If the hon. Member's alteration was accepted, an exaggerated importance would be attached to the proposal, and the whole credit of the Bill might be seriously impaired from the discovery of what might be a slight provision, but what would apparently indicate a spirit of inequality and even injustice. Under those circumstances, they felt bound, in the interests of the Bill—and he did not deny in the interest of justice also—to support the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.
    MR. HEALYsaid, with respect to the reference of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister regarding "another place," he would ask him "to be just and fear not." The substance of the Prime Minister's contention was, that because the House of Lords had to deal
    42
    with the Bill, justice was not to be done to the tenants of Ireland. It was not a fact that landlords would be in a worse position than other creditors. In the foregoing part of the clause they were put in a position whereby they would be able to get out their writs in a manner that ordinary persons could not. The Government were swallowing their previous doctrine because they were attacked by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). They changed their front, and their conduct was not likely to gain for them the respect of the Irish Members. He would far rather strike out his Amendment than have it altered in the way the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland proposed. As the clause stood there was, at least, a presumption in the tenant's favour. He should be prepared to move that £100 stand for £20 in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, the law had already granted facilities to the landlord, and he should be compelled to exercise his privileges, subject to special limitations.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the most convenient course would be to put the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to the House; and after that question was decided, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) could move the further Amendment he announced his intention of moving.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)explained that the landlord had two remedies for rent in arrear, one being ejectment, and the other the recovery of a debt, as to which he was placed in the same position as any other creditor. When the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was accepted in Committee, it was believed to be merely a declaration of the law with reference to ordinary debts, but it turned out not to be so; accordingly, it was proposed to bring the case of rent as nearly as possible to that of any other debt by introducing the limitation of £20. Perhaps the better alternative might be, as suggested by the hon. Member for Wexford, to omit the Amendment which had been accepted from the hon. Member.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 247; Noes 39: Majority 208.—(Div. List, No. 339.)
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Amendment made, in page 28, line 11, after the word "such," by inserting the words "rent or."
    MR. PARNELLmoved to add to the Clause—
    "And whenever an action for the recovery of rent shall have been taken before or after an application to fix a judicial rent, and shall be pending before such an application is disposed of, the Court before which such action is pending shall have power, on such terms and conditions as the Court may direct, to pospone or suspend such action until the termination of the proceeding to fix such judicial rent."
    The hon. Member said that the Amendment was intended to supply a deficiency as regarded the power of the Court to suspend proceedings where an application was made to fix a judicial rent. If the Bill passed as it now stood, a landlord, in the case of a tenancy where a judicial rent had not been fixed, even though the application might have been made to the Court appointed under the Act, might sue his tenant for even six months' rent, if it were due, and might obtain judgment in any Court—a Civil Bill Court or a Superior Court—and if the judgment were not satisfied within a very limited time—he thought it was two days—the landlord might proceed to sell the whole of the interest of the tenant in his holding. Unless some provision of the nature he proposed were inserted, they would find landlords suing tenants for rent, with the sole object of getting rid of them.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 28, line 15, at end of Clause 44, to insert the words "and whenever an action for the recovery of rent shall have been taken before or after an application to fix a judicial rent, and shall be pending before such application is disposed of, the Court before which such action is pending shall have power, on such terms and conditions as the Court may direct, to postpone or suspend such action until the termination of the proceedings to fix such judicial rent."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)thought the principle of the Amendment was not unfair. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) seemed to fear that
    44
    the tenant might be sued for his arrears of rent, a judgment be obtained against him in respect thereof, and the tenancy sold before the judicial rent could be fixed. Well, that was a matter that might, he thought, be dealt with in the Bill, for no one could desire that the general operation of the Act should be defeated in the indirect way pointed out by the hon. Member; but, on the other hand, a permanent enactment of this kind would hardly be necessary or desirable. What the hon. Member desired to meet was a present emergency, and to prevent the hardship of the tenant being deprived of his holding before he could have the benefit of the Act. If the hon. Member would qualify his Amendment by limiting the actions brought for rent within a reasonable period—say within six months after the passing of the Act, which would give everyone an opportunity of applying to have the judicial rent fixed—he (the Attorney General for Ireland) would be disposed to consider it favourably.
    MR. PARNELLasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to limit the period to 12 months, because many of the tenants would probably wait to see what the Court could do for them before applying to it in large numbers.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he was astonished at the Government's acceptance of the Amendment. It was out of place, had been moved without Notice, and was one which would penalize the position of the landlord alone of all creditors. It did not seek to interfere with the landlord's right of ejectment; but it picked out the landlord alone of all creditors, and said if he allowed a tenant to remain in occupation, declining to sue, and came before the ordinary Courts of the country and obtained judgment for the rent due as a creditor, the Court within a time not fixed by the Government, would be able to say—"We will arrest your process and will compel you to wait for some indefinite period before receiving your rent of your debtor." At the same time, any other creditors of the tenant could take means to enforce payment of what was due to them, and might sell the tenant's interest in his farm. Where was the justice of that? Were they going to leave the banker, the village money-lender, and any other creditor free to sell out the tenant, and only stop short at the landlord? This

    45
    was an Amendment to which he could give no assent, either in principle or detail, and he should offer it his most strenuous and persistent opposition.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had evidently exaggerated the effect of the Amendment. He (Mr. Forster) understood that what was proposed was in accordance with other provisions of the Bill by which they had determined that the landlord should not be able to eject a tenant from the occupation of the land without the tenant having had the opportunity of appealing to have a judicial rent fixed, and to get the rent lowered if the Court so determined. There could be nothing unfair in passing this clause, which would merely hold the proceedings of the landlord in abeyance until the judicial rent was fixed. He had supposed that the Government had covered all the cases by which the landlord could eject a tenant; but it now appeared that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) thought there was a mode by which a landlord could get hold of the land, which was not covered by the Bill at present, a mode by which a landlord would be able to get rid of a tenant without the latter being able to get the advantages of the judicial rent. He (Mr. Forster) thought it would be fair to meet the case contemplated by the hon. Member for the City of Cork by adopting the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. It was a principle he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) had assented to, and he could not see, therefore, why he should so strongly object to it.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought that under the circumstances contemplated they ought to protect the tenant from every creditor. He had no objection to the landlords being tied up, if the other creditors were also tied up; but if a tenant was sold out by any other than the landlord, then the landlord's claim should be considered prior to that of any other creditor in the distribution. He would suggest, therefore, that words should be added to protect the interest in the holding of a tenant who had given notice to have a judicial rent fixed, from execution at the hands of other creditors.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there had been no such disposition on the part of
    46
    the Government to adopt a violent course as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) seemed to suppose. Therefore, he could not see the necessity for the right hon. and learned Gentleman getting on the high horse, and asserting himself with such vehemence as he had done on the subject of that Amendment. He (Mr. Gladstone) knew that he was struck, and that all the Members of the Government were struck, with the argument that the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, as it stood, did not adequately protect the tenant in all cases, and that there was evidently something equitable in the hon. Member for the City of Cork's (Mr. Parnell's) Amendment, and that it ought to be extended to the case of all other creditors. His right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was considering whether there ought not to be some other changes made; and, viewing the matter in that light, they did not consider the Amendment adversely. The effect would be that the sale of a tenancy would be prevented, and the main assets which the tenant would have to enable him to discharge a debt would be probated, and put in a proper condition for protection. There would be a power to put the assets in the best condition for the tenant. Taking the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork as their raw material, the Government would propose, in the first place, to make it a temporary provision; in the second place, to limit the power of the Court to the stopping of the action only in so far as to prevent the sale of the tenancy until after the judicial rent was fixed; and, thirdly, to provide that the enactment should apply to every case where this form of action was brought, and not merely in the case when it was brought by the landlord.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that the proposal had better stand over so that it might be added to Clause 53, thus affording time for adjustment to the phraseology.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make this Amendment applicable to all tenancies, irrespective of their annual value?
    MR. GLADSTONEassented.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding suggested.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 45 (Existence of Land Commission not to create vested interests).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved, as an Amendment, to insert words entitling the Judicial Commissioner to a pension.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 28, line 16, after "of," insert "the Land Commission other than the Judicial Commissioner, or an Assistant Commissioner."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HEALYsaid, he could not understand why the principal Commissioners other than the Judicial Commissioner should not have pensions.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he would like to know what was meant by providing that one Assistant Commissioner was to get a superannuation. At first there was nothing about superannuation in the Bill; then the Judicial Commissioner crept in, and, of course, he must, like all other Judges, be entitled to superannuation.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Amendment wanted the word "being" before "an Assistant Commissioner."
    Amendment amended, by adding the word "being," and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 46 (Annual report by Land Commission).
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 28, lines 20 and 21, to leave out the words "after the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one," said, he did so for the purpose of asking the Government whether they would instruct the Commission to make a preliminary Report during next Session?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was best to leave the matter to the discretion of the Commissioners. The Government would take care to bring the subject under their consideration.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 47 (Arrears of rent how dealt with).
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following Amendments made:—In page 28, line 28, after "that," insert "the;" line 41, print from "whenever," as a new paragraph; line 3, leave out from "such," to "and," in line 4; line 4, after "tenant," insert "had not been so erected for his;" line 4, leave out "still in occupation;" after line 31, insert as a separate paragraph,—
    "The omission or refusal by either landlord or tenant of any holding to join with the other of them in obtaining a loan from the Land Commission under this section shall not prejudice any other application or proceeding which either of them may make or institute under this Act or 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' in relation to the holding."
    MR. HEALYmoved, at end of clause, the insertion of a long sub-section, with the object of providing that in case of arrears they should be reckoned on the basis of the judicial rent.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 30, line 7, at end of Clause 47, to insert the words,—"Provided always, That if the landlord of any tenant of a holding valued at or under fifty pounds, who, at the passing of this Act, shall be in arrears, shall refuse to join such tenant in an application to the Court respecting arrears, then, if the tenant applies to the Court to fix a judicial rent, and the judicial rent so fixed is less than the rent payable by the tenant at the date of such application, the Court may, if it think fit, certify that such former rent was an excessive rent, and thereupon such arrears shall be deemed to be reduced to such an amount as would have been due had only such judicial rent been payable from the date when such arrears commenced to accrue, and the payment or tender of such reduced amount shall be a sufficient answer to any proceeding for or founded upon such arrears in any court of law or equity."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. W. E. FORSTERasked Mr. Speaker, whether the Amendment was in Order, the House having already agreed to a section which provided that the refusal of either party to join in an application under the Arrears Clause should not prejudice any future proceedings by the other party?
    MR. SPEAKER, in reply, intimated that it was competent for the hon. Member to move his Amendment, and that the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman was rather a matter of argument than a point of Order.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Government could not agree to the Amendment for the reasons stated by him in Committee—namely, that they could not consent to any compulsory proposal for dealing with arrears. It would, not be just or expedient compulsorily to diminish the debt owing to a man; and he was sure that it would be useless for any such proposal to be accepted by the House after what had happened "elsewhere." It would, moreover, put the man who had paid his rent in a most unfair position as compared with the man who owed it.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, there would be some ground for the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the only penalty falling on the tenant was the payment of his debt; but the penalty would be considerably heavier, for he would lose the benefit of the Act. If the tenant had been paying a reasonable rent previously, he would not have allowed arrears to accrue at all, and therefore it was only just to give him some substantial relief in respect of what had become due through no fault of his own. He thought at that stage of the Bill, and after a certain amount of concession had been made by the Government, there was no use in taking up a long time in that discussion.
    MR. DAWSONbelieved the whole raison d'être of the Bill was that the tenants of Ireland had been unfairly rented, and therefore he did not see why the Government should object to deal more liberally than they had done with the subject of arrears.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government had gone to the length of their tether with regard to arrears, and could not go back upon the reduction of debts due before the passing of the Act. If any of the unjust or unfortunate transactions that had occurred previously were to be corrected, they should be corrected universally.
    MR. HEALY, in withdrawing the Amendment, took occasion to observe that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland's manner of meeting it by appealing on a point of Order to the Speaker was very characteristic indeed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 49 (Definitions).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved an Amendment extending the definition of present tenancies to every tenancy
    "Created before the 1st of January, 1883, in a holding in which a tenancy was subsisting at the time of this passing of the Act."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 31, line 17, after the word "Act," to insert the words "or created before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, in a holding in which a tenancy was subsisting at the time of the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HEALYmoved to amend the Amendment by inserting, after "subsisting," the words "or the tenant is in possession." He explained that the object of the Amendment was to provide against the application of the clause to holdings acquired by the landlord through the instrumentality of sheriffs' sales, for instance.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
    In line 3, after the word "subsisting," to insert the words "or the tenant is in possession."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, if the landlord bought the holding there would be an end to the matter, and if anybody else bought it he would be protected by the Amendment.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the mistaken tactics of the Land League were now being exhibited by hon. Members opposite. Farmers had been induced to allow their farms to be sold over their heads, and when the Bill passed would find themselves in great difficulty.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. GIBSONcomplained that the insertion of these words would give a great extension to the meaning of a present tenancy and that they were larger than had been asked for by Irish Members below the Gangway. It would put into the position of a present ten-

    51
    ant, the holder of every tenancy created before the 1st of January, 1883, and that was six months longer than some of the Irish Members had proposed. The effect of that would be that it would operate most unfairly towards the landlord in the case of a tenancy ceasing before the proposed date. The landlord, in such a case, would either have to hold the land in his own hands, or let it to a tenant, who, the day after, would be in the position of a present tenant, and be able to bring the landlord into Court in order to have a judicial rent fixed. He urged that, at all events, the time should be limited to 12 months after the passing of the Act.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. MARUMmoved to add to the Amendment the words "or had been subsisting within 12 months previously."
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "or had been subsisting within twelve months previously."—(Mr. Marum.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HEALYthought the promise of the Prime Minister had not been fulfilled by the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman distinctly stated that in no holding, in respect of which a breach of condition had been committed before the Bill became law, should a future tenancy be created without an interval having elapsed. That promise was not carried out in the Amendment.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would at once acknowledge the hon. Member's (Mr. Healy's) capacity for ingenious argument; but could assure him that not only could no breach of covenant committed before the passing of the Act be made the foundation of a future tenancy, but that some breaches of covenant committed after the passing of the Act should not lead to the growth of a future tenancy.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not think the Amendment provided for the large number of evicted for whom he and his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) had been pleading. The tenants he more particularly referred to were those who would be assisted by the Arrears Clause,
    52
    and enabled to make an arrangement with the landlord to pay portion of the arrears themselves and borrow another portion. He had hoped they would be able to come in as present tenants, and have the advantage of Clause 7; but it appeared to him that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland provided nothing of the kind, because those tenants would not be tenants existing at the passing of the Act.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, a man must be a tenant to apply under the Arrears Clause, and if he was a tenant, he was a present tenant. If he had been evicted, but retained his right of redemption, then also he was still a tenant.
    Question put, and negatived.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved the following addition to the same sub-section:—
    "Every tenancy to which this Act applies shall be deemed to be a present tenancy until the contrary is proved."
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was reasonable when they started with present tenancies to presume that every tenant was a present tenant until the contrary was established.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 31, line 17, at end, add "and every tenancy to which this Act applies shall be deemed to be a present tenancy until the contrary is proved."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. PLUNKETthought it was unfair to establish such a presumption against the landlord. It would be far easier for the tenant to obtain evidence in his favour than for the landlord, and the Amendment was therefore unnecessary.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. PARNELLmoved the following extension of "the present tenancy" definition:—
    "Or a tenancy beginning after the passing of this Act, in respect of which it shall be mutually agreed between the landlord and tenant that it shall be a present tenancy."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 31, line 17, after the word "Act," to insert the words "or a tenancy beginning after the passing of this Act in respect of which it

    53
    shall be mutually agreed between the landlord and tenant that it shall be a present tenancy."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)declined to accept the Amendment, observing that the Government had already gone quite far enough in the direction pointed out by the hon. Member for the City of Cork.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, the Amendment was intended to enable any landlord who thought fit to reinstate as a present tenant any person who had been a tenant of his, but who would not be a tenant at the passing of the Act. Surely, there could be no objection to it, for it was not in any sense obligatory; and he thought if a landlord wished to restore a tenant and confer a present tenancy upon him he should be at liberty to do so.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that all the cases which the Bill intended to meet were met, and it would be unreasonable to accept a proposal the terms of which were perfectly unlimited, and might apply to cases occurring at any time. If a tenant was evicted six months before the passing of the Act he had the right of redemption, and therefore was a present tenant.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, the Bill was said to be pervaded by the great spirit of freedom of contract; and, if so, why not allow a landlord to make a contract which would be favourable to the tenant and agreeable to himself? By not doing so, they would be limiting the freedom of contract they were so anxious to uphold.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the Amendment was much more important than the Government seemed to suppose. It was one which would be followed by results entering into the national life of Ireland, and he ventured to think that even the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson), who was always ready to mount the war horse and charge the Government Benches, would scarcely object to the liberty which it proposed to confer upon the landlord, seeing that it would enable him to do in a cheap way what he could now only do by an expensive deed. Freedom of contract was their battle cry at the present moment.
    MR. GLADSTONEpointed out that the unlimited character of the Amendment would enable tenancies to pass backward and forward into and out of the condition of a present tenancy any number of times. That seemed to him more like confusion than order, and it was a state of things they did not like to create.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendment made, in page 31, line 18, after "means," insert "except as aforesaid."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved, in page 31, line 30, to insert as a separate paragraph—
    "Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Acts' means the Act of the session of the tenth and eleventh years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter thirty-two, intituled 'An Act to facilitate the Improvement of Landed Property in Ireland, and any Acts amending or extending the same.'"
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. GIBSONmoved, in page 31, line 35, after "Act," to insert—
    "And 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' except in so far as the same is expressly altered or varied by this Act or is inconsistent therewith, and this Act shall be construed together as one Act."
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 50 (Rules as to determination of tenancy)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved the following Amendment to the clause:—In page 32, line 3, insert as separate subsection (2)—
    (2) "Where the landlord has resumed possession of a tenancy from a present tenant, he may, if he thinks fit so to do, reinstate such tenant in his holding as a present tenant; and therefrom such tenancy shall again become subject to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to present tenancies."
    MR. HEALYproposed, as an Amendment to Mr. Attorney General for Ireland's Amendment, in lines 1 and 2, to leave out "a present tenant."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the word

    55
    "reinstate" covered the whole ground. To be restored, a tenant must have been in possession already. It was impossible to make the clause so general as to enable the landlord at any time and in favour of anybody to make the tenancy a present tenancy.
    MR. HEALYasked what objection the Government had to enable an Irish landlord to confer a present tenancy if he so desired? Indirectly the landlord could do so already, because a tenant applying to the Court would, according to the Amendment they had lately agreed to, be deemed to be a present tenant if the landlord did not prove the contrary. "Why not give the landlord express power to do what he could do indirectly?
    MR. GLADSTONEregretted that they could not agree to a provision which would allow the passing backward and forward of a tenancy from a "present" to a "future" tenancy, and from a "future tenancy" to a "present tenancy." The 9th clause gave general powers which were quite sufficient to meet the case. Under that clause, power had been given to a landlord in an orderly manner to create a present tenancy, and give to it absolute permanence if he thought fit.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought the Amendment left the matter in some doubt as to the position and liabilities of tenants reinstated. He thought the Amendment ought to go on to say that the landlord might reinstate the tenant as a present tenant at a rent to be agreed upon, and that then the tenant should occupy for 15 years subject to statutory conditions. It was clear that unless some change was made the tenant would have the absolute right to go into Court and subject his landlord to litigation.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): The Court would deal with that.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, it would be poor comfort to the landlord to know, after he had been subjected to the annoyance of being dragged into Court, that the Court would give a just decision. He desired to obviate litigation, which was the rock ahead of the Bill.
    MR. BIGGARthought the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) unreasonable. Ought the landlord to be allowed to bring pressure on the unfortunate tenant, fix upon him
    56
    an unreasonable rent, and then prevent him coming into Court? The Amendment was a violation of the principle of the Bill, and would give rise to much mischief. The landlord would induce the tenant under eviction to make a fresh bargain to his own detriment. The result would be that a single bad harvest would bring back all the old evils and create a fresh agitation.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that the Amendment was really more in favour of the landlord than of the tenant. The tenant could not be reinstated without the landlord's consent, or except on the landlord's terms. Then, when the tenant was reinstated, he would get all the advantages of a present tenant for 15 years. He thought the views of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) would be met by the insertion of words to the effect that where the landlord had resumed possession of his tenancy he might reinstate the former tenant as a present tenant, and such tenant would become subject to all the provisions of the Act, provided always that the landlord and tenant might agree upon the rent to be charged. In such case, such agreement to have the same effect as if a judicial rent had been fixed by the Court under the provisions of the present Act.
    Amendment agreed to, with the following addition:—
    "Provided always, That the landlord and tenant may, at the time of such reinstatement, agree on the rent to be paid by such tenant; and in such case such agreement shall have the same effect as if the rent so agreed on were a judicial rent fixed by the Court under the provisions of this Act."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 32, line 2, after the word "tenancy," to insert the following sub-section:—"A present tenancy shall not be converted into a future tenancy by reason only of the determination by surrender or otherwise of such present tenancy, and the acceptance by the tenant for the time being of a new tenancy. Notwithstanding any such determination of any present tenancy by surrender or otherwise, and such acceptance of a new tenancy, such present tenancy shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be still subsisting so long as the tenant for the time being and his successors in title continue in possession of the holding, whether the incidents of his or their tenure be varied or not."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, ''That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW), in opposing the Amendment, said, that it would be inadequate to meet the cases contemplated by the hon. Member. A mere raising or lowering of the rent would not determine the tenancy, and he could not conceive why a tenant should give up his farm to immediately resume it.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsupported the Amendment, but suggested that it should be so altered as to provide simply that a present tenancy should be deemed to subsist so long as the tenant for the time being and his successors in title continued in possession of the holding, whether the incidents of the tenure be varied or not.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had pointed out to him practical difficulties in the way of adopting the Amendment as it stood; and he, therefore, begged leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 51 (Tenancies to which this Act does not apply).
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that the clause exempted from the operation of the Act all holdings which were ordinarily known as "town parks," and which were "adjacent to any city or town." With a view to limit the operation of the clause, he would move the insertion after the word "town," of the words "containing not less than 6,000 inhabitants." He had adopted that limit as it was the number mentioned in the Sanitary Acts. A town of 6,000 inhabitants or upwards might be formed into a sanitary district; towns containing a lesser number were to be regarded as rural districts. He objected to the hardships inflicted on owners of land near small towns owing to the sweeping exception contained in the Act of 1870, and which was continued under this Bill. He contended that lands in the neighbourhood of towns in Ireland were ordinarily not more valuable than other lands, and there was therefore no reason for exempting them from the operation of the Act.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 32, line 37, after the word "town," to insert the words "with inhabitants of not less than six thousand."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GIVAN, in supporting the Amendment, said, there were many cases in which town parks should be excluded, but such cases did not exist in respect of holdings adjoining small villages, which holdings, purchased with the acquiescence of the landlord for large sums of money, should not be deprived of the benefits of the Ulster Custom and compensation under the law.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)regretted that the subject was renewed after the considerable discussion which took place in Committee. The Prime Minister on that occasion said it was undesirable to extend the geographical limits of the Act of 1870, although he thought there was a good deal to be said on behalf of the tenantry with regard to town parks. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) thought the Amendment had better be withdrawn, and that the matter might be left to the understanding arrived at in Committee. Perhaps, during the Recess the Government would consider the matter in order to see whether legislation was desirable or not.
    MR. LALORsaid, that now was the only time to take the matter into consideration with effect.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he could not see the value of the matter being considered by the Government in the Recess, after the Bill had become law, unless they intended to introduce another Bill next Session.
    MR. MACFARLANEsuggested that the matter might be compromised, by inserting a provision in the clause to the effect that the exemption should be subject to the approval of the Commission.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that was not a proposal to be entertained at that time. The House had had the matter before it in 1870, and he hoped the Government would firmly adhere to the decision arrived at in Committee. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Carlow County (Mr. Macfarlane), if the matter was to be dealt with at all, it should be dealt with by the House.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in reference to what fell from the hon. Member for Carlow County (Mr. Macfarlane), that it would, of course, have to be proved to the Court that the lands in question, which would be exempt from the Bill, were town parks. If hon. Members from Ireland desired, a Return could be

    59
    provided before the commencement of the next Session showing the extent of these town parks, and under what conditions they existed, so that an opinion might be formed as to what would be the probable operation of the clause.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that it would be no great been to obtain such a Return, and it was very easy for anyone to get the details.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 52 (Saving of existing tenancies).
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following Amendments made:—In page 33, line 17, after "or," insert "other;" line 17, after "tenancy," insert "held by occupying tenants and;" line 19, after "which," insert "said;" line 19, leave out the second "tenancy," and insert "contracts of tenancy;" line 22, before "existing," insert "such;" line 25, before "existing," insert "such;" and in line 30, before "existing, "insert "such."
    MR. HEALY (for Mr. BIGGAR)moved to omit the words "from year to year," after "tenant," at the commencement of the clause, which gave the Court power to quash a lease accepted by a tenant from year to year since the passing of the Act of 1870, when the Court was satisfied that such lease was procured by the landlord by threat of eviction or undue influence. A leaseholder whose lease was expired was in a far more defenceless position than a yearly tenant, and the Amendment, if accepted, would save hundreds of cases.
    Amendment proposed, in page 33, line 42, to leave out the words "from year to year."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'from year to year' stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the object of the clause was to provide redress for leaseholders who, by threat of eviction or undue influence, were deprived of the rights which they ought to have had under the Act of 1870, by having leases thus forced upon them. The class of leaseholders which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) sought to include had comparatively slight benefits con-
    60
    ferred upon them by that Act, and, therefore, did not come within the principle of the clause. He could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. CALLANsupported the Amendment, and referred to cases of hardship which it would remedy.
    MR. BIGGARsupported the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 26: Majority 136.—(Div. List, No. 340.)
    MR. HEALYmoved to insert "twelve" instead of "six months" after the passing of the Act, as the period within which a tenant might apply to the Court to have an unfair lease made void, on the ground that it had been accepted under the threat of eviction or undue influence. It was, he thought, too much to ask the tenant to go before the Court within six months.
    Amendment proposed, in page 34, line 5, to leave out the word "six," in order to insert the word "twelve."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)resisted the Amendment, considering it only reasonable that in six months a tenant ought to be able to make up his mind what he intended to do.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 53 (Saving in case of inability to make immediate application to Court).
    MR. PARNELL, in conformity with an arrangement, moved to add to the clause in its altered form the Amendment proposed and withdrawn at an early hour of the evening.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 34, line 21, at end of Clause 63, to insert the words "Whenever within six months after the passing of this Act any action shall be pending or he brought against a tenant to recover a debt or damages before or after an application to fix a judicial rent, and shall be pending before such application is disposed of, the Court before which such action is pending shall have power, upon such terms and conditions as the Court may think fit, to stay the sale under any writ of execution in such action of

    61
    the tenancy in respect of which such application is pending until the termination of the proceedings to fix such judicial rent."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. BRODRICKhoped the Government would not listen to the proposal in its present form, more especially as it was understood that they would bring up an Amendment of their own upon the subject. He did not believe that any words the Government would bring up could have any approach to these, which would be fatal to the decisions of the House in Committee on every question of importance relating to time and the retrospective action of the Bill. These words were sprung upon the House at a time when it was almost impossible to take due cognizance of them. Many hon. Members had left the House under the impression that no further question of importance would be introduced, on which assumption the Prime Minister had asked the Leader of the Opposition to raise no obstacle to the third reading being taken that evening. The words as they stood would offer a premium to every tenant in Ireland who was in arrear in his rent to go into Court to get his rent fixed judicially, and were thus inconsistent with the desire of the Prime Minister not to encourage litigation by tempting tenants to rush into the Court. The prospect held out to the landlord was that the satisfaction given by the Bill would be such that tenants would not have reason to refuse to pay their rents; but now they were to be allowed to hold them back six months longer, and thus, in some cases, to bring the landlords to the verge of bankruptcy. This was to be done because the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had come down to give effect to an edict sent forth by the Land League a few days ago. ["Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"] If the Government accepted the proposition, they would be playing into the hands of the Land League, whose action they had denounced. ["Oh, oh!"] He hoped he should not be further interrupted by the hon. Member for Stockton, who seemed to think that because the Members who were present to protest against the iniquity of the clause was small their arguments could be obscured from the country. He appealed to the Government to give a most distinct negative
    62
    to a proposition to carry out an arrangement into which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland entered far too easily, and by so doing they would show that they did not desire to re-open all the questions which were supposed to have been closed. The Amendment would tempt the farmer to squander money which was due to the landlord, because he could not be sued for it for six months, or possibly for a longer time. What security was there in the press of business which would thus be created that it would not be six years before rents could be fixed, if this incentive were offered to tenants to rush into the Court? The proposition was the outcome of the intention of the Land League to defeat the action of the Bill, and it was unwise of the Government to attempt to import it into the Bill at that stage. If the Amendment were agreed to, he believed it would seriously imperil the passing of the Bill; and, no matter how small the minority might be, he would certainly divide the Committee against it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)thought that some of the statements of the hon. Member (Mr. Brodrick) were without foundation. There was, for instance, no foundation for the apprehension that matters might be suspended for an indefinite time. If the facts did not warrant the application, the Court would reject it, for what was proposed was only a permissive and enabling power. The Court would not grant it if it were not reasonable, and much would depend on the prospect of a speedy settlement. Then, again, there was no interference with the landlord who sued in the Civil Bill Court, a decree in which did not enable the creditor to sell the tenancy. Therefore, for all classes of tenants whose rent did not come up to £20 the Amendment would not have the effect suggested. The Commissioners might also impose conditions on the tenants. For instance, they might require that security might be given, or that a substantial part of the rent should be brought into Court to abide the decision. It might, therefore, the Government conceived, be accepted without the fear of doing injustice to the landlord or other creditor.
    MR. LEWISstrongly opposed the Amendment, remarking that of all the

    63
    changes introduced into the Bill since its first introduction that was, in his opinion, the most serious. ["Oh, oh!"] He was aware that those Benches were deserted, and that they were at the mercy of hon. Members below the Gangway. If the Amendment were sanctioned, it would not, in the circumstances, carry with it the weight of the House, for it was introduced only two or three hours ago, and it was now being discussed in the absence of many hon. Gentlemen who took a deep interest in the subject, but who did not know that such a proposal had been brought forward. One effect of the Amendment would be to clog the Court with a number of cases which otherwise would not be there. In many cases, a landlord might have five or six years of rent owing to him without an opportunity of his obtaining a farthing. It was urged that an execution could be levied against the other ordinary assets of the debtor; but the tenant might say that the Legislature had practically tied the landlord up until a judicial rent had been settled, and the landlord would be without an answer to such an argument. Again, when the intervention of the Court was invoked, the ordinary creditors were to be told that they must wait until the landlord and the tenant had settled their dispute. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had remarked that the Court might impose a condition that the tenant should pay the rent into Court. But what advantage would that confer on the starving landlord? This was an ex post facto clause of a most obnoxious description, for it gave one party an advantage entirely at the expense of the other. In some cases it might be the ruin of the landlord. There were some landlords who, by the operation of such a clause as this, would be rendered for months and for years totally destitute. He spoke on behalf of landlords who were unable to take care of themselves, and he was strongly opposed to a proposition which would place them at the mercy of a litigious tenant and a dilatory Court. If ever there was an immoral clause, the one now under discussion was stamped with that character. Hon. Members on that side of the House were bound to protest against such a clause being added to the Bill. Various references had been made to "another
    64
    body" and "another place," but that other "body" and that other "place" would be grossly neglecting their duty if they did not at once scout a provision like this, which had been introduced without Notice and accepted without consideration, and which was, on the face of it, a disregard of the ordinary laws of morality.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lewis) had ended his speech by saying what the duty of another House ought to be; but he (Mr. Forster) thought the hon. Member should wait until he got in that "other place" before he said what its duty ought to be. They had to consider what their duty was; and, for his part, he hoped that the House would accept the Amendment. The hon. Member who had last spoken had used very hard words respecting it; but he had enormously exaggerated his case. He had spoken on the supposition that, in any extreme case, the Court was bound to grant a postponement of any application; but the wording of the clause only gave the Court power to do so, and the House, if it had any confidence in the Court, might be sure it would guard against extreme cases of hardship. Such cases occasionally there might be, no doubt; but there were also cases of extreme rents, which had, in fact, been the real cause of the Bill that had so long occupied the House. He thought they had all by this time come to the conclusion that unfair rents ought to be reduced, and that a man ought not to be deprived of the benefits of the Act because his payments were in arrear. The Bill left an enormous majority of cases to the law as it at present stood; but quite recently the landlords had found out a new process, by means of writs of fieri facias, of exacting their rents, and getting rid of their tenants. He had thought that the provisions of the Bill guarded against such cases, and the discovery that they did not do so was a perfect surprise to him. He was, therefore, obliged to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) for filling up the gap in the interests of the good government of Ireland. ["Oh, oh!"] He repeated that the interests of the good government of Ireland required that, after conferring on the tenants the benefits of the Bill, they should fill up any gap that might be discovered, by which the Bill might be evaded and the

    65
    tenants would lose the advantages intended for them. The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) had alluded to certain statements of the Land League; now, he (Mr. Forster) did not know whether or not the Land League had made them; but it was quite possible that even the Land League might sometimes make a correct statement; and, in any case, it would be a misfortune if provisions intended to benefit the tenants were defeated by a comparatively new process of which the Government were not previously aware. Indeed, the House itself would be to blame if it allowed its main object to be frustrated. And what was now proposed was not that the payment of all debts should be suspended, but that a period of grace or waiting should be given—for six months or a year—rather than the tenants should be driven out. He was somewhat surprised at the opposition that had been offered to the Amendment, which he regarded merely as a proposal to supply an unsuspected omission. As he had said, the Government did not know of the gap which it proposed to fill up; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) knew of it, it appeared as if he accepted the other clauses of the Bill with the knowledge that it would be in the power of the landlords to defeat the intentions of the Government.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he wished to say a word or two of a clause to which the House would certainly attach much importance. On that side of the House the proposal had taken everyone by surprise, and had been wholly unexpected; and that would also be the feeling in Ireland, not only of the landlords, many of whom would be ruined by the clause, but also of other creditors when they heard what had been done. Whatever might be the provisions of the Bill in favour of the tenant, no one had ever imagined, and no suspicion had ever been breathed, that a clause would be introduced absolutely suspending for a definite time those remedies that by law belonged to every landlord. The chief argument in favour of the proposal—he might say the only argument of his right hon. and learned Friend opposite the Attorney General for Ireland—was that it would be in the discretion of the Court to give effect to the application, or to refuse it. But the Court would
    66
    know scarcely anything of the equity of each case as between landlord and tenant; while, as regards the other creditors, it would know absolutely nothing at all. All he (Mr. Plunket) could say was, that the adoption of the proposal would be taken in Ireland as the most sublime triumph of the land agitation and the Land League, whose last mandate was that nothing should be paid till the new rents were ascertained by the Court. ["No, no!"] Well, that was he read in the paper over and over again. He could only add that he was confident that of all the unprecedented proposals made by the Bill, public opinion would to-morrow characterize the Amendment before the House as the most novel and the most strange.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 209; Noes 76: Majority 133.—(Div. List, No. 341.)
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  AFGHANISTAN—DEFEAT OF THE AMEER'S FORCES.
  SIR STAFFORD NOETHCOTE: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of asking Her Majesty's Government, Whether they have received any information with respect to a report stating that there has been a battle in Afghanistan, and that the forces of Abdurrahman have been defeated by Ayoub Khan?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; that is a fact. We have received a telegram this afternoon, dated Simla, July 28, and it is to the following effect:—
  "Telegram just received from Chaman says that, in action fought yesterday morning at Karez-i-Atta, Ameer's forces were totally defeated, 18 guns taken, and all baggage. The Khelat Regiment and Kandahar horse went over to Ayub. Gholam Haider has fled towards Kabul. Sirdar Shamsuddin still in Kandahar with 400 men of Kabuli regiments and some police."
  That is an important engagement, so far as the Candahar country is concerned. I will only add that the Anglo-Indian force in the neighbourhood of that country is very considerable.
  MR. J. COWEN: I wish to ask, has Ayoub Khan possession of Candahar?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. The words I read are these—"Sirdar Shamsuddin still in Candahar with 400 men of Kabuli regiments and some police." That is evidently the force of Abdurrahman.
  MR. ONSLOW: In what neighbourhood is the Anglo-Indian force? The Prime Minister says that the Anglo-Indian force is in the neighbourhood of Candahar, whereas we understood that it had been withdrawn. This battle was fought near the Helmund. What Anglo-Indian force is in that neighbourhood?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I was not speaking of the Helmund at all, but of the Candahar country.
  MR. ONSLOW: I would ask what forces are in the Candahar country at the present time? We always understood that the Anglo-Indian forces had been withdrawn from Candahar, and we want to know where the forces of which the Prime Minister speaks are. This action was fought, I think, on the West side of the Helmund; and I ask the Prime Minister what Anglo-Indian force is in the neighbourhood of that district?
  MR. GLADSTONE: None whatever, Sir. I never said there was any.

ORDERS OF THE BAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  ROYAL PARKS, &c—WINDSOR PARK.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD, who, throughout the whole of his speech, spoke amid great interruption, in rising to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the charge of Windsor Park be transferred from the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings,"
    said, he did not mean by his Amendment to imply any censure upon His Royal Highness Prince Christian, the Ranger, or to advocate any change in his posi-
    68
    tion or his authority. Indeed, he had nothing but congratulations to offer His Royal Highness upon the splendid success attending the Volunteer Review so recently held in the park, a success which was, in no small degree, due to the personal exertions of His Royal Highness. He thought, however, it most important that at Windsor, as at Buckingham Palace, the Banger's authority should be considerable, and that the Princes who held those offices should represent the hereditary rights of the Sovereign in the domains of the Crown. The simple object of his Amendment was to obtain an approval of the policy which would place Windsor Park in the same position in reference to the Public Accounts as that in which all the other Royal Parks and Palaces now stood. The question at issue was, whether the policy of the Act of 1851 of regarding Windsor Park and woods as a sort of revenue could be justified? He desired to remove the Royal domain of Windsor from what he might call the commercial category of Crown Lands. That domain was 14,000 acres in extent. He would not diminish it by a rood; his only desire being to place all those Crown Lands which pertained to the Royal dignity in one Department. Windsor Park and woods should be reserved for Royal, not for revenue purposes. When the Act of 1851 was passed, and this portion of the Crown property was so strangely misplaced in a Revenue Department, there were two circumstances in consideration. In the first place, a lower estimate of the Royal dignity and of the interest of the people in maintaining that dignity prevailed at that period, and a Government of that period would have shrunk from placing 14,000 acres of the Crown Lands in perpetual reserve by the measure which he now recommended; and, in the second case, the supply of Navy timber for what were then called "the wooden walls of England" was present to the minds of Ministers, and influenced them. in classing Windsor Park and woods with the Crown forests. Now, it was chiefly as a matter of good administration, and also because he desired to place Windsor Park and woods as a Royal domain out of the reach of the commercial incidents affecting the remainder of the Crown Lands, that he wished the House to express an opinion in favour

    69
    of the policy of placing Windsor Park and woods in the same category as all the other Royal Parks, Palaces, and Gardens. Windsor woods were now classed with the Crown forests, which might not be permanent possessions of the Crown. By making of the 14,000 acres a Royal domain, and by reclaiming it from a Revenue Department with which it had no proper connection and placing it with other Royal domains upon the Votes of Parliament, the House would show its disposition to remedy a glaring irregularity in our system of Public Accounts, and it would give an assurance of splendid loyalty to the Crown, and of its devotion to the vital interest of the vast and increasing population of the country. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    MR. D1LLWYNseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the charge of Windsor Park be transferred from the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings,"—(Mr. Arthur Arnold,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not help strongly advising, as far as he might presume to advise, the House not to proceed in this matter. He was very doubtful whether his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) had taken into his view all the considerations which bore upon it. He wanted them to perform an act of splendid loyalty, and to make a magnificent gift to Her Majesty. He (Mr. Gladstone) would venture to remind his hon. Friend that the business of asking the Representatives of the people to lay any burden on the country for the purpose of any new endowment of the Crown was a function which that House jealously required to be reserved to the responsible Advisers of the Crown. The difficulty which might arise in the ordinary Business of that House would be the effect of the proposal on a large number of hon. Members whose minds and hearts were
    70
    overflowing and almost bursting with loyalty, and who would be making loyal proposals out of the exuberance of their feelings. There were many matters to be taken into consideration in connection with this question, affecting as it did the general group of questions relating to the allocation of Royal residences and pleasure grounds for the Sovereign, and to the relations between those possessions and the general estates of the Crown, and, again, the questions relating to the contingent interest of the Heir Apparent in the estates of the Crown, inasmuch as they became his absolute property on the demise of the Sovereign; all these formed a complicated mass of subjects involving a great variety of delicate and difficult considerations, with regard to which it was almost an established practice that they should be handled mainly at the commencement of each reign, or, if otherwise, on the responsibility of the Government. He was quite aware that, in particular cases, where very small questions of interest of property were concerned, and where, on the other hand, very large matters of public interest were involved—that was to say, where the comfort and advantages of great populations were concerned—a different rule had been observed, and some infractions of the general rule had taken place. But it must be observed, with respect to the great part of Windsor Park, that this question of allocation was considered at the time to which the hon. Member had Referred, and when the general settlement was made. The general settlement was made, with what view? With the view of securing, as far as Parliament was willing to grant it, the management of the Crown estates with some degree of independence, subject, undoubtedly, to the control of the Treasury, but still to a more remote and general control than that which was commonly used in our system of administration, and all this with a view to the good husbandry of the Crown property, because the Crown property was the equivalent which, at the commencement of each reign, the Sovereign offered to the nation in return for the Civil List. Now, that was a serious, grave, and complicated question; and he thought it was plain that there was no case before them to justify their action on the present occasion. Windsor Park was one of the greatest ornaments

    71
    of the country. It was a property of considerable value, and to make the transfer which his hon. Friend suggested would have a very important bearing upon the proprietary value of that property. It would place it under a different system of management, and subject to different rules, and it would involve important modifications of the arrangement made at the commencement of the reign. He was bound to recommend to the House that they should not initiate or entertain a subject of this kind, which obviously required some very strong evidence of public interest in order to make out even a primâ facie justification. There was no such case here. There was no public grievance. There was no constant inconvenience. The small and momentary question as to the inconvenience threatened to Members of the Legislature, which arose on a recent occasion, was as much a matter of amusement as of convenience, and it afforded no occasion at all for the reopening of this serious question. He could not help hoping that his hon. Friend would not feel disposed to press this matter on the attention of the House. In any case, he (Mr. Gladstone) must press it strongly on the House from an opposite direction—that no step could be safely, or even becomingly or decorously, taken without the most careful preliminary investigation, which must always precede a serious modification of an arrangement having reference to the property of the Royal Family.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDbegged to withdraw his Amendment, after the statement of the Prime Minister. It was entirely on the ground of good administration that he had brought it forward.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—SUITORS' FUNDS IN CHANCERY.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. S. LEIGHTON, in rising to call attention to the want of information with reference to the "suitors' funds" in Chancery; and to move—
    "That the future lists of unclaimed money be issued with cross references triennially;
    72
    stating the amount of fund in Court; with the names and last known addresses of persons supposed to be entitled; together with the date of the last decree,"
    said, there was a large amount of money belonging to many persons who did not claim it, because there was no sufficient publication of lists of names of those entitled, who were, therefore, kept in ignorance of their rights. In that way the spirit of the Act of Parliament on the subject was violated, and so much secrecy was maintained that persons were not able to claim the money that was due to them. Lists ought to be published every three years. They were due in 1873, 1876, and 1879, and the fourth was due in 1882. But only two lists had been published, and it had required much pressure to obtain these. It was said to be the fault of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who would not provide the Accountant General with the staff that was required to get out the lists. Those that had been published were not as useful as they might be, for, although they professed to be alphabetical, names were not to be found under their initial letters. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the future lists of unclaimed money be issued with cross references triennially; stating the amount of fund of the suitors' fund in Chancery; with the names and last known addresses of persons supposed to be entitled thereto; together with the date of the last decree,"—(Mr. Stanley Leighton,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he would admit that there had been some delay in the publication of the lists; but as the staff of the Accountant General's Office had been increased, he hoped there would be no ground for complaint in that respect in the future. With regard to the form of the accounts, that was settled by Lord Cranworth, when Lord Chancellor, and the matter was in the hands of the Lord Chancellor for the time being. Those who were responsible for looking after

    73
    these funds, in the interests of suitors and of the public, were of opinion that it was not desirable to make some of the changes suggested, and for these reasons it was his duty to resist the Motion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.) £18,792, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to ask one or two questions of the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury before the Vote was put. Upon page 91 of the Estimates, there was an item of £308 for the salary of the Superintendent of the Library. A good many years ago Mr. Woods, who had been employed in Ireland during the Famine years of 1845, 1846 and 1847, and, having done good service in connection with the relief works there, was offered by the Colonial Office, at the instance of the Treasury, the post of Assistant Librarian to the Colonial Office. Mr. Woods, who was in charge of the relief branch of the Boards of Works in Ireland during the period of famine, received a handsome testimonial when he left. He had conducted the drainage and other operations, not only with satisfaction to his official superiors, but to the numerous country gentlemen and others with whom he was brought into communication. By his exertions he greatly contributed to the success of the relief measures; and, in consideration of the services which he rendered, the Treasury desirous of doing what they could for Mr. Woods, offered him the post of Assistant Librarian in the Colonial Office. Upon offering it to him, the Treasury wrote a letter to Mr. Woods, which concluded in these words—
    "Your probable, though not the only possible, advancement will be to the post of Librarian, with a salary of £600, rising to £800 a-year. Such is the position we have to offer you."
    Some years afterwards, Sir Charles Trevelyan, the Secretary to the Trea-
    74
    sury, declared that this gentleman had been selected out of regard to his merits and qualifications with the intention that he should obtain better and earlier promotion in consequence of the transfer. Later on, in the year 1870, the Earl of Kimberley, in regard to this particular appointment, used these words—
    "Mr. Woods was always told that the superior office of Librarian, rising from £600 to £800 a-year, would still remain open to him."
    The Librarian, in course of time, retired, and, instead of Mr. Woods being appointed to succeed, the office was abolished, together with that of Assistant Librarian, held by Mr. Woods, and Mr. Woods received a much less pension than he ought to have been entitled to. Mr. Woods, when he accepted the offer of the Treasury, and went to the Colonial Office as Assistant Librarian, did not obtain any immediate advantage; but it was the prospect of promotion, pointedly and repeatedly held out to him, that induced him to relinquish his post at the Treasury and go to the Colonial Office. At that time there was a Librarian at the Colonial Office as well as an Assistant, and the salary of the Librarian went up to £800 a-year. When the Librarian retired, Mr. Woods found that the Treasury would not keep faith with him; and he found that instead of being appointed to succeed, as he had been distinctly promised, the office was nominally abolished. Mr. Woods had been told over and over again that he might look for the promotion which was admittedly his due. To show that Mr. Woods was not alone in his view of the matter, the words of Lord Carnarvon might be quoted. In 1874 Lord Carnarvon was Secretary of State for the Colonies, and in a letter to the Treasury the noble Lord said that the decision of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, in the case of Mr. Woods, placed that gentleman in a different position from that which he had been led to expect, both in regard to employment and salary. Lord Carnarvon further requested the particular attention of their Lordships to the distinct expectation of promotion held out to Mr. Woods when he relinquished a good position at the Treasury in order to enter the Colonial Office as sub-Librarian. Mr. Woods was over and over again led to expect that whenever the post of Librarian became vacant he would suc-

    75
    ceed to it. The end of the matter was that the case of Mr. Woods, at the suggestion of that gentleman, was submitted to arbitration. But the arbitration was of a purely illusory character, because when he was prepared to go to arbitration, and submit his case to Earl Cairns, the arbitrator chosen, the Treasury did not allow him to make the statement he desired to make, and it was they only who submitted a case for the adjudication of the arbitrator. Mr. Woods naturally objected to such a one-sided submission, and desired to withdraw from the arbitration; but the Treasury obtained a decision from Earl Cairns. The reference to arbitration did not, he (Mr. O'Connor) was informed, admit of the examination of witnesses in support of Mr. Woods' case. The consequence was that this gentleman, after having faithfully served the public for a great many years, and having, even according to the testimony of the Treasury itself, served it well, found himself debarred from obtaining the post of Librarian at the Colonial Office, which he had naturally thought, from the statements made to him, was his right. Instead of obtaining the advantage he had been taught to expect, he found himself pensioned on a much smaller scale of salary than he had a fair claim to be allowed to go up to; and, at the present moment, the position of Mr. Woods was this—he had lost, in the shape of salary, more than £1,000, and about £120 a-year in pension. He (Mr. O'Connor) wished to add that he had no personal knowledge of Mr. Woods. He had never seen him; but having given to the case all the examination and attention he could, from the materials supplied to him, he was bound to confess that, in his opinion, a very great hardship had been arbitrarily inflicted upon Mr. Woods, and that the Treasury ought to reconsider their position in the matter, if not with regard to the status of Mr. Woods, at any rate with regard to the amount of pension. He (Mr. O'Connor) did not propose to move the reduction of the Vote; but he would ask the Treasury whether they would consent to the printing of the Papers relating to Mr. Woods' case. If the Government side of the matter was such as would bear investigation, he did not see why they should object to the printing of the Papers. He wished further to point out that the abolition of the
    76
    post of Librarian was, after all, not a genuine abolition; because, in the present Estimates, he found the post revived under the title of "Superintendent of the Library." He did not remember that the item appeared in last year's Estimates; but it was given now, and a sum of £308 attached to it. He trusted that he had stated the case sufficiently to allow the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury to answer it.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he happened to be in the Colonial Office at the time Mr. Woods was appointed. Some Papers had been missed from the Colonial Office, and they had appeared in one of the morning papers. They were documents of great importance, and in consequence of what had occurred, it was considered desirable to remove the Assistant Librarian from his post, but not to dismiss him. Mr. Woods succeeded as Assistant Librarian, having been transferred to the Colonial Office from the Treasury. Certainly, one of the inducements held out to Mr. Woods to make the change was that he would be entitled to promotion to the office of Librarian whenever it became vacant. He, therefore, trusted that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Frederick Cavendish) would look into the case, and endeavour, if possible, to do Mr. Woods justice.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I was not aware that the case was coming on to-night, or otherwise I would have refreshed my memory. But I think I can say enough to satisfy the Committee that the claims of Mr. Woods is not one that the Government can. entertain. I would venture to say that Mr. Woods has been treated with every consideration, and that he has been granted as large a pension as his services, under the circumstances, entitle him to. His claim to succeed to the post of Librarian could not be entertained, because, if acceded to, it would establish the doctrine that the office was one which Her Majesty's Government were bound to retain permanently. Mr. Woods, no doubt, considered that he had a grievance, and he commenced legal proceedings; but, at the last moment, he came to the conclusion that it was desirable to abandon the legal proceedings. At the request of Mr. Woods the whole case was referred to Lord Cairns—not only as to his legal rights,

    77
    but as to any equitable right he might have to compensation. The case was put fully before Lord Cairns, who decided that Mr. Woods' claim could not be recognized; and, under these circumstances, I do not think that the case ought to be re-opened.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that he was in the Colonial Office when Mr. Woods was serving in the Office. He was transferred from the Treasury to the post of Assistant Librarian, and, no doubt, he expected to have been made in time Librarian; but he never could have had any absolute claim to such advancement. Indeed, it would be impossible for the Treasury to answer for the organization of any office for all time to come. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who brought the subject forward, said the abolition of the office of Librarian at the Colonial Office had not been altogether bonâ fide. Now, the fact of the matter was this—the whole Office was re-organized, and, with a view to prevent any increase of expenditure, several posts were abolished, among which was that of Librarian. Anything more bonâ fide it was impossible to conceive. It was found quite unnecessary to have a Librarian and an Assistant Librarian, and the present Superintendent of the Library was appointed at £300 a-year, rising to £500. He was sorry that Mr. Woods had not been allowed to go before the arbitrator. He did not think that that gentleman would have been able to prove his case; but it would have been more consistent with the principles of justice that he should have been allowed to appear before Lord Cairns, and state the nature of his grievance personally. If Mr. Woods had had that opportunity afforded to him of fully explaining his case to an impartial arbitrator, they would probably have heard no more of the matter.
    MR. BIGGARremarked, that from all he could gather in reference to the case, Mr. Woods seemed to have been very badly treated. His hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had already read a few words from a speech of Lord Carnarvon, when Colonial Secretary, when the case was brought before the House of Lords by Lord O'Hagan. Lord Carnarvon dealt with the case upon its merits, and justice and the noble Lord said that in 1859
    78
    Mr. Woods, who had been at the Treasury for some years, was transferred to the post of Assistant Librarian at the Colonial Office with the distinct expectation that he would succeed in due course to the office of Librarian. Lord Carnarvon added that he had acquiesced, although reluctantly, in the decision at which the Treasury had arrived in reference to the claims of Mr. Woods; but he thought that that gentleman had taken an inadvisable course in taking legal proceedings against the Government. The fact was that Mr. Woods submitted his claim to the Treasury, and finding that he could get no redress, he published the correspondence. It was always considered that a public officer, however harsh the decision against him might be, should submit without placing his grievances before the general public by publishing the correspondence. It appeared that in this case the Government consented to an arbitration; but the arbitration was of a thoroughly illusory character, because the person most interested in the matter did not obtain leave to state his case before the arbitrator. He (Mr. Biggar) had never in his life heard of a more absurd arbitration. Only one party was allowed to appear and be heard before it. If the Treasury really wished that justice should be done, they should have allowed Mr. Woods to appear before Lord Cairns and state his case; and if the decision of Lord Cairns, after having fully heard the case, had then been against him, no doubt Mr. Woods would have been satisfied. It was not possible that he would be satisfied, or would believe that he had not been unjustly treated, when he found that the Government refused to submit anything to the arbitrator beyond their own version of the case. It certainly seemed to him, if the case had been properly represented, that Mr. Woods' application for a fresh hearing should be acceded to, and that the case should be re-opened by a fair and impartial tribunal, before which both parties could be heard.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORvery much regretted to hear the statement which had been made by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) objected to the statement he (Mr. O'Connor) had made that

    79
    the abolition of the office of Librarian at the Colonial Office had not been bonâ fide. He had not made the observation with any desire to be offensive, and, as exception was taken to it, he regretted that he had made use of it. All he now asked for was that the Government would consent to print the further Papers which four years ago were ordered by the House of Lords to be printed. The House of Lords consented to print them in the year 1877; but when he applied to the House of Lords for a copy of the Papers he was informed that the entry in the Votes was a Parliamentary fiction, and that, in point of fact, the Papers never had been presented. He believed they had been printed for the official purposes of the Colonial Office, so that it would not be difficult to furnish copies of them if the Government would consent to their being printed. He merely asked now that the Treasury should consent to the production of the Papers, and he had no intention of objecting to the Vote. With regard to what the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had said as to the unreasonableness of the expectation that any particular post should be retained for the benefit of a particular individual, a careful perusal of the Estimates for the present year would show that, in many cases, existing offices were kept open for certain officers. Here and there a note would be found appended to a Vote stating that "this post will be abolished on the retirement of the present officer," or words to that effect. All he would say in regard to the abolition of the office of Librarian at the Colonial Office was, that however unnecessary the post was a year ago, or 10 years ago, it was equally unnecessary when Mr. Woods was first appointed. If the Government thought at that time that in consideration of the past services of Mr. Woods he should have a claim to the office of Librarian, when it became vacant, they would be equally justified, when the post became vacant, in fulfilling their promise, and allowing Mr. Woods to hold the office until he had attained the maximum amount of pay he was led to believe he would ultimately reach. As a matter of fact, by the course pursued by the Treasury, Mr. Woods had been deprived of salary to the extent of £ 1,000; and the pension upon which he had been retired, having regard to the rate of pay
    80
    he ought to have received, was about £120 a-year lower than that which he would have received if he had been allowed to go up to the maximum amount of salary he was induced to believe he would reach. He would again press the Government to print and distribute the Papers relating to the case.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I am sorry that I cannot accede to the request of the hon. Member. The case has already been fully investigated. Mr. Woods took legal proceedings in order to assert his rights; and he was subsequently, as a matter of favour, allowed to go before an arbitrator. The case has, therefore, been fully gone into, and I do not think it necessary, or desirable, to re-open it.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £16,077, to complete the sum for the Privy Council Office.
    (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,355, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal."
    MR. DILLWYNobjected to the Vote, because he believed that the Office of Lord Privy Seal was a sinecure. He had objected to the Vote in other years, and had divided the Committee against it; but he should not take a division this year, because he did not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a division. He had often entered his protest against the Vote; and, if he took a division, it would only be entering another protest, and wasting the time of the Committee, without obtaining any practical result. He was, however, influenced on this occasion in not taking a division by this consideration—that the Minister who now held the Office had been appointed because he was thoroughly conversant with Irish affairs, and everybody knew there was a great pressure upon the Irish Office at the present moment. Lord Carlingford, the present Lord Privy Seal, was eminently fitted to assist the Irish Office in the legislation now proposed for Ireland; and, under these circumstances, he (Mr. Dillwyn) would content himself with entering a protest against the Vote,

    81
    without putting the Committee to the trouble of a division.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwished to have an explanation upon a much smaller matter. He saw that the following note was appended to the Vote:—
    "The Assistant Clerk also draws a pension of £79 6s. 8d. per annum from the Superanuation Vote, as late second class clerk in the Office of Works. His salary has been raised from £105 to £150 per annum."
    He thought it was wrong that this sort of thing should be allowed. If they had a gentleman who, on account of his age, had been superannuated in another Department, he did not see why he should be employed in the Office of Lord Privy Seal, nor could he imagine why it should have been found necessary to raise the salary of such an officer. He certainly thought the matter required a little explanation.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The gentleman referred to in the question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was removed from the Office of Works, where he received a higher salary than that which he receives in the Privy Seal Office, and it was felt right that he should receive compensation for the loss. He has accordingly been awarded the sum stated in the Vote. The transaction was completed shortly before the present Government came into Office.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORregretted that the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) should be prepared, now that the Liberals were in Office, to take a very different course from that which he took in the year 1879, when the Liberals were out of Office. As he (Mr. O'Connor) was not influenced by any such considerations, he was indisposed to allow the Vote to pass without challenging it. The arguments which the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) two years ago brought to bear against the retention of the Office of Lord Privy Seal had remained unanswered up to the present day. The noble Lord, on that occasion, pointed out that the continuance of this Office, instead of assisting the Public Business, really obstructed it. That was to say, that it acted as an unnecessary check upon the transaction of useful Public Business. No doubt, it might be desirable occasionally to have a Member of the Ministry whose time would not
    82
    be wholly occupied with Departmental work; but, in this particular instance, that idea was altogether illusory, the fact being that the majority of noble Lords who had held the Office of Lord Privy Seal had not been remarkable for the assistance they had contributed to the work of the Government. It had been abundantly proved that a considerable amount of positive delay in the transaction of Public Business was occasioned in consequence of the necessity of having certain documents stamped in the Privy Seal Office before being passed by the Great Seal. At the time of the last discussion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Office was a very ancient one, and that it had been handed down through a great number of Cabinets. That, however, was about the only argument the right hon. Gentleman advanced. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) said he was bound to admit that the Office was a sinecure, and that it ought to be abolished. The hon. Baronet, in the division which followed, accordingly voted in favour of its abolition; and he (Mr. O'Connor) hoped that on this occasion, if the hon. Baronet was in the House, he would vote for its abolition now. He was glad to see that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was in his place, because he also voted in 1879 for the abolition of the Office, on the ground that it was a sinecure. And not only did the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department take that course, but he was supported by another hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, the Attorney General (Sir Henry James), who also voted for the abolition of the Office. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. O'Connor) thought he was justified in the determination he had come to of taking a division upon the Vote. He desired, however, to offer a slight hint as to the division, because he thought it would be unjust to nominate as a Teller in support of the Vote the noble Lord the Member for Haverford west (Lord Kensington), who acted as one of the Treasury Whips, that noble Lord having voted in favour of the abolition of the Office, as a sinecure, on the previous occasion. He thought the noble Lord could hardly "tell" for the Government now in support of the Vote, seeing that he had voted for getting rid of the Office,

    83
    as a sinecure, only two years ago. Moreover, he (Mr. O'Connor) believed that the majority of hon. Members who eat below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House not only spoke, but voted in favour of abolishing the Office of Lord Privy Seal. He would not detain the Committee longer; but he would certainly not only object to the Vote, but take a division against it.
    MR. DILLWYNwished to make one observation upon the remarks of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. O'Connor). The hon. Member asserted that he (Mr. Dillwyn), when the Conservatives were in Office, always divided the Committee against this Vote, but that he took a different course now that the Liberals were in power. He could assure the hon. Member that he had divided against the Vote time after time when the Liberals were in power, as well as when the Conservatives were in Office, and he should do so in future, whenever a division was taken. He thought he had explained the reason why he did not take the initiative on the present occasion.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 44: Majority 100.—(Div. List, No. 342.)
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONrose to Order. He had been informed that two hon. Members who entered the Lobby had not been counted.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Tellers had done their duty, and counted all they could.
    (4.) £101,933, to complete the sum for the Board of Trade.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had a question to ask the Government with respect to the Vote. He wished to know what arrangements had been made for filling up the very important office of Chief of the Statistical Department?
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that, as he understood, the arrangements were incomplete; and he was, therefore, unable to answer the question of the hon. Member.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSthought the hon. Member (Mr. E. Stanhope) was clearly entitled to an answer.
    MR. A. MOOREsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment, which he trusted it would not be necessary to move.
    84
    There had been a prolonged debate at an earlier of the Session on the subject of the importation of oleomargarine and other butterine substances; and the question had been brought forward in consequence of the figures of the Board of Trade showing an enormous increase in these importations. It was not his intention to detain the Committee at that hour in discussing a matter which had already been fully gone into on a previous occasion; but he would mention that when he drew the attention of the Board of Trade officials to the fact that these products were coming into the country in great quantities, and that no cognizance was taken of them in the Statistical Department, he had not received from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade a very satisfactory answer. Perhaps, therefore, in the course of the debate upon this Vote, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to reply more completely. The fact was that there was an enormous quantity of the substances in question coming into the country—some in the form of oil, and some in the form of butter, while there was no record of the entries, except under terms that were quite delusive. They were, in fact, entered either as butter or lard. What he desired—and what he believed hon. Members would regard as a matter of very great importance—was that the Department should furnish the fullest information possible with respect to these imports, which were, after importation, sold as butter; and, therefore, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would be able to furnish, upon this subject, a satisfactory explanation, which would preclude the necessity of his moving the Amendment to which he had referred.
    VISCOUNT SANDONwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could furnish full information, as to what had been done with respect to Mr. Giffen? He was informed that that gentleman was still partially engaged at the Board of Trade. When he (Viscount Sandon) left the Office, he had made a proposal to the Treasury that Mr. Giffen's position should be very considerably improved. He had felt the advantage of that gentleman's talents to the public, and, therefore, desired they should be

    85
    retained in the Public Service; and, considering the increase of his duties, and the heavy responsibilities that attached to him, he had proposed to place him in the position of Assistant Secretary. The change of Government then took place, and his right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer felt it would not be right to commit the country to that large change at a time when he was leaving Office. A Minute had been made to that effect. He had no doubt the President of the Board of Trade would be in a position to state to the Committee good reasons for not ac ceding to the proposal with regard to Mr. Giffen. He hoped also that some information might be given, if possible, about the changes which were to be made as to a Department of Agriculture and Commerce. He knew the subject was full of difficulties; but he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could state what was the scheme of the Government with regard to it. He could not but impress upon the Committee the great importance and use of the Statistical Department.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, with regard to the last question of the noble Viscount (Viscount Sandon), the Prime Minister had some time ago stated that it was then impossible, on account of the pressure of public affairs, either for himself or his Colleagues to give that consideration to the subject which it required; but he proposed to consider it during the Recess, and to take action with regard to it on a future occasion. With regard to Mr. Giffen's position at the Board of Trade, he rather regretted the remarks of the noble Viscount, be cause he had referred to matters which, he considered, were of a confidential character, and quite apart from the subject of the Vote. He believed the noble Viscount would see that there was some inconvenience in referring to the matter, because there arose at once a conflict of testimony on the subject. He was compelled to say that he differed from the view of the case which had been taken by the noble Viscount, and would add that his view was not that taken by Mr. Giffen himself. Mr. Giffen's impression with regard to the matter was, that he had received a distinct promise from the noble Viscount that his position at the Board of Trade should be improved; and he seemed very
    86
    much aggrieved by the fact that the noble Viscount had left Office without carrying out the pledge which he considered had been given. When Mr. Giffen made that statement, he (Mr. Chamberlain) considered it his duty to ask the noble Viscount privately whether he had given such a pledge; and the noble Viscount stated that he had not done so, or, at all events, that he did not recollect it. He, therefore, considered it impossible to pursue the matter any further. Mr. Giffen had only expressed his view of the affair, and the noble Viscount was, of course, entitled to state his recollection with regard to it. All that he (Mr. Chamberlain) knew officially with reference to the matter was that undoubtedly an application had been made by Mr. Giffen to the noble Viscount, who referred it to the Treasury, and that it was refused by that Department under the late Government. The present Government, therefore, had simply to consider whether they should do something which their Predecessors in Office had distinctly refused to do. They had not finally decided that they would not do what was asked of them. The matter was still under consideration, because he felt, especially after the experience which he had had of Mr. Giffen's value, that it was of importance to the Public Service that his services should be, if possible, retained. He was in communication with the Treasury upon this subject when Mr. Giffen had, as he believed, some offer made to him which he said would greatly improve his position, and which he felt himself justified in accepting; and, accordingly, he asked him (Mr. Chamber lain) to accept his resignation. When a Question was asked in the House by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart Wortley), he stated, in reply, that Mr. Giffen had resigned his position in the Service in order to better his prospects. Subsequently to that changes were contemplated in the Office, which would throw additional work on the Statistical Department, and he had then made another attempt to retain. Mr. Giffen's services, and had so far succeeded that Mr. Giffen had, at all events, temporarily withdrawn his resignation, and his final position with. respect to the Department would not be determined until the question of a Minis try of Commerce and Agriculture was decided.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, as the right hon. Gentleman was about to enter upon another subject, and as reference had been made to the Treasury in connection with this matter, he wished to express his opinion that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that the application with regard to Mr. Giffen was distinctly refused by the late Government. The matter came before him at the close of the late Administration, and the directions he had given were simply founded on the desire to leave the question open for their Successors. He had not expressed, on the merits of the case, any opinion against the promotion of Mr. Giffen.
    VISCOUNT SANDONwished to make an explanation in reference to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. As the right hon. Gentleman had said, he had spoken with him (Viscount Sandon) on the subject; and he had told him that he, as his Successor in Office, was perfectly free to take whatever course that was best with respect to it. All that happened with regard to the Treasury was that his right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had said he did not like to bind his Successors by a change which would involve consider able re-organization in the Department. It seemed to him that the two ac counts of the transaction tallied perfectly well.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was sorry in any degree to differ from the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Sandon); but he could not admit that the two accounts actually tallied. He was afraid that the resignation of Mr. Giffen was largely due to his disappointment, owing to a promise which was not fulfilled. He would not enter into any discussion of the statement of the noble Viscount that he had not given any such promise. It was there that the difficulty arose. The noble Viscount had brought the matter before the Treasury in the time of the late Government; but he (Mr. Chamberlain) must remind the noble Viscount that Mr. Giffen's case was brought before him 12months before the late Government went out of Office. There was, consequently, plenty of time at the disposal of the Department; and he could not understand why the matter had been left open to be dealt with by the present Government.
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he had done everything in his power to carry out the proposal with regard to Mr. Giffen; but it must be remembered that the Board of Trade could not influence the Treasury in matters of expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chamberlain) had, no doubt, by that time discovered that in such matters he had rather hard masters in the Treasury.
    MR. OTWAYsaid, he did not wish to interfere in the controversy between the President of the Board of Trade and the noble Viscount the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon); but it appeared to him that Mr. Giffen had, at any rate, resigned under the management of the noble Viscount, and with drawn his resignation under that of the right hon. Gentleman. It was an un fortunate thing that the country should lose the services of an official when they became most valuable; and he would be glad to know whether it was in consequence of a refusal to make a reason able advance on the salary enjoyed by Mr. Giffen that he offered to resign and deprive the country of his services. The country would lose the services of a very able and valuable man through what he could not help calling the penurious conduct of the Treasury in not giving proper salaries to their servants. What had they done within the last 10 minutes? He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade took part in the division which had taken place in reference to the Office of Lord Privy Seal; but here they had been granting money for an Office which had been declared by a responsible Minister, when out of Office, to be a sinecure, although, now that he was in Office, that responsible Minister voted for it—they had been voting money for a sinecure Office, and now they were going to lose the services of such a man as Mr. Giffen, because they would not make the addition to his salary which his long service demanded. That might be a very good sport to the Committee; but, out-of-doors, it was looked on as a very serious matter. He considered it most inconsistent to vote a sum of money for an Office that was declared to be a sinecure; and, at the same time, to refuse to treat public servants of value with that consideration which their services deserved.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, they were all delighted to hear from the President of the Board of Trade that he had good hopes of being able to retain the services of such a valuable man as Mr. Giffen; but it should be remembered that this gentleman's resignation did not take place under the régime of his noble Friend (Viscount Sandon), but under that of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain). The noble Viscount had explained that during the time he had held Office he had done his best to induce the Treasury to make an addition to Mr. Giffen's salary, but without success. It was no secret to the Committee that Ministers often made attempts of that kind, which did not succeed. The noble Viscount, however, had done his best; and then the right hon. Gentleman had come into Office and had made similar efforts. The right hon. Gentleman had as much influence with the Treasury as the noble Viscount; and yet he did not seem to have been any more successful; there fore, it could not be said that the resignation was due more to the action of the noble Viscount than to that of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. J. G. Talbot) was not going into the vexed question between different Members of the Liberal Party, whether, in Office, they should continue to vote as they had done out of Office. The matter was one of good taste, and for their own consciences. Mr. Giffen was, undoubtedly, a most valuable public servant; and if his services could be retained, they ought to be, even at the expenditure of a little money by the Treasury.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that the case of the Lord Privy Seal and that of Mr. Giffen stood upon a totally different footing, and should be decided each on its own merits. The Committee should avoid the danger of infusing too much personal matter into the discussion. When an increase of salary was given to a gentleman in Mr. Giffen's position, they must expect to see a large demand made for similar development in the case of the other officials of the Department, and the Under Secretaries at the Board of Trade were numerous. It was only a very few years since Mr. Giffen was appointed at a salary higher than that which had been received by his predecessor. An hon. Member had asked what arrange-
    90
    ment had been come to, and that question had already been answered. All the questions which had been raised would be most carefully considered by the Cabinet during the Recess. It was probable that great changes would have to be made; and if, in the process of making them, it was found that the position of Mr. Giffen could be improved, he was sure that it would be done. He should be very glad if some arrangement could be made by which the services of Mr. Giffen could be retained.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFwished to know what were the duties of the Translator to the Board of Trade? From a document published by the Chambers of Commerce, it appeared that the translation of the French Treaty was withheld in consequence of the expense to which it would put the country. Well, seeing that they had a Translator at a salary of £400 a-year, he thought the cost of the translation need not have been very great if the Translator had done his duty. What were the duties of the Translators, if they were not to translate documents in the interest of the Board of Trade?
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The duty of the Translator to the Board of Trade is to translate all such foreign documents as are required. I can assure the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) that the Translator is fully employed. As to the question of butterine, referred to by the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore), the Board of Trade have no control over the classification the Customs adopt of the imported articles referred to. The moment I saw the nature of the Motion of my hon. Friend, I communicated with the Customs on the subject; and I have received a reply from them which, I am afraid, will not be satisfactory to the hon. Member, but which I am bound to put before the Committee. Oleomargarine, they say, is an oil, and when imported in large quantities in that form is classed under the head of animal oil, and not butterine. When, however, it comes over in the more finished form of butterine, which is either animal fat alone or animal fat mixed with a smaller or greater pro portion of pure butter, then it is classified as butter, and the Customs say they do not think it would be practicable or expedient to alter the classification. In the first place, they say it would be ex-

    91
    tremely difficult to distinguish between pure butter—real butter—and the artificial compound. I do not think they say the analysis would be impossible, but that it would be expensive and difficult. Then they say that all the butter, and butterine products, are perishable, and that if they are detained for any length of time for purposes of analysis they may be rendered valueless. And, lastly, they say that as there is nothing either in appearance, taste, or smell to distinguish butter from butterine, if a test were adopted every consignment of the article called butter which came through the Customs would have to be tested, which would entail enormous labour and expense. I have said this will not be satisfactory to the hon. Member, and I must confess it is not satisfactory to myself. I cannot but believe that we might be able to hit upon some means of distinguishing, with out incurring the difficulty and expense which the Customs suggest. I hope the time will come when the Board of Trade, which has to do with commercial matters in this House, and, above all, with statistical matters concerning the commerce of the country, will have control over the statistics of the country. In the mean time, what I propose to do is to communicate again with the Customs, and suggest that they should appoint some one to meet some representative of the Board of Trade, in order to revise this classification, and see if some bettor plan could not be adopted.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, that as to the difficulty suggested in the matter of analysis, he believed it to be simply with out foundation. It was one of the easiest things in the world to distinguish between spurious butters and real butters. The simple test of the application of heat would at once show which was the real and which was the spurious article. The answer which had been given to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade from the Customs was one of the ordinary red-tape replies, suggesting considerable difficulty and declaring the impossibility of any change. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not remain satisfied with the first rebuff he received from another Department. The question was one of great importance, as it affected the health of the whole community. It was impossible to exaggerate the importance of it.
    92
    Butter came into consumption in every family in the Kingdom; and they had reason to know that, though oleomargarine might not be bad or deleterious in itself, it was mixed with spurious and injurious matter, which could easily spread broadcast all kinds of fearful diseases. Parliament should not remain content unless this matter were taken up and treated as a matter of great importance.
    MR. A. MOOREsaid, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for the kind answer he had given. It was clear that, whatever difficulty existed, it was not of the making of the Board of Trade, but of a Department which was not altogether amenable to that House. If large quantities of this oleomargarine were coming into the country in iron casks, there could be no excuse for the Customs not making a distinction between that and other oils. He saw the difficulty of dealing with a beautifully made-up butter, because, in opening and testing it, it might perish; but he would make this remark—that, owing to the Dutch law—and it was from Holland that the best qualities came—every pound wa3 sold under its own name, although next day, perhaps, it was sold in London under another name. He did not consider the answer the hon. Member had received was satisfactory, although he did not blame the right hon. Gentleman.
    VISCOUNT SANDONasked whether he would be in Order, at this point, in referring to British seamen at Pernambuco?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: No.
    MR. BIGGARthought the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. A. Moore) was very unsatisfactory. There was a large quantity of stuff imported into London from various places under the name of "butter." Some of it came from France, and a large quantity was imported from Holland in casks and fancy packages. It would not keep more than a day or two, and unless it was used at once it became thoroughly rancid and unsaleable. The Customs would not examine the stuff for the protection of the public, lest some of it should get spoilt. There were three kinds of this material; one was a kind of butter, another was a mixture of butter and

    93
    animal fat, and the third was animal fat by itself. What could be more easy than for the authorities to say that in the bill of lading it should be specified whether the article imported was or was not animal fat, a mixture of butter and animal fat, or butter alone? The cask in which the stuff came should be branded, so as to show what it contained; and in that case they would not have tallow sold for butter, as was often the case at the present time. This matter was most important for two reasons—first of all, because it was dishonest and unfair to the consumer to make him pay the price of butter when the article he was supplied with was really not butter at all. In the next place, it was unfair to agriculturists who had to compete in the market with pure butter. The agriculturist would get a much higher price in the market for his genuine manufactured article had he not to compete with a spurious imitation. The Committee should insist far more strongly than it had done on the Government protecting the consumers and producers of butter in the United Kingdom. The greatest facilities were offered to the manufacturers of this artificial and adulterated stuff; and the agriculturists were allowed to suffer a reduced price of the real article, as well as restrictions placed on the importation of cattle. The Government, he thought, ought to do two things. First, they should throw all the obstacles they could in the way of the importation of this counterfeit butter; and, in the next place, they should exert themselves to see that the poor of London were not imposed upon, and that the stuff, if sold at all, should be sold under its proper name. The Committee knew very well that during three or four months of the year nine-tenths of what was sold in London as butter was not butter at all. It was almost impossible, in point of fact, for good and pure butter to be obtained re tail in London in the spring and winter months; and the Government were not doing their duty in trying to screen a lot of people who were of the vilest description, and who did enormous injury by their conduct.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLurged the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade not to be deterred from a consideration of this subject by the arguments that protection should
    94
    be given to the consumers in this country. He was quite aware that Protection had an ugly sound in the ears of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but he trusted that the day was not far distant when it would have a far more ugly sound. The principal reason urged by the President of the Board of Trade for not going further into the matter at present was the difficulty of detecting the difference between the spurious and the real article; but he (Sir Herbert Maxwell) believed researches had been made into the matter, and he was told by men of science that the two substances were chemically identical, or nearly so, but that it was quite possible for experts to detect the difference. He was told that when in a state of liquefaction by heat the real article went into a state which was quite unattainable by the spurious article, and that if it was placed on a hot plate, and subjected to a certain degree of heat, an amount of granulation was produced which could not be got rid of, and which was apparent to the eye of the expert. He thought the excuse of the right hon. Gentleman was unworthy of the great Department he represented. He sheltered himself behind the technical difficulty of ascertaining the difference between the two articles. That was not worthy of him or his Department. Difficulties were meant to be over come; and if the right hon. Gentleman was fully alive to the necessity of over coming this difficulty that would be done.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, it had been asserted by the answer which the right hon. Gentleman had read from the Customs Department that it was difficult to distinguish between butter and butterine; but he (Viscount Folkestone) wished to point out that even if there was that great difficulty, that very difficulty was in favour of the Motion of which Notice had been given, because if the detection of the difference was difficult to experts who had some know ledge of the matter, it would be far more difficult for consumers, who simply went into the market to buy butter, to distinguish between butter and butterine, and they would be all the more open to fraud from those who passed off the adulterated article. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would quickly do what he had said he would do—namely, devise some plan by which it would be possible for Custom House

    95
    officers to distinguish between the two articles, so that the consuming public might know what they were getting.
    MR. DUCKHAMthought the farmers of England had a right to ask for some measure for placing the spurious article in its proper name before the public. The analytical chemist was employed to detect the adulteration in milk, coffee, and other articles of consumption, and surely he could detect the spurious article which was sold in the name of butter. He had seen advertisements in different papers of butter which was called "Prime American" at 6d. or 8d. per lb., when he had seen that in America butter was quoted at 1s. 6d. and 1s. 8d. per lb. It must be obvious that this was an imposition on consumers in this country; and he thought that whatever the article was, it should be called by its proper name, and not be brought into competition with our own article under a false name.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman is wandering far away from the question. The only question is as to the statistics prepared under the authority of the Board of Trade; and, in reference to that, I have given a reply which I am glad to find is satisfactory—namely, that I will, at the earliest possible moment, endeavour, with the Custom House officers, to devise means by which the classification may be altered and the importation of these things kept separate in the Return. Then, my hon. Friend (Mr. Duckham) raises a totally different question—namely, the desirability of taking care that the retailer shall sell these things under their right name. Everything that legislation can do to secure that has been done already. My hon. Friend points out that the chemist, the expert, and the analyst are employed now to analyze milk; but the same analyst may, under the same circumstances and under the same responsibility, analyze these articles; and there have, as a matter of fact, been a certain number of convictions of retailers for selling butterine as butter. If my hon. Friend has any reason to believe that butter is being sold under a false name in any case, all he has to do is to go to the county authority and the law will give him a remedy.
    MR. BIGGARthought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had evaded the real point of
    96
    the case. It was not contended that the law was not sufficiently strong to put down this system of selling adulterated articles, but that the Government had not put the law into operation. It was all very well to say that a few convictions had taken place; but, as a matter of fact, for months in London such a thing as pure butter was hardly to be obtained. It was very well for the Government to enforce laws when it suited their own purpose, and at other times, because it conflicted with something they called Free Trade not to do so. He did not pretend to be a Protectionist himself; but he would protect consumers from spurious goods.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINexplained that the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was entirely mistaken, for, whatever the intentions of the Government might be they had no power in the matter. The execution of the law was left to the local authorities, and not to the Government; it rested entirely with them, and not with the Central Department.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLthought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had either mistaken the point he brought forward, or the point raised by the hon. Member below him (Mr. A. Moore). His own remarks were addressed, not to the local traffic—not to the sale by the re tailers—but to the importation of an article which was admittedly brought to this country for the purpose of adulteration. There was no known use for the substance known as oleomargarine, except that of being mixed with genuine butter, or else being turned into the article known as butterine. Those were the two sole uses for it. Oleomargarine was coming into this country in largely increasing quantities; and all he asked was that the Board of Trade should show how much of the stuff was introduced, and in what proportion it was increasing.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwould not venture on such a slippery ground as butter or oleomargarine; but he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade a question with regard to fees for professional orders. He saw that there was an amount of £1,400 a-year realized by those fees. The Chief Secretary for Ireland some time ago laid on the Table of the House a Return which showed

    97
    among other things that the Office of Public Works in Ireland, when it granted a Provisional Order, only charged the absolute expenses; but the Board of Trade, for Provisional Orders which affected Ireland, charged a fee of £35 each towards the expenses, when the draft order was deposited, and from that sum of £35 a fee of £10 10s. was paid by the Board of Trade to counsel for settling the Order, so that it would appear that the Board of Trade made a profit of £24 10s. on every Provisional Order passed affecting Ireland. He wished to ask whether it would not be possible for the Board of Trade to follow the same plan in regard to Orders affecting Ireland as that followed by the Office of Public Works in Ireland? Then, on page 102, the Committee would find a perfectly new matter introduced into this Vote, amounting to £3,100, which consisted of fees to Receivers of Wreck and the Coastguard, with travelling and incidental expenses under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. 1854 was some time back, and there never had been such a charge as this on the Estimate for these Services. The expenses connected with the Receiver of Wreck's duties had always been defrayed from the proceeds of wrecks, and a Return furnished to the House pursuant to Act of Parliament in connection with the Mercantile Marine Fund showed that the proceeds of the sale of wreck within the year was £3,329; while the fees and commissions received by the Receiver of Wreck amounted to £3,273, making a total of £6,602, which went to the remuneration and contingent expenses of the Receiver of Wreck. He believed that last Session an Act was passed entitled "The Merchant Shipping Fees and Expenses Act," by which the application of the proceeds of wreck to the payment of the Receiver of Wreck was sanctioned; and, that being so, he could not see the necessity of throwing the expenses connected with these Services on this Vote. On the the first page, £3,100 were put down as among extra receipts. That was the same sum as was charged against the public on page 102, so that the public were not at any loss on ac count of this innovation; but, whatever might be put down as extra expenses on the first page of this Vote, the introduction at a later page to a charge of £3,100 saddled this Vote with a per-
    98
    manent charge of that amount, which could never be got rid of until the officers receiving the money were pensioned. Hitherto, the wreck had paid its own expenses, and the account had year by year diminished, and the fees might be expected to dwindle down to what was just enough to cover the expenses. He thought it was very bad policy to intro duce a sum like this as Exchequer Extra Receipts; and he hoped the Government might have some explanation respecting it beyond anything that he was able to suggest or conceive.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor) had asked two separate questions. The first was, why the charges in connection with Provisional Orders differed from those which were made in reference to Public Works in Ireland?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORhoped the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him while he explained what the real point was. His statement was that, according to the Official Returns furnished by the Chief Secretary for Ire land, the Board of Trade paid a fee of £10 10s. to the counsel consulted in regard to the issue of a Provisional Order; but the Board previously levied a deposit of £35 from the promoters, so that they made a profit of £24 10s. out of every Provisional Order that was issued, whereas the Irish Board of Works charged nothing beyond the absolute expenses.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not know how the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connor) got his information that the Irish Board of Works did not charge anything beyond the actual expenses.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORre marked, that it was so stated in a Re turn presented to the House.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Member assumed that because the Board of Trade paid £10 10s. as a fee to counsel, that was the whole cost to the Board. The hon. Member seemed to forget that the Board of Trade had all their office expenses to pay in addition to the fees to counsel. There was no legislation so cheap, so convenient, or that gave rise to so little dissatisfaction subsequently, as this system of legislation by Provisional Orders. The greatest care was taken to see that the Orders were drawn up so as to give as little trouble, and inflict as small an

    99
    amount of injustice as possible; and he did not believe that the charges made by the Board of Trade had ever been considered excessive by those in whose service the Provisional Orders were issued. In regard to the second point, the hon. Gentleman seemed to attach too much importance to what was, after all, a mere change in the mode of presenting the accounts. The object of the change was to give to the House of Commons more and more detailed information; and the plan had been adopted, for the first time that year, of showing in the Votes the exact amount of the fees charged. There was no fear that the fees would continue to be charged long after the work ceased, because they were apportioned to the work, and all the money received was paid into the Exchequer.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, in regard to the first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, wished to remind him that if the Board had office expenses in connection with Provisional Orders be yond the sums paid in the shape of fees to counsel, so also had the Department of Board of Works in Ireland. All he contended was, that if the Board of Works could furnish a Provisional Order, when petitioned for, at the absolute expense they had been put to in connection with it, the same course might be taken by the Board of Trade in similar cases. In regard to the second point, he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that al though, unquestionably, they had now in the Board of Trade Vote, at page 102, a detailed account such as had never been supplied before, yet it was not a question of the sum of money absolutely paid as fees which had been introduced at all. The sum put down was a good round sum of £2,200 for the Receivers, and another sum of £800 for the Coastguard. He understood that that was not a varying sum, but a permanent charge. Personally, he thought that that was a very unsatisfactory, and even dangerous way of giving the information.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was very much surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. O'Connor) had raised that debate. His hon. Friend had gone at considerable length into a matter of account, and had
    100
    attacked what had constantly been pressed upon the Government by Committee of Supply—namely, that in making payments they should set forth what the payments were for, and if they had receipts that they should give them a statement. He believed that that was the best course of checking the public expenditure. It was the course adopted in regard to many other accounts, and he hoped it would be universally adopted. Certainly, if the Government constituted a number of new offices, and suddenly saddled the public with a new charge, there would be ample justification for attacking them; but, in this case, the charges complained of were simply fees that were payable on a certain transaction being completed, and the Committee had before them not the fees actually payable in the course of the year, but an estimate of them given in a round sum. He should like to have some in formation from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in reference to one of these items—namely, a salary of £1,000, advancing to £1,200, to one of the Assistant Secretaries, who also received £500 a-year for performing the work of auditor in connection with the Metropolis Water Act of 1871. He had no doubt that the duties performed were highly important, and he believed there was a charge made upon the Metropolitan Water Companies to provide the remuneration; but he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman how far the duties this gentleman had to perform under the Metropolitan Companies Water Act interfered with the duties he was called on to fulfil as the salaried officer of a Public Department? As the sum paid by the Metropolitan Water Companies was large, he presumed that the work rendered was substantial; and he should like to know whether the extra work was done during the time which ought to be devoted to the Public Service? He hoped to hear some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the arrangement to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) referred was undoubtedly an anomalous one; but it was one which had been in existence for a good many years, and it had been brought before the Committee each year since it had been entered into. He could not go back to the time the appointment was

    101
    first made, or state the reasons for it, because he was not in the House at the time. He could only say, in regard to the way in which it worked now, that he believed a great deal of the work was done out of office hours, and in no way interfered with the work done for the Crown. Mr. Stoneham, who performed the two duties, was a very valuable officer, and fully worth the whole of the sum he received from the State for the work rendered to the Department.
    Vote agreed to.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTmoved that the Chairman, report Progress. It was then half-past 1 o'clock in the morning, and it would be necessary for the House to meet again at 2 in the afternoon. He was sure that the Government would not, under the circumstances, desire to continue the Committee.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINassented.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot,)—put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock,

  SUMMARY PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 216.]
  (The Lord Advocate.)
  SUMMARY PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 216.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Application).
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, to insert at the end of the clause—
    "The provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts shall also apply to prosecutions under the Tweed Fisheries Acts: Provided always, That it shall he in the option of the prosecutor to proceed either under the forms of the Tweed Fisheries Acts, or under the forms of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts."
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, further Amendment made, in page 2,
    102
    line 21, by leaving out from "this" to "1864," and inserting "the Summary Jurisdiction Acts."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Regulation of expenses).
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, the scale of fees allowed by one of the clauses was so low as, perhaps, to amount to a discouragement of prosecution, and there fore to interfere with the course of justice.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)explained, that when the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, some objections were made to the scale of fees, and a slight increase was made, and since then he had not heard that any complaint was made that the fees were too low.
    Clause agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT, 1880, AMENDMENT BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 226.]
  (Mr. Courtney.)
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT, 1880, AMENDMENT BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 226.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Bill was intended to legalize the sale of certain birds in the United Kingdom, which, notwithstanding that the birds had been lawfully killed here or had been killed abroad, could not now be sold under the Act of last year. He trusted the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Mr. Courtney,)—put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  LUNACY LAW AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 192.]
  (Mr. Dillwyn, Sir George Balfour, Mr. Benjamin T. Williams.)
  LUNACY LAW AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 192.]
    COMMITTEE.

      ORDER, DISCHARGED. BILL WITHDRAWN.
      Order for Committee read.
      MR. DILLWYN, in moving that the Order be discharged, said, he believed

      103
      there were some points in the Bill which the Home Office did not consider would work satisfactorily. He therefore begged to move that the Order be discharged. At the same time, as the Department had expressed a general approval of the measure, he hoped that at the earliest possible date the matter would be taken in hand by Her Majesty's Government.
      Motion agreed to.
      Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.
      House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.