HC Deb 23 May 1882 vol 269 cc1420-48

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [22nd May], "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 "it is inexpedient to charge the Consolidated Fund with any payment, except by way of loan, in respect of arrears of rent in Ireland,"—(Mr. Sclater-Booth,) —instead thereof.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, it was only owing to what he might call an accident that he was left in the position of having to resume the debate. In the observations he made last night he stated that it was a remarkable fact that no Scotch Member had addressed the House on the subject. He was not oblivious of the fact that the Prime Minister was not only a Scotchman, but that he represented the Metropolitan County of Scotland; but his high position, and his multifarious and arduous duties, must have prevented him from having any degree of familiarity with the feeling of Scotch constituencies with regard to the measure. He rested his arguments for the adjournment of the debate last night on the ground, inter alia, that the constituencies of Scotland had not had time since the introduction of the Bill to consider it. As it had been printed only on Saturday it would not have reached Scotland until Sunday, and many parts of that country not until Monday morning. Since he made these remarks he had been able to examine the light in which it was regarded by the principal organs of public opinion in Scotland, and he was justified in saying that—as far as it was possible to gather the general private and public opinion of Scotland from the leading articles in the Scotch, papers of yesterday morning—a very large contingent of Scotch opinion was deliberately and irreconcilably opposed to the principles of the Bill. He should like to refer to a charge which had been brought against the Conservative Members by the Irish Members—and which had been in some degree countenanced by the Prime Minister in his remarks that afternoon—namely, that the Conservative Party was always ready to vote for measures of coercion, while they were averse to what were called measures of conciliation. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] He saw the Prime Minister made signs of dissent; but he was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman used words to the effect that the Conservative Party were ready to give to measures of coercion a precedence which they were resolved to refuse to this measure. Of course, if he was mistaken he begged to withdraw the statement; but, so far as he was concerned, he desired to repudiate such an imputation altogether. He had made up his mind on the second reading of the Coercion Bill not again to vote for giving the present Government any further extraordinary powers in relation to their government in Ireland. He might be wrong, and he was acting individually; but he considered the powers which were conferred upon them last year were misused to such a degree that he could not reconcile himself to aid in trusting the present Government with any further extraordinary powers. The powers conferred last year had been used with a degree of vacillation and weakness that had resulted in confusion in Ireland, and in the disruption of the Cabinet. The Government exhibited in a large and exaggerated degree all the defects which had so long marked the administration of Irish affairs by English hands. They came forward now with a demand for the strongest measure of coercion ever introduced. He did not deny the necessity for that; but, on the other hand, they offered a Bill which introduced a totally new departure. He might call it a measure of outdoor relief upon the most gigantic scale that Parliament had ever been called upon to consider. It was a Bill, the effect of which, if it passed into law, would be to pauperize one class of the country at the expense of the other; and if there was to be any consistency in the administration of it, the funds with which it proposed to deal ought to be administered by the Poor Law Guardians. The only argument they had heard last night in support of the measure was that of necessity. No doubt the necessities of the Government were very great; but that was not sufficient argument to induce those on the other side of the House to concur in any measure which it might seem fit for the Government to bring forward. The fact was, the Government had got itself into a scrape, and they did not know how to get out of it. They must pass the Bill, because if they did not do so Heaven knew what further revelations in connection with the Correspondence about the Kilmainham proceedings would be produced from one quarter or other. They were told that if they did not agree to the passage, and the rapid passage, of the measure, the Government would not be answerable for the condition of Ireland. Now, he had not been very long in the House; but he knew that this argument had very often been used. The Government had said exactly the same thing in the debate on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) found Ireland unmanageable in his hands, and laid on the House of Lords for their rejection of the Bill the responsibility for the outrages that ensued. Last year the Land Act was recommended for the very same reason. Well, that Act passed, and the immediate result was the "no rent" manifesto, and a state of things that had had no parallel since 1798. It seemed to him that the consequences were much the same whether the Government measures became law, or were thrown into the waste-paper basket, and he did not, therefore, anticipate serious difficulties from the rejection of this Bill. There was no Motion for opposition to this Bill. He wished there had been. He himself would have been very glad of an opportunity to vote against the second reading of the measure. They were discussing an Amendment which he confessed did not commend itself very much to his judgment; but he was willing to defer to the more experienced Members who had supported that Amendment. The Prime Minister told the House that the Bill had been framed in accordance with all sections of Irish opinion. He wished to know how that was possible? To go no further than the walls of the House itself, hon. Members had heard enough last night of the very wide divergence of Irish opinion on the subject. The hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), after hearing the Prime Minister's arguments, still remained unconvinced, and expressed his deliberate belief that the money ought to be advanced on loan, and not as a gift. Irish Members above the Gangway had also criticized the Bill; and the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) said that from the moment of its introduction the farmers who had been paying their rents had absolutely ceased their payments. Again, it could not be said that the Bill accorded with the opinions of the Conservative Irish Members. In the House the Bill pleased only the Home Rule Members below the Gangway; out of the House the Government had to reckon on the support of the Kilmainham "suspects" and the Portland ticket-of-leave man; with the Fenians also, whose truculent manifesto was rhodomontade, no doubt, but rhodomontade which, as all knew by experience, was apt to be followed by assassination. The Bill proposed to vote a large sum of money towards a most undesirable object—an object which would interfere with a natural law of our race, especially of the Celtic race, in its movement Westward—and it would tend to settle permanently on miserably inadequate portions of land tenants who would be unable to live on their holdings, even if they had them rent free. They would, therefore, be for ever subject to periodical visitations of famine and distress. The state of Scotland 50 or 60 years ago in certain respects very much resembled the state of Ireland now. It was covered with small tenancies, and in the Western districts of Scotland the ruins of what were called Irish crofts, or small farms, were still to be traced. He appealed to anyone who knew Scotland at the present day, and who could recollect it 30 or 40 years ago, and challenged anyone to deny that the tenant farmers of Scotland now were a more well-to-do and a more comfortable class, and a class who lived a more desirable life in every way, than the small crofters of the former period. The fact was, that Scotland had been spared all sentimental legislation. In the case of Ireland, he saw no reason why it should be treated as the right hon. Gentleman proposed. The agricultural depression, which was the ostensible reason for bringing in this measure, was not nearly as severe or as widely spread in Ireland as in England and Scotland. In the North of England the last year was one of the worst possible, while in Ireland the harvest was one of the best on record. Besides that, the produce of the small dairy farms of Ireland had not to meet the American competition which the wheat-growing farms in England and Scotland had to face. From thousands of homesteads, hitherto happy and prosperous, families had been removed in the Midland Counties of England. Why was not the same sympathy extended to English and Scotch as to Irish farmers? Were they less devoted to their homes? No; they loved their homes just as much as the Irish peasant, but they did not make so much noise about their grievances. In the flogging days in the Army those who yelled loudest did not suffer so much as those who put a bullet between the teeth and held their peace. The Irish farmers resorted to agitation, which the dignity of the English and the Scotch farmers made it impossible for them to indulge in. They had not yet learned the art of "tolling the chapel bells," and calling attention to their sufferings by outrage and intimidation. He regretted that the Prime Minister did not see his way to devoting this large sum of money to emigration, which the late Chief Secretary spoke of as the one hope of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman only deprecated doing that now because it would weaken the popularity of the Land Act of 1881. He (Sir Herbert Maxwell) was not much concerned about the popularity of the Land Act. His opinion of that measure had never altered. He believed it would fail, and that the Bill now before the House would fail, as every Bill would fail until the Irish Government learned to make no distinction between agrarian and political agitation. He desired to ask what security against fraud was afforded by this Bill? Nothing was more difficult to guard against than concealment of goods. The overworked authorities under the Land Act would be unable to enter into a minute examination of the condition of tenant farmers, and the Bill would offer an inducement to the making of fraudulent claims. If he believed the Bill would result in the relief of Ireland, that the people would be happy and contented, or if he could hope that it would tend to unite Ireland to this country, he would be inclined to put his conscience on one side—as would be done by many Members who voted for this measure—and would vote for it himself. But, as he could anticipate none of these benefits to Ireland, he should be compelled to disregard the appeal made by the Government and to vote against the Bill.

MR. VILLIERS-STUART

said, that when the Prime Minister expressed partial approval of the Land Laws Amendment Bill introduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite, he laid down the axiom that if the Arrears Clauses were to be compulsory, they must also be just. That axiom was only what might have been expected from an enlightened statesman, and he would vote for the second reading, relying on the right hon. Gentleman being as good as his word, and accepting such Amendments as would render the Bill just; for, as it stood, very serious injustice would be inflicted upon a number of landlords, and that upon the very class who were most deserving of consideration, and who, when appealed to by the Government to be forbearing and not to add to existing difficulties, did not press their claims as they might have done. It would place them in a mortifying position, and also those tenants who, notwithstanding every temptation to hold their rents, paid them honestly, and, in a considerable proportion of cases, at the risk of their lives. In regard to the question whether the Bill should proceed by way of loan or gift, he was one of those who signed the Memorial which was sent to the Prime Minister from his side of the House, advocating his proceeding by way of loan. The Members who had signed that Memorial did so from the belief that loans would be less demoralizing to the beneficiaries themselves, and give rise to less heartburnings among those who had paid their rents honestly. It would, moreover, allow of more liberal terms being offered to them. It was quite true that loans at 1 per cent did partake of the nature of a gift, but the demoralizing influence was absent. Loans on such terms, precisely because they would partake of the nature of a gift, would still have permitted of the application of the principle of compulsion, of which he approved. In supporting the second reading of the Bill, he was anxious to guard himself against being supposed to be committed to more than that the Arrears Question was of the highest importance, and ought to be dealt with, and to take precedence of everything else. As to the question of gift or loan, he and the other Irish Members who sat near him had not changed their opinion; but they deferred to that of the Prime Minister. If it was possible that the Bill should be brought to a third reading unchanged, he could not conscientiously support it; but he could not believe that such a thing would happen, because he could not believe that the wealthy and generous-hearted people of England would prefer to adopt the policy of confiscation rather than pay the price of the policy of honesty.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, this was the most interesting and instructive debate they had had for a long period. It was a very remarkable fact that so many speakers on the Ministerial Benches had spoken disparagingly of one of the pillars on which this Bill rested. The Prime Minister said it rested on two pillars—gift and compulsion; and it was noteworthy that scarcely a Member on the other side—and certainly none on his own side—of the House had advocated the principle of gift. In fact, the only exceptions were the occupants of the Treasury Bench and two Irish Members on the Ministerial side of the House. Some of the principles enunciated by the Prime Minister he confessed had both surprised and alarmed him. They were informed that the principle of loan was admitted in the Bill of last year, against which some of them protested as likely to be demoralizing to the inhabitants of Ireland. They were desirous of doing anything they could to encourage independence, and they were informed that the principle of loan admitted into the Bill of last year conceded everything which was to be found in the Bill of this year. Another remarkable statement was made by the Prime Minister when he insisted that the conditions under which this arrangement should be carried out must be equitable, safe, and effectual. Shortly after the right hon. Gentleman had made that statement, the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw)—who was, no doubt, a good judge of what was equitable—pointed out the absence of any equity in making large grants to persons who were dishonest, thriftless, and wanting in all the qualities of good citizens. The hon. Member for the County of Cork further pointed out that a man who had made an effort to pay his rent and to meet his other obligations would be discouraged by seeing the great disadvantage in which he would be placed under the Bill, compared with those who had failed to exercise his qualities of honesty and integrity. He could not imagine that any principle asserted by Parliament could be more disastrous, or more certainly dmoralizing to the community, than to make it clear that this money was not to be advanced to men who had striven to discharge their obligations to society, but to those who had entirely failed in that duty. He said, therefore, that this Bill, which the Prime Minister asked the House to accept, introduced a principle which was most unsafe and most dangerous to the State. It was absurd to call it equitable. There was another ground on which the Prime Minister asked the House to assent to the measure. It was that it would be effectual. He wished to draw attention to the absence of any provision for making this Bill effectual for the object which the Government had in view. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had expressed a most earnest desire—in which he believed hon. Members on both sides, without exception joined—to give, if possible, these unfortunate people a fresh and fair start in the world, without encumbrance and without difficulty. It was notorious that those tenants who were honestly in arrear with their landlords for two or three years' rent were equally in arrear to their trade creditors. Taking the community at large, you might average the debt due to the landlord as equal to the debt due to the shopkeeper. What was proposed to be done? To clear off the debt due to the landlord, and to leave the other arrears hanging round the neck of the tenant and preventing him from earning his living. This would afford a temptation, which was practically irresistible to the shopkeepers, and those from whom the tenant might have borrowed money, to go at once to the man who was clear of his debt to the landlord, and to proceed in the Courts in order to obtain a decision in their favour and to compel this very man to sell his holding. In other words, we should make it easy for a shopkeeper or moneylender to proceed to that very sentence of eviction which it was professedly desired should be removed from the power of the landlord. Therefore, the scheme proposed by the Government was not equitable, safe, or effectual. But the Prime Minister said he did not bind himself absolutely to the amount, which he now estimated at £2,000,000, as being the sum of the demand which the State might have to meet in the shape of one year's arrears, because, as the right hon. Gentleman observed, the idea of receiving public money was very fascinating. He thought that, in making that statement, the Prime Minister must have had in his mind recollections of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of former days. There was a rich fund to draw upon, and it was always regarded by the public as being practically inexhaustible. He would now proceed to point out many sources of difficulty which were likely to arise under this Bill. The Prime Minister said it was very fascinating to endeavour to obtain, and to be able to receive, money from the Public Exchequer. As it was at present drawn this Bill would put it into the power of everyone who might owe a "hanging gale" to ask the Exchequer to pay half of it. This was a provision under which the whole of the tenants under £30 valuation in Ireland, who were not practically or really in arrear, could come and claim from the State half of a sum of money which they would not be called upon to pay until the year after it was due. This was a provision under which arrears of rent would be created which did not now exist, and in respect of which a large and unlooked-for demand would be made on the Public Exchequer. It appeared to him that the views which the Prime Minister had asserted were dangerous views for the future—he was going to say for the morality—of the community of this country. If there was one thing more than another which it was their duty to do, it was to persuade their countrymen that the highest position they could attain to was to have a respect for law and for the discharge of their obligations. This Bill was, however, a distinct reward to those who had abstained from paying their rents, and a distinct incitement to others not to do so in the future. As to the number of persons who in one way or another would be affected by the Bill, he thought it would be larger than was generally supposed. The total number of holdings in Ireland was 660,000; but, according to a Return which had been made by the Irish Local Government Board, the number of holdings under £30 valuation was 585,715. It might, therefore, be said that one-half, or nearly one-half, of the population of Ireland would come within the purview of this Bill. Indeed, assuming that there were four or five persons to every holding, there would be more than one-half of the population brought within the purview of the Bill. Assuming 200,000 to be in arrear, a considerable proportion of that number would be cottier tenants. Well, every one of these 585,715 persons who did not get relief under the Bill would have a grievance. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] There was no surer way of creating a grievance than by making distinctions between individuals of the same class in the distribution of public money. There were 585,715 heads of families in the class for whom the Bill was intended, and there were only 200,000 who it was calculated would receive any advantage from the Bill. There would thus be 400,000 families who would feel themselves aggrieved by the operation of the Bill, and these dissatisfied persons would be the most honest and enterprizing of their class—men who had done their duty at the risk of losing property and life. The rent-roll of Ireland might be reckoned at £14,000,000. For the purposes of the Bill it was assumed that 2,000,000 would be required. Those tenants, therefore, who had paid the remaining £12,000,000 of rent would feel a sense of injustice of which the Government might hear in a very unpleasant manner. With regard to the cottier tenants, his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) had spoken of them in terms with which, everybody must sympathize. All must desire to do something to be- nefit the poor tenants of the West of Ireland—Galway, Mayo, and Donegal. Emigration, or migration, was the only means of relieving these unfortunate people. By some means or other they were bound to lift those people out of the condition of misery in which they were now situated. Last year, in the debates on the Land Act, he had frequently said that the only way in which the Government could deal with the enormous difficulty—a scandal to a great Empire—of improving the lot of that congestion of starving persons was by the appointment of a Royal Commission, which should have funds at its disposal to assist their removal to another country, or to another part of Ireland. His right hon. Friend said that the settlement of arrears must come before migration; that they ought first to enable the tenants to pay their rents. But what was the good of keeping these unhappy people in a condition in which there was the strongest evidence to show that they could not keep body and soul together? It was stated in evidence before the Bessborough Commission, by Professor Baldwin, that there were 100,000 holdings in Ireland altogether too small to maintain a family, even if they were held rent free. That was stated in 1880, and, notwithstanding two good harvests, the condition of those people was as bad as ever; they were not able to pay their rents or to live or thrive. What was the statement of the reporter of The Daily News on Saturday? The Daily News says— It is to be feared that these poor creatures (in Connemara) labour under a fatal disqualification to relief under that measure (the Arrears Bill). The total amount of their annual rent varies from 15s. to £5, and it is probable that if they held their land free of all rent they would still be in a very wretched plight. Sub-division has been practically unchecked, and our Correspondent mentions a case of co-partnership in which nine families, consisting of 57 persons, actually shared a plot of ground worth about £10 a-year. They are willing to emigrate, but they cannot afford it. They had this statement, with that of Professor Baldwin and that of The O'Conor Don. The Land Act had been in operation nearly a year, Ireland was in a worse condition now than in 1880, and yet the Government had not taken any steps which would adequately cope with this enormous evil. He spoke from his own knowledge when he said that there were hundreds and thousands of these poor people who would be glad to emigrate if the means were found them. Although the right hon. Gentleman might he right in saying that it would be to the advantage of the landlord if the land could be cleared of his tenants, it was utterly out of his power, in most cases, to offer sufficient inducements to them to emigrate, as the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881 imposed penalties on "disturbances" which were too onerous to be encountered; and then he had probably received no rent for many years, and was in a state of absolute poverty. Thus the landlords, in many cases, were unable to give any assistance. There was nothing in the Bill which would do any good for these people; there was nothing in the Bill of last year. There was, no doubt, a provision dealing with emigration; but he believed there was no single case in which that provision had been acted upon. Were we to wait indefinitely for something to be done to meet the evil? A moderate measure of well-considered migration or emigration would afford the greatest possible relief to these poor tenants; and for those who remained at home there would be a much better chance of success and prosperity. He had seen with his own eyes that, under present circumstances, it was impossible for thousands of human beings to find a livelihood among the stones and bogs of districts such as those of Connemara. He could not see that the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary was right in saying that in those districts this Bill would afford relief.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I said that nothing but emigration would relieve them.

MR. W. H. SMITH

understood that the right hon. Gentleman meant that the emigration was to be delayed until after the operation of the Bill on the arrears.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

What I said was, that if the emigration was the compulsory result of extensive evictions it would not be emigration conducted with the best chance of success.

MR. W. H. SMITH

quite agreed with his right hon. Friend, whom he had misunderstood. But was the Government justified in not dealing at once with that evil? He approached the question with the strongest feeling that probably at no period in the history of this country— certainly not in the present generation—was the condition of Ireland more grave than at the present moment. He did not throw difficulties in the way of the Bill from any political motive adverse to the Government. These were times when political differences ought to be hushed in the endeavour to deal with a condition of affairs which was far more grave; serious, and alarming than any condition of affairs as regarded Ireland, which he had known during his lifetime. There was more serious general disaffection and more complete disloyalty in Ireland than had ever been the case before. Where there was formerly good nature; where there was a readiness to meet a stranger and a desire to make his way pleasant, there was sullen discontent. There was every indication that the population were estranged from England and the English nation. This was a condition of affairs that required to be met, not wholly by measures of repression, but certainly not by measures which were unsound in principle and wrong and dangerous in their effects. He would say this without any political or partial feeling whatever—that he believed the effect of the Land Act had not been to add a single additional loyal subject to the number in Ireland, and he believed it had not produced any satisfaction on the part of those who benefited by it. They regarded it as forced from the Government by agitation, and not as an act of justice and done from a sense of duty by the Imperial Parliament. If that was the way in which the legislation of the past had been received, they had little hope that the boon now offered would produce a feeling of loyalty. The Bill before the House ought to be allowed to pass if it were right and just, and if, on the whole, from their experience of men and society, they thought it would conduce to the good government of the country, not only in the present, but also in the future. But his objection was that it would not do that. The Bill proposed to deal with three classes of persons—first, those who could pay and would not; secondly, those who could have paid but had spent the money; and, thirdly, those who were wholly unable to pay, such as the cottier tenants of Galway, Mayo, and other parts. The Bill would benefit the first two classes; but those who could not pay—those who had been described by a writer in a morning paper as living from hand to mouth with enormous difficulty—would be left unprovided for. There had been a considerable cessation of labour in the West of Ireland. Persons had been thrown out of employment through the terrorism of the Land League and the operation of the Land Act; and he feared that it would be a long time before that employment would be renewed, owing to the withdrawal of capital from the country. He felt sure that the employment would not be shortly renewed, even if the Government were able to restore security to life and property in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary, in his speech last night, observed that the landlords had made a bad debt, a portion of which would now be paid by the State. He must apologize for having, perhaps, old-fashioned notions; but he did not think it the duty of Parliament or of the Exchequer to pay anybody's bad debts. It was a great misfortune to the landlords, no doubt; but he believed that to say that bad debts, in the shape of rents accruing during bad seasons or otherwise, should be provided for by the State was to make an assertion which was dangerous to financial policy, and which tended to public immorality. Another objection he had to the measure was that it would take away a fund which might have been used with great advantage for reproductive purposes. In whichever way they looked at it, they could not consider the grant of the Irish Church Surplus Fund anything other than a grant of public money. [An hon. MEMBER: Of Irish money.] Well, he wished to speak of Irishmen as Englishmen, and as inhabitants of the United Kingdom. His great hope would be to deal with Ireland in the same way as England, and he hoped the time would yet come when they might be treated as one nation. Many of the greatest names in English history were Irish. Many of their greatest statesmen and of their greatest soldiers had been Irishmen, and he saw no reason why the distinction between the two countries should be kept up. There was a disposition to continually resort to the Church Surplus, just as a boy went to a jampot as long as it lasted; but he thought that if the capital of this fund had been preserved, it might have been used most beneficially for Ireland. He objected to the prin- ciple of the measure entirely. If men were in arrear with their rent, they were most likely in debt also to the shopkeeper and to others, and why should the debts which were owing for rent be the only ones defrayed by the State? He was convinced that the only way of dealing with people in arrear in that manner was to put them through a rapid and easy bankruptcy. Even the leading organ of Liberal opinion in Ireland—The Freeman's Journal—pointed out that one serious objection to this Bill was that the relief arrangement involved lawsuits. It appeared to him to be the height of folly to relieve people who were in hopeless debt and misery of a part of their burdens only, and to leave, perhaps, the bulk of the debts unsatisfied. It had been said that the bankruptcy to which he had alluded would involve eviction. But he did not know that that was necessary. He said last year, and he would repeat it, that a measure dealing with this question, in order to be successful, must be kept beyond the range of Party politics. For his own part, he certainly was unwilling to vote for a Bill which appeared to him unsound in principle, likely to perpetuate most grave evils, and offering a distinct premium on dishonesty, and which afforded no reasonable hope of grappling successfully with the great difficulty which they had to meet in Ireland. He believed that end might be accomplished if sufficient courage were shown by the Government in the matter. He should regret greatly if the condition of Ireland should render the affairs of that country the mere shuttlecock of Parties; and he was satisfied that that House would cheerfully submit to any sacrifice if a real determined effort were made to grapple with the evils that prevailed in Ireland, if that could be done apart from politics and apart from social disturbance. He declared, however, that this Bill would offer the greatest possible inducement to the repudiation of contracts in Ireland, instead of extending, as he hoped it would have done, the facilities for purchase. The only argument that had been put forward in support of the Bill was that it had been rendered necessary by three years' failure of crops; but what was there to assure the House that another three years' failure of crops would not occur within the next few years, in which case they might be asked to pass another Relief Bill similar to the present to pay the tenants' debts out of the public funds? The right hon. Member for Bradford had excused the introduction of the Bill on the ground of the exceptional state of things in Ireland; but, for his part, he saw no security that such a state of things would not recur. The Bill might be a necessity, but he could not reconcile it with his conscience to allow the measure to pass without entering his protest against its principle. He was convinced, if only men of great power and influence had the courage, that a better way could be found, without serious danger to the State, of meeting a difficulty which he was convinced that every loyal man and every Christian would wish to see met.

MR. CHILDERS

said, he had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down with great interest, and he was bound to say that he agreed cordially with many of the sentiments that it contained. The spirit of that speech was good throughout, and many of the suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman had made were well worthy of the consideration of Parliament and of the country. Before touching upon the general principles of the measure, he should like to refer to the first reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave as weighing with him in opposition to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the Bill, because, he said, it would enable a large number of the tenants to settle with their landlords, after which they would find themselves face to face with the shopkeepers, who would evict them without mercy. But if that was a sound objection to a scheme of gift, he failed to see how it would be met by making the gift a loan. If he correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, he wished to inaugurate a huge plan of bankruptcy, and that he desired it to be understood that he and his Friends would be prepared to sacrifice large sums of money to enable the people of Ireland to get rid of their liabilities. What he failed, however, to see was how, under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, these unfortunate people, who would be deprived of all their property, would benefit; and, moreover, the right hon. Gentleman had failed to point out in what manner his scheme could be rendered practicable. The right hon. Gentleman had, indeed, made one suggestion—namely, that some large and universal scheme of emigration should be adopted for the overcrowded Western districts of Ireland. He (Mr. Childers) knew something of the good side of emigration, and of the advantage it was to many poor people in this country to be enabled to settle in Colonies where the social institutions were similar to those here; and any such system of emigration, primâ facie, would receive his support. But had the right hon. Gentleman well weighed and considered the difficulties involved in emigration from Ireland? It raised questions relating to the religious sentiments of the Irish people, which up to the present time Parliament had been unable to solve. He did not hesitate to say, after having made inquiries on the subject in the West of Ireland, that unless some security was given that their religious connections would not be broken off, emigration would be always a violation of the wishes of large sections of the Irish people. If it were possible to mature a sound system of emigration from the overcrowded districts of Ireland, it would receive no stronger support than from himself. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman as to a fuller explanation of what was meant by a "hanging gale," in Sub-section 3 of the 1st clause of the Bill, would, no doubt, receive attention in Committee. There was a peculiarity in the present debate to which, he wished to call attention. Three Notices of Amendment were given by the Opposition. Of these the third had been adopted by that Party. The first Amendment, which certainly had at one time the countenance of the Leader of the Opposition, was a general one, declaring that "no gift of public money" would effect the objects of the Bill; the second said that a contribution of public money for this purpose "should, in the present circumstances, take the shape of a loan, and not of a gift." The Amendment now under discussion was still more limited, because it stated that— No payment in respect of arrears of rent in Ireland should be made by way of gift, if that payment was to be a charge on the Consolidated Fund. From this he inferred that the Opposition were not prepared to test the principle involved in the first and second Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman, in fact, said that his Amendment raised the "narrowest possible issue," and that it did not prohibit payment by way of gift from the Church Fund. He went even further, and said that, if the Church Fund was not sufficient for these payments by way of gift, the balance of the £2,000,000 might be charged on Irish land, and that a rate of 1d. in the pound for six years on Irish land would meet the £400,000 or £500,000 required to be raised. But was it not evident from this that the Amendment before the House was unreal? It did not touch the real question. It was intended merely to catch votes. It did not contest with the Government the principle of the Bill. It raised only a side issue, which, judging from the divisions at the previous Sitting of the House, did not commend itself to the approval of the House. They were not discussing the real points of the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said he would give them an illustration from former transactions of this kind, and proposed that the advances should be made from the Consolidated Fund by way of a loan, in order to express the intention of Parliament, rather than with a view of recovering the money after the loans were made. The right hon. Gentleman said this had been done with regard to the tithe loans, a portion of which was not repaid, while another portion was repaid to only a small extent. Was not this, then, an unreal proposal if founded on such precedents? The right hon. Gentleman also objected to the Bill on the ground of the present state of the finances. He said there was no Surplus, and he referred to the fact that they were paying £500,000 a-year to help the taxes of India. But who had brought upon them that charge? The Vote in Aid of the Finances of India had become necessary solely in consequence of the unfortunate war waged by right hon. Gentlemen opposite—a war with regard to which the country had expressed its distinct disapproval. He must now refer to the statements of the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland), than whom no one was better informed with regard to the financial affairs connected with the late Established Irish Church. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the unsatisfactory condition of the Church Fund, and he said that the fund's assets were not in excess of its liabilities, and that it was impossible to look to it as a means of support. It was said that the Re- port of the Commissioners contained no balance-sheet. He had listened attentively to the hon. Member, and he had by him the accounts of the Irish Church Fund; and he thought it was right that the statement of the hon. Member in this particular should be corrected as soon as possible. From the Report of the 1st of November, 1880, he found that the estimated present value of the Church Estate, before later charges had been placed on it, was £12,400,000. The liabilities were—Loan from National Debt Commission, £5,600,000; other liabilities, £300,000; total, £5,900,000; making the surplus £6,500,000. The subsequent charges were—Intermediate education, £1,000,000; pensions of schoolmasters, £1,300,000; the loss to Estate by the relief of distress advances being made at 1 per cent. £550,000; total, £2,850,000; leaving a balance of £3,650,000. Then they must take this as subject to estimated depreciation on £12,400,000 from non-payment of rent, and he did not pretend to say how much this might be, but if even 10 per cent. it left a large balance. He next turned to the present position of the income. The present income, according to the Commissioners' Report, was £562,000, to which must be added repayment of advances for distress during 35 years, £49,000; making together £611,000. On the other side of the account there were sundry charges, £61,500; interest on £500,000 borrowed, £17,500; annuity for 25 years, to replace loan from Commission, £295,700; teachers' pensions, £39,000; intermediate education, £32,500; Royal University, £20,000; relief of distress bonds, £45,500; total, £511,700. The income would gradually fall in 40 years from £562,000 to £467,000, and 10 years afterwards to £293,000. The expenditure, after 25 years, would fall to £216,000. The proposed method of dealing with the loan of £2,000,000, if the whole of that were considered to be chargeable on the Church Fund, would be to extend the annuity from 25 years to 35 years, the term of the repayment of the instalments of the advances for the relief of distress, and to create a similar annuity for the £500,000 which remained due to the National Debt Commissioners. The charge would then be £262,600, instead of £312,200, showing a diminution of charge of £50,600. If that were done, and £62,500 were the charge for the interest of the £2,000,000, and 5 per cent were deducted for non-receipt of income, what would be the surplus? The Actuarial Report was that the surplus available to pay off the £2,000,000 would be from £45,000 in 1885 to £28,000 in 1915, the maximum being £57,000 in 1905. If those figures were correct, it was evident that the Church Fund would well bear the £1,500,000 charge which it was proposed to place upon it. With regard to the ascertaining the inability to pay of the persons to whom advances were made, a strong observation had been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) to the effect that those who did not receive any portion of the public money, but who were of the same class as those who did, would have a grievance. But that was a complaint which could equally be brought against the Poor Law, and almost in every case in which public money reached some hands and not others. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had twitted the Government with their inability to say the same thing twice. Last year, the noble Lord said the Government maintained that it would not be possible to demand that a tenant should prove his inability to pay rent, but this year they required such proof. Well, that a tenant should be required to prove his inability to pay was advocated last year by the noble Lord himself and the right hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross); and he held that it was hard that the Government should be taken to task by the noble Lord for adopting after consideration the suggestion which he and the Leaders of his Party had put forward. The Government had been asked, with reference to the question of a tenant's inability to pay rent, whether he would have to strip himself of his tenant right before claiming to be in that condition? If a tenant, in order to pay, had to deprive himself of his holding altogether, so as to be no longer a tenant, then that would be inconsistent with the objects of the Bill; but if it continued to be what in business phraseology was called "a going concern," but would bear no further burden, then inability to pay might be proved. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham) had said that the first necessity for Ireland was an improved class of tenants; and so far as legislation could effect that object, there was ground for believing that under the operation of the Land Act, aided by this Bill, the class of tenants in Ireland would be improved. The main question with regard to this Bill was whether the advance to be made in relief of the tenants should be made by way of loan or as a gift? The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that nobody was for the principle of gift and everybody in favour of that of loan. He thought, on the contrary, that everybody was for gift, all the various proposals that had been made as to the principle of loan having contained in them the element of gift. One plan had been strongly urged into which the element of gift largely entered—namely, the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw)—that three-fourths of all arrears up to November, 1880, should be lent for a period of 35 years at 1 per cent. without any limit as to the amount of rent or the number of years during which the arrears had accumulated, or any distinction as to whether the tenant was able to pay or not. Having made a calculation as to the amount of money which would have to be advanced in order to carry out that plan, he (Mr. Childers) found it would probably amount to £6,000,000, of which £2,000,000 would be a gift. So that the difference between the hon. Member's proposal and that of the Government was that while the former would involve as large a gift as the Government proposed to give, it would make the State a creditor to the tenants to the extent of £4,000,000 more, to be spread over several hundred thousand debtors and during a period of 35 years. He pitied the Government that would adopt such a proposal. The hon. Member for Down-patrick (Mr. Mulholland) used an expression which surprised him—namely, that the lending of money without interest was really an operation on a sound basis. He did not know whether the hon. Member would apply that in private life; he should think not. His right hon. Friend the late Chief Secretary made a remark as to the persons by whom this Bill was to be administered—that was to say, the persons who would have to decide upon the ability to pay. As that was a matter which they would be able to discuss well in Committee, he (Mr. Childers) would not enter upon it now. However they might differ upon the question whether this Bill was of little or of great importance, he firmly believed its operation would be beneficial. The judgments given under the Land Act showed that, on the average, rents had been excessive; and that being acknowledged, it seemed but reasonable, after the three years' famine, that the Government should assist the tenants to pay the rent which accrued during that disastrous time. As Parliament had passed a measure for the protection of tenants with regard to the future, it did not appear to be unreasonable that Parliament should, for the purpose of making an adjustment between landlords and tenants, pass another measure dealing with the past; and, therefore, he hoped the House would pass this Bill.

MR. J. LOWTHER

I had not intended to address any observations this afternoon to the House, and I should not have done so had it not been for the very cordial, though somewhat unusual, invitation addressed to me at an early hour this morning by the Prime Minister. I had intended, had time permitted, to have addressed a few words to the House last night with regard to this Bill. I was about to have stated on my own part, while fully agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) as to the preference for a loan over that of a gift, that it appeared to me that it was comparatively a matter of detail. My objection to the measure is far antecedent to any distinctions between a loan and a gift. I object myself to that which I consider is a distinct encouragement to dishonesty and a premium placed upon fraud, for the encouragement of the tenants who, during exceptionally good years, have been able to pay their rents, and who have chosen not to do so. The right hon. Gentleman, who has only a moment since left his place, intimated that I made use of expressions outside the walls of this House which I was not prepared to make in this Assembly. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be returning directly, and I will confine myself for a few minutes to observations with regard to the Bill itself. This Bill, in my opinion, contains one great defect, in so far as the only means for ascertaining whether the tenant is or is not a fraudulent debtor or a person in adversity is a reference to the Commission—to that public body created under the Land Act, which has not yet succeeded in inspiring the public with any confidence. Sir, I was observing that the Prime Minister, who is now in his place, referred to certain remarks of mine in a place other than this House, to which he appeared to take exception. He has not, so far, favoured me with a reference to the particular remarks to which he refers, although I see that he has sources of information at hand. I have to remind the House and the right hon. Gentleman that I addressed a very few words to the House on the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman—now some three weeks ago. My words were few; but I remember that I said that the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman was, in my opinion, an abdication on the part of the Government de jure in favour of the Government de facto, and that the arrangement announced would be regarded throughout the length and breadth of the country as an ignominious surrender to the forces of lawlessness and crime. Those were the words of which I made use in this House, and I am not aware that elsewhere I have receded from them, or, I am bound to say, improved upon them. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might kindly call my attention to the particular remarks to which he takes exception. If the right hon. Gentleman gives me a reference, I will see whether I have succeeded in obtaining the information which he desires. I find during the same speech I spoke of it in these——

MR. GLADSTONE

here made an observation which was inaudible in the Gallery.

MR. J. LOWTHER

What date? Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly give me the date?

MR. GLADSTONE

On May the 18th.

MR. J. LOWTHER

Well, Sir, I think, perhaps, it would be the meeting at Keighley.

MR. GLADSTONE

It is to that I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention if he has been correctly reported; it is on the subject of the conduct of the Government in relation to the release of the Members of Parliament and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). I will not give him the re- ference unless they are accurately reported. Under the head of "Mr. Lowther at Bradford," the right hon. Gentleman deplored "the weakness and vacillation of the Member for Bradford;" and, having done that, he goes on to account for it. He found the cause for that weakness and vacillation—namely, "the treacherous action of Mr. Forster's Colleagues." He said— Mr. Forster was a good man struggling with adversity; he had disloyal Colleagues, who were conducting clandestine negotiations to a great extent wholly unknown to him, and machinations were elaborated to oust him from the Cabinet. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is correctly reported?

MR. J. LOWTHER

They are substantially accurate, and certainly, as far as my information enables me to form an opinion, they are accurate still. What are the facts? As announced by various Ministers to this House, communications were taking place between a certain Member of the Cabinet and an Irish Member of Parliament without, so far as evidence has reached me, the concurrence of the right hon. Gentleman then the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has been asked several times whether he is prepared to lay those documents on the Table. I must own myself that if I had possessed a Colleague who was capable of conducting communications in any shape or form behind my back I should have taken most serious exception to his course. But what certainly appears on the face of the somewhat disjointed communications which have from time to time been extracted from Members of the Government? The House must arrive at the conclusion that communications had taken place between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford and the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea), and that certain correspondence had taken place.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

rose to Order. He wished to know whether the observations which the right hon. Gentleman was making were in Order, as being germane to the Bill under discussion?

MR. SPEAKER

The observations of the right hon. Gentleman are not germane to the Bill under discussion, and his observations can only be received in the form of a personal explanation. If the House thinks proper to receive the observations in that sense, no doubt it will allow him to make the observations; but they are foreign to the subject-matter of the Bill.

MR. J. LOWTHER

The right hon. Gentleman has quoted words which I admit to be substantially accurate. I have a different newspaper here, with, perhaps, a slightly varied report; but I do not care to go into details. I believe the impression upon my mind is shared by the great bulk of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom.

MR. JOHN BRIGHT

Especially in Yorkshire.

MR. J. LOWTHER

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says, "Especially in Yorkshire." I think if the right hon. Gentleman consults persons holding his own political opinion in that Division of Yorkshire, to which probably he more especially refers, I think he will find that opinion widely entertained; and that a certain political event, to which he, perhaps, intended to refer, was to some appreciable extent influenced by the views entertained by many intelligent persons with regard to transactions of this kind. I have no wish to stand in the way of the House and a division; but I felt myself bound, in response to the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman, to state that any statement I make outside the House I am perfectly willing, so far as it is germane to the discussion, to maintain in this House. If the right hon. Gentleman will produce the documents, and can assure me that the right hon. Member for Bradford was consulted during all the stages in these negotiations, both written and oral, which have taken place between his Colleagues or any of his Colleagues and any Irish Members, I will gladly say that I will withdraw.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 296; Noes 181: Majority 115.—(Div. List, No. 98.)

MR. STORER

rose, and was about to address the Chair, when——

MR. SPEAKER

pointed out to the hon. Member that if his desire in rising was to debate the question, the second reading must be postponed till the evening. He inquired whether that was the object of the hon. Member?

MR. STORER

said, he did not wish to delay the division; but there had been no protest made against the Bill on behalf of the agricultural interest. He wished earnestly to make that protest.

Main Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

The House divided:—Ayes269; Noes 157: Majority 112.

AYES.
Acland, C. T. D. Collins, E.
Agnew, W. Colthurst, Col. D. La T.
Ainsworth, D. Commins, A.
Allen, H. G. Corbet, W. J.
Amory, Sir J. H. Corbett, J.
Armitstead, G. Cotes, C. C.
Arnold, A. Courtney, L. H.
Ashley, hon. E. M. Cowan, J.
Balfour, Sir G. Cowper, hon. H. F.
Balfour, J. B. Craig, W. Y.
Balfour, J. S. Creyke, R.
Baring, T. C. Cropper, J.
Baring, Viscount Cross, J. K.
Barnes, A. Cunliffe, Sir R. A.
Barran, J. Currie, Sir D.
Biddulph, M. Davey, H.
Biggar, J. G. Davies, D.
Blake, J. A. Davies, R.
Blennerhassett, R. P. De Ferrieres, Baron
Bolton, J. C. Dickson, T. A.
Borlase, W. C. Dilke, Sir C. W.
Brand, H. R. Dillon, J.
Brassey, H. A. Dillwyn, L. L.
Brassey, Sir T. Dodds, J.
Brett, R. B. Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.
Bright, rt. hon. J. Duckham, T.
Bright, J. (Manchester) Dundas, hon. J. C.
Brinton, J. Earp, T.
Broadhurst, H. Ebrington, Viscount
Brooks, M. Edwards, P.
Brown, A. H. Errington, G.
Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C. Evans, T. W.
Bruce, hon. R. P. Farquharson, Dr. R.
Bryce, J. Fawcett, rt. hon. H.
Burt, T. Ferguson, R.
Buszard, M. C. Findlater, W.
Butt, C. P. Fitzmaurice, Lord E.
Byrne, G. M. Flower, C.
Caine, W. S. Foljambe, C. G. S.
Callan, P. Foljambe, F. J. S.
Cameron, C. Forster, Sir C.
Campbell-Bannerman, H. Forster, rt. hon. W. E.
Fry, L.
Carbutt, E. H. Fry, T.
Carington, hon. Col. W. H. P. Givan, J.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.
Causton, R. K. Gladstone, H. J.
Cavendish, Lord E. Gladstone, W. H.
Chamberlain, rt. hn. J. Glyn, hon. S. C.
Chambers, Sir T. Grafton, F. W.
Cheetham, J. F. Grant, A.
Childers, rt. hn. H.C.E. Grenfell, W. H.
Clarke, J. C. Gurdon, R. T.
Clifford, C. C. Hamilton, J. G. C.
Cohen, A. Hartington, Marq. of
Collings, J. Hastings, G. W.
Hayter, Sir A. D. O'Brien, Sir P.
Healy, T. M. O'Connor, A.
Henderson, F. O'Connor, T. P.
Heneage, E. O'Conor, D. M.
Henry, M. O'Donoghne, The
Herschell, Sir F. O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The
Hibbert, J. T.
Hill, T. R. O'Kelly, J.
Holden, I. O'Shaughnessy, R.
Hollond, J. R. O'Shea, W. H.
Holms, J. O'Sullivan, W. H.
Hopwood, C. H. Paget, T. T.
Howard, J. Palmer, C. M.
Illingworth, A. Palmer, G.
Inderwick, F. A. Palmer, J. H.
James, C. Parker, C. S.
James, Sir H. Parnell, C. S.
James, W. H. Pease, A.
Jardine, R. Peddie, J. D.
Jenkins, D. J. Pennington, F.
Jenkins, Sir J. J. Philips, R. N.
Johnson, E. Playfair, rt. hon. L.
Johnson, rt. hon. W. M. Porter, A. M.
Kinnear, J. Portman, hn. W. H. B.
Labouchere, H. Potter, T. B.
Laing, S. Powell, W. R. H.
Lalor, R. Power, J. O'C.
Lawrence, Sir J. C. Power, R.
Lawson, Sir W. Pugh, L. P.
Lea, T. Pulley, J.
Leake, R. Ralli, P.
Leamy, E. Ramsay, J.
Leatham, W. H. Ramsden, Sir J.
Lee, H. Rathbone, W.
Leeman, J. J. Redmond, J. E.
Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S. Reed, Sir E. J.
Reid, R. T.
Leigh, hon. G. H. C. Richardson, J. N.
Lloyd, M. Richardson, T.
Lubbock, Sir J. Roberts, J.
Lyons, R. D. Rogers, J. E. T.
M'Arthur, A. Russell, C.
M'Arthur, W. Russell, G. W. E.
M'Carthy, J. Russell, Lord A.
M'Clure, Sir T. Rylands, P.
M'Coan, J. C. Samuelson, H.
Macfarlane, D. H. Seely, C. (Nottingham)
M'Intyre, Æneas J. Sexton, T.
M'Kenna, Sir J. N. Sheil, E.
Mackie, R. B. Sheridan, H. B.
Mackintosh, C. F. Shield, H.
M'Lagan, P. Simon, Serjeant J.
M'Laren, C. B. B. Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.
M'Minnies, J. G. Slagg, J.
Magniac, C. Stanley, hon. E. L.
Mappin, F. T. Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.
Marjoribanks, E. Stanton, W. J.
Martin, P. Stevenson, J. C.
Martin, R. B. Stewart, J.
Marum, E. M. Stuart, H. V.
Mason, H. Sullivan, T. D.
Matheson, Sir A. Summers, W.
Maxwell-Heron, J. Synan, E. J.
Meldon, C. H. Tavistock, Marquess of
Mellor, J. W. Taylor, P. A.
Milbank, Sir F. A. Tennant, C.
Molloy, B. C. Thomasson, J. P.
Monk, C. J. Thompson, T. C.
Morgan, rt. hn. G. O. Tillett, J. H.
Morley, S. Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.
Mundella, rt. hon. A. J. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Nelson, I. Vivian, A. P.
O'Beirne, Major F. Vivian, Sir H. H.
Walter, J. Willyams, E. W. B.
Watkin, Sir E. W. Wilson, C. H.
Waugh, E. Wilson, I.
Webster, J. Wodehouse, E. R.
Wedderburn, Sir D. Woolf, S.
Whitbread, S.
Wiggin, H. TELLERS.
Williams, S. C. E. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Williamson, S. Kensington, Lord
Willis, W.
NOES.
Allsopp, C. Foster, W. H.
Amherst, W. A. T. Fowler, R. N.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E. Fremantle, hon. T. F.
Aylmer, J. E. F. Freshfield, C. K.
Bailey, Sir J. R. Galway, Viscount
Balfour, A. J. Garnier, J. C.
Barttelot, Sir W. B. Gibson, rt. hon. E.
Bateson, Sir T. Giffard, Sir H. S.
Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H. Goldney, Sir G.
Beach, W. W. B. Gorst, T. E.
Bective, Earl of Grantham, W.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C. Greene, E.
Birkbeck, E. Gregory, G. B.
Blackburne, Col. J. I. Grey, A. H. G.
Boord, T. W. Guest, M. J.
Bourke, rt. hon. R. Hamilton, Lord C. J.
Broadley, W. H. H. Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.
Herbert, hon. S.
Bulwer, T. R. Hicks, E.
Burghley, Lord Hildyard, T. B. T.
Burrell, Sir W. W. Holland, Sir H. T.
Buxton, Sir R. J. Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B.
Campbell, J. A. Kennard, Col. E. H.
Carden, Sir R. W. Kennaway, Sir J. H.
Castlereagh, Viscount Knightley, Sir R.
Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G. Lacon, Sir E. H. K.
Chaplin, H. Lawrance, J. C.
Christie, W. L. Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.
Clarke, E. Legh, W. J.
Coddington, W. Leigh, R.
Cole, Viscount Leighton, S.
Compton, F. Lennox, Lord H. G.
Cotton, W. J. R. Levett, T. J.
Cress, rt. hon. Sir R. A. Lewisham, Viscount
Davenport, H. T. Lindsay, Sir R. L.
Davenport, W. B. Loder, R.
Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P. Long, W. H.
Dawnay, hon. G. C. Lopes, Sir M.
Dickson, Major A. G. Lowther, rt. hon. J.
Digby, Col. hon. E. Lowther, hon. W.
Dixon-Hartland, F. D. Mac Iver, D.
Donaldson-Hudson, C. M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.
Douglas, A. Akers- Master, T. W. C.
Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H. Maxwell, Sir H. E.
Ecroyd, W. F. Miles, C. W.
Elcho, Lord Miles, Sir P. J. W.
Elliot, G. W. Monckton, F.
Emlyn, Viscount Morgan, hon. F.
Estcourt, G. S. Mowbray, rt. hn. Sir J. R.
Feilden, Maj.-Gen. R. J. Newdegate, C. N.
Fellowes, W. H. Newport, Viscount
Fenwick-Bisset, M. Nicholson, W. N.
Filmer, Sir E. Noel, rt. hon. G. J.
Finch, G. H. North, Colonel J. S.
Fletcher, Sir H. Northcote, H. S.
Floyer, J. Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S. H.
Folkestone, Viscount
Forester, C. T. W. Onslow, D.
Fort, R. Pell, A.
Pemberton, E. L. Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.
Percy, Earl
Percy, Lord A. Severne, J. E.
Phipps, C. N. P. Smith, rt. hon. W. H.
Plunket, rt. hon. D. R. Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.
Price, Captain G. E. Storer G.
Raikes, rt. hon. H. C. Sykes, C.
Rankin, J. Talbot, J. G.
Rendlesham, Lord Taylor, rt. hn. Col. T. E.
Repton, G. W. Thynne, Lord H. F.
Ridley, Sir M. W. Tollemache, hon. W. F.
Ritchie, C. T. Tottenham, A. L.
Rolls, J. A. Tyler, Sir H. W.
Ross, A. H. Warton, C. N.
Ross, C. C. Whitley, E.
Round, J. Williams, Colonel O.
St. Aubyn, W. M. Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Salt, T. Wroughton, P.
Schreiber, C. Yorke, J. R.
Sclater-Booth, rt. hon. G.
TELLERS.
Scott, Lord H. Thornhill, T.
Scott, M. D. Winn, R.

Bill committed for Thursday.

The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.

The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.