Sitting of 12 April 1878

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Lord George Hamilton, for Middlesex.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [April 11] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Public Works Loans [138]; Highways [95]; Statute Law Revision (Ireland) [122], debate adjourned.
Considered as amended—Bills of Sale [129].
The House met at Two of the clock.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.

    REPORT.
    Special Report [11th April], from the Select Committee on Public Petitions read.
    SIR CHARLES FORSTERsaid, he had now to move, in conformity with the Report of the Public Petitions Committee, that the Order made on the 21st of January last, that a Petition purporting to be presented from working men and other inhabitants of Dublin—
    "Against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill, and containing the names of John Macgusty and W. A. Exham, do lie upon the Table,"
    be read and discharged. The House would remember that when this Petition was remitted to the Committee on Public Petitions for further inquiry, he (Sir Charles Forster) stated that, although the Committee were perfectly ready to conform with the general opinion of the House, and to undertake any duty which might be imposed upon them, yet he believed it would turn out that the matter was a very small one. That view had been fully justified by the result. The Committee made a minute and careful examination of the signatures, and the result of their inquiry was, although they had certainly to report—
    "Several cases of addresses, which either do not exist, or at which the persons professing to sign do not reside,"
    they were of opinion that there was no sufficient ground to call upon the House for any ulterior action, with the excep

    1221
    tion of discharging the Order for the reception of this particular Petition. There was one circumstance which had unfavourably impressed the House and the Committee, and that was the discrepancy between the alleged number of signatures and the Census Returns for Dublin. The Petition purported to be signed by upwards of 92,000 male adults, whereas the last Census Returns for Dublin did not contain a register of more than 79,000 male adults. It was only fair he should state that it was shown to the Committee that Dublin was a place of frequent resort for business and pleasure; and it was suggested that the signatures were obtained from persons frequenting the fairs and markets of Dublin, and by persons who happened to be passing through the city, but who could not be said to be inhabitants of Dublin. He had said that the Committee did not recommend that any ulterior action should be taken, except in regard to the Petition which was referred to in his Motion. In respect to that Petition, the Committee resolved unanimously that there had been a deliberate attempt to mislead the House as to the signatures of W. A. Exham and John Macgusty. The Committee were also of opinion that, as it was manifest the Petition had been tampered with, it was their duty to report the facts as they found them to the House; and they further instructed him to move that the Order that this Petition do lie upon the Table be discharged. He trusted that that Motion would be adopted, and that the House would then be of opinion that sufficient had been done to vindicate the right of petitioning. He had only now to express his own opinion, and he hoped the House would agree with him, that a matter of that kind was better fought out on the floor of the House than in the Committee of Public Petitions. He begged to move that the Order be discharged.
    Moved, "That the said Order be discharged."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. MELDONthought the Report of the Committee on Public Petitions fully vindicated the course he (Mr. Meldon) took in moving that the former Report of the Committee should be sent back to them. It had been suggested that the better course would have been to move
    1222
    for a Select Committee to investigate the charges which had been brought against all the Petitions. But he did not think that that was at all necessary. Having regard to the facts of the case, and seeing that the Report before the House distinctly alleged forgery, it would not have been consistent with his duty as a Member of the House, having a knowledge of the facts, to allow the Report of the Committee to remain on the Table of the House without further investigation. There were several names appended to the Petition without addresses; but there was no power to send for persons, papers, and records, and the Committee could not fully follow up the inquiry with respect to the allegations of forgery. There were forgeries that were distinctly proved to be forgeries, and he did not think the House would have been justified in allowing a Report of that nature to pass unchallenged. It turned out, on further investigation, that, although these signatures were attached with the intention of misleading the House, yet that it was not a case of forgery clearly and distinctly proved. If it had been, he should have considered it his duty to submit a Motion for other action on the part of the House besides the rejection of the Petition. There was one part of the Report of the Committee to which he desired to call attention. The Committee recommended that, in future, the addresses, as well as the names of the persons signing Petitions, should be set forth. There was no Member of the House who would not be of opinion that, if a Petition was to have any value whatever, there should be some means of tracing the authenticity of it. When no address was given hon. Members had no means of ascertaining whether the signatures were genuine or not. He thought the House was deeply indebted to the Public Petitions Committee for their valuable Report; and he hoped that, at an early day, it would be carried into execution, and the recommendations of the Committee adopted by the House. So far as ho was personally concerned, having moved that the first Report should be referred back to the Public Petitions Committee, he thought the Resolution now moved should be accepted by the House.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONpresumed that the Report would be adopted by the

    1223
    House, and he hoped that the retaliatory measures with which the supporters of the Sunday Closing Bill had been threatened would be taken; and he was quite sure that the Petitions on the other side would receive the same attention at the hands of the Committee as the Petitions against the Bill had received. He would only say, in addition, that he quite agreed with what the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had said in regard to the addresses being in future added to the names of persons signing Petitions. It would be a very valuable addition, and he ventured to hope that his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee would take an early opportunity of bringing some Resolution to that effect before the House.
    MR. DILLWYNunderstood the Chairman of the Public Petitions Committee to say that the Petition to which the Report referred was signed by 92,000 male adults; whereas there were only 79,000 registered male inhabitants in Dublin, and that the difference was made up from incomers. If that statement were correct, it would appear that the whole male population of Dublin signed the Petition, without any dissentient; and that, in addition, 20,000 more, who happened to be passing through the city, also signed it. All he could say was, that if that was an accurate statement, when his Irish friends did agree their unanimity was wonderful.
    SIR CHARLES FORSTERwished to explain. He had only repeated what had been stated to the Committee, and the House must take the statement for what it was worth. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), he (Sir Charles Forster) might say that the recommendations of the Committee could only be considered upon Notice; but, of course, it would be brought under consideration at the proper time.
    MR. M. BROOKSsaid, that he was the Member who had presented the Petition; and, having examined it since, he was of opinion that the signatures referred to in the Report of the Committee were undoubtedly fictitious. It was not pretended, however, that these names were appended to the Petition with the intention of deceiving the House or anybody else. His own opinion,
    1224
    and he was bound to declare it, was that these signatures were appended by the promoters of the Bill, and that they were, in fact, a weak invention of the enemy.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, that was a fine defence on the part of an hon. Member detected in the act of presenting to the House a Petition which the House was obliged to spurn.
    MR. M. BROOKS MR. M. BROOKS rose to Order. The words "detected in the act" would imply that he had done some act that was censurable. He submitted that he had not done anything of the kind.
    MR. SULLIVAN: Of course not; what he meant was that the House had discovered—he would not say detected—that the Petition which the hon. Gentleman had presented was one that was unworthy of its acceptance, and the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks), when the forged signatures were called attention to by the Committee, undertook, with the fertility of imagination he now displayed in defending a weak cause, to suggest to the Committee that Mr. Exham, whose name had been forged, had a son who might have signed it. [Mr. M. BROOKS: Hear, hear!] Exactly so; and Mr. Exham, a highly respectable citizen of Dublin, was put to the pain and trouble of coming here to prove that not only did he not sign, but that the suggestion that the signature was his son's was entirely baseless and without foundation. He would suggest to his hon. Friend that when he had so bad a case to defend, he should not give quite so much scope to his imagination, or strain it to such an excess. He had been let down very easily on this occasion. Nothing had been said about Brian Boru, W. Smith O'Brien, Aurora Floyd, and others who never existed, or who had been dead and gone for years.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought the speech which the House had just listened to from the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), savoured of that species of intimidation which was continually practised in this agitation for closing public-houses on Sunday. The hon. Member for the chief city of Ireland presented a Petition very numerously signed, and it turned out that a few of the signatures to that Petition had been appended, either as intentional forgeries, or humourously, or with a design to discredit the Petition.

    1225
    If the object was to discredit the Petition, the fact of the signatures not being genuine would naturally be made known to those who had called their attention to it. And yet the hon. Member for Dublin was accused of being detected in the act of presenting a Petition which the House was obliged to spurn. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had no wish, nor did he like, to use parallel phraseology; but he would use the hon. and learned Member's own phraseology, and would say that this was a sample of that fertility of imagination which was exemplified from time to time by the hon. and learned Member on many other subjects as well as that with which the House was now concerned.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was one of those who were most anxious jealously to guard the right of petitioning in every possible way; but, in this case, it appeared that every hon. Member of the House was entirely agreed that the action suggested by the Chairman of the Public Petitions Committee was the proper one to take. He would, therefore, suggest that, as the matter had been fully discussed, and as there was no dispute upon it, not to waste any further time, but to proceed at once to other and more important Business.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the Government appeared to be very anxious not to waste time, but they forgot that they had deliberately lent themselves to a Party who wasted a considerable amount of time the other night, when the Sunday Closing Bill was last discussed. He asked the Government how long these scenes were to go on; and, whether on every occasion when a Petition was presented to the House, they were to get up an amateur debate in this impromptu fashion? He greatly regretted to have witnessed the scenes which had occurred among the Irish Members on the question of Sunday closing. Although he was not in favour of the Bill, he wished the Government would take steps to settle the question one way or the other. If not, they would run the risk of having these Petitions brought up from time to time at those Morning Sittings, when they desired to proceed with other Business, and of having their time wasted or used, whichever they chose to call it. He thought the Irish Members attached too much importance to these Petitions. Petitions were sent in with the utmost
    1226
    confidence that the House would weigh carefully every signature attached to every Petition, and, indeed, everything connected with the Petition; whereas, in point of fact, the House had no cognizance of any Petition whatever, except when it was discovered that someone had forged somebody else's name. A great deal of prominence had been given to this particular Petition; but, as to the practical value of the presentation of any Petition, he contended that it possessed none, and the people of Ireland who signed these Petitions might spare themselves the trouble of signing, and refuse to send in any more Petitions at all. It was very easy to get up Petitions, especially in Ireland, no matter what the subject was. Any Association, with sufficient means at its command, could get up an unlimited number of Petitions. The Irish were a good-natured and willing people, and they did not like to say "No" to anything. The consequence was, that when the agent of any society went round and asked any man or woman to sign a Petition, in nine cases out of 10, the person asked complied. The temptation to discredit a Petition was too obvious, and too open and unguarded, and the result was that persons appended such signatures as Brian Born, Smith O'Brien, and Aurora Floyd. He was afraid that they would have the time of the House wasted over and over again on these Petitions, unless the Government made up their minds to deal with the question of Sunday closing in one way or another.
    Motion agreed to.
    Order discharged.

QUESTIONS.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)— SUBURBAN INTERMENTS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BENETT-STANFORDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, seeing that several burials have lately taken place in the churchyard of Holy Trinity, Brompton, which is surrounded by a dense population in every direction and is within a mile of Hyde Park Corner,

    1227
    he will give orders to close the said burial-ground for all further interments?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that under an order of one of his Predecessors, this churchyard was closed in 1859, the only exception being made in cases of certain graves of a peculiar character. He was told that not many interments had recently taken place there; but he had directed a special report on the subject to be made to him, so that he might have all the material facts before him with the view to consider the question. When this report was received, he would be happy to communicate it to the hon. Gentleman.

    EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875—MINING CARTRIDGES.—QUESTIONS.
    MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the frequent prosecutions of miners for manufacturing cartridges in their own homes; and whether, as they have no place to make such unless it be provided by their employers, he will bring in a Bill to make it compulsory on all employers of workmen who use explosives to build places to make cartridges in, in compliance with the terms of the Explosives Act?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that he had ascertained from the Inspector that, contrary to law, miners were in the habit of making their own cartridges in their own homes, but that prosecutions for the offence were not frequent. He was told, also, that the supply of these cartridges was very great, and that there was not the slightest reason why miners should make them themselves; because they could purchase cartridges for very little more than the actual cost of the gunpowder of which they were made. It was quite competent, under the Act, for any miner to get a store licence for himself on payment of, he believed, 1s. He should not like to bring in a Bill of the nature indicated by the hon. Member's Question, for this reason—that it would be perpetuating a practice about which people were becoming very doubtful—namely, the use of gunpowder in mines. He thought it was very doubtful if any actual security would exist in mining operations un
    1228
    til the men made up their minds to give up the use of gunpowder altogether.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, he heartily concurred in the last observation of the right hon. Gentleman, and hoped the time would soon come when it would be put into force; but he should like to know, Whether the right hon. Gentleman was willing that licences should be issued permitting the miners to make cartridges in their own homes?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSreplied in the negative; but they might have a licence for a store separate from their homes, in which they might make what was required for their own use, but not for the use of others.

    THE MOAR SUCCESSION.—QUESTION.
    MR. ERNEST NOELasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any decision has been come to on the subject of the Moar succession; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to maintain unbroken the Treaty of the 10th of March, 1855?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, it has been decided not to interfere with the selection of a successor to the late Sultan which was made by the chiefs of Moar. The Treaty of 1855, though made with the cognizance of Her Majesty's Government, was made between two Native Princes, and it does not appear to be in any way incumbent on us to maintain or enforce it.

  ARMY—SUPPLY OF MEDICAL OFFI CERS—REPORT OF COMMITTEE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MELDONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has yet received the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the dearth of Medical Officers for the Army, and the causes which prevent the service being attractive to the Profession; and, if he will state the names of the Members of the Committee?
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, the Committee in question is appointed to make an exhaustive inquiry. They are collecting evidence from the various medical schools and other sources, and they can scarcely report for some weeks. The Members are—Mr. Thompson, As

    1229
    sistant Under Secretary of State; Sir William Muir, Director General Army Medical Department; and Mr. Robinson, the Actuary of the Department.

    SOUTH AFRICA—OUTBREAK OF THE NATIVE TRIBES—MILITARY OPERATIONS. —QUESTIONS.
    COLONEL MUREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will give the House any information regarding the operations of Her Majesty's Troops and the Colonial Forces at the Cape of Good Hope; and, whether there is any truth in reports which have of late been current that news of a very serious character has reached this Country?
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, I do not think there is any information which I can give beyond that which has already been before Members of the House from other sources. All the official despatches lately received have been satisfactory regarding the military operations at the Cape; and, although I, in common with other Members, have heard a report of a serious disaster, up to the present time we have received no news of it at the War Office, and I hear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies has not received any information either. The latest despatches received from the Colony are nearly ready, and will be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Who is now paying for the military operations at the Cape?
    COLONEL STANLEY: The hon. Baronet will be good enough to give Notice of his Question.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I will repeat the Question on Monday.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC RUSINESS— MORNING; SITTINGS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. RYLANDS: Sir, I rise to make a complaint against the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the conduct of Public Business; and, though I always feel that the concluding with a Motion for Adjournment is a course attended with great inconvenience, yet it is a course which a private Member is driven to in his own defence. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), at the desire of many hon. Members on
    1230
    this side, and with a view to promote the convenience of the House, put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the course of Business. The right hon. Gentleman stated fairly enough the desire of the Government to get through their financial measures, and intimated that if the Government were successful in getting through Committee of Ways and Means, and in getting the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill read a second time, then they would take the further stages of those measures on Monday; but he made no allusion whatever to a Morning Sitting to-day. I am quite aware that he did allude to the desire to pass the Public Works Loans Bill; but clearly there was no understanding that the measure was of a nature that it must be finished before the Holidays, or that it occupied the important position given to the other financial measures. But what I complain of, and what others have a right to complain of, is, that due consideration is not given to private Members. I am sure that hon. Members on either side of the House would never wish to see Parliament a mere machine, the wires being pulled by the Administration. I am glad to see the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) in his place; and I recollect an occasion— under a Whig Government—when he complained in strong terms of the Government taking Morning Sittings without due Notice. Of course, private Members are entirely thrown out of their arrangements when, at a late hour the previous night, or perhaps the same morning, the Sitting is appointed for 2 o'clock. I do not wish to insinuate that there was any intention to suppress information; but there is no doubt that the statement made was of a most limited kind. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told us that, in the event of not getting through the whole of the Business contemplated last night, he should then ask for a Morning Sitting, we would have been prepared for it. I say that the suppression of that statement entitles me to declare that the House has not been properly treated by the Government; and I say that, personally, I very much complain of the course which the Government have taken in this matter. Why are we, as private Members, to be invited here at Morning Sittings, in order that we may pass these

    1231
    measures of the Government? The Government have had sufficient time for these measures. They call us here three weeks before the ordinary period, and these three weeks, so far as the Business of the Session is concerned, have been practically thrown away. The Government Business seems as much behind just now as ever it is. I know what Members of the front bench will say—they will make use of the old excuse—obstruction; but I say it is under cover of the cry of obstruction, that the rights and privileges of private Members will be violated. I charge the Government with being responsible, to a very large extent, for the present state of Public Business; at all events, we are entitled to say that the Government, if they wish to get through their measures well and quickly, should not try to take away the privileges of private Members. Take the case of last night. I can answer for it, that there was a desire to facilitate the proceedings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So far as I myself was concerned, I felt a deep interest in the question which was before the House, and in the circumstances under which additional taxation was to be imposed on the people. I was strongly opposed to the proposals of the Government, and yet I avoided taking any part in the proceedings last night with the view not to interfere with the progress of Public Business, and other hon. Gentlemen took the same course. Not only last night, but on many previous occasions, there has been a continual desire on the part of independent Members, and on the part of Her Majesty's Opposition, to facilitate the progress of Public Business. Mention of the Opposition reminds me that we have practically no fighting Opposition. The Government have a large majority, and they press down to the level of uniformity all the hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. Now, we are called upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under peculiar circumstances, to hurry through these financial measures. I object to the course the Government have taken in driving us into this corner, and saying— "You must pass our measures without discussion, or we will take away your Holiday." Yet it is the fact—the Chancellor of the Exchequer will correct me if I am wrong; but I presume I am right—that if we get no further than
    1232
    the Report of the Committee of Ways and Means—if we are not able to pass the Bill before Easter—it would not prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer receiving the additional tax he is imposing on incomes. It is quite clear that the effect of this hurry will be that one of the most objectionable Budgets that has ever been laid upon the Table of the House will be got through the House without due consideration. We have heard the strongest possible objections urged to the financial proposals of the Government. We have even heard these objections from the benches opposite. That is an extraordinary circumstance, and one that ought to have great weight. I think I may say that there is an almost unanimous objection to the proposals of the Government; and I believe it is only necessary for the country to realize what the Government are proposing, to enlist strong expressions of opinion from the constituencies.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is out of Order in entering upon a discussion of the Budget.
    MR. RYLANDS: Sir, I am afraid I have been very much out of Order. I was merely trying to show the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I have a strong feeling on the subject, but that I have been anxious not to interfere unduly with the Progress of the Business of the Government. If they expect private Members to facilitate the proceedings of the Government, they ought themselves to respect the rights and privileges of private Members. I have a Motion down on going into Committee of Supply. I believe it to be a matter of great importance, and that the present moment is not an inopportune one for its discussion. Through the action of the Government, the advantage I have obtained through the ballot is taken from me. During this Session, the Government have, in a most unprecedented manner, taken from private Members the opportunity of discussing public questions. If it could be reckoned up, it would be found that the amount of time the Government had obtained from private Members was wholly unexampled. I beg to move the Adjournment of the House.
    MR. MELDON, in seconding the Motion, said, he should like to call attention to the way in which the Morning Sitting had been taken to-day. He was

    1233
    not one who desired to deprive the Government of the assistance or attendance of Members of the House whenever it was required. He thought the Government ought to treat private Members fairly, and that the trick which was perpetrated last night ought not to be repeated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be under the impression that he had said last night that a Morning Sitting would be taken to-day. Looking at the report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in The Times, it appeared that he distinctly intimated to the House that the further stages of these Bills would be taken on Monday next. The usual mode was to put down a Notice of Motion that the House would have a Morning Sitting, or if that was not done, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Leader of the Government bench for the time being, stated that it was the intention of the Government to move to meet at 2 o'clock. Every Member of the House was under the impression that there was to be no Morning Sitting; but, when it was asked when the Report would be taken, the answer was—"This day at 2 o'clock." He found there was a great feeling of indignation in the House at the idea that there was to be a Morning Sitting, when they discovered the thing had been done in the way he described. Undoubtedly, this Session, the Government had taxed the patience of private Members to a very great extent. It was only reasonable that the Government should act with some kind of fairness to private Members, which he did not think they did. On Tuesday night last, the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had a most important Bill for second reading, which was reached a few minutes after 12 o'clock. Still, one of the Government Whips and an assistant Whip went deliberately round the Government benches, and removed every Member from that side of the House; and while this extraordinary proceeding was going on, they could see one of the Government Whips laughing at them. He did not wish to detain the House, or he could go through a whole series of cases wherein the Government had not dealt fairly with private Members; and they therefore asked that the Government should treat them with some kind of fairness, which the majority of the Members of the House were only too
    1234
    anxious to show to the Government. They could not too strenuously resist the taking of important steps in the House without due Notice being given. When he entered Parliament, in 1874, he found there was a system of putting most important Questions without Notice from the Chair, and at the end of the Sitting it was the habit to hand up Notices of Motion to the Speaker, and they were put from the Chair as a matter of course, because they came from the Government. They were successful in resisting that system; but now the thin end of the wedge was sought to be driven in again.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Rylands.)
    SIR ANDREW LUSKrecommended those hon. Members who were always complaining of private grievances to remember that they might make other hon. Members, who had grievances also, but said nothing, turn round upon them. He hoped that the House would be allowed to proceed with the Business it had in hand.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURhoped hon. Members would try to meet the convenience of each other. If there was to be obstruction, it should be in the proper way, and this was not the proper way.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was exceedingly sorry that there should be, or should appear to be, any ground for the complaint made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon). He was very anxious at all times to conduct the Business of the House as fairly as he could. He was especially anxious that there should be nothing of the nature of an underhand proceeding, or savouring of what the hon. and learned Member for Kildare had described as a trick. There was nothing of the kind intended last night, and he was exceedingly sorry if, from any want of clearness on his part, he had led hon. Members to misunderstand the course which the Government proposed to adopt. He thought he had made it clear that the Government were anxious to get on with the Public Loans Bill, because, although it was not part of the Budget of the year, it was part of the arrange

    1235
    ments. The Government ought to have the means of raising money under the Act which had been already passed, and they would not be in a position to raise the money unless this Bill were passed before the Easter Holidays. He thought he had also made it clear that the other two Budget Bills should be got through, in order that the House might be able to rise on Tuesday; and he intimated that if they were not able to do so it might be necessary to have a Morning Sitting to-day. When they had taken the Committee on Ways and Means, the evening was consumed in the discussion of some portions of the Budget only, and an appeal was made to him by some Friends who were anxious to discuss some portions of the Budget for an opportunity of discussing those questions, especially the Income Tax. He thought at once that if that was to be done on Monday, that would be taking up the greater part of the evening; and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to get through the financial Business. He, therefore, thought he was entirely justified, in accordance with what he had said in an early part of the evening, in proposing that there should be a Morning Sitting to-day. He could only say, that in conducting the whole Business of the Session, it had been the earnest desire of the Government to make provision for the demand of Members not connected with the Government for the discussion of the subjects which they wished to bring before the House. The Government had been peculiarly circumstanced by the debates which had arisen on foreign policy, which had thrown out some of their calculations. Arrangements had been also made for promoting, from the time of the Government, a discussion on the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. He was quite aware he had had to ask for more Morning Sittings than were usual at this period of the Session, but he thought hon. Members would see that the object of the Government had been the general convenience of the House and the progress of Public Business. On the other hand, something more was wanted than mere abstinence from willful obstruction—there ought to be an endeavour on both sides to act together in a conciliatory and friendly spirit, in order that all Business might be advanced as satis
    1236
    factorily as possible. He trusted the hon. Member for Burnley would not press the question of Adjournment, but that both sides would try to make the best of a bad job.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was entirely mistaken if he supposed that he had yesterday made any reference to a Morning Sitting to-day. He had certainly made reference to a Morning Sitting on Tuesday. He (Mr. Parnell) had been listening very attentively to the right hon. Gentleman, and could say that no such allusion to a Morning Sitting to-day had been made, nor was it reported in any of the morning papers. He understood the right hon. Gentleman only to refer to Tuesday next. He himself had no objection to Morning Sittings, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really hit the nail on the head, and had indicated that he was coming to appreciate the true position of the Government Business. The right hon. Gentleman said it required something more than the absence of a mere desire to obstruct, and that it required from individual Members a desire to facilitate Government Business. If the right hon. Gentleman could impart that desire to certain Members, whom he would not indicate at present, he would get on much better than he did at present. He did not say that the right hon. Gentleman would ever succeed in getting through all the Government Business. There would, however, be much less complaint on the part of many hon. Members with regard to the Government conduct of Business; but as long as the Chancellor of the Exchequer persisted in adopting the course which the Government had adopted towards his country, it was perfectly impossible for him to feel that interest in forwarding Government Business. It was more than could be expected from human nature, that an Irish Member, who had strong opinions in regard to Irish affairs, should take that interest in the bad and imperfect measures of the Government which the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired him to take. The only way to give him (Mr. Parnell) an interest in Government Business, would be to forward one or two good measures for Ireland at the beginning of every Session. It was true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present

    1237
    when the count-out that had been spoken of took place, and he could not therefore be supposed to be particeps criminis; but the conduct of one of the Junior Lords of the Treasury, to whose Office a salary was attached, was exceedingly curious on that occasion. He went deliberately round to the Members on the Conservative side of the House at a quarter-past 12, and induced them to leave whilst the Attorney General for Ireland was replying to his Motion to have the Irish Church Act Amendment Bill read a second time. That was Bill for which he had been waiting for many nights. When he saw the hon. Member going round the benches, he knew it was a sign of a count, and he at once sat down, so that he had not an opportunity of stating his views with regard to his own Bill, which was of pressing importance, and which had been miserably obstructed. As long as these things were done, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not expect Irish Members to take an interest in Government Business. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the old maxim, "that one man could bring a horse to the water, but 40 could not make him drink."
    SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSONdesired to state his impression of what had taken place. On the previous day he had spoken to his right hon. Friend before coming down to the House about the course of Business, and had suggested that it would be necessary to have a Morning Sitting on Friday, if certain Bills did not get through their stages last night. He had distinctly heard his right hon. Friend last night state to the House that, supposing those Bills were not then carried through their stages, it would be requisite to have a Morning Sitting on Friday, and that they would have to take further stages of those Bills on Monday and Tuesday, on the latter of which days they might, perhaps, require to have a Morning Sitting.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had listened very attentively yesterday to the right hon. Gentleman, and certainly had not heard any allusion to a Morning Sitting to-day. But they had now the positive evidence of the hon. Baronet that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of it. Perhaps he had done so in an undertone. He acknowledged the fair manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    1238
    conducted the Business of the House; but it was important that, when the privileges of private Members were to be interfered with, there should be no room left for misunderstanding as to the arrangements which were come to. He suggested that the hon. Member for Burnley should withdraw his Motion.
    MR. NEWDEGATEregretted that that debate should have occupied so much time. A Select Committee on the Public Business of that House was now sitting, and he thought that the propriety of requiring Notice to be given of the intention to change the time of the meeting of the House ought to engage the attention of the Select Committee. There ought, in his opinion, always to be a formal written Notice of any such intention on the part of the Government. The Business of the House ought not to be conducted by compromise. Their time of meeting ought to be fixed, so as to prevent the majority of the House, who of necessity were generally absent, from being taken by surprise.
    MR. KNOWLEScorroborated the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman say that there would be a Morning Sitting, and he had himself afterwards mentioned the fact to another hon. Member.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, that not only he, but an hon. and gallant Member near him, had heard the intimation given, that a Morning Sitting would be necessary, if certain specified Bills were not got through their stages; and he was surprised that hon. Gentlemen should complain, because they must have heard several Orders of the Day fixed to come on at 2 o'clock that day.
    MAJOR NOLANobserved, that if hon. Members in his part of the House had been defective in the sense of hearing last night, they at least had the sense of seeing, and did not fail the other night, when the hon. Member for Meath was counted out, to perceive that the Government openly cleared the House. He hoped the Government would make some reparation to the hon. Member for Meath, by affording him another opportunity for the discussion of his Bill.
    MR. MACAETNEYsaid, the hon. Member for Burnley would have an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion at 9 o'clock, and if his Motion was not of sufficient interest to secure

    1239
    the presence of 40 Members, it could hardly be one worth introducing at all. ["Divide!"]
    MR. BENETT-STANFORDthought it was remarkable, that when his hon. Friend who had last spoken said a very few words much to the point, he was met with cries of "Divide!" from his own (the Ministerial) side of the House; whereas, when hon. Gentlemen opposite made long speeches, with little in them, they were listened to very patiently.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the hon. Member for Meath had adopted the suggestions which were made last year; but, notwithstanding, the opposition of the Government to his Bill had become more intense. Last year the Bill was met by objections, but this year it was met by the contrivance of a count. They had all observed how the leading Spokesmen on the Government side had kept away from the question of the count, which spoke highly for their prudence. Last night, official Members of the Government went about the House inquiring what hon. Members would bring Motions on. That inquisitiveness naturally suggested the idea that it was likely, if Friday night was really to be a private Members' night, the Government would have recourse to a Morning Sitting; but if very few private Members were to bring on Motions, the Government would be content with an ordinary Sitting.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Resolution [April 11] reported.
  "That on and after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight, in lieu of the Annual Duty of Five Shillings imposed by the Act of the thirtieth and thirty-first years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter five, there shall be granted and charged the Annual Duty of Seven Shillings and Sixpence for and in respect of every Dog of the age of Six Months or upwards, for which a Licence to keep the same shall be taken out under the said Act, such Licence terminating on the thirty-first day of December following the day on which it is granted."
  MR. GORSTdesired to make a few remarks upon the statements which were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to
  1240
  the amount required for the Public Service. The statements of the Government were usually accepted without much discussion; but he (Mr. Gorst) ventured to raise the question as to whether the right hon. Gentleman had stated the real wants of the Public Service? In the Budget which the right hon. Gentleman had to put before them, he really required for the payment of the National Debt £23,000,000, and for other charges connected with Debt and for ordinary Supply purposes £53,000,000, making a total amount which he was compelled to provide for the ordinary service of the year £76,000,000, and £76,000,000 only. Of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer put his requirement in the most plausible shape he could—it was his duty to make out as good a case as possible—but those people who had to pay the taxes were obliged to look into the demands of the right hon. Gentleman, and see whether he really did want the sum he said he required. Now, in addition to the £76,000,000, the right hon. Gentleman asked for two further sums. In the first place, he asked for £4,250,000 for extraordinary Expenditure. That was not on account of ordinary Expenditure, but for military and naval preparations, rendered necessary by the existing state of foreign affairs; and he (Mr. Gorst) wished to be distinctly understood as approving of it. Besides that extraordinary Expenditure, the country was asked for £5,000,000 for the purpose of extinguishing £5,000,000 of the permanent National Debt. The first question he wanted to ask was— "Were they obliged to supply that money at all? Was it necessary?" They were liable to the national creditors, and must provide the interest of the National Debt; they must provide for their Supply Services and Army and Navy Expenditure; but they were under no obligation, except to themselves, for the extinction of that portion of the National Debt. He did not suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say there was any kind of obligation thrown on the country to provide the money, or that the credit of the country would be at all affected, if they were to abstain from providing that sum of £5,000,000 for the extinction of the National Debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to put on new taxes

  1241
  to the extent of £3,750,000, and to borrow the sum of £2,000,000; he proposed to raise by taxation £83,250,000, and to borrow £2,000,000. The sum of money, therefore, by which the Debt would really be reduced in the coming year was£3,000,000, and not£5,000,000. By the proposed addition to the Income Tax £3,000,000 would be realized. Was it worth while, he asked, to lay on the Income Tax the sum of 2d. in the pound, not for the purpose of spending it on the wants of the country, but for the purpose of applying it to the extinction of the National Debt. That was a question which ought to be considered by that House. It was quite clear it was not necessary to pay that sum. It might, or might not, be desirable; but it was a matter within the choice of the nation. If the money were not paid, the country at the end of the financial year would be just in as good credit as now—no additional taxes would be imposed on the taxpayer, and they would simply have suspended the operation of the reduction of the National Debt. He had the honour to be a Member of that House when the Terminable Annuities Scheme was founded, and he had also the honour of being a Member of that House when the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed the plan of the New Sinking Fund; and his recollection was, that when the Terminable Annuities scheme was introduced, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, and the noble Lord who was now at the head of the Government (Lord Beacons-field), recommended it to the House, on the express ground that, if on any occasion there was any national emergency, its operation could be easily suspended. What were the arguments in favour of raising this sum of £3,000,000 by taxation? He was afraid the only argument was the extreme easiness with which it was done. The payment of the National Debt was clearly a payment that pressed upon all the payers of taxes in the country. The extinction of the Debt, therefore, would benefit every taxpayer. Was it fair to accomplish that object by burdening one and a very small class of the community? That was an argument as to fairness, and it was an argument to which no answer had been given. Another argument had been urged against the addition to the Income Tax by the hon. Member for
  1242
  Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), who said that this proposal was in direct opposition to the pledges with which Her Majesty's Government came into Office in 1874. They knew that people when out of Office were apt to make pledges which they could not carry out in Office. Both sides of the House did that, and, as long as the present system of Government in the country continued, they would always find that to be the case. But the real question that ought to be considered was not whether the proposition to increase the Income Tax by 2d. was fair, or whether it was in accordance with the pledges of the Government; but was it, on the whole, advantageous or disadvantageous to the country? Would the country, at the end of the financial year, be better off for the reduction of the National Debt by the sum of £3,000,000, providing that that sum was extracted from the pockets of the Income Tax payers for that purpose? He did not suppose that the country would be ruined in either case; but he failed to see the wisdom and economy of the course proposed. Although he admitted that they got an advantage by the reduction of the interest which the country had to pay; on the other hand, they got a great disadvantage, because the money was withdrawn from capital and investment, and, therefore, the capital for carrying on the industry of the country was by that amount reduced. Now that the smaller incomes were exempt, the tax did not take away money which would otherwise be spent, but money which would otherwise be invested. The question really was, whether, if the £3,000,000 was left in the hands of the people of the country, they would not be able to invest it in something more profitable than Consols, in which the Government would invest it? He confessed that he had not the slightest doubt as to what was the more economical course. In his opinion, to put 2d. on the Income Tax to raise £3,000,000 for the purpose of investing it in Consols, was really to diminish the wealth of the country.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDcould not say that the proposals of the Government met with his entire satisfaction, or that the expectations held forth as to improvements in fiscal legislation had yet been realized. In reference to the

  1243
  Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, which was carried yesterday, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would recollect that he was one of a deputation that a few weeks ago waited upon him to point out cases of hardship and grievance resulting from the House Duty. They asked, in the first place, that they should be charged for Queen's Taxes upon the rateable value, and not upon the gross—in other words, that they should be charged upon the net, and not the nominal rent. The next wish of the deputation was of a more simple character; it was that, in ex-empting offices from Inhabited House Duty, the distinction between trade and professions should be done away with. And, further, they pointed out other anomalies in the Inhabitable House Duty. The gravest of these anomalies was left unredressed by the present Bill. With regard to the Income Tax, everybody knew that it was temporarily originated in the Dark Ages of finance. It had been continued from year to year, although everybody knew its iniquities; and he seriously asked how Ministers of the Crown could go on year after year acknowledging the iniquities, and not taking measures to cure them? Within the last 12 months, a suit had been prosecuted by the Inland Revenue in the Court of Exchequer. It was the case of Knowles and Others v. Macadam. The parties were colliery owners, and, in making up their accounts, they made a reduction in their profits, in part compensation for the exhaustion of mineral—a practice justified by the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell), who conducted the case for the appellants with great ability. The hon. and learned Attorney General, on behalf of the Crown, argued that Knowles had no right to make such reduction; for he contended that, although the practice of allowing for depreciation was warranted by the rules of political economy, yet that the Income Tax, according to the law, disregarded any such rule, and permitted no such deduction. The decision of the Court was wholly in favour of the appellants, and established in the legitimacy of deductions for exhaustion, the principle already accepted in local taxation that rents and profits ought, previous to assessment, to be subjected to the abatement necessary for ensuring
  1244
  the continuance of the income assessed. The result of that case showed the want of revision in the matter of Imperial Taxation. The questions at issue should be put into the hands of the excellent officials of the two Departments—the Inland Revenue and Local Government Board—and they should prepare a measure which would satisfy the intelligence and the moral sense of the country. The Income Tax had been painted in very dark colours; but it was not an Ethiopian who could not change his skin—it was rather a chimney-sweeper, who had been distorted and soiled by the filthy and tortuous work to which he had been doomed; but who, if he were cleansed and straightened, would be found conspicuous for purity, symmetry, and strength. He committed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the responsibility of the necessary transformation—confident that, if it were undertaken with good will, the worst tax that they had would be converted into the very best.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKhoped the House would not listen to any proposal to change their policy in respect to the repayment of the National Debt. He trusted the Government would keep to their resolve to pay off some portion of the Debt every year, because it was certainly their duty to do something to reduce it. He was not going into the details of the Income Tax. They all knew what the Income Tax was. It was no use calling it infamous; all taxes were infamous, if you like, all taxes were bad. He considered the Chancellor of the Exchequer did wrong in putting 2d. on the Income Tax. Their Expenditure was increasing year by year from various causes, and it was the duty of the Finance Ministers to consider how and why this was so, and where their money was to come from. It was good statesmanship to get rid of the difficuty by throwing 2d. on the Income Tax. Some other scheme would have to be devised; for, in case of war, the Income Tax would be our sheet anchor. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to spend as little as possible, because no country could prosper if its indebtedness was constantly growing. The right hon. Gentleman ought to take care of the expenditure, and meet it in such a way that the public would not grumble.
  MR. GREGORYdesired to make a few observations in reference to the proposed increase of the Tobacco Duties. They were still considering the Resolutions of the Committee of Ways and Means, and they were not actually bound to carry them out. The amount by which it was proposed to increase the Tobacco Duty was 4d. in the pound. It had been represented to him, and he confessed with some force, that that would operate with considerable hardship upon the retail dealers. The retail dealers in country districts sold their tobacco in quantities amounting to half-ounces, and the greater part of their sales took place in that quantity. Fourpence in the pound was so small a rate that it could not conveniently be levied on half-an-ounce. The tax would, therefore, fall upon the retail dealer, and not upon the consumer. A 6d. increase in the tax would operate much better than a 4d., and it would also increase, to some extent, the indirect taxation which would be required. He would much prefer that only 1d. should be added to the Income Tax, and that the remaining sum requisite should have been raised by indirect taxation. In reference to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid down a principle that a certain sum should be annually applied to the reduction of the National Debt—a principle which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would wisely adhere to.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it was quite clear now that the Income Tax must be a permanent source of their taxation; and, that being so, what remained to be done was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would attempt to make it a just tax by removing the inequalities which now existed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had said, that by the increase of the minimum from £100 to £150, something like 250,000 persons had been exempted from, the payment of the Income Tax. He was glad to hear that, because he considered it a just and proper exemption. He maintained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had imposed on the classes which only paid indirect taxation a substantial liability for the cost of the military preparations now in progress.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not expected that a general discussion would have been raised to-day, but on Monday. Of course, it was equally convenient to him that these difficult points should have been brought under discussion now, as at a later stage. With regard to his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), he thought he could only say that a 4d. rate upon tobacco had been viewed upon the whole as a fair proposal. He did not think it would be desirable now to enter into the question of altering that rate for a higher one, and he hoped it would not be found to lead to the difficulties which some people had anticipated. He was aware of the small purchases that were made by the mass of consumers, but there seemed to be a natural ignorance of the fact that farthings were used to a very large extent by the lower classes. He would not go into the subject further at present. With regard to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, (Mr. Hubbard) there was something in it which he agreed with, and which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed with force and ability. There were also points in his speech upon which he had never been able to agree with him, and he was afraid he was in the same position yet. He was always ready to re-consider these matters, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman he had given, and at all times was disposed to give, consideration to his representations. The case of Knowles and Others v. Macadam was one which required consideration; but he did not think it went the length that his right hon. Friend seemed to think it had done. If the view of his right hon. Friend was borne out by the decision in the case, he might as well leave the law alone. With regard to the Income Tax generally, he must demur from the view of his right hon. Friend, that this tax on chimney sweepers, as he had called it, could be made generally agreeable. He was satisfied that, do what they would, they could never make it such a tax that would fairly supersede the great mass of taxation. His right hon. Friend complained that the alterations which he had proposed in the present Budget were not sufficient to meet all the exigencies of the case, and he pointed to three griev

  1247
  ances brought before him by a deputation the right hon. Gentleman accompanied. He had dealt with two of the three things, and he thought his right hon. Friend would admit he had done so satisfactorily. The third matter had reference to the Queen's Taxes being levied upon the net, and not gross value. That opened out a large subject for consideration, which, in due time, he would be prepared to discuss. All he could now point out was that if they did alter the basis of their assessment, and if they levied on the net, instead of the gross, they would, of course, reduce the yield; and, therefore, if they wanted to get the same income, they would have to raise the tax, and that would increase the tax upon every kind of property, and, according to the present estimate, also upon trades and professions. If that system were adopted, unless the incidence of taxation on trades and professions were altered, lawyers and doctors would pay an unfair share of the tax. He would also point out, that if they adopted this principle, they would have to re-adjust the House Duty. At present that duty fell on all houses above a certain rental. The result of the proposition of his right hon. Friend would be, that many houses now taxed would be exempt. There was another grievance which the right hon. Gentleman intended to bring forward in Committee on the Valuation Bill. It related to the taxing of a shop with a dwelling-house over it. There were certain distinctions in that case, and it would, therefore, be more convenient to discuss the subject when the clause bearing upon it was brought up. He thought he ought to show that there was not sufficient ground for the alteration proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). The subject was exceedingly well argued, and his hon. and learned Friend, starting from the point he did, arrived at conclusions which he had not expected he would desire to place before the House; but which evidently were the logical conclusions from the premises he started from. He began by taking notice of the amount of the charge which would go this year towards the reduction of the Debt. The hon. and learned Member pointed out that it would be possible—instead of raising this money for the reduction of the Debt—by stopping the
  1248
  operation of the new Sinking Fund, and also by converting a certain class of the Terminable Annuities into Consolidated Stock, to meet the extraordinary Expenditure of the year without increasing their taxation. Obviously, that was the case to a certain extent, but the hon. and learned Gentleman must not take the whole £5,000,000 as capable of being converted. Still, he admitted, there was a certain proportion of annual payment which was going on for the reduction of Debt, which might, if Parliament wished, be divided for such purposes, so that they need not add to taxation. It seemed to him, that the argument of the hon. and learned Member would make it their duty to keep the taxes in the best possible state, without making any provision for the redemption of the National Debt. That was, virtually, the policy of Mr. Hume, who thought it better to employ money in taking off taxes than in buying Consols, and it had prevailed for some time—the Debt, meanwhile, remaining undiminished. It was a policy he admitted well worthy of consideration—it was a policy which, to a certain extent, was adopted by the right hon. Member for Greenwich, in 1860, for he chose to reduce taxes, rather than Debt; he proposed to reduce taxation instead of keeping up the system of Terminable Annuities. Ten years afterwards, the right hon. Gentleman took the opposite course. He never liked to lay down an absolute course on such a point as that, for he thought there were times when they ought rather to reduce taxation instead of Debt, and there were times when they ought to take steps for the reduction of Debt. All he desired to say was, that it was a matter of considerable importance to this country that, having deliberately established this system some years ago, they should not lightly depart from it. He should consider that, to give it up on an occasion when it was necessary to raise a sum of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, would be virtually to destroy the whole plan. He quite admitted to his hon. and learned Friend, that if they were engaged in a great national struggle, and had to make provision for a large extraordinary Expenditure, they must in some way put a stop to this operation. But he would point out to him, that one of the sources of their financial strength was, that by

  1249
  simply devoting the sum now applied to paying off the Debt to the payment of interest, they could raise a very large sum without adding to taxation. That financial strength they would lose, if they tampered with this system on the very first occasion they had to meet a slightly painful necessity of an addition, such as was now proposed, to that taxation. He earnestly hoped—indeed, he was sure—that the House had courage enough to resist any such proposal. He did not know that there was anything else that he need at present enter upon. They should have the discussion of the details of the Budget on the clauses of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, and hon. Members would then have an opportunity of calling attention to any other points they might wish to raise.
  MR. O'DONNELLdesired to direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the great anomaly which was perpetuated from year to year in connection with the present Land Tax, and to suggest to him whether some attempt to remove the anachronistic character attaching to that tax might not be of great use towards lightening the burden of other taxes, as well as introducing something like symmetry into the Budget at large. The Land Tax yielded about £1,000,000 a-year, and the law said that that sum was the result of a rate of 4s. in the pound, levied on the full annual value of the land in Great Britain. But, when they looked at the full annual value of the property included within the scope of the Land Tax, they found that 4s. in the pound ought to produce some £39,000,000 a-year; so that the first thing which must strike them about the present Land Tax, was the extraordinary contradiction between the actual return of the Land Tax and that which would be its return, if it were carried out.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have to point out to the hon. Member for Dungarvan, that he has given Notice to call the attention of the House to this matter on going into Committee of Supply, and that he cannot anticipate that discussion.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I do not wish to take the opinion of the House, but only to throw out some suggestions as to the Land Tax in relation to the present Budget.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not open to the hon. Member to anticipate the discussion,
  1250
  he having already given Notice that he will take that discussion on going into Committee of Supply.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERwished to say a few words on the subject of the reduction of the National Debt. The weakness of the present position appeared to him to be this—that they were reducing the National Debt by means of a Sinking Fund, while they were adding to the taxation of the country in order to meet increased Debt. Suppose a man owed £10,000, and took measures to reduce the debt; but, at the same time, went on borrowing—how would he stand? It seemed to him, it would be more logical, instead of borrowing any money, as they were doing at present, to cease paying off what they owed before, and thus to avoid the increase of taxation, which, he thought, was almost a more dangerous thing than even the amount of the National Debt. He had always thought that a great fallacy underlaid the proposal to reduce the National Debt by means of a Sinking Fund, which rendered it necessary to draw upon the resources of the country, and to tax the people. He did not think that thereby any really substantial benefit was gained. In his opinion, the true way to pay off the National Debt would be by diminishing taxation—thus adding to the wealth of the country, and enabling the people so relieved to consume a larger amount of duty-paying articles. Every diminution of taxation was, pro tanto, a diminution of the Debt, because it meant an increase really of the resources and wealth of the country. If a man had a mortgage on his property, there were two ways of reducing it—either by borrowing, or obtaining money in some way or other to pay off the debt, or by increasing the value of the estate. If he increased the value of the estate, to that extent he diminished the burden of the mortgage. Their National Debt, although very large, was not so much as the Debt of some other countries. Certainly, in proportion to the resources of the two countries, the Debt of France was much larger than that of this country. He really thought that, having regard to the wealth and resources of this country, the National Debt was not anything which they should fear. There was an old saying—he forgot who originated it, but it was used by Mr. Joseph Hume—that the best thing

  1251
  they could do was, instead of taking money in the shape of taxes, to leave that money to fructify in the pockets of the people; and, certainly, if there were a period to which that doctrine was especially applicable, it was the present time, when there was a depression of trade, which had now more or less prevailed for several years. He did not make these remarks with a view of offering any opposition to the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—which, from the point of view of his right hon. Friend, was, he thought, a very good Budget—but by way of entering his protest against the policy of increasing Debt with one hand, and paying it off with the other.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Instruction to the Committee on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, That they have power to make provision therein in pursuance of the said Resolution.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL— [BILL 138.]
  (Mr. Raikes, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the case of small burghs which were distant from London, and especially of such small Scotch burghs as those which he represented. Those burghs would have great difficulty in getting loans for local improvements, and that difficulty would not be got rid of until the existing system was remodelled and improved in such a way that the demands of local bodies for loans for public improvements might be checked, tested, and regulated. He had put a Motion on the Paper to the effect—
  "That it is expedient that arrangements should be made for providing information regarding local indebtedness and other local affairs in Scotland in a form similar to that furnished in regard to England."
  He did not intend to persevere in his intention of putting that Motion, but he might make one r two remarks on
  1252
  the subject to which it referred. It might have been noticed—he, at all events, had noticed—that when the President of the Local Government Board recently made his Statement, there was not a word or a figure mentioned in relation to Scotland. He was far from blaming the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt, he had not the statistics before him, which would have enabled him to do so. It was his misfortune that Returns on this subject as applicable to Scotland were not collected by someone and placed before the House in the same manner as the Returns which referred to England and Ireland. The Home Secretary had held out a hope that some remedy would be applied, but none had yet been forthcoming, and the result was that in the statement of the President of the Local Government Board no reference had been made to Scotland in regard to one of the most important questions affecting that country. He had been particularly struck by that omission from the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that the figures which he adduced referred to the 10 principal towns in the United Kingdom. London was the first city in the country, but he had always understood that Glasgow was the second. Yet no mention had been made of Glasgow. When the Home Secretary and other Members of the Government wished to be educated on the question of education, or on the subject of local taxation, they went to Scotland—they visited Glasgow and Edinburgh, and if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had taken Scotland into account before making his Statement, he would have found that those cities had afforded the earliest and most successful examples of efforts in the direction of local improvements. If this question as to local statistics and indebtedness was to be satisfactorily settled, it appeared to him that it could only be solved in one of three ways. They must either turn the Scotch Poor Law Board into a Local Board of Works, extend the jurisdiction of the President of the Local Government Board, or make the proposed new Secretary Minister for Public Works in Scotland. He was one of those who were very much in favour of what he might call Federal Home Rule. At the same time, he was free to admit that in Scotland they were not very

  1253
  fond of what were called Edinburgh Boards—and there were some subjects, especially those of education and the expenditure of public money, in regard to which he thought it advisable that the affairs of Scotland should be administered in London rather than in Edinburgh. Whether the duty of providing such information as he desiderated was to be entrusted to the new Secretary for Scotland or to the President of the Local Government Board—and he might remind his hon. Friends that they had not yet got the new Secretary, though he hoped they would, as well as some other things for Scotland which the avocations and duties of the Lord Advocate prevented their having at present—he hoped that the function would be entrusted to a public officer, who would be paid from the Imperial Revenue, and not from local sources of income.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he was one of those who thought that the vice of borrowing was not confined to individuals or to municipalities, but extended very greatly to nations. He regarded borrowing as one of the signs of civilization. All civilized nations had a good large Debt, and when a barbarous nation became civilized, the first thing that it did was to proceed to borrow money. He was of opinion, that when Parliament insisted upon schools being built and great sanitary measures undertaken by local authorities, the latter should be allowed reasonable access to the public money, even at the risk of slight loss to the Treasury. But, on the other hand, he earnestly protested against the borrowing of money by some municipalities and local authorities, not merely for necessary purposes, but for ornamental purposes, and even for luxuries, He suggested that the President of the Local Government Board should make a statement of the full indebtedness of the municipalities and local authorities of the country. The building of the Manchester Town Hall, for instance, had cost a sum which would prove a heavy mortgage on the rates of the city for ever; and Birmingham had a debt amounting to about 3½ years' rateable value of all the property in the town.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYthought the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had raised a very important question; but, at the same time, had laid down what he considered a very dangerous principle—namely, that
  1254
  whenever Parliament directed local improvements of an important character to be undertaken, it should be bound to find the money for them. The advance of public money, especially for long periods of time, was very objectionable; but it was the fault of Parliament itself, which had sanctioned and encouraged it. If advantage were taken, by those who desired to borrow money for public works, of a cheap rate of money, to borrow money repayable in a period of, say 50 years, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of the nation, should consider at what rates he would be likely to be able to borrow money himself during that period. If that were not done, great confusion might arise, and great losses be entailed upon the State. It was a most serious matter for the Government to borrow money—say, on Exchequer Bills or on any other securities for short periods, perhaps, repayable in a few months—and to lend that money for a long period, say, perhaps, 20 or 30 years, and, probably, even for 50 years. He was also of opinion that the House ought not to sanction schemes for the improvement of towns where it was certain that the cost of making such improvements would have to be defrayed by loans of public money.
  MR. PAGETsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for South Norfolk, until he said it was the duty of Government to provide funds for local purposes, even at a loss to the Exchequer. In that he could not agree. There could be no doubt that the principle of prolonging the period of repayment of a loan over 50 years or so was one of great risk and danger. Long before that period had elapsed, the purposes for which the money had been given might have been worn out. At the same time, he could not see that there was anything wrong in principle in granting loans to certain districts in order to enable them to comply with statutory obligations. It was not a matter of great difficulty for towns like Manchester and Birmingham to borrow money in the market; and, if it were the case that they could do so on terms equally as favourable as if they applied to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, he thought the latter body should have power entirely to disregard applications for loans in such cases. He desired, however, to put in a plea for the smaller places and the rural districts, where obligations existed which had only

  1255
  recently been created by statute, and where there was great difficulty in finding the means which were necessary to carry those obligations into effect.
  MR. DILLWYNwas of opinion that the Government were raising money too freely, and lending it for purposes for which it ought not to be lent. Now that the House was asked to sanction a further expenditure of upwards of £6,000,000, they ought to look into the facts; and, if they did so, they would see for what an immense variety of local purposes public money had been lent. Among them were county and borough rates, poor rates, Metropolitan Board of Works rates, urban sanitary and rural sanitary rates, sewers companies, drainage, embarking, school boards, burial boards, churchwardens, and several others. He did not see what the churchwardens could want, to be borrowers for the public. Among these sums, he found that £70,672,159 had been borrowed on the security of the rates, and a further large sum on the security of tolls and dues. The localities that required money to effect local improvements ought, as a rule, to go to the market rather than to the Government. He did not think that advances on the security of tolls and dues were open to the same objection as those made on the security of rates—as, in the latter case, there was danger of its being lost, or, in the case of default being made, of the State being placed in an invidious position. He admitted that there might be cases in which it was very desirable that, for the purpose of effecting improvements, advances should be made by the State; but some check should be put on these advances, and he should be very glad if the House would make a declaration to that effect.
  MR. GREGORYobserved, that the Local Government Board did not lend money on the security of tangible property, upon which they could enter, or which they could realize or convert into money, as in the case of ordinary mortgages; but they lent money to local authorities simply upon the power of those authorities to levy rates. If the local authorities refused to levy rates, the Local Government Board would be compelled to apply to the Court for a mandamus. But, even if a mandamus were granted, it might be that the Local Government Board had gained nothing by that step. Mandamuses had
  1256
  been granted against local authorities who had no power to do what the mandamuses required them to do.
  MR. A. H. BROWNexpressed his concurrence in the observations of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Thomson Hankey) and, subject to their being no loss to the Exchequer, he did not see that there should be any hesitation on the part of the Government in lending money for local improvements, when provision was made for the repayment of the principal along with the interest. Some amendment of the manner in which the money was raised was advisable, however.
  GENERAL SIR. GEORGE BALFOURapproved loans for certain purposes; but, in addition to the other dangers which had been pointed out in connection with the system, warned the House against the very serious evil of divided responsibility which now existed in regard to the supervision of those advances. He held that the President of the Local Government Board ought to be charged with the sole duty and responsibility of looking after the appropriation of those moneys, and that the Public Works Loans Commissioners should be placed in direct communication with that right hon. Gentleman. He also complained of the deficiency of information regarding loans for Scotch works of improvement. He also wished more information in regard to the loans made in England and Ireland. The Wigan loan had been in force since 1853, and he believed that no Member of the House knew anything of the matter. If they desired to have accuracy, and avoid favouritism, they ought to make known what loans were in force, and those which were proposed. More explicit information in regard to the losses under this system was also desirable. In the absence of such information, it was impossible to secure that due and adequate control over that system of borrowing which was essential to guard against abuse. He hoped the Government would consent to the insertion of the clause by which all the transactions of the Commissioners might be brought under the inspection of the Controller and Auditor General.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, with regard to the money borrowed, that the greater part of it was owing, not to the Loans Commissioners, but to private persons, and was neither

  1257
  raised by the authority of the Bill nor of any Public Department. Parliament, in its wisdom, permitted the borrowing of this money, and permitted the time for repayment to be spread over many years. The Public Departments could always limit the number of years for which a sum of money was to be borrowed according to the character of the works proposed to be carried out under that loan. The Commissioners, in order to prevent loss to the Treasury, had the power to charge higher interest for loans over 30 years; but there was nothing to prevent Parliament from requiring the local authority to borrow in the open market, and permitting the extension of the repayment over any period of time. In some cases 80 years had been allowed. The large sum of money which appeared to be owing by the Metropolis was composed of loans in the Consolidated Stock of the Metropolitan Board of Works, with which the Public Works Loan Commissioners had nothing to do. The hon. Member for East Sussex had been mistaken in supposing that there was no power at law of recovering money lent upon the rates. Provision had been made for doing so; but, as far as he knew, there had been no cases of default, while there were constant repayments of principal.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  HIGHWAYS BILL— [BILL 95.]
  (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Salt.)

  SECOND BEADING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18th February], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. PARNELLthought it would be desirable for the Government to refrain from pressing the second reading, and agree to a further adjournment of the debate until some progress had been made with the County Government Bill,—the two subjects being intimately connected.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had promised on a former occasion not to proceed with the Bill in Committee till
  1258
  some further progress had been made with the County Government Bill. His present object was to pass the Bill through its second reading.
  MR. D. DAVIESsuggested that the shoes of traction engines should be four inches broad and not less than an inch thick. He also maintained that some exemption should be made in the case of owners of traction engines from the penalties inflicted for the non-consumption of smoke. There was an impression that engines could be made to consume their own smoke; but it was erroneous, as it was impossible to avoid causing some smoke when a traction engine was fired. Men were put on in some places in Wales to watch when an engine was fired with the view of getting the penalty of £5 inflicted. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would look to this matter, and in some way by legislation obviate such an injustice.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 122.]
  (Mr Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. James Lowther.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) moved that the Bill be now read a second time, and stated that it made an important step towards the revision of the Irish ante-Union Statutes, and carried the work down to 21 Geo. II. If the Bill was now read a second time, the Committee stage should not be taken until after Easter.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  MR. PARNELLadmitted the Irish Statute Book sorely needed revision, and was sorry to have to ask the House to postpone the second reading. The duty of revision, so far as Ireland was concerned, had been long neglected by the Law Officers; and now, when it was undertaken, he could not understand why they should stop short at the

  1259
  reign of George II. It might be said that the work must go on, as in the case of England, by several successive Bills; but, still the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to defer the Bill for a Session, until he was in a position to revise the Statute up to the Preventive Act—an obsolete Act passed in the reign of George III.
  And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this day.
  The House suspended its Sitting at five minutes to Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  THE MURDER OF THE LATE LORD LEITRIM.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. O'DONNELL MR. O'DONNELL rose to call attention to the action of the Government in Donegal with reference to the murder of the late Lord Leitrim, and to move—
  "That it is unconstitutional, unsuited to promote the ends of justice, and calculated to foster disbelief in the impartiality of the Law."
  DR. KENEALY DR. KENEALY rose to Order. He had a Notice on the Paper prior to that of the hon. Member for Dungarvan.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman was not in his place when the Motion now before the House was made, and that he had called upon the hon. Member for Dungarvan, who moved his Amendment.
  DR. KENEALY: Then I move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dungarvan is in possession of the House.
  MR. O'DONNELLaccordingly proceeded to address the House. He said: I do not know, Sir, that I could better bring the facts of the case before an audience which is so largely composed of English Gentlemen than by supposing
  1260
  an imaginary case, which, with the substitution of a few names of persons and places, may easily afterwards be applied to the case of this deplorable murder in Donegal, and to the manner in which the Government are carrying on the inquiry for the discovery of the assassins. I would ask the House to imagine that on some morning the news appeared in the London papers that a terrible outrage had occurred in some quiet dale of Cumberland, in the midst of a population conspicuous for their law-abiding virtues, conspicuous for their patient industry, and conspicuous for the practice of their duties of family and civil life. I would further ask the House to suppose that a landlord in Cumberland, accompanied by two servants, had been suddenly attacked in a lonely part of the country, and had been shot down, and not only he, but his casual assistants and servants ruthlessly murdered along with him. Such an occurrence as that happening in Cumberland would have riveted the attention of England. But if, on further inquiry, it was discovered that while no portion of Cumberland was more conspicuous for its orderly virtues, and for the absence of vice and crime, yet, nevertheless, that that portion of what was believed to be a happy English county, had been for years practically at the mercy of one man who, by the lamentable shortcomings of the English Land Law, had been enabled to execute the caprices of some baron of a semi-barbaric stage and civilization by means of the chicanery of nineteenth century legal procedure; if, further, it had been discovered that for more than a quarter of a century these Cumberland dalesmen had been exposed to the tyranny of a mental and moral torture, that they had been in the power of a man of iron will and ruthless passion, who practically exercised absolute power—if it was known, on inquiry, that whole villages had been cleared away, that the valleys in some cases had been swept clear of their inhabitants, that over all was continually hanging the doom of eviction, or of some punishment akin to eviction; and if, Sir, it was known that in spite of all that continual harassment and torture, these wholesale evictions and that systematic extermination, the relation between the landlord and his Cumberland tenantry had never been stained by one excess of an agrarian character on

  1261
  the side of this unfortunate tenantry; if, further, it were ascertained that the only case in which that Cumberland landlord had been exposed to outrage, attempted violence, and attempted assassination, was when his life was attempted by the uncle of the humble girl whom he had dishonoured— ["Oh, oh!"]—it would have flashed with a strength of conviction upon the minds of all men that in such a long-tried and law-abiding community—["Oh, oh!"]—whom no extremity of suffering during 25 years had goaded to a violation of the law— it would have struck every Englishman talking to his brother Englishman that it would be in the highest degree unlikely that these peasants had entered into a widespread conspiracy of a mere agrarian character, and that the murder which had taken place would have required an enormous amount of proof to bring it within the category of mere attempts levelled against life and property, if, on further examination, it was shown that this landlord was known throughout all the Northern counties as "the bad Earl." ["No, no! and "Shame!"]
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: I beg to ask, Sir, if this is language which is fit to be addressed to the House of Commons?
  MR. PARNELL: I ask you, Sir, to protect the privilege of speech in this House, when that speech is confined to the truth.
  MR. O'DONNELL, resuming: If such a man had been noted for his debauchery——[Cries of disapprobation.]
  MR. KING-HARMAN: I ask the hon. Member whether he can give proof of what he says, or whether he is maligning the memory of the dead Earl on a matter of which he has no knowledge?
  DR. KENEALY: There seems to be a systematic attempt to interfere with the freedom and independence of Parliamentary speech.
  MR. SPEAKER: The language which the hon. Member has addressed to the House is, no doubt, to be deprecated as being very strong; but, at the same time, I am not prepared to say that he is not within his right in using the expressions in question.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I have endeavoured to push my forbearance to the utmost in the case of the hon. Member
  1262
  for Sligo (Mr. King-Harman). What I state, it will be for this House to consider the value of at the conclusion of my speech. I am endeavouring, at present, to bring the broad questions of right, of law, and of justice before the House. I have carefully taken a sort of imaginary case, and this House will be able then to find out whether that which have imagined with regard to Cumberland may be a parallel capable of application elsewhere. Sir, if it was found that this landlord, known throughout all the Northern country of England as "the bad Earl," had carried on practices of debauchery, and had carried them on not only by means of the vulgar wiles of seduction, but by means of his authority and power as a landlord—by means of the power of eviction so plentifully placed in his hands—if it was known through all the country, beyond the possibility of a doubt, commented upon in the public Press, denied nowhere and by no one, that he had placed the alternative of eviction or dishonour before the peasant girls on his property, and that when his infamous advances had been slighted, he had carried out his threat of eviction——
  MR. KING-HARMAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to say that I see Strangers.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, having taken notice of the presence of Strangers, I am bound to take the course I have taken upon a former occasion, and to put the Question at once to the House, Whether Strangers be ordered to withdraw?
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 12: Majority 45.

  AYES.

  Agnew, R. V.

  Elphinstone, Sir J. D. H.

  Assheton, R.

  Fremantle, hon. T. F.

  Beresford, G. dela Poer

  Gibson, rt. hon. E.

  Blake, T.

  Giffard, Sir H. S.

  Bourke, hon. R.

  Gordon, W.

  Burrell, Sir W. W.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

  Charley, W. T.

  Cordes, T.

  Heath, R.

  Carry, J. P.

  Holker, Sir J.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Knight, F. W.

  Cross, rt. hon. R. A.

  Knowles, T.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Davies, D.

  Lindsay, Col. R. L.

  Dyke, Sir W. H.

  Lloyd, S.

  Edmonstone, Admiral Sir W.

  Lloyd, T. E.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Macartney, J. W. E.

  1263

  Mandeville, Viscount

  Sidebottom, T. H.

  Mellor, T. W.

  Somerset, Lord H. R. C.

  Merewether, C. G.

  Spinks, Mr. Serjeant

  Noel, rt. hon. G. J.

  Stanhope, hon. E.

  Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Tennant, R.

  Onslow, D.

  Thynne, Lord H. F.

  Puleston, J. H.

  Wheelhouse, W. S. J.

  Read, C. S.

  Wilmot, Sir J. E.

  Ritchie, C. T.

  Winn, R.

  Round, J.

  Sanderson, T. K.

  Scott, M. D.

  TELLERS.

  Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

  Gordon, Sir A.

  King-Harman, E. R.

  NOES.

  Burt, T.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Cameron, C.

  Power, J. O'C.

  Delahunty, J.

  Whitbread, S.

  Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.

  Whitwell, J.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Hopwood, C. H.

  TELLERS.

  Jenkins, E.

  O'Donnell, F. H.

  Kenealy, Dr.

  Parnell, C. S.

  After this division, Strangers were excluded, and it was understood that the debate proceeded for some hours:—at the end of which time——
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the action of the Government in Donegal with reference to the murder of the late Lord Leitrim is unconstitutional, unsuited to promote the ends of justice, and calculated to foster disbelief in the Impartiality of the Law,"—(Mr. O'Donnell,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  BILLS OF SALE BILL— [BILL 90–129.]
  (Mr. Sampson Lloyd, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Monk, Mr. Ripley.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration read.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER) moved in page 1, after Clause 5, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Certain mortgages to be subject to this Act as bills of sale.)
  "Every conveyance, mortgage, or assignment of land or hereditaments whereby the grantor or assignor, being an occupier of such lands or hereditaments, grants, conveys, or assigns any trade fixtures, shall, so far as regards such trade fixtures, be subject to all the provisions of this Act as if the same were a bill of sale to which this Act applies. In this section 'trade fixtures' means any fixtures which the grantor or assignor of such conveyance, mortgage, or assignment would, if he were a tenant of the premises, have (as between himself and the landlord in the absence of special agreement) power to sever and remove."
  MR. GREGORYconsidered that the effect of the clause would be to compel the registration of every security upon a mill or factory, and thereby very great injury would be done to the commercial community; because all bills of sale which were liable to be registered were subsequently published in journals which had a general circulation.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)moved, in page 5, after Clause 10, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Subsequent bill of sale of same goods, for same consideration to be void.)
  "Whenever, hereafter, a bill of sale is executed in consideration of, or to secure a debt, money, or money's worth, and afterwards another bill of sale is executed in consideration of or to secure the same debt, money, or money's worth, or any part thereof, the subsequent bill of sale, so far as regards the property in, or right to, the possession of any personal chattels comprised in or made subject to the former bill of sale, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes, as against the same persons, and to the same extent as the former bill of sale, shall, under the provisions of this Act, be null and void, notwithstanding that the requirements of this Act shall be complied with, as to the subsequent bill of sale, or the time allowed for complying therewith shall not have elapsed."
  MR. DODDSsaid, this clause was a most objectionable one, and if insisted upon must have the effect of destroying bills of sale and security altogether. He most earnestly hoped, therefore, it would not be pressed, because the result must be most disadvantageous to the obtaining of securities in this country.
  MR. MORLEYdiffered from the opinion just expressed by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). Bills of were viewed with considerable

  1265
  jealousy by the mercantile community, and he hoped the clause would be agreed to.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Further Amendment made.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Committee negatived—Bills of Exchange (Acceptance)* (71).
Committee—Report—Factories and Workshops * (57); Local Government Provisional Orders (Bristol, &c.) * (53).
Report—Contagious Diseases (Animals)* (37–76).
Third Reading— Endowed Schools and Hospitals (Scotland) (56); Education (Scotland) * (47), and passed.
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered that Standing Orders Nos. 92. and 93. be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which, would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Easter, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.
ENDOWED SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 56.)
(The Lord President.)

THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
Bill read 3a (according to Order).
THE DUKE or RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that since the previous evening he had considered the proposal of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Elgin) with reference to the number of Commissioners, and also with reference to striking out the statutory qualifications for Commissioners, leaving an unlimited discretion to the Government in the selection of the Commissioners. He was prepared to accept the Amendments.
The following Amendments were then made:—
Clause 12, page 4, line 11, leave out from ("exceed") to end of paragraph, and insert ("five").
Line 21, leave out ("chairman and the three first-named").
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ARMY—MILITIA ARTILLERY UNI FORMS.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD WAVENEYcalled the attention of the Under Secretary of State for
1194
War to certain deficiencies in the clothing and equipment of the Militia Artillery. The noble Lord was understood to say that one of the most important points in the organization of our Military Force was to secure uniformity between the Regular and the Auxiliary Forces; and, in particular, he thought the dress and equipment of the Militia should be brought as nearly as practicable into uniformity with the Line regiments. His particular point on the present occasion was to direct his noble Friend's attention to the dissimilarity—the unnecessary dissimilarity—between the clothing of the Militia Artillery and that of the Royal Artillery. He had taken great interest in the question of the organization of the Militia Force for the last 25 years, and he could assure their Lordships that there was more connection between the two than was generally imagined. During that period there had been no fewer than four changes of head-dress, and none of them, satisfactory; and, as he regarded equipment and dress an essential part of military discipline and organization, he thought that such matters should not be left altogether in the hands of the officers in command, but that the opportunity of the new military system should be taken advantage of to assimilate the dress of the Militia to that of the Regular Army. Here was a case in point. The new helmet had not been delivered out to the Militia Artillery; but he knew that in one case the officer in command of a corps had been permitted to purchase the new helmet in case the corps should be embodied for service. He hoped the noble Lord (Viscount Bury) would direct his attention to the subject.
VISCOUNT BURYsaid, the noble Lord had complained that Militia Artillery were not equipped in the same way as were the Royal Artillery; but the only difference he had been able to show was that the Militia had not yet got the new helmet. In the event of the Militia being embodied, that deficiency would be supplied, and the officer to whom his noble Friend had referred would be recouped for the helmets he had purchased. This matter was gone into at great length in 1870 by a Committee, and it was then considered that the same equipment should be supplied to each Force, with the exception that

1195
an undress tunic only should be issued to the Militia.
LORD TRUROregretted that the noble Viscount had not gone further into the subject. There were, he understood, serious objections to the new helmet. One corps to which it had been furnished complained that a man who wore it could not raise his rifle to his shoulder without knocking off his helmet. Then, if spikes were worn on the artillerymen's helmets, the men would blind one another with these spikes when stooping to work the guns. But this objection would be easily met by substituting a ball for the spike.

CRIME IN IRELAND.—RESOLUTION.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE rose to call the attention of the House to the late fearful outrage committed in the county of Donegal, and to the increased and increasing prevalence of undetected and unpunished crime in Ireland; and to move that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to ask for such measures as may enable them more effectually to suppress outrage and enforce security of life in Ireland. Also to move for Returns showing all crimes against human life, firing into dwelling-houses, administering unlawful oaths, demands for money, threatening letters or other intimidation, incendiary fires, robbery of arms, which have been reported by the Royal Irish Constabulary between the 1st of January, 1875, and 28th of February, 1878, showing whether any person or persons have been prosecuted for such offences, and whether acquitted or found guilty. Their Lordships would remember that he made very nearly the same Motion last year as that which he now brought before the House; and on that occasion he was met with the expression of a hope which he was sorry to say had not been realized—that the laws now in force would be sufficient to repress crime; and the object of his present Motion was to show that instead of that being the case, agrarian crime in Ireland went on increasing. He should not trouble the House by again going into a detail of the cases which he enumerated to the House last Session, though he must refer shortly to those cases. He held that one of the chief causes of the increase of crime in Ireland at the present time was that during the last
1196
few years many persons of very indifferent character, men of violent and lawless habits, had returned from America to Ireland; and, in addition to that unfavourable circumstance, there was the fact that there had arisen a unity of action between two great conspiracies in that country—the Fenian and the Ribbon conspiracies. It appeared, from statistics presented to Parliament, that in the year 1876 there had been an increase of 65 cases of agrarian outrage, and in 1877 there was a further increase of 20 cases. Last year he brought under the notice of their Lordships the case of Mr. Bridge, the agent for property in Tipperary, who had been twice fired at in open day and twice wounded. On the second occasion he was accompanied by police, who sat by his side on the car, and several men fired at them from the side of the road. The driver of the car was killed. Strange to say, in that case one of the assailants was brought to justice and executed—the only case of conviction and execution for an agrarian murder that had taken place for many years. Two other men were engaged in the attack; but though it was perfectly well-known who they were, and though it was believed that they were yet in the country, they had never been arrested. He saw by a telegram in The Times, the other day, that Mr. Bridge went into Tipperary surrounded by a large body of police. Two persons who took land on an estate managed by that gentleman were dreadfully beaten in the marketplace of the town of Tipperary, some 60 persons being present when that outrage was committed; but no one had been arrested for it. Not far from his own neighbourhood, at a part of the country where the counties of Mayo, Roscommon, and Galway united, there had been numerous cases within the last 18 months. There was the case of Mr. Nolan, a land agent, who was fired at and badly injured; he identified the man who shot him; the man was tried, but was of course acquitted. A Mr. Barrett was fired at and wounded; though not killed, he was in a very precarious condition, as might be imagined when it was stated that no fewer than 37 pellets were lodged in his body. In that case no person was even arrested. There was the case of a neighbour of his own—a Mr. Rush. His house was fired into at night, and aim was taken

1197
at the bed in which his sister was supposed to be; fortunately, she was not there at the time. No one was arrested in that case. In the barony of Costello, armed bands paraded the country at night, administering oaths pledging those who took them that they would not pay rent for turbary. Dr. Handcock, the Government officer who drew up the criminal statistics, kindly suggested that the Land Act should have made the turbary over to the tenants. In all those cases the Government sent down special police; and in one case a policeman, who was exceedingly active in endeavouring to procure evidence against murderers, was fired at and badly wounded in the open day not far from the barracks in the town of Dunmore. In the county of Mayo, a lady, named Knox, having turned away a servant, two days afterwards some persons entered her house and chopped her head dreadfully. A person going to collect rents, in the village of Kelvine, had a shot fired over his head. In Clare Island an agent, though protected by a body of police, was obliged to retire without serving notices with which he had been entrusted. Such was the state of things in that unfortunate country. He now came to that fearful tragedy which, partly because of the high position of the principal victim, and partly on account of the wholesale character of the slaughter, had claimed a more than usual share of public attention. The crime would come more nearly home to their Lordships, because almost all of them were familiar with the appearance of his poor friend, Lord Leitrim, who came forward so manfully, if injudiciously, in the assertion of his rights, or what he supposed to be his rights, in that House and elsewhere—at any rate, in defending those rights, he had been actuated by no mercenary motives, and even his worst maligners, of whom there were many, acknowledged that he was a liberal landlord, letting his land at low rates to those who did not oppose what he held to be his rights. There had appeared a letter in an Irish paper—The Irish Times—which the noble Lord read, which stated that 150 men and a large number of families had been thrown out of employment by the murder of his noble Friend. The letter observed, that whatever political firebrands might say, the tenants on Lord Leitrim's estate were better housed,
1198
better clad, and had their lands better laid out than when his Lordship came into possession of the estate. The letter stated—
"He had many faults, the chief of which was that of ruling his tenantry in the most arbitrary manner."
Their Lordships had read of the horrible and shocking scene which was enacted at the funeral of Lord Leitrim. That funeral was in Dublin, which was a long way from the part of the country in which the noble Lord was shot; so that such a scene in Dublin showed how rife throughout Ireland was the feeling of enmity against the class to which Lord Leitrim belonged. That feeling was created and kept alive by the calumnies continually published by a certain class of journals alone—not only against Lord Leitrim, but against every landlord who in a straightforward manner tried to do his duty. A new and shocking feature in the case of the murder of Lord Leitrim and in the attempt to murder Mr. Bridge, and some others, was that, whereas on former occasions, the assassins had only attempted the life of the person who was the object of their enmity, they now indulged in wholesale slaughter regardless of the innocence of the persons whom they killed. This showed a most reckless and bloodthirsty state of feeling. Another bad feature in the state of the country was the manner in which what was known as "The National Press" of Ireland endeavoured to justify or excuse or palliate the assassination of Lord Leitrim, and similar crimes. One Irish journal said—
"It is vain to denounce agrarian crime until the source of it is dried up. It is in vain to rebuke the murderer while the robbery that tends to it is allowed to go unpunished. We yield to no man in our abhorrence of the foul crime of murder; but, as honest journalists, we feel compelled to give expression to our conviction that until the Legislature affords protection to the tenants, landlords will, from time to time, be consigned to a bloody doom like that which overtook Lord Leitrim."
Other journals wrote in the same strain, and, therefore, it was not at all wonderful that the ignorant and excitable peasantry should accept the teaching. It appeared that Lord Leitrim had obtained the decree of a Court of Law ruling that there was no tenant-right

1199
on a part of his property, and in all probability the cause of his death was that he wanted to enforce the view upheld by that decree. Fixity of tenure was an idea rooted in the minds of the persons who committed or who sanctioned those outrages. He did not often quote the authority of the late Mr. O'Connell, but that gentleman said that fixity of tenure would only change one landlord for another, and that the one substituted would be one of a worse class. He was often told, when standing up in his place to resist the passing of the Irish Land Act, that it would have the effect of producing order and content among the Irish people. What were the actual facts? It used to be difficult to get 12 men to find a verdict in a case of agrarian outrage; but now, nobody could be got even to give evidence to lay before a jury—such was the terrorism existing in Ireland—and it was stimulated by the knowledge of how much had already been ceded to violence, and the hope that more would be obtained by the same means. In his (Lord Oranmore and Browne's) district, as the law was found to be no protection, everyone went about armed. In a house, not far from the scene of some murders, as the family were sitting down to dinner, information was given them that some men had just been seen looking in at one of the windows. Some of the party went out, and found the marks where a man had been kneeling behind an evergreen, close to which the master of the house was in the habit of walking after dinner. In an opposite direction a man was seen running away. He was challenged, but did not stop, and was fired at; had he been killed, it would have been a bad case for the person who had fired at him; but had the man fired at and killed one of the party belonging to the house, there would not have been the least chance of a conviction. There was a large reward for the discovery of the assassins of Lord Leitrim; but so had there been in the case of Mr. Young, and without any result. The reason was easy to know, for a policeman, two years after giving evidence in the Fenian trials, was shot in the streets of Dublin; a man was arrested on the spot, but though the evidence was quite clear that he fired the shot, he was acquitted. When any of those who were engaged in attempting to upset
1200
social order and the existing Government were brought to justice or died, they were treated as martyrs and patriots by those who were connected with the secret societies. Such societies existed not only in Ireland, but all over the Continent, and everywhere it was found that the ordinary course of law was unequal to cope with them. Like cancers in the human body, they could not be cured, but the knife of the operator might stay them. He must say that the law passed by the present Government with the object of suppressing agrarian outrages was much less effective than that which was in force under the late Government. There was not the same power of arrest under the existing law, or of searching for arms; there was no law suppressing the licence of the Press. The two Peace Preservation Acts of the late Government had, no doubt, contributed more or less to repress crime; and he thought Her Majesty's Government could not but regard the state of Ireland as dangerous, unsatisfactory, and most unfortunate; and, if so, they ought to take such powers from Parliament as would enable them to cope with some of the difficulties to which he had adverted. He, therefore, hoped they would not be deterred by opposition in "another place," but would discharge the duty which every Government owed to the subjects of a country in respect of the due protection of life.
Moved to resolve, That it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to ask for such measures as may enable them more effectually to suppress outrage and enforce security of life in Ireland.—(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I have nothing especial to say about this particular case of what is termed agrarian outrage, to which our attention has been called to-night, except that, as an Irishman, I am filled with a deep sense of shame, that acts so atrocious should be committed in my native country, and that sentiments so horrible should be breathed in that portion of the United Kingdom in which I was born, and of which, if it were not for such acts and sentiments, I should be proud to speak in terms of unqualified praise. Neither shall I attempt to enter into detail as regards the jury system in Ireland, or to discuss whether the qualification is too high or too low.

1201
There are many noble Lords more capable of handling that subject than I am, especially a noble Lord upon the front bench, who had much to do with altering the jury system. They can discuss the matter, if they think it advisable to do so; but I will make a few remarks upon the larger and general question why Ireland is, and always has been, more or less dissatisfied and disaffected, and why the Land Question always has been, and still is, a difficulty apparently beyond the power of individuals or of Parliament to deal with. There are so many causes to be considered, that I can merely indicate them and touch upon them very briefly. Some that are considered of vast importance are, in reality, insignificant; while others scarcely recognized have very marked and widespread effects. First of all, there is the question of religion and race, which is thought, but erroneously thought, to be one of great magnitude. In reality, there are no distinct differences of race. The population is composed of the original Celts, Northmen, and Danes to a considerable extent, and of different varieties of Saxons, Jutes, and Angles from England. But these principal races are completely blended and intermingled together. I do not suppose that there exists a single man who could, with truth, say that he was of unmixed Celtic blood. And as regards this question of race, it is worthy of notice that those districts in which Celtic blood is predominant are, and always have been, the quietest, and the people in them are by far the most orderly and best conducted; whereas, in those parts where the English element is more strongly represented—principally among the descendants of men introduced in the Plantation made under Cromwell in the South of Ireland—the population is especially turbulent and unmanageable. The difference of race affords no sufficient cause for any troubles that distract Ireland; neither is religion an important matter. It affords a convenient weapon, and can be made dangerous use of; but that is all. I do not mean to say that great bitterness does not exist between the two great opposing faiths; I am sorry to admit that is undoubtedly the case; but it does not affect the relationship between landlord and tenant. The fact of landlord and tenant being of one religion
1202
may, perhaps, create a little more sympathy between them, because they meet upon the common plane of religion when worshipping together; but the occupiers of land in Ireland are far too practical to care what religious opinions a landowner holds provided he treats them fairly and with consideration. The Disestablishment of the Church had no effect whatever in diminishing the evils from which Ireland suffers. I am not going to say anything against it, for on principle I disapprove of the religion of a minority being in a superior position to that of the more numerous part of the population; but it was certain that, while it was distasteful to the Protestants, it was not welcomed in the light of a benefit of any kind to the Roman Catholic population. Then we have the results of long years of past injustice to be dealt with. Ireland was very evilly entreated for many generations; she laboured under frightful religious disabilities, and her trade and manufactures were repressed by protective laws. The government was very badly administered, and the greatest injustice prevailed for many years throughout the land. All these evils have been remedied, and there is no use in complaining or crying out about them. But you cannot expect results to cease immediately the cause is removed. The sick man does not recover directly proper treatment is adopted, and the evil that produced his disease taken away. It is natural that Ireland should still feel the consequences of bygone injuries; but there is nothing to be done to obviate that. All we can do is to have patience, and to look forward with hope to the future; and there is one ground of complaint that I have against my countrymen—that they are so much more inclined to look to the past rather than the present and the future. There must, I think, be a taint of original Toryism in Irishmen; they are so inclined to glance back enviously to the good old days, and to take a dismal view of the future. Then there are several minor, and what may be called emotional, causes which have been from time to time mentioned. For instance, a great authority—no other than the Head of Her Majesty's Government—attributed some of the woes of Ireland to its contiguity to the melancholy ocean. I quite allow the depressing effect of

1203
water; but I rather think that to the waters above the firmament which descend upon us in copious and constant streams, rather than to the waters under the firmament which wash our shores, is the melancholy tinge inherent in the Irish character to be traced. I am far from underrating what may be called sensational and emotional causes in their effects upon an emotional people. If Ireland were more accessible, and, consequently, were visited by the crowds that habitually throng to Scotland, she would have greatly benefited. If Ireland had produced an author so talented as that great poet and novelist, Sir Walter Scott, the man who invented modern Scotland, it would have been a good thing for her; for the beauties of her scenery are comparatively unknown. We have had great authors; but no one has succeeded in shedding around our scenery a halo of picturesque romance such as Sir Walter Scott has cast over the Scottish Highlands. But these are matters that cannot be helped, and there is no use in crying about them. We cannot fill up St. George's Channel with groans and lamentations. Then I come to a more important matter—the question of Land Tenure. There is a vague and entirely erroneous idea that the present occupiers are the descendants of past proprietors, and that, according to the ancient Land Laws of Ireland, they ought to have an individual right of proprietorship in the soil. That is not so. In the first place, the population has been so much shifted and changed about, that you would find few instances where a family has occupied a farm more than a few generations; and, moreover, as a matter of fact, under the Native Irish Laws, there was no such thing as fixity of tenure for the individual. Land was held by the tribe in common for all its members. The tribe took what it could get, and kept as much as it could. As a matter of convenience, on the accession of each chief—an event which occurred at short intervals, because those gentlemen always suffered violent deaths in a comparatively short time—the land was divided up among individuals; but their tenure had little fixity about it, and lasted at best but a few years. Out of that primitive tribal tenure grew the system which was recognized by English Law and English Judges as existing in Ire
1204
land. The soil was held in tanistry and gavel kind—that is to say, a part of the tribal property was set apart for the use of the chief for his life and for his successors. The remainder was partitioned out among the families composing the sept; but, on the death of an occupier, his holding did not descend to his son or to any of his family; neither could he deal with it in any way; it was thrown into the common lot, and a fresh division took place. But, as you are aware, one of the difficulties of which the Irish landlords have to complain is that the occupiers set great store by some particular piece of ground, to which they think they have some especial right, and cannot be induced sometimes to part with it for more than its value, or to exchange it for a larger or better piece of ground. If the present state of land tenure is altered at all, there is nothing short of transferring the ownership to the occupier that would be considered satisfactory; and, as I shall presently show, such an act would not only be of no advantage to the country, but would infallibly prove its ruin. The real difficulties under which Ireland labours arise from natural, and, I am sorry to say, unalterable, causes. Ireland contains no coal and iron, and, consequently, is debarred from the great advantages that have made the fortune of England. The population will not take kindly to the sea, and the advantages she would otherwise possess, of having a large and deeply-indented sea-board on the west, containing many safe and commodious harbours, is thrown away. Ireland contains a large population, and the supply of land is very limited. There is no outlet for the industry and energy of the people, except in the cultivation of land; and the natural genius of the people does not tend at all in that direction. Consequently, there is an intense and totally unnatural competition for land, and the people are forced into a pursuit which is not congenial to them. We cannot expect to find contentment where a nation is compelled to adopt pursuits unsuited to it; where there is an enormous and unsatisfied demand for a very small supply, which cannot be increased. Moreover, the climate is not suited to agriculture. The country is admirably adapted to grazing and stock-raising; the natural

1205
tendency would therefore be in a direction that would necessitate a diminution of population, which must entail a certain degree of misery. I say that the genius of the people does not lie in the direction of agriculture, because I have had many opportunities of studying the development of the Irish character and race in the United States. I have seen the fact proved there. In America, where there is plenty of vent and free outlet for the national character and genius to develop itself in employments and pursuits most congenial to it, the people do not trouble themselves about land. It is true that a great amount of manual labour has been performed in America by Irishmen; but that is because the greater number of emigrants are at first unable to take up any other business. The Irish in America excel as handicraftsmen and salesmen; they go into politics, speculations of all kinds, and mining operations greedily; they make very large fortunes in all parts of the country. Many of the greatest successes, from a pecuniary point of view, have been achieved by Irishmen. They naturally seek for employment that necessitates dexterity of manipulation and fertile and quickly-working brains, and in all such pursuits they excel. The Irish population does not gravitate towards the possession of land, so we have in Ireland a population bent by necessity from adopting pursuits congenial to it, and we have frightful competition for the one commodity the country produces—land. I am sure that I shall be borne out in saying that the competition in Ireland for land is unnatural and excessive. I have known as much as the fee-simple of it was worth given merely to get into possession of a farm held at will. It is an absolute necessity for the people to acquire land somehow or other, at any price, and at all hazards. They will give prices to get into possession of land that render it impossible for them to get a decent livelihood out of it, however frugal they may be; and I wish it to be understood that the reckless, improvident, rollicking Irishman of the stage and of novels has ceased to exist. There are no more frugal, self-sacrificing people in the world than the farmers in Ireland. Owing to this state of things, the rules that generally regulate property are entirely subverted, and the position of
1206
the landlord in Ireland is rendered very difficult. He cannot deal with his land like any other property. He cannot judge of its value by what it will let for. He is obliged to act as an arbiter between his tenants and himself, to guard them against the results of their own anxiety to acquire land at any price. People do not look upon the occupation of land from a business point of view, to be held as long as it pays, and abandoned when it ceases to do so; they consider it necessary to hold land at all hazards. The landlord has a very difficult task to perform, and, to use a vulgar expression, he get more kicks than halfpence for payment. We are not now discussing the Land Act; we have not had time to form any judgment about it. I think, on the whole, it works fairly. I know it is in many ways inconvenient; but I am sure that I am not singular in stating that I would put up with any inconvenience for the general public good. I say so selfishly, for I would welcome any Act of Parliament that would lighten the responsibility that weighs upon the shoulders of an Irish landlord. A complete transference of the soil to the present occupiers, setting up peasant proprietorship, would prove no remedy at all. The supply of the only commodity of the country—land—could not be increased. The demand would not be diminished, holdings would be bought up at a ruinous price, the soil would be cropped to death and ill-treated; and the country would be ruined also with it. There would be just the same, or, rather, a larger amount of competition, and no restraint whatever. Legislation may be useful in cases, but it must be delicately handled, for it may do much harm by alienating the affections of the landlords from the people, and by inducing them to stand upon their strict legal rights. If you take away the interest and affection of landlords for their tenants, you take away the only thing which, in my opinion, saves Ireland from a very much worse state of things than that which distresses her now. No laws can remedy this state of things; it can only be rendered endurable by mutual concession on the part of owners and occupiers. I believe that the bulk of Irish landlords are honestly anxious to do the best they can, but they are but mortal men; and I think that they would get along well

1207
with the people, and the people with them, if they were let alone. I entertain the greatest respect for those who seek to benefit their country by any legitimate means, however much I may differ from them. Personally, I do not see how a peasant proprietorship, or confiscation, or Home Rule, or foreign rule, or any rule, or no rule at all, is going to remove natural causes, can put coal and ironstone where they do not exist, or give us more land or better land, or can ameliorate our climate, alter the idiosyncrasies of the national character, or bridge the Channel. For all men honestly anxious to improve their country I feel respect; but I have no words at my command to express what I feel towards those professional agitators who, by their speeches or their writings, work upon the susceptibilities of a sensitive, enthusiastic race, who keep up an agitation about land by holding out hopes that can never be fulfilled, who thereby make property insecure, and who, consequently, drive from us English capital, in which lies our only chance of resuscitating industries that have been repressed, and of starting new ones, who trade upon the feelings of the people for their own selfish ends. My Lords, I have to thank you for listening so patiently while I ventilated my theories. I thought it well to take this opportunity to do so, for the opinion of any man is worth something, either in itself if correct, or in its refutation if incorrect. I will conclude, as I commenced, by expressing the sense of humiliation and shame I feel that my country is disgraced by acts and sentiments most discreditable to her, incompatible with civilization, and utterly abhorrent to the better feelings of human nature.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down did not require to make any apology for the interesting and thoughtful speech to which we have just listened. I rose to say, with regard to the Returns moved for by the noble Lord who introduced the subject (Lord Oranmore and Browne), Her Majesty's Government have no objection to furnish them; there may be some question about the precise wording, but that can be subsequently arranged. The noble Lord has called our attention to what he justly terms the late fearful outrage committed
1208
in the county of Donegal. That is a crime of which it is painful to speak—a crime accompanied with every circumstance of reckless and ruthless barbarity—a crime which reflects discredit, I am sorry to say, if not on the whole country, yet certainly on the district in which it was perpetrated. As it is so recent, and will shortly become the subject of judicial investigation, your Lordships will not expect me to do more than state the steps that have been taken by the Government. Your Lordships are aware that rewards have been offered—first, one of £500 for information upon the subject; and since then—I think today—a further reward of £1,000 for informatio which would lead to the arrest of any of the persons who committed the crime. The local police are engaged in the investigation, aided by a superior officer from Dublin; five or six persons are under arrest; and the barony in which the crime was committed has been proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act as from the 8th of the present month. After that proclamation, no arms can be carried in the district without a licence. The noble Lord also referred to the narrative given in the newspapers of what occurred at the funeral of the noble Earl—of one who was lately a Member of this House. I am glad to be able to shed a ray of light and consolation on that part of the case. I cannot but think that the narrative which appeared in the newspapers has been greatly exaggerated. I hold in my hand a telegram from the Chief Commissioner of Police in Dublin, in which he says—
"I have read the account of Lord Leitrim's funeral. It is a gross exaggeration. The writer must have drawn largely on his imagination, as hardly one fact, except that there was a crowd, is stated accurately. None of the newspapers describe the affair with even an approach to accuracy. Further details will be sent by post."
I hope, therefore, that the report in the English newspapers will turn out to be greatly exaggerated. The noble Lord referred, according to his Notice, also to what he termed "the increased and increasing prevalence of undetected and unpunished crime in Ireland." I should like to say a few words on that subject. If the noble Lord meant by these words that "undetected and unpunished crime" has increased and is increasing throughout the whole of Ireland, I can only say

1209
that the Government are not prepared to admit in any way the accuracy of that expression. Speaking of the greater part of Ireland, I am happy to say, there is no foundation for the statement that undetected and unpunished crime has increased or is increasing. But I do not wish to conceal from your Lordships anything which is within the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government. I am afraid that it is the case in one particular district of Ireland to which the noble Lord more immediately referred—the district of part of Galway, Mayo, and Roscommon—where, for the last 12 months, a state of things has prevailed which has, in a very great degree, caused anxiety and pain to the Government. Your Lordships are aware that in the summer of last year there was a very melancholy occurrence in that district—one of the magistrates, Mr. Young, was murdered—and, from the circumstances, a number of persons of the neighbourhood must have known who the murderers were. Not long afterwards, in the same district, the petty sessions clerk was murdered; and, about the same time, a petty constable was fired at and very severely wounded. These occurrences were all very much in the same neighbourhood, and I regret to say that for none of them has any person been brought to justice. I also regret to say, on the part of the Government, that there is much reason to believe that these occurrences in that district are not merely isolated acts, having their origin in purely local circumstances, but that they are more or less connected with a larger organization—an organization, having the double effect of leading to the commission of these crimes and bringing to bear in the district where they are committed a system of terrorism and alarm which prevents any evidence being given against the authors of the crimes. With all the means of information which we possess, while I cannot say that undetected and unpunished crime has increased and is increasing in the greater part of Ireland, I believe that in the particular locality to which reference has been made the state of things is serious, and it certainly is a subject of very great anxiety to the Government. I am prepared to say on the part of the Government that, watching narrowly what is occurring, and deeply convinced that it is their duty to provide for the
1210
protection of life when in danger, whenever they are satisfied it is their duty to apply to Parliament for further powers on the subject, they will be prepared to do so.
VISCOUNT LIFFOEDwas understood to say that he was present at the funeral of the late Lord Leitrim, and he was glad to hear the telegram read by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He hoped the proceedings of a brutal mob would not be considered as reflecting on the character of the Irish people. The district in which he lived was in the same county in which the late Lord Leitrim resided, and his experience was exactly the reverse of that stated by his noble Friend who brought forward this Motion. In his district, some years ago, outrages had occurred connected with Ribbonism; but, on being appealed to, the entire population of two parishes—Protestant and Roman Catholic—came forward in the most noble way, and Ribbonism was put down. He was bound to speak of them with respect for the appreciation of justice they had shown on that occasion—he was not bound to be blind—the Irish people appreciated justice as he believed no other people in the world did. The noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven), who had made an interesting speech, talked of remedial measures; but had they ever been applied? Nothing but justice would be remedial, coupled with the strict enforcement of the law affecting property. During the last 50 years, for political and party purposes, class had been set against class, and religion against religion. The late Earl of Leitrim was in many respects a most considerate and kind landlord, but nothing would move him from his determination to enforce the law. In his proceedings, he looked only to two objects—so far as he was aware—the first, being the improvement of the condition of his tenantry, and the second, the enforcement of the law respecting property. He was a man of independent spirit, impossible to move from his purpose; but, at the same time, of a just and honourable temperament. He never evicted a tenant without a cause, and to those who were evicted, he gave the fullest compensation. Their Lordships had heard the letter, read by his noble Friend on the cross-bench (Lord Oranmore and Browne), written by a tenant-farmer, and

1211
stating what Lord Leitrim had done in the country where his property was situated. He had entirely put down secret societies in the county of Leitrim, and what he had done in that county before the passing of the Land Act, he did in Donegal after the passing of that Act. To a great extent, he sacrificed his property unduly for the benefit of his tenantry. He mentioned various awards granted with costs, equal to half the awards against the late Earl under claims for Ulster tenant-right, the number of years' purchase ranging from 20 and 30 to 53½ and 61 years' purchase. Lord Leitrim had the strongest evidence, short of actual proof, that one of those men who had received 40 years' purchase had laid a plot to murder him. Now, suppose that the Irish people had had a fair appreciation of the rights of property and of life, what sort of education had they received during the last few years under the Land Act? It was an education in illegality and injustice. He believed that if "the Bright clauses" could be carried out, good to a great extent would be the result; but the worst part of the Land Act was that which legalized that vague, undefined, and uncertain thing called Ulster tenant-right. It was so vague and uncertain, that while on some estates it meant five years, on others it meant 25 or even 50 years' purchase. Let not their Lordships suppose that he was opposed to the fair claims of the tenant. Long ago, their Lordships might remember that in Committee in that House he urged in the strongest way that the fullest compensation should be given to the tenant for any outlay which he or his predecessors might have made on the land. But the present Land Act, while it despoiled the landlord, promoted litigation between landlord and tenant. Coming back to the case of Lord Leitrim, even supposing that the guilty parties were brought to trial, it was by no means certain that they would not be acquitted under the present system. Under the old jury system the case was very different. But now, political power had been put into the heads of a class totally unfit to exercise it. He would give two illustrations. A man was put on his trial at the quarter sessions of Thurles for larceny, when the following scene occurred:—
"A Juror said—I have a doubt it was not the prisoner who took the money.
1212
"The Chairman: Have you any doubt he was assisting the other man? If you think he was assisting him, I have told you before he is as guilty as if he himself took the money.
"The jury again conferred together.
"The Juror: I have a doubt still.
"The Chairman: Have you any doubt but that the prosecutor was robbed, that the prisoner held him, or that the prisoner and the other man rushed out of the carriage together, and went into another carriage, where they were arrested by the constables, and that the prosecutor's purse was found under the seat where they were sitting?
"The Juror: But the train was in motion. (Laughter in court.)
"The Chairman: This cannot go on. Retire to your room.
"After being locked up for some time, the jury came into court with a verdict of 'Guilty.'
"The Chairman: That is a very proper verdict. I may now tell you what I could not tell you before—that the other man admitted his guilt before the magistrates, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
"The Juror: I do not agree to that verdict. I do not think the prisoner is guilty.
"The Chairman: Give back the issue paper to the jury. They must all agree to the verdict. Return to the jury-room.
"The jury retired, and were locked up for a considerable time, but eventually had to be discharged without agreeing to a verdict, and the prisoner was directed to be tried at Nenagh next Monday."
He would give another illustration—
"At Ballinakill quarter sessions, Ellen Moore was indicted for having stolen a shawl. Evidence sustaining the charge having been given, his worship charged the jury, who retired. After a considerable lapse of time, one of the jurors came out of the room and was leaving the court. His worship observed the man, and directed the Deputy Clerk of the Peace to ask if he was a juror.—Juror: 'Yes, Sir'—Deputy Clerk of the Peace: 'Where are you going?'—The Juror: 'Ah, begor, I wouldn't stay there; they're all boxin' and fightin' inside.' (Laughter.) The Juror was then ordered back to the room, and a constable placed on the door. The prisoner was found guilty, and on the jury being discharged, one of them was heard to say—'Only I threatened to lick him, he'd never agree.'"
He hoped his noble Friend who had brought forward this subject would withdraw the first part of his Motion, and be content with obtaining the Returns.
LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he feared that on the subject of the lamentable murder which had disgraced Ireland, there was little useful which could be said. A dreadful deed had been done, but he believed there was still reason to hope that it did not necessarily follow that such atrocities would be repeated

1213
in the same part or other parts of Ireland. The attempts which had been made in the course of the discussion to draw conclusions from this isolated crime, with respect to future legislation, did not appear to have recommended themselves to their Lordships. He saw no reason to draw from this crime the conclusion either that it was their duty, under present circumstances, to pass a new Coercion Act for Ireland, or to entertain any question as to a change in the Land Act. After the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he would have been content to remain absolutely silent, but for a statement of the noble Lord who had just sat down (Viscount Lifford), to the effect that the Land Act, in its operation in Ulster, had been an education in illegality and injustice for the population of that part of the country. That statement he was sorry to hear from his noble Friend, and he hoped it would not be accepted by any of their Lordships. The object of the Land Act was not to provide education for the people of Ulster, but to convert into law that which had been long recognized as a moral obligation on the Ulster landlords, which was recognized as such by the great majority of them, and regarded fairly as such by all Ulster tenants. The obligations of the Ulster tenant-right existed morally on the Ulster estates, and, he presumed, on the estates of the late unfortunate Lord Leitrim, before the Land Act. What the Land Act did was to translate into a legal right that moral obligation. He was not prepared to assert that every decision under the Act in an Irish Court was right; but this he would say—that every care was taken in the framing of the Land Act that every such decision should be just; and, in case of any error in the County Courts, a double appeal was carefully provided. As he said, the Land Act converted into an obligation of the law that which was a moral obligation binding upon landlords. Such being the case, he thought that this lamentable and atrocious crime had been committed— not in consequence of the Land Act—but in spite of it; and that the education which the people of Ulster had received from the Land Act was an education, not of injustice, but of justice and morality.
LORD INCHIQUINsaid, that what they had to inquire into was, what were the causes that promoted these crimes, and what were the means to be taken for their repression? He thought murders, such as those they were now discussing, a dismal and grim answer to the "message of peace" which it was confidently hoped recent legislation had sent over to Ireland. The sacrifices—and they were no small ones—which the landlords of Ireland had been called upon to submit to, appeared to him to have been made in vain, as far as putting an end to agrarian crime was concerned. He might add, that in spite of the repressive laws which had been enacted by Parliament, the edicts of the secret societies were carried into effect with impunity. Under these circumstances, it was only right that their Lordships should calmly consider what motives were working in Ireland, and what were the causes which led to these crimes. It had been remarked, in the course of the present discussion, that it was not easy to say where the causes of these crimes lay. He was unable to concur in this opinion. He attributed the crime which existed in Ireland—first, to the agitation which was kept up on the Land Question both in and out of Parliament; secondly, to the injudicious, intemperate, and uncontrollable language of a certain portion of the Press in Ireland; and, thirdly, he attributed it, in great measure, to the denunciations too frequently heard from the altars of Roman Catholic chapels in Ireland. These constituted, in his opinion, the reasons for the existence of crime in Ireland. It would naturally be asked—"What do you propose to do to remedy this state of things?" With regard to the agitation on the land question, in or out of Parliament, he by no means regretted that grievances should be brought forward; but he thought the landlords of Ireland might fairly call upon this and the other House of Parliament to declare that they would not, under any circumstances, listen to any proposal for the confiscation of the property of one part of the community for the purpose of handing it over to another part of the community. This was a vital point; and if the Leaders in both Houses, and more especially the author of the Land Act, were to declare that in their opinion it would be impossible to transfer property from one class

1215
to another, he thought a great deal of the source of agitation would be taken away from those who at the present time were doing all they could to bring about a change which would be most injurious to the country. Even if those Gentlemen should succeed in carrying a measure which would confiscate the property of the present landowners, he did not believe that by doing so they would in any way stop or lessen crime in Ireland. They would merely transfer power to another class, who would probably use it in a very much worse way. As a rule, the landlords of Ireland dealt temperately and moderately with their tenants; and, whatever might be said about the late Lord Leitrim, there was no doubt that he was a kind and considerate landlord in many respects, although peculiar in his views. His Lordship was under the impression that the legalizing of the Ulster custom had done a gross injustice on his property, and he was determined to remedy, as far as the law would allow him to do so, the evil effects of that legislation. For his own part, he (Lord Inchiquin) believed that if the declarations he had suggested were made in Parliament, the agitation in the Press would, to a great extent, cease; but if intemperate language continued to be used, the Government would still have the power of coming to Parliament and re-enacting the clauses of the Peace Preservation Act, with a view to putting a stop to language of that kind. He came to a much more delicate question when he referred to the denunciations in the Roman Catholic chapels in Ireland—he desired to be very careful in speaking on the subject—but these were matters of fact, and there could be no secret whatever about them. It must be in the recollection of their Lordships, that two of the worst crimes which ever disgraced the annals of Ireland were committed in consequence of denunciations uttered, in each case, on the previous Sunday in the Roman Catholic chapels—the victims of the crimes he referred to were denounced in the Roman Catholic chapel, and the crimes were carried out before the next Sunday came round. Those denunciations which had come under his own personal observation had led, not, indeed, to murder, but to threatening letters and annoyances of various kinds. Denunciations made from the altar, without reason or justice, had
1216
brought about a spirit of terrorism, which, in spite of what had been said to the contrary, prevailed in many parts of Ireland. Being made without justice or reason, they brought about a spirit of terrorism, which existed in more places than the Government had any idea of; and the reason why the authorities were not made aware of its existence was, that the persons who suffered were unwilling to come forward and complain, because they knew they could obtain no remedy—the Government could do nothing for them. From his place in Parliament he appealed to the Roman Catholic priests to be temperate in their language. They did not know the mischief they did in using the language which they uttered from the altar. If the Roman Catholic Bishops were to speak with a will to their Clergy, saying—"We will not sanction denunciations and intemperate language and accusations uttered from the altar," he believed much would be done towards putting an end to the existence of crime in Ireland. He would only say, in conclusion, that he heard the telegram which had been read by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with great satisfaction—it gave ground for hope that the account in The Times of the disgraceful behaviour at the late Earl of Leitrim's funeral was greatly exaggerated.
LORD O'HAGANwished to say a word with regard to the Land Act. For his own part, he could not believe that any discontent was caused in Ireland by the Land Act. He thought it a most unjust imputation upon an upright and honourable body of men, the Judges of the County Courts in Ireland, with reference to their decisions under the Act—and he wished further to point out that there existed in Ireland a Supreme Court of Appeal, which was constituted in a most satisfactory way, and which dealt with the Land Question; but only a very small number of appeals had been taken to that Court, and he thought that fact alone would be a sufficient answer to what had been said by some noble Lords on the other side. He did not believe there was any discontentment with the Land Act, and he was quite sure that if any wrong had been done under it the Act would have been altered. He would also allude to the Jury Act. The noble Lord opposite (Viscount Lifford) said

1217
that the principle of the selection of juries must be restored in Ireland if juries were to do their duty. Selection of juries had been applied in former times in a way that was very injurious to the administration of justice. As a matter of fact, the Jury Act had accomplished the most beneficial results. After the last agrarian murder in Ireland—the Jerningharn murder—was committed, one of the principals in that murder was captured, and was tried and convicted by an Irish jury. In only two cases—the case of the counties Galway and Mayo—did the Judges now complain of undetected crime. These were on the Connaught circuits; there was no such complaint on the Roscommon, Leitrim, or Sligo circuits; nor was there any complaint of the prevalence of undetected crime on any of the circuits except the two cases he had mentioned. On the contrary, there was almost a universal expression of satisfaction on the part of the Judges. The Constabulary of Ireland were a most efficient body, and it was almost impossible that a crime could be committed without its being detected by them. The whole of Ireland, with the exception of the two counties he had referred to, and of Limerick, which had naturally attracted the attention of the noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne), was in a most satisfactory state of peace and obedience to the law.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDEELEYsaid, that since remedial measures were as much under the consideration of the House as measures of coercion, he would venture to make a suggestion to Her Majesty's Ministers, and to ask them, whether the time had not come when they might advise Her Majesty to add to her Guards a regiment of Irish Fusilier Guards? Such a recognition of what the United Kingdom owed to the military prowess of Irishmen would be most gratefully received by them, and would greatly stimulate recruiting in Ireland. Irish soldiers had not only added lustre to the British Arms, when enrolled under British Standards, they had also preserved the credit of the British Army even when they were arrayed against it. For at Fontenoy, the only important action in which the French could claim a victory, the Irish Brigade, by its repulse of our troops, saved them from the mortification of
1218
defeat by the French. If an Irish regiment of Guards were to be granted to Ireland, a regiment fully equal in appearance to the three existing regiments could be speedily formed from the ranks of the Irish Constabulary. One might say of that body—altering a little the words of a Wallachian poet—"No one ever saw them without wishing to be their colonel." Some of them might easily be spared from Ireland; for it was rather grating to the feelings of an Englishman to see so many of them in pairs at all the railway stations in Ireland, as it reminded one too much of Austria in the old times of Prince Metternich, or of a French Department when in a state of siege—and the work they had to do, of watching the movements of Fenians or Ribbonmen, would, one would think, be more efficiently performed by police in plain clothes.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) spoke of the "solitary" agrarian murder, and said that there was very little undetected crime in Ireland. When he had mentioned 10 cases of murder, or attempted murder, within 18 months, he could not imagine how the noble Lord arrived at the conclusion that the murder of the Earl of Leitrim was an isolated case; nor could he understand how the noble and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan) referred to the Judges' charges as speaking favourably of the state of the country with so many undetected crimes.
LORD O'HAGANsaid, he was speaking of Ulster.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that, even supposing crime was confined to one district, when it was as extensive as it had been in the three counties near which he lived, he thought that would be quite reason enough to have a law which could be applied to that particular part of Ireland like the Westmeath Act, and which should have no reference to any other part of Ireland. However, the Government had recognized the serious nature of the case, and that the measures which had been already tried by the Government had had no success in suppressing crime. He had to thank the Government, at any rate, for their attention and their promise that if they found the present law still unsuccessful they would pass more stringent measures. He would, therefore,

1219
withdraw the first part of his Motion, and move for the Returns only.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Then, on the Motion of the Lord ORANMORE and BROWNE,
Returns showing all crimes against human life, firing into dwelling houses, administering of unlawful oaths, demands for money, threatening letters or other intimidation, incendiary fires, robbery of arms, which have been reported by the Royal Irish Constabulary between 1st January 1875 and 28th February 1878, distinguishing so far as can be done agrarian crimes, and showing whether any person or persons have been prosecuted for such offences, and whether acquitted or found guilty:
Ordered to be laid before the House.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—PRINCE GORTCHAKOFF'S CIRCULAR AND MEMORANDUM.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLEinquired, Whether Her Majesty's Government would present to Parliament the recent Circular of Prince Gortchakoff and its annexed Memorandum as soon as they were officially in possession of it? He refrained from putting any further Question, partly because he hoped negotiations might be going on in some shape or other which might lead to a favourable result, and partly because he felt he might assume that the Government, who advised Her Majesty to summon Parliament at an unusually early period to show confidence in it and to obtain its advice, would not allow Parliament to separate for a considerable time without informing it of any facts which it was essential or desirable for it to know.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: I have to inform the noble Earl that it is the intention of the Government to lay before both Houses of Parliament the Papers to which he alludes.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Twelve o'clock.