Commons Sitting of 5 May 1881

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For the Borough of Knaresborough, v. Sir Henry Meysey Meysey-Thompson, void Election.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Customs (Outport Officers) appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Brentford Union, &c.)* [149]; Post Office (Land) * [150].
Second Reading—Land Law (Ireland) [135]—[Fourth Night]—debate further adjourned; India Office Auditor (Superannuation)* [140].
Committee—Report—Bridges (South Wales) * [129].

QUESTIONS.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS—CASE OF ELIZABETH BURLEY—THE ACTION OF THE POLICE.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the case of a friend-less girl named Elizabeth Burley, who recently, through fear of the police officer appointed to carry out the Contagious Diseases Acts at Dover, threw herself into the water of the Harbour; whether she was, on being rescued, charged before the magistrates with attempting to commit suicide, but the case against her was dismissed; whether the officer in question was acting under any warrant of a justice; and, whether the police, under the Acts in question, have been informed that there is no authority given to them in those Laws to accost, question, or molest any woman, but only to proceed against those suspected of prostitution under a summons or order of justices of the peace?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I have caused inquiries to be made as to this case, and I have had a report upon it from the police. The girl in question had been under the observation of the police for three weeks in consequence of the fact that she was leading an immoral life. This fact she appears herself to have admitted to the chaplain of the Sailors' Home. It was, therefore, the duty of the police to ascertain her name and address with a view to caution her. In endeavouring to ascertain these par-
  1816
  ticulars the police seem to have shown a want of discretion and judgment, for which they have been severely reprimanded. The girl, to avoid the police, threw herself into the water, from which she was rescued; and there is reason to believe further that, owing to the attention which this case has attracted, she will be rescued from the unhappy life to which she had committed herself.

  MINES ACTS—REPORTS OF INSPECTORS OF MINES, 1880.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Annual Reports for 1880 of the Inspectors of Mines have yet been received at the Home Office; and, if so, when they may be expected to be laid upon the Table of the House and printed for circulation?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the reports have been received, are passing through the press, and, it is hoped, will be ready for circulation towards the end of the month.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— THE BOERS.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any despatches were received by the Colonial Department from Colonel Lanyon during the year 1879, or in the course of the year 1880, previous to the outbreak of hostilities in the Transvaal, expressing opinions as to the state of feeling amongst "the main body of the Boers," in accordance with the views attributed to him in Sir Garnet Wolseley's Despatch of October 29th, 1879 (South Africa Papers, C. 2866), in the following passage:—
  "I do not wish to imply that I myself apprehend the serious outbreak that is said to be threatened, but I have felt it my duty to state that there is good reason for the conclusion, which is now accepted, I think, even more completely by Colonel Lanyon than by me, that the main body of the Boers have a rooted dislike to English Government?"
  MR. GRANT DUFF: No, Sir; I cannot find any such despatches.

  THE LAND ACT (IRELAND)—THE PURCHASE CLAUSES.
  MR. DONALDSON-HUDSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can inform the

  1817
  House as to the present condition of those farmers in Ireland who have bought the freehold of their farms, either from the Church Commissioners or under the Bright Clauses of "The Land Act, 1870," and whether they are contented and loyal subjects; and, in default of such information, if he will cause inquiries to be made, and submit the result for the consideration of Parliament?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I have communicated with the Secretary to the Church Commissioners and also with the Board of Public Works in reference to this Question. From the same body I learn that there is reason to believe that the condition of the farmers who purchased their holdings from the Church Commissioners is, on the whole, considering recent bad harvests, fairly prosperous. A small proportion of them are badly off, and they complain that they are no better off as owners than they were as tenants. The number of these persons is trifling, as compared with that of those who are satisfied and prosperous. The hon. Member asks me if they are contented and loyal subjects. In reply to the Question, I may say that I have reason to believe that they are so, and I base this statement on trustworthy private reports, and also on the tone of our correspondence with the Church Commission officers. The Board of Works is unable to give me information as to the condition of the farmers who purchased under the Act of 1870. To give such information would involve great expense, and a personal visit of inquiry to each of the farms so purchased.

  CYPRUS—THE LAW COURTS—THE GREEK LANGUAGE.
  MR. A. M 'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether instructions have been given to Her Majesty's Administrator in Cyprus to permit the introduction of the Greek language into the courts of justice in that island?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: I regret, Sir, that it will be necessary to reply to this Question at somewhat greater length than to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). Proceedings in the Courts of Cyprus are usually commenced by petitions, which are written either in Greek or in Turkish, according to the pleasure of the litigant,
  1818
  and the litigant or his advocate usually argues before the Courts in one or other of these languages, which are on a perfect equality. In the Nicosia district five-eighths of the cases are argued in Greek. Other languages are not excluded, but are not encouraged. Summonses and the like are made out in Greek, Turkish, and English. In most of the Courts a majority, in all some, of the Judges speak Greek fluently. Judgments are recorded in English and Turkish, these being the languages chiefly spoken by the officers of the Courts who have to execute them. The re-organization of the Courts of Cyprus is under consideration, and the importance of these language questions will not be overlooked.

  ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION—THE UNIFORMS —MILITIA OFFICERS.
  MR. RITCHIE (for Earl PERCY)asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is true that the change of appointments, &c. consequent on the new Regimental organisation will impose an expense of about £80,000 on the officers of Militia; and if he proposes to relieve them by a grant from the public purse?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; I have no reason to believe that the expense to officers of Militia consequent upon the change of appointments will approach the sum named by the noble Lord; and, so far as the substitution of gold for silver is concerned, the change is made, as a general rule, with their entire concurrence, and will be so timed as to cost but little. I have under consideration the propriety of granting some assistance in cases where the change is to or from Rifle uniform.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA)—TREATY OF LIS BON—PORTUGUESE TERRITORY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for India, with reference to an advertisement appearing in the newspapers, Whether he can now state the arrangements which have been made for a Railway through the Portuguese territory into Southern India; whether it is the fact that he has pledged himself to continue a short Railway in Portuguese territory to a connection with the British Indian system in the Deccan; and, if so, whether he has ascertained that the Port of Marmagao is superior to any British Indian

  1819
  Port on the West Coast; that the line thence up the Ghats is easier than any line from a British Port; and that, altogether, this line has such great advantages over any other line as to counterbalance the disadvantage of a Foreign Port and a transit through Foreign territory?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the arrangements which have been made for a railway through the Portuguese territory into Southern India are briefly these. The Portuguese Government, in pursuance of the terms of the Treaty of Lisbon, 1878, have made a contract with an English company under which capital will be raised, with a guarantee from the Portuguese Government for the purpose of completing a harbour at Marmagao—commonly known as Goa—and of constructing a railway within their territory to the Frontier. The Government of India, when assured that sufficient progress has been made with the works, will, in conformity with the terms of the same Treaty, under which we have obtained very considerable advantages, take measures for continuing the line through British territory, and connecting it with the system of railways in Southern India. With regard to the comparative merits of this harbour, and any British port on the West Coast, the hon. Member does not, probably, include Bombay, which, of course, is pre-eminently superior to all; but, if he alludes particularly to the port of Karwar, some 50 miles south of Marmagao, I am able to inform him on high professional authority that the latter possesses as many, if not greater, advantages than the former. I am also informed that the line of railway may be constructed quite as easily up the Ghats from Marmagao as from Karwar. Under the arrangement which has been made, I do not apprehend that any hindrance to traffic or any inconvenience will occur in consequence of the communication between the interior and the coast being partially formed through Portuguese territory.

  CRIMINAL LAW—JUVENILE OFFENDERS ACT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government will consider the desirability of introducing a measure for the alteration of the pro-
  1820
  visions of the existing Law, under which it is necessary that a juvenile offender should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment before being sent to a Reformatory School?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I am anxious to enable Parliament to deal with the subject of the treatment of juvenile offenders. But the introduction of a Bill will depend upon the progress made with the Business now before the House. Opinion on the question is divided. I find from the opinions which I have been able to collect from the authorities best fitted to pronounce judgment on the subject, that 35 are in favour of the imprisonment of juvenile offenders before they are sent to a reformatory, and 139 take the opposite view. My own opinion inclines to that of the majority.

  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT— OLEOMARGARINE.
  MR. SEVERNEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether oleomargarine is permitted to be sold under the name of butter; and, if not, whether since the admixture of oleomargarine with butter may be easily detected by analysis, the district inspectors are directed to endeavour to discover such fraudulent admixture?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, the sale of oleomargarine as butter is not permitted under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, and numerous convictions have taken place when it has been thus sold. The district Inspectors employed to obtain samples for analysis take their instructions from the local authorities, and the Local Government Board have no control over them. It is open, however, to private individuals to have samples analyzed under the Act.

  THE STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED CRIMES AND OUTRAGES.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact, as stated in several newspapers—
  "That the house of a bailiff in Galway named King was visited on Friday night by a party of ruffians with their faces blackened, who assaulted him brutally, and held him over a fire, threatening to roast him alive, and inflicting such injuries that his life is in danger;
  "That at Deergrove, near Castlebar, county

  1821
  Mayo, a band of twelve men, wearing masks, attacked the house of a herd, terrified the occupants by threats, and fired shots through the windows. They warned the herd that if he did not comply with the regulations of the Land League, and have nothing to do with grass land, they would take his life;
  "And that a bailiff named Murphy, who was serving summonses at Cleanglass, near Newcastle West, a few evenings ago, was met by a number of men, who assaulted him with savage violence. Having beaten him unmercifully with his own blackthorn stick, they took all the summonses from him, and all the money he had about him, and then threw him into a deep pond, in which he narrowly escaped drowning. He managed to creep out of it and took refuge in an empty pigsty, where he was discovered next morning;"
  and, if so, whether there appears any likelihood of the perpetrators of these outrages being brought to justice?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, in reference to the first case alluded to, I am glad to be able to state that there is no reason to believe that any such outrage took place. No information has reached the Constabulary of any outrage being committed at the time and place mentioned, and there is no baliff of the name in Galway. With regard to the second case, information on the subject is expected, but has not yet been received. With regard to the third case, I am sorry to say that an outrage was committed on Murphy, who has identified a number of persons as those who assaulted him, and there is good reason to believe that those who committed the outrage will be brought to justice.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, with regard to the first case, that he had received a letter from the clergyman of the district saying that the alleged roasting was a malicious invention.

  ARMY—THE ZULU WAR—GENERAL NEWDIGATE'S MEDAL ROLL.
  MR. BOORDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether General Newdigate's Medal Roll has been received at the War Office; and, when the medals for service in the Native Contingent in South Africa are likely to be distributed to those entitled to them?
  MR. CHILDERS: My answer, Sir, to the first Question is "Yes." My answer to the second is that it is a matter which concerns the Colonial Office; but, to save time, I have ascertained that the engraving of the medals was finished yesterday, and that they will be sent out at once

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE SUZERAINTY OF THE TRANSVAAL.
  MR. GORSTasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the substitution of suzerainty for sovereignty in the Transvaal is to be effected by an Act of Parliament; and, if not, how the substitution is to be effected?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The Question is some-what premature. As far as I can anticipate, there will be no necessity to resort to an Act of Parliament for the purpose indicated.

  THE WILD FOWL ACT, 1880.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has observed that certain retail fishmongers and poulterers in Manchester have been summoned under the Wild Fowl Act of 1880 for selling wood pigeons, and that they have been reprimanded by the stipendiary magistrate and ordered to pay costs; and, whether, if it be unlawful to sell birds which it is lawful to kill, he will undertake to amend the Law?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the matter stands in rather a singular position, as often happens when an Act of Parliament is manufactured in this House. It was the intention, no doubt, when the Bill was in Committee to have exempted the owners and occupiers of land from the provisions of the Bill. If the law is as described, it should be amended.

  SMALL-POX (METROPOLIS).
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, seeing that the small-pox epidemic is very much on the increase in Greenwich and other parts of the Metropolis, and that the hospitals of the Asylums Board are overcrowded and incapable of dealing with the emergency, any, and what, steps will be taken by the Local Government Board to secure extra accommodation for smallpox patients whose confinement in crowded dwellings must tend greatly to increase the spread of the epidemic?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, the Board have been earnestly pressing both upon the Guardians and the Vestries and District

  1823
  Boards the necessity of supplementing the hospital accommodation for small-pox patients at the disposal of the Asylums Board, and I am glad to state that in several instances effect has been given to the Board's representations. At the same time, there is no doubt of the need for further provision for the isolation of these cases, and the Board are endeavouring to secure it; but it is scarcely necessary to state that the subject is one of great perplexity and difficulty.
  MR. DAWSONasked, whether there was any arrangement with the London hospitals for a convalescent home for the isolation of patients during the earlier progress of their recovery, which was the most dangerous period for the spread of the infection?
  MR. DODSONsaid, that no steps had been taken in that direction.
  MR. DAWSONgave Notice that he would on another occasion ask the right hon. Gentleman what were his intentions in regard to this subject.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE NEW REGULATIONS—COMPULSORY RETIREMENT.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state the reason why, in the regulation which he has submitted for adoption by the House of Commons relating to compulsory retirement in the Army, he proposes to make the periods of non-employment which are to necessitate compulsory retirement, five years for General and Field Officers, and three years for Majors; while in a corresponding regulation for the Navy the periods of non-employment which necessitate compulsory retirement are, ten years for Flag Officers, seven years for Captains, and five years for Commanders and Lieutenants?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I may say that there are several reasons why the rules for retirement from the Army and Navy in the upper ranks should not be identical, whether in respect of age, rate of pay, or non-employment; but I could not well state these in the compass of an answer to a Question. As to non-employment, I may say that the rule adopted for flag officers in the Navy in 1870 was an experiment, the result of
  1824
  which, in my opinion, justifies a shorter term now for generals in the Army.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, On what day he will invite the House to proceed with the Adjourned Debate on the Parliamentary Oaths; and, after what hour of the day he may select, he will not expect the House to enter upon the above Adjourned Debate?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Government propose to place this Order of the Day for to-morrow after Supply, when I hope time may be afforded for discussing the introduction of the Bill. In the event of the matter not coming on to-morrow, it will be my duty to ask the House to have a Morning Sitting on Tuesday.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the right hon. Gentleman, after what hour the Bill would not be taken on Friday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Not after half-past 10 o'clock.

  THE MEDICAL ACTS—THE VICTORIA UNIVERSITY.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the Royal Commission which is being appointed to inquire into the working of the Medical Acts will be empowered to receive evidence as to the grounds upon which the Victoria University claims to have the right conferred upon it of granting degrees in medicine?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir; the Royal Commission is fully empowered to inquire into and report on the claims of the Victoria University to grant medical degrees. Immediately the Commission has reported the Privy Council will take into consideration the claims of this important school of medicine.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT—PRISONERS UNDER THE ACT—NEWSPAPER EDITORS.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether newspaper proprietors imprisoned under the Coercion Act will be allowed to supervise the matter prepared for insertion in their

  1825
  journals; and, in case such permission will not be accorded to them, whether the Government will relieve them of legal responsibility for all matters appearing in their journals during the period of their incarceration?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Every written communication by an editor in prison will come under the supervision of the Governor of the gaol. I am informed by the hon. and learned Attorney General that no Court would hold an editor legally responsible for articles in his newspaper if by action of law he has no power of controlling or supervising those articles.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, whether the Act did not contain a proviso allowing a prisoner to follow his ordinary avocation?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied, that if writing was the ordinary avocation of the prisoner it would be supervised by the Governor.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked, whether, if he supervised a political article, the Governor of the prison would not share to a certain extent the political responsibility of it when it was published?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I believe that political articles will not be allowed to be sent out by the Governor.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: So much for the freedom of the Press.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANwished to know how, in such a case, an editor in prison could follow his ordinary avocation?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: He cannot be allowed to write political articles, or articles relating to his imprisonment. The House must not forget that it was for articles in newspapers, as well as for other reasons, that some of these prisoners were arrested. The Government cannot be expected to stultify itself by allowing political articles to be sent out of prison.
  MR. PARNELLinquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman wished it to be understood—the articles for which one of the prisoners was arrested being articles inciting to violence—that he considered that all political articles written in Ireland were articles inciting to violence?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: No; I answer the Question of the hon. Member in the negative.
  MR. J. COWENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether it was not
  1826
  the fact that while Leigh Hunt, Robert Carlile, and Feargus O'Connor were in prison they were allowed to edit newspapers? How did the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between those editors and the present prisoners?
  MR. HEALY: But they were editors of English newspapers.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether this censorship of the Press had been adopted since the alliance of Her Majesty's Government with the policy of Russia?
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he would state which of the gentlemen arrested under the Coercion Act were newspaper editors?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I must have Notice given of all these Questions.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT —OUTBREAK OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE AT NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.
  MR. ELLIOTasked the Vice President of the Council, If it is correct that it was known in Newcastle-on-Tyne that foot and mouth disease existed there on the 18th of April; and if it is correct that the many outbreaks of this disease in the North of England are traceable to Newcastle Market; and, if he can inform the House from where the disease was imported?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, information was received from the Town Clerk of Newcastle-on-Tyne on the 20th ultimo that animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease were discovered in a lair in that borough on the night of April 18th. It is believed that those animals were brought from Stockton Market. Several outbreaks in the North of England have been reported, which are supposed to be due to infected animals brought from Newcastle-on-Tyne.

  CRIMINAL LAW—THE QUEEN v. BRADLAUGH AND ANOTHER— "FRUITS OF PHILOSOPHY."
  MR. O'DONNELLasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the conviction of the accused in the case of Bradlaugh and another, charged with the publication of an obscene work, was not set aside on appeal, in February, 1878, on the ground of a technical error in the indictment; whether Lord Justice Brett on that occasion did not state that, if the defendants again committed the offence of publishing such a work, another prose-

  1827
  cution would doubtless be instituted, when, if the indictment were not again defective, they would receive even severer punishment than that to which they had been already sentenced; whether it is not the fact that the objectionable publication was subsequently continued by said defendants; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to institute proceedings in conformity with the opinion of Lord Justice Brett, having care to avoid any technical defect in the indictment calculated to prevent the just enforcement of the existing Laws against obscene publications in this country?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Sir, it is quite correct that the conviction referred to in the Question was, in February, 1878, set aside on a technical ground, which was that the alleged libel, for which the defendants were indicted, was not sot out literally in the indictment. It is not correct, as stated in the Question, that Lord Justice Brett on that occasion stated that if the defendants again committed the offence another prosecution would be instituted, when they would receive a severe punishment. So far as I can tell by referring to the judgment of Lord Justice Brett, it is not correct to say that the Lord Justice said that another prosecution would be instituted; but what he did say was that, although on the point of law the judgment must be reversed, yet, if the book complained of was again published and the plaintiffs in error were convicted upon a properly worded indictment, the reiteration of the offence must be met with a greater punishment. I cannot say whether or not the publication has been continued, neither can I give the hon. Member any information whatever upon the point as to whether it is the intention of the Government to institute further proceedings. Having regard to the fact that the prosecution was not instituted by the late Government, but that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), who was then Solicitor General, was prosecuting, and that the proceedings were taken in February, 1878, I should think that the late Government came to the conclusion that there was no necessity to take any further steps in the matter, and I should think that anyone who now calls attention to the work would not be doing any great benefit to public morals.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS (HALF-PAST TWELVE RULE).
  MR. MONKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will give facilities for the early resumption of the Debate on the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule, which was adjourned on Tuesday last, at the request of the Government, in consequence of an erroneous impression as to the course which the Government intended to pursue having been conveyed on their behalf to some Members of the House, which occasioned their absence?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he much regretted the misapprehension which had placed his hon. Friend in a disadvantageous position through no fault of his own. He hoped, however, that the discussion on the half-past 12 o'clock Rule would not itself be subjected to the injurious operation of that Rule. He hoped his hon. Friend would be permitted without any obstacle to take the decision of the House on the question.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—OVER LOADING THE "DUBLIN CASTLE."
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will make inquiries of the emigration agents for the Cape and Natal as to the correctness of the statement of the owners of the Castle Line of Steamships that the overloading of their steamer "Dublin Castle," which left Dartmouth on the 1st October last, was due to the owners having received a very urgent message from the Cape Government asking them to take over a small body of Cape Riflemen, whose presence was immediately required; and, whether, in the event of his finding that no such excuse in fact existed, he will take the proceedings required by the Act against the owners of such vessel?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, the Question of the hon. and learned Member appeared to convey a somewhat serious imputation on the owners of the Dublin Castle. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not state upon whose information he had put this Question, or what was the character of the information on which he relied. He could only say for himself that he knew no circumstances which would justify the imputation conveyed in this Question; and until he re-

  1829
  ceived definite information to justify such a step, he did not think it necessary to make any further inquiry.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED EXCESS OF DUTY BY BAILIFFS IN COUNTY MONAGHAN.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the sworn evidence given at an inquest held in the townland of Drum-bear on Saturday last, by Dr. Reed, coroner for county Monaghan, and to the following circumstances detailed by the different witnesses:—That the house of Thomas Stewart, a tenant on the Roscommon estate, was visited on the 18th of March by Mr. John Johnston, the under agent of Lord Rossmore's estate, and a number of bailiffs; that the under agent approached the bedside of Mrs. Stewart, the wife of the tenant, who was in an advanced state of pregnancy, and ordered her to rise and dress herself; that Dr. William Woods, her medical attendant, found her, as a result, suffering from excitement and heart disease, and threatened with premature confinement, and asked the under agent and bailiffs to retire; that the under agent and some bailiffs repeated their visit on April 29, and Johnston again went to the bedside of the woman, again ordered her to rise and dress herself, and called upon the bailiffs to remove her; whether the woman, in consequence of these threats, fainted in presence of the under agent and the bailiffs; that, on the 29th, the bailiffs again were in the vicinity of the house; that, on the 30th, Mrs. Stewart was prematurely delivered of a dead-born child; that the verdict of the jury was that the premature birth was brought about by the great excitement through which the mother had passed; and, whether he will take any steps for bringing the man, Johnston, to justice?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he saw a statement in The Freeman's Journal yesterday, and he lost no time in writing to obtain full information with regard to what was stated to have happened. He would be glad if the hon. Member would repeat the Question. It certainly did appear that there had been unjustifiable hardship; but he was glad to see that the police were not mentioned as having been present on the occasion.

  COMPANIES ACT, 1867—TRINITY COLLEGE, LONDON.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has received a Report from the Education Department with reference to Trinity College, London; and what decision has been arrived at with regard to the application of that Association for a licence dispensing with the use of the word "Limited" as part of its title?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, there had been some communications of a confidential character with reference to this subject between the Education Department and the Board of Trade; but independently of those communications he had come to the conclusion, after careful consideration of all the circumstances, that there were grave reasons why the application of Trinity College, London, to be allowed to dispense with the word "Limited" should not be complied with.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. DILLON, M.P.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will specify the passages in the speech of the honourable Member for Tipperary (at the meeting of the Irish National Land League, in Dublin, on the 27th ultimo), which, in his opinion, are objectionable; and, whether it is to be understood that the Government have finally decided, with regard to the thousands of evictions now impending in Ireland (as declared in the speech of the honourable Member for Tipperary), that no steps will be taken for the protection of the homes, the property, and the present or prospective rights of these thousands of Irish tenants, except such as are contemplated in the Irish Land Bill?
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question of the hon. Member, he should like to know what was the protection afforded to tenants at the present time by Clauses 13 and 48 of the Land Bill?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, with regard to the first Question I do not think it would be convenient for me to answer it, and for this reason—that I could not answer it without anticipating the discussion on the Motion which has been

  1831
  given Notice of by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) on the Orders of Business for this evening. As regards the second Question, that is really a Question which ought to be asked during the debate on the Land Bill, and I should have thought that the hon. Member could have elicited the information with more convenience even this very evening when a full answer could be given. In reply to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), I must say that I would refer hon. Members to the clauses in the Land Bill which he mentions. I believe they make it clear, as to any tenants against whom notices of proceedings of ejectment for non-payment of rent to be taken at Quarter Sessions or in the Superior Courts have been served, that during the whole time of such proceedings, including the six months' time for redemption, those tenants would be able, after the passing of this Act, to apply to the Court for a judicial rent to be fixed; and therefore, if the rent which they had paid was too high a rent, the Court might be expected to fix a lower rent, and by that means they would obtain tenant right, which would have a saleable value.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— "SUZERAINTY."
  EARL PERCYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it will be necessary that the future President or Chief Authority of the Transvaal States should obtain the sanction of Her Majesty, as Suzerain, to his appointment?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have not placed any limitation whatever upon the discretion of the Commissioners in this respect.[A laugh.] Therefore, they will be quite prepared for whatever arrangements the Commissioners may make. Sir, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman who sneered is evidently quite ignorant that there have been Colonies in full relation to this country where Her Majesty has not appointed a Governor. Perhaps he has never taken it into consideration that in North America hereditary Colonies wore created where the Governor succeeded by birth, and not by appointment of Her Majesty, and that the Colony of Rhode Island had the privilege, after the first appointment, of electing its own Governor.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT—PROCLAMATION OF COUNTY MONAGHAN.
  MR. GIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the marked absence of crime in the county of Monaghan, as appears by the Returns of agrarian offences for the past six months; and, if so, can he inform the House on what grounds the county has been proclaimed under the Arms Act of the present Session?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the reason why the county of Monaghan had been proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act was not because any large number of agrarian offences had been committed there, but because the Government were informed that a great number of people in the county were armed, having rifles and revolvers, which they carried frequently on the occasions of meetings and processions. Party spirit ran somewhat high in the county, and it was thought expedient to put a check on the indiscriminate possession of firearms.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) ACT —EMPLOYMENT WORKS.
  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, Oughterard, Clifden, Gort, and Ballinasloe?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the hon. and gallant Member must be aware that the only way they could provide employment was through the baronial sanction. If the hon. and gallant Member would apply to him privately he would give him all the information in his power, as he could quite understand his wishing for the information. The Government had already given directions that the works sanctioned by baronial presentments should be carried out between the months of May and July.

  YOUNG IRELAND DEBATING SOCIETY (DUBLIN)—ALLEGED INTERFERENCE OF THE POLICE.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

  1833
  Ireland, If his attention has been called to a letter signed by the honorary secretaries of the Young Ireland Debating Society, Dublin, published in the "Freeman's Journal" of May 2nd, wherein it is stated that, on the evening of April 29th, five policemen applied for admission to the meeting of the Society, and that, on the previous day, another policeman called at the house and asked the caretaker for the names of the officers of the Society, and for the key of the Society's room; and, if police interference of this kind with literary and debating societies in Ireland has the sanction of the Government?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had been in communication with the Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police in Dublin with reference to this Question. The writer of the letter to which the hon. Member alluded must be under some misapprehension. No member of the Metropolitan police had ever sought admission to the meeting of that society, and no one was more surprised than the police were to see such a charge made.

  NAVY—DESTRUCTION OF H.M.S. "DOTEREL."
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will state any further particulars with regard to the destruction of H.M.S. "Doterel" than have already been made public?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the most interesting information which can be given the House relates to the date when authentic information is likely to be forthcoming. In the first place, the Britannia packet, bringing home Commander Evans and the survivors from the ill-fated ship, is expected to arrive at Lisbon on the 25th of this month, and at Liverpool on the 1st of June. Then, and only then, we shall have the story so far as it is known to the men and officers who escaped. In the next place, the Garnet, corvette, has been ordered down to Sandy Point from Montevideo, and she carries an artificer diver as well as a seaman diver. The Doterel, if she sank at anchor, will probably lie in from 8 to 10 fathoms of water. The Eurydice, as hon. Members may be interested in knowing, lay in 11½ fathoms; and there is every hope that, with the assistance which Lieutenant Stokes, of the Doterel, who remained at Sandy Point, will be able to give, the condition of the vessel will be ascertained in all particulars. In
  1834
  consideration of the exceptional nature of the case, the Admiralty have ordered the Turquoise, corvette, which was on the Pacific Station waiting to be relieved by the Champion from Ashantee, to start on her homeward voyage at once, and to join the Garnet in the Straits of Magellan. The Commander-in-Chief on the Pacific has been informed that she is wanted to assist in diving operations, and will, no doubt, take care that she has divers on board. The report of what has been ascertained on the spot will be brought to Montevideo, either by one of these vessels, or by one of the Pacific Steam Navigation Company's packets, which pass through the Straits at intervals of about a fortnight. Something may be known sooner; but we may fully expect about the end of the month to know all that can be told, both by the survivors of the crew, and by the unfortunate vessel herself. I have with me full particulars of the quantity and stowage of the various explosives on board; but I do not think I need communicate them to the House further than by saying that there were 4 tons and 7 cwts. of powder in the fore magazine, which is quite enough to account for the accident itself.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL—GRANTS OF PUBLIC MONIES.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will lay upon the Table an Estimate of the Liabilities which may be incurred under the various provisions of the Irish Land Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the principal outlay for grants of public money contemplated under the Irish Land Bill is described for ordinary purposes in Part 5 of the Bill. That outlay will be under the control of Parliament from year to year, the Estimates can only be formed from year to year, and Parliament will have an opportunity of forming the estimate for the current year before giving its assent to any outlay. As to other expenditure under the Bill, I think a question of this kind may be more conveniently raised when we have made further progress with the measure. We shall be happy to give the best information in our power on the subject.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) BILL— ARREARS OF RENT, &c.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If

  1835
  his attention has been called to the following evidence referring to the indebtedness of the Irish tenant farmers:—The following passage in the evidence of Professor Baldwin before the Royal Commission on Agriculture (Vol. I. p. 89):—
  "2805. Can you give us an idea of the amount of the state of debt they are in; how many Years' rent in some cases?—As far as our inquiries have gone, it would not be too much to say that in many places they owe on an average from three to five years' rent to shopkeepers alone. In some cases we ascertained the figures, which we verified afterwards, and found they owed as much as from eight to ten years' rent to shopkeepers.
  "2806. Is that on account of goods bought or money lent?—Chiefly for provisions and for goods of different kinds; not so much for money lent."
  The following passage in the evidence of Mr. Mulhallen Marum, M.P., before the Irish Land Commission (Vol. III. Question 35,886):—
  "They," meaning the tenant farmers, "are hopelessly in debt. My experience in the County Kilkenny and Queen's County, which is very large, leads me to say that their indebtedness is something nobody can have any conception of;"
  whether his attention has been called to the following passages in the evidence before the Commission as to the remedy for this state of things. The following passage in the evidence of Colonel King-Harman (Land Commission, Vol. II. Question 14, 183):—
  "I think there is only one possible remedy in the West of Ireland—that is, local courts of bankruptcy, or giving power to the county court judge to deal as in bankruptcy with all cases of small debts. I think the people have got a load of debt about their necks now which it is utterly impossible to get rid of; but if they could pay a reasonable composition they would start fair, and it would prevent excessive credit being given again."
  And the following passage in the evidence of Professor Baldwin (Royal Commission on Agriculture (Vol I. Question 2,808):—
  "Have you ever considered what might be a remedy for that?—Yes, we have thought a good deal over it, and we agree in thinking that there is nothing for it, except some system of bankruptcy courts which would go as near as possible to the homes of the people and give them a fresh start. It is a violent remedy, but the state of affairs is very critical;"
  and, if he will insert in the Land Law (Ireland) Bill more provisions founded on these recommendations for dealing With arrears of rent in the case of ten
  1836
  ants involved in hopleless indebtedness through bad seasons?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had read the passages from the evidence referred to in the hon. Gentleman's Questions. The last Question ought to have been addressed to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, because the Land Bill was in his right hon. Friend's charge, not in his own. But he might say—and hon. Members would be able to correct his statement if he was wrong by reading them themselves—that all the extracts to which the hon. Gentleman alluded related, not to the special debt for rent, but to every kind of debt. Therefore, if the passages were to form the ground of any recommendation at all, it would be a recommendation for the wiping out of all debt.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether the landlord had not a preferential claim for his rent over the debts of shopkeepers? And was he not aware that Colonel King-Harman had recommended that the debt due to the landlord should be placed on the same level as that due to the shopkeeper?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the hon. Gentleman had asked him quite a different Question from that put by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), his answer to whom was, he believed, correct. He did not wish to give any opinion on other matters.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what authority he founds the statement that of the tenant farmers, against whom 2,200 ejectment processes were granted at the late quarter sessions in Ireland, many were able but unwilling to pay their rent; and, if he will state what is the proportion of the tenants decreed against who are unable to pay, and what proportion are able but unwilling to pay?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the ground on which he rested his statement was the notorious fact that members and leaders of the Land League for months past had striven in the strongest manner to induce tenants not to pay their rent, even when they were able to pay, and that a large number of tenants had notoriously followed that advice. The probability—in his mind the certainty—was that many of those processes for the recovery of rent were issued by the landlords of such

  1837
  tenants. The hon. Member had asked him what proportion of the tenants decreed against were able but unwilling to pay. He must say that the hon. Member and his Friends were better able to answer that Question than he was, because they might have means of knowing what number of tenants had followed their advice "to hold the harvest," as it was called, and not to pay what they termed an unjust rent, although they were able to pay. But he might suggest a mode by which to make the comparison. If the leaders of the Land League would so far assist in the maintainenance of law and order as to desist from advising the tenants not to pay, they would soon be in the position of having few ejectments brought under their notice except those against tenants who were really unable to pay.
  MR. PARNELL said, the right hon. Gentleman had made an important suggestion; and he wished to ask him whether, if the Land League gave the advice which the right hon. Gentleman suggested, he would undertake to protect from eviction the tenants who were unable to pay?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied, that if the Government saw any probability or had any reason to believe that that advice would be really given, the whole question would be very much altered.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Then the right hon. Gentleman declines to give a guarantee to protect tenants who really cannot pay?
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was quite prepared to give the advice suggested if the right hon. Gentleman would make that undertaking on his part. Afterwards,
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked the First Lord of the Treasury if, between now and Monday, he would consider not only seriously, but in the kindly spirit with which he was certain to approach the subject, the incidental observations which passed within the last five minutes across the floor of the House? So happy an opportunity had not occurred for many years for terminating the grievous state of conflict which existed.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member has addressed to me a request rather than a Question. At the same time, I should be very sorry, after observations which had passed in
  1838
  such a spirit, to seem to meet them with disrespect. I would say whatever concerns the condition of Ireland has undoubted claims on the attention, and the close and early attention, of Her Majesty's Government, and I shall be glad to receive any further information bearing on the subject of the matters which have been referred to.

  STATE OF IRELAND—DUBLIN.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following words used by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald at the Commission opened in Dublin on the 7th April last, when addressing the Grand Jury of the city of Dublin:—
  "I am glad to be able to tell you that your duties will be of a very light character at the Commission. I am speaking now in reference not to the list of cases which may go before you, but to the police report generally. The cases are of a very small character, and represent those offences against property principally which are inseparable from a community where a great deal of poverty exists and a period of depression. There is not in the whole a single case of what I would call an aggravated character. Not any one that requires from me observation or instruction;"
  and, whether, if he had this pronouncement before him when the city of Dublin was proclaimed?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I have read the remarks made by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald at the opening of the Commission in Dublin on the 7th of April last, and I must remind the hon. Member that when the learned Judge made those remarks the speeches at some recent meetings of the Land League Committee in Dublin had not been delivered.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL— YEARLY TENANTS.
  THE O'DONOGHUEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, under the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, a yearly tenant had a right to apply to the Court to fix the fair rent of his holding; or, whether that right only arose upon the landlord attempting to raise his rent; or, whether the right of the yearly tenant to apply to the Court was dependent on other circumstances?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I must say it is inconvenient to ask Questions concerning a measure which is imme-

  1839
  diately to come under the consideration of the House. Still, I am not sorry this Question has been put. My answer is "Yes." I should say a yearly tenant can apply to the Court at any time to fix a judicial rent whether the landlord tries to increase the rent or not.
  DR. COMMINSasked in what part of the Bill this provision was to be found?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the hon. and learned Member was a lawyer, and he was sure he would have no difficulty in finding it.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS (HALF-PAST TWELVE RULE.)
  MR. MONKgave Notice that it was his intention to ask the decision of the House on the half-past 12 o'clock Rule when the Orders of the Day were disposed of.
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAYasked, Whether, under the proper interpretation of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule, it would be competent for the hon. Member to bring forward the subject after half-past 12, there being four Notices of Amendments to the Motion?
  MR. SPEAKER: I observe on the Paper four Amendments to the Resolution of the hon. Member for Gloucester; and, therefore, it comes within the operation of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PROCLAMATION OF CO. DUBLIN —THE ARREST OF MR. DILLON.
  MR. PARNELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether facilities would be given to his hon. Friend the Member for County Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) for the discussion of the Motion with regard to the conduct of the Irish Executive in proclaiming the City of Dublin and arresting Mr. Dillon?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not know whether the hon. Member means to ask whether I am prepared to postpone the progress of the debate on the Land Bill. That, certainly, I am not prepared to do. I presume that that debate will terminate at a reasonable hour, and I most earnestly hope no one will attempt to interfere with the hon. Member for Longford in bringing forward the Motion of which he has given Notice. As far as I may presume to offer observations, we
  1840
  should offer no obstacle, and we trust the Motion may be discussed.
  MR. PARNELL: About what time does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be reasonable to adjourn the debate to-night?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is a little difficulty in the way of the undertaking. There are several Orders of the Day—blocked Orders, I am reminded—over which the Government has no control. We are quite willing to put the Orders over which we have control out of the way, and I hope that other Members will do the same. Several Irish Members I have no doubt will give way. If an understanding can be arrived at that these Orders will not stand in the way, we shall stop the debate on the Land Bill before 12 o'clock.
  MR. O'DONNELLgave Notice that in case the hon. Member for Longford did not obtain facilities for discussing his Motion, he should oppose the taking of any Business at the Morning Sitting on Tuesday until after that Motion was disposed of.

  ARREST OF SOCIALISTS IN AUSTRIA.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, he had a Question to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to the arrest of Socialists in Austria; but by some accident the Question did not appear on the Paper. He begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether his attention had been called to the following extract from a telegram from the Vienna correspondent of the "Daily News" of the 2nd inst.:—
  "During the last few days the houses of several Socialists in Vienna have been searched, and arrests have followed. This measure is connected with Herr Most's arrest in London. Letters in cipher from Vienna Socialists were found in Most's possession. The letters and the keys to them were sent from London."
  He wished to ask the Home Secretary if the statement there made was correct?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member I have to state that the arrests of Socialists and other persons which are alleged to have taken place in Austria are, as I am informed, in no way connected with the proceedings against Most in England, or owing to any information derived from the English Government or the English police. But as this ques-

  1841
  tion has been asked, and the matter is one of great importance, it is desirable that I should state distinctly what is the view of Her Majesty's Government on this matter. For my part, I desire to say that I have never allowed myself to be the dupe of the mischievous fallacy that assassination plots by secret societies are venial crimes to be tolerated or extenuated as political offences. In my view they are ordinary murders or attempts at murders, and are to be dealt with in all respects as such. And if the police in this country, in the discharge of their ordinary duties and in the administration of English law, became acquainted with circumstances which place in danger from the hand of the assassin the life of any person, whether he be a Sovereign or a private person, whether at home or abroad, it is, in my judgment, their duty to give such information as shall be best calculated to avert the perpetration of the crime. We should have the right to expect such a course of conduct from every civilized Government if the life of our own Sovereign or our own citizens were in peril, and that which we should regard as the duty of others we shall not fail ourselves to perform.

NOTICES.

  MONUMENT TO THE RIGHT HON. THE LATE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD, K.G.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I desire to give Notice of the Motion which I shall make on Monday in these terms—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of Saint Peter, Westminster, to the memory of the late Right Hon. the Earl of Beaconsfield, with an Inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by the House of his rare and splendid gifts, and of his devoted labours in Parliament and in great Offices of State; and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same."

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to give Notice that on the second reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill I shall move the following Amendment:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Bill in its present shape will fail to secure for the tenant farmers of Ireland such a reduction in their rents as to afford adequate protection for
  1842
  the property in their holdings acknowledged by the Act of 1870 to belong to the occupying tenants, while it leaves tenants evicted or threatened with eviction for inability to pay rack rents in a defenceless condition; and further, that the provisions of the measure afford no suitable guarantee that its operation will result in the establishing of a sufficient number of occupying owners to check the monopoly in land at present existing, or to make available for the employment and support of the labouring population of Ireland any of the large area of cleared land from which the former occupying tenants were evicted, and whose property in the soil was forcibly and fraudulently appropriated by the landlords without any compensation."

MOTIONS

  AFGHAN WAR—VOTE OF THANKS FOR THE MILITARY OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN. —RESOLUTIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In rising to propose the Vote of which I have given Notice, I desire to make a very slight explanation. The names in the second Resolution, as they are given in the Paper, are in the order of their Army rank. But, as Major General Sir Frederick Roberts held throughout the campaign the local rank of Lieutenant General, and served in command of several of the officers whose names appear in the Resolution, I think that it will be more fitting that the name of General Roberts should occupy the place which it would have occupied if he held the rank which he enjoyed in Afghanistan. The Resolution will, therefore, be amended by the insertion of the name of General Roberts next to that of General Stewart, according to the local rank held by him. Sir, in moving this Resolution, I think I may justly say that it is my object to avoid all reference to any subject of controversy whatever. We have had frequent opportunities of discussing the policy of the Afghan War. I hope it may not be necessary to renew those discussions; but if it is, I am sure it will be the opinion of the great majority of the House that this will not be a fitting opportunity to do it; and I think most of us will agree that whatever may be our opinion of the policy of the war, the gallant officers and soldiers engaged in it had no other duty, when war was once declared, than to use their utmost exertions to carry it on and bring it as suc-

  1843
  cessfully and speedily as possible to a close. I have one word to say in explanation of a departure which has been made in the present instance from the practice which has been pursued on former occasions. On other occasions the Vote has been prefaced by offering the thanks of the House to the Viceroy for the part he has taken in applying the resources of India to the prosecution of the war. Exception has been taken upon more than one occasion to the earlier practice. When the thanks of Parliament were voted to the Army that had been engaged in the suppression of the Indian Mutiny, Mr. Disraeli took exception to the Vote to Lord Canning, the then Viceroy, on the ground that the introduction of the name of a civilian or Viceroy was calculated to intrude matters of controversy into a proceeding which ought, as far as possible, to be removed from controversy in such a connection. And when the right hon. Gentleman opposite, two years ago, moved a Vote of Thanks to the troops engaged in the Afghan War, I thought it necessary, although I raised no opposition to the Vote, to call attention to what fell from Mr. Disraeli, and expressed my opinion that the course indicated by Mr. Disraeli might have been more wisely followed. We have, after some consideration, decided to take upon this occasion the course which I indicated my preference for two years ago. But I need hardly say we have done this, not with a view of casting the slightest slur upon, or in any way of disparaging the services of either the late or the present Viceroy. I do not think anyone would imagine that I should be a party to disparaging in any way the services of the present Viceroy; and I hope that no one would expect that I should take this opportunity of voluntarily casting any slur upon the late Viceroy. Whatever may be the views taken upon questions connected with this war, I, at all events, am the last man to impute to the late Viceroy any want of energy, forethought, or skill in the prosecution of the war. I will now very briefly mention to the House one or two of the leading events of the late campaign, in regard to which I propose that the thanks of the House should be given to the Army. The House will remember that, on the conclusion of the Treaty of Gandamuk, in May, 1879, the Army of the Khyber and the Kuram
  1844
  line was immediately withdrawn into India, and it was decided that the occupation of Candahar should be continued until autumn. On the 3rd of September the Residency at Cabul, whither Sir Louis Cavagnari had been sent as our Envoy, was treacherously attacked, and, in spite of a vigorous defence on the part of Sir Louis Cavagnari and his escort, the greater part of them were murdered. The Government of India, of course, took immediate measures to avenge so treacherous an act, committed on the person of our Envoy. The measure immediately resolved upon was the re-occupation of the Shutargardan Pass, with the object of advancing the Army upon Cabul. The re-occupation of Jellalabad and the Khyber Pass was determined upon, and the evacuation of Candahar, which was then in progress, was at once suspended. At the same time, orders were given to General Stewart to advance upon Cabul. Well, Sir, immediate effect was given to this determination of the Government of India. Between the 3rd of September and the 12th of September, 6,000 men advanced on Cabul, the Shutargardan Pass having already been occupied by General Massy. On the 5th of October General Roberts gave battle to a large force of the enemy, who had taken up a formidable position in the form of a horse-shoe, extending over two or three miles of hills, which were described as rising one behind another. The attack of the British upon that position was completely successful. The enemy, after severe fighting, were entirely dispersed, and many of their guns were taken. On the 8th of October, the brigade under General Massy occupied Sherpur; and on the 12th the British flag was hoisted upon Bala Hissar. The energy with which these operations wore performed may, I think, be realized when the House considers that it was only on the 3rd of September that the murder of Sir Louis Cavagnari and his companions took place, and that by the 11th of October, in spite of the most serious opposition, the result I have mentioned was achieved. In these operations, no less than 214 guns belonging to the enemy were captured by the force under General Roberts. General Sir James Hills, whose name is included in the Vote, was appointed Governor of Cabul; and, in that capacity, he ren-

  1845
  dered most efficient service in various operations in the neighbourhood, and was frequently mentioned in the despatches of General Roberts. Well, Sir, at the same time, steps were taken for the re-opening of the Khyber Pass. This step was necessary because, though the Shutargardan route was one by which the advance could most rapidly be taken, it was not a route which was open throughout the whole of the winter. Meanwhile, General Bright was employed in re-opening communications through the Khyber Pass. By the 14th, means had been adopted for keeping open the communication. On the 5th of November, the Forces of Generals Bright and Roberts met at Cabul. From that time until the arrival of General Stewart, General Roberts exercised supreme political, as well as military, control at Cabul. General Roberts at once saw the necessity, although the capture of Cabul had been effected, of breaking up the combinations which were rapidly forming themselves around Cabul for the purpose of threatening his communications and attacking his position. This enterprize proved to be one of a much more formidable character than was at first anticipated. General Roberts achieved considerable success in breaking up those combinations; and on the 10th of December dispersed large bodies of the enemy; and, for the purpose of checking the movements of the enemy, a force under General Massy was despatched upon the following day to follow up that success. He encountered a large number of the enemy, not less than 10,000 men, under the command of Mahommed Daoud, and was obliged to fall back. In the course of this affair, he lost two guns, which were, however, recaptured the same day. From the 12th to the 14th of December, very constant and severe fighting took place; but no advantage was gained by the enemy. However, a force, estimated at not less than 50,000 men, surrounded Cabul, which was too overwhelming a force to justify General Roberts in holding the city, and, on the 14th, he retired into Sherpur. That cantonment was occupied from the 14th to the 22nd of December. The duty which fell upon the troops during the period I have mentioned was of the most severe and arduous kind. The attacks of the enemy were constant; the cold was very severe, and the duties alto-
  1846
  gether were of the most trying description; but, animated by the example of General Roberts and the other officers, the troops behaved in a way than which nothing could more admirable. On the 22nd of December, an attack was made on the cantonments. That attack was well resisted; and, at the same time, General Roberts made a flank attack, the result of which was the complete defeat and dispersion of the enemy. From that time until the return of the troops from Afghanistan, although several expeditions of a minor and unimportant character were undertaken with the view of breaking up hostile gatherings, the operations were not of very great importance. In the Kuram, the route through which had been abandoned after the Khyber was opened, no military operations of any great importance took place; but General Tytler found it necessary to make an expedition against a tribe which had treacherously murdered a British officer. That operation was conducted with complete success; but I much regret to state that in consequence of exposure General Tytler died. The command in the Kuram Valley was exercised by Major General Watson, who, in the earlier phase of the war, had commanded the contingents furnished by the Punjab Chiefs to the complete satisfaction of the Government of India. He held the Kuram command till the close of the war. On the renewal of hostilities it had been arranged, on the relief of his troops by corps from Bombay, that General Sir Donald Stewart should, if necessary, threaten the fortress of Ghazni, and it was resolved that he should march from Candahar by Ghazni to Cabul, returning to India by the Kuram or Khyber route. On the 31st of March, the General marched with this object from Candahar, and on the 19th of April he was attacked at Ahmed-Khel, 20 miles from Ghazni, by a large body of the enemy. The attack was one of an extremely important character. It was made by a party of greatly superior force, and the enemy was aided by many thousands of fanatical soldiers, whose onslaught was pushed with such desperation and persistency that General Stewart was obliged to put every man of his reserve into the firing line. The loss of the enemy was very severe, amounting to between 2,000 and 3,000, over 800 having fallen in the attack; and the value

  1847
  of the success achieved was enduring. No further operations of importance took place until the month of July, when, in consequence of the advance of Ayoob Khan from Herat, the Government of India found it necessary to despatch a small force to Candahar, under the command of General Burrows, to assist the Wali, who had shown the greatest loyalty to the Government. Sir, I need not detain the House with any record of the events which took place at that time. They are, unfortunately, better known to the House and the country than are the more successful operations of the war to which I have referred. It is enough to say that on the 28th of July General Burrows suffered the reverse of Maiwand; and in referring to that reverse, deplorable as it was, I must say that although there may be reason to think that the result might have been different if the troops had been otherwise handled—still, it is but just, both to the officers and the men engaged, to say that it ought to be remembered that they met an enemy immensely superior in number, and animated by the same fanatic courage with which they had attacked General Stewart. The result of this unfortunate
  action was the retirement of General Primrose from the cantonments to within the city and citadel of Candahar, where he was very soon afterwards besieged by Ayoob Khan, the siege continuing from the 28th of July to the 29th of August. The principal event which took place during the siege was the sortie of the 16th of August. The result of that sortie, though extremely creditable to the valour and courage of the troops engaged in it, was not altogether satisfactory, although it relieved the garrison for some time from annoyance. I cannot pass from this subject without mentioning the loss which was sustained by the British Army on that occasion by the death of General Brooke, who was shot while endeavouring to save the life of a wounded comrade. Sir, immediately upon the disaster of Maiwand and the investment of Candahar, orders were given to Sir Robert Phayre, who was in charge of the communications in the Bolan Pass, to concentrate his force and proceed immediately to the relief of General Primrose. Although Sir Robert Phayre was unable to reach Candahar before it was relieved by General Ro-
  1848
  berts, great credit is due to him for the energy with which he encountered and overcame innumerable difficulties in the way of obtaining transport and supplies, and in hurrying up his force as quickly as he did. In the meantime, it had been decided that Sir Frederick Roberts, at the head of a picked force of 10,000 men of all arms, should march from Cabul to the relief of the garrison at Candahar. General Roberts left Cabul on the 9th of August, and arrived at Candahar on the 31st, having covered 316 miles in 23 days. On the very day of his arrival the General reconnoitred the positions of the enemy in force, and the next day he attacked them, and with perfect success, completely routing Ayoob Khan's force and dispersing them, capturing 34 guns. So much has been said as to this memorable operation that it is unnecessary I should detain the House with respect to it; but I cannot leave the subject without mentioning the name of General Ross, who commanded the Infantry division, and whose able assistance, not less than that of many of the brigadiers and other officers, has been so frequently and generously acknowledged by General Roberts in his despatches, and by the Government of India in commenting upon those despatches. Sir, I have only been able to give to the House the barest outline of the principal operations which took place. I cannot, however, but feel that in this, more than in ordinary wars, even if the record were more complete, it would still convey a very inadequate idea of the dangers, the difficulties, and the hardships encountered by our gallant troops. A large portion of the service was necessarily of a kind which could not be reported in despatches, or in that or any other way be made known to the world. A great part of it consisted of operations of the most trying and difficult character. During the occupation of the country, as well as during the progress of the operations, the troops were constantly in contact, and frequently in collision, with an active, brave, and sometimes treacherous enemy, especially on the line of communications and on the dangerous duty of securing supplies. The officers had, therefore, to be constantly on their guard, and were frequently engaged in skirmishes of which no record has been left. It is service of that kind—signally trying as it is—that

  1849
  is a better test than is furnished by more conspicuous operations of the true qualities of the men. I am happy to say that, in the opinion of the Government of India, the conduct of the troops in all these services was everything that could be desired. I propose that the thanks of the House shall be given, as they are due, to Sir Frederick Haines, the Commander-in-Chief. It was his earnest desire to have taken personal command of these operations, and he pressed his wish on numerous occasions upon the Government of India. For administrative reasons, however, it was impossible that his request could be complied with. All these military movements, however, have been entirely under his direction, and the uniform success which has attended them is due to the ability with which they have been planned as well as the fidelity with which they have been executed. The Government of India has paid testimony to the unfailing discipline, the high spirit, and the cheerful endurance which have been conspicuously evinced by the whole force during this prolonged and trying service. They exhibited the most soldierly qualities, and rarely, if ever, has a war been conducted in an enemy's country with such a strict regard to the principles of humanity and honour, and with such a total absence of excess of any kind. I think the House will agree with me that great credit is due to Sir Frederick Haines and his predecessors for the high state of discipline which rendered it possible that so flattering a tribute should be offered to the Army. I have referred to the active services of Sir Donald Stewart. It is impossible, in speaking of him, not to mention the spirit of self-sacrificing generosity with which, on the eve of a critical military operation, he reduced his own force, and placed the pick of his troops at the disposal of Sir Frederick Roberts. It has not been usual in Votes of this character, and I have not thought it necessary, to make special mention of the services rendered in this campaign by the political officers. But it would not be right that I should conclude without reminding the House that in wars of this description the services which are rendered by the political officers are not only of the highest importance, but are frequently attended by personal risk. Of the political officers, and the services
  1850
  rendered by them, I can only speak in the most general terms. The services of the Lieutenant Governors of the Punjab and of Bombay have been recognized by the Government of India. Sir Robert Sandeman, our Agent in Beloochistan, has, throughout this campaign, rendered services of the most signal and valuable character. He has preserved, with great ability, the best relations between our Viceroys and the Khan of Kelat, who has shown loyalty to his allies, and has on several important occasions rendered the greatest service to our Army. Sir Robert Sandeman was also placed at the head of the administration of the whole line of communications, and his services cannot be overestimated. The Government of India have also rendered a just tribute to the skill of Mr. Lepel Griffin, who for six months was in charge of our political relations at Cabul. I need not remind the House of the assistance rendered, at personal risk, by Colonel St. John at Candahar on the unfortunate day of the battle of Maiwand. It remains for me to say what has been done by the Government of India in the direction of rewarding these services. To Sir Frederick Haines, to Sir Donald Stewart, and to Sir Frederick Roberts, Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to offer the honour of baronetcies, which two of these officers have accepted; but Sir Frederick Haines, for personal reasons, has declined, at all events for the present, the acceptance of that distinction. In conformity with former precedents, the Indian Council has also granted to Sir Donald Stewart and Sir Frederick Roberts, who are officers in the Indian Service, pensions of £1,000 a-year for life, or, if they prefer, a capital sum of £12,500. The troops have received six months' batta, and a medal will be struck for the Afghan Campaign, with the names of several engagements on the clasps. In commemoration of the famous exploit of General Roberts, a bronze star will be given to these who took part in it. I have now only to say that, cordially as I trust the thanks of both sides of this House will be given, and fully sensible as I am of the extent to which the troops of all arms have deserved it, I hope that the time is far distant when we may be called upon to renew these military operations. Successful as, on the whole,

  1851
  they have been, it cannot be denied that, as must always be the case, they have shown us some defects in our military organization which the Government of India are now earnestly engaged in considering. There is an ample and honourable field open to British officers to co-operate with that Government in remedying those defects and increasing the efficiency of the Army of India, upon which our power must always rest, and which must always, therefore, be maintained in the highest state of order and efficiency.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I rise to second the Vote of Thanks which has just been proposed by the noble Lord, and I can assure the House it is not my intention in any way to weaken the statement of the noble Lord by attempting to add any comments or remarks of my own. I am convinced that the simple narration which the noble Lord has so ably given of the events of the recent campaign is, in itself, enough to reward those to whom we wish to do honour. It was but necessary for the facts to be stated—for the facts, I am sure, will speak for them-selves. I agree—and I trust the House will also thoroughly agree—with the sentiments of the noble Lord in his opening observations, that this is not an occasion on which, if ever, we ought to discuss the policy of the Afghan War. It would, indeed, be a very great misfortune if, when we were considering how we were to acknowledge the gallant conduct of our brave soldiers, we were to mix up our expressions of admiration for the men who have shown such devotion to duty—a question upon which there can be no difference of opinion among our fellow-subjects—with matter which may be of a contentious character. We cannot but feel, however great may be the honours bestowed by the Sovereign, or in any other way, upon the soldiers who fight for us in the field, there is one honour they covet, I believe, above all others—I mean the honour of special mention in the Houses of Parliament, and a Vote of Thanks from those Houses. I am convinced that although the British soldier, when he is far from home, and when called upon in a strange land to undergo, not only the perils of battle, but also the long and trying sufferings which the noble Lord has so well pointed out, in
  1852
  campaigns like this—and not only the British soldier, but the Native soldier also, when called upon to fight for the flag under which he is so contented to serve, and under which he has shown himself on many occasions to be so true and loyal—I am convinced that both the British and the Native soldier, when they are called upon to undergo these sufferings and make these exertions, are largely sustained by the certainty that their efforts will be recognized and appreciated by those in whose cause they are engaged. I will not make any remarks upon the question the noble Lord referred to when he spoke of the change he has made in not introducing the name of the Viceroy of India, as has been customary in such Votes. We fully understand the ground on which he has made the alteration. It is not with reference to this occasion only, but as to what has been his opinion on a former occasion, and that it is not one Viceroy only, but two—one not belonging to the Party to which the noble Lord is opposed, but to which he himself belongs, whose name has been deliberately omitted. We, therefore, understand that no slight has been intended, but that the intention of the Government has been to direct our special attention to those who have been engaged in the military operations, and it is purely in connection with those operations that the Vote is proposed. In selecting the names that have been brought before us for commendation—those who are to receive the thanks of this House and those whose names have been mentioned, though not included in the Vote—the desire has been to pick out the names of those to whom great honour is due; and I can only express regret at the omission of any special reference to the conduct of our Native officers and the Natives who have been employed in our service. I may take the opportunity of mentioning a name well known to many in this country besides those directly connected with the administration of India—I mean Sir Gholam Hussein. I am glad to be permitted to second this Vote, and to associate myself with the Vote of Thanks which the noble Lord has proposed in the full confidence that the Vote will be passed in the spirit in which such Votes are passed—namely, as a Vote of Thanks to those noble and gallant men who have

  1853
  laid down their lives or endured hard-ships in our behalf without reference to any other consideration.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Thanks of this House be given to General Sir Frederick Paul Haines, G.C.B., G.C.S.I., C.I.E., Commander in Chief in India, for the ability and judgment with which he directed the recent operations from September 1879 to September 1880 in Afghanistan."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
  MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, as an Amendment—
  "That this House, disapproving of the Afghan War as needless and unjust, considers it inexpedient to return Thanks to Officers or Soldiers for slaying a number of people with whom we had no righteous quarrel, and devastating their Country."
  The hon. Gentleman said, that, although the Prime Minister refused to allow time to discuss Motion with respect to the arrest of a Motion of the House, because it would stand in the way of Land Bill, he had arrested the progress of that important measure in order to introduce this Motion. He would not make any needless remarks to delay discussion; but he considered it his duty, even although he had only one other Member to go into the Lobby with him, to take a division upon his Amendment for the purpose of protesting against the unjust and needless slaughter and reckless invasion of Afghanistan. He had often thought, when reading the accounts of the battles in that country, particularly in the way of setting up pretenders, that he was reading a chapter in the history of his own country 200 years ago; for, in almost every particular, the old system of British policy as carried out in Ireland was renewed in Afghanistan. On this ground, as well as on general grounds, he had put down his Notice. He thought it would be considered rather remarkable if it were to go forth to the world that it was only successful soldiers who were to be thanked. Had this war ended by the defeat and dispersion of the British forces and their being driven beyond the Frontier, the House would never have been asked to accord them thanks. When the Boer War was ended the Government would not be willing to return thanks to the soldiers who had suffered in that country, although they had performed a more arduous task, as they had to stand up against trained marks-
  1854
  men instead of fighting an undisciplined rabble, as the people of Afghanistan were. The noble Marquess referred to the fanatic swordsmen; but the people who had been resisting British invasion might have been spared the sneer. Were they fanatics because they were true to their religion and their country? If that were fanaticism, he was proud to own himself a fanatic. He moved his Resolution, believing that everyone who voted for the Resolution of the noble Marquess associated himself in some way with blood-guiltiness.
  MR. O'KELLYseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed
  To leave out from the 'word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to and the words "this House, disapproving of the Afghan War as needless and unjust, considers it inexpedient to return Thanks to Officers or Soldiers slaying a number of people with whom no righteous quarrel, and devastating Country,"—(Mr. Healy,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am very sorry, Sir, that occasion would arise which would call upon me even for one moment to give the House the idea that I supposed anything would require to be added to what has been said by my noble Friend and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Such is not my intention; but I do wish very respectfully, and at the same time earnestly, to deprecate a division on this occasion. I would say, Sir, to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that in one respect I sympathize with him if he thinks that some disparagement has been shown to the great and important measure relating to the tenure of land in Ireland by allowing precedence to be given to the subject now before the House. I assure the hon. Member that if he examines the annals of this House he will find that it has been usual on every occasion, even when the most vital subjects were under discussion, to allow prior consideration to be given at the commencement of the evening to Motions of this kind, having in view the graceful and complete rendering of a just honour to those to whom it is due. It is assumed that such Motions will require a very

  1855
  short time; and it is also felt that to give them the most marked and prominent position in the proceedings of this House is the mode in which we would desire to give that which, after all, is nothing but an honorary gift, in order that it may have its greatest value. On that account I am sure the hon. Member will not at all suppose that in this proceeding we have attempted in the slightest degree to derogate from the strong sense we have so often expressed of the importance of going forward with the subject to which I have referred. Two observations I may make. One is that I am quite sure that nothing could be further—indeed. I am authorized to say that nothing could be further—from the intention of my noble Friend than to cast any slight upon the desperate valour which has been shown by the Mohammedan population of Afghanistan in defending, as they conceived, their religion their country. The word "fanatical" is a word which describes enthusiasm carried to an extreme, and which is well known to characterize both religion and conduct in the East in a manner so traditional and historical that the use of the epithet does not convey the slightest discredit. On the contrary, I believe that we who sit in this House should not rest satisfied with merely expressing a negative or a neutral opinion; and that, while we deeply regret the occasion for a collision arising, we can truly honour in our hearts and minds the unsparing exercise of valour which can ever be found in the cause of what the Natives believe to be true. In the same way I wish to say that the omission in this Motion of specific nominal reference to the Native Forces is entirely due to the observation of strict rule and precedent in the case; and I certainly am of opinion—and I believe it is the general opinion—that in all matters of this kind the observance of rule and precedent is a matter of practical prudence, tending both to the dignity and safety of proceedings, such as that in which we are now engaged. On the question of the Motion itself, I hope the hon. Member will feel that he has sufficiently discharged his duty by the protest which he has made. He felt himself compelled to make a protest, and he has made it; but why should he persist in carrying with him some few Members of this House into the Division Lobby with
  1856
  no other possible effect than that of detracting from the grace and kindliness of the act which it is the desire of nearly all the Members of the House to perform? Surely the hon. Member cannot think that the gratitude of this House to the Army in the field ought to depend on the degree of approval or disapproval with which it may regard the policy that that Army has been called upon to give effect to. Deplorable indeed would the position of the soldier be, considering the enormous efforts, considering the costly sacrifices, he has to make in the performance of his duty in the field, if he found that he would be judged by his country, not according to his own conduct, or the manner in which he had fulfilled his covenant with the Sovereign—not by the manner in which he had displayed even the very noblest qualities which war, with all its miseries, is calculated to produce; but that he was to be tried by reference to another standard—namely, by reference to the rectitude of the judgment or purity of the judgment of those who had ordered him into the field, and for whose error, if error it was, he was to be the sufferer. I am sure he will see that such a doctrine really will not bear examination for one moment at the tribunal of common sense; and I do earnestly and respectfully submit to the hon. Member that he would do no disparagement to himself, and would greatly promote the general wish of the House, if, content with his protest, he will withdraw his Motion, and allow this to be an unanimous Vote.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that with some portion of the speech of the Prime Minister he agreed. He had intended to move the Previous Question, as on a former occasion, when the noble Lord who moved this Resolution sat on the other side of the House. On that occasion he moved the Previous Question, and went to a division upon it. He regretted when he saw the Notice which the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) put upon the Paper, and he would make an appeal to him now. He did not condemn the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the Afghan War; but he thought the hon. Gentleman had not taken the best way of putting himself in accord with the sentiment of the House by moving an Amendment which, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, seemed

  1857
  to condemn the soldiers for actions for which the House really was responsible. If, therefore, the hon. Member would kindly accede to his suggestion to withdraw his Amendment and the House would allow it to be done—["No, no!"]—he would move the Previous Question. He proposed to move the Previous Question, because he felt strongly on the matter. But he was going to oppose the Vote of Thanks in a manner least repugnant to the sentiments of those who were about to support it. He congratulated the noble Lord upon the position in which he found himself in moving this Vote. It was rather different from his position two years ago. Then they were in a state of alarm about wars in different parts of the world; but now the noble Lord had the proud satisfaction of rising to propose this Vote when, for a wonder, we were at peace with all the world, when we were not annexing anybody's territory, nor vindicating the Queen's authority anywhere by force of arms, when we were not making Naval demonstrations, not even carrying out "the mandate of Europe," which was, perhaps, the little failing of the present Government amongst its many virtues. Indeed, we were in such a condition that an hon. Friend said to him the other day that if we did not take care we should be slipping into Christianity. Honestly enough he could say he was grateful for that state of things. Dr. Johnson had said that gratitude was a lively sense of favours to come. But he felt grateful because he hoped they would never again have to speak on a question of this kind; and unless the right hon. Gentleman opposite came into power he hoped they would have no more wars. He did not think the noble Lord was very happy to-night; he did not speak with that energy he sometimes exhibited. He had a shrewd suspicion that the noble Lord hated the whole thing from the bottom of his heart. It was not the noble Lord's Motion really. The voice was the voice of the noble Lord; but the Motion was the Motion of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow). They should have heard nothing about this Vote of Thanks were it not for the persistent Questions—there was nothing like persistency—of the hon. Member for Guildford. He regretted to see the noble Lord dragged at the chariot wheels of the
  1858
  hon. Member. He did not think the noble Lord liked it much, or that his Colleagues liked it, for he noticed that they all got up and went out of the House. He was not going to find fault with the noble Lord, who was driven to it by the commonplaces of the House and the way they were going on about these military matters. He hoped for the future the noble Lord would not be so much influenced by the hon. Member for Guildford, but would take counsel with the Radical Members below the Gangway. [Laughter.] Let not hon. Gentlemen laugh. It was the Radical Party who put the present Ministry into power. Nobody knew that better than the noble Lord and the Prime Minister, and they also knew that among the cardinal points of the Radical programme was their hatred, their condemnation of that spirit of military adventure which had cost the country so much. What was the philosophy of these Votes? Why were they called upon ever and anon to give these Votes of Thanks to soldiers? What was a soldier? He was a man who made a contract with his country to kill anybody whom the country wished him to kill, anybody whom the country wished to destroy, to destroy people's property, burn their houses, and inflict untold misery upon them, perfectly regardless whether it was right or wrong. The soldier left that to that House to decide. He became a mere animated machine, with no consideration of right or wrong. ["No!"] He was astonished to hear anybody deny that. He thought even the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) would not have denied it. Surely the soldier was bound to fight whether the cause was right or wrong; it was not for him to reason, but to act. It was different with the Volunteers; they did not fight, but only simulated fighting. Yet he had just seen in a paper that a large sum had been given to teach them how to shoot moving objects at unascertained distances. But the real soldier meant business. He was not there for one moment to discredit the soldier. ["Oh!"] Not a bit. Parliament was responsible for all he did. He did his best, and generally went to fight for us in a wrong cause, for most of our causes in the last century had been wrong. He did not always win, and then he did not get thanked. He wanted to carry that

  1859
  little further. If they were to have thanks given to those great commanders for doing what was called "brilliant deeds," let them have some censure for those who did deeds worthy of censure. If the one thing was right the other was right. His doctrine was that they all did their duty courageously and fulfilled their contract. We ought to fulfil our contract with them, and not make this invidious distinction of proposing thanks to those who happened to be lucky and nothing to those who brought us into disaster and disgrace. It was better to assume that all did their duty. Why were the Army and Navy to be singled out for special Votes of Thanks when they did their duty? Did not the police do their duty? [An hon. MEMBER: Not in Ireland.] Well, he did not understand Ireland. Very few people in that House did. He was only talking about the English police, with whom he was better acquainted. Why was not the policeman to be considered as good a character as the soldier? The policeman was much more useful, because the soldier was employed to break the peace, and the policeman was employed to keep the peace. Therefore, he would wish to have a now system adopted at our public dinners—though he was not a great man for toasts—and to have the toast proposed of "The Army, the Navy, and the Police." Why should not the distinguished services of a more useful nature than the slaughter of our fellow men be honoured? When the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was in Office a few years ago he, in conjunction with his Colleagues, did a thing not very popular on the other side, but which would be remembered to his honour years and years after he was taken from us—he meant the peaceful settlement of the Alabama question. That was real nobility, real Christianity, and would redound more to the credit of this country than the slaughter in battle of any number of people opposed to us. He was glad to take that opportunity of paying a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who had so justly won the confidence of his Party. There was nothing for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) would be more honourably remembered hereafter than for the part he took in the peaceful settlement of that International business.
  1860
  He objected to the special glorification of war which this Vote involved. As for the occupants of the Treasury Bench, he should like to know what had become of the two right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Birmingham, and whether it was their intention to vote in favour of the Motion? According to another prominent Member of the Government, war might be described as "a combination of all the crimes, horrors, and sufferings of which human nature is capable," and the Prime Minister had said—
  "A long experience of life leads me to a deeper and deeper conviction of the enormous mischief of war, even in the best and most favourable circumstances, and the mischief, indescribable and irredeemable, of causing an unnecessary war."
  Hon. Members in that part of the House had unanimously condemned the Afghan War as unnecessary, and as connected with the most horrible incidents. ["Question!"] The question surely was the value of, the services performed by the Army, in regard to which it had been said that they hanged more Afghans than they shot. He contended that Votes such as these were not only mischievous in principle, but also most injurious to the public feeling and public welfare of the country; and he hoped that, at least, hon. Members below the Gangway would join him in making a protest against a glorification of the military spirit, and in declaring that they did not feel joy in the destruction of their fellow creatures, but that they preferred a policy of "peace on earth, and good-will towards men."
  MR. J. COWENsaid, he entirely agreed with the Prime Minister as to the desirability of their having no division on the question before the House. If the Vote had to be of any value it ought to be unanimous, cordial, and hearty. A division would sensibly detract from its merit. By voting for the Motion no one committed himself to the policy involved in the Afghan War. It would be quite justifiable for those who disapproved of that enterprize to vote in favour of the Resolution. The Army was simply giving effect to the instructions of Parliament; and Parliament was giving effect to the wishes, or at least the supposed wishes, of the country at that time. He had no desire even to refer to the purpose of the war. It

  1861
  would open out a wide field for debate if they were to comment on it. But he would say this, in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy)—who compared the struggle of the Afghan tribesmen with the struggle of his own countrymen against the English—that the fight was not a fight for nationality. He would yield to no one in his concern for nationalities or for the independence of other nations. But the conflict in Afghanistan, so far as England was concerned, had reference to another Power than the Afghans. The Afghans were merely the instruments. They were moved by a distant but potent mechanism. It was not these Asiatic Highlanders that the English Government fought. It was a much more powerful people. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) talked about the spirit of the late Government and the hands of the present. But in the Afghan War the hands were the hands of Esau, and the voice was the voice of Jacob. ["No, no!"] Well, he did not wish to raise any controversy. He was only desirous, as the subject had been referred to, of recording his opinion that it was not a struggle against a nationality, but a struggle against a Power that had destroyed more nationalities than any other in existence. Dismissing that aspect of the question, however, he was glad that the proceedings of that night had done a tardy act of justice to a distinguished soldier. No man had been more harshly censured than General Roberts when he was fighting the nation's battles in a remote country, under terrible disadvantages, and when, too, he had no means of defending himself. He was accused of having deliberately hanged men who were opposing him in fair fight, with having burnt the houses and destroyed the villages of inoffensive non-combatants—of having, in fact, been guilty of no end of wanton cruelty and hardship. These charges were made against Sir Frederick Roberts in his absence, and repeated from day to day. If he was guilty of them, instead of being thanked he should have been censured. If he was not guilty of them, the men who made them ought to retract and apologize. The statement that had been made by the Secretary of State for India was a vindication of that gallant officer's conduct, and as such would be received with
  1862
  satisfaction and pleasure by the entire nation. He had only one further remark to make, and that had reference to the observation of the hon. Member for Wexford, who said the proceedings in Afghanistan resembled the doings of the English in Ireland. He (Mr. J. Cowen) did not think the facts warranted such a remark. However painful some of the incidents in the war in Asia might have been, there had been no pitchcaps, no triangles, and none of the other atrocities that characterized the suppression of the insurrection in Ireland in 1798. Indeed, no more marked proof of the improvement in the mode of conducting warfare could be cited than the contrast between the struggle in Afghanistan just terminated and the war we waged in the same country in 1842. He was not aware that the discussion was going to take place, or he would have prepared himself with information to show how the English Army acted in Afghanistan 40 years ago. They burnt villages, cut down trees, destroyed standing crops, and converted beautiful and richly cultivated plots into a barren wilderness. For miles everything above the earth that was consumable was put into a blaze, and both property and persons were destroyed wholesale. Anyone who would contrast the action of the English troops when they retreated from Cabul at that time with the action of the Army that General Roberts had recently led through the country would be able to appreciate the great advance that had been made in the mode of conducting war by civilized countries. The educating influence of the age had nowhere been more beneficially felt than in our military operations.
  MR. ASHTON DILKEsaid, he thought sonic reference ought to be made during this debate to the attitude taken by a large section, he believed the majority, of the Liberal Party in the months of December, 1879, and January, 1880, in regard to certain acts which were said at the time to have been committed by General Roberts in Afghanistan; and he thought they were indebted to his hon. Colleague (Mr. Cowen) for having reminded them that they then took an attitude which, so far as he could judge, was not the attitude of the Liberal Party now. He knew that it would be impossible to omit the name of General Roberts from this list. He was not

  1863
  going to vote against the Vote of Thanks. He could not agree with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford, for the war was their own doing, and he thought they ought to thank the soldiers who had carried out their wishes. Nor could he vote for the Previous Question with the hon. Member for Carlisle; but so long as the name of General Roberts was included in the list he could not conscientiously vote for it. ["Oh!"] He should not trouble the House with any remarks of his own; but would prove his case out of General Roberts's own mouth. In his Proclamation on entering Cabul he said—"The British Government has the right of totally destroying Cabul." Had the British Government that right? They would not dare to use such language if they were fighting a civilized enemy; and were they to say when fighting a savage and uneducated enemy thousands of miles away from public opinion what they would not say under other circumstances? On October 18—
  "Rewards are offered for any person who has fought against British troops since September 3; larger rewards offered for rebel officers of the Afghan Army."
  Were these men "rebels"? ["Yes!"] Rebels to whom? General Roberts spoke with just and proper indignation of the murder of Sir Louis Cavagnari, and he would have entirely sympathized with him if he had been content to hang or shoot only those who were concerned in that murder. But he went much further. On November 12 he said—
  "Amnesty will not be extended to those concerned in the attack on the Embassy, or who were guilty of instigating the troops and people to oppose the British troops. Such persons will be treated without mercy as rebels."
  It was to that General that they were asked to vote thanks. At the time the Press was under the military censorship of Cabul, telegrams emanating from Cabul contained in them nothing which was unpleasant to the military authorities. The newspaper correspondents wrote—
  "The trial of the prisoners is proceeding daily; all convicted are hanged. The city Mollah was hanged for preaching a religious war. The Kotwal was hanged for inciting and organizing resistance to us at Charasiab."
  But Charasiab was a fair and pitched battle. Again—
  1864
  "All the villages round Cabul are hostile to us. No quarter is given to anyone firing upon us, and prisoners taken in fight are shot."
  As for the execution of the city Mollah, what, he might ask, would they say if a German Army came and hanged the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Mayor of London for inciting them to do their duty as patriots and citizens? These facts might receive the cheers and the honours of the House of Commons; but if they ever came to a war with a civilized nation these things would recoil upon our heads.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down had thrown a new light on the question now before the House. The charges referred to had been either falsely or truly made. If they were false, why had they not been repudiated by the Members of the Treasury Benches? They were asked to thank, among others, General Roberts. He found reported in Hansard a debate in the Session of 1879 in which nearly every one of the Generals named in the present Resolution were thanked for what they had done in this war in Afghanistan. It was said that they should not wage a discussion on the policy of the war on this occasion; but men who represented the minority in the country—a minority that would stand by peace and non-intervention—were bound, in season and out of season, to make their opinions heard. But Ministers had themselves discussed the conduct of officers, and had thus initiated a discussion of the kind, which had been deprecated. These officers were Civil Governors as well as Military Chiefs, and it was in the former capacity that they were guilty of the acts that had been complained of. Comments had been made on the attitude of the Government, and on the absence of the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Birmingham; but he thought their absence was more honourable than the presence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. That right hon. Gentleman also had been a member of the Society of Friends; but he had probably seen and learned so much in the course of the last 12 months that he was now willing to support a Vote of Thanks to an Army. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whom, in many respects, he recognized as his political tutor, had, in one of the reports of his great speeches,

  1865
  quoted the phrase of Wilberforce with regard to the "noxious race of heroes and warriors." It was, therefore, not surprising that the right hon. Gentleman was not here to-night. His hon. Friend who had raised this question would have been perfectly willing to have left it to some other Members; but he had shown that, if the English Members neglected to stand by the principles of justice and peace, some Irish Members would stand up and do so for them. He should go into the Lobby with his hon. Friend, and the only difference between Afghanistan and Ireland was this—that what had been done in Afghanistan within the last year or two had been done in Ireland some time ago.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would have thought it necessary to say a few words on behalf of the Army of this country. That Army does not require any defence from me. Under difficult circumstances on many occasions, it has discharged the duties intrusted to it in a manner which has done it the greatest possible honour. I am glad to think that it has done so in the present instance, and that now, as on so many previous occasions, it has obtained the respect and gratitude of this country. But I rise in particular in consequence of the attacks which have been made on Sir Frederick Roberts. In ordinary circumstances, I think I might safely have said that I would leave his reputation to the judgment of his fellow-countrymen. They have heard the case, and have decided it in a way which cannot fail to be gratifying to Sir Frederick Roberts, as is shown by the reception he has met with in this country since his return, and by the universal opinion which has been expressed respecting his conduct. But the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ashton Dilke) has acted in the most unfair possible way. He has raked up some old charges against Sir Frederick Roberts; but he has not referred to the fact, which most Gentlemen in this House know perfectly well, that a complete defence of Sir Frederick Roberts was laid before this House in the form of a Parliamentary Paper. This fact the hon. Member for Newcastle had never alluded to. [Mr. ASHTON DILKE: I only read Sir Frederick Roberts's own words.] The defence of General Roberts was laid before this
  1866
  House in the year 1880. I think the letter in which it was sent was dated the 27th of January in that year. It was laid before the country for its candid consideration. It offered a complete denial of the charges which had been made, and from that time to the present no Member of the House had stood up and reiterated those charges. Sir Frederick Roberts might well have been fully convinced, therefore, that after the answer which was given to those charges they would never again be brought forward, and that he would be protected from a most unfair attack such as had been now made upon him.
  MR. CHILDERS: A minute or two before the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken rose to address the House I had asked my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India to obtain for me from the Library that despatch which has been referred to, and if my noble Friend had returned in time I should have at once risen to address the House. The Paper itself has not yet reached me; but I have the fullest recollection of having most carefully studied that Paper when it was laid on the Table of the House, and I thoroughly satisfied myself that Sir Frederick Roberts had successfully and satisfactorily rebutted the charges which had been made against him. I regret I had not had an opportunity of saying this before the hon. Gentleman opposite rose; but I hope the House will excuse me for wishing to wait for a few moments until I could get the actual correspondence. Sir Frederick Roberts was attacked—though not by me or my noble Friend—for his supposed improper conduct in putting to death certain Afghans in connection with the rising which took place in consequence of the Cavagnari murder. I hope the House will accept from the hon. Gentleman opposite and from myself the assurance that, the case having been fully looked into and considered by us, we—speaking for Her Majesty's late Government and Her Majesty's present Government—are satisfied that those charges were without foundation. I intended also to say a word or two—and really no more is necessary—with reference to the general imputations which have been made against the British Army, and as to the effect of Motions like the present. Motions like the present are the customary course adopted

  1867
  in both Houses of Parliament when an I Army has done its duty in obedience to the commands of its Sovereign. On the completion of its work the House has uniformly been asked if the operations were considered of sufficient importance to pass a Vote of this kind. I will go the length of saying that it would be a great misfortune if the Army was to be taught to believe that such a Vote of Thanks was to depend on the approval or disapproval by a section or a majority of Parliament of the political reasons which put the Army in motion. Soldiers in the discharge of their duty should know nothing of politics. If a Vote of Thanks was voted on one occasion and negatived on another, when the successful operations of the Army were of equal importance, the soldier will begin to think—"I wonder whether the case in which I am engaged is one of which the political grounds are sufficient to gain me the thanks of Parliament?" I hope the soldier will never ask that question. I hope the soldier will always do his duty, and without asking for the reasons of the war, as he has done it in the past, and as he is doing it now. On that ground I much regret the Amendments which have been made to-night, and I still hope the House will pass the Motion nemine contradicente,, as on past occasions.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that if the Previous Question had been moved by the hon. Member for Carlisle many hon. Members would have had an opportunity of escaping from a position of some difficulty. It was a fact that the war in which our Army had been engaged was condemned by the great majority of the people of this country. The responsibility in no way rested on the Army; but a double responsibility rested upon those who originated the war in Afghanistan. ["Divide!"] How was it that the enthusiasm for this Vote came entirely from the country Gentlemen on the other side of the House, who occupied a front position by their relatives and friends in the British Army? The statement that General Roberts had done nothing unbecoming a British soldier only showed what a low standard prevailed on the two Front Benches as to what was just to a country which we invaded without any show of reason or justice. This Resolution was not to convoy the thanks of the House to the pri-
  1868
  vate soldiers who fought in the war. A glorification of the war system, which had its basis in what was called society, was the real reason for the Vote. [Interruptions.] If he was not allowed to proceed with his remarks he would be under the necessity of moving the adjournment of the debate. Representing a large constituency (Bradford) holding a strong opinion on this question, he asked the indulgence of the House. He ventured to think that the Government were performing merely a perfunctory duty in this matter, and that their hearts were elsewhere. Even if the House passed this Vote unanimously, it must not be understood by the country that it had in any degree altered its opinion as to the injustice of the war. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn, in order that the Previous Question might be moved.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he could not but think, looking to the general policy of Her Majesty's Government, that a Vote of Thanks to the troops engaged in the Transvaal would come with better grace from their lips than a Vote of Thanks to the troops engaged in Afghanistan. In either case, criticism or opposition, it seemed to him, was perfectly legitimate, otherwise there would be nothing to prevent the Chief Secretary for Ireland from coming down to the House some evening and proposing a Vote of Thanks to the Constabulary engaged in shooting down the poor Irish peasantry in the West of Ireland. He was anxious to know at what date the Government became aware of the spotless and stainless character of the officers and troops engaged in Afghanistan; because if they did so at a tolerably early date, it would not be easy to reconcile their silence at the period of the General Election on the subject of the excesses alleged to have been committed by General Roberts and others. Those alleged excesses were among the most powerful arguments used by Radical speakers and writers for the overthrow of the late Government; and the Members of the present Government, by their silence in reference to them, connived at the charges made. The hon. Member, amid signs of impatience on the part of the House, quoted some doggrel verse which had appeared in a Radical organ—The Echo—in 1879, describing the British troops as—

  1869
  "The Christian sons of pillage,
  That burned the Afghan village."
  He trusted the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would acquiesce in the appeal made to him by those Radicals who had not yet lost all sense of consistency in the delights of power, and withdraw his Motion in favour of the Previous Question, which, if adopted, would leave the matter in statu quo. For his own part, until an investigation showed whether the British troops had been unfairly vilipended or not, he was not prepared to express an opinion on the question. After due investigation, he would leave no objection to support a Vote of Thanks to an acquitted and glorified Army.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, the attacks which had been made on Sir Frederick Roberts had been conclusively answered. That gallant officer would probably survive the charges of the junior Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Ashton Dilke), as well as the attack of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). He pointed out that when Sir Frederick Roberts was accused of shooting Afghans as rebels, they were actually in rebellion against their own Sovereign, Yakoob Khan, who had made a Treaty with Sir Frederick Roberts, and was in his camp. Although he had never approved the Afghan War, he could not refuse a Vote of Thanks to the Army which had so gallantly done its duty.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL, while acknowledging the gallantry displayed by the troops generally, by the commanders, and by Sir Frederick Roberts, said, he could not approve all that Sir Frederick Roberts had done in his political capacity; and after what had been said by the Secretary of State for War, he thought it necessary to protest against its being supposed that those who voted in favour of passing a Vote of Thanks to the Army were, in consequence, committed to the support of all that had been done in prosecuting the Afghan War, and after Sir Frederick Roberts's victories.
  MR. HEALYasked permission to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the Previous Question. ["No!"]
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 304; Noes 20: Majority,284.—(Div. List, No. 194.)
  Main Question put.
  (1.) Resolved, That the thanks of this House be given to General Sir Frederick Paul Haines, G.C.B., G.C.S.I., C.I.E., Commander in Chief in India, for the ability and judgment with which he directed the recent operations from September 1879 to September 1880 in Afghanistan.
  (2.) Resolved, That the Thanks of this House be given to—

  Lieut. General Sir Donald Martin Stewart, G.C.B.;

  Lieut. General Sir Frederick Sleigh Roberts, G.C.B., C.I.E., V.C.;

  Lieut. General Sir Robert Onesiphorus Bright, K.C.B.;

  Major General Sir John Ross, K.C.B.;

  Major General Sir James Hills, K.C.B., V. C.;

  Major General Sir Robert Phayre, K.C.B;

  Major General (Local) John Watson, C.B., V. C.;

  and the other Officers of the Army, both European and Native, for the intrepidity, skill, and perseverance displayed by them in the Military Operations in Afghanistan, and for their indefatigable zeal and exertions during the late Campaign.
  (3.) Resolved, That this House doth highly approve and acknowledge the valour and perseverance displayed by the Non-commissioned Officers and private Soldiers, both European and Native, employed in Afghanistan during the late Campaign, and that the same be signified to them by the Commanders of the several Corps, who are desired to thank them for their gallant behaviour.
  (4.) Resolved, That the said Resolutions be transmitted by Mr. Speaker to the Viceroy and Governor General of India, and that His Lordship be requested to communicate the same to the several Officers referred to therein.

  PARLIAMENT—NEW WRIT FOR KNARESBOROUGH.
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR moved—
  "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Knaresborough, in the room of Sir Henry Meysey Meysey-Thompson, whose Election has been declared to be void."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had hoped some statement would be made by a Law Officer of the Crown under the peculiar circumstances of this case. Knaresborough was one of the rottenest of the rotten boroughs in England. ["No, no!"] It was one of those petty, trumpery places which could not possibly survive any new Reform Bill. There were 5,000 inhabitants in it formerly; but the latest Returns had shown that that number had decreased.

  1871
  The principal industry of the place was beer, there being no less than 47 public-houses for over 4,000 people. The result of the recent inquiry had shown that at the last and previous General Elections corrupt practices were practised extensively on both sides, a man's vote being easily bought by a liberal allowance of beer. He protested emphatically, therefore, against the issue of a new Writ for the return of a Member to represent in Parliament so worthless and insignificant a borough as the one he had described.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he should not oppose the granting of the Writ which was asked for; but he could not let the opportunity pass of remarking upon the fact that while the Government moved for the election of a Member for Knaresborough they were willing to continue the disfranchisement of Cashel and Sligo, in neither of which boroughs had it been proved that nearly the same amount of either bribery or corruption had ever existed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not allow the observations of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) to go uncontradicted. The Report of the Commissioners went to show that corrupt practices had not extensively prevailed, and that in itself was a sufficient reason for issuing a Writ for the election of a Member. There could be no doubt that the Commission of Inquiry was the result of an unfortunate accident; and it would certainly be hard that a whole constituency should be disfranchised by reason of the conduct of an individual, in addition to having to pay a heavy rate in order to pay the cost of the inquiry. He was afraid that if a searching Commission were issued into every borough of England there would be scarcely one that would come out of the ordeal purer than Knaresborough. He would also include Ireland in that statement. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: And Scotland?] He would not include Scotland. There they never gave anything to anybody. By issuing the Writ Parliament would restore to Knaresborough the representation which it ought never to have lost. As far as the observations of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) were concerned, he could only say that in his view there was no similarity between the cases of
  1872
  Knaresborough and Cashel and Sligo; and that he should be glad if there could be found equally cogent grounds for re-enfranchising Cashel and Sligo with those on which it was now proposed to give Knaresborough an opportunity for returning a Member to the House.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that he would be sorry to compare Sligo and Cashel, or any Irish borough, with Knaresborough, where it was well known corrupt practices prevailed. The House had recently by five to one refused to issue a Writ for Sligo, which had suffered for 14 years for the fault of a small and insignificant number of voters. It would now be seen how unfairly the two Irish boroughs were treated.
  SIR HENRY TYLERsaid, he would not have risen but for the sweeping assertion of the Attorney General, to the effect that if a searching inquiry were made into every borough in England, scarcely one would come out of the ordeal purer than Knaresborough. He would take this opportunity of reminding the hon. and learned Gentleman of the very searching inquiry that was instituted into the borough of Harwich, which he had the honour to represent, and of the excellent Report that resulted from it. And he was the more anxious to take the opportunity of drawing attention to that Report, because he was aware of the prejudice with which small boroughs were regarded by certain Members on the Liberal Benches.
  Motion agreed to.

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

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE. [FOURTH NIGHT.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [25th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  And which Amendment was,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, while willing to consider any just measure, founded upon sound principles, that will benefit tenants of land in Ireland, is of opinion that the leading provisions of the Land

  1873
  Law (Ireland) Bill are in the main economically unsound, unjust, and impolitic,"—(Lord Elcho,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he rose with some considerable diffidence to offer any remarks upon this important Bill, because, naturally, anyone whose personal interests were supposed to be involved in the question concerned in the Bill must be listened to with some degree of doubt as to whether he was speaking from his own standpoint, or whether he was speaking only for the benefit of the country. In the few observations he was about to make, however, as he did not propose to utterly condemn or to utterly praise the Bill, he hoped he should not be interrupted before coming to the conclusion of the remarks which he wished to make. Before he touched upon the Bill, he should make some remarks upon the Bess-borough Commission. The First Minister of the Crown, in his speech, had not attributed much importance to it, and he (Sir Hervey Bruce) had reason to find fault with the manner in which that Commission was in many respects conducted. He admitted the courtesy of the Commission in sending round to the landlords the reports of the evidence given against them. But their courtesy went no farther. Landlords against whom he knew that in many instances grave, and, as in his own case, false charges had been made, were allowed to remain in ignorance of these charges for three months before the Commission sent the evidence to them; and that, he thought, was hardly fair. He remonstrated with the Commission on that, and when evidence was given against him later on, he received it on a much earlier date. He did not attribute so much importance to that as to think that they should have published all this mass of evidence, which could not be borne out by the facts. He also complained that in the second volume of this evidence—for the first was only a Report—no marginal notes appeared stating that portions of the evidence could be contradicted. This, he thought, was most unfair. It could not be expected that the Commission
  1874
  would put a refutation of those charges in the first volume; but, in the second, it could have been stated that portions of the evidence had been contradicted on authority. But they did nothing of the sort. They published the second documentary volume, and the landlords remained under its stigma for many weeks before the charges which it contained were contradicted. Not only that, but the Commission admitted as evidence the anonymous statements of four individuals who, he was sure, need not have concealed their names from the public. The tenantry of Ireland were not such craven cowards as to be afraid to give evidence, even if it were against the landlords. He was proud to say that not one tenant of his own had given evidence to the Commission; but strangers volunteered with all their heart to do so. He had as independent a tenantry as was to be found in Ireland, yet they declined to listen to the suggestions of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway (the Home Rulers), or anywhere else. The first who gave evidence against him was a person named Tommy Warnock, well known in that part of the world. He did not live in his (Sir Hervey Bruce's) neighbourhood, and he was a gentleman who, it was to be regretted, had so little to do at home that he had plenty of time abroad. Mr. Warnock not only lectured landlords as to their duty, but tenants also; and if he did not find the latter amenable to his views, and sufficiently angry against landlords, they were told they were a "set of fools." He had latterly attacked the clergy of the district; but, happily, he put himself in the wrong box, for he was told that unless he apologized, there would be an action for libel. He (Sir Hervey Bruce) thought he could have brought a similar action against this man; but he concluded that Warnock was not worth the powder and shot. The next gentleman who gave evidence against him was a Mr. Collison, whose name he never heard before he saw it in the Report, and he did not know where he lived. Nine or ten years ago he (Sir Hervey Bruce) sold a property in the county of Tyrone, as to which Mr. Collison told the Commissioners that his tenants were led blindfolded on the occasion, because they would not be allowed to employ any solicitor but his own, who did the business for both

  1875
  parties. That was utterly false. The very day after he saw this statement, he (Sir Hervey Bruce) went to his solicitor, who showed him the correspondence with the tenants, asking him whether he would be their solicitor in the matter of the sales, and he saw a copy of his answer, which was to the effect that much as he would like to act for them he declined to do so, as it would not be proper for him to act as solicitor for the buyers as well as the seller. Another person named Joseph Smith gave evidence against him. He rather thought Mr. Smith was the Chairman of some Town Commissioners. He never lived on his (Sir Hervey Bruce's) property, and he did not know who he was, nor what he knew of himself (Sir Hervey Bruce); but he gave evidence which very much attracted the attention of tile senior Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw), who put some very pertinent questions to him. The witness said, in answer to the hon. Member, that a particular property was leased away by a former Bishop of Derry to his relative, Sir Hervey Bruce, who then raised the rents twice before selling the property in the Encumbered Estates Court. That was utterly false. He (Sir Hervey Bruce) was old enough, God knew; but he was represented by this witness as having had property leased to him by a former Bishop (Lord Bristol), who died in 1803, so that he did not know what his age would be now. If statements of that kind were accepted and published against one landlord, it was not unreasonable to suppose there were others who were treated in a similar manner. But what was worse still was the statements of anonymous witnesses. Surely there were plenty of persons who knew the state of Ireland that could have come forward and given evidence, without the Commissioners bolstering up a case by means of persons who were afraid to let the world know what they said. In one instance, an anonymous letter was sent in, against a noble Friend of his and his family, and it was published, though it contained charges which were of the grossest nature, and absolutely and utterly untrue. English Gentlemen could not place much confidence in a Commission which received and published such evidence as that, without giving those attacked an opportunity of repelling the
  1876
  charges, except when it was too late. He denied that there was any truth in the statement, made a few clays ago in an anonymous publication, that he had raised the rents of tenants on the estate which he bought from the Clothworkers' Company from 30 to 80 per cent. With regard to the Bill itself, if he believed that the measure would restore peace and tranquillity to his unhappy country, no matter what harm it might do to himself, he would go most willingly into the Lobby with Ministers in every division, both now and when they got into Committee. But, from the utterances which he heard around him every clay in Ireland, he did not believe that the land was at the bottom of that agitation; on the contrary, it was Communism and a desire to separate his country from England, which would be a most fatal thing for Ireland. The Prime Minister had twice before sent "Messages of Peace," as they were called, to Ireland. He had disestablished the Irish Church—a measure which had not brought much tranquillity to the country; nor had it been of much advantage, except in a sentimental sense, to the adherents of other communions, many of whom would have infinitely preferred the establishment of other religious bodies to the pulling down of an ancient and sacred Institution. ["No!"] He denied that the disestablishment of the Irish Church was a necessary measure, nor was it desired by the Roman Catholics. He would have had no objection to other religious communities receiving endowments from the State, for he would regard that as a statesmanlike measure. Then they had the Land Act of 1870. Had that Act conferred any great benefit on any class? He had conversed with many tenants who wished to stay in the country, and he found that they bitterly regretted its passing; they said it had conferred no real benefits on them, that they would rather have remained as they were, trusting to the landlords, who, as a general rule, had treated them better than they had been treated under the Act of 1870. He, did not, therefore, see that the Bill of 1881 would make matters much better. It would not make the discontented content, nor render them more loyal to England. The expropriation of the landlords would not make the Irish people either more peace-

  1877
  able or more prosperous. The Prime Minister's statements were at variance with those made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in introducing the Bill, for the former acquitted the landlords of having acted unjustly; but the latter did not. The Prime Minister had in his speech clothed the Bill in the garb of mercy to the Irish landlords; but when they came to see the measure in its naked simplicity the pleasing illusion was rudely dispelled. The Bill bristled with penalties, complications, uncertainties, and the prospect of endless litigation. Statesmen, like ladies, were privileged to change their minds; so he would not make any quotations to show that right hon. Gentlemen on both sides had changed their opinions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) appeared, from his remarks, to have a tremendous regard for mud cabins, and to be strongly opposed to consolidation; but for the life of him he (Sir Hervey Bruce) could not see anything comfortable or blessed in a mud cabin. Again, the Prime Minister was rather pleased that there should be consolidation, for without it there would be no improvement effected in the condition of the Irish people. It was all very well to bring in Bills to the the hands of landlords; but that would not in the least help the unfortunate people who lived on patches of ground that were utterly unfit to provide bread for them and their families, or even for single men without anybody depending on them. There must be consolidation; and as to mud cabins, in his opinion, they were not even fit for pigs, much less for human beings, and it had been his object, during the time he had administered his estate, that the tenants should be provided with suitable dwellings, instead of the mud cabins which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite so much admired. In introducing the Bill, the Prime Minister attempted to draw an analogy between it and the Act for emancipating negro slaves. Possibly, there was some degree of analogy; but the Irish tenants, he was happy to say, were not slaves. And there was also this difference, that whereas in the Act emancipating the slaves compensation was given, here there was no compensation. Only one class was to be benefited by the Bill. The Irish landlord
  1878
  was supposed to lose another considerable portion of his estate; the tenant was to derive some benefit by it, of which he (Sir Hervey Bruce) was doubtful; and the labourers were to be left out in the cold. But he hoped the day would come when the Government would see fit to bring the labourers within the scope of their benevolent legislation. The Prime Minister had said that there was nothing easier than to find the value of the tenant's interest, by discovering the price which it would obtain in the market. Now, there was no more fallacious test than that. A large farm would not command the same price as a miserable little holding, for which a man anxious to obtain land would give far more than it was really worth. No man in Ireland left his holding, unless he was obliged to do it; but yet the hunger for land was so great that a little bit of land run out to the last degree brought a bigger price than a larger farm, although in a better condition. The Prime Minister had made allusion to Donegal and Mayo; but although Donegal was not in the condition of other parts of the country, it was not in a very comfortable state, and yet it was one of the tenant right counties. He (Sir Hervey Bruce) spoke from personal knowledge, and not from hearsay. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had said that there was no such thing as free contract. Well, the Bill would prevent the landlord from making a reasonable bargain with his tenant; but it encouraged free contract in every other direction, and, as a consequence, the man who came into possession through land hunger was beggared. Some of the landlords had gone beyond what was reasonable; but why were they to curse the whole class, and bring many respectable tenants into unpleasant conditions, because some had done wrong? With regard to free contract, he asked why were they to abolish it as between the tenant and the landlord, whose interest it was to do fairly by the tenant, declaring that the land-lord shall make no arrangement with the tenant, and leave it free to everybody else—to the money-lender, to the man coming in, and to others—to come to what terms they pleased with the tenant, much to the injury of the latter? Coming to the Bill itself, he would first deal with free sale. This free sale simply amounted

  1879
  to a system of sending money out of the, country. The prosperous, careful, industrious farmer did not want it, for he did not leave the country; but the idle, the drunken, or the extravagant tenant did, for by it he got a preposterous sum for his interest, which he was enabled to carry away to a foreign country, or one of the Colonies. Many of the better class of tenants, although they did not like to speak out plainly about this free sale, knowing agitators made such a point of it, who wished to improve and consolidate their farms, hated free sale. They said it was the curse of the country, and prevented them improving their farms as they wished to do. He did not think landlords ought to hamper their tenants too much in free sale; but if the Bill was to allow the land of Ireland, whenever an idle or is contented man thought proper, to be put up to sale, the country would be thrown back a century and a-half. As for fair rent, he had no objection to it in the least, and if it would pacify the country, he would approve of the naming of the rent being taken out of the hands of the landlords; and that none the less, because it would prevent the possibility of any agitators saying that the landlords were putting on an undue rent. But he objected strongly to the constitution of the Court. He objected to the Court of First Instance. If he read the 37th section correctly, one Assistant Commissioner could name the rent to be paid all over Ireland. He thought the appointment of the Land Commissioners should not be placed entirely in the hands of the Government, but that the Judge who was to be selected from one of the Superior Courts ought to be chosen by the Judges themselves. The Government should appoint one Commissioner, and the Houses of Parliament the other. With respect to fixity of tenure, whatever remarks it was open to on social and economic grounds, he should have no objection to it if it would tend to pacify the country. No landlord, unless he was blind to his own interest, would wish to remove a tenant who farmed the land properly and paid a reasonable rent. It was practically fixity of tenure in that part of Ireland with which he was associated. He had no faith in the clauses providing for the establishment of a peasant proprietary; his own experience was most decisive against the system. But if it
  1880
  would give satisfaction to the country, he had no objection to the experiment being tried. In his part of the country, however, the condition of the holdings showed him that the land held by peasant proprietorship was the most wretched in the country. But he approved cordially the sections providing for the payment of a fee-farm rent, and he thought greater facilities ought to have been provided to enable ordinary rents to be commuted into fee-farm rents, and more liberal advances promised for that purpose. With regard to the emigration clauses in the Bill, he thought that instead of doing good they would do harm, inducing the labouring class to emigrate, and not the small holders, whose removal from their wretched holdings would be desirable; but other provisions of the Bill held out inducements to them to remain on the land, and placed barriers on their removal, so he saw no likelihood of practical utility from the emigration clauses. He objected, too, to the jurisdiction in the matter of the Civil Bill Courts, as it would probably make different ruling in different counties, though there could be no objection personally to the County Court Judges. One of the greatest evils which would result from the Bill would be the opportunity which would be given to the usurers. Since the Act of 1870, tenants had been far more in the hands of usurers than before. The landlords used to protect their tenants against the importunities of the former; but, at the present time, they could not do so. Now, the usurer held the tenant's farm, and was the man who benefited under the Act of 1870 to benefit by the Bill of 1881, and injure the tenants more than all the landlords for many a long day? He had mentioned the faults of commission in the Bill, and he would next advert to its sins of omission. One of these was the total absence from the Bill of any provision on behalf of the labourers, who were hardly dealt with, and who, most of all, needed legislation. Another was that there was no compensation for the injured classes. The tenants were the only persons proposed to be benefited by the Bill. The last omission was the absence of a remedy for the evil of the removal from England and Scotland of Irish paupers to their own country. It frequently happened that persons who had lived 40 or 50

  1881
  years in England were sent back to their own country in circumstances of great hardship, and too often only to die. That evil he himself had attempted to deal with in his Poor Removal Bill, which he had reason to believe was to be opposed by the Government. In conclusion, he must say he feared the Bill would not remove the real evils of Ireland. He felt strongly and had spoken warmly in the interests of his native country, on whose behalf he longed to see really beneficial and remedial legislation. He could not approve the Bill as it stood; but he trusted that moderate counsels would prevail in all parts of the House, and that Her Majesty's Government would allow it to be so re-modelled in Committee as to come as near as a Bill of the kind could to those immutable principles of which they had heard more than they had seen; so that, under fairer auspices and with some degree of unanimity, it might be sent to "another place," where, alas! the voice of the great Leader who had so long been their counsellor and guide would be heard no more—of him who, by courage and patience in adversity, wisdom and moderation in prosperity, had won for himself a world-wide reputation, and, what was dearer to him by far, the imperishable gratitude of his Sovereign, whom he served so faithfully and well, and of all her loyal subjects.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, there were several statements made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) which he did not wish to recall; but, as representing a county (Mayo) which had been most intimately associated with the land agitation, he wished to say a few words upon the grave accusations which the hon. Baronet had brought against the majority of the tenant farmers of Ireland, the Irish people generally, and, he supposed, with special force against the county which he (Mr. O'Connor Power) had the honour to represent. The hon. Gentleman could arrive at no hope of peace being the immediate result of the passage of this measure; and the reason he gave was, that he was convinced that the masses of the people in Ireland had abandoned themselves to the theories of Communism, and that no legislation of this character consequently could have any effect in promoting their tranquillity.
  1882
  Since the land agitation started in Ireland, many people had undertaken to speak the sentiments of the Irish people, and many had undertaken to represent the views of the people of Mayo. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) thought that he might, without much diffidence, undertake to speak their sentiments there that night; and he as their constitutionally-elected Representative said, with as much emphasis as was proper on the occasion, that he repudiated, on the part of the people of Mayo, any sympathy whatever with the theory or principle of Communism. He understood the feelings of the people of the country of Ireland, and he was quite prepared to acknowledge that in the progress of the agitation language might have been used by individuals now and again smarting under a sense of wrong and oppression, which, taken closely and literally, might give some colour to the accusation which had been levelled against them; but they must judge of a people, not by outbursts of popular agitation, but by what they affirmed on calm deliberation. He was opposed to Communism, because it destroyed individuality, and would repress energy by leading men to look to the State for support. He trusted, therefore, that whatever impression might have been made by certain expressions emanating from individuals here and there, such wholesale accusations as that were not to receive the assent of the House of Commons. The hon. Baronet made another complaint, which he (Mr. O'Connor Power) supposed was addressed to Her Majesty's Government, against the Bessborough Commission—that they had not afforded the landlords of Ireland an opportunity of rebutting the accusations made against them in time. Now, it seemed to him (Mr. O'Connor Power) that the first duty of the Commission was to take evidence from the persons aggrieved by the existing land system, and when they had concluded the taking of that evidence and had it in an intelligible form, he was not aware that they delayed its publication, or hesitated to take the rebutting evidence, and publish that too. They had entered upon that duty upon very short notice; and he was bound to say, though he was not prepared to assent to all their conclusions, that they had discharged their duties with every ability and remarkable in.

  1883
  dustry, and that they deserved very great thanks from those interested in the solution of this question. He was glad, however, to say he could quite endorse all that the hon. Baronet had said as to the spirit in which all parties should come to the consideration of the Bill. He thought that, in the long run, that Party in the House would best promote its own political interests that exhibited, on that occasion, magnanimity and generosity in the treatment of a question which would be just as difficult to the Predecessors of Her Majesty's Government, or to the Representatives of the Irish Party if they sat upon the Government Benches, and were called upon to grapple it. Shortly after the introduction of the Bill, he attended a county meeting in Mayo, where it had been freely distributed, called for the purpose of considering its provisions. The meeting was held under circumstances where admission was feasible to all. The people of Mayo passed the following resolution at the meeting:—
  "That while we re-affirm our convictions that the only final solution of the Land Question is to be found in legislation enabling the cultivators to become the owners of their own farms, we recommend our Parliamentary Representatives to support the second reading of the Land Bill, and to make strenuous efforts, after its getting into Committee, so to improve its provisions that in its passage through Parliament it may become a measure of real protection to the tenant farmers of Ireland."
  He (Mr. O'Connor Power) thought the interpretation he was entitled to put upon the resolution was this—that as the Representative of the county he would be justified in voting for the second reading of the Bill. He was not, however, authorized to interpret the resolution as a declaration that the proposal of the Government as it stood could possibly constitute a solution of the Irish Land Question. He hoped he should be able to show, before he sat down, that the Bill needed considerable amendment in Committee before it could at all claim to be anything like a settlement of the great agrarian difficulty in Ireland. He should like to ask, in the first place, what was the policy of the Bill? He presumed that the policy of the Bill was founded upon the necessity of improving the condition of the agricultural population of Ireland, and he thought no one could doubt the urgent need of such improvement. He had heard of writers and
  1884
  public men who had paid flying visits to Ireland say a good deal about Irish prosperity. He believed it was true that Dublin had increased in prosperity in recent years; but he was bound to say it had been very much at the expense of the smaller tenants in Ireland. Consequently, when they went outside Dublin, they saw villages disappearing and towns decaying very rapidly, and hundreds of thousands of the working population in a condition of great poverty and misery, toiling all day for that which would not procure the necessaries of life. His estimate of the Bill had been framed upon the principle of ascertaining how far, in its present shape, it was likely to realize the objects which its framers had in view. In one part, it favoured the creation of a peasant proprietary; but it recognized that the transference of the ownership of the soil from one class to another must be a gradual operation; and, knowing that that operation must be gradual, the framers said there must be something done to mitigate the severity of the system as it stood. Subsequently, in the very forefront of the Bill, they found provisions dealing with the relations between landlord and tenant. He ventured to think that, notwithstanding the declared intentions of the Government, the principle of free sale was hampered by vexatious restrictions, which would in many cases make free sale very difficult, if not entirely impossible. Another theory was that the best thing they could do for the social and political condition of Ireland—it was also said the industrial condition—was to effect a wider and Letter distribution of land. But the earlier provisions of the Bill did not show that its framers were anxious to bring about such a result. Take the clause with respect to free sale, for instance, it said that a tenant might sell his tenancy for the best price, but subject to certain conditions, and that, except with the consent of the landlord, the sale should be made to one person only. But why to one person only? Why should not the tenant of a 200-acre farm have the right to disposing to more than one? He granted that there was a dual interest concerned, that of the landlord and the tenant; but it was admitted that the conflicting interests of landlord and tenant, especially in the matter of rent, could not be settled except by the Court. Thus there was pri-

  1885
  marily an interference with the landlord as to the price he was to obtain for his land. They interfered by the agency of the Court. And he (Mr. O'Connor Power) did not see why the Court should not also determine whether the rights of the tenancy should not be sold to 20 persons instead of one. Liberal and generous as were the proposals referring to a peasant proprietary, he feared the operation of the clauses would be so gradual that 100 years might elapse before they were of any advantage. He should, therefore, be very glad if the Government could see their way to alter that portion of the Bill so as to enable a tenant, with the consent of the Court, to sell his tenancy to more than one person without prejudice to the interests of the landlord. The same remark applied to the devolution of tenancies. It was much to be deplored, when they had been preparing for so many years to legislate on this great subject, that they should not realize all the possibilities of the question as now presented to them. In the early provisions of the Bill, there was an opportunity of distributing land advantageously, and of spreading the population by enabling large farmers to sell their interest in lands; and it was a pity that such an opportunity should have been lost sight of by the Government. He would be glad to see an alteration in the Bill in these respects, particularly in regard to the devolution of the tenancies. When a tenant sold his interest, he generally sold it to a stranger, in whom he had no following interest. But if the man was the tenant of a large farm, and was the happy owner of a large family, for the members of whom he was anxious to make provision out of his rights to the land, it was deplorable that he should not be able to do so, except with the consent of the landlord. And it was cruel, either by agitation or by Ministerial speeches, or by the introduction of a Bill of the kind under notice, to raise expectations in the minds of the people of Ireland which were not likely to be fulfilled by the machinery now proposed to carry it out. He thought the devolution should not be limited to one person, unwisely as it was, seeing that in many cases a farm might be fairly broken up and sold to a number of small tenants. But objection had been taken to the provision of security of
  1886
  tenure. It could not be too clearly pointed out that the Bill did not provide for what was popularly called and known in Ireland as fixity of tenure. It provided no fixity of tenure beyond a limit of 15 years. Even that security was conditional on the ground that the tenants should not sub-divide or sub-let without the consent of the landlord. On that point, he submitted that on many large estates the principle of sub-division might be advantageously introduced. On the other hand, he would not deny that, in other cases, the principle of consolidation urged by the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) might not be introduced with equal advantage. It could not be too soon or too emphatically asserted that there were in the West and South of Ireland tens of thousands of tenant farmers who were living upon wretched patches of land which would not, under any circumstances, afford them a comfortable livelihood; so that, while he would advocate sub-division in the one case, he advocated consolidation in the other. Then, again, the landlord's right of resumption would interfere very much with the security of the tenant in his holding. The landlord might resume, for any one of three reasons—for the good of the holding, for the good of the estate, or for the good of the labourers on the estate. These reasons were all dangerously vague. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) considered fair rent one of the most important provisions of the Bill. Looking to the constitution of the Court which was to determine what was a fair rent, he (Mr. O'Connor Power) admitted that the legal element should be strongly represented; and he should have no objection to the Judge of the County Court forming part of it; but he hoped the Government would re-consider the question, so as to associate with him either two professional valuers, or laymen who might be expected to have some knowledge of agriculture and some knowledge of the districts with which they would have to deal. He could speak, in the heartiest terms of commendation, of the spirit in which the clauses providing for the creation of peasant proprietorship had been framed, and he wished he could add that those provisions were likely to produce at an early period the results which

  1887
  they were aimed to produce. He did not see why the whole purchase money should not be advanced to the tenants; but it had taken 10 or 12 years to show that it was one thing to have a grand object in view, and another to provide proper machinery for carrying that object into effect. There still seemed to be a little half-heartedness in the clauses for the creation of a peasant proprietary. The provision that sales might be negotiated by the Commission, upon the application of landlord and tenant, was a decided step in advance of the Act of 1870. If the Land Commission were constituted of men who understood their work, who were willing to pull off their coats to it, and who would look for lands to purchase on advantageous terms, considerable progress might be made. But he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was strongly of opinion that it would be necessary, in the first place, to lend the whole of the purchase money to the tenants; and, secondly, to proceed where a smaller number than half the tenants were willing to purchase. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that he looked to the clauses for the reclamation of waste lands as the means, to a great extent, of remedying the evil of over-population in certain parts of Ireland. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) feared the expectations of the right hon. Gentleman were doomed to disappointment. The clauses as to reclamation he looked upon as utterly worthless. If anything was to be done in that direction, provisions of a more sweeping character would be necessary. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking of Mayo, said what a good thing it would be if the poorer classes of that county could be made to avail themselves of the emigration clauses and get out of their misery. Now, he (Mr. O'Connor Power) admitted that the poorer tenant farmers of Mayo might be better off in Canada or the United States; but Ireland would not be better off for being deprived of that portion of her population. He heartily echoed the remark of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. P. J. Smyth) that Ireland could well support double her population if the land were properly managed and developed. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland seemed to think that there was not land enough in Mayo to give the population profitable employment. But Mr.
  1888
  Brett, the County Surveyor of Wicklow, and formerly County Surveyor of Mayo, stated that in one portion of Mayo there were 232,888 acres of waste land which could be profitably reclaimed. Mr. Brett also said that there were several improving landlords who had profitably reclaimed land in that county. The people of the South and West of Ireland could not be persuaded to go to Canada or elsewhere; they were too much wedded to Ireland, though they would not so cling to a farm of three or four acres as to refuse one of 20 if given in some other part of their native land. In addressing the House just now he was labouring under one embarrassment, and that was that, to his great regret, the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners), who had given Notice of an Amendment, had not stated in what way he proposed to develop the industrial resources of Ireland. As the Conservative Party had a strong prejudice against interfering in the relations between landlord and tenant, and as their past policy had been one of oppression and coercion towards Ireland, they were bound to have some policy which would recommend them to the Irish people. A great deal also remained to be done by the House for developing the resources of Ireland. His (Mr. O'Connor Power's) claim on that score was based on the fact that the industrial resources of Ireland had in times past been interfered with by Act of Parliament for so long a period that her most flourishing manufactures had been destroyed. But he could assure the noble Lord that in no case would a proposal of that kind exempt Parliament, and, through it, the Irish Members, from the duty and the necessity of dealing with the relations of landlord and tenant. An industrial scheme, which might, perhaps, take a quarter of a century to come to maturity, would not save a tenant from eviction, or enrich a man who could not pay his rent. He hoped, however, that the noble Lord would soon have an opportunity of explaining his views. Before dismissing the subject of the reclamation of waste lands, he wished to point out that the provisions of the Bill were likely to be inoperative, because they did not charge anyone with the duty of reclamation. It was the business of a Commission to negotiate the purchase of

  1889
  estates; but if the Government were in earnest on this question of waste lands, why should not they authorize the Commission to purchase, or even to expropriate them? He might say emphatically that he was in favour of the expropriation of the waste lands of Ireland. Every landlord owning any portion of these waste lands who declined to utilize his resources should be told by the Commission that if he was not prepared to cultivate his land the Commission would purchase it at a fair price. At present many tracts of land were useless which, in the hands either of peasant farmers or of the Commission, would in time become capable of supporting a large portion of the Irish tenant population. It was calculated that there were 4,000,000 acres of waste land in Ireland, and 3,000,000 of semi-waste; and if to the latter about one-third of the wholly waste lands were added, there would be a total of rather more than 4,000,000 acres which might be reclaimed. According to the English practice of employing hired labour, that land would never be reclaimed; but that was not the plan on which he should propose to proceed. The Commission ought to take the preliminary steps, and then send in men from the more populous parts, and keep them afloat by lending them enough money for their necessary expenses. That scheme, if carefully carried into effect, would obviate the extreme danger of occasion al bad harvests. He thought the Bill was also defective in another respect, in so far as it took no serious notice—indeed, no notice at all, as far as he could gather—of the estates of corporate bodies. The estates of corporate bodies in Ireland—the London Companies' estates, and others—were managed in a way which he knew had given rise to considerable complaint on the part of the tenant farmers. It had been said that corporate bodies were without consciences, and once land was within their hands, it could not very easily be got out again. In the cases where land was in the possession of these corporate bodies, there was no room for that mutual development between landlord and tenant which was desirable. He would, therefore, strongly urge that the Commission should be empowered to buy up these estates of the corporate bodies, and also the estates of the absentees, which were grievously mismanaged. Of course,
  1890
  many of the absentee estates of Ireland were the best managed, which arose from the fact that the owners were wealthy landlords in England; but it might be urged, on the other hand, that many of the absentee estates were very badly managed, to which fact was to be attributed a great deal of the discontent which prevailed among the tenantry. Among the contributions to the discussion on the Land Bill, with which the country had been favoured, he would direct special attention to the resolutions arrived at by the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland. He regretted that the Prime Minister, in his letter to the Archbishop of Armagh, seemed, for the moment, at all events, to dispose of those resolutions in a somewhat off-hand manner. But the Catholic hierarchy had adopted a very prudent course, and, after taking the opinions of eminent lawyers, had given in a list of 18 Amendments, embodying their views on the subject; and, in his (Mr. O'Connor Power's) opinion, many of those Amendments might have been advantageously adopted by the Government without "altering the character of the measure." The Prime Minister had declared in his letter to the Archbishop of Armagh that Amendments could be accepted from no quarter which would alter the character of the Bill; but, of course, it was difficult to know what interpretation to place upon that statement of the Prime Minister. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) hoped they would receive before long some intimation as to how far certain Amendments in contemplation would alter the character of the Bill. He had in view some moderate Amendments himself, which he hoped the Prime Minister would not regard as having that effect. One recommendation of the Bishops, as to the constitution of the proposed Court, was, he thought, a valuable one—namely, that the electors should elect two Commissioners with the County Court Judge. The Prime Minister seemed to give colour in the speech with which he introduced the Bill to the general fallacy as to the "scarcity of Irish land." There was no real scarcity of land. In an economic sense, he (Mr. O'Connor Power) would say again, as he had often said before, that the land of Ireland, properly managed, would support double the population it now had. The right hon. Gentleman had also referred to the "lack of the,

  1891
  habit of self-government" in Ireland, as a difficulty in the way of legislation of the kind; but was there any country in which there was a habit of self-government without the practice of self-government? The historical circumstances of Ireland showed that the habit of self-government must necessarily be of slow growth. Once Ireland was given a fair chance in the matter, they would exhibit as much aptitude for self-government as the Scotch or English. He hoped the Bill, so far from being modified, would be strengthened; and that the Government would not give in to the forebodings and prophecies of the opponents of the Bill. To build up a system which depended upon the landlords, would be, for the future of Ireland, like placing the pyramid on its wrong end, which would in time topple over. He trusted no efforts would be made to prevent the enlightened opinion of Parliament doing a complete act of justice to the people of Ireland. Having considered the provisions of the Bill very carefully himself, he felt it his duty, as an Irish Representative interested in the peace and tranquillity, as well as in the prosperity, of his country, to support the second reading of the Bill. That declaration, however, was not to be taken as affirming the proposition that the Bill in its present shape could be accepted by the tenant farmers of Ireland as a solution of the question. It would be a great pity if, after all the agony and excitement of the agitation through which hon. Members had passed in recent years, they allowed this Bill to escape from their hands without making it a complete measure of justice. It had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that the Bill was a great measure. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) admitted that it was a great and a large measure; and he was not at all hopeful, if they lost the opportunity which the Bill presented of dealing completely with the Land Question, that any fair opportunity would soon be presented to them of approaching that branch of the question. Again, it must be borne in mind that English Business was considerably in arrears, in consequence of the necessity under which the Government had been in devoting its attention to Ireland. He did not look forward to the time when English Business would not be in arrears, as long as the present arrange-
  1892
  ment was carried out; and, therefore, he did not wish the Bill to escape until it was made a measure which would really be a great instrument in promoting the tranquillity of his country. He would close as he began, by saying all parties were interested in the settlement of the great Land Question. Certainly, the Government were interested, because they could not hope, even with the extraordinary powers of the Coercion Bill, to maintain order in Ireland until the question was settled. The landlords of Ireland, who were represented there by the Conservative Party, could not hope to secure punctual payment of a fair rent until it was settled; and the Irish Members, even with the powerful aid of the Land League, could not secure to the tenant farmers of Ireland the undisturbed enjoyment of the fruit of their labour, until the question was settled, inasmuch as the sanction of law was the only permanent security for the possession of property and the security of right. He was anxious, also, that when they appealed to the tenant farmers of Ireland and preached the doctrine of peace and tranquillity, they should be able to refer to the measure as one that had secured their rights and had stamped with the sanction of the law their claim to live on their own farms and in their own homes in peace and security.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE said, he thought every hon. Member must have listened with the greatest admiration to the apposite and patriotic speech—in the best sense of that term—that had just been delivered by his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), who throughout these long and difficult controversies had always endeavoured to rise superior to the passions of the hour, and who had thus set a great and noble example to his countrymen. Hon. Members approached the question under a disadvantage, inasmuch as they had not yet heard the speech of his noble Friend the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) in support of the Amendment of which he had given Notice. His noble Friend by his Amendment announced that the idea of the Conservative Party was that we might leave the welfare of Ireland to be promoted by great measures for the material development of the wealth of the country; but he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) must say it was

  1893
  not the first time that in great crises in public affairs the Leaders of the Conservative Party had come forward and announced that they were going to solve the question by bringing forward a comprehensive plan for that purpose. He remembered that his noble Friend the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) stated, during the height of the Eastern Question, that that question was going to be solved by the introduction of steam ploughs into Asia Minor by a Conservative Government. The steam ploughs had not yet been introduced there, and he wanted to know whether the Amendment of his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) was an announcement on the part of the Conservative Party that the steam ploughs they intended to send to Asia Minor were to be sent to Galway instead? The views of the Party opposite were, unfortunately, vague. This discussion included a "No surrender" speech by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho); but he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) did not hear one practical suggestion in it. He should like to know what the noble Lord proposed to do, for surely he could not deny that an Irish Land Question existed; and it was certainly the duty of any Government that might be in Office to attempt to settle it. This opinion he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) gave all the more unreservedly, because he did not profess to believe that there were not many things in the Bill which, to say the least, required the most careful consideration. Neither did he profess to be at all enamoured of some of the schemes which had been put forward in regard to the rights of property in Ireland. If some of those schemes were adopted by the House, the unfortunate landlords would have to say, in South African phraseology, that they possessed a suzerainty over their estates. Travellers were shown in the City of Prague the horse of Prince Wallenstein. The head, the legs, the body, and the tail of the horse were restored, and travellers were informed that all the rest was the original animal. If some of this scheme were adopted, a future traveller in Ireland might be told—"This is the estate of Mr. So-and-so. The ownership has been altered, the occupation taken away, the reversion impaired; but all the rest is the original estate consolidated." He would now proceed to examine the
  1894
  scheme actually before the House. He was bound to say that many points had been brought forward in the course of the debate to which no satisfactory answer had yet been given by the Ministers in charge of the Bill. He alluded more particularly to the celebrated 7th clause. Now, as regarded that clause, he had never been able to see why the Government should not have been content with the definition of fair rent adopted as satisfactory and calculated to meet all requirements by that eminent Irish lawyer and patriot, the late Mr. Butt, and accepted after his decease by his Successor in charge of his Land Bill, the late Mr. M`Carthy Downing—a Gentleman who had also a profound acquaintance with the subject, second to that of no man in Ireland. Upon that Gentleman's lamented death, also, the same definition was taken up by the present hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw). Mr. Butt's definition of fair rent had already been read to the House; and, as hon. Members were no doubt aware, it was free from the objectionable rider to Clause 7, which had been so much criticized. Was it probable, he would ask, that a man like Mr. Butt—a lawyer and a political economist—would year after year have introduced into his Bill, and obtained for it the support of the Home Rule Party, a definition of fair rent which was not satisfactory? The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), who had a large acquaintance with the question, introduced a Bill last year, and he had adopted substantially a similar definition, and it was exceedingly improbable that he would have fallen into so inconceivable a trap as not to present to the House a definition of fair rent sufficient for all practical purposes. Those were questions to which he should be glad to have an answer from the Government. Passing now to the landlord's right of pre-emption—as to which he would say, in answer to a challenge thrown down in the debate, that he did not like the idea of hanging up the future tenant between heaven and earth, like Mahomet's coffin, and he should therefore not be afraid to give the tenant, in certain circumstances, the right of buying out the landlord—he looked upon it with disfavour, and he was not at all sanguine of its success in clearing estates of complicated titles. He would ask how it could

  1895
  be desirable that the landlord, after buying out one tenant, should, after a certain lapse of time, have a second tenant upon his hands enjoying three-fourths of the rights possessed by the first, all of any value, in fact, except that of appealing to the Court? If the landlord was to be allowed to buy out a tenant, the purchase ought, in his opinion, to have its natural effects—effects which, by the way, the present Ministers proposed to give under the Land Act of 1870. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) said the justification of the Bill was that Irish tenants could not contract. That proposition he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) would not dispute; but how came the right hon. and learned Gentleman to contradict himself at the end of his speech, and say that the Irish tenants were perfectly able to take care of themselves? Then he noticed that there was a great inconsistency in the speeches of the Prime Minister, and of the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster), and the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). The Chief Secretary for Ireland argued in favour of general free sale; and, no doubt, the Bill conferred that, because in the Bill he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) found none of those limitations which the speech of the Prime Minister led them to suppose it contained. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, while supporting general free sale, did not attempt to show that there was anything to prevent the danger of free sale eating into the fair rent. But the argument of the First Commissioner of Works on the point was totally at variance with that either of the Chief Secretary for Ireland or the Prime Minister, for he said it was a matter of universal experience that the value of the tenants' interest and fair rents rose together. That position was rather inconsistent with those previously taken, and it would be desirable to know what the Ministry actually thought on the matter. His (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice's) own experience was that free sale was an excellent thing. It had worked well in Ulster, and he had seen it work well in many parts of Kerry also. But what he wished especially to dwell on was the fact that the House had not yet been put in possession of the exact views of the Government on the subject, or
  1896
  what, in their opinion, was likely to be the economic effect of introducing free sale. In a properous season, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had stated, fair rents and free sale might, perhaps, go on rising together; but the danger was that when a bad season came, the tenant who had had to borrow money to purchase his holding might find that he could not get a fair interest for that money, and might be, in consequence, tempted to join in an agitation for reducing the fair rent fixed upon. That was what the landlords were afraid of. There were three points, which although, no doubt, points of detail, he wished to press on the attention of the Government. It had always hitherto, he might add, been the practice in discussing the Irish Land Question to distinguish clearly between large and small holdings. He was, he believed, right in saying that Mr. Butt, in his first Bill, fixed a limit in regard to the value beyond which a holding should not be included. In the present Bill, however, for the first time, the same rights were indiscriminately extended to every holding in Ireland. It was true that at £150 value and upwards the tenant could contract himself out of the provisions of the Bill; but the House should remember that, under its operation, the landlord would have nothing to offer the tenant to induce him to contract himself out of it, and he did not think any Irish tenant would be such a fool as to contract himself out of the good position given him by law without obtaining any equivalent. The clause dealing with the point might, therefore, as well be struck out of the Bill, for it would be a mere stalking-horse. But, apart from that, he wished to point out to the Government that the large tenant farmers did not stand in the same position as the tenants of small holdings. With regard to the small tenants of Ireland, the House could hardly go too far. No class in the country had throughout a long period of years suffered so severely. They had been driven up to the lone mountains of the South and West by the tide of English conquest. Proud as he was of being the descendant of a Cromwellian settler himself, he should be the last man in that House to close his eyes to the great sufferings in the past of the Irish people in the West and South. If they in the year 1881 could do anything

  1897
  to bridge over that great historic chasm which had divided Ireland into two peoples, let them in the name of Heaven do it. Let them not fight over details, but let them be just and generous—just to the tenant and landlord alike. He would tell his hon. Friends that it was not the way to introduce peace and goodwill in Ireland to leave even the landlord, belonging, as he did, to a small and unjustly abused class, with a rankling sense of wrong. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), whose views were of great value on this question, said that the claim of the small Irish tenant did not rest solely on economic grounds, but on history and tradition; but that the large farmer was comparatively a newcomer, who was a creature of pure contract, with claims resting on purely economic grounds. He would next ask the Government, whether the distinction between present tenants and future tenants was one that could be supported? If it were, a new class of tenants would be created in Ireland, and the titles to land would consequently be confused. They must either do what the Bess-borough Commission told them to do—namely, treat the present and future tenants alike—or they must do what The O'Conor Don in his minority Report proposed—namely, confine the Bill to the present tenants. Before concluding, he wished to refer to one aspect of this question, which to him was nearest and dearest of all. He wished to say a word or two on behalf of that much-abused goddess, political economy. From his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) he had expected to hear something in favour of that science; but, as far as he could make out from the speech of the hon. Member, he seized half a brick and hurled it at political economy. He had great respect for the opinion of his hon. Friend; but he must absolutely decline to accept what he said with regard to the connection of political economy with this Bill. If the House accepted the Bill, it must make up its mind to accept it as an exception to all the laws and rules of political economy. His hon. Friend had written a pamphlet, in which he proposed that the rents of the small tenants should be fixed now and for ever; but that was very different from the proposal of the Bill, that there should be a rent Court always existing and always interfering
  1898
  between landlord and tenant, which, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) maintained, was a distinct violation of political economy. It was true, as had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), that the late Professor Caird argued that certain propositions of political economy might be brought forward in defence of a Bill of this kind; but he contented himself with saying that it might be done, and failed to show that it could be done. Coming to the question of the institution of a Land Court, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) would urge the House not to conceal from itself that the powers which the Bill would give to such a Court were terrible and gigantic. They might be necessary, but they were enormous. Looking at the question from the point of view of the future prosperity and welfare of Ireland, he expressed astonishment that the Representatives of Irish constituencies should select that moment, when, according to their own view, a new era of prosperity, self-government, and independence was beginning for Ireland, to say that Irishmen were incapable of making their own contracts. Nobody would expect from him a defence of the Land League, far from it; but he believed that, in the same manner as the Agricultural Labourers' Union in England did good work by teaching the labourers to look their employers in the face, and make their own contracts, the Land League—had done this good work—it had taught the small tenant farmers that by combining together they could secure for themselves freedom of contract; and if they would only combine peaceably and lawfully, and refrain from outrages such as those which had latterly disgraced the country, the Land League, so far from having done harm, would have done the best thing that had been done in Ireland for years. It was a pity they could not learn the lesson without violating order and committing outrages. As regarded freedom of contract, he believed the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was right in saying that the tenant farmers in many parts of Ireland were incapable of taking care of themselves; but if there was one class more incapable at the present time of taking care of itself in that respect than another it was that unfortunate and much-abused class, the Irish landlords. He did not wish to

  1899
  be understood as saying anything disagreeable or hostile to the Bill when he said that he should have been glad if the Government had decided to make the peasant proprietary part of the measure the strongest part of it. He wished that had been put in the front of the battle. He believed the economic conditions of Ireland were such that if a scheme had been set on foot for capitalizing the large sums of money recklessly paid for farms, they would be able, without robbing the landlords of a single farthing, easily to establish a very large number of small proprietors. Mr. Senior, a high authority on such subjects, had said that a country without a peasant proprietary, but with capital, could get on, and that a country in the reverse condition could get on; but that a country that had neither a peasant proprietary nor capital, was a country that was essentially unsound. And that was the state of Ireland now. The establishment of a cottier or peasant proprietary was the first step towards the political salvation of a country; but he regretted that the Government had not based their scheme upon the distinction between the large farmers on the one hand and the small occupiers on the other. Some scheme of that kind would, in his opinion, have been less offensive and complicated, and far better than the Chinese puzzle which the Government had placed before them. Having spent a full month in the study of the Bill, he was all the more alarmed at its complexity. Its effect would be to make the village attorney and the village solicitor the lords and masters of Ireland. There were really two schemes in the Bill, and these were parallel the one to the other—he alluded to the scheme known as the "three F's," and next to the scheme as to compensation. These were constantly cropping up; and in the result, while the tenant on the one hand would go to the village lawyer—should go—for if the Bill were put into his hands he could in no wise understand it, and ask which of the provisions of the Bill would be most likely to benefit him, the landlord, on the other hand, would go to his lawyer and ask which of these provisions he could bring to bear upon the tenant. He confessed that he could not conceal from himself that not merely with regard to the Irish Land Question, but in
  1900
  Ireland, speaking generally, they were in the presence of a tremendous crisis. They were on the brink of events the magnitude of which it would be folly to underrate. They must not imagine that after dealing with this Irish Land Question, they could go to sleep saying—"Thank God, we are done with Ireland!" He saw articles every day in English newspapers on the subject, and he often wrung his hands in despair when he read them. When they had settled the Land Question, even if they could do so on the lines of the present Bill, it would assume more portentous proportions, and they should make up their minds to deal in a thoroughly satistory manner with many other questions which would arise. One effect of the Bill would be to enormously weaken the influence of the "English garrison" in Ireland; but when they had done so, they must look forward to something that would supply its place. He hoped the result would be that the people of Ireland would become prosperous and contented, and that sentiments of gratitude and affection towards England would be widely entertained by them. That was the hope and expectation with which statesmen had proposed the repeal of Irish disabilities; but they ought not to be blind to the fact that those hopes and expectations had been disappointed. The anti-English feeling in Ireland was strong, and it was, moreover, as strong now as it had been at any time in the course of the present century. ["Oh, oh!"] An hon. Member near him dissented from this proposition, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman was right; but it was impossible to conceal from themselves that there was a great deal to be said on both sides of the question, and that the question with which Parliament had to deal was both important and portentous. He might be told that he was that most disagreeable of persons—a prophet who prophesied disagreeable things. This was, perhaps, true; but he sincerely hoped that his prophecies would be falsified, and that every fear which possessed him might turn out to be founded in error. He hoped that in the days to come Ireland might be free, great, and prosperous; and he should hold the same view if his family, which had been for 200 years in Ireland, had at once to sever its connection with the country. At the same time, he had thought that he could not

  1901
  better express the love which he bore to the country than by frankly expressing the feelings which animated him in reference to this particular question. Although he gave the utmost credit to Her Majesty's Government for the immense pains and trouble which they had taken with the Bill, and although he was convinced it was their earnest desire to do everything which was right and just for Ireland, he, nevertheless, felt that they were debating under the shadow of a tremendous crisis, and great dangers coming on; and that it required the utmost patriotism and the utmost good sense on the part of every Member of the House of Commons, if those dangers were to be prevented from becoming so great as to shake and impair, and even destroy, that which he, at least, believed had been of untold advantage to the people of both England and Ireland—he meant the Union which connected the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: I do not propose to follow the powerful and argumentative speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice); but I do not think that anyone who has listened to the speech of the noble Lord, would have believed that he was a supporter of the second reading of the Bill, had he not told us so in his opening sentences. In the very eloquent peroration of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. P. J. Smyth) the other night, this Bill was described as a solemn temple of union and concord; but I look in vain for signs of that union and concord, whether I cast my eyes across the Channel or watch what is transpiring in the House. I would ask, in the first place, whether Ireland was in a better or worse position before the Coercion Act was passed than she is at this moment? Are there fewer murders? Are there fewer murders? Are there fewer outrages of any kind at this moment than there were six months ago? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is unable to answer the question in the negative. This Bill has now been for nearly a month under the consideration of the people of Ireland, and, so far as we know, the only result has been the proclamation of the Capital, the arrest and imprisonment of the Colleague (Mr. Dillon) of the hon. Member (Mr. P. J. Smyth), who spoke with so much elo-
  1902
  quence the other night; and a Vote of Censure impending over the heads of the Government, to be proposed by an hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Justin M'Carthy). Well, Sir, what I wish to ask is what is the real evil we have to meet, and to which Parliament should apply its serious attention? In answering that question, I agree very much with what fell from the hon. Member for the County of Mayo(Mr. O'Connor Power) in the course of the observations which he has addressed to the House this evening. I say, the real evil we have to meet in respect to that part of Ireland which we really have to consider is this—that you have a redundant population, dependent for its subsistence and employment upon the cultivation of a not very fertile soil, under humid skies, and dependent for its food upon that one crop which, of all others, is liable to sudden and total destruction. I think that Her Majesty's Ministers have some belief that that is to a great extent the evil they have to meet, because I notice with satisfaction the proposals they make in the fifth part of the Bill. The hon. Member for Mayo has properly described the condition of things when he says that tens of thousands of people, particularly in the West and South of Ireland, are dependent for support and, indeed, existence, upon the cultivation of a land which cannot and never could be made to support them. Well, Sir, with the exception of the fifth part of the Bill, upon which I propose by-and-bye to say a few words, I contend that the whole scope and tendency of the measure is directed towards increasing and perpetuating the very evil we ought to meet. The very object, as it seems to me, of this Bill is to stereotype and aggravate that dependence of the poorer classes of the tenantry of Ireland on that soil which cannot and will not maintain them. The noble Lord who has just sat down dealt at some length, not only with the Court by which the provisions of the first part of the Bill are to be brought into operation, but also upon the scheme which the Bill contains. I do not propose at this late hour to follow the noble Lord in detail into that branch of the subject. Her Majesty's Government say that the foundation of all improvement in respect of the land in Ireland is that there should be a Government valuation of

  1903
  land. Well, that is a very grave, and a very delicate, and a very serious proposal to make. The noble Lord has dwelt largely upon its delicacy and danger. I admit the delicacy, and I admit the danger; but for the sake of argument I will assume that the Government have proved their case by the Reports of the Commissions, and that the necessity of some interference on the part of the Legislature may be conceded; but I demur to the conclusions which the Government have drawn from that statement of the case. I deny that it is necessary to proceed further in that direction in providing for the free sale of land and the perpetuity and continuity of the lease. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister bases the legislation he proposes upon the recommendations of the Duke of Richmond's Commission; but the Duke of Richmond's Commission carefully guarded themselves against being supposed to be favourable to the other two schemes set out in the Bill, and restricted themselves to the more moderate suggestion that legislative interference might be necessary with respect to the fixing of fair rents. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite made a great point by connecting fair rents with the other two "F's"—fixity of tenure and free sale. In my opinion, however, if free sale is to be given unlimited, as is now proposed, you cannot stop there. The justification for fair rents and free sale is simply this, as it was put just now by the noble Lord, that the Irish tenant is unable to protect himself against the landlord. But if that be so—if the Irish tenant is in that unfortunate position when you grant free sale—you must protect him, by a parity of reasoning, against other dangers than those which arise from the superiority of his landlord. What does it matter to the incoming poor tenant, if he has to pay what is substantially a rack rent to two persons instead of to one? As the Bill stands, the perfect freedom of sale which tt gives must be restricted in some way or other, or else the incoming tenant, who might arrange to pay a fair rent to the landlord, will have to pay what is substantially a rack rent in consequence of the large sum of money he may have to pay the outgoing tenant, and, still worse, the interest he may be forced to pay the local usurer from whom he
  1904
  has borrowed the purchase-money. By having to pay a large sum down to the outgoing tenant, his means for stocking his farm and for carrying it on profitably will be greatly crippled. Therefore, if the Bill is to effect its object, it must proceed one step further; and, having interfered with the valuation of the land, it must interfere to regulate the interest upon borrowed capital—it must re-enact the old usury laws—and then I shall be able to show that you have not carried out sufficiently and fully your own proposals to their ultimate conclusion. I may mention that this idea is not confined to English people. What is the organ of public opinion which has done more than any other to keep alive the flames of agitation in Ireland? What is that organ which has done more than any other to procure funds for the maintenance of that agitation? We all know that it is The Irish World. And what does that paper do? It devotes one-half of its space to arguments in favour of abolishing Irish landlordism, and the other half, with equal impartiality, to denouncing usury as one of the curses of the country. Can we believe that the Irish tenants and the Irish peasants who read this paper, and know the advice it gives them, would be satisfied with being secured against the unjust rent of the landlord, and would be content for the future to pay the exorbitant rates which the local usurers demand from them? If that be so with respect to the tenant farmers, I wish now to say a very few words on that other person, who has hitherto been only lightly alluded to in these debates, and who is not mentioned with any degree of substantiality in the Bill of Her Majesty's Government—I mean the Irish labourer. My impression is that the Bill, as it is drawn, affects prejudicially those 440,000 individuals who are classed as Irish labourers. Everybody will admit that of late years the wages of the general body of Irish labourers have been much improved; but have they been increased by the action of the tenant farmers or of the landed proprietors? No one will deny that it is by the latter and not by the former that the wages of the labourers have been increased and their condition improved, and this Bill, which aims a Mow at the rights and position of the landlords, does indirectly, but very substantially, affect very prejudicially the

  1905
  interests of the labourers. That, I say, is the indirect influence of the Bill upon the labourers; but in other respects the interests of the labourers are directly prejudiced by the provisions of the measure. According to the fifth part of the Bill, the landlord is to sell his property to his tenant. Upon the property so sold are the cottages and allotments of the labourers. But by a subsequent provision of the Bill the moment the tenant becomes the proprietor, by an exemption contained in the last page of the Bill, he becomes the absolute lord of the labourers, their cottages, and their allotments on the farm, on which, perhaps, they were born. I do not know whether it is an omission or not; but, undoubtedly, as the Bill is drawn, and as I am advised, this exemption would place the labourers completely at the mercy of the new peasant proprietor. I know it will be said that in two clauses of the Bill there is some slight mention made of the labourer. But how? The landlord is to have the power of resuming possession of a portion of the farm for the benefit of the labourer. But when? When he raises the rent of the farm; but not until then. I believe, if that clause is read with the only other one in which the labourer is mentioned, it will be found that even this very limited and illusory relief is put off for a period of 15 years. Therefore, I say that, as far as the Irish labourer is concerned, both directly and indirectly, he is prejudiced by the whole scope of the Bill. I believe that all the Members of this House have received a very remarkable letter, signed "Edward Richards," which bears on this branch of the question, and I would ask leave to read a few words from it. Mr. Richards gives his name and address. He says—
  "In defence of a much maligned class, and as a duty I owe to the public, I must say that the most powerful case of eviction I ever heard of was that of a poor tenant farmer."
  The story is too long to tell; but suffice it to say that Mr. Richards found himself the champion of the poor tenant against a rich neighbouring farmer—also his own tenant—and, failing all other means of obtaining redress, he became the defendant in a Chancery suit. And while the poor tenant was turned into the road, the rich farmer, having crushed the poor tenant, became a leading member of the local Land League,
  1906
  and now refused to pay a farthing of rent for the perpetuity farms which he held. What justice or mercy could the labourers expect from farmers or peasant proprietors of that kind? This Bill, unjust as the noble Lord who has just sat down knows it to be, acting most prejudicially upon the interests of the landlords as a body, might possibly have been accepted in some of its main provisions by them, in the miserable and disturbed condition in which Ireland now finds herself, owing very much, as I maintain, to the mixture of arrogance and weakness displayed by Her Majesty's Government—the landlords, I say, might possibly have been content to accept some of the many provisions of the measure, if the Government could hold out anything like a reasonable expectation that the measure would really settle the Land Question in Ireland. I do not ask the Government to say whether they intend the measure to be a settlement; because, after what has occurred, their intentions go for very little. But can the Government point to any facts which can in the least justify them in the expectation that the Bill would settle the question? We have heard to-night a very able speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo. He, like the noble Lord opposite, is going to vote for the second reading of the Bill; but what was the whole tone, tenour, and scope of the speech of the hon. Member? It was this—"If you will insert in this Bill all the Amendments which I suggest, and the whole of the 18 Amendments suggested by the Roman Catholic Prelates of Ireland, then I and my Friends will continue to support the measure, and we will hope that it may be for the benefit of Ireland." We have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that he will not assent to the propositions made by the Roman Catholic Prelates; and we must assume, until we hear to the contrary, that he will refuse his assent to the still wider proposals we know are in store for us from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. Well, then, what hope have we that this Bill, so deficient as I have shown it to be, with respect to the largest and poorest class now suffering in Ireland—this Bill which fails to receive the support of those Gentlemen by whose labours it has been mainly produced, and to gratify

  1907
  and satisfy whom it may be reasonably supposed to have been suggested to the House—what hope have we that this measure will in any degree be regarded or received as a settlement of the Land Question? But, then, while I object to the whole of the first part of this measure as being essentially unjust, and while I hold that it does not contain within itself any reasonable ground for regarding it as a settlement of the question, I freely admit that there are other proposals which do seriously deserve the consideration of the House; and I agree with the noble Lord that it is a pity these proposals have not been submitted in a more substantial, clear, and enlarged shape for our consideration. The hon. Member for Mayo has shown that with respect to the reclamation of land the scheme is very misty, and that the Government proposals are drawn in a manner which is not in the least likely to attract a sufficient amount of capital to enable them to be carried into effect. The whole scope and tenour of the Bill appear to me almost intended to drive capital away rather than to induce it to flow into Ireland. There were some sentiments expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) which somewhat favoured that view. He seemed quite annoyed that anybody should suggest that the introduction of fresh capital thrown into Ireland was really one of the wants of the country. "Want of capital!" said, in effect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman. "No; the sinews and muscle of the tenant farmer who cultivates the soil—that is capital sufficient. Only give him a little more security in regard to the occupation of small farms—that is the sort of capital that is wanted for the restoration of the prosperity of Ireland." Now, I greatly doubt that. I believe, with everybody who has hitherto sifted the question, that it is to the introduction of capital in Ireland, and to the development of her industrial resources, that you must look in the long run for that prosperity which we all equally wish should be the fortune of that country. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has based this measure to a great extent upon the recommendations of the Duke of Richmond's Commission. I have, I think, already shown that the right hon. Gentleman has
  1908
  greatly exaggerated and altogether mistaken the recommendations of that Commission; but before any recommendation on the subject of tenure in the Duke of Richmond's Commission, stood a recommendation on the subject of public works, which I propose shortly to read to the House. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. P. J. Smyth) asked what has become of, and where is the development of the industrial resources of Ireland? I would answer the hon. Gentleman in this way. I was looking, a few months ago, to a remarkably able letter written on this subject, to which his own signature was appended, and to which I would refer him for an exhaustive statement on the subject; and I find this reference to the industrial resources of Ireland in the Report of the Duke of Richmond's Commission—
  "The employment of capital and labour in the development of the resources of the country by arterial drainage, the construction of railways and other public works, and the encouragement of fisheries, is also urged upon us by the witnesses as one of the best remedies for the present depression and to prevent the recurrence of the existing distress. It will be seen from the evidence that from the want of regular, continuous employment for the people, the condition of these classes is deplorable, and the consequent sufferings and privations which they and their families have periodically to endure demand the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government and of Parliament."
  That is my answer to the hon. Member for Tipperary and the hon. Member for Mayo; and I say that in the first recommendation of the Duke of Richmond's Commission I find a justification for the Amendment which I am precluded from moving, but in the spirit of which I desire to make a few further remarks. This is no new idea. The hon. Member for Mayo said, and it was the only part of his speech which was liable to complaint, to my great amazement, that the Tory Party have only one policy for Ireland, and that is coercion and proscription. How any Gentleman, who is going to support Her Majesty's Government on the second reading of this Bill, could presume to lecture the Tory Party on the subject of coercion I confess I am unable to understand. It would seem as though the Tory Party have never before now proposed any measure for the real material advantage of Ireland. For myself, I take my stand to-night on precisely the same ground as that on which the late Lord George Bentinck took his 34 years

  1909
  ago. I venture to ask the hon. Member for Mayo this question—How was it that that great scheme, which now everybody connected with Ireland admits would have been greatly for the benefit and would largely have contributed to the prosperity of that country, came to be rejected? It was rejected because the political Predecessors of the hon. Member for Mayo, in the so-called Liberal representation of Ireland, at that time preferred their Party to their country, and threw out the Bill. Lord George Bentinck said—
  "There has been no inquiry made by Parliament, in which the result has not been a recommendation that the difficulties of Ireland should be sought to be overcome by stimulating the employment of her people."—[8 Hansard, lxxxix. 776.]
  Well, Sir, I say that that is as true now as it was true then, and it is the justification and the vindication of the course which I presume to recommend for the adoption of the House. We have heard a great deal about the Devon Commission of 1847; but I will refer to a Commission which sat even 10 years before that—namely, the Land Commission of 1836. That Commission recommended for the benefit of the Irish people that railways should be assisted by the Government. I will venture now, in a very few words, to indicate some of the public works to which the attention of the Government might beneficially be directed. In the first place, there is arterial drainage, which is, perhaps, at the root of the real improvement of the soil of Ireland. I do not know whether any hon. Member is prepared to dispute that proposition; but, if so, I would refer him to a statement by Professor Baldwin. He says—"I think it is the foundation of the permanent improvement of the agriculture of Ireland." Now, I would venture to ask Her Majesty's Government what has been done of late years in promoting the arterial drainage of Ireland? I believe, according to the best evidence which can be obtained, that at the normal rate at which the arterial drainage of Ireland has been going on it would take about 1,000 years to perfect that drainage. There you have a very great subject for your favourable consideration, and a subject on which there is no considerable difference of opinion. Perhaps it may be said that in the fifth part of the Bill there is some reference
  1910
  to drainage, and that "drainage" may be held to include arterial drainage. I do not know how that is; but I would ask how is it proposed that the drainage should be carried out? Why, by the formation of companies. The Government are not to be authorized to give assistance unless and until a company is formed. [An hon. MEMBER: That is the law now.] Then, what I say is, that that which is now suggested by the present Bill is not sufficient for the purpose. I would wish to go much further than the present law, and I presume that the Government intended to go further by the clause of the Bill to which I refer. Otherwise, why is it inserted in the Bill? I am pointing out now that the provisions of the Bill are insufficient, and that they are really illusory. I would ask what prospect the Government have that those companies would be formed, to which they would be willing to advance the money, so that arterial drainage might be carried out? I am satisfied that the whole scope and tenour of the measure is such as to deter and not to induce the flow of capital into Ireland. Well, then, Sir, there is another question which was very much debated in this House last year, and in the discussion of which I took a part—I mean the promotion of fisheries in Ireland. I cannot conceive any work more important at the present moment to Ireland and the future prosperity of Ireland than the development of the fisheries. There was last year absolute unanimity among the Irish Members on that question. I had the pleasure of supporting the proposal, both by my speech and by my vote. It was suggested that there should be a large increase in the money already voted to the Irish fisheries and the Irish fishermen for the purpose of restoring that which before the Famine of 1846 was a very important and lucrative source of employment to large numbers of the Irish people. A development of this industry would be a source of great relief to large numbers of the Irish people, especially on the Western coast, where there has been great suffering. Under the system established by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), I believe about £5,000 a-year is now voted in loans to fishermen. Sir, I propose that this should be largely

  1911
  increased, and that all the fishermen who ask for grants under proper circumstances should receive them. For this purpose, I consider about £15,000 annually would be sufficient. But then comes the other important question of fishery piers and harbours; and there, also, a great work is to be accomplished, for no work in Ireland, I am certain, could be undertaken by this House or any Commission which Her Majesty's Government might appoint, which would be more beneficial and productive, and which would tend more to further the improvement of the condition of the maritime population of that country. Since Lord George Bentinck made his proposal, private enterprize has undoubtedly done much to supply Ireland with main lines of railway, and it is therefore unnecessary to propose any great scheme of that kind. But there are many small lines of what might be termed mountain railway which are much wanted in Ireland, and which would tend to develope the dormant agricultural resources of great tracts of land in that country. I suggest, therefore, that the Government should undertake to give increased facilities for the construction of these smaller lines of railway. It will then be asked, "How is the money to be found?" Sir, I cannot conceive that the Irish Church Fund could be better applied than in promoting works of the character to which I have alluded. I do not say that I have given anything like an exhaustive list of those works of the character I have indicated which may be beneficially promoted; but I repeat, that I cannot conceive any more beneficial objects to which the Irish Church Surplus could be devoted. Following out the line of argument which the hon. Member for Mayo pursued, I go one step further, and say, if it be necessary to supplement that fund by a draft of money from the Imperial Treasury, either by way of loan or as a gift, I would far rather adopt that course; and, in so doing, expiate, if need be, the sins of the forefathers of the present House of Commons in destroying the Irish manufacturing trades. That course appears to me much preferable to the scheme which finds favour with the hon. Member for Southwark, who told us that we are bound to do penance for the sins of our forefathers, and expiate them
  1912
  at the expense of the Irish landlords, who, like the rest of the Irish population, were injured by the unjust legislation of the English House of Commons. I regret I have not had an opportunity of taking the sense of the House upon my Amendment, as distinguished from that of my noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho); but I feel very strongly that this Bill is not the proper solution of the Land Question, and as we have had no indication from Her Majesty's Government that they are prepared in any way to mitigate its injustice or modify its injurious provisions, no other course is left to me than to vote for the Amendment of my noble Friend. If this Bill could be made more consonant with justice, and deprived of those harsher features which alarm and perplex the public mind, it would not be a measure of which I should feel disposed to say that it ought not to receive the sanction of this House; and I will still hope, amidst all the difficulties of the position, that Parliament may devote itself to the consideration of the question how the real evils and wants of Ireland may be best met. Sir, there is no Royal road to national prosperity, but there may be many humble paths which, taken together, lead to that result; and I trust we shall not finally part with this question without having devised some schemes which will be beneficent in their effects, and contribute to the lasting peace and prosperity of Ireland.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Errington.)
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, what would be the course of Public Business? He was unable to understand why the debate should be adjourned at that early hour (12.30), unless it was for to give the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) an opportunity of bringing on his Motion, which had miscarried on Tuesday last, on account of a misunderstanding on the part of the Whips. If the Motion for adjournment were assented to with that object he should certainly oppose it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Motion for the adjournment of this debate is no matter of arrangement or any act of ours,

  1913
  and I do not know that we should be justified in opposing it. Yet I hope the House will now begin to think of some arrangement for drawing the debate upon the second reading of the Bill now before us to a close. It is a matter of very great urgency that the judgment of the House should be taken on the main principles of the Bill; and we learn tonight from the Opposition Bench that the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire is to be supported from that Bench. The discussion upon the Amendment of the noble Lord will necessarily occupy some time, and it is a perfectly fair and straight-forward Motion. But, Sir, I think, after four nights' debate, it is not unreasonable to express a hope that we may now very soon reach the conclusion of this stage of the Bill. The limit of time necessary for this purpose I will not undertake precisely to fix; but, as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, we hope the debate will be brought to a close within what I think will be a liberal extension of time—namely, the two Government nights of next week.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, it is, no doubt, very desirable that we should make progress with Business, and get on with such an important Bill as that under discussion. At the same time, it cannot be wondered at that a measure of such great importance and of such complication should encounter a very considerable amount of discussion. The Bill raises a large number of questions, and I am well aware that there are many hon. Gentlemen who are anxious to take part in the discussion upon the principles of the measure. One thing, I believe, would tend very much to the limitation of the debate, and that is that the Government should give us, in a clearer and more intelligible form than we have yet received, some explanation of the 7th clause. A great deal turns upon this. The question was raised at the very beginning of the discussion by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson), and so much hinges upon it that we are entitled to have with regard to it a clear and intelligible explanation. With that assistance on the part of Her Majesty's Government, I think it may be found possible to conclude the debate upon the second reading within a reasonable time; but that assist-
  1914
  ance is quite essential. It will, I am convinced, save time in the long run, that those who have strong opinions on the subject, and wish to bring forward their views in the course of the discussion upon the second reading of the Bill, should have an opportunity of doing so.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLdesired to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that, in showing what appeared to be rather undue impatience that the debate upon the second reading of this Bill should close, he had somewhat forgotten the extraordinary course which the debate had taken from its commencement. It must not be forgotten that the debate on the first night practically collapsed owing to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin made on that occasion a speech, in which he put certain questions to the Government apparently of so difficult a character that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was quite unable to make any answer to them. It ought also to be borne in mind that one of the events of that first night's discussion, which occurred on that day when the House met after the Easter Recess, was that Her Majesty's Government, as he believed, tried to snatch a division, because the only occupant of the Treasury Bench, after the right hon. and learned Gentleman had concluded, was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who cried "Divide!" On another night of the discussion, the First Lord of the Treasury very gratuitously put down a Motion which had raised a controversy that occupied two hours. On the previous occasion there had been a discussion of great length, chiefly owing to the remarkable opinions held by hon. Members opposite with regard to a matter on which they found themselves unable to agree with hon. Members on that side of the House—namely, the war in Afghanistan. Looking at all these events, he could not but think that the right hon. Gentleman was far too sanguine in thinking that the debate was likely to close within the period he had indicated.
  MR. LITTONsaid, there were, undoubtedly, many Irish Members as well as himself who desired to speak upon the second reading of the Bill. He had attentively listened to the debate during the four nights which it had occupied;

  1915
  and although he wished to address the House, he had failed to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker. He was at all times indisposed to press any observations of his own, if the House considered that the subject had been sufficiently discussed; but he did not feel himself bound to yield to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to give up the right which he claimed of speaking upon this question.
  MR. SHAWsaid, he had remarked since the commencement of the debate that English Members had absorbed a great deal of the time spent in discussion. But there were Irish Members who also desired to take part in the debate. He knew that Gentlemen who sat behind him, and many Irish Members on the other side of the House, had risen repeatedly, but had failed to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker. Although the Bill was said to be of very great importance to English Members, it had struck him that they had, in the course of the discussion, advanced very little argument. Under the circumstances, probably Irish Members might be allowed to occupy more time in discussing the Bill during the next two nights. The nights they had already devoted to this subject had been very much interfered with; but, no doubt, if the next two Government nights were given to it, it might be possible to close the debate within that time. But he understood there was a subject upon the Paper for discussion on Monday, which might give rise to a great deal of controversy; and therefore he suggested that the matter, which was not one of pressing importance, should be deferred. He hoped the House would not misunderstand him as having the slightest wish to interfere with any proper mark of respect to the memory of that great Statesman, Lord Beaconsfield; but the Motion was not one of such pressing importance as the going into Committee upon this Bill. Even the question referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was one which could not be discussed so completely at the present stage as in Committee. Undoubtedly, the 7th clause was one which it would be found very difficult to explain. Nevertheless, when it was reached in Committee, and dealt with as a matter of Business, he saw no reason why progress should not be made with it. He trusted the House would not object to the suggestion he had thrown out for
  1916
  postponing the Motion to which he had referred. He was quite sure they would consider it in a proper spirit, and arrive at a just decision.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that, no doubt, Irish Members should take a prominent part in the debate; but, at the same time, he would point out that the Bill contained a principle that the Prime Minister had said was quite as much English as Irish, for in 1870 the right hon. Gentleman had said in his hearing—"This is quite as much an English as an Irish Land Bill." Therefore, he hoped he might be allowed to say a word for English Members, who also desired to take part in the discussion. He should be sorry to say anything disappointing to the Prime Minister; but, as far as he had been able to ascertain the views and wishes of hon. Members on that (the Conservative) side of the House—Irish as well as English Members—he did not think there was the remotest chance of the debate being finished in the course of two more Government nights next week. He had heard Member after Member signify his intention to take part in the debate, and he remembered that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), at the very commencement, had said that this was the most serious question that had ever arisen in his time. He (Mr. Chaplin) agreed with his noble Friend below him (Lord Randolph Churchill), that the Prime Minister was over sanguine if he thought that five or even six days were sufficient for the discussion of the Bill on second reading. The days which had been devoted to the debate had only been, so to speak, half days, for a great deal of time had been taken up on those occasions by the consideration of other matters. Take, for instance, to-night, when the Afghan Question had been considered, and very few Members had had an opportunity of speaking on the Bill. With regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet below him (Sir Stafford Northcote), it was a fact that no answer had been given to the speech of the right bon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). Not only was the speech of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant insufficient; but when the Attorney General for Ireland was pressed across the Table by a right hon. Gentleman on this side of the House, he said—"Oh, dear, no! I am

  1917
  not going to be entrapped into any off-hand statement of this kind." If the Government thought they were going to get rid of the second reading in two more days, they would find themselves very much mistaken. It would last a great deal longer than they seemed to suppose.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he did not wish to procrastinate or prolong the second reading of the measure; but the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) had said that if they got into Committee on it, it would then be very easy to settle what was the meaning of Clause 7. He would venture to suggest to the Prime Minister, however, that nothing would tend more to facilitate the discussion, and probably the conclusion, upon the second reading than a clear definition from the Government as to what was the meaning of Clause 7. Speaking as one tolerably conversant with the Ulster Custom, which it was proposed to extend all over Ireland by this Bill, he said that the whole principle and the whole purport of the first part of the measure depended upon the interpretation to be put upon Clause 7. The Attorney General for Ireland had not attempted to dispute the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin; in fact, he had expressly declined to explain the meaning of certain clauses, lest he should be drawn into a wrangle. ["No, no!"] The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said—but he (Lord George Hamilton) would not enter into a dispute with hon. Members on the question, because there was really no answer given to the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had confirmed the construction put upon the clause by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Chief Secretary had told them that the interpretation of the right bon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin did not convey the intention of the Government; then, all he would ask was that they should put up someone—say, the Solicitor General for Ireland, whose answers were not wanting in intelligibility—to tell them what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government as to Clause 7; and if the words which were now in the clause were insufficient
  1918
  to adequately explain their intention, what words could be employed in order to make their object perfectly clear.
  MR. GORSTonly wished, for a moment, to correct a misapprehension of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), which, he thought, in justice to Her Majesty's Government, ought to be corrected; and he was not sure that the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon had not fallen into a somewhat similar mistake. They had both stated that Her Majesty's Government had given no answer to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin; but that was not correct—it was an injustice to the Government. The Government had given three answers to that speech. The first was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; the second was given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk; and the third was given by the Attorney General for Ireland; and the peculiarity of the case was this—that all three answers were entirely inconsistent with one another. If the Government would allow so humble an individual as himself to give them a piece of advice, with a view to bringing this discussion to a satisfactory close, he would suggest that they should make up their minds what they really did intend to mean by Clause 7. If they would state to the House what their real intention was, the House would be able to debate the Bill.
  MR. MAC IVERwould not like the Motion for adjournment to pass without saying a word on behalf of a class of Members who, he thought, had a right to be heard—namely, those Members who, though representing English boroughs or counties, still had a large number of Irish constituents. He was one of those Members, though, it was probable—and he admitted it at once—that, at the last General Election, did not get one vote from these Irish constituents. None the less, however, did he wish to urge in the strongest manner possible—and, no doubt, many Members from Ireland and those who sat on the Conservative Benches, and probably some who sat opposite, would agree with him—that the Government should pass some measures which would really be of advantage to Ireland. He referred to matters such as those which had only been referred

  1919
  to briefly by the noble Lord who spoke just now (Lord John Manners). He had listened to all the speeches of importance on the Land Bill; but felt that questions which had been put from that side of the House had not yet been answered by the Government—cones-quently, that the time had not come when he would wish to place his view of the subject before the attention of the House. If he did not divide the House upon the Amendment which stood in Ids name, it would not be from any lack of intention to do so, but from lack of the opportunity.
  MR. DAWSONhad given three weeks for the discussion of this measure on various platforms, and he must be anxious to know the result; therefore, it would be interesting to them and to the Government to learn what instructions the Irish Members had received from their constituents on this question. It could do no harm to hear the opinions of English Members on the matter, for then not only would the Government learn the view of the Irish constituencies, but also the English view.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that as one anxious to speak on the question he desired to make a suggestion which the Government might, perhaps, think valuable. The hon. Member (Mr. Shaw) complained that no time had been allowed to Irish Members to speak on the question, and that the time had been taken up by a number of English Members who, presumably, the hon. Member intended to insinuate, like a good many Irish Members, did not know anything about the matter. He would suggest a course for which the Government had a good precedent. The Bill, they were told, was very necessary for Ireland, and the same was said of the measure to enable the Executive to put Irishmen into prison. They must be as anxious to press forward a measure for the protection of the farmers as they were to press forward the other; therefore, to enable them to get out of the difficulty he would propose that they should take one or two All-night Sittings.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that one reason why it occurred to him that this debate was not likely to close as early as the Premier seemed to anticipate was this—that at the beginning of the debate, judging from the Irish papers, the Land League Convention and meet-
  1920
  ings held in Ireland had granted permission to those Irish Members who sat on the Opposition side of the House to decide what course they should take on this measure. Having given to the Bill all the attention his capacity enabled him to do, he had been under the impression that its leading principle could be more fairly and properly discussed in Committee and, under such circumstances, that the second reading could be terminated in a short time. But, to-night, they had heard from the hon. Member (Mr. Shaw) that the old arrangement had been changed, and that, within a very short period, the ideas that had heretofore prevailed as to the manner of dealing with it had been set aside, and that an Amendment had been put upon the Paper—an Amendment not meeting the Bill with a direct negative, but which certainly would not contribute to its receiving such a good reception "elsewhere," when it passed out of this House, as he could have wished it to receive. Under the circumstances, he could not but suppose that the Resolution had been put forward as a mere brutum fulmen. He hoped hon. Members would not content themselves with putting crude ideas on paper, but would give that explanation which the House was anxious to have as to the reason why this Resolution had been brought forward. It seemed to him that if hon. Members were to explain that Resolution, and the House was to receive the benefit of their views on the measure of the Government, and on other matters connected with the subject, the second reading stage would not be likely to terminate so early as the Prime Minister anticipated.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 136.]
(Mr. Playfair, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)

COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee on this Bill be deferred."—(Lord Frederick, Cavendish.)
MR. R. N. FOWLERwished to know whether the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) could tell him when the Bill would really come on?
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: If the hon. Member will be good enough to tell me when the debate on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill will come to an end, I will give him the information he seeks.
MR. RITCFIIE: Will it be the first Order of the Day?
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: No doubt it will be the main Business of the Day on which it is taken.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee deferred till Monday next.

INDIA OFFICE AUDITOR (SUPER ANNUATION) BILL.— [BILL 140.]
(The Marquess of Hartington, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he could not allow the Bill to go forward without offering one or two observations with regard to it. The Bill set forth that according to a previous Act provision was made for the appointment of an India Office Auditor, and that, although provision was made for the payment of an annual salary, no provision was made for the superannuation of that officer when his period of service had expired. That Bill was discussed in 1858, and in the course of the discussion an hon. Member said he did not know on what ground it was proposed to appoint a separate auditor, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that it would introduce great improvement and a better system of audit than then prevailed, and that it would not be necessary to incur serious expense. The Bill was finally agreed to. Well, how did this appointment result in an improvement of the audit service? There was no improvement of any kind or description; in fact, there was, practically, no reliable audit of the Indian accounts. He hardly liked to detain the House at this hour—1 o'clock
a.m.—with lengthy extracts from the Blue Book bearing upon the appointment; but he did think that some of the evidence given before the Select Committee on Finance, in 1872, was so
1922
important that it ought to be laid before the House before it consented to the superannuation of the officer who for so many years had occupied the post of auditor. Mr. Harrison, who was examined before the Select Committee, was asked this question—
"Then, is there any person in this Department who possesses any power of auditing the expenditure in the sense of being able to object to expenditure as contrary to law or contrary to the rules and orders of the Secretary of State?"
And the witness's answer was that it was the duty of the Department to check all expenditure which was not warranted by the Government of India. The question was then put—
"The Department of Audit does not look beyond the fact, so that there is no audit authority in India which is able to exercise an independent check upon the expenditure of money by the Local Government in that country? If the Governor General in Council, therefore, orders any payment that is final as regards the Audit Department?"—A. "I consider that to be so."
In reply to a further question, he said—
"It would be the duty of an officer of his Department to bring to notice any expenditure he had reason to believe not warranted."
Mr. Gay was also examined before the same Committee, and he said there was, practically, no audit whatever to be relied upon. What had been the consequence of the want of efficient audit control over the accounts of India? It had been the financial blunder and scandal which attracted so much attention recently. The Committee appointed to inquire into the system of keeping accounts, and into the relations between the military accounts and the Controller General, made a Report, which strongly bore out his contention. It traced the financial dilemma in India to the absence of anything like an official audit, and it was pointed out that the audit of the accounts in India was always lamentably in arrear. The House ought to pause before assenting to the second reading of the Bill, unless the Government could show them some very good reason for enlarging the provisions made in 1858.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONregretted that in consequence of the noise in the House he had been unable to catch the greater part of the remarks of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). He was not aware from what Committee's proceedings the hon. Gentleman was reading;

1923
but if the hon. Gentleman would communicate with him he would carefully examine the evidence, and, if necessary, he might be able to afford him some satisfactory explanation. As far as he was able to gather from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, he complained of the inefficient audit in India. Under the Act of 1858 it was simply an audit of the accounts of the Government of India at home which was appointed. Whether the audit of the accounts in India was sufficient for the purpose was a subject altogether separate from the present Bill. The audit of the Home accounts was a subject which had not been neglected. It came under the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee, and some changes had been made. The last Report of that Committee stated that the auditor of the India Office had been, in consequence of the recommendations of the Committee, altogether relieved of the duties formerly imposed upon him, and was now enabled to carry out an entirely independent audit. He would not say that the subject of the accounts in India was not one worthy of consideration; but he would submit to the House that it was entirely separate from the present Bill, and it would be almost irregular to discuss it now. The object of the Bill was clearly set forth in the Preamble, and the House would see there was no reason why the Bill should not be passed.
MR. ONSLOWsaid, he had given Notice of opposition to the Bill; but he did so when the Bill was not printed. Having seen the Bill, however, he hoped the House would allow it to pass. It did seem unfair that a body of officials should be precluded from any pension on account of what might very properly be called a technicality—on account of there being no mention of their offices in the Act of 1858.
MR. DAWSONhad no wish to oppose the Motion for the superannuation of these officials; but he thought the thanks of the House were due to his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) for having called attention to the lamentable want of regularity in the keeping of accounts in India. It was evident the deficiencies which the taxpayers in this country were called upon to supply might have been prevented.
MR. BIGGARhad no wish to delay Business; but it seemed to him the
1924
audit of the Indian accounts was performed in an absurd and inefficient manner. It would be well that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) should have an opportunity of perusing the Reports which criticized unfavourably the conduct of the auditors to whom it was now proposed to make an allowance; and in order that such an opportunity should be afforded the noble Marquess, he begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
MR. HEALYseconded the Motion. He desired to point out the inconvenience of bringing on the Bill at this hour of the morning. No one thought it necessary to offer any remarks on the subject; and it appeared to him that if there was any desire on the part of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to save the time of the House, they would not press Bills of this importance at this late hour. If the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) persisted in his Motion he should certainly divide with him.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Biggar.)
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONhoped the hon. Member for Cavan would not press his Motion, for the Bill related to the audit of the Home accounts; and the hon. Member must see that it was impossible that the Indian accounts should be audited by the Auditor General. As matters stood, the auditors had no superannuation, because, although a few of them who had retired had received grants equal to superannuation by virtue of the authority in the Indian Council, they had no legal right to superannuation. It was desirable that superannuation should be established by law.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the very thing he wished to elicit had been shown by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India. For instance, there had already been several auditors in the position of the official whose case was being dealt with. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India had found the means of providing for them, and had placed a charge on the Revenue of India which was not just. The noble Marquess had himself admitted the fact. He said the system was not one to be recommended, and

1925
now he wanted the House to pass a Bill providing superannuation of an auditor, while stating that in previous instances such a step had not been considered necessary. It appeared to him that that fact alone was sufficient to show that the audit of Indian accounts in England was in an unsatisfactory condition. The Auditor General had not, he maintained, done what he ought to have done. He ought to be the Financial Adviser of the Secretary of State, to enlighten him upon any shortcomings in the system of audit in this country, or in India. The shortcomings in the system in India had been most flagrant, and had resulted in what was really little short of a public disgrace and a public scandal. The auditor had not done his duty in such a way as to warrant a special Bill being passed in his favour. It was, however, useless to disguise the fact that the sense of the House was in favour of the second reading of the Bill; and he would, therefore, appeal to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to withdraw his Motion. At the same time, he trusted that the noble Marquess would favour the House in a short time with his views as to what steps should be taken for dealing with this subject.
MR. BIGGARon the appeal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who seemed to be the only Member of the House who understood the question, begged leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

MOTIONS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BRENTFORD UNION, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Rural Sanitary District of the Brentford Union, the Bromley and Beckenham Joint Hospital District, the Local Government District of Burgess Hill, the Rural Sanitary District of the Cuckfield Union, the Local Government District of Houghton-le-Spring, the Special Drainage District of Hurst-pierpoint, the Local Government District of Marple, the Stourbridge Main Drainage District, and the Rural Sanitary District of the Whitehaven Union, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 149.]

  CUSTOMS (OUTPORT OFFICERS).
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the conditions of service and the rates of pay of the Customs Out-door Officers at the Outports, with power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to report to this House."—(Mr. Norwood.)

  POST OFFICE (LAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. FAWCETT, Bill to amend the Law with respect to the acquisition of Land and the execution of Instruments for the purposes of the Post Office, ordered to be brought in by Mr. FAWCETT and Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 150.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.