Sitting of 10 May 1875

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Breck-nockshire, v. The Hon. Godfrey Charles Morgan, now Baron Tredegar, called up to the House of Peers.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolutions [May 7] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Militia Laws Consolidation and Amendment * [160]; Public Stores * [159]; Endowed Schools Act (1868) Continuance * [161].
First Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue * [158]; Supreme Court of Judicature Act (1873) Amendment (No. 2) * [162].
Second Reading—Land Titles and Transfer * [105]; Savings Banks, &c * [146].
Committee—Report—Metalliferous Mines * [120].
Considered as amended—Peace Preservation (Ireland) [154]; Offences against the Person [131].

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF COAL-MINERS.—QUESTION.
SIR EDWARD WATKINasked Mr. Attorney General, If he has taken steps to ascertain the correctness of the reports given in "The Times" of the 29th April and 1st May, of two meetings held at Leeds on the 28th and 29th April, composed of delegates from coal miners of the United Kingdom, by which reports it appears that a "National Federation" (to be organized by a Committee of nine elected by such meeting of delegates) is to be established; and by which reports it further appears that some of the delegates present at the meetings proposed that, failing other measures bearing upon the question of wages, a simultaneous and general cessation of labour in all the collieries in the Kingdom should be brought about; and, assuming that any such simultaneous and general cessation be an object of the proposed federation, whether that federation would not become, under the existing law, an illegal combination, rendering its promoters liable to penal consequences?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, my hon. Friend was good enough to give me previous Notice of the Question which he a few days ago placed upon the Paper, and which he has just read, and at the same time to supply me with copies of the reports given in The Times of the two meetings held at Leeds on the 28th and 29th of April; and, for the purpose of replying to the Question of my hon. Friend, I shall assume that such reports are correct. It would appear from such reports, that the persons present at the meetings referred to, and who are described as delegates of the National Association and of the Amalgamated Society of Miners, as well as of some independent bodies of workmen, passed a resolution to the effect that the establishment of a national union or confederation was highly desirable, and that a committee of nine members of the conference was appointed to draw up a code of rules for the government of the federation. It also appears that in the course of the discussion which preceded the passing of the resolution, one of the delegates present suggested that, if things could not be otherwise righted, all the miners in Great Britain should give up working simultaneously for a

389
prescribed period, and that such views were supported by two others of the delegates present. When, however, this suggestion was made, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), who was in the Chair, observed that a general cessation of labour would be inflicting unmerited wrong on an innocent third party—namely, society at large. Those remarks appear from the reports to have been well received by the meeting, and the name of the hon. Member stands first upon the list of the committee who were appointed, whilst neither of the delegates who advocated cessation of labour was placed upon it. Having thus replied to the first part of the Question of my hon. Friend, I trust that the House will agree with me in the opinion, that it would not be consistent with my duty as a Law Officer of the Crown to make any definite reply to its second part, which, from the form in which it is expressed, evidently assumes that, in the opinion of my hon. Friend, the proposed federation may become an illegal combination, and inquiries of me whether its promoters would not become liable to penal consequences in a certain hypothetical event, the circumstances of which it is impossible to predicate, even if the probability of its happening could be reasonably assumed.

THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH—COLLEGES OF MINOR CANONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to bring in a Bill to regulate Colleges of Minor Canons, Lay Vicars, and similar subordinate Corporations in Cathedral Foundations; and, whether, where the numbers in such Corporations have fallen below the minimum prescribed by statute or charter, there is any power to compel Deans and Chapters to fill up the vacancies?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, it was not the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill, at all events during the present Session, to effect the purpose mentioned in the Question of the hon. Member. In 1840 a Bill was brought in upon the subject, and in consequence of a particular clause having been struck out of it in "another place "it had rather complicated the difficulty.
  390
  He agreed, however, with his hon. Friend that it was desirable something should be done to remedy the existing state of things. With regard to the filling up of vacancies where the numbers in a particular corporation had fallen below the minimum prescribed by statute or charter, he was advised that a mandamus would he to compel the Dean and Chapter to perform their duty with respect to the minor canons; but, as the issuing of a mandamus was a matter of discretion in regard to which the Court would take all the circumstances into account, he could not give any opinion as to the manner in which such discretion would be exerciesd.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEgave Notice that on an early day he would call attention to the subject of Cathedral establishments, and to the recommendations of the Royal Commission thereon,

THE LOCK-OUT IN SOUTH WALES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been directed to the recent lock-out in South Wales, which lasted for over twelve weeks; whether he is aware that such lock-out was organized, maintained, and carried on by a combination known as the South Wales Mine Owners' Association, or by some such name, which for the most part holds private meetings in Cardiff; whether this combination is an illegal combination; and, whether, in the event of his considering it an illegal combination, the Government will direct a prosecution or inflict the penal consequences which follow upon illegal combinations?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: In answer, Sir, to the first and second parts of the Question of the hon. Member for Stafford, I have to state that, to the extent of the information which I have derived from reading the public journals, my attention has been directed to the recent lock-out in South Wales; but I am not aware that such lock-out was organized, maintained, and carried on by a combination known as the South Wales Mine Owners' Association, or by some such name, which for the most part holds private meetings in Cardiff. Under these circumstances, it becomes unnecessary for me to answer the third and fourth parts of the same Question

  391
  of the hon. Member, as they are based upon an assumed state of facts, of the existence of which I am ignorant.

IRELAND—STIPENDIARY MAGIS-TRATES, BELFAST.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he has been informed that the attorneys practising as advocates in Belfast have lately held a meeting, and forwarded a Memorial to the Lord Lieutenant describing the present stipendiary system in that town as intolerable, and praying for the immediate appointment of two barristers as stipendiary magistrates; and, whether he is aware that for upwards of forty years no barrister or attorney has acted as stipendiary magistrate in Belfast?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I have no information that will enable me to reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question. With regard to its second part, a Memorial has been forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant complaining of the way in which petty sessions business is transacted at Belfast, and asking for the appointment of a barrister as stipendiary magistrate. Inquiry is being made into the facts alleged in that Memorial; but I am bound to say I have heard no other complaints as to the manner in which business is done by the two stipendiary magistrates who act at Belfast.

THE MAGISTRACY—APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES, EXETER.

  QUESTION.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is proposed to add to the number of magistrates for the city of Exeter; and, whether a list of ten gentlemen, all Conservatives, has been sent up to the Lord Chancellor for him to select from; and whether, of these ten, one is a wine merchant and three others practising solicitors?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I beg to say that I know nothing as to any proposal to add to the number of magistrates for the City of Exeter. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor desires me to say that he has
  392
  not received any application for the appointment of additional magistrates for the City, and I am therefore entirely ignorant whether one aspirant to the office is a wine merchant and three others are practising solicitors.

PUBLIC PROSECUTORS—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DUNDASasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can inform the House whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any Bill this Session for the appointment of Public Prosecutors in England?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Perhaps, Sir, the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell), who has given Notice of a similar Question, will allow me to answer it at the same time. I have to say, in answer to both Questions, that it is the intention of the Government, before the end of the Session, to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the appointment of a Public Prosecutor.

SOUTH AFRICA—DELAGOA BAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALEXANDER M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the statement, made on Portuguese authority, to the effect that the President of the French Republic has decided against the claim of Great Britain to the southern part of Delagoa Bay—whether the ownership of Inyack Island has been kept distinct from the question of sovereignty on the mainland; and, when the Papers on this subject will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that the whole question of the claim of Great Britain to the southern part of Delagoa Bay had been referred to the President of the French Republic for arbitration. The question of the ownership of Inyack Island had been included in that arbitration. It would probably be a month or six weeks before the President of the French Republic delivered his award; but whenever the Government received it, no time would be lost in communicating it to the House.

COPYRIGHT ACTS—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EDWARD JENKINSasked the First Lord, of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the fact that an Act passed by the Canadian Legislature to amend the Law of Copyright has been reserved for Her Majesty's consideration, the Government will consent to the immediate appointment of a Select Committee or Royal Commission to inquire into the subject of Copyright and Copyright Legislation?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I received this morning a deputation, of which the hon. Member for Dundee himself was a Member, on the subject of the Copyright Acts, and I stated then that the representations made to me were of a grave character and deserving the consideration of the Government, and that after considering them I should give my decision. The time, however, has hardly been long enough since I received that deputation this morning for me to give that decision.

STRAY DOGS—SHEEP WORRYING.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE-HAMILTONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been drawn to the annoyance caused to farmers in Scotland by the depredations of stray dogs in the neighbourhood of towns and large villages, and the serious loss frequently entailed by sheep-worrying and disturbance of stock; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take any steps to remedy this grievance?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEin reply, said, his attention had been directed to the subject, and he had brought it under the consideration of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who informed him that it was not a question peculiar to Scotland, but that the same thing occurred in England and Ireland. All he (the Lord Advocate) could say was, that the matter should receive the consideration of the Government.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KAVANAGHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having
  394
  regard to the deep interest felt in Ireland on the subject of closing public houses on Sunday, and to the circumstances under which the test of a Division was prevented on Wednesday last, he will afford an opportunity by fixing some day for the resumption of the Debate, of having the Question brought to a direct issue?
  MR. DISRAELI: I am quite of opinion, Sir, with the hon. Member for Carlow as to the desirability of taking the opinion of the House on the Bill; but I am not at the present moment in a position to fix any day whatever upon which the opinion of the House may be taken. I would venture to suggest that hon. Gentlemen on both sides who take a deep interest in the question should confer together and endeavour to arrive at some satisfactory arrangement.

INDIA—THE GAIKWAR OF BARODA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RICHARDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will include in the Papers relating to the trial and deposition of the Gaikwar of Baroda any Correspondence relative to the seat or ceremonial question at the Court of Baroda, raised by the Government of Bombay in December 1872; also any Correspondence relative to the marriage of the Gaikwar in May 1874, and to the issue of such marriage; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will consent to postpone its decision on the question of the succession to the Prince until the Papers respecting his deposition have been laid before Parliament?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the Papers which we propose to present to Parliament relating to the proceeding of the Commission appointed to inquire into certain charges made against the Gaikwar and to his deposition are very voluminous, and I do not think any practical object would be attained by increasing their bulk by including correspondence upon so irrelevant a matter as a question of precedence raised in 1872. Papers relating to the Gaikwar's marriage will be laid before Parliament. The decision of Her Majesty's Government upon the question of the succession to the Prince was embodied in the Viceroy's Proclamation of the 22nd of April. It is not the intention of Her Majesty's

  395
  Government to postpone or alter that decision.

PARLIAMENT—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS—QUESTION.
MR. STACPOOLEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to his announcement respecting the probable commencement and duration of the Whitsuntide Recess, Whether he will have any objection to move the adjournment of the House from Friday the 14th until Friday the 21st, instead of moving from Thursday the 13th until Thursday the 20th, so as to enable the Royal Residence (Ireland) question, which stands first among the Notices of Motion for Friday the 14th instant, to be debated on that day, and a division taken thereon?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I do not at this moment feel quite sure that it will be my pleasing duty to make a Motion in favour of any holidays; but if we conclude the Peace Preservation Act before Whitsuntide, I think it will be advisable—if we have any holidays at at all—that we should adhere to the plan I have already suggested. I shall be happy to discuss it if necessary; but it is a plan similar to that followed by the House until within the last few years, when the holidays have been longer. There is nothing in the condition of Public Business to justify me in the expectation that we can increase the term of relaxation originally contemplated, and even that I have not definitely fixed upon. I take the opportunity of saying that I shall ask the House for a Morning Sitting to-morrow under any circumstances.
MR. STACPOOLEbegged to give Notice that he would bring on his Motion relative to a Royal Residence in Ireland on as early a day as possible after Whitsuntide.

ARMY—MILITIA ADJUTANTS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Adjutants of Militia Regiments who decline to avail themselves of the new retirement scheme will be required, as the alternative, to perform the duties of Adjutants to Brigade Depôts at the head-quarters of the sub-district?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, such would be the case.

CUSTOMS (IRELAND)—OUT-DOOR OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether a Petition from the out-door officers of Customs at Dublin and certain other Irish outports, praying that they might be placed on an equality with the outdoor officers of Customs in London, and forwarded during the last Session of Parliament, has been received at the Treasury; and, what answer, if any, has been returned to such Petition; and if it remains unanswered, what course the Lords of the Treasury intend adopting with reference to its prayer?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, Petitions were received last year from the outdoor officers of Customs at Dublin and certain other out-ports in Ireland, on the subject referred to by the hon. Member. A similar claim has also been frequently advanced on behalf of the various out-ports of the United Kingdom; but the Treasury has uniformly declined to admit it, on the ground that the greater pressure and importance of their duties entitled the officers of Customs in London and Liverpool to a higher rate of pay than officers at out-ports. To this principle the Government continues to adhere, and the Memorialists would have been so informed had it not been that a Commission was appointed to consider the position of the Civil Servants generally, and it therefore seemed unnecessary to take further notice of a claim so often before considered and rejected.

NAVY—NAVY MEDICAL SERVICE—SURGEONS.—QUESTION.
MR. O'LEARYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, What is the number of surgeons who have tendered their resignation during the last five years; whether the cause assigned for a large number of such resignations at the time of application has not been dissatisfaction at the treatment of medical officers in the Navy; whether he can state the number of cases in which such resignations have been refused; and, whether it is true that the majority of surgeons appointed within the past five years to the Naval Medical Service have been mainly those rejected by the Medical Examining Boards of the Army and Indian Medical Service?
MR. HUNT, in reply, said, that the number of naval surgeons who had tendered their resignation during the last five years was 25; but that the cause assigned for resignation had not in any case been dissatisfaction at the treatment which the medical officers of the Navy had experienced. Six tenders of resignation had been refused temporarily, but ultimately accepted. It was not true that the majority of surgeons appointed within the last five years to the naval medical service had been those rejected by the examining boards of the Army and Indian Medical Service. No person, so rejected, had been received into the Naval service. The hon. Member was probably not aware that there had been a recent Order in Council improving the condition of medical officers in the Navy.

NATIONAL GALLERY—PURCHASE OF PICTURE BY SOLARLO.—QUESTION.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he desired to ask the Prime Minister a Question, of which he had given private Notice, relative to a fine early Italian portrait by Solario, which during the winter was for sale at Milan. A foreign Government had, he believed, made an offer for it of £1,500 or £1,600, and it was said that our own Government were in treaty for it. He wished to know, Whether there was any prospect of this fine picture being acquired for the National Collection?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I am glad to inform my noble Friend that the portrait now belongs to the British nation.

PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
MR. WHALLEYcomplained that Ways and Means had been brought on instead of Supply on Friday night.
MR. W. H. SMITHexplained that the Standing Orders provided for either Order being taken first, and he had taken that which was in accordance with the generally expressed wish of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, the Peace Preservation Bill is to be proceeded with to-night, that in any case there will be a Morning Sitting tomorrow, and that on Thursday the third reading of the Peace Preservation Bill will be taken, I rise to ask the right hon.
398
Gentleman, What other business will be taken on Thursday next?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, the Land Titles and Transfer Bill. With regard to the Peace Preservation Bill, my wish is to take the Report this evening and read the Bill a third time to-morrow morning. That would very much facilitate Public Business, and then we could make arrangements generally satisfactory to the House; but until that Bill is passed it will be impossible to make any definite statement.

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 154.]
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 154.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. BUTT, in moving the insertion of the following new clause:—
  "Whereas by the eighth section of 'The Protection of Life and Property in certain parts of Ireland Act, 1871,' it is amongst other things enacted and provided that no writ of habeas corpus shall issue to bring up the body of any person arrested, or committed, or detained as in such section mentioned, and it is expedient that any restriction imposed by such provision shall not be continued: Be it enacted, That from and after the passing of this Act the said section shall be road and construed as if the heretofore recited provision relative to the issue of a writ of habeas corpus had not been continued or inserted therein,"
  said, he hoped the House would give him its attention for a brief period while he brought the point clearly before it. He confessed, on the general issue, he was unwilling to raise the questions which were fully discussed in Committee; but the present necessity of bringing the subject forward arose from the form in which the Bill was drawn. The form in which the Bill was presented gave no information of the enactments which really were proposed, and a great many questions were brought forward which were in the nature of a surprise. The clause which he now proposed to insert was to the effect that the restrictions placed upon the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus by the Act of 1871 should be removed and the law in this respect restored to the state in which it was before the passing of the Westmeath Act. From the days of William III. Habeas Corpus was never interfered with until, by some extraordinary accident, it was interfered with in that Act. In 1803

  399
  there was rebellion in Ireland, but no such restriction as he now wished to get rid of was then put on the issue of Writs of Habeas Corpus, even although the country was placed partially under martial law. The clause in question had been inserted in the Westmeath Act without sufficient ground or explanation, and while its removal could do no harm, its continuance might do a great deal of mischief. He asked the Committee to expunge that extraordinary provision on these two grounds—first, because it was a very dangerous principle, and, as he had said, it was the first time in the history of legislation when they had interfered with the Writ of Habeas Corpus in this particular manner; and, secondly, because nothing would be more calculated to irritate the Irish people than to pass a law which disregarded the maxims hitherto held sacred in all coercive laws. They had heard of a message of peace to Ireland, but the real message of peace came from that side of the House, from the 170 English and Scotch Members, when they stood by Ireland in this struggle. That support would have more effect in Ireland in reconciling them to the authority of law than all the coercive Acts that had ever been passed. But if they retained this provision unnecessarily they were adding nothing to the efficiency of the law. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, he could assure his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick that he was as anxious, at the end of their struggles over the Bill, to deal with him as frankly and fairly and as much in a spirit of conciliation as he had professed to be at the commencement of their discussions. His hon. and learned Friend had now moved his Amendment in a somewhat different form from that in which he had proposed it in Committee. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had resisted the Amendment in its original shape, partly because he thought it would make a greater change in the Act than at first sight was apparent. That objection had now been removed. He had also resisted the Amendment because the provision to which it related was a matter of small importance compared with the other portions of the Bill which the House had sanctioned, and he be-
  400
  lieved its presence in the Bill would be useful, without involving the serious consequences which his hon. and learned Friend apprehended. All the previous Acts passed to suspend the operation of the Writ of Habeas Corpus were directed against treasonable conspiracies, and dealt with crimes which were well known and well defined at Common Law and by statute; whereas the Act of 1871 was directed against the Ribbon Conspiracy, a crime not known to the older law; and therefore it was thought necessary to prevent advantage being taken of technical inaccuracies in carrying out their novel enactments. The effect of issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the case of a person confined under the Act of 1871 could only be to bring up the prisoner in person before the Court, when the warrant for his arrest purporting to have been issued under the Act and bearing the signature of the Lord Lieutenant would be produced, and that warrant would be taken as absolutely conclusive. The provision which his hon. and learned Friend now proposed to strike out was inserted, he had no doubt, after mature consideration in 1871 by the late Government and was retained in 1873. Since the last occasion, however, on which the question had been raised in the House, when his hon. and learned Friend had. insisted with so much zeal and eloquence on the omission of these words, he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had had an opportunity of consulting with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the English Law Officers of the Crown, and had also had the advantage of conferring with the noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Hartington); and now, under all the circumstances of the case, though he still adhered to his own opinion that it would be better for the sake of the absolute completeness of the Act that the words in question should be retained in it, yet he was willing to assent to their omission. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would accept the modification in the spirit in which it was made, and as an evidence that, within the limits of safe concession, the Government were prepared, as far as possible, to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But even had those words remained, he could assure his hon. and learned Friend that every possible care would have been taken, as

  401
  it had been taken hitherto, that those confined under the Act should he subjected to no unnecessary inconvenience. In every possible way, at every stage and step, the proceedings under the Act of 1871 were so surrounded by safeguards as to prevent any possible abuse of the exceptional powers which were given to the Lord Lieutenant.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that although the point was one of an extremely legal character, he wished to make a few remarks upon it, as he was a Member of the Government which was originally responsible for the introduction of the words in question. Those words were not in the Bill of 1871 when it was first drafted, but they were afterwards adopted by the House, it being the opinion of Baron Dowse, who was at the time Solicitor General for Ireland, that they would make the Act more complete. The point was again raised when the Act was renewed in 1873, and when he was without the assistance of an Irish Law Officer in the House, and was therefore unable to say whether the words were in a legal view necessary or not. He promised, however, to confer on the matter with his legal adviser out-of-doors, and apparently it was considered still desirable that the words should be retained, and they were retained without any discussion on the Report. Baron Dowse having since been referred to, it appeared that although he still thought the Act would be more complete with the words, he did not contend, and, indeed, had never contended, that they were absolutely required. One of the inconveniences which it was said might arise because of their omission was, that motions might be made in the Court of Queen's Bench for Writs of Habeas Corpus with no practical object but that of exciting the public mind, and that it might lead to great inconvenience if such questions were constantly raised. But, on the other hand, it seemed from what occurred in that House that still more serious inconvenience might be created by allegations that it was possible—for the thing had never happened—a prisoner might be treated with undue severity under the Act, and that he would have no means of having his case inquired into. Under those circumstances, when his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had conferred with him on the subject,
  402
  a short time ago, he had no hesitation in expressing the opinion that he should be very glad to see the words in question omitted, and he congratulated the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland on being able to dispense with them. He would only add the expression of a hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick would accept the concession in the spirit in which he was sure it was made by the Government, and would admit that in that as well as in other respects they had endeavoured to meet the wishes and just representations of the Irish Members, so far as lay in their power; and that in those provisions of the expiring laws which they had thought it necessary to retain, they had not retained anything which they did not consider absolutely necessary for the peace and security of the country.
  New Clause (No restriction to be placed on issue of writs of habeas corpus,)—(Mr. Butt,)—added.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYmoved the insertion of the following clause:—
  "Provided always and be it enacted: That no person shall he detained in custody under or by virtue of any warrant of the Lord Lieutenant or Chief Secretary, issued under the authority of 'The Protection of Life and Property in certain parts of Ireland Act, 1871,' as continued by this Act for any period longer than twelve months from the date of such warrant."
  He contended that no danger whatever would be created by limiting this power of imprisonment, and that such limitation could not in any degree interfere with or diminish the force of the Act. It had been said that, although crime had decreased, it was still necessary to leave the power given by the Act to the Lord Lieutenant; but to argue in that way was to abandon all hopes of governing Ireland by Constitutional Law. If that was a proper time to make any relaxation in the law, surely the best relaxation that could be made would be the removal of the arbitrary power of arrest.
  New Clause (No person shall be detained in custody for more than twelve months under the Act of 1871,)—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHhoped the House would re-affirm the decision which the Committee had arrived at, because he saw no reason why

  403
  less confidence should be reposed in the present Government than in the preceding one. Not long after the present Government came into office, the few persons who remained in custody under the Westmeath Act were discharged, and it had not been found necessary to imprison anyone since. He therefore might fairly appeal to the House to have confidence in the mode in which the Government would administer the Act. But he asked that as full powers might be entrusted to them as to their predecessors, because he had already shown that the power of detaining persons in prison for a longer period than 12 months had from time to time been found necessary in order to carry out these Acts with efficiency. A great deal that had been said as to the mode in which these prisoners might be dealt with was without foundation, because under the provisions of the statute it was necessary that the Lord Lieutenant should make a full investigation before any action was taken. As for the statements that prisoners had been unfairly treated, why, he asked, if such cases existed, had they not been brought under the notice of the House at the time of their occurrence, seeing that every month of the Session a list of the persons in custody under the Act had been presented to Parliament? If these statements had been well founded, the time to bring them forward was when the late Government were in office, who were responsible for their own acts, and could have defended themselves. He wished to impress upon the House that there were fresh safeguards against any improper use of the power conferred by the Act in the clause to which the House had assented. For the case of any prisoner might now not only be brought before the House upon the periodical Returns which were to be made, but might also be brought before one of the Law Courts in Dublin. There was no chance, therefore, of any prisoner being forgotten, and it was the anxious wish and intention of the Government that not a man should be detained in prison under these Acts for a single day longer than was necessary.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that the question was not so much whether these complaints ought to have been made during the existence of the late
  404
  or present Administration, but whether they were well-founded or not. He was anxious to allude to the case of the prisoner Casey, as he saw in one of the newspapers on Saturday, that "Earl Spencer, the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in another place, gave a flat contradiction to a statement made by Mr. Mitchell Henry in the House of Commons with reference to a man named Casey, arrested under the Westmeath Act." The noble Earl made a long statement regarding the treatment of that prisoner, and complained of the inaccuracies made in regard to him. Now there was not one single word of inaccuracy in the statement which he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had made. Every statement was, indeed, borne out by the noble Earl's own admissions, and had been sustained by the statements made from the official benches on both-sides. Earl Spencer represented him (Mr. Mitchell Henry) as having asserted that the prisoner had been kept in solitary confinment for several years, like a sort of Monte Christo prisoner. Now, he made no such statement. What he said, was that the man had been kept in prison for several years, and that for the greater part of 24 hours he had been kept in solitary confinement. The noble Earl admitted that the man had been kept in solitary confinement for 18 hours out of the 24, and also that for several months there had been no one else in prison with him, so that for the latter part of the time he was kept without association with anybody, and was therefore the whole of the 24 hours kept in solitary confinement. This case was brought under the notice of the House last Session by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butt) upon a Motion for the production of the Papers under which the man was confined. That Motion was refused by the House; but the present Chief Secretary for Ireland said that the Government had only recently come into power, but that he would make inquiry, and if the man could be safely released, he would release him. The right hon. Gentleman did make inquiries, and did release the man, from which he drew the inference that there were no longer any grounds for detaining him. The Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, however, complained of misrepresentation, because a great many memorials were presented to him in regard to this prisoner, and he

  405
  made no less than 14 Minutes respecting his case. In that debate the Attorney General stated that no application had been made by the prisoner until the matter was brought before the House, and this was also what he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had stated. He wished to do every justice to a Nobleman who was justly respected in Ireland, and who was one of the most popular and painstaking Lords Lieutenant who had ever been sent across the Channel.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHwished to remind the hon. Member that the statement of the Attorney General referred to the time during which the present Government was in office.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, in that ease, he might ask the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was present and who took part in the debate, why he had not told the House of these memorials which had been presented? He only wished to do justice to the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and that this unfortunate prisoner's ease should be fairly placed before the public. For that purpose, he would to-morrow move for Returns in regard to this case—for copies of the memorials, of the Minutes made upon them, and of the medical reports which had induced the Lord Lieutenant to remove Casey from the prison in which his health was breaking down. He had stated the facts literally as they occurred, and as they had been stated over and over again, and not contradicted by the front bench on both sides. His offence was that after relating the facts he had drawn an inference from them. He could come to no other conclusion than that the man had been really forgotten. It now appeared, however, that the man had not been forgotten, because these memorials had been presented for his release. He had been told that his late Friend, Mr. John Martin, would not have sanctioned this statement; but he knew well the sentiments of his late revered Friend, who would have said that he had brought the matter under the attention of the Irish Government and could get no redress, and that the Government would not attend to the remonstrances of the Irish Members, but when the indignation of the English Members was roused, the Chief Secretary made inquiry, and immediately released the man. The case was a lesson in regard to the working of this Act,
  406
  and as such, he hoped, would never be forgotten. When a man could be arrested in Her Majesty's dominions, and at the will of one man, whoever he might be, could be kept for three years and a-half in solitary confinement, let no hon. Member go on the Continent and boast that no man could be imprisoned in this country except after due trial and conviction. He ought to add that the noble Earl had courteously given him Notice of his intention to bring the matter forward in "another place, "and he had given the noble Earl the exact words he had used. The noble Earl, however, had not read that statement in the House of Lords, because, as he was informed, he did not consider it necessary to do so.
  LORD ESLINGTONsaid, the matter had been made the subject of explanation in "another place."
  MR. SPEAKERcalled the noble Lord to Order. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had made a personal explanation, but any further reference to what had taken place in "another place" was irregular.
  LORD ESLINGTONsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken accused the Lord Lieutenant of neglect in the case of Casey. He (Lord Eslington) wished to state, on the highest possible authority, that it was an entire mistake to suppose that either in the case of Casey or of any other prisoner sent to gaol under the special powers of the Act in question the attention of the Lord Lieutenant was ever withdrawn from any prisoner. If it was made as a charge against the Lord Lieutenant, he (Lord Eslington) gave it his positive denial, and would affirm that the Lord Lieutenant's attention was constantly and continually directed to that man during the whole time he was in prison.
  MR. BIGGARthought the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eslington) had made out an exceedingly bad case for the Lord Lieutenant. The case of the prisoner Casey was so strong as to show that no Government should be allowed to have the power of keeping a man in gaol untried for such a period of time. What they complained of in Ireland was that men's characters were whispered away by a not of schemers, whose word could not be taken, if offered, in a Court of Justice. He did not see any difference between the two Governments. They were both bad, and instead of the Bill

  407
  being a message of peace to Ireland, as the Premier vaunted it to be the other evening, he could not see that it was anything but a Coercion Bill from the beginning to the end. The Irish people would not be content so long as one word of it remained upon the Statute Book.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he wished to recall the attention of the House to the real question to be determined, from which the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary had attempted to lead them astray. It was not a question of confidence in the right hon. Baronet or in the noble Marquess who preceded him in the office that they had to consider, but whether they should give to any Government whatever such a power as they were now asked to grant—namely, the power of imprisoning a man for an indefinite period? For himself, he thought not; and therefore, in defence of the principles of liberty and of law, he refused to give it to the Government. He appealed to all the old precedents on this subject. This was the first occasion on which they were suspending the Habeas Corpus with so little regard for the subject. The practice was never resorted to in previous times, except when dangerous conspiracies existed, and almost always during war. The Habeas Corpus had been suspended in England and repeatedly in Ireland. In the English Act, however, there was a special provision that no person should remain in prison untried for more than six months. He had looked through the Statute Book since the Union, and back to the time of William III., and he found that in no case had power been given to keep a man in prison untried for more than 12 months. By extending these summary enactments to minor offences they were giving a new power which had not been employed since the Westmeath Act. Casey was detained in prison for four years, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary thought it was only for two years and a-half, and he exclaimed in a tone of satisfaction—" Oh! he was only kept in prison without trial for two years and a-half." He had heard it claimed in that House as a merit and a eulogium of the Government in reference to this Bill, that a foreign journalist had written that if the Italian Government wanted to put down brigandage in Sicily they should adopt the principle of the Westmeath Act. He rather thought
  408
  the British Government had adopted as their model Murat's laws of 1810. There was a time when they used to lecture foreign Powers on the desirability of reconciling order with liberty; now they gave them their Westmeath legislation as a pattern for repressive measures. He would do Earl Spencer the justice to say there never was a Nobleman filling his high office that more earnestly desired to do his duty; but how could he come to any right conclusion when he had always to take the statements of police Inspectors, who placed their views before the Government officials, leaving to others the responsibility of acting on them. He would also admit that the noble Earl, as stated by the noble Marquess, had informed himself as to the particular case of the prisoner Casey; but that in no way altered his (Mr. Butt's) opinion that Casey was harshly and unjustly treated under a law which ought never to have been enacted. Let them suspend the Habeas Corpus by all means in the ease of agrarian crime, if they thought fit, but let them give proper security against abuse. Could they not put down that wretched Ribbon conspiracy without employing these extraordinary means, and were they not, by enacting them, telling Ribbonmen that they were stronger than the authority of the British law? They surely could not want greater securities for internal order than they did when the French were in Bantry Bay, and he asked the House not to allow this power to exist for a longer period than 12 months.
  THE O'CONOR DONdesired to say a few words in explanation of the vote he was about to give. He did not mean to defend the course taken in 1871 by investing the Government with unlimited powers of arrest; but there was an essential difference between now and 1871. In 1871 the Government proposed its Westmeath Bill, and demanded these powers with the avowed purpose of exercising them by arresting the persons whom they deemed dangerous to the public peace. When the Act came into force they arrested those men. But what was the state of things now? The Government said they did not believe there would be a necessity of arresting anyone in those counties; and if they did not, how could they justify the continuance of those powers? There was certainly not the reason for passing

  409
  such laws now as existed in 1871, and he should therefore support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, his experience on this question was very different from that of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. For his part, he had never heard any hon. Member for England, Scotland, or Ireland boast of the Acts they were now asked to renew. They were on the contrary regarded—he could certainly speak for himself—with feelings of regret, and he might say, of shame. It was because they felt that exceptional means of repression were necessary, that measures of this sort had been resorted to; and so long as crime of a particular character prevailed in Ireland, so long he should think the Government was justified in coming to Parliament for special powers to repress it. Whichever Government was in office that was a duty which it could not neglect. As for the point before the House, it did not seem to be one of vital importance. It seemed to him that to pass the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick would place the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Government in an invidious position. The Act would not only give him power, but would make him responsible for the exercise of it, and compel him to use it where necessary. If, therefore, a person were arrested, and at the end of 12 months the reasons which led to his arrest still existed, the Lord Lieutenant, if he undertook the responsibility the Act would cast upon him, would be bound to re-arrest the person immediately on his discharge. The adoption of the Amendment would, therefore, throw upon the Lord Lieutenant a very disagreeable and unnecessary responsibility. With respect to the case referred to by the hon. Member for Galway, there was no longer any necessity for a defence of the late Lord Lieutenant. The hon. Member had acquitted his noble Friend of any want of care and attention in the matter, and had transferred the charge to the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and to himself (the Marquess of Hartington). But why had not a full explanation been given last year in reference to the case? Because no Notice that it was to be brought on had been given. ["No!"] Certainly, no Notice had been given to him.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he had given Notice in the usual way of a Motion for affidavits which reflected upon the action of the Irish Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred was brought forward incidentally, and it was impossible that an Irish Secretary who had to attend principally to the business in that House could at a moment's notice answer as to every case which might be mentioned. With reference to the case in question, his right hon. Friend opposite gave to the hon. and learned Member all the information that was required, and he, himself, without going into the particulars of the case, stated that all those matters had been carefully inquired into, especially by the Lord Lieutenant and the Law Officers of the Crown. His (the Marquess of Hartington's) duties lying more in connection with the House than with the administration of the Acts in Ireland, he was not so fully acquainted with those cases as was his noble Friend; but he asserted then, and was justified in the assertion, that not one of those cases had been overlooked, and that no prisoner was detained in custody a moment longer than was required by the circumstances which had led to his arrest
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he wished to offer a word of personal explanation. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), had given him Notice of a Question which the Forms of the House did not permit him to put, but to which he hoped he might be allowed to refer for the purpose of making a personal explanation. He was asked to explain why it was he had stated "in the name of the Irish Members," that they were satisfied with the courtesy which had been extended to them by the Government during the progress of the Bill. A similar demand had been made of him by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the City of Waterford, and as he had been misrepresented in the Irish Press for what he had said, he would read the reply he had sent to his hon. and gallant Friend. The reply would be the answer to both questions.
  MAJOR O'GORMAN: I rise to Order, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman is going to read his reply to me, I hope he will first read my letter to him.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he had no objection. It was dated 7th of May, and ran as followed:—
  "My dear Sir,—I perceive that The Pall Mall Gazette and The Daily Telegraph report you as having said in the debate on the Coercion Bill that on behalf of the Irish Members you thanked the Government for their courtesy during the discussion. I should be much obliged by your informing me whether or not I, as one of the Irish Members, authorized you to make such a declaration on my behalf, and if not, how it came to pass that you made such a declaration."
  In his (Mr. Downing's) reply, he stated—
  "In reply, I have to inform you that I made no such declaration. If I had it would have been an assumption on my part unwarrantable and indefensible."
  Until he received the hon. and gallant Member's letter he had not read any report of the proceedings on Thursday evening, but he then referred to the newspapers. He found in the Parliamentary review in The Pall Mall Gazette that reference to him was only made, and that no report of the proceedings was given. The Daily Telegraph reported him as speaking on behalf of Irish Members, but that was a mistake of the reporter—probably arising from the low tone in which he spoke; but the paper which gave the fullest and most accurate report, The Times, reported him as speaking of himself individually, and what he said was that he acknowledged the fair consideration that the Irish Members had received from both sides of the House, and that in the discussion of national and constitutional questions of great importance English and Scotch Members had given them a large support, and he added, as would be found in The Standard report, that, on the whole, he thought the majority of the Irish Members would be satisfied with the manner in which they had been met by the Government with regard to the proposals made by Irish Members. In continuation, he wrote—
  "I would not have so expressed myself, if I had not felt justified in doing so, and I do not now desire to withdraw a single word that I uttered upon that occasion, and for which I hold myself responsible to no Member or Members of the House. I must in conclusion say, that I think your letter to me is more formal than it need have been, and that you might in a friendly way have mentioned the matter to me, and not have made it a matter of correspondence."
  MAJOR O'GORMANrequested that the hon. Member for Cork would read his answer to that letter.
  MR. BIGGARrose to make a personal explanation. ["Spoke!"] He thought it was only fair to the House and to himself that the communication on this subject which he addressed to the hon. Member for Cork should be read verbatim.
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that he had already addressed the House on the question, and had exhausted his right of speech.
  MR. RONAYNEwished to give the reasons which induced him to speak on the subject on Thursday evening. He understood the hon. Member for Cork to say that, in the absence of the hon. Member for Limerick, he spoke for Irish Members. ["No," and "Question!"] If the hon. Member only proffered the conventional shake of the hand between the victim and Calcraft before the drop scene, of course he was at liberty to do so; and he (Mr. Ronayne) had no more to say upon the subject, except it was that having always received courtesy from the occupants of the Treasury benches he was not surprised that the party had received it now.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that seeing a great number of Members had entered the House in the prospect of a division, he wished briefly to state the importance of the question upon which they would vote. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick wished to take away from the Lord Lieutenant the power of imprisonment, including the suspension of the Habeas Corpus. To that Amendment he should give his cordial support, and he most earnestly appealed to every hon. Member in that House on either side who wished to send a message of peace to Ireland to vote in support of the new clause. He believed that the question before the House must be examined on two points. 1. The nature of the imprisonment, and 2. The period over which the imprisonment should extend. The imprisonment would be on suspicion only, for there could be no proof of guilt; and he thought in the present age of electric telegraph and steam, that a reasonable limit should be placed on the period for which a person could be detained, whilst evidence was being obtained. With reference to the matter introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan, he wished to say that the hon. Member for Cork had misquoted the question which it was the

  413
  intention of the hon. Member for Cavan to put to him. That hon. Member merely called in question the statement that the Irish Members had received any consideration from the Government, and the question which the hon. Member intended to ask was, whether the hon. Member for Cork, on Thursday the 6th instant, spoke as follows:—"That he took the opportunity, on behalf of the Irish Members, to state that during the discussion they had received every consideration from the Government." Hon. Members would see that there was a great difference between "courtesy" and "consideration." He believed the hon. Member for Cavan was as ready as anyone to acknowledge that they had been treated with courtesy; but he concurred with the hon. Member in saying that they had no thanks whatever to give for consideration.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 239: Majority 93.
  Clause 3 (Continuance of Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870, subject to amendments and modification).
  CAPTAIN NOLAN, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 16, to leave out "eighty," and insert "seventy-seven," said, two years had been the limit in all previous Acts of this kind, and he saw no reason why the period should be extended on this occasion, save that it would benefit Gentlemen opposite. There were three distinct views prevailing in the House as to the necessity of the Bill, but each of them, on consideration, led to the conclusion that it was good party policy for the Conservatives to shelve the question for five years instead of passing it for two years. The first theory was that of hon. Gentlemen who sat below the Gangway on that (the Opposition) side of the House—and he was glad to say that it was not only entertained by Irish Members, but by some Englishmen also—and it was that the Bill was unnecessary for either five or two years; another theory was that the Bill was necessary for five years; and the third—that of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on the Opposition side—that it was necessary for two years. There was only one supposition on which
  414
  the Bill was a good one, and that was that it was of such national importance that the Conservatives should sit on the front Ministerial Benches, that every other interest should give way to this consideration. The present Bill, theoretically and practically, was against the Constitution, and in this respect it was so far unlike the Mutiny Bill to which it had been compared, for the latter was only theoretically unconstitutional. The measure that they were discussing, then, should be passed for two years rather than five.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, to leave out the word "eighty," in order to insert the words "seventy-seven,"—(Captain Nolan,)—instead thereof.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, there was nothing in the conduct of the Government in regard to this Bill that justified the imputation of the hon. and gallant Member. Matters of this kind were above Party considerations, and for himself, he affirmed that if not in office Party differences would not prevent him from supporting any Government in proposals that were necessary to secure peace and order in Ireland. They believed there was no reasonable ground for hoping that in a less period than five years it would be possible throughout the whole of Ireland to dispense with the restrictions upon the possession of arms and the other mild provisions of the existing law which that Bill proposed to re-enact. They feared there would be places in Ireland where these modified restrictions would continue for some years to be necessary, and he asked the Committee to entrust them with these powers for that period. Besides, it was thought more satisfactory to deal with the question at once for five years than to have it brought up, as it would be if the hon. Member's views were adopted, for frequent discussion.
  Question put, "That the word 'eighty' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 180; Noes 112: Majority 68.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN, in moving an Amendment providing, that any proclamation issued under any of the provisions contained in the Act, and which should be in force at the time of its

  415
  passing, should, unless previously revoked, continue in force until the 31st of December, and not for a longer period, unless the Lord Lieutenant, with the advice of the Privy Council for Ireland, to be published in The Dublin Gazette, should make a declaration to that effect, said, that the terms of the Amendment were somewhat different from those moved in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, in that the limit proposed by that hon. Gentleman was extended from the 1st of August to the 31st of December. The Amendment did not affect the principle of the Bill; but he thought due consideration should be given to the subject, and as the proclamations would die out on the 31st of December the Government would before that time have the opportunity of considering whether they ought to be renewed or not.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 16, after the word "eighty," to insert the words "Provided always, That any proclamation issued under any of the provisions hereby continued, and which shall be in force at the time of the passing of this Act, shall, unless previously revoked, continue in force until the thirty-first day of December next, but shall not continue longer in force unless the Lord Lieutenant, by a new proclamation to be made by and with the advice of the Privy Council of Ireland and published in the Dublin Gazette, shall declare and direct that the said former proclamation shall be and continue in force after the said day; and thereupon such proclamation shall so continue in force."—(Sir Patrick O'Brien.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHpointed out that the practical effect of the Amendment, if it were put in operation, would be the revocation of all proclamations on the 31st of December, whether the state of the country justified that revocation or not. Then, if the Government found that they ought not to be dispensed with, they would have to be re-imposed. He had already given an undertaking that all proclamations in force after the passing of the Act would be carefully reconsidered, and he hoped to he able to revoke some proclamations in quiet districts of Ireland. The Amendment therefore, could have no practical effect; while it would seem to imply a want of confidence in the Government, which had not yet been expressed by Parliament.
  MR. BUTTaccepted the right hon. Baronet's assurance, that all existing proclamations would be reviewed, with the object, where it could safely be done, of revoking them, and upon that understanding he recommended his hon. Friend the Member for the King's County to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'SULLIVAN, in moving an Amendment, to the effect that where a person was licensed to have arms in his house, he should be at liberty to carry them upon lands in his occupation adjoining his residence, said, that if a man was deemed worthy by the magistrates of the district to have a gun in his house, he did not see any reasonable objection that could be urged against allowing him the privilege of carrying them for the protection of his property in the immediate vicinity of his dwelling.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 19, to leave out from the word "authorised" to the word "endorsement," in line 25, in order to insert the words "so licensed to carry such arms while upon any lands in his occupation adjoining his residence,"—(Mr. O'Sullivan,)
  —instead thereof.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHdid not consider the question one of any great importance; but still he retained the opinion that to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Limerick would be rather to diminish the number of arms licences than to increase them. All that a person having a licence to keep a gun in his house would be required to do, if he wanted to carry arms on his lands, was to go to the nearest resident magistrate and ask for an endorsement. The only advantage of the Amendment, therefore, would be that people who were already allowed to have arms in their houses would be saved the trouble of going to a magistrate, if they wished to carry them on their lands. On the other hand, there was this disadvantage attending it, that the issue of licences merely to have arms in a house might be restricted in consequence of its adoption.
  Question, "That the words 'authorised to grant such licences in such proclaimed district' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  MR. BRUENsaid, the Government had conceded the point that, on the recommendation of two magistrates residing in the same petty sessional division as the applicant, a licence to carry a gun should be granted; and, as the great argument in support of the Amendment was that farmers required a gun to protect their crops from birds, he would accordingly move, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 26, after the word "grant," to insert "to any occupier of one or more agricultural holdings." He thought the power of granting those certificates should not be exercised wholesale, and therefore he desired to limit the power of the local magistrates.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 26, after the word "grant," to insert the words "to any occupier of one or more agricultural holdings."—(Mr. Bruen.)
  MR. BUTThoped the Government would not assent to this change in the concession which had been agreed to on the subject. He saw no real good to be derived from this special restriction.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, it had been suggested in a previous debate, that a licence might be properly granted by two justices to a neighbour to kill crows, and this Amendment was fair and reasonable, and in furtherance of that suggestion.
  MR. O'SULLIVANopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would tend to limit the power of carrying arms.
  MR. BIGGARalso opposed the Amendment. He thought it a shame and a disgrace to the Government that it should bring in a coercive Bill of this kind, and press it through the House in the way they were doing.
  VISCOUNT CRICHTONhoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow would be accepted, as it met directly a point very much raised by hon. Members opposite, the necessity of giving security to farmers against the ravages made on their crops by crows. He hoped the Government would support the Amendment.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he hoped the clause would be allowed to remain in the state in which it was framed by the right hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill, and that the Government would not listen to the promptings of extreme
  418
  Members, who seemed inclined to draw the Government into difficulty.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he very much regretted that the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen) was unable to attend the discussion of the Bill in Committee, because had his (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's) attention been drawn to this point when he accepted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, he should have felt it his duty to modify it at the time in some such way as was now proposed. If the clause were allowed to remain as it was the operation of the Bill would be alike in town and country, whether under borough or under county magistrates. The Amendment had certainly come from the Government side of the House; but he was unable to see why the only alterations the Government were to accede to should be those which proceeded from the other side of the House. They ought not to be called upon to reject an Amendment, because it came from that—the Ministerial—side of the House, always provided that it was supported by argument, and shown to be an improvement upon the provisions of the measure. When the Bill was in Committee not a word was said as to the advisability or necessity of extending the number of licences in towns, but he had been since advised that the clause would, as it stood, apply as well to towns as to agricultural districts, although, from the manner of its wording, no one could have supposed that it would have this effect. He was not aware that in the towns in Ireland there was any particular desire for licences to carry arms; but, if there were, the demand had not been made on their behalf in that House. But if the possession of arms became general in the towns, there were many places where the consequences might be very serious to the public peace, especially on the occasion of elections and of party processions. He could name, he was sorry to say, towns in the South of Ireland in which the spirit of disaffection prevailed to such a degree that concealed stores of arms had only recently been discovered, and Militia rifles had been stolen from the military depôts. Those were facts which the Government must consider in dealing with the matter. It was in reference to the country that he had originally accepted the Amendment. He did not suppose that the magistrates

  419
  whether of counties or boroughs, would wilfully grant licences to carry arms to persons who would use them in party warfare or rebellion. If they were to do so, the remedy would be in the hands of the Government; but he knew that certificates to character were too readily signed, and that magistrates might be found, who, out of easy good nature, and without taking the trouble to inquire into the character of the people, would grant those certificates, feeling that in doing so they were not incurring the responsibility of granting licences. Feeling that, and looking upon the paragraph as one intended and framed to apply to the country rather than to towns; feeling, also, that if the extension of licences to carry arms was wanted at all it was in the country and not in towns, he was disposed to accede to the modification in the paragraph suggested by the hon. Member.
  CAPTAIN NOLANthought that the Chief Secretary and the Ministry had shifted their ground two or three times on this subject. They had been told that the Act was necessary in consequence of agrarian outrages; but "agrarian "was something connected with the land, and yet, as agricultural holdings were referred to in this Amendment, the only persons who were to have arms were those who had been committing the murders. The modification to which the Government had now given its sanction showed that they were afraid to trust their own magistrates. The whole course of the Bill showed that it was a Game Bill pure and simple. It was urged upon the Government by persons who were interested in the maintenance of the Game Laws; but if this Bill passed with the Amendment, the Government might just as well write on the back of the Bill—" This is a Game Law."
  MR. KAVANAGHexpressed his regret at the concession which Her Majesty's Government had made, and he was only satisfied with it now on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway had accused the magistrates of Ireland of using the Peace Preservation Act to preserve the game; and notwithstanding he now pressed for increased power to be placed in their hands. The plea on
  420
  which it was urged that greater facilities of obtaining licences to carry arms should be afforded to the rural inhabitants was to enable them to defend their crops from the depredations of the crows; but he was at a loss to understand how that held good with reference to the urban population, as it was not the habit of crows either to frequent, or commit depredations, in the streets of towns. The effect of the Amendment of his hon. Friend would only be to restrict the concession to the rural districts, and as such he was glad that the Government had accepted it.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, that he could not understand why the Government placed less confidence in magistrates of towns than in those of country. He was sorry to see the Government were now backing out of one of the concessions they had made in reference to the clause, to which the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow applied.
  MR. CONOLLYcontended that the Government were justified in accepting the Amendment, which he must say had no relation whatever to the subject of game.
  MR. O'SULLIVANopposed the Amendment, which he contended was introduced with a view of limiting the power of the magistrates to grant licences to persons in towns to carry arms.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, the Amendment would cause great dissatisfaction in Ireland. An Amendment which would enable a farm labourer who had an acre of land a mile from a town to have a licence to carry arms, whilst it withheld from a man who had lived in the town the same privilege, was an insult to Ireland.
  MR. O'NEILLsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow. He thought it would not show the least want of confidence in the magistrates.
  MR. SULLIVANexpressed his regret that the Government had consented to give way, for by doing so they had undone all the concessions previously granted on the subject. The fact of its having done so proved that the change now proposed was brought about by a caucus, whose influence in Parliament had not now been exercised for the first time. He meant that it was influenced by the "Ultra-Marine" Club in Dublin, who, finding that the Government had

  421
  thus given way to the Irish Members in relation to the subject, had expressed their determination to influence the Government to limit and hedge the concession that had been made in a manner that would give offence to the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland knew well the effect of the concession which he had made to the Irish Members when the subject was formerly before the House.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHbegged to say that at the time he made the concession referred to he did not see the full scope of the Amendment then proposed.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, of course, he must accept the denial of the right hon. Gentleman; but there could be little doubt of the fact that it was owing to the conduct of the Dublin Club, to which he had already alluded, that a Minister of high personal character and ability was still liable to be forced to wheel to the right-about at the behest of a faction which had been the author of the worst evils of Ireland. Five days ago the journals of that party had stated, with menace, that the right hon. Gentleman would have to accept such a proposal as this, and sure enough he had done so.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 84: Majority 38.
  MR. BRUENmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from "upon" to "shall," in line 29, and insert "any lands occupied by him provided he." The Amendment would have the effect of bringing the clause into accordance with the Amendment just agreed to, and would confine the Act to licences to carry arms to the occupiers of such holding or holdings. As to raising the question again, he repudiated the motives ascribed to him by hon. Members opposite, and denied that he was the representative of a party which differed from the Government.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from the word "upon" to the word "shall," in line 29, in order to insert the words "any lands occupied by him provided he,"—(Mr. Bruen)—instead thereof.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, the clause was very carefully considered in Committee,
  422
  and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, after much consideration, at length saw his way clearly to the concessions he had made. By the Amendment just agreed to, however, the Government had cut off one-half of that concession, and now it was by the present, which raised a totally different question, proposed to cut off a moiety of the remaining half, and to restrict the granting of licences to carry to only the actual occupier of the holdings, though, as had been shown, these were in many cases women. He trusted the Chief Secretary would not consent to this withdrawal of the second part of his concession granted after full deliberation.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had already explained to the House the reasons which induced him to accede to the first Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the county of Carlow; but as to the Amendment now under consideration, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down, that it did not raise precisely the same question. He thought the words proposed by the hon. Member for the county of Carlow would limit the operation of the paragraph in a way that he should not like to agree to, for it would perhaps prevent a licensed person from carrying arms from his own residence to the land that was occupied by him; and he would, therefore, suggest that, instead of this Amendment, they might insert words providing that upon the certificate of the two magistrates the licensing officer might grant a licence within the district in which the magistrates had jurisdiction. ["No, no!"] If that was not done the result might be that, as in many cases the district of the licensing officer extended beyond a county borough, the certificate of magistrates might be held to be valid in places in which they had no legal jurisdiction.
  MR. BUTTsaid, there was matter of much greater importance than the mere alteration of words raised by the course which had been taken by the right hon. Gentleman. These Amendments struck at the root of Irish liberties, and they were proposed not by the Government, but at the bidding of a dark cabal, the enemies of the Irish Members. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary was now taking away concessions which

  423
  the Government had openly granted after due consideration. He would remind the right hon. Baronet of the words—" Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel." The meaning of these words was to destroy those concessions which had been granted, and what confidence could they have in the Government if they allowed themselves to be guided in this way by what he would not call the miserable remnant of an expiring faction, who were unable to give strength to the Government, but who were able to mislead them, and induce them to abandon a course which had given satisfaction, and adopt another for which no good reason had been shown. It was not the first time that this course had been adopted, and he looked upon it as miserably trifling. The Government had placed themselves in the hands of the enemies of the Irish people. Of course, they loved the Irish people so well that they would not give them the privileges of carrying arms except under the most stringent and degrading restrictions. If two magistrates could not vouch for the fitness of people to carry arms, the Amendment he had previously proposed ought not to have been adopted; and if they could guarantee the fitness of people to have that right, there was no necessity for these restrictions. He said it was the Government itself which was teaching the people to distrust the magistracy and the administration of the law, and to have no confidence in the Government. Let the right hon. Gentleman understand that on this Amendment he was upon his trial before the people of Ireland. Let him make his choice between them and their determined hostility. No soft words, no honeyed expression, could escape that result. He (Mr. Butt) had read of one who was
  —" the mildest-mannered man
  That ever scuttled ship or cut a throat; "
  and he could assure the right hon. Baronet that the mildness of Lambro's manners would no more have saved him from conviction on a charge of piracy than honeyed phrase would save the Chief Secretary for Ireland from condemnation for supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow. He (Mr. Butt) really did feel warm. He had endeavoured to give credit to the right hon. Gentleman when he thought he could honestly do so; but he
  424
  had looked for different treatment from the Government, expecting that the Chief Secretary had firmness enough not to be controlled by the extreme Gentlemen behind him.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: In explanation I wish to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood me. What I said was that I objected to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow.
  MR. BUTTsaid, if that was so his ears had deceived him. He certainly understood the right hon. Baronet as supporting the spirit of the Amendment and objecting only to its form.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, the hon. Gentlemen on that—the Government—side of the House were not accustomed to the menacing tone which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had adopted. That was the first time in that House that he had ever heard a set of Gentlemen who were honestly discharging their duty characterized as a "faction" and a "cabal" The use of such un-Parliamentary epithets, it was plain, was only resorted to for one purpose, and that was, that those who used them might go before the Irish people, in the hope that they might deter the Conservative Members from doing their duty in that House. But let him tell the Irish Members on the other side that, although they were more numerous than those on that side, their transient popularity in insulting their brethren from Ireland would not sustain them. He deliberately charged hon. Members opposite with having insulted their brethren from Ireland by applying to them the terms "cabal" and "faction."
  MR. CALLANrose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member was justified in deliberately charging hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side with improper, dishonourable, and illegal proceedings. He protested against it.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite in Order.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, he had used no such terms; but they were mentioned on the other side, to the great disgrace of hon. Gentlemen sitting there. He had not done with those hon. Gentlemen yet, because that system of vilification had now been established and persisted in beyond all precedent. It was only the other night that he had to refer to an

  425
  hon. Gentleman who had a journal widely circulated in Ireland, and not satisfied with the power he possessed of attacking hon. Gentlemen in that House, which was very fair when they were there to answer him, he used this weapon behind their backs to vilify them in Ireland. When he saw them face to face he did not dare to bring forward these nocturnal and clandestine observations. The tone of hon. Gentlemen opposite had hitherto during these discussions been somewhat moderate; but that evening they had transgressed the ordinary bounds, and owed a personal apology to those to whom they had alluded as a "faction" and a "cabal," their object in thus stigmatizing them being to put a false impression on their conduct in the estimation of their constituents.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGconfessed that if he had known that the right hon. Gentleman had intended to yield to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen), he should never have risen in his place to pay a compliment to the Irish Executive. By that concession the right hon. Gentlemen had destroyed all the concessions he had made in agreeing to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. In doing so, he (Mr. Downing) could not give the right hon. Gentleman credit for candour, because in agreeing to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow, a man living within half a mile of a petty sessional district taking out a licence to carry arms would only be able to carry them for that half mile, and if he crossed the boundary of that petty sessional district he would be amenable to this Act. Such a provision was, he would not say "disgraceful" or "mean," but certainly not creditable to the Government, and when he returned to Ireland he should say that they had pretended to yield concessions which really had not been yielded.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, the right hon. Gentleman behind him merely suggested that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow should not be accepted, some words might be introduced which would limit the jurisdiction of the magistrates in reference to the granting of licences to carry arms within the bounds in which they exercised jurisdiction in relation to their other magisterial duties. When hon. Gentlemen
  426
  accused the Government of having done nothing that evening but yield to hon. Gentlemen behind them, he must remind them that early in the discussion they granted a most important concession on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that during the discussions in the late Parliament on the Disestablishment of the Irish Church and the Army Bill nothing was more common than to say the proceedings were promoted by "factions." The late Government in dealing with Irish questions had no Law Officer, and the present Government would have none, if it were not for the existence of the Protestant University of Dublin, which gave them the assistance of two Conservative Law Officers. But with that legal advice, it was not surprising they still believed that Ireland required a very stringent Bill. The other night when compliments were passing between the two sides of the House, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had objected to that proceeding, because he knew that before the Bill was out of the House, they would see that the gloved hand which the Government displayed had claws at the end of it. At present none but a resident magistrate could give a licence for carrying arms, and that power had been exercised with gross partiality. There were numerous complaints in Ireland of the capricious and illegal manner in which resident magistrates had refused to grant those licences, and he was surprised the Government should think it inadvisable to grant this concession. In one instance, while the late Administration were in office, the manager of a bank was capriciously refused a licence by a resident magistrate; and on the circumstances of the case being afterwards brought under the notice of the then Chief Secretary, the noble Marquess required that resident magistrate to offer an apology to the applicant, and also to grant him a licence. The Government had agreed the other night to require a resident magistrate to grant a licence on the recommendation of two Justices; and they were now not only retracting that concession, but showing to the people of the Three Kingdoms that they were ready to play fast-and-loose with the provisions of a Bill which was far more stringent than any measure their

  427
  forefathers would have sanctioned. The course they were pursuing showed that they did not know their own business. They had to-night made an important concession to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. The reason of that was, that the English legal authorities upon their own side of the House could not support them in the enforcement of a principle so alien to everything that had occurred in this country.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he was pleased when he came down to the House to find that concessions had been made by the Government; but the Solicitor General for Ireland, to his surprise and regret, speaking for the Government, withdrew those concessions. The terms of indignation with which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick expressed himself, in reference to such a course of proceeding, was not, then, to be wondered at. He must confess that he shared in that feeling, for he considered that the Government, in taking such a step, after conceding what the Irish Members had extorted from them, had acted inconsistently; and the cause for the hon. and learned Member for Limerick's complaint was attributable to the Government turning their back upon the Irish Members in such a manner.
  Question, "That the words 'any specified lands, or a licence to have and carry arms generally' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Plunket), Amendment made in page 2, line 33, after "respectively," insert—
  "And every such certificate shall be in the form in the Schedule (D) to this Act annexed. Any person having and carrying arms, or having arms in accordance with any such endorsement upon a licence as aforesaid, or in accordance with any licence granted in pursuance of any such certificate as aforesaid, shall he deemed to have a licence for such purposes respectively within the meaning of the Act of the eleventh year of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter two."
  MR. BUTTmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 13, at end, to add—
  "And such warrant shall not he executed by search in any house or place not specified therein, unless upon the written authority of a justice of the peace acting for the county, and which authority such justice of the peace is hereby authorized to grant upon a sworn information showing reasonable and probable cause
  428
  for believing that arms are concealed or kept in such house or place, contrary to the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act."
  The right hon. Baronet, he confessed, had, by limiting the time during which a warrant might run to three weeks, greatly mitigated the hardship which might be inflicted under the Bill, and he had promised to strike a more determined blow at the severity of the Act by only granting general warrants in special cases. In the same spirit, he trusted he would not object to the Amendment now submitted to the consideration of the House. If the Amendment were granted, he considered it would be preferable to the power proposed to be placed in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, as by the Act of 1848, to issue a general warrant.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 13, after the word "therein," to insert the words "and such warrant shall not he executed by search in any house or place, not specified therein, unless upon the written authority of a justice of the peace acting for the county, and which authority such justice of the peace is hereby authorised to grant upon a sworn information showing reasonable cause for believing that arms are concealed or kept in such house or place contrary to the provisions of the Peace Preservation Acts."—(Mr. Butt.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHconsidered that the parallel drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman between the proposed Act and the Act of 1848 did not hold. He assured the hon. and learned Gentleman that he need not be apprehensive that unrestricted power I would be placed in the hands of the I police, and as he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had agreed to a provision that no one's house should be searched at nights he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press his Amendment. Circumstances might arise—for instance, at sea-ports—in which it would be necessary to make a general search for arms without such a delay as would be involved in obtaining authority from the magistrates. Therefore he could not accept the Amendment. As regarded ordinary cases, however, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member that special warrants were generally proper. He proposed to consult the Law Officers of the Crown upon the matter, and with their assistance to frame a special form of warrant to take the place of general warrants to be used

  429
  in every case except those cases to which he had previously alluded.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he would accept that assurance, and would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING (for Mr. MELDON)moved an Amendment, in line 18, to the effect that the magistrates should be empowered in the exercise of their discretion to impose a fine in substitution of imprisonment upon persons charged with and convicted of the offence of having arms without licence. He objected to magistrates sending for trial a defendant who had consented to be dealt with summarily.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 18, after the word "year," to insert the words "Provided always, That the court or judge before whom such person so charged shall be convicted may, if they shall think fit, instead of sentencing such person to imprisoment, inflict a fine upon such person so convicted, not exceeding the sum of ten pounds, and may, in default of the payment of such fine, commit the person so convicted or ordered to pay such fine to gaol, there to be imprisoned for a period not exceeding two months."—(Mr. Downing.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)opposed the Amendment, and urged that it was not desirable to take the power of punishing by imprisonment out of the hands of the magistrates. The case might assume a more serious aspect as it proceeded than it did before the evidence was gone into.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Plunket), Amendment made in line 41, by leaving out "Act," and inserting "enactment with respect to summary proceedings."
  MR. O'SULLIVANmoved an Amendment to give a right of appeal to those sentenced to imprisonment for a month or less, as well as to those sentenced for longer periods. He considered this was a matter of vital importance, and he could not fancy any conceivable reason why it should meet with opposition.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 11, to leave out the words "exceeding one month."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHcould not consent to the proposed alteration for the reason stated by him when the same proposal was made in Committee, which was that he objected to deviating in this case from the precedents of other Acts of Parliament, which did not allow appeals where the sentences were less than a month.
  Question put, "That the words 'exceeding one month 'stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 202; Noes 100: Majority 102.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING (for Mr. MELDON)moved an Amendment, providing that if any of the justices before whom the charge was heard should certify in writing that the case was a fit and proper one for appeal the person convicted, no matter what punishment he was sentenced to, might appeal from the conviction.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 12, after the word "conviction," to insert the words "Provided always, That if any of the justices before whom such charge is heard shall certify in writing that the case is a fit and proper one for appeal, the person so convicted, no matter what punishment he is sentenced to, may in like manner appeal from such conviction."—(Mr. Downing.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)objected to the Amendment, as it would give a single justice the power to act counter to the general opinion of the Bench.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHproposed an Amendment to enable the Grand Jury to disallow any presentment for compensation on account of a death or injury arising from agrarian combination or crime, unless they were of opinion that material evidence with respect to the outrage was withheld by any person resident within the district.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 20, after "1871," to insert the words "unless the grand jury making the same shall be of opinion that material evidence concerning the murder, maiming, or injury in respect of which such presentment is made is withheld by any person resident within the district proposed to be charged with the sum thereby presented; and where any such

  431
  presentment shall be made under the authority aforesaid."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. M'CARTHYDOWNINGthought it very hard indeed that the whole of the peaceful residents of a district, altogether innocent of the matter, should be punished because some one among them withheld information.
  MR. BUTTmoved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting words which would require that the Grand Jury should be of opinion that material evidence was withheld with the general assent of the population resident in the district. There were cases in which the provision as it stood could not properly be enforced, for evidence might be withheld without in any way implicating the district in sympathy with the crime. For instance, it might be the wife or the child or the parent of the offender who withheld the evidence, as was natural, while the general body of the residents knew nothing whatever about it. However, he would leave the matter in the hands of the Government.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "by any person," and insert the words "with the general assent of the population,"—(Mr. Butt,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  THE O'CONOR DONthought the right hon. Baronet had redeemed the pledge he had given, and he therefore hoped that the Amendment just moved would not be pressed to a division. He concurred, however, in the proposed modification, which was within the spirit of the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet. He would mention the case of a man who, having been wounded in the arm, applied to the Grand Jury of the King's County for compensation and obtained it, although the Grand Jury knew well that he could have given information as to who was the perpetrator of the outrage from which he suffered. It would be unfair to charge upon a locality this heavy tax in many cases which would be covered by the proposition as it stood.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the words in his Amendment had been
  432
  very carefully framed, in order to carry out the undertaking he gave when the Bill was in Committee. They would very much increase the difficulty of giving compensation, and were intended so to increase it; but the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member would make this difficulty insuperable. He could not go further than he did in the change now proposed.
  Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question,
  "That the words' unless the grand jury making the same shall he of opinion that material evidence concerning the murder, maiming, or injury in respect of which such presentment is made is withheld by any person resident within the district proposed to be charged with the sum thereby presented; and where any such presentment shall be made under the authority aforesaid,' be inserted in page 4, line 20, after '1871,' "
  —put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR. GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Plunket) Amendment made in page 4, line 34, after "section," by inserting "thirty-nine amended as aforesaid."
  MR. BUTTmoved a Proviso at the end of clause, limiting to 2s. in the pound the amount of a presentment when finally fixed and settled by the Judge. The principle of the Amendment was discussed in Committee. The amount to be levied on presentments would often amount to 5s. or 6s. in the pound—a rate perfectly ruinous to many individuals. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. E. Smyth) had proposed to fix the limit at 1s. in the pound. He (Mr. Butt) proposed to fix it at 2s.—an amount quite enough for an honest man to have to pay for the misfortune of living among persons who sympathized with crime.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 35, to add, at the end of Clause 3, the words" Provided always, That no such presentment shall be finally settled or approved of by the judge in such a form that the sum to be levied, under such presentment shall exceed in the whole the amount of two shillings upon each pound of the valuation of the district upon which same shall be charged."—(Mr. Butt.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he must oppose the Motion, and for the same reasons as he stated in Committee.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 211: Majority 118.
  MR. BUTTmoved a Proviso, to the effect that the sum to be levied by order of the Lord Lieutenant to defray the charge of additional police in a district under the Crime and Outrage Act, should not exceed 2s. in the pound on the valuation of the holdings in that district.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, to add the words" Provided always, That from and after the passing of this Act the sum to be levied in any district under the seventh and eighth Clauses of the Act passed in the eleventh year of the reign of Her Majesty, entitled 'An Act for the better prevention of Crime and Outrage in certain parts of Ireland, until the first day of December one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine, and the end of then next Session of Parliament,' shall not exceed the amount of two shillings on each pound of the valuation of the district on which the same is charged."—(Mr. Butt.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHhoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would be content with the opinion which had already been expressed on this subject, and would not press his Amendment to a division.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAreferred to a communication which he had received before the passing of the Westmeath Act from a resident magistrate in Westmeath, to the effect that if the police would do their work properly, 80 per cent of the crime in that county would be stopped, and the remaining 20 per cent would be stopped if the people were fairly treated. He trusted the Government would yet find some means of mitigating the cost of crime to innocent persons.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGurged that the charge for additional police should be dealt with not by the Lord Lieutenant, who relied for information upon a single individual—namely, a police magistrate, but by the Grand Jury, consisting of a large number of gentlemen who were fully acquainted with all the circumstances of the district.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 206: Majority 122.
  MR. BUTT, who had given Notice of Amendments to move the omission of Clause 4, and also to move an alteration in Schedule A, said, that at that late period of the night he would not press his Amendments.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA, who also had an Amendment to Schedule A, said, he would follow the example of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick.
  Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Plunket) the following new Schedule agreed to, and added to the Bill:—
  "Schedule (D).
  Form of certificate for arms licence.
  County of
  Petty Sessions District of
  We, the undersigned Justices of the Peace for the above mentioned county, residing within the above-mentioned Petty Sessions District, do hereby certify that A. B. of [here insert name, description, and place of residence] within the said Petty Sessions District of, is a fit and proper person to have a licence to have [or, as the case may be, to have and carry] arms [here insert conditions and extent of licence].
  Dated this day of 18.
  Signed C. D.
  E. F.
  Justices of the Peace for the said county of, residing within the said Petty Sessions District of."
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.

LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER BILL.
(Lords.) (Mr. Attorney General.)
LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER BILL.

  [BILL 105.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that, in answer to a Question put by the hon. and learned Member for the County of Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan) on Friday last, he had said that most of the hon. Members who took part in the debate on the Bill last year were willing that the second reading should be proceeded with this year without discussion, and that the debate should be taken on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair. Believing that to be in accordance with the views of the House, he would now move the second reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he had assented to the appeal made to him; but he trusted that the Government would see their way to taking the discussion on the Speaker leaving the Chair at a period of the Session when it might be fully discussed. If it were relegated to the middle or the end of

  435
  July, when half the lawyers of the House had gone on circuit, it could not be properly considered.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERalso hoped that the Attorney General would fix a time to insure the fullest discussion. He intended to oppose the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALhoped that the Bill would receive the same full measure of criticism that it did last year, and every opportunity would be given, so far as he was concerned.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 24th May.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL— [BILL 131.]
(Mr. Charley, Mr. Whitwell.)
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL— [BILL 131.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Charley.)
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words "That the Bill" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "be referred to a Select Committee,"—(Mr. Vance,)—instead thereof.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered.
  MR. MARTENmoved the omission of Clause 5, on the ground that its operation might give rise to fraudulent representations.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 5.—(Mr. Marten.)
  MR. MONKmaintained that this provision had been very carefully considered by the Royal Commission, and resisted its excision.
  MR. PEASEtook the same view.
  MR. HERSCHELLsupported the Amendment.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSalso supported it.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 121: Majority 113.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.

SAVINGS BANKS, &c. BILL.— [BILL 146.]
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
SAVINGS BANKS, &c. BILL.— [BILL 146.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)—put, and negatived.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  MR. FAWCETTgave Notice that he would, in Committee on the Bill, move a Resolution.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Resolutions [May 7] reported and agreed to.
  Instruction to the Gentlemen appointed to prepare and bring in a Bill upon the Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means upon the 16th day of April, That they do make provision therein pursuant to the Resolutions now reported and agreed to.

  MILITIA LAWS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary HARDY, Bill to consolidate and amend certain Laws relating to the Militia of the United Kingdom, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary HARDY, The JUDGE ADVOCATE, and Mr. STANLEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 160.]

  PUBLIC STORES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to consolidate, with Amendments, the Acts relating to the Protection of Public Stores, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 159.]

ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT (1868) CONTINUANCE BILL.
On Motion of Viscount SANDON, Bill to continue "The Endowed Schools Act, 1868," ordered to be brought in by Viscount SANDON, Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 161.]
House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Parliament of Canada * (96); Landed Estates Act (Ireland) Amendment * (97).
Second Reading—Sea Fisheries * (86).
Committee—Report—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) * (55).
Report—Agricultural Holdings (England) (63–98); Explosive Substances * (95).
Third Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * (64); Bank Holidays Act (1871) Extension and Amendment * (76); Saint Paul's Cathedral (Minor Canonries) * (60); Pacific Islanders Protection * (88); International Copyright * (73), and passed.
Withdrawn—Teinds (Scotland) (67).

PRIVATE BILLS.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 179. sects. 1. and 4. be suspended, and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess: Agreed to.
TEINDS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 67.)
(The Earl of Minto.)
TEINDS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 67.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF MINTO, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that a measure of this kind was very much wanted in Scotland where much excitement existed as to the mode in which the augmentations of teinds were made; and the object of the present Bill was to simplify and render intelligible the system of teinds in the computation of the value of the stipends. Now, that might seem a very easy matter; but in fact the whole system of calculation was based upon an obsolete and dead language, and the result was that the whole procedure was involved in complexity and obscurity. The object of the Bill therefore was that the teinds which were granted in future should be granted in money instead of being calculated in kind; and it enacted that from and after the passing of the Act teinds and all claims exigible therefrom, or connected therewith, including stipends to the clergy of the Church of Scotland, so far as they have been valued in grain, should be converted into money on an average of the fiars prices for the seven years immediately preceding 1875, and that all future augmentations of stipends should be paid in money. The question of teinds was first settled in Scotland in 1833, when it was arranged that they should be paid in kind, and calculated upon one-tenth of what the land would produce; but however suitable that system might be at the time it was introduced, it was by no means suitable to the present time, and in 1808 an Act was passed legalizing the system now in existence. The Bill proposed to settle the calculations upon a fixed basis—namely, the average receipts of the seven years preceding the year 1875.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Minto.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORhoped that the noble Earl would not persevere with his Motion, because, if he did, he must offer to their Lordships a little more explanation than his noble Friend had given, and he thought that, after the explanation, their Lordships would
  372
  not be disposed to assent to the second reading. He must, in the first place, remind their Lordships that his noble Friend the Lord President had stated a few nights since to their Lordships, that the subject was under consideration, and that he hoped in the next Session the Government might be able to propose some measure which would be connected with the proceedure in cases of that description. There could be no doubt that, as the noble Earl had stated, the present mode of procedure in calculating ministers' stipends was involved in complexity and expense; but the noble Earl's Bill had not the slightest reference either to the expenses or to the complexities of that procedure. It was a Bill not connected with procedure at all, but a Bill connected entirely with the mode of averaging; and which affected property in a way which measures which were introduced in their Lordships' House were not in the habit of doing. In the year 1808 the Act of Parliament was passed which created a sort of code under which stipends should be augmented. Up to that time they had been dealt with exactly as the noble Earl wished them to be dealt with—namely, by a payment of money out of the teinds where there were any. But the Act of 1808 followed the principle on which they were dealt with by the great Lord Burleigh in the reign of Queen Elizabeth—namely, that the augmentation of stipends should depend, not upon any money payment, but upon the value of grain, in order that ministers might have the benefit of any increase in the price of that article, so as to increase their income. It was remarkable that after that Act had passed, and when prices were very high, the ministers came forward and applied to Parliament to do what the noble Earl was now doing—namely, to fix for the future the augmentation of stipend on an average of the prices for seven years previous—they wanted to have the benefit of prices when they were high. But the measure which was then asked for was very properly refused by Parliament. Now, it was a little remarkable that this Bill should be introduced at a time when prices were very low, and, therefore, would operate to prevent any increase in the value of stipends arising from an increase in the price of grain—to the great benefit of proprietors. He wished,

  373
  however, to show their Lordships how this measure would work. They were not aware that teinds in Scotland were a different kind of property from tithes in England. They were held sometimes by owners of land and sometimes by what were called "titulars" of the ground; the minister was never entitled, as in England, to the actual tithe, but only to a stipend arising out of the tithe; and if that stipend became insufficient from any reason, then they had a right to have it augmented and modified if the tithe were unexhausted. Now, their Lordships would observe in what position the minister was. He was a stipendiary and an incumbrance on the teind, and entitled to payment of an annual sum out of the teind. The payment by the price of grain was not a payment of so much money; but a payment in money which was fixed on an equivalent for the quantity of grain and victuals which he was entitled to demand. That being the present position of the minister, he thought it would be most unjust that they should take advantage of the price of grain being low at the present time, to calculate the amount the minister was entitled to receive on an average of seven years. It might be that the measure would operate very disadvantageously to the minister, and, at all events, he had a right to be heard upon it. What right had the noble Earl to say to the ministers that the amount of their stipend should only be calculated on a certain quantity of grain or victual for an average of seven years, and to that amount they should be fixed for all time? Was ever such a measure proposed to Parliament? Yet that was what the Bill did. Supposing that in the time of Charles II., the ministers' stipends had been fixed at the then price of money, and had never since been changed, what would the value be now as compared with the value of money, and where would the ministers be and what would be their salaries at the present day? It could not be right, without giving notice to the country at large and without giving those who were most interested notice of the change which was to be made, to pass a Bill affecting the stipends of the ministers. On these grounds he did not think their Lordships would assent to the measure.
  THE EARL OF MINTOsaid, that that was the first time he had heard any ob-
  374
  jection raised to the Bill, and he thought it would have been well if the noble and learned Lord had raised some of the objections when he first brought forward the subject; because he certainly had not understood, from the reply he had received from the noble Duke, that the subject was under the consideration of the Government. He was gratified by the trouble the noble and learned Lord had evidently taken in reference to the application of the seven years average. As the second reading was opposed by the Government, he would prefer to withdraw the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that this question of augmentation of stipends was first mentioned a fortnight ago, and the Lord President said that he was about to consult the Lord Advocate on the subject, and he was glad to hear that the Government proposed to deal with it. The Bill, however, of his noble Friend referred to a totally different matter. It removed none of the evils connected with the present system of augmentation, but preserved all the personal interests. He agreed with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that this was a Bill which would hardly be received by their Lordships.
  Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

ACCIDENTS ON RAILWAYS, 1874.

  RETURN. QUESTION.
  LORD COTTESLOErose to call attention to the delay which took place in the preparation of the Returns of Railway Accidents required by the 34 & 35 Vict. c. 78. He did not intend, on the present occasion, to discuss the question of railway accidents. In regard of the prevention of such accidents he believed Railway Companies would be more influenced by publicity and public opinion than by any Acts of Parliament. Various enactments had been passed with the view of enforcing on Railway Companies their obligations towards the public. By the 34 & 35 Vict. certain Returns of accidents were required to be made by the Companies; but there had been great delay in the presentation of these Returns. His purpose in now drawing attention to this state of things was to induce the Government to enforce on the

  375
  Companies the due performance of their statutory obligations.
  THE EARL OF DUNMOREsaid, that the Question which had been put to him by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Cottesloe) had already been anwered, inasmuch as the Returns to which he had made reference had been already presented to Parliament, together with similar Returns for the first three months of the present year. But he must point out the annual Return of railway accidents had been laid before Parliament this year at a much earlier date than in any previous year since the Regulation of Railways Act of 1871 came into operation; and by the arrangement which had recently been made for laying these Returns before Parliament every three months, all information, with the most minute details regarding railway accidents and the causes that led to them, would be in possession of Parliament and the public within a very short time after the expiration of each succeeding quarter. With regard to the Returns for the first three months of the present year, there had been more delay than would occur in future, owing to the form of the new Returns differing materially from those printed before, which had necessitated the setting up of new type. But now that the new form had been set up the printers stated that they would be able to print off the Returns in a very few days. It might be well for him to state to the House that the greater portion of the general Report upon railway accidents which was prepared every year by Captain Tyler was already in the printer's hands, and he thought that, in all probability, he would be in a position to lay that Report upon the Table of their Lordship's House within a month from the present date. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Cottesloe) had called attention to the great delay which occurred; but it must be borne in mind that the information obtained from the Railway Companies with regard to accidents since the passing of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871, had very largely increased. The Return of railway accidents for the year 1870 consisted of only 24 pages, and was not presented till the 6th of March 1871, whereas the Return of 1874 consisted of 287 pages, and had been presented to Parliament on the 5th instant. In the preparation of this Return the very greatest accuracy
  376
  was required, and owing to the enormous mass of manuscript forms which the Board of Trade received, the work was exceedingly heavy. This Return for 1874 was not only larger in bulk than the one for 1870, but several analytical Tables had been added to it demanding much care and time for their preparation. This greatly enhanced the value of the Return. The Return of 1870 was simply a bare record of facts, with only two summaries attached to it; whereas the present Return gave as fully as possible the causes of all train accidents and all details relative to axles, tyres, rails, and rolling-stock generally. In the Return for 1870 there were only 115 servants returned as having been killed, and 129 as having been injured, of whom no classification was made; whereas in 1874 there were 788 returned as killed and 2,815 as injured; and, as would be seen on reference to the Tables, these accidents were divided into 20 classes, which showed the nature of the occupation in which each person was engaged when he met with the accident. In the same way the accidents to trains and passengers were subjected to detailed analysis. In addition to all that, a considerable time was necessarily taken up by printing this Return. There was, he thought, no reason for stating that as a general rule the Railway Companies did not send in the information required by the Regulation Act without unnecessary delay, and this remark applied particularly to the large Companies. It would not be practicable for a large Company like the Great Northern, the Midland, or the London and Northwestern, to send in the Return of an accident which happened at the furthest point of their system by the next day, as the Return of such an accident had to be forwarded by the officer of the Company on the spot where it happened to the head offices of the Company, where-ever they might be situated, entered in the books at those offices, and then sent to the Board of Trade from the chief office. There was, he also thought, every disposition on the part of the Companies to cheerfully afford all the particulars and details that were required of them. By the arrangement proposed for publishing the Returns of these accidents quarterly instead of annually, and by strengthening in some way the department charged with the collection

  377
  of these statistics, he believed there would in future be no cause for any delay.
  LORD HOUGHTONthanked the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunmore) for the testimony he had borne to the willingness of Railway Companies to make the Returns, and to do so without unnecessary delay. He believed the Railway Companies were desirous of complying in every particular with the requirements of the Act.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMthougt that the Returns were consider-ably swollen by accidents which were not intended to come within the category contained in the 5th clause of the Act. The clause required that the Returns should be of accidents which occurred in or about the working of railways or in buildings connected with them, or attributable to any mischance in the course of working them, but the Returns included many accidents which could not in strictness be said to be connected with railways. For instance, the horses employed by the Railway Companies, like some horses otherwise employed, were disposed to be vicious and to kick those who groomed them. Surely kicks inflicted by horses in the stables of Rail-way Companies were not intended to come with the category of the 5th clause; but they were returned by some Companies. So were accidents which had occurred to boys while sliding down the handrails of railway bridges, and to stokers who had fallen down the ladders of stokeholes, and accidents which had been caused by railway waggons coming in contact with railway posts, though those waggons were not driven by servants of the Companies; accidents occurring to persons working in the work-shops and warehouses of the Companies. Among the accidents returned as rail-way accidents was one caused to a lady by putting her foot through a hole in her dress while walking under a railway bridge. He thought the Board of Trade might interfere in the matter so as to limit the Returns to accidents within the purview of the Act.
  LORD CARLINGFORD, as being the official author of the Act of 1871, well remembered the difficulty which had been experienced in defining the accidents which should come within Clause 5. The object was to include enough, and not to bring in too much.
  378
  He did not say the wording of the clause had been quite successful; but, on the other hand, he did not understand the noble Duke (the Duke of Buckingham) to propose that it should be changed. He concurred with the noble Duke in thinking that some of the accidents included in the Returns were not such as it had been intended to bring within the Act, and he thought the Board of Trade would exercise a wise discretion in omitting such cases from the public Returns. However, he deprecated any alteration in the wording of the Act.
  THE EARL OF DUNMOREsaid, that the Board of Trade had already exercised its discretion in expunging ridiculous Returns, and the matter referred to by the noble Duke was at this moment receiving the attention of the Department.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.—(Nos. 39–63.)
(The Lord President.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.—(Nos. 39–63.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLproposed to insert in the title after "Agricultural," the words "and Pastoral."
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthought this change would make the title unnecessarily long without producing any effect upon the enacting clauses.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause 2 (Commencement of Act).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDproposed to alter the date for the operation of the Act from the 31st December 1875 to the 14th of January, 1876.
  Amendment moved to leave out after ("the") to the end of the clause, and insert (" fourteenth day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy six."—(The Lord President.)
  VISCOUNT PORTMANdesired to give landlords and tenants, where the term commenced at Candlemas, a little longer time to consider whether they would come under the Act, and he proposed to substitute the 14th of February.
  After short conversation, the LORD PRESIDENT'S Amendment withdrawn.
  Then Amendment of VISCOUNT PORTMAN agreed to.
  Clause amended and agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Interpretation Clause).
  LORD PENZANCEmoved to add to the Interpretation Clause the following definition:—
  "'The letting value 'means the value at which a holding could he or could have been let if the improvement had not been executed."
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he would like the Government to consider what would be the effect of a stringent application of the words in this clause on a tenant's claim for compensation. A tenant might have improved by drainage or lime, and yet it might be very doubtful if he would be able to prove to the satisfaction of a Court of Justice that he had made the farm as a whole more valuable to the landlord in the matter of rent. The improvements effected might be very proper ones for his own occupation or that of the landlord; but to make it imperative on the tenant to prove that the letting value of the farm was increased would be imposing on him too heavy a burden. In the Irish Land Act which dealt with much larger matters than this Bill, the terms used were "any work which being executed added to the letting value of the holding," and in reference to tillages and manures the words were, "or other works the benefit of which was unexhausted at the time of quitting the holding." He believed that the latter was the true test in the case of minor improvements.
  LORD HAMPTONthought the objection which had just been stated deserved serious consideration. He was bound to say he regretted that his noble Friend the President of the Council had persevered in making the "increased letting value" of the land in consequence of the tenant's improvements, the test or measure of compensation. Now, this had been described by his noble Friend himself as the very principle of the measure. With regard to permanent improvements of an important character, he quite admitted that the letting value was an unobjectionable test; but when they applied that test to those minor improvements to which it would be applied, he looked with alarm to the encouragement it would give to litigation of the most unsatisfactory kind. He was fortified in that statement by what he found to be the opinion of practical men out-of-doors. Last week at a meeting of the Central Chamber of Agriculture in London, this point was discussed, and resolutions were
  380
  passed condemning the proposal by a majority of four to one.
  LORD EGERTONsaid, that it would be extremely difficult to know what would be the "letting value" of a farm at the end of 10 or 14 years. Everyone who had sat on Assessment Committees must know the difficulty of ascertaining the value of farms; and he feared the clause would lead to a great deal of litigation. He entered his protest against the principle of the Bill with reference to this point.
  LORD DYNEVORsaid, he quite agreed with the three noble Lords who had addressed the House as to the difficulties likely to arise from the present definition. He thought the words "letting value" would defeat the object the Government had in view. He thought there should be no compensation unless the whole holding was increased in value.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEmust remind noble Lords that they were not now discussing the principle of the clause which had been decided in Committee—the question before the House was the Amendment, which was a question of definition only. The grievance of tenant-farmers was that while they laid out their capital in improvements on the land, at the end of their lease the farm was either let to another tenant at a higher rent, or the rent was raised on the former tenant, and the difference went into the pocket of the landlord.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYopposed the Amendment. Clause 5 contemplated that the improvement should be so effectual as to add to the "letting value" of the land before he should be entitled to claim compensation. This was intelligible, and as a definition of the improvement there was some value in the words. But Clause 7, making the addition to the letting value the basis for estimating the compensation, threw the whole matter into confusion, and would be difficult in practice. Suppose the landlord let his land upon conditions that the tenant should make certain improvements—or in other words borrowed his tenant's capital for improving his own property—was it right that at the end of the term the tenant should lose the capital expended, if the improvements, however, efficiently done, did not add to the actual "letting

  381
  value" of the land? Or supposing the improvements were not efficiently done, was it right that the tenant should lose his whole outlay? Those remarks applied to the first class of improvements, for which the consent of the landlord was required. And that consent, to which any conditions might be attached, rendered the landlord a party to the transaction. But as to less durable improvements, when their Lordships considered all the different circumstances which might affect the letting value of a farm—competition among tenants, alterations in the neighbourhood, and various other things—they would see that it would be extremely difficult to say whether this or that particular improvement had added so much to the "letting value." Suppose, again, the particular improvements sanctioned by the landlord proved to be injudicious, and did not improve the value of the land, was it just that the whole loss should be borne by the tenant and none by the landlord? It would be much fairer to assess compensation according to the outlay than according to the unexhausted addition to the letting value.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he could not share in the views expressed by his noble Friends as to the possible operation of the Bill. As to what had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Hampton), if he thought that the effect of this Bill would be to increase litigation, he should regret very much that he had any share in introducing it. But he could not think that that would be the effect of the Bill. The noble Earl who had last spoken (the Earl of Morley) thought the best way of dealing with this question would be by taking the outlay into consideration as the basis of compensation. But if compensation was to be assessed according to the outlay of the tenant, it would lead to an amount of litigation far in excess of what his noble Friend (Lord Hampton) anticipated. The noble Earl thought it would be very unfair that the tenant should not be recouped, if he did not execute the improvements in an efficient manner. But surely the tenant had no right to expect compensation unless the improvements were properly made. The first thing a landlord would have to do would be to see whether the improvements were real and efficient improvements, for, in fact, what the tenant had done
  382
  might be the reverse of an improvement. He must demur in the strongest way to the assumption of the noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) that there was no other source from which the Government could derive the definition of "letting value" than the Irish Land Act. It would not require a great amount of ingenuity to discover those terms without going over the water to get them. He was never enamoured of the Irish Land Act, and certainly would never have gone to that Act as the groundwork of this Bill. Nor would he wish to lead the country to think that what was good for Ireland was good for England. But if such improvements were effected as would make the farm better, what surer proof of that could there be than that the farm should command a higher price in the market? and what was that but adding to its letting value?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought there was great force in the objection to the words "letting value," which he believed would introduce an element of difficulty into the question: nor did he see why their Lordships should object to borrow words from the Irish Land Act. It should be remembered that in many cases the compensation to be received would be a very small sum; and that being so he could not conceive a more difficult task to impose on the arbitrator than to call upon him to say whether the improvement had added to the "letting value."
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, if £100 had been laid out by a tenant—say, on bones—leaving two years of unexhausted improvement for which the landlord ought to pay, the tenant would find a difficulty in proving that the land would let for more rent in consequence of what he had done. Land was let for long periods, and might not let for more on account of improvements which would die out in two or three years.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid the logical consequence of this argument was that a farm in bad order would let for as much as a farm in good order.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDdid not believe that the principle of letting value was really applicable here.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that when they spoke of benefit resulting to the land from "unexhausted improvements" they could mean nothing but that the letting value of the land was there by

  383
  increased. In other words, if a farm was in an exhausted condition, the rent would be less; if it were in an improved condition, the rent would be more.
  Amendment agreed to, on the understanding that it should be printed in the Bill, with a view to further consideration at the next stage.
  Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
  Clause 5 (Tenant's title to compensation).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that as the clause stood, the assertion of tenant-right was too broad and without sufficient limitation. On the last occasion when the Bill was under consideration the Government agreed to introduce the words "subject to the provisions of this Act;" but he thought these words did not sufficiently point out the limitations. In order that the public might see at once not only the equity of the claim for compensation, but also the equity of the general limitations, he would move the omission of Clause 5, in order to insert the following:—
  "Where a tenant, except in pursuance of an agreement for valuable consideration, executes on his holding an improvement adding to the letting value thereof, he shall be entitled to obtain, on the determination of the tenancy, compensation in respect of the improvement."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORpointed out that subsequent clauses in the Bill provided all the limitations desired by the noble Duke.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause 6 (Description and three Classes of Improvements).
  On the Motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the words "or of works for supply of water for agricultural or domestic purposes" were inserted.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY (for the Duke of WESTMINSTER)moved to insert in the First Class ("Eradication of Fences.")
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he did not think this was a case for compensation, especially as the tenant would have the old fences.
  LORD HENNIKERthought the Amendment unnecessary, agreeing with his noble Friend at the Table, for he was constantly asked by his tenants to allow them to take down fences; they were only too ready to do so for the
  384
  benefit it gave them, and the difficulty was rather to prevent their taking down fences which were necessary for the proper drainage of the farm. It would be extremely inconvenient, too, to have the putting up of new fences, and the eradication of fences in the same class of improvements.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEdid not at all agree that the old fences would sufficiently compensate the farmer.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that what suited one part of the country would be unsuitable to another. In Devonshire the fences were wide banks, which could not be removed without considerable cost, and the work would be a permanent improvement.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDcould not assent to the proposal of his noble Friend.
  After a few words from Earl GRANVILLE,
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, one of the chief merits of this Bill was that, without the consent of the remainderman being asked or required, it allowed, it might be, a limited owner to exercise the powers which it gave and thereby to create a charge upon the inheritance. He had frequently maintained that that was a right principle. He believed this was the first time that that step—a very large step—was taken. But in giving to limited owners the power to consent to these improvements, and thereby to make a charge on the inheritance, it ought to be made very clear that the matters in respect of which limited owners were to give their consent were beyond dispute substantial improvements: and he doubted whether the "eradication of fences" could in general be classed among such improvements.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  LORD HENNIKERmoved, in Third Class, to leave out from ("Consumption ") to end of clause, and insert—
  "1. Consumption on the farm by cattle, sheep, or pigs, of cake.
  "2. Consumption on the farm of purchased corn or other feeding stuff not the product of the farm or district."
  The noble Lord said, his object was to put cake and other feeding stuffs in an entirely different category. Cake was of undoubted manurial value, but corn

  385
  was not so. Linseed cake and corn, for instance, cost nearly the same price per ton; but linseed cake, and other kinds of cake, too, was of seven times greater manurial value than corn. Again, corn was a good thing for producing meat, and the farmer was amply repaid, by the sale of his fat stock, for the use of it, in most cases. It was of great importance that corn used should not be the product of the farm or neighbourhood, so that there should be no opening for fraud. Some foreign corn might be of manurial value, but corn grown on a farm, except beans, was practically of little, if of any value in that respect. This ought to be distinctly laid down in the clause.
  After short discussion,
  On Question, resolved in the negative.
  Amendment made, by omitting the word "corn" from the articles of consumption not produced on the holding.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
  Clause 15 (Amount of landlord's compensation) struck out.
  Clause 16 (Notice of intended claim).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDmoved the insertion of words enabling a landlord to give a counter notice to his tenant of his intention to claim compensation. This would only be necessary in ease the tenant gave notice of a claim. Where no such notice was given, the landlord would have his remedy in the usual way through the Courts of Law.
  Moved, at end of clause, insert as new paragraphs—
  "Where a tenant gives such a notice the landlord may, before the determination of the tenancy, or within fourteen days thereafter, give a counter-notice in writing to the tenant of his intention to make a claim for compensation under this Act.
  "Every such notice and counter-notice shall state, as far as reasonably may be, the particulars of the intended claim."—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  Amendment agreed to; Words added.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that no consideration had as yet been given to a numerous class—namely, mortgagees, who, having lent money on the security of holdings, might be damaged by the arrangements which the Bill facilitated. He wished to know if the
  386
  charge on the holding allowed by the Bill would be a first charge, or whether it would rank after charges already existing?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Earl's sympathy with mortgagees was thrown away. They would not be in the slightest degree injured.
  Clauses 17 to 33, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  New clauses inserted after Clause 33.
  Clause A. (Power for landlord to obtain charge for tenant in certain cases.)
  Clause B. (Duration of charge.)
  Clause C. (Application of Act to Crown Lands.)
  Clause D. (Application of Act to land of Duchy of Cornwall.)
  Clause E. (Application of Act to land of Duchy of Lancaster.)
  Clause F. (Provision where landlord incumbent of benefice.)
  Clauses 34, 35, and 36 agreed to.
  Clause 37 (No restriction on contract).
  Clause 38 (Application of Act as regards general tenancies).
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYmoved to leave out the clauses, and insert the following:—
  "Nothing in this Act shall prevent a landlord and tenant, or intending landlord and tenant, from entering into and carrying into effect by any contract in writing any such agreement as they think fit, nor interfere with the operation of any such contract.
  "This Act in the case of all contracts of tenancy taking effect after the commencement of this Act shall have full operation in respect of all matters for which this Act makes provision, except such of the same matters as shall by a contract in writing between a landlord and tenant or intending landlord and tenant be specifically excepted from its operation.
  "A contract of tenancy from year to year current at the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be a contract of tenancy within the meaning of this section, but only from and after the end of the first year of tenancy begun and completed after the commencement of this Act.
  "Except as in this section mentioned this Act shall not apply to any contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act."
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the Amendment was unnecessary; Clause 37 simply said that the landlord and tenant might enter into an agreement, and Clause 38 said how they might do it.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it appeared to him that, as the Bill was drawn, a tenant would be precluded from

  387
  offering compensation unless he conformed in all respects to the provisions of the Bill, and if an owner made an agreement with a tenant involving slight differences, such departure from the provisions of the Bill would involve the forfeiture of all claims under it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there was nothing in the Bill which laid down a cut and dry agreement which a limited owner might make with a tenant; but it gave certain limits within which he might make any agreement he pleased with his tenants.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 98.)

  PARLIAMENT OF CANADA BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to remove certain doubts with respect to the powers of the Parliament of Canada under section eighteen of the British North America Act, 1867—Was presented by The Earl of CARNARVON; read 1a. (No. 96.)

  LANDED ESTATES ACT (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Act of the twenty-first and twenty-second years of Her present Majesty, chapter seventy-two, intituled, "An Act to facilitate the Sale and Transfer of Land in Ireland," and also "The Record of Title Act (Ireland), 1865,"—"Was presented by The Lord O'HAGAN; read 1a. (No. 97.)
  House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.