Sitting of 25 January 1878

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—for Marlborough, v. Lord Ernest Bruce, now Marquess of Ailesbury.
PUBLIC BILLS — Resolution in Committee — Ordered—First Reading— Bills of Sale*[90].
Ordered —First Reading —Bankruptcy Act (186'J) Amendment*[89]; Judicature Acts Amendment*[91].
First Reading —Criminal Appeals*[92].
Second Reading — Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment [43], put off.
Select Committee —Parliamentary and Municipal Registration*[73], nominated.
Committee — House Occupiers Disqualification Removal*[45]—R.P.

QUESTIONS.
  EXPLORATION OF AFRICA.

    QUESTION.
    MR. H. B. SAMUELSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Austria, France, Germany, Italy, and Portugal have granted or promised public money for the purpose of exploring and civilizing certain parts of Africa; and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to devote any portion of the national resources to the same useful object?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that, as far as he understood, Her Majesty's Government had received no official information on this subject to show that either Austria, France, Germany, or Italy had granted or promised public money for the purpose of exploring and civilizing certain parts of Africa; but as regarded Portugal, he understood from Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon that last year a geographical society had been formed in that country, and had taken in hand the subject of exploration; and, further, that the Portuguese Colonial Minister had asked for a grant to organize an expedition which was to start on an early 'day. An Italian expedition was also to start for the same object; but whether it was fitted out by the Italian Government or not, he was unable to say. Her Majesty's Government had not granted or promised any sum for African exploration, but would always be ready, in other respects, as hitherto, to afford assistance to the exploration and civilization of Africa.

  THE IRISH CONSTABULARY — PAYMENTS FOR SPECIAL SERVICES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is a fact that

    459
    a sum of over £1,700 was recently paid by the Great Southern Railway Company of Ireland to the constabulary authorities for services in connection with the late strike of milesmen on their line; whether the police performed any, and, if so, what services on that occasion beyond those incidental to their duty of preserving the public peace; whether the money has been yet distributed; whether a demand has been made upon the Company by the authorities for £300 more; and, whether the constabulary authorities subsequent to the payment by the Company of the above sum of £1,700 have demanded back from the men a gratuity or payment of £3 each granted to them by the Government for their extra services on the occasion; what is the total amount of that gratuity or payment; and whether it has yet been refunded?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I may state that I have ascertained by inquiry of the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary that the services rendered by the Constabulary during the late strike on the Great Southern Railway were only such as were proper to their office, consisting of constant patrols on the line of the Company for the protection of life and property. No charge for the services rendered could have been legally made on the Company, nor was any such charge attempted to be made; but the Directors of the Company at the close of the strike voluntarily and spontaneously offered to the Inspector General of Constabulary a certain sum of money to recoup the men who were so employed for their extra expense, and wear and tear of necessaries. The ordinary rules of the Constabulary Force would not have admitted of those men, who had been summoned from a distance, being compensated by the Treasury for expenses of this nature in so very exceptional a case, and it was decided that the offer of the Directors should be accepted. Accordingly the sum of £1,700 was paid by the Company to the Inspector General for this purpose towards the end of December, before the precise amount required could be accurately ascertained, in order that it might be included in the accounts of the Company up to the 31st of December, 1877. The sum thus forwarded was based on a rough estimate of what
    460
    would probably be necessary; but, on further inquiry, it has been found that in order to carry out the wishes of the Directors a further sum will be required, and when this is known it will be notified to the Company, but by no means in the shape of a demand. The £1,700 paid has, of course, not yet been distributed. With reference to the last paragraph of the Question the facts are these—In the departmental audit of the Constabulary accounts in the Inspector General's office, it was discovered in the accounts of one county that the allowances payable only to men living out of barracks had been improperly paid to men who were accommodated therein while engaged on this duty, and that, contrary to the regulations, such payments had been passed unquestioned by the county Inspector. They were not allowed by law, and the Inspector General, as accounting officer for the Vote, was compelled to disallow them against the officer in default. In doing so, he expressly informed that officer that he could not assist him in recovering them; but it appeared from the cash accounts of that officer recently sent in that those payments had been recovered by him. The Inspector General has intimated to the county Inspector his strong disapproval of what was done; the matter is still under consideration, and it is my intention to make further inquiry into it.

  GREECE — DIPLOMATIC COMMUNICATIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. CARTWRIGHTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the version be substantially correct, which stands in the "Daily News" of January 24th, of a Despatch from the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Greek Charge d'Affaires in London, bearing date September 22nd 1877, with instructions to lodge a Copy with Lord Derby, purporting to be a Reply to various representations (some having been apparently made under date of September 4th, September 11th, September 20th, and September 21st), addressed by Mr. Wyndham to the Greek Government under instructions from Lord Derby, and especially to a declaration said to have been made in virtue of the right of Great Britain as a Guaranteeing Power to expect the Greek Go-

  461
  vernment to adopt a specified line of action in its relations with Turkey; and, whether, in the event of a Despatch of this character having been received, it is still considered expedient by Her Majesty's Government, in presence of the partial publicity that has been thus given to a portion of the Correspondence between England and Greece, to persist in declining to lay before Parliament any Papers having reference to the action Her Majesty's Government may have seen fit to bring to bear upon Greece with the view of influencing her attitude towards Turkey?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, in reply to the first part of the Question of the hon. Member, I have to state that I understand that the version of the despatch of the Greek Minister for Foreign Affairs, M. Tricoupi, is substantially correct. In reply to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, I have further to state that the reason which has induced Her Majesty's Government to with old the Papers containing the communications which have passed between our Government and that of Greece referring to the relations existing between Turkey and Greece is, that they are afraid that the publication of those Papers might be embarrassing to the Governments of Turkey and Greece. There will, however, be no objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government to lay them on the Table if the two Governments referred to will give their sanction to their doing so.

  NAVY—THE MEDITERRANEAN SQUADRON.—QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will be good enough to inform the House the names of the vessels at present comprising the Mediterranean Squadron; also the nature of the manœuvres and exercises in which the ships, officers, and men have been engaged during the last six months; and, whether the officers and men have been educated and exorcised in the working of torpedoes alike from the shore and the ships?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, it would be misleading if I were to state the names of the vessels composing the Mediterranean Squadron, unless I also entered into a lengthened statement as to the
  462
  strength and character of those vessels' and under present circumstances it is undesirable that I should do so. I trust, therefore, that the hon. Member will excuse my declining to answer the first part of his Question. In reply to the second part of his Question, I have to state that the Fleet has been maintained in a condition of efficiency by constant exercise; but it would be necessary that I should refer to the Commander-in-Chief before I could state the particulars of that exercise.
  MR. GOURLEYasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman could state the whereabouts of the different vessels?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to answer some Questions of which Notice has been given by the noble Lord the Member for Radnor, and perhaps it would be better if the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make his statement.

  INDIA—KHELAT—OCCUPATION OF QUETTAH.—QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, What is the amount of the annual charge now thrown upon the revenues of India by the millitary occupation of Quettah; whether the following statement, contained in a letter to the "Times" of Wednesday last, from Major-General Sir John Adye, is correct:—
  "It is understood that we are building a residency and a fortified cantonment; that a telegraph has been established; and a Railway is to be made to the entrance of the Pass (Parliamentary Paper, 'Beloochistan,' No. 2, 1877);"
  and, if these works are being or to be constructed, he can inform the House what is their estimated cost?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in reply, said, that as far as he was aware, the occupation of Quettah would entail no increase in the Military Estimates of the Government of India. There was a certain apparent increase in the political charges, and, probably, an increase of salaries on account of Major Sandeman and his establishment. The salaries of Major Sandeman and his Staff were stated at page 336, Parliamentary Blue Book No. 2 (Beloochistan). A house had been built at Quettah for the occupation of the agent of the Governor

  463
  General; but, as he stated the other day, no other buildings but of a temporary character, and such as were necessary for stores, had been erected. Telegraphic communication had been established between Quettah and British India, as was the case with all troops that might be on detachment duty. No expenditure has been sanctioned or incurred in the construction of a railway to the entrance of the Bolan Pass.

  INDIA—BENGAL—ENHANCEMENT OF RENT.—QUESTION.
  MR. ERNEST NOELasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Copies of the Correspondence relative to the draft Law on the enhancement of Rent in Bengal are to be laid upon the Table of the House?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in reply, said, if the hon. Gentleman would move for the Correspondence relative to the draft law on the enhancement of rent in Bengal there would be no objection to produce it.

  POST OFFICE—PRIVATE LETTER BAGS, EDINBURGH.—QUESTION.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Postmaster-General, If he will state the reasons why the charge for private letter bags in Edinburgh has recently been increased from one pound to three pounds; and if he will lay upon the Table a list of the other towns in the United Kingdom, in which the same increased charge has taken place?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: It is a fact, Sir, that the fee has been raised to three guineas; and the same has taken place at Glasgow—putting Edinburgh and Glasgow in the same position as London, Liverpool, and Manchester. It is in consequence of the greater cost for accommodation and service. The greater increased charge has not taken place in any other town. But in about 70 other towns the fee has been raised from one guinea to two guineas. I do not know whether the hon. Member would like to have a list of those; but if he chooses to move for it, he can have it.

  TURKEY—THE REPORTS OF CONSULAR OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. J. HOLMS,
  MR. BOURKEsaid: Full and ample accounts, Sir, of the state of affairs in
  464
  those parts of Turkey where Consular officers are stationed, have been presented to Parliament in Blue Book Turkey No. 1, which contains Correspondence to the end of December. This country has had no Consular officer for some time at Slivno; but the hon. Member will find in the Blue Book a Report from Consul Blount, in which he enters in great detail into the state of affairs with regard to that part of Turkey. Since then I find that no authentic report has been received with regard to the transactions which has taken place there.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—PRESENT POSITION OF H.M. GOVERNMENT.

    QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I have been under the necessity of communicating to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fact that I should think it my duty to put several Questions to him this evening upon several important subjects. The first of those Questions is, Whether the terms of peace demanded by Russia have arrived, and are known to the Government? and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also be able to state at what hour they arrived yesterday? and also, whether Her Majesty's Government were aware that those terms were before the Porte, and were under the consideration of the Porte, at the time that the Notice which the Government gave yesterday was given? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may also be able to state, whether there is any foundation for the rumour, which I believe has within the last hour or two been spread, that preliminaries of peace or an armistice have actually been signed by the Porte? Sir, I have further to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he can inform the House whether any steps have been taken, or any instructions have been given, for measures to be taken, which have not yet been communicated to Parliament? And, Sir, I have further to ask—and this Question, I must admit, is based upon nothing but popular rumour and newspaper statements; rumours and statements which, however, I think it would be mere affectation to despise— whether there is any foundation for the report that more than one influential

    465
    Member of Her Majesty's Government has thought it necessary to tender his resignation? Sir, I do hope that the House will believe that in putting these Questions I am not actuated by any idle curiosity. On the contrary, I think it must be evident to the House that, if there is any foundation for such a statement, it must have a most important bearing upon the character of the measure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday announced it was his intention to propose for the consideration of the House on Monday. I have only, I think, one further Question to put to the right hon. Gentleman; but it is one as to which I shall have to ask the House to allow mo to enter upon a very short explanation. I must repeat the Question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to lay upon the Table of the House any further Papers relating to their communications with foreign Powers? I thought that the object of the Question I put yesterday must have been perfectly obvious; but from the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it appeared to me that he did not altogether quite comprehend the object I had in view in putting the Question to him. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that it was a time to speak frankly. I entirely agree with him, and I shall endeavour to speak shortly, and at the same time frankly. The House and the public are, in my opinion, very much mistaken if it is not the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that some of the conditions upon which the neutrality of this country depends are at this moment being imperilled, and the country believes those conditions are conditions which relate to the occupation of Constantinople and the question of the navigation of the Dardanelles. Now, Sir, I am not about to discuss those conditions, but I must say that side by side with the declaration which was made upon these points last year was the declaration that those were conditions not solely of English, but of European interest. Now, Sir, it appears to me that what the House has a right to know before the Government commits us to a course which may possibly—although I hope not—lead us to go to war, is what are the relations of the Government with the other Powers
    466
    of Europe, in regard especially to those points upon which our conditional neutrality depends. The House has a right to be told whether the action which the Government proposes to take is taken with the knowledge of and with the assent of the other Powers; and if it is not so taken, the House has a right, in my opinion, to know how it has come to pass that those conditions which last year were asserted to be not questions of English interest only, but of European interest, have come to be entrusted solely to British guardianship. Sir, the necessity for the production of Papers which will throw some light upon those points is, of course, greatly increased if there is any truth in the rumours to which I have before alluded. I could conceive circumstances under which the Government might come down to the House and make an appeal to Parliament, and state that communications had passed between themselves and the other Powers of Europe, but which it was not in their power at present to submit to Parliament: and they might say that they trusted that Parliament, if it had any confidence in the Government at all, would believe that they would not make such an appeal as they were about to make without sufficient necessity and without the communications being of such a character that it would not be for the benefit of the country that they should be divulged. But the case would be very greatly altered if there is any foundation for those rumours which I have referred to. In that case, it would appear that some of their own Members —men not ignorant, as we are, of what is going on, but possessing the same knowledge as the Government themselves—consider that the action contemplated by the Government was not necessary. It is incumbent, therefore, I think, upon the Government to lay upon the Table of the House without delay such information as would enable the House to judge what is the condition of their relations with foreign Powers, and whether the action which they propose now to take is to be an isolated action, and if it is to be an isolated action, what are the grounds which have made isolated action on our part necessary. It has been pointed out to me that the Supplementary Estimate has not yet been laid upon the Table. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be

    467
    able to state when it will be in the possession of hon. Members.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, the noble Lord was good enough to make a communication to me this afternoon of his intention to put Questions of the character he has now addressed to me, and I will endeavour, so far as I can, to answer those Questions; but the noble Lord and the House must bear in mind that upon some of those points it is difficult, or indeed impossible, for me to speak fully and to answer every Question that has been put to me, because many of the points that have been raised by the noble Lord relate to matters of which we are not at liberty to speak fully without the assent of other Governments. Now, with regard to the first Question —or group of Questions, if I may so describe it—put by the noble Lord, I think they wore these—He wished to know, whether the terms submitted by Russia, or offered by the Turkish Plenipotentiaries, have arrived in this country, and have been made known to Her Majesty's Government? He further goes on—assuming the Answer to the Question in a manner which I am rather surprised at—he goes on to ask at what time those conditions arrived yesterday, and whether the Government were aware of them, and were aware that they were under the consideration of the Turkish Plenipotentiaries at the time when I gave the Notice I did?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: That is not quite correct. I asked whether terms of peace were not at that time under the consideration of the Turkish Government.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg pardon. I understood your Question to be, whether Her Majesty's Government were aware that those terms were under the consideration of the Porte at the time that I made the announcement in this House of the Government's intention to propose a Vote?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. What I asked him was whether the Government were aware that terms of peace were under the consideration of the Porte at the time he made his statement.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg the noble Lord's pardon,
    468
    but of course I do not pretend to quote the language in which the noble Lord's Questions were couched, as he has not given me in handwriting the terms of them. However, I think with regard to one or two of these Questions I hardly ought to have been asked them. With regard to the circumstances under which I spoke, I think the House would hardly suppose that I should have been guilty, or that Her Majesty's Government would have been guilty of such a suppression, and even more than a suppression, of the truth as would have been involved in coming forward and giving the Notice which we did give, and explaining it as I subsequently did explain it, and yet making no allusion to such a remarkable fact, as that we were well aware that terms of peace had been communicated by the Russian Government to the Porte and were under consideration by the Porte. Sir, the Government had no knowledge that anything of the kind had occurred. And now with reference to the Questions the noble Lord put, I am really unable even now to answer positively the Question whether the terms of peace have arrived and are known to the Government. Certainly last night nothing of that sort had occurred. Last night, up to the time the House had met, we had not had communicated to us the terms, and we were not in a condition to say what were the terms, or even whether terms had been communicated to Turkey. Nay, further, we are not even now in the position of saying that those terms have been communicated to us. The Russian Ambassador, I believe, had previous to the time when I came down to the House been in communication with my noble Friend Lord Derby, and we were aware that no communication of the terms had been made. Well, in the course of yesterday evening certain communications of a private, and not of an authentic or formal character, were made to us on the subject of those terms. We received them by communications from abroad, and those communications certainly led to the impression that matters had gone further than we had been informed of before. But those communications, as I have said, were not of an authentic character; and they have been supplemented by others which show that they were not altogether quite accurate, and that they were not at that time fully or tho-

    469
    roughly known. This morning my noble noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Derby) has received a communication from the Russian Ambassador, and the heads of certain bases have been communicated to Lord Derby; but whether we are in a position to make any communication with regard to them I am not able at this moment to say. They wore privately given, and it rests, therefore, with the Russian Ambassador to say whether we are to make any use of his communication. With respect to the next Question of the noble Lord—namely, whether we are aware that an armistice has been actually concluded, or preliminaries of peace agreed to by the Porte, I have to say that we are not aware of anything of the sort. That is the situation of affairs, so far as I am 'able to state them. The next Question put by the noble Lord was, whether any instructions have been given by Her Majesty's Government for steps to be taken which have not yet been communicated to Parliament. Well, I suppose I can divine to what particular kind of instructions the noble Lord refers. I presume it is to the movement of the Fleet—[The Marquess of HARTINGTON: Hear, hoar!]—which has been, I perceive, a matter of general comment. The case is this—On Wednesday evening we decided that orders should be sent to the Fleet to proceed to the Dardanelles to keep open the water-way and to protect British life and property in the event of tumults at Constantinople. But, Sir, in consequence of the communications to which I have referred— those private communications which we received late last night, a further telegram was despatched to the Fleet, ordering the Fleet, if they were at the mouth of the Dardanelles, where they had been directed to call for orders, to wait until they received further instructions. That is the position of affairs at the present moment. The noble Lord has put a Question to me with regard to other rumours which are afloat and as to the position of Members of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord has experience in those matters, and he will bear me out in saying, or will not be surprised at my saying, that I am not authorized to make any communication on that subject. With respect to the Question of the noble Lord as to the production of Papers, I said last night
    470
    that we would see whether there were any more Papers which could properly be presented. But the noble Lord now supplements that Question by indicating the kind of Papers which he thinks the House ought to be supplied with. With regard to those Papers, I may say that we have, of course, had many communications with foreign Powers of a confidential character, and it would be impossible, without the consent of other Powers, to publish Papers of that description. The noble Lord and the hon. Gentlemen who sit near him must be perfectly well aware how difficult it is to carry on diplomatic correspondence if you are liable at all times to be called upon to produce everything. So far as Her Majesty's Government, however, are concerned, there is not a line that they have written which they would have the slightest objection to produce. But the matter is not in our hands alone, and it would not be right to present anything without communicating with foreign Powers. The noble Lord asked one other Question—namely, as to the Supplementary Estimate. The actual details of the Estimate are at the present moment being drawn up by those who are conversant with the Departments concerned; but I may state to the House generally that the Estimate itself will be laid on the Table this evening, together with particulars, and it may be convenient that I should say at once that the amount which will be asked for is £6,000,000.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to put another Question which arises out of his statement. I understood him to say that orders had been given to the Fleet—which have now been, at all events, suspended—to enter the Dardanelles. I am under the impression that under the Treaty that step would be an infraction of the Treaty, unless it were taken with the consent of the Porte; and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he is able to state that the consent of the Porte was obtained before that order was given? Perhaps I might be allowed to say one word in explanation. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that I conveyed some imputation upon him for want of candour in keeping back information when he made his announcement yesterday. I can assure the right

    471
    hon. Gentleman and the House that I had no such intention. A statement, however, has been published in all the Papers to-day, apparently on good authority, that yesterday afternoon the terms of peace, having been remitted by the Turkish Plenipotentiaries to Constantinople, were under the consideration of the Porte. I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman to deny now the accuracy of that statement; and if it was the fact, surely it was not unnatural to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman might yesterday afternoon have been informed of it through our Ambassador at Constantinople? Neither did I suppose that he would be chargeable with keeping back anything which it was essential for the House to know when he did not make that communication yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understand, is aware now that terms are or have been under the consideration of the Porte; but I do not understand him to have said it makes any difference in the line of policy which Her Majesty's Government have announced their intention to take on Monday next.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As to the last observation of the noble Lord, it has certainly made no difference in the line of policy which Her Majesty's Government feel it their duty to take in proposing the Supplementary Vote, but it did make a difference in regard to moving the Fleet. But I think it better to refrain from saying more on that point until I have an opportunity on Monday of explaining the reasons which induced Her Majesty's Government to give their Notice for Monday next. With reference to the point which the noble Lord praised as to the bearing of Treaty obligations on the admission of the Fleet to the Dardanelles, of course it is one which has not escaped the observation of Her Majesty's Government. But I think it will be more convenient if I abstain at present from answering the Question that he put until I have an opportunity of making my statement on Monday. I would repeat again that I had not the information referred to at the time I made the statement yesterday, and that I should myself have considered it a want of candour, especially as the Question was asked, if I had refrained from mentioning it.
    MR. CHILDERS: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to put a Question to him in order to elucidate his previous Answer. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that he was about to place on the Table a Supplementary Estimate, and he has now stated that it would amount to £6,000,000. Now, a Supplementary Estimate must be an Estimate which is supplementary to some other Estimate; and what I have to ask is, whether this is an Estimate for the current year, 1877–8, or is to be supplementary to Estimates for next year which are not yet before us? On inquiry of the Clerk at the Table I find that there are no Estimates either for this or for the next year on the Table. Is the Estimate which is about to be presented one for the current year?
    THE CHANCELLOR OE THE EXCHEQUER: It is a Supplementary Estimate in the proper sense for the Naval and Military Services of the year 1877–8— that is to say, it is not additional to anything which has not been presented, but an addition to the Votes which were passed in the last Session of Parliament in the Appropriation Act for the Naval and Military Services of the country. A further sum is required for those Services, and the details will be mentioned in the Estimates.
    MR. CHILDERS: I must apologize to the House, but my only object is to clear up the matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean, in one word, that before the 31st of March next the Government propose to spend £6,000,000?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is not a question of whether it will require to be spent or not. It is a question of what the Government ask to have placed at their disposal for the purposes of the Naval and Military expenses of the country. This will be the heading—" For a sum required beyond the ordinary grants by Parliament towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred in immediately increasing the Naval and Military Services in the present crisis of the war between Russia and Turkey, including the cost of a further addition to the number of Land Forces during the year ending the 31st March, 1878." I think we had better defer the further discussion of the matter.

  CEYLON—ECCLESIASTICAL GRANTS.
    QUESTION. EXPLANATION.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: With the permission of the House, I desire to make a correction of an Answer I gave a few evenings ago to a Question put to me by one of the hon. Members for Lambeth (Mr. Alderman M'Arthur) relating to ecclesiastical grants in Ceylon. I find I am reported, and quite correctly, to have said that "Lord Carnarvon has communicated personally with Sir William Gregory on this as on other subjects connected with Ceylon." I have since received a letter from Sir William Gregory, from which it appears that my noble Friend was mistaken in his impression that this was among the subjects upon which they had privately conversed. I mention this, as Sir William Gregory is anxious I should do so. The decision, however, arrived at by Her Majesty's Government is as originally stated by me—namely, to continue the existing grants.
ORDERS OF TEE DAY.

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

  INDIA—THE SALT TAX.

    RESOLUTION.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,in rising to call attention to the Taxation of India, and to the injustice of placing new burdens on the food of the poor while the rich are not taxed in due proportion; and to move—
    "That the total taxation on salt in India being already excessive should not he increased, and especially a very large additional burden on an article so essential to life and health should not be placed on the populations of Madras and Bombay at a time "when they are enfeebled and emaciated by a very prolonged and severe famine,"
    said, he feared that the question might seem tame in these times, but it intimately concerned the welfare of 180,000,000 of the poorest of our fellow subjects, and was of special consequence at a time when, India and England being partners, both countries
    474
    might be plunged into a greatly increased expenditure. In such an event, the mode of taxation in India would be of the utmost importance; we had heard the measures which were proposed, and he trusted that this matter, so urgent from an Indian point of view, would command the attention of the House. The principal aim and object of his Motion was that in his judgment—and he trusted it would appear, also, in the judgment of the House—it was unfair and inexpedient that the additional taxation which it had been found necessary to impose on the Indian people, should be imposed on the poor and not on the rich; and more especially so since it would be imposed in a very objectionable form of taxation on the food of the poorer classes. Upon that point he might claim the sympathy of those hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who represented the financial policy inaugurated by the late Sir Robert Peel and adopted by his successors, the effect of that policy being to remove the taxes on food, and substitute a fair, proportionate tax on the income of the rich. That was the policy at present pursued in England, but not in India, where the example of a few oligarchical colonies had been copied. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) had often denounced the Government of the East India Company; but those censures came rather ill from him, as, whatever might have been the failings of the Company, it had, at any rate, protected the poor, and had done its best for the masses of the people. Undoubtedly the present Financial Minister of India (Sir John Strachey), was an able man, and nothing could be more true than his retrospect of the circumstances which had given rise to the present necessity; but when he dealt with the prospects of the future, he took the position rather of an advocate than of a statesman, so that the Indian journals gave him credit for abandoning his own views in deference to public opinion. The Budget was, he believed, in this respect, rather Lord Lytton's than Sir John Strachey's, especially with reference to the salt duty. Sir John Strachey had unfortunately allowed himself to give a viewy colouring to the future which was possible enough in a small Assembly, though not possible in a place where statements

    475
    were narrowly criticized. He was compelled to agree with the Government of India that some serious addition to the taxation of that country was unfortunately necessary. Perhaps retrenchment might effect a saving; but, as a matter of fact, the authorities both of India and of England had tried to make reductions without much success. As regarded the military charges, that, he believed, was eminently the case, and the best way to guard against the increase of those charges was to abstain from a mischievous activity on the North-western frontier. Again, so far as the additional taxation which it was proposed to impose on India, there was, he thought, in that portion of the Budget extreme vagueness of statement, as well as a considerable inadequacy in the measures proposed. It was stated that a very heavy debt had been incurred on account of the Famine, and that it was deemed necessary to levy additional taxation to meet those recurring disasters. Out of the £1,500,000 a-year to be provided, only £700,000 per annum would be available from the new taxation proposed to be raised, and that was held out as available for material improvements rather than for paying the costs of the famine. It was not a large sum, and it was inadequate to meet the requirements of the case. Now, the famine tax which it was proposed to impose on land had his approval; while as to the tax on traders and artizans, he was in favour of the principle on which the Government had determined to proceed, provided the tax were justly and equally imposed upon all classes. He was ready to admit that up to the limit of £1,000 a-year, which would be represented by a £20 tax, the charge was a fair one; but his complaint was not of the mode of its imposition as a substitute for a regular income tax on the middle classes; but that, contrary to the practice in the case of such a tax, it was to be imposed on the very humblest and poorest artizans down apparently to men earning £5 a-year, while the very rich were left practically untaxed. Companies making £100,000 a-year of profit were to be taxed only on £1,000 a-year, and the same rule applied to the rich merchants and millionaires of India. The Government of India were afraid of
    476
    touching these great Companies and rich men, because of the unpopularity it would cause, and because of the complaints that would appear in the newspapers. In agreeing to increase the salt tax, Lord Lytton, he was grieved and ashamed to say, had yielded to a selfish demand on the part of the rich for exemption from taxation; and he could not help expressing his opinion that it was a base and unjust thing for the Government of India to seek popularity on such terms. The net increase of the salt tax was only £300,000. If the Government extended the principle of the licence tax to the very rich, and taxed the rich for their servants, elephants, and horses, they would raise a much larger sum than they gained by this iniquitous tax on the food of the poor. He thought there should be a limit to the constant increase of this tax. The Government was getting dangerously near the point at which the camel's back would be broken; and it was desirable that a little of the burden imposed by this tax should be removed and laid upon different shoulders. By no man had that opinion been more strongly held than by the late Lord Mayo, assisted by the present Finance Minister, Sir John Strachey. It had also been held by Lord Lawrence, and Lord Hobart, and many others, and last year the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) had stated that the Secretary of State for India was of opinion that some means should be taken for reducing the tax. The statistics of the operation of the tax showed one or two very remarkable results. The consumers of rice and ragi in the South of India used a much larger proportion of salt than the population of the wheat-consuming country in the North of India. Among the latter the consumption was only 6lb. a-head; whereas in the South of India it amounted to 15lb. or 16lb. a-head. The tax would thus press most heavily on the population which was compelled to use the poorest class of grain, and a population impoverished, too, by the late Famine. It was a striking fact that, during the Famine, when food was scarce or of an inferior quality, the consumption of salt was greater than when it was plentiful and good, as the people used it as a kind of stimulant. The proposal to raise the salt tax 40 per

    477
    cent in Madras and Bombay, and reduce it only 4 per cent in Bengal, would result in a very considerable increase as a whole. Equalization was no reason for raising the whole tax. He regretted that Sir John Strachey bad attempted to justify the action which had been taken in regard to the imposition of the salt tax in the way be bad. The proposal was said to be of a temporary character, and stress was laid on the benefit that would result from its decrease in future years; but that was a fallacy, for the proposed increase must result in a substantial increase of the tax. The increase of 40 per cent in Madras and Bombay was unjustifiable, for already the population of these Provinces paid a higher rate of taxation per head in the shape of salt duties than any other part of India. The inhabitants of Madras and Bombay already paid £2,000,000 net of the salt tax of India. They contained less than one-third of the population of the country, but they paid more than one-third of the salt tax, and those Presidencies had naturally protested against any increase of the tax. This increased tax was unjust and inexpedient. It was unjust, because the rich in India were not taxed in due proportion, whilst it was a very heavy tax on the poor. The salt tax was, in reality, a food tax in its worst form; and whilst the poor in India were heavily taxed, the rich in that country, since the abolition of the income tax, were the most lightly taxed people on the face of the earth. Deducting the land tax, and opium, and other similar sources of income, the real taxation of India amounted to some £12,000,000, one-half of which was derived, from salt, leaving only £6,000,000 to be paid by the country generally, and by far the greater part of that sum was paid by the poor. If additional taxation was to be imposed on India, it was only right and proper that a fair share of it should be imposed on the rich. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the total taxation of salt in India being already excessive should not he increased, and especially a very large additional burden on an article so essential to life and health should not he placed on the populations of Madras and
    478
    Bombay at a time when they are enfeebled and emaciated by a very prolonged and severe famine,"—(Sir George Campbell,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that the hon. Gentleman opposite had moved a very ingenious Amendment against a Budget which was not in possession of the House; but it was impossible for the House, unless it was in possession of the full scope and bearing of Sir John Strachey's scheme, to understand why in one portion of India he had been obliged to increase the tax on a particular commodity. The hon. Member had jumped to the conclusion that Sir John Strachey had preferred to put all taxation on the poor and to abolish the taxes on the rich; but be could not understand bow anyone who was in full possession of the scheme could make such a statement. The statement of Sir John Strachey only reached this country a few days back. He (Lord George Hamilton) might say, without exaggeration, that Sir John Strachey had made a most comprehensive, most able, and statesmanlike exposition of the finances of India. It was true that he proposed additional taxation, but he coupled it with a large number of important administrative and financial reforms. Lord Mayo bad not only established an equilibrium between revenue and expenditure, but had bequeathed a considerable surplus to his successor. Lord Northbrook bad enlarged the surplus to such an extent that be thought it right to abolish the income tax. He thought the abolition of that tax was a matter to be regretted; but it had been abolished under peculiar circumstances, and it was one thing to abolish a tax and another to re-impose it. Prom the period at which the income tax was abolished up to the present time, there had been long-continued famines in one part of India or another, which bad entailed an expenditure of £16,000,000, adding £360,000 to the permanent expenditure of that country. The fall in the value of silver had imposed another charge, which could not be estimated at less than £1,500,000. There had also been an increased expenditure for military organization. Taking these amounts

    479
    altogether, India had during the last four or five years to meet additional charges amounting to £3,000,000, and that had eaten up the whole of the surplus. Sir John Strachey had pointed out how they would obtain a surplus of £500,000, which was insisted upon by the Secretary of State, and also an insurance fund of £1,500,000 per annum to provide against famine. He proposed to do this by a series of wise administrative changes, and giving the Local Government greater control over the Civil Service. He in this way saved in this year and the next £400,000. That would leave £1,100,000 to be provided for, and he proposed to raise by land cess £450,000, and by licence taxes £650,000; Madras and Bombay being exempted from the land cess. He further proposed to hand over to the Local Government additional means to construct irrigation works and railways. He proposed to lay the foundation of a great fiscal and financial reform—namely, an equalization of the salt duty in India. The salt duty of India was said to be crushing; but where? Not in Madras and Bombay, but in Bengal. At the present moment the rate in Bengal was 52 annas per maund. The rate in the North-west and other parts of India was 48 annas. In Bombay and Madras it was 29 annas. It was the duty of the Government to equalize, not by levelling up, but by levelling down. But it was impossible to level down to the level of Bombay and Madras without sacrificing a very large part of the revenue. Were we, then, to sit still and never attempt to equalize the duties of India? There was one course that might be adopted— namely, that of raising, to a certain extent, the duty in Madras and Bombay and to level the duty in Bengal down to that which was proposed in Madras and Bombay. That was what Sir John Strachey proposed. He proposed to exempt Bombay and Madras from the land tax. It would be reversing the principle of local rule and responsibility to lay down a rule that when a locality suffered a calamity all others were to bear the taxation necessary for its relief; yet that would be the result of Sir John Strachey's proposals if he had not put additional taxation upon Madras and Bombay. He objected to put it in the shape of a land cess, because the land revenue was high, and impoverished
    480
    people would have difficulty in paying a land cess, which would become payable at certain stated intervals. Therefore he proposed to bring the salt duty in Madras and Bombay to the level which he proposed for the whole of India—namely, 2 rupees 8 annas. An increase of 12 annas was, no doubt, a considerable one; but the raised duty would still be below the present rate in Bengal, which was to be reduced by 2 annas, while that of the North-west Provinces and elsewhere would be reduced by 4 annas. These changes were not made capriciously simply to increase taxation, but they were made to accomplish reforms and equalization, and to facilitate the abolition of the inner Customs' line of 2,000 miles, which reflected little credit on our administration. It would not be possible to carry out these reforms with a lower duty on salt. Negotiations were being carried on with the Native Princes on the other side of the line, and when these were completed there would be a uniform duty on salt throughout India. All other forms of taxation had been considered, and preference given to the increase of the salt duties, which amounted to only 2d. a-head, and would not be payable all at one time; while the change embodied the germ of a great fiscal reform and furnished the means by which Madras and Bombay would contribute their fair share towards a famine insurance fund. If the Amendment should be accepted the whole equilibrium of the Budget would be destroyed, and the most important of the reforms proposed would be indefinitely postponed. Notwithstanding all the criticism indulged in, no alternative was offered; yet it was proposed that the House should incur the serious responsibility of interfering with the functions of the Indian Government, which after mature deliberation had adopted a form of taxation preferred by the people, of whom 147,000,000 were now paying a tax higher than that proposed, which would be an advance to 45,000,000. He had always taken a sanguine view of the salt tax, and believed that reduction of the tax would be followed by increase of consumption. If that anticipation were realized, the Finance Minister would be able to reduce the rate for all India to the present rate for Madras and Bombay. Sir John Strachey had sketched reforms

    481
    which would be of great utility, and he hoped the House would not, on a plausible Motion directed to the weakest part of the Budget, postpone indefinitely reforms which would confer great benefits on the people of India.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: The subject upon which we are asked to pronounce an opinion by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy is one of no ordinary importance. I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that we ought to discuss the Budget with moderation, for there is no doubt that Sir John Strachey, in his recent able speech on Indian finance, has proved the need of increased taxation with the view of forming a famine insurance fund. That is to amount to £1,500,000, and he derives that sum by taxes on land and licences on trade. In addition to this sum, however, he proposes to raise £500,000 as a surplus on revenue in ordinary years. This £500,000 is to be obtained by raising the tax on salt in Madras and Bombay about 40 per cent on its present amount. He takes credit that while he thus largely augments the tax on these Presidencies, containing 47,000,000 of people, he actually reduces the tax in Bengal and Northern India, containing 137,000,000 of people. This is a taking statement, but as my hon. Friend shows, it in reality means that a heavy tax is made more heavy in Madras and Bombay, by at least 10 d. per family, while it is lightened in other districts by about 3d. A salt tax is not peculiar to India. It is an ancient form of tax, established by the Romans, and has existed in almost every land. But since science showed how essential salt is as a necessary of life, the tax has been growing into disfavour, and when it was found to cramp the growth of manufacture, England long ago abandoned it as a source of revenue. Sir John Strachey adduces France as an example of a country which has increased the salt tax in recent years. France may be used as a warning, but scarcely as an example for imitation, as the history of her salt tax has always been lamentable. Its oppressiveness did more than any other single cause to bring on the Great Revolution, and its incidence in modern times has prevented the growth of manufactures in France. One strong objection to a salt tax is that it forms a poll tax of the worst description. The old poll
    482
    tax did discriminate persons according to their ability to pay, but a salt tax presses on every man, woman, and child in the same way. The beggar must pay just as much of it as the Prince or rich trader; for salt is as necessary to human existence as air or water. It is more oppressive than ordinary taxes on food. A tax might be levied on every cultivated food, and still the poor man, unable to pay it, might live on herbs, or slugs, or caterpillars; but there are three things he must have—air, water, and salt— and in India we tax heavily one of these three essentials of life. The blood cannot be formed without salt, which indeed forms more than 50 per cent of its incombustible ingredients. All the animal juices likewise contain it. Hence every human being must consume a definite quantity each year, so that a salt tax becomes a universal poll tax. And it is upon this absolute essential to life that there is to be an increase of 40 per cent of tax levied from the inhabitants of Bombay and Madras. The famine in these districts has scarcely passed away, and upon their weakened populations this increased tax is to be levied. A tax on salt is especially heavy on a population like that of India, which chiefly lives on starchy food. Less salt is necessary with an animal diet than with one which has for its staple such food as rice or potatoes. We recollect how much salt the Irish used with their food before the potato famine, and the same requirement is felt by the rice-feeding people of India. If the supply of salt be stinted in such conditions, the health of the population suffers materially. In the districts of France, which purchased immunity from the Grande Gabelle, the consumption of salt was 181b per head. But in the, taxed districts it was slightly over 9lb This experience has also occurred in India. Formerly the consumption in India is said to have been 15 to 161b per head; in Bengal it is now 10 to 111b. In Bombay, under the discontent of a severe law, it sank down a few years ago to the minimum of 9–71b. Below that even the new tax can scarcely depress it. But diminished consumption means diminished health of the people, so that the expected surplus of £500,000 may soon vanish in the heavy charges which result from a decreased productive power of a population. I

    483
    would point to another fact, which shows that no worse means could be found for increasing revenue than an augmentation of the salt tax. Salt is one of the most important materials of manufacturing industry. The products coming from it are essential for the bleaching of cotton goods, for the manufacture of soap, of glass, of earthenware, and many other industries. If any Chancellor of the Exchequer ventured to re-impose so low a duty as 5s. per ton on salt in England, he would produce such agitation among the leading industries of this country that he could not hold his office for three weeks. The new equalized duty in India is not 5s. but 140 s. per ton. How can India be expected to gain any industrial or commercial prosperity while she is burdened by such a tax? Even the curing of food cannot be properly carried on in India; and I observe in the last Report on the material condition of India that complaints are made of the Madras people eating imperfectly cured fish in order to save salt, and a timid proposal is made that a few yards in Madras might be opened for curing fish with salt supplied by the Government at a cheap rate. Sir John Strachey refers us to France, and I would remind the House that France liberates her salt for curing food, for the purposes of agriculture, and for the feeding of cattle. But India is very timid in all these matters. I see that the Bengal Government allows salt to be imported into Calcutta for earthenware, and this is a step in the right direction. But manufactures in India are of less importance than formerly. Where are now the exports which once wore so characteristic of Bengal? In the last Report on India only three-quarters of a page is given to the whole Subject of manufacture. If the old manufactures of India ceased to be in demand in the markets of Europe, surely it was the duty of the Indian Government to stimulate the growth of fresh industries. But this is impossible with a heavy salt tax, producing one-sixth or seventh of the whole revenue. The cotton growth in India might be made into saleable goods, were it not for the enormous tax on the salt, which is required to produce the soda, the soap, and the chlorine to bleach it. India has ample materials for glass and earthenware, but the salt tax again strangles these industries. It is quite true that
    484
    the larger subject of the tax of £6,000,000 upon salt is scarcely raised upon the presentissue of increasing it by £500,000. But the impolicy of the tax forces itself upon our attention when it is again used as a means of augmenting the revenue. The whole sum is a small one, and might surely have been provided from a less objectionable source. Considerably more than that amount has been saved since the time of Lord Mayo by improvements in provincial administration. Surely economy in other directions might have prevented the imposition of £500,000 on the salt consumed by famine-stricken populations. We have now the opportunity of expressing our disapproval of this proceeding, and such an expression of opinion may in the future have an effect in mitigating the severity of a tax which now diminishes the free use of this necessary of life, and which stunts the growth of manufactures in India.
    MR. ONSLOWsuggested that hon. Members were entering into discussion of these matters rather in the dark, seeing that the Budget of Sir John Strachey was not yet officially before the House. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had used very hard words against the salt tax; but this was not the only tax in India against which hard words had been uttered. The opium tax had also come in for its share of reprobation; but if those taxes were reduced or done away with, he feared the finances of India would not long be in even so satisfactory a position as they were in now. This was an exceptional time in India; the finances of that country had been stretched to a great degree. Sir John Strachey had thought it advisable to raise additional taxation, and the question was, how that additional taxation should be raised—whether by again imposing an income tax, by a universal licence tax, or by enhancing the duties on Customs. This salt tax was a portion of a great scheme. No doubt it did affect a large portion of the people of India; but in such an emergency as the present, it was the duty of everyone, high and low, to assist Her Majesty's Government in extricating the finances of India from their present state. It was the duty of everyone, whether in India or in this country, to contribute something towards the maintenance of the State. It, therefore, seemed to him right to enhance, to a

    485
    certain extent, the duty on salt. It should, however, be remembered that the tax would be decreased with reference to the majority and enhanced only on the minority. As to the rich not being taxed, it should be remembered that during the last few years local taxation in India had increased to an enormous extent, and that these local taxes hardly touched the poorer classes in the different Local Governments, but fell almost exclusively on the rich. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: No, no!] It was said that Lord Lytton feared the Press; but if that was so he was the first Viceroy of India that ever did. He could not help thinking that Sir John Strachey had exercised a wise discretion in proposing this additional small burden on what might be called the necessities of the poorer classes; and he trusted that the hon. Gentleman opposite would not, in the absence of Sir John Strachey's Budget or official information, think this the proper time to press his Motion.
    MR. GRANT DUFF,after pointing out that Sir John Strachey had been a most zealous advocate of various schemes for increasing the supply of salt, and referring to a speech which, when travelling in India, he had heard Sir John Strachey deliver at Sambhar, regretted that this moment had been chosen for raising the salt question, and said that while agreeing with all that had been said by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair) as to the importance of salt to the Natives in India and to manufactures, he felt sure that the Budget of Sir John Strachey had been absolutely dictated by circumstances. There was a very large deficit to fill, and how was it to be filled? His hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy had shown that it could not be filled merely by a diminution of expenditure; and with that he himself entirely agreed, very little remaining to be done in that way. Well, then, was the income tax to be revived? His hon. Friend did not say in so many words that it ought; but his whole speech pointed in that direction. He himself had never hesitated to declare his opinion in favour of a light income tax as a permanent source of revenue in India; but, surely, this would have been a particularly unlucky moment to have chosen for renewing the income tax. No one would suggest that it
    486
    should be imposed merely upon the rich Natives. They could imagine what an outcry would be raised if that had been proposed; nor was it a time to impose it on the European population, which had lately suffered greatly from the rates of exchange. Were we, then, to have a tobacco tax? He did not think his hon. Friend would be prepared to propose such a tax at a sufficiently high rate to fill this deficit. There were other taxes to be proposed, but they were considered one by one by Sir John Strachey and rightly put aside. Were we to fall back on an increase on the Customs duties? We had lately listened to denunciations of Customs duties upon cotton, with which he (Mr. Grant Duff) entirely sympathized, and were Sir John Strachey to propose an increase, he would be likely to hear a good deal against it. Nothing could be done in the circumstances, he thought, but by this slight addition to the salt tax and the other taxes proposed, to which he did not understand his hon. Friend to object. Although by this Budget the price of salt would be considerably augmented to a portion of the people, it would be slightly diminished to a much larger number; and he conceived that the measure, as a whole, was intended to arrive at that equalization of the salt tax, which was one of the things that every person who had seriously considered Indian finance desired to arrive at as soon as possible. He conscientiously believed that both Sir John Strachey and Lord Lytton, in all their dealings in this matter, did what they believed was best for India, and were not in any way actuated by fear of Press attacks. He had the pleasure of knowing personally both of those gentlemen, and he was sure that they were not men who would be turned away from any course which they thought right and just by the clamour of the Indian or any other Press. With regard to the conduct of Lord Lytton, he had come to a conclusion very different to that which his hon. Friend had formed. He had read State Papers his Lordship had written; he had narrowly observed his conduct; and had been struck—he might almost say surprised, considering that his previous training had been diplomatic and literary—at the great amount of administrative ability exhibited therein.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) to apply his intelligence and influence to some measure for obtaining additional revenue from a new source, and that new source he might find in a field already open to him—namely, in encouraging the cultivation of waste land, of which there were some 20,000,000 acres in the Madras Presidency. The noble Lord had forgotten that while the consumption of salt in Bengal was only 101b per head, in Madras it was 181b her head, for the simple reason that the food used in the two Presidencies differed so greatly. The surplus revenue of the Madras Presidency was at least £3,000,000, which was used for constructing railroads and other public works in different parts of India. He was of opinion that we had in every way insulted the Madras Presidency, which had always been loyal to this country. We had lowered the Army, taxed the people, and done all kinds of things that were wrong. At one time even the very dancing girls were taxed. With regard to the famine, he hoped the Secretary of State would take into consideration the question of taxing the Madras people for a famine which was owing to the neglect of the Government of India, for the money uselessly spent at Madras might have saved the people from such a visitation, if it had been expended carefully on proper means of providing an abundant supply of water. As to salt, nothing was more important to the health of the people of India than salt supplied at a cheap price.
    MR. HIBBERT,although he could not quite agree in all the strong remarks which had been made against Sir John Strachey's proposals with respect to the salt tax, nevertheless regretted that gentleman had not sought to provide in some other way the £500,000 which he proposed to obtain by an increase of that tax. He could not understand why, when he had an opportunity of levying the amount he required by an Excise duty on cotton goods manufactured in India, that opportunity had not been used. That was no new idea. Lord Northbrook had suggested that if it was impossible to take off the import duty on Lancashire cotton goods sent to India, it might become expedient to impose an Excise duty on similar goods manufac-
    488
    tured in India. Now, he did not see much present chance of the repeal of the 5 per cent duty on English cotton goods imported into India, which yielded £700,000 or £800,000 per annum; and, therefore, they might fairly raise an Excise duty on similar goods manufactured in India, where the millowners not only increased the number of their mills every year, but exported their goods to other places in competition with the manufacturers of this country.

  QUEEN'S SPEECH — HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
  THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord HENRY SOMERSET)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
  "I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address.
  "I rely with confidence upon your hearty cooperation and assistance in My endeavours to advance the best interests of My Empire, and to promote the happiness and prosperity of all classes of My People."

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. LAING,resuming the debate, observed that the question relative to an income tax for India was by no means so simple and easy as some persons supposed it to be; it was a question which must be decided very much in this country by the weight of authority. Viceroy after Viceroy, and Finance Minister after Finance Minister had gone out to India greatly prepossessed in favour of an income tax; but a very short experience had convinced them that an income tax in that country was a very great evil, and a thing only to be resorted to in the last emergency. He was himself in that position, having gone to India with all his prepossessions in favour of the system of direct taxation which Sir Robert Peel had made the means of relieving the springs of industry at home; but he had not been six months in India before he was converted by the weight of authority, and the solid arguments which were brought to bear against an income tax for that country. Lord Canning, who was a most courageous and conscientious states-

  489
  man, and about the last man in the world to yield to mere clamour, came deliberately to the conclusion that, right or wrong, an income tax in India was so excessively unpopular with the Natives that its imposition constituted a great political danger. A remarkable saying of Lord Canning to himself on that subject was that, danger for danger, he would rather govern India with 40,000 European troops without an income tax, than govern it with 80,000 with an income tax. Lord Northbrook had also come to the same conclusion. That arose mainly from the extreme difference between Indian society and English society. In India the circumstances of a Native were rarely known. They might see a man in the street who to all appearance looked like a beggar, and yet they would be told that he was almost a millionaire or had a large fortune. They had no means of ascertaining in the great majority of cases what a man's property or income was without a great amount of inquisition; and if there was one thing which an Oriental detested more than another, it was an inquisition of that kind. Cases were said to have occurred in which Natives had hanged themselves through fear and alarm of an inquisition into their private affairs. It was all very well to say that statesmen could legislate in these matters on abstract principles; but he maintained that they should not ignore the feelings or even the prejudices of a great nation, and no wise statesman would enforce abstract considerations of political economy so as to exasperate the feelings of the mass of the community. Again, in levying an income tax, they must rely to a very great extent on Native officials, who would in many instances make the tax an instrument of extortion. But the most cogent argument, perhaps, against an income tax in India was that it produced a miserably small sum. If he were responsible as Finance Minister, and could raise £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 by an income tax, and get rid of the salt duty altogether, he was not prepared to say that he would not brave the unpopularity of such a measure. But there they had the maximum of unpopularity with the minimum of result, for no income tax in India had given them over £1,000,000, and they could
  490
  not expect more from it—for the sake of such a sum it was not worth while imposing a tax, which, as Lord Canning said, was such a political danger that they must govern with a large Army to guard against it. The question, in fact, was political as well as fiscal. He did not say that the import duty or the salt tax was good, but it would, be difficult to get rid of either of them without imposing the income tax or letting the deficit run on. In his own mind he doubted whether any hon. Member who had spoken against the salt tax would venture to take it off if he had on his own responsibility to find a substitute. His experience in these matters was that it was best to support the Government unless they made any palpable and considerable blunder.
  MR. O'DONNELLcalled attention to the social and political drawbacks attending the income tax, the land tax, the salt tax, and the opium tax. The first three crippled the resources of the country, the land tax being also a hindrance to any effective steps being taken to check the recurrence of famine; while the opium tax was likely to involve us in hostility with China, a Power whose military strength had been too much underrated. The time was, he considered, come for re-casting the whole system of Indian taxation, and reducing the expenditure of the Government.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLintimated his willingness not to press his Amendment at the present moment, when hon. Members were not in full possession of the Papers. He stated that he would have no objection to a licence or tax on trades, provided the Government met the deficiency without resorting to the salt tax.
  MR. FAWCETTagreed with the Under Secretary for India that the House could not consider this question properly unless it was in possession of the whole of Sir John Strachey's financial proposals. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether, if he moved as an unopposed Return for Sir John Strachey's speech, there would be any objection to produce it?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he intended to lay on the Table of the House not only the Financial Statement of Sir John Strachey, but the whole of the discussions upon it in the Indian

  491
  Council, but he should prefer that no Motion was made on the subject.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Crawford, Mr. Richard Smyth, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Daniel Taylor.)
  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.

    [BILL 43.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDproceeded to move the second reading of the Bill, which, he said, had been so many times before the House that it was unnecessary for him to enter into any lengthened explanation of its provisions. The Bill was drawn entirely within the lines of the Act of 1870, and since its first introduction the principles which it contained had been admitted in more than one measure. The custom of tenant-right was one of very old standing. For two centuries and a-half the Ulster tenant-right had been existent in the North of Ireland, and its extension under the Act of 1870, though denounced at first as spoliation of the landlords, had been productive of the most satisfactory results. The tenants were able to lay out their capital without the fear of its being lost. The effect of that had been to increase rents, improve the value of land, and promote the welfare and happiness of the tenantry. He desired to extend to the whole of Ireland the security possessed by the tenant farmers of the North; and, having explained the sections of his Bill fully on previous occasions, he would not detain the House further, but would merely move that the Bill be read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Sharman Crawford.)
    MR. MARTENexpressed himself at a loss to know how the success of the Bill of 1870 could furnish an argument in favour of the present Bill, the prin-
    492
    ciple of which was altogether different. So far from proceeding on the principle that the Ulster tenant-right custom was to be admitted in cases where it was proved to exist, the Bill unsettled all that had been done by the Act of 1870. It proceeded upon the principle that it should be assumed, not that the general Ulster custom existed, but that the particular right defined in the Bill existed, unless the landlord could establish to the contrary. The Bill would establish an arbitrary and novel custom, altogether opposed to the interest of the landlord. It would tie the hands of the landlord; for while the existence of the custom was to be presumed, he would be wholly debarred from disproving the presumption.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. MARTENsaid, another objection to the Bill was that it would enable a tenant, if he were about to be ejected or otherwise disturbed in his possession, or if he was desirous of quitting his holding, to sell his so-called right; and thus the landlord would have thrust upon him tenants not of his own choosing and whom he might consider very undesirable. It was true that the tenant to whom the holding was sold must be one to whom the landlord could not reasonably object; but why was he to be placed in a position not only of objecting to a tenant, but of supporting his objection as a reasonable one before some tribunal? It was true that in different parts of England assignments of leases might be freely made, but in most cases of agricultural holdings there was complete restriction in that respect placed upon the tenant. To impose restrictions unnecessarily upon freedom of contract was, in the highest degree, unphilosophical, and opposed to the first principles of political economy. The Bill as it stood presented features of a novel character in an attempt at legislation. A Bill similar to this was rejected two years ago by a decisive majority, and he hoped this one embodying as it did a principle, which, if carried out, involved a policy of confiscation and general interference with freedom of contract, and which would set an evil precedent, would also be rejected by a large majority. He

    493
    moved that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Alfred Marten.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he thought that the Bill had hardly had the attention it deserved from the Members of Parliament for Ireland. They had had two attempts at a count-out, and he only saw three hon. Members from the North of Ireland take part in the effort to avert this premature termination of the discussion. Was there anything of a confiscating or revolutionary policy in the Bill? He thought not. Its first object was to set up and confirm the Ulster custom. That custom was not a legal custom before the Land Act of Mr. Gladstone, and one of the leading objects of that Act was to give it a legal status. But when that Act was discussed in the Courts of Law in Ireland, it was hold that the words of the Act did not give the custom the validity intended by its framers, and the first object of the Bill was to cure the defect, and. to carry out the intention of the Act of 1870. Its object was therefore by no means so alarming as it had seemed to the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten). The arguments of the hon. and learned Member on this point were indeed inconsistent, for while in one breath he had described the custom as one easy of proof, in another he had spoken of it as so vague as not to be the basis of legal right. If there were, as he believed there were, estates on which tenant-right had never existed, it would be easy for a landlord to prove this. No injustice would, therefore, be done him by this Bill. The second part of the measure related to the valuation of the land for rent as between landlord and tenant. Well, that principle was recognized by the Land Act, which provided that if a landlord desired to turn out his tenant the tenant should receive compensation for his holding, a Court of Law determining on the fairness of the rent. That was intended to check capricious eviction, and if it had failed to produce that effect, the Legislature ought to make better provision. The hon. and learned Member seemed to hope that
    494
    they would that night hear the last of this Bill. But he could assure him that in that respect his expectations would be disappointed. The tenants of the North of Ireland would never fail to receive the assistance of hon. Members from the South of Ireland in maintaining the excellent institution of tenant-right. He hoped the House would recognize the justice of the moderate demand of the hon. Member for Down (Mr. Crawford) and give the Bill a second reading.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEobserved that while liberty of assignment might be of great use, if not carried too far, the present Bill was far from fair as between landlord and tenant. Totally irrespective of the rights of the landlord, a tenant was to be empowered to offer for sale his interest in the tenancy to anyone he chose; and this was nothing less than confiscation of the property of the so-called landlord, to whom it was no protection that he could offer a "reasonable objection," the nature of which was undefined. The Bill was an attempt to take away from the landlord the last remnant of right that had been left to him. It was an interference with freedom of contract between man and man, which had worked so well for our grandfathers, who were surely not all fools, and its operation would do much to diminish friendly feeling between landlords and tenants whose relations were satisfactorily defined by written agreements, and produce a state of things which at the present moment could hardly be foreseen to its full extent.
    MR. DICKSONsaid, he supported the second reading of the Bill, which, as a settlement of the question of tenant-right, was looked forward to with great interest in Ulster. The prosperity of Ulster depended very much upon the matter being satisfactorily settled. He supposed no Irish Member could be found courageous enough to move the rejection of the Bill, and therefore the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten) had been selected to do so. This, together with the two attempts that had been made to count out the House, spoke volumes in favour of the Bill. It was fair and moderate what was asked, that the burden of proof should rest upon the landlord, and not be left to the tenant to prove that the custom of tenant-right existed or not. As to leaseholds, tenants were now in a worse position than they were prior to the Act of

    495
    1870; for, owing to that Act being so ill-defined, some Judges gave decision in one way and some in another. Then, as to free sale, the Act of 1870 admitted that the tenant had a right in his property. If so, why should he not get full value for his property in whatever way he wished to sell it? The result of "office rules" and restrictions were that a poor farm on which no money had been expended would bring an equal price with that upon which a large amount had been expended. He knew farms in Ulster valued at £20 to £30 an acre owing to the tenants improvements; but if the tenant wished to sell he would only obtain £10 an acre, and in many cases only £5. If the farmers were to invest their money in land instead of putting it in savings banks as they did at present, there must be some improvement in the land laws of Ulster; for they knew that if they now invested their money in land there was an increase of rent upon their own improvements. There was not a single Conservative Member from Ulster but knew the importance of tenant-right, and that it was a question of absorbing interest. The hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) observed that the tenants wanted to sell the rights of the landlord. The farmers of Ulster had no anxiety to interfere with the rights of the landlord. They wished to be able to sell their own rights. The improvements upon property and farms in Ulster were not effected by the landlords. They did not spend 1s. upon their properties. At the Election of 1874 every Ulster Member knew it was the chief question that was debated. In the addresses of every Ulster Member the question of tenant-right was put first, and some of the Members who sit on that side of the House were so anxious to make their position secure that they issued a second address. But where were the Ulster Members to-night? Not one of them was present to fulfil their pledges of 1874 except the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney); but the time was coming when they would be called to account for their unredeemed pledges. He believed that at the next General Election the tenant farmers would show their appreciation of their conduct in having now upon a question of great importance deserted them and their interests.
    MR. O'REILLYthought it was only fair that the onus of proof as to the nonexistence of the custom of tenant-right should be thrown on the landlord. The question whether tenant-right subsisted during a lease or was destroyed by it would be settled by this Bill. The presumption of law was that the lease extinguished tenant-right. Many tenants when asked by some sharp landlord's agent whether they would not like a lease, never dreamt that by taking it they gave up their tenant-right, and his hon. Friend proposed that the mere existence of a lease should not be legal evidence that the tenant-right had been given up. The Bill also provided that if there was any particular limitation on the right of the tenant to sell his tenant-right, the burden of proof should fall upon the landlord. That was equitable, while the provision which required that for the future no contract should sweep away the tenant-right, unless such contract was in writing, was only an extension of the Statute of Frauds. With respect to compensation for improvements, the Bill dealt with the practical working of the Act of 1870. The intention of that Act was perfectly plain—that the tenant should be entitled to compensation for improvements, and that that right could only be abolished under certain conditions. But on this point legal quibbles had been raised, and any change in the tenure and any change in the rent, even from pounds to guineas, was held to deprive the right of the tenant to compensation. This Bill provided that no such quibbles should deprive the tenant of his right; and, believing it was an honest attempt to carry out the intention of the Act of 1870, he should cordially support it, and he hoped it would meet with the approval of the House.
    MR. MACARTNEYtrusted that the Bill would be read a second time. He regretted that some additions had been made to the provisions of the measure of 1874 and 1875, as those additions might make the second reading more difficult; but he held that the main provisions of this Bill, which were those which the tenants in Ulster were most anxious to obtain, might be accepted without sacrificing the just rights of the landlord. Those main provisions he took to be the obtaining of tenant-right at the expiration of a lease, the power

    497
    to sell the tenant-right at the fair market value, and, in cases of dispute as to tenant-right, the throwing of the burden of proof on the landlord. He thought it would be wise to read the Bill a second time, and that the passing of the measure would produce increased contentment and loyalty throughout Ireland. If there were any objections to the Bill, they might be brought forward in Committee, when it could be amended.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that if the Government opposed this Bill, they would find that some of their most ardent supporters would vote against them. He understood, for instance, that the hon. Member who had last spoken had been elected as a champion of tenant-right in its fullest sense. The hon. Members for Ulster were in favour of tenant-right there, and he supposed that when the same hon. Members came to vote for similar rights in the South and South-west of Ireland, they would be in favour of giving the tenants there the tenant-right of Ulster. That custom in Ulster meant that the tenant had rights as assured as those of the landlord; but the question could not be dealt with properly from a purely English point of view. It was necessary to remember that when James I. formed the Plantation of Ulster he stipulated for perpetuity of tenure for the tenants, and in the North of Ireland for many years there were very few cases of hardship, the sturdy Ulsterman being, better able to defend himself than the simpler and more pliable Celt, and tenant-right was never interfered with; but the Land Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) gave to an unscrupulous landlord an unsuspected power of getting out of his obligations. Hence the necessity for this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had wished to introduce the Ulster custom into parts of the country where it had not previously existed; but he had found it impossible to engraft an old practice on new circumstances—a failure which was, however, no reason for not reverting to the old law that a tenant should remain undisturbed so long as he paid rent and submitted from time to time to a reasonable increase of it. He trusted that the measure now before the House would become law—as of a Land Bill especially it might be said, vires acquirit
    498
    eundo. The constant discussion of the land laws was leading people to think that everybody had a right to the land, and they were beginning to adopt the philosophers' view—at any rate of the type of John Stuart Mill. If reasonable demands, such as the Bill contained, were not conceded, wild views would take root, and do much mischief, and the longer a reform was postponed the more unpalatable it would ultimately become.
    MR. KAVANAGHopposed the Bill as an old enemy, the object of which was to hand over to the tenant rights which he had never possessed, and which had not been known in the South of Ireland. He did not like the Bill when first he saw it, and he liked it no more now. He objected to the measure, because he believed it held out a direct premium to tenants to raise disputes with their landlords. The only clause of the Bill which he could cordially support was that which provided that it should extend to no other country.
    MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, that although he was perfectly unpledged with regard to this Bill, he should vote for the second reading, because he regarded its two leading provisions as reasonable—? namely, that which shifted the onus of proof from the tenant to the landlord, and that which did away with the rule, acted upon by some Judges, that at the termination of his lease the tenant should not have the advantage of the same Ulster custom as he would if he held only from year to year. The main provisions of the Bill were requisite, and their enactment would put an end to a great deal of ill-feeling in Ireland. Its provisions would not violate any rule or principle of justice, and because he believed it to be the wish of every landlord -and tenant in the North of Ireland to settle the question at issue on these principles he should support the Bill.
    Mr. LAWthought it unfortunate that so few of those hon. Members for Ulster counties were now present who, from their own personal experience, could have supplied to their Friends on the opposite benches much of the information that seemed to be so sadly wanted Several objections had been stated which could not possibly have been raised by hon. Members acquainted with the subject, because they were founded on an entire misapprehension as to the nature of the

    499
    Ulster tenant-right custom that had been legalized by the Land Act. For example, the effect of the most important clause in the Bill now before the House—namely, the second — had been entirely misunderstood by both his hon. and learned Friends opposite. The enactment of that clause would not extend or alter in the very least the right which an Ulster tenant had this moment, wherever the custom existed, even in its most restricted form. The landlord could not now raise the rent as much as he pleased, nor object to a purchaser of the tenant's interest, without showing reasonable grounds for doing so. The reason was obvious. If he could increase the rent ad libitum, or object to any and every purchaser, he might thus destroy those rights which had been brought within the protection of the law, and which were entitled to that protection just as much as his own. Too much had been made of the varieties of form which this Ulster custom assumed on different estates. Whatever might be the regulations of rent-offices as to the sale, they all agreed in this—indeed, such regulations implied it—that there was a right of sale in the occupying tenant. Now, the principle of the Bill before the House was simply this—that, as the Land Act had declared that the tenant-right custom, that is to say the qualified right of sale already described, was prevalent throughout the Province of Ulster, and as it was notorious that this declaration was in accordance with the fact, it should in every case be presumed that the holding was subject to the custom; but, of course, only prima facie, and until the contrary was proved. In other words, the Bill proposed to throw the burthen of proof, in accordance with common sense and common justice, on the man who denied rather than on the man who affirmed a custom, the prevalence of which had been recognized by law; to make the presumption in favour of what was general rather than what was exceptional; in favour of the weaker rather than the stronger party; and in favour of the tenant, who could not have that access to evidence which the landlord had. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), in introducing his Land Tenure Bill two years ago, had stated, that if the landlords of Ireland had been actuated by a desire to carry out the intentions of the Legislature, as
    500
    embodied in the Land Act, there would probably have been no necessity for him to propose that somewhat sweeping measure. He (Mr. Law) must say he feared there was solid ground for that complaint. "Difficulties have arisen," as this Bill recited, in carrying into effect the provisions of the Land Act for enforcing the Ulster tenant-right custom. Much of the difficulty was attributable to the feeling which now appeared unhappily to actuate some landlords and induced them, when any land claims were made, to put their tenants at arm's length, obliging them to prove everything, no matter how notorious; whilst they, assisted by ingenious lawyers, took advantage of all the impediments thus placed in the tenants' way. For his own part, he sincerely desired to see the best possible feeling between landlords and tenants. He thought, however, that the landlords, speaking generally, had displayed much less than their usual prudence in not frankly accepting the Act as it was, and abstaining from all attempts to obstruct any of its provisions. Of late the Chairmen or Judges of the Land Courts had spoken of the altered demeanour of landlords and their agents since 1870. For example, the Chairman of one Ulster county had publicly stated that when he first presided there, he was constantly told that the tenant-right practically settled all controversies; so that if he observed upon the number of ejectments, the answer was sure to be—" Oh, you must not be startled by that, we arrange everything here by means of the tenant-right; "whereas now since 1870 he had found the very existence of tenant-right as constantly denied, and the tenants put to proof of the custom that was before not only admitted, but put forward by those representing the landlords as the excuse and explanation of everything. Again, the Chairman of another Ulster county, giving judgment lately in a land case, had said that, whilst from the large estates and old proprietors, he had not had much difficulty placed in his way, assistance being given him by the production of the office books and otherwise; yet, to quote his words—" In the case of recent purchases, and with new proprietors, particularly of small estates, I almost invariably find efforts made to baffle and render nugatory the Land Act of 1870." Considering, then, the exist-

    501
    once of this state of things, and the increasing difficulties arising from the breaking-up of largo estates by sale and from the lapse of time, he (Mr. Law) thought this proposal of his hon. Friend was perfectly just and reasonable. With respect to the clause dealing with leasehold tenant-right, the propriety of that had been so often admitted—-even by hon. Members opposite—that he should say nothing more than this, that it seemed hardly fair to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten) to put him forward to move the rejection of the Bill without giving him some more accurate information on that and other parts of the measure. There was, however, a clause which required more particular notice—namely, the proposed abolition of "office rules," as they were called, purporting to prescribe the price of tenant-right or otherwise regulating the sale. He (Mr. Law) had before contended, and must still contend, that such restrictions were as indefensible in principle as they had always been notoriously disregarded in practice, and should therefore be declared inoperative. The Legislature had in effect provided that the Ulster tenant's interest in his holding should be regarded as a legal interest, and that interest was chiefly a right of sale. It must, then, be obvious that arbitrary restrictions of the price to a sum far less than the real value of the thing to be sold, must be unjust as well as futile. Accordingly, even before 1870, however the landlord or agent of an estate on which these office rules had been imposed might affect to ignore the fact, they as well as everybody else knew that on every sale the full price was paid; the only difference being that, instead of the whole of it passing through the office, only the "regulation" price was so paid, the rest being paid elsewhere. So much, indeed, was this recognized, that if the landlord of one of these "regulation" estates himself took up a holding from the tenant, he paid the fair market price of the tenant right, or was regarded as having acted unfairly and in violation of the custom. Would hon. Members allow him (Mr. Law) to illustrate this by an analogous case with which they were all familiar? They would recollect that a great many years ago "regulation prices" were fixed by the proper authorities for commissions in the Army. It was, on the one hand, made a criminal offence for any officer
    502
    to give or take more than the sum prescribed by the War Office; and, on the other hand, it was required that the officer selling, and the officer buying, and their commanding officer also, should all make declarations "on their honour" that this sum had not been exceeded. Well we knew he w far these statutory and official attempts were successful. Notwithstanding the formidable checks referred to, the full competition price or value of the commission was in fact paid. The military authorities affected to ignore the practice just as these "regulation" landlords or agents in Ulster affected to ignore what was notorious to all the world; and the end of the matter was, that when the sale of commissions was wholly abolished, and Parliament came to determine what compensation should be given to existing officers who had themselves purchased, that compensation was based not on the restricted or regulation price of the War Office, but on the full market price that had been paid, though such payment had been in fact illegal and even criminal according to the law of the land. He (Mr. Law) submitted that the Ulster tenants were at least equally well entitled to have these futile restrictions on the price of their interests declared to be invalid. Again, with respect to the attempts to prevent sale of the tenant-right by auction, it had been strongly urged, and with great show of reason, that this was, generally speaking, useless, as it no doubt was irritating, where such regulation was attempted. It, of course, hampered and impeded the tenant in his efforts to get the full market price for his interest; but he often, as it seemed, managed to get it in the end, though after much needless delay and needless trouble. In such cases—as he (Mr. Law) had been informed—the matter was arranged by leaving a sheet of paper or a book open on a desk for a week or a month if necessary, in which anyone who desired to bid wrote down his name, and the amount he would give, calling in, of course, frequently to see if his offer had been exceeded, and, if so, increasing it accordingly. The result, then, was said to be that in the end the farm was sold, whilst the landlord got nothing by his interference, beyond the certainty that he had vexed, and annoyed his tenants. But, however this might be, he (Mr. Law) could not for a moment admit that the proposal to let the tenant

    503
    sell by auction if he liked, furnished any sufficient ground for the total rejection of the Bill. There was now but one other provision on which he wished to say a word. It was the clause to facilitate the ascertainment of a fair rent, when that alone was in controversy between the parties. Whether it was tenant-right as in Ulster, or the right to be paid for improvements there or elsewhere, it was plain that this interest vested by law in the tenant ought to be protected against encroachment on the occasion of any revision of the rent. All were agreed on that. Now, in almost every case in which the landlord served a notice to quit, it was only for the purpose of getting the tenant to agree to an increase of the rent. Accordingly, the notice to quit was accompanied by another notice explaining its real object, and thus the parties were at issue. But suppose that they honestly differed as to what the new rent should be, the end of it now was that they came before the Chairman of the county—the landlord with his ejectment, and the tenant with his land claim. Sometimes the controversy was then settled at the last moment either between themselves or by a reference to arbitration; but otherwise the case must go on in the ordinary way, and the landlord be obliged to evict a tenant he did not want to evict, and besides that probably have to pay a substantial amount of compensation, which the tenant would gladly have foregone if he could only have remained on in his farm at a fair rent. For the Chairman had now no jurisdiction to determine this, the only real controversy between the parties. And yet, strange to say, though he could not determine it for them, he must determine it for himself before he could decide whether the tenant was entitled to compensation; for this, in the case supposed, depended on whether the rent demanded by the landlord was a "fair rent" or not. The provision, then, of this Bill, which he (Mr. Law) was now considering, sought the enable the parties, if they so desired, to submit this question of rent directly to the Chairman for his decision. It would interfere in no way with the landlord's power of serving notice to quit, and putting out the tenant if he liked; but would save him from the disagreeable necessity of being obliged to proceed as if for eviction when he did not desire it. He (Mr. Law) would not
    504
    further try the patience of hon. Members, but content himself with saying he considered the main objects of the measure good, and for that reason should give it his support; whilst he hoped that the Conservative Ulster Members, if they appeared at all, would vote for and not as before against the Bill.
    MR. BIGGARexpressed his intention of supporting the Bill; but was afraid it would fail to do as much good as those who wished to see it pass anticipated. A bad landlord, after it passed, would still have the power of being a bad landlord. He suggested that the Bill should contain a definition of the Ulster tenant-right, which should be legalized throughout the whole of Ireland. He would recommend the Government to accept the principle of the measure, and then amend it in Committee.
    MR. PELLsaid, he hoped the House would not consent to the second reading. When the Irish Land Act of 1870 was brought in, it was understood that that Act would for some years to come settle the question with which it dealt. Under this Bill all the relations between landlord and tenant would be so upset that, in all probability, the conditions between the landlord and tenant in England would be also unsettled. He regretted, therefore, that so important a question as that should now have been raised, and he was sorry also that so few English Members on his own side should be found here to express their opinions upon the matter. Considering how much attention Parliament had given to the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland so recently as the year 1870, he thought they ought not to venture so soon afterwards to disturb a question which they had understood had been set at rest for some considerable time.
    MR. D. TAYLORsupported the Bill, remarking that many of the best class of tenants who had a legal interest in their farms had lost their tenant-right by their inability to prove that right; and he thought it was the duty of that House to amend the Land Act of 1870, which, although it was one of the greatest benefits ever conferred upon Ireland, did not go far enough in placing safeguards against an undue rising of the rent by the landlord. It ought to be made the legal presumption that in all the farms of Ulster that tenant-right existed which was known to exist in nearly every case. To accomplish

    505
    that object was one of the chief objects of this Bill. He trusted that all hon. Members from the North of Ireland, whether Conservative or Liberal, would vote for the Bill.
    MR. O'CLERYsaid, he thought the Bill embodied a principle of immense advantage to the tenant farmers of Ulster, and therefore he should cordially support the second reading.
    MR. R. PLUNKETTsaid, it was thought when the Land Act of 1870 was passed, that some kind of finality had been arrived at, but now the question at issue was again re-opened. For his own part, he deprecated an annual disturbance of the arrangement then come to. It was acknowledged that in the main the landlords were willing to treat their tenants well; but if they wished to grant some advantage to their tenants they were discouraged from doing so by the prospect of fresh laws relating to land. It was, therefore, highly desirable to get rid of the irritation produced by incessant new legislation. He was glad to hear, on legal authority, that the present Bill did not deal with anything out of Ulster.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, he could not help thinking that some of the arguments which had been urged in favour of the Bill were of a very peculiar character, and especially that of the hon. Member for Cavan; who, although he did not regard the measure as a good one, urged hon. Members to vote for it, because it would take the wind out of the sails of hon. Gentlemen of the Whig persuasion. For his own part, he did not mean to say that there was not in the Bill some things which he approved, and others which he thought might be discussed; but then there was in it so many clauses so much open, in his opinion, to objection, that he thought he would be wrong in advising the House to assent to the second reading. The present, he might add, was the fourth Session in which it had been discussed, and in 1875 it had been thrown out in a full House of 450 Members by a majority of two to one, and the Leader of the Opposition, who on that occasion voted for it, pointed out that there were considerable objections to three of the six clauses, of which it then consisted, and those objections were applicable as it now stood. The usages that made up the Ulster right were various and
    506
    diverse, so much so that he believed there was not a single hon. Member for Ulster in the House who would say that there were not 100 or even 200 different usages in Ulster, and it seemed to him a strange proposal to make, that a part of the country subject to no usage whatever should be assumed to be subject to the strongest of all usages which prevailed anywhere, and that the landlord should be under the necessity of proving the contrary. Again, it was a very startling proposition to lay down, that the tenant should not only have the power of selling his holding, but of selling it by auction practically independently of the landlord. Could there be anything more repugnant to the very essence of Ulster tenant-right, one of the conditions of which was that the landlord should have a substantial power of selecting or approving a tenant? As to the limitation of price, it seemed to him' not very unreasonable that a landlord, desiring to have solvent tenants, should be able to say that he would only take tenants who would not give more than three, or five, or six years' purchase, as it might be. There was a clause in the Bill for giving additional facilities to tenants for the purchase of their holdings. The present was obviously an inconvenient time for the discussion of that proposal after the re-appointment of a Committee yesterday, which would have the subject under their consideration. When that Committee had reported, he had no doubt the House would deal satisfactorily with their recommendations. The Bill would, moreover, hamper and destroy the operation of that kindly feeling which existed in many cases between the landlord and the tenant. He had no intention of going into details, but nearly every speaker-had called attention to the 3rd clause of the Bill. He was not prepared to say that the subject of leasehold tenant-right did not deserve most favourable consideration. There was a Bill dealing separately with it, and when that' Bill came before the House, hon. Members would have a clear and satisfactory opportunity of giving expression to their wishes on that branch of the law, free from the objections to which the present measure was subject. While he admitted that there were portions of the Bill to which he could not object and others which might fairly be discussed,

    507
    he could not advise the House to give it a second reading.
    MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD,in reply, stated that the auctions to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman so strongly objected had been repeatedly carried out in the North of Ireland, and that no evil results had attended the practice.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 66; Noes 85: Majority 19.—(Div. List, No. 4.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

    BANKRUPTCY ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, Bill to amend "The Bankruptcy Act, 1869," ordered to be brought in by Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. WHITWELL, and Mr. RIPLEY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 89.]

    BILLS OF SALE BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Bills of Sale.
    Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, Mr. WHITWELL, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. MONK, and Mr. RIPLEY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 90.]

    JUDICATURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. WADDY, Bill to amend the Judicature Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WADDY, Mr. HEKSCHELL, and Mr. MERE-WETHER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 91.]

    PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL REGISTRATION BILL.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee on the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Bill do consist of Twenty-one Members.
    Committee nominated: —Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. BIRLEY, Mr. BOORD, Mr. COTES, Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, Mr. DODDS, Mr. ELOYER, Mr. GOURLEY, Mr. HAMOND, Mr. HIBBERT, Mr. ROWLEY HILL, Mr. ISAAC, Mr. CHARLES LEWIS, Mr. MELDON, The O'DONOGHUE, Mr. RATHBONE, Mr. RYDER, Mr. Serjeant SIMON, Mr. TORR, and Mr. ALFRED MARTEN:—Five to be the quorum.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

SAT FIRST.
Arthur Fitzgerald, The Lord Kinnaird—was introduced by virtue of a special limitation in the patent dated 1st September I860, and sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother George William Fox Lord Kinnaird (Lord Rossie and Lord Kinnaird in the Peerage of the United Kingdom), and took the Oath.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE DARDANELLES — MOVEMENT OF THE FLEET —RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl at the head of the Government will permit me to ask him a Question respecting the rumours which have reached the House as to the movements of the Fleet. I do not attach too much importance to rumours, because there are some rumours which are false as well as rumours which are true. Still, I think it right to ask the noble Earl the Prime Minister, If he will feel it his duty to state in his place in Parliament whether orders have been given to the Mediterranean Fleet to move to the Dardanelles; and, if so, what further orders have been given to the Admiral?
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government not having received any information respecting the negotiations between the belligerents, and the Russian forces were making considerable advances in a direction where British interests were deeply involved, and as we had been informed by the Sultan that there was no security for life and property in Constantinople owing to the state of disorder and disorganization there—Her Majesty's Government thought it their duty to order the Fleet from the Bay of Smyrna to proceed to the mouth of the Dardanelles, and if the Admiral did not receive orders there contrary to the first direction, to proceed thence through the Dardanelles to Constantinople. At the same time that we
436
came to that resolution we prepared a telegraphic despatch to the Powers, including, of course, Russia and the Porte, stating that in the course we were pursuing there was not the slightest deviation from the policy of neutrality which we had from the first maintained, and had always announced that it was our hope and intention to maintain. The intention of sending the Fleet in that direction was that it should defend the lives and properties of British subjects in Constantinople, and take care of British interests in the Straits. The same communication was also made to the Admiral. But since we came to the resolution to take these steps we have become acquainted with the conditions—the proposed conditions—of peace, and having those conditions of peace be-fore us we are of opinion that they furnish a basis for an armistice; and therefore we have given directions to the Admiral to remain in Besika Bay and not to enter into the Straits; and we have not thought it our duty, under these circumstances, to circulate throughout Europe the telegraphic despatches to which I have referred.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON*: My Lords, I feel it my duty, and a painful one, to ask your Lordships' indulgence for a short time while I make a personal explanation. My Lords, I have found it my duty to tender my humble resignation of the office with which Her Majesty has been pleased to honour mo, and that resignation has been accepted; therefore, I only hold office until my successor is appointed, and speak from my accustomed seat on this bench. What the noble Earl the Prime Minister has just stated, affects of course the explanation which I wish to make to your Lordships; but I do not think it modifies materially anything I am about to say.
My Lords, explanations of this sort are painful to make. It is necessary, on the one hand, for a Minister to say enough to justify himself in the course which he feels it his duty to adopt; and, on the other hand, it is equally incumbent on him not only to avoid saying anything that can embarrass Her Majesty's Government at a period of critical negotiations, but as far as is possible to say nothing that can give reasonable offence, or that seems to impute unnecessary blame to those who have been his

437
Colleagues and his Friends. My Lords, in the peculiar position in which I am placed, I am precluded from entering into one important branch of that self-justification, because, looking to the critical nature of present or possible negotiations, I do not consider it right to say a single word with regard to those communications of a confidential character which have passed between Her Majesty's Government and foreign nations. If, therefore, the course of my conduct, as now explained by me, seems incomplete, I shall be content to accept the burden and responsibility of that incompleteness.
There are two reasons which have induced me to adopt the step I have taken—first, the order that was given for the Fleet to proceed to the Dardanelles, on which I will say a few words presently; secondly, and taken in conjunction with this order, the Vote for an extraordinary sum which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given Notice of moving on Monday. My Lords, I will not anticipate anything my right hon. Friend may state, nor do I desire to attempt to controvert the arguments which he may then use. I will only say this — In common with everyone else, I understood my right hon. Friend, on the first night of this Session, to say that he would not make any money proposals on the part of the Government until the conditions of peace were received, or unless those conditions were unsatisfactory. My Lords, at the time that my right hon. Friend gave that Notice in the House of Commons the conditions of peace were not in the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and they could not have known whether they were satisfactory or unsatisfactory. I am glad now to hear from the noble Earl the Prime Minister that the conditions are in the hands of the Government, and the expression of his opinion that they indicate, at all events, a satisfactory basis. It was always my expectation that by delaying the order to the Fleet for a few hours the Government would have been satisfied that even from their own point of view that order was unnecessary.
With these observations I will now endeavour to' make my own position clear by referring to one or two matters which have passed with relation to myself. I have no desire to go back to
438
past differences which may have existed on the subject of the Eastern War. In every Cabinet there must be differences. It is impossible to place 10 or 12 men round a table to discuss so grave and complicated a subject without a variety of opinions; but in order to justify my own conduct, it is necessary to refer to matters with which I have been personally concerned. On the 2nd of this month, as some of your Lordships may remember, I addressed a reply to a deputation which waited upon me in reference to certain questions, in which I spoke of the war and the general attitude of Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, I do not desire to repeat what I stated upon that occasion; it is sufficient for my purpose to say that on the following day a Cabinet Council was held, and —I have Her Majesty's gracious permission for any statement that I may think it necessary to make on the subject—on that day, in the Cabinet, the noble Earl the Prime Minister thought himself at liberty to condemn very severely the language that I had used. My Lords, I need not re-state the terms of that controversy on either side; I took time to consider the course that it was my duty to take; and then, in a memorandum which I had drawn up, but with which I think it unnecessary to trouble the House, I recapitulated what had passed, and having vindicated the position I had taken, I re-affirmed, in the hearing of my Colleagues, and without any contradiction, the propositions that I had then laid down. The noble Earl the Prime Minister was good enough to ask me for a copy of it, and so this matter ended; but no public or private disavowal was uttered or hinted at with regard to what I then said. I have therefore felt myself justified, and I still feel myself justified, in believing that, when no such disavowal was uttered, I had not misrepresented the opinion of Her Majesty's Government at the time.
My Lords, the next episode to which I must allude occurred about a fortnight later. On the 12th of January the question was discussed in the Cabinet as to whether it was desirable to send the Fleet into the Dardanelles, and I expressed a very decided opinion against it. No decision, as I understood, was then come to, but on the 15th the discussion was renewed, and it was then decided to move the Fleet into the Dar-

439
danelles. My Lords, I entertained the strongest objection to that course, both with reference to the time at which it was proposed to adopt the measure, and to the proceeding itself; and on the following day I wrote to the Prime Minister requesting him to submit my resignation to the Queen as soon as the Meet should sail. Meanwhile circumstances seem to have occurred to change his mind, and on the following day I learned that the order to the Fleet was cancelled. In order to make this clear I will read the following letter which I addressed to the Prime Minister:—
" 16, Bruton Street,
"January 18.
"My dear Lord,—On Monday last, the 14th instant [this should he Tuesday, 15th], I wrote to you requesting you to he good enough to submit my resignation to the Queen as soon as the order for moving the Fleet to the Dardanelles should be given. I afterwards received a message from you through Mr. M. Corry, to the effect that subsequent telegrams had induced you to change your mind, and on attending the Cabinet on Tuesday [Wednesday, 16th], the following day—as I did to prevent any rumours which might be injurious to the Government arising—I understood that they, as well as you, saw reason to abandon the course which had been agreed upon. I am very glad that so sound a decision has been come to, whatever the reasons upon which it may have been founded; but, looking to the fact that my resignation, though provisional, is in your hands, and to the serious nature of such a fact, I think it is my duty to state, in a manner which cannot be mistaken, what I conceive to be my position.
"When at the last Cabinet held I stated the course which I had taken in placing my conditional resignation in your hands, no opinion was expressed or comment made by you or, as far as I remember, by any other Member of the Cabinet, and therefore it is the more necessary that there should be no room for misapprehension as to my past or present action. I have no desire to separate myself from Colleagues with whom I have acted on terms of great personal regard and goodwill. I am sensible of the public inconvenience which would arise from discord or open difference of opinion at this moment, and I am ready now, as I hope I have been on former occasions, to modify or concede my views on doubtful points in detail to secure a general harmony of action among the Members of the Government. But I have been led to consider carefully the events of the last few weeks with respect to the divergences of opinion which have unfortunately developed themselves amongst us, and I cannot conceal from myself that those differences have been very considerable on a question where it is of the utmost importance to the country that the Government should be one and undivided.
"Taking, therefore, all this into account, I avail myself of this opportunity to place clearly on paper the opinion—even though you and my
440
Colleagues are already familiar with it—that I am not prepared in present circumstances, or in circumstances similar to them, to agree to any armed intervention, or any course of a similar nature. I see no reason as yet why the questions at issue should pass out of the sphere of diplomacy. Further, the Vote of Credit or increase in the Army and Navy Estimates, whichever it may be, is a measure which I consider useful as a means of strengthening our diplomacy at this juncture; but I do not contemplate the application of any aid granted by Parliament to the purposes of a foreign expedition unless circumstances should change in a manner and to a degree wholly beyond my present anticipations. The anxiety which I own to have felt on this subject has been greatly relieved by the explicit language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he explained that the Government would not, until it was clear that the Russian conditions are unsatisfactory, make any proposals for the increase of armaments.
"Relying, therefore, upon this as a trustworthy exposition of the views of the Government, I feel that I may for the present content myself with the statement which I have endeavoured to express as clearly as possible in reference to my own position. But it remains for you to consider whether this view, which is satisfactory to me, and on which my continuance in office depends, is also satisfactory to you and my Colleagues. I shall be glad to hear from you at your convenience, and meanwhile
"I remain, my dear Lord,
"Yours faithfully,
"CARNARVON."
To this, my Lords, the noble Earl the Prime Minister replied in a courteous and friendly letter, with which, unless he desires it, I shall not trouble the House. It was marked private, but it concluded with the following words:—
"I shall not, therefore, submit your resignation to Her Majesty. Such a step would deprive mo of a Colleague I value, and at any rate should be reserved for a period when there is an important difference between us, which at present does not seem to be the case."
My letter was written on the 18th, as was also the Prime Minister's answer on the same day—the day after the meeting of Parliament. I thought, therefore, I might safely conclude that the proposal to send the Fleet into Turkish waters was abandoned; but on the 23rd the proposal was made in the Cabinet to send the Fleet not only within the Dardanelles, but to Constantinople, and after discussion it was decided that the Fleet should be sent there. Your Lordships will, I think, agree that I had then but one course to pursue. I had endeavoured to state in as clear a manner as I could in my letter that such a course

441
would necessitate my resignation, and I accordingly wrote the following letter:—
"Bruton Street,
"January 24, 1878.
"Dear Lord Beaconsfield,—The Cabinet yesterday afternoon decided to give immediate instructions to the Admiral to take the Fleet up to Constantinople, and to invite the House of Commons to grant a largo sum to the Government for the increase of armaments. My objections to such a course were fully stated a short time since with reference to a similar proposal, and my resignation was tendered if, as seemed then probable, the proposal should be definitely adopted. For various reasons it was not adopted, but now that it has been renewed and accepted by the Cabinet—believing, as I do, that circumstances have not so changed in the interval as to render it necessary—I see no alternative, though with deepest personal regret in separating myself from my Colleagues, but to request you to submit to the Queen my humble resignation of the office with which Her Majesty has been pleased to honour me.
"I remain, dear Lord Beaconsfield,
"Yours very faithfully,
"CARNARVON."
That letter was written yesterday, and to-day I received a letter from the Prime Minister, of which the following is the first and the only paragraph I need read:—
"10 Downing Street,
"January 24, 1878.
"Dear Lord Carnarvon,—I have the honour to inform you that the Queen has accepted your resignation of the office of Secretary of State, and has been graciously pleased to grant to you Her Majesty's permission to make any statement of what passed in the Privy Council which you may think necessary to elucidate your conduct."
Meanwhile, however, as the noble Earl has informed us this evening, an order has been sent to the Admiral to countermand the sailing of the Fleet to Constantinople. Your Lordships will thus observe that three times within three weeks it has been my misfortune to be at material variance on a matter of the highest importance with my Colleagues; and that twice during that interval I have felt myself constrained to place my resignation in the hands of the Prime Minister on this particular subject. Twice the order which has been given for the Fleet to proceed to Constantinople has been cancelled, but—it is essential to observe—not because we had come to an agreement of principle, but owing to some more or less fortunate accident which interposed at the last moment.
442
I rejoice at the soundness of the decision not to send the Fleet into Turkish waters. I am also glad that if I have the misfortune to separate myself from my Colleagues, it will be from a difference of feeling, and even of principle, rather than in consequence of any direct act which they have taken, and which I must have condemned; but what I have stated to your Lordships shows that there have been for a considerable time wide divergences of opinion as to the principles upon which our policy should be conducted. My object, therefore, in making this statement has been twofold—first, to show your Lordships that I have not been guilty of caprice or precipitation in now tendering my resignation; and, in the next place, I think it just to acquit the noble Earl the Prime Minister of having hastily snatched at my resignation when offered to him. He has, looking to the wide differences of opinion subsisting between us, treated my opposition with forbearance.
My Lords, as the question of the moving of the Fleet is no longer at issue, it relieves me from the necessity of fully arguing the point; and I will, therefore, only say that my objection to the moving of the Fleet, whatever explanations or declarations of neutrality might accompany it, is based upon a variety of grounds. I say nothing of the strategical demerits and risks of the scheme if it was to be considered from a military point of view; but politically it seemed to me to lead to a wide departure from that neutrality to which we had pledged ourselves, and the conditions of which we declared at the meeting of Parliament neither of the belligerents had infringed; and as far as I could see, no circumstances had arisen between the 17th of January and the 23rd when this decision was taken, to induce the Government to vary its conduct in so essential a matter. I also thought that the time at which this movement was proposed was unfortunately chosen. It was a time in the midst of negotiations that had now reached their most critical point; when intervention on our part was liable to every sort of misconstruction; when it might encourage Turkey fatally as regards her own interests; when it might not unnaturally be construed as a menace to Russia, and when it might embarrass the Porte itself in the conduct of its negotiations, imposing thereby on us a

443
responsibility which, from an honourable point of view, it would be hard to bear. I also thought it was an unwise policy to place the English Fleet in a position where at any moment the contingencies of war might provoke a collision that might lead us into difficulties which no one could foresee or measure.
My Lords, it seems to me that, in adopting such a course, we were exchanging our former attitude of observation for an attitude of menace; that we were exchanging the position of a neutral for the position of a belligerent; that we were making a distinct step in the direction of war. We could enter the Dardanelles only as allies or as opponents of the Porte. If we enter with the consent of the Sultan, we enter, disguise it as we may, as allies intervening at the last moment between him and his enemy; and if we enter without his consent, the position would become an almost absurd one, because we should be setting at naught those Treaties which we have professed it our object to uphold. I believe the policy which, up to this time, has been adopted by my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, has been wise and consistent. We have avoided the use of threats upon the one hand, and of promises upon the other. We have spoken plainly to both belligerents -—firmly to Russia, clearly to Turkey; we have endeavoured to define, or rather to specify, the points of British interests which might become affected in the progress of the war; and we have, above all, declared our intention to observe a strict, though, of course, a conditional neutrality. We have also said, in the clearest language, that we shall deem it our duty to assert our voice in the final settlement of the question so far as it affects British interests. I do not swerve in the slightest degree from any of these propositions; and till we know that it is the intention of one of the belligerents to do that which he has over and over again declared that there is no intention of doing, I am slow, as a matter of international courtesy and of sound diplomacy, to assume that these assurances have been deliberately false.
My Lords, if the House will permit me, I desire to take this opportunity to refer to a matter which is connected with the present question, and on which I have apparently become exposed to some misconception. To the deputation
444
to which I alluded, I was, by a singular mistake, supposed to have spoken of the Crimean War as an "insane" war. I never thought or said anything of the kind. What I did say was that England and Russia had drifted, to use an expression which has become historical, into that war; that I did not think anyone could now look back with satisfaction upon it, and that I did not believe anyone, whether Englishman or Russian, was insane enough deliberately to desire a repetition of it. That statement was a very different one from what is imputed to me.
I am the last to forget all that has touched the feelings, the pride, the sorrow, the sympathies of persons and families in the Crimean War. It was my fortune when quite a young man to go over the battle-fields with one who played a most distinguished part in the war, the late Lord Lyons; and no lapse of time has effaced from my memory the scenes where English courage was illustrated from the soldier who fought at Inkerman to the lady who in her devotion tended the sick and wounded in the hospitals of Scutari. It was a page of European history filled with British achievements; but wars are not to be measured by heroic deeds and the death-roll of those who have fallen; and now, after 20 years, we may reasonably ask what have been the political value and the results of that war. I confess, even though I may be in a minority, I fail to see the political value of those results, and I point to the present war in the East as the evidence of that opinion.
My Lords, it is with much regret that I have come to the decision to separate myself from my Colleagues. There are some amongst them to whom I am bound not merely by ties of political alliance, but by bonds of almost life-long friendship; and your Lordships will believe me it is not without an acute feeling of pain that I have brought myself to such a separation. A Cabinet must in the nature of things be maintained on a principle of "give and take;" it differs in this from no other body of men constituted for a particular object. I know, therefore, that in every Cabinet there will be many questions on which its Members must agree to differ; but there are also questions in which the lives and welfare of others are so deeply

445
involved, that a Minister dare not waive his convictions at whatever cost or sacrifice to himself. Such has been the case here. I will not say whether I have been right or wrong. I must leave that to the judgment of others. Nor do I blame my Colleagues for the course they have adopted, and the views they have maintained. I am sensible of the forbearance which I have received at their hands, and I take this opportunity of expressing the hope that I have never pressed my own unwelcome doctrines on them with undue earnestness.
I have foreseen for some time that this issue must come. We have been travelling on the road together until we have reached a spot at which the path diverges; but I venture with all deference to them to say that I have consistently held on to the right path, although they naturally will contend that I have turned aside. But this is a matter in which everyone must be guided by his own conscience, and by a sense of his own personal honour; and this I know, that when a man walks in that light, his countrymen will not be stern to mark his errors of judgment. One thing further I must say—that it is of the highest importance at this moment that Her Majesty's Government should be united, and if my departure removes one of the obstacles to harmony, my resignation will at least have had one good effect. It is not fair that one individual should constantly check the action of many; nor is it right that he himself should be drawn on by a desire for compromise to approve of measures in which he cannot agree.
As regards the office with which Her Majesty has been pleased to honour me, it would be affectation on my part to say that I do not regret to leave it. I regret to leave many questions incomplete and unsettled. I beyond measure regret to leave it when clouds, for the time at least, are gathering over one of the most important Dependencies of the. Empire. I could well have wished to meet those difficulties, and to have endeavoured to overcome them. At the same time, I can look back with satisfaction to much which has passed within the last four years. I have been fortunate in four years of not uneventful administration; I have been fortunate in the able men, both within and without the Colonial Office, who have given me their time,
446
and labour, and skill; I have been fortunate in the friends who have helped me by their counsel, and fortunate also in the generous support of political opponents. The least that I can do is to place at the disposal of my Successor any experience I may have gathered; and if I can do anything to smooth his path and remove difficulties, I need not say that every assistance in my power shall be rendered to Her Majesty's Government, so far as I may, with the utmost cheerfulness and unreserve.
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, it is not my intention to follow the noble Earl through all his observations; but I must say that I am at a loss to comprehend the sufficient reason for his quitting the Councils of Her Majesty's Government. My noble Friend informed the House that this is not the first occasion on which he has thought it his duty to tender his resignation; and he did me no more than justice when he expressed his opinion that there was no eagerness on my part to accept it. He told us to-night that he was prepared, and is still prepared, to support an increase in our Naval and Military armaments; but he says that in proposing that Her Majesty's Fleet should go into Turkish waters for purposes which I do not wish to conceal—though I may not dwell on them at length on this occasion—we have deviated from the policy which we have hitherto pursued; and that although that action on our part was accompanied by a renewed declaration of our neutrality he could not believe that the declaration would be credited. My Lords, this appears to me really to be a case of much simplicity. The charter of our policy with regard to Eastern Europe is the despatch of May. And what is the despatch of May? A declaration of neutrality on our part—neutrality conditional on the due observance of British interests, which were chiefly, though not entirely, indicated in that despatch. Among the points enumerated in that despatch as points to which our attention would be directed were the city of Constantinople, the Treaties respecting the Straits, and the position of the Dardanelles. These were specifically mentioned. In that despatch we declared, in language of the utmost courtesy, but, at the same time, in language which could not be mistaken, which has not been mistaken, and which cannot be mistaken in any negotiations and

447
communications with Foreign Powers, that the occupation of the city of Constantinople would not be viewed by us with indifference; that the existing Treaty regulations as to the navigation of the Straits were what we wished to maintain; and we referred to the Dardanelles as a point the condition of which, and the circumstances under which it was held, were of the highest interest to this country. Well, my Lords, what has been the object which we have had before us in recommending Her Majesty to send the Meet, under certain circumstances, into Turkish waters? It has been to guard and maintain those interests so specifically mentioned in the despatch to which I have referred. Why, is it to believed—as it would be believed unless we acted—that that despatch consisted only of words? It was well considered; and, when we assented to it, I myself, and I believe all my Colleagues, were resolved, although prepared to observe a strict neutrality, that if that neutrality were violated with respect to any of those points we should do our best in fulfilment of our duty to our Sovereign and to the country to maintain the policy which we had laid down so distinctly, and which had received general approval. There are other points in that despatch. There was an important reference to Egypt. In respect of that it has been said that we referred to points which could hardly enter into controversy. If those who make those observations—and they are very common observations—had had the experience which I and my Colleagues have had on the subject of Egypt during the last year; if they had had to listen to all the propositions, bold, perilous, and even unprincipled, which have been made on that subject, they would find that we have only done our duty as prudent counsellors in the despatch of last May. And we have succeeded in our object—in guarding Egypt from invasion, and in preventing it being brought into this controversy, although the Khedive, as a vassal of the Porte, has felt it his duty to support his Suzerain in the struggle. I can only repeat what I said in the House on the first night of the Session, and what was expressed with equal precision by my noble Friend the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), that our policy has never changed from the beginning, and that
448
there never has been the slightest division in the Cabinet respecting it. There never has been an occasion when any Member of the Cabinet stated an opinion that it was our duty to deviate from that policy. How that policy should be carried into effect is a question open to discussion, and one on which naturally there must be difference of opinion; but as to the great principle of the policy—namely, the neutrality of this country, a neutrality which was to be strictly observed, provided its observance did not injure the national interests which it was our duty to guard—there has been no deviation of opinion at any time or under any circumstances. I deeply regret that my noble Friend should have thought that the mode in which we attempted to vindicate the national interests in reference to Constantinople, the Straits, and the Dardanelles was such as should deprive us of his valuable services and companionship; but I must vindicate myself and my Colleagues when I say that we were not conscious that in the advice which we gave to the Sovereign to send the Fleet into Turkish waters we were doing anything but supporting that policy which we had frankly expounded to this and the other House of Parliament, which Parliament had adopted frankly, and which the country has contentedly, up to this moment, upheld us in maintaining. It is a source of great disappointment to me that the noble Earl should have felt it necessary to make the statement he has addressed to your Lordships to-night. I would candidly put it to the House, if we have entered into an engagement with Parliament and the country that we should defend certain British interests—and among these prevent a change in the occupation of Constantinople, the present arrangement respecting the Straits, and the position of the Dardanelles—the interests which I believe are accepted by the country as of the highest importance to England—would the country be satisfied in the present state of affairs if they found Her Majesty's Government doing nothing? There may be an opinion that the measures which we have taken may not have been adequate — it may be thought that they may not have been those most adapted to the circumstances; but, so far as I understood my noble Friend, he objects to any action whatever. My Lords, I shall be perfectly

449
prepared, when the proper opportunity arrives, to vindicate those measures. I believe that in the circumstances they were the best to be adopted. And that course, we thought, would have—and it has had—a salutary effect. Although I deeply regret that proposing these measures should have deprived me of such a Colleague as the noble Earl, I must tell the House frankly that they are part of the consistent policy of Her Majesty's Government; that we are resolved to pursue the policy which we originally announced, and that we are prepared to observe that neutrality which we have loudly proclaimed, and which has been generally accepted. But if neutrality depends on holding that the great interests of the country are not to be maintained and vindicated, then I am no longer in favour of neutrality, but in favour of the interests of the country and the honour of the Sovereign.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise, not for the purpose of continuing the discussion, which can have no object, but simply to ask certain Questions of which I have already given Notice this afternoon to the noble Earl. Some of those Questions have been answered by what has taken place in the House already. I wish to know whether it is true that an armistice has been signed; and, if so, at what date? I also wish to know whether Her Majesty's Government have received information as to the nature of the terms of the armistice?—if one has been agreed to. There is another point on which I also desire information. I wish to know whether Her Majesty's Government intend to make any real statement in this House, and to lay Papers on the Table, or will give your Lordships any real information as to the state of things which has lately arisen, and that which at present exists? There are two other Questions of which I have given the noble Earl Notice. One is, whether it is true, as rumoured, that warlike instructions have lately been given to the Commander of the Fleet? I have been anticipated on that subject by the noble Earl below the Gangway (the Earl of Sandwich), who asked the Question, and by the Answer given by the First Lord of the Treasury. The last Question of which I gave Notice was, whether the rumour is true that one or more Members of Her Majesty's Government had tendered their resignation?
450
With regard to a portion of that Question an Answer has been given. It has been given in the very clear statement of the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), which, although the First Lord of the Treasury said he could not understand it, I imagine the country at large will understand and appreciate. My Lords, I am not going to follow the noble Earl the Prime Minister in his remarks. I will leave it to the calm judgment of the country whether the ordering of the Fleet to the Dardanelles, of which we have been informed for the first time this evening, was or was not, under the circumstances, a breach of neutrality, which was not in any way communicated to Parliament when we met a week ago, and which was certainly not consistent with the language held by the Government on that occasion. We have not had any statement made to the House up to this moment as to what are the dangers to British interests which have occurred, and which necessitated on the 23rd of this month the decision to take so grave, so important a step as the the ordering of the Fleet to enter the Dardanelles. With regard to this question, the country will judge between the two noble Earls who have addressed us. The Question of which I gave Notice, as to whether one or more Members of Her Majesty's Government have resigned, has been partly answered; and therefore the only Question which I desire to have answered—if the noble Earl is at liberty to answer it—is whether or not, as has been stated, any other resignation has been tendered? I trust the noble Earl will not think that any public inconvenience will arise from his replying to that Question.
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I will, as far as I can, answer the Questions which the noble Earl has put to me. There are three Questions respecting the armistice. The noble Earl wishes to know the date of the armistice, the date of the signature of the armistice, and he wishes for information as to the terms of the armistice, and whether they can be communicated to the House. Now, so far as Her Majesty's Government are informed, no such instrument is in existence. We know of no armistice; and therefore, of course, it is impossible that we can give the noble Earl the information which he desires. Again, the noble Earl wishes

451
to know whether an opportunity will be given for a general discussion, and whether Papers, as a basis for such discussion, will be laid upon the Table of this House. The noble Earl has had great experience in public affairs, and he knows that there are few things more difficult than to supply Parliament with information on diplomatic matters where the production of Papers are required for such a purpose. In this country, where we are used to publicity, in every possible mode, and in all forms and fashions, everybody expects to be well informed on the conduct of public affairs, and to be supplied with any information which he may desire. But that is not the temper of the Government of every country; and I am sorry to say that there is a growing reluctance on the part of foreign Governments to communicate with the Government of Her Majesty, except on the condition that the terms of their despatches and propositions should not be placed in that peculiar form of literature known on the Continent under the name of "Blue Books." And, therefore, when it sometimes happens that information is not given to the House, the noble Earl will understand it arises from no wish on the part of the Government to refuse information on diplomatic subjects. All I can promise is that such Papers as we can place on the Table of the House shall be placed there as soon as possible. I think the noble Earl then proceeded to remark upon the breach of neutrality which would have occurred if the British Fleet had entered into Turkish waters. I do not think this is a convenient occasion to enter into a discussion of that subject — a subject, no doubt, well worthy of debate. I and my Colleagues will be prepared to vindicate our course if that issue is fairly brought before the House. But the noble Earl is, I must say, completely in error in supposing that when we met a week ago, and I and my noble Friend near me (the Marquess of Salisbury) addressed the House on this subject, we were concealing from your Lordships any matter connected with this incident of the Fleet entering into Turkish waters. The fact is, it was only decided upon last Wednesday, and this is Friday—only two days ago; and therefore we are free from that charge which the noble Earl very properly, as the Leader of the Opposition, has made
452
against us. There is one remark in the speech of the noble Earl, in reference to that of the noble Earl the late Secretary for the Colonies, that I wish to correct. The noble Earl said I had stated that I could not understand my noble Friend's remarks. That would have been a very discourteous observation for me to have made, particularly in the ease of one who is so skilful and practised an orator as the noble Earl. I perfectly comprehended what he said; but I did not comprehend that he had made out a sufficient case for the resignation of his office, and I am still of that opinion. The noble Earl, while deploring also, I believe, the resignation of the noble Lord, wished to know whether any other of my Colleagues had resigned, or what Members of the Government had resigned. I need not say that I myself am still in a responsible position; but with regard to any other of my Colleagues, I may say it has always been considered a valuable and highly-cherished privilege for a Minister who felt it his duty to retire from the Councils of his Sovereign to claim the right of himself first declaring it to the House of Parliament in which he sits, and upon that privilege I will not trench.
EARL GRANVILLE: One Answer which the noble Earl has given appears to me singularly unsatisfactory—I allude to the way in which the noble Earl answered my Question as to the terms of the armistice. The noble Earl said he did not know there was such a document, and therefore he could not say whether it had been signed.
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: We do not know of an armistice; we have no knowledge of anything of the kind.
EARL GRANVILLE: Has the noble Earl no knowledge of the general terms of the armistice? Was it in ignorance of its terms that the Government countermanded the order for the movement of the Fleet?—or was it in consequence of the terms of peace?
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: The armistice and the terms of the projected Treaty of Peace are two very different things. I mentioned, in answer to the noble Earl (the Earl of Sandwich), at the beginning of this evening, that we are now acquainted with the terms and conditions of peace, without the slightest reference to the armistice. I repeat that we have no knowledge whatever that

453
any armistice has been negotiated; nor can we in any way suppose what is the form of the armistice or what are its conditions. It was only a few hours after we addressed the House last evening that we received—but not officially received—information of what may be looked upon, I suppose, as the proposed conditions of peace; but of the armistice we know nothing.
EARL GRANVILLE: I will not quarrel with the noble Earl as to the difference between an armistice and terms of peace which have been agreed upon. What the country wishes to know is, what are the bases of peace which have been agreed upon between Turkey and Russia and which have induced Her Majesty's Government to countermand the ordering of the Fleet to the Dardanelles?
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I really have no authentic information on the subject which I could place before the House. We know what we believe to be the proposals of the Russian Government, but we have no information with respect to the Porte. The information we have has not been given to us officially, but confidentially; and, though I was extremely anxious to let the House have such information as we do possess, I wrote to the quarter from which that information had been confidentially obtained, and asked permission to communicate it to the House, but I have not obtained permission. I have a note in my hand, but that note does not give me that permission; and without such permission it is not in my power to communicate to the House what we understand are the proposals of the Russian Government.
LORD DUNSANYsaid, that the command of the Fleet could not be in more skilful hands than at present; but he feared the Fleet had been ordered to a dangerous anchorage in Besika Bay, and he hoped that a large discretion had been given to Admiral Horn by to withdraw to another position if necessary. He was sorry to hear the disparaging observations which had been made by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) as to the Fleet proceeding to Gallipoli. Would the noble Earl be better pleased to see the Russian Armies than the British Fleet there? He could not conceive a fact which would be more degrading and humiliating to this country than the
454
presence of a Russian force at Gallipoli would be. That would be to allow the door to be shut in our face, and it would make naval or military operations out of the question. If we were in possession of Gallipoli, we would have secured one of the padlocks of the Straits, and might regard with comparative indifference the possession of the other padlock by any other Power, and it would diminish very much the importance to Russia even of the possession of Constantinople itself. He could not imagine, if nature had intended to make a place which could be safely held by a naval force, a better place than Gallipoli. It was the Gibraltar of the East, and the Power in possession of it would be pretty well master of the situation.

FUNERAL OF VICTOR EMMANUEL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DORCHESTERrose to ask the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government a Question of which he had given Notice a day or two ago —namely, Whether the recent mission of the Earl of Roden to Rome to attend the funeral of the late King Victor Emmanuel II. was intended as a tribute of Her Most Gracious Majesty's personal respect, or whether it was meant to represent the feeling of Her Majesty's Government and of this Empire towards a Monarch of Her Majesty's House, the Sovereign of a great Constitutional country, and our faithful Ally during the Crimean War? Considering how that matter affected the susceptibilities of a great nation, some explanation was, he thought, required. He had reason to believe that very distinguished individuals belonging to the English Army would have been willing to attend the funeral. The Crown Prince of Germany and a Marshal of Franco who was with the Italian Army in the Crimean War, together with the son of her President, were sent to represent their respective countries, while this country was represented by a Member of the Royal Household. He was quite sure that no slight to the Italian nation was intended by that fact; but that it arose in deference to precedents and time-honoured customs which were too much respected in this country. He admitted that, if a Peer were to be selected, no more fitting Member

  455
  of their Lordships' House than the Earl of Roden could have been chosen; but it had been represented to him that the Italians resident in London and the English resident in Italy felt deeply the fact that at the funeral of the first King of United Italy — the first King of Liberal and Constitutional Italy—the first King, he might almost say, of Protestant Italy, as compared with another Power that ruled in the same Kingdom—England was not represented by a Member of the Royal House or by some of those gallant and distinguished soldiers who wore the Star of Italy on their breast. The fact that the duty had been intrusted to a simple Lord of the Bed Chamber—although a more amiable and better-hearted Peer could not be found—required some explanation. The late King had died full of honours and in the prime of manhood, and his death was as deeply lamented throughout Italy as that of the great and good Prince who died some years ago in this country.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, no Notice appears on the Paper with regard to the subject which the noble Lord has introduced, although I saw a Notice in reference to it some days since. I am not, therefore, prepared to enter into the question at any length, but will give your Lordships such information in respect of it as I possess. I believe that all the strict rules of etiquette observed and expected on such an occasion as that referred to wore observed in the appointment of a Peer, a Member of the Royal Household, to fill the functions which fell to the lot of the Earl of Roden. The noble Lord who has just spoken seems to think that it was a duty which should have been entrusted rather to a Prince of the Blood or some one equally distinguished. I would observe that ceremonials such as Royal funerals, marriages, and coronations are now very numerous among foreign nations, and attendance is expected at them by those who are Representatives of Royalty in a far greater degree than in any preceding generation—a fact which probably may be attributed to the rapid means of communication which now prevail; and if we laid down as a rule that on occasions of this kind Princes of the Blood only should represent Her Majesty it would be quite impossible, unless the
  456
  Royal Family was far more numerous than they are at present in England, to fulfil the wishes of the noble Lord. I think I need hardly say or assure your Lordships that nothing could be further from the thoughts of Her Majesty and the Government than the idea of treating the memory of the late King Victor Emmanuel with indifference. The late King was not only a personal friend of the Queen, but her faithful Ally, and a Sovereign whose memory Her Majesty faithfully cherishes, and who in life she delighted, to honour. So far from there being any feeling of dissatisfaction with the appointment—under, of course, the advice of the Government—of the Earl of Roden, a Member of the Royal Household, to be Her Majesty's Representative, I can inform the House that, on the contrary, Her Majesty has conferred upon the new King of Italy the greatest distinction in her power—namely, the Order of the Garter—and that that high distinction received from so illustrious a Monarch as our own has been appreciated by the King of Italy in the most marked manner. That will show that no feeling of the kind suggested can subsist between the two Royal Families, and I believe the sentiments of the Royal Families respectively represent the feelings of the two nations.

MANAGEMENT OF RAILWAYS.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANSasked Her Majesty's Government, If it is their intention to introduce any measure to deal with the management of Railways during the present Session; and, if so, whether such legislation would be in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission?
  LORD HENNIKER: The noble Duke is aware that the powers of the Railway Commission will cease at the end of the next Session of Parliament. Under these circumstances, I can give him no more definite reply than that the question of renewing the powers of the Commission must very shortly come under the consideration of the Government; and that the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents will, necessarily, be connected with this subject, and considered at the same time.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that the Answer of the noble Lord could not be considered at all satisfactory, as it seemed like agreeing to read a Bill a second time that day six months; or, at any rate, dealing with the question at an indefinite time. He remembered that last year the noble Earl at the head of the Government told them that the Government were waiting with anxiety the Report of the Royal Commission; and although he was not able to go as far as his noble Friend behind him (the Duke of St. Albans), and ask the Government to adopt the Report en bloc, yet there were some very valuable recommendations in it which were capable of being framed into a practical measure, and he trusted that before the end of the Session some measure based on them would be introduced. He saw no reason that the Government could give for shelving the Report of the Royal Commission, unless they were able to state that the Railway Companies themselves were taking effectual measures to bring about the state of things which the Royal Commission recommended.
  LORD HENNIKER: I must say as to railway brakes, to which the noble Lord opposite has referred, that a Circular issued by the Board of Trade to the different Railway Companies has not yet been answered. When all the answers have been received, it is hoped they may be of so satisfactory a nature as to make it unnecessary to bring forward any legislative measure on the subject. I have to say, further, that the Government have under their consideration not only the question of the liability of Railway Companies for injuries to those employed by them; but the general question of the relation of employer to employed in this respect.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.