Commons Sitting of 21 August 1883

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Rutland County, v. the Right hon. Gerard James Noel, Chiltern Hundreds.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Education, Science, and Art (Administration of Votes) [No. 341].
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) *; Post Office (Money Orders) Acts Amendment * [263].
Committee—Report—Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) [288].
Withdrawn—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (No. 2) * [51]; Court of Criminal Appeal [244]; Superannuation * [285]; Soldiers' Pensions and Yeomanry Pay * [297].

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY (INDIA)—QUARTERMASTERS.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will consider the expediency of antedating to 1st July 1881 the Warrant of 1st October 1882, granting to Quartermasters of the British Army serving in India, and holding the rank of Captain, the allowances of that rank?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, the ordinary practice is that changes of this nature take effect from the date of the receipt
  1488
  in India of the despatch of the Secretary of State, and there is really no reason why this particular case should be treated exceptionally.

  VACCINATION—CASE OF E. A. HENNING.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will inquire into the case of a child named Emily Agnes Henning, aged four months, who was vaccinated on the 25th July, was, within three days, attacked with symptoms of blood poisoning, and died in great suffering on August 15th; whether he is aware that the certificate of death stated the cause to be Erysipelas P. Convulsions S. without mentioning vaccination; and, whether he will cause an inquiry into the circumstances satisfactory to the parents?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Sir, as the Notice gives no clue as to the place where the child was vaccinated, or where the death was registered, the Board are at present unable to give any information respecting the case. If they are supplied with these particulars, the facts will be ascertained.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I am sorry the information was not given; but if my hon. Friend had applied to me, I could have given it him.

  WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS)—THE THAMES.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that Kingston, Richmond, and localities in the vicinity of these towns, still discharge their sewage into the Thames, and that this sewage matter floats up and down with the tide, until it is deposited upon the mud banks, which each year are more exposed at low tide, owing to the quantity of water taken from the river by the London Water Companies and the dredging operations of the Conservators; and, whether, in view of the probability of this system of draining producing fever or some other disease, he will take measures to protect the inhabitants of the Low Thames Valley, and those visiting it, from such contingencies?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the sewage of Kingston, Richmond, and other localities below the intake of the Water Companies is discharged into the

  1489
  Thames. The quantity of the water taken, by the Water Companies is comparatively small. It is estimated to be not more than a seventh of the ordinary dry-weather flow over Teddington Weir, while the volume of the tidal water of spring tides is estimated to be 1,400 times that of the water flowing over the weir. The Lower Thames Valley Main Sewage District, which includes, among other districts, Kingston and Richmond, was constituted by a Provisional Order for the purpose of providing a system of sewerage which would secure the disposal of the sewage without contravening the provisions of the Thames Conservancy Acts. The Board regret that works for this purpose have not been carried out. They have issued a Provisional Order extending for another year the period allowed to the Main Sewerage Board for the performance of their duty, and for protection from liability to prosecution under the Thames Conservancy Acts; but when they intimated their willingness to issue this Order, they stated that, unless they were satisfied before the expiration of this further period that the Main Sewerage Board were taking active steps for carrying out the purposes for which they were constituted, the Board would probably be unwilling to grant any further prolongation of time.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the sewerage of Twickenham? If the smell goes for anything, I should say it was not a success.
  SIR. CHARLES W. DILKE: My hon. Friend wrote me a private letter on that subject some time ago. In 1880 the system was examined, and the experiments were satisfactory; but I will see that further inquiry is made.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the right hon. Baronet was aware that the water supply to Northampton was of a very inferior character?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought the Question should be placed on the Paper.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIVE TERRITORY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any information of a disposi-
  1490
  tion on the part of the Cape Government to surrender not only the Basuto territory, which they have been unable to conquer, but also the other Native territories beyond the Kei, which were conquered by the aid of Her Majesty's troops, but in which a representative system has not been introduced; whether the small number of Europeans in Natal have so far declined to accept, on the terms proposed to them, responsible Government, and the dominion over the large unrepresented Native population; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have under consideration the question of undertaking the administration of the Native territories in South Africa which have accepted and become accustomed to British rule, but have not been brought within any Colonial representative system?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, no official proposal for taking over the Transkei has come from the Cape Government. It is true that Natal has declined to undertake full responsible Government; but I demur to the terms of the hon. Member's Question which imply that this would have involved uncontrolled dominion over the large unrepresented Native population. Such a proposal was never made. Her Majesty's Government have not under consideration the undertaking the administration of the Native territories referred to in the Question.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—RELEASE OF THE CONVICT BERNARD SMYTH.
  MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. SMALL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Bernard Smyth, one of the prisoners in the Crossmaglen cases recently convicted at Belfast on the evidence of the informer Duffy, and sentenced to ten years penal servitude, has been released from prison; and, whether the same course will be taken with the other men convicted and sent to penal servitude on the evidence of the same man?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Bernard Smyth addressed a memorial to the Lord Lieutenant, and His Excellency, on inquiry, and after communication with the Judge before whom the cases were heard, found that the case against Smyth differed somewhat from that against the other prisoners, and also that he is a very

  1491
  delicate man, subject to spitting of blood, and had been treated in the prison hospital for chronic bronchitis. Under these circumstances, His Excellency took a merciful view of the case, and ordered his discharge. The reasons which influenced His Excellency in dealing with this case do not exist with regard to the other prisoners, and there is no intention of interfering with the sentence in their cases.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—SUGAR IMPORTS.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been drawn to the increase in the imports of sugar into the United Kingdom from Germany, in consequence of the large export bounties granted by that country, during the six months to 30th June last, as compared with similar periods in 1882 and 1881; whether he is aware that, owing to these large bounty-receiving imports from Germany, the British West India Colonies are now sending a large proportion of their sugar crops to the United States; and, whether, in view of this unnatural diversion of the trade between Great Britain and her Colonies, Her Majesty's Government will now make a serious effort to obtain the abolition of the practice of granting bounties on the export of sugar from the Continent, and especially from Germany?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, the Question was one of a very controversial character, but he should endeavour to answer it with as little argument as possible; but he must not be taken as agreeing with the statement of facts or the inferences. It was true that there had been a considerable increase in the imports of sugar into the United Kingdom from Germany, but that increase appeared much larger when compared with last year than with the year before. He was by not by any means certain that that increase was in consequence of the large export bounties granted by that country, because he was not aware of any increase in the bounties during the period in which the increase in the imports of sugar had taken place. He was aware that the British West India Colonies were now sending a large portion of their sugar crops to the United States; but the actual amount which they sent to this country had practically
  1492
  remained stationary for many years past. He did not think, however, that their exports to the United States were due to these bounties. On the contrary, it seemed to him to be the natural course of trade, and not, as described by the Question, as an "unnatural diversion of trade," with the West Indian Islands that they should send a larger proportion of their products to the United States. In answer to the last part of the Question, he had to say that the Government did not think any useful purpose would be served by making any further representations to the German Government on this subject.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DEATHS THROUGH WANT IN GALWAY AND MAYO.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can now give any information with regard to the recent deaths through hardship at Loughrea, county Galway, and Kilmoree, county Mayo?
  MR. TREVELYAN: A sworn inquiry was opened to-day in the case of the girl who died of fever at Kilmoree, and one will be opened to-morrow into the case of John Burke, who died near Loughrea. I can give no further information at present.
  MR. HEALYasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the local Guardians had protested against the character of the witnesses called by the Local Government Board officer, on the ground that because of their prejudice their evidence was not likely to throw full light upon the facts of the case?
  [No reply was given.]

  SUNDAY TRAFFIC (SCOTLAND)—THE STROME FERRY RIOTS—SENTENCE ON THE RIOTERS.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the feeling expressed in public meetings in Scotland in reference to what is deemed the unnecessary severity of the sentence passed upon the rioters in the recent disturbance at Strome Ferry; whether it is true that these men have had their hair cropped, and are treated in all respects as common felons; and,

  1493
  whether, as the rioters expressed before the Court their penitence for the offence, and were strongly recommended to mercy by the jury, he is now prepared to advise the remission of their Sentence?
  MR. DICK-PEDDIE: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman answers the Question, I wish to put to him a supplementary one—namely, Whether, having regard to the admission by the Lord Advocate, in replying to a Question put to him some days ago by the hon. Member for Wigton (Sir Herbert Maxwell), that the legality of Sunday trading in Scotland is an open question, and to the circumstances that the men convicted in this case acted on the belief that such traffic is illegal, and were seeking to prevent what they regarded as a violation of the law, he does not see ground upon which to recommend Her Majesty to mitigate the sentence passed upon them, especially seeing they have already been undergoing sentence for a month?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, as this is a matter of a good deal of interest, I may be allowed to answer it somewhat carefully. As regards the first part of the Question of the hon. Member, I cannot concur in that part of the Question at all. I cannot agree with the consideration that a criminal sentence should be influenced by the feeling expressed at public meetings. Indeed, I must point out to the hon. Member that one of the great obstacles to the mitigation of this sentence has been found in the ill-advised speaking at these public meetings. So long as the unwise and ill-judged language of the friends of the prisoners, amounting at least to a palliation, if not to a justification of the offences, is continued, so long it will be impossible, with due respect to law, to exercise a leniency which would only be an encouragement to fresh outrages. It must be remembered that this offence was not the result of a sudden impulse, but of a deliberate plan. The original line of defence was an absolute justification by the accused of their right to vindicate the observance of the Day of Rest by a violent and organized riot. In answering the Question of my hon. Friend behind me, without entering on the question of the law as to the observance of the Sabbath, it cannot be al-
  1494
  lowed that this is the proper manner to vindicate this law. I cannot, therefore, regard the original sentence as unduly severe, as it was absolutely necessary to make these men, and everyone else, clearly to understand that this was a thing the law would not suffer, and would severely punish. That is my answer to the first part of the Question; but I turn with more satisfaction to the second part, and my answer to that is this. If it be true that these men, as stated, after their conviction expressed their sincere regret for the offence into which they had been betrayed, and if that view of their conduct is frankly accepted by those who advocate their cause, then, and not till then, the question of leniency will arise. If the matter is dealt with in this spirit, I shall be prepared at the expiration of two mouths of the sentence to consult with the learned Judge as to whether the sentence can safely be mitigated.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked if the Home Secretary would explain how it was possible that the advocates of these men in Scotland were to express their concurrence with the prisoners in their expressions of regret—in what form, and through what organ, could this be done?
  MR. MACFARLANEasked, as to the silence of these people and their friends, how long it was to be maintained before the Home Secretary would come to the conclusion that they had exercised a proper reticence? The right hon. and learned Gentleman was understood to say he would consider the case at the end of two months. Did that depend upon silence being maintained in the meantime?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I did not say anything about silence at all. What I say is, that it would be a very difficult thing in dealing with a sentence when at public meetings a great many people are maintaining that nothing wrong has been done. As long as that continued it would be impossible to do anything in the way of mitigation of sentence, as it is absolutely certain that the same thing would be done again. In the latter part of the Question the hon. Member speaks of the penitence and regret of these prisoners at the offence they committed; and, if that be so, it may be safe, with a due respect for the law, to consider their sentence.

  STEAM TRACTION ENGINES—LEGISLATION.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, during the recess, he will consider the possibility of introducing, next Session, a measure to further regulate the use of steam traction engines on roads?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I can only state generally that, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, it is desirable that county authorities should have larger powers than they now possess with regard to traction engines, and that the Board would propose that in any Bill dealing with the subject of County Government additional powers should be conferred on the county authorities with respect to the regulation of the use of traction engines on roads.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked whether Her Majesty's subjects were to have their limbs broken and lives endangered until a County Government Bill was introduced?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's subjects, I hope, will not have to wait long for the introduction of a County Government Bill. But I pointed out, in an answer to the hon. Member some months ago, that the present regulations are very strong indeed—much stronger than seems to be known; and in the case of the serious accident that happened lately to constituents of the hon. Member, they were not observed.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Can a Circular be issued drawing attention to them?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The regulations are partly statutory and partly made by county authorities.

  NAVY RANK—ASSISTANT PAYMASTERS.
  MR. GABBETTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Her Majesty's Order in Council of 23rd October 1877 (Clause C) contained the words—
  "Assistant Paymasters, with over eight years' seniority as such, to rank with Lieutenants of under eight years' seniority;
  whether an Order signed by the Secretary to the Admiralty was issued a few months subsequently, stating that the above Clause was
  1496
  "To he considered to mean, to rank with, not after, Lieutenants of under eight years' seniority;"
  whether such interpolation virtually took away from these officers the rank granted to them by Her Majesty; and, whether, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, such alteration by authority of the Admiral Board was legal?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: When the Order in Council of the 23rd of October, 1877, was issued, it was found that the words "but after" had been inadvertently omitted from the clause to which the hon. Member refers. It was found necessary to amend the Circular in consequence of the anomalies which the omission of these words introduced even within the Paymasters' Department itself. For instance, it gave an assistant paymaster of over eight years' standing higher relative rank than he would have when promoted to the higher rank of paymaster. The amended Rule was embodied in the revised edition of the Queen's Regulations, and was covered by the Order in Council of the 4th of February, 1879.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—REMOVAL OF ANIMALS FROM SCOTLAND AND IRELAND.
  MR. DUCKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If he could explain why the Privy Council do not adopt precautionary regulations for the removal of animals into England from Scotland and Ireland similar to those enforced by their orders for the removal of animals into Scotland and Ireland from England, seeing that foot and mouth disease is prevalent in those parts of the United Kingdom, and that the health of the herds and flocks of England is being seriously prejudiced by the continued introduction of the disease?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, the Scotch Prohibitory Order was first passed at a time when there was no disease in Scotland, and it has been maintained latterly because, although there have been occasional outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, Scotland is still comparatively free. I must remind my hon. Friend that it is a mistake to suppose that precautionary regulations have not been made for England and Wales. Every local authority has power to prohibit or regulate the movement of animals into

  1497
  its district from the district of any other local authority in any part of the United Kingdom. The Order prohibiting importation into Ireland is an Order of the Irish Privy Council, over which I have no control.

  MADAGASCAR—ACTION OF THE FRENCH AT TAMATAVE—THE ENGLISH CONSULAR ARCHIVES.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Papers belonging to Consul Pakenham and the Consular Archives in Madagascar were examined by the French authorities on the death of Consul Pakenham; and, whether his private Papers and the Consular Archives are at present intact in the hands of Captain Johnstone, or any other British authority?
  LORD EDMOND FITZ MAURICE: No, Sir. Commander Johnstone has reported that, before the Consul's death, he made arrangements for the removal on board the Dryad of the Consular archives and Mr. Pakenham's papers. They were, consequently, not examined by the French authorities after the Consul's death.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether information has been received of the arrest, at Madagascar, of Mr. Aiken, a British subject, who is stated, at the request of Consul Pakenham, to have given shelter during the bombardment to all the British residents at Tamatave; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to obtain the release of this British subject, as well as satisfaction for his arrest?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Mr. Aiken was arrested on the 16th of June, not for having given shelter during the bombardment to British residents, but on a supposed charge of complicity in Mr. Shaw's offence. He was released on the following day. I cannot at present make any further statement.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: May I ask whether during the bombardment of Alexandria Her Majesty's naval authorities arrested any French subjects who might have been in communication with the Natives?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I think that is a Question of which
  1498
  the hon. Member had better give me Notice?

  WESTERN ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC ANNEXATION OF NEW GUINEA—PUBLIC OPINION IN THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the views of the Australasian Government on the necessity of annexing New Guinea, and extending the authority of the British Empire over other places in the Western Pacific, has been brought before Her Majesty's Government in au official memorandum signed by the Agents General of the Australasian Colonies; whether the several Australasian Colonies have offered to defray the expense of, and to enter into a federation to give effect to, the policy in the Western Pacific which they deem essential to their interests; whether the memorandum referred to will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, what answer Her Majesty's Government have given to it?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir; The Memorandum referred to has been laid before Her Majesty's Government. In it the Agents General, on behalf of their respective Governments, offer, subject to the vote and decision of their respective Legislatures, to co-operate with the Government by contributing to the cost of any policy of annexation that might be adopted. The Memorandum and Answer will, in due course be laid on the Table; but no answer has yet been sent to it, as it involves grave and lasting matters which require much consideration.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's answer about New Guinea, I suppose the Papers will be laid on the Table, so that they may be circulated during the Recess?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: If the Memorandum were to be laid on the Table alone without the answer it might be; but I cannot say that the answer will be delivered before the House rises.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I think arrangements are sometimes made for laying such documents on the Table in dummy form.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: But you cannot lay the answer in dummy form on the Table before it is ready.

  TONQUIN AND ANNAM—DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty has any diplomatic or consular representative in Tonquin or Annam; whether, in view of the size and importance of the territories in the Indo-Chinese peninsula, now being attacked by the French Republic, Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to acquire early and reliable information as to the conduct and views of the French; and, whether he can give any information as to the progress of the French invasion?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, I informed the hon. Member during the discussion of the Estimates that Her Majesty has no Diplomatic or Consular Representative in Tonquin and Annam. It is not, at present, intended to alter these arrangements. Her Majesty's Government has no special information in regard to the military operations now going on, beyond the fact that troops have arrived at Saigon on their way to Tonquin, and that the importation of arms into Annam has been prohibited to foreign traders. The last part of the Question is one of opinion, which I hardly think it right to answer.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked what was the nearest place to Tonquin where there was a Representative of Her Majesty's Consular or Diplomatic Body; and whether, in view of the fact that British trade with these countries amounts to over £2,000,000 a-year, Her Majesty's Government would take some steps to keep themselves informed as to the progress of the French invasion?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I answered this Question on the Estimates, and I told the hon. Member that we had no difficulty in obtaining information from Bankok or Saigon.

  TURKEY (FINANCE, &c.)—THE PUBLIC DEBT.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government will instruct our Diplomatic Agent at Constantinople to press upon the Ambassadors the desirability of settling, without delay, the question of, the contribution to the Public Debt of Turkey which is due
  1500
  by Bulgaria, Montenegro, Servia, and Greece?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, under instructions from the Secretary of State, again brought this matter before the Representatives of the Powers at Constantinople on June 29 last, and he has applied to the Porte for data on which the amount of the tribute from Bulgaria can be determined. Her Majesty's Government have done everything in their power to obtain a settlement of these outstanding questions, and they will lose no favourable opportunity of pressing for their consideration by the other Powers.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, the answer was, so far, satisfactory; but he would ask, further, whether Her Majesty's Representative at Constantinople would be instructed to lay a definite scheme before the Turkish Government, which he believed was now in possession of Her Majesty's Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That will depend upon the character of the information obtained from the Porte in reply to this request. The words of the Treaty are "equitable basis," and information is required in order to define that.

  ARMY AND INDIAN MEDICAL COMMISSIONS.
  MR. ACLANDasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the reason of the distinction between candidates for commissions in Her Majesty's Army Medical Department and candidates for commissions in Her Majesty's Indian Medical Service with regard to the marks gained by them at Netley, which in the case of the candidates for the Indian Medical Service are counted, and in that of the candidates for the Army Medical Department are not counted, in the totals which determine in each case respectively their order of merit; and, whether it is intended to maintain that distinction?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the examination at the conclusion of the Netley course is, in the case of Army Medical candidates, a pass examination merely, their relative precedence having been settled at the entrance examination. With the Indian candidates, on the contrary, the Netley course is competitive, and aids in determining

  1501
  the position during subsequent service. The system for the British officers was deliberately adopted, after very full inquiry, by a Committee appointed to consider the causes of the unsatisfactory supply of candidates for the Army Medical Service, which took evidence on this particular point.

  ARMY—THE DEPOT CENTRES—INSPECTION OF BUILDINGS.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether a periodical inspection is made of the buildings at the various Military Centres; and, if so, who is responsible for the condition of new barracks erected in the county of Bedford?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: I have to say, on behalf of the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, that a periodical inspection is made of all War Department buildings. The Inspector General of Fortifications is responsible to the Secretary of State for War for the condition of all barracks.
  MR. JAMES HOWARD: Will the hon. and gallant Baronet undertake that the attention of the proper authority be called to the existing condition of the barracks at Bedford?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: My hon. Friend's Question will call the attention of the Surveyor General of the Ordnance to their condition.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA).
  MR. SUMMERSasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as stated by Mr. A. K. Connell, in his work on the Economic Revolution of India, that interest charges for Guaranteed and State Railways, paid out of the ordinary revenues, amounted in 1881–2 to over £32,000,000, and to over £34,000,000 if loss by exchange be taken into account; and, whether, in view of these two items, loss by exchange and past interest charges, the Indian Railways earn 5¼ per cent on the whole capital outlay?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, up to the 30th of June, 1882, the amount advanced to the Guaranteed Railway Companies—omitting the East Indian—was £25,344,000, and the Government share of surplus receipts amounted to £1,697,000, giving an excess of £23,647,000. When the East Indian Railway was purchased, the guaran-
  1502
  teed interest advanced amounted to £4,505,000. The surplus profits received by Government have amounted to £6,523,000, or £2,818,000 in excess of the amount advanced it as a guaranteed line. The total sum advanced, may, therefore, be put at £21,629,000. If loss by exchange on past transactions be added the amount will, no doubt, be greater. The capital cost of all the lines open to traffic on the 31st of December, 1882, was about 143 crores—the net revenue was 78 lakhs—or 5·37 per cent. If the capital cost be raised by the addition of the interest advanced to, say, 167 crores, the net revenue was 4·6 per cent.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—THE BALLYMENA TOWN CLERK.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. Mathews, clerk to the Ballymena Poor Law Union, is also clerk to the Town Commissioners, clerk to the Gasworks, clerk to the Intermediate School, clerk to the Burial Board, and collector of county cess for a barony?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, that Mr. Mathews held the several offices named, and had held them for periods varying from seven to 37 years. He had been a very long time Clerk of the Union, and for a comparatively short time—seven years—Clerk to the Town Commissioners. He was not aware of any complaint being made with respect to the discharge of his duties, and the Local Government Board informed him that they had no reason to believe that his engagements outside the workhouse interfered with his duties as Clerk of the Union. If the hon. Member could refer him to any responsible person who believed otherwise, he would have the matter inquired into.
  MR. O'KELLYasked whether this was one of the officials whose very heavy labours the Government proposed to reward by the Union Officers' Superannuation Bill?
  [No reply was given.]

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) ACT, 1875—SALARIES OF TEACHERS IN WORKHOUSE NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  1503
  Whether the Bill which the Government proposes to bring in next Session to amend the Irish Teachers' Act, 1875, will place the teachers in the Workhouse National Schools on an equal footing as regards result fees with the teachers in the ordinary National Schools?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I can give no pledge on this subject now. It would be impossible, without much consideration, to undertake to reverse the policy of former legislation in the matter; but I will consider the subject with the details of the Bill before I introduce it.

  THE MAHARAJAH DHULEEP SINGH—POSTPONEMENT OF VISIT TO INDIA.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there is any truth in the report that the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh has postponed his visit to India; if so, for how long; and, "whether Her Majesty's Government intend to grant him a farther sum of money out of the Revenues of India?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, no communication has been received faom the Maharajah with regard to the postponement of his journey to India. When, some time ago, a desire to make that journey was expressed, the Maharajah was informed by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, who was then Secretary of State for India, that he would have to conform with the instructions of the Viceroy which might be given him there with respect to his journey. No intention has been formed or expressed by Her Majesty's Government of making an increased money grant to the Maharajah. I may say with respect to this question of the journey, and what may grow out of it, that it has recently been referred to the Government of India.

  MADAGASCAR—ACTION OF THE FRENCH AT TAMATAVE—CASE OF THE REV. MR. SHAW.
  MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What overt act of war Mr. Shaw is alleged to have committed to justify his being tried as a British subject by a French court martial?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Whether or not the description I gave yesterday of the acts alleged against Mr. Shaw would constitute overt acts of war I am not able to say. There may be some difficulty; but what I understand, on taking
  1504
  the best advice I can, is that there is no reason for us, with our present information, to presume that there has been an excess of jurisdiction on the part of the French authorities, viewing all the circumstances of the case.
  MR. BOURKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the overt acts, which have made this missionary amenable to be tried by court martial for giving assistance to the enemy and being guilty of hostile actions against the French, consisted of nothing more than giving refuge to the fugitives and establishing an ambulance corps? Is there any information in the possession of the Government that this gentleman has committed any other alleged offence than these two?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think certainly, as far as I am able to form a judgment, though I cannot speak with authority, that the allegation of those two acts against Mr. Shaw would not correspond with the description given by the French Government to us of the charges, upon which charges the House will understand it is not for me to give any sort of opinion.
  MR. PLUNKETasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the circumstances of the arrest of Mr. Shaw, a British subject, by order of the French Admiral at Tamatave, described by the Prime Minister on 11th July as "a grave and painful occurrence," and to the continued detention of Mr. Shaw on board a French man of war, and his threatened trial by Court Martial, Her Majesty's Government have put themselves, or intend to put themselves, in communication with Mr. Shaw; and, whether he can now inform the House when and where the Court Martial on Mr. Shaw will be held?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am so far glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put this Question, as it enables me to remove from his mind what is evidently a misapprehension. He is under the impression that on a former day I described the arrest of Mr. Shaw as a grave and painful occurrence. That is not so. I used epithets to that effect undoubtedly with regard to the telegraphic intelligence that had come from Madagascar, but it had reference to a different matter. What I said had reference to what, drawing an

  1505
  inference from the telegrams, necessarily very succinct, had a grave and painful appearance—namely, the case of Mr. Pakenham, the British Consul. [Oh!"] That is so, Sir. I offer the right hon. and learned Gentleman the rectification. If he does not like to accept it that is another matter. We saw from the telegrams that it might he inferred with a certain amount of presumption, though not demonstratively, that the order to Mr. Pakenham to quit the town had been given knowingly by the French Admiral at a time when Mr. Pakenham was extremely and dangerously ill; and further, even, that Mr. Pakenham's death was hastened by that order. The detailed intelligence that has now come in the shape of letters I think removes both of these impressions which might have been drawn from the telegram, and these are what I described as grave and painful occurrences. Of course, the arrest of Mr. Shaw is a serious occurrence, and one with regard to which it is the absolute duty of the Government to watch with the greatest care what takes place. With respect to placing ourselves in communication with Mr. Shaw, no intimation has been conveyed to us that such a desire or a sense of such a necessity exists on the part of that gentleman or his friends; and we have not thought it our duty spontaneously, in the case of a British subject charged in a foreign country, to make an application to the Foreign Government with the view of placing ourselves in communication with him until we have reason to suppose there is some practical object to be gained by it, or necessity for it. We have no information as to the place where, or the time when, the court martial will be held.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he found from the report in The Times of the right hon. Gentleman's former speech that immediately after referring to the arrest of Mr. Shaw, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of it as "a grave and painful occurrence." Of course, however, he accepted the explanation. He desired to ask the Prime Minister now whether he was satisfied that Mr. Shaw had any means of communication with the Government if he wished to do so? The House had been informed that Mr. Shaw was practically a prisoner on board a French ship of war, and they had no further knowledge of him.
  1506
  Would the Prime Minister take steps to afford Mr. Shaw the opportunity to obtain a fair trial and the assistance of counsel, if necessary?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be justified by the report he has read; but I am most distinct in my recollection upon the subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will hardly say that he himself, from his own recollection of what I said, can urge that when I spoke of the "grave and painful occurrence" I referred to Mr. Shaw. It was not in my mind in the slightest degree, and it is quite inappropriate to say that the arrest of a British subject in circumstances of war by a Foreign Power was a grave and painful occurrence. It would be an exaggerated style of speech on the part of a Minister, and not warranted on matters on which he felt he had only partial information. I have the strongest conviction that Mr. Shaw can have expressed no desire to communicate with the Government, for I do not for a moment entertain the supposition with respect to a friendly Government that upon the expression of such a desire by Mr. Shaw the knowledge of that desire would be kept from us.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask a Question, to which I do not know if the Government can give me an answer, on the very point to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, that of Mr. Shaw communicating with his friends. I have a letter from a gentleman—I do not know if I am at liberty to mention his name—who very lately came from Madagascar, and who is in a position which is very likely to make him well acquainted with what is going on. He says—
  "Do you know, Sir, that when Mrs. Shaw arrived at Tamatave on the 26th Juno to join her husband, after two years' absence from ill-health, her three successive written applications to Admiral Pierre for permission to see her husband were refused, and not being allowed to land, she had to return to the Mauritius without seeing him."
  I want to know if the Government have any information as to any attempt on the part of Mrs. Shaw to see her husband?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, there is certainly no information, as far as my knowledge goes—and I think I am correct—amounting to anything like what

  1507
  has been read by the right hon. Gentleman. I feel that these are Questions which, if they are intended to be discussed as Questions of right, are very nice matters indeed. I am not prepared to state precisely that we have a right to demand from a Foreign Government with regard to the access of friends to a person whom, upon what they think a charge of a legal offence, they have felt it their duty to imprison. This is a very nice question indeed, and one upon which it would be highly imprudent in me to commit myself in answer to an inquiry across this Table. The question what courtesy and what humanity may be thought in our judgment to require is a different question; but although we have reason to believe that some restraints have been placed upon Mr. Shaw with regard to his family which we may not have thought necessary, or for which we may not be able to urge sufficient reasons, yet I think it better that I should not attempt to give any opinion upon that, or, in the absence of full information, state what may have occurred, until I know more perfectly. This, at any rate, I can fairly say—we will make careful inquiry into these allegations if the right hon. Gentleman would kindly supply us with the information in his possession.
  MR. BOURKE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer this Question. He said yesterday that Mr. Shaw was to be tried by a French court martial, and that the finding of that Court would be brought to review by what he called a Court of Revision. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that Court of Revision is to be a Court held in France, or whether it is to be a Court merely composed of naval officers, or other French officers, at Madagascar?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no information on the subject. The information which I communicated was given exactly as it was received by us from the French Government.
  MR. BOURKE: Will not the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the French Government that any Court of Review held at Madagascar composed of French officers would be extremely unsatisfactory to this country?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I would not undertake to lay down rules in anticipation as to the way in which the trial ought to be conducted of a person who has
  1508
  been arrested in these circumstances, and I think that to do so would be exceedingly unwise. Our business is to take care that the interests of Mr. Shaw are properly protected, and that he is tried according to the general principles of justice, in the shape in which those principles are applied by the laws of a highly-civilized country, whose jurisprudence holds a very leading position in Europe. I admit we are not precluded from interfering, were there a presumption that injustice was about to be done; but, knowing the character of the French nation and of its jurisprudence, we are not justified in presuming, without adequate cause, that injustice is about to be done in this case. I am quite willing to make inquiry as to the nature of this Court of Revision; but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press us further.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Has Mr. Shaw any means of sending out letters to his friends, or to the officer commanding H.M.S. Dryad? Or is he a prisoner in solitary confinement?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Shaw is not a prisoner in solitary confinement, as appears from the answer which I gave yesterday. He was left by the French Consul at Zanzibar walking about the deck of a French ship. With respect to the other Question of the hon. Member, I would request him to give Notice.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked if it was not a fact that the French Admiral ordered Consul Pakenham to haul down his flag within 24 hours; and whether in 24 hours, the flag not having been hauled down by Consul Pakenham, the French themselves hauled it down? He would also like to know whether it was not a fact that Captain Johnstone, in a despatch to the Admiralty, had not said he was not allowed to communicate with Mr. Shaw?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think all these matters were covered by the answer I gave yesterday. I have said there is a somewhat complex Correspondence involving a considerable variety of incidents; and, in our opinion, it is not possible to convey a real knowledge of those incidents, so as to enable the House to pass judgment upon them, except by the presentation of Papers. To present the Papers at this time would not be favourable to the public interest, because, in the first instance, there are

  1509
  several points which must be the subject of communication between the two Governments. As regards any further Questions of this character, I should be very glad to have Notice.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked how Mr. Shaw was to obtain access to any counsel, if he was not allowed to communicate with anyone on shore? He also inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman would obtain a similar assurance from the French Government to that he got from the Egyptian Government—namely, that Mr. Shaw should not be executed without Her Majesty's Government being first of all communicated with?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not the smallest doubt in my own mind that Mr. Shaw has perfect means of providing himself with legal assistance. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary it will be matter for our immediate attention.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Neither his wife nor the Commander of the Dryad was allowed to see him.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman, perhaps, assumes more than he is justified in doing; but, supposing that to be the case, how am I able to say that the Commander, who was not at the time invested with any civil character at all——
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: He was acting Consul.
  MR. GLADSTONE: He was not acting Consul at all. The hon. Gentleman interrupts to give information instead of asking it. The Commander had no civil authority. He did his best as a gallant British officer; but he had no authority or warrant to act in a civil capacity. But if the hon. Member for Portsmouth has any reason to suppose that Mr. Shaw has any sort of difficulty in obtaining proper means of defence, that is a matter which, upon the receipt of evidence, shall have our immediate attention.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Surely the Government will ascertain for themselves whether Mr. Shaw has proper means of obtaining advice or not?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we are in charge of the relations of this country with foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be aware of the bearing these Questions have on
  1510
  the amity and goodwill existing between this country and another country. If I were the Foreign Minister of this country, I should deem it a slight and an offence that anyone should come before me and presume that we were about to proceed towards a subject of a foreign land in defiance of the elementary principles of justice. So, in the same manner, I am prepared to deal out to the French Government the measure I should expect them to deal out to me; and I will not, without some presumption that the French Government contemplate an erroneous course—I will not give an answer which, in my opinion, would imply that they were neglecting the very first principles that should govern the intercourse between two nations.
  MR. PLUNKET: As this discussion has arisen out of a Question which I submitted to the House, and which was a fair one, perhaps I may be allowed to ask this Question—for I hold that this House is in charge of the liberties of British subjects—Is the House to understand that the Government will leave this matter in its present condition? Mr. Shaw, a British subject, imprisoned on board a French man-of-war, the Government having evidence that the Commander of the British ship and others endeavoured to communicate with him in vain; no evidence that he has any means of communication with his friends; awaiting his trial by court martial, it may be upon a capital crime——["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing with matters of a controversial nature.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Question involves so much that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can hardly expect me, in the midst of my occupations, to answer all the points from memory.
  MR. ONSLOWunderstood the Prime Minister to say it was the duty of the Government to see that the interests of Mr. Shaw were consulted and that justice was done. How was this to be done if Her Majesty's Government did not see that Mr. Shaw had proper counsel provided for him?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member has not informed me, nor has any other person, that Mr. Shaw has been in any respect hindered, or put in any difficulty with regard to the means of his legal defence; but when any evidence is brought

  1511
  before Her Majesty's Government to show that such is the case, it will receive our immediate attention.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) BILL.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there was a Notice on the Paper in the name of the Lord Advocate to leave Scotland out of the operation of the Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Bill. He would like to know how that came about on that, the last stage; and whether the Lord Advocate was ever consulted, either in drafting the Bill, or in any stage before this House?
  MR. GHAMBERLAINsaid, this Bill was founded almost precisely upon the lines of the recommendations of a small Committee which was appointed by the Board of Trade; and when the Bill was originally drawn it was the belief of those concerned that by the principal clauses referring to trawlers and fishing boats of 25 tons net register and upwards, Scotland was practically excluded from the operation of the measure. After the Bill was introduced, his attention was called to its provisions by the hon. Member for the St. Andrew's Burghs (Mr. Williamson), who pointed out that the Scottish boats were now being built every year larger and larger, and the result would be that if the Bill did not apply now, it might speedily apply to these boats. The hon. Member took some other objections to the measure, which led him (Mr. Chamberlain) to consult the Lord Advocate, who, for the reasons he had given, had not previously been consulted; and the Lord Advocate, after consideration, came to the conclusion that on the whole the Bill was unnecessary in Scotland, and that it was desirable that its application to Scotland should be formally excluded. It had, therefore, been determined to exclude Scotland from the operation of the Bill.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Prime Minister, Whether he would say when he proposed to proceed with the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that having sat on the Grand Committee which considered this Bill, he wished
  1512
  to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Notice of Amendment which had been given by the Attorney General. There was a long discussion in the Grand Committee upon the proposal to extend the right of appeal in non-capital cases. That extension was resisted by the Government; but it was carried against the Government by a very considerable majority. From the Amendment on the Paper it would appear it was the intention of the Attorney General to ask the House to reconsider the decision of the Grand Committee; and the Bill was, therefore, in a very different position from the Bankruptcy Bill, and was likely to give rise to a long discussion. Under these circumstances, he asked the Government whether, at that period of the Session, it was really their intention to proceed with the Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had been governed by a very strong desire to pay respect to the decision of the Grand Committee, so far as his views in regard to the Bill would allow. The Government felt, with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that as long as they could retain any hope of carrying the Bill through the House and sending it to the other House in a reasonable time, it was a serious matter to abandon a Bill on which the Grand Committee had spent so much time and labour. The Government were very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and to the other Gentlemen who sat on the Grand Committee—and he took this opportunity of saying it—for the patience which they had bestowed upon the Bill. Perhaps the Government had clung too long to their hope. They had believed it was possible to-night, after the second reading of the Appropriation Bill and the consideration of the Amendments on the Agricultural Holdings Bill, and the discussion upon the Medical Bill, that they might have had a debate on the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill which would sufficiently show the feeling of the House in regard to the measure. He understood, since he came to the House, that a debate was likely to be raised on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill. Of course, he was aware of a Notice of Motion laying down the principles of Continental policy; but he did not anticipate any lengthened debate would arise on that

  1513
  Motion. Since he came to the House be had been given to understand that a debate was likely to be raised in a different quarter. That debate he regarded as fatal to any hope of proceeding with the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill. If it were postponed to Thursday, which would be the only alternative, they could not hope to pass it this Session in the other House; and, therefore, he was obliged reluctantly, on the part of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and on the part of the Government, to say they no longer cherished the hope of proceeding with the Bill. He had, consequently, to move that the Order be discharged.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Order for the Consideration of the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill," as amended, be read, and discharged,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.
  Order read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  NAVY—THE "CLYDE" COURT MARTIAL.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the Prime Minister, Whether he would consent to refer to the Law Officers of the Crown the proceedings of the Court Martial on Gunner Fitzgerald, as well as of that on Commander Heron, it being necessary, for the proper elucidation of the case, that the proceedings of the two Courts Martial should be referred to the Law Officers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will see that the matter is brought under the notice of the Law Officers of the Crown.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—CETEWAYO.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked whether Her Majesty's Government had received any information as to the position of Cetewayo; and whether they could state what was the condition of Zululand?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir; we have received information that Cetewayo and some of his brothers are located in the Reserve Territory. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of Zululand I suppose he means Zululand proper. We have no further intelligence a" to its condition.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Another Question arises out of that reply.
  1514
  The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies stated the other day that the Government would not view with indifference any action on the part of Cetewayo to use the Reserve Territory as a basis for operations in Zululand; and I wish to ask whether any directions have been sent out to South Africa, or steps taken in order to show that the Government will put a stop to any such attempts?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; I will not say that directions have actually gone; but they are in course of preparation, and will be sent.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Will they be laid upon the Table?
  MR. GLADSTONE: They can hardly be presented separately from the Papers that have preceded and will follow them. But they will contain nothing which can ultimately be considered of a confidential character.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Courtney.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

  GOVERNMENT CONDUCT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS DURING THE SESSION.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It is not my intention, Sir—as perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may have imagined it was—to raise any debate upon this stage of the Appropriation Bill; but I do think it would be reasonable that before we separate a few words should be said upon the general position in which we seem placed, and in which we are about to leave the Business of the country. It is not unusual, when the Appropriation Bill is passing through the House, to cast a glance back at the Business done during the Session; and there are other reasons why, in the present year, it is peculiarly fitting that we should take that course. It was observed to me the other day by a gentleman who takes accurate notice of the progress of affairs, that in the last 19

    1515
    months the House had sat during a portion of 17 of those months. We have had a very prolonged series of Sittings; and with regard to the present Session, though we must remember that it began a little later in February than usual, yet it has been one which we may describe as very decidedly a full Session. We have had the full time, and of that time a very largo and liberal portion has been at the command of the Government. Early in the Session Morning Sittings began, and arrangements have been made for giving the Government command of private Members' nights, with a readiness and on a scale which leaves nothing to be complained of. This Session, we must also bear in mind, has the advantage, or supposed advantage, of the New Rules. We are under the New Rules which, it was said, would facilitate the progress of Business. The right hon. Gentleman, with his great experience of the conduct of Business in Parliament, told us last year that the first and most essential requisite for the transaction of Business by the House of Commons was that it should be master of its own time, and that for that purpose certain Rules ought to be made which would obviate difficulties hitherto existing. Accordingly, we, to the great inconvenience of hon. Members, devoted the whole of the Autumn Session to the working out and construction of that system of Rules. Well, we now have before us the experience of the working of this Session under those circumstances; and I must, in the first place, ask the House just to consider what has been the result in a legislative point of view of the experience we have had. In the Speech of Her Gracious Majesty on the first night of the Session we were told of, I think, 11 important measures which the Government intended to bring forward. Those 11 measures were these—the first was the codification of the law. That is a matter of the very greatest importance, and one which has been the object and desire of successive Governments and Parliaments to carry through; and there seemed to be some hope that with the great advantage which would be given to us by the system of Grand Committees, that object might be accomplished. I am afraid we must shake our heads over what has happened as to the codification of the law. The experience we have had does
    1516
    not encourage us to believe that that is an object likely to be accomplished by the measures which have been adopted. Standing next to that came the Bill for an appeal in criminal offences. That was sent to the same Grand Committee as the Codification Bill, and it was sent under peculiar arrangements in order that the Bill for an appeal in criminal cases might be taken first, and that when it was got through, then the Codification Bill should be proceeded with, and that the Bill for an appeal in criminal offences should be incorporated with the Codification Bill. I was not present at the labours of that Committee; but, from what I understand, the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill was, in the first instance, discussed at proper length, and was passed by the Committee in such a form as they thought right. It might then have been reported to this House, and been disposed of with reasonable rapidity, after which it might have gone to the other House, where it would have been received by noble Lords peculiarly capable of dealing with it. But, although that Bill was reported on the 27th of June, and might have been reported two or three weeks earlier, it was not reported because, I am told, that the Grand Committee, at the instigation of the Government Members of it, desired to struggle on with the codification scheme, which could not be proceeded with, and so the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill was kept back until they saw what they could do with the other measure. The result is that they have lost both, and that we find ourselves none the further forward for all the labours that have been bestowed upon those two Bills. The third measure mentioned in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech was the Bankruptcy Bill; and here I must congratulate the Government, and especially the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, upon the success which has attended that measure. That Bill has furnished an illustration of the good and satisfactory working of the system of Grand Committees; and I am glad to bear my own testimony to, and to congratulate the Government upon, the success of that measure. I do it all the more readily, because I remember that, I think, four years ago, when I had the honour of sitting upon the opposite side of the House, and of taking a

    1517
    leading part in its arrangements, I did endeavour, upon a suggestion of the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), to adopt, with reference to the Bankruptcy Bill of that day, a very nearly similar course to that which has proved successful on this occasion. I did then propose that the Bankruptcy Bill should be referred to a large Committee, similar in its nature to a Grand Committee; but that proposal was not received with favour. The present Attorney General was one who strongly objected to it, and the President of the Local Government Board and some other Members of the Government also objected to that course. I regretted it at that time, and I am now glad to see that what was imperfectly attempted, and was not successful then, has since succeeded. But, while I congratulate the Government with regard to the Bankruptcy Bill, I must say that I think it a matter for regret that there was so much uncertainty and change of mind with regard to its extension to Ireland. There is another Bill which has also been successful—I mean the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill. That has taken us an enormous time to elaborate. I do not intend now to pass any judgment upon the Bill. It was one in which we on this side of the House cooperated with the Government in endeavouring to put it into proper shape. I do not undertake to say whether that has been a great achievement or not. It occupied no fewer than 25 days of the time of the Session. And then, after those Bills, comes a series of others, recommended by Her Majesty, every one of which has been unsuccessful or withdrawn. First of all, we had the Ballot Bill introduced; but it never proceeded very far, and finally it had to be abandoned. Then there was a grand sentence as to the great question of Local Government, to which Her Majesty's Government attached the very greatest importance. We were told that the Metropolis was to be selected as the first subject of experiment, and that, by dealing with that great local Body upon sound and right principles, we should not only accomplish a great feat in the Metropolis, but lay the foundation of a system of local government for the country. That Bill has not been proceeded with at all. It disappeared altogether in the air, and whether we are
    1518
    to have any further attempts at local government with reference to the Metropolis is a matter on which we are left entirely in the dark. That was a Bill laid aside with very little excuse for other Business which very well might have been postponed. At all events, nothing else so important has been proceeded with in the course of the Session. Then we were to have had the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill for the prevention of floods, and one would have thought that the Government would have carried that to a successful issue. The measure has, however, been allowed to fall through. The same fate has attended the Scotch University Bill and the Education Bill for Wales. Thus, eight out of eleven important measures have failed. Two are practically passed, and as regards the last, the Agricultural Holdings Bill, it remains to be seen what the ultimate result will be. For my part, I hope that measure may be added to those that have been passed. I do not think that the result of the Session which is now drawing to an end is very encouraging. Then, if we have not had the measures which were promised in the Queen's Speech, we have had others, which have taken up a great deal of time, and which were brought forward without there being any real necessity for them. The first to be mentioned among the Bills of that kind is, of course, the Affirmation Bill. That was a measure fortuitously undertaken by the Government. If it had been the original intention of the Government to deal with this question by legislation, surely it was a matter of sufficient importance to be mentioned in the Queen's Speech. But the Speech did not contain any suggestion that such a measure would be introduced; yet a few hours after the delivery of the Speech, and a few minutes before the Speech was read from the Chair, it was announced from the Treasury Bench, in answer to a challenge from Mr. Bradlaugh, that it was the intention of the Government to bring forward a Bill on this subject. I really think that is not the way in which the House ought to be treated if our Business is to be carried on with propriety and dignity. That Bill was not read a second time, a result which was not very satisfactory to the Government. It was one of those mea-

    1519
    sures which were brought in as afterthoughts, and it was allowed to displace the Business which the Government had deliberately prepared for the country. If that is the way in which our Business is to be conducted, and if well-considered legislative plans are to be set aside for measures of that character, there can be no certainty about Parliamentary transactions. Of course, exceptional legislation and a breach of the prepared programme may be necessary on certain occasions. But there was no such necessity at the time to which I refer, because that which called forth the Bill was well known to the Government when the Queen's Speech was drawn up. It was known then that Mr. Bradlaugh would take steps to take his seat; and if the Government intended to deal with the question by legislation they had an opportunity, which they ought not to have neglected, of making their intention known to the House. I will only refer to the Scotch Local Government Bill to say that was a measure which was forced upon us in a way which we had no reason to expect. There was no sudden emergency demanding the introduction of the Bill. The administration of Scotch affairs is a matter which the Government must have had before them for some time. It was either a matter that was important for legislation, or it was not; but, really, the way in which it has been brought forward and sprung upon us at the end of the Session does not show that management of Business and that economy of time for which we have a right to look to the Government of the day. I may make the same observations with respect to the Irish Registration Bill, a measure of importance, which was sprung unfairly upon the House when it was becoming wearied and empty, and which has been carried through its several stages after very insufficient consideration. There was, indeed, another Bill brought forward for which I did think there might be some reason. I refer to the Constabulary Bill, which has disappeared. Twenty-one or 22 of the Government Bills have been withdrawn in the present Session, and very few have passed into law. I make these observations because I think the country ought to know what it is that causes the delay in legislation and the unsatisfactory character of much of it. The cause is that there is by far too little
    1520
    of the conduct of affairs in the hands of the Government of the day. I know, of course, the difficulties against which a Government has to contend. There is a constant rivalry and race between the different Departments, each of which wishes to bring forward the measures to which it attaches importance; and the Leader of the House is necessarily very much pressed in the distribution of the time at his command by the attempts that are made by his Colleagues to obtain opportunities for the discussion of the measures in which they are severally specially interested. Unless some rigorous exercise of firmness is shown in repressing the rivalry of different Ministers, we shall find ourselves year after year in the same difficulty in which we have found ourselves this Session. A number of Bills are seen progressing through the House together, and none are finished and got out of hand before others are placed before us. The result is extremely inconvenient to this House, and remarkably unfair to the other. If the House of Lords is to do its duty, and if we are to obtain the great advantage of the talent, especially the legal talent, to be found in that House, you must adopt some method by which it may be possible to obtain for measures sent up to the other House a deliberate consideration of their merits. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government expressed a wish the other day that we might in some way bring the power of the House of Lords properly to bear upon our legislation; but he said that that was an object difficult of attainment, and the only idea that suggested itself to him was that while certain measures were initiated in this House certain others might be initiated in the House of Lords, which was a course which he thought would not answer. But that is by no means the only thing that might be done. What is especially desirable is that you should put through this House the measures upon which you want the judgment of the House of Lords in time to send them up to that House early in the Session, and that you should then consider other measures of your own. That can be done by finishing one Bill before you begin another; and if you devote the intervals between the Bills to Supply you will carry on your measures with greater regularity than at present, and

    1521
    you will secure a better consideration of the Business of Supply. With reference to the experiment of the Grand Committees, I think that it has operated well in the case of the Bankruptcy Bill; but it does not seem to have worked so well in certain other cases. The subject is one which deserves very careful consideration; and I hope that consideration will be given to it, in a candid manner, when the House re-assembles. Hitherto I have been speaking of the legislation of the Session; but, of course, our Business has not been exclusively legislative. The Business of this House increases largely, the interests with which we have to deal become more and more extensive and widely scattered, and consequently our discussions cover a larger field than formerly. I must say it seems to me that the position in which we are going to leave the affairs of the Empire at the moment of breaking up for the Recess cannot be described as thoroughly satisfactory. I say nothing about the condition of affairs in England, or even in Ireland; but with regard to foreign and Colonial affairs it does seem to me that we are separating in circumstances which justify very considerable anxiety. There are a large number of important questions in connection with which we have to look to the Government, and yet in regard to which we have but very imperfect information as to the intentions of the Government. To take the case of Egypt. Does anybody in this House really know what are the intentions of the Government with respect to that country? Are we to withdraw from it or not? Are we, or are we not, to make sure, before withdrawing from it, that the institutions which we have planted there have taken firm root? Those are questions of the highest importance, and they have been raised during the Session; but I venture to think that even now we are very far from having any clear idea about the intentions of the Government. Then, we are entirely ignorant about their intentions with regard to the Suez Canal. We have a very sanguine forecast in the first instance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that a plan was to be adopted for the purpose of improving our means of communication through the Canal and benefiting the shipping interests of this country. That arrangement was stated with the perfect con-
    1522
    viction that it would be a triumphant settlement of a great question. I need not remind the House how the arrangement was received on both sides of the House and by the country. The mixture of disapprobation, dissatisfaction, and even ridicule which that arrangement produced was of a very marked and significant character; and the result was that within about a fortnight of the time when the arrangement was proposed to this House, it had to be withdrawn by the Government as being altogether unacceptable. It never was discussed in this House. Although it had been announced that a discussion was to take place, yet it was withdrawn before that time arrived. In the discussion which we had subsequently on what might be the future proceedings of the Government, the question raised was one as to the pledges that had been given—I think very incautiously—by the Government, and the admissions which had been very incautiously made by them in the course of the negotiations, and which, as it appeared to us on this side of the House, it was necessary to guard against and to protest against. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, even those who disapproved most strongly of the arrangement which the Government had made, did not think themselves at liberty to break away from their Party allegiance, and to join us in the course which we felt bound to take. But whether they did so or not, the point which is perfectly clear is this—that there is a strong feeling on the part of large interests in this country, irrespective of politics, that it is a wrong thing for the Government to admit, and that it would be wrong to sanction, the admission of such a claim as that to which attention was drawn in the course of the discussion. Whether, in consequence of the failure of that arrangement, and in consequence of the vote of the House upon a subsequent point that arose, the matter is now to be allowed to go to sleep, or whether there is to be a real effort made to meet the wants of the country, and to rectify or improve upon the arrangement which was attempted, and which so significantly failed, is a matter as to which we are at present quite unable to judge. We are also left in doubt and uncertainty as to the condition of the Empire in itself. I have

    1523
    been speaking about the position in Egypt, and the position of our communications with the different parts of the British Empire; but with regard to the Empire itself, it is impossible to say that there is that state of satisfaction and quiet progress which certainly we were all led to expect by the present Government would be at once attained, by the very fact of their being placed at the helm, and taking charge of the Business and relations of the country. It was given to us to understand that all the difficulties there were in our situation arose from the misconduct of the late Government, and that if there was anything wrong in what took place under the present Government, it was to be put down to the "original sin," and not to any transgression on their part. That is a very comfortable doctrine, no doubt, to a great many individuals, who feel themselves to be doing what they ought not to do. No doubt it is convenient for the Government, when they are hardly pressed, to turn round and say—" This is not our fault; it is the fault of our Predecessors." But the Government were placed in power in order that they might put matters into a right train. We do not admit, of course, the charges made against the late Government; but, assuming that there was something wrong, that is no excuse for their Successors for not making the best of the circumstances with which they themselves had to deal. I am bound to say that anything more uncertain, anything more confusing, anything more dangerous than the course they have held with regard to various parts of our Colonial Empire and our Indian Empire, it is difficult to conceive. Look at South Africa. There are questions with regard to the Transvaal, with regard to Bechuanaland, and with regard to Basutoland; and I defy anybody to know what is the policy Her Majesty's Government are pursuing in regard to any of them, or to say with any confidence that we should not have an entire upset there; and that a very serious catastrophe may not occur at any time within a week's notice. We leave the matter in the hands of the Government, because we cannot help ourselves. [Ironical cheers.] Hon. Members opposite cheer that sentiment as if it were a satisfactory thing. Those best acquainted with the condition of South
    1524
    Africa—such an authority as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who would hardly be accused of being a Party man opposed to the Government, and others whom we might select—will not feel that complete confidence which seems to irradiate the countenance of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). Then there is this Madagascar business. The gloom which hangs over largo portions of South Africa hangs with double and treble darkness over our relations with Madagascar and what is going on there. I do not touch upon the subject now further than to say that the reticence of the Government, although there may be some reason for it, is in itself a very alarming symptom. I think, unless there is some strong justification for it, it is a very serious mistake on their part. Of course, we do not want, and it would be wrong for us to press the Government to give the proceedings and the negotiations now being carried on if those negotiations have not been completed, and if they are not in a position in which they could properly be communicated. But keeping back the facts of the case has an ugly appearance, and it is impossible for us to accept with acquiescence such statements as those which we hear—that Her Majesty's Government cannot give the facts without laying all the despatches before the House. I cannot understand why a simple narrative might not have been given of the facts which are undisputed and within the knowledge of the Government, and which form the real history of the case; and I think misrepresentations in the public Press, or among the public generally, in the course of the Recess, will be very much owing to the reticence and the mystery with which the Government have dealt with the question at a time when frankness would have been the proper course to adopt. The impression produced is that there is something very wrong, and that the Government are afraid to mention it to the House and the public, for fear lest they should be obliged, by pressure of public opinion, to take a course which they do not wish to take. I do not think that is at all a reasonable way of treating a matter of this kind. It seems to me that if the matter is placed before the British public in a satisfactory way, with no apparent reserve beyond what is ne-

    1525
    cessary, and in such a manner as to show that the Government are completely masters of the case, and are dealing with it in what they think is the best way, the public will acquiesce readily in any demands that may be made upon them for moderation and reserve in speaking upon these questions. But if we are to be kept entirely in the dark, and if, at the same time, in some of the answers which have been given, we are unable to see whether the Government are really in possession of all the facts, and whether they have made themselves masters of them, when anything is brought out it may have a most injurious effect, and produce very great excitement. There are one or two other points on which I might also touch. One of the great and cardinal points of the policy of the present Government was that they were going to entirely set aside the wicked policy of their Predecessors in Afghanistan, and that they were themselves about to adopt a policy of entire abstention from interference in the concerns of that country. Now, however, we require some further explanation, for we hear that a large subsidy is to be paid to the Ameer. That subsidy is, apparently, to be given with no fixed Treaty or arrangement; but still it is obviously to be given with the intention of making ourselves masters of the foreign policy of Afghanistan. In fact, that is very much the policy of the late Government; but we ought to have a clear understanding in regard to the policy which Her Majesty's Government are pursuing, and to the reasons which induced them to think it necessary to offer this largo subsidy. It looks as if they thought it more necessary to take precautions against the advance of some other Power than they have hitherto been willing to admit. When I refer to India, it is impossible not to say a word on another cause of anxiety which we have in that country. I do not wish, however, to dwell upon it at any length, as we shall have some other opportunity of discussing it; but I wish to express my own feeling very strongly on one point. I think, as I have always thought, that it is of the highest importance that we should take such measures as can be taken for a proper system of the admission of the Natives to a share in the administration of justice. It has been the object pursued by many Administrations, and has al-
    1526
    ways been the object we have had in view. But, at the same time, you must also consider and show that you have had consideration for the interests and the feelings of the Europeans in India, and the reconciling of these two objects is a matter of considerable delicacy and difficulty. Now, it seems to me that the steps taken in India, with, no doubt, the best possible motives, have been taken at a time and in a manner that tend to make more difficult of attainment the very object which we all desire to attain. The Government have raised a storm which was perfectly unnecessary. They have evoked feelings which it was most desirable not to raise, and have thrown back the question of the proper employment of Natives instead of advancing it; and I cannot but regret extremely the position in which we are placed. I am most anxious that we should abstain from making Indian questions questions of a Party character. We are very imperfectly informed on many questions that have arisen, and I should deprecate anything that would interfere improperly with the action of the Indian Government; but, so far as our expressions of opinion on this side of the world could go, I would be most anxious to impress upon those responsible for the conduct of Indian affairs the very great delicacy and difficulty which appears to us to be in the way they are now pursuing. As to the precise steps which are to be taken when the matter comes next under review, I abstain from saying anything with regard to it. I hope there will be no false pride in the matter, and no neglect of that which must always be regarded as the first consideration—what is due to the Europeans in India. They are the men, after all, to whom we must look for much that is to be done in the improvement of India. I speak of the unofficial Europeans. It is to their capital and enterprise that India must in the future largely owe its progress. And it is the confidence that they will inspire, and which our official Europeans will inspire in the whole country, to which we have to look as the great safeguard of our position there. When speaking of India, we must take care that we do not confuse a particular class who are affected by such measures to which I have referred with the whole population of India. The whole population of India goes far beyond those

    1527
    classes, and we must bear in mind the effect which anything which will lower, or appear to lower, the position of the English authorities may have upon the great mass of the Indian population which we collect together under the general title of our Indian Empire. I will not refer to any other questions, as I feel we are now approaching the end of the Session, and that we ought to facilitate the progress of the remaining Business; but I could not refrain from making a few observations upon the history of the Session.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman is unquestionably quite within his right in availing himself of this opportunity of reviewing, in any degree of detail which he thinks public duty requires, the proceedings of the past Session. Naturally, he is sorry that time should be spent in anything at this moment except absolute forwarding of the Business; but, at the same time, the process is a legitimate one, and certainly one that he is entitled to undertake and carry through. With the exception of the general charge of the right hon. Gentleman, and the passages of his speech where he went into vague and unspecified and unsustained assumptions, I make very little complaint indeed of the spirit in which he has made his comments. I do not agree with them. But from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view they are fair enough. I can very much shorten my reply to that part of his speech which refers to legislation, for I think it was generally felt he was somewhat insufficient in his numerical manner of handling the measures mentioned in the Queen's Speech at the commencement of the Session. I do not admit his statement as correct. The right hon. Gentleman says 11 measures were propounded in the Speech, of which we had carried two or three, and, therefore, lost eight or nine. There were 13 measures propounded in the Speech from the Throne. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that there were necessarily not one but two measures with regard to compensation of tenants, and that a different Bill was needed for Scotland, differing necessarily in particulars from the English Bill. I think he will also find that he entirely omitted the Patents for Inventions Bill.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: That is not mentioned in the Speech.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Reference has been made, and I find that that Bill was mentioned in the Speech. Therefore, my representation of the case is that not two or three Bills out of 11, but five out of 13 have, so far as this House is concerned, been passed. With the single exception of the London Government Bill, which it was quite impossible to undertake, the five Bills which we have passed are decidedly of a much more weighty class than the eight Bills we have not passed. There is no Bill amongst these eight Bills which, for a moment, was to be compared with the Bankruptcy Bill, the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill, and the Agricultural Holdings Bill. I think the right hon. Gentleman, who has some experience of the difficulty of dealing with the business of tenants' compensation, and sees how possible it is for a Government and the House of Commons to devote themselves with perfect good faith to the subject, and yet to find the result of their legislative labours almost at zero, might have given a little more credit to the House of Commons for its labours in this quarter. But my points are these—that the right hon. Gentleman has not accurately summed up the totals of his figures as to the Bills in the Queen's Speech; and even when that correction is made, another is required, because the Bills that have not been passed are of far less scope and weight than the Bills which the devoted labours of this House and its Grand Committees have passed. I think that is enough for me to say; but I do not hesitate to affirm, looking at the past 50 years, that the legislative labours of the House during the present year, though, practically, they did not begin until after Easter, have been far beyond those of an aver-ago year. And if that is so—and I think the country knows that it is so—the small criticisms upon the numbers of the Bills mentioned in the Queen's Speech are criticisms which we can very well afford to bear. The right hon. Gentleman has made a reference to the Affirmation Bill which surprises me. He thinks that it was a wanton aggression upon the time of the House. How very different are the impressions which men receive from the same event. Here are the two sides of the shield. One is no better than copper; but on our side

    1529
    it is silver or gold. The intention of the Affirmation Bill was this. It was not that we thought upon religious grounds that the question of religious qualifications for admission to Parliament required legislative handling. Certainly not. Until recent times no difficulty was raised. Every man, with or without belief, came into this House unimpeded by religious tests. But a great struggle had been initiated in the country. I am sorry to speak of a great struggle between an individual and the House of Commons; but it is a great and serious struggle, in which every man knows which Party is finally to be the winner; he knows that the struggle will end in the defeat of the vote which has been given. The House of Commons had reached a point in this struggle in which there was a serious menance of public disorder, of public scandal; and the Government, acting upon the principle on which they have always acted, while adhering to its own convictions, offered their assistance to enable the House to escape from what they think was a critical, and ultimately, in a certain sense, a dangerous dilemma, and they proposed to legislate on the subject. What happened? Two weeks of the public time—four Government nights—were employed on the second reading. I am not here to make any charge against any particular Party in this House; but I am going to assert my deliberate conviction that had the question arisen in the House 30 years ago the second reading would have been disposed of in one night. There are only a few present who were here 30 years ago; but I am sure that they are conversant with the conditions that the second reading of a Bill of an analogous kind would be disposed of in one night. It was a well-known fact that the loss of Christianity was to be the result of the admission of the Jews. That was as serious a matter, and it might as well have been debated for four nights as the Affirmation Bill, which related to the somewhat shadowy distinctions that are now erected into a substantial barrier. The question as to Roman Catholic Emancipation, no doubt, took longer; but with that were mixed up vast and important political questions. The admission of the Jews was, however, an analogous case, whore the Business in former times was disposed of in one
    1530
    night. I am not referring to this as a matter of reproach. There can be no doubt the scale of speech is enormously altered in this House. I believe examination would sustain the doctrine that one mischief we have to contend with, apart from the charge of Obstruction, is the increasing Business of the country; and we have to recognize the fact that the increase is not to be disposed of without a greater expenditure of time. In consequence of the severe labours of last year, it was necessary to lop off a fortnight from the commencement of the Session; a fortnight was lost, as far as the Business of the Government was concerned, by the Affirmation Bill, and rather more than a fortnight was devoted to the discussion of the Address. It is impossible that the transaction of Business can be brought to a satisfactory state if the House is to initiate the Session by devoting a fortnight of its freshest energies to a vague discussion of immeasurable width, absolutely without result on almost every subject. I cannot but be persuaded that the right hon. Gentleman joins me in the hope that this may be avoided, unless on occasions it is found necessary to raise in a serious manner some great public question which may be justly made the subject of an Amendment to the Address, and that the House will revert to the old practice which has been established for so long a period, and which we have maintained, I think I may say, in unbroken succession, since the passing of the Reform Bill, with only the legitimate exceptions to which I have referred, for I feel that an initial direction is given to the proceedings which vitiates the labours of the Session. To deal with Bills in order, taking first one and then another, is an excellent rule as far as it can be pursued; but it must be varied by delay in the printing and circulation of Bills, and the necessity of informing the country with respect to them. As to the House of Lords, I am not a fervent admirer of its legislative performances; but, at the same time, it ought to have fair play, which it can hardly be said to have had, as their Lordships have not received Bills from this House in time to bestow upon them the labours which they might have done in more favourable circumstances. It is idle to make vague complaints on the subject. The reason why Bills do not go to the House of

    1531
    Lords in proper time is that this House is not master of its own time, and it is not from ill intention or neglect on the part of the House. The difficulty is felt most when the Government attempts much legislation, and there is a difference between Governments in this respect. I do not wish to draw any invidious comparison; but we had hoped to accomplish more than usual, and the effect is greater pressure and inconvenience. But I do not hesitate to say—and this is the main matter—the effect, on the whole, is a greater result than the average of ordinary years. The great object Members should set before themselves is the restoring to the House proper command over its own time; and it is idle to dream that such an end can be attained by coercive and repressive measures. Repressive Rules have done some good this year, and in the future may do more; but it is idle to look to them as a means of achieving the great restorative change we want to bring about. What we me must look to is the multiplication of the means of action through the medium of Grand Committees; and therefore I accept with thankfulness the generally satisfactory declaration of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. He has taunted some of my right hon. Friends, indeed, with not having given greater encouragement to a suggestion made by him some four or five years ago that a large Committee might be appointed to consider a particular subject, and the House of Commons, on receiving its Report, might be disposed to accept the Bill and allow the work of that large Committee to stand in lieu of a Committee of the Whole House. It may be so—I have no recollection of it—but I offered my support to a similar suggestion by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) in reference to the Agricultural Holdings Bill. I rejoice in the acknowledgment now made as to the capacity of the Grand Committees for rendering real service; but I remember the difficulty we had in inducing hon. Gentlemen opposite to accede to the experiment when it was proposed, which was due, perhaps, to the fact that the proposal was discussed at the end of the special Session devoted to the Rules of Procedure. Our Business now is to look to the future, and I earnestly hope, in the interests of every Government and of the country, that the House will set
    1532
    itself in a serious spirit to a further development of this important experiment. If it fails, I am convinced the House will never resume that freedom and mastery in regard to its own Business which it has always had until comparatively recent years. Well, I will pass from that. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman remarked that he had nothing to say as to Ireland. If the state of the country had not been improved by firm, but beneficent, government, and the working of the Land Act, I do not think he would have been reticent; but the results that have been brought about by the working of the Act, and the vigorous government of Lord Spencer, deserved" a word of acknowledgment from the right hon. Gentleman. As to Egypt, I do not think a fortnight has passed since we spent a whole night in discussing it; and, therefore, the remark of the right hon. Gentleman that we have "approached" the discussion of it is an illustration of what I lament—the immeasurable and insatiable appetite which appears to be seizing us all for boundless talk, and which is so entirely unsatisfied that it requires to make Egypt the subject of a doleful diatribe at the end of the Session. In my conviction the Government have said all that circumstances warrant; and I shall not add to, take away from, or repeat their several declarations. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Suez Canal. I should have thought that in the late debate the right hon. Gentleman had had enough of the Suez Canal. I have never been particularly proud of any of our performances; I have never pitched high our claims upon this matter; yet I think our workmanship, on the whole, will bear quite favourable comparison with the workmanship of those who framed the Resolution which the right hon. Gentleman submitted to the House. The right hon. Gentleman said we have been incautious in the matter of the Suez Canal; but the right hon. Gentleman and his Government thought it quite prudent to buy the shares of the Suez Canal without knowing what monopoly M. de Lesseps claimed. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: No, no!] But he did. The letters in the Foreign Office dispose of that, and show that M. de Lesseps, in 1872, was making larger claims of monopoly than he makes now, and that the late Government bought the Suez Canal shares, al-

    1533
    though their value greatly depended upon those claims, without making any inquiry into the nature of the claims. The right hon. Gentleman need be under no apprehension, because our desire is, if it be possible—and I think it to be possible and even not improbable—that the commercial classes themselves, who are, in many respects, better judges of the points of these cases than any Government can be, should, by and for themselves, be brought into direct contact with the directing power of the Suez Canal. Inasmuch as this is the end of August, and it will be but five months more before we have the pleasure of looking one another in the face again across the Table—[An hon. MEMBER: Six months.]—six months it may be but it is not likely that anything very dreadful will happen between this time and that with respect to the Suez Canal. Certainly, nothing that has occurred will induce us to look with an evil eye on any single-minded and practical proposition that may be launched for improving the position of that great historic work for the commerce of the world. Here I come to the generalities of the right hon. Gentleman, and I think them less satisfactory than his particular observations. He said great wonders were to be attained by the fact of our accession to Office. Who said it? For my part, I endeavoured to make those who are now my constituents sensible of the enormous difficulties interposed on an incoming Government, and of the long time that must elapse before anything like the necessary modification and change could be made. The right hon. Gentleman asked—Have you set the world to rights? I answer—No, Sir; we have not, and I do not expect that we shall. When we regard the scope and range of the British Empire, I think it would be a return to the days of Paradise, if a Leader of the Opposition could not lay his finger on a particular place and say—" Here is a state of uncertainty." But I think I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that some things, at any rate, have been done since the present Government took Office. I may remind him that at that time there were two territorial questions under the Treaty of Berlin, one in Greece, and the other in Montenegro, each of which, taken by itself, was a danger to the peace of the Levant and the peace of
    1534
    Europe. These questions have been settled and the dangers obviated. Let the right hon. Gentleman recall these facts in his reminiscences of the period of the present Government. Then he goes to Afghanistan, and he says it was understood we were never to meddle in Afghanistan. Who understood that? Who said that? Who pledged us never to meddle in the affairs of Afghanistan? How was it possible, when we found Afghanistan, once a united and comparatively happy country, broken and smashed into fragments and in a state of anarchy, to bind ourselves to such a proposition? We found Afghanistan broken into pieces, and we have done something towards its restoration, so that, at any rate, the future of Afghanistan will depend on the capacity and inclination of its people, and not on the will of a foreign tyranny. That is something on which, I think, we may look with satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman appears to glance with censure at the payment of a subvention to the Ruler of Afghanistan. I do not desire to exclude that from debate or censure. But the right hon. Gentleman spoke as if this was a proceeding without parallel or example; but the names of Governor Generals who are remembered in India with honour and gratitude, Lord Lawrence and Lord Mayo, are likewise associated with the rendering of pecuniary assistance to the Ameers of Afghanistan. I am not aware that at any time any Member of the present Government was bold enough to commit himself to the view that such a payment should never be made. The right hon. Gentleman does not notice any of the things in which we took anything but au apologetic position; but as he refers to the professions that were made before the accession of the present Government, I may remind him that one of the favourite subjects at the General Election was the state of the finances. We had before us a long series of deficits, which threatened to become unbroken. I am happy to say that that series of deficits, without any great constructive changes, but coincident with our accession to Office, has ceased to exist; and a series of small surpluses, which represents the true principle of I the balance between expenditure and revenue, has taken their place. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to Madagas-

    1535
    car; and his proposition, as I understand it, may be summed up in these words—that there has been great reticence on the part of the Government and keeping back of facts, and that there exists in the public mind an impression that, in consequence of this reticence, there is something or other wrong. With regard to the impression in the public mind, I have means, perhaps, equal to those of the right hon. Gentleman of ascertaining what is the impression of the public mind. I cannot say better; but I do not believe there is any such impression in the public mind. If it be true that there are very formidable facts in the case which are the cause of our reticence, our position will be a very unsatisfactory one when we come to see the Papers, because our language has been in a contrary direction. We said at first, and say now, that in all these matters, which ought to be frankly and calmly discussed, and, it may be, the subject of friendly explanation, nothing has occurred, so far as our judgment goes, to disturb the minds of any of those—and, thank God, they are many—who set a high value on the alliance between England and France. With respect to the reticence, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should refer to it. I have no wish to go back on former years; but I confess that my opinion is that reticence was never carried so far within my knowledge as in the time of the late Government. Never. It was in March, I think in 1878, that th Conferences of Peshawur were held, which virtually determined the Afghan War. It was after these Conferences, I think, that assurances were given in the Upper House that there was no substantial change in policy, and it was not till 18 months after these Conferences that Parliament became aware that they existed when they had already blossomed into the fatal and dreadful Afghan War. I think it requires some courage to speak of reticence to us. It was only on the 7th of August that the Admiralty received a manuscript of what we have declared to be an intricate Correspondence, and one requiring a course of communications between the two Governments; and, forsooth, it is reticence that we are not now, on the 21st of August, ready to declare the result of the whole matter. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that incessant questioning upon these
    1536
    subjects is a matter of some responsibility. This is a matter on which I have no apprehension whatever that either of the Governments will be disturbed in the slightest degree; but there have been times, and I am sorry they are growing more frequent—the Spring of last year was one' of them—when Questions have been put by a large number of Members with almost tumultuous eagerness under the guise of calling the Government to account, but almost every Question reflecting and raising injurious presumptions, if not charges, against some other Power or Government, when that questioning itself has been a sort of danger to the country, and constituted, perhaps, the principal difficulties with which the existing Government had had to contend in the discharge of its duties. But this was a matter in which I do not entertain any such apprehensions. I do not speak of the policy of Prance. It is possible that the opinion of the British public is unfavourable to that policy; but I think it better that the British Government should have no official opinion in the matter, but limit itself to the letter of its own rights, while recognizing the just rights and claims of others. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the Government of India. I am glad to hear his speech in favour of the admission of the Natives to Office; but I am sorry to hear him, by hints and suggestions, convey an impression about the measures and policy of Lord Ripon which can only tend to weaken the hands of that Nobleman. The right hon. Gentleman says it is a very proper thing indeed to extend the admission to office to Natives; but it has been mismanaged—the steps have not been taken at the right time; they have not been taken in the right manner; and, in consequence, the cause has been thrown back, and great attention ought to be paid to the sentiments of the Anglo-Indian community. Well, Sir, I have had much to do for a long period with a series of questions, and I am not aware at this moment of any series of great reforms which have been brought about by the courage, and the wisdom, and the foresight of the British Legislature in respect of any portion of this Empire which reforms have had the favour and support of the resident English community. I do not remember that the abolition of slavery had the

    1537
    support of those residents in the West Indian Colonies, whose opinions, from their experience and knowledge, were undoubtedly of considerable weight. I do not remember that the establishment of a responsible Government in Canada, and of that new system of relations with Colonial institutions which has completely established harmony, where before there was perpetual discord—I do not remember that that establishment of responsible Government, and that introduction of political reform, were treated in the Colonies by those who, up to that time, laid claim to what was called the British Party, and represented themselves as having a monopoly of loyalty—I do not remember they ever received those reforms except with opposition. In 1862 the Government of Lord Palmerston re-united the people of the Ionian Islands with those of their own race, of their own religion, of their own feeling and condition; but there was a British Party there, and that British Party from point to point resisted everything that was proposed for the benefit of the people. Sir, it is the same thing all over the world; and it is not because those resident English communities are made up of people who are worse than ourselves. Do not let it be supposed I have any accusation to make against them; but their position is less favourable than ours for forming a comprehensive judgment. They are doomed almost to narrow modes of examining these questions, and we are compelled to look over the course of history and over the surface of the world. They each of them look at themselves in relation to persons whom they feel to be, in energy and certain practical effects, inferior to themselves; and there is a tendency to indulge in a spirit of ascendency which it is the business of this House and of this Legislature, and the business of a patriotic Govenor General with wisdom and with care, but with decision, to modify and to check. No evidence has come before me, and none before this Government, to convict Lord Ripon of any want either of courage or of discretion in this matter. It is true that there has been great resistance to Lord Ripon. If it is not impertinent, I may mention that I have a son in Calcutta who is a thorough approver of Lord Ripon's policy, and I am bound to say his report is that he is not certain
    1538
    whether he can find three other men in Calcutta who can agree with him. This is not the first time that such a state of things has existed. Go back to the time when Indian Natives began to be entrusted with judicial functions; go back to the time when the liberty of the Press was enacted in India; go back to the period of Lord William Bentinck and Lord Macaulay, and you will find that the storm which has arisen in India, violent as it is, is less violent and less menacing by far than the storms which then arose. And so it will be in the future. You will go on—you will be compelled to go on; but I hope, what is more, you will be inclined to go on in the noble and upright and blessed work of gradually enlarging the Indian franchise. You will have to look this oppotion in the face, and you will have to observe all the rules of circumspection and prudence in the measures you take; and no amount of circumspection and prudence will save you from that opposition. It will become milder from time to time. This Anglo-Indian community is made up of honourable and upright men. They may have their prejudices, and I think they have; but as they come nearer to the facts, and look them more closely in the face, they will begin by degrees to recognize they give to unreal dangers and to shadowy dangers an importance they do not deserve. Every step made in this direction is not only a step towards attaching to yourselves the minds of the vast population of India; but it is a step towards establishing between the differentraces of that country—between Europeans and Natives—a degree of harmony which in former times did not exist. You have not to go back very far when any idea of any rights or capacity on the part of the Natives of India was regarded as most unnatural and monstrous. Happily, we have outlived that. But we have some other superstitions to outlive. We have a work before us in the performance of which undoubtedly the powers and capacity—the moral as well as intellectual capacity—of this country will be severely strained. I confidently believe we shall continue to go on steadily and steadfastly in that path, and I am persuaded that if we are enabled so to do we shall more and more, from year to year, realize the debt of gratitude we owe to those Governors General of India, those

    1539
    eminent men of whom we have had many, who have fought and. laboured hard among the crushing details of their high Office to inculcate among their fellow-countrymen the broad principles of generosity and justice towards the vast population under their charge and rule. Those men have been the workmen, the most efficient and chiefest workmen, in building up that great and glorious fabric of truly civilized society which it is our duty and task and high privilege to administer throughout the vast regions of the world.

  ENGLAND AND GERMANY—DESIRABILITY OF ALLIANCE.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT,who had given Notice of the following Motion:—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, an alliance between Her Majesty's Government and the German Powers will afford the best guarantee for the interests of Great Britain and for the peace of Europe,"
    said, the community in India would read with alarm the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman. It was a bold thing to say that hon. Gentlemen in the House of Commons were better acquainted with the needs and dangers of our great Empire in India than those who had spent their lives among the people of that country, and who were enriching it with their enterprize and their capital. It would be unfortunate if the Ministry who had produced anarchy in Ireland, and anarchy in the Transvaal and in Zululand, and anarchy in Egypt, and anarchy wherever their policy had had effect, should produce anarchy in India. That certainly would be the legitimate result of their policy. The right hon. Gentleman made some unfortunate allusions to the question of slavery and the Ionian Islands. He might have remembered that it was himself who demanded compensation for the slave owners of the West Indies, while he refused it to the landlords of Ireland; and that Prince Bismarck had stated that the cession of the Ionian Islands by the right hon. Gentleman marked the beginning of the decadence of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was based on fallacies from beginning to end. The right hon. Gentleman indulged in some glorification with regard to the conduit of the Greek
    1540
    negotiations. The Greek nation had been involved unnecessarily in an expenditure of £7,000,000 and a dangerous mobilization, and then compelled by the British Government to accept three-fifths of what they had promised to Greece. As a matter of fact, the settlement of that question was brought about, not by Her Majesty's Government, but in spite of them. The extraordinary claim of the right hon. Gentleman in that respect was only equalled by his reference to Ireland. He told the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that he had forgotten what the Government had done for Ireland. The Prime Minister himself seemed to have forgotten that the Conservative Party left Ireland in a state of peace and prosperity. ["Oh!"] Well, there were only 63 crimes in Ireland in the month preceding that in which the present Government took Office; but in the last month of the same year—December—there were no less than 867 crimes—that is, a greater number than in the whole 12 months of 1879. ["Oh, oh!"] If the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) found his remarks offensive, he would suggest that the hon. Member should go and dine.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he is not addressing the House upon the Motion which he has placed upon the Paper.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he rose to a point of Order. He wished to ask the Speaker whether he had heard the frequent interruptions of the hon. Member for Stockton indulged in, not only on this occasion, but on many others? It was out of respect to the Prime Minister and the House that hon. Members on his (Mr. Onslow's) side had not risen to call attention to the matter before.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, for his part, he always treated the hon. Member for Stockton with the contempt his discourteous interruptions deserved.
    MR. SPEAKER: The conduct of the hon. Member for Stockton is not the Question before the House.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he would take no further notice of such interruptions. The reason why he put on the Paper the Notice to which the Prime Minister referred in contemptuous terms was because there was a failure on the part of the Government to

    1541
    carry out the policy of their Predecessors. His Notice was to the effect that an alliance between England and Germany afforded the best guarantee for the interests of Great Britain and the peace of Europe. For a country like ours, with its extended Empire, its small Army, and the temptations it afforded to ambitious Governments, the question of alliance was a vital one. But alliances must be based upon mutual interests; and the wisest policy was to seek that alliance which should prove the strongest. England, Germany, and Austria, the three great pacific States, were threatened, on one side, by the ambitious despotism of Russia, and, on the other, by the restless democracy of France. Although he was by no means hostile to France, it must be acknowledged that she was a natural rival of ours in the Mediterranean and Egypt; and there could be no doubt that Russia occupied a still more hostile position towards us in Asia. Recognizing this fact, Lord Beaconsfield formed, at Berlin, an alliance with the German Powers, and upon that he based his policy; but, at the same time, he maintained good relations with France. Could the same be said of the relations of the present Government with Franco, whose efforts at aggrandizement were threatening our power and influence from one end of the world to the other? Her Majesty's Government had brought things to this pass; they had abandoned the strong German alliance received from their Predecessors, and had thoroughly alienated Franco. The President of the Local Government Board—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has a Notice of Amendment on the second reading of the Bill. In order to bring himself in Order in moving this Amendment, it is necessary that his observations should be relevant. The hon. Member's observations have not yet been relevant.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTventured to point out that, in previous years, great range had been allowed on the second reading of the Bill, and that, on that occasion, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, and the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, had raised important questions of general policy. The anxiety to substitute a working alliance with France for the alliance with the German Powers was
    1542
    very largely, if not entirely, due to the unfortunate influence of the President of the Local Government Board, whose French proclivities were so well known, and whose removal from the post he formerly occupied as Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was of great advantage to the nation. In spite of the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman, the course of events proved that there was no effectual understanding between the two countries. Owing to the anxiety of the Government to work with France there had been a great weakening of our power and influence in Europe. And yet our relations with France could be described only in the words of the Prime Minister as "grave and painful." The Prime Minister, for purposes of his own, had put the country in possession of certain vague statements in support of the views he wished people to entertain; but he had refused to give information with respect to the recent insults offered to British subjects in Madagascar. The condition in which we were left with regard to that question was most unsatisfactory. The first point to which he wished to call attention was, that the flag of our Consul at Tamatave had been hauled down by the French. Another point was, that the French Admiral had boarded a British packet ship without declaration of war, seized her mails, and had endeavoured to seize our Consular despatches; and a third, that British subjects had been arrested. It had been clearly shown that Mr. Shaw was not permitted to see his wife, or to communicate with the Commander of the Dryad, who was acting as Vice Consul. That being so, he was much surprised that the Prime Minister should say that there was nothing to show that Mr. Shaw was denied any means of defending himself. The state of affairs in Madagascar ought to give us serious concern, because the action of the French might affect our trade with Mauritius. Such matters were of vastly more importance than many of the clap-trap questions which Ministers had placed in the forefront of their policy. In other quarters of the world our trade was also threatened. For example, if the French were to conquer and hold Annam and Tonquin, our interests might suffer greatly. Whether or not British trade between Tonquin and Annam was to be impeded, and whether or not our trade

    1543
    with Mauritius was to be paralyzed, were very serious questions. Then, on the West Coast of Africa——
    MR. SPEAKER: I must again point out to the hon. Member that he is not addressing himself either to the Bill before the House or to the Amendment of which he has given Notice.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTexplained that he had begun his remarks with the proposition that the subserviency of the Government to the French alliance had involved this country in troubles all over the world; and he now desired to point out how much injury the aggressive policy of France was doing to the country, and that they ought to have preferred an alliance with the German Powers. Such an alliance would have prevented the troubles which had arisen from a different policy, and would have enabled the Government to deal effectively with French insults and aggression. He would now sum up the results of the European policy of the present Government. The alliance of the Government with France had enabled that country to obtain Tunis, and had led to the refusal of the Commercial Treaty, to the Egyptian War, and to the aggression of France in Tonquin, in the Congo, and in Madagascar, to which he had already referred. By all of these our trade had been detrimentally affected. He advocated a close understanding, and, if possible, an alliance with the German Powers, who really controlled the policy of Europe at the present time, and were likely to control it for the next 20 years. Never was Germany so strong, so pacific, so secure at home and abroad as at the present time. She had repressed revolution within her land, and had won an almost invincible position in Europe. Our interests were more nearly coincident with those of Germany than of any other Great Power. The Government had now an opportunity of securing the good-will of Germany, Austria, and Italy. As an alliance with those countries would be the best way of safeguarding our interests and securing the peace of Europe, he hoped they would take advantage of that opportunity, instead of continuing their ineffectual and mischievous alliance with the shifty and unstable Republic of France.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member move his Amendment?
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I will not, under the circumstances, trouble the House by doing so.

  SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, that the Prime Minister had expressed surprise that his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North-cote) had not made mention of the debate on the Suez Canal; and he appeared to be perfectly satisfied with the result of that debate. There were many Members on his (Mr. Bourke's) side of the House who would have been pleased if a direct Vote of Censure had been moved on that occasion; but their regret at the failure in that respect was, to a certain extent, mitigated when they found that a supporter of the Government proposed himself to move what amounted practically to a Vote of Censure, and that the Government were themselves actually prepared to support that Vote. The Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) certainly amounted to a Vote of Censure, for he proposed that the House should not pledge itself to a particular measure when the Government had just before pledged themselves to a direct course which the House repudiated. The right hon. Gentleman said that at the time of the purchase of the Suez Canal shares the then existing Government were not aware of the claim of M. de Lesseps to a monopoly. It was very difficult to say whether the Government were aware of it or not; but the Foreign Office was then certainly in possession of the despatches in which the claim was made, and it was repudiated by the Representatives of that Office (Colonel Staunton and Sir Henry Elliot), who treated it as absurd and not worthy the attention of the Government. The claim was put forward in the most shadowy way by M. de Lesseps, perhaps for the purpose of trying what the credulity of Her Majesty's Government would bring forth; but we were represented by very able agents, who at once repudiated the claim, and no more was heard of it. Then the Prime Minister said—"If this monopoly was not claimed, why did you buy the Suez Canal shares?" This showed an extraordinary want of information on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentle-

    1545
    man would apply himself to the most elementary principles of the purchase of those shares he would see that it would have been impossible for the question to be raised at that time. The negotiations for the purchase of the shares were entered into by Her Majesty's late Government, not with M. de Lesseps, but with the Khedive, who was the holder of those shares. They were bought for political considerations, and they had been a great success from a political point of view. No one had dared to say anything in the last debate against the policy of the purchase of the shares, although a great deal was heard at Mid Lothian about the bargain being an unfortunate and foolish one, both commercially and politically. Every commercial man knew that if the Government were to sell the shares tomorrow, they would gain £7,000,000 or £8,000,000. One of the most regrettable results of the arrangement recently entered into by the Government with M. de Lesseps was that it left in a most unsatisfactory position negotiations which might be set on foot by different persons in England for a second Canal. As long as there was only one Canal, and as long as that Canal was in the hands of the French Company, so long would it be impossible for the commercial classes of this country and of the world to obtain any redress. In fact, the only means of redress was by a second Canal either in esse or in posse. Supposing a second Canal were decided upon, and £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 had been advanced by this country, in seven years the traffic would amount to 12,000,000 tons. Six million tons at 6 francs per ton—this would produce 30,000,000 francs, or £1,200,000 revenue. If the expenditure had been £300,000, this would leave a balance of £900,000, and in about 14 years this would form a Sinking Fund, which would redeem the whole cost of the Canal. As long as a monopoly was recognized by Her Majesty's Government, so long would there be an end of all hope of any improvement in the way in which the Suez Canal was conducted. He had no desire to take away any of the just rights of M. de Lesseps. Let M. de Lesseps be treated in a most liberal manner. He had performed a great service to commerce; but for him to set up this monopoly, which was never contemplated at the time the Canal was
    1546
    made, was an intention utterly inconsistent with the greatness of those views which he claimed for himself when he recognized that the work which he had performed had been of great service to the world.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded more particularly to the affairs of the Suez Canal, and had not attempted to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) in that wide survey of mankind from China to Peru which he had laid before the House. He desired, in the first place, to answer the right hon. Gentleman upon the specific points he had raised. First of all, with regard to the monopoly of the Suez Canal, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that, in his opinion, the Prime Minister was not justified in the observations which he made in regard to the transactions of the year 1872, because in that year, as the Papers presented to Parliament showed, not merely, as the Prime Minister stated, was the claim of M. de Lesseps brought to the notice of the Foreign Office, but also it was clearly shown that the Foreign Office did not agree to the view of M. do Lesseps; and that being so, although in the year 1872 the present Prime Minister was Prime Minister, nevertheless in the year 1875 the successors of the right hon. Gentleman were justified in saying that the view of M. de Lesseps had been repudiated by the Government of the country, and that, therefore, they were not under any obligation to notice it then. He thought there was a fundamental misconception on the part of the right hon. Gentleman of what was said by the Prime Minister, who pointed out not merely that the monopoly claimed by M. de Lesseps in the recent negotiations had been claimed by him in 1872, but that a monopoly of something far more had been claimed—namely, an exclusive monopoly of all water communication between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. It was that large and exclusive monopoly that they found repudiated. The reply to the right hon. Gentleman's argument that the purchase was made from the Khedive, and that M. de Lesseps had no opportunity of advancing his claim, was that in a matter of that kind the Government must have had the whole of this transaction, with all its circum-

    1547
    stances and conditions, before them. It Lad been their duty to consider these subjects; and he would even be prepared to say this—that they did consider M. de Lesseps had an exclusive right. If the contention which was now held by the Party opposite was sound, then what was to be thought of their action in putting money into an enterprize the value of which might be reduced one-half, or almost to nothing, by the making of another Canal or other Canals through the Isthmus of Suez; in that case they were guilty, according to their own showing, of what they called an act of financial folly. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was anxious not to accuse them of that; but, at the same time, he must ask them to abandon a line of argument which would compel him to accuse them of that which he had no wish to accuse them of. He was perfectly satisfied to meet the hon. Member for Eye on his own ground, and begged most emphatically to deny that the relations between this country and Germany were of anything but the most satisfactory character. At no period of history had the relations of England and the German Powers been more cordial than now. He had no wish to talk about alliances and understandings with particular Powers. There was no reason for this country to be thinking or talking about exclusive alliances; and when the hon. Member detected signs of some unfortunate change of policy he could assure him that he was entirely mistaken. The hon. Member had attempted to pay him certain compliments at the expense of his Predecessor in Office; but he was sure he was expressing the feeling of the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) when he declined to talk about a policy being the policy of one or the other. The policy was that of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville), under whom they had both had the honour to serve; and he felt perfectly certain that his right hon. Friend, as well as himself, had felt it a great advantage to serve under so distinguished a Chief. He believed that his right hon. Friend had never attempted to draw distinctions between France and Germany, and that, acting under the Secretary of State, it was his constant effort to establish perfectly cordial relations with both of those Great Powers.

  AFGHANISTAN—SUBSIDY TO THE AMEER.—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he wished to refer to one point—that was, the policy of the Government with regard to Afghanistan. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had, in giving the Ameer a fixed subsidy, claimed that he was following the policy of Lord Lawrence and Lord North-brook; but a few words would suffice to show that the Government was effecting a reversal of the policy of Lord Lawrence and Lord Northbrook. What had Lord Northbrook laid down? That there was to be no fixed subsidy to the Ameer. The origin of the last Afghan War was the Conference of Simla in 1873, the result of which was almost incredible. The Afghans were a greedy and rapacious people, yet Shere Ali was so disgusted at the treatment he had received, that he actually declined to take the sum of £100,000 which was waiting for him in the Treasury at Peshawur. The policy of Lord Lawrence was perfectly intelligible—namely, that of declining to interfere in any way with the affairs of Afghanistan. But if they assisted the Ameer with large subsidies, if they took control over his external relations, and in any way implied that they would assist him if he got in to difficulties, they must take care that he made a more or less proper use of the money that was given to him, and that he did not make such use of the assurances given to him as to bring them and him into collision with a Foreign Power. If they entered into alliance with the Ameer they must take certain risks which that alliance conveyed, and the only mode by which those risks could be minimized was by obtaining reliable information from trustworthy agents in Afghanistan. He was glad that the Government had adopted the course of giving the subsidy and of keeping their troops at Quetta; but what they were now doing was proof that they had blundered 10 years ago, and was only another illustration of the fact that the Government were now compelled, by force of circumstances, to bless the policy which they were put in Office to curse. He hoped they would deal generously with any advances which might be made by the Ameer.
WESTERN ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC—THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES—POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he should like to know what the policy of Her" Majesty's Government was with regard to the Australian Colonies, and the shocking condition of the Islands of the Western Pacific? The Colonists found upon their Border territory that was gradually becoming a kind of Alsatia, where the most frightful crimes wore committed by both White men and Natives. The Pacific Islanders Act of 1875 had failed to meet the case, because the jurisdiction it gave could be exercised over British subjects only. The Colonists asked what steps Her Majesty's Government would take, and offered to bear their share of the cost of what was to be done, and also offered to confederate themselves to support the Imperial Government? If Her Majesty's Government were deaf to these remonstrances and appeals, how could we expect to retain our hold upon the Colonies?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, it did not require the well-chosen words of the hon. and learned Member to impress upon the Government the importance of this matter. That the state of things called for our intervention was one of the grounds why the Colonies had approached us; and he did not deny that there were great excesses, which would probably increase unless means were taken to check them. He demurred to the suggestion that there was anything impossible in the hope that maritime nations would agree as to the law and the tribunals that might be resorted to. He would draw the attention of his hon. and learned Friend to the concluding paragraphs of Lord Derby's despatch, in reply to the despatch of the Officer administering the Government of Queensland, which stated that, while disapproving of the annexation of New Guinea, Her Majesty's Government were willing to take steps at once—the date was 11th July—to strengthen our Naval Force, so as to enable ships to be more constantly present in the neighbourhood of those Islands than hitherto, and that in this way we might gradually establish a Protectorate capable of meeting the requirements of the case for some
  1550
  time to come without incurring objections to which other courses might be open. Instructions, indeed, had been sent out to the Naval Force to be more active; and, in the meantime, a Committee were considering, and were about to report to the Government, what measures they could recommend in reference to the question. The Government were most anxious in every way to give the fullest consideration to the representations that had been made to them on behalf of the Colonies. The honour, prestige, and credit of this country must be associated with the future of the Colonies; and he agreed that there was some force in the dread which they entertained lest foreign nations should establish Convict Settlements in that part of the world. The large question of Federation was one on which the Colonies had not made up their minds; but it was a question that would grow, though a considerable time must elapse, in order to its full development. The Government would strain every point, consistently with their view of the interests of this country, to meet the views of the Australian Colonies; but having ascertained that there was no intention on the part of any Foreign Government to establish themselves in those parts, the Government, therefore, did not feel warranted in rushing at once into such an enormous undertaking as the annexation of the whole of New Guinea, except the Eastern portion, which was claimed by Holland. Her Majesty's Government would rather see the interests of Australia protected by some course more gradual, more cautious, and more consistent with the desire not to overburden the Imperial power with great responsibilities than the simpler and somewhat brutal means of annexation; and he was convinced that the Colonies would give their most careful examination to the views of the Government.

SPAIN—EXPULSION OF CERTAIN CUBAN REFUGEES FROM GIBRALTAR—GENERAL MACEO.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, that, before the Bill was read a second time, he wished to call the attention of the House to the conduct of the Government as regarded General Maceo. He had hitherto refrained from characterizing that conduct

  1551
  as it deserved, in consequence of the undertakings given by the Under Secretaries of State for the Colonies and Foreign Affairs that justice would be done in the case. He would remind the House that that gentleman escaped from Cuba to Gibraltar, where he expected to enjoy liberty and protection under the British flag. He was, however, seized by the agents of the British Government, and, without any process or form of law, handed over to what was to him a foreign and hostile Government. Although 10 months had elapsed since he (Mr. O'Kelly) first brought the question before the House, General Maceo still remained in prison. The contention of Her Majesty's Government, that the Spanish Government were not a party to what might be called the kidnapping of Maceo. was disproved by the Papers relating to the seizure. One of those Papers contained a letter from a high official, in which Maceo was described as a felon—a man who had been condemned by the tribunals of his country to some punishment, which he was undergoing at the time in question. But in the Papers actually presented to the House, the phrase, which declared that the Spanish Government had re-claimed this man as a felon, was eliminated, and for it was substituted the euphemistic translation that "Maceo was suffering imprisonment," notwithstanding the fact that it was upon the false statement that Maceo was a felon that the authorities at Gibraltar gave him up to the Spanish Government. Her Majesty's Government, however, deliberately avoided grappling with the difficulty, and stated that the Spanish Government did not make any misstatement, but that the fault lay wholly with the officials at Gibraltar. That was disproved by the Papers laid upon the Table; and, therefore, it was dishonest that the Government should try to hide their own misconduct by punishing some officials for what was, after all, a mistake into which the latter were led by the misrepresentations of the Spanish Consul, while they passed over others who were more to blame. The conduct of two Police Inspectors at Gibraltar was as bad as could be; and anyone who compared the evidence given before the Court of Inquiry would come to the conclusion that those men, if not guilty of perjury, came perilously near it. Further, the Spanish
  1552
  Government had admitted the weakness of their case by letting go two of the men taken prisoners with Maceo. When Her Majesty's Government accepted the compromise of the Spanish Government, they stated, in palliation of the act, that they had made such terms with the latter that Maceo would be treated with the consideration due to his rank, and they gave it to be understood that he would be held only on parole of some kind. But the fact was that Maceo had been sent to one of the worst places in Spain for a man born in the tropics, a place where he complained of suffering from the cold in the middle of July. On the 14th of July, Maceo wrote him (Mr. O'Kelly) a letter complaining how bitterly he was suffering from the cold at that period of the year. The Spanish Government, moreover, munificently supplied him with 1s. 3d. a-day to support himself, his wife, and his nephew, who was depending on him. The fact was, the British Government had handed this man back into a position worse than slavery. It would not be in his (Mr. O'Kelly's) power to take a Division on the matter now; but when the House met again next Session, if Maceo was still in prison, he would ask the House to say whether the Government could continue to submit to the indignity of having a man taken from under their flag by misrepresentation, without taking such measures as they would be justified in doing to restore this man to the liberty of which they had deprived him.

RESULTS OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister stated, with considerable triumph, that five most important Bills would be passed this Session. Of those five, two—the Bankruptcy Bill and the Patents for Inventions Bill—were dealt with by the Grand Committees. If they assumed that the time occupied by the Grand Committees was so much gained, then it followed that only three Bills of importance would be passed by the House this Session. But, as the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill and the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill, though applying to different countries, were in principle the same, and might be regarded as one Bill, the House had passed

  1553
  only one other, the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill. And at what expense had they done so little? At the sacrifice of Supply. The Government, with the advantage of the additional time afforded by taking the Mondays and Thursdays at an unusually early period, had really been more backward with Supply than they were last year. In about five minutes on Friday night two whole Classes of Estimates were passed without a single word. In five or six minutes they voted £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 of the money of their constituents. Therefore, it came to this—and he considered it discreditable to the Government—that with all the additional facilities afforded by the House at the Premier's request last October in the shape of the New Rules of Procedure they had passed fewer measures than ever, and had had less time for Supply, important Votes—notably one of £3,000,000 for the Post Office—having been hurried through without any discussion whatever. He complained that the Indian Budget had been put off until the last Wednesday in the Session, and drew attention to the fact that out of the five fresh financial proposals made by the Government during the Session four had not been countenanced by the House.

INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE RIVER BARROW.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that he fully concurred in what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), in condemnation of the way in which the finances of the country were hurried through Parliament in the closing days of the Session without the semblance of discussion or consideration. Fortunately on that (the Appropriation) Bill, it was possible to discuss de omnibus ribus et quitusdam alüs; and, therefore, although, on more than one occasion, he had made way for Motions said to be of far greater national importance, he felt he should not be doing his duty to his constituents, if he allowed the Session to close without calling attention to a grievance they complained of—namely, with respect to the condition of the River Barrow, which skirted Queen's County on the North and West. It was only an Irish river,
  1554
  which affected no English interest, and might, therefore, seem to that House a matter of no importance; but the drainage of the basin of the Barrow would form a most important consideration with any Irish Government. The Government had thought it their duty to deal with the basin of the Shannon. In the year 1879–80, a sum of £5,000 was taken in the Estimates for that purpose. In 1880–1, a further sum of £20,000 was granted; in 1882, a sum of £24,700; and in 1883 an additional sum, bringing the total grant for the purpose of regulating the flood waters of the Shannon up to £52,500 in four years. The works authorized had now been completed, and the absence of any grant for the purpose in this year's Appropriation Bill presented an opportunity for undertaking works on the basin of the Barrow. After the Shannon, the Barrow Basin was the largest in Ireland, and the amount of damage done by preventible floods in that basin each year was such that he doubted whether anyone could even approximate it, to say nothing at all of the unsanitary effects. He believed a moiety of the sum that had been spent on the Shannon would have done an immense deal of good, if that amount had been spent in draining the river basin in question. The drainage required could only be effectively undertaken by the Government. About 10,000 acres were annually flooded, because of the insufficiency of the basin to carry away the waters. A telegram from a correspondent last Friday urged him to bring the subject before the House, stating that 20,000 acres above Portarlington were under water; that the main street of Portarlington was flooded by three feet of water; and that the whole of the hay of the district was destroyed. That was the condition of things in parts of Ireland, while the English farmers were enjoying splendid weather. Sir Richard Griffith, in his masterly Report, presented 73 years ago, on the possibility of reclaiming the bog lands of Ireland, placed in the forefront of that work the hogs adjoining the Barrow. According to this authority, there were then 77,505 statute acres of reclaimable bog along the course of that river. This bog being 315 feet above the level of Dublin Bay, its drainage would be comparatively easy. No other bog could be drained

  1555
  more easily. Going further down the river, Sir Richard Griffith went on to say that, a little below Portarlington, there was an irregular weir thrown across the river, which threw back the water for a considerable distance, and in times of flood it did great damage. It would be tedious to continue to take the river in sections; and he would therefore content himself with saying that any hon. Member who chose to consult the Reports would see that every foot of the river had been carefully surveyed, that the rainfall had been measured with great accuracy, and all the requirements of the river carefully ascertained. It was, therefore, merely a question of a competent authority to take the matter in hand. He thought it was obvious that no association of owners or occupiers, and no common action on the part of any number of Grand Juries, could possibly cope with the business which required to be taken in hand. It was for the Government to take such a matter in hand. It was very easy work and inexpensive work, and would open up a very large tract of country to the advantage of a very large population. He believed, if the Government would seriously turn its attention to the matter and effect its accomplishment by annual grants in the Estimates, it would do a great deal more good than by any scheme of emigration.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he thought that no scheme would be of greater service to Ireland than that proposed by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), if it were properly carried out. He thought the hon. Member would have done good service to Ireland, if he could extort from the Chief Secretary for Ireland a promise that something should be done to reclaim the vast bogs in the centre of that country. In his opinion, that operation should be taken up by the Government as a national one.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, that he had had the honour of bringing in an English Bill on the subject; but, because that had failed, it by no means followed that the Irish subject should not be attended to. With regard to it, it was most refreshing to have heard the business-like speech of the hon. Member for Queen's County, for he (Mr. Magniac) knew that the difficulties to be met with in carrying it out would be very trifling, for the
  1556
  River Barrow was very capable of being dealt with in the way proposed. His dear Friend, the late Lord Frederick Cavendish, had this subject much at heart; and, had he lived, it would have had his most earnest attention. There were three levels of the bog, the first of which would cost next to nothing to drain; the next would cost a little more; but the third would require consideration, and could not be done without the assistance of the Government. When once that assistance was given, in his belief, private assistance would also come in. He thought, therefore, that if the hon. Member for Queen's County could only get some of his friends to support him the matter would soon be carried out.
  MR. BIGGAR: Sir, the question raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) is very important; but I should not like to ask large grants or loans of money from the Government, unless a well-matured plan were pre pared, by which the improvements could be carried out in such a way that the Government would suffer no loss. I also believe that until we have county government in Ireland no plan can be carried out in fragments in a profitable way. In Ireland there is a Government who do not understand the people whom they govern; and the consequence is that they are led to undertake all sorts of impracticable schemes, so that when a really useful project is put forward, the Government are indisposed to take any action in the matter. As regards the main subject, I attribute the waste of time during the Session to the mismanagement of the Government. For in stance, referring to the action of the Grand Committees, the Committee on the Bankruptcy Bill prolonged their labours by the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade met the rival Irish sections with regard to the extension of the measure to Ireland——
  MR. SPEAKER: I must call the hon. Member to Order for irrelevancy.
  MR. BIGGAR: I wish, Sir, to criticize the measures that have been introduced by the President of the Board of Trade, whose salary is one of the matters included in this Bill. I wish to call attention to his management of the affairs of his Office, and his conduct of Public Business. In the consideration of the

  1557
  Bankruptcy Bill before the Grand Committee, the President of the Board of Trade successfully muzzled both the Irish sections.
  MR. SPEAKER: The observations of the hon. Member are not relative to the Bill before the House.
  MR. BIGGAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will not say anything more about this unfortunate Bankruptcy Bill. I have probably said as much as will give me the opportunity of showing at some future time that I have been a true prophet, and that the whole affair is a good illustration of the way affairs are managed by judicious Members of the Government. I will now contrast against the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade the action of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in connection with the Agricultural Holdings Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to think that the Bill before the House is the Agricultural Holdings Bill. The Bill before the House is the Appropriation Bill.
  MR. HEALY: On the point of Order, Sir, I would point out that there are several items in the Appropriation Bill; and I submit to you, Sir, whether my hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) will not be in Order in discussing every particular item in this Appropriation Bill becoming a charge on the country? There are £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 dealt with by this Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: Quite so; but the hon. Member is discussing the Agricultural Holdings Bill.
  MR. BIGGAR: I have not the slightest intention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan suggests, of going over every item in this Bill. If I wanted to talk against time I could very easily do so. There is no great difficulty in doing that. But what I want to do is to call attention to the want of good management on the part of the Government. That is my sole object in speaking here now. There are several items in this Bill. For example, I might raise discussion on the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and so on; but that would be an operation which it would be just as well to practise at some other time, and therefore I do not do so. But I thought I might have been justified in showing that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of
  1558
  Lancaster mismanaged these two Agricultural Holdings Bills.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite incapable of attending to my direction. The Bill before the House is the Appropriation Bill. The hon. Member seems to persist in discussing the Agricultural Holdings Bill, and the action of the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of it. In doing so he is out of Order.
  MR. HEALY: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether, upon the salary of a particular Officer in this House—the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—the hon. Member is not entitled to go into that Officer's whole conduct? On the Vote for the Chief Secretary for Ireland we discussed the whole range of his conduct. Here is a Vote for the Chancellor of the Duchy. Is not the hon. Member entitled on that to discuss the conduct of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Cavan is not entitled to do anything further than discuss the Bill before the House.
  MR. BIGGAR: I shall not say anything more about the Agricultural Holdings Bill, or the Bankruptcy Bill. I have said all I desire to say on those subjects. But the waste of time which has taken place this Session was a subject raised by the Prime Minister, and I shall refer to that. In connection with it, I will allude to the question of the Southport Foreshore. I maintain that it was improper for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to go behind the back of the Town Council of Southport, and make a bargain with other parties in regard to the foreshore. If the Government had managed better, the time that has been wasted on the subject of the Southport Foreshore would have been saved. Then, with regard to the Suez Canal, there has been a great waste of time; because the Government made a bargain with the Company, without consulting beforehand practical men. Lastly, the evasions to which the Government have resorted in answering Questions has led to 20 being put where one would have done. I hope the Government will take all these things into consideration, so as to be able to give a better account of their work another Session.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he must complain of the constant interruptions that were proceeding from the hon. and learned Member for Stockport.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I beg your pardon, Sir. I did nothing of the kind. It is not a fact.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission, presented in 1881, with regard to the Coleraine and Belfast navigation, and to the flooding of the lands in five counties surrounding Lough Neagh, by the overflowing of the Bann. Every time rain fell to any considerable extent the crops of those unfortunate people were ruined. He was constantly receiving letters on the subject. The inhabitants of those five counties were the most loyal in Ireland; and if the Government desired to keep up good relations with the people of Ulster, they would legislate on the subject in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which were practically to the effect that the canal navigation should be sacrificed to the interests of the farmers, and that the rivers should be made what they were intended to be—conduits for the drainage of the land. With railways competing with the canals the accommodation afforded by the latter was quite unimportant. Although the Report of the Royal Commission was presented in 1881, no statement had yet come from the Government. He trusted that, during the Recess, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would give his best consideration to that Report, so that, next Session, he might be able to legislate for the carrying out of the drainage of the Barrow, and the lands around Lough Neagh.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that both the questions referred to had been before the House at the earlier part of the Session. In the first place, he would dismiss the complaint of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). It was stated in that House that, after considerable negotiations, an agreement was arrived at for a survey of the Barrow, half the cost of which was to be at the expense of the Government. That survey was now going on, to show how the basin of the river could best be relieved of its surplus waters, and by whom the cost should be undertaken, since he, as Secretary to the
  1560
  Treasury, was not prepared to consent to the Imperial Exchequer bearing the burden of relieving the riparian proprietors from all the disadvantages of floods caused by excessive rainfall, seeing that those persons bought their lands with the full cognizance of how they were subject to be affected by floods. With regard to the Bann, the Royal Commission referred to by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) recommended the Government to consult with the Grand Juries of the counties affected. Their whole desire and interest was that the counties should undertake the work; but the Grand Juries had all negatived the proposition, refusing to spend a single sixpence on it. With regard to the navigable canals, it was the object and desire of the Treasury to get rid of them, as far as possible, since they were practically useless, besides being a constant drain upon the Treasury.
  MR. MELDONsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury entirely mistook the contention. It was not merely the riparian owners who were to be considered, but also those living in and near the towns in the neighbourhood of the Barrow, especially Portarlington, who suffered much as regarded their health, from the periodical overflow of the river. He was surprised at the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Courtney's) statement that a survey of the Barrow was now going on. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), when Chief Secretary for Ireland, consented to the appointment of a Commission to do something definite, and the Commissioners were actually named; but since the right hon. Gentleman retired from Office cold water had been thrown upon the project at the Treasury, and from that time up to the present moment he never heard that the Government intended doing anything. The survey must have been a secret arrangement. In his opinion, the survey would be utterly useless. What was required was, that the promise made by the right hon. Member for Bradford should be carried out, and that a Commission of Inquiry should be appointed to consider the whole subject.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he wished to call attention in connection with the unfair incidence of Imperial taxation in Ireland, to the delusive

  1561
  character of the Statistical Abstract. The property liable to income tax under Schedule B was set down for some years past as about £10,000,000, instead of £3,000,000, as formerly correctly made out. There had been a confusion between the gross and the net amount, which was made quite manifest when viewed side by side with the other Schedules—for example, under Schedule B the taxable property of Ireland was represented as one-sixth of that of the United Kingdom, whereas under Schedule A it was only 1–13th, and under Schedule D 1–25th. The proportions shown under Schedule B were delusive.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL,— [BILL 299.]
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Solicitor General.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL,— [BILL 299.]

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Order for Consideration of Lords' Amendments read.
  Lords' Amendment considered.
  NOTE.—The page and line refer to the Bill No. (171) as first printed by the Lords.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the House would observe that there were a considerable number of Amendments on the Bill, many of them verbal, but not a few of them were of substance, and affected the operation of the Bill to some extent. As regarded most of the latter class of Amendments, it would be his somewhat unpleasant duty to ask the House to disagree with the Lords; but it was his more pleasant duty to ask the House to agree to this first Amendment. When the extension of this Proviso to permanent improvements was proposed in the House of Commons by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), the Government stated that they considered the Amendment unnecessary, but that they would accept it, in order to remove the apprehensions of those who feared what the action of some valuers might be. The Government, therefore, did not put their objection very high. They had now to consider whether or not they would
  1562
  accept this extension of the Proviso to all improvements. For himself, he did not attach much importance to the Proviso, either as regarded permanent or temporary improvements. He did not think the extension of the Proviso material either one way or the other; and, under those circumstances, he was ready to agree to the Amendment of the Lords.
  Page 1, line 15, leave out "Parts I. and II. of," the first Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he regretted very much that the Government proposed to accept the Amendment, and to apply this Proviso to the only compulsory part of the Bill. He believed its effect would be to introduce confusion into the minds of the valuers. His objection to the Proviso was that it would confuse valuators. They would not understand what was meant. Some valuators might contend that the whole of the improvement was due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, and, therefore, that the tenant was not entitled to compensation. He thought the House ought to protest against this change in the Bill, as it still further nibbled away the Bill, which at best was no great concession to the tenant farmers.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he also regretted the acceptance of the Amendment; but he regretted much more the original acceptance of the Proviso of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), which, on the part of Government, he considered was a most unwise step. It had landed the Government in a great difficulty, and he did not see on what ground they could now reject the Lords' Amendment. The Lords had simply pushed to its logical conclusion the acceptance by the Government of that principle. He believed the Proviso would not only puzzle valuers, but would prove a fruitful source of wrangling amongst persons following that profession. He should have been very glad if the Government could have seen their way to reject the whole Proviso; but as they had not, if his hon. Friend the Member

  1563
  for Forfarshire went to a Division, he should vote with him.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought it would be very unfair to charge the Government with having made a concession by the acceptance of the Amendment which he had felt it his duty to move in Committee on the Bill. So far as he understood, it had always been the intention of the Government that anything due to the inherent capabilities of the soil should not be included by the valuer in the amount to be awarded to the tenant. The Lords, as the hon. Member for Bedfordshire had pointed out, had simply pushed the Amendment to its logical conclusion, and made it applicable to all improvements; and he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) had seen his way to accept it.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he thought the proper and shortest way in which to come to a conclusion was to divide the House, and then they would see in the Lobby how the matter stood. Such a course would guide the House in dealing with the Scotch Bill.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGShoped his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would divide the House. It would be better to drop the Bill than to accept this Amendment. ["Oh!"]
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he thought that the Government having accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) as wise and just, he felt bound to support them in extending it to its logical conclusion.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would go to a Division. In that case he should vote with pleasure for him, and would vote against every Amendment introduced into the Bill by the House of Lords, without consideration whether they were good or bad. They perfectly well knew that the landed interest had a very great number of supporters in that House; but in the House of Lords they were all landlords, and mostly Conservative landlords; and he objected to the Bill, upon which many concessions had been made in that House, being referred to a House which was practically a House of landlords. What would be said if, when a Conservative Government were in, the Bill were submitted to an hereditary House of Radical
  1564
  labourers? He thought it was most desirable to teach the House of Lords a lesson. It was full time they should have it out with the House of Lords. When a Conservative Government was in, everything went on very smoothly—everything always went on smoothly when going down stream—and when a Conservative measure was brought into the House of Commons, it was carried, without any difficulty or objection, in the House of Lords; but when a Liberal Government came in, that Liberal Government was put in by the nation, and the nation expected that that Government should be allowed to carry out its own policy. How could it do so when its Bills were emasculated in this manner by the House of Lords?
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 64: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 310.)
  Page 1, line 22, leave out, "this exception that," and insert "the exceptions following that (1)," and after "has," insert "within ten years;" line 27, leave out "when," and insert "(2.) Where;" page 2, line 5, leave out "has;" lines 5 and 6, leave out "the Act consented in writing," and insert "this Act declares in writing his consent;" line 6, after "then," insert "such tenant;" and line 8, leave out "he," the next six Amendments, agreed to.
  Page 2, line 11, after "improvement," insert—
  "Provided that no compensation shall be claimed under this section in contravention of any specific agreement existing at the time of the passing of this Act between the parties in reference thereto,"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he regretted that he had to ask the House to disagree to this Amendment, on the ground that it was either unnecessary, or, in his view, it might do mischief. If the tenant had made improvements, for which he had, in any way, received valuable consideration, the case was already provided for in Section 6. If there were a case—and he could hardly conceive that there was—of an agreement under which a tenant had executed an improvement, without receiving any valuable consideration, and had barred himself from

  1565
  claiming fair and reasonable compensation for it, that was not an agreement which they ought to recognize, or in favour of which they should insert that Proviso. That was a sufficient objection, from, his point of view, to the Amendment; but he was not sure that the Proviso might not have the effect that a tenant, who had agreed not to come under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, might not be held to be disqualified from claiming compensation under this Act.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought the Amendment was a very proper one, as it only applied to agreements made before the passing of the Act. He did not know that it would apply to many cases, because he did not believe that there were many cases in which tenants had made agreements with their landlords distinctly barring them from compensation for improvements; but he was surprised at the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson). An agreement between landlord and tenant distinctly barring the latter from compensation in some shape or other for his improvements would be an agreement which he should disapprove of; but, nevertheless, it might be that some such agreements might, in certain instances, have been made up to this time under the sanction of the law as it stood. And to argue that such an agreement as might be made by law, because it happened to be one of which they did not approve, ought to be rendered invalid under a subsequent Act of Parliament, was a doctrine which he could not consent to, and which called, at least, for the protest of a Division.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Page 2, lines 16 and 17, after "previously," insert "to the execution of the improvement and after the passing of this Act; "line 28, leave out" one month," and insert "two months;" line 29, after "landlord," insert "or his agent duly authorized in that behalf; "line 30, leave out" a specification of, "and insert" manner in which he proposes to do; "line 35, after
  1566
  "may," insert "unless the notice of the tenant is previously withdrawn;" line 36, after "himself," insert "and may execute the same in any reasonable and proper manner which he thinks fit;" and line 40, after "outlay," insert "in the said period," the next seven Amendments, agreed to.
  Page 2, line 40, leave out the word "three" and insert "four," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had shown a remarkably bad reason for disagreeing with the Amendment. To talk about a sinking fund for 25 years for the repayment of money spent on drainage works was a delusion; because everybody knew that, in many parts of the country, those works did not last for anything like 25 years, so that the result would be that the tenants who came in after the present occupiers would have to pay for improvements the value of which had utterly disappeared. Besides, 3 per cent would not be a commercial interest, as part of it ought to be reckoned as repayment of capital.
  MR. BIDDELLsaid, he was disposed to think that the Lords' Amendment would, if carried, be found to be beneficial to tenants; for if the low 3 percentage was adhered to, the object of the clause—which he understood to be to encourage drainage by landlords—would be defeated, as they would not drain subject to having such a bad return for their money.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the effect of the Lords' Amendment would be that the tenant would have to pay 6½ per cent. That was too much for the improvements to be charged against the tenant. They had to recollect that the landlord had it entirely in his power to do the improvements if he liked.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the object of the provision in the Bill, by which the landlord was permitted, if he chose, to drain, was to give him some real alternative for the tenants doing the drainage. If that was to be a bonâ fide benefit, they must not say that the landlord, if he did not do the drainage himself, should practically have to lend money

  1567
  to the tenant to do it at 3 per cent interest. They would be unfairly handicapping him, if he desired to lend, by compelling him to lend at 3 per cent. All the Amendment would do would be to say that if the tenant compelled the landlord to drain his land he should not make him do it at a cheaper rate—that was to say, at less interest than that at which he could borrow money from public bodies. Anything that more carried justice on the face of it—anything that was more obviously consistent with justice, he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) could not imagine. As the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Biddell) had pointed out, this Amendment of the Commons would not merely be an injustice to the landlord, but would prevent improvements being done which would be primarily a benefit to the tenant.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that if the landlord agreed to do the drainage, and a higher interest had to be paid, the parties could agree to that; therefore, the observations of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Biddell) fell through. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) said that there might be a hardship on the landlord. Well, supposing the tenant said—" I can do the drainage at 5 per cent. if I like; "and then the landlord should say—" No; you shall not do it at 5 per cent; I will do it myself, at a charge that amounts to 6 or 6½ per cent"—the amount did not much matter; but, at all events, at a higher interest than the tenant would do it at himself. Surely, that would be a hardship. What did the arrangement proposed by the Amendment amount to? Why, it amounted to this—that if the tenant remained five years on the farm, after the drainage was done, he would pay more than 5 per cent during that time—1½ more than 5 per cent—and would be really paying a contribution to the value of the landlord's estate. The tenant would be adding to the landlord's capital very materially during the latter years of the existence of the improvements. If this arrangement were to be made, the tenant would be contributing to the sinking fund as well as paying the landlord's capital, and that would be a great injustice.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDopposed the Lords' Amendment. There seemed to
  1568
  be mistaken notions as to how long drainage would last; some hon. Members being under the impression that it would not last more than 15 or 20 years. Well, it so happened that he had, not very long ago, taken up a portion of drainage which had been carried out 25 years ago; and the remark of his bailiff had been that, from the appearance of the pipes and the drains, it looked as if the drainage had only been done last week. His contention was, that if drainage was properly done it would last 50 or 100 years.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, there were drains upon his farm which had been laid down more than 40 years, and had never cost a penny since. There could be no doubt that if drainage was properly done it would last for a very long time. It might happen that a drain would now and then blow up; but that would only be a very occasional occurrence. He trusted that the House would not agree to the Amendment of the Lords.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Page 2, line 41, leave out "in the said period," and insert "such annual sum to be recoverable as rent," the next Amendment, agreed to.
  Page 3, line 5, after "agreement," insert "in a lease or otherwise," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he would move to disagree with this Amendment, which appeared to him to be hardly necessary. The insertion of these words would be calculated to raise doubts; and, therefore, would do more harm than good.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment,"—(Mr. Dodson,)—put, and agreed to.
  Page 3, lines 21 and 22, after "compensation," insert "having regard to the circumstances existing at the time of making such agreement," the next Amendment, agreed to.
  Page 3, line 25, after "Act," insert—
  "The last preceding provision of this section relating to a particular agreement shall apply in the case of a tenancy, under a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act in respect of an improvement mentioned in the third part of the First Schedule hereto, specific compensation for which is not provided

  1569
  by any agreement in writing, or custom, or the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875,"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the object of this Amendment was to supply an omission which had been discovered in the clause. The first paragraph of the clause provided—
  "Where, in the case of a tenancy under a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act, any agreement in writing, or custom, or the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875, provides specific compensation for any improvement comprised in the First Schedule hereto, compensation in respect of such improvement, although executed after the commencement of this Act, shall he payable in pursuance of such agreement, custom, or Act of Parliament, and shall be deemed to he substituted for compensation under this Act."
  The last paragraph provided for fair and reasonable compensation by a particular agreement in regard to an improvement under a future contract or tenancy; but the casus omissus was that of improvements made after the passing of the Act by a particular agreement, but under a contract of tenancy current at the time. The Proviso, comprised in the Amendment of the Lords, would provide for a fair and reasonable agreement in that case as in the case of a future contract.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Page 3, line 26, leave out "estimates of "and insert" compensation for; "and line 40, after "therefrom," insert "and," the next two Amendments, agreed to.
  Page 4, line 16, leave out "four," and insert "seven," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he had to ask the House to disagree with this Amendment. The Proviso as it stood was that of the Agricultural Act of England, 1875, and which gave the landlord power to set off claims for compensation for waste or breach by the tenant committed, or permitted, in relation to a matter of husbandry, more than four years before the termination of the tenancy. It must be remembered that the landlord had the same right of action, without limit of time, at law as he had before. This was a special power to set off given to the Act of 1875. They had adopted
  1570
  it in the Bill, and he did not see any reason for extending it.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment,"—(Mr. Dodson,)—put, and agreed to.
  Page 4, line 17, after "tenancy," insert—
  "In the ascertainment of the amount of compensation payable to the tenant in respect of manures there shall not be taken into account any larger outlay during the last year of the tenancy than the average amount of the tenant's outlay for like purposes during the three next preceding years of the tenancy or other less number of years for which the tenancy has endured."
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he had to ask the House to disagree to this Amendment, as it conflicted with the general principle of the Bill, which was that compensation should be according to the value of the improvement, and not according to the outlay. The Amendment was not only introducing the outlay as a measure of compensation, but it adopted what the House had discarded all through—namely, the limit of time. As there had been no reference to outlay before, the Amendment, as now inserted, was slightly unintelligible.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  MR. CARPENTER-GARNIERsaid, he was rather sorry that Her Majesty's Government could not accept the Amendment, for the reason that he believed its effect would be to encourage good farming throughout the whole rotation of crops, and not only during the last year. Without this Amendment there would be encouragement given to high farming in the last year of the tenancy, so as to run up the bill for value on going out.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. Carpenter-Gamier), and he did not quite see the force of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) that the adoption of this Amendment would really conflict with the principle of the Bill, which he understood was the principle of value. He failed to see how it

  1571
  was possible for a valuer to value the manures put on a field in the last year of a tenancy on any other basis than that of cost price. No one could tell what the future value of that manure might be. There was another reason in favour of this proposal—the Amendment was moved originally in Committee by the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham), who was himself a practised valuer, and understood these matters thoroughly, with the desire to obviate the danger of fraud in these matters, which, without some check of this nature, everyone would be liable to. Looked at from that point of view, it was a Proviso quite as much in the interest of the tenant as of anyone else. He did not think it desirable that the Bill should leave open a door for fraud—no one would wish to see such a thing.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYwas understood to say that the principle they should keep in view was that the tenant should be compensated for what he left on his farm to his successor. That would be regulated by the outlay as a rule. The difference between this Bill and the Act of 1875 was that the tenant would be compensated for his outlay, whether it was a profitable one or not to his successor. The Bill would not give compensation only for what would be profitable to the successor. It would be a hardship to the tenant if, during his last year, he was to make a large expenditure on feeding cakes; because, if he did so, he would not get compensation, as his successor would not get value for it.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he was sorry the Government could not agree to the Amendment, because it was directed against fraud. He could not remain silent, because he had suffered that very year from fraud, such as that in question. He had the idea that tenant farmers would not be parties to fraud as to feeding stuffs, and when he put the Lincolnshire custom into his agreements, he left out those words. This was not a landlord's question, as it was entirely a matter of inventory between the outgoing and the incoming tenant whether the latter was to be charged for an excessive amount of cake or manure which he did not require. In such a way, a man had nothing to do but to run up a large amount for feed-
  1572
  ing stuffs, and the incoming tenant had nothing to do but to pay it. The incoming tenant was the only one who would get any benefit from the feeding stuffs really used; he had to pay for them; and it was for his protection against fraud—against which he could not protect himself in any other way—that the land valuers throughout Lincolnshire were all desirous of seeing this Amendment put in the Bill. He had been speaking of this subject that day to a large tenant farmer, who had said to him that, within his own knowledge, the agent of an artificial manure firm had asked an outgoing tenant to double the quantity of manure he had ordered, saying—"You will not have to pay for it.'" "But," said the farmer, "I do not want it. "Never mind," said the manure man, "what does it matter to you, as the incoming tenant will have to pay for it." The gentleman to whom he referred farmed 2,000 acres, and was well known to the Members of the House and to agriculturists.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the view the Government took of the matter was that a provision of this kind would be very reasonable when applied to the Lincolnshire custom, or when applied to a principle based on outlay such as was contained in the Act of 1875; but when they had adopted the principle of value, and not that of outlay, a principle of this kind seemed to be inapplicable. If manure in excess of requirements had been used, the valuer would take that into consideration.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that if the Amendment were to be omitted, the omission would be in favour of the fraudulent manure merchant, and against the interests of the landlord and tenant, as far as the Scotch landlord went. The insertion of this provision would preserve them from that which they had not guarded against, especially in the case of poor tenants—namely, the purchase of manures of a bad quality.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, that when he introduced this Amendment originally, he did so because it was equitable; he considered it to be equitable between the landlord and the outgoing tenant and the incoming tenant. He thought the Amendment should be inserted.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he was glad the Government were going to

  1573
  stick to the principle of the Bill as to payment by results, and not by outlay. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), in regard to the fraudulent tenant, he (Mr. James Howard) failed to understand, if that tenant intended to commit a fraud during the last year of his tenancy, what there would be to prevent him, even if this Proviso were accepted, from committing the fraud during three previous years of his tenancy. He failed to see any use in the Proviso, and he thought great injury might arise under certain circumstances to particular tenants. It might happen that during the last year of a tenancy a tenant had a larger stock of straw than usual, and which he was anxious to turn into manure, and he might, in order to do that, consume a larger quantity of cake during the last year than he had done in previous years; and, under those circumstances, if he did consume an extraordinary quantity of cake, he would leave behind him value for his expenditure. He trusted the House would reject the Amendment of the Lords.
  MR. BIDDELLsaid, he regretted the decision of the Government, and would suggest that they should accept the Amendment, and modify it by providing that the valuer should take into consideration the average amount spent on manure during the last two years, instead of the last three years.
  MR. BULWERsaid, that everybody would agree that a farmer who manured his land three years running was farming very much better than the tenant who left the land without manure for two years, and then put an excessive quantity on during the last year, for which an incoming tenant would have to pay. This Amendment, as had been pointed out, was directed against the commission of fraud, and they might assume that it was within the bounds of possibility that frauds would be committed. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) said it was useless to attempt to legislate against fraud, because, if a man was a fraudulent tenant, he would commit a fraud during the three previous years just as much as he would commit one during the last year of his tenancy. He (Mr. Bulwer) must point out that a man was not likely to commit a fraud upon himself during his own occupation.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that if there was to be a valuer at all, he would be able to form his own opinion, from the number of animals on the farm, and from the condition of the holding, what amount had been laid out. He would be hardly likely to give £1,000 about the value. Either the parties must agree in the fraud, or the valuer would not know his business, as the matter was one of mere calculation.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 51: Majority 75.—(Div. List, No. 311.)
  Page 4, line 28, after "particulars," insert "and amount," the next Amendment, agreed to.
  Page 5, line 32, after "Commissioners," insert—
  "But if either party shall in writing object to such appointment, then the umpire, or any successor to him, shall be appointed by the President and Council of the Institute of Surveyors,"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he must again ask the House in this case to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, which was unnecessary. It would be inconvenient to introduce a third authority for the appointment of an umpire.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment,"—(Mr. Dodson,)—put, and agreed to.
  Page 6, after Clause 16, insert Clause 16a—
  (Award in respect of compensation under ss. 3, 4, and 5.)
  (16a.) "In any case provided for by sections three, four, or five, if compensation is claimed under this Act, such compensation as under any of those sections is to be deemed to be substituted for compensation under this Act, if and so far as the same can, under the terms of the agreement, if any, be ascertained by the referees or the umpire, shall be awarded in respect of any improvements thereby provided for, and the award shall, when necessary, distinguish such improvements and the amount awarded in respect thereof; and an award given under this section shall be subject to the appeal provided by this Act, "
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the object of this clause was to make clear what was expressed in the original clause. The ob-

  1575
  ject of that clause was to make clear that substituted compensation might be ascertained by the process of reference under the Bill in all cases where there was no special agreement to the contrary. The substituted compensation might be for a particular improvement, or particular improvements, and not for all or for a great number. It would be very inconvenient for the landlord and tenant to have, in such a case, a process divided where it ought to be made one.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had been puzzled to understand what the clause meant. He did not think it read properly as it stood now—
  "In any case provided for by sections three, four, or five, if compensation is claimed under this Act, such compensation, as under any of those sections is to be deemed to be substituted for compensation under this Act, if and so far as the same can, under the terms of the agreement, if any, he ascertained by the referees or the umpire, shall be awarded in respect of any improvements thereby provided for and the award shall, when necessary, distinguish such improvements and the amount awarded in respect thereof; and an award given under this section shall be subject to the appeal provided by this Act."
  He could not understand it.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the clause was complicated; but if the right hon. Gentleman would look at it carefully, he would see its meaning. The object was to secure that, where the ascertainment of compensation was not specially provided for in some other way, it should be ascertained by the referee under the Act.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he had to read this clause half-a-dozen times before he obtained even an inkling of its meaning. He thought it should not be agreed to. The latter part of the clause provided that, when necessary, the referees or umpire should distinguish between the improvements under the Act and improvements under agreement, and state the award in respect thereof. It was quite proper that the award should specify the improvements to which it related; but it was not necessary that this should be inserted in an Act of Parliament.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, with reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard), it was quite true that the umpire or referees would have to state what the improvements were; but that only secured that they should show those which came under the Act, and those which came under the agreement. It was only an additional obligation on the umpire and referees. To make the Amendment clearer, he would suggest that they should leave out the word "under" where it occurred a second time, and insert the words "consistently with," and that Amendment to the Lords' Amendment he begged to move.
  Amendment to the said proposed Lords' Amendment agreed to.
  Said proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Page 7, line 13, leave out from "d" to "each," in line 15, and insert "The time at which," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he must ask the House to disagree with this Amendment. The Government had been obliged to introduce the element of time into the clause, and to make an exception to the rule to meet one special case; but the effect of the proposed Amendment would be to make the exception the rule of the Bill, and to introduce the measure of time in every case.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment,"—(Mr. Dodson,)—put, and agreed to.
  Page 7, line 42, after "invalid," insert—
  "2. That the award proceeds wholly or in part upon an improper application of or upon the omission properly to apply the special provisions of section five or any other part of this Act,"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he hoped that the Amendment, which went further than the powers of the Bill, would

  1577
  not be agreed to. He considered the provisions of the Bill with regard to appeal were already sufficient and ample. He was quite unable to understand on what ground this proposal for a new appeal rested.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that perhaps the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W Barclay) would allow him to explain. There was some difficulty with regard to Clause 5; it was doubted by some whether compensation under agreement came under the appeal provided by the Act, as was the ease with the other compensation. When the Bill was in Committee, the Government had expressed their belief that it did, and had stated that it was their intention that it should do so. This Amendment, which they asked the House to agree to, was to make the matter clear, and place it beyond all doubt. The hon. Member would be aware that the Appeal Clauses were the same as those in the Act of 1875, and that, therefore, they applied to compensation under Clause 5.
  MR. PUGHsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be to give an appeal on every possible ground, and, on that account, he objected to it in its present form. He begged to move the omission of the concluding words of the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Lords' Amendment, to leave out the words "or any other part of this Act."—(Mr. Pugh.)
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he was opposed to giving a power of appeal on any ground, and he was therefore utterly opposed to opening the door for it too wide. He would remind the House that, under the Lincolnshire custom, so often referred to during the passage of this Bill, the arbitrators' award was final. One of the main faults of the Bill was that it presented too many opportunities for litigation, and he believed that would prove to be its ruin. He saw no reason whatever for this litigation, and he trusted the House would reject the Amendment altogether. If, however, the Government were determined to accept it, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay,) would agree with him to divide the House upon it.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he would
  1578
  suggest that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh), before the House, should be withdrawn, and that they should add the words "sections three, four, or" before the word "five" to the original Amendment of the Lords, leaving out the words "or any other part."
  Amendment (Mr. Pugh), by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, to the said proposed Lords' Amendment, to leave out the word "section," and insert sections three, four, or "before the word" five; "and leave out the words" or any other part."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Page 8, line 82, leave out "The county court may appoint," and insert "where the appointment of;" line 33, after "woman," insert "is required," and after "Act," insert "the county court may make such appointment; "line 35, leave out" married woman," and insert—
  "woman married before the commencement of the 'Married Women's Property Act, 1882,' 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75,"
  and after "use," insert—
  "to land her title to which accrued before such commencement as aforesaid; "
  line 38, leave out "married woman," and insert—
  "woman married before the commencement of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882,"
  line 39, after "Act," insert—
  "in respect of land her title to which accrued before such commencement as aforesaid; "
  page 9, transpose Clause 26 to follow Clause 30; page 10, line 12, leave out; "section four of;" line 32, after "assigns," insert—
  "The estate or interest of any landlord holding for an estate or interest determinable or liable to forfeiture by reason of his creating or suffering any charge thereon shall not be determined or forfeited by reason of his obtaining a charge under this Act, anything in any deed, will, or other instrument to the contrary thereof notwithstanding.
  (45 & 46 Vict., c. 38.)
  "Capital money arising under the Settled Land Act, 1882, may be applied in payment of any moneys expended and costs incurred by a landlord under or in pursuance of this Act in or about the execution of any improvement mentioned in the first or second parts of the schedule hereto, as for an improvement authorised by the said Settled Land Act; and such money may also be applied in discharge of any

  1579
  charge created on a holding under or in pursuance of this Act in respect of any such improvement as aforesaid, as in discharge of an incumbrance authorised by the said Settled Land Act to be discharged out of such capital money;"
  page 11, line 21, leave out "buildings," and insert "building;" line 25, after "tenant," insert—
  "before or within a reasonable time after the termination of the tenancy; "
  page 14, line 1, after "writing," insert—
  "Of the patron of the benefice, that is, the person, officer, or authority who, in case the benefice were vacant, would be entitled to present thereto, or; "
  leave out lines 13 to 17; line 18, after "landlord," insert "in respect of charging the land; "and line 22, after "Improvements," insert "and Miscellaneous," the next 14 Amendments, agreed to, without discussion.
  Page 16, line 2, leave out "one year," and insert "two-years," and after "distress," insert—
  "Except in the case of arrears of rent in respect of a holding to which this Act applies, existing at the time of the passing of this Act, which arrears shall be recoverable by distress up to the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five to the same extent as if this Act had not passed,"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he had to ask the House to disagree with this Amendment, so far as it substituted two years for one year. This question had been already fully discussed in Committee, and it had been decided to insert one year instead of two years.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he regretted that the Government were not able to accept the Amendment, because he was sure that a very large number of farmers in the country would rather have two years inserted. He had received a letter that morning from an intelligent farmer in his own district, who said that the Amendment would allow the landlord to trust the tenant for two years instead of one.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Page 16, leave out lines 12 to 16; line 24, after "feeding," insert "or if any part of such price has been paid exceeding the amount remaining unpaid; "page 17, line 9, leave out from "jurisdiction "to" order," in line 12, and insert "and any such county court or court of summary jurisdiction may make an;" line 16, after "requires," insert—
  "Any such dispute as mentioned in this section shall be deemed to be a matter in which a court of summary jurisdiction has authority by law to make an order on complaint in pursuance of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts; "
  page 18, line 22, leave out from the second "of" to "and," in line 24, and insert "a county court;" and line 28, leave out "in the district in which he has jurisdiction," the next six Amendments, agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, line 35, leave out "first day of January," and insert "thirty-first day of March; "and line 38, after "that," insert" not being a market garden is less than two acres in extent or," the next two Amendments, disagreed to.
  Page 19, line 3, leave out "of," and insert "held under;" page 20, leave out lines 25 to 30; line 38, leave out "after the commencement of this Act;" line 40, after" other," insert "immediately after the commencement of this Act; "page 21, line 32, after" 1875," insert "and the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875, Amendment Act, 1876;" line 34, leave out from "any" to "any," in line 35, and insert "thing duly done or suffered or any proceedings pending under or in pursuance of;" line 36, leave out "of a tenant; "page 22, line 3, after "Act," insert—
  "or (d.) Any right in respect of fixtures affixed to a holding before the commencement of this Act; "
  line 4, leave out "such tenant shall be entitled to enforce such right," and insert "right reserved by this section may be enforced;" and line 6, leave out "he would have been entitled," the concluding ten Amendments, agreed to.
  "Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by The Lords to the Bill: "—Mr. DODSON, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, The LORD Advocate, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND, Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Sir THOMAS ACLAND, and Mr. HENEAGE:—Three to be the quorum:—To withdraw immediately.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 301.]
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 301.]

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Order for Consideration of Lords' Amendments read.
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  Page 1, line 12, after "tenant," insert—
  "Provided always, that in estimating the value of any improvement in the schedule hereto there shall not he taken into account as part of the improvement made by the tenant what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil,"
  —the first Amendment, read a second time.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR),in moving that the House do agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, said, that, although it was not in the Bill when it left that House, a similar Amendment had been inserted in the English Bill, and therefore he could not ask the House to disagree with it, as it would make both Bills accord.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON,in opposing the Motion, said, the Amendment in the English Bill was accepted by the Government with the greatest reluctance; and, when the English Bill was going through Committee, it was not proposed to introduce the Amendment. The Scotch tenant farmers objected to it, and he saw no reason for inserting it. It would lead to a great deal of litigation.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Alexander Gordon) that the Motion before the House is that the House do agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to disagree with the Amendment.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he objected strongly to the proposal; but he supposed the Government would carry it, and he should move to substitute the word "value" for "capabilities" in the last line of the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in line 4 of the said proposed Lords' Amendment, to leave out the word "capabilities" in order to insert the word "value."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'capabilities' stand part of the said Amendment."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that proposal was open to the objection that it might be taken to mean prairie value only.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he thought the Amendment absurd, and likely to cause confusion, and he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay).
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the introduction of the word "value," as suggested by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would make nonsense of the Amendment. He quite understood what was meant by the inherent capabilities of the soil—those qualities which were there, apart altogether from stimulus, and would have certain efficiency in the way of causing growth; but the introduction of "value" would have no intelligible effect at all. What was "inherent value?" Value was what a thing would sell for.
  DR. FARQUHARSON,in protesting against the Proviso, said, the different character of agriculture in England and Scotland was sufficient reason for rejecting it. Experienced agriculturists in Scotland had no notion what was meant by the phrase "inherent capabilities of the soil."
  MR. WADDYsaid, he could not admit that the mere fact that this Proviso was inserted in the English Bill was a reason for accepting it here. If so, they might as well have the two Bills in one. As the overwhelming majority of Scotch Members, and of Scotch farmers, were opposed to the Proviso, he hoped the House would not accept it. If, however, it was accepted, he thought the word "capabilities" should be replaced by "qualities."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 41: Majority, 55.—(Div. List, No. 312.)
  Page 1, line 17, after "has," insert "within ten years;" line 18, leave out "made," and insert "executed;" line 24, leave out "the," and insert "this;" line 26, leave out "has," and leave out "the," and insert "this;" line 27, leave out "consented in writing," and insert "declares in writing his consent;" lines 27 and 28, leave out "then in either of such cases," and insert "in either of these cases the tenant;" line 29, leave out "a," and insert "the," and leave out "he;" and in page 2, line 1, leave out "such improvement," and insert "the improvement which he has executed," the next eight Amendments, agreed to.
  Page 2, line 3, after "improvement," insert—
  "Provided that no compensation shall be claimed under this section in contravention of any specific agreement existing at the time of the passing of this Act between the parties in reference thereto,"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  On the Motion of The LORD Advocate, the said Amendment disagreed to.
  Page 2, lines 8 and 9, after "previously," insert "to the execution of the improvement and after the passing of this Act;" line 22, leave out "a specification of such," and insert "of the manner in which he proposes to do the intended;" line 23, leave out "and specification;" line 26, leave out "any such," and insert "an," and, after "made," insert "that the improvement is to be executed by the tenant;" and in line 30, after "so," insert "in any reasonable and proper manner which he thinks fit," the next five Amendments, agreed to.
  Page 2, line 34, after "outlay," insert "in the said period," and leave out "three," and insert "four," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  On the Motion of The LORD Advocate, the said Amendment disagreed to.
  Page 2, line 35, leave out "in the said period," and insert "such annual sums to be recoverable as rent;" and in line 38, leave out "of the execution," the next two Amendments, agreed to.
  Page 2, line 39, after "Act," insert—
  1584
  "Where in the case of a tenancy under a lease current at the commencement of this Act there is in such lease, or in any relative writing made prior to the passing hereof, an express stipulation limiting the outlay on any improvement specified in the second part of the schedule hereto, the tenant shall have no claim to compensation under this Act for any such improvement in excess of the sum provided for in such stipulation.
  "The landlord and tenant may, if they think fit, dispense with any notice under this section, and come to an agreement, in terms of the lease or otherwise, between themselves in the same manner and of the same validity as if such notice had been given,"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, it was impossible for the House to agree to the Amendment, because it would put it in the power of the landlord to make an agreement with a tenant, by which the tenant should surrender his right to compensation under certain circumstances. As the Amendment stood, it dealt with agreements which had been made prior to the commencement of the Act. He should think there were very few of such agreements. It was difficult to say what could have led to such agreements being made in times past, unless for some good and adequate considerations. The Amendment might be amended by striking out the word "commencement," in the second line, and insert "passing." The effect of that would be to limit the Amendment to agreements now in existence. He would move to amend the Amendment in the manner he had suggested.
  Amendment proposed, to the said proposed Lords' Amendment, to leave out, in line 2, the word "commencement," and insert the word "passing."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question, "That the word 'commencement' stand part of the said Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'passing' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. WADDYsaid, he could not help thinking that the whole provision was very objectionable. It was clear it might be made an engine of great oppression, because they could, by a misuse of the clause, bring back upon the tenant all the mischiefs of contracting himself out of the Act.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): It applies now to agreements made after the passing of the Act.
  MR. WADDY: Not entirely.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he would further propose to amend the said Amendment by leaving out, in lines 9 and 10, the words "in terms of the lease or otherwise." The clause, as it originally stood, required to be set in motion by notice. It was thought expedient that a notice should not be requisite, if the parties could agree differently.
  Further Amendment proposed, to the said proposed Lords' Amendment, to leave out, in lines 9 and 10, the words "in terms of the lease or otherwise."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That the words in terms of the lease or otherwise,' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  MR. WARTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the English Bill (Mr. Dodson) did not put the exclusion of these words on the same ground as the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said the words were unnecessary words to introduce in the English Bill, because the word "agreement" included the word "lease." He knew it did so in the ordinary sense, but not generally. People spoke of an agreement as something else than a lease; therefore, by excluding these words, they might do some harm.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Page 3, line 11, after "compensation," insert "having regard to the circumstances existing at the time of making such agreement," the next Amendment, agreed to.
  Page 3, line 14, after "Act," insert—
  "The last preceding provision of this section relating to a particular agreement shall apply in the case of a tenancy under a lease current at the commencement of this Act in respect of an improvement specified in the third part of the schedule hereto, specific compensation for which is not provided by any agreement in writing or custom,"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment,"—(The Lord Advocate,)—put, and agreed to.
  Page 3, line 15, leave out "estimates of," and insert "compensation for;" line 24, after "husbandry," insert "or according to the terms of any written contract specifying such rules;" and line 33, after "burdens," insert "or interest, moneys payable in respect of drainage, or premiums of insurance," the next three Amendments, agreed to.
  Page 4, line 4, leave out "four," and insert "seven," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment,"—(The Lord Advocate,)—put, and agreed to.
  Page 4, line 8, after "tenancy," insert—
  "In the ascertainment of the amount of compensation payable to the tenant in respect of manures there shall not be taken into account any larger outlay during the last year of the tenancy than the average amount of the tenant's outlay for like purposes during the three next preceding years of the tenancy, or other less number of years for which the tenancy has endured,"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he had no intention to detain the House; but he desired to enter his protest against the disagreement with this Amendment for the same reason he gave when the English Bill was under discussion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Page 4, line 8, leave out "two," and insert "six," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he should propose to disagree with the Amendment as it stood. The Amendment related to the period of notice of intended claim that should be given. There were many persons in favour of the view that two months' notice was too short; but, on the other, hand, it appeared to the Government that six months' notice was too long.

  1587
  Six months' notice would, in many cases, inflict on the tenant the obligation of sending in his notice with required particulars before some of the expenditure in respect of which the claim was made might have been made. He would suggest that four months should be the period fixed upon, because that, upon the whole, would be a very fair period.
  Amendment proposed, to the said proposed Lords' Amendment, to leave out the word "six," and insert the word "four."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had forgotten what took place when the Bill was passing through Committee. In a subsequent part of the clause, it was provided that the tenant must not only state the particulars, but the amount, of his compensation. A tenant, during March and April, would be giving feeding stuff to his cattle, and therefore it would be quite impossible for him to state the amount of his claim. It would, therefore, be unfair to fix the period at four months, though during the summer months there would not be the some objection to four months as during the winter months.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, they would be making it two years again. The whole of the time the incoming tenant would be uncertain what he would have to pay for compensation.
  Question, "That the word 'six' stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That the word 'four' be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 27: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 313.)
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Page 4, line 17, after "particulars," insert "and amount," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that in consequence of what had taken place on the last Amendment, he hoped this would be disagreed to, because it would
  1588
  be impossible for the tenant to give a statement of what had taken place. He could not give a statement as to feeding stuff, until that feeding stuff was consumed. They must object to this Amendment, because either the tenant must be forced to put in a hypothetical claim, or deprive himself of the feeding stuff put on the holding during the past four months.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, there was no reason for objecting to the Amendment. The feeding of cattle would go on up to the expiration of the lease, and this provision for giving particulars must, like all such provisions, be subject to the reasonable understanding that they should be given only in so far as they could be given at the time, and that they should be liable to amendment, if necessary, afterwards. The word "particulars" in itself would be enough. That word had been thought proper, and there had been no objection to its going in the Bill. In England, the tenancies were almost invariably yearly, or at will, and, therefore, the period of notice would agree; but it did not follow that the same period of notice was desirable in a 19 years' tenancy. The difference had been recognized in the House. There was no proposal to extend the time in the English Bill; but, for reasons stated in the other House, six months was substituted, and the Government suggested that four months would be enough. There was no reason whatever for leaving out the word "amount" in what had been done.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Page 5. line 31, after "any," insert "sample or voucher or other," the next Amendment, agreed to.
  Page 6, line 25, after "county," insert—
  "In any case provided for by sections three, four, or five, if compensation is claimed under this Act, such compensation, as under any of those sections, is to be deemed to be substituted for competition under this Act, if and so far as the same can consistently with the terms of the agreement, if any, be ascertained by the referees or the oversman, shall be awarded in respect of any improvements thereby provided for, and the award shall, when necessary, distinguish such improvements, and the amount awarded in respect thereof, and an award given under this section shall be subject to the appeal provided by this Act,"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he proposed to amend this Amendment, by leaving out the word "under," in line 4, and inserting the words "consistently with."
  Amendment agreed to; words substituted.
  Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Page 7, line 18, after "invalid," insert—
  "(2.) That the award proceeds wholly or in part upon an improper application of, or upon the omission properly to apply, the special provisions of section five, or any other part of this Act,"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  On the Motion of The LORD Advocate, the said Amendment amended, as follows:—leave out the word "section," and insert the words "sections three, four, or;" and leave out "or any other part."
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Page 8, line 42, after "assignees," insert—
  "Any charge under this section shall rank after all prior charges and burdens heritably secured upon the holding or estate.
  "Where a holding or estate is charged by the landlord under this section, such charge shall not be deemed to be a contravention of any prohibition against charging or burdening contained in the deed or instrument under which the holding or estate is hold by the landlord.
  "The price of any entailed land sold under the provisions of the Entailed Acts, where such price is entailed estate within the meaning of those Acts, may be applied by the landlord in respect of the remaining portion of the entailed estate, or in respect of any other estate belonging to him, and entailed upon the same series of heirs, in payment of any expenditure and costs incurred by him in pursuance of this Act for executing or paying compensation for any improvement mentioned in the first or second parts of the schedule hereto, or in discharge of any charge with which the estate is burdened in pursuance of this Act in respect of such improvement;"
  page 9, line 2, leave out "Limited Liability," and insert "Companies;" line 13, leave out "charged;" line 15, leave "landlord's interests," and insert "interest of the landlord, his executors, administrators, and assigns," after line 16, insert as a heading to Clause 27—
  "Removing for Non-payment of Rent;"
  line 19, leave out the first "to," and insert "for;" line 23, leave out "said
  1590
  six months rent is," and insert "arrears of rent then due are;" line.25, line 30, leave out "said," and insert "such," the next eight Amendments, agreed to.
  Page 10, line 2, leave out "two years," and insert "one year," and leave out "three," and insert "two," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the Government were disposed to agree to this Amendment. There had been a good deal of discussion on the subject, and it had been pointed out that, possibly, the adoption of so long a period as two years' notice might degenerate into a mere form, and that a shorter period would not be open to the same objection. They had consulted with many persons interested in agricultural matters, and he gathered that there was no strong opinion upon the point one way or other; but, as there seemed to be an impression that a shorter period would be satisfactory, they were willing that "one year" should be inserted instead of two.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he hoped the House would not agree to the Amendment. They had discussed the question already very often, and the House had agreed, a few days ago, that there should be two years' notice instead of one. That conclusion had been unanimously arrived at, and he could not but express his surprise that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should now turn round. The period agreed upon had been asked for by the farmers ever since he had been in Scotland, in consequence of the form of leases which was customary there. In this matter, the English custom was no guide whatever. It was surely no hardship on a landlord who had a lease, to ask him to make up his mind two years beforehand, whether he would keep his tenant or not.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he would point out that the obligation was upon the tenant, as well as the landlord. It would be putting a great deal upon the tenant to retain the period of two years in the clause. It

  1591
  very often happened that a tenant could not make up his mind whether to go or remain.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought two years better than one for the purpose of the Bill; but, although he would admit there was a strong feeling on the subject, and agreed with the view of the question taken by his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir Alexander Gordon), he hoped it would not be thought necessary to put the House to the trouble of dividing on the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Page 10, leave out lines 19 to 21; and in line 24, after "planting," insert "feuing," and after "purpose, "insert" or to subjects let for any period less than a year," the next two Amendments, agreed to.
  Page 10, leave out Clause 29, the next Amendment, read a second time.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he must ask the House to disagree with this Amendment. Clause 29 was a section of the Bill to which great value had, in his opinion, been justly attached. There appeared to have been some misapprehension as to its nature and scope in "another place," which arose, probably, from the language used in its construction, which might have given rise to the idea that it was to authorize assignment during the life of the tenant. He should move to amend the clause by striking out the word "assignment" wherever it occurred, and insert words that would make it clear that a mortis causa gift was intended, and which would also provide that the tenant should have the power of designating his heir. They were also prepared to meet certain objections that seemed reasonable—that was to say, objections of a somewhat limited kind.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause restored, and amended.
  Page 11, line 28, after "tenant," insert "before or within a reasonable time after the termination of the tenancy," the next Amendment, agreed to.
  Page 13, line 12, leave out from "holding," to "the," in line 16, and insert—
  "Of less than two acres in extent, not being a market garden, or to a holding unless it is either wholly agricultural or wholly pastoral, or in part agricultural and as to the residue
  1592
  pastoral, or in whole or in part cultivated as a market garden, or to a holding let to the tenant during his continuance in any office, appointment, or employment held under,"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  On the Motion of The LORD Advocate, said Amendment disagreed to.
  Page 13, line 18, leave out from "tenant," to "shall," in line 22, and insert—
  "By virtue of which he is deprived of his right to claim compensation under this Act in respect of any improvement specified in the schedule hereto except an agreement providing such compensation as is by this Act permitted to be substituted for compensation under this Act; "
  page 14, line 11, after "thing," insert Clause (a.)—
  (Consents, &c. not subject to statutes regulating execution of deeds.)
  "(a.) It shall be no objection to the validity of any consent in writing or agreement in writing within the provisions of this Act signed by the party or parties thereto or by any person or persons authorised by him or them that such consent or agreement has not been executed in accordance with the statutes regulating the execution of deeds in Scotland; "
  leave out lines 13 to 18; page 15, line 10, after "Scotland," insert "'Companies Acts 'means the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1880, and any Act amending the same," the next four concluding Amendments, agreed to.
  Committee appointed, " to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by The Lords to the Bill: "—The LORD Advocate, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for ENGLAND, Mr. DUFF, Mr. DODSON, The JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, and Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR:—Three to form a quorum:—To withdraw immediately.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) BILL.— [BILL 288.]
(Mr. Chamberlain.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) BILL.— [BILL 288.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  MR. BIRKBECKsaid, it was most unfortunate for the fishing interest that the Bill had been introduced so late in the Session. Those interested in the question had not seen the Bill, for the good reason that they were engaged on the fishing grounds. They knew nothing whatever about it; but it would,

  1593
  no doubt, be passed in a hurried manner, and for that the President of the Board of Trade must be held entirely responsible, as well as for the evil effects of such hurried legislation.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the Bill, as he understood, was founded upon the Report of a Committee of which his hon. Friend who had just spoken (Mr. Birkbeck) was the Chairman. He (Sir John Hay) was glad to find that Scotland was to be excluded from its provisions.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was prepared to take all responsibility with reference to the Bill, which was founded on the Report of a Committee that was, with regard to all its main provisions, absolutely unanimous. He was very much surprised that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Birkbeck) should entertain any doubt on the subject, as he was a Member of the Committee and signed its Report.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Title and construction of the Act).
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 17, after "Act," to insert, as a new paragraph, "This Act shall not apply to Scotland."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, before the Amendment was put, he thought it right that the House should recognize that credit was greatly due to the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Williamson), who had called attention to the fact that the Bill was entirely inapplicable to Scotland, and he (Sir John Hay) thanked the Government for having proposed to exclude that country from its operation.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that he was strongly of opinion that the provision for the exclusion of Scotland ought to form a separate clause and be inserted at the end of the Bill. They had got into a loose way of drafting their Bills, and it was not at all an unusual thing to find clauses altogether misplaced.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he quite appreciated the view taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton); but he (Mr. Chamberlain) thought that, in all mat-
  1594
  ters of this kind, they were bound to depend on the proof received from the draftsman. The present wording had been drawn by the draftsman, and it had been approved of by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate of Scotland.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Application of the first part of this Act, and definitions).
  MR. HENEAGE,in moving the following Amendment:—In page 2, line 1, after "Service," omit "or," and insert—
  "Shall apply to all fishing vessels of 25 tons register tonnage and upwards: and such portions of the first part of this Act as in any way relate to,"
  said, he did so for the purpose of applying the provisions of this Act as to certificates, agreements, and certificates of discharge, to trawlers of 25 tons, as well as to agreements with boys, and indentures to all fishing vessels of 25 tons and drifters.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HENEAGE,in moving the following Amendment:—In page 2, after line 15, insert—
  "The Board of Trade may before making any order under this section institute such inquiry as in their opinion may he required for the purpose of enabling them to make such order by such person or persons as the President may appoint for the purpose, and the person or persons so appointed shall have power to take evidence on oath or otherwise, and shall have all the powers of an Inspector appointed under the first part of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854,"
  said, it was necessary in order to give power to institute inquiry before issuing any notices in The Gazette under the provisions of the Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 4 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Indentures and agreements with boys to be void if not entered into before a superintendent of mercantile marine).
  MR. HENEAGE,in moving the following Amendment:—In page 4, at the end, insert—
  "Nothing in this Act shall prevent the daily employment in a fishing boat of any boy under

  1595
  sixteen years of age who is under no obligation to remain in such employment for a longer period than one day, and with whom no written agreement has been made,"
  said, it was intended to provide for the case of boys engaged for a day, or sailing with their parents.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 9 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Fishing boats making short voyages may have running agreements).
  MR. HENEAGE,in moving the following Amendment:—In page 7, line 1, after "voyages," insert "or any number of weeks," said, in was intended to apply in the case of a broken voyage.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Definition of "voyage" of a fishing boat).
  On the Motion of Mr. HENEAGE, Amendment made, in page 7, line 26, after "thereafter," insert "upon the conclusion of the trip."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Reports of a fishing boat's crew on a voyage to be made).
  MR. HENEAGE,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 7, line 29, to leave out "twenty-four," and insert "forty-eight," said, it applied to the time before departure of vessel for sending in the list of her crew.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 20 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Skipper to deliver account of wages).
  MR. HENEAGE,in moving as an Amendment, in page 8, line 31, after "every," insert "owner or," said, the necessity for it was shown by the fact that owners generally kept accounts, and paid the crew.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HENEAGE,MR. HENEAGE, moved an Amendment, in page 8, line 31, leave out "twenty," and insert "four," for the
  1596
  purpose, as he said, of providing an account of wages four hours before settlement.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HENEAGE,in moving the following Amendment:—
  In page 8, line 32, after "seaman," insert "unless the seaman gives notice to the skipper that he does not require it,"
  said, it was intended to apply in cases were accounts were not required.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Seaman to have inspection of owner's accounts and books relating to catch).
  MR. HENEAGE,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 2, after "catch," insert "and any dispute arises as to his share," said, it was intended in order that a seaman, after a dispute had arisen, might inspect such account and books.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 26 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 32 (How seamen and apprentices deserting, or neglecting or refusing to join or proceed to sea, or absent without leave, or guilty of disobedience or neglect of duty, may be dealt with).
  MR. HENEAGE,in moving the following Amendment:—In page 13, after line 14, insert—
  "Whenever any seaman or apprentice engaged or liable to serve on any fishing boat neglects or refuses to join or deserts from or refuses to proceed to sea in or absents himself without leave from such fishing boat, the skipper, owner, or boat's husband may, with or without the assistance of the local police officers and constables (who are to give their assistance in such cases when required so to do by the master, owner or boat's husband), take and convey such seaman or apprentice before such superintendent, principal officer, or deputy as aforesaid, and thereupon such seaman or apprentice shall be dealt with as if he had been arrested under a warrant issued under this section."
  said, it was intended for the purpose of bringing the seaman or apprentice before the Marine Superintendent without warrant, in order to have dispute settled in cases of refusal to obey a lawful command or refusal to sail.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 33 (Notice by seaman that he intends to absent himself from his ship and effect thereof).
  MR. BROADHURST MR. BROADHURST moved, as an Amendment, in page 13, line 18, to leave out "forty eight," and insert "twenty-four," on the ground that 48 hours' notice of his incapacity to go to sea was an unnecessarily long notice to require from a seaman.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. Forty-eight hours' notice was considered fair by all persons practically concerned.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 34 (How wages are to accrue and to be calculated. Forfeiture of whole if voyage or trip shorter than period of forfeiture).
  MR. HENEAGE,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 13, line 26, after "or trip," insert "or the season," said, it was necessary to insert it, because wages were contracted for by the "season" in Cornwall, as well as by voyage and trip.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. HENEAGE, Amendment made, in page 1 3, line 29, after "or trip," insert "or season."
  MR. HENEAGE,in moving, as an Amendment—
  In page 13, line 30, after "or trip," insert—" or season: Provided, always, that a seaman or apprentice shall not be entitled to more than what his share of the profits or catch made during the period he has actually served may or would have amounted to,"
  said, it was intended to provide that the share of the catch should be only for the period when the seaman or apprentice was serving.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 35 agreed to.
  Clause 36 (Certificates for fishing boats heretofore granted to be deemed to have been granted under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104 (Part III.).
  MR. WARTONasked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) whether it would not be advisable to drop this, the certificate clause?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he thought it might be taken for granted that all the persons affected by this clause were well acquainted with the other provisions of the Bill. Local inquiries had been held; a great number of fishermen gave evidence; and they were well aware of what was being done. What was required was, that these men should pass a very elementary examination in what constituted good seamanship for these fishing boats. He considered that it was alike in the interest of both masters and men that this elementary examination should be insisted upon.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 37 to 39, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 40 (Certificates of service to be given to certain skippers of fishing boats).
  MR. HENEAGE,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 15, line 7, to leave out "July," and insert "September," said, it was intended to provide that service certificates might be given until next September, before regular certificates were required under the Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 41 agreed to.
  Clause 42 (No fishing boat to proceed to sea without duly certificated skipper, and penalty for so doing).
  On the Motion of Mr. HENEAGE, Amendment made, in page 16, line 3, before "no," insert "after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty four."
  MR. BROADHURST,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 16, line 6, at end, to add—
  "Or unless the second hand holds a certificate of competency or service entitling him to act as second hand of such fishing boat,"
  said, there was no argument that could be adduced in favour of the skipper holding a certificate that could not be adduced in favour of the second hand holding a certificate. There might be 14 or 15 hands on board, and, as the Bill stood, there would be only one person on board as to whose competency there would be any guarantee whatever. In case the skipper were washed overboard, the boat might drift about the sea, without any person being aboard

  1599
  competent to take charge of it. He was aware he would be told there were always a number of men aboard who were perfectly capable of taking charge of the boat, in case of the loss of the skipper. But if they were perfectly capable of taking charge of the boat, there could be no objection to requiring them to show their capacity by undergoing a simple examination in seamanship. It would be very satisfactory to the families of the men if they knew that, in case of the loss of the skipper, there was someone on board who was capable of safely guiding the boat into port. It was very necessary every protection for the lives of our fishermen should be afforded.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 16, line 6, at end, to add—" Or unless the second hand holds a certificate of competency or service entitling him to act as second hand of such fishing boat."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it was one of the recommendations of the Committee, in their original Report, that the second hand should hold a certificate of competency; but, on fuller consideration, it was decided to omit such a provision from the Bill. A new system was being introduced, and he did not think the Bill was likely to work successfully if they were too stringent in the first instance. In the interest of the Bill itself the Committee had better leave the clause unaltered.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he was sorry the Government took such a view as that expressed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) of this matter. The only possible parties who could raise an objection were the very parties who objected to any certificates at all. The men concerned in the business, and whose lives were at stake, and the families of the men, were deeply in earnest in favour of the second hand holding a certificate. The Committee ought not to pander to the prejudices of men who objected to any certificates, and if he could get anyone to follow him, he should go to a Division.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, he thought the difficulty might be met by postponing the proposal of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) for 12 months.
  1600
  If the Act was to come into force at the beginning of next year, the system of certificate would have a good chance of working by the end of 12 months, and then, possibly, the views of the hon. Member might be met by requiring the second hand to be certificated.
  MR. BIRKBECKsaid, he hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). He (Mr. Birkbeck) had had great experience of the management of fishing boats, and he knew of many cases in which the second hands of fishing boats had rescued merchantmen, the captains of which were certificated. The second hands of fishing boats very often knew more of the North Sea than the captains of merchantmen themselves. It was a very great mistake to suppose that loss of life occurred on account of a skipper or a second hand of fishing vessels not having certificates.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Birkbeck) had said the second hands on fishing boats were perfectly capable of managing the boats, and that they often knew more about the North Sea than many of the captains of sea-going vessels. If that were so, there would be no difficulty in the second hands passing an examination such as was required in the case of the skipper.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) seemed to forget that, as a matter of fact, they had, in the Bill, already stipulated for additional precautions. It was unreasonable to press still more precautions against the views of those who were practically acquainted with the subject. The hon. Member was mistaken when he said this Amendment was desired by the men themselves. The fishermen had a rooted objection to many of these certificates; and, although, in the long run, it might be to their interest that these certificates should be held, the men were opposed to them. The Board of Trade had to administer the Act, and he (Mr. Chamberlain) was persuaded that if its provisions were made too stringent it would soon become a dead letter.
  MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) would withdraw his Amendment. In the largest ships, there were boat-

  1601
  swains who were very useful men, but who could not pass an examination. Much more difficult, therefore, would it be for the second hands of fishing vessels to pass.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, no one would more readily join in thanks to the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) than he should, in the name of the fishermen, for the good work he was doing in this Bill. His (Mr. Broadhurst's) object in the Amendment was, that, while they were engaged in good work, they should make it as perfect as possible. If the Government were determined to oppose him in this Amendment, there was no other course open to him than to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 43 to 51, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 52 (Fishing tenders to be home-trade ships).
  MR. HENEAGE,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 20, lines 26 and 27, to omit "The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1873," said, it was meant to place fishing tenders under the provision of the Bill before the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. HENEAGE, further Amendments made, in line 27, by omitting "home-trade ships," and inserting "trawlers."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 53 and 54 agreed to.
  Clause 55 (Repeal of enactments and saving).
  MR. HENEAGE,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 21, to add—
  "The repeal effected by this section shall not repeal any enactment so far as the same extends to Scotland,"
  said, it was simply a saving section for Scotland, consequential on the Amendment introduced in Clause 1 by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedules agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of The Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to:—To be communicated to the Lords.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of The Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to:—To be communicated to the Lords.
  House adjourned at Three o'clock