Commons Sitting of 12 June 1883

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED — For the County of Monaghan, v. John Givan, esquire, Crown Solicitor for the Counties of Meath and Kildare.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Thomas Roe, esquire, for Derby Borough.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Considered as amended—Belfast Harbour.
Second Reading—Metropolitan Board of Works (District Railway).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) (Barton, &.) * [223]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) (Bermondsey, &.) * [224].
Second Reading—Inclosure Provisional Order (Hildersham) * [209]; Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2)* [210]; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 10) * [206]; Metropolis Improvement Provisional Order * [173]; Metropolis Improvement Provisional Order (No. 2) * [174]; Metropolis Improve-

343
ment Provisional Order (No. 3)* [175]; High Court of Justice (Service of Writs) [184].
Committee — Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [7] [Second Night]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Forest of Dean (Highways) (re-comm.)* [222].
Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) * [177].
Withdrawn—Cathedral Statutes* [67]; Clerical Disabilities (House of Commons) * [111].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BELFAST HARBOUR BILL. [Lords.] (by Order.)

    CONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had given Notice, in regard to this particular Bill, that he would move, as an Amendment—
    "That it be re-committed to the former Committee: "and" That it be an Instruction to the Committee to lower the qualifications of the Commissioners and electors, so as to make the same in conformity with the qualification for the Parliamentary Suffrage."
    In moving that Amendment, he desired to offer such observations in support of it as he thought were called for, and no more. It was probably known, in regard to the question of the franchise of Harbour Commissioners, that in many instances, in different places, such franchises were based upon arrangements made in Private Bills; and, of course, Private Bills were promoted by the persons in possession of the Harbour Trust for the time being. The result of that system was, that the gentlemen who now composed the Harbour Board of Belfast deemed it more convenient that there should be a narrow, rather than an extensive, franchise. It was only natural that gentlemen, already in possession of the franchise, should think it was a very good world they lived in, and that there was no necessity for extending it, or for admitting any other persons into their Body. Nor were they at all desirous of extending the vote; and, as a necessary consequence, a great number of persons who were interested in the management of the Docks and Harbours were not represented. Last
    344
    year, the Harbour Commissioners of Belfast promoted a Bill which gave them borrowing powers to the extent of something like £900,000. On that occasion, he (Mr. Biggar) opposed the Bill in that House, on the ground that these gentlemen were elected upon an extensively narrow franchise; and ho thought it desirable that the inhabitants of Belfast should have a fuller opportunity of expressing their opinion, with regard to the franchise, before the property and rates of the borough wore so heavily mortgaged. On that occasion, a coin-promise was made on behalf of the Harbour Commissioners, that this year they would promote a Bill to extend the franchise, and, in pursuance of that compromise, they had brought in the Bill now before the House; but he considered that that Bill did not at all conform with the spirit of the age. In fact, it had long been the principle of both political Parties in England to extend the franchise in regard to Parliamentary and Municipal elections; but these gentlemen, the Harbour Commissioners of Belfast, still continued to argue in favour of the exploded idea of close corporations. He would not attempt to argue in that House, whether the franchise should be wide or narrow. They all know that it had been the theory of the so-called Liberal Party, for the last 50 years, to extend the franchise very materially in connection with the election of public Bodies. They knew that the lowering of the franchise was used in almost all cases as a Party cry, for the purpose of bringing about an extension of the franchise. Even the late Lord Beaconsfield—an extremely wise gentleman in his generation—thought it was judicious to propose a much more extensive franchise for Parliamentary boroughs. The Harbour Commissioners of Belfast, however, thought themselves much wiser than the late Lord Beaconsfield, or all the reformers of the last 50 years, and they proposed a franchise which was altogether insufficient for the purpose for which it was required. He found upon inquiry that, in the majority of cases, the franchise in regard to Harbour Boards was based, not on the rating of the inhabitants of the places in which the harbour was situated, but on the payment of dues in the port. In Belfast, the principle had always been different, and the franchise, up to the present, had

    345
    been based on a certain contribution per annum to the police rate, and also upon the ownership of vessels in the port. He did not desire to criticize the qualification of the ownership of vessels; but he would confine himself to that part of the question which related to the qualification of those electors who were ratepayers of the borough. The qualification of a Parliamentary elector of the borough was a contribution of £4 per annum to the police rate. The Town Council of the borough had power to return certain members upon the Board. But the qualification of an ordinary elector to vote for a Harbour Commissioner was the occupation of premises within the borough rated at £50 to the relief of the poor. That was considered an insufficient franchise, and the Harbour Commissioners, in furtherance of their promises, proposed to lower it. He, himself, had always been in favour of a very wide franchise, and he did not see on what ground persons entitled to vote for a Member of Parliament, should not be as competent to vote for the members of any local Board. It was upon that ground ho asked for a further extension of the franchise. It had been argued by the Chairman of the Harbour Commissioners, who gave evidence before the Chairman of Ways and Means in Committee upon the present Bill, that it was desirable, seeing that so large an amount of property was placed under the control of the Board, that the Commissioners should be persons of respectability, and should, therefore, be elected by the large ratepayers. That might be very true; but he failed to see, nor had he seen from past experience, that gentlemen elected on a high franchise managed affairs better than those who were elected on a small franchise. He also failed to see that the Harbour Commissioners of Belfast, who were elected on this extravagant franchise, had been more honest in dealing with the Trusts reposed in them than Commissioners elected on a much smaller franchise. He was able, from personal experience and the knowledge he had possessed all his life of these public Boards in Belfast, to say, without hesitation, that although most of the Boards in that town had made mistakes, and done things which they ought not to have done, yet the worst managed Board, and the one in which the most extensive jobbery had pre-
    346
    vailed, was the Harbour Board of which he was now taking cognizance. The members of that Board were more or less confined to certain sections of the Conservative or Whig Parties. There was not on the Board, as far as he knew, a single individual who could be called a gentleman of Liberal principles. They were Party men; but he did not mean to assert that they were gentlemen who took an extremely active part in political affairs. So far as the Harbour Board was concerned, they were all of one particular Party, and they were of opinion that it suited their purposes best to get elected upon a high qualification, and that it was desirable for things to continue in their present position. It was also argued by the Chairman of the Harbour Boards, that the Harbour Commissioners had been able to borrow money upon more favourable terms, and that if the franchise were extended, they would not be able to borrow from the public on the same favourable terms. Now, hon. Members knew, from personal experience, that that statement was not founded on fact; because they knew, and he knew, that there were other Boards in Belfast, with much lower qualifications, which had been able to borrow money on the same terms. There was no evidence whatever in support of that contention, and he had not heard any argument in favour of the contention of these gentlemen, who said the Harbour Commissioners should continue to be a thoroughly exclusive Body, elected by a very limited number of electors, and should also be able to declare themselves qualified by fixing a very high property qualification. He would state what the qualification proposed by the Bill for the electors was, and also the qualification proposed for members of the Board. The qualification of an elector proposed by the Bill was of a very peculiar nature. In the first place, he was to be a registered owner of a vessel belonging to the Port of Belfast, engaged in the Coast, Channel, or foreign trade, of not less than 50 tons, net register, or of two or more such vessels, having an aggregate tonnage of not less than 50 tons; or the registered owner of shares, amounting to not less than 50 tons, of vessels registered and engaged in that manner. With that qualification he would not interfere, because he did not pretend to understand the shipping business. But the rating

    347
    qualification of an elector was, first of all, that he should be rated as the occupier of premises within the borough of Belfast of the net annual value, according to the Government valuation for the time being in force for the destitute poor of Ireland, of not less than £20, which meant a rental of more than £35 a-year. Then, in addition to that, there was a multiple vote. Occupiers rated in respect of premises were entitled to vote according to a scale set forth in the Bill, commencing with one vote for premises of £20, and less than £50 net annual value; of two votes for premises of the value of £50, and less than £100; and so on up to six votes, where the premises were of the net value of £250, and the net value might be made up by joining individual holdings together, and connecting together property situated in different parts of the borough. The consequence of this system was, that it placed the entire control and influence in the hands of persons who were large ratepayers, to the detriment of those who were rated at a lower annual value. He contended that such a franchise was altogether contrary to the spirit of the age, and that it involved a principle which ought not to receive the sanction of the House of Commons, and especially by the so-called Liberal Party, who possessed a majority of votes in that House, Then, again, as regarded the qualification of members of the Board, that also, he contended, was entirely unreasonable. The principle of the property qualification involved in it was of a highly absurd nature. And for this reason. Experience proved that anyone who wished to become a member of a public Board, and desired to evade his obligations in regard to a property qualification, was always able to evade them, and get elected. This question of property qualification was discussed at very great length in that House some years ago, and ultimately the Liberal Party carried the abolition of property qualification in regard to Members of Parliament. Now, he thought that if Members of Parliament, elected without property qualification, were capable of managing the Public Business of the nation, involving the expenditure of many millions of money per annum, and of legislating and making laws to protect the lives and liberties of the people, a public Body whose simple duty was to manage
    348
    the dock rates on a fixed scale, with no power to go above or below that scale, had no right to claim to be elected upon a high property qualification. He was of opinion that no argument whatever had been adduced in favour of a property qualification in this instance. The property qualification the Harbour Commissioners asked for was of several kinds. First of all, a member of the Board must be rated as the occupier of premises within the borough of Belfast, of a net annual value, according to the Government valuation for the time being in force for the purposes of the relief of the destitute poor of Ireland, of not less than £60; or, as one of several joint occupiers of such premises on a not annual value, according to such valuation, of not less than £60 for each of such joint occupiers; or, he must be seized or possessed in his own right, or in the right of his wife, of real estate in the United Kingdom of a net annual value of not less than £200, or of personal estate of a gross value of not less than £5,000. He had certainly never heard before that a man's means of living should be one of the qualifications for membership of a public Board; but he presumed that the Harbour Commissioners of Belfast considered that they were acting more or less in conformity with the spirit of the age. It would be seen that even the property of a married woman was to form a qualification. It might happen that the wife was very rich, and, at the same time, the husband was nothing more than a ledger, with no personal influence of property whatever. At the same time, he would have power to act upon this Board, and he might abuse the position to the detriment of this public Trust. He could, without much difficulty, point out some of the grave mismanagements of the Board in times past, and he could show what he was disposed to think had been very doubtful operations; but he did not wish to be personal. He was not acquainted with the names of more than one-third or one-half of the members of the Board, and he was not disposed to speak in any harsh manner of these gentlemen; but, at the same time, he said, without hesitation, that their management of public affairs in Belfast had been a perfect scandal, especially in regard to the jobbery which took place. All the sympathies of the Harbour Board were en-

    349
    tirely in favour of that class who were represented by the Board, and the interests of the small ratepayers and the large mass of the inhabitants of Belfast had been altogether ignored in the transactions of this Body. Now was the time for making a reform, and to make this a much more popular Body than it had ever been before by doing away with the system of close corporations, which now existed, and rendering the Harbour Board more subordinate to public opinion. Hitherto, the Board had possessed a power which had been a scandal—namely, the power of filling up any vacancies which arose in their own number. He contended that that was a most objectionable system, and that it had worked most unfairly. It was not unfrequently the case that a person who was popular was able, along with certain confreres, to carry the election, and to help some two or three other members to seats on the Board. Then, as soon as the election was over, this gentleman resigned his seat, and some person not so popular, and who would not have been elected at all, was put in by the remaining members of the Board. He was strongly of opinion that that was a principle which ought not to be continued, because he thought that nobody but the electors should select the members of a public Board; and for these reasons he would move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now considered," in order to add the words "re-committed to the former Committee," — (Mr. Biggar,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'now considered' stand part of the Question."
    MR. DAWSONsaid, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was entitled to the thanks of the constituencies in Ireland, and also of that House, for opening up this great question of local government. The great principle the present Government had always put forward as a panacea, not only for evils in England, but in Ireland, was the extension of local government; and hon. Members on the other side of the House had invariably advocated the propriety of giving increased power to the people, by legitimate means, to express their opinions, so that the illegiti-
    350
    mate use of power should cease to exist He thought the present Bill afforded a very admirably opportunity for calling attention to the evils of the present system, and also to the evils of the existing system of representation in Ireland generally. The constitution of the Belfast Harbour Trust, proposed by the Bill, was entirely at variance with that principle of local government of which they heard so much; and the principle of confining it entirely to a property qualification would inevitably exclude, from a share of the representation, those people who were most largely interested, and who were most entitled to it. The idea which seemed to prevail in the Bill was, that those who were most deeply interested in continuing a course of mismanagement, which might in the end prove disastrous to the ratepayers, should be the arbiters and judges of their own case. It was quite true that the shipping of Belfast might be theirs; but, if the power they exercised was altogether one-sided, it might be wielded in such a manner as to deal most unfairly, not only with the importers and exporters of goods, but with the consumers. They were told by the Harbour Commissioners that it was necessary to have steamboat owners and ship-owners to regulate these matters. He altogether dissented from that assertion, and he thought that what was really desired was the appointment of neutral men. They wanted unbiassed people, who had absolutely no connection with any class—men who would stand between the parties interested, and who could pass a fair judgment upon any case that might be brought under their notice. It seemed that the shipowning interest and the interests of property were fully represented on the Board; but there was no one there to represent the interests of the people. It was only natural, therefore, that the only interests consulted by the Board were the special interests of their own trade and class. It might be said that if Parliament declined to act upon that principle, and gave the power of electing men upon Harbour Boards, who were not great shipowners or great traders, they would have nothing done in the interests of the port and Harbour. Now, what illustration did the composition of the Treasury Bench afford of the truth of that argument? The noble Marquess who presided over the War Department

    351
    had never been a soldier or a distinguished General; and was it ever thrown in his teeth that he did not possess all the information and knowledge which a connection with the Profession would have given him? Was it contended that the Members of the Government who brought in Land Bills for England and Scotland should be great landed proprietors?
    MR. SPEAKER: I must call upon the hon. Member (Mr. Dawson) to address himself to the question before the House, which is the Belfast Harbour Bill.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, the Bill provided that one of the qualifications for membership of the Board should be, that the member elected should be a great trader, and should hold property in steam vessels. He had, therefore, thought it an apposite allusion to endeavour to show that a large interest in a particular trade or profession was not a necessary qualification for the administration of public affairs. The present qualification for the Harbour Commissioners was distinctly exclusive. He believed it was, that every person who had a share, to the extent of £100, in a ship or steamboat should have a vote; but here, in this Bill, it was raised to £300, thereby narrowing the qualification in a very important extent. In the Harbour Board of Dublin, which he thought no one could say was a popular Board, there certainly was an extension of the popular element in order that there might be some kind of representation of the interests of the people as well as of the interests of trade. In that case, the Lord Mayor, four members of the Corporation, and the High Sheriff were placed upon the Board; but in the present Bill, with the exception of the Mayor of Belfast, the Corporation had no representation whatever. Upon the Harbour Board of Limerick, the Mayor and five members of the Corporation, or popular Party, represented the interests of the people. There was no such representation here, and he thought it was a matter for serious consideration whether the composition of the Board, as now proposed, would be able to deal properly with the interests of the people of Belfast. It was quite evident that occasions might arise when the interests of the trade would be diametrically opposed to those of the
    352
    people. He (Mr. Dawson) Ns-as an ex-officio member of the Harbour Board of Dublin, and he had heard very important cases raised in connection with questions of wharfage and quayage. In one instance, an hon. Member of that House connected with the coal trade was intimately concerned. Without any communication with the hon. Member, it was discovered that exclusive privileges were proposed to be conferred upon the Dock Board, to the detriment of the interests of Free Trade, and the advancement of Monopoly. The case was fully looked into, and the flimsy pretext upon which the transaction was based was removed. If that had not been done, an English Company and au English Chairman of a Coal Company would have been deprived of all the rights they possessed, and a monopoly would have been handed over to the Dock Board. That would inevitably have been the case, if he and others had not been present, as members of the Board, to vindicate the interests of the consumers of coal in the City of Dublin, and one particular Body would have been allowed a monopoly of the trade, and there an injustice would have been imposed upon the ratepayers and the people generally. Now, were they going, in this great town of Belfast, to perpetuate monopolies? His hon. Friend the Member for Cavan had drawn the attention of the House to the principle upon which hon. Members were admitted into the House of Commons—namely, without any properly qualification whatever; because, after all, they found that it was the representation of the people which was the title of their Acts of Parliament, and not the representation of property. If they were to make provisions for the representation of property, then let them give up at once all idea of legislation and debate, and of considering the interests of the people, and tell a man to put down his thousands and tens and hundreds of thousands of pounds, and then add them up to show the extent to which his interests should be credited. He believed that no properly qualification was required in the case of elections to the Corporations of Ireland or of England, and it was a most illogical contention to say that the wider they gave the franchise, in the case of Parliamentary and Municipal elections, the narrower and the more closely were they to draw

    353
    everything which ought to be done towards advancing the material interests of the people of Ireland. Perhaps the House would allow him to turn to the question of Parliamentary elections. The electors of the City of Belfast sent two Representatives to that House, both of whom were Conservatives; and they were returned by electors who were only rated at £4 per annum to the relief of the poor. The men returned by such a franchise were called upon to legislate, not only for Belfast, but for Ireland, Great Britain, and the Empire at large; and yet it was held by the Harbour Commissioners of Belfast that it required five such electors, rolled into one, to constitute an elector for the Harbour Board. Could any logical contention be advanced in favour of the perpetuation of such a state of things? Then, again, take the case of the Municipal Council of Belfast. The qualification in that case was only £10, and it was necessary to roll two such electors into one, in order to produce an elector for the Harbour Board. Considering all these circumstances, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan was entitled to the thanks of the House for bringing the matter forward. His hon. Friend had shown, most distinctly, the anomalous nature of the extraordinary position in which the Belfast Harbour Board was placed. He (Mr. Dawson) should certainly decline to support a Bill which continued the evils under which the people were suffering considerably, not only in connection with Belfast, but with other parts of Ireland. He objected to anything in the nature of a secret conclave being allowed to deal with the public interests; and he thought that all matters which related to the public interests should be open to the scrutiny of the public. What would be the feeling of the people if the debates in that House were held with closed doors, and if important matters which concerned the welfare of this great Empire were not made known to the public? Yet it was a matter of daily occurrence in Belfast, and the people were utterly devoid of representation. The representation of the people and local taxation formed one of the most favoured themes of Liberal politicians, and this Bill was entirely opposed to any extension of that principle. He should not have been surprised if the
    354
    Bill had been brought in and supported by a Conservative Government. It was Conservative in all its clauses; and, if brought in by Conservatives, there would have been a logical sequence in their ideas and acts, and they would be acting up to their principles in bringing forward Conservative propositions and carrying them to Conservative results. But it was an extraordinary anomaly to find a measure bristling with Conservative clauses brought in by an hon. Member sitting on the Treasury Bench, and intended to perpetuate a monopoly. He was satisfied that this Conservative anti-popular Bill would prove a severe infliction upon the people of Belfast, if it was not at once repudiated by the House, and if seine Member of the Government did not, in the strongest terms, denounce it as inimical to everything that was liberal and fair towards the representation of the people. He was sure there were many other Members of the House who would be able to contribute criticisms upon the Bill, and to stand up for the interests of the people of Belfast, against whose liberties the present Bill aimed a serious blow. He felt keenly that the Bill ought to be amended, and that a population, of whose good conduct and loyalty they had heard so much, should not be deprived of their privileges as regarded the power of electing members upon the Harbour Board of Belfast.
    MR. CORRYsaid, that if the interference of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) in the affairs of the Belfast Harbour Board were brought before the inhabitants of that town, they would give a verdict which would not be very satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman, who was certainly very seldom found in the same Lobby as the hon. Members who represented Belfast. The hon. Member took every opportunity he could of interfering with the liberties of the people of Belfast; and, although the verdict of the people of Belfast might not, as he (Mr. Corry) said, be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman, he imagined, from what he knew of the hon. Member, that that would not make very much difference to him. The action of the hon. Member at present, and also last year, could only create annoyance, and put the ratepayers of Belfast to a considerable amount of expense. Last year, the Belfast Harbour Commissioners came

    355
    before the House with a Bill to ask for increased borrowing powers, and also to enable them to carry out certain extensive works. When that Bill was before the ratepayers, a section of the ratepayers thought that some clauses should be introduced into it in reference to the franchise; and they went before the Harbour Commissioners, and asked that that should be done. It was found impossible in that Bill to do so; and the Harbour Commissioners made a promise that a Franchise Bill should be introduced in the present year. The ratepayers had had the matter very fully before them; no opposition came from them; and it remained for the hon. Member for Cavan, and those who acted with him, to raise opposition to the Bill, which, it was directly admitted, dealt with the question of the franchise in the way the electors themselves desired. The fact was that several proposals were placed before the Harbour Commissioners, and the franchise was one of them. The present Bill, however, exactly carried out the proposals made by the electors themselves. It was a matter of great surprise to the promoters of the Bill that the hon. Member for Cavan should take this action in the matter; because he (Mr. Corry) understood that, through the courtesy of the hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Arthur Otway), the hon. Member was allowed to go before the Committee and state his objections to the Bill. The Harbour Commissioners then appeared before the Chairman of Ways and Moans; but they declined to accept the hon. Member's proposals, and the result was that the hon. Baronet and the Committee, feeling perfectly satisfied that every objection which had been raised to the Bill by the hon. Member for Cavan had been fully met, and that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners had fully carried out the wishes of the ratepayers of Belfast, allowed the Bill to pass through Committee. As he (Mr. Corry) had stated, no opposition had been made to the Bill, either in Belfast or elsewhere. The fact was that the Ratepayers' Committee waited on the Harbour Commissioners, and expressed themselves fully satisfied that the Harbour Commissioners had carried out what the ratepayers wished them to do. Therefore, the Bill came before the
    356
    House as an unopposed Bill; and he thought it would be an extreme proceeding on the part of the House of Commons, if, at the dictation of the hon. Member for Cavan, and those who supported him, the people of Belfast should not be allowed to manage their own affairs as they thought fit. Last year the hon. Member for Cavan said the qualification of the electors should be £10. Before the Chairman of Ways and Means he proposed £8, and now ho had come down to £4. He (Mr. Corry) supposed that next year, in the opinion of the hon. Member, it ought to be nothing; and he did not know what the end would be. The fact was, there was no analogy whatever between the Harbour Commissioners and the electors for the Harbour Commissioners, and elections for Members of Parliament and members of Municipal Boards. The Harbour Commissioners were trustees for a very large property; and, acting in that capacity, they had important interests to protect. He was one of the unfortunate jobbers connected with the Harbour whom the hon. Gentleman had referred to. He had had the honour to possess a seat on the Harbour Board for the last 13 or 14 years; and, from his own knowledge of what was done at that Board during that time, he was able to give a flat contradiction to the statement of the hon. Member in reference to the jobbery perpetrated by the Board. The assertion was perfectly unjustifiable; and it was not the case that the ratepayers who would be excluded by the Bill were interested in the Harbour Rates in any way. The fact was that the ratepayers included in the Bill were those who paid the rates for the Harbour. One of the matters which the ratepayers were very anxious about was that the number of the Commissioners should be increased from 15 to 21, and that had been done. The Harbour Commissioners had met the ratepayers in every possible way, and the ratepayers were entirely satisfied. He had no wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily; but he sincerely trusted that they would not adopt the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for Cavan.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought the Belfast Harbour Board deserved some commiseration, if no better defence could be made for them than that which had

    357
    been made by the hon. Member who had just addressed the House (Mr. Corry). The hon. Gentleman, in regard to this question, was placed in a somewhat peculiar position, and had opened out a wide field of speculation. The proposal of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was to popularize the constitution of the Belfast Harbour Board, and to make that body truly representative of the feelings of the electors of that town, by substituting the Parliamentary franchise for the fancy franchise which now existed. The hon. Member was himself returned to that House by the Parliamentary franchise. He was elected Member for Belfast by occupiers who were rated at £4 per annum; and, seeing that a £4 Parliamentary franchise returned the hon. Gentleman to an Assembly much more dignified and important than that of the Belfast Harbour Board, it most illogical, and came with a bad grace, ho thought, from the hon. Member, that ho should object to such a franchise in the case of the Harbour Board itself. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan, in his present action, had shown a superiority over Party feeling, which stood in agreeable contrast to most of the proceedings of that House. His hon. Friend had not even the hope, if his proposition were adopted, that it would have the effect of securing upon the Harbour Board the election of representatives who would act in consonance with his own feelings; but it would probably consist, as the Parliamentary Representatives of Belfast consisted, of members of the Tory Party. His hon. Friend, however, was quite willing to accept that result; and all he desired was to popularize the constitution of the Belfast Harbour Board, and make it more representative of the feelings of the town. The hon. Member for Belfast said the promoters of the Bill wore much surprised at the interposition of the hon. Member for Cavan. He (Mr. Sexton) would only say that the promoters of the Bill were very easily surprised, because they must be aware that his hon. Friend had opposed another Bill last year relating to the functions of the Board; and ho would take the liberty of saying that it was, in a large degree, due to the action of his hon. Friend that the present Bill had been brought in. [Mr. CORRY: No!] He was entitled to that
    358
    presumption. His hon. Friend drew attention to the character of the proceedings of the Harbour Board last year; and the action that was then taken by his hon. Friend had, no doubt, led this sluggish body to adopt its present course. His hon. Friend had denounced the mismanagement and jobbery of the Harbour Board; and the hon. Member for Belfast confined himself tersely to a flat contradiction. Now, it had always been the custom, when the Board had delicate affairs to deal with, to conduct them in private by means of Committees. It was well known that, in regard to the tariff they established, and the incidence of the dues and rates, the Board always remembered the interests of individual members of their own body much more than the interests of the public. The Board had most important functions to perform. Only last year it received authority to borrow nearly £1,000,000 sterling, which was to be repaid by levying dues on the trade in the North of Ireland. Belfast was the most important port, or nearly so, in Ireland; and the Harbour Board necessarily exercised a powerful influence upon the commerce and general interests and progress of the Province of Ulster. It was undesirable, and contrary to the spirit of the age, that such large functions should be confided to a Board elected upon a fancy franchise. He objected to three points raised in the Bill. He objected to the qualification of the voter; and if hon. Members would turn to page 6 of the Bill, they would find that a person, in order to vote in Belfast for the election of the members of the Harbour Board, must be rated to the relief of the poor on a net annual value, according to the Government valuation, of not less than £20. In other words, a person rated to the relief of the poor to the amount of £4 a-year could vote for a Member of Parliament, and for persons to transact the business of that Assembly, which, in point of importance, both financially and otherwise, far transcended that of any other Assembly in the country; but if he had to vote for a member of the Harbour Board, a body performing local functions only, he was required to possess a qualification five times higher than that of the Parliamentary franchise. If the Colleague of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Corry) were present, he would ask him to address himself to the

    359
    rationale of the question, and show why this should be so. The reform proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan need not be looked upon as radical, revolutionary, or dangerous. The Bill gave a second qualification to the owners of ships. He (Mr. Sexton) did not object to that; but he did object to the multiple vote, by means of which the owners of vessels of 50 tons register had one vote, while the owners of 100 tons had two, and so on up to 1,000 tons, which entitled the owner to six votes. He did not quarrel with the provision for the representation of the shipping interest, because the Board was a Harbour Board, and would have to deal with matters affecting shipping. It was, therefore, not improper that persons connected with shipping should have special advantages in voting. What lie did quarrel with was the fixing of a sliding scale of voting in respect to rating. A person rated at £20 had one vote; while a person rated at £250 had six votes. That was entirely opposed to the principle on which the public life of this country was managed; and he failed to see why a man occupying a £250 house in Belfast had a more direct interest in the proceedings of the Harbour Board than a person occupying a £20 house, or was able to enjoy a more intelligent appreciation of the business of the town. Then, again, the qualification of members of the Board, on page 4 of the Bill, was extraordinary. Not only was the Board guarded by the fence put around them of the fancy franchise, but a second line of fortifications was carefully placed around this precious financial citadel of Belfast. No one could be a member of that secret assembly unless he possessed one of three qualifications. He must be rated to the relief of the poor to the extent of £60 a-year, which meant a rental of about £100, and confined the qualification to what might be called the aristocracy of Belfast. A second qualification was conferred upon the joint owners of property, provided the voter's share amounted to the annual value for rating purposes of £60. There was also a third qualification, which consisted in the possession of landed estate worth £200 a-year, or of personal estate of the value of £5,000, either in the man's own right, or in the right of his wife. He contended that these pro-
    360
    visions made the Bill altogether illusory; and although the Harbour Commissioners of Belfast, in introducing the measure, might have kept their promise to the ear, they had broken it to the hope; and the Board still remained, to all intents and purposes, a close Corporation, from which the legitimate influence of the town of Belfast was altogether excluded. He was of opinion that the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan was a reasonable one, and one that deserved the attention of the House, because it was an attempt to get rid of a jurisdiction, unsuitable to the public interests, and to the spirit of the age.
    MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he would trouble the House with but very observations. His first point was this—that there was no articulate opposition from the town of Belfast against the Bill. Now, the town of Belfast possessed a population of 203,000, and it was the largest and most important place in the North of Ireland. Nevertheless, no opposition to the Bill proceeded from that town; although it could not be said that the inhabitants were not fully able to take care -of their own interests in the matter. In the second place, the franchise, which the Bill was introduced to alter, was practically reduced by the Bill from a £60 rating to one of £20. In the third place, this iniquitous and scandalous Board, for so it had been alluded to that day—[Mr. BIGGAR: No.] Ho was glad to hear that denial; for he had understood the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to say that the proceedings of the Board had been of a most iniquitous character. Now, only a few years ago, the Board possessed so much of the confidence of the public, that it was able to withdraw its 4½ per cent Debenture Bonds, and re-issue Bonds at 4 per cent instead—the Bonds being taken up at par. Indeed, many people of the town of Belfast were glad to got thorn. Having brought these points before the House, he did not propose to occupy its attention further than to express his feeling that it must be deeply gratifying to the people of Belfast to see the interest taken in their town by hon. Members from the South of Ireland. The hon. Member for Cavan, as a Belfast man, had, undoubtedly, a right to interpose; but he protested against local matters being

    361
    interfered with, and discussed by hon. Members who lived at a considerable distance from the place. If his hon. Friend the Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Dawson), or any other hon. Member, introduced a Bill for regulating local matters connected with the City of Dublin or of Cork, he (Mr. J. N. Richardson), and other Members representing the North of Ireland, would give to such a measure a cordial support. He trusted the House would pass the Bill, which came before it practically unopposed.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that his hon. Friend opposite the Member for Armagh (Mr. J. N. Richardson) had contrived to lay down and introduce an entirely novel proposal in legislation—namely, that the interest which an hon. Member took in any Private Bill under the consideration of the House, and his conduct with regard thereto, must be regulated by the radius of the distance of the constituency he represented from the place affected by the measure. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) contended that any hon. Member had a perfect right to discuss every Bill brought before the House; and, whether it was a Private or a Public Bill, it was his duty to endeavour to improve it, if possible; and if it was based upon obsolete principles, then hon. Members ought to oppose it as far as they possibly could. His hon. Friend opposite, to whose speech he had listened with some interest, had adduced nothing in favour of the Bill, except that there had been no articulate opposition against it on the part of the ratepayers of Belfast. The same thing was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast (Mr. Corry), whose sole defence of the measure was, that it had not been opposed by the ratepayers of the city which his hon. Friend represented. The hon. Member seemed, however, to forget that the ratepayers could have no locus standi before the Committee for the purpose of opposing the Bill. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) doubted very much whether the attention of the ratepayers of Belfast had been called very closely to the provisions of the Bill. Certainly, if the ratepayers of Belfast had had the provisions of the Bill brought fully under their knowledge, they were not so intelligent a body as he supposed them to be. The Bill contained some of the most objectionable and some of the most obsolete principles of the old forms
    362
    of legislation it was possible to mention. To begin with, he objected to the qualifications sought to be established by the Bill; he objected to the qualification for voting at the election of the Commissioners, as well as the qualification of the electors themselves. The Bill was a measure to amend the constitution and election of the Belfast Harbour Board Commissioners; but it contained the vicious principles which prevailed in the old Corporations, and which had led to nothing but monstrous extravagance, jobbery, and corruption. Powers such as those proposed to be conferred upon the Harbour Board would inevitably degenerate into mismanagement, if not into something worse. Upon all those grounds, and upon others which he would not trouble the House by explaining, he strongly opposed the Bill. It went directly in the teeth of all the principles aimed at by Parliament with regard to Local Government. It proceeded upon the principle that a body of experts—a select body of persons concerned in a particular trade or calling—were the only persons who could properly understand the interests of Belfast, and manage its affairs. He strongly objected to the principle of permitting men to have multiple votes, on the ground that it was opposed to every principle of modern progress. He supposed that, on the whole, the inhabitants of Belfast were the best judges of their own interests. It was not merely the people connected with the trade of Belfast—the exporters, and importers, and the owners of the shipping, who best understood the interests of Belfast, but the whole body of ratepayers. They were the best judges of their own interests, and should control the election of the Harbour Commissioners.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he thought it was somewhat inconvenient, at a time when they were assembled to dispose of important Public Business, that the House should be led into a long discussion on a Bill of a very humble character, upon the points which had been raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not propose to follow those hon. Gentlemen, or to take up the time of the House, by entering into the large subject which had been raised. The history of the Bill itself was au extremely simple one, and what it proposed to do might be stated to the House in a very few words. The measure was certainly not of the

    363
    character described by the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House (Mr. Justin M'Carthy). He (Sir Arthur Otway) had been somewhat surprised to hear the Bill characterized as one of an objectionable character, having no advantages whatever attached to it. Hon. Members who so described the Bill omitted to mention that the Bill, for the first time, conferred a very much lower franchise upon the voting for the Belfast Harbour Commissioners than over existed before; that this franchise was exercised under the protection of the ballot; and that there were also other advantages, in a direction which he had supposed would commend itself to lion. Members opposite. One of these advantages was that it increased the number of Commissioners from 15 to 21. The Bill had already passed through the House of Lords, and it had come before this House practically unopposed. He had had some conversation with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) in regard to the provisions of the Bill and in consequence of that conversation he had requested the promoters to afford further information from Belfast upon the subjects mentioned by the hon. Member for Cavan. The result was that a gentleman came over from Belfast, and gave evidence before the Committee of so conclusive a character, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member, that the Committee had no hesitation in passing the Bill exactly as it stood. In order that the House might not be led away in regard to the necessity of enlarging the franchise, and the iniquitous character of the present restrictive franchise, he would toll the House what had been done. The qualification for voting, before the introduction of the Bill, was based upon the police rate, and really amounted to a £40 or £50 occupation qualification. What was done by the Bill was to lower this qualification down to a £20 occupation franchise, and, as he had stated, to extend the number of Commissioners from 15 to 21. Furthermore, the protection of the ballot was given to the voter; and, therefore, a great stop was taken in the direction which he thought hon. Members sitting on the other side of the House would desire. Objection was taken now to the qualification of the Commissioners, and to the manner
    364
    in which they conducted their business. As far as he understood, no complaint had ever been made against the action of the Commissioners.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, words had been attributed to him by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. J. N. Richardson), which he had not used. He had certainly not approved altogether of the action of the Commissioners; but he had not characterized that action as scandalous and iniquitous.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, that no complaint of the past action of the Commissioners was made to the Committee, either in the House of Lords or in the House of Commons. And the Commissioners themselves seemed disposed to act liberally, because it appeared that they had put themselves into communication with a hostile body appointed by the ratepayers, in order to influence them in their action, and they had entirely adopted the proposal made by that Committee of ratepayers. When the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) complained of the extent of the qualification required on the part of the Commissioners, he omitted to tell the House how very important were the duties confided to the Commissioners. The electors of Belfast had very little to do with the vast property entrusted to the Commissioners. The Commissioners were the holders of Bonds amounting to nearly £1,000,000 sterling; and they had borrowed a sum of £750,000 upon those Bonds, with which the electors of Belfast had nothing whatever to do. And it was a sound principle that gentlemen who had to administer a large fund like this should be themselves men of substance, in whom those who lent their money could have perfect confidence. He would not trouble the House with further observations. The Bill, as he had said, was unopposed. He was far from underrating the opposition of the hon. Member for Cavan; but, up to that moment, the hon. Member was the only opponent who had appeared in any way against the Bill. There had been no complaint whatever on the part of the ratepayers of Belfast. No one appeared to oppose the Bill before the Committee; and he appealed to the House with confidence to support the decision of the Committee, which he was perfectly certain was a just and proper one.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, he thought the thanks not only of the House, but of the inhabitants of Ulster and of Ireland generally, were due to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), for having raised the question he had brought before the House that day. The Bill was one which he (Dr. Commins) thought it would be a great misfortune to the ratepayers of Belfast should be allowed to pass sub silentio, and to the ratepayers and traders of Ireland generally. It had been urged by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. J. N. Richardson), and the Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Arthur Otway), that no opposition against the Bill came from the inhabitants of Belfast. He wanted to know if hon. Members were acquainted with the way in which Private Bills, emanating from corporate bodies, were got up? The ratepayers, who wore the constituents of such Corporations, know nothing whatever about such Private Bills. Generally, a Committee of a Corporation was appointed, consisting of two or three members. Recommendations were made by the Town Clerk or the Law Clerk, and considered by the Committee; but the outside public were never informed of them. A Bill was drawn up and promoted; but the public knew absolutely nothing whatever about it, and had no opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. Some years ago, Corporations were in the habit of introducing Bills containing rating provisions so much opposed to the interests of the ratepayers, that at last peoples' patience was exhausted, and the result was the passing of the Public Funds Act, which required that a Corporation, before introducing such a Bill, should consult the wishes of their constituents; and now that such a provision was necessary, he should like to know how many Bills of this character had received the sanction of the constituencies in England? An endeavour to introduce them had been tried dozens of times; but he did not remember a single instance in which a constituency had given its consent to a proposal in a Private Bill to give additional rating powers to a Corporation. So much, then, for the argument that there had been no opposition to the Bill from the ratepayers of Belfast. If the ratepayers of Belfast, or even the constituency of the Belfast Harbour
    366
    Board, narrow as it was, had been asked to give an opinion under conditions similar to those required by the Public Funds Act, this Bill would have been condemned, and condemned with such a consensus of opinion that it never would have been brought before the House. What was it that the Bill proposed to do? He was not acquainted with the whole of the provisions of the Bill; but, as far as he was able to judge, especially when he recollected the qualifications for the Commissioners of the Harbour Board, it was, to all intents and purposes, a shipowners' Bill. He had thought they had got beyond the age for giving a monopoly to any particular trade. This, however, was a Bill which gave a monopoly of the management of the Harbour and trade of Belfast to the shipowners, and the shipowners alone. The qualification for serving on the Board was a qualification, practically, of shipowners, and shipowners alone; and so large was the amount of the interest required for admission to the register that the qualification of the electors of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board was not one-tenth of what was proposed to be established in the case of Belfast. In the City of Liverpool, any person who imported or exported goods paying £10 in harbour dues had a vote; and, instead of having a shipowners' Corporation, they had a Corporation upon which the influence of the importer and exporter of goods was allowed to make itself felt. The only qualification was that the person should contribute, as an importer or exporter of goods, the sum of £10 per annum to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Dues. Of course, any shipowner who was a large importer or exporter obtained due and proper representation on his own account; but, in the case of this Bill, there was no provision whatever to allow an importer or exporter of goods to have a voice in the management of the affairs of the Harbour of Belfast; and oven in the case of a shipowner himself the qualification was nearly 10 times as high as in Liverpool, with its £200,000,000 worth of property, with its debt of more than £20,000,000, and with an annual rating or receipt of Dock Duos to the extent of nearly £1,000,000 a-year. In the case of Liverpool, interests of

    367
    that magnitude were entrusted to persons possessed of mercantile knowledge, as importers or exporters, and with thorn rested the management of the docks and Harbour; whereas, in this case, they had shipowners, and shipowners alone. Of course, it was only too probable, when any particular trade required regulating, that persons who were interested in that trade would pass regulations in their own favour, and against the public interest. That was the only principle of the Bill, as far as any principle could be traced in it; and he thought the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan to extend the area of the electoral franchise, and to secure that the persons elected by the Board should be drawn from a wider field, eminently entitled his hon. Friend to the thanks of the House and of the people of Ireland.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that when this Bill was being promoted last year by the Belfast Harbour Board Commissioners, a deputation of ratepayers waited upon the Harbour Board and asked that the qualification should be reduced to £20. The Harbour Commissioners at once acceded to the request of the ratepayers, and the result was the Bill now before the House, which directly represented the views of the ratepayers; and in all its stages it had been an unopposed Bill. It had passed through the House of Lords without opposition; and he need not tell the House that the merchants and traders of Belfast were fully alive to their own interests, and would not have allowed the Bill to pass unopposed if they considered that in any way it infringed upon their rights, or was in opposition to their wishes. He had no direct connection with the Harbour of Belfast; but, as an Ulster man, he was proud of Belfast and its Harbour. His connection with the Harbour of Belfast was that he was called upon to pay heavy dues every week; but, so far as he was concerned, as one of the merchants of Ulster, he entirely approved of the Bill, and considered its provisions fair and moderate. He was also of opinion that, if the views which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Biggar) proposed were adopted, it was perfectly plain that the Belfast Harbour Board would not be able to borrow £1,000,000 of money and maintain their Bonds in their present position. As to
    368
    the qualification of £20, that qualification was lower than several Harbour Bills which had lately passed the House. In the case of Dumbarton, the qualification was not a rating qualification at all, but was based upon the payment of Harbour Duos. In order to have a vote in Dumbarton, the ratepayers must have paid £5 in dues; in Greenock, £10 in dues; in Dundee, £10 in dues; and in Leith, £5 in dues. All those qualifications were higher and more disadvantageous than the present Bill provided for Belfast. He should like to tell the House the extraordinary progress which the views of the hon. Member for Cavan had made during the last 12 months. Last year the hon. Member was in favour of a £10 rating qualification. When upstairs a short time ago, before the Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Arthur Otway), he suggested an £8 qualification; and now, only a few days later, he asked for a £4 qualification. He (Mr. T. A. Dickson) only referred to this to show the rapid progress which the hon. Member was making as to the reduction of the franchise in connection with the Belfast Board. He had no political sympathy with Belfast; but he knew that the Harbour Board Commissioners were men of high intelligence and commercial honour—men who had made Belfast Harbour, and Belfast itself, a credit to Ulster and to Ireland. The right hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) said he was standing up for the rights of the people of Belfast. He (Mr. T. A. Dickson) advised the right hon. Gentleman to allow the people of Belfast to stand up for their own rights, and to allow the ratepayers of Belfast to have a little of that Home Rule which he (Mr. Dawson) claimed for Ireland. Hon. Members opposite talked about the great abuses and jobbery of the Belfast Harbour Board. Did the House think there was any foundation for such charges, when, as he had just said, the Bill had passed through all its stages unopposed? Had the House no respect for the intelligence of the commercial community of Belfast? Did they think the people of Belfast would have allowed such a Bill to have been brought in by persons who were open to the charge of jobbery and corruption? No such charge had ever been made against them, and such an imputation

    369
    was utterly and entirely devoid of foundation.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was not surprised that the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) should take the line he had taken, and that he should have trotted out, for the delectation of the House, all the stale arguments, advanced years ago, on behalf of the old unreformed Corporations. They were arguments which, in the case of these Corporations, had, in many instances, proved useless; and they were arguments which he (Mr. Parnell) trusted would prove wholly useless in respect to this old unreformed Corporation of the Harbour Commissioners of Belfast. He was not surprised that the hon. Member should have taken that line, because it showed the exact amount of confidence ho entertained in the great principle which was supposed to be the future platform of the Liberal Party—namely, the establish-merit of household franchise in the county.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he wished to correct the misstatement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for the City of Cork is in possession of the House; and the interruption of the hon. Gentleman is irregular, unless he desires to make an explanation, which, no doubt, the House will be ready to hear.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. A. Dickson) would have an opportunity of correcting him as soon as he (Mr. Parnell) had finished what he had to say. It was not seemly on the part of the hon. Member to interrupt him before he had finished a sentence. He could only judge, by the public actions of the hon. Member, and the feeling of the present body of electors, which the hon. Member evidently dreaded, that he objected so strongly to the lowering of the franchise, no doubt, from a wholesome fear that it might deprive the county of Tyrone of the hon. Member's valuable services. The Chairman of Ways and Means had complained of the course taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), in introducing this question at a moment when other Public Business was awaiting consideration. Unfortunately, that was the only
    370
    opportunity hon. Members from Ireland had of directing attention to the very glaring abuses which a Liberal Government and a Liberal House of Commons were asked to sanction by this most useless Bill. The hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means would recollect that he himself had not scrupled the other day to deprive Irish Members of the opportunity which had fallen to their lot, owing to the chances of the ballot, of carrying a most important Irish measure. [Cries of "Question!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I must call upon the hon. Member for the City of Cork to confine himself to the Question before the House.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had merely wished to refer to the matter.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is quite irregular to refer to it.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that, as an excuse for his conduct, if the House would allow him, he wished to make an explanation.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must call on the hon. Member to keep to the Question before the House.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had no intention of continuing to discuss the point, after having been requested by the Speaker to desist; but, in courtesy to the Speaker and the House, he wished to explain that he had considered himself in Order, because the Chairman of Ways and Means had himself referred to the matter. In obedience, however, to the direction of the Speaker, be should not, for a single moment, desire to continue the topic further. He was surprised that a Gentleman of the advanced Liberal views of the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Arthur Otway), and who had hitherto been so consistent in the advocacy of those views, should lend the influence which his high position as Chairman of the Committees of the Whole House undoubtedly gave him to obstruct and impede the ratepayers of Belfast, and the humbler portion of the community, in obtaining a much-needed reform in the direction in which the Liberal Party had been pledged, over and over again, as deeply as they possibly could be. The Bill, as it stood at present, was practically illusory, as regarded its object of opening up the franchise, and rendering it possible for all classes and persons to be represented

    371
    upon the Harbour Board of Belfast, who had not hitherto succeeded in obtaining such a representation. What was the position they urgently desired to remedy, in regard to the Harbour Board, and the constitution of that Board, and which they thought the House ought to assist them in remedying, if they had any real regard for the principles of justice and liberty? The position of the Harbour Board of Belfast was that its constitution was of such a character that, although the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) did not scruple to appeal to the suffrages of the Catholic electors, at the last General Election there was not a single Catholic out of the 15 members of this Harbour Board Commission. Nevertheless, the hon. Member came forward to support a measure of pretended reform of this kind, which would not, actually or practically speaking, make the slightest alteration in the constitution of that Board. The Chairman of Committees told them that the proposed franchise amounted to about £20, based upon the police rate. But anyone who had the slightest acquaintance with rating in the towns of Ireland knew that a rating occupation of £20, based upon the provisions of the present Bill, would practically mean a rental of £30 or £40. No person would obtain a house rated at £20 in the City of Belfast for a much less rent than £30 or £35; and he would sometimes have to pay more, so that, practically speaking, the reduction of franchise, which the promoters of the Bill put forward as a great concession to Liberal feeling, only amounted to a reduction of about one-seventh in the value of the qualification, at present required for a vote for the Board of Commissioners. Now, who were the people interested in the Harbour of Belfast? It was not only the large merchants, and the largo shipowners, like the hon. Member for the County of Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson)—it was not this class only for whom he specially pleaded; but he (Mr. Parnell) submitted that the tendency of modern thought and modern legislation had indubitably established the principle that everybody who lived in a district governed by local government was just as much interested in the purity and economy of that local government as the rich and the possessors of monopolies, such as the shipowners and the
    372
    great merchants, for whom the hon. Member for the County of Tyrone had pleaded. He submitted that every shopkeeper in Belfast, who dealt in imported or exported goods, every artizan or mill-hand, who used articles of import, or produced articles for export, was just as much interested, from his own point of view, in the prosperity, good management, and economy of governing the Harbour of Belfast, as the great merchants and the large shipowners and the rich shopkeepers, who had hitherto exclusively maintained a monopoly over the control of this most important port. He could not imagine, for a moment, how the House deliberately, in the present day, could sanction the vicious principles contained in the Bill. The hon. Member for Tyrone said that a deputation of ratepayers came to London on the subject last year, and recommended that the franchise should be lowered to £20. But of whom did the deputation consist? It consisted of the very rich men, whose monopoly they were now trying to destroy. It was a self - constituted deputation, not even nominated by the Corporation, elected themselves by a franchise already sufficiently high—namely, an £8 franchise. It was a self-constituted deputation selected at hap-hazard. It came over to London, and made the most pernicious proposition which had been embodied in the Bill. The hon. Member for Tyrone also made a most startling assertion to the House which was entirely inconsistent with the facts of the case. He (Mr. Parnell) could not imagine how an hon. Member so well acquainted with the North of Ireland, and so much interested in the prosperity of the Port of Belfast, should have allowed himself to have been so much misinformed in regard to matters which ought to come under his everyday cognizance. The hon. Member told the House that, if the franchise wore lowered, the Harbour Commissioners would not be able to borrow money at so low a rate of interest as at present. What were the facts of the case? The Town Council of Belfast, which was elected upon a rateable value of £8, although £20 was the figure named in the Bill for the election of Harbour Commissioners; the Water Commissioners, who were also elected on a rateable value of £10; both of these bodies were able to

    373
    borrow money at exactly the same rate of interest as the Harbour Commissioners—namely, 4 per cent per annum. Reasoning from analogy and the probabilities of the case, surely if these two Bodies, elected on so much lower a franchise, were able to borrow money at 4 per cent, the Harbour Board of Commissioners, if the franchise were similarly reduced in their case, would be able to borrow money on the same terms. It had always been understood that the Harbour Board of Belfast was elected from the Protestant or Orange section of the community, and that that rendered the lenders of money disposed to consider the security much better, in regard to the payment of interest on the loans which they might advance from time to time. The present franchise given by the Bill would only result in complicating the present state of things. The Bill was altogether illusory. It was no reform at all, but a sham. He would like to have had an opinion from the Government upon the question; and he thought the House were entitled to hear the views of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain). He regretted very much that the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place. He should also like to have had an opinion from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who, in the last Parliament, used annually to bring forward a Motion for the reduction of the present county franchise to the level of the household franchise in boroughs. If the Bill had been one dealing with the Port of Liverpool, or any other of the great English ports, he presumed the House would have had the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade; and he regretted that they had not been favoured, not only with the views of the right hon. Gentleman on the present occasion, but also with those of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who, he should have thought, would have considered it desirable to have been present during the discussion of this most important matter. There were very important questions which must crop up from time to time, as Harbour Boards came before the House with propositions for increased powers. Attention had already been called to the example of Liverpool, where the franchise was vastly lower than in the present case.
    374
    A considerable number of the Harbour Boards in Ireland were very badly constituted, both as regarded the method and the franchise provided for returning the members of the Board. The Bill would perpetuate the old and vicious principle of the multiple vote; and it abounded with many other imperfections. The subject was of so much importance to the people of Belfast, and of such value in indicating the tendencies of future legislation for Ireland, that it would not have been right for his hon. Friend, or for those hon. Members who were associated with him, but, on the contrary, they would have neglected their duty, if they had lost the opportunity, which the present proceeding afforded them, of protesting with all their might, and using all the means within their power, against the passing of a Bill which perpetuated so vicious a principle, and sanctioned so fraudulent a monopoly.
    Question put.
    The House divided: — Ayes 215; Noes 21: Majority 194.—(Div. List, No. 131.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill, as amended considered; to be read the third time.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (DISTRICT RAILWAY) BILL
  (by Order).
  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (DISTRICT RAILWAY) BILL

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir James M'Garel-Hogg.)
    MR. MONKsaid, that, after the time that had already been spent upon Private Business, he would not now trespass long upon the attention of the House. Having, however, given Notice yesterday of opposition to the Bill, he thought it was only right to say a few words to explain the reasons why he gave such Notice. As the House granted a second reading to a Bill of a similar nature yesterday, without opposition, he had no hope or expectation that the House would throw out this Bill on the second reading; and, therefore, he would say at once he should not put the House to the trouble of dividing. He did think that when a Bill of this nature

    375
    was brought in by the Metropolitan Board of Works, the ratepayers of the Metropolis ought to know something about the measure. Now, this Bill proposed, in Clause 5, that the ratepayers of the Metropolis should pay not only the whole expense of erecting the ventilators, which had proved of so much use during the short time they had been in operation, but that they should pay the whole of the cost of removing them. That was a reckless expenditure, in his opinion, and one which it was very hard that the ratepayers should be called upon to bear. Personally, he had very little confidence in the Metropolitan Board of Works; and, with all respect to the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), ho had very little confidence in him as the Chairman of the Board. He would tell the House why. His hon. and gallant Friend had, year after year, opposed Motions which he (Mr. Monk) and others had brought forward in the House for referring the Annual Bill of the Metropolitan Board of Works to a Committee of the House. He (Mr. Monk) had always held that the large expenditure incurred by the Metropolitan Board of Works ought to be submitted to the examination of a Committee of the House of Commons; and the House would remember that in 1881—two years ago—the late Lord Frederick Cavendish gave his assent to the Bill of the next Session—namely, last Session—being so referred. But his hon. Friend the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), when he succeeded to the Office, refused his assent to that course being followed last year. He (Mr. Monk) bad a strong objection to any expenditure being incurred by the Metropolitan Board of Works which was not audited by the House. Yesterday, the London Commissioners of Sewers obtained the second reading of a Bill, the effect of which would really be to aid in poisoning the millions of persons who travelled by the Metropolitan District Railway. He had had some little experience of travelling on the Underground Railway, both before and since the ventilators had been erected; and he said, without fear of contradiction, that there was now a much purer atmosphere in the tunnels than there was before the ventilators were constructed. He knew
    376
    there were some hon. Gentlemen who did not credit that statement; but there were a great many people who travelled by the line, and who had acknowledged with gratitude the efforts made by the District Railway to improve the atmosphere in the tunnels. Having made these few observations, he merely desired, on behalf of some of the ratepayers of the Metropolis, to enter a strong protest against their money being squandered in the way proposed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and to hope that the Bill would never come back to the House from the Select Committee to which it would be referred.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he was very sorry indeed that he did not possess the confidence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Monk). He was happy to say, however, that he possessed the confidence of other people, and had done so for a considerable time. As regarded the Metropolitan Board of Works, he could only say they endeavoured to do their duty. They represented the Metropolis; they carried out their duty to the best of their ability; and they never spent a penny more of the public's money than was necessary. The question of the Annual Money Bill was not now before the House, though, if it were, it would simply be found to be a recapitulation of what both Houses of Parliament had passed year after year. He maintained there was no necessity whatever to send it to a Select Committee. As to the proposed expenditure, he thought the money of the ratepayers would be remarkably well spent in defending their own property. He said yesterday, and he was sorry to have to repeat it, that, considering the original cost of the Embankment and Gardens was more than £1,500,000, £40,000 would be very well spent in preventing them from being desecrated and destroyed. As a matter of fact, in whatever the Metropolitan Board of Works were now doing, they were simply carrying out the instructions of the House. In accordance with the views of the Select Committee of the House, the Board were now engaged in making experiments with the object of showing that the present ventilators were not at all needed, because the ventilation of the railway could be carried out in a much better way.

    377
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

  MOTION.

    NEW WRIT FOR THE COUNTY OF MONAGHAN.—RESOLUTION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Cleric of the Crown in Ireland to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Monaghan, in the room of John Givan, esquire, who since his Election for the said County hath accepted the office of Crown Solicitor for the Counties of Meath and Kildare."—(Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
    MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, I think, before the Motion is agreed 'to, and this Writ is issued, we should enter into a discussion on the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill, in order that attention may be drawn to the manner in which the principles of the Bill, especially in respect of lawyers, have been thrown aside by the Government. These hon. and learned Gentlemen, who spent a large amount of money to get returned, are rewarded cent per cent for their expenses by appointments being given to them, as has been done in this and other instances. In the county of Tyrone, a Gentleman, who went into an expensive contest, was rewarded in 12 months with an Office worth £3,000 a-year; and we have here now a Gentleman who contested the County Monaghan, after three years given a situation, and pitch-forked into a county with which he has had no previous connection; who has not even an extensive practice as a criminal lawyer; and whose only possible qualification is that he spent money extensively in a contest on behalf of the Liberal Party.
    MR. BIGGAR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to corroberate more or less—and very much more than less—what has been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), with regard to the system pursued in reference to Government appointments in Ireland. Now, if the Government are really serious with regard to this subject of extending the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill to Ireland, with the view of keeping down the expenditure—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) must confine himself to the Question before the House, which is, whether the Writ shall be issued? He cannot discuss the Corrupt Practices Bill. That matter will come under the consideration of the House later on in the present Sitting.
    MR. BIGGAR: Very well, Sir. I will confine myself to the issue of the Writ for Monaghan; and I wish to endorse what has been said as to the very expensive expenditure that was incurred by hon. Members sitting for this county; and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Government are doing with one hand what they are undoing with the other. They are occupying the time of the House in passing a Bill to keep down the expenses of elections; while, at the same time, they are giving large rewards to parties who spend money in the most extravagant manner in their interest. I think it would—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not attending to my directions, and confining himself to the Question before the Chair, which is, whether the Writ shall or shall not go?
    MR. BIGGAR: I will come to the point, Mr. Speaker; and in accordance with your suggestion, and in accordance with the suggestions of common sense and reason, I beg to move that the issue of the Writ be suspended until a decision has been come to by the House regarding the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill now before Parliament.
    MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member be so good as to bring up his Amendment?
    Amendment brought up, and read.
    MR. SPEAKER: Who seconds the Amendment?
    MR. SEXTON: I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment, for those reasons. I do so, in the first place, because it will allow of a decision upon the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill being arrived at; and, therefore, I think it is desirable that the issue of the Writ should be postponed until we know the intentions of the Government regarding future elections of this sort in Ireland; secondly, it will enable us to inquire into the expenses of this hon. and learned Gentleman at the last Election; and, thirdly,

    379
    in order that we may have time to inquire whether this hon. and learned Gentleman is the author of the famous placard at the Tyrone Election—Vote for Porter and Fair Rents, which raised the banner of political corruption in Ireland.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the issue of the Writ for the County of Monaghan be suspended until the decision of Parliament has been had regarding the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill now before this House,"—(Mr. Biggar,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put.
    Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Monaghan, in the room of John Given, esquire, who since his Election for the said County has accepted the office of Crown Solicitor for the Counties of Meath and Kildare.

  QUESTIONS.

    THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—CASHEL UNION.
    MR. MAYNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a recent resolution of the Board of Guardians of the Cashel Union, declaring—
    "That we hereby condemn the practice of the Irish Land Commissioners of this district, of sending the application for a fair rent from this union to be heard in Tipperary, as a great injustice and hardship to the tenant farmers of this union, and imposing on them extra cost, trouble, and inconvenience, especially as there is a spacious court-house in Cashel, where general quarter sessions are held, as well as ample accommodation in the town for the Commissioners, solicitors, valuators, and applicants;"
    and, whether, considering that portions of the Cashel Union are nearly forty miles from Tipperary, arrangements will be made that, for the future, eases from this union shall be heard in Cashel, and thus save the farmers of the district the great inconvenience and expense involved in the present arrangements?
    MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Land Commissioners arranged the sittings of this Sub-Commission according to the best of their judgment and ability, hav-
    380
    ing regard to the general convenience and state of business. They consider that much loss of time would have been involved by selecting for the purpose more than two or three towns in each county in which the Sub-Commission acts. However, it has power to adjourn to any other town within the county, and may therefore, on application being made to it when sitting at Tipperary, adjourn to Cashel for the convenience of parties whose holdings are near that town. I have answered Questions on this subject more than once, and ani unable to give any further information upon it.

    POST OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—THE IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
    MR. GRAYasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in the event of the Government deciding to use for the mail service between Holyhead and Kingstown vessels inferior in length, beam, draught, tonnage, or horse-power to those now employed, he will communicate such intention to Parliament before the Contract is signed or the Government absolutely committed to it?
    MR. FAWCETT: Sir, even for a temporary sea service, any contract for a definite period, exceeding one year, must be laid on the Table of the House, and will not be binding until it has lain there one month without disapproval, or has been approved by Resolution. If it should be proposed to enter into a contract for the period of one year, or any less period, there will be no objection, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, to promise, as the hon. Member suggests, that the House shall be informed of the intention of the Government before any binding contract is executed.

    NAVY—THE DOCKYARDS—ARTIZANS' MEMORIALS.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any decision has as yet been arrived at on the various petitions submitted to the Board by different classes of artizans working in Her Majesty's Dockyards; and, if so, whether such decision will be carried out this year, and the necessary Votes taken in the Estimates?
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, a personal inquiry has been made

    381
    by some of my Colleagues and myself into the subject of the various Memorials from the Dockyards, and we are now engaged in considering the cases submitted. I should mislead the hon. Member if I implied by my answer that "Votes" would necessarily be required; because, until a decision is arrived at, it is impossible to say whether an addition will be made to the wages of any of the workmen. No unnecessary delay will take place; but the ground covered by the Memorialists is of great extent, and the examination cannot be hurried.

    NAVY-WRECK OF H.M.S. "LIVELY."
    MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he can explain the cause of the loss of H.M.S. "Lively;" and, whether the rocks upon which the vessel struck were correctly set out on the charts in possession of the commander and pilot?
    SIR JOHN HAYalso asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether H.M.S. "Lively" is a total wreck, or whether there is some hope she may be saved for Her Majesty's service?
    MR. CAMPBELL -BANNERMAN: Sir, in answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), I have to say that the Admiralty have no fuller details of the unfortunate accident to the Lively than have appeared in the reports in newspapers; and it would be improper for me to offer an opinion as to the cause of the accident until the circumstances have been officially inquired into. The rock on which she ran is a well-known rock, and is marked on the charts. In answer to the Question of the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay), we have still some hope that the Lively may be beached and pumped out, when the extent of the damage to hon will be ascertained.

    PAPAL SEE—DIPLOMATIC COMMUNICATIONS (MR. ERRINGTON).
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table a copy of the letter originally written by Lord Granville to Mr. Errington, to be shown by him to the Papal authorities?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICENo, Sir; it is not intended to lay on the
    382
    Table the letter referred to in the Question.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Is it to be kept, as a record, at the Foreign Office?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I wish to ask for Notice of the Question.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I will ask the Question on Monday.

    EGYPT—LAW AND JUSTICE—TRIALS OF AHMED KHANDEEL AND SULEIMAN SAMI.
    MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the trial of Ahmed Khandeel will take place; whether it will be conducted in the same manner as that of Suleiman Sami; whether Major Macdonald will be instructed by Her Majesty's Government to watch the proceedings, and Sir Edward Malet to forward immediately any protest Major Macdonald may find it necessary to make against them; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take such precautions as may be necessary to secure Ahmed Khandeel a fair trial?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, from the telegram read in the House yesterday by the Prime Minister, it would appear that the instruction in this case has been completed, and that the trial is now about to take place. The prisoner will be tried by Court Martial, as was Suleiman Sami. Major Macdonald is watching this case, as he has watched the others. It is not considered necessary to give him further instructions as to reporting to Sir Edward Malet, the instructions he has already being deemed sufficient. Sir Edward Malet has received instructions to see that Ahmed Khandeel should secure a fair trial, in keeping with the pledges given in the House, and explained in one of the despatches which will be presented.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the noble Lord, If he would have any objection to state the exact clause under which Ahmed Khandeel was being tried; what he was being tried for; whether, as stated by The Times' Correspondent on the 10th June, he was to be indicted on a charge of want of energy in the execution of his duty; and, whether the Government would sanction his execution if he was found guilty of such a charge?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, he thought it would be better if his hon. Friend gave Notice of the Question. The Foreign Office, at the present moment, did not possess information which would enable him to reply to the Question.
    MR. GORST: The noble Lord has not answered that part of my Question which seeks to know whether Sir Edward Malet had been instructed to send at once to this country any communication which Major Macdonald might send?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, that Sir Edward Malet had not done so. He would naturally know to forward anything of that kind without receiving instructions.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Did he forward any protest from Major Macdonald?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: There was none.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he wished to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government had received any information from Sir Edward Malet respecting the trial of Suleiman Sami?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I read a telegram yesterday from Sir Edward Malet.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: But that contained nothing at all.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked whether the conditions of the trial of Ahmed Khandeel would be exactly the same as in the case of Suleiman Sami?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That is the very Question I answered just now.

    CRIME (IRELAND)—ALLEGED POISONING IN DUBLIN.
    MR. BERESFORD (for Mr. TOTTENHAM)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the statement, which recently appeared in the "Central News"—
    "That the authorities had received information that Mr. Jury, of Dame Street, Dublin, had been poisoned by the Invincibles,"
    was correct; and, whether any steps have been taken, by the exhumation of the body or otherwise, to verify this information?
    MR. BIGGAR: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I would like to know, how soon was the body exhumed, and who was the analyst
    384
    by whom the examination was conducted?
    MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, P. J. Tynan, one of the "Invincibles," appears to have boasted, shortly after the death of Mr. Jury, in College Green, that he had poisoned him. There is no doubt that the belief that ho had done so was honestly—if I may use the word—and pretty generally held among the principals of the gang of "Invincibles," and amongst those who were most in Tynan's confidence. It was, consequently, believed by the authorities that sufficient ground existed for an investigation; and Mr. Jury's body was, with Mrs. Jury's consent, exhumed, the exact date of which I am not aware of. However, after a careful analysis by Dr. Cameron, the analyst of the City of Dublin, no trace of poison has been discovered.

    LAW AND JUSTICE (INDIA)—ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT OF AN ENGLISHMAN.—EXPLANATION.
    COLONEL DAWNAYsaid, he was desirous of making a short personal explanation. In putting a Question, on Monday week, as to an assault alleged to have been committed by a Native servant of the Gaekwar of Baroda on an English gentleman, he (Colonel Dawnay) inadvertently cast an imputation on the Viceroy. Such an imputation was never intended on his part; and, in reference to the Gaekwar, he was glad to be able to state, from communications he had received through the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross), he had satisfied himself that this Question should have referred to another Native Prince, and not to the Gaekwar of Baroda, who, he was sure, was utterly incapable of acting in the manner alleged. He wished also to add that he did not believe Lord Ripon had taken any action in reference to the affair of the kind attributed to him—that of hushing the matter up.
    MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Thirsk has put the matter right by withdrawing and apologizing for the statement contained in his Question. It is unnecessary for me to say a word on behalf of Lord Ripon; but he wishes me to say that the Gaekwar is quite incapable of committing such an act as that

    385
    attributed to him. The Gaekwar is an accomplished Gentleman, a Prince of the highest reputation, and he will feel keenly and resent deeply the charge made against him. I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for what he has said, and am glad that it is withdrawn.

    INDIA—CRIMINAL CODE PROCEDURE AMENDMENT BILL.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government are able to confirm the statements of the Calcutta Correspondent of the "Times," that the great majority of the officials of India, and those of Bengal and Assam, almost unanimously, have reported against Mr. Ilbert's Native Jurisdiction Bill; and, when these reports will be laid upon the Table?
    MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, I am not able to confirm the statement of the Calcutta Correspondent of The Times alluded to in the Question of the hon. Member for Eye; and, considering that I do not know whether the Reports of all the Provincial Governments have yet been received by the Government of India, I cannot say when they will be laid upon the Table.
    MR. RYLANDSasked the hon. Member for Eye, who had given Notice that, on Friday, he would call attention to the conduct of Lord Ripon in regard to this subject, whether, seeing that those Reports were not forthcoming, he would not postpone his Motion?
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Sir, I am most reluctant to abandon the opportunity, very rarely obtained by private Members, of bringing the menacing condition of India before the House. Since I referred to Lord Ripon's Administration, I have received an immense number of communications from all parts of India, testifying to the bitterness of race antagonism, caused by the Viceroy's action, and protesting against Lord Ripon's legislation and policy; but I feel that the point urged by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) is extremely important. The great majority of the official Reports are strongly opposed to Mr. Ilbert's Bill; and my case will be much strengthened by the production of these Reports. It is most desirable that they should be in the hands of Members before a dis-
    386
    cussion. For these reasons, I do not propose to proceed so soon as Friday with my Motion against the policy of Lord Ripon.

  ORDER OF THE DAY.

    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]
    (Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress 7th June.]
    [SECOND NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Corrupt Practices.
    Clause 1 (What is treating).
    MR. F. W. BUXTON, in moving to insert, in page 1, after "candidates," in line 7, the words "at Parliamentary elections," said, the clause would then run—
    "Whereas, under section four of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854, persons other than candidates at Parliamentary elections are not liable to any punishment for treating," &c.
    It seemed to him that, if the words he proposed were inserted, the clause would be more in accordance with the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act. The addition of the words would also make the intention of the 1st clause of the Bill clearer; and, therefore, if his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General could see his way to accept the Amendment he should be glad.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, after "candidates," insert "at Parliamentary elections." — (Mr. F. W. Buxton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Amendment was a purely verbal one, and he would accept it.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him the clause was better as it stood. They had constantly had it put before them that it was a very common thing to corrupt constituencies at municipal elections, with the indirect object of getting

    387
    support at Parliamentary elections. It seemed to him that that Bill, if it was to be effectual at all, should apply, not only to direct corruption, but also to in- direct corruption, and that it should be made an offence of quite as grievous a nature to bribe at a municipal election as at a Parliamentary election. He, therefore, hoped that the Committee would allow the clause to remain as it now stood.
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. F. W. BUXTON, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "corruptly," said, that the clause was one which dealt with the subject of treating; and it appeared to him that, in the original Bill, the 1st clause read in a clearer manner than the 1st clause did in this Bill. The Bill brought in last year by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) did not contain the word "corruptly;" but the word was inserted after a very short debate, and without a division, and, if his (Mr. Buxton's) memory served him right, at a time when the House contained very few Members. The object of the clause was that any person—
    "Who corruptly by himself, or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays, wholly or in part, the expense of giving or providing, any meat, drink, entertainment, or provision to or for any person, for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person … shall be guilty of treating."
    He was not competent to speak as a lawyer; but it appeared to him the clause would be simpler, clearer, and more direct in its object, if the word "corruptly" were omitted, so that the clause would read—
    "That any person who by himself, or by any other person, supplies meat, drink, or entertainment, for the purpose of influencing votes shall be held guilty of treating."
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "corruptly."—(Mr. F. W. Buxton.)
    Question proposed, "that the word corruptly' stand part of the Clause."
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would not consent to the proposed alteration. Last year the word
    388
    "corruptly" was inserted in the clause after a very full debate; and it was the general opinion that the insertion of the word tended materially to improve the clause.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he could confirm the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). The matter was carefully considered last year, and he (Mr. Rylands) was happy to perceive that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, in presenting the Bill to the House this year, had taken advantage of the suggestions which were made, and the Amendments which were accepted last year. His hon. Friend (Mr. F. W. Buxton) seemed inclined to go over all the points which were discussed fully last year, and to dwell at length upon all the Amendments which the Committee succeeded in inducing the hon. and learned Attorney General to accept. He (Mr. Rylands) did not think such a course would facilitate the proceedings of the Committee.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he took it to be the general wish of the Committee that the word "corruptly" should remain in the clause. The word was inserted in the previous Bill, and he hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Andover (Mr. F. W. Buxton) would not press his Amendment.
    MR. F. W. BUXTONsaid, he was not present last year when the matter was debated; but he had heard, on good authority, that it was not debated at any length. He would, however, ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he begged to move the Amendment which stood in. his name, and which had reference to the time during which treating was to render a person liable to serious consequences. He did not know whether the' hon. and learned Attorney General was disposed to accept his Amendment or not. If the hon. and learned Gentleman could see his way to accept it at once, he (Mr. Raikes) would not be required to inflict any remarks upon the Committee. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James) dissented.] As he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman was not willing to accept his Amendment, he would point out that the effect

    389
    of the clause was to render persons who were found guilty of corrupt practices liable to extremely serious consequences, if the clause remained unaltered. The clause said—
    "Any person who corruptly by himself, or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election, directly or indirectly"
    does so-and-so. "Either before, during, after an election" covered, as was said in the debate last year, not only all time, but all eternity; and when the Bill was in Committee last year, he (Mr. Raikes) proposed to the hon. and learned Gentleman—and he thought he nearly obtained his assent—to leave out the words altogether; because if a person was by any act, at any time, to render himself amenable to this section, it was quite unnecessary to retain the words "before, during, or after" an election, inasmuch as corrupt practices must be resorted to during one of those periods. It was only proper that they should fix some definite time during which the offence should not be committed; for he could not conceive that any treating, however corrupt, could have the effect of influencing any man at a distance of more than three months from the time the treating took place. He did not suppose that if a man was invited to dine with the Lord Mayor, three months before any election took place, it would have the effect of influencing him in giving his vote. That being so, and he being anxious to see the clause put in a shape in which it might be well worked, he had thought well to suggest the insertion of words which might guide the Judge, who would have to try any Petition, as to the period during which treating might be held to be corrupt. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 11, to leave out the words "either before, during, or," and insert the words "at any time within three months before, or during, or at any time within three months."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'either' stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought the Committee would understand what the effect of the Amendment would be. The words "either before, during, or after" an election occurred in the Act of 1854,
    390
    and that Act had not been found to work any particular inconvenience. The only effect of this clause was an alteration of the law, so as to make other people guilty of treating besides the candidate. Let the Committee examine what the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment amounted to. It was assumed that what the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with was a corrupt act; and it was assumed that it was done for the purpose of corrupting constituents, and influencing voters at elections. If it did not influence a man in giving his vote, it was not an offence at all; and, assuming that the act done was done for the purpose of influencing an elector, under the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, it might be done legitimately, if it was done more than three months before an election. Therefore, affirmatively, the Amendment was this—that it should be lawful to influence a voter, if it was done three months before an election. All Parliament had been striving to do was to strike a blow at all kinds of corruption; and ho could not see his way to accept the Amendment proposed, which, plainly, would legalize corruption at a given time.
    MR. WARTONsaid, it was all very well for the hon. and learned Attorney General to tell the Committee that the Bill was falling in the lines of the Act of 1854. Last year he told them the same thing; but he omitted to say that the word "corruptly" was in the Act of 1854. It was true the words were, to some extent, in the Act of 1854; but he (Mr. Warton) hoped the Committee would exercise its common sense, and see what the question really was. The question was that there should be some limited time fixed, and within that time the candidate should not fall into the additional traps laid for him in this Bill. There were already traps enough for him to fall into; but, under the Bill, he would be able to fall into traps laid by other people. People might be innocent in their motives; but, whether they were innocent or not, it was desirable some time should be fixed. Really, he did not think the hon. and learned Attorney General knew anything about the habits of his fellow-creatures. He did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had ever seen two honest working men in a pot-house. He did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had ever

    391
    seen one fellow pay for a pot of beer in a manly spirit. Englishmen were good-natured fellows, and were fond of their beer; and it was very easy to imagine that if two men got together in a public-house, one might say to the other—"I wish you would vote for that excellent man, the Attorney General; why don't you vote for him?" And if the other man said—"Well, I think I will; "and if he was influenced by reasonable argument, advanced over the drinking of a pint of beer, the hon. and learned Attorney General might find himself condemned to another place—he might find himself subjected to the penalties provided by the Bill, because one man had treated a fellow-elector to a pot of beer. He (Mr. Warton) felt much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) for having taken the matter up, and put the Amendment in a more readable form than the one he (Mr. Warton) had himself placed upon the Paper, which went in the same direction as the Amendment they were now considering. Let them, on the very threshold of a patient and very long investigation, fix upon a few guiding principles, which might shorten their deliberation; let them do something which would decrease the difficulties of an election, instead of increasing them. If there was no limit of time, directly one election was over, and when, possibly, political feeling was running high, people might talk about the next election; and if one man treated another to a glass of beer it might be held to be corruption under this Bill. It appeared to him that three months was almost an extravagant limit of time; but, notwithstanding this, he hoped his right hon. Friend would press his Amendment to a Division. He should certainly support his Amendment, in the interest of common sense, and with a common regard for the welfare of his fellow-creatures.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that, with great respect to his hon. Friends who bad moved and supported this Amendment, he (Mr. Gregory) could not altogether join in the opinions they expressed; in fact, it appeared to him that the Amendment would operate prejudicially to candidates. Let them see what the clause was. The clause provided that if a candidate, by himself, or by any other person, treated an elector, "for the pur-
    392
    pose of corruptly influencing that person," he should be guilty of the offence of treating. His hon. Friends would see that very great importance attached to the words "corruptly influencing," and that these words governed the clause. Now, with respect to the proposed limitation of time, it appeared to him that it would have the effect of putting a construction on those words, and that many acts, innocent in themselves, would be held to be corrupt, because they were done within the period limited; whilst many others, which were absolutely corrupt in themselves, would escape, because they were not done within the time named. It appeared to him, therefore, that the proposed Amendment might, in many cases, be prejudicial to a candidate, and in others lead to an evasion of the law.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he presumed the object of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was to prevent a candidate nursing a borough. There were, however, two ways of nursing supporters. There was a new-fashioned mode, and it was a mode of a very reprehensible character. How far the Act operated upon Caucuses, or upon political organizations in boroughs, he could not yet say. Organizations might be legitimate, and even desirable; many political organizations existed with the ostensible object of educating the population; but it was well known that some organizations existed which did really a great deal more than educate the people—they intimidated them. They got up cheap trips, feasts, and tea-parties, and other social entertainments, and the members of the Caucus were attracted to those entertainments. The candidate did not do this, but his friends did it. He submitted that, under the operation of this clause, the hon. and learned Attorney General might be made amenable for the acts of the Caucus which possibly existed in Taunton. In the interests of candidates, he advised the hon. and learned Gentleman to carefully re-examine the clause. He thought they ought to have a clear understanding as to what was the kind of Parliamentary treating that this Bill would prevent.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he should have preferred the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) to that of his right hon. Friend the Member for the

    393
    University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes); because he considered that 28 days before or after an election was quite a long enough period during which treating could not take place. As, however, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport deserted his Amendment in favour of the one now under consideration, he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) would go to a Division. As he had previously said, this Bill "bristled with penalties." He thought the law was quite severe enough as it now stood; and, so far as he could understand the present law, if it was strictly carried out, there was not an hon. Gentleman in the House who would retain his seat—certainly, there was not one hon. Gentleman who took part in a contested election who would now be sitting in the House if the law were strictly carried out. Was there any hon. Gentleman who could rise in his place and take an oath that no man gave three-halfpenny worth of ale to another man to vote for that hon. Member? He did not believe that any hon. Gentleman in the House could take such an oath. [" Oh, oh "] Hon. Gentlemen seemed to doubt it; but he would be a bold man who would rise and maintain that no one did give a glass of ale to one or other of their friends, as a means of persuading him to vote in a particular way. Under the circumstances, he considered the law was very severe as it stood, and the object of the Bill was to make the law stricter.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not think his hon. Friend (Mr. R. N. Fowler) was right in the assertion that this clause would make the law stricter. As far as the candidate was concerned, this was simply a re-enactment of the existing clause. All that was now being done was to extend the existing clause to other persons. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) thought there was great force in what fell from his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). They must take care that they did not, by accepting such an Amendment as the present one, make the law really absurd. It was quite true that it might be very likely, if such an Amendment as the one now before them was accepted, that an innocent act done within three months would practically become a guilty act. He did not see his
    394
    way to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes); but when they came to a later part of the Bill—Clause 7—where, for the first time, there was any mention of the maximum expenditure, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would find that he would he confronted by a very great difficulty.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was that the clause introduced a new state of law in reference to treating; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had contended that there was no change whatever in the law. As a matter of fact, it was a law which had existed in the country for the last 30 years. If reference were made to the Act of 1854, it would be found that the offence of treating was defined as follows:—
    "Every candidate who, either before, during, or after any election, directly or indirectly, gives or provides refreshment, &c., &c., shall be guilty of treating."
    Therefore, the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) now proposed would make a change in the law; so that it was not correct to say that the existing Bill made a change in the law. He hoped the Committee would not do anything which would tend to perpetuate the system of nursing boroughs by way of treating. The nursing system was one of the most ingenious and one of the most successful means of corrupting boroughs; and he hoped the Committee would show that they were not desirous of relaxing the existing law in favour of this objectionable practice.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he wished to point out to the hon. and learned Attorney General that this Bill was intended to extend the Act of 1854. The words of the clause were "any person who corruptly, by himself, or by any other person." Now, suppose a gentleman went down to a constituency at the last moment, knowing, possibly, little about the place. He appointed So-and-so as his agent, and that agent might appoint someone else as sub-agent, and that sub-agent, only a very short time before, might have done something which brought him under this Bill. The

    395
    candidate would know nothing whatever about his agent or sub-agent; but, after it was found out that some time before the election agent or sub-agent had treated a man to a glass of beer, or had given, possibly, to a working man's daughter a dress, which was just as much treating as giving to the man himself a glass of beer, a Petition would be filed, and the candidate would be ousted from his position, and pains and penalties would accrue, although he himself had not been guilty of the slightest digression. It was strictly unfair that a candidate, under such circumstances, should be held liable.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that if that Amendment were carried, it would, to a great extent, destroy the efficiency of the Bill. What was the effect of the Amendment? It was clearly that, three months before any election, a man might treat any number of electors, and do it with the avowed purpose of influencing their votes. There would be, as a matter of fact, a great inducement, and encouragement to any candidate to indulge in treating. It was well known to many hon. Gentlemen that it was not an infrequent thing for candidates to entertain the whole body of their supporters. In fact, it was on record that, on one occasion, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) represented Chester, he took a large body of his supporters to Rhyl—["No, no!"]—at all events, a large number were taken to Rhyl; they enjoyed themselves very much; and whether the right hon. Gentleman or his Committee paid the expenses he (Mr. Rylands) knew not. It was quite clear that any operation of that kind, promoted by a candidate, must have a tendency to corruptly influence the electors and secure their votes for him. He thought the Committee ought to resist any term of this kind, which might very seriously affect the efficiency of the Act.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, there was nothing in the severity of the clause that would induce him to vote for the Amendment; but there were other reasons that would induce him to do so. If there were no fear of corrupt purpose and intent being attributed to persons who had no such intentions, there would be no need of limiting the clause in the manner proposed by the right hon. Gen-
    396
    tleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes). The clause said—
    "Any person who corruptly, by himself, or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving or providing, any meat, drink, entertainment, or provision to or for any person, for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person," &.
    How could they be sure that things of that kind, innocently done many years before an election, would not, after the election, be alleged to have been done for the purpose of corruptly influencing electors, although they had nothing whatever to do with the election? Take the case of a rich man, who had done some acts of kindness and liberality in a borough, in the neighbourhood of which he had, perhaps, resided for many years without the slightest intention of standing as a candidate for the constituency. Suppose that something occurred which changed his mind, and that he became a candidate; under the clause, as it stood, he would be liable to have a charge brought against him of corruptly influencing the electors. He thought that some protection should be afforded to a person so placed; and unless the Government made provision for that purpose he should vote for the limitation of the clause.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he believed that, in practice, the Judges would only interpret as corrupt acts which occurred within a short time of the election. It was suggested that the Amendment would legalize nursing; but, unfortunately, some of the worst kinds of nursing had been held not to be treating.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the Bill did not, as had been stated by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), merely express the law as it already existed. The law did not make these simple acts illegal; it was the Bill that sought to do that; and, therefore, he begged to correct the hon. Member upon a subject that Gentlemen who supported the Amendment on that side of the House were perfectly well acquainted with. The Bill was one which many people hugged to their hearts, because they thought it would diminish the expenses at elections; but there could be no doubt that, if the clause were passed without being amended in the manner proposed by the right hon. Gentleman

    397
    the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes), it would materially increase the expenses on Petitions, because there would be no limit to the opportunities and endeavours of persons who wished to unseat the successful candidate. The Bill would not have the economizing effect that was expected from it by many, and that very clause would increase immensely the expenses on Election Petitions, because hundreds of small things would have to be gone into that were now passed over. They had been told that the Judges henceforth would not hear just enough evidence to make out a case, but that the whole matter would be investigated. This would necessarily increase the expenses on Petitions.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he knew it had become a habit to nurse constituencies of late. There was the hon. Member who claimed Northampton nursing that borough all round the country; another Gentleman was at that moment nursing North Warwickshire. Rethought the present period of nursing was very likely to be fraught with corrupt practices, especially treating. He suggested to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes), and to the hon. and learned Attorney General, whether they might not agree to use the words, "especially within three months before, or three months after, the day of au election? "His own experience went to show that, although corrupt practices might extend over a long period, most acts of the kind were committed within three months before or after the day of election.
    MR. MARUMsaid, he did not see any ground for changing the present law. If the Amendment were agreed to, they would, by implication, permit voters to be corruptly influenced anterior to a period of three months before an election, or when three months after the election had expired, so that the morality of their legislation would depend solely on a period of time. He thought no reason had been shown for altering the existing law.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, he regretted that he was unable to support the Amendment. His chief objection to it was that it emphasized by a date—a certain period before and after an election—in which a man might do the acts contemplated by the clause, and yet be perfectly secure from the penal-
    398
    ties imposed. The discussion upon the Amendment had shown that the Bill did not deal with the vicious system of nursing, as it might have done. Did the Bill, in its present form, prevent a man becoming indispensable for the good of a particular borough? Because, if it did not do that, it would not prevent nursing. A man might promise improvements in a borough, and carry them out; he might, in that way, gain the confidence of the electors, and, at a certain date, come before them as a candidate for the representation of a constituency. If the Bill did not deal with such cases it was not satisfactory. There was a certain amount of vagueness in the wording of the clause. For instance, what was the meaning of "during an election?" When did an election begin? Although he could not support the Amendment proposed, he thought it only fair to indicate to Her Majesty's Government that, when Clause 7 was reached, he and his hon. Friends would expect from them something clearer than the word "during;" because they felt sure that, unless the intention of Parliament were more precisely expressed, the Bill would be so oppressive in its character, and so productive of absurdity, that it would defeat the object they had in view.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he was much indebted to hon. Members on both sides of the House for what had been said in the course of the discussion; and, although he had not found everyone in favour of his Amendment, it had, at least, elicited the fact that a good deal of dissatisfaction and doubt existed as to the operation of the clause. The Amendment was not, in the slightest degree, proposed in the interest of any candidate. But the effect of the clause, as it stood, was to create a new crime, which was dealt with, under Clause 5, in these words—
    "A person who commits any corrupt practice other than personation, or aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the commission of the offence of personation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction on indictment shall be liable to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding one year, and to be fined any sum not exceeding two hundred pounds."
    The object of that was to bring all persons, other than Parliamentary candidates, within the purview of the provisions of the clause. The constituency

    399
    which he (Mr. Raikes) had the honour to represent was one in which, happily, this contingency was not likely to arise; but there were Gentlemen who, although they were not themselves concerned in the operation of the clause, were yet very much interested in it on behalf of their friends and the public generally. If they said that a person should be liable to be tried at any time in his life, because, years before, ho had given a man a glass of beer, with the alleged intention of influencing an election, and, if convicted, that he should be imprisoned for one year, and fined not exceeding £200—if they were going to create a new crime and punish it with such a penalty as that—they ought, at least, to define it with regard to time, so that the Judges might have it before them that it must have been committed either immediately before or after the election. As to the effect of what was called "corrupt treating," he must, with all respect to those hon. Gentlemen who had used that argument, say that he believed it would have no effect whatever. He did not believe that, even among the humblest class of electors, the fact of giving a glass of wine or beer six months before or after a contest would secure a single vote, or in any way influence an election. He was sorry his right hon. Friend (Sir William Hart Dyke) did not see his way to support the proposed Amendment; and he would remind him that, however the word "during" might be defined, it would not define a period either before or after the election. His (Mr. Raikes's) object in proposing three months was merely to have some period fixed; and if the hon. and learned Attorney General could see his way to meet him he should be glad. On behalf of those persons who might, when engaged in electoral contests, bring themselves, although perfectly innocent, within the range of the present clause, he felt bound to take the sense of the Committee upon his Amendment.
    MR. WIGGINsaid, he should like a somewhat clearer definition than was contained in the clause. Without that, he should be almost afraid of entertaining his friends for fear of breaking the law. He asked whether the clause would deprive candidates of the right of entertaining their friends in a social manner? Because he feared that would be its effect upon timid and nervous per-
    400
    sons like himself. If that were so, he should be unable to give it his support.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could assure the hon. Member that, if the clause were agreed to in its present form, he would not be prevented from continuing a course of moderate social hospitality.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he could have wished the time specified in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) was not so short; it was a pity he had not made it six months before and after an election. On the other hand, he (Mr. Leamy) was inclined to support the Amendment; because ho thought it was unfair to hold a candidate guilty of corrupt practices committed by his agent. They had, after all, to depend on the view which the Judges might take of the meaning of the word "corrupt," to decide whether a candidate was responsible for the act of his agent; but, supposing that a treat, no matter how small it might be, were given by the agent of the candidate for the purpose mentioned in the clause, it would be a corrupt act, and one for which the candidate would be responsible and liable. For that reason, although he considered that the time fixed by the right hon. Gentleman was rather too short, he should support the Amendment before the Committee.
    MR. O'KELLYasked if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would undertake to define the term "moderate hospitality," which he had used in reply to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wiggin)? The whole question turned on that point, because different men had different ideas as to that which constituted liberality in matters of this kind. If the Judge who tried a case under the clause happened to have some personal or political reason for using the law against the candidate accused, his idea of moderate hospitality might not be quite in accordance with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. In view of the punishments to which persons convicted under the Bill were liable, he thought they should have some definition of what "moderate hospitality" might consist in, otherwise no one connected with Parliamentary elections would be safe—neither the candidate, nor his agent, nor his friends. There was, moreover, no limit as to the time when this responsibility would

    401
    begin or when it would end. The Bill placed persons connected with Parliamentary elections in this country completely at the mercy of any malicious individual they might come in contact with; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman who proposed the present Amendment (Mr. Raikes) ought to persist in taking the opinion of the Committee upon it.
    MR. DAVENPORTsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) to say that a person would be liable at any time in his life to prosecution for the acts specified in the clause. But he (Mr. Davenport) thought that was not the case. The 14th section of the Bill provided that a prosecution for any offence under the Act should be commenced within two years from the date of its commission. If he read the section aright, a man would be perfectly safe from punishment for corrupt practices after two years.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, it appeared, as the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Davenport) had stated, that there was a distinct limitation of two years with regard to prosecutions under the Act. The question was, whether that limitation was sufficient? He would suggest that the clause should run thus—" Any person who within two years before or after an election," &.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 256; Noes 60: Majority 196.—(Div. List, No. 132.)
    MR. WARTONsaid, he did not propose to move any Amendment until after the word "or," in line 12, when he proposed to insert "within twenty-eight days." No one could say that treating took place after an election with a view of influencing the votes to be given at the election. All the evils of treating were seen when treating was resorted to to induce people to give their votes. It was perfectly conceivable that, after a candidate had been elected, some of his supporters might imperil the election by treating people who had voted; but if, as ho (Mr. Warton) should propose, only treating during the 28 days subsequent to the election were rendered illegal, the probabilities of corrupt influences would be more than met. When
    402
    the Bill was passed, people would be anxious for the 28 days to go by, in order that they might know whether any Petition was to be presented against the return of a Member. That 28 days was the period allowed for the presentation of a Petition; and if, during that period, the condition of things was un-impeached—that was to say, if everything was perfectly fair, and there was no treating, and it was decided that a Member was returned by the free and independent votes of the electors, it would be extremely hard, subsequently, on account of some paltry act of this kind, to invalidate the election. Did the hon. and learned Attorney General mean that, because some little act of treating took place, it might be months or years after a Member's return that his election was to be rendered invalid? Let them take the case of a General Election. It might turn out that some supporter of a borough Member had given a bottle of beer to an elector, saying—" I will stand you this because you voted for my man at the election," and that might be held to invalidate the election. Surely, the candidate would have misery enough cast upon him by other sections of the Bill, without being held responsible for a small act of that kind any period after the election. He was speaking, of course, of people who wished to treat in a free and kindly English manner—people who wished to have a little jollification after an election, to show their delight at the success of their candidate, or to console the defeated candidate's supporters for their want of success. Surely, treating under these circumstances could not be regarded as treating for a wrong purpose. Surely, the question of treating before an election was a very different one to that of treating 28 days after it had taken place; and whilst, in the Bill, there was interference in the first case, it would be perfectly safe to refrain from all interference in the other case. He would move the Amendment that stood in his name on the Paper.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after the first "or," insert "within twenty-eight days."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he must apologize

    403
    to the Committee for taking up its time on a subject of this kind. He would point out to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), however, that the effect of the Amendment, if agreed to, would be simply to prevent a candidate from treating for a certain period, but would give him full liberty to treat as much as he liked after the expiration of that period. All the candidate would have to do would be to wait until the ordinary period for presenting a Petition had expired, and then he might spend any amount of money he chose upon the electors. The Amendment would enable candidates to resort to wholesale treating.
    MR. WARTONrepudiated the allegation that he wanted to enable candidates to treat wholesale. This Amendment had nothing whatever to do with candidates.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Indeed, it has.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the hon. and learned Member would find in the 1st paragraph of the 1st section "persons other than candidates." Candidates were lot liable to any punishment for treating under this section; the governing words of the clause were "persons other than candidates;" and it seemed to him that whenever the hon. and learned Attorney General was in a hurry he gave a very queer interpretation of the law. Whenever the hon. and learned Member endeavoured to get rid of a question in that manner, and indulged in an exhibition of impatience, he (Mr. Warton) should always take the liberty of correcting him, in the interests of truth and justice, when he found him giving a wrong impression as to the effect of suggested words. The hon. and learned Member had been through many elections, and he knew very well that it was a perfectly natural thing that, after a contest of this kind, a little drink should flow; and surely it must to him appear absurd that, because a little jollification in a thoroughly English fashion took place after an election—it might be months or years after an election—the candidate was to suffer. ["Divide!"] As hon. Members seemed to be very impatient and very anxious for a Division, he would give them an opportunity of dividing.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had now to call the attention of the Committee to a very different species of Amendment, and one which did not involve any ideas of corruption at all; he wished to leave out, in page 1, line 12, the words "directly or indirectly." He would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General for his construction upon these words—namely, "Any person who corruptly by himself, or by any other person," did so-and-so, "directly or indirectly." He wished to have some explanation of the construction to be placed on this section, which applied, not only to candidates, but to hundreds of persons who might do any of the little things that would come under the section; he wished to know whether, by the words "any other person, directly or indirectly" referred to, in a case where any other person, indirectly through another person, was guilty of a breach of the section, that other person, who represented the other person who represented the candidate, was to be held responsible? It appeared to him that these words were not wanted at all, because they had already provided for the person himself. They had provided for the other person, and surely it was unnecessary to provide for that other person doing something "directly or indirectly." The provision seemed to him to be a most absurd one; and it was nothing to him that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) said the House had passed it in 1854. In reply to that argument, it might be said that the matter was insufficiently considered in 1854, or that it was unnoticed. He would point out that the words must have one of two meanings—that was to say, they either directly referred to the person himself, and indirectly to the other person; and, if so, it was not wanted at all, because they had got the person himself and the other person; and if it did not refer to the person himself, and indirectly to the other person, it must refer to the other person, and indirectly to another person. He was anxious that they should not have more complication than there was absolute necessity for in this matter; and, therefore, he thought the best way to proceed would be to ask the Committee to strike out the words that appeared to be unnecessary.

    405
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the words "directly or indirectly."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. and learned Member's (Mr. Warton's) desire was evidently not to amend the clause, but to delay the Bill. The hon. and learned Member might contend that it was no argument to say that they were simply maintaining the law as it stood previously; but, according to him (the Attorney General), it appeared to be a very strong argument. The Judges had been accustomed to give their decisions in accordance with Statutes which had been construed in a certain way; and it was of great advantage to a suitor to know that, in commencing a case, he had not to go through a now litigation in order to secure a proper interpretation of the law. Therefore, if there was a good case for putting forward the law as it existed, and if the existing law could be maintained without inconvenience, it was right and proper that they should maintain it. He hoped the Committee would retain the words in the Bill, as their omission would lead to fresh litigation, as the leaving of them out might be said to indicate an intention of altering the existing law as to what constituted a corrupt practice. The words "directly or indirectly" might refer to a publican, who was an agent for a candidate, treating, not by himself supplying drink, but handing money over to another person to pay for it. He (the Attorney General) really trusted that the law would not be unsettled by the acceptance of this Amendment, which was perfectly uncalled for.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he rose for the purpose of asking a question at this point. He entirely agreed that it was wise to keep the law in the words in which it at present stood, unless there was some very substantial reason to the contrary. It was for that reason that the word "corrupt" had been retained; but there were, no doubt, a certain number of people in the House who did feel that the law as it existed was unduly severe as it was at present understood; and there could be no doubt that Judges had often given
    406
    decisions unseating Members, notwithstanding that those Members had done all that they could to keep their elections as pure as possible, and notwithstanding that the agents also had used their best endeavours to secure a fair and legitimate return. He referred to cases where, owing to the stray action of one or two enthusiastic persons, who had been employed by the candidate or the agent, great and grievous hardship had been done to the candidate. He had in his mind, when he said this, the case to which Lord Bram well had referred the other day. The question he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) rose to ask—although he did not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) would be able to give him an answer—was, whether, when they came to Clause 4, dealing with corrupt practices, he would look favourably upon the Amendments placed upon the Paper by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), giving Election Courts a sort of equitable jurisdiction in these extremely hard cases, as far as corrupt practices were concerned? If the hon. and learned Member answered in the affirmative, it would be a great relief to many persons who took an interest in this measure; and, moreover, he believed, if a satisfactory answer could be returned, it would very considerably ease the discussion on this clause.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the Committee would not anticipate the discussion on Clause 4; and if he were to give his view on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) he would be improperly interfering with the course of Business in Committee. He would just say that these words "directly or indirectly" did not constitute agency.
    MR. ECROYDsaid, he was not able to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton); but he was anxious to know—the language of this clause, as it now stood, being very comprehensive—what would he its effect in regard to the action of Clubs? He would instance a case which was not at all unlikely to occur. Let them suppose that in one of the manufacturing districts of the North there were two Clubs—a Conservative and a

    407
    Liberal Club—in the same village. These Clubs would be engaged in a strenuous competition for Members; and funds would be contributed for the purpose of taking a number of the electors an excursion, perhaps, to Windermere or North Wales. Everybody knew that pleasure excursions of that kind, when given to members of political Clubs, were a distinct means of corruptly influencing votes; and what he wanted to know was, whether the clause, as it now stood, would be applicable to those who subscribed to a fund for that purpose? If it were not, the clause would entirely fail to effect its purpose, because he believed that they had far more to apprehend from practices of that kind than from private endeavours to corrupt voters.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that cases of that kind would, of course, stand on their own particular merits; if subscriptions of that kind were found to take place, with the object of influencing votes, whether it was subscribed by one person or by many persons in combination, the Judge would have to consider whether it was legitimate or not. It would be for the Judge to say whether money subscribed in that way was, or was not, subscribed for the purpose of influencing votes.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) could show a single Judgment in which these words "directly or indirectly" had been shown to be essential, he would at once withdraw his opposition to the clause. As yet, however, the hon. arid learned Member had not quoted a single case in which these words had had any effect. It was said that the Law of Agency was not involved in this matter; but, although that was the case, the persons who would come under it would be mostly of the humbler classes, and, in the words of the clause, they might be very easily "found guilty." "Found guilty!" Offences under this clause were made crimes, to be punished with a year's imprisonment, or a fine of £100, and the deprivation of civil privileges for a long time. That penalty was to be inflicted upon a poor man who, "directly or indirectly," on behalf of somebody else, committed some little act which, in the opinion of
    408
    the gentlemen who inquired into the circumstances, might be contrary to this provision.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 235; Noes 21: Majority 214.—(Div. List, No. 133.)
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would propose, in page 1, line 14, to omit the word "entertainment." He did justice to the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, that words which had received established sanction should be maintained; but words sometimes changed their significance, and there had been a great change in the meaning of the word "entertainment." In olden times the word probably meant meat, drink, and refreshment; but now it had lost that meaning, and meant some sort of theatrical or musical entertainment, or, perhaps, a lecture. It had lost its old meaning, and it might be interpreted by some young Judge who did not know its old meaning as including a theatrical or musical entertainment, or anything of that sort. He did not know whether the hon. and learned Attorney General wished to prevent such entertainments, or a lecture, say, on political economy; but he supposed everything might be allowed which was not meat or drink. If the word was taken in its old sense it meant food and drink, but not in its new sense.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, to leave out the word "entertainment."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, this word appeared in the Act of William III. and in the Act of 1854; and he supposed it was intended to include not only meat and drink, but anything in the shape of entertainment or hospitality that should corruptly influence a vote. He thought the Amendment was not necessary.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the point was raised last year; and the hon. and learned Attorney General then gave, as he had given now, an unsatisfactory answer. [Laughter.] This was

    409
    not a matter to be laughed at or laughed away. Last year the hon. and learned Attorney General said that entertainment was something in the shape of meat or drink; but in electioneering proceedings nowadays the subject of entertainment had changed very much. In his younger days the word always meant meat or drink, and so forth; but now inducements were held out to voters to vote for particular candidates by various methods. In the town of Derby, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the Home Secretary represented, there had been, he was informed, very lavish expenditure. Incalculable sums, almost worthy of the Marquess of Carabas, had been spent. Recreation grounds bad been provided, and free libraries and baths and wash-houses—which, no doubt, many people regarded as very delightful. It was very desirable to have au explanation of whether this word "entertainment" was to be confined to meat and drink; and he thought the hon. and learned Attorney General should assent to the Amendment, which would be the shortest way of settling the point, or say what the word was intended to cover.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that, as it appeared to be the decision of the Committee to retain the words of the Act of 1854, he would not move the other two Amendments standing in his name.
    Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GORSTmoved an Amendment with the object of providing that the clause should apply to both the person treating and the person treated.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, after the word "treating," to insert the words "and the vote of such person, if an elector, shall be void."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would accept the Amendment, for he thought it a very proper one; but the words would come in better later on, at the end of the clause.
    MR. GORSTsaid, in that case, he would withdraw it for the present, and re-introduce it later on.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he wished to understand how the machinery of the ballot would be affected by this Amendment? The feeling of the House when the Ballot Act of 1872 was debated was that no voter's vote should be looked at by anyone; but if a vote was to be made void by this Amendment the papers would have to be looked at. The hon. and learned Attorney General might be able to quote decisions against that view; but he (Colonel Nolan) believed the point had not at that moment been decided, and, certainly, the Legislature had never sanctioned voting papers being looked at. If there was a charge made against a voter, his vote was looked at; but that was not the same thing. A man who personated a voter was not entitled to protection; but the whole theory of the Ballot Act was that the voting papers should never be looked at. This Amendment was entirely against the original theory of the Act.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) did not know the Ballot Act better, seeing that he had taken a very active part in the discussions upon that measure, and had rendered great service. The hon. and gallant Member had overlooked the fact that, under the Ballet Act, votes, which were previously declared bad by a Court of Law, could be followed, and scrutiny had taken place in the case of such votes. There was no danger of inquiry into votes generally, because votes could only be followed after a decision. Only votes previously declared corrupt could be followed. If the hon. and gallant Member were right, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would ask, what was the use of all the machinery of the Ballot Act with regard to counterfoils?
    MR. CALLANsaid, he should like some explanation as to the effect of the 2nd paragraph, because that would influence him in regard to his vote upon this Amendment. The 2nd paragraph said—
    "Every person … who corruptly accepts … and the vote of such person, if an elector, shall be void."
    Suppose an agent went down to a borough surreptitiously, and invited 20 corrupt electors to two or three days' jollification, and they promised to vote for anyone he recommended, but when

    411
    they came to their sober senses voted independently, would their votes be void?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, that when once a voter was proved to have been corrupt, he ceased to have the power of voting, and his vote was lost to the person for whom it was given.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the Committee must now feel the inconvenience of proceeding with this Bill before they had decided on the details of the Ballot Act Amendment Bill. It seemed to him that they were proceeding in the dark; and he was not surprised that the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) did not clearly understand the intentions of the Government, which were involved in that Bill, but which had not yet been declared to the House.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThere is no question of the intentions of the Government. I was speaking entirely of the existing law.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he believed there would be no provision in the Ballot Act Amendment Bill to prevent a man's vote being looked at. It was obvious that the Amendment would greatly extend the scope of the Bill, and a great many more votes would be looked at. Was there any provision in the Ballot Act that a vote should be void?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Undoubtedly there is.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he thought that, under the old Act, a candidate was punished too severely. This Bill, up to this clause, extended—and he thought quite properly—the punishment from the candidate to the agent. They were now also going to punish an elector. Under the old Act, a county elector might have food at the expense of the candidate; but a great many town electors, at any rate in Ireland, were under the impression that they could get food in the same way.
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again upon Thursday.
    The House suspended its Sitting.
    The House resumed its Sitting at five minutes past Nine of the clock.

  MOTION.

    LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 (PURCHASE CLAUSES).—RESOLUTION.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in rising to call attention to the Purchase Clauses of the Irish Land Act; and to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, an immediate revision of the Purchase Clauses of the Irish Land Act, 1881, is necessary, in order to give effect to the intentions of Parliament contained therein,"
    said, he regretted that, although this Motion had been on the Order Book since the opening of the Session, he had been unsuccessful in obtaining an opportunity of bringing it forward until now, when he feared the time at the disposal of the House was insufficient to properly discuss a question of such importance. The Motion, as an abstract proposition, could scarcely meet with any serious opposition. That the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act of 1881 were intended by those who passed them to be operative was as certain as that in practice they had since proved a complete failure. Neither was it in any way necessary to re-state the well-known arguments for or against the establishment of a peasant, or, what he preferred to call it, a farming proprietary. The agrarian disturbances and difficulties of the past 10 years, culminating in the legal establishment throughout Ireland of a uniform dual ownership in land, made the relative position of landlord and tenant different there to what they were in any other part of the globe. Divided ownership in land might, no doubt, have some social, and, possibly, certain economical disadvantages; but it was a system which lent itself, in a manner that no other system could, to the establishment of a farming proprietary through State aid. For the purchasing tenant in every case had, in addition to the property of the landlord which he proposed to purchase, a property of his own in the same farm, and any advance made to him rested not merely upon the security of that which he proposed to buy, but that which he had already; and, therefore, under no system was the security so good, or the margin between the amount of the advance and the solvency of the borrower so great, as under that system of dual

    413
    ownership which the Land Act of 1881 established in Ireland. There were two sides of the Irish Land Question. They knew, from painful experience, that in the West and in the mountain regions they had numbers of small tenants, bordering upon insolvency, whose distress and low standard of living had but too frequently forced themselves upon the notice of the House. Outside those areas the mass of the tenants were solvent, and yearly improving, both in substance and circumstances—if clothing general appearance, savings banks, and other deposits were any criteria of social condition. He proposed to deal with the latter class only, and this Resolution was meant to apply to them alone. When the Land Act of 1881 was under discussion in that House none of its provisions met with less opposition, or whose operation was afterwards watched with greater interest, than the clauses enabling the tenant, through State agency, to purchase the fee-simple of his holding. The enormous disproportion in numbers between those who received and those who paid rents in Ireland, the absence of any large or opulent middle class, were, undoubtedly, elements of social insecurity, that the events of the last three years had brought home to the minds even of the most sceptical. To reduce that disproportion, and to convert by fair and equitable terms the occupier into the owner, seemed to many the most natural and permanent solution of agrarian troubles in Ireland. The clauses had, practically, been a nullity; and the object of this Motion was, if possible, to infuse energy and life into them. The causes of failure were perfectly clear. The high rate of interest charged by the State upon the advances, and the short period allowed for the repayment, made the annual payment so heavy that there was little inducement to farmers to undertake it, especially as, in addition to this annual charge, they had to find personal security for the payment of that portion of the purchase money not advanced by the State. This made the tenants unwilling to render themselves subject to so high an annuity as the Purchase Clauses imposed upon them. In addition to this, there were collateral circumstances which were adverse to the operation of the clauses. The general feeling of insecurity which existed over a great part of the country,
    414
    and the vagueness of the definition of fair rent in the Tenure Clauses, coupled with the hope that, by further agitation, legislation even more favourable to the tenant could be extracted from the Government, were all elements hostile to the operation of purchase. The attitude the Government had taken up in opposition to new legislation, except upon minor details, and the greater quietude in the country, would, to a great extent, counterbalance, in course of time, these collateral impediments. Still, something more was necessary; and his object was to lay before the House ideas for which he alone was responsible, but which, he believed, would do much to give effect to these clauses. Now, in advocating a revision of the existing scheme, he could advance arguments both positive and negative—positive on behalf of the intrinsic merits of the proposal itself, and negative on account of the unrest and perpetual litigation to which all Ireland must be subject if the Land Tenure Clauses of the Act of 1881 were to be the solitary instrument for the settlement of the Land Question. He in no way wished now to attack the administration of this part of the Act; but ho would simply state the facts now underlying and determining its operations. Au Act was passed drawing au imaginary line through every holding in Ireland, to divide and apportion the relative interests of landlord and tenant in that holding; but no direction was given as to how that line was to be drawn. The leading Law Officer of the Irish Government was the first to point out, when canvassing an agricultural constituency, that the so-called judicial decisions of the Sub-Commissioners would entirely depend upon the personal predilections or prejudices of the individual appointed. This was rather unfortunate, because, from that time till now, a steady and increasing pressure had been brought to bear upon the Government by their supporters to appoint men favourable to their extreme claims, and to remove or dismiss those who were supposed to be thoroughly impartial. He put it to the common sense of the House if any Act of Parliament could work well, or smooth down the heaving and surging of a great agrarian disturbance, the operation and effect of which were to be varied and regulated by the individual opinions of the men annually appointed to administer it,

    415
    who, in their turn, were selected by the Government of the day? As Governments varied in their views, so would the men they selected for high office differ. The primary object of all agrarian legislation should be to establish a sense of stability and security, and that could only be obtained by definite and trustworthy settlements. The Land Tenure Clauses, from the method in which they must be worked, could never give that feeling, though, so long, as they remained on the Statute Book, they would make the profession of local attorney the most lucrative in Ireland. It was admitted that nothing tended more to strengthen the foundations of authority and social order than that a certain proportion of the population should, by holding Government securities or stock, be the creditors of the authorities to which they owed allegiance. They had a self - interest in maintaining the credit, solvency, and authority of their debtors. Reversing the proposition, it might, with equal truth, be asserted that few conditions could be more dangerous to Governments than that they should be the creditors of a large portion of their subjects, especially if those so indebted were also politically disaffected towards them. This was the great objection which had hitherto existed against a rapid conversion of tenants into proprietors in Ireland through State agency. To bring the State face to face with hundreds of thousands of tenants, to whom the doctrine of repudiation of contract was too familiar, would be a perilous position for all concerned. A plausible and material argument would be put ready-made into the mouth of the unscrupulous agitator. "Possession is nine-tenths of the law. Repudiate all connection with an alien Government, who alone prevent you from fully enjoying your own property." Was it not, however, possible, by a very simple process, to reverse the position, and, by making a proper and legitimate use of local authorities in Ireland, to put the State and tenants in their proper relation one to another, make them the creditors of the State, and thus give them the best of all political motives in supporting the Government—namely, self-interest? The ideas which ho now put forward ho advanced on his responsibility alone, although, before stating them, he had obtained a favourable opinion as to their feasibility from many
    416
    whose practical knowledge and experience of Ireland was undoubted. Two things were necessary for the development of his suggestions—a central and a local authority co-operating together. By central authority he meant a body in Dublin specially entrusted with the working of these clauses, and authorized, subject to certain conditions and limitations unnecessary then to enumerate, to communicate direct with the local authority, without constant reference to London. Whether this body was associated with the Land Commission, Landed Estates Court, or was a separate Commission, was immaterial, except that its primary and main duty must be the administration and development of these clauses. By local authority he meant a local body authorized to raise rates over a given area; and the area which would be the most convenient as a unit was the county, though a smaller district would do. Assuming that the not very difficult task was accomplished of forming a satisfactory central and local authority capable of co-operating, the local authority should be requested to receive any joint application from a landlord and tenant in the district over which they had jurisdiction for the sale of the interest of the landlord to the tenant. A valuation through the agency of the central authority would be then taken; and a report upon the solvency of the tenant, the value of the farm, and the price to be paid for it, would be made through an outside and impartial tribunal. If the report of the central authority—which, he assumed, would be a fair and impartial authority—were satisfactory, the local authority might, with the consent of the central authority, raise the sum in a manner which he would hereafter describe, primarily upon the security of the rates, but with the guarantee of the State for the purchase of the farm. The rates would then be liable for the amount of the interest payable upon the sum advanced for the purchase of the landlord's interest, and recouped by the amount charged annually for this advance to the tenant who had thus purchased his farm; and this sum could annually be collected with the poor rates or county cess through the machinery used for that purpose. The part of his scheme to which he attached most importance was, however, the method of obtaining the necessary

    417
    ways and means. Now, in order to provide those ways and means, and, at the same time, to guard the State from risk, the following course might be adopted. Upon receiving the assent of the central authority, who would be the representative in Ireland of the Treasury, the local authority might issue debentures for the amount sanctioned, which, with a State guarantee, they ought to be able to get taken up, say, bearing interest at 3 per cent, payable out of the rates; these debentures or bonds to be in very small sums, in order that they might be taken up by farmers and tradesmen of the neighbourhood, and the interest due upon them to be paid by specified banks in the locality, the bends and coupons being upon the American system, transferable by delivery. These regulations would prevent any competition between such bonds and Consols here in London; and the business connected with the circulation, issue, and payment of interest of such loans would give a general lift to local industries and enterprize. A very considerable proportion of these bends would, he believed, be taken up locally, and thus a considerable proportion of each locality would become the creditors of the local authority and the State. The landlord, moreover, might be required to take a certain proportion of his purchase money in such a shape. By this process a twofold result would be achieved. The interest being payable out of the rates, every ratepayer would become to an infinitesimal degree liable, should any farmer, who through these means had purchased his holding, repudiate his obligation to the local authority; and the reverse of that sympathy would be shown towards the defaulting ratepayer which was now often felt for a defaulting tenant. Next, a considerable number of farmers and others who held these bends would be the creditors of the local authority. By thus making the local authority the borrower with the sanction of the State, they would create a strong social and moral force in every locality in favour of fulfilment of contract and obligation, and thus combine the advantages of cheap money without any serious risk of repudiation. In connection with this scheme three questions at once suggested themselves. 1. Was the operation financially practicable? 2. Would the farmers purchase and the landlords sell? 3. Could the local au-
    418
    thority be trusted? As regards the practicability of the scheme, undoubtedly one of the main objects being to get these bends taken up locally, there might be some difficulty, in certain cases, in inducing the locality to do so. On the other hand, they had the high authority of Mr. Vernon, one of the Land Commissioners, who, in his evidence before the House of Lords, in 1882, stated that there was £30,000,000 on deposit in the Irish banks, and the whole of the money had only received interest at about 1⅝ per cent. The deposits both in savings banks and joint-stock banks had largely increased during the past two years. The latest Returns showed a large increase in the savings banks, a note circulation £880,000 higher than in the preceding year, and deposits and balances in joint-stock banks in 1882 of £32,746,000, being an increase of £2,600,000 over the preceding year. Owing to the rapid spread of temperance principles, the savings banks deposits were increasing so fast that Government would soon have a serious difficulty to know how to profitably invest them; and what more politic or statesmanlike use could be made of one great social movement than to utilize its savings for the sustenance of another? A certain proportion of these great sums would, undoubtedly, be available for a new and most attractive form of investment. These bends, being guaranteed by the State and easily transferable, would practically be bank notes, bearing interest at 3 per cent. Many a small hoard, of the existence of which few would have any idea, would be drawn out by the prospect of a security and interest so safe, and so easily converted into cash. Therefore, taking these advantages into consideration, he believed this mode of investment would be popular with people possessing small savings. The financial operation of raising money at a low rate of interest for the purchase of the landlord's interest had, during the last two years, been so frequently referred to that he need not re-state it. Assuming that money was raised at 3 per cent as suggested, and the period of repayment was extended to 40 years, a tenant could give 23 years' purchase of his farm, and yet pay an annuity, including repayment of principal, less than the existing rent. By amalgamating this annuity, which in no case ought

    419
    to exceed the existing rent, with the rates and cess already levied, no new or expensive machinery was necessary either for its collection or enforcement. The farmer would become a proprietor, repaying to his own local authority a sum advanced on mortgage on his farm. In the conveyance given to him provision might be made that the repayment should, if he wished it, be made more rapidly. The next question was, would the farmers buy? He believed it was tolerably certain that in the best and most solvent districts they would, though possibly not at first in great number, if the terms were good enough. The idea of instantly becoming his own landlord, free to do what he liked, subject only to a terminable annuity less than existing rent, would, to many well-to-do farmers, be an irresistible attraction; and if the better class of farmers led the way there would soon be many following them. The third, and, perhaps, the most important question of all was, could the local authority be trusted? Up to a certain point he thought the experiment might be made. But their borrowing powers would have to be closely watched and limited. If they in any way showed signs of untrustworthiness or repudiation their powers would at once terminate. Power must, of course, be taken by the State to declare any local authority in default if they in any way declined to recognize their obligation; and the Government, in such instances, might have the option of nominating a new authority, or transferring their powers to Government officials. With the existing machinery for collecting and enforcing the payment of rates, backed by the whole civil and military powers of the Crown, there ought to be little difficulty in bringing any recalcitrant local authority into immediate subjection. He had not attempted to enter into any details, nor did he pretend that this idea would settle the whole of a Land Question with au annual rental of many millions. But it would give a fillip to the Purchase Clauses by bringing an attractive and feasible scheme before both landlord and tenant. It was preferable to local land banks, whose credit without a State guarantee would be nil, whose operations could not be checked without an enormous staff, who must trade for profit, and who would have behind them only
    420
    their shareholders in place of the whole mass of the ratepayers. Assuming that the Government were able to obtain a small sum, comparatively speaking, through the agency of the local authorities, they would have a sum which would be perpetually applicable to the purpose of converting tenants into proprietors. This sum would be an increasing one, and one which the increase of deposits in savings banks would tend to swell. He felt the difficulty in which he was placed as the son of an Irish landlord. Any one who came forward to make a suggestion for developing these Purchase Clauses naturally laid himself open to the suspicion that he was prompted by personal motives, and was endeavouring to pledge the credit of the taxpayers for the purpose of obtaining good terms for himself and for other landlords similarly situated. As regarded himself, he was so fortunate as to live in a county in which not, during even the worst times of disturbance, any district had been proclaimed. There was no part of the United Kingdom where the people were better conditioned, more loyal, or better behaved. So long as rent was paid in any part of the United Kingdom, it would be paid in the county he was connected with. His reason for bringing the question before the House was the serious risk, political and financial, which he foresaw, if some determined effort were not made to permanently settle the Land Question of Ireland. It was much better to speak plainly; the Irish Land Question was still surrounded with risk and danger. The risk of taking any forward step was so apparent that many did not see the far greater risk and peril that would occur if nothing at all were done. As regarded the financial risk to the Consolidated Fund of the scheme he had sketched, risk was a relative term. What had been the permanent charge imposed upon the taxpayers by the policy of the past few years? The Civil Service Estimates for Ireland for 1880-I amounted to £3,100,000. That was a considerable in crease upon the preceding year; but for 1883–4, they amounted to £3,677,000. In three years there was an increase of £600,000, and that was a permanent increase, for among the few things certain in this world was this, that Civil Service Estimates never went back. An increased charge of £600,000 meant interest on no less a sum than

    421
    £20,000,000; in other words, the National Debt or obligation had been increased by the amount of £6,000,000 a-year. Such was the financial risk of doing nothing at all. What were the political dangers? The Land Question in Ireland was practically the Alpha and Omega of Irish politics. The commercial disabilities imposed on Ireland in the last century in the interest of English manufactures had made the land, with the exception of the linen trade, the one main industry in that country. Until Land Question was settled they would have perpetual unrest and perturbation in Ireland. But that was not the only danger. The Liberal Party were pledged to certain reforms and concessions, which they proposed to extend to Ireland. If the Land Question was not settled every concession and so-called political reform, by which greater political power was given to a certain class in Ireland, would be valued and used, not for the purposes for which it was given, but because it would furnish the means of extracting more out of the property of the landlords. The Liberal Party were, therefore, in this dilemma—they must either depart from their principles, so far as Ireland was concerned, or, if they adhered to them, they would do so with the consciousness that gross personal wrong and injustice would attend their operation. He scarcely ever read an address of any hon. Member to his constituents without finding words to this effect—that, at all risks and at all hazards, the existing connection with Ireland must be maintained. He did not know whether that was an idle formula or not; but if, at all risks and hazards, the present connection of England and Ireland was to be maintained, why did the House shrink back whenever any proposal was made which would do something to cement that connection—such as the application of even a small portion of English credit to the settlement of that one question which, of all others, interested Ireland—the question of the land? There were Gentlemen who said that they had heard enough of the Land Question, who did not wish to be bothered with it any more, and who were of opinion that if they put that question altogether on one side, and passed a certain number of political reforms, all would go well. But poli-
    422
    tical reforms were useless until social unity was restored. He happened, not long ago, to come across a passage describing the condition of this country just previous to the Great Civil War of the 17th century, in an admirable history written by a most impartial and able man—Professor Gardiner—and he thought it so applicable to the present situation in Ireland, that he would like to read it to the House. Professor Gardiner, in his History of the Fall of the Monarchy of Charles I., said—
    "Constitutional rules are good, because they enforce the application of the laws by which healthy societies are governed; but they cannot be made applicable to a society in which the whole head is sick and the whole heart faint. The daily food of the Constitution cannot be its medicine. Law and liberty, Kings and Parliaments, are available to a society which, in spite of wide differences of opinion and character, is in substantial unity with itself. When that unity has departed, when religious and political factions glare at one another with angry eyes, the one thing needful is not to walk in the paths of the Constitution, but to restore unity."—(Fall of Monarchy of Charles I., vol. or., p. 339.)
    Now, he would say that until the expectations and aspirations of the Irish tenant, which had been unduly excited, could be directed into the channel of legitimate purchase, they would never have social unity in Ireland. He must apologize to the House for the great length to which his observations had run. His only object in bringing the subject forward was to impress upon the House and the Government the absolute necessity of doing something to make the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act a reality. He would appeal specially to the Prime Minister. The Government had, undoubtedly, had exceptional difficulties to deal with in Ireland; but, on the other hand, they had had unprecedented powers accorded to them, and yet he feared that the outcome of their policy had been that every political, agrarian, and social difficulty which existed when they came into Office had been aggravated and intensified. However, he honestly believed that it was still possible to evolve something like social order and permanent tranquillity out of the existing condition of things in Ireland. But whatever was done ought to be done quickly. He asked the House, therefore, to give its assent to his Resolution,

    423
    He did not wish any individual Member to pledge himself, in the slightest degree, to any detail of the scheme which he had described. He had merely suggested a line upon which they might safely and advantageously proceed in settling the question. He urged the Resolution upon the notice of the House, because he believed that notwithstanding the lamentable events of the past few years—events which they must all deplore—there were still in the existing condition of things in Ireland elements from which the Government, if it were wise and bold, could extract materials for the formation of a scheme conducive alike to permanent tranquillity and social order. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he rose with great pleasure to second the Motion. He thought that everybody who had heard the speech of his noble Friend would admit that he had shown the greatest ingenuity in constructing his plan, and the greatest ability in expounding it. He was afraid, however, that the Government might be tempted to fasten on some particular provision of the scheme which they believed to be weak, and use that as a reason for rejecting the Resolution. He hoped the Government would not take so narrow a view—and he was sure they would be going against the interests both of this country and Ireland in so doing—but would look at the plan in its broadest aspect. His noble Friend had stated that the Land Question was the Alpha and Omega of Irish politics. A truer remark was never made. For nearly 40 years they had been trying so to alter the system of land tenure in Ireland as to remedy some of the political ills under which that unhappy country had been so long suffering. But in that long series of years they had not pursued a systematic course. In their first measures, the object of the House of Commons and the Ministry was to accept the system of large properties, and to make it, as far as possible, an economic reality in Ireland. The idea was to get the large estates out of the hands of insolvent owners, and to induce people to go to Ireland who would spend a large capital on agricultural improvements, and, no doubt, exact from the tenant competition
    424
    rents. That was the object with which the Landed Estates Court was established, and the Land Act of 1860 was passed. That policy prevailed up to the Land Act of 1870. But in 1870 there was an entire reversal of system, and that reversal was carried into final effect in 1881. The land legislation of 1870 and 1881 had been defended by very eminent Liberals, on the ground that the Irish would never become reconciled to the English methods of looking at this question; that their original land system was a tribal system, that it was an arbitrary innovation to give the landlords absolute power over their tenants, and that what should be done was to make some return to the original condition of status as distinguished from the condition of contract, which previous Parliaments had attempted to foster. Whatever might be said of that legislation, he must point out that they could not return, by an elaborate scheme, to the original condition of status. They might destroy the simple, natural proprietary right of the owner in the soil; but they could not restore tribal relations between Chiefs and vassals by an elaborate plan of land valuation, Government Courts, and all the heavy machinery by which Her Majesty's Ministers had attempted to solve the Land Question in Ireland. One thing seemed to him certain. They could not return to the old system of large proprietors and competitive rent. Neither could they maintain the artificial system of double ownership which had been set up by the Act of 1881. There was only one course open to adopt, and that was to return to an equally natural system, not based on largo proprietorship, but on a system of small holdings in fee-simple. He was no advocate of small proprietorship on economic grounds, although there were high authorities who thought it was the only sound system. He did not think that the system of small owners, as it existed in France and Belgium—still less that of Russia—was the best conceivable one. But the system established by the Act of 1881 had all the disadvantages, and none of the advantages, of peasant proprietorship. It drove out of the country all those whose wealth and education might have proved a benefit to it. Yet it left no body of

    425
    small owners, who might have conferred upon it other, but not less, important benefits. It was said, however, that small owners were apt to run hopelessly into debt. That was the case in France, and still more so in Russia; most of all it was the case in India. It seemed to be the natural tendency of small ownership for the owners to get gradually under the dominion of the usurer. But that danger had not been avoided by the legislation of 1881. The small tenant would still be driven to have recourse to the gombeen man. Thus, while he was alive to the objections to a peasant proprietary, he would urge that those objections equally applied to the system now established, which yet conferred upon the country none of the political advantage to be gained by the adoption of the proposal of his noble Friend. The danger from which Ireland suffered was that the political discontent which—in consequence, he was free to admit, of long periods of misgovernment—the Irishman felt, were always found in harmony with the social discontent born of poverty and of an hereditary land-hunger. Thus was generated a semi-socialistic agitation, which involved the gravest dangers to the Empire. The warmest admirers of the Land Act of 1881 would admit that, however necessary it might have been, it was, notwithstanding, looked upon by the people of Ireland as being the fruit of political agitation. Nor could anyone deny that the people of Ireland entertained the idea that by similar agitations in the future they would be able to get handed over to them a further slice of property which the landowners still looked upon as belonging to themselves. Could any one contemplate such a possibility—he would rather say such a certainty — with equanimity? The proposals of his noble Friend, if they could be carried into practical effect, would have the conspicuous merit of averting that danger. If they were carried the whole property of the landlords would be transferred to the tenants, and the very class which would otherwise be ranged against law and order in Ireland would be amongst its firmest upholders. The plan of his noble Friend involved lending not the money, but the credit of the State—a plan which
    426
    had never yet been tried by this country. It had been tried in Prussia, and, he believed, in Hesse-Darmstadt, with great success, and without those financial evils which the opponents of such legislation anticipated. The enormous advantage would be that an end would be put to the social agitation, in which lay the gravest danger of the political agitation. It was said, however, that one form of agitation would be substituted for another, and that the "no rent" movement would be set up against the Government instead of against the landlord. But it should be remembered that each year the tenant would be redeeming his holding, and be nearer the acquisition of the fee-simple; whereas, after he had paid rent for any number of years to his landlord, he was no nearer ownership than he was at the beginning. He did not deny, however, that there was some force in that objection. But it was far less than was the danger under the existing state of things. The annual instalments of purchase money would be paid to the local authorities with the taxes; and with each payment the imagination would be stimulated at the thought that the period of full ownership was approaching. He thought that he might appeal to the supporters of the Land Act of 1880, and that he might ask them whether they thought that the passing of that Act had not, to a certain extent, shaken the basis of property both in Ireland and in England? He believed—and the opinion had not yet become paradoxical—that the safety of society in this country absolutely depended on the solidity of those sentiments about property which were the present basis of our society. We could not materially shake this basis without doing infinite harm, not only, or principally, to landlords, but also, and chiefly, to the wage-earning classes of the community. If in 10 years' time we were going to pass another measure like the Land Act, in consequence of another agitation like that of the last three years, we should give a shock to property and credit in Ireland and in this country that would most seriously affect every class of society. He would appeal to those who had watched the course of events in the last three years whether they did not see, even in this

    427
    country, which had as yet no Land Act, the effects which were following the doubtless conscientious legislation of two years ago? If he was right in that idea, he did entreat the Government, while there was yet time, to make such provision in Ireland as should, at all events, prevent for ever a similar agitation, followed by similar consequences.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in the opinion of this House, an immediate revision of the Purchase Clauses of the Irish Land Act, 1881, is necessary, in order to give effect to the intentions of Parliament contained therein."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he must congratulate the noble Lord opposite the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) on having obtained such a full House for the discussion of his Motion. The subject was one of great and, under certain circumstances, of immense importance, as they were all agreed that a considerable and a larger infusion of occupying proprietors among the landlords of Ireland would be of great advantage to the State. Hitherto they had attempted to arrive at this advantage by methods well tried by experience; but he was willing to confess that those methods had only had a limited success. Still, those methods contained the germs of great future success, if certain changes to which the noble Lord had referred were made. The Government certainly did not view the noble Lord's Resolution, as it stood on the Paper, with anything but very considerable favour, if one alteration of words, which he would describe very soon, were made. Those methods, he thought, might lead to a very considerable development of the purchase of estates by the Irish farmers if the changes to which he had alluded were made; but if we were to leave those methods altogether, we should pass from what we knew very well to what we did not know anything at all about yet. But before we took that step there must be full discussion, which might be said to have begun to-night, and the country must know thoroughly what it was about to do. The measures hitherto taken had all contained certain principles in common, and to these he invited attention. The Church Act of
    428
    1869, by far the most successful of these measures, allowed three-fourths of the purchase money to remain on mortgage—either a simple mortgage of no less than 4 per cent, or a mortgage extinguishable in 32 years. The success of these clauses was very remarkable. Out of 8,380 tenancies, only 2,326 had to be bought by the public; but upwards of 6,000 tenants bought their holdings. And the average rate of purchase was very satisfactory, because it was for 22⅔ years, or not much less than that named by the noble Lord. The tenants purchased eagerly, and they paid their instalments well; and he was gratified to be able to inform the House that they continued to pay those instalments very well. Last year, out of £120,000 due to the Land Commission, only £4,000 remained unpaid. Encouraged by the success of these sales to tenants of particular estates, Parliament resolved to extend these measures to the whole of Ireland. And then came the Bright Clauses of the Land Act. In that case two-thirds of the purchase money was advanced by the Board of Works; and it was advanced in the shape of a terminable mortgage at 3½ per cent, repayable in 35 years by a payment of £5 on every £100. The success of the Bright Clauses, as generally known, was very small. The loans in 10 or 11 years were only 871, and the amount of the purchase money was only £853,000. The cause of the failure of the Purchase Clauses of the Act of 1870, as compared with those in the Church Act, was carefully examined into; and no one went more closely into the question than his right hon. Friend who was sitting near him. In some respects the terms offered by the Bright Clauses were less favourable than those under the Church Act; but this was not owing to the terms being less favourable. It was because, under the Church Act, certain estates were offered for sale as a whole; while in the case of the Bright Clauses the individual tenant was left to make his bargain with the individual landlord. In 1881 it was considered that more equitable terms ought to be given; and, consequently, terms as good as those of the Church Act were given with regard to interest and the time of repayment of instalments; but the success did not follow which was expected. At this moment

    429
    only 330 loans had been sanctioned, representing holdings to the price of £213,000. The result of all this legislation was that out of the 500,000 tenants in Ireland 7,250 had bought their holdings, or less than a hundredth, and probably considerably less, of the value of the lands of Ireland.
    COLONEL KING - HARMANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could state the rate of purchase?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the rate of purchase under the Church Act Clauses was 22⅔ years. The rate of purchase under the Bright Clauses was 19·8, or a little under 20 years. The causes of the want of success of these various Purchase Clauses had been examined into. He wished hon. Members to bear in mind, in discussing this Resolution, that it was possible one hon. Member, in referring to a particular feature of the case, might mean one thing, while another hon. Member might mean another. He had no doubt that the causes which ho was about to mention would be agreed to by all. The first reason was that, in many cases, the tenant was perfectly satisfied, as a tenant under a judicial rent, with practical security of tenure, and did not care to become an owner, when he would have to pay an increased rent during the whole of his life, and pay that share of the poor rate which would fall on the owner. Indeed, that held good not only in Ireland, but in England also. He had heard of a very good English landowner who offered each of his tenants the liberty of purchasing their farms at a moderate price; but not one of them would do so. A few, however, thinking the estate was about to pass into other hands, wished to bespeak certain other of the farms. Another cause of the failure of these clauses was the bad seasons, which had taken the heart out of the farmers of Ireland as well as of England. The Land Commissioners informed him, however, that there was a small but perceptible increase in the number of farmers now proposing to purchase their farms. But, undoubtedly, the third and most important reason why the tenants would not purchase on the present terms was because they expected better terms. The tenants fully expected that both Parties in both Houses of Parliament would, as it were, compete with each other to lay
    430
    down better and better terms, which would bring landlord and tenant together. This was a very real and serious reason indeed, and it ought to make them think very seriously what they were about, and not hold out any hopes which could not be fulfilled without danger to the State, and without more danger to the Exchequer. Some of the causes which told against the Purchase Clauses were causes which the Government were very willing to remedy; and they were set forth with very great ability in the Report of the Lords' Committee of last year. The Report mentioned that in the case of land under settlement—and very much land was under settlement in Ireland—the purchase money must be invested under the Court of Chancery in some Government stock, so that an income of £1,000, reduced by the expenses of collection to £800 a-year, would only realize upon sale or investment an income of £600 a-year. The Committee recommended that the trustees should have the ordinary powers of investment in guaranteed and preference stock, and then very little loss of income would accrue. Another difficulty, which he was informed privately was a very serious one, was the technical difficulty of head rents and quit rents issuing as they did, in many cases, out of the whole property, and the Committee had recommended that they should be apportioned. Then there were all the difficulties, which land reformers knew so well, relating to the examination of title and the transfer and conveyance of estates; and if they undertook to remedy them in Ireland there was no reason why they should not attempt the same in England also. If the Government attempted this legislation, they should be prepared to do it boldly; and if the noble Lord was willing to purchase the favourable consideration of the Government by striking out the word "immediate"—[" No, no!"]—because the noble Lord knew it was perfectly impossible for the Government to think of bringing in a Bill that year—the Government would be perfectly ready to accept so much of his Resolution in the sense which he had explained it. The noble Lord said he felt very much that one of the principal of the failures of the Purchase Clauses was that there was no intermediate body between the

    431
    landlord and the tenant to buy the estates and retail them, as it were, to the tenants; and he did not regard the Land Commission in a favourable light for that purpose. He thought the noble Lord underrated the importance of estates being taken over bodily, and of being sold piecemeal to the tenants. He (Mr. Trevelyan) now came to the most serious features of the noble Lord's Resolution. They were two, and they appeared to be, first, that he wished to raise local debenture stock, to which farmers and traders in the neighbourhood might subscribe, and the interest of which should be payable, first, out of the rates, and be guaranteed by the Imperial Exchequer. The second feature of the noble Lord's scheme, as far as he could gather, was that the tenant should practically have the purchase money lent him at the rate of 3 per cent, and that, having the money so lent him, he would be able to buy property from the landlord, the noble Lord thought, at 22 years' purchase. He (Mr. Trevelyan) had already described to the House the methods by which Parliament had tried to secure the purchase of those farms by the tenants. The House must observe that those methods contained two important propositions, and they must act very cautiously before they abandoned them. Those propositions were—first, that the purchasing tenant should lay down a substantial part of the purchase money; and, secondly, that the time in which he engaged to repay the same should not be an unlimited one. Unless these conditions were observed the Government had no assurance that he was a bonâ fide purchaser, and that he valued the sense of proprietorship. They had no assurance that he was the sort of man that the State could accept, or that the noble Lord could accept, as a tenant. They had no assurance that the purchaser really wanted to buy his holding, but only that the owner wanted to sell it. The second condition, relating to the term over which the repayment extended, was also vital. If the payment was a very small one the purchaser came to regard himself merely as a rent-paying tenant; whereas, if he saw a substantial part of the purchase money discharged year by year, if he found himself gradually becoming very near being a landed proprietor, the case was entirely different. Unless these two
    432
    conditions were fulfilled, they had no assurance that the estate would not be sold for a great deal more than its value. If the buyer found part of the price, and had to pay the rest steadily and promptly, ho would take care not to buy the property for more than it was worth. But if all the money was to be provided by the State, you would have no individual self-interest called forth in fixing the price of the estate; you would have to fix it by a Government Department; and no Government Department in the world was ever to be trusted to fix the price of estates.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: If you fix rents under the Land Act, why should you not fix the price of estates?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was arguing that if you removed individual interest from the purchase of estates you could not arrive at a proper price. They had the fact that whereas, in 1880, the Church lands sold for 22 2–3rd years' purchase, in 1883 the price of land was about 19 2–3rd years' purchase. He would not enter into the cause of that. It was not his business; but it showed that there was a very great variation in the price of land from the 22 or 23 years mentioned by the Lords' Committee and adopted by the noble Lord. Neither of the two important considerations he had mentioned were fulfilled by the scheme of the noble Lord. Under his scheme the whole of the purchase money was advanced by the State, and the number of years allowed for repayment was so increased that the tenant was to sit at no higher rent than at present. It was, of course, a very attractive scheme—so attractive that it was necessary to look closely into it to see what made it possible for it to produce such a magical result—that the tenant should become owner at the same rent as before, and the purchaser should obtain full value for his land. He would just ask the House to consider whether there must not be some latent danger in a scheme so remarkably attractive. The real disadvantage that underlay it was in his opinion this—that the scheme looked very well on paper. There was no doubt the State could borrow at 3 per cent; but the whole question of success and failure lay in whether it could lend safely at 3 per cent on the terms and conditions laid down in the scheme.

    433
    Now, if they allowed a scheme of this sort to hold, it was equivalent to transferring the land of Ireland from the landlord to the State. The tenant would naturally prefer to pay a lower rent, and have his estate as well, rather than to pay rent for it in perpetuity. What would be the consequence of this change? The noble Lord thought the local bodies, so to speak, would act as a sort of buffer between the Exchequer and the tenant. He had himself great doubts as to that. They had not many opportunities of judging; but they had one opportunity, and that was the case of the seed loans.
    MR. O'CONNOR, POWER: That was a case of famine and distress.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that in the case of the seed loans money was lent to individual tenants with the Boards of Guardians behind them. The money was lent; and, in spite of the fact that the Boards of Guardians being there to act as a buffer between the Exchequer and the tenants, the result had been that representatives from most of the Boards of Guardians concerned attended on the Lord Lieutenant, and asked him to remit the moiety of the loan which still remained unpaid. One thing they must expect, that whoever was the landlord—whether the State or the private individual—there would be applications for partial remissions of rent through the whole country in bad seasons; and in the case of people who had had individual bad times there would be individual applications. The landlords had to entertain these applications now, and the State would have to entertain them, and it would be in a bad position to do so, because the State could not make the exceptions between individual tenants which a good landlord was always ready to make in ease of need. It would either have to insist wholesale, or to remit wholesale. And thus they would be brought back to this—that the State would be obliged to employ probably the very same gentlemen who were now employed as land agents by individual landlords. If they advanced the whole of the purchase money they would put solvent and insolvent tenants on the same basis, and do away with the distinction between men who were fit for peasant proprietorship, and men who were unfit. Then there was the chance of political agitation in favour of the
    434
    remission of Crown rent. He did not want to say anything to which hon. Gentlemen could take exception; but they could not forget that two years ago, after the tenants had got a certain measure for fixity of tenure and fair rent promised them, it was thought by a good many of them reasonable not to pay rent to the private landlords, because a certain political measure had been taken by the Government. What would have been the case if the Government itself had been landlord during that agitation? The difficulty of enforcing payment of rent in such a general disinclination to pay on account of political causes was almost insuperable. It was said that the State would have the power to deal severely and strictly with whole districts at a time. When, however, they considered what dealing "severely and strictly" with a whole district meant, it would probably be conceded that such very unpleasant discipline would be likely to do a great deal more radical harm than peasant proprietorship could do good. The tithe agitation seemed a good case in point. The Government granted to the Irish clergy compensation for the loss by the non-payment of tithes, and the Government became by statute entitled to enforce the payment of arrears due by the occupiers. The Attorney General instituted proceedings to recover £104,000; he recovered £12,000, at a cost in law expenses of £23,000. But it would be said there were the Protestant Church tenants. He allowed that the Church tenants had paid very well; but it had to be remembered, in the first place, that the property lay, to a very great extent, in districts where all rents were better paid than in other parts of the country; and, in the next place, that the Church tenants had already been paying their instalments for 10 years before there was any agitation against paying rent on political grounds; and, therefore, they had much at stake which they could not afford, even if they had wished, to lose. Over and above all, there was the process of weeding out the less solvent, industrious, and enter-prizing Church tenants by the demand of a considerable part of the money in hand—a demand which was not made by the noble Lord. Therefore, to conclude, any scheme which involved the essential principles of the dealings which

    435
    had been carried on with the Church property would be favourably received by the Government. Any reforms of the nature which ho had described would be heartily accepted by the Government; and in the carrying out of those changes, which would require much and carefully-studied legislation, the time which could not be given this Session would be given at the earliest opportunity. But the Government did not see their way to assist any scheme which did not recognize those principles which he had laid down—payment of a considerable part of the purchase money in cash, a series of solid instalments for a comparatively short term of years to discharge the balance, and, as the result of those elements, a large margin of security for the repayment of the whole debt, and security, too, against political and social changes which they thought would be connected with a too liberal scheme. On these conditions the Government would willingly accept the Resolution of the noble Lord, though it would be quite impossible to accept the word "immediate," because under no circumstances could a measure of this importance possibly be introduced during the present Session. He congratulated the noble Lord on the manner in which he had brought this question before the House, and ho hoped that legislation of great benefit to Ireland would spring from that discussion.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman had considerably dashed the hopes which some parts of his speech had aroused. It ' appeared to him that the cardinal points of the scheme which the noble Lord described with so much ability consisted, first, in the advance by the State in the manner described of the whole of the purchase money; and, secondly, of the interposition of a local authority, the precise nature of which the noble Lord did not specify, between the State and the tenant, both as regarded the arrangement of the purchase and the payment of the money, the rates being taken as collateral security by the local authority for the money advanced to thorn by the State. The right hon. Gentleman had omitted to state, however, the transparently overwhelming cause of the failure of the Purchase Clauses, the neglect of the State to advance the whole of the purchase money. In the case of the Church lands, the
    436
    necessity for borrowing the portion not advanced by the State left the tenants at the mercy of the usurers, and reduced them to a condition of the greatest necessity. Therefore, in this case, the experiment was tried under the most unfavourable conditions. Land was then selling in Ireland at a higher rate than it ever reached before or since; and, the State advancing only two-thirds of the purchase money, the tenants had to borrow the remainder at a high rate of interest. Notwithstanding all this, the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that those tenants who became owners in this way had, almost without exception, punctually paid their rent-charges to the State or the Church Commissioners during the three years of fierce agitation, when from every tenant in Ireland who was not an owner it was exceedingly difficult, and in many cases impossible, for the landlord to obtain his rent. Going no further than that, they might almost claim that the experiment of peasant proprietary had succeeded in Ireland; and if the House would only bring itself to the task of removing existing difficulties—one of the foremost of which was this question of the advance of the whole of the purchase money by the State—they would lay the foundations for the creation of a large class of occupying owners in Ireland, and thus be able to see the approach of a successful and an honourable settlement of the great Land Question in Ireland. A variety of objections had been advanced to any large plan of this kind; and, undoubtedly, if the Bright Clauses of the Land Act were made to work successfully, they would have to anticipate the approach of a very large number of tenants for the purpose of obtaining their benefits, and the hypothecation of the security of the State to a very large amount of money; but had it, or had it not, been the policy of the Governments of this country in recent years to encourage a peasant proprietary in Ireland? He thought it had; and where they wore able to point out that the policy of the State had been frustrated through the failure of the Act, surely the vastness of the operation should not be any deterrent in the way of remedying the difficulties which were proved to have arisen. The question of the advance of the whole of the purchase money was a leading difficulty in the matter. The tenant was

    437
    unable, in most cases, to borrow the money he required at a reasonable rate of interest. The lender of the money necessary to make up a fourth of the purchase money was compelled to take a second charge upon the holding. Under the Land Act the landlord was entitled to become the proprietor of that second charge; but he (Mr. Parnell) could imagine that, as a rule, the landlord would not desire to trouble himself about collecting small rentals, where formerly he collected large amounts. As it had never been worth while to make two bites at a cherry, so it was scarcely worth while for the State to longer withhold the remnant of the purchase money, merely to insist on the principle that some portion of it should be advanced by the tenant. They commenced with two-thirds, and the amount then went on to three-fourths; and, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman would now go as far as four-fifths. The Committee, which was presided over in the last Parliament by the First Commissioner of Works, adopted four-fifths. But, surely, if the Government desired to give a fair trial to this great stroke of policy, why should they stop at the limit of even four-fifths of the purchase money? It was plain that they adopted this limitation from a fear that at some future time there would be a strike against Crown rent, and that the Crown would be placed in much the same position that the landlords were during the last "no rent" movement. He thought, however, that the history of that movement showed conclusively that such an attempt on the part of the Irish tenants was not at all likely to take place. But before he went into this consideration, he wished to point out that the Government were actually, at the present moment, in the very position which they seemed greatly to dread to place themselves in, for they were in the position of having to collect rents for the landlords themselves, and to use the Forces of the Crown for that purpose. They were compelled to collect those rents during the "no rent" movement, some of which had been proved before judicial tribunals to be harsh and unjust. They were in some cases compelled, pending the action of the Courts, to collect these rents still; and they collected them, therefore, at a great disadvantage. He submitted that it would make all the
    438
    difference in the position of the State if they adopted this scheme of peasant proprietary—he would not say exactly like that suggested by the noble Lord, because he did not bind himself to all its details; but, speaking for himself, he would say that, as far as its two main principles went—the principle of a lien on the local rates, or the interposition of the local authority, and the advance of the whole of the purchase money—he could see no objection to the former, and he approved the latter. It was a reasonable safeguard for the House and the Government to require that the local authorities or the ratepayers should undertake some of the risk in this great transaction and change; and if such a proposal in respect to peasant proprietary in Ireland were agreed to by all Parties in the House, the Government would be placed in a higher moral position, which could be justified with much more security and satisfaction than the position they now occupied, when they went to collect rents from the tenants he had referred to. The Chief Secretary referred to two examples for the purpose of showing the difficulties of collecting rents, and the disadvantages that attended the lending of money to local authorities in Ireland for the use of the tenants; but they were not, in the slightest degree, applicable to the case in hand. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman quoted the example of the seeds loans. He (Mr. Parnell) must say that he quite expected the seeds loans and the objections of some pauper Boards of Guardians in the West to be trotted out before the discussion closed; but the circumstances of that case were entirely different from this from every point of view. He admitted that the Local Boards ought to pay, and ought not to ask for remission, and he said so in 1881; but when the loans were made, it was admitted that famine was coming upon the country, and even the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) was credited at the time when the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) brought on his Motion for a supply of seed—he was credited, by well-informed persons, with the intention of bringing forward a Bill for the purpose of securing a grant for seed for Ireland. He (Mr. Parnell) brought forward another scheme of his own, which

    439
    very properly was adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon; but then the loan was given at that time as a means of meeting an almost unexampled period of distress in Ireland. It was granted to the very poorest of the community, to labourers, and to small cottier tenants under £4 valuation, and in such a hurried way that the ordinary safeguards which ought to be observed, and which were usually observed in transactions of this kind, were not observed. Thus, in consequence, much of the money was lent unjustifiably to persons who ought not to have got it. Much, too, of the money was spent in buying seed of an inferior quality; while all the machinery for putting this loan into motion had to be hastily devised, and consequently abuses arose which had prompted the Boards of Guardians in some of the more pauperized districts with the desire to be relieved of the necessity of paying the amount of their obligations. Now, the proposition of the noble Lord was one of a very different character. It was a loan that would be lent, not in times of great emergency, but calmly and deliberately, and not for the relief of cottiers and tenants, but that would be for the purpose of enabling perfectly solvent tenants to become owners of their holdings. Consequently, there was really no analogy between the two cases. The right hon. Gentleman had also called attention to the case of the tithe war, and in regard to which he (Mr. Parnell) might repeat what he had said with regard to the other question. Public opinion, undoubtedly, was strongly against the tithe charge, and it was supported by the Government for the time being, who brought in a Bill to remove the charge from the shoulders of the tenants to the landlords. The House must also bear in mind that the means of recovering the tithe-rent charge were, and still remained, very different from the means of recovering rent. The only way in which the Government had ever recovered the tithe-rent charge was by seizures of stock and by sales; for non-payment of rent it was possible to evict; but it was doubtful whether the soldiers of even a well-drilled and disciplined Army would be the instrument for turning the wives and families of tenants into ditches to starve. He
    440
    thought all careful students of the "no rent" movement must be persuaded that it was exceedingly unlikely, if not perfectly impossible, that if the change were made as suggested by the noble Lord, and the tenants were asked to pay a reduced rent charge, less than the present judicial rents, and the tenants felt they were dragging a lessening instead of a lengthening chain behind them, that there would be refusals to pay, or that any agitation or any political Party would he able to do that which they were not able to do under more advantageous circumstances in the period from 1879 to 1883—namely, to induce them to refuse paying the annual amount which was necessary for the purpose of keeping a roof over their heads. The difficulties in the way of the proposed scheme ought not to be exaggerated. It was right that the House should inquire into all the surrounding difficulties, and all the risks which might be involved and entailed in an operation of such magnitude. But he believed that the change would be carried out with no risk to the Imperial taxpayer, and that the country would be a positive gainer in the saving of the amount which it was now paying to the police in Ireland of £500,000 or £600,000 a-year, not to mention the necessity of keeping a large standing Army of 30,000 men, which must entail a corresponding swelling of the Military Estimates. The House should not deliberately exaggerate or raise up phantoms in respect to this question. A good deal of the speech of the Chief Secretary, in examining the difficulties that besot the scheme of occupying ownership, was more like the speech of a special pleader might make in opposing what ho knew to be a good case. When the Chief Secretary had had time to examine this matter more carefully, he hoped he would resume the policy of the Liberal Party when out of Office, and assist the noble Lord in endeavouring to effect a practical solution of this question. Why should there be delay? He hoped the noble Lord would not agree to such a plea, but would press his Motion to a Division, and take the sense of the House upon it. It was a non-contentious question, which only required discussion and examination by the whole House; and the only important point which had to be settled was the

    441
    fraction of the purchase money which the tenant should be required to pay, and he trusted that that portion might be made so small as to become almost infinitesimal. It was a question very suitable for the consideration of a Grand Committee. It was not for him to make suggestions as to the method of carrying the scheme into effect; but he would ask the Government, having listened to the debate to-night, having heard the opinion of both sides of the House, and having heard the detailed suggestions, whether this question might not be considered during the next fortnight, and be embodied by themselves in a Government Bill, which might be submitted to a Grand Committee chosen from all sections of the House? He had no doubt that the result of the labours of such a Committee would be to return to the House a Bill which would go far towards a settlement of this most difficult Irish question—a question which, if left unsettled, must constantly remain a source of danger and difficulty to the State.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he thought that the Chief Secretary had raised unnecessary difficulties, and seemed to think that the proposal had departed from the lines which had hitherto been followed in similar proposals. The Government, however, wore already committed to the theory that a peasant proprietary would be a good thing for Ireland. They had committed themselves to it in 1877, on the Motion of the present Chief Commissioner of Works, and again in the Act of 1881. No doubt, the Act of 1881 had changed the aspect of the question. He was one of those who believed in that Act. There was, however, no doubt that it had given so many advantages to the tenant that the number of tenants who would be willing to purchase was not so great as it otherwise would have been. He did not agree with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that the majority of the tenants would wish to avail themselves of facilities for purchase. The majority of the tenants had obtained what they desired—security of tenure, and security against arbitrary raising of rent. The number, he believed, would only be a minority, though a considerable minority. That circumstance, however,
    442
    ought to be an inducement, rather than the reverse, in the eyes of the Government, to accept the proposal of the noble Lord, though, perhaps, not in its entirety. He saw great danger in the guarantee of Unions and County Boards, and believed that in many instances they would object to have responsibility thrown upon them. He did not believe there would be any serious default on the part of the tenants in paying the purchase money. He trusted that the Government would, as they had accepted two of the recommendations of the Lords' Committee, accept, or, at any rate, not refuse to consider favour-ably, the two last recommendations—namely, the provision of the whole of the purchase money by the State, and the extension of the time of repayment to 40 or 42 years.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he would not stand long between the House and the Prime Minister. There were few questions more important to Ireland than that which had been raised by his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton). It was impossible to overstate the interest taken in the subject in Ireland—in fact, he (Mr. Gibson) could go further, and say it was impossible to overstate or exaggerate the unanimity of feeling on the subject in Ireland. Although many people regarded the question not exactly from the same standpoint as he and some of his hon. Friends did, they all recognized that there were many practical difficulties which would have to be overcome before a solution could be arrived at. It must be recognized by anyone who considered this question that the scheme of the Land Act had been largely disturbed in its operation by what had taken place since its passing, compared, at all events, with what was stated in Parliament, and what must have been the intentions of its authors. It clearly was the intention of those who presented the Irish Land Act to Parliament that the Purchase Clauses should have a substantial operation, and that the Tenure Clauses also should have a substantial operation. It was intended, he believed, judging from the speeches which were made, that the Purchase Clauses were to be looked to to provide a final and ultimate solution of the question; and that the Tenure Clauses were

    443
    rather to be looked to to bridge over the interval—it might be a long one—before the final solution was arrived at. That was pointed out by the noble Marquess the present Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington), in the speech in which he referred, in the the City, to the Tenure Clauses as only supplying a modus vivendi. The Tenure Clauses, however, had had so much effect given to them, and they had been so widely appealed to, that, practically, they had driven from view the Purchase Clauses. In fact, it had been brought about that the Tenure Clauses had mainly occupied public attention in Ireland, and had mainly been appealed to; and that the Purchase Clauses had practically remained, he would not say a dead letter, but with very little operation. There was nothing novel in the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act of 1881; their provisions had been before Parliament and the Government for a good number of years; and, therefore, they might take it that the principle of encouraging the growth of peasant proprietorship and an occupying proprietary in Ireland was recognized as desirable, and the failure of which was to be deplored. He did not wish to discuss the details of the plan of his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex. The Resolution which appeared upon the Paper of the House was general in its terms, and pointed to the desirability of further facilities being afforded for the working of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act. The noble Lord was bound—indeed, it was only fair, when he came before the House with that Resolution, that he should give the ideas which were present to his own mind as matters for the consideration of Parliament and the House. The question was a wide one, and might possibly cover a great portion of the land of Ireland in the occupation of the tenantry; but he (Mr. Gibson) did not think it would be found, at all events at first, to have a very wide and universal operation. He thought it would be worked gradually and tentatively; but it was, no doubt, a great proposal, and it would have to be approached, he would not say with caution, but with great prudence, and with a statesmanlike desire to realize all the difficulties around it. He had no doubt in his own mind—looking at Ireland, with its chequered
    444
    and uncertain history, looking at the experience of recent years—that one of the soundest social and political policies to be applied to the country was to increase the facilities for creating a peasant proprietary, and developing into a healthy operation what were called the "Bright Clauses" of the Land Act. The guiding principles that his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex had laid down, in explaining the Motion he had introduced, were these—that there should be a larger advance made to encourage tenants, and that, for the safety of the State, and to prevent any possibility of loss to the State, it would be reasonable and fair, if there was any very large increase—certainly, if there was an increase up to the full amount of what was required for the purchase money—there should be the security of the rates. Now, those were the principles which his noble Friend had laid down in outline, and they seemed not unreasonable, but worthy of the favourable and full consideration of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in his interesting speech, had practically admitted the soundness and fairness of the Resolution proposed. He had not denied at all that every syllable of the Resolution on the Paper applied, and he had only sought to qualify the time in which that Resolution might be applied; so that, practically, the House might take it that the Government conceded in principle the contention that was unanimously held by Irish Representatives on this matter—namely, that it was desirable that there should be a revision of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act in order to give effect to the intentions of Parliament contained therein. Now, that being so, it was obvious the question could not be put aside by cavilling at the details. The broad points he (Mr. Gibson) went upon were these—that the present facilities had been found inadequate, and that further facilities for putting the "Bright Clauses" of the Land Act into operation were desirable and necessary. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, practically admitting all these general assertions, took issue on the word "immediate." Well, that was all very well, of course, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view; but he (Mr.

    445
    Gibson) thought the word "immediate," or some equivalent, was desirable, because it was the only word in the Resolution which suggested that it was not to be an absolutely abstract Resolution. If they struck out the word "immediate," they made it merely an abstract Resolution, and prevented it having any efficacy at all. This was no new question. On the 2nd May, 1882, Lord Granville, speaking with all the weight of his authority in the House of Lords, used these words—
    "Your Lordships are aware that the Land Act does not deal with the question of arrears….Then there are also what are popularly known as the 'Bright Clauses' of that Act. On both those subjects the Act will require revision; and with regard to that a detailed statement will be made in Parliament at an early date."— (3 Hansard, [268] 1923.)
    That was a distinct statement on the 2nd of May last year. But it did not rest there, because, on May 8, Lord Granville used those words—
    "Your Lordships are well aware that, some days ago, I announced the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose to Parliament three measures—one with regard to strengthening the administration of justice and the security of private rights in Ireland; one affecting arrears; and another affecting what are called the Bright Clauses.' Her Majesty's Government adhere to that intention."—(Ibid., [269] 316.)
    That was a statement made a year ago by one of the leading Members of the Cabinet in reference to this particular question. They then stated that this question required revision; they then stated that they were in a position soon to announce the intentions of the Government, and that a Bill was in preparation. In the face of that statement, and in the face of what had occurred since, was it not unreasonable to expect that his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex would consent to strike out from the Resolution that which gave it life? At that time of the evening (12.10 p.m.), and having regard to the fact that the Prime Minister was about to speak, he did not think it was reasonable for him to make any further observations in reference to this extremely important subject. It was a subject which anyone must have thought of largely who had thought at all on the future condition of Ireland; and he ventured to think that, whatever might be the effect of this Resolution, the House of Commons would affirm that, in its
    446
    opinion, it was desirable that there should be some revision of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act, and that that revision should be of a prompt, and not of a remote character.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with regard to the Motion of the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton), and with regard to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion (Mr. A. J. Balfour), I must say this—that I do not concur in the grounds upon which they appear to me distinctly to base their proposition. I concur in the proposition itself, with the exception of the word which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) has objected to; but I do not concur in the grounds upon which they appear to base it. They base their proposition, not upon the fact which I am bound to say the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Gibson) based his proposition—they do not base their proposition upon the great advantages of a peasant or farming proprietary; upon the soundness of the principle of such a measure; upon the security it would give for public order, and upon the unity of interest it would create between the class of peasants and the other classes of society, but upon their apprehension that more Land Bills are in preparation. It was not to confer a benefit upon the community at large, but to save the landed proprietors from more Lands Bills that this proposal was made. ["Oh, oh!"] I think I am strictly representing the entire effect of these speeches; and I must own that these statements, coming from such a quarter as they do, convey a deep impression of the unsettled state of the Land Question in Ireland at the present moment. At any rate, the hon. Member for Hartford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) will not deny that he represented it as such. I am not questioning the right of hon. Gentlemen to hold that opinion, if they think fit; but I am merely questioning the policy and the tendency of such a declaration. I doubt it; I do not agree with them. I believe that substantial justice has been done in Ireland. I believe that we have gone to the root of the matter, and have established relations, substantially just, between the landlord and the tenant; and, therefore, I am not ready to admit that the Land Question is unsettled, and I think the

    447
    statements of the noble Lord the Mover, and the hon. Gentleman the Seconder of the Motion were most dangerous and impolitic. I look at this proposal, therefore, from quite a different point of view—namely, from the point of view borne by the proposal itself. I do not hesitate to say that I agree that the Purchase Clauses require revision, in order to meet the intentions of Parliament; because, in stating last year that we were not prepared to re - open generally the particular clauses of the Land Act, I went on to say that I did not extend that declaration to the question of the Purchase Clauses, any more than I did to the question of arrears. I cannot agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down that my noble Friend Lord Granville ever promised, on the part of the Government, to introduce a measure into this House immediately. [Mr. GIBSON: I read Lord Granville's own words.] Yes; but they do not bear the construction the right hon. and earned Gentleman puts upon them. I should take the liberty of adhering to my own words; they were words spoken in this place, and I presume the House of Commons is prepared to accept on such subjects declarations which I may make. I can answer for these words; I cannot tell what words were used by Lord Granville, or whether the words quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite were correctly reported. We agree, in order to meet the intentions of Parliament, there ought to be a revision in these clauses; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down holds these two doctrines; he holds that the revision is to be immediate. Speaking on the 12th June, and there being no Bill before the House, and no plan before the House, except a plan for none of the details of which he will be responsible, and when the House has been sitting for about four months, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says these two things—that the revision must be immediate, and that the question involves many practical difficulties to be looked at and overcome before a solution is arrived at. This is the practical proposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There are, said the right hon. and learned Gentleman, a great many practical difficulties in the way, and these difficulties
    448
    must be carefully looked at and overcome. There must be, he said, a careful and prudent caution, or prudence, or cautious prudence, or something like that. [Mr. GIBSON: Caution.] But there was another word; another epithet. [Mr. GIBSON: Statesmanlike prudence.] No, no. There was something much more telling and pungent than "statesmanlike prudence." Anyhow, the right hon. and learned Gentleman really thinks that all these practical difficulties can be looked at and overcome before a solution can be arrived at, and that when that process has been gone through, and a complex Bill has been framed, it can be introduced in this House so as to be passed into law during the present Session. That is the proposal ho intends to force on the Government, through the medium of an adverse vote to-night, if he is able to induce the House to go to it. It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who does not propose to legislate himself in this matter, to play with edged tools. ["Oh, Oh!"] It is playing with edged tools; and it would be most culpable in the Government to give any promise to introduce a Bill in this House at the present time, unless they saw their way, in looking through all the formidable difficulties which presented themselves, to frame a measure, and obtain for it the sanction of Parliament this Session. It is not to be done; the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows it cannot be done; and, according to the announcement he has made, he is going to vote for a measure which will give a pledge that, in his own mind, he knows it would be impossible to redeem. Let us see how this matter stands. He has stated that the question is to enlarge the advance that is to be made, and to throw the security upon the rates. The question is a great deal larger than the right hon. and learned Gentleman has represented; it and the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) fairly made it a great deal larger. The noble Lord, in his speech, fairly threw overboard the old notion of requiring the payment down of an instalment. The noble Lord based his plan entirely upon the notion of a reduction of rent, combined with the transfer of the fee simple, a reduction of the grant, not necessarily, in all cases, consider-

    449
    able; but the annual charge to be made on the tenant, under the plan of the noble Lord, without any proportion of the purchase money paid down in the first instance—the annual charge was to be kept within, and be below, and not above, the rent for which the tenant is now liable. The noble Lord made one most important and valuable admission. In a statement, which was couched in very emphatic terms—I will not attempt to repeat his words; but, if I use strong words, I do not think I shall use stronger words than those which fell from the noble Lord when he said he considered it would be most dangerous to place the State in the condition of creditor in the face of the peasantry and smaller occupiers of Ireland, and such a feature he proposed entirely to expel from his plan. Well, that is very important; because, if the noble Lord agrees that it is not safe to place the State in the condition of creditor before the mass of the Irish cultivators, the noble Lord must allow me to say that neither would it be safe to involve the State in pecuniary responsibility in connection with the purchase of Irish holdings with any unreal and illusory personage, placed between the State and the cultivators of the land of Ireland. Now, see what changes are proposed, and how different the scheme now before us in principle and in detail is from the schemes upon which hitherto Parliament has been content to go. I have said I cannot accept the word "immediate" in the Resolution of the noble Lord. While I recognize the duty of Parliament, I cannot consent to adopt words that I know it is impossible to act upon, and that no exertion of the Government, considering the engagements with which they are already charged, could by any possibility enable them to fulfil. Let us see what is the real bearing and effect of the main proposition of the plan before us. I am very glad to see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) recognized the introduction of the local authority in this case. I hold that my impression is that these clauses will have to be revised; that the revision, if it is to be made, ought to be of a serious character; and if it is to be of a serious character, it would be impossible to effect it except with the introduction of a local authority. On that principle I think the noble Lord proposes to pro-
    450
    ceed. He has not, however, communicated to us what the local authority is to be; and there, undoubtedly, rises a question of the greatest difficulty and of the greatest importance. The principle upon which all former proposals of this kind have been based has been that, while the creation of a farming proprietary—which was the happy phrase introduced by the noble Lord himself—while the creation of a farming proprietary is very desirable, the principal plan for bringing that proprietary into existence ought to be purchase with comfort, purchase with capital, purchase with candour, purchase with qualities tested to some extent, as a general rule, by the payment down of a proportion of the purchase money. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork says we have altered the proportion of the purchase money to be paid down from two-thirds to three-fourths; but that is a slender ground for supposing that we are prepared to part with the condition altogether. How far we are prepared to go in this direction may appear at a later stage of this subject; but I do not see how it is possible to part with the application of that principle. Now, Sir, by the adoption of that principle, and by securing the higher character of our purchasers, we attained to the success we have attained under the Irish Church Act, and which we should have attained in a much larger degree under the Land Act had we not, as has been justly stated by the noble Lord and by the hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway (Colonel Colthurst), removed the inducement to proprietorship in a great degree by giving to the tenant such a position, in the capacity of tenant, as conduced to his satisfaction. We then knew that by having these views of competency and character we had likewise some limitation to the extent of the transaction. Parliament would have reserved it in its power to consider, from time to time, whether these transactions ought to be relaxed. And now let us see what is proposed in substance, because, in substance, this is the common view of the proposal of the noble Lord and the hon. Member for the City of Cork. I do not say they adopt all the propositions of the Committee of the House of Lords—the Report of which Committee, by the way, contains

    451
    the most subversive and dangerous doctrines that were ever proposed in our time by a public body—or all the suggestions set forth by the whole work; but they abolish the payment down of any portion of the purchase money, and they say to the tenant—" You are now to become the proprietor of your holding, either with a reduction, or, at all events, with no increase of rent; you are to make no effort, you will be called upon for no payment down—in fact, we shall call upon you to pay something less than your rent for a limited number of years, and then the fee-simple will be yours." I have not made up my mind, quite irrespective of the credit of the State, that such a plan as that is defensible in principle; but it appears to me one of the broadest and most extended propositions that-was ever brought before Parliament, and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the 'University of Dublin, who is ready to vote for an immediate Bill, says, there are many practical difficulties which really require to be overcome before a solution can be arrived at. What is, then, the consequence? Every cultivator of the soil in Ireland is to be told —" We come to you now and we offer to you that, without taking any steps whatever, without entering into any new engagements whatever, with, probably, a remission of some part of your present engagements, you shall be, in a given number of years, the proprietor of the holding which you now occupy." Will not the first consequence of that proposal be that every holder in Ireland will claim to become a proprietor? A man is to make no effort, he is to do nothing; if he has been au indifferent cultivator, or even an indifferent character, as such he may continue; without any effort, or sacrifice, or engagement whatever, he is simply to make his demand, in order to come within the circle of this proposal; he is to become the proprietor of his holding, irrespective of his capital and of his character. I may state, moreover, that the proposal would involve the question of a State guarantee to the extent of several hundreds of millions—£300,000,000 or £400,000,000—
    MR. PARNELL: About £100,000,000.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot give the absolute figures; but I venture to say it would not be far short of
    452
    £300,000,000 of money that would require to be involved in the guarantee I am now speaking of. That guarantee, according to the noble Lord, is to be covered by the local authority.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The right hon. Gentleman is mixing up the scheme of the House of Lords with my proposal. I never proposed that the State should guarantee £300,000,000 of money.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I never mentioned anything of the kind. I am endeavouring to work out what I think are the consequences of the noble Lord's proposals. He asked that the payment down of a portion of the purchase money is to be dropped; and I think, under his plan, a man is to become proprietor of his holding without any payment down, but simply by paying for a moderate term of years—I think 40 years—the very same or less rent than he pays now. It is for that that I make the noble Lord responsible, not for what he stated, but for what are the necessary consequences of his proposals. The consequences of his proposals are, that every man having offered to him the fee-simple of his holding and some reduction of rent, it is absurd to ask, will that man take it, or will he not? Of course, he will take it. Therefore, you have to deal with the whole land of Ireland. ["No, no!"] I am glad to hear that straightforward recognition of the true facts of the case. At this moment I am called upon to say I will immediately carry this into effect. This is a question which would involve, as I say, a guarantee by the State of £300,000,000 or £400,000,000 of money; or, as the hon. Member for the City of Cork says, of £100,000,000 of money. The noble Lord interposes a local authority. In principle, I think that a valuable and essential feature of his plan; I do not know whether the noble Lord thinks there are local authorities existing in Ireland who can pledge the people of Ireland and the property of the country to a guarantee of £300,000,000. I do not think there are such bodies in existence, although I do not pretend to speak dogmatically and with authority on this subject. I am not aware of any local authority which can be in the mind of any man, except Grand Juries or the Boards of Guardians. The Grand Juries are totally out of the question upon the

    453
    present basis; and with respect to the Boards of Guardians, which were elected for entirely different purposes, and with functions of not one-fiftieth part of this scope and importance, I cannot undertake to bring in immediately a Bill for placing in their hands the obligations of a plan which is to involve this enormous, gigantic, and almost incredible guarantee. I think those are reasons which ought to show that we could not possibly go further than my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has gone. I am determined, for myself, to preserve my own mind entirely free on the question whether it is possible to amend the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act without dealing with what I hold to be a question of extreme urgency, a question of great urgency for Ireland —namely, the question of its local institutions. I can conceive that a judicious measure of local institutions for Ireland might immensely simplify the difficulties of this measure; but this one thing more I wish to say in protesting against this enormous transaction, that if we call upon bodies quite incompetent for the purpose of entering upon vast pecuniary engagements on the part of the people of Ireland, the meaning of that is, that the whole affair will be an imposture. The interference of a local authority will only serve to cast dust in the eyes of the people in this country, and we should attain no other end than we should have attained if we had recognized at once and adopted at once the principle which the noble Lord declared to be intolerable—namely, the principle of becoming at once the direct creditors of all the cultivators in Ireland. Undoubtedly, regard for the interests of the English taxpayer is one of the motives, and probably a great one, in my mind, against the adoption of any scheme of that character; but I must say there is another motive behind it, working in the same direction, and carrying us to exactly the same conclusion, which I deem to be more weighty still, and that is a motive which must be all-powerful in the mind of every right-minded person in this country—namely, a desire to promote harmony and goodwill between the peoples of the two countries. To place the State and the Treasury of this country in the position of creditor ship is like putting a bastard premium on every attempt
    454
    to disturb the relations between England and Ireland. I am not sure what are the intentions of the noble Lord; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin desires to give us an order to legislate immediately on a question which, nevertheless, he ingenuously confesses is surrounded by many practical difficulties which require to be carefully looked at. I think I have shown why I cannot adopt this Resolution in the sense in which it was adopted, certainly by the hon. Seconder (Mr. A. J. Balfour), as a mere defence against the rights of property in Ireland, the security of which he thinks we have impaired and weakened, but which we think we have saved and rescued. ["Oh! oh!"] It is all very well to jeer; but these are solemn convictions; and the hon. Gentleman who is accustomed to indulge in that mode of expression, would do well to allow solemn impressions to be delivered in a proper manner, and without that description of interruption. It is my deep conviction that the Land Act of 1881 has been a great attempt, and, in the main, a successful attempt, to deal with the Land Question of Ireland, and to vindicate the liberty of property in Ireland. I cannot adopt this Resolution upon the principle that property has been shaken; but I adopt it on totally different grounds. I adopt it, without any pledge to take immediate action upon it until we can, dispose of the difficulties with which it is surrounded; I adopt it on the ground of the intrinsic merits of the policy which it contemplates in Ireland—the placing of a considerable portion of the land of that country in the hands of those by whom that land is cultivated.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that whatever opinion the House might form of the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), he was sure those who had sat in the House during the greater part of the debate, as he (Mr. O'Connor Power) had done, would feel thankful to him for the very useful discussion which his Motion had provoked. And he was further sure they would all be glad to join the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in acknowledging the moderation with which the noble Lord had stated his views. With reference to the speech of the right hon.

    455
    Gentleman the Prime Minister, he (Mr. O'Connor Power) would like to call attention to two important points upon which the right hon. Gentleman dwelt. In the early part of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said he was glad to hear that his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had recognized the necessity for some collateral security by the local authority, if any advance for this scheme was made by the Imperial Exchequer. He wished to remind the House that, the first time in those discussions that the local authority was referred to as a satisfactory collateral security, was, sometime ago, when ho (Mr. O'Connor Power) had the honour of submitting a Motion on the question of migrating tenants from one part of Ireland to another. He was sorry the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex had not honoured him with his support on that occasion; but he was bound to say there was a decided coincidence of thought between them, because, when he mentioned to the noble Lord, privately, the method which he intended to adopt for giving collateral security, the noble Lord stated to him that he (Lord George Hamilton) had been for some time devoting considerable attention to the question, and that was precisely the kind of collateral security which ho had devised in reference to his scheme for peasant proprietorship. What ho noted particularly in the important statement of the Prime Minister was, that he had stated that should these clauses be seriously revised, a local authority must be called together. Now, he regarded that as a very important declaration on the part of the Prime Minister; and, as far as it went, it was a very satisfactory declaration. He did not say that the risk contemplated by the Prime Minister was as much as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think; that if the assent of the Government was given to any scheme of this description, the credit of the Imperial Exchequer would be pledged to the extent of £300,000,000. Of course, when the Prime Minister spoke on any financial question, it was very difficult to say a word on the subject; but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not object to his putting a question with all humility and with all sincerity. If it were true that, by the adoption of the noble Lord's proposal, the credit of the
    456
    State would be pledged to the extent of £300,000,000, he would like to know, was the credit of the State, under the Act of 1881, whereby the State was prepared to advance two-thirds of the purchase-money, pledged to the extent of £200,000,000 at the present moment? If the risk, so far as the Government had gone, were not as he had described it, he (Mr. O'Connor Power) failed to understand how the risk would be so great as the right hon. Gentleman contemplated if this proposal were carried out. He regarded the present discussion as a very important and serious one on many grounds. When he considered the position which the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex, who moved the Resolution, occupied in the House, and what his relations to the landed proprietors of Ireland were; when he considered also the cordial manner in which the scheme of the noble Lord had been supported by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), ho (Mr. O'Connor Power) was inclined to regard the debate as the beginning of the end—the beginning of the end of one of the greatest agitations that had ever stirred the people of Ireland, and one which must be completely settled before anything like social or political tranquillity could be restored to that country. When the Land Act of 1881 was introduced into the House, he did not conceal his opinion regarding it. He regarded it as a great measure, and he still did so. He did not adopt the description which had been given of the measure on either side of the House as absolutely correct. It had been described, on the one side, as a settlement of the Land Question; and, on the other side, it had been described as a measure which had left the Land Question still unsettled. Now, ho thought if they were to say that the Land Question was not completely settled, they would arrive at the best and most accurate description of the state of things in Ireland. The noble Lord who moved the Resolution laid down a proposition in connection with that measure which he (Mr. O'Connor Power) certainly was not able to endorse. The noble Lord said that, notwithstanding the effort which Parliament then made, every evil which the Government had had to deal with had been aggravated and intensified. The noble Lord was looking at the Land Act entirely from

    457
    the landlords' point of view. The noble Lord told the House that a measure which had cut down rents by 20 per cent had aggravated the evils from which the tenant farmers had for more than half-a-century suffered. No one would persuade the farmers of Ireland that a measure which had given them such substantial relief had not gone a great way towards removing the difficulties which beset them. What was complained of was this, that the settlement originally proposed by the Representatives of the tenant farmers in Ireland remained yet untried under conditions which were likely to bring complete success. In the early stages of the Irish National Land League movement, the main proposals of the League were adopted by the tenant farmers in Ulster just as loyally and as cordially as by the tenant farmers in Connaught and the South of Ireland. Nevertheless, when Parliament came to deal with the subject, it dealt with every aspect of the agrarian question but the one aspect on which the Representatives of the tenant farmers had mainly set their hearts, and that aspect of the question was such legislation as would enable the tenant farmers to become, by honest purchase, the proprietors of their farms. The speech of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex was noteworthy in other particulars; but he (Mr. O'Connor Power) would like to say a few words with reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who seconded the Motion of the noble Lord. Speaking disparagingly of the Land Act, the hon. Gentleman said that for 40 years this country had been endeavouring to settle the Irish Land Question. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) did not think that was historically true, for he believed that the first real attempt to deal with the Land Law of Ireland was made in 1870. He was aware that, in the earlier years of the present century, several Land Acts were introducted and passed; but what was their object? Why, did they think they were passed for the purpose of securing to the tenants the fruits of their industry? No, they were not; their object was simply to strengthen the landlord in the exercise of his unjust privileges, enabling him to deprive the tenant of the fruits of his industry. He contended, therefore, it was only within a very recent period that Parliament had
    458
    realized that the interests of property were represented by the tenant farmers of Ireland as well as by the gentlemen, who had hitherto accumulated in their own hands the whole resources of the land of the country. Well, reference had also been made to the position of the Land Act in Ireland and the position of a State tribunal, making contracts between man and man. Well, he supposed that nobody ever intended that that tribunal should be a permanent institution. He, for one, did not believe in its permanency. He looked upon it as a necessary evil—an evil rendered necessary by half-a-century of legislative neglect, and the silence by which Parliament had received the complaints of the Irish tenant farmers over so long a period. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Trevelyan) seemed to throw some doubt upon the utility of a scheme of this kind, because he said the 'peasant proprietors were a class of men who rapidly ran into debt—["No, no!"] He believed it was the right hon. Gentleman who had made that statement—["No, no!"] At any rate, somebody had said it in the course of the debate, and it was a statement very often made in discussions of this kind. Well, what he (Mr. O'Connor Power) had to ask was, did the persons who, at the present moment, held the land in Ireland never run into debt?
    MR. TREVELYAN: From the position I hold in Ireland, it is necessary that I should correct a statement of this kind. I hope the hon. and learned Member will allow me to remind him that it was an hon. Gentleman who spoke below him, who made the statement he attributes to me—that since the Land Act tenant farmers had continued to run into debt as much as they did before.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he would acknowledge that he had made a mistake. The truth was, the tenant farmers of Ireland, at the present moment, were obliged to run into debt. A great deal of light was thrown upon this question by the evidence collected by the Duke of Richmond's and Lord Bessborough's Commissions, as would be seen by any hon. Member who took the trouble to look at it. It would be found that large numbers of the tenant farmers of Ireland were embarrassed by debt at the present moment, and that

    459
    large numbers of the landlords were in the same position. To tell him that the peasant proprietors were a class who rapidly ran into debt—and be readily acknowledged it was not the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who made that statement—was only to expose one of those evils which afflicted people in all positions and grades of society. He would ask the House to attend to one very important statement made by the hon. Member for Hertford. The hon. Member had said he admitted very freely—and his whole heart seemed to go out in the admission—that the political aspirations of the Irish people were practically the result of misgovernment. Now, that was a very important declaration, and it was marvellous how much political wisdom one could always learn in this House when listening to statesmen in Opposition. It was marvellous to hear the statement coming from the Front Opposition Bench below the Gangway. That, ho maintained, was the side of the House to which a person, anxious to complete his political education, should listen attentively. That acknowledgment, on the part of the hon. Member for Hertford, accounted for a great deal of dissatisfaction which had prevailed in Ireland for so many years, but which many of the hon. Member's Friends had been accustomed to attribute to very different causes indeed. Well, they had heard the whole objection to a scheme of this kind—namely, that a "no rent" agitation against the Government would be substituted for a "no rent" agitation against the landlords; but if such an agitation as that were to be got up, his firm belief was that it would have no possible chance of success. Where it was apparent to the whole public mind of the country that the tenant was really called upon to pay upon the property which was ultimately to become his own, but that he was not called upon, in any year, to pay a larger margin of the profits which ho derived from his farm, than would enable him to live and thrive in his own home, popular opinion would insist upon the money being paid. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the effect of this discussion would be to induce Her Majesty's Government, if not during the present Session, at any
    460
    rate at the earliest opportunity which would present itself, to consider this question in the serious light indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and that they might be afforded an opportunity of grappling finally with the difficulties of agrarian law in Ireland.
    MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to the question put to me, I have to say that, if the hon. and learned Member will consult the 33rd section of the Land Act, ho will find that the whole effect and scope of the Purchasing Clauses of the Land Act are limited to the issue of the sum which Parliament may grant from year to year for the purpose.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for so kindly answering the question. Had he (Mr. O'Connor Power) not been swayed by that erroneous consideration, he should have availed himself of the opportunity of stating that the operation of the scheme of the noble Lord would never attain the magnificent proportions sketched in the speech of the Prime Minister.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that in reference to the statement of the Prime Minister, that he (Mr. Parnell) had estimated the value of the land in Ireland at only £100,000,000, he wished to say that he had never stated anything of the kind, and had never intended to make such a statement. He had estimated that the value of the land in the occupation of tenants which the noble Lord intended to deal with—that was to say, the actual residential owners of the soil—at a sum of money per annum, which would amount, at 20 years' purchase, to £100,000,000.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, though I had not the advantage of hearing my noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton), when he brought forward his proposal, I was already aware, by previous communication with him, of the general lines of that proposal; and it appears to me that the discussion, so far as I have had the opportunity of listening to it, amply justifies the step my noble Friend has taken in bringing the matter before the House, and the general line of the argument which he has pursued. I think we may consider the matter from this point of view. The Irish Land Act was roughly divisible into two parts—that is to say, into the

    461
    part which related to the tenure of land, and the clauses which related to the purchase of land. I do not wish, of course, to revive all the controversies which took place with regard to the Tenure Clauses. There were great differences of opinion, and I must confess that I was very far indeed from being satisfied with the arrangements made as to the Tenure Clauses; but we always felt that the measure must be regarded as a whole, and that the Purchase Clauses were as much and as important a part of the measure as the Tenure Clauses. Such was the view also of the Government; and it was a view which they expressed repeatedly, both while the Act was under consideration in this House, and after it had become law, and questions arose as to the alteration of it. My noble Friend has brought forward, with a competent knowledge of the state of Ireland, a proposition which is, in fact and in substance, that which Her Majesty's Government have more than once told us of—that the scheme of this Act is incomplete unless the Purchase Clauses become a reality; and that the Purchase Clauses, as they at present stand, are in need of revision, in order to make them such as they were intended to be, and such as we think they ought to be. My noble Friend has made certain suggestions; and there is no doubt that, however ingenious and however well-considered those proposals may be, it is quite impossible that they should be adopted without careful consideration. Indeed, my noble Friend never proposed that anything should be laid aside, and that you should at once legislate upon the particular lines ho suggested for consideration. But what my noble Friend does propose, and does urge upon the House is, that this matter should not be put aside; that you should not say—"Oh, well, some day or other no doubt these matters may be dealt with, and must be dealt with; but we cannot take them up yet, and we don't know when we may take them up." Therefore, my noble Friend uses a word which has been made the subject of some remark—namely, immediate "revision. I do not understand that my noble Friend, by the use of the word "immediate," means that the Government should, on Thursday next say, proceed to introduce a Bill on the subject; but that Her Majesty's Government should take this
    462
    matter up in a practical way, with a view to the elaboration of a proposal that they would recommend to the House, and that they should introduce it with no more delay than is necessary for the full and careful consideration of the subject. In making this proposal, my noble Friend does not at all originate any idea. He only takes up an idea already thrown out, and stated to the House by the Government themselves. As long ago as the 2nd of May last year, the Primo Minister, speaking upon the Irish policy of the Government, said that there were certain points that ought to be brought forward.
    MR. GLADSTONE: What is the page in Hansard?
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: 1966. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "I have already partially and generally opened the views of the Government on one of the most important points which we think it our duty to open—namely, the question of arrears, a point, I may say, of the most pressing and immediate importance; and I also stated that an early opportunity would arise for touching on another point of great importance and interest—the question of the Purchase Clauses."—(3 Hansard, [269] 1966.)
    So that, in 1882, the right hon. Gentleman thought an early opportunity would arise for dealing with this subject; and that was not an accidental statement of the right hon. Gentleman in the heat of debate—it was no accidental, but it was a deliberate statement, made on the initiation of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and it entirely corresponded with another statement that was made in the other House of Parliament, by Earl Granville, on the same night, in which ho spoke of the revision of the Act, and said that a detailed statement would be made on the subject in Parliament on an early date. Well, all my noble Friend desires is that these statements and these promises of the Government, made in both Houses of Parliament, with deliberation and authority, should be redeemed, and that this matter should not be allowed to stand aside and be put off until a time which may never arrive; but that we should be assured that the matter is to be taken up seriously and earnestly, and without unnecessary delay on the part of the Government. If there be any difficulty about the construction and wording of my noble Friend's Motion,

    463
    I would suggest that he should abandon the particular word "immediate," and be satisfied to take the words suggested by the Prime Minister himself—namely, "an early revision." The Motion then would be of a character that would pledge the House and the Government to take the matter up seriously, and would not, at the same time, involve any impossible undertaking to set aside all other Business, for the purpose of proceeding with this subject, however important it may be. There can be no doubt the questions that have been raised by my noble Friend, and raised from his point of view, and put forward with very great ability, as I am sure they must have been, because I know my noble Friend has considered this matter for some time, and has elaborated a proposal which, from his position, he was well able to do — there can be no doubt, I say, that my noble Friend has made a proposal with thought, and with knowledge; but it will be necessary, of course, that such proposal should be very carefully weighed. And, though I do not myself think this Motion is open to the objections which have been urged by the right hon. Gentleman, I would prefer that it should be considered and discussed from a Ministerial and official point of view, rather than that we should take it up in the manner in which it stands, I would venture to appeal to my noble Friend and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to know whether they could not accept my proposition to substitute the word "early" for "immediate?" It seems to me that if that were adopted we should be in substantial agreement that this is a matter of great importance, deserving of early and immediate consideration, and as of early legislation as the circumstances will admit.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I think the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite not an unfair one, and I shall have no objection to accept it.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that, as a financial question, he considered the one under notice to be one of the most stupendous that had ever been brought before Parliament; and he ventured, also, to think that, as a political question, it was of scarcely less importance. Taking the amount of money which would be required, upon the smallest scale that the hon. Member for the City
    464
    of Cork (Mr. Parnell) put it down at, the cost would be £100,000,000. It had occurred to him (Mr. Illingworth) while the Prime Minister was speaking, and pointing out there should be some limit to the claims put forward by the tenants of Ireland, that there was some truth in the interruptions that were made by hon. Members sitting below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House, and who were entitled to speak for the tenants of Ireland, to the effect that all the tenants would like to come under the scheme. If that were so, the cost would be much greater than was estimated by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. It would come to this—that on £15,000,000 a-year rental, at 20 years' purchase, which was a moderate computation, it would give a sum total of £300,000,000, which would have to be provided by the Government of this country, in order that only one portion of Her Majesty's Dominions might be benefited. And he ventured to think that the question did not end there. What would the cottiers and crofters in Scotland think if they were to accede to this demand? Claims would be made, both by landlords and tenants, with remarkable unanimity. And, further, he wanted to know whether the modest Agricultural Holdings Bill, now before Parliament, and intended to meet the dissatisfaction and complaints of English agriculturists, would be, for one moment, regarded as worthy the consideration of this House? He could, therefore, only express his amazement at right hon. Gentlemen, who had been in Office, and who he could still imagine to be dreaming of the coming day when they would once more be in Office, endeavouring to bring upon the Administration these enormous responsibilities. He was amazed to see these right hon. Gentlemen absolutely discussing as to whether, in this contest, the word "immediate" or the word "early" should be used. When they were discussing the Arrears Bill, and there was a probability of the National Exchequer being called upon for a paltry sum of £250,000, they had the whole Conservative Party up in arms against it—for £250,000 was all that it was contemplated applying out of the Exchequer in regard to arrears. So scrupulously careful were the Conservative Party of the interests of the British

    465
    taxpayer, that there was absolute unanimity on the other side of the House against such a proposal. [An hon. MEMBER: It was a grant that was proposed.] He was coming to that question presently; but, as a matter of fact, he could see very little difference between the one thing and the other. He could see very little difference between this scheme and that with which they were only too familiar in the past with regard to loans in Ireland. He could understand why the Irish landlord should push forward this scheme, and present it to the House, under the most plausible aspect; but he confessed he expected to hear from the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. and learned Member for the county of Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) some argument, showing the proposal of the noble Lord would be of great value and importance to the tenant classes of Ireland; but he had not heard a single syllable from either one or the other of these hon. Gentlemen in that direction, and yet they were thoroughly well acquainted with the circumstances of the Irish tenants. Not one syllable had come from either of them as to the value of this proposal to the great mass of the Irish tenantry; and that should, in some degree, influence English opinion in considering this stupendous proposal. The hon. Member for the City of Cork, and other hon. Members, had declared that the reason why there had been so little interest shown in the purchasing of land under the Land Act was that the Tenure Clauses had, in the main, proved so satisfactory and sufficient that there would be very little advantage to the Irish tenantry in burdening themselves with the nominal ownership of their holdings. One-half of the tenantry of Ireland were tenants under £10 a-year valuation. Even the noble Lord himself did not expect that the annual charge, in the shape of interest, to be much, if any, less; and he Mr. Illingworth) believed it would prove an additional charge, unless the State was to suffer, as substantial as the full rent now being paid. If, on the other hand, the tenant bad an absolute security in his holding—almost fixity of tenure—as a general proposition it would be the most unwise course possible for the Irish tenantry, many of whom were now steeped in debt, and had been going through bad
    466
    seasons, to rush in and burden themselves with the nominal ownerships in that country. He held that there was no urgency in this matter, and that the value of the proposal to the Irish tenantry would be so small that, oven supposing the Purchase Clauses of the Act were made as easy in working as possible, and there were modifications such as had been suggested by the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he did not believe there would be above 10 per cent of the tenantry who would be considering their own interest by at once taking up nominal ownership, and burdening themselves with the obligations which that ownership would involve. But there were some other points worthy of a moment's consideration. It had been held that the State would run no risk, and that the safeguard against risk would be some intermediate body; that the Representatives of Ireland and the local authorities would act as a buffer. He, however, held that it was an essential condition for any sound scheme of this kind, that there should be a margin maintained on the part of the State, before it advanced one step towards this arrangement. Why should Ireland be an exception? Would any business-man say he knew of any banker or building society or land association in this country that did not require this elementary and preliminary security? It was needed on every ground—as a proof of good faith and an evidence of the capacity and character—the sobriety and power of self-denial on the part of the person seeking to borrow. There were many bubble schemes outside, and he hoped the House would hesitate long before countenancing a scheme which was infinitely more of the character of a bubble scheme than of anything else. It could not be said that he had been unfriendly during the last few years to any rational proposal for improving the condition of the Irish people. He had voted—and he believed every other hon. Member in that part of the House was equally ready to vote—for everything he and they believed to be in the interest of the Irish tenantry and not unjust to this country. But he was satisfied that peasant proprietorship could not be an institution of any permanence in Ireland, except by steady growth. Examples must be taken, in the first instance, of a few of the ten-

    467
    ants who had great energy and had some credit, and who could, therefore, provide the means of paying a fair instalment before they ventured on the rights of ownership. He thought that both the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary for Ireland had gone quite far enough in the undertaking they had given. But, even supposing that this Resolution was accepted with the word "immediate," he did not understand that the Prime Minister accepted the exposition of what the Resolution meant either by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), or the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), or the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), or even the form in which the right lion. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had urged the proposal. What he (Mr. Illingworth) understood was, that the Government would commit Parliament to the consideration of what was possible and reasonable and fair to the Empire at large, in order to give greater effect to the Purchase Clauses. So far he (Mr. Illingworth) should be glad to operate with the Government.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he should be very glad to accept the Prime Minister's Amendment, and substitute "early" for "immediate." He wished to explain, however, that he had never meant by his proposal to borrow £300,000,000. He had stated that there were in the Irish banks £30,000,000; a small portion of which could be raised without the sanction of the Treasury, and only on the supposition that the local authorities would take the responsibility. Under the magnifying influence of the Primo Minister, that sum had become £300,000,000, to be raised and placed on the ratepayers; but he had distinctly stated, in moving his Resolution, that he accompanied it with various suggestions, which were not meant to be an interpretation of the Resolution, or to bind everyone who voted for the proposal.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, an early revision of the Purchase Clauses of the Irish Land Act, 1881, is necessary, in order to give effect to the intentions of Parliament contained therein.—(Lord George Hamilton.)

  ORDER OF THE DAY.

    HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (SERVICE OF WRITS) BILL.— [BILL 184.]
    (Mr. Anderson, Mr. Cochran-Patrick, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Armitstead.)
    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. ANDERSON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was a Bill for the purpose of removing a grievance which had been felt for some years past in Scotland. Under the Procedure Clause of the Judicature Act of 1875, the Lord Chancellor was empowered to make certain Rules, which were to take effect out of the jurisdiction of England. The word "Scotland" was not used in the clause, and, through that fact, it had passed unnoticed and without discussion. The attempt to bring Scotland under the jurisdiction of the English Courts had been repeatedly made before, and always defeated. It had been made in 1852, in 1854, and by a direct Bill in 1875; but what had failed in a direct manner had been carried in an indirect manner, and had passed unnoticed, and so a grievance was inflicted upon Scotland. In a short time Scotland began to feel the mistake she had made, and a deputation waited upon the then Lord Chancellor (Earl Cairns), to get him to modify to some extent the Rules which had then been in force for one year. That modification only went the length of requiring that an affidavit should be made that there was no Court of competent jurisdiction in the town in which the defender resided, and the Judge was instructed to take into consideration the amount of debt, and the comparative cost of following it in Scotland and in England. Practically, the question of cost and the question of amount had been altogether ignored. The only consideration by the Judge had been whether there was a competent Court in England, rather than whether there was one in Scotland; and, upon that point, affidavits had been made in the most reckless manner by creditors in England. They had not hesitated to make affidavits as regarded Edinburgh, and Glasgow, and other largo towns in Scotland, that there was no Court of competent jurisdiction to

    469
    try their cases. Men who would make false affidavits, would equally make claims that were false; and the result was, that many claims had been made against Scotchmen, and writs served upon them, through which they had been dragged to the English Courts to defend themselves. The consequence was, that it had become the practice among Scotchmen, who were so served with writs, either to compromise the case, or pay the claim; because they found it much cheaper to get off in that way, than to come to England to defend themselves. In that way, a great deal of injustice had been done. He had presented Petitions from all the principal Bodies in Scotland about this matter, upon which there was a very strong feeling. He was aware that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had been in negotiation with the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, with a view of getting him to modify his Rule; but the people of Scotland were tired of these negotiations. They had been going on for a year, and had hung fire; and, in the meanwhile, this grievance had been increasing. After all, even if the Rule were altered, that would only be a temporary relief. What they wanted in Scotland was to be replaced by Statute in the position in which they were previous to the passing of the Judicature Act of 1875; and that was the object of this Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Anderson.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought that, before a Bill of this importance was read a second time, or even discussed, the House ought to know what the view of the Government was upon this matter. According to the statement of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), the matter had been brought by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate before the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, and the views of that noble and learned Earl, who was, of course, more interested in seeing matters of this kind properly carried on than anyone else, ought to be laid before the House before the Bill was proceeded with. If the hon. and learned Solicitor General could now state those views, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) should have nothing more to say;
    470
    but, unless that hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to state what course the Government, on the responsibility of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, were going to take, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day week. In order to get the noble and learned Lord Chancellor's views, he would move that Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon Tuesday next."—(Sir Richard Cross.)
    Question proposed, "That the word now' stand part of the Question."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, this was a matter which, as the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had stated, had been under the consideration of the noble and learned Earl the Lord Chancellor. There was no doubt that, by virtue of certain Rules under the Judicature Act of 1875, the power of jurisdiction had been extended beyond the limits previously existing. At the same time, he (the Solicitor General) thought this Bill went rather far. The matter was, however, at present under consideration by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, with a view to so modifying the Rules in respect to the service of writs outside jurisdiction, as to put the matter on a sound and satisfactory basis. If the Bill were read a second time it would, in his opinion, require amendment. It would not be satisfactory in its present form, because it went too far. He did not deny that, at present, there was justice in the complaints with regard to the service of writs under the existing law; but this Bill would withdraw, from the jurisdiction of the English Courts, matters which it seemed to him ought to be within that jurisdiction; and, therefore, if the Bill were passed into law, there would be power of jurisdiction in Scotland over English cases in which no such jurisdiction would exist in England. There was no doubt that the view taken by English and Scotch lawyers was somewhat different. Under the English law, the point that regulated, in a great measure, the question of jurisdiction was the place where the cause of action arose. If the contract and breach were in this country, then

    471
    it was regarded as a matter within the jurisdiction of the English Courts, even though, when the right of action arose, the parties were resident in Scotland. On the other hand, the Scotch Courts regarded the jurisdiction as regulated, mainly, by the question of domicile of the parties to the suit; but the Scotch Courts had a jurisdiction which English Courts had not. If they found an Englishman in Scotland possessed even 1s., they could issue a writ quite apart from the question of residence of the Englishman in that country. Therefore, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) was not correct in supposing that an Englishman could not be sued in Scotland, unless he was a resident there. Englishmen could be, and were, sued in any case where they had property. Therefore, there was that material distinction between the jurisdiction of the two countries; and what they must try to do was to regulate these two jurisdictions. It seemed to him that it would not be fair to leave jurisdiction in Scotland in actions against Scotchmen, and yet deprive the English Courts of all jurisdiction in every case in which the man was resident in Scotland. He thought no one would doubt that there were cases in which it would not be unreasonable that the parties should be sued here, even if resident in Scotland. Supposing there were some questions with regard to something done in respect to property which a man had in England. He might have property here, and there would be jurisdiction here, and he might commit some act here with regard to that property, yet he would have to be sued in Scotland, although the whole matter arose from property here, and the contract in respect to it was made here, and the breach of the contract took place here. That seemed to him to be in excess of what was reasonable. [Mr. ANDERSON: The 2nd clause saves that.] The 2nd clause provided for attachment within the jurisdiction; but effects could not be attached in the jurisdiction in the sense in which effects could be attached in Scotland. There was none of that general power of attaching in England which existed in Scotland; and, therefore, if a man, having committed a breach of contract in England, resided in Scotland, he would have to be sued in Scotland. The matter was, therefore, not quite so
    472
    simple as the hon. Member for Glasgow would suggest. This was a delicate matter to deal with; but he did not think it was at all impossible to arrive at some fair adjustment of the relative jurisdictions of the two countries, by a modification of the Rules. To the extent to which the Bill went, the Government could not assent to it; but, to some extent, they would be prepared to assent to it, and he thought it probable that all that was required could be done by a modification of the existing Rules.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that with all his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had stated with regard to the technicalities of the existing Rules relating to jurisdiction of the Courts as to Scotchmen, he entirely agreed. The general rule on which they proceeded in the North, was that of the plaintiff following the place of the defendant, and, on the whole, they believed that was the more rational mode of procedure. It was this Rule which, in their judgment, had been largely infringed by the Rules of procedure of 1875. There was this great peculiarity about these Rules—that they were laid on the Table of Parliament without any discussion, and without having been observed, so that their existence had only come to be known by cases which, unhappily, were cases of great hardship, and which went on increasing down to the present time. There had, consequently, been a very strong and just feeling on the subject raised in Scotland. It was quite true, as his hon. and learned Friend had stated, that he (the Lord Advocate) had been in communication with the noble and learned Earl the Lord Chancellor, with the view of obtaining a modification of the existing Rules, so as to obviate the grievance which was complained of; and he was very hopeful that these negociations might be successful. He did not understand that his hon. and learned Friend disputed that there was a great deal in the Bill which was deserving of fair consideration, and that such modifications as were necessary to meet the case might be made in Committee. He was willing to admit that the Bill, in some respects, did go too far; but that would be a matter easily modified. And he thought that, possibly, one way of dealing with

    473
    the subject would be to agree to the second reading, subject to the understanding that the Committee stage would be taken only at the end of such an interval as would enable them to see whether there would be success in regard to the communications as to the Rules of procedure that had been going on; and that any modifications, necessary to bring the Bill into consistency with the common principles of jurisprudence, would be adopted.
    MR. ARTHUR ELLIOTsaid, it was not altogether satisfactory to Scotch Members that a matter of this kind should be dealt with by negotiations between the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate and the noble and learned Earl the Lord Chancellor. It was not merely a question as to what was the best system of law adopted in the two countries; but the question was, whether the English Courts should have jurisdiction, by virtue of certain Rules made by Judges? Several attempts had been made in Parliament to obtain for England that jurisdiction they had subsequently acquired; but they had failed through the exertion of the Scotch Members. The Scotch people were, naturally, somewhat outraged in their feelings, that jurisdiction, which had been refused to the English Courts by Parliament, had subsequently been obtained in a somewhat unfair manner. It was satisfactory to know that the Rules were to be reconsidered; but he (Mr. Arthur Elliot) should like to see the jurisdiction of the Scotch Courts rest upon Act of Parliament, rather than upon any agreement with the noble and learned Lord Chancellor.
    MR. COCHRAN-PATRICKsaid, he thought the House was in a somewhat peculiar position in respect to this Bill. They had heard from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate an expression of one opinion; but they heard from the hon. and learned Solicitor General for England a very different opinion. He (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) could not make out whether the Government proposed to assent to the second reading of the Bill, on the understanding that there should be a certain interval before going into Committee, or whether they proposed to oppose the Bill. It would be satisfactory to the House to have a distinct expression of opinion from Her Majesty's Government as to what they proposed to
    474
    do. If there should be any doubt about the matter, and they went to a division, he should have no hesitation in supporting the second reading of the Bill. The Bill carried out what was deemed—as the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had properly put it—the law of Scotland. The law of Scotland was secured to that country by the Treaty of Union explicitly. It was confirmed in 1852, in 1854, and in 1873, and still more explicitly in the very year in which that privilege, to a certain extent, was lost. In 1875, when the exemption was proposed to be taken away from Scotland, it was deliberately refused by the House. It was afterwards brought in by means of Rules, the scope of which was not understood or thoroughly appreciated by Scotch Members at the time, or, undoubtedly, they would have received considerable opposition. He hoped the Government would give a clear and decided expression of their opinion, and that the Bill might be allowed to be read a second time.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, that the House was placed in rather a remarkable position; for they had two Law Officers of the Crown, he would not say virtually contradicting each other, but taking a different line to each other. He understood the hon. and learned Solicitor General was opposed to the second reading of the Bill.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he never said anything of the kind. His right hon. Friend opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) asked him what negotiations had been going on; and what he said was, he thought there was a good deal in the Bill that was perfectly right, but he thought the Bill went a great deal too far, and he understood his right hon. and learned Friend near him (the Lord Advocate) also to say it went too far.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he did not say that his right hon. and learned Friend (the Lord Advocate) had said that he (the Solicitor General) was opposed to the Bill; but what he said was, that he understood him to be opposed to the second reading, and he now understood him to be opposed to the second reading. Then his right hon. and learned Friend rose, and said his views differed somewhat from those taken by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and he proposed, as he (Mr. Horace Davey)

    475
    understood, to support the second reading of the Bill. He supposed that if the Government intended to support the second reading, it would be of no use dividing upon the question; but if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South - West Lancashire persevered in his Motion, lie (Mr. Horace Davey) should certainly support it. He did not think that this was a Bill which ought to receive second reading, and he would tell the House shortly why. The only case in which a person resident in Scotland, out of the jurisdiction of the High Court of England, had to serve a process in an English Court, was where the contract in which the action was brought was made in England, or where the breach of the contract was in England, or where the property in respect of which the action was brought was in England. What hardship was there in a gentleman resident in Scotland—not necessarily a Scotchman—being sued in an English Court for the breach of a contract? What hardship was there in that? If this Bill were read a second time, it would be perfectly impossible, if a person committed a breach of contract in Carlisle, to sue him in England, if he chose to go across the Border. If there was a grievance, he should be glad to remedy it; but he thought the House was entitled to a little more explicit statement as to what the grievance was, before it was asked to pass a Bill of this character, which he (Mr. Horace Davey) thought would create a great change in the procedure of English Courts. He did not think it was satisfactory that a Bill professing the principle of this Bill should be passed by the House at that hour of the morning (1.15), without a more explicit statement of the grievance which it was intended to remedy than he had yet heard.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken (Mr. Horace Davey) misunderstood the position of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate and the hon. and learned Solicitor General. They were both agreed. They both agreed on this, that the existing state of things that had arisen on all sides had altered the condition of people in Scotland to their disadvantage, and that this was a thing that ought to be remedied. As he understood it, a man whose business and trans-
    476
    actions happened to be in Scotland, might be brought to have his case tried in England, simply because a letter or two might have passed in England with reference to the matter. That, certainly, was not a convenient state of things, and it was one that ought to be remedied. That being clearly understood, the only question was whether this Bill remedied it. He understood that both his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and the hon. and learned Solicitor General agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch that the Bill went too far, and that it made provisions in the matter which the grievance hardly warranted. He thought everybody was agreed that it was proper that this evil should be dealt with by Bill, and lie thought a reasonable course would be to give a second reading to the Bill, and then have a postponement of the Committee stage until the matter had been duly examined, and it had been ascertained what form the Bill should take.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he fully approved of the view taken by the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey). He (Mr. Whitley) represented purely commercial interests, and he could assure the Government that this Bill would very seriously affect the commercial interests of the country. There was no doubt whatever that the cause of the alteration of the law, or of the Rules of procedure, was that, in the past, great injustice had been done. It became a question whether the debtor was to seek the creditor or the creditor was to seek the debtor. He thought it was a hard case that, if a debt was contracted in London, or Manchester, or Liverpool, and the debtor went to Scotland, the creditor must be told, when the debt became payable, that he must go to Scotland and sue in a Scotch Court. As a matter of fact, hundreds of pounds were lost by mercantile men in Liverpool and other places, rather than they would go to the Scotch Courts. He must confess he had not been aware that there was such a great distinction between the Scotch and the English law; but he did think that they should all agree that the real principle of justice was that, wherever a debt was contracted, in that place the money should be paid. He believed the present law had worked well and greatly to the

    477
    satisfaction of the country. ["No, no!"] He was speaking for the commercial bodies of the country; and, although hon. Members said "No! no," ho maintained that he was correct; at any rate, he should like to see some Representative of the commercial interests get up and say that he thought the principles of this measure could be maintained. He very much regretted that it was not in the power of those who thought with himself to go against the concentrated force of the Scotch Members and the Government in this matter. For his own part, he was strongly opposed to the principles of the measure, and was satisfied that throughout England very strong opposition would be entered against it. He believed that if this measure were passed, there would be throughout the country such an expression of opinion against it, that the Government would be compelled to listen to it. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) divided the House against the Bill, he (Mr. Whitley) should certainly go with him.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had no right to speak again except by the permission of the House; but, after the statement they had had from the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt)—if he properly understood it—he did not think it would be advisable for him to press his Motion to a division. What he had wanted to get from the Government was an understanding that they would assume the responsibility of this measure, and put it in a proper form. It was clear from the statements of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, that there was some diversity of opinion upon the subject; but, if he understood the Government aright, there was to be an assimilation of the law, and the laws of the two countries were to be placed upon an equal footing. If the hon. Member in charge of the Bill (Mr. Anderson) would postpone the Committee stage, in order to enable the Government to place on the Paper Amendments which would carry out their views, he should be willing to withdraw his Motion.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not know anything about the Government placing Amendments on the
    478
    Paper. What he had said was, that they could not support the measure, unless they were satisfied that it was a proper one, and would carry out satisfactorily the views they entertained upon the subject.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was understood that the evils to which the right hon. Gentleman had distinctly alluded should be dealt with in this Bill. The Bill should not be allowed to pass without the law in both countries being placed on the same footing. It was perfectly impossible to maintain a difference in principle between contracts in one country and contracts in another; therefore, if this Bill was accepted by the House, it should be distinctly understood that the Government would see that Amendments were introduced into it which would place the position of mercantile classes, both in England and Scotland, on precisely the same footing.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, that what the Scotch Members desired was, that prosecutions of every kind should be placed in the same position, so far as Scotland was concerned, that they were in before the passing of the Judicature Act. If there was anything in the measure that was opposed to the interests of Englishmen, and their fair and just claims as regarded liberty of prosecuting in Scotland, it was quite understood, ho should think, after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had spoken from the Front Ministerial Bench (the Solicitor General), that these things would be modified. They might rely upon it that the law would be so altered as to place them in the position in which they were before the passing of the Judicature Act of 1875. A complaint had been made by an hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke below the Gangway (Mr. Horace Davey), that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had given no sufficient exposition of the grievances of which they had just cause to complain; but the truth was, that that hon. Gentleman desired to save the time of the House, and, therefore, made a much shorter statement than he otherwise would have done. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who had always been favourable to the fair consideration of Scottish claims, would, he trusted, withdraw his Amendment to the Motion for the second reading; and he was certain that the hon. Member for

    479
    Glasgow would then, at once, agree to the proposal that the Committee stage of the measure should be postponed for such a period as to give adequate time for the consideration of any negotiations that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate might be engaged in at the present moment with the noble and learned Earl the Lord Chancellor. The Scottish Members desired that the rights of their countrymen should be secured to them by the State—rights that were secured to them originally by the Act of Union. These rights must not be infringed, unless there were some cause for it; and of such cause, in the present case, he had not heard an explanation.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he was inclined to agree that there was a grievance in this matter; but the cases were few in number, and he thought that the English Members had a right to claim reciprocity. If the Scotch Members wished to clip the wings of the English Courts, the House had a right to say that the somewhat antiquated methods of founding jurisdiction which obtained in Scotland should be curtailed. Primâ facie, this Bill would appear to enable a person to come across the Border from Scotland, to stop a fortnight in this country, and re-cross the Border without paying his hotel bill.
    MR. DICK-PEDDLEsaid, the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Stuart-Wortloy) had expressed doubt whether there could be more than a very few cases of the application of the Rule of 1875 similar to that which had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but he (Mr. Dick-Peddie) could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there were very many cases of almost exactly the same kind. A statement had been drawn up by the principal legal Bodies in Scotland, in which many illustrative cases were given; and it would be found that, in many instances, these resembled the example given by the Secretary of State. From the Return laid on the Table last year, which he (Mr. Dick-Peddie) had moved for, he found that there were about 120 cases in 1881 in which writs of summons had been served on persons in Scotland; and the House would easily understand how serious the grievance must be if any material number of these cases were of the kind
    480
    described by the Home Secretary. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) had stated that the working of the Rules had given universal satisfaction to the mercantile classes of England. He (Mr. Dick-Peddie) had no doubt that it bad done so, for the mercantile classes of England had had it all their own way; but he suspected that, were a similar right to that conferred by the Rules on the English Courts with reference to Scotland conferred on the Scotch Courts with reference to England, the satisfaction of the mercantile classes in England would soon undergo some diminution. He might remind the House that when the Rules were first adopted in 1875, they gave the English Courts the same rights over persons in Ireland as over persons in Scotland; but the Irish Members took up the matter so warmly that, in order to pacify them, a similar power was given to the Irish Courts to that conferred on the English Courts, so that Ireland now enjoyed reciprocity in that matter. It had been stated that Scotchmen had very little right to complain in this case, because the Scotch Courts had always claimed those rights of arrestment which had been described in the debate. If those rights were unreasonable, and the cause of just complaint on the part of Englishmen, then the proper way was to deal with them by direct legislation; but it was unreasonable that a jurisdiction which had belonged to Scottish Courts from time immemorial should be mot by Rules not embodied in an Act of Parliament, but drawn up by English Judges and appended to an Act, and the effect of which was not submitted to, or, at least, not considered by, the House. There could be little doubt that these Rules were adopted by the English Judges as a set-off against the rights exercised by the Scotch Courts, which had been so strongly commented on. The grievance was one which was very deeply felt in Scotland. The position of the Scottish people had been seriously altered by the Rules appended to the English Act, the provisions of which had never been brought before the Scottish people, and the operation of which had been of a serious nature. The Return which he had obtained showed that between the 1st March, 1877, and the 1st March, 1881, writs of summons were served on defendants in Scotland in 420

    481
    cases, and proceedings under the Rules were constantly taking place, and he believed in a constantly increasing ratio. Strong representations had been again and again made on the subject by persons representing the Scotch public. About a year ago a very influential deputation waited upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate and the Earl of Rosebery, and received a promise of redress. From time to time Questions had been put in the House on the subject, but nothing had teen done; and, meanwhile, now cases of injustice were going on under these Rules at the rate of upwards of two a-week. It was most important, therefore, that there should be no delay in the passing of such a measure as that of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), or in carrying out the long-promised modification of the Rules, so as to remove a just cause of complaint by the people of Scotland.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had to complain that legislation by Judges, instead of by Act of Parliament, took place too often. There was an increasing disposition on the part of Ministers to bring in numbers of Bills, in which clauses could be inserted by anybody, by the Board of Trade, by the Judges, or by anyone, provided they were laid on the Table, and submitted to Parliament, a proceeding which, in reality, was nothing but a farce. The question under discussion was one as to the rights of an ancient Kingdom, a country which, although closely united to us, was, in the eyes of the law, a foreign country. The question was, whether the rights of these people should be taken away by some English Judges, under certain Rules which had never been considered by Parliament. He did not wish to say much about the law, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had spoken sound common sense on the subject.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he understood that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) assented to the postponement of the Committee stage of the Bill for a fortnight, and that before that stage took place they would, at all events, have the result of the conference between the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate and the noble and learned Earl the Lord Chancellor. On that un-
    482
    derstanding, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday 26th June.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Electric Lighting Act, 1882," relating to Barton, Eccles, Winton, and Monton, Carlisle, Croydon, Luton, Margate, Nelson, Rochester, Scarborough, and Sudbury, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN HOLMS and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 223.]

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 5) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Electric Lighting Act, 1882," relating to Bermondsey, Clerkenwell, Hampstead, Holborn, Hornsey, Saint George's·in-the-East, Saint Giles's (Brush), Saint James's and Saint Martin's London, Saint Luke's, and Wandsworth, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN HOLMS and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 224.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.