Commons Sitting of 3 May 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Water Provisional Orders*[146]; Gas Provisional Orders*[147].
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2)*[139].
Select Committee—Coroners (Ireland) [73], nominated.

QUESTIONS.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— COUNTY GOVERNMENT.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has any objection to give, in the form of a numerical Return, the number of Lord Lieutenants of Counties, Deputy Lieutenants, County Court Judges, Unpaid Magistrates, Paid Magistrates, Clerks of the Crown, and Clerks of the Peace, in Ireland, by Counties, showing the number of Protestants of all Denominations, and the number of Roman Catholics respectively, for each County?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The information asked for as to the number of officials of various ranks is already to be found in official and other documents. I have no means, as Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, of ascertaining what may be the religion of the various individuals. I can state that, as far as this Government is concerned—and I have no reason to believe that any different practice was pursued by former Governments—questions of religion form no element in such appointments.
  Mr. W.J.CORBETasked whether the information as to religion could not be obtained from the Census Returns?
  MR. W.E.FORSTER: I have nothing to do with Census Returns.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE PRISONERS UNDER THE ACT—SUPPLY OF NEWSPAPERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the political prisoners in Kilmainham and elsewhere are prevented from receiving certain newspapers; and, whether the "Newcastle Chronicle," "Echo," "Graphic," "Illustrated London News," "Nation," and "Irishman" have, amongst other papers, been stopped when forwarded to the prisoners; and, if so, why so?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I presume the hon. Member refers to the prisoners confined in Kilmainham Gaol under the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act. [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] I cannot admit that such prisoners are political prisoners; but concerning them I may say that it has been arranged that they shall receive the Dublin daily newspapers and the newspapers published in their own localities. I think that all reasonable requirements will be met by this arrangement.
  MR. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I think I have answered that Question, that the prisoners were allowed to receive the daily papers, and the papers of their own locality. I did not think it necessary to add that the papers published in Newcastle and the other places mentioned in the Question were not in the locality to which the prisoners belonged.
  MR. HEALY: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that the papers mentioned have been stopped?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have already stated the papers received by the prisoners, and that is sufficient.
  MR. HEALY: I beg to give Notice that, to-morrow, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether it is true that The Newcastle Chronicle, The Echo, The Graphic, The Illustrated News, The Nation, and The Irishman, had been forwarded to Kilmainham and other Irish gaols, and whether they have not been stopped?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I will answer the Question at once. If they have been sent they have been stopped. It is necessary to have a rule in this matter.
  1654
  We considered that we have fully met the intention of this House while passing the Bill, and we have given every arrangement which ought to be made for the prisoners, by allowing them the newspapers which I have stated.
  MR. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state—
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question of the hon. Member has been put three times, and fully answered.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. JASPER TULLY, A PRISONER UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. Jasper Tully, editor of the "Roscommon Herald," now a prisoner in Kilmainham, has been refused permission to follow his usual avocation, as provided in the Regulations issued by the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the treatment of persons detained under the Protection of Person and Property Act; whether Mr. Tully has been refused permission to receive American newspapers, notably the "New York Herald;" and, if so, whether he will state to the House the reasons which have induced the Prison Board to adopt this course towards Mr. Tully?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: My answer to the last Question covers a part of the inquiry of the hon. Member. In reply to the remaining part of the Question, I may say that the Government does not propose to preclude the prisoner Tully from following his avocation, as far as is consistent with the prison regulations; but they will not suffer the privilege to be improperly used.

ARMY—ROYAL HIBERNIAN MILITARY SCHOOL, DUBLIN.
MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for War, What has been the result of the inquiry held regarding the alleged cruelties practised towards the boys of the Royal Hibernian Military School; and, whether he has any objection to lay the Report upon the Table?
MR. GIBSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in answering this Question, be also good enough to state whether the Report has been submitted to the

1655
Lord Lieutenant and the Governors of the School?
MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the Question put to me by the hon. Member, and also by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have to say that since my former answer to a similar inquiry I have received and carefully considered the Report of the Committee appointed by Sir Thomas Steele, the facts disclosed in which revealed a very unsatisfactory state of things. The Report has since been transmitted to the President of the Corporation (the Lord Lieutenant), with a request that the Governors will furnish me with any remarks on the facts so disclosed; and when I receive their reply I shall deal with it. I doubt whether it will be necessary to lay the Report, which is a very bulky document, on the Table.

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF IRELAND— THE RE-SURVEY.
MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Vice President of the Council, If he can inform the House what benefit is expected to be obtained by the extensive resurveys of the work done by the late Mr. Jukes, director of the Geological Survey of Ireland, in the counties of Cork, Kerry, Limerick, and Clare; whether these resurveys have been duly authorized by the Treasury; and, if not, on whose authority are they made; whether any, and what, discoveries have as yet resulted from them; and, whether he has any objection to lay the whole Correspondence on the subject upon the Table of the House?
MR. MUNDELLA: Investigations since Mr. Jukes's death having thrown fresh light on the relations of the strata in the South of Ireland to the representative formations in Britain, a resurvey of the area was considered necessary by the Director in Ireland, Professor Hull. The reasons for this were stated to the Director General, Professor Ramsay, and approved by him. The re-survey was authorized by the Director General in the usual manner, it never having been the custom to consult the Treasury on minor matters of detail. Professor Ramsay states that during the progress of these investigations, now approaching completion, the observations of strata in the field have fully justified the re-survey, which is expected to be completed by the end
1656
of this summer, and will bring the Irish maps into complete accord with the British maps. The only correspondence is that between Professors Ramsay and Hull, which I shall be happy to show to the hon. Member, and he will, I think, agree that it is unnecessary to publish it. At a later period of the Session I hope to be able to state what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to facilitate the survey.
MR. DAWSON: Is not the English survey in bad condition?
MR. MUNDELLAacknowledged that that was the case.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—COMPENSATION FOR COMPULSORY SLAUGHTER—IMPORTATION OF CATTLE.
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that £44,999 were paid last year by local authorities as compensation for animals slaughtered; that, in the opinion of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, this addition to the cost of meat "might be easily prevented by a proper system of investigation," inasmuch as that department has reported that "a large number of animals are slaughtered every year on account of disease from which they are entirely free;" whether, with regard to the 63 sheep reported to have been infected with foot and mouth disease, in a total of 66,722 sheep imported last year from the United States of America, he can state what was the number of cargoes of which these 63 sheep, or any of them, formed part; and, whether, having regard to the very serious decline in the importation of sheep from the United states from 119,350 in 1879 to 66,722 in 1880, in consequence of the Order in Council of 23rd November 1879, and to the impossibility of this disease being latent in a cargo arriving healthy after a voyage from America, he is prepared to advise the Lords of the Council to reconsider the terms of that Order?
MR. MUNDELLA: My attention has been drawn to the amount, £44,999 1s.3d., paid last year by local authorities on account of animals slaughtered under the Act of 1879. The amount in the previous year was £65,049 18 s. 6d. It is the opinion of the Veterinary Depart-

1657
ment that the saving would have been greater if a careful inquiry was instituted by the local authority in the case of every outbreak, and if in all cases of slaughter a post-mortem examination was required. The 63 sheep referred to formed part of eight cargoes. The subject of relaxing the Order as to American sheep, &c., has been carefully considered by the Privy Council, and the difficulties in the way of doing this with safety have been found to be insuperable. Sheep are brought in the same vessel with cattle and swine, and it might well happen that the sheep might remain uninfected until on the point of being landed, and only develop the disease after they had been allowed to go inland. If, on the other hand, they should develop the disease in a landing place for foreign animals, although it is true that the whole cargo would be slaughtered, it is equally certain that the animals which have been landed there from other countries whose animals are not subject to slaughter would be exposed to the infection, in which case they would also have to be slaughtered instead of being allowed to go inland as they are entitled to do. Under these circumstances, we regret that we cannot advise any relaxation of the terms of the Order which applies to the United States.

COAL MINES REGULATION ACT—THE PEN-Y-GRAIG EXPLOSION.
MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If, in compliance with the recommendation of the Commissioner who on part of the Home Office attended the inquiry into the cause of the Pen-y-Graig explosion, whether he will, in addition to the action which has been taken to deprive the manager of his certificate, order a further prosecution against the manager and one or more of the proprietors to be instituted for the various breaches of the general and special rules as pointed out by the Commissioner in paragraph 6 of his Report?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: As the hon. Member is aware, proceedings are now pending which may result in depriving the manager of his certificate, which in itself would be a very severe punishment. The question of the pro-
1658
secution of either the manager or the owners of the mine has been very carefully considered, and it has been thought that, the chances of a conviction in the circumstances being very small, such prosecutions will not be undertaken.

COAL MINES—THE SEAHAM EXPLOSION—REPORT AND EVIDENCE.
MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will direct the Report of the Inquest into the cause of the Seaham Explosion, and include in it the Report of Professor Abel on the influence of coal dust in colliery explosions, together with the Report of the Commissioners who attended the inquiry on behalf of the Government, to be laid upon the Table of the House, and to be printed for circulation among the Members?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The evidence taken at the inquest, with the Report of Professor Abel on the influence of coal dust in colliery explosions, and the Report of the Commissioners who attended the inquiry on behalf of the Government, will be laid upon the Table of the House.

STATE OF IRELAND—CONFLICT NEAR CLOGHER—VERDICT OF "WILFUL MURDER."
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the coroner's jury empanelled at Clogher, county Sligo, to inquire into the cause of the deaths of Joseph Corcoran and Brian Flannery, tenant farmers, have returned a verdict of "wilful murder" against certain members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and a process-server named James Broder; whether the circumstances under which Joseph Corcoran and Brian Flannery lost their lives arose out of the fact that the process-server Broder, after having desisted from an attempt to serve processes of ejectment, in consequence of the attitude of the population, returned to the scene, after an interval of a day, for the purpose of executing his function, accompanied only by four members of the police force; whether Broder and the policemen, unauthorised by a magistrate or superior officer, and without receiving any adequate provocation, or giving any proper warning, fired upon

1659
men, women, and children, dangerously wounding a number of persons, and killing the two men Corcoran and Flannery; whether the officer of police examined at the inquest refused to produce the rules drawn up for the guidance of the police in case of hostile contact with the people; whether the Government still regard the use of buckshot as humane, seeing that in every case in which it has been used the consequence has been loss of life; and, whether the Government propose to take any steps in consequence of the evidence produced before the coroner and the verdict delivered by the jury?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Member asks six Questions, which I will answer. The Coroner's Jury at Clogher did return a verdict of "wilful murder" against certain members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and a process-server. I have already explained to the hon. Member the cause of the small force of police which accompanied Broder. He met the police whilst proceeding along the road, and when still somewhat distant from the place where the processes were to be served, and where a sufficient force of police was assembled, and he asked the police to accompany him there. The circumstances under which the men Corcoran and Flannery lost their lives were not as suggested in the Question, the fact being that the police and the process-server were savagely attacked by a numerous mob without the smallest provocation. Constable Hayes was badly beaten, his life being despaired of; Armstrong was fatally injured. With regard to the police, they were fully justified in acting as they did under the circumstances. I understand the officer of police refused to produce the rules referred to; and, as these are confidential, he was justified in his refusal. As regards the fifth Question, I am still of opinion that it would be dangerous to resort to the use of bullets in collisions with the people, on account of the danger of persons not connected with the fray being killed. With regard to the last part of the Question, the course of the law will be followed in this as on all other occasions when a Coroner's Jury has returned a verdict of "wilful murder." I need not inform the House that the verdict of a Coroner's Jury is not a final verdict, but leads to a committal of the person against whom it is found
1660
just as a Magistrate's order does. The proceedings will be laid before the Attorney General for Ireland in the ordinary way for his direction.
MR. CALLAN: Is it the fact that a Coroner's Jury gives a verdict which has no more effect than a Magistrate's decision?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: It is followed by a trial to ascertain whether the person is guilty or not.
MR. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the use of buckshot as being the more humane practice?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: Nothing can be more inhumane than to use bullets, which might cause the death of persons not engaged in the affray.
MR. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a person totally unconnected with the affair was badly wounded by a discharge of buckshot?
[No reply was given.]

EJECTMENTS (IRELAND)—NUMBER OF FAMILIES.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many families in Ireland are, at the present moment, threatened with eviction from their homes, and loss of their means of living, by reason of the issue of decrees of ejectment against them at the suit of their landlords?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: From the Returns which I have received, which are not quite complete, I find that about 2,273 decrees of ejectment for non-payment of rent have been granted at the recent sessions. I believe that by the time the sessions have been brought to a conclusion that number will probably be increased to 2,500. A good many of these cases, however, may be expected to be settled; because, although I do not doubt there are cases in which tenants are unable to pay, there are many where they are able, but unwilling, to pay.
MR. SEXTON: To what extent will the 2,500 evictions be increased by decrees made in the Superior Courts?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I cannot give the exact estimate. It is impossible for anyone to do that. From the Returns already given to the House, the hon. Member will be able to make out for himself how many previous ejectment

1661
decrees have been made. The Returns I have given do not include the Returns from the Superior Courts. I do not believe, however, that there will be any large addition made from those Courts.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (CASUALTIES).
MR. S. LEIGHTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state what is the total loss of killed and wounded in battle, and incapacitated from sickness among Her Majesty's troops in the late war with the Boers, and what is the approximate estimate of loss among the camp followers and teamsters?
MR. CHILDERS: As soon as the hon. Member placed his Question upon the Paper I telegraphed to Sir Evelyn Wood for information on the subject. I cannot expect to receive an answer to my telegram for some days.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS)— OUTBREAK OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE AT NEWCASTLE.
MR. LOWTHERasked the Vice President of the Council, with regard to the cases of foot and mouth disease in Carlisle, Whether any cases of foot and mouth disease have been reported in Newcastle; whether it has been declared an infected area; and, whether the Privy Council would not think it advisable to send an inspector to Newcastle to make inquiries on the subject?
MR. MUNDELLA: An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was reported to us from Newcastle-on-Tyne as having taken place in some lairs there on the 20th ultimo, whereupon we immediately declared those lairs an infected place. Our next step was to send down an Inspector to institute a full inquiry; his Report came to hand yesterday, together with an account of another outbreak, and we have to-day declared Newcastle an infected area.

FRANCE AND TUNIS—OCCUPATION OF BIZERTA.
MR. MONTAGUE GUESTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the importance of the position occupied by the French at Bizerta, which
1662
affords one of the finest harbours in the Mediterranean, and commands the Malta Channel; and, if they will ask for further assurances from the French Government that it is not their intention to hold it permanently?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government are aware of the importance of Bizerta as a position; but it is doubtful whether even a large expenditure on the dredging of the lake would make it available as a harbour. The permanent occupation of Bizerta would be quite outside of the statement as to the objects of the French expedition which was made to Lord Lyons by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs.
MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, that he had reliable authority for stating that an expenditure of £100,000 would make the harbour a perfect one.

DISTRESS (IRELAND)—COUNTY OF GALWAY.
MAJOR NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has given or will give directions to provide employment on a moderate scale, between the middle of May and the middle of July, in the county of Galway, particularly in the neighbourhoods of Loughrea, Athenry, Tuam, Dughterard, Clifden, Cort, and Ballinasloe?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I only saw the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question last night. I have communicated with the Vice President of the Local Government Board, and I will give the hon. and gallant Gentleman as much information as I can on the subject if he will postpone his Question. I must at once state, however, that it is not in the power of the Chief Secretary to give employment to everyone who is out of it.

STATE OF IRELAND—SHERIFFS' SALE AT HOWTH.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the Sheriffs' sale at the farm of Mr. John Butterly at Howth, all the animals put up for sale, with the exception of some pigs, were not disposed of; whether the sales did not realise the sum of £62, the full amount claimed by the landlord; whether the

1663
members of the Emergency Committee present were not all armed; whether, when one of the number was accused of having displayed his revolver, Sub-inspector Heard refused to remove him on the ground that he could not interfere with him unless the revolver was presented at some one; whether any of the members of the Land League were armed; and, whether a single assault was committed on the police or any of the persons 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: As far as I. can ascertain, the facts are as stated in the first two Questions put to me by the hon. Member. With regard to the third Question, I am not aware whether the members of the Emergency Committee present were armed. I have reason to believe that one or two of them—perhaps two or three of them—were armed; but I must remind the House that they were engaged in a perfectly legal occupation, and I cannot be surprised if they did carry arms for their own defence. With regard to the fourth Question, I am informed that one of these persons put his hand in his breast pocket and caught hold of his revolver, and that the sub-Inspector present did refuse to interfere because he had not presented it at anyone. I cannot say whether any members of the Land League were armed. I am not aware that any assault was committed on any person at the sale or during the procession.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARREST OF MR. DILLON.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it appears by reports in the public press that the honourable Member for Tipperary, in his speech at the meeting of the Irish Land League in Dublin on the 27th ultimo, made the following statement:—
"Next week a last appeal will be made to the Government to suspend process of eviction in Ireland for the next year. We have frequently appealed on this subject before and have frequently been refused, but, at the present moment, the situation is more desperate and critical than it has been at any time. At this moment over five thousand—I can only make a rough
1664
guess, probably I would be nearer the truth if I said ten thousand—families are under the sentence of eviction. We will ask the Government next week whether they intend to proceed with these evictions by force;"
whether the honourable Gentleman was not entitled to give public warning of the spirit excited amongst the Irish people by the circumstances thus set forth by him; and, whether the Government will take any steps to suspend or restrain the present legal power of evicting tenants in Ireland which may deprive them of rights to be vested in them by impending legislation?
MR. R. POWER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I should like to ask him, Whether it is a fact that Mr. Dillon was arrested at Portarlington yesterday, and why the fact of that arrest was not communicated to the House the same day, as required by Section 3 of the Coercion Act?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I will answer the last Question first. I have heard by telegraph that the hon. Member for Tipperary was arrested at Portarlington yesterday under the Protection Act, and I have reason to believe that full compliance will be made with the section of the Act, which requires that the arrest shall be communicated to the House immediately, as in the case of persons charged with a criminal offence. The last precedent was the arrest of Mr. Smith O'Brien; and in that case a communication was made by letter from the Lord Lieutenant to the Speaker. I have no doubt that my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant will follow that course on the present occasion. He could not have communicated yesterday, because he would not have known of the arrest in time to send by post; but I shall be surprised if he does not take the first opportunity of making that communication. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Sligo, I believe that the words which he read are a correct extract, from the speech, which also contained other passages, which I cannot too strongly condemn. With regard to the other Question, I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the provisions of the Bill now before the House, and which are still the subject of debate.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the other passages to which he refers?
[No reply was given.]

MONUMENT TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LATE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a Question to you on a point of Order with reference to the Motion to be proposed on Monday next by the Prime Minister for the erection of a Monument to the late Earl of Beaconsfield. It is stated in the Journals of the House that the Queen's recommendation of that Motion has been signified. It is, I believe, Sir, a Rule of this House that when the Sovereign is pleased to make a recommendation, such recommendation is signified by a Minister of the Crown. I desire to ask you, Sir, whether Her Majesty's recommendation has been duly signified to this House; and, if so, when it was so signified?
MR. SPEAKER: Her Majesty's recommendation was, upon the occasion referred to, duly signified to this House by a Privy Councillor in this House. If I remember rightly, that Privy Councillor was Lord Richard Grosvenor.

VOTE OF THANKS FOR THE MILITARY OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish, Sir, to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, Whether he intends to proceed on Thursday with the Vote of Thanks to the Army for the recent operations in Afghanistan?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes, Sir; that is my intention.

MOTIONS.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (DISTRESS FOR RENT).—RESOLUTION.
  MR. BLENNERHASSETT,in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to abolish the power of levying Distress for the Rent of Agricultural Holdings in England, Wales, and Ireland,"
  said, the Law of Distress was oppressive and without parallel in our legal system; and as it was opposed to the general spirit of the law of the country, and at variance with sound economic principles, he believed no satisfactory arrangement could be arrived at except by its total abolition. The interest which the farmers of the entire Kingdom took in this question was indicated,
  1666
  not only by the large meetings of the Farmers' Alliance which had taken place in different parts of the country, but by the many discussions at Chambers of Agriculture, one of which, at a meeting held only two or three days ago, demanded the total repeal of the Law of Distress. He did not wish, however, to bring forward the question as a mere farmers' question, or to approach it from the point of view of any particular class. The Law of Distress was a class privilege in every sense of the term. It was exercised by one class at the expense of every other class of the community; and it was not only injurious to the interests of those against whom it was employed, but to those who employed it. It was not only a class law, but it was a class exceptional from all law. The Law of Distress stood alone in our legal system, in that it enabled a man to take the law into his own hands to obtain satisfaction for a wrong merely arising out of a breach of contract. The very day after the rent fell due the landlord was allowed to go himself or to send any man whom he pleased—it might be a dissolute ruffian out of the streets—to run riot on the tenant's premises; and all that merely to enforce a pecuniary obligation in regard to which all the ordinary legal remedies were open to him. The practical effect of the exercise of that power often led to serious hardship. The persons employed to exercise it frequently were not very careful of the amount of goods they took or of the way in which they disposed of them; and the result might be utterly to break up the home of the farmer and inflict on him an injury altogether out of proportion to the debt which he owed. The Law of Distress, moreover, was not only an exceptional remedy which was harshly and cruelly enforced, but it was unjust in that it gave a preference to one class of creditors over every other class. He denied that there was any analogy between it and liens and hypothecations. The right of lien for service rendered depended on possession; but in what sense could the landlord be said to be in possession of the goods of the tenant on his farm, or it might be the goods of a third person which were accidentally or temporarily on his farm? Again, it was quite impossible to bolster up the Law of Distress by attempting to draw an analogy between it and the Law

  1667
  of Hypothecation arising out of the power of a master of a ship to pledge the ship or her cargo for expenditure necessary to repair the vessel and enable her to proceed on her voyage. There was a complete difference between the Law of' Maritime Hypothecation and the Law of Distress. The owner of a bottomry bond could not take the law into his own hands, but must enforce his rights through a legal tribunal; and, again, bottomry bonds were only justified by extreme necessity. He did not wish to trouble the House with a long argument on legal and technical points. He entered into these points fully two years ago when he brought forward the question. He relied with confidence upon his own position, which was simply and clearly this—that the Law of Distress was an exception to the general law of the country, and enabled a man to take the law into his own hands in order to obtain a remedy for wrong arising out of contract. How had it come to pass that this anomalous right existed? There were few chapters in the legal history this country more peculiar than this. The right of distress was part of the old Common Law of England. In primitive societies, where the ordinary means of legal redress, Courts of Law, and police were not available, there was no more convenient way to obtain satisfaction for a wrong done than to take possession of the goods of the wrong-doer. From the reign of Henry VIII. downwards a long series of changes took place in our legislation on that subject, the object of every one of which was to sharpen the remedy and make it more severe and stringent in the hands of the landlord, until distress became an almost unique specimen of one-sided legislation. No argument could be based on the antiquity of the remedy, because its ancient form was entirely different from what it was now. It was originally only a power to retain goods in pledge. The position of the modern farmer in this country was not that of a feudal tenant owing everything to the landlord, but was the position of a man of business, engaged in various and complicated transactions with all sorts of persons and with many creditors having claims upon him. Under those circumstances, it was impossible that the Law of Distress could be allowed to remain. He asked the House to consider what was the effect of the unjust Law of Dis-
  1668
  tress upon the farmer. The law was injurious to the farmer because it stimulated undue competition for the hiring of land. He did not object to this competition where commercial principles applied; but the Law of Distress was a premium to persons of insufficient capital to bid recklessly for the occupation of land. Mr. Scott, a very eminent Scotch farmer, gave evidence on this point before the Royal Commission which investigated the Scotch Law of Hypothec, and he strongly condemned it. He (Mr. Blennerhassett) objected that landlords should be protected at the expense of other classes, and contended that there was nothing in their position which entitled them to that special and peculiar protection. Landlords could protect themselves in a great variety of ways, and the risk of the landlords was extremely slight. The merchant ran the risk of losing the whole of his capital; but the landlord, if he took precautions, ran no more risk than half a year's rent, which might be looked on as the interest on his capital. Looking at the position of the landlord, his risk was less and his security greater than any other class of creditors. The Law of Distress might be called a law to discourage the application of capital to land, and to diminish the production of the country. He might give instances of the most oppressive abuse of the right of distress; but ho would not weary the House. It might be suggested that the question would best be solved by a compromise, so that a tenant should not be liable to the present law except by his own contract. But the effect of that would be simply to add a clause to every lease and agreement, as the landlord would always insist on the right. The present law stimulated undue competition and made it unnecessary for the landlord to exercise proper caution in accepting a tenant. It would be said that the tenant would be deprived, if the law was altered, of the indulgence afforded him by his landlord. That would not be so in the case of good landlords; and if it was, he objected to a landlord being indulgent to a tenant at the expense of others. Hypothec had been abolished in Scotland, and it was much less oppressive than the Law of Distress. The laws of foreign countries had moved, or were moving, in the direction of his Resolution. In America the law was tending to assimilate the rights of land-

  1669
  lords to those of ordinary creditors, although the English law had originally been established there. In Ireland, distress could not be levied from more than one year's rent—in England for six years. They heard many professions of friendship for the farmers from both political Parties; but what the farmers wanted was not so much friendly professions as representation of their opinions, and no division of the Session would be more closely scanned than that on this question. Tenants and landlords alike would be benefited by the passing of this Resolution, for the interests of the landowner were bound up with the prosperity of agriculture. He, therefore, asked the House to affirm this Resolution in favour of the abolition of an antiquated piece of class privilege, which was mischievous, unnecessary, odious, and unjust. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. B. T. WILLIAMS,in seconding the Resolution, maintained that the Law of Distress could not be justified on any principle of jurisprudence, because it enabled one party to a contract—the landlord—to be at once judge and executioner in his own case. It empowered the landlord, without question by the tenant, or by any tribunal, to decide what the tenant owed him, and also to seize and dispose of his goods. Good landlords, however, never exercised their power except in the case of hopelessly bad tenants; and, but for the forbearance of the great majority of landlords, the present law would long since have ceased to exist. The hardship of the tenant in case of an unjust exercise of the power of distress had lain in the fact that Courts of Equity under the old system never interfered, as was shown in the recent case of Shaw v. The Earl of Jersey, by Lord Coleridge; so that full power had been given by law to the landlord to commit any wrong, and the only chance of remedy the law gave the tenant was, after the injury had been done and his goods had been seized, to enter into a dilatory and long litigation with the landlord. In the old action of replevin by a tenant upon whom an unjust distress had been levied against his landlord, the process was tedious and the remedy most inadequate. In the present system even, if a tenant brought an action against his landlord for an illegal distress, his course was by no
  1670
  means an easy one. With the aid of a shrewd solicitor, a landlord could always put in a counter claim against the tenant, and the Judge would very probably send the case to arbitration, or to an Official Referee for final adjudication. In such a case the tenant, seeing endless expense before him, would, in the vast majority of cases, be driven either to make a miserable compromise or to abandon the proceedings altogether. Such cases as he had just referred to had occurred within his own knowledge and experience, and were due to the fact that the law allowed the landlord to begin at the wrong end—namely, to issue his execution before he had obtained the decision of a Court in his favour. One of the ways to make a tenant farmer prosperous was to give him full security for the capital which he invested in the land, and for the profit of his own industry; but the unequal rules under the Law of Distress had the effect of stopping the investment of capital in the land on the part of the tenant farmer, and even the property of a third person put on the land was liable to be seized by the landlord. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government might bring in a Bill on this subject. When it was discussed in the last Parliament several Members who now sat on the Treasury Bench gave the Resolution their support, and he trusted they would join him in doing so now.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to abolish the power of levying Distress for the Rent of Agricultural Holdings in England, Wales, and Ireland."—(Mr. Blennerhassett.)
  MR. H. T. DAVENPORT,in rising to move the Previous Question, admitted the importance of the subject, but said it was one as to which the tenant farmers were to his knowledge greatly divided in opinion. That division of opinion justified him, he thought, in the course he adopted, as he did not wish to be committed to a definite or distinct opinion on the subject. There were three classes principally interested in the question—the landlords, the other creditors of the tenants, and the tenant farmers themselves. As to the landlords, he was not prepared to admit that the preference existing in their case was altogether unique in the English law. They all know that creditors who had been clever enough to secure re-payment of their debts by con-

  1671
  tract under seal, or whose liabilities were created under settlement or by the judgment of a Court of Law, had preference over other creditors. The landlord was in this position of disadvantage as compared with the other creditors of the tenant farmer—that he could not put a stop to the credit as they could. If the tenant farmer did not pay his seedsman or other tradesman, those creditors could at once stop the supplies; whereas the debt to the landlord constantly increased till the tenancy came to an end. Again, if the Law of Distress was done away with, the landlord would be obliged to refuse the application of a man wishing to take a farm simply on the ground that if he had not sufficient capital he could not give that security for the payment of the rent which was afforded by the existing law, however desirable a tenant he might be in all other respects. The other creditors of a tenant knew what the present law was, they knew the claim the landlord had on the tenant's goods, and, therefore, if they gave too much credit to a tenant they did it with their eyes open. It was not to the interest of the other creditors that a tenant should be turned out of a farm, because, if his home were broken up, their prospect of being paid was very much diminished. It was in their interest that he should be allowed to remain in his holding, because if he were treated with indulgence, he might ultimately be able to meet his obligations. The tenant farmers of England were not in favour of the abolition of distress for rent; at least, its abolition was not desired by the small farmers of Staffordshire, with whom he had been brought into contact. Do away with the Law of Distress, and it would be incumbent on the landlord to institute very strict inquiries as to the means of any man who applied for a farm, and the result would be the rejection of many a desirable tenant, because he was in temporary difficulty, and did not at the moment possess the amount of capital which might be deemed necessary for the proper cultivation of the farm. An applicant would be entirely in the hands of a landlord, and the opinions of landlords would vary very much as to the amount of capital that was necessary. But as long as the Law of Distress remained, landlords would be able to accept tenants who otherwise would not be able to get farms at all. Without the
  1672
  law, when once the tenant was admitted it would be absolutely necessary that the landlord should insist on the regular payment of rent when due. If that had been done during the recent period of distress, what would have been the position of many tenants? How many would have been deprived of their farms and had their homes broken up? Therefore, in the interest of men wishing for farms, and in the interests of men wishing to keep them, the Law of Distress ought not to be lightly tampered with. It was stated by Mr. Carrington, whose authority on this subject was recognized, that during the last few years many industrious men had taken farms with small capital, and had pushed their way up to a sound and respectable position. Was it the wish of the House that additional difficulties should be placed in the way of such men working their way up to a position of independence? All commercial transactions were carried on with a certain amount of credit; it was important to consider who was the creditor and what was the amount of the credit; and the question for the farmer was whether he would be as safe in the hands of any other creditor as he was in those of his landlord? Apart from sentiment, the landlord was likely to be more lenient than the banker or the money lender. It was the interest of the landlord that the tenant should remain and become prosperous. Among suggested alterations of the law, there was one which would meet with almost universal approbation, and it was that some limit should be put to the arrears of rent for which the landlord might destrain. But a reason why they should defer any expression of opinion was that they were awaiting the Report of a Commission on Agriculture, which would embody information, although it might not materially affect their judgment on a question of common principle. Another reason for delay was that they were told that there was to be legislation in this Parliament on the question of the Land Laws. It was only right that the House should come to the consideration of that question unfettered by the expression of any judgment on the question of distress for rent. For all these reasons, he moved the Previous Question.
  Previous Question moved, "That the Original Question be now put."—(Mr. H. T. Davenport.)
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, his opinion of the principle of distress was that it was indefensible. He believed that the abolition of the Law of Distress would do away, to a great extent, with that system of credit which had done so much damage, not only to the agricultural interest, but to all other classes. He considered it would be a great advantage to the landlord, even if, in consequence of it, his rents were reduced, if he obtained them punctually; and, therefore, he for one, as a landlord, could not see any objection to the abolition of the Law of Distress. One of the points that had been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite Was that the landlord' s preference was, after all, only the preference that was given to all preference creditors by the law, in the case of a bankruptcy, as a judgment creditor. There appeared to him, however, to be this essential difference between the two classes of creditors. The one had not the authority of the Court for what he did, while the other had. If any preference was given to a creditor in a Court of Law or Bankruptcy, it was because that creditor had done something to gain that preference, and therefore he thought the two cases were entirely different. No doubt, it would be said that it would be very hard upon the small farmers if this alteration were made at once; but this was not a class question, and if the tenant farmers wished for the abolition of the Law of Distress, he did not see why the landlords, or this House, should object. Reference had been made to limiting the time during which a landlord should be entitled to enforce distress; and, for his part, he did not see why it should not be reduced from six years to two. After all, it mattered very little to a tenant, who was reduced to insolvency, who got the little money he had; and, therefore, it could not matter to him whether the landlord got preference or not; but it did matter very materially to the trader whether the tenant was solvent or not, for they went on giving him credit and allowing him to deal with them, on the strength of the fact that they supposed that the landlord had seen that he had got some capital, and then they suddenly found out that the man was, after all, only a man of straw, and that what little straw he had went into the landlord's pocket. There was one other point which had been made; but he did not think it af-
  1674
  fected the question before the House, and that was the question of bills of sale. It had been said that the landlord should be given a power of re-entry a certain time after his rent became due; but he wished to point out that the landlord would be perfectly able to get his rent as soon as it became legally due to him, for he could sue for it on the day it became owing, and there was not a single agreement that would prevent him doing so. He would be able to sue as soon as the rent fell due, in the same way as any other creditor. Without, therefore, detaining the House any longer, he wished to state that he should give his support to the Motion put forward by the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett), although he could not help thinking that it had been brought forward at rather an inopportune time. He considered that it was an inopportune time for this reason—that many tenants were in arrears with their rents, and any change in the law would necessitate the calling in of those arrears; but he did not see that that would affect the question before the House, because if the House was asked to say "Aye" or "No" on the principle of the Law of Distress, it was not a question of whether the time was opportune for doing so or not.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, he did not think this was a good time for introducing the Motion. He could not admit that the Law of Distress had been generally enforced harshly or cruelly by landlords, as the Mover of the Resolution had asserted.
  MR. BLENNERHASSETTsaid, he had made no such statement. What he said was that the law might be, and occasionally was, harshly enforced.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEwas glad to hear the disclaimer of the hon. Gentleman. He thought he heard him use the words he had attributed to him, and had taken them down. He was strongly in favour of the limitation of the law; but whether the limitation should be fixed at one year or 18 months he did not think of any great consequence. He was also in favour of an alteration of the law which would prevent the great injustice of the property or stock of a third party being seized under the Law of Distress. This was, in the main, a tenant's question. As a landlord, he was very much opposed, both in principle and practice, to the harsh

  1675
  enforcement of the Law of Distress; but to abolish it unconditionally at the present moment would be a grievous hardship to the tenant farmer himself. He had no hesitation in saying that statistics might be easily adduced to show that during the past three disastrous seasons, if the Law of Distress had not prevailed, one-half of England would now be out of cultivation. They were told that the tenant farmers demanded this change in the law. He had spoken to many tenant farmers upon this matter; and, except those who attended the Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture. the majority of those he had consulted were not in favour of a change in tie present law. It was perfectly true that if a state of things could be produced in which the landlord would be certain to get his rent, and when a farm became vacant found no trouble in getting a capitalist to take it, then by all means abolish the law, and put the relation between the landlord and the tenant on a business footing. But he submitted that they must deal with the state of affairs and the times and seasons as they found them; and he thought it would be almost barbarous for the House of Commons now to abolish the Law of Distress, and thereby produce a state of things which must result in the turning out of their homes of a large number of tenant farmers who had been struggling for years against fearful odds, and were now receiving forbearance and consideration from their landlords, whom the hon. Member for Kerry admitted had not harshly enforced the law. As practical men, he believed they must come to the conclusion that the time had not arrived when the Law of Distress could be abolished without aggravating, instead of removing, the difficulties which at present affected the agriculture of this country. He was not altogether prepared to vote fur the Previous Question, and would have preferred that the Amendment had been framed to carry out some improvement in the existing law.
  Ma. JAMES HOWARDsaid, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) had deprecated sweeping away at one fell swoop the Law of Distress. But he (Mr. J. Howard) would ask—Did the hon. Baronet remember, when speaking, that Parliament, with the assent of the Conservative Party—of which he was a dis-
  1676
  tinguished Member—had swept away at one fell swoop the sister Law of Hypothee in Scotland? The right of the landlord to priority for debts due for rent over every other creditor had remained unquestioned until recent years; the Law of Distress had come down to them as a legacy from feudal times, and had been quietly acquiesced in. It had, indeed, been regarded as one of those natural rights which could hardly be called in question. But they lived in times when class privileges, however ancient, were no longer regarded as natural rights, but when the title of their possessors was rigidly investigated and their effects on the general community were looked fairly the face. The long-sustained agitation in Scotland upon the Law of Hypothec, and the discussions and debates from time to time on the subject, very naturally called the attention of English farmers to the sister Law of Distress; and the more intelligent of them soon began to perceive that the evils alleged to flow from the Law of Hypothec flowed equally from the Law of Distress. During recent years the growth of opinion among English tenant farmers upon the question, therefore, had increased considerably, and at nearly all the meetings held by them it had been warmly debated, and its injurious operation denounced, and resolutions passed, not only for the amendment, but for the total abolition of the law. It was to the credit of the Scotch farmers that they were shrewd enough to perceive the baneful influence of the Law of Hypothec on their interests many years before the English farmers had their interest aroused to the results of the corresponding Law of Distress in England. Possibly the earlier discovery was attributable to the Scotch practice of letting farms on tender, which system brought the evils flowing from the law more prominently and visibly before the eyes of the Scottish tenantry. What was said of the Law of Hypothec might be said with equal truth of the Law of Distress. The evils attendant on the system were three-fold. First, by the operation of the law, rents were raised beyond their natural level; secondly, the credit of the tenant farmers had been impaired; and, thirdly, the operation of the law had begotten a tendency to repel capital from agriculture and the cultivation of the soil. If these charges could be sus-

  1677
  tained—as he (Mr. J. Howard) believed they could—then the days of the Law of Distress were as assuredly numbered as those of hypothec had already been. That the Law of Distress had had a potent, though silent effect in raising the rental of farms throughout England, no doubts existed in the minds of practical men, although it was just one of these knotty points which it was next to impossible to prove to demonstration. It could not be disguised, as had been urged on the other side, that the present was not, from one point of view, a favourable time for bringing forward the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett), inasmuch as that many points in his arguments were blunted by the untoward circumstances which at present surrounded agriculture. In prosperous times, when a score or more applicants were running after every vacant farm, then was the time when landlords could take advantage of the Law of Distress; but in times of depression like the present, it could not be disguised that to a great extent the law remained inoperative. With that admission, however, he maintained that it was not the practice of Parliament to legislate for abnormal conditions, but for the ordinary—the normal—circumstances of the country. He would, therefore, take the House back a few years when prosperous times had for a long period prevailed. A landowner, whom he would style Sir Herbert Settlement, was the owner of an estate upon which a desirable farm became vacant; the applicants were numerous, and the competition for the occupancy was brisk; the agent, knowing that the owner was protected by the Law of Distress, felt that a tenant with three-fourths of the capital or even half the capital necessary to stock the farm was just as safe for the rent as the man with ample means for fully stocking it. The farm was let probably at a considerable advance upon the previous rental to a tenant of the kind he had just described. The owner soon after meets his neighbour, whom he (Mr. J. Howard) would call Lord Limited Owner, and informs him that The Grange—the farm in question—had been let at 35 s. per acre to a very eligible tenant. Lord Limited Owner, in turn, meets his own agent, and calls his attention to the fact that The Grange had been let at 10 s. per acre more than the rent of his own farm adjoining The
  1678
  Holt, which was every bit as good. The result was that in process of time the rent of The Holt was raised, and perhaps a score other farms upon the same estate—not one of the tenants ever dreaming for one moment that the rise was directly or indirectly connected with the Law of Distress. He might be told that he had drawn an imaginary picture. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite cried "Hear, hear!" He could only say that he had drawn precisely the same picture at a meeting of the Farmers' Club, 13 months ago; and upon remarking that some present might regard it as a fancy picture, the room resounded with cries of "No, no!" He would ask—were not the practical farmers present upon that occasion competent judges upon the point? There was no need, however, for a fancy sketch to pourtray the evil effects of the law under consideration. There was the inexorable doctrine of political economy that any law, or set of circumstances, which had the effect of bringing more customers into the market for a given article, brought about a rise in the price of such commodity. That the Law of Distress had, in the past, had the effect of increasing the number of applicants for farms no practical man for a moment doubted. If such was the case, the enhancement of rent was the inevitable result, and the inexorable law to which he had referred could not be gainsaid. The agricultural rental of the Kingdom, as he had reminded the House three weeks ago, increased between the years 1857 and 1875 by no less a sum than £9,000,000 sterling, the rise being 21 per cent in England and 26 per cent in Scotland. Turning to the second effect said to be produced by the Law of Distress upon the credit of the farmer, the effect of the law might be judged by the case of a tenant resorting to a banker for an advance to tide him over a crisis. At the interview, nothing would of course be said by the banker upon the ugly question of the Law of Distress, nor would it probably for one moment cross the mind of the would-be-borrower, But did anyone of commercial experience suppose that the law was absent from the mind of the banker, when he blandly informed the would-be-borrower that he could be accommodated with the advance, but that security would be expected? He had been assured by eminent bankers in agricultural districts

  1679
  that the credit of the farmer was seriously curtailed by the Law of Distress. Leaving, however, the bankers, he would call attention to a speech of a noble Lord opposite, who took an active part in the Business of that House—he referred to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). Some 18 months ago that noble Lord, addressing a meeting of Oxfordshire farmers, spoke as follows upon the subject now before the House:—
  "He saw one great evil, and that was the Law of Distress. They could not expect the capitalist in these bad times to advance money to the farmer for the most legitimate and promising objects, at any rate at moderate interest, on the security of his stock or his plant, when he knew that through some unforeseen circumstances, or some temporary embarrassment, or circumstances over which the farmer might be able to exercise no control, he happened to be behind in his obligations to his landlord, that security would at once be taken possession of by his landlord. He had no hesitation in saving that the Law of Distress was a remnant of feudalism, and its days were numbered. The Government had consented to the principle of its abolition in Scotland, and what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander; what was good for the Scotch farmers was, he imagined, equally good for English farmers."
  He (Mr. J. Howard) was glad to find that the noble Lord was imbued with some of the Radical sentiments of his elder brother upon Land Questions. He had given this extract from the noble Lord's speech with two objects—first, as an answer to the speech of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. H. T. Davenport); and, secondly, in order to claim the vote of the noble Lord for the Motion then before the House. With respect to the third effect alleged to flow from the Law of Distress—the tendency to repel capital from agriculture—he would observe it was notorious than men of capital and standing seldom or never were willing to give such high or extravagant rents for land as men of straw were willing to offer. That was a fact, known to every land agent in the Kingdom. So apparent had been the tendency under the Scotch system of letting farms by tender, that the fact fomented the agitation against hypothec, and the conviction had served to keep it alive. He was surprised that the hon. Member for North Staffordshire should commend a law which tempted landlords, especially needy ones, to accept as tenants men who were ready
  1680
  to bid high rents, but who had not capital enough to fully develop the resources of the soil, and which, therefore, inflicted a distinct injury on the community. He believed that such a law was also injurious to the landowners themselves, because but for it, and its operations in the past, he was convinced that probably not half of the bankruptcies of the last few months would have occurred, and not half of the now vacant farms would have remained tenantless. He had dwelt hitherto upon the three evils which flowed from the Law of Distress; but he had said nothing about the injustice of that law toward the trading, the manufacturing, and the banking class—this was so obvious that he felt that it required no enforcement. That debts due to the most opulent, the most wealthy, and the most powerful section of the community should be secured by an exceptional law seemed to his mind little short of iniquitous. He would ask—suppose that the bankers were in possession of this preferential right as had been playfully suggested by one of the bankers he had referred to—he would ask would such a class privilege stand for a single Session? Again, could it be believed that if the Law of Distress had never been in existence, and was proposed either to this House or even to the House of Lords, it would be for one moment entertained? Were such a measure proposed for the first time, it would, unquestionably, be deemed to be and would be denounced throughout the land as a piece of unjustifiable class legislation of the very worst kind. Further, the merchants, bankers, and all classes of traders would be up in arms against its unfairness. Believing that the Law of Distress had been injurious not only to the three classes directly interested in agriculture—landlords, tenants, and labourers—but to the general interests of the whole community, he heartily supported the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry.
  MR. PELLsaid, he was also inclined to think that it would not have been easy now-a-days to enact for the first time the Law of Distress; but that was by no means a sufficient reason for repealing it. The circumstances of its origin certainly justified the law at one period of our history. There had been a time in which the landlord supplied the entire plant and capital of a farm, and

  1681
  everything that was necessary, with the exception of labour, so that he was not only the landlord, but the capitalist whose money was being used. A little earlier, the cultivation of land was managed by a still simpler method, by which the landlord received a part of the produce from the tenant. At one time, therefore, the Law of Distress was amply justified by all the conditions of agriculture. New methods, however, had superseded the old, and other persons besides the landlord and the tenant were now interested in the cultivation of land. Some of them were persons who, whatever might be said of the acceptance by landlords of extravagant rents. had certainly lured farmers into expenditure that their better judgment condemned. It was not all profit to the farmer who invested £200 or £300 in artificial manure, or spent his substance in the gay paint and glittering fittings of agricultural instruments. Those to whom he alluded, a large section of the manufacturers and the acute and theoretical persons who supplied artificial manure, were now complaining that certain consequences resulted from the Law of Distress which would interfere with their speculative proposals. With regard to the operation of the law itself, he did not think it was fair to those who supplied other commodities than land to the farmer that the landlord should have a claim upon the tenant's property for something like six years back. He had always thought that was an extremely unfair thing, and a cruel thing, in the first instance, to the tenant, and, in the next place, to the community generally. But it was not clear to him that it was an unfair proposal, considering the laws of tenancy generally, that the landlord should have a lien upon the produce of the farm for one year, or for a short period not much exceeding one year. Owners of agricultural implements, and other matters that the farmer required, did not part with their goods for a year or a month upon credit, unless they had urgent reason for doing so; but the landlord sold the possession of his land not for a week or for a month, but for a period long enough to allow crops and harvests to be gathered in, and was, so far, less advantageously situated than the ordinary commercial creditor. He thought, on the whole, that the existing law, with limitation, was best in the interests of both par-
  1682
  ties. The agricultural implement maker usually parted with his goods to an agent, to whom he gave an enormous discount. That, of course, did not make the articles any cheaper to the farmer. In fact, a plough or a drill which might be sold to a farmer for £12 or £14 on the cash system cost him £18 or £20 under the system of agency and credit. He was not sure that a slight Law of Distress would not operate more to the advantage of a farmer who was going to buy these goods than such an enormous percentage. He had, moreover, a great objection to the present proposal, for he was afraid that after all it was only a bid for the support of the farmers. The truth was that the Law of Distress was very seldom exercised; and he was inclined to think that the wiser course for the occupiers of land to take would be to endeavour to amend the law rather than abolish it, for it ought not, at the present moment, to be swept away altogether. And when the law was altered, he should be pleased to see the Amendment extended to other holdings besides farms; for, as far as his experience went, the power of expelling the occupier of a small tenement had been more unduly used in the case of house tenancies than in the case of land.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought he could congratulate his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett), not merely on the support he had received from those who were avowedly in favour of the Resolution, but still more on the course which had been taken by those who were opposed to it. When he (Sir William Harcourt) considered the manner in which the Resolution was met, and the arguments by which it was supported, he could come to no other conclusion than that the real object at which his hon. Friend aimed was really attained. If this Law of Distress were really the valuable commodity for the farmers of England as was pretended by hon. Members opposite, why was the Motion met by the "Previous Question" and not with a direct negative by their Representatives and advocates? The hon. Member who made that Motion of the "Previous Question" (Mr. H. T. Davenport) said he was quite satisfied that the farmers of England were not, in a majority, in favour of the present proposal. He (Sir William Harcourt) confessed that he had

  1683
  a little doubt of this at the time; but it was removed by the hon. Gentleman who just spoke (Mr. Pell), because he said this was to be used as a "farmers' friend" question. That seemed to betray that at the bottom of his heart there was a suspicion that that was really what the farmers did want. What were the arguments used against the Resolution? It was said that the law enabled a landowner to take a tenant with an insufficient capital. Why, that argument was really the most conclusive in its favour, for the worst thing for the landowner or the farmer, and for the general community, was that very thing. It was because it enabled and encouraged the landowner to take a tenant without sufficient capital, because it encouraged a man without sufficient capital to become a tenant, that the Law of Distress was fundamentally wrong, and injurious to the interests of the community. Then there was the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), who really, at times, appeared to be a Liberal, and then, at other times, a Tory of the rankest and most antiquated description, who said—"In the present miserable condition of agriculture let us protect the farmer from his natural enemies." What were the natural enemies of the farmers? According to the hon. Gentleman opposite, agriculture had been destroyed by implements. Let them maintain the Law of Distress, because it would prevent the farmer indulging in implements. If they could only put the farmer in a position that no implement maker would trust him, they would put him in a flourishing position. But it was not only the implement makers of whom he complained. There were the artificial manure manufacturers also. The hon. Gentleman was convinced that if the English agriculturist was to be saved from the competition of the virgin soil of America, he was to be saved by one thing only—namely, a cessation in the use of artificial manure. Maintain the Law of Distress, and that would be accomplished. Another enemy of the farmer was the banker, and they were asked to hope that the farmer could never be in a position that a banker would trust him. Let there be no agricultural implements, artificial manure, and national bankers, and then the distressed agriculture of England would be delivered from all its misfortune, and be on equal terms with the world. That
  1684
  was what was put forward by the most brilliant agricultural light of the Conservative Party. The argument on the opposite side was that a man must have credit to go on with Ids business; but lot them take care that the only creditor should be the landlord, and the real fertilizing influence upon land which could restore it to its true productive power was rent. It was not implements, and it was not manure; but if rent was maintained, that was the fertilizing element of the soil, and in order to maintain rent they must maintain the Law of Distress. He must say, when argument had sunk to that level, he thought the cause was lost. He was quite sure, if there were better arguments which could be produced, they would have been put forward. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire, although he occasionally appeared in the highest phase of Protection, was not unamenable to reason, or the process of conversion; and he (Sir William Harcourt) might venture to predict that they would yet live to see the hon. Member voting for abolition of the Law of Distress. This, in fact, was no new question. Upon the Law of Hypothec, two years ago, everything had been said upon this question which it was possible to say. All these objections had been made before. They were all argued out on the Scotch Bill. The Conservative Party, from year to year, opposed the abolition of the Law of Hypothec, and the same arguments were produced then; but it was the conviction of a very acute class of people—the Scotch farmers, who certainly could not be accused of not knowing where their own interests laid—that the Law of Hypothec ought to be abolished, and it was abolished. There was one man, of course, who was staunch to the last—the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho). He remembered, in one of those wails from the noble Lord with which they were so well acquainted, he denounced the late Government for conceding the abolition of the Law of Hypothec. But the abolition of the Law of Hypothec was a brilliant, and he would say the best, act of that Government. It was done on the very eve of a General Election; and after a Dissolution was announced, the Duke of Richmond, the then Lord Chancellor, and the lights of the Conservative Party went down to the House of Lords, and

  1685
  entreated them to pass the Bill for the abolition of the Law of Hypothec, which was, in fact, the abolition of the Law of Distress. They did that on the eve of a General Election, not supposing for one moment that it was to be considered in any respect a "farmer's friend" question. That was the process by which conversion took place on those subjects. If his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry, instead of moving a Resolution, had introduced a Bill, they would have seen how Gentlemen sitting opposite would have met it. He would rather that he had done so, as he (Sir William Harcourt) should have supported the Bill, as he intended to support the Resolution. Of course, as in the case of the Law of Hypothec, when the subject came to be dealt with in a Bill, there ought to be just and proper securities introduced by which the landowner who parted with the possession of his land should have a summary and effective method of recovering that possession if he did not get his rent. There remained one other point. The hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) said, what would be the position of the tenants in this country if the Law of Distress did not exist? They would all have been turned out by the landlord. He (Sir William Harcourt) ventured to disagree with that expression of opinion, because ho did not think that that was the view which the landlords had taken of their position. As far as his observation went, their great object seemed to be to keep their tenants if possible; and even if the Law of Distress did not exist, they would not have done such a suicidal thing as evict them. In fact, every landlord in England at the present moment appeared to be doing his best to retain his tenants. It was, consequently, impossible that any tenant could suffer by the abolition of the Law of Distress. If they had not spoken so strongly on the subject as the Scotch farmers, it was because the latter were shrewder agriculturists and larger capitalists, who had long come to the conclusion that such a system as this was incompatible with good agriculture. The very arguments which had been adduced against the Resolution were the strongest arguments in its favour; and, therefore, he should vote against the "Previous Question," and in favour of the Resolution of his hon. Friend.
  SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYcomplained that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had made no reference to one subject closely connected with this question—namely, the mode of obtaining the rent-charge into which the Church tithes had been converted in the 12,000 parishes in the Kingdom, in which case the only remedy was the same as that employed by the landlord—that was distress.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This Resolution does not refer to that subject.
  SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, the one question would be involved in the other, and if the Law of Distress were swept away there would be no means of recovering it, otherwise than by substituting a personal liability. He would go further in the way of opposition to the Resolution than simply moving the "Previous Question," for he had had a long experience in matters connected with land, and he had never known the Law of Distress act oppressively. Before, therefore, such a Resolution as that before the House was agreed to, some information ought, he contended, to be given by the Government as to what process they would suggest with the view of remedying the great inconvenience which would result from the abolition of the Law of Distress.
  MR. GREGORYsupported the "Previous Question," maintaining that the law as it at present stood had been productive of considerable advantage in enabling many struggling men to take farms who would otherwise be debarred from doing so, and to bring up families in a respectable way of life. There was no comparison between the position of a landlord and an ordinary creditor of the tenant. The former found a portion of the capital, on which the tenant treated the land as raw material, of which he necessarily parted with the possession. The ordinary dealer could give credit for the goods supplied, or require payment for them as he thought proper; but it appeared by the evidence taken by the House of Lords that the loss to ordinary dealers, under the circumstances, was very small, amounting to less than I per cent on their dealings with agricultural tenants. The law ought not, therefore, in his opinion, to be abolished in the summary way proposed, although he admitted that some alteration in it

  1687
  was desirable. He contended that it did no practical evil to anyone, and that much of the distress which had fallen on the English farmer arose from the competition of bankers to lend him money. If the law were abolished with respect to agricultural holdings, it could not logically be retained for house property; and it was in dealing with the latter that the abuses of it. if any, arose.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he did not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had fairly represented the arguments used by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell); but it was not wonderful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to endeavour to excite a laugh, especially a Liberal laugh, against the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. It was easy to do so when representations were made which were not exactly in accordance with the utterances of the speaker referred to. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that landlords ought to have easy means for obtaining possession of their land if their rent was not paid; but he did not say what those means should be. He wished to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was of opinion that such a principle ought to apply in the case of Irish land also. Did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman know that there was a Bill before the House which applied to Ireland, and which would, when passed, clog the right of the landlord to obtain possession of his lands in every possible way? Why, he would ask, should this Motion be limited to agricultural holdings, and not apply to the occupiers in towns? Why should they deprive the farmers of the protection which they now had from their landlords? No answer could be given to those questions; but, instead, hon. Members opposite contented themselves by cheering, jeering, and sneering at the arguments of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, which they could not meet, more especially that in which he directly charged the Liberal Party with seeking to make this a "farmers' friend" question, because they wanted to catch the farmers' votes, which they had not got.
  MR. STORERsaid, it was well known from personal experience that many English farmers, and many Scotch farmers too, could not but for the Law of Distress have raised themselves from the
  1688
  position of labourers to be the occupiers of farms. There was this peculiarity which had not been much touched on in the condition of the farmer as compared with other classes. The farmer invested his capital in the land, where it remained for a year or two. It was impossible for him to turn his money over so rapidly as the merchant or banker; and, therefore, it was necessary that consideration should be shown him by somebody. If he got no consideration from his landlord, he certainly would get none from his other creditors; and if the Law of Distress were done away with his chances of consideration from the landlord must necessarily be greatly diminished. While admitting that there should be some limitation of the present Law of Distress with advantage, both as to time and the property of other persons on the land, he considered that in the interest of the farmer as well as of the landlord, the Law of Distress ought to be maintained upon the Statute Book.
  COLONEL BARNEsaid, there appeared to be some Friends of the tenant farmers who wished to abolish the Law of Distress; but he contended that to do so would be an injury to the small farmers instead of a benefit. The landlords would be driven to recover their rents in some other manner. At the present time, that was their only security. He maintained that if the Law of Distraint were abolished, landlords would no longer be in a position to give the tenants any latitude in regard to the payment of their rents. He considered that if it had not been for that law, many farmers would have been obliged, owing to the prolonged distress, to leave their homes and seek other occupations. He believed that three out of every four farmers were at present in heavy arrears to their landlords; but, thanks to the Law of Distress, the landlords were able to give them time to recover themselves. The only people who would be benefited by the abolition of the law would be the oil-cake merchant, the manure merchant, and the money lenders. The mass of the tenant farmers of the country did not desire the abolition of the law. He would admit that the large tenant farmers—the men who came to London to speak at the Farmers' Club, the Farmers' Alliance, and the Central Chamber of Agriculture—did wish for its abolition. But why? Because if it were abolished, the com-

  1689
  petition of the small farmers for the land would cease. That was the whole truth of the question.
  MR. D. DAVIESsaid, he was not there to defend the landlords; but he wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that the great proportion of small farmers were, because of this law, protected by their landlords. It was quite clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department did not know anything about the farmers. Of course, it would be an advantage to the large farmers, because it would lessen the competition for land. The abolition of the Law of Distress would be the ruin of many small farmers, and would drive them out of the country. He (Mr. D. Davies) had lived all his life among tenant farmers, and he could say that this would be a most unpopular measure among them. And what about the hundreds and thousands of farmers who would be bankrupt under this Bill? Give him a practical farmer with little or no money against a man with immense wealth who was not a farmer, and he would guarantee the former's farm would be the best. To that man the Law of Distress was a protection as against those creditors who might press him at a time when his landlord would refrain from so doing. On this occasion he should vote against the Government and against his Party simply in the interests of the tenant farmers; but he regretted being compelled to do so.
  MR. WHITBREADdiscredited the statement of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Barne) that three out of every four farmers were in arrears to their landlords. He admitted there was a great deal of truth in the plea that the Law of Distress was a protection to an insolvent tenant; but what, he asked, would be the effect of abolishing it? As it stood now, the pressure was enormous upon the landlord to let the tenant go on getting down lower and lower, till at length the latter was immersed in helpless insolvency. That was the result of the Law of Distress. It did act as a protection in the first instance, but it was a fatal protection. He submitted whether this system of bolstering up insolvency was not a bad thing, and that it would turn out to be a great mistake in the long run?
  MR. O'SULLIVAN,in supporting the Resolution, said, he failed to see any
  1690
  reason whatever why the landlord should be placed in a position superior to that of the ordinary creditor. In many cases the ordinary creditor was the person who supplied the tenant with the seeds and manure for his farm, and why he should not occupy the same position with reference to the tenant's assets as the landlord did was a thing he could not for the life of him understand. It seemed to be forgotten by those who supported the Amendment that the landlord never lost more than his year's profit on the land, whereas the ordinary creditor who supplied the seeds and manure lost not only his profit on that year, but his principal also; so that he was really in a far worse position. The hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. D. Davies) stated that by the Law of Distress many tenants were protected by their landlords. That was true; but, as an illustration of the instance of the protection afforded, he (Mr. O'Sullivan) might mention that about 12 months since a tenant who owed him a couple of years' rent came and asked him to distrain his cattle. He told the man at once that he only wanted to defeat his creditors; and, of course, he refused to be a party to any such fraud. He thought therefore, that hon. Members who asked the House to protect the tenants by the Law of Distress were asking the House, to a certain extent, to countenance fraud. No better argument could be adduced in support of the Resolution. Why not a landlord go into the Bankruptcy Court and take his share like everyone else? He hoped the House would not, by sanctioning the continuance of this law, protect dishonest tenants from their honest creditors.
  MR. WIGGINsaid, that it had long been felt as a great injustice that the landlord should, by the Law of Distress, have a preferential claim over other creditors; and, therefore, the time had come when it should be abolished. He maintained that it affected the agricultural interest most injuriously, because the agents of landed proprietors were disposed to let farms to men of insufficient capital, as they knew the landlord had a priority over the other creditors.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he did not believe that any law could come down, as this had done, from antiquity to the present day, without there having been some very good reason for its existence. When it was asked that the landlord should be placed on the same

  1691
  terms as the other creditors, it was forgotten that their positions were not at all analogous. Where was the analogy between the debt that accrued from the tenant to the landlord and the debt which the tenant might incur to brewers, grocers, implement makers, and manure makers? Every one of these men saw the tenant's progress, and were able to judge how far it was competent to them, with a due regard to their own safety, to trust him, and for how long; the debt due to the landlord was the inevitable result of time. Rent grew without any further action on the landlord's part putting the tenant into possession; the products of the land were the representatives of the rent; and naturally became, in the first instance, liable for the rent. Everything was absolutely in their own disposal. As far as he (Mr. Hubbard) could judge, in his own county, the practice was this—the rent due from the tenant to the landlord was not exacted when it became due. It was due every three months; but it was practically taken half-yearly, with a delay of three or six months, and sometimes the lapse was even longer. The working of the system was that the landlord provided the tenant with capital to the extent of a year's rent. He (Mr. Hubbard) held that if the law were limited, as everyone seemed to desired it should be, to a claim by the landlord upon one or two years' crop. no mischief would ensue. On the other hand, to sweep away the right of distraint would be high-handed interference, seeing that the tenant had a distinct advantage in the continuance of this system of indulgence; and he should oppose any abolition of a system which was so beneficial to the tenant farmer, and which had on its side long-established usage.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDprotested against the doctrine that a thing was necessarily valuable because it had existed for a long series of years. He would admit that the Law of Distress operated humanely in the case of dwelling-houses; indeed, in many eases no doubt it kept a man's roof over his head. The present question, however, was a different one altogether. The Law of Distress, with regard to agricultural tenements, was a question of public policy, of expediency, simply of good husbandry. The question they ought to put to themselves was—did the Law of Distress tend or not to good hus-
  1692
  bandry in this country? To that there could be only one answer—certainly not. Even if limited, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) suggested, to a year's rent, it was obvious that a landlord standing between two bidders for a farm, one comparatively a man of straw and the other a man of substance, was induced to take the man of straw, be cause he had in the Law of Distress a certain amount of security. It was not for the public advantage that he should have that security. The public interest was most directly concerned in the most rapid passage of land from a man who desired to quit it to the man who desired to obtain it. The husbandry of a farm would be distinctly promoted by a landlord getting rid of a tenant who had not sufficient capital to cultivate it properly. Of course, if it were now proposed to abolish the Law of Distress, it would be obviously unjust to the landlord not to make a provision with regard to rent clue; but when the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken talked of the value of a law because it had come down front antiquity, he certainly held a different opinion. Lord Coke said the Law of Distress was a feudal law, a feudal remedy. It was distinctly a feudal law, and because it was, he (Mr. Arthur Arnold) was heartily in favour of its abolition.
  COLONEL RUGGLES - BRISEsaid, that at that moment three out of four of the tenant farmers of England had not sufficient capital to cultivate their farms. The reason of that insufficiency was that the bad harvests of the last three or four years had washed capital out of their pockets. Those tenants that had the largest capital were the worst off at the present moment. There were other matters connected with the occupation of land of as great importance as capital. Capital was of no use without experience, industry, and knowledge of his business on the part of the farmer. He did not advocate the retention of the Law of Distress in the interest of the landlords; but he thought that three out of four of the small farmers of this country would hold up their hands in favour of its retention. The only argument against its retention that he had heard seriously used was that it enhanced the rent; but he denied the fact. The tradesmen were not injured by it, for they Protected themselves by

  1693
  putting a higher price on the articles they supplied. They, together with the implement makers, knew how to take care of themselves. The implement makers, who, he believed, were agitating for that change more than anybody else, supplied implements to the farmers through agents who were responsible to them, and the farmers were at that moment paying some 50 per cent more for implements than they ought to pay. If they abolished the Law of Distress, they could not stop there; but they must extend the abolition to the case of houses. He could not see how or where they could draw a distinction. He did not think that working men would favour that proposal. He hoped, in the interests of the tenant farmers, that the law would be retained in a modified form.
  MR. COLMANsaid, he rose for the purpose of answering, directly he heard it, the most unwarrantable assertion made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Ruggles-Brise). He desired emphatically to contradict the assertion that the agitation against the Law of Distress had been brought about by the implement makers and others who trusted the farmers. He (Mr. Colman) knew very well that many tenant farmers felt that the present state of the law was, in many districts, at the bottom of some of the most serious evils connected with farming, and especially that of the want of adequate capital. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. Howard) had spoken of the law as promoting competition for farms; but if he had called it unhealthy competition, his remarks would have been nearer the truth, because, under existing circumstances, people were induced to take larger farms than their capital warranted. Believing that that was a question in which the farmers were interested, and that the judgment of the country condemned that unjust law, he would heartily support the Resolution.
  MR. DAWSONalso cordially supported the Resolution, holding that the landlord was not entitled to an anomalous means of recovering payment of rent, and that the arguments by which his claim to such exceptional protection had been defended were fallacious and untenable.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that when the debate commenced he had no intention of taking part in it
  1694
  but the more the discussion had progressed, the more he felt it to be necessary that they should, if possible, put aside Party considerations on that occasion. Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House had been taunted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but there was no man in the House who ought to put aside Party feeling more than that right hon. and learned Gentleman. They were all specially interested in the Home Department; but since the right hon. and learned Gentleman had held that particular Office he had more frequently embittered strife than any other Member of the House. He was sorry to have to say that, because he wished the right hon. and learned Gentleman well in every way; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman apparently had to learn that the tongue was a very unruly member, for he could say sharper things than most other men. Instead of that, however, they wanted advice from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who ought to be their counsellor and friend. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had the whole domestic interests of that great country in his hands, and the speech he had made that night was utterly unworthy of the occasion, and of anyone holding the position he did. ["No,no!"] There was not a unanimous feeling on this subject. It was not a question of landlords. It was not a question of the vote of their tenants. The real question was—Was this a law which was beneficial to the tenant, or was it not? [Mr. JAMES HOWARD: No,no!] The hon. Member for Bedfordshire cried "No." He was not a man, perhaps, who cared for the tenant; he was looking to some other interest, and not to that of the tenant farmer.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDrose to Order, and asked whether the hon. and gallant Member was justified in imputing motives to another hon. Member?
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTdenied that he had cast any imputations; but if he had said anything offensive to the hon. Member he was sorry for it. What he was say in was that the great question they were discussing was whether it was to the interest or not of the tenant farmer that this Law of Distress should be maintained? [Mr. JAMES HOWARD: No, no!] Did the hon, Mem-

  1695
  ber for Bedfordshire mean that it was of no interest to the tenant farmer? If not, surely the time of the House had been wasted. He held it was a question of serious interest to the tenant farmer—for the small farmer as well as for the large farmer. They were proposing to establish small farmers in Ireland. Did he understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to say that no encouragement should be given to small farmers in this country? He had heard many say that the Law of Distress had been of the greatest benefit to them, and believed that this was an exceedingly unfortunate time at which to raise the question. They knew that prejudices had been aroused, and that fair discussions did not take place. After the Crimean War, owing to the competition which arose for land, many of the old tenant farmers, rather than give up, even wished to increase the size of, and did increase their farms, and were glad to give more rent than before. A new class of tenants, also—men who had been in business and saved money—came forward and increased the demand for farms. But that had nothing on earth to do with the Law of Distress. The last thing a landlord thought of when he took a tenant was the Law of Distress. The question the landlord looked to was whether the tenant was a solvent and respectable man, who would farm the lands to the best interest and advantage. Passing as they had been through critical times, the landlords of this country had endeavoured fairly and honestly, under the most adverse circumstances, to discharge their duties to the best of their ability to their tenants, whether they paid their rent, or whether for the time they did not. Where had they heard of landlords distraining or selling up their tenants in this country? Had they not, on the contrary, given time and indulgence to their tenantry when adverse circumstances called for forbearance on their part? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the implement makers, the manure dealers, and the bankers; but not only these, but the small tradesmen of the country had increased their prices enormously. There was something also to be said about the banking question. As long as prosperity reigned, they could not induce people to come and ask for too much money; but in the last few years of adversity they
  1696
  had cut short the supply at a very critical time, when it was of the utmost importance to the tenant that he should have that supply. He believed this question deserved more serious attention than the right hon. and learned Gentleman fancied. Believing, as he did, that a limited Law of Distress would be for the advantage of the tenant farmers, he would suggest to his hon. Friend (Mr. H. T. Davenport) to withdraw his Amendment, so that a division should be taken on the question whether a limited Law of Distress should be allowed or not.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that this was a question which affected small tenants as well as large. With regard to the small tenants, it was rather curious to remark that they had the same class of arguments raised against the abolition of the Law of Distress as they had previously heard in regard to Scotland and the abolition of the Law of Hypothec, which was practically the same thing, on the other side of the House. They were told that it would be for the benefit of the large farmers that it should be abolished, but that it would be for the advantage of the small farmers to retain the law as it stood. The smaller farmers in Scotland considered this question carefully for a good many years, and at last they gave no uncertain answer as to what their views were. In those counties which had small farmers, such as Aberdeenshire and Forfarshire, they clearly and unequivocally expressed the opinion that the Law of Hypothec was as disadvantageous to the small farmer as it was to the large. They had heard the Law of Hypothec defended by extraordinary arguments. He thought the landlords had scarcely done justice to themselves. If he had ventured to make the accusations against them which they had made against themselves, he should have felt that he was doing an injustice to that body. One hon. Member said, if he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) mistook not, that if the Law of Distress were abolished the landlords would turn out three-fourths of their tenants. He was not disposed to accept that statement, because he thought better of the English landlords. It was said that the landlord protected the farmer against his other creditors. That, put in other words, meant that

  1697
  the landlord and tenant entered into a conspiracy together to defraud the other creditors of the tenant, who were as justly entitled to payment of their money as the landlord was to his rent. That was not a position, he thought, that the landlords of England ought to place themselves in. He wished particularly to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), who said the present agricultural distress was due to the recent bad times. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) was not disposed to coincide in that statement, for he attributed some of it to this very Law of Distress which they were discussing, and he thought the arguments brought forward in support of the law supported his conclusion, because the whole of the arguments brought forward by the opposite side were to the effect that the Law of Distraint enabled a landlord to accept a tenant with inadequate, insufficient, or very small capital. The consequence of that was that there had been a constantly decreasing amount of capital employed in farming. It was easy to see how this came about. The landlord, or more frequently his agent, naturally felt disposed to prefer the tenant who offered the largest amount of rent, being assured that he would be fully protected by the Law of Distraint; and one great advantage of the abolition of that law would be to induce a little more supervision by the landlord, who would then have to take a greater interest in the management of his estate. It was said that this was a very inopportune time for considering the abolition of the Law of Distraint; but he did not understand that it would be proposed, if the abolition of distress was passed to-morrow, that it should affect existing rents, past arrears, or any contract now in existence. These exceptions had been made under the abolition of the law in Scotland; and although the exception of existing leases would lead to considerable confusion, he did not think it was expected that any Bill would pass that House that did not make such exception. Therefore, this could not be said to be an inopportune time, because the same rights would belong to the landlord that he possessed at that moment. He thought, on the contrary, that this was an opportune time for making this reform. Farmers in Scot-
  1698
  land and England were rapidly coming to the opinion that the law had acted adversely to them in past times; that if they were going to have reform in the matter, the laws as affecting the tenure of land should be put upon an equitable basis; and that the Law of Distraint should be entirely abolished. The tenant farmers did not claim exceptional legislation on their behalf; but they said that this backing up of the landlord—by giving security for persons of inadequate means—put the tenant with the requisite amount of capital at a disadvantage, discouraged their putting capital into the soil, and was, to no small extent, responsible for the existing scarcity of capital on land. Hon. Members opposite had supported the law on the ground that it allowed a landlord to give a farmer a considerable amount of indulgence; but they, at the same time, proposed to cut down that power of the landlord to give the tenant accommodation to one year or 18 months, without giving any corresponding advantage to the farmer in any respect whatever. He had heard a good deal of sympathy expressed for the implement manufacturers and manure dealers on the other side of the House, and in order to meet their complaints hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed disposed to make this proposal; but it surprised him that he did not hear one word of sympathy from hon. Members opposite for the poor farmers themselves, and that these hon. Gentlemen did not see that this reduction of the Law of Distraint to one year would cause greater pressure upon farmers. It would be an inducement to the landlords to be harder with the tenants than they were at the present moment. One year's priority of right would give a needy landlord security for taking a tenant with inadequate capital, and would induce him to come all the more suddenly upon him should he fall short in the payment of his rent. He was quite prepared to admit that the tenant farmers of England were not unanimous upon this question; but he was surprised at the rapidity with which they had come to the recognition of the fact that this law was a great disadvantage to them. The question was discussed for 15 years in Scotland before the Law of Hypothec was abolished; but it had only been discussed for about five years in England,

  1699
  The hon. Baronet recommended that urban hypothec should also be included in this Resolution. If the hon. Baronet felt strongly on that subject, he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) thought he would do a public service if he were to start an agitation in towns in favour of the abolition of urban hypothec; but, in the meantime, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Blennerhassett) had acted wisely in confining his Motion to this particular branch of the question, on which the country electors had made up their mind. Landlords must be like other creditors. They must take into consideration the position of their customer, his solvency and character; and if they had a good tenant, they would give him credit to a certain extent, even although the Law of Distraint were abolished. The landlord could make his own agreement with his tenant, and, if he could not trust the farmer, ask his rent to be paid six months in advance, for there was nothing to prevent him doing so. In America, if a landlord had a doubt about a tenant he stipulated that his rent should be paid monthly in advance. Really, there was no difference between the landlord and the manure merchant, who gave three, six, or 12 months' credit. The manure merchant had more effectually parted with his goods than the landlord had parted with his farm. If hon. Members opposite who defended the law understood their business a little better, they would see that it was quite possible for them to make such terms as they pleased in regard to the payment of rent, in the same way as the manure merchant, or any other tradesman. If the Law of Distraint were abolished, he thought the landlord was perfectly entitled, if the tenant failed to complete his contract, to have some summary means of ejecting him from his holding. In Scotland, 14 days after the rent was due, a landlord might give notice that he required either security or payment. If the tenant could not comply, he might be summoned before the sheriff, and if the tenant could not then give security, the landlord was entitled to eject him within a short time, subject to certain conditions and arrangements with regard to the growing crops. There ought to be a corresponding law for England if distraint were abolished. It would be altogether wrong and unjust that the tenant should retain possession
  1700
  of his holding after he had declared himself unable to fulfil the contract he had entered into respecting it. There was an example of how the landlord could get on without the Law of Distraint in the case of the graziers alluded to by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). In the case of graziers, landlords had no difficulty in securing themselves. They either demanded security from the grazier—because he could at any time drive his cattle to the market and sell them, so that they could not be distrained upon—or they satisfied themselves that the grazier was a solvent tenant, who could pay his rent. He had heard no complaint from landlords in regard to that particular kind of tenancy where there was nothing to distrain upon. He hoped hon. Members would take into consideration the state of agriculture at the present time, and agree to the wishes of, at all events, the majority, a growing majority, of tenant farmers in favour of the abolition of this law. They had heard for years that a Royal Commission had been appointed, which was going to consider what was to be done for the farmers; but, in the meantime, the farmers were getting largely into the Bankruptcy Court, and if things continued for another year, he was afraid the Report of the Commission, even if it were to prove the salvation of the tenant farmers, would come too late. Unless hon. Members were prepared to maintain that this law was for the benefit of tenant farmers and agriculture, he thought the House ought to give way; and by saying they were prepared to consider those grievances of which tenant farmers complained, they would give them a new stimulus to exertion, in the hope that when their case was fully brought before the House they would obtain justice and redress for their grievances, like other classes of Her Majesty's subjects.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he had before the House a Bill, the object of which was to exempt from distress agricultural machines and live stock, being the property of third persons, and not of the tenant; and, though it was supported by Members on both sides of the House, and by the Chambers of Agriculture, it was, to his astonishment, blocked by the hon. Member who had just sat down, and who represented—

  1701
  at least, so it had been stated—the Farmers' Alliance. The only reason given for their opposition was that the Bill did not go far enough. At all events, it was unfair to say that nothing was said or done on behalf of the farmers from that side of the House. It was not within the scope of his Bill; but he would otherwise have readily assented to the limitation of distress for rent to a year, or two years. He could not agree with the Resolution as now proposed, abolishing distress altogether; but he would suggest the withdrawal of the Amendment and the substitution of one limiting the power of distress to two years' rent. He demurred to the statement of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) that the existing law was a conspiracy on the part of the tenant farmers and landlords to defraud other creditors. That was a misrepresentation of the case. He (Sir Henry Holland) had made many inquiries into the matter, and there could be no doubt that a great many farmers would be very sorry to see distress altogether abolished. They knew that in some cases it secured indulgence for them from their landlords against immediate proceedings for rent in arrear; and in the circumstances the power of distress was in no sense a conspiracy on the part of the landlords as against the other creditors, who were in very different relations to the tenant to that held by the landlord.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSregretted very much that this Motion had been brought forward at the present moment. He thought the proposal it contained was a very serious one for the tenant farmer. Hon. Members from Scotland must be aware that he, at all events, was anxious to do all he could for the tenant farmers, as he was concerned in abolishing the Law of Hypothec. But they had to take the state of each country as they found it; and to this question, as to many others, there were two sides. Now, in England it was the boast, and he thought a very just boast, that a man could rise from one position to a higher, and that the state of our laws was favourable to his doing so, if he was industrious and persevering. One of the great objects they had in discussing the Land Bill brought before them the other day was for the purpose of creating peasant proprietorships—that was to say,
  1702
  to give to these Irish people the chance of getting on, as had been said, by their own thews and sinews. In England that was happily the case. He knew many cases in which men had begun with little capital on small farms, and had gradually increased their holdings; and everyone desired that advancement in this way should always be possible for small capitalists with skill, energy, and character. The question was whether, with the Law of Distress, a tenant without capital had not a better chance of obtaining credit than he would have if that law were abolished. He maintained that such a tenant would much more easily procure seed, manure, and other things necessary to the working of his farm in the present state of things than if it were repealed. At all events, the law gave to the tenant without capital the raw material, without which he could not go on. If the law were abolished, great injury would be done to struggling tenants. He could not agree with many of the statements of the hon. Member for Forfarshire, who spoke of the relations between landlord and tenant as a purely commercial transaction. The hon. Member referred to the practice in America, where a substitute was found for the Law of Distress by demanding portions of the rent in advance. Such a practice would be quite inconsistent with all the ordinary processes of agriculture. How could the rent be paid by the small farmer before he received any portion of his crops? Then, said the hon. Member, there was another remedy in Scotland, by which the landlord, if he doubted the solvency of his tenant, might take him into court, and if he could not give the requisite security for rent the landlord might in 14 days recover possession of the farm. That would certainly be an extraordinary and absurd proceeding.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Why, that would take place under your own Bill for the abolition of hypothec.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSShad not heard from the Home Secretary any proposal by which, if the Law of Distress were abolished, he would provide for the landlord's more speedy re-entry upon the land.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was most unfair. If he had been in the House at the time, he would have heard him state most distinctly that if

  1703
  the Law of Distress were abolished it would be right and proper to make provision for the more rapid and effectual recovery of his land by the landlord in case of non-payment of the rent.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his hon. Friends around him had informed him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no practical suggestion. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) thought he had shown the House that if the Law of Distress was absolutely abolished it would work very grievous injury to small struggling tenants, who were not only responsible, but useful members of society. [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY: How about Scotland?] He was talking about England. Looking, however, at the relations existing between landlord and tenant in Scotland and England, he thought they were quite different. He had also shown, too, that the real question was as to whether the landlord was to be allowed to maintain his priority of claim, or whether the manure merchant, or the seed merchant, and the implement manufacturer were to rank with him? It was not a question of loss to the tenant, or of hardship so far as he was concerned. It was rather a creditor's than a tenant's question. This was one of those questions which, at the present moment, was being seriously considered by the Agricultural Commission now sitting. Before that Commission the whole body of the tenant farmers of England would be able to present their grievances; and, as the Report of the Commission would shortly be issued, he thought they should wait until it was in their hands before arriving at a premature decision. If the Previous Question were withdrawn, it was the intention of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) to move an Amendment, limiting the time under the Law of Distress to one or two years; but he complained that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said he would not allow the Previous Question to be withdrawn, but would insist on its being put, and so prevent the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire being put. Such was the determination of the Secretary of State belonging to a Government who called themselves the farmer's friends. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) declined to be a party to the action of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The matter
  1704
  might well stand over until his hon. Friend brought forward a Bill giving expression to his views, and on which Bill the House would have to give an opinion.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, it was unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman was not present during the whole of the debate, as he would then have been saved from some errors into which he had fallen in consequence of having been obliged to make inquiries from his Friends. The right hon. Gentleman had charged his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary with not having made any suggestion if the present Law of Distress was abolished. But his right hon. and learned Friend said distinctly that if the Law of Distress were repealed it would be necessary to give the landlord the power of more speedy re-entry than he now possessed. His hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) said that if the Law of Distress were repealed it might be necessary to give the landlord the power of re-entry within 14 days after rent fell into arrear. And then it was said—Could anything be more tyrannical or less applicable to the relations between landlord and tenant? But a similar proposition had been made last year by a Member of the right hon. Gentleman's own Party, and had been supported by the whole Party. It was exactly the provision contained in the Act abolishing hypothec, and carried by the late Government on the eve of the Dissolution. The only solid piece of argument in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that the abolition of the Law of Distress would be very hard upon small tenants, who, in consequence of the credit given them by the landlords under the protection of the right of distress, were enabled to improve their position. But it was a very extraordinary fact that the most strenuous demand for the abolition of the Law of Hypothec came from the Scotch counties where small tenancies were the rule. And in the Eastern part of the county where his own constituency was situated, the holdings being small, the farmers formed an association before the late Dissolution, and passed a resolution that they would support no candidate who would not vote for the abolition of the Law of Distress, and a former Representative was rejected because he would not do so. Therefore, as a matter of

  1705
  fact, the small farmers of the country did not support this Law of Distress so generally as the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to make out. He (Mr. Courtney) hoped the landlords of England were much better than the right hon. Gentleman represented them to be. The right hon. Gentleman said that the landlords were ready to trust a man with the possession of a farm provided they were themselves guaranteed against loss. The landlords of England were so generous and trusting that they would put a man in possession of a farm knowing that the law gave them this security. They would not be thus generous and trustful if the law did not make them secure. If that was not the argument of the right hon. Gentleman his argument meant nothing. The right hon. Gentleman relied upon the law for enabling the landlords to do that which they would not do were it not for the law. By this language of the right hon. Gentleman great injustice was done to the landlords of England. He was sure, if the Law of Distress were abolished, small farmers, whose capital was not sufficient to stock their farms, would be trusted by the landlords in the future as they had been in the past. The only difference would be this—that if the Law of Distress were abolished, that trust would result from an examination into their character and a belief in their integrity, and not from the knowledge possessed by the landlord that the law would protect him. Did hon. Gentlemen opposite mean that landlords would never give credit to farmers whose character they knew? How many a small trader was able to stock his shop by the assistance of the wholesale merchant and warehouseman who knew him as a clerk without any question of a bill of sale. If there were a bill of sale in the case the man's character would be gone, and nobody would trust him. And in the same manner landowners, having known the man from a boy, how trustworthy and respectable he was, would in the future, as in the past, be ready to put him into a farm in reliance upon his character, and not upon the protection given by the law. The good relations existing at present between landlord and tenant did not exist in consequence of the law, but in spite of it. The law encouraged the landlord to be careless as to the character of his tenants. Let them abolish the law, and they made
  1706
  the landlord careful as to his tenant's character. It might at first diminish the number of competitors for farms. ["No, no!"] Why, it was the whole argument on the other side that the present law increased the quantity of competitors. It enabled men to compete for farms who would not otherwise be in a position to offer for them. Competition would be diminished, and rents would at first fall; but in consequence of the introduction of men of more capital the style of farming would rise, the produce increase, and rents would go up again. The change would ultimately be beneficial for all. He would only add that the Government would have no hesitation in supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  COLONEL MAKINSobserved, that though many hon. Members were willing that the Law of Distress should be modified, the sweeping changes involved in the Resolution ought first to be considered. His chief objection to the abolition of the law was that it would greatly impair the security on which many persons, such as younger children and widows, were dependent for their allowances and jointures. As far as these persons who gave credit to tenants were concerned, the landlord's position was nearly parallel to that of the preferred secured creditors of a Railway Company that had issued preference shares or debenture stock. The total abolition of the law would either ruin those to whom the punctual payment of their rents was a necessity, or lead to the payment of rents in advance, both of which he held to be very undesirable results.
  MR. H. T. DAVENPORTasked leave to withdraw his Amendment. ["No, no!"]
  Previous Question, "That the Original Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Original Question put.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to abolish the power of levying Distress for the Rent of Agricultural Holdings in England, Wales, and Ireland.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS (HALF-PAST TWELVE RULE).

  RESOLUTION.
  Standing Order relative thereto [18th February, 1879] read.
  MR. MONK,in rising to call attention to the state of the Order Book, and to

  1707
  the great public inconvenience caused by the operation of the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule, in enabling a single Member to impede legislation by stopping the progress of any Bill during the entire Session; and to move—
  "That the Standing Order of the 18th February 1879, known as the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule, be now read, and that the following proviso be thereto added, 'Provided always, That this Rule shall not apply to the Motion for leave to bring in a Bill, nor to any Bill which has passed through Committee of the whole House,'"
  said, that the Rule to which he referred was adopted in 1872, and after having been varied in 1874, so as not to apply to Bills which had passed through a Committee of the Whole house, was restored to its original form in the following year, and was so continued till 1879, when it became a Standing Order instead of a Sessional one. The Rule now was that, except a Money Bill, no Order of the Day or Notice of Motion should be taken after half-past 12 o'clock if there was an Amendment placed on the Paper against it. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) in 1879 pointed out that in the opinion of the Speaker this Rule, so far from shortening the Sittings of the House, had had the effect of prolonging them, and that it put into the hands of any Member the power to obstruct the Business of the House; and he (Mr. Monk) quite agreed with the noble Lord that a more convenient engine for obstructing the Business of the House could not be placed in the hands of any individual Member. It had been found that the unnecessary stringency of the Rule had the effect of obstructing Public Business after a comparatively early hour. As opposed Business could not be taken after half-past 12 o'clock, it was becoming the practice for hon. Members to place on the Paper Notices of opposition to almost all the Bills in the Order Book. Taking the Order Beck of that day, he found that one hon. Member had blocked four Notices of Motion and 13 Orders of the Day; and that another opposed one Notice and four Orders. That, he contended, was an abuse of the Rules of the House, and only had the effect of obstructing Business. He had also known instances of an hon. Member blocking the progress of a Bill of which he knew nothing. He (Mr. Monk) had proposed in his original Notice that the names of five Members
  1708
  should be required to block a Bill; but he had been advised to adhere to his Motion as it stood on the Paper. He had no objection to some of the Amendments of which Notice had been given. What he protested against was the possibility of one Member obstructing the progress of a Bill by putting down his name to oppose it. He would remind the House that, under the operation of the Rule, five distinct opportunities presented themselves to an hon. Member of obstructing a Bill in its passage through the House. This was in no sense a private Member's question; indeed, it affected the Business of the Government infinitely more than that of private Members. It was a monstrous thing that the introduction of important Bills by Members of the Government should be stopped night after night by one Member. He hoped the House would agree that, when a measure had been read a second time and the principle affirmed, and when it had been carefully considered in Committee, the Member in charge of it was entitled to some facilities for carrying it through the remaining stages. It was proposed by one Amendment to restrict the application of the Resolution to Government Bills; but the Money Bills of the Government were exempted from the operation of the Rule; and as to other Bills, he did not consider that the Government should have any facilities in this respect that were denied to the Bills of private Members. They were the pioneers of legislation, and, though they were not often successful in carrying their Bills, they paved the way for the Government to take up the question, when the subject had been fully discussed; and he did not, therefore, see why private Members should be obstructed any more than Members of the Government. More than one Member of the Government had expressed his approval of the Motion. This was in no sense a Party question; it was simply a question whether the Business of the House should be facilitated, or whether it should continue to be stopped by a Standing Order two years old. There was a growing feeling among Members that the Rule had not operated to shorten their Sittings or to facilitate legislation. Private Members had secured very little time in the last two Sessions, and he was afraid that they would have very little at the remainder of the present Session.

  1709
  There were 142 Bills on the Order Book, and he asked the House to give the Members in charge of them such facilities as they were fairly entitled to.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKseconded the Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this Rule shall not apply to the Motion for leave to bring in a Bill, nor to any Bill which has passed through Committee of the whole House."—(Mr. Monk.)
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAYsaid, that the hon. Member seemed to think that he gave force to his Motion by describing the Rule as a new Standing Order; but it had been a Sessional Resolution for nine years; it had never been made a Party question; it had been moved by himself as Chairman of the Standing Order Committee, and it had always been warmly supported by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), and the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The Rule was designed to enable legislation to be done in a sensible and business-like way, and to promote the health and comfort of Members. It was originally adopted on the recommendation of a Select Committee, in which the only question was as between 12 o'clock and half-past; the original draft of the Resolution was in the handwriting of the present Prime Minister; it was taken up by Mr. Bouverie, and it was carried in the House by a large majority of Members, painfully convinced of the necessity for some such regulation by the manner in which Business had been carried on since the time when Mr. Brotherton used to move the adjournment of the House at midnight, and the House, with good humour, consented to adjourn on the withdrawal of the Motion after some urgent Business had been transacted. Unfortunately, the good humour was not continued after 1869; the state of things became uncomfortable and intolerable, and hence the adoption of the Rule with reference solely to the health and comfort of Members, and the dignity of their proceedings. He hoped the House would continue a Rule which the last two Parliaments had shown to be necessary. It was quite true—and he was sorry for, it—that the Rule had been abused. Such abuse was not contemplated, and he trusted that this debate would induce
  1710
  Members to refrain from abusing it. It might be provided that, as there must be the names of two Members on the back of a Bill, so it should require the names of two Members to block a Bill.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he did not understand that the Motion was aimed at the abolition of the Standing Order. The question was rather whether it should not be in some way qualified, in order that the attempts by private Members to effect legislation of a useful character should not be rendered abortive by the caprice of a single Member. It was anomalous that one Member should be able to paralyze legislation in the way it was done under this Rule. When a Bill had been read a second time its principle might be regarded as confirmed by the House; and it certainly seemed a stretch of power on the part of an individual Member to block its further progress. The same argument applied with, perhaps, greater force to Bills which had passed the ordeal of a Select Committee. He would therefore move to amend the Motion of the hon. Member for Gloucester by inserting the words "a Select Committee or" before the word "Committee," the effect of which would be that the Order should not apply to any Bill that had passed through either a Select Committee or a Committee of the Whole House. He acknowledged that the Rule possessed the advantage of enabling private Members to know when they might be certain that their own Bills, if opposed, could not come on.
  MR. SPEAKERruled that the hon. Member could not now move his Amendment, as the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had precedence.
  MR. R. N. FOWLER,in moving to amend the Motion by inserting the word "Government" before the word "Bill," said, the Rule had been introduced because of the constant Motions for adjournment by which minorities had worn out the House. Those who did not recollect the old system had had a specimen in the opposition raised to the Bill of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) on a recent occasion. He believed that the half-past 12 o'clock Rule had on the whole worked well, and that if the Sittings of the House had been late it was not owing to its operation. The cases

  1711
  in which it had not worked well, in his opinion, were those of Government Bills; and it would be well, he thought, that the Government of the day should have the opportuity of introducing their measures without being blocked; for all subjects requiring legislation ought to be dealt with by them. His contention was that all a private Member could expect in the way of facilities for any Motion he had to make was that he should have an opportunity of placing his views before the House, and if they commended themselves to it, that he should bring in a Bill to carry them out. He did not think they should give him further facilities. He should, however, be quite willing that facilities should be given to the Government to bring in a Bill on the question raised, as he believed that no Government would propose to bring in a Bill that was not worthy the attention of the House; but he should oppose any such attempt as that proposed in the Motion of his hon. Friend to give private Members increased facilities for the introduction of their Bills.
  Amendment proposed, to insert before the first word "Bill," the word "Government."—(Mr. Robert Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Government' be there inserted."
  MR. W. H. JAMESthought it would be a good thing if the half-past 12 o'clock Rule were done away with altogether, for he was of opinion that nothing could be more unreasonable than the power which the Rule gave to any private Member to obstruct measures which might be approved of in principle by the House. The House of Commons was not merely a place in which hon. Members could let off superfluous steam, it being the duty of private Members to initiate Bills and to carry them to a successful issue whenever possible. The performance of this duty was rendered almost impossible by the Rule which the House had laid down, and which constituted a most terrible weapon of obstruction. One great evil caused by the Rule was that it originated "Lobby legislation," all sorts of arrangements being made between private Members. Instead of transacting their business as practical legislators, within the House, they were obliged to resort to outside bargaining in order to get their measures
  1712
  through. An opponent of a Bill had been known to remove a blocking Notice in consideration of receiving two orders for seats in the Ladies' Gallery. He had placed an Amendment on the Paper proposing that no Bill should be blocked unless 10 Members gave Notice of opposition. That proposal being thought slightly unreasonable by some of his hon. Friends, he suggested that the number 10 should be reduced to three. He also thought that a Member, after giving Notice of opposition, ought to be in his place to move it.
  COLONEL MAKINSmaintained that the Rule with which some hon. Members were dissatisfied had acted well, both in the interests of the procedure of the House and in the interests of the health and comfort of the Members. The object of the Motion was to forward private Members' legislation; but he ventured to think that if it were carried the effect would be to keep Members who were opposed to the passing of particular Private Bills in their places until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, and that without in the least advancing private Members' legislation, as adjournments would always be moved. While on that ground he objected to the Motion, he equally objected to the Amendment, because he thought the Government of the day ought to be allowed to press on their legislation when there was a necessity to do so. He hoped, however, the House would not agree to the Resolution. They had not all the iron constitution of the hon. Member for Gloucester, to whom the small hours of the morning seemed to be the busiest of the 24.
  MR. RYLANDSobserved, that if the Motion were carried, the only mode independent Members would have of defeating a Bill to which they objected would be at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning moving the adjournment of the debate or of the House. In his judgment, it was undesirable to give undue facilities for legislation to private Members. His strong impression was that they were already over-legislated for. While he was quite willing that hon. Gentlemen should have every reasonable facility for bringing forward their views, he was opposed to the giving of extraordinary facilities for the promotion of amateur legislation, or for compelling. hon. Members to sit up night after night to criticize Private Bills. At the same

  1713
  time, he did not say that the present Rule had not been abused. It had been, he thought, in the case of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who seemed to block Bills whether they objected to them or not. Still, the more he examined the proposal of his hon. Friend the less he liked it. He would, however, be prepared to support a modification of the Resolution to the effect that two or three Members should agree in giving Notice to block Bills.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKbelieved that, upon the whole, the half-past 12 o'clock Rule had worked well. At the same time, he was of opinion that private Members' Bills should be allowed to be introduced after that hour, and should not be blocked at that time after going through Committee. He thought the proposal of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) was a reasonable one, for it seemed very undesirable that when the House had accepted the principle of a Bill, and considered all the clauses, it should be in the power of a single Member practically to veto the Bill.
  MR. NEWDEGATEopposed the Motion, on the ground that it would not be possible for the senior Members of the House to continue their services to the House if they were compelled to remain in the House until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. He was diametrically opposed to the first part of the proposal of the hon. Member for Gloucester, that the introduction of Bills should not be opposed, and hoped that the House would not, without mature consideration, depart from a Rule which was framed in the interests of independent Members, and had been found to be consistent with efficiency in the conduct of Business. After the experience of last Session, he wished to know whether it was desirable or reasonable to ask the House to sit for more hours than it did under the present Rule?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, as has been already stated, this question has never been treated hitherto as a Party one, neither is it one in which the Government are peculiarly interested; and it appears to me that we should do well to continue to treat it in the same spirit and in the same way as it has been treated on former occasions by both sides of the House. The subject is eminently one for the determination of
  1714
  the House, and to be decided by the House on a consideration of that which is best suited for its own convenience, and that which will conduce most to the proper conduct of its own Business. The Government, no doubt, are interested in the question; but they are interested in a different way from that in which private Members are interested in it. In some respects they are more interested than private Members, and in other respects they are less interested. They are more interested because they introduce a greater amount of legislation than that which is introduced by private Members; but, on the other hand, they are less interested, because they have a greater command of the time of the House, and it is more competent for them, from time to time, to avail themselves of the opportunity of placing their Bills in a position where they are not susceptible of being blocked by opposition and by the operation of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule, a power which private Members do not possess. Therefore, the Government, though interested, are interested in a different way from private Members. I propose, however, to treat the question as one affecting mainly private Members, and not the Government. There can be no doubt, as has already been pointed out, that a considerable abuse exists in the use which has been made of the Rule. It certainly was not intended that Bills which have the approval of the great majority of the House, or which, at all events, are supposed to receive the support of the great majority of the House, and which the House generally is anxious to discuss, should absolutely be prevented from being discussed at all, at the will of a small number of Members, or, perhaps, even of one Member only. No doubt, that has been a great abuse. On the other hand, I must point out that the Rule was introduced in the interests of the great body of hon. Members, for the purpose of protecting them against an evil of another kind. If no such Rule existed, it was possible for a persevering Member, by persistently putting down his Bill night after night, to exhaust the patience of those who were opposed to him, and, perhaps, at some advanced hour of the morning, when nobody was expecting it, he found himself able to slip it through. Or, if he did not do that, it was possible for him to put

  1715
  a considerable number of Members to great inconvenience by compelling them to sit up, night after night, for the purpose of opposing a Bill which, after all, might never be brought forward. On the whole, I believe the Rule has worked well, that it has been for the convenience of the House, and that the House would not be willing to part with it. Some very high authorities, who were examined before the Committee of 1878, expressed their opinion that the Rule had worked satisfactorily. I come, then, to the question of limitation proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). My hon. Friend is of opinion that it is expedient some limitation should be placed upon the operation of the Rule; and I must say that it does appear to me the limitations proposed by my hon. Friend are reasonable. As to the limitation with regard to Bills that have passed through Committee, I have referred to what took place in this House in 1874. I find that the limitation which my hon. Friend now suggests was introduced then, and that it was supported by the then Leader of the House (Mr. Disraeli). The Rule in that year was passed with this particular limitation; but in the next year it was passed without it. Mr. Disraeli, on that occasion, pointed out that it had never come into operation in regard to the Committee stage of a Bill, because no Bill against which a blocking Notice had been placed ever reached a Committee. I am afraid that that would be so now, and I cannot hold out to my hon. Friend any hope that if the House agrees to his proposal it will be of material assistance to private Members. But it does appear to me that both limitations are reasonable in themselves. In regard to the other limitation, I think it is somewhat invidious that one hon. Member should be able to refuse to another hon. Member the power of showing to the House what is the nature of the legislation he proposes. If that legislation is of such a character as to be obviously objectionable, he would be able to induce the House to reject it; but I do not see why it should be practically rejected without the House having even an opportunity of seeing in What way the hon. Member who proposes legislation intends to deal with the question he is desirous of legislating upon. It would be far better that an hon. Mem-
  1716
  ber who objects should be required to get up in his place and oppose the introduction of a measure, and that the Rule should not be allowed to operate in excluding a Member from bringing forward a Motion for leave to bring in a Bill. As I have said, the other limitation is also reasonable, because when a Bill stands for Committee it is obvious that, at all events, opportunities have been afforded for discussing it in all its previous stages, and it is only reasonable to suppose that such a Bill has met with a considerable amount of support. If, therefore, my hon. Friend goes to a division I shall be disposed to support him in the proposition he makes, although I cannot hold out any hope to him that it would tend very greatly to facilitate legislation by private Members. As to the Amendments which have been suggested, I will only say a word. The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler) proposes that the limitation should be confined to Bills introduced by the Government. Although I ought to be grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion, it is one which I am not disposed to adopt, because I think it would make an invidious exception. As I have said before, although the Government undertake more legislation than private Members, yet, on the other hand, they have more time at their disposal; and I do not think the House would be inclined to give them further exceptional facilities over independent Members. The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) is, I have no doubt, aimed at the protection of the House against a very great abuse—that is to say, one Member blocking a Bill. I am not altogether disposed to support my hon. Friend in that Amendment; it would introduce an entirely new principle, for we have never yet recognized the principle of requiring any particular course of opposition in this House to have the sanction and support of two or three, or five, or 10 Members. And I doubt, further, whether, if adopted, the Amendment would have any practical effect. A Member desirous of blocking a Bill would generally find very little difficulty in getting two or three, or even 10 Members to support him. I therefore think that no substantial advantage would be gained by accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend. If

  1717
  the House is inclined to adopt the limitations suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, I would recommend it to be satisfied with them at present, and ascertain what the effect of their operation will be before consenting to go further. For my own part, I shall certainly support what appears to me to be a reasonable limitation of a very popular Rule.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry that the noble Marquess had not followed up his very excellent opening observations to their legitimate conclusion. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) intended to vote against the original proposal and against all the Amendments which had been placed on the Paper in reference to it, because he was of opinion that the original proposition of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) and all the Amendments proceeded altogether in a wrong direction. The reform of the House was a reform which should begin, not at midnight, but at a very much earlier hour. The whole difficulty of the position in which Parliament found itself placed was the creation of two circumstances, neither of which it suited the convenience of Parliament to face. The first cause of the block in Parliament was that Parliament had too much to do, and the second cause was that Parliament did not meet at the proper time of day. If any person with a turn for satirical description were to give a life-like chronicle of the daily proceedings of the House, such a description would almost annihilate the plea of the English people on behalf of the expediency of Parliamentary Government. What was usually the characteristic formula of the proceedings of the House? At 10 minutes to 4 o'clock Mr. Speaker took the Chair, and in order to secure a seat a fit of devotion seized hon. Members. But he always observed that while private Members were constant in their attendance at the hour of devotion, those upon whom the duty of managing the affairs of the country devolved were always absent at prayer time, their seats being secured by usage. Then, after prayers, occurred a dreary void, which was filled up in a manner that was utterly unknown to many Members of the House. He had a vague idea that some mumbling went on between some person who for the time being repre-
  1718
  sented the Government on the Treasury Bench, and Mr. Speaker got up several times in the course of as many minutes, and he believed that a Railway Bill passed for some place, and a Gas Bill for some other place. That, however, was all imagination on his part, and must be imagination on the part of most other Members. In that way the first half-hour and 10 minutes were spent in prayers, at which Ministers did not attend, and in Private Business to which nobody listened. At half-past 4 there came a great rush of the hardy sons of legislative toil, who gathered in a mass to devote all their energies and enthusiasm to the discharge of the Business of the country. But by half-past 5 o'clock, when every hon. Member had asked a question about the affairs of his parish vestry, or about the interests of his constituents, who were rather pressing, in their epistolatory demands upon his attention—when hon. Members had made that daily appearance which was necessary in order to keep their names before the public and before their constituents—half-past 5 o'clock was reached. Now, he did not think there was an hon. Member in that House who was not of opinion that someone daily asked a Question which need not have been asked. Of course, hon. Members were not so critical in regard to the Questions they asked themselves; but that was merely Human nature. Then, from half-past 5 to 7 o'clock, the House was in full working order—that was to say, the earnest desire for work in that House was so great that they were willing to be amused by some rattling speaker for about an hour. And when it came to 7 o'clock the House was a perfect void; and, so far as the progress of legislation for the country was concerned, the House might to all intents be adjourned. This state of things lasted from 7 until 9 o'clock. [An hon. MEMBER: Or 10 o'clock.] Well, he was not intimately acquainted with the usages of London society, and accordingly he would accept the correction and say 10 o'clock. But he would ask of what possible use could it be for a Member to get up and address a House consisting of Mr. Speaker, who, he was afraid, could not always be an attentive listener, and some two or three other Members? The House of Commons was a deliberative Assembly. The theory was that the speeches of hon.

  1719
  Members were addressed to the consideration of the House; but speeches could not be addressed to the consideration of a House which did not exist, and accordingly the speeches which were made between 7 and 10 o'clock were under the suspicion that they were meant, not for the hearing and deliberation of the House, but for the consideration of the outside public. He would put it to the House whether, if hon. Members were desirous of addressing their constituents, they could not do so just as well by writing letters to the newspapers, or by earning a few guineas by contributing to the magazines, instead of keeping up the farce of a deliberative Assembly when all the deliberators were dining? At 10 o'clock the House reassembled, and again it was most eager for work—as eager for work as gentlemen usually were who had just partaken of dinner and its accompaniments. But he would put it to any man who took a serious view of the Business of the House whether the interval between 7 and 10 spent in dining was the best preparation for the calm and mature, and grave and cool consideration of the momentous questions with which the House had to deal. He had ventured, when addressing the working classes on this question, to say that the deliberations of Parliament concerning the destinies and well-being of millions existing and to come, were conducted in a manner, and at a time, when no carpenter would be allowed to perform a job for which he was paid 30 s. a-week. He ventured to think that all this pointed a moral, and the moral was this—that at present the people of England, the people of Scotland, and the people of Ireland were almost entirely unrepresented in that so-called representative Assembly. The House was representative of the aristocracy, of the squirarchy, and of the capitalists; but it was in no sense of the word representative of the toiling masses of the English, Scotch, and Irish people. [Cries of "Question!"] He believed that he was speaking to the Question.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the Question before the House is a Motion for the amendment of the Standing Order in regard to Public Business.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had been endeavouring to show that the present hours of the House might be
  1720
  suited to the wealthy, but that they were not suited to the toiling classes of the country. By way of enforcing that argument, he was attempting to show how those hours suited the House, because it was really not a representative Assembly. The proposals of the hon. Member for Gloucester, of the hon. Member for Gateshead, and of the other hon. Members who had placed Amendments on the Paper, proceeded altogether in a wrong direction, because the reform of the House which was really necessary was to be sought not in facilitating legislation after midnight, but in the House meeting at 12 o'clock in the day, and transacting the Business of the country in the grave and sober manner in which it ought to be transacted.
  MR. DENIS O'CONORdesired to say a few words on the Motion which had been presented to the House. He had always been a strong supporter of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule; and if he thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) in any way desired to do away with that Rule he would be the last man in that House to support him. But he did not consider that the proposition of his hon. Friend in any way affected the principle of the half-past 12 Rule. In the first place, when the half-past 12 Rule was introduced, there was not the slightest idea that it would ever be applied to the introduction of a Bill, or would operate in preventing a discussion from being taken on a first reading. Therefore, when it was passed, it was never contemplated that through its means Bills would be prevented from being even introduced into the House at all. But what had been the result? At first the introduction of a Bill was occasionally opposed, and the consequence of the existence of the half-past 12 Rule was that it was prevented from being brought in. But this year they had witnessed the establishment of an entirely new state of things. It had become almost the invariable rule to put down a blocking Notice against the introduction of Bills, and the consequence was that a great number of valuable measures had been prevented from being submitted to the House at all. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the House. As a general rule, the only chance a private Member had of getting a day for the

  1721
  discussion of a Bill was by introducing it in the early part of the Session. It generally happened that, after the first day of the Session, every Wednesday until the end of the Session was filled up. According to the ordinary practice of the House, hon. Members balloted on the first day of the Session for the opportunity of bringing forward their Bills. The Bills themselves were usually introduced on the second day of the Session. It generally happened that the debate on the Address lasted until 12 or half-past; and if any hon. Member chose to place a blocking Notice on the Paper no Bill could be introduced on that second day. What had happened in this very Session? The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) blocked an important Bill relating to Irish Business, which the Irish Members generally supported—namely, the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) dealing with the question of the Irish franchise. It was blocked on the first day of the Session. The Irish Members were most anxious to have it discussed; but the blocking Notice of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport stood in the way, and it could not be introduced, while other Bills of far less importance obtained precedence over it. What would be the result? Hon. Members who had Bills down for introduction on the second day of the Session, if they found their measures were going to be blocked, would in self-defence block other Bills, so as to put themselves on a level with other Members. The introduction of all Bills would, consequently, be postponed from day to day, and hon. Members who had placed their names on the back of Bills would be obliged to wait in the House from day to day, in order to get a chance of introducing them. That was the result which would inevitably follow if the proposal of the hon. Member for Gloucester was not adopted. He therefore thought it would be to the advantage of all private Members that they should pass the Resolution of his hon. Friend, excluding the stage of the introduction of a Bill from the operation of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule. The second part of the Resolution related to Bills which had passed through a Committee of the House. That Rule, as had already been stated by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), was quite familiar to the House, because it
  1722
  had already been in force for one Session. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), whom he was glad to see in his place, had been quoted by the Chairman of the Standing Order Committee as a great supporter of the half past 12 Rule; but, if he were not mistaken, it was on the Motion of that hon. Member that the original Resolution relating to Bills which had passed through Committee was adopted. Nobody, therefore, could say that the adoption of the second part of the Resolution of the hon. Member for Gloucester would be in any way hostile to the working of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. D. O'Conor) was prepared to vote for both of the proposals of the hon. Member for Gloucester.
  SIR R.ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not rise to speak to the question at issue, but in a few words to do all he could to remove a misunderstanding which, owing to pure accident, had occurred in connection with this Motion, and which had acted, to a certain extent, upon a number of hon. Gentlemen. It was this—that they on that side of the House had been given to understand that the Government intended to support the Rule as it stood. He would not, of course, state that fact if he had not the authority of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Richard Grosvenor) for so doing; but the result had been that many hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen were absent, who would have been present had the accidental misunderstanding in question not arisen. It now appeared that the Government were inclined to support the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk); he thought that the most proper course would be to adjourn the debate. He threw out this suggestion in perfect good faith, because it was quite clear that, whatever conclusion might be arrived at, it would hardly be satisfactory to the House, and the matter would have to be argued again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire that a number of his Friends had left the House in consequence of the communication made to them, it is, of course, impossible for Her Majesty's

  1723
  Government to oppose the Motion for adjournment. I regret extremely that there should have been any misunderstanding of the nature alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman. Until a short time before the House met, I was not aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not he able to be present. I have indicated my opinion generally that the Rule ought to be supported; but I certainly have no intention of precluding the consideration of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. Under the circumstances, I feel we cannot do otherwise than assent to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that he and several hen. Members on that side of the House were rather astonished at the turn which the debate had taken. Had this been a Government Motion one could have understood the position; but as it was the Motion of a private Member, surely the right way would have been to consult with the hon. Member in charge of it, and then there could have been no misunderstanding whatever. The misunderstanding which had arisen was certainly owing to no fault on the part of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, but to something that had occurred on the Front Bench. Surely, as the noble Marquess had admitted there was some mistake, hon. Members were entitled to ask for au assurance that the debate should be resumed during the Session, because if an adjournment took place, or if the Motion had to be balloted for over and over again, it was clear that it would be shelved altogether. He trusted, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would promise some facilities for the resumption of the debate.
  MR. MONKthought it right to remind the House that this Motion had been upon the Notice Paper for four weeks. The noble Lord described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South West Lancashire as the "Whip" had not consulted him, nor had he (Mr. Monk) consulted the Government upon this matter. He had seen the noble Lord at 10 o'clock that evening, who informed him that he thought the Government would oppose the Motion. The question, however, was the course to be pursued under the circumstances. If he assented to the adjournment of the de-
  1724
  bate, he supposed the Motion would become an Order of the Day; but it would be very low on the list, and there would be little probability of his being able to bring it forward again during the Session. After the speeches made on both sides of the House, and the remarks contributed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), he felt there must be a desire on the part of the House that the question should be put to the vote at no distant day. For that reason he appealed to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India to give facilities for the question to be brought to an issue at an early period. If the noble Lord would accede to this proposal, lie would at once assent to the Motion for the adjournment.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the proceedings appeared to him, on the whole, to be somewhat novel. It would seem that there was a system by which the Business of the House was, to a certain extent, conducted and settled by private communications behind the Chair of Mr. Speaker. On the present occasion. when a matter concerning the whole House was brought forward, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Richard Grosvenor), without consulting the hon. Member whose Motion was before the House, had put himself in communication with hon. Members sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, and informed them that the Government intended to oppose the Motion. That information was disseminated amongst Gentlemen sitting on and behind the Front Opposition Bench; but those occupying seats below the Gangway were not honoured with any communication upon the subject. In his opinion, nothing was wore calculated to detract from the dignity of Parliamentary proceedings than the system to which he called attention. He appealed to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury that, in future, he would be good enough to communicate to hon. Members below the Gangway, who did not belong to either the Conservative or Liberal Party, as well as to other hon. Members, the course which the Government intended to pursue with regard to any question in which the whole House was concerned. He would also ask the noble Lord to ascertain that the communications which, in future, he might make to

  1725
  hon. Members sitting on that side of the House were a little more reliable than that which had been made in the course of the evening.
  MR. DILLWYNunderstood that the Government had some difficulty in continuing the debate, but failed to see why they should compromise the rest of the House. Unless some satisfactory arrangement could be arrived at by which the hon. Member for Gloucester should have an opportunity of proceeding with his Motion, which was one of great importance to all sections of the House, he thought they ought to proceed to a division.
  MR. BRIGGSobserved, that the principal culprit was the hon. and learned Member who represented Bridport (Mr. Warton), a borough which, according to the last Return of the Registrar General, had, he believed, receded to the position of a village. That hon. and learned Member had blocking Notices upon the Paper against 13 Orders of the Day and four Motions. If he understood the Motion of the hon. Member for Gloucester aright, it did not seek the abolition, but the modification, of the Standing Order, and the result of its rejection appeared to him would be that those hon. Members who were refused the power of introducing Bills would be obliged to put down Motions on going into Committee of Supply. The Business of the House would certainly not be facilitated by forbidding hon. Members to have their Bills printed. He trusted the discussion would be allowed to proceed without any further complications.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, on a former occasion he had given way on a Motion for the second reading of a Bill, which, at the time, there was no doubt would have been carried, in deference to the wish of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire. He was afterwards astonished to find that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport had availed himself of the opportunity for blocking the Bill, and he (Sir John Lubbock) had not since been able to bring it again before the House. He trusted, therefore, that if the hon. Member for Gloucester now gave way he would not be prevented from bringing forward the question on a future evening. Even under those circumstances the result of the adjournment would be most unsatisfactory. They had had an inte-
  1726
  resting discussion, and it appeared to him that the majority of hon. Members present were distinctly in favour of the Motion of his hon. Friend; when, however, the question was again brought forward, it would have to be decided by hon. Members who had not heard the arguments which had been advanced.
  MR. CALLANpointed out that out of seven Notices which he had placed upon the Paper four had been blocked by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport. He could not complain of the hon. and learned Member exercising his discretion in a matter of the kind, because he was aware that had he not given Notice of opposition in two cases it would have been given by the junior Government Whip. The fact, also, that the hon. Member had removed those blocking Notices at the request of the Government Whip indicated a peculiar mixing up of parties. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport having simply performed his office at the suggestion of others, he did not think the whole blame should be accumulated upon him.
  MR. HEALYpointed out that no Member of the Irish Party had blocked any Bill by means of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule. He suggested that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport should be "named" by Mr. Speaker on the ground that by putting down blocking Motions he had been guilty of obstruction.
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAYsaid, it was to be regretted that a mistake had arisen. It had, however, been pointed out by the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and dealt with in an honourable way. Everyone on that side of the House recognized the manner in which the noble Marquess opposite always met them in matters of the kind. The Motion was one which, if an adjournment were assented to by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), should, undoubtedly, be brought again before the House at an early date.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, it did not rest alone with the Government to guarantee that an opportunity should be afforded for the consideration of this Resolution. It appeared to him some assurance should be given by hon. Gentlemen opposite that nothing like a block or obstruction should proceed from their

  1727
  quarter of the House. It was very proper and reasonable to ask that facilities should be afforded for the bringing forward of this Resolution on an early occasion.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, the blocking Notice which stood in his name was favourable to Her Majesty's Government, and while that Notice stood he did not apprehend there could be a new Notice.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday.

CUSTOMS (OUTPORT OFFICERS).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. NORWOOD,in rising to move—
  "That the disadvantageous position in which Customs Out-door Officers at the outports are placed, in respect of salary, as compared with Customs Officers of the same rank, and performing the same duties, at London and Liverpool, is unjust to those officers and prejudicial to the public service,"
  said, the question was a very simple one, and on that account he need not detain the House more than a few minutes. The grievance under which the Customs outport officers—a very meritorious class of public servants—laboured was simply this, that whereas they had to undergo the same competitive examination and the same conditions with regard to age, and had to perform identically the same duties as those officers of the same rank stationed at London and Liverpool, it so happened that, in pursuance of an old and anomalous rule, they received salaries amounting to 20 or 30 per cent less than those officers at London and Liverpool. To show the absurdity and injustice of the rule, he might state that in every port of the United Kingdom, save London and Liverpool, the men of the second class commenced duties at a salary of £55 a-year, and increased to £65. In London and Liverpool, however, the men of the same rank commenced at £75 a-year and increased to £85. The disproportion existed in the other classes. He did not know what reason could be adduced for this anomaly; and he was anxious to hear what the Secretary to the Treasury would have to say on the subject. Some 50 years ago there might have been a reason for the difference; but the facility of communication had
  1728
  now equalized prices of necessaries of life, and now the men stationed at Glasgow, Belfast, Hull, or Bristol, were at the same expense as the officers living in London and Liverpool. Before he undertook to bring this question before the House he made inquiry on this point, and he had found that the men really found that London was the cheapest place to live in. Though house rent was high in London, the necessaries of life might be obtained more cheaply than in almost any of our large towns. But there was another anomaly to which the outport officers at the smaller ports were exposed, and that was in reference to promotion. When a man once entered this service as a second-class man, he was very likely to die a second-class man. There was no such distinction in any other branch of Her Majesty's Service. He would be met, no doubt, with the taunt from the Treasury Bench that it was extremely improper for a private Member to bring forward such a Motion as the present. He could not agree with this view. It was only within the last few years that the Revenue officers had obtained the franchise; they had a fair case for the consideration of Government and Parliament; and it was very right that a Member particularly concerned in their well-being should bring forward their case. The number of outport officers in Great Britain and Ireland was about 2,100. Those men stationed in London and Liverpool were properly remunerated; but it was absurd to suppose that the men in charge of Her Majesty's Revenue at Glasgow, Bristol, Hull, Belfast, and other places, could maintain a decent position upon the magnificent salary of £55, with an increment at the rate of £1 per annum. The total amount of revenue which passed through the hands of these officials was £23,500,000 a-year. The cost of the Customs Establishment was £800,000; and the concession he sought might, he believed, be made at an expense to the country of not more than £15,000 a-year. He put it to the Government and to his noble Friend who would answer him, why the men stationed at Glasgow, at Bristol, at Hull, at Belfast, at Newcastle, at Leith, or at Greenock, and performing precisely the same duties as those officers in London and Liverpool, should be remunerated in this paltry and unequal manner? He

  1729
  called upon the Government to give an assurance that the case of these poor men should be considered. He had no doubt that the old argument would be repeated that, notwithstanding the wretched pittance given to the outport officers, they had plenty of candidates for the position, and why should the salary be increased? That was scarcely a business-like view to take of the matter. A man should be fairly remunerated for Ms labour; and he (Mr. Norwood) ventured once more to say that it did appear a monstrous anomaly that there should be a difference, amounting to between 20 and 30 per cent, in the pay of men simply because the poorer paid men happened to be stationed at other ports than London or Liverpool.
  MR. HENEAGEseconded the Motion. The figures and facts of the case could not be denied, and the only reason why the anomaly complained of was allowed to exist was that there was an old rule bearing on the point. It might be argued that if persons could be found to perform the duties of Customs officers at the outports for the salaries now prevailing, so could men be found to do the same work in London and Liverpool on the same terms; and, therefore, it was the duty of the Government, in the interest of the public purse, to cut down the salaries of the officers stationed at London and Liverpool rather than increase the remuneration of the officers at the outports. He was sure no one in the House would wish to see the salaries cut down, when they were cut down enough already. In his opinion, the same class of men, wherever stationed, should be paid at one uniform ratio.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the disadvantageous position in which Customs Out-door Officers at the Outports are placed, in respect of salary, as compared with Customs Officers of the same rank, and performing the same duties, at London and Liverpool, is unjust to those officers, and prejudicial to the public service."—(Mr. Norwood.)
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, as one who had been in the Civil Service, he wished, on behalf of the servants in every branch of that Service, to express their sense of the position of these unfortunate men. He was personally acquainted with men in almost every branch of the Civil Service, and from all he had heard the expression of the one sentiment that the condition of the outport Customs
  1730
  officers was simply infamous. Not only with regard to pay and promotion were they unfairly dealt with—he could assure the House that all questions of Departmental re-organization were pretty certain to be settled in favour of the men at head-quarters and opposed to the interests of the outport officers. Having been at head-quarters himself, and having witnessed several re-organizations of Departments, he was perfectly convinced that on each occasion such reorganization was carried out—first of all, in the interest of the men at head-quarters; secondly, in the interest of the Public Service; and never in the interest of the men at the out-stations. If the House wanted to see justice done, he would urge upon them to take the matter in hand themselves, because it was needless to rely upon the heads of Departments in London.
  DR. LYONSsaid, it must be remembered that the officers in question held very responsible positions, and were exposed to great temptations. It was, therefore, of the greatest consequence that they should be men of high moral character. At present they were most inadequately remunerated, and there was no reason why they should continue to be so invidiously treated as they were now. The total number of officers to be considered was, in round figures, close on 1,100, located at 130 different outports in the United Kingdom, the principal of which were Dublin, Glasgow, Bristol, Hull, &c. The average salary of all these officers was only £65. In the first class, about three-fifths of the officers had served for periods varying from 25 to 47 years, and with that number the prospects of promotion were virtually nothing more than the attainment of the maximum salary of £85 per annum. In the second, two-thirds of the officers had not yet attained to even the average salary of their class; whilst the field open for their promotion was so very limited—the proportion of vacancies to be competed for in the superior grades to the number of officers eligible being about one to eight—that their prospects in the Service were perfectly deplorable. By contrasting the scale of remuneration of governing officers of the same grade at Loudon and Liverpool—equalization with which was sought as the main clement of redress at present—they would be enabled to estimate approximately the

  1731
  aggregate additional public expenditure which would be entailed by according to outport out-door officers the boon they sought. The London and Liverpool officers, 1,000 in number, had an average of £84; the outport officers, 1,100 in number, an average of only £65—difference, £19. It might be mentioned that about 60 of the outport officers received £10 per annum additional for the performance of duties pertaining to the superior officers, while 240 were called upon for the occasional performance of similar superior duties without receiving any remuneration whatever therefor. For all these reasons, he begged most strongly to recommend the case of these officers to the consideration of the House. The contention that a higher salary was called for by the greater expense and exigencies of London life, could not, he was informed, be sustained for one moment, as it was believed that for persons of a certain grade of life, the scale of living in London was more varied, more abundant, and very much cheaper than at the outports; while the facilities for the education of children were infinitely greater. He would not add anything to what had been so well said as to the vast revenue to the State of which these officers were the collectors, and on whose zeal, energy, and integrity the country had to place such large dependence.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHhoped the House would carefully consider what would be the effect of the adoption of this Resolution. On general grounds there were serious objections to a Motion of this character. When the House took upon itself the responsibility of proposing additional expenditure, and of dealing with a great Public Service, it undertook the functions of the Executive, and relieved the Government from responsibility for the expenditure so incurred. He would venture, also, respectfully to put before the House another consideration which should have some weight. The discipline of the Public Service was an important consideration, and he could not disguise from himself the fact that the constant appeals which had been made to this House by members of the Civil Service since they had been enfranchised had largely interfered with that discipline. ["No, no!"] Well, he was speaking about that of which he knew something,
  1732
  and he dealt with the question with a due sense of responsibity. The men in the Civil Service no longer felt that it was to the heads of their Departments that they must mainly look for the redress of any grievance they supposed to exist—they felt, instead, that they must look to their Representatives in Parliament. As he had said, the question was not one which he considered was desirable, with the imperfect knowledge at its command, that the House should deal with; but if it were decided otherwise, it should be referred to a Select Committee, which would have the power of taking evidence and going fully into detail. Parliament had deliberately decided that Civil Service officials should be enfranchised; and it was said that, such being the case, there was nothing more natural than that they should press their claims upon the attention of their Representatives, and, through those Gentlemen, upon the attention of Parliament. If the House had known how the Civil Service servants would use their votes, and had known what would take place, they would have thought twice ere they conferred the enfranchisement. The members of the Civil Service were enfranchised that they might discharge their ordinary duties as citizens, and not to enable them to promote their own special and private interests. If this was the case as a general principle, there were other reasons why, in this particular instance, the House should hesitate before passing this Resolution. It was most undesirable that there should be constant re-arrangement and re - organization of the Civil Service Establishments. The whole Customs Establishment had been most carefully re-organized, not by the present, but by the late, Government; and in the year 1876, these very men who were now complaining had their position improved. Instead of a quinquennial increase of salary, the increments were made annual, which was a decided and important improvement of their position.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: What advance was made?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Before, they had to wait five years for an increase; but, by the new arrangement, they received an increase at the end of the first year, and at the end of every succeeding year.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: What was the amount?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHreplied, that the increase was £1 annually. In addition to this boon, they were also given their uniform free of charge, instead of having to provide it for themselves as they had hitherto done. Well, although, no doubt, these men were of high character, and were very useful, the duties they had to perform were not of a very highly intellectual order.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: They have to pass Civil Service examinations. ["Order!"]
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the position they held was such as required character and honesty, but no unusual amount of intelligence, and, from the statement which had been made to the House, it was clear that these engagements were very much sought after. He would read the statistics for three last examinations, which would give some idea of the number of candidates who offered themselves for the vacancies as they occurred. In August, 1880, there were 35 vacancies and 401 candidates; in November of the same year there were 50 vacancies and 532 candidates; and in February, 1881, there were 50 vacancies and 533 candidates. And he was told that not only were there these large number of candidates, but that the men who applied for the situations were perfectly well fitted for the position, and did their duty well and ably. It had been said that the rule under which the men were paid was an old one, and had not been considered by him. At any rate, it had been most carefully considered by his Predecessors; and in 1879 a question was put to the hon. Member then in Office by an hon. Friend behind him very similar to that which had been put this evening, and the reply was given that so far from it being the fact that these men had exactly the same duties to perform in the outports as in Liverpool and London, the duties in those large places were more arduous and responsible than in the outports. It was stated, at the same time, as an undoubted fact, that the cost of living at the outports was less than in Liverpool and London. The men who competed for the situations were all of the same class, so that if the salaries were made quite uniform what state of
  1734
  things should we have? Why, as the men who were most successful in the competition would, naturally, have a choice of places, they—the best men—would select the places where the work was the lightest and the cost of living the lowest. The most capable men would go to the outports, where the duties were least onerous and responsible. It, therefore, appeared to him that there was abundant reason why the salaries of the officers at the outports should be lower than those of the officers in London and Liverpool. For the reasons he had given, he trusted the House would not accept the Resolution.
  COLONEL MAKINSwould not detain the House many minutes; but, as he knew there was a very strong feeling amongt these officers at the Essex ports on this question, he trusted he might be allowed to say a word or two. He quite admitted that at one time there was a difference in the cost of living in London and in the country; but this had very much altered during late years, owing to the increase of means of communication and other causes, and at the present time the position of the outport officers was really much worse, in a pecuniary point of view, than that of the officers residing in London or Liverpool. Though the former might not have to pay so much for their lodgings, yet their living—food, coal, and other items—cost them quite as much, probably more; and they were at this disadvantage, that their duties carried them over a much larger area of ground, the consequence being that they were more often from home, and were put to greater expense. He was quite sure there was no just reason why the present invidious distinction amongst the officers should be maintained, and he, therefore, hoped the Government would think better of it and accept the Resolution.
  MR. BARRANwould not, at this very late hour (1.10 a.m.), occupy the time of the House for any length of time; but he could not refrain from rising to say that the remarks which had fallen from the noble Lord were such as ought to carry considerable weight with the House—he referred to what had fallen from the noble Lord with reference to the extension of the franchise to the Custom House officials. But, whilst he admitted that there was some little danger in the exercise of the privilege of

  1735
  appealing to this House on the part of Government officers when they wished to have their grievances redressed, there was also the other side of the question; and the question might be asked, "Where are they to appeal to, and to whom, if they are not to appeal to this House?" The noble Lord had stated that the claims of these men had been considered within the last few years; but everyone knew that the claims of all working men had been considered in this country within the last few years, and that there were very few working men in the Kingdom who had had so little remuneration for so responsible a duty as these men whose claims the House were now considering. Why, the men who entered this Service entered it at a lower wage than was paid to the common bricklayer's labourer! The common bricklayer's labourer was now receiving 23 s.; but these men in Her Majesty's Service, who had to undergo an educational examination before they obtained employment, who were tested as to their general fitness, and not only whose intelligence but whose characters were examined into to the fullest extent, entered into the Service at even a lower wage than the lowest labourers we had in connection with the building trade. He should like to suggest to his noble Friend the propriety of looking at this question from a commercial point of view. He was quite sure that whilst we paid men occupying important positions of this kind a low wage, such as they were now receiving, we should never secure a rendering of service such as we ought to have in connection with this important Department of the Government. So long as we paid the men such a very low wage we should have very inadequate service. And there was just another feature in connection with this question which the noble Lord would do well to take notice of, and that was that men placed in a position, not only of responsibility, but of great temptation, ought to be rewarded for their labour, at any rate, equal to the men of the same class of intelligence and of general aptitude for business occupied in other walks of life. He hoped the noble Lord would re-consider the question, and would support the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  MR. CARBUTT(who was received with cries of "Divide!") said, he
  1736
  claimed the indulgence of the House. He did not often trouble it, and if it would give him a few minutes he should be obliged. Though he belonged to the Party whose watchword was "retrenchment," he should certainly support the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood); and he did so on this ground—that whenever the Government re-organized any Department, they began by raising the salaries of all those near the heads. They began by raising the salaries of the head men, and the salaries of the under men were very often never raised at all. This was done in the case of the Army which was now undergoing reorganization. Some of the officers were to be placed in a better position; but the unfortunate private soldier was to get no increase of pay. The wages of working men in the various branches of industry in the country had been raised; but the out-door Customs officials had not received that increase to which they would have been entitled had they been in any other service but that of Her Majesty. He had been an employer of labour himself; consequently, he knew how necessary a fair increase of wages was to make the men contented. The duties of these Customs officers at the outports were somewhat similar to the duties of policemen. As to the policemen in our towns, one-half of whose wages was paid by the country and the other by the local authorities, they were not required to have such high educational acquirements as the Customs officers, yet they received a larger amount of pay. The out-door Customs officers began with £55 a-year; whereas the lowest paid policeman in a Provincial town received £62 8s., in addition to which he was provided with clothes and 6d. a-week boot-money. So that the policeman, who had to do a similar kind of work to the out-door Customs officer, received from £10 to £15 a-year more pay. He hoped the Government would see their way to give these poor men the increase of wages they were asking for.
  MR. C. WILSONwould call on the noble Lord who had opposed the Resolution to observe that the feeling of the House was against him. He trusted the Government would not make the mistake—which there seemed to be some danger of their falling into—of resisting this most reasonable and just Motion.

  1737
  He believed these were the only officials in Her Majesty's Service who were paid different rates according to the places at which they were stationed. If the men were employed in Ireland, or in Scotland, or at an outport, they were to be paid at a lower rate of wages than if employed in a large centre. He would draw the attention of the Government to the fact that throughout the length and breadth of the land all other classes of working men were paid the same standard of wages. He did not know any single class of working men who had all the same kind of work to perform who would submit to different rates of wages in different towns. It would, he was sure, be utterly impossible for them to satisfy those men, who were doing a very important work for Her Majesty's Government, unless they granted this most just demand which they had put before the House through his hon. Friend the Member for Hull. The agitation was one of three years' standing; but this was the first time these men had had an opportunity of bringing their claim under the notice of the House, and, now that it had been brought forward, he trusted it would receive more favourable consideration at the hands of the Government than, according to the statement of the noble Lord, it would appear they were at present prepared to give it.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he felt very strongly upon this question. He felt that these officers had, to a certain extent, a great grievance; and he felt, also, that they in that House had a duty to perform. To his mind, it would be a most unwise thing for the House to take the responsibility of dealing with officers of this kind out of the hands of the Executive Government. He would venture, therefore, to propose that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider the question. If the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), at the present moment the Leader of the House, would agree to this suggestion, no doubt the grievance of these officials would be most fairly considered. It would relieve the Members of the Government from a very difficult position, many hon. Members feeling most strongly on the subject. He was absolutely certain that there were many anxious to vote for the Resolution before the House who would be satisfied, for the moment, if the matter were re-
  1738
  ferred to the investigation of a Select Committee; and, of course, there were others who thought that the matter ought not to be considered by the House, who would be equally satisfied. Therefore, looking at the case presented to the House in a spirit of fairness, and believing that the hon. Member for Hull would obtain all he required if the question were referred to a Select Committee, he would venture to suggest that it should be so referred.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDmentioned that there were several men of this class engaged in Manchester and Salford, and expressed a hope that the noble Lord would agree to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Baronet. He hoped so the more because the noble Lord had made a statement in the course of his speech which was not quite accurate. He had stated that the cost of living in the case of some of these men was less in places where they received lower salaries than it was in London and Liverpool. He, however, ventured to say that was not the case in Manchester or Salford, where the cost of living was as high as it was in London or Liverpool. That was a point which a Committee could investigate.
  MR. BROADHURSTwished to say a word or two on the subject, for he considered that the wages of the outport men were a disgrace to the Government. A dustman in London had a larger income per week than these Government officers, who were entrusted with large and important duties. He had a suggestion also to offer to the noble Lord. He sincerely trusted the noble Lord would agree to the appointment of a Committee, and if the noble Lord was jealous of any increased expenditure, he thought he could point out to him a means of rectifying this evil without any increased public expense. He should not care to mention the details in public; but if the noble Lord would honour him with a consultation, he could point to offices in the Public Service that could suffer a reduction without any public disadvantage whatever, and which might properly be employed in advancing the wages of this terribly low-paid body of men.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, this question had come before him at considerable length, on a former occasion, when he acted as Chairman of the Civil Service Inquiry Commission; and at

  1739
  that time it was obvious to him that the subject ought to be fully inquired into. The differences in pay were considerable; but the differences in duty were also marked, and therefore a general Resolution, without an inquiry into the case, would scarcely have met the justice of the case. The officials who gave evidence before that Commission showed markedly that their case ought to be inquired into and considered by a Public Inquiry. The Commission were unable to go into the matter as fully as they would have desired; but they felt that a Departmental Inquiry should take place. He thought the proposition of the hon. Baronet, if accepted by the Government, would be a satisfactory way of meeting the justice of the case.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is quite impossible to pretend ignorance of the prevailing opinion of the House on this subject at the present time. I think it is much to be regretted that a subject involving, as I think this does, a large question of public policy, should be discussed in so small a House at so late an hour, and that so small a number of Members, comparatively, are present, except those who are directly interested in the subject. ["Oh, oh!"] I am only expressing my own opinion; and whatever opinion other Members may hold, even if mine is erroneous, I think a Member who is addressing the House might be allowed to conclude his observations. I think it would be a great misfortune if the House were to pass a Resolution of the character now before us at the present moment; and I cannot say I think it desirable that the responsibility should be removed from the shoulders of the Government by an Inquiry by a Select Committee. Of the two evils, I must say I consider that the appointment of a Select Committee would be a less evil than the passing of this Resolution; and if the Resolution were withdrawn, the Government would be willing to consider the terms upon which the subject should be inquired into. If that suggestion meets with the approval of the House, the Government will be prepared to sanction it; but, of course, if the House prefers to pass the Resolution, that will take the matter out of the hands of the Government.
  MR. NORWOODthought there could be no doubt as to the feeling of the House on this question. He should be
  1740
  very sorry to cause the slightest embarrassment to the Government, and, with the permission of the House, he would accept the offer of the noble Marquess that the Government would, at an early hour, cause a Committee of the House to be appointed to inquire into the subject, with the understanding that the Government would loyally accept the decision of that Committee, whatever it might be. He thought that was the course which, under all the circumstances, he ought to pursue, and, with the permission of the House, he would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. HEALYstated that he should oppose the withdrawal of the Motion. The noble Marquess had said it appeared that only those Members who through their constituents were interested in the subject had remained, and he seemed to look in the direction of the Irish Benches. For his part, he could say that the only gentlemen connected with the outports in his constituency were his political opponents; but he was interested in the question because of a deputation he had received upon it. The two gentlemen whom he saw had informed him that they were obliged to live in a respectable way, but only received between £50 and £60 a-year; while gentlemen who performed only the same services as they did received something like £300 a-year. It was on that ground that Members like himself were opposed to any compromise; and he warned the hon. Member for Hull, that if he agreed to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), the outport officers would be treated as the telegraph clerks were treated—they would be civilly treated before the Committee, and promised illimitable opportunities of stating their case; but eventually they would find that they had been deceived. ["Order, order!"] The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had complained of being interrupted; but what in a Member of the Treasury Bench was but a choleric word, seemed to be in an Irish Member flat blasphemy, and he was at once reminded of the august position of the occupant of the Treasury Bench. He was only giving his opinion of what would happen to the outport officers; and what he expected was, that although gentlemen from Liverpool or

  1741
  Dublin or other parts of the country might give their evidence before the Select Committee, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to make much more complete statements than they could, and the balance of evidence would remain on his side and nothing would be done. For that reason he, and some who agreed with him, intended to go a division.
  MR. OTWAYobserved, that the course which the hon. Member had taken was unusual and inconvenient. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) had proposed a Resolution, which was somewhat extreme in character, as to the taking of a step involving a considerable payment of money. He was entirely in sympathy with the hon. Member, and had intended to vote with him; but the hon. Member had been met by a proposal from the noble Marquess, which seemed to be a practical one, and had consented to the nomination of a Select Committee before which the wrongs of the outport men would be examined. He presumed that that Committee would report, and what he hoped was that that Report would be favourable, and that his hon. Friend would meet with more attention than had been paid to the Committee which had been alluded to, whose recommendations had not, in some respects, been given effect to. But if the House acted as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Healy) proposed, they would be acting with scant courtesy towards the noble Marquess. He saw no advantage in being rude to the noble Marquess, and a proposal, which seemed to be exceeding liberal, having been made—or, rather, the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) having been acceded to—he thought those who were really interested in the matter would be doing best for their cause by accepting the proposal of the noble Lord. At any rate, he was satisfied that that course would be of advantage; and practical men, and men of good sense, would see the wisdom of the course recommended.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORfelt constrained to repeat the words of the hon. Member.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already addressed the House.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I think you have put a Question since I addressed the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have put no other Question.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Do I understand that the Motion is withdrawn?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Select Committee on Coroners (Ireland) Bill nominated of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Mr. DALY, Mr. EWART, Mr. HEALY, Mr. ROBERT FOWLER, Mr. LITTON, Mr. RICHARDSON, and Mr. TOTTENHAM:—Three to be the quorum.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he should move, after the word "quorum," to insert the words "with power to send for persons, papers, and records." It was an unusual thing that a Committee on a Bill should be appointed without having that Reference; and he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would agree with him that the Committee could not be supposed to have any very complete knowledge of the subject, and that it would be most desirable that they should receive some evidence. He himself should only propose to call one or two witnesses; but if the Government were allowed to proceed without any witnesses, they would have the matter entirely in their own hands. His proposal was this. There were 82 or 83 coroners in Ireland; most of whom were old men, and the Bill proposed that they should receive £100 a-year; but he thought 20 or 30 of the number might be abolished, and their salaries be applied to superannuation purposes, without any extra expense being thrown on the Exchequer.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is speaking on the Main Question.
  MR. HEALYrepeated, that he would like to have some evidence given before the Committee, otherwise the Committee would be in blank ignorance, and could not be expected to adjudicate on the subject.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."—(Mr. Healy.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)regretted that he could not accept the proposal of the hon. Member, and he explained that it was by no means unusual to omit the words

  1743
  proposed in regard to a Bill such as this, which was of a purely legal character.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 75: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 192.)
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Coroners (Ireland) Bill, that they have power to consider the operation of the Law relating to Coroners in Ireland, and, if they shall so think fit, to amend the Bill accordingly.

  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ASHLEY, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Dyserth, Meliden, and Prestatyn Water, Harwich Water, Henley-on-Thames Water, Newport and Pillgwenlly Water, Newhaven and Seaford Water, and Poole Water, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ASHLEY and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 146.]

  GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ASHLEY, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Brentford Gas, Chichester Gas, Ely Gas, Grays Thurrock Gas, Ilford Gas, Kirkham Gas, Northfleet and Greenhithe Gas, Pinner Gas, Staines and Egham Gas, Stone Gas, and Waltham Abbey and Cheshunt Gas; and to amend "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," in so far as relates to places within the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ASHLEY and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 147.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.