Commons Sitting of 2 May 1881

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Tithe Rent-charges, appointed.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Medway Conservancy (No. 2) *.
PUBLIC BILLS—Motion for Bill—Parliamentary Oaths.
Ordered—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Order (Birmingham)* [144]; Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order)* [145].
Second Reading—Land Law (Ireland) [135]—[Third Night]—debate further adjourned.
Committee—Alkali, &c. Works Regulation [119]—R.P.; Bankruptcy and Cessio (Scotland)* [81]—R.P.
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Bath, &c.)* [131]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law)* [130]; Local Government (Highways) Provisional Order (York)* [132], and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS ACT—MR. BRADLAUGH.
MR. MACIVER: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to appeal to you upon a point of Order that may have some bearing upon the course it is understood Her Majesty's Government propose to adopt with regard to Mr. Bradlaugh. I wish to ask you, Whether the Parliamentary Affirmation, which has hitherto been incumbent upon those who conscientiously object to taking oaths, does not contain a solemn declaration of loyalty to the Queen and Constitution, such as cannot reasonably be made by one who

1531
proclaims himself to be an Atheist and a Republican; and whether, under these circumstances, the introduction of any measure which proposes to substitute a mere formality for what is now a binding obligation would not of itself be an abuse of the Privileges of this House such as ought not be permitted in an Assembly where every Member has either taken the Oath of Allegiance himself, or has made a solemn declaration to a like purport?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asks me a Question with reference to the construction of an Act of Parliament. The hon. Member—and, indeed, every other Member of this House—is equally competent with myself to construe such Acts; and I must leave it to the hon. Member to form his own opinion on the matter.
MR. LEWIS: When the Motion of the Attorney General for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Oaths Act is made, I shall move the following Amendment:—
"That, inasmuch as the proposed alteration of the Parliamentary Oaths Act is brought forward for the express and immediate purpose of admitting to a seat in the Legislature a professed Atheist, this House declines to be in any way party to a proceeding which is, at the same time, obnoxious to the general religious feeling of the Country, opposed to the spirit of the Constitution and Common Law of this Land, and dishonouring to God."

MONUMENT TO THE RIGHT HON. THE LATE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to give Notice that on the First Lord of the Treasury moving that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider an Address to be presented to the Queen, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a monument be erected in Westminster Abbey at the public charge to the memory of the Earl of Beaconsfield, I shall move the Previous Question.
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can afford any facilities for the discussion of the Motion of which Notice has been given with respect to the Transvaal?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman has done everything that could be expected of him to secure the discussion of the Motion of which he has given Notice; and had matters in South Africa remained as they were at the time we last communicated across the Table, I should have been quite prepared to place at the right hon. Gentleman's disposal the first or second Government day after the second reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. But, since that time, a change of circumstances have occurred. We have been authentically informed of the nature of the proceedings at Potchefstroom; and it has been made quite undeniable that the capitulation of Potchefstroom was obtained—and it is admitted by the Boer Leaders themselves, with whose conduct we have no fault to find—by an act of treachery on the part of Cronjes, who commanded the besieging force, and who never made known to the garrison the fact that an armistice had been concluded. The Boer leaders quite agree that full reparation must be made for the capitulation, and that the capitulation must be cancelled and the garrison replaced in Potchefstroom, or other equivalent measures taken for the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government. In these circumstances, the arrangements in South Africa have certainly receded somewhat from the degree of maturity which they had reached at the time of the former conversation in the House, and which was such as to enable us to believe that the whole conduct of Her Majesty's Government might be brought under review without injury to the public interest. At present, I cannot say that that is the case. I could not be responsible—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will understand me—for promoting a discussion in the circumstances which now prevail. I certainly have very good hope that no long delay need on that account be interposed; but until the very serious matter—serious in principle—to which I have referred, is disposed of, I am not in a position to make any communications to the right hon. Gentleman. If he thinks fit, I will leave the matter on this footing—that, instead of his watching from day to day for the opportunity he desires, and possibly putting Questions to the Government, I will be responsible for making known to him at the first moment when it may be considered that we have re-

  1533
  verted to the former state of affairs, and will tender to him the best arrangements in my power with the view of enabling him, if he thinks fit, to bring his Motion forward.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (NEGOTIATIONS)—FURTHER PAPERS.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, When any further Papers relating to the Transvaal will be presented to Parliament; and, whether they will include the instructions, if any, to Sir F. Roberts on his departure from England?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: I was under the impression that the Instructions to the Commission would be circulated today. If they are not, they will be circulated immediately. The Instructions to Sir Frederick Roberts were circulated on Saturday. They are already in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—SURRENDER OF POTCHEFSTROOM.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there were any casualties in the garrison of Potchefstroom between date of armistice and date of its surrender, and what has become of the garrison since the surrender; at what dates respectively were the news of the armistice conveyed by the Boers to the other besieged garrisons in the Transvaal; and, whether the Government have made any, and, if so, what inquiry on these subjects?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first Question, I have to say that our casualties at Potchefstroom were from the 9th to the 12th of March—killed, 2; wounded, 10 British and 1 Native; from the 13th to the 19th—wounded, 3. The garrison has come away. In reply to his second Question, I have to say that Sir Evelyn Wood telegraphs to-day that he believes that the armistice was notified at Wesselstroom on the 10th of March; at Standerton on the 11th; at Pretoria on the 15th; at Lydenberg on the 25th; at Rustenburg on the 30th; and at Marabastadt on a date not known. The Boers, however, state that the date he
  1534
  quotes as to Wesselstroom and Standerton must be inaccurate; but they have no date they can rely on. They explain that the swollen rivers delayed the message to Lydenberg.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (NEGOTIATIONS)—"SUZERAINTY."
  SIR HENRY PEEKasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the substitution of suzerainty for the sovereignty which was proclaimed in the Transvaal will disturb the rights of appeal from the courts of the territory to Her Majesty in Council?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): According to the terms of agreement entered into by Sir Evelyn Wood, the Transvaal will have complete self-government in its own internal affairs; and as this includes the holding of Courts, the right of appeal to Her Majesty in Council will be entirely gone.

  SOUTH AFRICA—NATIVE CUSTOMS IN NATAL.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the British Government in Natal recognises the sale of women, and sanctions the right of a native insolvent to include the marriageable value of his daughters in the assets of his estate; and, whether he will lay upon the Table Copies of any Papers that may be at the Colonial Office relating to native customs in Natal?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: My reply to the first Question is that the Natal Zulus, who outnumber the Whites by about 20 to 1, are still governed to a great extent by their own laws and customs, one of which requires the bridegroom to give his future father-in-law a present of cattle for consenting to give his daughter in marriage. Such a transaction would be recognized by our authorities, provided the young lady consented. I can give no certain reply to the second Question; but we have not heard of any such case at the Colonial Office. My reply to the third Question is that various Papers on the subject are already before Parliament, and will be found at pages 297–306 of C 2,144, and at page 14 of 2,676. We have little about it that is unprinted; but I know of no objection to giving what we have.

  ARMY—AUXILIARY FORCES—THE VOLUNTEER REVIEW AT WINDSOR.
  MR. BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can inform the House what date has been fixed for the Review of the Volunteers by Her Majesty in Windsor Park?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that I have Her Majesty's authority to say that she hopes to hold the Volunteer Review either in the last week of June or the first week of July. When the actual day is fixed, I will at once take care to make it publicly known.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—THE MACKEREL FISHERY.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the recent extraordinary development of the mackerel fishery on the coast of Clare, where 69 boats are stated by Mr. F. J. Brady, Inspector of Fisheries, to have each been taking, near Loop Head, on an average 20,000 mackerel nightly, of the value of from £200 to £300; and, whether, in view of the very large fishing fleet, with its attendant steamers, which may in future be expected in the locality, the Treasury will reconsider its refusal to assist in the extension of the Cappa Pier at Kilrush?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I am informed that during the month of April a large number of vessels have been very successfully engaged in prosecuting the mackerel fishery off the mouth of the Shannon. The fish taken have been brought to Foynes in steamers, and thence conveyed by rail for the most part to Dublin and elsewhere. To accommodate this traffic the harbour of Foynes, which had become to a great extent silted up, has been cleared out, at a cost of between £400 and £500, so as to allow of the regular and prompt despatch of the cargoes. On the other hand, the Cappa Pier at Kilrush is about 28 miles from the nearest railway station, and would not, therefore, meet the requirements of the fish traffic. As this is the only new reason brought forward, the Treasury are not at present prepared to re-consider their decision, which was founded on considerations of the general interests of the Shannon navigation. But if the localities interested are prepared to undertake the
  1536
  expense and responsibility of maintaining piers such as that at Kilrush, the Treasury would consider whether statutory power should not be taken to hand them over upon conditions to the local authorities.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND) ACT, 1877—NEWCASTLE AND MORPETH PRISONS.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can state if he has come to any conclusion respecting the closing of Newcastle and Morpeth Prisons, or either of them; and, whether he contemplates the erection of a large central prison for that district?
  MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, no conclusion had yet been arrived at respecting the closing of the prisons referred to. It was hoped the expense of erecting a large central prison might be avoided.

  THE CENSUS (SCOTLAND)—THE GAELIC LANGUAGE.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been directed to numerous complaints of the manner in which certain enumerators in Scotland have dealt with the Census Returns in regard to Gaelic speaking Scotsmen; and, whether he will allow these Returns to be amended in all cases where it can be shown that enumerators acted in contravention of the Registrar General's instructions, as finally explained in his secretary's letter of date 21st March last?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)said, that the Census of Gaelic-speaking persons was intentionally confined to those who spoke the language habitually; and he failed to see what legitimate purpose a statistical inquiry of this kind could serve, by including in the Census persons who merely possessed a literary acquaintance with the language. He could not undertake to correct any of those errors which were incident to such a Return, and which could only pretend to be approximately accurate.

  THE FISHERIES—LIGHTS OF FISHING VESSELS.
  MR. HENEAGEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware

  1537
  that the use of coloured lights by trawling smacks was unanimously condemned by a Select Committee presided over last Session by the Secretary of the Board of Trade; and, further, that the masters and owners of trawlers are unanimous in their opinion that considerable loss of life and damage to their property would be the result of the use of a coloured masthead light, in which opinion the smack owners' insurance offices fully concur; and, whether he will undertake that the Report of the Select Committee shall not be set aside without giving the House an opportunity of judging the question on its true merits, and the trawling smack owners of having their case fairly stated by those Members specially representing their interests?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member's Question appears calculated to convey an impression that the law relating to the carrying of white lights by trawlers ought not to be altered. On this subject the Government are collecting information. Before anything is done, Papers on the subject will be laid before the House.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL— DIFFERENTIAL DUTY ON SPIRITS.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can supply the House with any figures to bear out the estimate given in his Budget Sheet, that the proposed
  "More accurate method of measurement and the establishment of a more perfect equality between different kinds of spirits will produce an increase of revenue amounting to £180,000;"
  and, whether it would not be more correct to estimate said increase at a sum nearer £1,000,000?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no hesitation in saying that to estimate the increase in the Revenue from the source referred to in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question at £1,000,000, or even at £500,000, would be grossly incorrect. This is a matter in which the Government must place dependence upon the judgment of practical officers, who are perfectly accustomed to the work. The substitution of an accurate for an inaccurate method is quite within the range of their competency and judgment; and I have no reason to think that their estimate of the result is not
  1538
  substantially correct. The representation made to me has been that the amount of increase will be rather less than the figures I stated in my Budget speech.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—TREATMENT OF PRISONERS UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that Mr. D. O'Connor and Mr. T. J. Quinn, who are imprisoned in Kilmainham Gaol under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant, were not provided with bedding in the police barrack of Claremorris, where they were detained on the night of their arrest; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to prevent the further infliction of such hardship upon prisoners similarly circumstanced?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: It is true that the gentlemen referred to in the hon. Member's Question were not provided with bedding in the police barracks of Claremorris, there being no bedding in the barracks except that provided for the police themselves. The police gave them their great coats to wrap themselves in, and they passed the night upon forms. A good fire was kept up for them during the night, and when they left in the morning they expressed their thanks to the constables for the kindness with which they had treated them.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE—THE PLAYFAIR SCHEME.
  MR. A. GRANTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether under the Playfair Scheme, when a clerk of the lower division not drawing duty pay has been called upon for several months in each year to take the place of duty pay clerks absent on annual leave, that clerk is entitled to receive duty pay while performing such duty?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: In the case described by my hon. Friend, the practice would follow the general rule of the Public Service, that during an officer's leave his colleagues perform his duties. I may add that it is usually found that juniors are glad to take the place of their superiors when absent, as they obtain thereby acquaintance with

  1539
  the duties of the latter, and so become bettor qualified for promotion.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—THE NEW FRENCH GENERAL TARIFF.
  MR. KYNASTON CROSSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can give to the House any detailed information as to the actual increase of duty to which cotton, linen, and woollen goods, and also hardware and pottery, will be subject under the proposed French General Tariff?
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he is aware that the arrangements entered into with the French Government in the Treaty of 1860, with regard to British Sheet and plate glass, have proven to be practically prohibitory; and, further, if he can inform the House what measures he intends adopting in future negotiations for the purpose of obtaining a modification of the existing French Tariff?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The scale of duties under the new general tariff of France is stated to be in general an augmentation of 24 per cent on the present conventional rates. In consequence, however, of the conversion of ad valorem into specific duties, and of changes in classification, it is not possible to give, within the limits of an answer, detailed information as to the actual increase of the new duties. From information which has been received from Chambers of Commerce and competent persons in this country, Her Majesty's Government have reason to believe that on many of the articles mentioned by my hon. Friend the real increase of duty will considerably exceed the nominal increase, and the attention of the French officials has already been called to these points by Mr. Kennedy, and the subject will be fully considered and examined when the formal negotiations begin. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Sunderland, I may state that Her Majesty's Government have been informed that the present rates on sheet and plate glass have proved prohibitory, and every effort will be made to procure a reduction of them. I would wish to add that on the promulgation of the general tariff of France, which must take place before the 8th instant, copies will be sent to all the
  1540
  Chambers of Commerce in this country, with the request that any observations which they may desire to make in addition to those already received, may be transmitted without delay.

  INLAND REVENUE—TAX ON HORSES AND CARRIAGES.
  MR. BIRLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is a fact that the Inland Revenue authorities have decided to enforce the carriage tax of two guineas annually, upon carts and larries used occasionally on holidays for the conveyance of Sunday school children, and hitherto exempt; and, if so, whether he will take measures to continue this exemption under the exceptional circumstances?
  MR. ARMITAGEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the memorial which has been presented to the Inland Revenue Department by the Manchester Sunday School Union may be granted, namely, that the lurries-waggons or carts, which are usually lent on hire at a nominal charge for the conveyance of children for purposes of excursion during the days of holiday in Whitsun week, shall not be required to pay a licence, the fact being, that previous to the present time the Act requiring such licence to be taken out for general purposes has never been put in force in respect to Sunday Schools?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not without hope that we may make some arrangement in reference to this subject that may be satisfactory to all parties. At the same time, I cannot absolutely promise that vehicles so employed shall be exempted altogether from the ordinary tax. The Inland Revenue Board are placed in this matter between two fires—one, from those who desire this exemption, and the other from the tradesmen who have to pay the tax. I will make inquiry into the subject, and will see whether some lower rate of tax cannot be imposed upon vehicles used for this particular purpose.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL—THE COMMISSION.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the event of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill being read a second time, he will be prepared, before asking the

  1541
  House to go into Committee on the Bill, to state the names of the persons who are to compose the Land Commission referred to in the Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am unable to give the noble Lord any promise to state the names of the persons who are to compose the Land Commission before going into Committee on the Bill. I trust, however, that it will not be long before we may go into Committee on the measure. I can promise, at the same time, that at a later stage, probably when we go out of Committee, we shall be prepared to give the names.

  STATE OF IRELAND—OUTRAGES AT MUCKROSS AND CLIFDEN.
  MR. THORNHILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the following statement, which appeared in the London papers of last night, is correct, viz.:—
  "According to information received from Tralee on Tuesday, a party of about sixty men, partly armed and disguised, visited the house of a bailiff named Denehy, in the employment of Mr. Henry Arthur Herbert, of Muckross, at Clydane, near Castle Island, and cut off both his ears. They left after cautioning him not to serve any more writs. No arrests have been made;"
  and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to put an end to such barbarous outrages?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The details of this crime have been much exaggerated in the reports, but it is still of a barbarous nature. A party numbering about 10 men entered the house of the bailiff Denehy at half-past 12 o'clock on the night of the 25th ultimo. They searched for writs, but found none. Before leaving they cut off a small piece from his left ear and two pieces out of his right ear, and they made him promise not to servo any more writs. This was a week ago. No arrests have been made; but I have given stringent instructions to the police to use every effort to discover the perpetrators of these atrocities.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has inquired into the circumstances connected with the murder, on the night of Sunday the 24th April, near Clifden in Connemara, of John Lydon, and of the attempted assassination of his son, after both the victims
  1542
  were taken from bed, in the middle of the night; whether it was not proved at the inquest that the father and son were seized by six men, taken outside of their cabin, thrown on the ground, and then shot when in that position; whether the crime was not of an agrarian character; whether the son, who survived, did not identify a man named Patrick Walshe as one of the murderers, and, notwithstanding the jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against some persons unknown; and, whether, under an ordinary trial by jury in the West of Ireland, there is any prospect of a conviction being obtained again in a plainly proved case?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have inquired very strictly into this case, and I have seen several official reports in reference to it. The facts of the murder are substantially correct as set forth in the hon. Gentleman's Question. The crime was of an agrarian character. Notwithstanding the fact that the son who survived identified one of the persons who took part in the crime, the Coroner's Jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown.
  MR. HEALYasked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he would state to the House the reasons he had for alleging that the crime was of an agrarian character?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I cannot imagine any person acquainted with the facts of the case not being convinced that it was of an agrarian character.
  MR. LEWISsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the last part of his Question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Gentleman asked him whether in an ordinary trial by jury in the West of Ireland there was any prospect of a conviction being obtained in a clearly proved case. In a great many plainly proved cases a conviction was just as likely to be obtained in the West of Ireland as anywhere else. With regard to agrarian cases, the hon. Gentleman was as able as himself to form an opinion of the likelihood of obtaining a conviction in the West of Ireland.

  ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES— ADJUTANTS OF VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering

  1543
  the small number and age of the Volunteer Adjutants on the old footing, and the expediency of having them all retired, he will not at once arrange that they may do so on the same footing as was conceded to the old Militia Adjutants some years ago?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that I have twice replied to a similar inquiry, to the effect that the case of these few old officers does not form part of any general plan of re-organization; but I have made preliminary inquiries as to each officer before deciding whether anything should be done in the matter.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE WHITEBOY ACT—CASE OF DANIEL O'SULLIVAN, AT MILLSTREET, CO. CORK.
  MR. DALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the prosecution by the police, at Millstreet, county Cork, of Daniel O'Sullivan the younger, aged nine or ten years, who appeared before the magistrates crying, and who was prosecuted by the Queen at the suit of head constable Spencer, under the Whiteboy Act, for having, on the 22nd instant, at two o'clock in the day, attempted, by carrying a lighted torch in the public streets of Millstreet,—
  "To promote a certain unlawful assembly, contrary to the statute made and provided, and against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her Crown and Dignity;"
  whether, on the occasion referred to, the child's offence did not consist in his heading a procession of young fellows who were after tilling the farm for a woman whose husband had died, and that, on being spoken to, the child stated that he did not know he was doing anything wrong, and went away when he was told; and, whether he will direct an inquiry into the circumstances attending this prosecution?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have received a Report on this subject, and it appears that the youth Daniel O'Sullivan was the leader of a party of boys from 12 to 17 years of age, he himself being about 12. About 30 boys assembled and went in procession through Mill-street. On being stopped they dispersed. They re-assembled at the instigation of grown-up persons. The case has been adjourned by the magis-
  1544
  trates until the 19th instant; and, pending their decision, I do not intend to take any further steps in the matter. There was much more probability of disturbance than would appear from the Question. There was a great deal of excitement in the place.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— ALLEGED EXCESS OF DUTY AT NEWCASTLE.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a Report in the "Freeman's Journal" of Tuesday 26th April, of the conduct of the Constabulary at Newcastle on the 24th April, when, as stated, the Constabulary was ordered to charge a number of boys who were following them whistling a tune; whether the Constabulary knocked down, kicked, and beat indiscriminately with the butts of their guns a number of persons including a little son of James B. Bell, who was knocked senseless on the road, and a young man named Massey, who had taken this child in his arms after he had been thus assaulted; whether a policeman knocked down with his rifle an old grey-headed man, and beat him till he was almost senseless, and left him lying in the street bleeding from the mouth; whether a respectable young man named David Kennedy, the managing clerk of Mr. James Cregan, merchant, was brutally beaten by the Police as he was leaving his employer's shop on his way home, being struck in the region of the heart, and made to vomit large quantities of blood; and, whether he will direct a searching inquiry into the occurrence?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had made particular inquiry about this matter, and he was of opinion that the local correspondent of The Freeman's Journal had given an account which was not correct. It really was a serious case of rioting. A dangerous and unprovoked assault was made on the police. The affair occurred on the 23rd and not on the 24th of April, and instead of being confined to a number of boys, it was a desperate riot by a large mob of men, who attacked and stoned the police, several of whom, including a sub-inspector, were injured by stones. The police had to charge the mob; but they did not do so until six of their number

  1545
  (nearly 30) were struck with stones. The sub-inspector had given a full and careful report of the case; and, therefore, no inquiry was called for.
  MR. PARNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last three parts of the Question?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was informed it was not true that the police knocked down, kicked, and beat people indiscriminately; that nothing whatever was known of the little boy Bell having been hurt, nor of a grey-headed man having been knocked down. Nothing was known of Kennedy having been hurt. He had been seen repeatedly since the occurrence walking about in his usual health.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE BASUTOS (NEGOTIATIONS).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he can state the present position of the Basuto affair, and say—whether the Cape Government distinctly accepted the arbitration of Sir H. Robinson and bound themselves to abide by any award which he might give; whether when the Basutos were required to lay down their arms before arbitration, it was merely intended that they should cease from armed opposition, or they were called on actually to surrender their arms; and, how the arbitration is to be conducted now that Sir H. Robinson has gone to the Transvaal?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONhad also given Notice of his intention to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government are able to communicate to the House any authentic information concerning the recent negotiations between Sir Hercules Robinson and the Basuto Chiefs?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: I will, with the permission of the House, answer my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle together. In reply to the first specific Question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, I have to say "Yes." In reply to the second, I have to say that the words were used in the ordinary sense—namely, that the Basutos were to cease from hostilities. In reply to the third, I have to say that, as the award has been given, the difficulty cannot arise. My best reply to my hon. Friend
  1546
  the Member for Carlisle will be to read the telegrams which have been received from Sir Hercules Robinson—
  "April 29.—The following is a summary of the terms which I have awarded in the Basuto case:—First, disarmament, tempered by a system of registration, and an annual licence fee of £1 for each gun; second, compensation to be paid by tribe to loyal people and traders for destruction of property; third, the tribe to pay a fine of 5,000 head of cattle for taking up arms against the Government; fourth, these terms being complied with, there shall be a complete amnesty, and no confiscation of territory."
  Sir Hercules Robinson adds that he thinks these terms just, and most generous. The other telegram is as follows:—
  "April 30.—Ministers have adopted my award, and assumed the responsibility for it in Parliament."

  CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS—THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, 1868, THE PARLIAMENTARY AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT, 1879, AND THE PARLIAMENTARY AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT, 1880—THE BOSTON ELECTION.
  MR. MELLORasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to an article in the "Boston Independent" newspaper of the 9th April, which has been sent to various Members of this House, and circulated in Lincolnshire, containing the following passages:—
  "Boston is comparatively pure before the wholesale corruption of the other offending constituencies, and nothing could well be milder in the shape of bribery (if bribery it can be held) than the part taken by Messrs. Wren and Kit-wood at the last election. They were not systematic bribers; they made no preparations; and, if the accusations against them can be proved, all that they did was inconsiderately on the day of the poll to yield to earnest solicitations to furnish money for the purposes of the election, without asking questions. Other influence has however we feel sure been at work, and the decision of the Attorney General is not altogether due to convenience or accident. If pressure had not been brought to bear upon him, for the purpose of gratifying personal vindictive feelings caused by disappointment and defeat, it is probable we should never have heard of these indictments. There is a growing feeling of indignation in the town at such a gross miscarriage of justice, which day by day will become more general and intense as the time of the trial approaches;"
  whether such expressions, in reference to pending criminal proceedings, have

  1547
  not a tendency to defeat the administration of justice; and, whether he intends to take any proceedings in consequence?
  MR. WARTON: I rise to Order. I beg to ask you, Sir, whether it is in accordance with the Rules of the House that counsel about to prosecute in a criminal proceeding should also act in that capacity in this House?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member has put the Question on his own responsibility; but, as at present advised, I do not feel called upon to interfere.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, before the hon. and learned Gentleman answered the Question, he should like to ask him another with reference to this matter, of which he had given him private Notice. It was, Whether it was not the fact that the prosecutions for bribery at Boston were confined to members of one political Party, although members of the other Party had also been scheduled by the Royal Commission as guilty of bribery; whether he would not take that opportunity of explaining the grounds upon which that course had been adopted, which had never been publicly explained, and by this means to calm the excited state of political feeling in Boston which not unnaturally existed? He should like also to ask him whether he had read the whole of the article complained of, of which the extract now given only gave a misleading account?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I am sure, Sir, that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) would not intentionally add the authority arising from his high position in this House to a suggestion for which there is no foundation; but his Question appears to me to be in two particulars couched in somewhat unfortunate language, because he says that the course which I have adopted has never been publicly explained, and that in consequence of it an excited state of political feeling not unnaturally exists in Boston. Now, the hon. Member's Question appears to suggest that, certain persons of both Parties having been scheduled as guilty of corrupt practices, I have selected for prosecution persons of one political Party and allowed those who belong to the other—that is, the Liberal Party—to escape. The duty of prose-
  1548
  cuting persons guilty of corrupt practices is imposed upon me by statute, and I am directed to prosecute all persons guilty of corrupt practices against whom I think there is sufficient evidence to put them on their trial, subject to this—that a certificate of indemnity given to persons who have been examined as witnesses protects them from prosecution. In this case of Boston, the Report of the Commissioners concludes as follows:—
  "We have granted certificates to all persons whose names appear in the Schedules appended to this Report stating that they have been asked questions the answers to which criminated or tended to criminate them, and that they answered all such questions, with the exception of"
  certain persons named in the Report. Therefore, it was beyond my power to prosecute anyone but such excepted persons, and all those I have prosecuted. When the hon. Member suggests that no public explanation of this kind has hitherto been given, I must remind the House that some three weeks or more ago I asked the indulgence of the House to make the very statement I have now made. Again, when the hon. Member suggests that the excited state of feeling in Boston is natural, I must inform the House that it is stated to me that the Report of the Commissioners has been published in newspapers circulating in Boston, and that, therefore, those who are said to be excited must have known of these certificates of protection having been given. In answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham, I have to say that my attention has been called, with much regret, to this article. It suggests that I have permitted those who are acting under the disappointment arising from defeat to influence me, and that except for such influence these prosecutions would not have been instituted. The fact is that, with the exception of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, the Public Prosecutor, and the legal officials of the Treasury, no one has communicated with me on the subject of the prosecution. Of course, such an article is most improper; but as I am so personally attacked, I feel great difficulty in directing that proceedings should be taken against the publishers. I have, however, taken steps to cause the article to be placed before the Solicitor General

  1549
  and the Director of Public Prosecutions, with a request that they should determine whether any proceedings should be taken to prevent so grave an interference with the administration of justice as this article amounts to taking place. As, however, I find that measures have been taken to secure an exceptional publication of the article among that class from which jurymen would be summoned, I shall have to consider whether it will not be necessary, for the purpose of securing an impartial jury, to remove the trial of the informations to a locality upon which such an improper influence as this article has not been brought to bear.

  ARMY RECRUITING—IRISH RECRUITS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Return showing the various regiments or departments of the Army to which the 3415 recruits raised in Ireland during the year 1879 were finally posted after being passed into the service, together with the number so posted to each regiment or department?
  MR. CHILDERS: Will the hon. Member be good enough to tell me, as is customary with respect to new Returns, what is his object in asking for such a Return? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) has moved for a Return as to Scotch recruits with a definite object, which he explained in his speech on the Army Estimates; but I know of no reason why this detail as to to Irish recruits need be given. If he will communicate with me and explain his object, I will see whether I can meet his wishes.
  MR. HEALYasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether, if the Return were granted, it would not show that the brunt of foreign service was thrown to a very large extent upon Irish regiments?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, it would not. That would require a Return showing many more particulars. If the hon. Member will inform me of his object, and I can meet it, I shall have no objection to give him the Return.

  FRANCE AND TUNIS—BRITISH SUBJECTS IN TUNIS.
  MR. BIRLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whe-
  1550
  ther, having regard to the critical state of the relations between France and Tunis, and the probability of a French Protectorate being imposed upon the latter, Her Majesty's Government will take measures to secure for British subjects resident in the Regency, and for British traders, the commercial privileges which they now enjoy?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that the commercial privileges of British subjects in Tunis will be interfered with by the present French military operations. Her Majesty's ship Monarch has been ordered to proceed to Tunis, and has probably already arrived there. Captain Tryon has been instructed to assist Europeans in case of disturbances, which, however, it is hoped, will not occur.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL—RECOVERY OF RENT BY WRIT.
  THE O'DONOGHUEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If proceedings for recovery of rent by writ, followed by the sale of the tenant's interest, deprives such tenant of the right of applying to the proposed Land Court to fix the judicial rent, which right it is the object of the Land Law Bill now before the House to confer upon him; and, if so, whether it is not the duty of the Government to interfere to put a stop to any attempt to defeat the intentions of the Legislature?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that Question was a legal one, and could be better answered by the Attorney General for Ireland; but all debts recovered by judgment by creditors, whether the creditors were landlords or other persons, could be realized by execution and sale of the debtor's chattels, including a tenant's interest in the land; and that applied to rent as well as to any other debt. The tenancy would not be extinguished, but simply transferred in the case supposed. The tenant would be able to apply to the Court to fix the judicial rent.
  MR. PARNELLasked whether, in the case of such a sale, the person to whom the interest was sold would have to serve a notice to quit on the old tenant, or what other proceeding would be necessary for the purchaser to obtain possession?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)was understood to say that if the interest was sold, it would be assigned by deed in the ordinary way by the sheriff to the purchaser, who, if refused possession, could at once recover it by action of ejectment.

  THE CROWN AGENTS FOR THE COLONIES.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If, in saying that the Crown agents for the Colonies have, "in the interest of public convenience, an establishment close to the Colonial Office," he meant the House to understand that the office in question is within the Government building, and provided by the Government; if he is aware that these officers have been negotiating loans, with the statement that they did so by direction of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies; if Her Majesty's Government has anything to do with the appointment of these officers, or who does appoint them; if it be the fact that a Colonial Government is not a Corporation that can be sued, except under
  "Petition of Right;" and if, as regards the Cape Government, that remedy is excluded by the circumstance that the Cape Parliament has never passed an Act submitting themselves to that process?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply to my hon. Friend's first Question, my reply is "Yes, certainly." The Crown Agents are established, in the interest of public convenience, close to the Colonial Office; but, unlike the other denizens of that large mass of buildings between Charles Street and Downing Street, they pay rent to the Government for the accommodation they require. My reply to his second Question is that I am quite aware that the prospectuses of the loans which they raise for Crown Colonies have the statement in question attached to them, with the further statement that the loans are issued on the security of the revenues and assets of the Colonies. The Secretary of State exercises a close supervision over the finances of Crown Colonies; but the Imperial Government undertakes no responsibility for Colonial loans, direct or indirect, even in the case of Crown Colonies. My reply to the third Question is that these officers are appointed by the Secretary
  1552
  of State for the Colonies as a guarantee to the Colonies who intrust their affairs to them that they are dealing with responsible and efficient persons; but they are paid by the Colonies, not by the Imperial Government, and they enter into engagements with the public on behalf of the Colonies, not of the Secretary of State or of any Member of the Imperial Government. To the fourth Question my reply is that I understand that it has been decided that a Colonial Government cannot be sued as a Corporation. To the fifth Question my reply is that I am informed that the question whether the remedy for the breach of contract made by the Government of the Cape Colony is by a Petition of Right in the Courts of the Cape Colony is now the subject of an appeal before the Privy Council. As, therefore, the Question involves a subject now awaiting judicial decision, I think it would be undesirable for me to express my opinion upon it.

  BELFAST IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1878— FINLEY v. BELFAST TOWN COUNCIL.
  MR. CALLANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the report of the important traverse case, Finley v. Belfast Town Council, at the recent Assizes in county Antrim, in which it was given in evidence that the Corporation of Belfast entered into a secret agreement with Messrs. Hamilton and Gregg, two members of their body, Mr. Gregg being at same time a member of the Improvement Committee, to dispossess the fee simple owners of property in the Borough of Belfast, without their knowledge, and contrary to their expressed wish, by means of the compulsory purchase powers of "The Belfast Improvement Act, 1878," and to re-sell or convey by lease in perpetuity said property, or as much as they required, to said Messrs. Hamilton and Gregg, a transaction which the presiding judge, Mr. Justice Lawson, characterised in the following terms:—
  "If there were no other element in the case than that Messrs. Hamilton and Gregg, two of the parties to the agreement, were members of the Corporation, and Mr. Gregg himself a member of the committee who entered into it, that agreement would not be worth the paper upon which it was written in a court of justice. But the case did not rest there, because there was a most extraordinary suppression of facts on the

  1553
  part of Mr. Gregg and Mr. Hamilton, members of the Corporation, in entering into this transaction;"
  whether such secret agreement amounted to a criminal conspiracy; whether Mr. Gregg still continues a member of the Belfast Corporation and their Improvement Committee—Mr. Hamilton having since ceased connection with the Council; whether Mr. Gregg still remains in the Commission of the Peace for the Borough of Belfast; and, whether the Law officers of the Crown, or the Lord Chancellor, propose to take any action in connection with the matters disclosed at the hearing of this case?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Yes, Sir; my attention has been drawn to the newspaper reports of the trial referred to, in the course of which it appeared that an agreement somewhat of the character described had been made between the Corporation of Belfast and two of its members, but had been subsequently cancelled. The facts are complicated; but it will be sufficient for me to say that, however indefensible that agreement might have been, if it had been necessary to impeach it, the case was not one for a criminal prosecution. Mr. Gregg, I believe, still continues a member of the Corporation and its Improvement Committee, and also one of the borough magistrates of Belfast. The Law Officers do not consider it their duty to take any action in the matter.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. DILLON.
  COLONEL WALROND (for Mr. LONG)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the following observations made by Mr. Dillon at the Land League meeting on Tuesday last:—
  "He (Mr. Dillon) would mention a case which occurred in his own county, Tipperary, the other day, but which has not appeared in the newspapers. It was a case in which forty police were brought to assist in putting a man out. They found the front door barricaded. The priest stood by and said he would not interfere, but thought it right to inform the police that the first blow they struck the door would result in five or six of them being shot by the men who were inside with loaded rifles. The police held a consultation, and then decided to return to Thurles;"
  and, further, he (Mr. Dillon) said that—
  1554
  "If thus sought on any large scale to carry out evictions, the people were prepared to offer resistance, and would do so; and he certainly should say that the next time a man was shot in Ireland for refusing to leave his house, possibly the verdict would be, if he was not very much mistaken, one of wilful murder, not against the policeman who may have shot him, but against Gladstone and Forster, under whose orders the police fired;"
  and, whether he intends taking any steps thereon?
  MR. SEXTON, before the Chief Secretary answered the last Question, wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he had read a full report of the speech of the hon. Member for Tipperary, and whether it did not appear from it that he stated that over 5,000, and probably even as many as 10,000, families were under process of eviction in Ireland, and that the Government would get one more chance of saying whether they intended to put a stop to this state of things; whether the hon. Member for Tipperary was not entitled to give the public warning of the desperate spirit excited amongst the Irish people by the unjust and cruel proceedings of numbers of Irish landlords who were turning helpless tenants out of their homes for non-payment of rent, after a period of severe distress, and were deliberately excluding them from the benefits of any rights sought to be vested in them by impending legislation; and, whether, in view of the tremendous peril involved in these proceedings, the hon. Member was not justified in the course he had adopted?
  MR. T. O'CONNORasked, whether the attention of the Chief Secretary had been called to a New York telegram in The Daily News of that day, according to which the emigration in the first three months of this year had amounted to 105,000 persons, being nearly 25,000 more than in the same period last year?
  MR. PARNELLalso wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the object of the Government in suspending the Constitution in the City of Dublin?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: With regard to the second and third Questions, I must request that Notice be given of them. As to the Question of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), I have to say that the Government have proclaimed the County of the

  1555
  City of Dublin under the Protection of Person and Property Act because we thought it necessary to do so. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for North Wilts (Mr. Long), I have only to say that the attention of the Government has been closely directed to the speech made by the hon. Member for Tipperary, and it was under the close attention of the Government before the Question of the hon. Member was placed on the Notice Paper. That is all the answer I can give.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORgave Notice that, on Thursday, he would ask the Chief Secretary, Whether the cause alleged for the suspension of the Constitution in the City of Dublin, which contains 250,000 inhabitants, was not the proceedings at the Sheriff's sale at the farm of Mr. John Butterly, at Howth; and whether at that sale all the animals put up for sale, with the exception of some pigs, were not disposed of; whether the sales did not realize the sum of £62, the full amount claimed by the landlord; whether the members of the Emergency Committee present were not all armed; and whether, when one of the number was accused of having displayed a revolver, Sub-Inspector Heard refused to remove him, on the ground that he could not interfere with him unless the revolver was presented at someone; whether any of the members of the Land League were armed; whether when the cow bought by the Emergency Committee reached its destination the crowd quietly dispersed; whether the whole transaction was not considered of so ridiculous a character as only to excite a smile; and whether a single assault was committed on the police or any other person engaged in the sale, either at the sale itself or during the procession of many hours' duration from Howth to Dublin?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I think I had better say at once that I could not answer that Question. I do not consider that it would be my duty to give the reason for which particular districts are prescribed.

  TURKEY AND GREECE—THE FRONTIER QUESTION.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Turkish Government have accepted the
  1556
  final terms of the Powers for the settlement of the Greek Frontier?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: An Imperial Iradé, accepting the decision of the Powers, was sent yesterday from the Palace to the Porte.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, if the Notice of Motion in his name was not reached that night, when would it come on?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)thought that when the proper time came for making the Motion the Question should be put to the head of the Government.
  COLONEL MAKINSasked the Prime Minister, Whether, in reference to the Parliamentary Oaths or Bradlaugh Relief Bill, he intended to delare that the Public Business was urgent?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir, I do not.

MOTION.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY—PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.
  In reply to Mr. NEWDEGATE,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was intended that the debate on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill should terminate at a convenient hour that evening, so as to allow his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to submit his proposal in regard to the Parliamentary Oath. The proposal he anticipated would not require any large development by statement; but if hon. Gentlemen were desirous of discussing it—which he had been given to understand was the case—he should propose to adjourn that debate until 2 o'clock to-morrow. That was the only arrangement he had now before him. He, therefore, begged now to move the Resolution that stood on the Notice Paper in his name as to the Orders of the Day.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Orders of the Day, subsequent to the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, be postponed until after the Notice of Motion for the introduction of the Parliamentary Oaths Bill."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he rose, with much respect, to ask

  1557
  the House to disagree to the Resolution. He owned that he was surprised at the inconsistency which was displayed by the proposal. A few days ago—he thought last Wednesday—the Prime Minister stated that he could not, under the circumstances, be induced to allow any legislation respecting the Parliamentary Oath to interfere with the very limited time which the Government had to give to the discussion of the Irish Land Bill; and yet the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to-day to break up the discussion on the Bill at an early hour in order that legislation affecting the Parliamentary Oath might be proceeded with. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Well, if it was not an early hour, better not do it at all. What could be the reason of that extraordinary, and, he thought, very unfortunate, change of opinion? It was difficult to assign any reason; but he must point out to the House that the Motion resembled the Irish Land Bill in this—that it was a concession to violence and mob law. It was part of an arrangement, he might almost say a bargain, entered into between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the one part, and the two Members for Northampton on the other part, that, coute que coute, Mr. Bradlaugh should be brought into that House. The House had been asked to pass the Motion out of fear of what Mr. Bradlaugh might do, because Mr. Bradlaugh had intimated, or the Government thought it convenient to think that he had intimated, that if this course was not taken, Mr. Bradlaugh would come down every day and turn the House of Commons into a bear garden, and, under the protection of the Prime Minister, have a game at romps with the Serjeant-at-Arms. By agreeing to the Motion, the Speaker and the House would practically acknowledge that they were perfectly powerless to protect themselves from such scandalous proceedings, and that was an extremely discreditable position for the House to be placed in. But there was another reason which had occurred to him why the proposal was made. He thought it was intended partly to carry out the very thinly-veiled threat held out by the Prime Minister to the Irish Members that, if they permitted themselves to vote against him in this matter, they might be made to appear as if they were interfering with the pro-
  1558
  gress of the Land Bill; or, in other words, if they ventured to obey the supreme dictates of their conscience and religion, they would be preventing the rapid promotion of measures in which their country was vitally concerned. Another, and the third, reason why hon. Members should not agree to this proposal was that it had the appearance of an attempt to bully the House of Commons. They knew perfectly well—at least those acquainted with the Parliament of 1868 knew perfectly well—that the Prime Minister was not one who allowed himself to be thwarted with impunity; and if the House of Commons chose to go against the right hon. Gentleman's commands, the House was made to pay for it; and the penalty they were to pay for defeating the Prime Minister in the Lobby the other night was that they were at that period of the Session to be treated to Morning Sittings. Let the House think how the proposal affected private Members. Hitherto, every hour had been taken away from them without one word of apology or compunction. Now they had an interval of about a month or six weeks, when private Members might bring forward Motions or draw attention to grievances; but if they tamely allowed this brief interval to be taken away from them, and devoted to the relief of Mr. Bradlaugh, they would allow the Government to monopolize the whole time of Parliament during the Session, and establish a precedent which might be followed in future Sessions. Why were they to make that concession? Why were they to postpone the Orders of the Day? Was it that they might discuss matters of absorbing interest or overwhelming importance? Were they to discuss the fearful state of Ireland? Was it in order that they might ask explanations of the burnings, and the flayings, and the mutilations, or the conflicts between the police and the mob, and the bloodshed on either side? Was it that they might know how the Chief Secretary for Ireland was using or misusing the great powers that were intrusted to him for the preservation of order? Not a bit of it. If that was the object, they might depend upon it the Government would put every obstacle in the way. If they asked English and Scotch measures to be proceeded with, would they be listened to? Not a bit of it. But they were

  1559
  now asked to break off the discussion on the Land Bill in order that a tremendous Constitutional change might be effected, and without notice, suddenly, and under the threat of violence, to seat Mr. Bradlaugh where he had no right to sit. ["Oh, oh!"] That was the position of Mr. Bradlaugh; he had no right to sit in the House. The ulterior object of the Motion was to enable the Prime Minister to repeat his great and glorious coup of last year, and force the House of Commons to stultify itself, and practically reverse a decision already solemnly arrived at. On all those grounds he asked the House to divide against the Motion. He did not expect much support from hon. Gentlemen opposite; he had grown accustomed to their want of independence. But he had hopes that there were many Members on the Conservative side of the House, and he hoped there were some also on the other side, who would, at all costs and hazards, resist the imperious and arbitrary behests of the Prime Minister, and who would give no facilities for placing in the House of Commons brazen Atheism and rampant disloyalty.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it was a departure from all precedent that the House should be hurried into the consideration of the question.
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that the point immediately before the House related to the order of Business, and that the line of argument he was pursuing was consequently out of Order.
  MR. NEWDEGATE, resuming, said, he intended to address himself to the order of Business. The course which it was proposed they should take was quite unprecedented; and he would adjure the House, for the sake of its own dignity, to be careful not to seem to deal lightly or hastily with a matter of so much importance. He was unwilling to adopt any course which would be liable to the imputation of faction, baseless as that imputation might be; and consequently he would content himself by asking the First Lord of the Treasury at what hour of the evening he proposed that the power which he bad asked for from the House should be exercised?
  Mr. ONSLOW, who rose amid considerable interruption, said, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was a very strong feeling on both
  1560
  sides of the House that his Motion would tend to some very bitter and harsh words being uttered. The measure the right hon. Gentleman was now proposing, he would tell him, was one which was subversive of the Constitution of the country, and contrary to what was said in the Queen's Speech with regard to the important Business of the Session. The Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill, the Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment Bill, and the Bankruptcy Bill, which were characterized in the Speech from the Throne as very important measures, were all three on the Paper for discussion that evening; and yet the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the consideration of these Bills, as well as the discussion upon the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, should be postponed in order that a Bill might be brought in for the purpose of admitting Atheists into the Legislature. Watching, as he had done, the antecedents of the right hon. Gentleman, and knowing how strong his religious proclivities were, he could not help thinking that he did not like the task set before him, and, indeed, forced upon him, by two of the right hon. Gentlemen in the Cabinet—he meant the Members for Birmingham. ["Oh, oh!"] He could only tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he should continue to listen too readily to the opinions of the two right lion. Gentlemen whom he had designated, the Government of the right hon. Gentleman would not last very long. The Motion proposed by the Government being unprecedented, he trusted that every Conservative Member would vote with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) in resisting it.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I have never, Sir, disguised from myself, nor have I disguised from the House, the difficulty which I feel to exist with regard to this question. I shall now endeavour, in a very few words, to express temperately what my own feelings upon this subject are. In the first place, I would say this—that the question which is raised by the intimation made on the part of the Government that they propose to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to alter the Parliamentary Oath, or in some way or other to deal with the Parliamentary Oath, is a question of the greatest gravity. It is a question of, at

  1561
  least, as much importance, I should say, as the question of the alteration of the Parliamentary Oath on the occasion when Jews were admitted to Parliament; and while I entirely desire to keep clear of any premature expression of opinion upon the measure itself, I may say that I am most anxious that it should be brought forward and discussed, on the responsibility of the Government, in a serious, solemn, and convenient manner. In the next place, I am very anxious that any proposal that may be made upon this subject should be made upon its own merits, and not with reference to the circumstances and the position of any particular individual. Nobody can for a moment doubt that it is the case of Mr. Bradlaugh which has raised the necessity, or, at all events, raised the question whether there should or should not be legislation upon this subject; and nobody can be surprised that, after what has taken place, the Government should think it right to invite the House to legislate with regard to it. At the same time, I hope the House will feel that its own dignity is concerned, and that other interests are concerned, in its not being allowed to appear that we are proceeding in anything like heat or haste in consequence of the occurrence of certain proceedings which have taken place. I think, also, that it is very desirable we should as soon as possible know what the nature of the proposal of the Government is, because I observe there are statements and comments made in public, and even in this House, as to that proposal, and we are really ignorant of what the nature of that proposal is. I think, therefore, that it would be convenient if the proposal were to be made known as soon as possible; but, on the other hand, I do not think the House should be asked to take even the step of allowing the introduction of a Bill without a fit and proper amount of time for its consideration. Now, I understand the course that the Government propose to take to be this—that they shall be allowed at some not very early hour this evening to make a brief statement on the nature of the Bill, and that then, having engaged the House in a discussion on its introduction, so that it may become an Order of the Day, they would propose to take a Morning Sitting to-morrow in order to further discuss it. That is equivalent to asking us to take to-morrow for the
  1562
  introduction of the Bill. There is never a Morning Sitting for the submission of a Motion, and so the Government propose to make their Bill an Order of the Day by introducing it to-night, and to continue the discussion to-morrow. Well, I am bound to say that I think that is too early. I think myself that it would be a reasonable and a feasible thing if we had the proposal of the Government made to-night, and that some later day should be taken for the discussion, unless, indeed, the Government say that the matter is one for which they will postpone other Business. But even that is open to the objection that it would mark the case as that of a particular individual, and give to the question a semblance—which I am 10th to impute—a semblance of hurry for the purpose of avoiding a scandalous scene. I think myself that such a scene is not to be anticipated; I do not believe that we are in danger of it; but if I thought that we were, I should say—"Let the House take its own proper course." I do not, however, allow myself to contemplate the possibility of anything of the kind. For the reasons I have given, I would recommend the House to assent to the proposal of the Government that the Orders of the Day should at the same time be postponed for the purpose of enabling the Government to make their statement; but I am not prepared to go on with the discussion at a Morning Sitting to-morrow, and I think that a later hour should be proposed.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, from the observations that have been made, I think it would be supposed by hon. Gentlemen who knew nothing of anterior proceedings that to gratify some humour, or, at any rate, some opinion of their own, Her Majesty's Government were gratuitously inviting the House to legislate on the subject of the Parliamentary Oath. We are, however, doing nothing of the kind. We are endeavouring to meet a case of very great difficulty created by a vote of the House to which we were distinctly objecting parties. There would have been no necessity to ask for Morning Sittings or any other Sittings for the purpose if it had not been that we had the misfortune to differ from the majority of the House, and that this majority did that which I frankly own I thought was debarring one of Her Majesty's subjects from the

  1563
  exercise of his legal right. The House, therefore, found itself in very great difficulty; and, so far as we could judge, it appeared that the proposal to legislate was the course which was most agreeable to the general sense of the House; and further—the very last thing which I, for one, should have desired, overpowered as we are with Business—that if such a proposal were made, it should be made on the responsibility of the Government. It is therefore a proposal which is not designed to meet any view of Her Majesty's Government, for Her Majesty's Government have their own views, and I would have desired to take an entirely different proceeding. It is a proposal made entirely in the interest of what we conceive to be the dignity of the House—the House of Commons having, as it was perfectly entitled to, being the only judges of its opinion, declared its voice in a manner which appeared to point to the necessity of such a proposal. Well, under ordinary circumstances, it is my impression that it would be consonant with the courtesy usually extended to every hon. Member who makes proposals, even of this nature—and it ought not to be withheld from the Government—that the Government should be allowed to lay their proposal on the Table without any difficulty. This is not a measure required by the views of the Government, but one suggested by the Government in order to meet the views of others than the Government on this particular question. In this particular instance, therefore, I hoped that, without discussion, we would be allowed to lay the Bill on the Table. The right hon. Gentleman, however, says he will not allow us to place the Bill on the Table. We must, he says, first make a verbal statement in reference to the measure, and then, without our having had an opportunity of verifying or vindicating the statement by the production of the printed Bill, an interval must be allowed to interpose between the statement of my hon. and learned Friend and the bringing in of the Bill itself. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: By the Standing Orders of the House.] By the Standing Order of the House! Then there is a Standing Order of the House to the effect that the stage of a debate on which it has been moved to introduce a Bill must be adjourned before the Bill is brought in. That is a piece of information entirely
  1564
  new to me, coming as it does from an hon. Gentleman who has sat for 40 years in this House, and with some little experience of the Standing Orders of the House. Now, Sir, it appears to me that it would be by far the best course that this Motion, which is of a purely formal character, should not be made use of for airing the opinion of the House in respect of the Bill, and in saying that I am only following the example of the right hon. Gentleman. I think it would be most desirable that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General should be permitted, without any delay at all, either to-night or to-morrow, to lay the Bill upon the Table of the House. If that were done then would arise the question, very fairly and properly stated as it has been, that this is a serious matter, and I agree with those who think that the stages of the Bill ought not to be unduly hastened. To that opinion I at once and very freely accede. I must say, on the other hand, that it would, I think, be a very unusual and inconvenient course if the proceedings should be interrupted after the speech of my hon. and learned Friend, and if I know not how many days were allowed to elapse before the Bill was laid upon the Table of the House. At the same time, I am in the condition of which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) has availed himself. He knows very well the intense anxiety of the Government to get on with the important measure they have now in hand, and he has availed himself of the opportunity this formal Motion has given him of bringing pressure upon the Government by threatening to bring on debates and discussions, which, I believe, he has the great faculty of creating even in himself; and, therefore, the influence he exercises over us, whatever it may be on other grounds, is very considerable on that account now. I am too much in earnest about the Land Law (Ireland) Bill not to be sensible of the vital consequences of that measure and of my duty to press it forward, and not to do anything that can seriously interfere with it; and, therefore, much as I must regret what I think the very unusual and inconvenient course of allowing my hon. and learned Friend to make his statement, and then requiring an adjournment of the debate, which may last

  1565
  for many days before the introduction of the Bill, I shall certainly rather submit to such a course—I will not say concur in it—than waste and absorb the time of the House in discussing whether it should be followed or not. After once the Bill is introduced, then I shall freely accede to an interval before its second reading. At present, if I accede to it, I only accede to it complying with compulsion. As to the hour, I have already named the time as nearly as I am able at which we shall propose or endeavour to secure the postponement of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. LEWISsaid, if he could get anybody to join with him he should vote against the Motion. He looked upon the question as one of principle, and he maintained that the Conservative Party should be staunch in their defence of the religious feeling of the country on this question at every stage and turn. If not, it had better be absent from the House. As he had said, the question involved a great principle, and it was a matter of indifference to him what course the right hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition Bench took. [Cries of "Divide!"] The step taken by the Government was obnoxious to the strong convictions of millions of people in the country, and he would not be dragged into a particular Lobby by any terms or agreement made with right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The present state of this wretched dispute was far more serious than was its former stage. [Loud cries of "Divide!"] He asked—[Renewed interruption]—if he were not allowed to proceed he had but one course to adopt. The former question was one of law—[Cries of "Question" "Adjourn!" and "Divide!"] He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Lewis.)
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, "That this Debate be now adjourned." [Cries of "House!" and "Debate!"]
  MR. LEWIS: I certainly intended to use the word "Debate."
  MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker, the Motion made was "That this House do now adjourn."
  MR. LEWIS: I certainly intended to say "Debate."
  MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member what was the Motion he made?
  MR. LEWIS: Sir, I am perfectly candid with the House. By a slip of the tongue I used the word "House" instead of the word "Debate."
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 318: Majority 275.—(Div. List, No.189.)
  Original Question again proposed,
  "That the Orders of the Day, subsequent to the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, be postponed until after the Notice of Motion for the introduction of the Parliamentary Oaths Bill."
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman, in his speech just now, admitted a great part of the charge of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) when he said it was not the fault of the Government that the House was to be called upon to have Morning Sittings, and to devote some of the time which ought to be given to the Land Law (Ireland) Bill to the discussion of the question of the Oath. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would not have felt it his duty to propose Morning Sittings if the majority had not voted against him the other day. The meaning of that was that the House was to be punished with Morning Sittings because a majority had disagreed with the Prime Minister and his Colleagues. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that if the hon. and learned Attorney General were permitted to introduce the Bill that night there would be no Morning Sitting on Tuesday, but that there would be one on Friday for this purpose, so as to avoid interfering with the progress of the Land Bill. That, of course, partially met the case of the opponents of the Motion, but not entirely; because, after the forcible way in which the right hon. Gentleman had insisted on the importance of carrying on the discussion on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, if he did not ask for a Morning Sitting to-morrow, he would ask for one on some subsequent day. It seemed to be trifling with the House first to go on with the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, and then to introduce a measure which would involve the consumption of an enormous amount

  1567
  of time and the consequent deprivation of the rights of private Members for the Session. If he were correct in understanding that there was to be a Morning Sitting on Friday, he should vote against the present Motion.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had understood the Prime Minister to say that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General were allowed to make his statement regarding the Parliamentary Oath to-night, the further consideration of the Bill would be put off for a considerable time, so that the House and the country might understand the nature of the proposal that the Government thought it right to make under the circumstances. The suggestion he would make was this—that, the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman having been made, the Government would not propose a Morning Sitting on Tuesday or Friday, which would deprive private Members of their just rights. If the other side had been in opposition, they would never for one moment have allowed such a thing, so he ventured to ask hon. Gentlemen to support the Opposition in pressing upon the Government to give a Government night for the discussion of one of the most important measures as to the constitution of the House. If the Government would grant that, there would be no further opposition to the proposal. He asked the right hon. Gentleman humbly, but firmly, whether he would give a Government night for the discussion of their proposals? But in stating this they would most certainly also reserve to themselves the right, after hearing the proposal of the Government, to consider what course they ought to adopt in the difficult circumstances in which they were placed.
  MR. DILLWYNventured to urge the Government to accede to the proposal which had been made on the other side by the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Waiter B. Barttelot). He would say, let the Bill be introduced this evening, and its further consideration be delayed till Friday evening, otherwise the night would be lost as regarded the Land Law (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. MAC IVER MR. MAC IVER moved the adjournment of the debate, because he conceived that no good purpose could be served by the further adjournment of
  1568
  the question that night. He also thought that the Prime Minister should in a few words indicate to the House what was the precise nature of the Bill. He ventured to think that an Affirmation made by a notorious Atheist and Republican would be a mere formality, and not a solemn declaration of loyalty.
  MR. CALLANseconded the Motion for adjournment, in order to give himself an opportunity of addressing the House at an earlier period than he otherwise could. He hoped that the Prime Minister would not yield to the insidious appeal of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that he should give up a Government night for the discussion of the subject. As an independent Member fresh from Ireland, he could assure the House that the widest feeling of regret existed in that country that precedence should be given to this matter over the all-important subject of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. Suppose the Government took a Morning Sitting the next day, would any more of the time of the House be occupied with the subject previous to the second reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill? He hoped the Government did not intend to yield altogether to the violence and intimidation of the electors of Northampton; and he had only to express his regret that they showed greater deference to his convenience than to the wants and wishes of the Irish people.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Mac Iver.)
  MR. CHAPLINhoped his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate if the Prime Minister would accede to the appeal of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), and fix a Government night for the introduction of the Bill. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman intended to take a Morning Sitting, he would support the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had voted with great regret against the Motion of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), because that Motion was a mistake. The hon. Member ought to have moved the adjournment of the debate.

  1569
  He hoped the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) would not divide the House on his Motion for adjournment, because the question should be treated with the gravity with which it ought to be treated as a matter affecting religion. The first and oldest Standing Order with respect to Public Business was passed 99 years ago, and it was this—
  "That no Bill relating to religion, or any alteration of the law concerning religion, be brought into this House until the proposal shall have been first considered in Committee of the Whole House, and agreed unto by the House."
  He trusted when the hon. and learned Attorney General made his statement, that the House would consider it in Committee in accordance with that Standing Order.
  MR. GLADSTONE, in answer to the question which had been put to him, would say a very few words. He was anxious that the Bill should be proceeded with by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to-morrow, without a wrangle; but if a vote could not be given willingly that evening upon the question, it must stand over till Friday. It had been suggested that the matter, if taken on Friday, should follow Supply. He had no objection to that; but it must depend upon the appearance of the Notice Paper. He would leave it till Thursday to make a final arrangement. He appealed to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) to withdraw his Motion.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he hoped, after the statement of the Prime Minister, that the Motion for the adjournment of the debate would be withdrawn, as he thought the House would have a fair opportunity for discussion.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, that, in consequence of the appeal of the right hon. Baronet, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That the Orders of the Day, subsequent to the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, be postponed until after the Notice of Motion for the introduction of the Parliamentary Oaths Bill.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 135]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE. [THIRD NIGHT.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  LORD ELCHO,in rising to move the following Amendment, of which he had given Notice:—
  "That this House, while willing to consider any just measure, founded upon sound principles, that will benefit tenants of land in Ireland, is of opinion that the leading provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill are in the main economically unsound, unjust, and impolitic;"
  said, he would show his grateful sense of the kindness which had been extended to him on Thursday last by not detaining the House now at any length. Fortune, in the shape of the Parliamentary wheel, having brought his Amendment to the surface, he now stood between the Bill and the Amendment of his noble Friend the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners). He, however, must adhere to his own Amendment; but, in doing so, he hoped the House would give him the credit of believing that if he thought the Amendment of his noble Friend was more to the purpose than his own, he would willingly give place to his noble Friend. But when he looked at his noble Friend's Amendment, he felt that it did not express objection to the Bill in a clear and definite manner, that it was vague, uncertain, and wordy, and that it in no way affected the principle of the Bill. For what did his noble Friend's Amendment say? Leaving out the reference to the Ulster and other customs, it said that the measure "confuses, without settling on a just and permanent basis, the relations of landlord and tenant." Now, if the House was to vote upon that, and if the Bill was to pass into law and was to fail, as it would fail, and if the Prime Minister were to bring in, after three, four, or five years, another Bill, he would be able to point to that Resolution and say that the present measure

  1571
  had been accepted by the Conservative Party, because there was nothing in the Resolution against it. He objected to that, and therefore, without further preface, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name upon the Paper.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, while willing to consider any just measure, founded upon sound principles, that will benefit tenants of land in Ireland, is of opinion that the leading provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill are in the main economically unsound, unjust, and impolitic,"—(Lord Elcho,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he did not intend to discuss, with a view to determine between either the Amendment just moved by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), or the Amendment which had been put on the Paper by his noble Friend (Lord John Manners); he proposed rather to confine his observations to the Bill itself. The Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, spoke of the gravity of the occasion and the vast interests involved, and he (Mr. W. H. Smith) must say he never rose to address the House with a deeper sense of responsibility, or a greater consciousness of the grave and serious condition in which Ireland was now found. He believed there never was a period in which the condition of Ireland could be more accurately described as it had been in the language of an hon. Gentleman who had spoken of it as "desperate and critical." He believed there were parts of Ireland in which it would be impossible for a loyal man to protect his property and interests except by joining the Land League; that the only law which existed was correctly described by the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Forster) when he introduced the Coercion Bill as the law of the Land League; and that tenants and landlords, loyal subjects of Her Majesty, were alike unable to follow their ordinary avocations, or protect themselves from the bullet of the assassin, or outrages aimed at their life and property. The responsibility of the Government was, undoubtedly, very great; it was very heavy, and very serious. It was their duty to maintain
  1572
  law and order in Ireland, and it was the duty of that House to give them all the support possible in the efforts they might make to do so. He would, therefore, endeavour as far as he could to avoid making use of any language or reference which in the least degree might throw difficulties in the path, the grave and difficult path, before the Government, or increase in the slightest degree the amount of their serious responsibility. A great agitation had been going on in Ireland during the last year, an agitation in the opinion of many which had not been discouraged by Her Majesty's Government. There was an impression, he would not say entirely and fully warranted, that this agitation had not been completely put down or grappled with as it might have been, because it was supposed to tend favourably towards a stringent, drastic, and complete Land Bill. Now, he desired to do everything in his power to heal the serious troubles existing in Ireland and to pass any measure which, in his opinion, might benefit the people of that country; but the question was, Would this measure tend to benefit the people of Ireland, or to heal those sores and troubles which existed in Ireland, and which they all deplored, and to bring peace and contentment to that portion of the British Empire which had been long a cause of anxiety and humiliation to the Government of this country? He ventured to ask was the Bill based on sound principles? He was aware that a policy might change, and that there were times which necessitated changes of policy with Governments and statesmen. He made no accusation against right hon. Gentlemen opposite on that account; but there was a vast difference between a change of policy and a distinct change of principles. Principles which were really sound must remain sound, whatever the circumstances in which they were applied, and whether the condition of things in the country to which they were applied was different or not. Well, they had heard a great deal of the principles which had been asserted and maintained by right hon. Gentleman opposite up to a very recent period; but he would not weary the House by repeating their arguments, which appeared to him unanswerable, and facts which appeared to him irrefut-

  1573
  able. He would only ask them to consider what the evils were which they were endeavouring now to remedy. It was stated by the Prime Minister in his introductory speech that there was a "land hunger," meaning a "land scarcity," and it was stated the evils under which the people of Ireland laboured were an arbitrary raising of rent and cruel evictions; and, in moving the second reading of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said the main objects were to secure land tenure, to increase the number of landed proprietors, and to relieve the overcrowded districts. But was the present a Bill that would prove a complete remedy for the evil which was called "land hunger" and the other evils complained of? It would certainly take from the owner the power of arbitrarily raising his rent. That he (Mr. W. H. Smith) never doubted. But he doubted very much whether it would increase very largely the number of proprietors, or whether there was any provision whatever in the Bill suited or likely to attain the object of relieving the overcrowded districts. There was one evil which had been reported by all the Commissions, and that was the great poverty and misery which prevailed in some parts of Ireland, and the absolute insufficiency of the means of living afforded to the people. He asked himself and the House whether this Bill did offer to the people of Ireland a remedy for that insufficiency? Did it promise any reasonable hope that a remedy would be provided for overcrowding in some parts of Ireland? Would it afford the means of living on small holdings, so that occupiers of three, four, or five acres should be able to cultivate the land and obtain a sufficient livelihood from it for their families? In the Bill he found no such provision. That he was not speaking rashly, that such was the view of the Commissioners, he would show by reading one or two extracts. It was abundantly clear that one of the greatest evils in the state of Ireland was the disposition of the people to live on plots of land that were altogether incapable of supporting a family. The Report of the Duke of Richmond's Commission said—
  "With respect to the very small holders in the Western districts of Ireland, we are satisfied that on the slightest failure of their crops,
  1574
  they would be unable to exist on the produce of their farms, even if they paid no rent. It is proved by evidence that in some parts of Ireland agricultural depression arises from the population being larger than can be profitably employed on the cultivation of land."
  Lord Carlingford, also, had expressed much the same opinion of the effect of small holdings. The noble Lord went on to say that the probability was that the intermittent employment of persons who had small holdings in Ireland, and who crossed over to England during part of the year, would continue to decrease, that less and less reliance would have to be placed on such employment, and that consequently, unless the circumstances of the very small occupiers were much improved, they would find their means of support insufficient. He entirely concurred in that view. It seemed that the only comfort offered to these poor people was the probability that they might be tempted by a sum of money offered by some other tenant to go out into the world in order to find a different means of livelihood. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) was afraid that was a very unsatisfactory prospect. If some practical attempt had been made in the way of appointing a Commission, consisting of such men as Mr. Tuke and Mr. King-Harman, whose knowledge of the subject and sympathy with the people were undoubted, with power to endeavour to grapple with the difficulty in a manner conducive to the honour and prosperity of the country, and at the same time equitably considering the claims of the small tenants, he would have admitted that at least an effort had been made to deal with the problem. It was a great and crying evil, and one that it was unanimously conceded ought not to be any longer tolerated; but he found in the Bill no practical endeavour to reduce it. Some time ago evidence was given of the effect of the Land Act of 1870 on the poorer class of occupiers. That Act gave them a claim for compensation for disturbance, which had several times been referred to in the course of the debate as an improvement in their condition, and as giving them a distinct interest in the land they occupied. What was the result? Why, it had come to his notice that many of those small tenants had been enabled in the early years after the Land Act to obtain credit. It was supposed that they

  1575
  were richer, while, in fact, they were only spending money. They contracted debts, till after a time the power of obtaining credit ceased, and their small properties were swallowed up by the money-lenders. Then came the bad harvests of a few years ago, and then the famine and the misfortunes which it had been so difficult to alleviate. The end was that they were worse off than ever; and it appeared to him that, as far as those small tenants were concerned, if the Bill gave them a new interest in their holdings, the same thing would happen again that had followed the passing of the Act of 1870. They would obtain credit, and for a time would appear more prosperous; but sooner or later disastrous harvests would occur again, their credit would be exhausted, famine would overtake them, and it would again be the sad duty of England to endeavour to save the perishing people from, starvation. He trusted the House would allow him to speak of a circumstance that had come to his knowledge. It had been his duty while in Office to request an officer to distribute seed potatoes in the districts of the West Coast of Ireland. The officer reported that the failure of the crop was not at all remarkable, because the people reserved the smallest and blackest of their potatoes for seed, and from sheer necessity ate all that were eatable. By no possibility could the crop have been a good one. That, unhappily, was the story heard over and over again. Unless the country endeavoured to meet a real and serious difficulty, and unless some practical efforts were made by persons whose knowledge and position would forcibly recommend the course they proposed for adoption by the Government, the melancholy history of the last few years would repeat itself. Both the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary for Ireland had told the House that the Land Laws of Ireland were generally more favourable to the tenants than the English Land Laws, and, indeed, than the Land Laws of any other country. Those were the statements of the two right hon. Gentlemen, and the owners of land were acquitted as having, in the main, discharged their duty by letting their land with consideration for their tenants, and with a full consciousness of the fact that possession of land differed from the
  1576
  possession of other property. There were, of course, exceptions to the rule; but the Bill was not intended to deal with the exceptions—to supply a remedy for an admitted exceptional evil—but it would subject all the landlords to new and onerous conditions. The hunger for land, of which so much had been said, was, no doubt, a great evil, and, by producing competition, brought about an undue increase of rent all over Ireland. He accepted without hesitation the principle that a landlord ought not to exact an excessive rent from a tenant, such a one as he was incapable of paying. But how did the Bill affect that question? First of all, it declared that rents should not be raised beyond a proper level, and then it proceeded to fix that level. It increased the scale of compensation for disturbance; and as to that he had little to say, as he freely admitted that a tenant capriciously evicted had a claim for consideration. But the Bill went much further, and carved out of the property of the owner a share or portion that was to be for ever the property of the occupying tenant who had paid nothing for it. It gave the tenant the right to sell that newly-acquired property for the best price he could get, reserving to the landlord only his illusory right of pre-emption. As for the value of that right of preemption, the 1st clause of the Bill provided that the landlord might purchase the tenancy for such sum as might be agreed upon, or, in the event of disagreement, for such sum as might be fixed by the Court; but in the 45th section the landlord was informed that if, during the first period of 15 years, he let a holding in which he had purchased the tenant's interest, a new interest was at once created of the same character, and of the same description in every respect, and imposing on him the same peculiar burdens. It came to this—that if, under the 1st clause, the landlord purchased the interest of the tenant, he was compelled by Clause 45, unless he farmed the land himself, to set up and admit another tenant's interest. It was, therefore, hardly conceivable that any landlord could, or would care to, exercise his right of pre-emption. And afterwards the new tenant would go to the Court and have a judicial rent fixed, as if he had paid for and purchased his interest in the land. The argument used in 1870

  1577
  by the Prime Minister against such a proceeding as that had already been referred to by another speaker, and he, therefore, would not read it again. It would be fresh in the memory of every one. It seemed to him strange and extraordinary that the only remedy for the scarcity of land was to take from the landlord the power of selection of his tenants and the power of dealing as he thought fit with his land; for it was shown by these Reports, and admitted by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that the majority of landlords in the greater part of Ireland exercised their rights with the gravest sense of responsibility to their tenants, that the rents were not high, and that the landlords used their power with an earnest desire to benefit their tenants. They were, however, no longer to be allowed to exercise that duty. If a hunger for land existed, was it to be met by an existing tenant offering his interest for sale to a man who wished to become a tenant, and by his obtaining, in the words of the clause, the best price he could get? He could understand the Bill if it were a measure to grant a property to a limited number of persons, irrespective altogether of other persons who in their turn might wish to be in possession of that property. But it was a Bill which, under any circumstances, must impose a large additional burden on the cost of cultivating the land of Ireland. There was to be under it a fair rent, and, added to that, a competitive value in the tenancy. This must go on increasing, if the land hunger remained, and if the desperate resolve of the people to cling to the land remained also. Could it be conceived that this was an answer to the demand for land and a cure for the scarcity of land without increasing the quantity of land by one single acre? Was this all that could be said to the hundreds of thousands of men who desired to become tenants in Ireland—"There is no good landlord who will give you a chance of a tenancy; but you may buy out another man by paying an enhanced price?" He thought this was a singular answer to the demand made, not for the existing tenants of Ireland, but for the people of Ireland to enter on the employment they loved most—namely, the occupation of land. Anyone who knew anything of Ireland would recognize in the Irish character an immense amount of family affection,
  1578
  and a desire to do the best they could for their children. What would happen under the provisions of this Bill? If a tenant of 12 or 15 acres died leaving three children, either all of them would try to live on the holding, or one of the sons would be charged with the duty of paying an almost impossible price to his brothers or sisters for the privilege of cultivating the whole of it. If hon. Members followed this, they would see in it the seeds of misfortune and a burden to the people of Ireland which had not yet been fully explained. He came now to that part of the Bill which professed to fix a fair rent. He maintained that no one who had any claim to credit or respectability desired to exact any more than a fair rent for any property of which he might be possessed; but there were a great many conditions which must be taken into account when a fair rent was being estimated. Only last year, he read a most interesting speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) on the question of ascertaining a fair rent by a Government officer. That difficulty remained, notwithstanding the fact that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen might have changed their view as to the policy to be pursued on this subject. He agreed that improvements made by the tenant ought to be and must be fully secured to him by law; but he would ask the House carefully to examine the conditions of a fair rent set forth in the 7th clause of the Bill. His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had put certain questions on this subject to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law). Those questions had been evaded, and no satisfactory answer had been given to them, on the ground that they were questions for consideration in Committee. But the question of fair rent was one that entered into the principle of the Bill, and if the Opposition pointed out that the construction of the Bill was so bad with regard to that question that it absolutely required to be altered in order to make the Bill acceptable, surely it was only reasonable that they should give right hon. Gentlemen opposite an opportunity of saying what it was they really in-

  1579
  tended. His right hon. and learned Friend said the tenant's interest was carved out of the property of the landlord. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant replied—"I say that would be very unfair. We do not believe that our clause will bear such an interpretation." What he (Mr. W. H. Smith) and his right hon. and learned Friend asked was that Her Majesty's Government should say distinctly what it was that they did mean. What was not intended to be done had been actually done in regard to this matter, for the tenant, at that moment, possessed, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, an interest which Her Majesty's Government, in 1870, asserted they did not intend to give him. If that were the case, it was absolutely necessary that in questions of this kind the words of the Bill now before the House should be made clear and without dispute. A question had been raised as to the proper meaning of the 7th section of the Bill. He found that Section 7 said that a fair rent meant such a rent as "a solvent tenant would undertake to pay one year with another;" and that was interpreted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who was not to be trapped into answering his (Mr. W. H. Smith's) right hon. and learned Friend's questions, to mean that a fair rent was a competition rent minus the income of the tenant's interest. Now, he (Mr. W. H. Smith) referred to the Bill to ascertain what the tenant's interest was. He found it said—
  "That the Court, in fixing such rent, shall"—not may—"have regard to the tenant's interest in the holding, and the tenant's interest shall be estimated with reference to the following considerations; that is to say,

  (a.) In the case of any holding subject to the Ulster tenant right custom or to any usage corresponding therewith—with reference to the said custom or usage;

  (b.) In cases where there is no evidence of any such custom or usage—with reference to the scale of compensation for disturbance by this Act provided (except so far as any circumstances of the case shown in evidence may justify a variation therefrom), and to the right (if any) to compensation for improvements effected by the tenant or his predecessors in title."

  That was absolutely mandatory to the Court, which must take notice of the interest that the tenant had acquired. What was that interest? The first words
  1580
  of the Bill said the tenant "may sell his tenancy for the best price that can be got for it." Well, he (Mr. W. H. Smith) contended that what the tenant thus sold was his interest, and that the sum paid by the tenant purchasing his interest at the best price would be the measure of the value of that interest, and that measure being ascertained by sale, perhaps three or four times during the course of the tenancy, and ascending each time, the Court must have regard to the price paid, under the powers given by this Bill, in open Court—that was, by the competition for the interest which the tenant had in his holding. With regard to the competition rent he had one word to say. It was to be a competition rent; but there was to be no competition, because the owner could not go with the land to the market and ask what they would give for the land. He could only say to somebody—"Will you come and buy my tenant out, and then take the land?" The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland spoke in a light way of the "lunatics" who gave large sums for tenant right in different parts of Ireland. According to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view, there were a great many lunatics in Ireland; but they seemed to have a large amount of method in their madness. He held in his hand a Return that was published in The Times on the 28th of January, being a statement of sales of tenant right on the estate of the Duke of Abercorn, from which it appeared that between October, 1876, and October, 1880, 35 holdings, of the total rental of £1,093, were sold, and that the value of the tenant right which changed hands was no less than £26,143—an average of 25 years' purchase. In some cases the amount rose to 40 or 50 years' purchase; in others it fell to 11. If the clause remained as it stood in the Bill, the Court would be obliged to have regard to the amount paid in each of those cases. Then, the full value of the land, supposing it to be free of tenant right, leaving been ascertained, the interest of those payments would be deducted from that value, and what was called the fair rent would remain. If that was the proper interpretation of the Bill, and he believed no other interpretation could be put upon it, he was told on high authority that in

  1581
  that case a very large share indeed of the value of the land in fee would be at once taken from the owner. The tenant having purchased under the Bill would go to the Court and say—"Fix me a judicial rent for the next 15 years." The Court must do so; meanwhile, the same holding could be sold again and again during that period, the price constantly rising with the "earth hunger" to which the Prime Minister had referred, until the latest tenant might come to the Court and say, when the time for the revision of the rent had arrived—"I have been obliged to pay 25 per cent more for this holding than was paid 14 years ago, but the land is not worth a farthing more than it was then. Deduct that 25 per cent from the rent for the next 15 years." If he was not mistaken—and he had fortified his own opinion with that of eminent lawyers—that would be the effect of the Bill. Only a few days ago as much as 30 years' purchase was paid for tenant right on the estate of Lord Anglesey. With such a result as that encountering them on the threshold of this measure, he trusted he had justified his demands for a plainer answer to the question, What did the clause mean? As it stood, the clause was open only to one interpretation, as it seemed to him—namely, that it was intended to carve a large slice off the landlords' property for the benefit of the tenant. They had heard a great deal about the machinery by which the fair rent was to be fixed. For his own part, he objected entirely to the State undertaking the responsibility of fixing the rent of land all over Ireland—a task which none of the Commissions ever proposed to impose upon it. And how was that object to be arrived at? The Land Commission was to consist of three persons only, one of whom was to be a Judge of the Supreme Court in Ireland. Well, he should have thought that for the settlement of such important questions it would have been advisable to appoint more than one person of the rank and experience and independence of Judges. He attached the greatest importance to the impartiality which the Judges were able to exercise by reason of their being practically irremovable. For that reason, he did not at all object to the Court of First Instance, although County Court Judges were not, perhaps, the best judges of agricultural ques-
  1582
  tions. When he came to consider the constitution of the Court of Appeal, however, he was lost in amazement. There were to be any number of Assistant Commissioners, possessing all the powers of the Land Commission itself, and there was no provision that those persons should know anything either of land or agriculture. What class of persons they would be might be gathered from Clause 43, which stated that—
  "No person being a member of or employed by the land commission shall by reason of such membership or employment acquire any right to compensation, superannuation, or other allowance on abolition of his office or otherwise."
  That meant, practically, that the only persons who would accept the position of Assistant Commissioners would be those who were failures in life, men without present occupation and with no future before them. What was worse still, they could be absolutely the servants of their chiefs. They would not express any independent opinion of their own. Anything they might do which was inconsistent with the views of their chiefs would render them liable to instant dismissal. He thought that the Bill, as had already been said, simply meant litigation. Instead of being a boon, it was an apple of discord thrown into every part of Ireland between landlord and tenant, and he could not but deplore the fact. What was to be done with regard to the labourer's wages, which necessarily entered into consideration in the fixing of fair rents? The Bill took away the chance of a man be-becoming a farmer unless he got into debt by placing himself in the hands of the money-lender, and if that were the case, they would shortly have to determine what fair wages were. The Chief Secretary for Ireland the other day said the Poor Law had a good deal to do with that subject. It used to be said that the old Poor Law enabled farmers to reduce wages; but he had never before heard that the new Poor Law regulated wages. His objection to the proposed legislation was that in itself it was bad, and that it could not be confined to one description of property, but must be extended on the slightest agitation, or the first occurence of real distress in England to a great many other descriptions, and must affect a great many other relations besides those existing between landlords and tenants

  1583
  and the owners and occupiers of land. He cordially welcomed any proposal having for its objects to increase the number of small proprietors. Nothing could, he believed, be more beneficial to the whole country than that that should be done; but then it should be done naturally and with some prospect of success. Now, if the present Bill passed, he could not help thinking that there would be in Ireland no other persons to purchase land but the small proprietors. No regular investor, recollecting the result of the investments made under the Landed Estates Court, would be tempted by such legislation to invest in land in Ireland. A great many, on the contrary, would be desirous of selling out, and it would be only small purchasers who, as he had said, would be desirous of buying. Further, with his experience at the Treasury, he must say he objected most strongly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being becoming, on the part of the State, the mortgagee of the land of Ireland. Nothing would, he thought, be more dangerous, or tend more effectually to defeat the object which they all had in view. What in the circumstances would be the position of a Chancellor of the Exchequer in a shaky Government? When he (Mr. W. H. Smith) was at the Treasury, he had to look into many Irish advances, and he was told by gentlemen from Ireland, when he said that the Treasury would require repayment of those advances, that he was taking a very mean view of the question. Advances were urged on the Treasury which he knew would not be repaid; and how had they been urged? By hon. Gentlemen who had votes in that House. Was it not clear, then, that after a period of bad seasons, when everyone would naturally sympathize with the occupiers of land in Ireland, the Irish Representatives would come to the Treasury and say that their friends were unable to pay the money which had been advanced to them, and that they must have time? Would it be possible in these circumstances to refuse the time thus asked? And would not a pressure be brought to bear upon the Government by the voting power of Ireland which they might find it impossible to resist, in the desire to get rid of a liability which by honest endeavours might ultimately be met? Grave injustice
  1584
  would, he believed, be done to the future of Ireland if the State were made the mortgagee of the land of that country. They were giving a premium to agitation, and encouraging a dislike to meet the ordinary obligations of commerce. But how, then, he might be asked, was the object which the Government had in view of increasing the number of small proprietors in Ireland to be attained? No one desired that more than himself; but it might, he thought, be secured by another and a far better process than that which was proposed in the Bill. Capital was at present abundant, and if it were distinctly understood that the security was good, it might be had at the rate of 3½ per cent, that being the same rate as the Treasury proposed to advance it. Now, that being so, what he should desire to see done was that advances should be made from an Irish fund, constituted under the provisions of the Bill. There was a large amount of remaining property derivable from the land at the disposal of the Church Commission, and he should be prepared to concur in a grant to assist in the formation of a guarantee fund. His recommendation would be that this part of the Bill should be reconstructed so as to establish a Commission, whose duty it would be to deal with the question of purchasing estates, and giving them the power to issue debentures representing the amount of money to be secured on the land, and that these should be guaranteed by the fund in question. Once such a fund was established, those by whom it was administered would not be exposed to the pressure which would be sure to be brought to bear on the Representative of the Treasury in that House in times of trouble and difficulty, and there would be a guarantee against any possible risk which might result from the failure of the tenant from time to time to meet his engagements. He further objected to the proposal of the Government, on the ground that it involved an Annual Act, instead of allowing any scheme which might be adopted a reasonable time to develop itself. As to the purchase of land by the tenant, he was disposed to ask why the tenant should buy under the operation of the Bill? That was a question which deserved, he thought, the serious consideration of the Government. If the Bill gave the tenant some-

  1585
  thing very substantial which he did not now possess, something very much more than he had in 1870, what would he naturally say to himself? Why, that he got what he had as the result of agitation; that if he bought now he must buy at the present value of land; but that if he went on agitating for another 10 years he would get something more. He would be aware that he could get a fair rent determined by the Court, subject to all the new conditions which the Bill would create, and that at the expiration of a few years he might get his rent reduced by one-third or one-half. He could, therefore, see no inducement, as matters stood, to the tenant to become a purchaser. Under the purchase clauses of the Bill, he might add, the Commission was to be authorized to buy any estate of which three-fourths of the tenants were willing to become the purchasers. If such a purchase should be effected, what would be the position of the new owner as to the remaining fourth part of the estate? The tenants who would be left would naturally be the least well-to-do, and the unfortunate landlord would have to get his rents as best he could. What price, if he wished to sell, would he get for that fourth part? It was clear that property sold in that way could not realize a reasonable price; the difficulties in the way of such a sale would be enormous. He would next say a few words about the advances to be made by the Treasury for the purpose of reclamation of waste lands. He had no objection to the Treasury's advancing funds to anybody willing to comply with the conditions of the Bill. But did it occur to anybody that a single individual could be found to advance money for the reclamation of land under the conditions of land ownership which were to be established by that Bill? What inducement was there to enter upon a large scheme for reclamation of land in Ireland when the real power, authority, and interest in the land were vanishing away from ownership? He admitted that the present condition of Ireland rendered some legislation on the subject absolutely necessary; but he objected to that measure, and could not give it his support, because he believed it would unsettle everything and settle nothing, and he had no reason to suppose it would satisfy anybody. He believed that that measure,
  1586
  which was held out as a boon, would not allay discontent, and would prove to be wholly ineffective. He wanted to know whether the Bill was a sham or a reality? Did it really mean to transfer property from one person to another, or was it wholly a delusive scheme? He did not believe that the Bill in its present shape would obtain the assent of the majority of the House. Extravagant expectations would be raised among large numbers of people who expected to be made prosperous by Act of Parliament. He had listened attentively to the eloquent speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), and there were some portions of that speech with which he could agree, and with no part more than that in which the hon. and learned Gentleman said that no artificial contrivances would avail for Ireland's good. He thought that the Bill would be found to be one of those artificial contrivances which would make prosperity, happiness, and contentment impossible in Ireland for the future. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that much, almost all, must depend upon the people themselves, upon their energy, thrift, and self-denial. It was by the exercise of these qualities, not alone, but in the main, that they could hope to rise from the misery and degradation they had suffered for so many centuries to enjoy the full fruits of their labour. He did not think the people of Ireland ought to be encouraged to come to that House for legislation and money whenever they were in a strait; they should only expect from that House to be secured in the full return of all that their industry and labour produced, and they should be told that that was the best which it was in the power of the Legislature to bestow.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that no one on his side of the House could take exception to the general tone and temper with which the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had approached the subject before the House. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken with a sense of responsibility, under the serious condition of things now existing in Ireland, very different from that in which the subject had been treated by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho). The right. hon. Gentleman ap-

  1587
  peared to admit the necessity of wide legislation on the subject, though he did not approve the Bill before the House. There was one expression, however, which he thought the right hon. Gentleman would on reflection regret, and that was that the Government had not altogether discouraged the agitation of last year in the expectation that a stringent and drastic measure would in that way be made more feasible. He would not express an opinion on that kind of language. The Government were quite prepared to deal with an unlawful agitation in a proper manner; and the agitation of last year had been unfavourable to their plans for the amelioration of Ireland. The Bill was in no sense due to agitation. It was due to the rightful demands of the Irish people, which were expressed in a constitutional form at the last General Election. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire was quite right in saying that the Irish Land Question was not raised in the English and Scotch elections. But it was raised before the Irish electors throughout the length and breadth of the country. There was not a Member returned, with, perhaps, the exception of the two right hon. and learned Members for the University of Dublin, who was not pledged to deal with the question in a broad and extensive manner. If he recollected rightly there was not a landowner all over Ireland, except in Ulster, who succeeded in being returned to Parliament; and even in Ulster the few landlords who were returned pledged themselves to go, at least, as far as this Bill, which he would be surprised if they did not support now. They had, then, the voice of Ireland in favour of a reform of the Land Laws, and it would be impossible that the Government could refuse a demand made in so constitutional a manner. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to join the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire in uncompromising opposition to the measure. He gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he was in favour of legislating upon important points of the Land Question—for instance, upon the subject of multiplying the owners of land. The right hon. Gentleman approved of that portion of the Bill, but was in favour of funds being provided from some Irish source. He was glad to hear the right
  1588
  hon. Gentleman declare in favour of the principle of establishing a Commission for the purpose of purchasing land for distribution among the tenants. That showed a considerable advance in the views of the right hon. Gentleman, because he had in his recollection a speech of the right hon. Gentleman, delivered, if he remembered rightly, so late as in the early part of last year to his constituents, in which he denounced the whole scheme which went by the name of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as impracticable, inexpedient, and absurd. The right hon. Gentleman even went so far as to say that he would be no party to such sham legislation. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had reason to remember that speech, because in the previous Session he had carried a Resolution in favour of extending ownerships in Ireland, in which the late Government had concurred. He had himself suggested the application of the Irish Church Fund for the purpose; but, unfortunately, events had since happened which had caused the fund in great measure to disappear, and he did not see in what way any such fund could be brought into existence. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman suggested funds from any other source than that provided in the Bill, he was sure the Government would entertain it; but a measure of the importance of this should not be postponed from any expectation of that kind. Again, the right hon. Gentleman indicated that he was in favour of another very important principle in this Bill—namely, the principle of arbitration of rents by a Government tribunal. At least, that was his inference from the right hon. Gentleman's words when he said that the law should lay down the principle that rents should not be raised to a point at which the tenants could not pay. How was that point to be fixed by law except by such a tribunal? If that was so, the right hon. Gentleman had expressed approval of what he regarded as the cardinal feature of the Bill. Before dealing with some of the objections raised to it by the right hon. Gentleman, he wished briefly to recall to the House why it was that the Act of 1870 had failed to prove a settlement. That Act was a bold and important one in many respects. He thought it was in some

  1589
  respects even more important than the Bill now before them, because it acknowledged for the first time the legal interest of tenants in their holdings. It sought to protect and give security to tenants in their holdings, and therefore to give practically fixity of tenure, and to prevent the raising of rent so as to destroy their interest, by putting the landlord under the compulsion or fine of paying on eviction the full value of the tenant's interest, measured in Ulster by the Ulster tenant right, and in other parts of Ireland by the value of his improvements, and by a payment which was to represent the value of the goodwill. It also proposed, under the Bright Clauses, to create a peasant proprietary. Its objects, therefore, were the same—neither more nor less than those of the present Bill—though it sought to attain them by a different method. Why, then, did it fail to carry out their expectations? He would not admit it had wholly failed. It had, in fact, stopped almost completely capricious ejectments, or any ejectments other than those for non-payment of rent, and it had secured to hundreds of tenants leaving their holdings compensation they would not otherwise have been entitled to. It had not, however, succeeded in preventing the raising of rents to a point which appropriated the tenant's interest. If time permitted, he could show that this failure was partly due to the mischievous Amendments which were made to the Bill, chiefly in another House, and every one of which limited its operation and tended to prevent a settlement. He only alluded to them as a warning to the opposite side against treating this Bill in the same way. It was also partly due to Departmental incapacity and re-action, which smothered and destroyed the "Bright Clauses," and prevented their having effect. It was still more due, however, to the failure of Parliament to understand two features or conditions of human nature in Ireland, which appeared to differ, in degree at least, from those of other people. The one was the intense love of the Irish tenants for their holdings, their willingness to submit to any exaction in the shape of increased rent rather than give up their holdings and face a lawsuit for the recovery of the compensation intended by the Act; and the other was the perversity and almost criminal wilfulness with
  1590
  which certain landowners in Ireland set themselves to work to undermine the policy of the Act, the ingenuity with which they discovered that by trading on the unwillingness of tenants to give up their holdings, they could screw up their rents so as to rack-rent their tenants and appropriate the tenants' interest which it was the intention of the Act of 1870 to secure to them. Sometimes this was done by wholesale re-valuation of their estates; more often by what was called the silent process—namely, by taking the tenants in detail and raising their rents by 25 per cent, or by the nibbling process of successive raisings by small amounts each, so small as to make it a matter for doubt to the tenant whether he would give up his holding and claim the value of his interest. In Ulster it was accompanied also by the creation and invention of arbitrary office rules reducing the tenant right, or putting the tenant to great legal expenses in proving his right. These acts were undoubtedly the acts of a minority of landlords; but they were sufficiently numerous to create a widespread feeling of injustice, insecurity, and alarm through large classes of tenants who felt that they might be dealt with in a similar manner. The House might think he spoke too strongly on this point; but conclusive proof of what he said was to be found in the evidence of the two Royal Commissions. He supposed very few Members had read the evidence contained in the three gigantic volumes of the two Royal Commissions. He could not pretend to have done so himself; but he had read one part of the evidence which he commended to other Members—namely, the evidence of landowners and land agents themselves. The land agents of Ireland contained among their numbers some of the ablest men in Ireland—many, men of wide views—and from their contact with the peasantry they knew much more about them than did the landlords, and it seemed to him that their evidence was very interesting. What they said of their fellow-landowners and fellow-land agents, he thought, might fairly be considered as reliable evidence, coming as it did from men interested in making the best and not the worst of the existing state of things. After reading their evidence, he thought everyone would admit that we might neglect every word of complaint made by the 700 wit-

  1591
  nesses of the tenant farmer class before the Bessborough Commission, and still have a sufficient weight of evidence to justify all the complaints of the Irish people, and to show the necessity for this Bill. There were land agents of the highest position from every part of Ireland, and Judges and landowners who spoke of practices of landowners and land agents in the direction he had alluded to, which fully accounted for the complaints, fears, and alarms of the tenantry. Let him give, as an illustration, one short passage from the evidence of Mr. Murphy, the agent for properties extending over 50,000 acres in Donegal and Down; a gentleman also who acted as valuator for numerous railway companies in the North of Ireland, and who was recommended specially to the Commission by the Committee of Landlords, as one who could give reliable evidence. Mr. Murphy said—
  "I think if the Act of 1870 had been loyally received, it would be working well now. But it was not. Some landlords thought that their rights were invaded and they set to work to counteract it. It is possible that landlords by raising rents may eat up and do away with tenant right. It is a very unfortunate thing that it should be so. The consequence is that the tenants have a feeling of insecurity that their tenant right may be absorbed in that way, and in consequence they do not make improvements. There are instances where estates have been most generously managed and where the tenants lived as happily as possible, but when another landlord came into possession another king arose who knew not Joseph.' That has been the root and evil of land jobbing."
  Mr. Johnston, another agent for 50,000 acres of land in Leitrim and Longford, said—
  "I think the Land Act failed in protecting tenants against a rise of rents. I knew one case in particular where an estate was overvalued and many of the tenants asked me what they were to do—they could not pay the rents and live; still what were they to do? If they broke up their homes and bought land claims they would have nowhere to go—they could do nothing but emigrate. Hence they elected to pay the increased rent, and did pay it for a few years. Now they have failed, and have not paid either last year or this, and at present are in a state of rebellion."
  Going further South, he found Mr. Keane, agent for 100,000 acres in Clare, who said—
  "I have known many cases where tenants laid out money in improvements, and the result was that their rents were advanced."
  Mr. Vernon, agent for properties worth
  1592
  £90,000 a-year, in all parts of Ireland, spoke of the feeling of insecurity caused by the office rules in the North making the sale of tenant right subject to the condition of a rise of rent, and of the paralyzing effect of such an unjust rule. Mr. Leahy, the agent for very large properties in the South of Ireland, said—
  "There is no question that on certain estates, on a great number of them purchased by the parties I have mentioned, it is absolutely necessary that there should be some Court of arbitration. The landlord, if he is willing and wishes to do so, can in a great measure nullify the tenant right interest by raising the rent unduly. I consider that is a practice that should be positively put down and that calls for legislation."
  Mr. Andrew Kerr, agent for Lord Dartrey and Colonel Clement, says—
  "I have known some estates where the landlords have been in the habit of raising the rents. It has had the effect of checking improvements and ruining the tenants and of injuring the landlords in the long run."
  Mr. Jackson, agent to Lord Arran, in Donegal, said—
  "I know the feeling in the minds of the tenantry is that of great insecurity. I believe that improvements would go on 40 or 50 per cent more than they do if they were sure that rents would not be raised for their improvements."
  Mr. Brush, agent to Lord Belmore, Mr. Watson, agent in Antrim, and a host of others he could quote, gave evidence to the same effect. It was confirmed by many others of independent position; by such men as Sir Francis Brady and Mr. Ampthill, County Court Judges, and by Judge Flanagan, of the Landed Estates Court. The latter said—
  "The mischief arises from the fear that an increase of rent may happen any day and may follow upon an increased appearance of prosperity upon his holding. Nothing can be more fatal to the industry and prosperity of the smaller tenant than such a sense of insecurity."
  Professor Baldwin and Mr. Robertson, who were specially selected by the late Government to report on the condition of agriculture in Ireland, spoke to the same effect. They reported numerous cases of nibbling at rents, and of increments of 25 per cent; and they said that the common complaint of the tenants was fully justified, and that they had verified them by reference to the receipts and to the office books of land agents. He believed that every one of the land agents he had quoted were recommended to the Commission as men who tho-

  1593
  roughly understood the question, and whose evidence would be most valuable. Then came the question of remedy, and he was surprised to find what general unanimity there was among the Irish witnesses; not one of them had advocated the extreme measures propounded by the Land League—namely, the expropriation of landlords.
  MR. PARNELLwas understood to deny that that principle was propounded by the Land League.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was glad to hear that denial. At the same time he was surprised, because it did not tally with his recollection, nor with the information given to the public by members of the Land League. However, it indicated a return to common sense on the part of the hon. Member and his Colleagues. The hon. Member denied that was ever the proposition of the Land League; but he had in his hand a paper called Modern Thought, which contained an article by a member of the Land League and an hon. Member of this House—the Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond). In the course of this article the hon. Member says—
  "The settlement of the question which the Land League proposes is thoroughly sound in principle, is likely to prove final in practice, and is a settlement made with the best results in other countries. It advocates compulsory expropriation. Such a proposal was certainly sound in principle."
  This description, he submitted, tallied with all he had seen of the earlier doings of the Land League. He was aware that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had more recently abandoned these extreme proposals, and now only advocated the expropriation of bad landlords. How he was to select the bad from the good he did not know; but he was very much struck by observing that change in the attitude of the hon. Member, and he thought his abandonment of the wider programme showed a return to a sense of what was right and moral.
  MR. PARNELLasked the right hon. Gentleman if he could quote a passage in which he ever advocated the compulsory expropriation of all landlords?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had not the passage by him, but he would promise to produce it. In the meantime he could but refer to the article he had quoted, which was written by one of the
  1594
  protegès of the hon. Gentleman, and one whom the hon. Gentleman had introduced to this House as a prominent member of the Land League, and that article put the same construction on the opinions of the Land League as that which he had ventured to give himself. He repeated, that scarcely a single witness of many hundreds had advocated the original scheme of the Land League of expropriating all landlords. It would be very easy to show how detrimental to the interests of Ireland that would be. Nor would it be possible to expropriate the bad ones. What tribunal would be strong enough to select the bad from the good, and to gibbet the bad as unworthy of existence? The almost universal testimony of those who admitted that wrong was being done was in the direction of giving greater security to the tenant's interest and preventing its confiscation by the landowner by the intervention of a Government tribunal on the subject of rent. He had been greatly surprised at the extent to which all the wisest and best of the great land agents of Ireland committed themselves to that opinion. He found from the evidence that no fewer than 24 of the largest land agents in Ireland, managing properties from 10,000 to 100,000 acres, and in the aggregate of more than 1,000,000 acres, had expressed the strongest opinions in this direction. In addition to those he had already named, Mr. O'Brien, agent to Lord Inchiquin, Mr. L'Estrange, agent to Colonel Cooper, Mr. Lepper, agent to Lord Donegal, and numerous others, were of this opinion; they were supported by landowners such as Colonel King-Harman, who owned 70,000 acres, and who was secretary to the Committee of Landowners, and by Lord Ventry, who owned 100,000 acres in the South. Of other witnesses of the same class, a very large proportion said that such legislation was unnecessary, because they always themselves recognized their tenants' interest, and did practically give fixity of tenure and fair rents appraised with reference to the tenants' interest; and most of them, though not quite all, permitted the sale of tenants' interest. The same witnesses pointed to the happy results which followed upon properties where these principles were acted upon, where practically tenants knew that by the long practice of the estate their rents would be fairly assessed, with full re-

  1595
  gard to the tenants' interest, and only raised at long intervals when the general rise in value of property justified it. They had practical fixity of tenure, and were allowed freely to sell their holdings to the highest bidder. The evidence was conclusive that on such estates the tenants were prosperous and content, improvements were effected, the cultivation was of the best, and there was a general feeling of security; while, on the other hand, the landlords' rents were perfectly secure, and ranged in the long run as high, if not higher, than on those properties where there was no security and where they were screwed up. Nothing could be more certain than that security of tenure under the conditions of Irish cultivation was as beneficial in the long run to the landlords as to the tenants. It was this system which the Bill proposed to extend from the best managed properties in Ireland to all properties. As regarded the best landlords, it did no more than put them under legal compulsion to do that which they always had done freely and willingly; and as regarded the worst landlords, it compelled them to do what experience showed was the true remedy for bad cultivation, insecurity, and discontent. Now, the cardinal point and principle of this part of the Bill was the tribunal for the determination of rent. It was this principle of fair rent and of an appeal from the landlord to a Court, which all parties who had looked into the matter were now agreed upon—the majority as well the minority of the Duke of Richmond's Commission, the whole of the other Commission, the Duke of Argyll, the majority of landlords and land agents in Ireland, the majority of hon. Members opposite. The concurrence in the necessity for this was almost universal. Why was it so? Was it not from the fact that all these people now recognized and admitted that the tenants had an interest or property in their holdings which ought to be fully protected? It had been said that that principle was in contravention of freedom of contract. If the tenants had no interest in their holdings, if they were in a position to contract freely with the owners of the land, the principle of freedom of contract might apply. But that was not so. The tenants had an interest in their holdings which in Ulster generally was equal to that of the
  1596
  landlords, and elsewhere in Ireland equal to one-third of the competition value of the holding; it was impossible for them to disentangle their interest from the holding so as to be in a position to contract freely with their landlords, and the result was conditions in which freedom of contract could not and did not exist. Let him illustrate that by an example. Suppose a holding let at £20 a-year, the tenant or his predecessors had effected all the improvements, had built the house, had reclaimed the land from the waste, had removed the boulders, and had from time immemorial exercised all the rights of ownership over it. The tenant right was probably worth £200. The fiat of the landlord went forth to raise the rent 25 per cent. This reduced the value of the tenant right by more than one-half by appropriating therefrom property to that amount. The tenant might leave the farm and might claim the full value of his tenant right; but to do so he must give up everything that was dear to him—his home, the place of his birth, his friends and neighbours; he must go into the wide world, and he had to recover the value of his interest by means of a lawsuit against his landlord, whom he would find represented by the ablest lawyers. He might be too old to begin life again in some other profession. What freedom of contract was there between him and his landlord, whom he could approach only through a Dublin agent? If the tenant should resist and combine with his fellow-tenants and neighbours in opposing the increase of rent, then again it might be asked where was the freedom of contract in the landlord? He contended that the conditions for freedom of contract did not exist. Those who contended for it must begin by denying the tenant's interest, and must be prepared to see it appropriated by the landlord. It was not a question so much of political economy. It was a question of justice and equity. The interest existed, and under the present conditions it was not safe, but was liable to be appropriated by a person to whom it did not belong. It was necessary, therefore, to give it protection, and the only way of doing this was by allowing an appeal to the law. He believed it was as much the interest of the landlord as of the tenant that this appeal should be to the

  1597
  tribunals of the country rather than to Rory on the Hills or to the self-constituted tribunal of the Land League. When we had once grasped the idea of a Government tribunal for rents, the other principles of this part of the measure necessarily, logically, and inevitably followed. The appeal to a tribunal as to rent necessarily implied a continued occupation. Could it be permitted to a landowner to turn the tenant out immediately after the decision? So also as to free sale; when we had recognised the tenant's interest, when we had given him a tenure, whether for 15 or 30 years, or in perpetuity, how could we resist the tenant's claim to be allowed to realize the value of it? Even if we should do so in law we should be defeated in practice. The incoming and outgoing tenant would come to terms behind the back of the landowner, as they did now in numerous cases, and we should have renewed agitation until full recognition of the interest was conceded. Here political economy was certainly in favour of the claim for free sale; for the free sale and disposition of an interest once recognized and protected at law was an almost elementary proposition of political economy. It was said that they were creating a dual ownership in the soil. He denied that they were creating such a system. They were recognizing and giving full protection to an interest which existed, and not creating it. It was not rightly described as an ownership in the soil; it was a right of occupation of the soil as distinguished from the ownership. The ownership of the soil was qualified, and out of it was carved the right of occupation, and the two togther exhausted the whole value of the soil and its produce. He would not weary the House by any historical vindication of this claim of the Irish tenant. There seemed to be an economic justification and cause for it. Where the system of cultivation of a country was that of small occupiers it was wholly impossible for the landlord to effect the improvements, to build the houses and the homesteads, or to reclaim the land and to maintain the general equipments of the farm. To attempt to do so in the English system would be ruin to the landlord, and would involve him in expenditure of more than the value of the fee. These improvements must be effected by the tenant; and where that was the case there must
  1598
  grow up a proprietary interest of the tenant, which would claim and must receive the recognition and protection of the law. It had been repeatedly said in this debate that the Irish tenant was more protected by law than the tenant of any other part of the world; but there was no other part of Europe where such a vast and universal system of small tenancy existed; and where the system of cultivation was in small holdings, it was always accompanied, supported, and fortified by the fact that a vast proportion of them had the security of ownership. It had been said that such a dual ownership as would be virtually created by the Bill would be a source of confusion, and that experience had shown that where it existed on the Continent it had led to an agitation to get rid of the landowner. That was perfectly true of that kind of dual ownership which came down from feudal times, and where the tenant was burdened with servile obligations to the landowner; but there were throughout Europe a vast number of tenures of a different character, not dissimilar to that which would exist under that Bill—namely, of hereditary leases, with fixed rents, or rents subject to periodical revision. Such tenures were common in Holland, in many parts of Germany, and France, and in North Portugal. They were highly appreciated. They were considered scarcely inferior to freeholds, as they gave security to small occupiers and led to good cultivation. He might quote from a recent and very interesting description of Portugal by Mr. Crawford, our Consul at Oporto. After giving an account of these hereditary leaseholders in the North of that country, he said—
  "This system has created in the Northern provinces a population of hardy, independent, contented yeomen. There are no great territorial possessions, no accumulation of agricultural wealth in one man's hands; but there is, again, no pauperism. If we cross into some of the Southern provinces, we find the reverse of this feature of prosperity and content—great estates ill-farmed, rich absentee landlords, and crowds of ill-looking, poverty-stricken, and woe-begone tenants and day labourers."
  Another objection raised by the right hon. Member and others was mainly directed to the principle of free sale. It was put forward in the interest of tenants of the future. It was said that while they forbade the rack-renting of

  1599
  landlords, they would permit the rack-renting of tenants by themselves; that the incoming tenant would sell his interest to the highest bidder, and that the incomer would come in heavily mortgaged, and be unable to cultivate the farm to the best advantage. The argument was specious and plausible, and had something to recommend it from a theoretical point of view; but, fortunately, it was not confirmed by experience. Experience showed that on those estates where free sale was most fully granted, where the largest prices were given for tenant right, no such evils resulted. The estate invariably gained by the sale of tenant right in the exchange of a bad tenant for a good one. In the case of Lord Downshire's property, the tenant right was fully admitted; there was no limit to the price of tenant right, and the long practice of the family had given rise to the greatest confidence that rents would never be raised so as to interfere with tenant right. Tenant right there amounted often to £40 per Irish acre, or £25 per English acre—more than the value of the fee. There, at least, they would be likely to see cases of the evil result of over-burdened and mortgaged tenants; but it was not so. The agent for the property said that the rents were rather higher than on properties out of Ulster; the tenants were in a comfortable condition, the land was better cultivated than elsewhere, and there was general content. There was similar evidence from many other properties. In all cases it was admitted that whenever a sale took place a good tenant took the place of a bad one, and the landlord was paid arrears of rent. The supposed evils were purely imaginary. The reason was that full security for improvements attracted capital, and did not repel it. If a tenant on coming into possession had to borrow a part of his capital, he soon saved money by his industry and repaid it. Landlord and tenant were both benefited by the security and by the consequent improvements, and in the long run rents were higher on those estates than elsewhere. He recollected the late Major Dalton, the agent to Lord Headfort's properties in Meath and Cavan, told the Committee of three years ago that on adjoining properties of the same kind tenant right was allowed on the one and averaged
  1600
  £15 per acre, and was not allowed on the other; that where allowed the rents were higher, and the tenants were more prosperous and content than where it was not allowed. It was certain, then, that to attempt to prevent free sale or tenant right, or to limit the amount of tenant right, was unwise and not in the interest of either landlord or tenant. In fact, security of tenure and free sale had almost the same effect upon production, and industry, and content as a full ownership. Ownership was the highest form of security known to the law; but continuous occupancy, under the Ulster right, with fair rents and free sale, was closely approaching to it, and gave full security to the tenant. He would now say a very few words upon the second part of the Bill, that facilitating occupying ownership. That part carried out in its integrity, with one very slight exception, the Report of his Committee of three years ago, and he need hardly say that it was gratifying to him to observe what general concurrence there was both as to the subject and method of these clauses. He believed that if worked in the spirit of the Act they would prove the most important part of it, and give that stability and support to property which everyone now admitted was so much needed. There was no other country in Europe in the least degree approaching Ireland in the distribution of its property. In every other country it had long ago been recognized that every consideration, economical, political, or social, pointed to the expediency of a wide distribution of landed property, and to fixing the peasantry upon the soil as far as possible. He had on several occasions brought that subject before the House, and would not now repeat what he had said. He would add, however, that every foreign statesman, jurist, or economist, who had over visited or written upon Ireland had pointed to the condition of its land ownership and the absence of proprietary interest of the occupiers of its land as the chief causes of its bad economic condition and its chronic agitation and discontent. Count Cavour, De Tocqueville, De Beaumont, Sismondi, Von Raumer, Kohl, and many others, had written in that sense. The ablest treatise on the condition of Ireland in the present century was that by De Beaumont, the friend of De Tocqueville, who visited it in 1839

  1601
  and again in 1862. He might quote one short passage from it. He said—
  "So long as the Irish are only tenants, you will see them always miserable and indolent. With what energy do you suppose the poor tenant would be endowed who knows that if he improves his farm his rent will be proportionately increased?"
  And, again—
  "If in Franco the acquisition of the soil has been so great an improvement for the people, of what benefit will it be for the Irish people? It is to be hoped that the day when there will be in Ireland small proprietors the greater part of her miseries will cease. The rich, ceasing to have the monopoly of land, will no longer be subject to the curse of the poor, and the Small owner who protects with his body his field and his cabin will have nothing to fear from attacks of which in Ireland the soil is the object."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), while agreeing in principle to that part of the Bill, had intimated that there might be danger to the State in the Government becoming the mortgagee of so many small properties. There was a danger which he had himself feared; and in the proposal which he had made to the Committee two years ago he had suggested that, if possible, funds for that purpose should be derived from an Irish source. The experience of the purchases under the Church Act had shown that there was not any very great danger in that direction. In circumstances of very great difficulty, the tenants had paid their instalments, and they had passed through a period of distress with greater ease than he should have expected. They must expect that if they had a similar period of distress 10 years hence there would be some difficulty; but they must also recollect that the security of the State was every year increasing. Let it not be supposed that peasant proprietary was the panacea of all the ills of Ireland. He had never put it forward in that way. It was no cure for bad seasons. Small owners, he had no doubt, would suffer greatly in times of depression and famine, though he believed they would emerge sooner from them and would bear them more patiently. It would be no cure for the evils of over-crowding in some of the remote parts of Mayo and Donegal, and he thought the other parts of the measure more suitable for such people at present; but he could not exclude them from the benefit of
  1602
  the trial. The case of the migratory labourers was a peculiar one, and seemed to him to require special treatment; but he would not now detain the House upon them. The case of other Irish labourers was important. He was glad to see the great interest taken in this subject by hon. Gentlemen opposite; it was somewhat unexpected. He hoped at some future time their case might be dealt with; but at present the Bill was already heavily weighted. They might recollect also that the labourers were closely allied to the small tenant farmers. In many parts of Ireland there was no class of labourers as distinct from the tenants, and the labourers were the sons of the tenants. Whatever they did to improve the condition of the tenants, to give security, to induce improvements, would re-act on the labourers. The passage from the one class to the other was continuous, and the prospect of being able to buy land or to buy a tenancy would be the best and surest promoter of thrift and industry among the labouring people. There were many other questions which had been touched on in the course of this discussion, such as the transfer of land, the Law of Entail, and others; but, however important, they were beyond the scope of the Bill. This Bill was already sufficiently freighted; and if it came into harbour with its present cargo, without any loss from jettison or otherwise, it would be, he believed, fraught with great benefit to Ireland. For his own part, he had not lost his faith in the future of Ireland, or in the generous qualities of its people, or in their respect for right and justice, if all were equally protected. There was much indeed to deplore in the weary cycles of agitations and discontent, and especially in the events of the last two years; but it had seemed to him that these most unfortunate events had their origin in intense suffering caused by agricultural loss, aggravated by a sense of injustice and wrong. If by this Bill they were able to remove that sense of injustice and wrong, it was his belief that under the auspices of better seasons they might look forward at no distant date to the return of prosperity, content, and order in that part of the United Kingdom.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, although he believed the Bill to be imperfect in many important points, he would confine himself mainly to the principles

  1603
  of the Bill which were contested, reserving questions of detail for Committee. He felt bound, however, to remark that the Bill did not give any substantial benefit to tenants who were under eviction for arrears of rent. It gave them some benefit; but it did not sufficiently recognize the case of those who had been suffering from rack-rents, which they had been unable to pay in consequence of distress arising from a succession of bad seasons; and yet he understood that one of the reasons for passing the Bill was the existence of rack-rents. The Government, therefore, could not escape from the necessity of applying strong remedies in this direction. Again, the class of leaseholders deserved as much consideration as the yearly tenants, many of them having been obliged to take a 30 years' lease under threat of eviction, the object of the landlord being to cause the tenant, by virtue of his being a lease-holder, to forfeit the advantages conferred upon the tenants by the Act of 1870. He would now answer some of the objections raised to the Bill on the Opposition side of the House—objections which had been candidly raised, and deserved a candid reply. The first part of the Bill regulating contracts was challenged, on the ground that the State had no right to interfere with the owner in imposing rent; but the Irish landlord had not been in the past the absolute owner of his land in respect to rent. Owing, probably, to the violent manner in which land had been transferred in the past, the people claimed the right of, at least, cultivating the land which had belonged to the tribe at a moderate rent, leaving the tenant a property. Irish landlords had formerly admitted and recognized this custom. They had not used competition, the owner's ordinary standard, as a test of rent. The right to this property, and the injustice of exacting a rack-rent which would destroy it, was shown by the Report of the Bessborough Commission. A tendency had of late years sprung up to violate the custom and destroy the tenant's property by rack-rents. This tendency had been introduced by means of middlemen and subletting, and also through undue competition; and it was very likely that the men who had taken farms over the tenants' heads now turned round and said they would pay no wore, than Griffith's valuation. The Landed Estates Court, too,
  1604
  had bought in purchasers who violated the old custom of the country, and charged rack-rents. The effect of the Bill would be to restore the custom, and only to prevent the usurpation of a claim on the part of the bad landlord inconsistent with it. They were told that the effect of this measure on the good landlord, who had been faithful to the traditions of his country, and had not rack-rented his tenants, but had left them their property in the soil—that the effect on those landlords would be nil. If they had not rack-rented the Court would not recognize a claim for the reduction of rent; but if they had, if they had destroyed the traditional interest of the tenants in the land, they would be liable to have their rents brought within reasonable limits. It appeared to him that that was a very fallacious statement of the effects of the Bill. It appeared to him that the landlord would always have the power of initiating proceedings in the Court by resisting the tenant's demand for the reduction of rent, because, if a tenant wished to continue in possession after a demand of increased rent, he would be compelled to go into court, and that was equivalent to a right to initiate proceedings in the Land Court. The right of free sale was absolutely essential to a property in the tenant, because without it, if a tenant found himself unable to carry on his business, the landlord, by refusing the right to sell, could annihilate the property. The interpretation which assumed that in measuring the rent the amount to which the tenant would be entitled to compensation should be deducted from a computation of the landlord's interest, seemed to him not borne out by the language of the Bill. It seemed to him that the object of the Bill was to preserve and take into account the property which the tenant had over and above the landlord's interest. The clause was, however, ambiguous, and as unsatisfactory with its present wording to the tenant as to the landlord, and would require explanation and amendment. Free sale properly guarded was absolutely necessary to the tenant; without it a tenant would feel himself always in a state of insecurity, and would be deterred from putting in the land his capital, labour, and skill. A great deal had been said about the increased prospect of litigation under

  1605
  this Bill; but if a wise and fair tribunal were established, he contended that litigation between landlord and tenant would be diminished rather than increased. With this view, he recommended the introduction into the Court of technical skill and local knowledge. With regard to the establishment of a peasant proprietary, he thought it was necessary, not only for the prosperity of farmers, but for the tranquillity of the country, that everything should be done that in reason could be done to develop a peasant proprietary. The principle of the Bill might well be enlarged without any danger to the taxpayer. The Treasury should receive a larger power of advance to be exercised in each case on its merits, and the time for repayment might also be safely extended. But if universal peasant proprietary were created, the land being divided into many small holdings, absolute free trade in land would be the result. Land would be accumulated in the hands of small capitalists who would develop into landlords, and he feared a class of tenants it would be impossible to protect would spring up, as much at the mercy of small and griping landlords as the Belgian tenants, whose condition was so bad. It would be futile to try and prevent letting. History taught that all attempt to interfere with the ordinary operations dictated by the love of profit were futile. The natural growth of an occupying proprietary would avoid these dangers. Men would learn from the experience of others how far a position of ownership suited them. They would see the benefits and dangers and undoubted responsibilities of proprietorship. They would learn what he supposed was the result of the competition caused by ownership, that proprietorship required more capital, more industry, and, above all, more agricultural skill than tenancy. Meantime tenants would be protected by the first part of the Bill; and while proprietors remained only as a portion of the community of agriculture, it would be easier to impose conditions on their contracts of letting than if there were a universal peasant proprietary immediately created. The emigration clauses could not but be viewed unfavourably by Irish Members, who went to the root of things, and saw that emigration arose from a bad system of Land Laws. But he believed these clauses were, in addi-
  1606
  tion, unnecessary for any measure, whether of proprietary or tenant right. Giving a right of free sale would, for the present, strengthen the tendency to sell, to consolidate, and to emigrate. These were views which he had arrived at concerning this Bill. He was glad that it stepped in between landlord and tenant, because unless the rent was regulated they would be driven into a general expropriation of the landlords' property. The details of the Bill would require large amendments. Its principles were sound and wise. He hoped they would be adhered to, and fully developed by the House. If they were rejected, he trembled to think what would happen—not only as regarded the landlords' property, but the general peace of the country; but if they were accepted and became the law of the land he believed they would lay the foundation of true prosperity. That prosperity might not grow up in a single night like the gourd of the Prophet; but it would strike deep root, and be steady, permanent, and universal.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had stated in his Amendment that the Bill, as far as its leading provisions were concerned, was economically unsound. He was afraid he must lie under the censure of that Amendment, because a dozen years ago he expressed his conviction in a Paper he then read, and had since republished, that the granting of fixity of tenure, fair rents, and free sale was essential to the pacification of Ireland. He felt certain, from an examination of the condition of Ireland, that nothing short of these three concessions would satisfy the legitimate demands of the Irish people, and bring Ireland into a state in which it would cease to be a reproach to the Administration of the United Kingdom. It appeared to him that the view he took a dozen years ago had been singularly justified by the events which had since happened. Certainly great concessions had been made to Ireland since 1869; but they had not touched what was at the bottom of Irish disaffection and of the Irish difficulty—the proper recognition of the right of the tenant to what his own industry had created, and of his place on the soil of the country to which he belonged. He listened the other day with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord

  1607
  the Member for Barnstaple (Viscount Lymington), who bore his testimony to
  what the wisdom and justice of a particular family could do in a part of Ireland. The noble Lord told them that on the estate in question rents were
  punctually paid, and that peace and contentment were general; but that
  happy state of things might be wrecked if the possessor of the estate determined to make use of the power which his own vices and the law of the land gave him over his tenants. They ought to provide by the operation of the law that persons should not be brought within the range of a system by which the permanent peace and the rights of the people might depend on the will of an individual. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire told the House that the Bill in its main provisions was economically unsound. He wanted to know what was meant by economically unsound. Eminent statesmen often used words in a special sense; and the noble Lord had not strengthened his case by quotations from any writers on political economy, such as Mr. John Stuart Mill, so that he was at a loss to know precisely what was intended. The noble Lord had, indeed, read extracts from the speeches of Judge Longfield; but he did not care much for Judge Longfield's speculations on the Irish Question, knowing that, as a rule, lawyers had but little acquaintance with either history or law. The Report of Mr. Bonamy Price was nothing more than pure assertion. He quite forgot the enormous difficulties in which the people of Ireland were placed, and those which the Government and Parliament had to deal with in order that complete justice might be done. Turning to the actual facts of the case, he contended that the insecurity of the Irish tenant farmer was the cause of most of his difficulties. A man could not be expected to sow without a certainty of being allowed to reap his crop. And, as things were, the position of the Irish occupier was aggravated by the exorbitant raising of rents and by the loss of the value of his improvements. That was the state of things that prevailed in very many parts of Ireland. It was often alleged that the Bill would seriously diminish and injure the property of the landlords; but that he was altogether disposed to deny. Similar fears had been entertained on other occasions, and
  1608
  particularly at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws, when the country gentlemen complained that the agricultural interests were ruined, while, in point of fact, the agriculturists had suffered only from the consummate and idiotic folly of the landlords, who were now going about like sturdy beggars asking Parliament to relieve them. However, the present Bill, so far from injuring the landlords of Ireland, would infinitely enhance the value of their property. He ventured to predict that if the proposed changes were effected in Ireland, that disposition to save, which was characteristic of the Irish people, would drive them before long into those branches of manufacturing industry which in former days were destroyed in Ireland by the cupidity and greed of the manufacturers and landowners of this country. A good deal had been said about confiscation; but what did confiscation mean? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer called upon him to pay a tax, that was confiscation. Confiscation was the taxing part of a private man's substance for the National Exchequer. But there was another kind of confiscation, far worse than anything which could be done by any law proposed in that House—namely, the right which the stronger had to appropriate the property of the weaker. That had been done pretty freely in Ireland. He contended that the principle of the Bill was equitable, its essence was arbitration, and its purpose was a final settlement of the question. Much had been said about interference with that three-legged horse freedom of contract; but if they allowed persons to do just as they pleased in their relations with their fellow-subjects, the result would be universal swindling in the whole of society. They had interfered with freedom of contract in various ways, and in proof of this he need only refer to the laws relating to the employment of women and children in factories and the truck system. The noble Lord had told them that the production of this Bill was a yielding to violence and agitation; but it should be remembered that no great reform had been effected in this country without an agitation preceding it. Thus agitation preceded Catholic Emancipation, the reform of the representation, and the repeal of the Corn Laws. There was not a single European community

  1609
  which had not got rid of its feudal institutions. In 1846 there were as many outrages in Denmark as in Ireland; but a wise statesman arose, who made the Danish peasant proprietor of the soil he cultivated, and Denmark had ever since been a prosperous country. It was a measure of simple justice which the Government now proposed to extend to Ireland. It would be a great thing if they could by any means bring about a state of things in which they could dispense with every policeman and soldier who were now employed to maintain unjust and iniquitous laws; for the cost of all the machinery adopted nominally to maintain peace in Ireland, but really to collect rents, was pretty nearly as much as the value of the whole rents together. It was contemplated that under this Bill those who by their own labour had developed a value in the soil which they occupied should have the satisfaction of feeling that they possessed a property in that soil. The Bill had been described as Communistic. Communism was the sacrifice of the property of the few to the interests of the many; but a greater evil had long existed in Ireland—the sacrifice of the property of the many to the interests of the few—and it was that which the Bill was designed to remedy Ireland ever since the Union had laboured under great social and political disadvantages. At the present time, for instance, she possessed nothing like an intermediate system of education. There were several points in the Bill to which he should object in Committee; but, as far as the principle was concerned, it seemed to him the Government had brought forth a measure which dealt with the relations of landlord and tenant in a manner thoroughly sound. The measure was an attempt to reverse the history of the past of Ireland. It was an attempt to make a new, and he believed a final, treaty of peace between England and Ireland, under which all lawful rights would be respected, all legitimate property secured, and all sound and economic principles vindicated. He did not pretend to say that when this measure of justice was done to the Irish people, and when the sound principles the Bill contained had begun to produce their fruit, all agitation in Ireland would cease. It was too much to expect that after centuries of discontent a nation would at once ac-
  1610
  quiesce in a settlement; but just as after a volcano had broken forth and rendered the surrounding country like a smoking furnace, for a time there would still be a fire glowing in the cracks, but when years had passed by the place which was the scene of desolation and misery would become a fruitful garden, so he believed it would be in Ireland. And he had no doubt that if he lived long enough to witness the results of the measure he would feel that the best days of his life, and the day on which he looked back with the greatest satisfaction, was that on which he strove in his place in the English Parliament to heal the discontent of centuries, and to do right to the country which had suffered wrong for centuries.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he did not know whether the House looked upon the speech which had just been delivered with as much satisfaction as the author anticipated for himself when looking back to it some years hence. The hon. Member had been Professor of Political Economy at Oxford, and was the author of one or two extremely meritorious books on political economy; and he had therefore expected, when he saw him get up, to hear from him some sound and economic argument in defence of this Bill. Instead of this the hon. Member had treated them to a most extraordinary mixture of historical illustrations, which illustrated nothing, to miscellaneous invective, directed against everybody in general, to almost truculent criticism of every political economist but himself, with the one exception of Mr. Mill, whom he treated with a calm and contemptuous superiority. [Mr. THOROLD ROGERS: I never quoted anybody.] He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) did not accuse the hon. Member of quoting anybody; what he said was that he treated theta to truculent criticism. As he listened to the speech he wondered what the Prime Minister would think of two statements in it. The first was that the Bill included provisions for fair rents, free sale, and fixity of tenure; and the next was as to the right hon. Gentleman's gradual conversion on the subject of Irish land. The right hon. Gentleman had, over and over again, stated that the Bill was not based on the three F's as alleged by his supporters; and as to the conversion, he (Mr. A. J.

  1611
  Balfour) admitted its existence; but he must altogether deny that it had been gradual, since less than two years ago several Members of the Ministry declared themselves directly opposed to principles which they now embraced. Hon. Members who so triumphantly prophesied the success of this measure appeared altogether to forget that the Liberal Party had made several attempts to settle the Land Question permanently, and that every attempt had been hailed with the same approving chorus. In 1860 there was one final settlement of this question; in 1870 there was another; and now a third final settlement was proposed. Three final settlements in 21 years. He had no doubt if the present Bill passed into law it would be the parent of many future final settlements, introduced with the same hopes and ending with the same disappointments. This was not all. The Liberal Party had boxed the political compass on this question. For the Bill of 1860 was founded on free contract; the Bill of 1881 on Socialistic principles; while the Bill of 1870 was a transition between the two. But even this did not show the full incompetence of the Party opposite to deal with this problem; for it now appeared that by the Bill of 1870, without in the least intending it, they had conferred on the tenants property which properly belonged to the landlord, and they now thought it necessary to legalize deliberately this accidental confiscation, and to enforce those rights by means of the present Bill. With regard to peasant proprietors, although he doubted the economic advantages of the system, he believed it would be politically advantageous on the broad principle that if legislation was to be carried on under mob dictation, it was well in the interests of justice to have a mob on both sides. He did not propose to detain the House further on this question; but he wished to say one word on the subject of free sale. The whole object of the Bill, they had been told, was to counteract the land hunger which existed in Ireland. He wished to ask, when the tenant was allowed to sell his holding for full value, would his successor be rack-rented or not in effect? It was clear that if the operation of competition was allowed to drive up the tenant's interest to its full limit of value, the incoming tenant, between the claims of
  1612
  the money-lender and those of the landlord, would pay precisely the same rent as if competition had throughout been allowed full play, except that the money would not go into the right pockets. The only possible way in which this result could be avoided was by diminishing, through the operation of the Land Court, the rent paid by the new tenant in consequence of, and having regard to, the excessive price paid for the tenant right. But if that were the alternative adopted by the Government, the Bill was one of undisguised spoliation. Free sale, in short, must end either in rack-renting or in robbery. Then there came the question of fair rents. Even in England it was difficult to settle a fair rent by arbitration. But there was this great difference—that whereas in England there was a fair standard ascertained by competition, in Ireland, after the passing of the Bill, there would be no standard. But that was not all. What the Bill was really attempting was to fix the standard of living for Irish labourers. A large proportion of the farmers were really in the position of labourers. To fix their rents was really equivalent to fixing the amount of wages they were to receive. In parts of Ireland the tenants had no capital, and any law regulating the rents they paid was really a law regulating wages. The Bill was therefore Socialistic in its character. Socialistic schemes were always directed to redressing by Government interference the evils, or supposed evils, in regard to the distribution of wealth which flowed from unrestricted competition. From that point of view the Bill was clearly a step in the direction of Socialism. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had remarked that they did interfere between the employer of labour and the artizan, because they had a Poor Law; but he could hardly have been serious in maintaining that there was any analogy between the operation of the Poor Law and the operation of the proposed Land Court. Almost all the arguments of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) were based on the supposition that it was impossible to give the tenant the value of his improvements unless they passed this Bill; but that proposition he altogether denied. Nobody wanted the tenant to lose his improvements; there were provisions in the Bill altogether distinct from those

  1613
  he had been criticizing which would secure the improvements he had made; and there was no necessity for them to choose between swallowing the whole Bill brought in by the Government and allowing the tenant to be deprived of that which his labour had produced. He did not believe they were bound to find a complete remedy for the state of Ireland. They would not think the more highly of a physician because he professed to cure all diseases; and a politician was not a great statesman because he conceived that by one Bill he could provide a remedy for ills so deep seated and of such long standing as those of Ireland. They were not to be cured by months of well-meaning administrative weakness, followed by a Coercion Act of unexampled severity, followed again by wild legislation of this kind. It was only slow improvement that could be permanent. He was not prepared with any other legislation; but he could not on that account give his adhesion to this. It was to be condemned, not only because it taught the lesson too often taught before that agitation would produce legislation, but also because it must fail in its intended object. It could not relieve the tenant from the rack-renting which was produced by competition; it introduced principles which no other Government had been bold enough to adopt, and which, he feared, might be applied to other countries than Ireland, and to other industries than agriculture; and for these reasons, if the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) persisted in his Amendment, he should support him; if not, he should vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners).
  MR. P. J. SMYTHsaid, he had listened with pleasure to the temperate speech of the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), and all the more so because it was such a marked contrast to other speeches made from the same side of the House, except that of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy). It was an unfortunate circumstance that a purely social question, the relation of landlord and tenant, upon the satisfactory settlement of which the very existence of a nation depended, should assume in that House, at that early stage, a Party character. A
  1614
  Party triumph on such a question could be achieved only at the sacrifice of a nation's life. Ireland, without distinction of Party, appealed to the House for peace, and the most thorough partizanship might well shrink from the responsibility of making her wasted fields the theatre of Party conflict. It was scarcely justifiable in the circumstances of Ireland to meet a Bill of this character, framed, as it obviously was, in a spirit of justice and conciliation, with obstructive criticism, unless such criticism were accompanied by proposals better calculated to accomplish the object which all Parties in the House should have in view—the peace and prosperity of Ireland. Where were these proposals? Where were these grand schemes for the development of the resources of Ireland? Elcho answered, where? He looked on this Bill as a great measure of justice; he believed it to be entitled to the support of every hon. Member on either side of the House claiming to be a friend of Ireland. It stood alone, the first great Government measure ever submitted to this House which breathed throughout the spirit, not merely of abstract justice, but of Irish right. The Catholic Emancipation Act was marred by the abolition of the 40 s. freeholders, and by the penal clauses against the religious orders. The Encumbered Estates Act took no note of Irish sentiments, traditions, and habits, and failed, in consequence, to realize the wise purpose of its authors. The Land Act of 1870, framed with the best intentions, put English contract in place of Irish custom, and hence the necessity for new legislation; but here was a Bill which, excepting particular details, a Grattan or a Flood might have presented to an Irish Parliament. ["Oh!"] He was speaking on the second reading, and he spoke not of details but of principles, and especially of the recognition of the unquestionable fact that the Irish tenant had co-property in the soil, and that he held it by tradition, by immemorial usage, and by force of sentiment as ineradicable as it was natural and laudable. Tenant right existed in every country in Europe formerly embraced by the feudal system; if it was to be found now only in certain counties in Ulster, the fact was to be accounted for by the wars and confiscations of the past. Ulster was the last part of Ireland brought under British dominion, and was, therefore,

  1615
  the last to alter tribal customs for feudal tenure. Another reason for its existence in Ulster was given by a witness in the Devon Commission—"Because," he said, "the people of that Province were Protestants, and had arms in their hands." The truth of the matter, as far as the Ulster Custom was concerned, was that it was a national and not a local custom, and this was the secret of the desperate tenacity with which the Irish tenant clung to his holding, and to which, even in exile, he dreamed of his return. Who that had seen the Irish exile as he had—by some river of the Great West on a festal day of his native land, pause in his task at noon and in fancy listen to the chimes of the Sabbath bells of home—who that had seen him, as he had, look up at midnight into the wondrous sky of the Southern hemisphere guessing which one of those bright orbs was then shedding its beams through his cabin door just by the wild wood, could fail to realize how vain the attempt to oppose to a rooted belief and a pious sentiment the cold precepts of a ducal philosophy? On one occasion an Irishman in the wilds of Australia showed him a sod of turf which he had carried with him from Ireland. In the spirit of a utilitarian, he asked why he had carried the turf with him from the other side of the world? He said that he meant it to be put into his coffin if he died away from his native land. There was more philosophy and feeling in that saying than in the essays of those Gentlemen who would fain have them believe that what was not contract was confiscation. They had heard a great deal about the rights of property, and he would yield to no one in his respect for the rights of property. They were based upon reason and common sense; but the rights of property and the rights of landlords, so far from standing on the same footing, wore too often directly opposed to each other. The rights of property promote production; the rights of landlords too often impede it. The very reasons that should induce them to respect the one would lead them to limit and regulate the other. When representatives of the landed interests, both here and elsewhere, spoke of the rights of property in connection with this Bill, he wondered did they forget the several Acts of Parliament that had been passed since 1800 in favour of the landlord and against the
  1616
  tenant, in support of the landlords' right and to the injury of the tenants. In his view, if all those Acts had been repealed 12 years ago, and the ancient Common Law of England, in regard to the tenure of land, restored, the tenants would have been vastly benefited, and the rights of property would have been safer than they now were. The "three F's" were one and indivisible. Accepting one, they necessarily accepted the three; accepting free sale, they accepted permanence of tenure and fair rent, without which there could be no interest and no sale. On some of the best managed estates in Ireland that principle had long been acted upon; and if it was universal the rights of property would not have been injured, and landlord, person, and property would have been much more respected than they now were. As a class, with a few noble exceptions, the Irish landlords, since the year 1800, had not deserved well of their country, and the result had been a miserable warfare protracted through generations; it had been class against class, rich against poor, and both against the law. The machinery proposed by the Bill had been harshly and prematurely criticized, and he must express his opinion that it was fully adequate to give effect to all the principles involved in the Bill. The moral effect upon both landlords and tenants of the existence of a strong Land Court would be such that, after a little time, the intervention of the Court would not, except in rare instances, be sought. Landlord and tenant would learn to settle their differences amicably, and the principle of contract, for the first time free and unfettered, would assume its rightful sway. The portion of the Bill relating to a peasant proprietary met with universal approval. Believing that, under proper conditions, Ireland could support double her present population, he was no advocate for emigration. He thought reclamation ought to have a fair trial before emigration was resorted to. He admitted that there were omissions from the Bill—particularly in regard to absentees, and corporate bodies, and the labourers—but these could be remedied in Committee. He would not further detain the House, because he felt that this Bill should not only pass, but that it should pass speedily; while its defeat would be an irreparable disaster. Every day's delay in its passing

  1617
  would detract from its value. A great political architect had traced for them the lines and laid deep for them the foundations of a glorious temple of national concord and union. It was for them, with willing hands, to raise its massive walls high into the air, and to surmount the whole with a mighty dome, beneath whose shadow Irishmen of all classes might rest, oblivious of the past sorrows and hopeful of the future splendour of their common country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Lord John Manners).
  MR. PARNELL: I am sorry to have to introduce a discordant note into the proceedings of this evening; but the fault is not mine. I have just learned that the Government have arrested my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon), the Colleague of the hon. Member who has last addressed the House (Mr. P. J. Smyth); and I cannot help thinking that it presents a very strange irony that while one hon. Member for Tipperary is extolling Her Majesty's Government, the other Member for Tipperary is an inmate of a prison cell. I regret that Her Majesty's Government should have interfered with the Constitutional rights of my hon. Friend when he was on his way to this House. [Cries of "Oh!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I have to point out to the hon. Member that the question before the House is the second reading of the Irish Land Bill; and on the Motion for the adjournment of the debate no observations can be made by the hon. Member which are not relevant to that Bill.
  MR. PARNELL: I propose, Sir, with your permission, to move that the House do now adjourn.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not competent for the hon. Member to make that Motion at the present time. The Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate, and it is necessary that the House should settle that question. Until it is disposed of the Motion of the hon. Member cannot be made.
  MR. PARNELL: Of course, I have to apologize to you since you rule me out of Order, and say that I am not entitled to move the adjournment of the House. But I understand that there are precedents for the course I proposed to take, and that I should be in Order
  1618
  in moving the adjournment of the House, even on the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. SPEAKER: In any case, the hon. Member could not make any remarks except such as might be relevant to the Bill before the House.
  MR. CALLAN: I rise to Order. May I ask if the hon. Member would be in Order in making the remarks he proposes to make when the Motion is made, on the next Question, that you do leave the Chair?
  MR. SPEAKER: Any observations made by the hon. Member, even then, must be relevant to the Question before the House. But I am bound to say this—that if the hon. Member wishes to make any observations on any other subject, I think he would be in Order in making them when the Motion is made at the termination of the Business before the House for the adjournment of the House.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 263; Noes 34: Majority 229.—(Div. List, No. 190.)
  Debate adjourned till Thursday.

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    MR. SPEAKERcalled upon the Attorney General to make his Motion for Leave to bring in the Parliamentary Oaths Bill.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he had a Petition to present from the Committee of the National Club, praying the House to refuse its assent to any Bill which proposed to abolish the appeal to Almighty God, and that legislation upon the subject might not be hurried through.
    Petition ordered to be laid on the Table.
    MR. PARNELL: I rise now, Sir, for the purpose of moving the adjournment of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is out of Order. I have already called upon the Attorney General.
    MR. PARNELL: I beg, with great respect, to submit that I had addressed you, and had intimated my intention of moving the adjournment of the House

    1619
    before you called upon the hon. and learned Attorney General.
    MR. SPEAKER: I am simply carrying out the Order of the House. The House has already ordered that at this Sitting the Orders of the Day shall be postponed until after the Motion of the Attorney General with regard to the Parliamentary Oath, and in pursuance of that Order of the House I have called upon the Attorney General, who is now in possession of the House.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rise to a point of Order. The Order of the House to which you have referred states—
    "That the Orders of the Day, subsequent to the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill be postponed until after the Notice of Motion for the introduction of the Parliamentary Oaths Bill."
    The debate on the second reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill has been adjourned; the Orders of the Day, in pursuance of the Resolution I have quoted, have been postponed, and we have come to the Notices of Motion. The Notices of Motion are some 20 in number; and the Notice which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Attorney General is No. 8 upon the list. The point I wish to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is, whether the Orders numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, down to No. 8, must not be disposed of before the Motion can be taken which stands on the Paper in the name of the Attorney General? If it be said that this is a Government Notice, and that it ought to have precedence on a Government night, then I would respectfully submit that if that were so, it would have been printed at the head of the Notices of Motion. What I wish to ask now, as a point of Order, is, whether the Notices which precede that of the Attorney General should not have precedence?
    MR. SPEAKER: In calling upon the Attorney General to submit his Motion. I have only followed out the Order of the House. The Motion of the Attorney General, according to the Order of the House, was to be called up out of its place; and, in pursuance of that Order of the House, I have called upon the Attorney General.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I do not for a moment, Sir, question the complete accuracy of your statement as
    1620
    to the ordinary practice of the House; but I would submit further to you, whether, upon Notice being taken of the points to which I have alluded, it is not within the competence of any Member to insist on the programme furnished to us in regard to the Business of the House for this evening being strictly adhered to. Even if the custom be as you have mentioned, when an objection has been taken to a departure from the prescribed Orders of the Day, I would submit that although that custom may be as you have stated, we have a right to insist on the Notice Paper being gone through.
    MR. PARNELL: Upon the point of Order I wish to add for your further consideration, whether, where it is desired that a Notice of Motion should take precedence of other Notices of Motion which are before it on the Paper, as well as of the Orders of the Day which are also before it on the Paper, it has not been customary in times past to move a Resolution of this kind—that the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion subsequent to the Order of the Day for resuming the second reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill be postponed until after the Notice of Motion for the introduction of such and such a Bill or Notice of Motion? In the present case, I think I can recall to your mind the fact that there have been several such precedents afforded to us in the past practice of the House when it has been desired to move a Notice of Motion out of its usual order, and that the Notices of Motion have always been included as well as the Orders of the Day. On the present occasion, the only Resolution we have adopted is the Resolution moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, which directs that the Orders of the Day subsequent to the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the second reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill should be postponed until after the Notice of Motion for the introduction of the Parliamentary Oaths Bill. That refers only to the Orders of the Day; and I take it that the Notices of Motion which stand on the Paper after the Orders of the Day should now be taken according to the order in which they stand. Certainly, the Resolution which the House has adopted does not give precedence to the Motion of the learned Attorney General over the Notices of

    1621
    Motion which stand before it on the Paper.
    MR. SPEAKER: I can only repeat to the hon. Member, and to the House, that the ordinary course has been followed upon this occasion, and that I am only pursuing the ordinary and uniform practice of the House in calling on the Attorney General, who has charge of the Motion in question, to proceed with that Motion. I am, however, bound to say that, after the distinct intimation I have given, it does appear to me that this continued interruption is in itself disorderly.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I have now to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the Parliamentary Oath. In making that Motion, I think it would be the most convenient course that I should explain the reasons which render it desirable that the Bill should be brought in. In the statement I have to make, I can assure the House that I shall occupy its time as briefly as I can, and I shall do all in my power to avoid entering into matters of a controversial nature. It is necessary, however, to remind the House that the responsibility of introducing the Bill has been cast on the Government; how it is that the difficulty which the Bill proposes to deal with has arisen; and why it is that it has become necessary to meet that difficulty by means of the proposed legislation. In the first place, it is only seemly that I should give credit to the foresight displayed some time ago by hon. Members opposite, and especially to acknowledge that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who, when this matter was before the House on the 1st of July last, expressed his views almost in the words of a prophecy, which prophecy now appears about to be fulfilled. When we were then discussing the proposed Resolution of the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman said he thought the only course to be followed was to bring in a Bill to solve the difficulty; and he also added—
    "They might depend upon it that, whatever the fate of this Resolution was, it would not settle the question. Legislation must be brought forward, whatever the sacrifice of time."—[3 Hansard, ccliii. 1330.]
    At that time it was thought that the Resolution of the Prime Minister might
    1622
    have been sufficient to meet the difficulty which the House had to deal with; because, if the judicial opinion had been in concurrence with the opinion of those Members of the House who thought that Mr. Bradlaugh had a right to affirm, there would have been no need for this legislation. But it was not so. The Courts of Law have decided that Mr. Bradlaugh was not entitled to affirm, and a claim is now made by him to take the Oath. The difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman referred to on the occasion which I mentioned has arisen; and, that difficulty having arisen, the prophecy which he made to the House seems about to be fulfilled. At any rate, the necessity for legislation has become apparent; and the first question which presents itself is upon whom shall the responsibility fall of introducing that legislation to the consideration of the House? With regard to the proposal now to be submitted to it, whatever may be its fate, I think there will be an universal concurrence of opinion that the responsibility should fall upon the Government, and not upon any private Member. We have now to consider for one moment what is the difficulty with which we have to deal; and I am very anxious that there should be an agreement of feeling amongst the Members of this House upon this point, however we may disagree as to the manner of meeting the difficulty. I understand it to arise from the fact that Members of the House who have been anxious and willing to take the Oath—or, at least, willing to take it—ought not, in the opinion of other Members of the House, to be allowed to take it. Sir, I think the reason why they ought not to be allowed to take the Oath must be narrowed to a very simple issue, and in that sense I am encouraged to believe that the difficulty we have to meet is a very small one. That encouragement proceeds from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devonshire, who said that he did not object to Mr. Bradlaugh sitting in this House, and that he had no objection to those who entertained the same views as Mr. Bradlaugh being Members of this House. ["No, no!"] I will not come into conflict of opinion with those hon. Gentlemen whose recollections are not the same as mine. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he had no

    1623
    objection to the fact of Mr. Bradlaugh sitting here; but that he objected to the profanity of his taking the Oath at the Table of the House. He objected, in fact, to an appeal to the Supreme Being, in whom there was no belief, as a mockery.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: That certainly was the point; but I do not think I made use of the term that I had no objection to Mr. Bradlaugh taking his seat as a Member of this House.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is more likely to be right than I; but I understood him to say that, as a matter of principle, he did not object to Mr. Bradlaugh being in the House, but that he objected to the profanity of his taking the Oath. At any rate, I believe there will be those who share that opinion. Again, as the law stands at present, persons entertaining opinions identical with those of Mr. Bradlaugh cannot be prevented from sitting in this House. There is no possible means of preventing the Oath being taken by such persons, because we have agreed that the Report of the Committee of the 23rd of June last is to prevail; and you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that if a Member is silent on entering the House, and does not contemporaneously with taking the Oath make a declaration of his opinions, the House would not interfere. Thus, if a person, however atheistical in his opinions, and however morally certain this House may be, from what he has said or written out-of-doors, that he has no belief of any kind in the Supreme Being—if such a person shall come here and merely remain silent, that which hon. Members opposite so conscientiously object to and believe would be profanity in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh may day by day be enacted at the Table of this House, and there will be no means of preventing it. That is a condition of things which I understand hon. Members to say they must put an end to. In deference to the conscientious views of those who think thus, some legislation is necessary to prevent the repetition of that which has been so forcibly complained of by hon. Gentlemen opposite. But, Sir, it is not necessary to rest this Motion upon that ground alone. Without regarding the circum-
    1624
    stances immediately before us, I believe there is a far stronger and better ground on which to base the introduction of this Bill—namely, that there should be no religious tests for persons entering this House. Therefore, I conceive there are ample grounds for this Motion being accepted. The necessity for legislation is almost unanimously admitted; but certainly to many Members of this House the question will present itself, as to what kind that legislation shall be? It may be that many will object to the proposals of the Government, thinking that there might be legislation on a much more extended basis. There may be many who will say they desire that all Promissory Oaths should be done away with; but probably most will agree that the present is not an opportune time to raise that question, and that it had better not be brought under our consideration so soon after the circumstances which have occurred within our walls. In doing anything to mitigate the necessity of the Oath, I am encouraged by the example set by the Conservative Government in the year 1868, who, in the Promissory Oaths Amendment Act of that year, showed that it was not always necessary that a Promissory Oath should be taken. In relation to the Oath of Allegiance, the importance of which one would suppose to be greatest in the case of those whose fidelity to the person of Her Majesty was most necessary in consequence of their forming her body-guard, a Conservative Government held in this House that the Oath was not necessary, and that a solemn Declaration would supply all that was required. The same Government also proposed to substitute a solemn Declaration for a Promissory Oath in the case of persons taking municipal offices; in short, in every case except those mentioned in the Act of 1868 the Promissory Oath was abolished, and a Declaration accepted in its stead. That was the proposal of a Government of which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were Members, and it received the acquiescence of the House of Commons. Notwithstanding this example, I confess it appears to me, on the whole, undesirable to raise the broad question whether or not Promissory Oaths should be abolished. I think, under the circumstances in which we are placed, it will be better to propose legislation that

    1625
    will relieve this House from legal difficulty, and which will also afford due consideration to the consciences of hon. Members. I trust, therefore, that the Bill will meet the views of hon. Members opposite, and be a remedy for the evil of which they complain. I have quoted the views of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and if I am right in what I believe to be the view of the majority of the House, we have to deal with the difficulty not as to what is a proper test of the religious opinions of hon. Members, but as to what are the means, or what are the doors, by which hon. Members should enter this House. There are, at the present moment, two doors only, so to speak, by which they can enter, one of which may be represented by taking the Oath. The second is that which has been constituted in accordance with the terms of the 4th section of the Act of 1866, that provides that any Member of this House who claims to be a member of the Society of Quakers is entitled to make Affirmation as an equivalent for the Oath. We do not propose to open any fresh doors by which Members may come amongst us, nor to close any by which entrance is at present effected; but we propose to widen one of those of which I have spoken. The proposal of the Government is that the 4th section of the Act of 1866, by which Affirmation is allowed to be made by Quakers, shall be extended to every Member of the House who may desire to affirm in preference to taking an Oath.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTrose to Order. He wished to know whether, according to the Standing Orders of the House, the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General should not be made in Committee of the Whole House?
    MR. SPEAKER: The statement which the hon. and learned Attorney General is making is not out of Order. I presume the hon. and learned Gentleman will conclude with a Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House to enable him to ask leave to introduce the Bill which he has in charge.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I have already stated that it was my intention to follow the course which you, Sir, have alluded to. The proposal being that any hon. Mem-
    1626
    ber may make Affirmation instead of taking the Oath, I presume that every person on whom an Oath is binding will still desire to take the Oath; and certainly those persons, for the most part, who will ask leave to make an Affirmation will be those on whom an Oath will not be binding. How can you wish men to take the Oath upon whose consciences it will have no binding effect? What advantage can possibly arise from compelling men to go through such an empty form? If you do so there will be the profanity of which you complained, and there will be an empty form without any good effect. It will be said that men now take the Oath who preferred to take the Affirmation; what then? The Affirmation will have an equal effect upon their consciences to the taking of the Oath; therefore, all the advantage that ever accrues to anyone from taking the Oath will still remain, for those upon whom it is binding and effective will still take it, and those upon whom the Oath has the same binding effect as an Affirmation, if they take an Affirmation will be equally bound by that. It has been said that an Oath is a religious test; but I will remind the House that we can never enforce our test, because we cannot question a man in this House as to his conscientious belief, nor can we receive evidence in respect of it. Therefore, what is the use of seeking to apply the test of the Oath to a man upon whom it cannot have the slightest effect? No one man has ever been kept out of the House by means of the existence of the Oath, and it is now sought to substitute for it an Affirmation, which, for all practical purposes, will have precisely the same effect. It will give them exactly the same security that an Oath would give. There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer, and which I have heard much discussed. The question is raised that if this Bill becomes law a person in Mr. Bradlaugh's position will still be able to take the Oath in defiance of the feeling of the House; and it is suggested that there ought to be some legislation to prevent him taking it. That question, I think, arises from a misapprehension. The House on Tuesday last decided, under the very exceptional circumstances of Mr. Bradlaugh's previous declaration, and upon the ground stated by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr.

    1627
    Clarke) that the circumstances of last year and this year amount to a contemporaneous act, and are so continuous that they cannot allow Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath. I will not enter now upon the question whether the House ought to have arrived at that conclusion; but I will say this—that if the House had the power then to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh taking the Oath, it will have exactly the same power after the passing of this Bill. This Bill will make no difference in the power of the House. If Mr. Bradlaugh affirms, he will do so under this Bill; but if, after making the same declaration, he came again to take the Oath, the House can again exercise the same power and again prevent him taking the Oath. There is not the slightest desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government, in bringing forward this Bill, to interfere with the decision at which the House has arrived. In saying that, I am not saying for one moment that the position of those who voted against the admission of Mr. Bradlaugh is a right and proper position to take up, or that the power which the House then exercised was rightly exercised. But whether it was right or wrong, this Bill will leave matters in precisely the same position in relation to the exercise of that right. I do not wish now to enter into any matter of a controversial nature; but I have explained what will be the purport and substance of the proposed Bill; and, in conclusion, I can only say that I trust that the House will accept the measure in the spirit in which it is proposed, which is in no sense hostile to the decision of Tuesday last, and in no way desires to interfere with the discretion or the conscientious views of hen. Members opposite. Whether the Bill is accepted or dissented from, I hope it will, at least, be discussed in a spirit free from any tinge of religious intolerance. I now beg to move "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, and that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House," with the view of asking leave to introduce the Bill.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEwished to offer one word of personal explanation with reference to the citation
    1628
    which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made from some remarks of his, and which might possibly produce a wrong impression as it stood in the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement. He could not remember the exact words he (Sir Stafford Northcote) had used; but what he had in his mind at the time was this—he was defining the point of the objection which he had been taking; he was taking objection to the use of the Oath by a person to whom some of the words were meaningless and an empty formality; and he meant to state that he did not take any objection on that occasion to Mr. Bradlaugh sitting in the House; but he did take objection to his taking the Oath. He did not wish, at the time, to raise the other question; but neither did he wish that it should go forth that he had no objection to Mr. Bradlaugh sitting in the House. He simply did not raise that point.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that in accordance with the agreement arrived at earlier in the evening, he would now move that the Debate be adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    MR. NEWDEGATEtrusted that, as the subject was not introduced until a quarter past 12 o'clock, the House would see the desirability of adjourning the debate. He would only add that the Attorney General, in the very temperate speech which he had introduced to the House, had made assumptions which could not be supported by the practice of the House in this very case of Mr. Bradlaugh.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Thursday.
    MR. ONSLOWinquired whether the Prime Minister proposed that the debate on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill should be stopped at any hour on Thursday, in order that this debate might be resumed?
    MR. GLADSTONEreplied that, although the debate was formally put down for Thursday, it was intended, in conformity with his previous statement, that it should be resumed on Friday.

ORDER OF TEE DAY.
  ALKALI, &c. WORKS REGULATION BILL [Lords]—(BILL 119.]
  (Mr. Dodson.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Commencement of Act).
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW moved in page 1, line 9, to insert the year 1883, in place of the year 1882. He said this Amendment was proposed with the object of giving time to manufacturers and others to put their works in order. In the case of cement manufacturers, the works could not be altered without the expenditure of a large amount of time and capital; and he did not think the Government desired that persons should be subjected to those heavy inconveniences without having proper time given them for the purpose. Supposing that this Amendment were not agreed to, he was prepared with another on Clause 8, providing that the owner of cement works should have no fine levied upon him within six months after a first order was made against him under the Act; and if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was willing to accept the latter Amendment he was ready to withdraw the former.
  MR. DODSONwas of opinion that the first Amendment was quite unnecessary, inasmuch as no Court would convict a man and inflict a penalty for not having altered his works in obeyance to the requirements of an Inspector under the Act, unless sufficient and reasonable time had been given him to do so. The alkali manufacturers had been subject to similar legislation under previous Acts, and he was not aware that any case of hardship of that kind had arisen. Therefore, although the principle of the Amendment was reasonable, it was entirely unnecessary; and as the effect would be to prevent the Act coming into operation until 1883, it was one which he could not accept. In regard to the latter Amendment, he could only say that he approved the principle of it, and would consult the Law Officers to see
  1630
  whether words could be introduced to that effect.
  MR. WARTONcould not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could undertake to recollect the proceedings of Courts of Justice. The right hon. Gentleman seemed conscious of the weakness of his position, because he undertook to consult the Law Officers. In his (Mr. Warton's) opinion, it would be far better to have words inserted in the Bill than to trust to what the right hon. Gentleman and the Local Government Board would guarantee in the Courts of Law.
  COLONEL MAKINSinquired whether, in the event of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) withdrawing his Amendment the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) would postpone Clause 8 until he had the opportunity of considering the point?
  MR. DODSONreplied that he did not say that he would postpone Clause 8; but that he would consider whether it was necessary or desirable to introduce some words in another part of the Bill to give effect to what the hon. Baronet proposed.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Condensation of muriatic and other acid gases in alkali works).
  MR. ERRINGTON MR. ERRINGTON moved, in page 1, line 17, to insert after the word "work" the following words, "to the extent of ninety-five per centum and." The hon. Gentleman complained that the Bill proposed to substitute the percentage standard regulating the consumption of noxious gases by a new standard which would be less stringent. Therefore, he regarded his Amendment as very important, and hoped the Government would accept it. The law hitherto had required manufacturers to condense 95 per cent of the noxious gases evolved by their works; and he thought there would not be the least objection on the part of the manufacturers to guarantee that the new law should not be less efficient than the old.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 17, after the word "work," to insert the words "to the extent of ninety-five per centum and."—(Mr. Errington.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. STEVENSON, on behalf of the Alkali Manufacturers' Association, stated that they would agree to the Amendment. It would be a pity to lower the present standard of condensation and to decrease the stringency of the law in that respect. Unless this proviso was inserted the manufacturer would be enabled to allow three times as much gas to escape as he did at present; in fact, in some cases, it would raise the amount of escape to about 15 per cent. Those who were connected with the trade declared, and legislation had been based upon the principle, that the law ought to compel negligent manufacturers to keep their works up to the standard maintained by careful manufacturers. He should propose that the gases mentioned in sub-section 6 should be only those of sulphur and nitrogen; and he would venture to strongly recommend the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) to accept the Amendment.
  MR. DODSON: I have no objection to accept the Amendment which the hon. Member proposes on behalf of the manufacturers. I am willing to insert in the Bill, in line 17, after the word "work," the words "to the extent of 95 per centum and," if the manufacturers desire it; but we must accept the Amendment on its own merits, and I cannot undertake, in consequence of its adoption, to agree to accept from the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson) any definition as to the gases mentioned in sub-section 3 being gases of sulphur and nitrogen. I could not accept any proposal to confine the gases under that definition. According to the information I have received from the Inspectors, the text would apply to muriatic acid, and to other acids, whether as chimney or flue gases.
  MAJOR NOLANwished to know from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether it applied to Ireland. It was not clear whether it did or not, although, at the end, there were several references to that country. If Ireland were included in the scope of the measure, he should think it would be desirable to amend the measure by omitting all reference to Ireland, for there was not much chance of the air being contaminated by alkali or other works there. If Ireland were included, the rating for sanitary purposes might be increased; and he, therefore, asked that
  1632
  she might be left out, unless the Irish Members asked that the Bill be extended to their country. He should be disposed to look with considerable jealousy upon the measure, unless he received an assurance that it would not affect Ireland. He should like to see small alkali works established there; but the passing of this Bill, if it applied to that country, would render the starting of such works there even less likely than it was at present. There had been a manufactory in Galway that would have come under the definition of an alkali works. No doubt, in England there were some districts which were considerably injured, almost poisoned, by works of this kind, and legislation in their case was necessary; but he could not imagine such a case occurring in Ireland. It would be quite time enough for them to provide this remedy for Ireland when any of her people suffered from the inconvenience which the measure was designed to remove. In the last clauses of the Bill several Irish Acts were quoted; and it would, to his mind, be an advantage if the Committee had an assurance from the Government that the measure would not apply to Ireland.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that this is scarcely the time, when we are discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington), to consider the general question of the extent of the operation of the Bill.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he thought it right to give Notice that he should jealously watch every clause of the Bill. He did not profess to be interested in alkali works, and he did not wish to be understood as implying that his constituents were interested in them, although he believed, as he had said, there had been a kelp works in Galway which would come under the definition of alkali works. He had a right to jealously watch every clause of the Bill, and when an Irish Member got up and said that he did not want to have the measure extended to his country, unless other Members from Ireland rose and expressed a desire that it should be so extended, the Government should give him an assurance that Ireland would not be affected.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it seemed to him most extraordinary that at this hour (1.10 a.m.) they should be

  1633
  discussing the question as to whether the Bill did or did not apply to Ireland. To make way for the discussion of this measure they had interrupted the course of a most important Bill affecting the interests of the Irish people. The discussion on the Irish Land Bill had been interrupted for the alleged purpose of enabling the Attorney General to introduce a measure of great and pressing importance; but it was now plain that, in the opinion of the Government, it was not necessary, for the purpose declared, to take that step at all, as they had not even thought it expedient to take a division on the question that the Speaker leave the Chair. It seemed to him that the Irish Members, after having seen the debate on the Land Bill adjourned, could hardly be expected to sit there quietly to discuss this Alkali Works Regulation Bill, which they had had no reason to expect would be brought before the House to-night. Be would move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  MR. DODSON: I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the Motion, and allow us to make some progress with this Bill. It is a measure in which a great many Members on both sides of the House are interested; and there is a general feeling throughout the Assembly to see it carried. The manufacturers who are interested are anxious to see the thing settled; and the residents in the districts affected by noxious gases are anxious to have the nuisances from which they suffer abated. An hon. and gallant Member below the Gangway has appealed to me to know whether Ireland is included in the Bill. Ireland has been included in all the Alkali Acts, and in all the legislation which has taken place on this subject; and I fail to see any reason why, on the present occasion, it should be omitted from the operation of the measure. But, whatever may be the merits of the case as to including or excluding Ireland from the operation of the Act, I venture to submit that the question does not arise on the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. CALLANwished to know whether any demand had been made for the Bill on behalf of the Irish people, or
  1634
  whether the official Representatives of that country, who were Irishmen, had considered whether the measure should be extended to Ireland or not? He would ask some Member of the Government who knew something about Ireland to reply.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would give the hon. Member the information he required. The Representatives of Ireland in the Government had been consulted; and, moreover, the Bill had been framed in accordance with the recommendations of a Royal Commission founded upon evidence drawn from Ireland as well as other parts of the United Kingdom. It could not, therefore, be said that this measure had come upon the Irish Members by surprise.
  MR. RATHBONEwould appeal to Irish Representatives on this question. The Bill, it was true, might not affect Ireland; but it certainly affected a large number of Irish people—in fact, he might almost say that it affected more Irish than any other people. There were enormous Irish populations in the neighbourhood of some of the most injurious chemical works; and it was to protect the residents in the districts surrounding such manufactories that this Bill was promoted. Irish Members complained that the Land Bill had been interrupted to make way for this measure; but that was not the fact. The Land Bill had been interrupted solely for the purpose of going on with a measure which had nothing whatever to do with the Bill before the Committee. He would point out to the Irish Representatives that this was a measure affecting the health of a great many of their countrymen; consequently, he appealed to them not to persist in their present course.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that the hon. Member who spoke from the Government Bench had informed them that the official Irish Members had been consulted. He presumed, from the words in which the information had been couched, that the Official Irish Members had simply been consulted as to the drafting of the Bill. No doubt, the measure had been drafted very properly; but had they been consulted as to the necessity for the Bill? That was a very different matter, and he failed to see how connection with the Departments they represented should enable them to give a sound opinion as to the necessity of the Bill. He did not complain of

  1635
  the drafting of the measure; but he said there was no Irish demand for the Bill. He could understand the necessity for legislation in crowded neighbourhoods, such as the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) had referred to; but he thought it would be a great mistake to pass such a measure for Ireland, as it would have the effect of fettering manufacturing enterprise. If anyone could show him the necessity for such a Bill, he should be satisfied; but, seemingly, nobody could. He could not see why the Government should hesitate to concede their simple demands. The Irish Members had not been consulted. The Bill was unnecessary; if it passed in its present form, a staff of Superintendents would be established for Great Britain alone, and the work of inspecting would be badly carried out in Ireland. No doubt, help works could be conducted in Ireland; but the Board of Trade had refused to give him statistics about them last year, and that was another reason why he looked with jealousy upon this Bill. Unless some case was made for extending the Bill to Ireland, he should support the Motion for reporting Progress.
  DR. COMMINSwas at a loss to know who the parties were who were in such a hurry to see the Bill passed. The Board of Trade seemed to think that some people were anxious that the measure should be passed without delay; but he had been in communication with two of the largest alkali manufacturers, and, so far from being in a hurry to see the Bill carried, they considered that it would interfere with their trade, and do enormous damage to their interests, and also to the interests of the labourers employed by them. The next point was this. What was the necessity for extending the measure to Ireland? He should like the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) to point out to him one single alkali works in the whole of Ireland. He believed there was not one, and he would point out to hon. Members who wished to extend the measure to Ireland that if, before the principal alkali works in England came into existence, such a Bill as this had been passed, at this moment we should not have a single alkali manufactory in the country. It was because it was necessary to discharge noxious fumes into the air from these manufactures that works had been set up in the wastes of widnes and on the
  1636
  sands of Flintshire. If it had been possible to sue the manufacturers for allowing noxious vapours to escape from their factories, these works would never have been established. Who, he would repeat, was in a hurry for this Bill? The manufacturers themselves were not, and the operatives were not anxious to have it, for they had never asked for it. He thought, therefore, that further time should be afforded for the consideration of the matter, so that the Government might not hastily take a step which would affect most injuriously not only the capital, but the labour employed in these manufactures.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: The hon. and learned Member asks—"Who is in a hurry for this Bill?" Perhaps he will allow me to reply that everyone who lives in the neighbourhood of these alkali works is in a great hurry for it. In the vicinity of these works the country is destroyed for miles; in fact, the country is becoming a desert. The hon. and learned Member says that two alkali manufacturers have informed him that they are not in a hurry to see the Bill passed, because it will destroy their trade; and he further says that if the measure had been passed earlier the trade of Widnes never would have arisen. It is clear that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows nothing about the subject, and I am afraid "the two gentlemen interested in the alkali trade" who have spoken to him are gentlemen who care little what injury they do to the trade or to anyone but themselves. The best manufacturers are content with the Bill. They know they can manufacture under the provisions of this measure, without material loss to themselves, and they are willing to come under these provisions, always provided one thing—namely, that all manufacturers are brought under the Bill, because there are some inferior manufacturers who do not care what they do to their neighbours. The bonâ fide, well-established alkali manufacturers are anxious not to interfere with the interests of their agricultural neighbours.
  MR. MAGNIACthought the hon. and learned Member (Dr. Commins) was labouring under a mistake. He knew of two very considerable works in Ireland which, when they were extended—as he hoped they would be—would, without such a measure as this, cause great damage to the surrounding coun-

  1637
  try. The hon. and learned Member, no doubt, had spoken in the interests of his country; but he (Mr. Magniac) also was speaking in the interests of Ireland and in the interests of the Irish manufacturers. This Bill was brought in after the works at Widnes had been carried on for a great number of years. These works had been carried on without regulations, and the result had been that so much damage had been done to the surrounding country that legislation had become absolutely essential. In the course of the debate this afternoon on the Irish Land Bill, he had been surprised that the result——
  MAJOR NOLAN: Mr. Chairman, is the hon. Member in Order in referring to what occurred in another debate?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have not yet heard what the hon. Member is going to allude to.
  MR. MAGNIAC, resuming, observed that the opinion had been expressed that a result of the measure would be the application of capital to Irish industries. He trusted that would be the case; and he believed from his knowledge of the subject that one of the first industries to which such capital would be applied would be the manufacture of manure, which he considered absolutely essential to the proper cultivation of the land. He also believed that by this measure an immense amount of capital would be saved, and he hoped that a considerable number of works would be established. If such works were established and placed under the regulations of this Bill, capital would not be wasted in works which did not consume their gases, and deleterious results would be prevented. If Irish Members opposed the Bill, and ill-regulated works were established in Ireland, there would be such an outcry that at the eleventh hour a Bill similar to this would have to be brought in. Ill-regulated works would cause great damage; and he was sure that any Member who understood the question would agree with him that it would not only not be for the benefit of Ireland to exclude that country from the Bill, but that it would cause much waste of capital.
  MR. MAC IVER, speaking as one acquainted with Widnes and the neighbourhood, said, the damage done by these works was really residential damage, and that, after all, what might be objectionable near a town like Liver-
  1638
  pool might be perfectly unobjectionable in certain districts in Ireland. He thought the question raised in reference to Ireland was most important, because he felt, and many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House felt, that the industrial condition of Ireland was a matter of the first importance.
  EARL PERCYadmitted that the statement of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) was one which came from a great authority, coming from a Gentleman who lived near Widnes; but he confessed, having visited Widnes, that the statement that the works there only caused residential damage was a most surprising one. The agricultural value of land in the neighbourhood of works of that kind had greatly deteriorated, and there was a general outcry for legislation. Several hon. Members wished that the Bill should not apply to Ireland, and would watch it very jealously if it did apply to that country; but, although the Committee would be glad of their scrutiny of the Bill, he did not see why the question whether or not it should apply to Ireland should be raised at that stage. He would suggest to those hon. Members that they should allow the Bill to proceed, and then raise that question in Committee.
  MR. HEALYgathered from the noble Lord who had just spoken that this was really a landlords' Bill. It was objected that the Irish Members had risen at the wrong moment to interpose; but he wished to point out that if the hon. Member had not raised his question now he would be easily defeated at a later stage, and so no satisfaction would be obtained from the Government. He, therefore, would ask the Government to consider the hon. Member's point immediately. There had been seine chemical works in Ireland which were now killed, and he complained that such measures as these were not mentioned in the Queen's Speech; but that, in order to pass measures placing restrictions on manufacturers, other measures were mentioned, to throw dust in people's eyes.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON, referring to the previous speaker's statement that this was a landlords' Bill, said, that as a Member of the Royal Commission he had heard a great deal of evidence on the part of working men, among whom there was a very strong feeling that noxious gases affected their

  1639
  health and made life almost intolerable. In Widnes and St. Helen's there was a large number of men engaged in these works, and they suffered very greatly from the effects of the gases upon their respiratory organs. He hoped that hon. Members from Ireland, who enjoyed pure air, would not prevent the passage of this Bill, which was so necessary to obtain pure air in some districts in England. If there was no impure air in Ireland the Bill would not affect that country. It was simply in the first instance, a consolidation and extension Act, and it did not affect Ireland to any great extent. The objections of the hon. Members from Ireland appeared to him unsubstantial; and he only wished there were more works in Ireland with more employment for the people. He did not think the hon. Members would benefit Ireland by raising objections to Ireland being included in the Bill, and so stopping its progress.
  MR. WHITLEY, speaking as the Representative of a large constituency deeply interested in this subject, hoped the House would support the Government. A Royal Commission had been appointed upon this question, and he regretted that the Bill did not go further in the direction of the recommendations of that Commission. Every large town in the country had reported in favour of the Bill, and he was surprised to hear that the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon had not heard anything of it. The hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) was a member of the Corporation of Liverpool, and that Corporation had petitioned in favour of the Bill. The Corporations of Manchester, Warrington, and of other towns had done the same, and there was hardly a large town in the North of England which was not very much interested in the Bill. Thousands of working men were interested in the promotion of a Bill affecting the question of their health, and he regretted that any objection had been raised to a measure which he hoped would have met with the universal approval of the House. Hon. Members from Ireland might renew their objections when that portion of the Bill affecting Ireland came under discussion; but at present the House was not considering what parts of the country the Bill referred to, and he
  1640
  hoped the House would allow the Committee to pass the clause.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWexplained that he did not wish to stop the Bill; but hon. Members who had spoken had discussed the Bill as if it were purely an Alkali Works Bill. If it had been only such a Bill, there would have been unanimity of opinion in the House in favour of the manner in which alkali works were to be regulated, to prevent their injuring and interfering with the cultivation of the land. But the Bill included, besides alkali works, sulphuric acid works, cement works, chemical manure works, gas liquor works, nitric acid works, sulphate of ammonia works, and muriate of ammonia works. He did not know whether there were any such works in Ireland; but what he would venture to suggest to the Government, in order to secure unanimity on the Bill, was that they should confine it to alkali works and sulphuric acid works. There would then be no opposition to it.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that when the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) sat down, he was under the impression that the object of the Bill was to facilitate industrial enterprize in Ireland, for the hon. Member's speech was one showing the inestimable benefits to be conferred on Ireland by the passing of the Bill in reference to works none of which existed in Ireland. In a Committee of that House an alkali manufacturer at Widnes and Liverpool had said that day that he objected to any facilities, such as cheap coal, being given for the benefit of foreign countries. Probably that gentleman, Mr. Muspratt, looked on Dublin as a foreign country, and he wished to place restrictions on that foreign country, which might compete with Liverpool or Widnes. It was not surprising that one of the hon. Members from Wales, where there were many alkali works, should object to Irish Members endeavouring to exclude Ireland from the operation of the Bill; but if there were no alkali works in Ireland, why should the Government wish to place restrictions on works which had no existence? Did not that give rise to the suspicion that the Government apprehended that, in consequence of the restrictions they were imposing on works in England, a new industry might arise in Ireland, and that, with that foresight which was so peculiar to the English

  1641
  character, they wished to guard themselves against the consequences of this Act, and prevent rival works in Ireland? As the English Members were so anxious that the Bill should pass, he thought the President of the Local Government Board should ease the minds of Irish Members by undertaking that Ireland should be excluded, so that they might then leave the criticism of the Bill entirely in the hands of the English Members. If he would not concede that, the Irish Members might have to criticize the Bill in such a way that it might not pass even by September next; but they would not wish the people of Widnes to be subjected to that result.
  MR. M. BROOKScould not help thinking that hon. Members opposite were opposing the Bill through misapprehension. In the City of Dublin there were several alkali works. He was sorry there were not more; but through the absence of such legislation as was proposed large portions of the City were placed at a great disadvantage by works which were not placed under regulations. He was of opinion that if the Bill was passed Dublin would largely benefit; and although many hon. Members know of manufactories in various parts of Ireland, there were many who could not be aware of the enormous advantage which Dublin had derived from the works established by Sir Robert Kane, who did so much to promote industrial works in Ireland. But the extension of such works had been hindered by the great injury that had been done to Dublin through the want of proper regulations respecting noxious vapours. The population of that City were very anxious that there should be good regulations under which manufacturers could enlarge their operations without increasing the injury to health and property. He believed that if Dublin were polled upon the question there would be an enormous majority, not only of the working men, but of those who represented the City on the Boards of Guardians and other public bodies, and of all who had at heart the prosperity of the City, in favour of such regulations as were proposed. He could not say what would be the effect of the Bill in Galway or in rural districts; but it would be of great advantage to Dublin and the surrounding districts. And he hoped that hon. Members opposite
  1642
  would see the benefit the Bill, if passed, would effect, at least in the Metropolis of Ireland, in promoting the manufactures they were so anxious to enlarge.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he only rose to take part in the debate for the purpose of saying a very few words. He certainly hoped that at that advanced hour of the night (1.40) the discussion of so important a Bill would be postponed until another day. The strain which Her Majesty's Government had already brought to bear in the course of the evening upon the mental constitution of the House ought to be sufficient. The Bill was a very important one. He had been quite inundated by representations in regard to it on one side and the other; and he confessed that he should like to have a little more time for the consideration of the clauses. If the Bill were a simple Alkali Bill, the simplicity of the measure would commend itself to the House; but it included every noxious product except the noxious Bills of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster).
  MR. HIBBERTobserved, that the Government had been in correspondence with persons in Ireland who were interested in the question. Hon. Members who had spoken from Ireland seemed to fancy that Ireland at present was not under the Alkali Acts. It so happened, however, that Ireland, as well as Scotland, was under the Acts affected by the present measure. The Bill itself was a consolidating as well as an amending Bill. It consolidated all the existing Acts, and brought other works under the operation of the law. So far as alkali works were concerned, they could not be in a more disadvantageous position if the Bill, so far as it affected alkali works, were allowed to pass than they were now. He would suggest that if the House allowed the Government to take this clause, in regard to which there were really only two Amendments on the Paper, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) would then consent to report Progress.
  MR. BIGGARthought the Government ought to allow the Chairman to report Progress at once. It was rapidly approaching 2 o'clock in the morning, and the clause now under discussion contained details which would require still further consideration. He felt bound

  1643
  to protest against this practice on the part of the Government of pushing forward the different stages of important measures at such an advanced hour of the night, when hon. Members could have no real opportunity of discussing the merits of the different clauses. He would remind the House of the course which had been pursued by her Majesty's Government in regard to this identical measure. It was introduced without any explanation, read a second time at a late hour of the night without discussion; and now it was before the House in Committee without any information having been supplied by those who were responsible for it, as to the details of the measure, and the consequence was that the majority of the Members present knew nothing whatever of the provisions of the Bill. The Irish Members had been under the impression that it was simply an Alkali Bill, which proposed to deal only with questions which affected England; and now they had found out, for the first time, without having received the slightest explanation as to the merits of the Bill, that it applied to Ireland as well as to England. It was no answer at all to their objections for the hon. Member the Secretary of the Local Government Board (Mr. Hibbert) to tell them that it was merely a Consolidation Bill, because, if it was a Consolidation Bill, it was also something more, and included various provisions which were intended not only to consolidate, but to amend and extend the existing law. Under these circumstances, it was only right that they should report Progress, in order that the Irish Members might have an opportunity of reading the Bill and carefully considering its provisions, so that, at least, they might have some idea of what the whole thing was about, and be able to approach the discussion of the clauses with something like a reasonable knowledge of the effect they were intended to produce. Many Irish Members, whose constituents were interested in the Bill now that it was found to apply to Ireland, were absent, and it was unreasonable in such circumstances to ask them to discuss the Bill, and to alter and extend the law, at 2 o'clock in the morning. The course which Her Majesty's Government were endeavouring to take appeared to him to be a most unreasonable one, and they were bound to give much stronger and
  1644
  more satisfactory reasons than they had done for inducing the House, at that late hour, to continue the consideration of matters of such extreme importance.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he was able to confirm to a great extent the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) as to the manner in which the earlier stages of the Bill had been disposed of. The Bill, no doubt, was of a very important character; but it was read a second time between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning, and in the absence of any discussion upon the principle of the measure. If it had not been for the circumstance that he (Mr. Otway), knowing that his constituents were very much interested in the provisions of the Bill, had come down to the House at a very late hour, there would not have been a word said upon the Bill at all. He had felt it his duty to raise an objection to some part of it, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, who had charge of it, promised that the objections he urged should receive consideration. The promise of the right hon. Gentleman had not, however, been carried out, and the proposals contained in the measure in regard to that portion of it to which he had objected were very far from what he had expected to find them. But his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Local Government Board (Mr. Hibbert) now made a proposition which he (Mr. Otway) thought was one of a reasonable character, and one which the Committee might fairly accept—namely, that they should dispose of Clause 3—the clause now under consideration—and then report Progress. When they had got rid of Clause 3, they would reach some very important provisions concerning the alkali manufacturers. If hon. Members opposite would consent to accept the proposition which had been made by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board, they would not debar themselves from discussing hereafter the question which they considered to be of importance—namely, whether the Bill should apply to Ireland or not; but they would afford an opportunity to the alkali manufacturers to settle the question which affected them with the right hon. Gentleman below (Mr. Dodson). He thought the proposal that they should report Progress after they had gone through Clause 3,

  1645
  was only a reasonable one, and he hoped the Motion now before the House for reporting Progress would be withdrawn.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he had listened with some astonishment to the course of the debate. It was first contended that the Bill ought to apply to Ireland; then that there were no alkali works in Ireland at all; and now it was said that there were a large number of such works in Ireland, and that the provisions of the Bill would injuriously affect them. Even a further objection was raised—namely, that it was improper to discuss the Bill at so late an hour, and that the Committee ought to have been brought on at an earlier period of the evening. He need not remind hon. Members that it was altogether impossible to bring on every Bill at an early hour. So far as the necessity for applying the measure to Ireland was concerned, everyone who was acquainted with Belfast must know that there was a very large manufacture of chemical manures carried on in the suburbs of that town. In Dublin there were also large manure works; and so far as the City of Cork was concerned, a former Member for that City had given evidence that he was at the head of very large manure manufacturing works in the County of Cork. Personally, he (Mr. Macartney) was an unfortunate shareholder in a mining company in Wicklow, established originally for the production of copper, but which now manufactured manure instead. The sanitary state of the City of Dublin alone ought, he thought, to induce every Irishman to hail with satisfaction any measure that might be brought before the House for reducing the sickness and mortality in that City. There could be no doubt that the disagreeable smells which emanated from works engaged in the manufacture of chemical manures must have a serious and prejudicial effect upon the health of the people who lived in a neighbourhood where they were carried on. And what might be said of Dublin would apply also to Belfast and Cork, and to every other place where these works existed. He certainly did not envy the feelings of those who wished to have chemical works established in the localities in which they lived. To say the least of it, they must have very strong nerves.
  MAJOR NOLANremarked, that various Irish Members had taken part in the debate; but the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks) went a little too far when he said that the City he represented was seriously injured by the escape of noxious gases from manure works already in existence. He (Major Nolan) represented a constituency who knew a good deal about the matter, and he was satisfied that if there was any great danger to the lives of the inhabitants from the escape of chlorine or sulphuric acid, or nitric acid, he would have heard something about it. It appeared to him that the majority of the Irish Members were opposed to the extension of this legislation to Ireland. The Bill, however, had been introduced without consulting the Irish Members, and there was very great danger that a country already largely interested in the establishment of alkali works might make regulations which would be very detrimental to a country that wished to engage in such manufactures. His hon. Friend the Member for the City of Dublin said that this legislation would be beneficial to the manufacturers in Dublin; but whether that were so or not, it was believed by the Irish Members that, as a general rule, it would not be advantageous to the rest of Ireland; and he confessed that he should like to hear some arguments from those who were thoroughly acquainted with the subject before he consented to apply the Bill to Ireland. The provisions of the Bill would allow Inspectors to go all over the works, and do a good many things which might be altogether unnecessary, and which would certainly involve a large expenditure of capital. He, therefore, failed to see how the existing works would be benefited by the Bill. He was of opinion that if the division which was about to take place showed that there was a large majority of the Irish Members against the Bill, Her Majesty's Government might strike out Ireland from the operation of it. That would only be a reasonable concession to the Irish Members, and he thought they might occasionally consider the interests of Ireland in their legislation.
  MR. DODSONfelt bound to call the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary proposition which had been made by the hon. and gallant Member

  1647
  who had just sat down. At present the Alkali Acts extended to Ireland. Alkali works in Ireland were subject to what was known as the 95 per cent test. It was proposed to re-enact and preserve that 95 per cent test, which was the test to which the works already existing in Ireland and Scotland were now subjected and had been subjected for many years. And upon the Motion that that test should be preserved, the hon. and gallant Member suggested that they should take a test division whether the Bill should be extended to Ireland or Scotland at all.
  MR. M. BROOKSwished to point out to his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan), that this was not a restricting measure, but a regulating measure; and he thought he could show his hon. and gallant Friend that in the absence of a regulating Bill the alkali manufactures in the City of Dublin were already restricted. They were restricted in this way. The City of Dublin had great advantages for the manufacture of manures; but, in consequence of the absence of a regulating Act, the deleterious gases which emanated from such works had such an injurious effect upon the property in the surrounding district that the inhabitants of the City of Dublin, in the absence of any Act regulating the manufacture, had hitherto opposed the establishment of new works.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANregarded the Bill as a measure which had been introduced in favour of the public health, and he did not see that any substantial objection had been offered to it on the part of those of his hon. Friends who opposed its application to Ireland. He was himself aware that there were many noxious vapours emitted in the City of Dublin. He had had a painful experience of them, and he was surprised to find that any Irish Member could be found who was favourable to the Conservation of bad smells. He thought the people of Ireland had as good a right to be preserved from these poisonous gases as the people of England, and from that point of view he supported the measure. It was said that there were no alkali works in Dublin. If there were none, this Bill would not hurt them; and if there were some, as he knew there were, then the application of the Bill to Ireland would do
  1648
  something towards preserving the public health. He would not dwell further upon the matter; but as so much had been said about the feeling of the Irish Members, he was anxious to add that there was no absolute unanimity among the Irish Representatives on this subject, and that he, for one, was in favour of legislating for the preservation of the public health, and for the regulation of manufactories which at present emitted noxious gases and smells which were deleterious to the public health.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the question, as he understood it, was not whether it was a desirable Bill or not—for this was not the second reading of the Bill—but whether or not, at 2 o'clock in the morning, they should be asked to go on with the discussion of a measure which they had not examined, and which they really knew nothing about. In the remarks he had made he had not said one word about the Bill itself, and he could not do so until he had had an opportunity of reading and considering its provisions. Seeing that the Irish Members, generally, were in the dark in regard to the provisions of the Bill, and did not know whether or not it would be injurious to the manufacturers of manures in Dublin, Belfast, Cork, and other places, he was only anxious to find out whether it was drawn in such a manner as to be favourable to Irish interests. It was only reasonable, he thought, that Her Majesty's Government should afford him an opportunity of making such an examination. It was most unreasonable that the Government should endeavour to force on the Bill before the Irish Members had an opportunity of forming an opinion as to the character of its provisions. The hon. Member for Rochester (Mr.Otway) advised the Irish Members to accept the proposition of the Government, and agree to report Progress after the 3rd clause had been disposed of. He did not think the advice of the hon. Member was sound advice. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) wished to have Ireland excluded altogether from the operation of the Bill, and suggested a test division; but it was always a dangerous plan to allow a question, which they wished to see settled in a particular way, to be decided by a division in a House in which they knew they were in a minority. It was far better that they

  1649
  should have time to examine the provisions of the Bill thoroughly.
  MR. FINDLATERthought the Bill might with advantage be extended to Ireland, in order that works of the character dealt with might be regulated and rendered less injurious to the health of the people.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORpointed out that he had, an hour ago, moved that Progress be reported. Since that time it had been made manifest that there was a considerable difference of opinion amongst Irish Members with regard to the measure, and that fact was an additional reason for concluding at the stage which had been reached, in order that further time might be allowed for consideration. It was, in his opinion, very desirable that Irish Members should have an opportunity for considering what would be the effect of this proposed legislation upon Ireland as a whole, and not merely upon the town of Belfast.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 133: Majority 120.—(Div. List, No. 191.)
  MR. BIGGARsaid, as the Bill would affect a considerable number of works in Ireland, and several hon. Members were absent who were not aware that the Bill was to be extended to Ireland, and, further, on the principle upon which he always voted with regard to Bills taken at an hour when they could not be sufficiently discussed, he begged to move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  MR. DODSON: I am, of course, unable to agree to the Motion that Mr. Chairman do now leave the Chair; but I am willing that Progress be reported at this point, if the Motion be withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Dodson,)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

MOTIONS.
  EXTRAORDINARY TITHE RENTCHARGES.

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. INDERWICKsaid, he was prepared, if necessary, to give up the latter part of the Motion of which he had given Notice—namely, that relating to the redemption of ordinary tithes.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire as to the expediency of abolishing extraordinary Tithe Rent-charges, and providing a scheme for their redemption upon equitable terms; and also to inquire into and report upon the expediency of providing greater facilities for the redemption of ordinary Tithes upon equitable terms."—(Mr. Inderwick.)
    MR. PELLthought that, on account of the great importance of the questions involved, the Motion should hardly be taken at that hour (2.20). Again, he considered that the appointment of a Committee to settle the whole question of Tithe Rent-charge was a matter of too great weight to be taken in hand by a private Member, and its adjustment upon equitable principles in accordance with the general desire of the country was clearly a matter to be dealt with by the Government of the day. For his own part, however, he had never heard any desire expressed that the question should be dealt with at all, either by those who paid tithes or those who received them.
    MR. COURTNEYpointed out that the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Rye (Mr. Inderwick), as it originally stood, was simply for a Committee to inquire into the expediency of abolishing extraordinary Tithe Rent-charges. He thought that the Inquiry should be restricted to that, point, and if the latter part of the Motion were omitted, he was prepared to assent to the appointment of the Committee. In conclusion, he would move that the terms of Reference be omitted so far as they related to providing greater facilities for the redemption of ordinary tithes.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "terms," in line 3, to the end of the Question.—(Mr. Courtney.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. INDERWICKsaid, that if the Government were of opinion that the Committee should confine its labours to an inquiry into the extraordinary tithes, he was content to accept that, and withdraw his Motion as to the rest.
    EARL PERCYsaid, he objected to the appointment of a Committee, when the terms of the Reference seemed to be undecided in the mind even of the hon. and learned Member who proposed it. The subject was an important one, and the House should not be asked to decide it at half-past 2 in the morning. He should move the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. WARTONseconded the Motion, partly because of the thin attendance.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Earl Percy.)
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, he begged to point out that that was not a thin House at all.
    MR. COURTNEYhoped the noble Earl would, on re-consideration, not press his Motion. This question of the extraordinary tithes was no now one, and it was desirable that it should be considered. It was, at the same time, a question of great complexity, and could not be approached without a preliminary Inquiry.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire as to the expediency of abolishing extraordinary Tithe Rent-charges, and providing a scheme for their redemption upon equitable terms.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (BIRMINGHAM) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the Borough of Birmingham, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 144.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GAS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government
    1652
    Board under the provisions of "The Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870," and "The Public Health Act, 1875," relating to the Borough of Bridgnorth, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 145.]
    House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.