Sitting of 25 June 1880

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Gloucester Election Petition (Judges' Report), appointed.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —£1,842,500, further sum on account, CIVIL SERVICES, Classes I. to VII., and REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered —First Reading —Tippe-rary Borough* [249].
First Reading —Burials* [248].
Second Reading —Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) [232], debate adjourned; Savings Banks [188], debate adjourned; Highways (Horse Rate) [203], debate adjourned.
Second Reading —Referred to Select Committee — South Western (of London) District Post Office* [227].
Committee — Report — Isle of Man (Loans) * [241]; County Bridges * [226].
Report —Local Government Provisional Orders (Amersham Union, &c.) * [126]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Abergavenny, &c.) * [127]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Alnwick Union, &c.) * [120],
Third Reading —Union Assessment Committee (Single Parishes) * [212]; Representation of the People (Scotland) Act (1868) Amendment* [208], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House, that he had received from Mr. Justice Denman and Mr. Justice Lopes, two of the Judges selected, in pursuance of The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, for the Trial of Election Petitions, a Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the Borough of Macclesfield.
And the same were read, as followeth:—

MACCLESFIELD ELECTION.
Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
To The Rt. Honble.
The Speaker of the House of Commons.
We, the Honble. George Denman, and Sir Henry Lopes, knt., Judges for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby, in pursuance of the said Act, certify that upon the 21st day of June 1880, and the following day, we held a Court at Macclesfield for the trial of, and did try, the Election Petition for the Borough of Macclesfield, between Isaac Day, Charles Shaw, James Gayes, and Edward Fairhurst, Petitioners; and William Coare Brocklehurst and David Chadwick, Respondents.
And, in further pursuance of the said Act, We certify that we determined that the said Respondents were not duly elected and returned, and that the said Election is void.
And we hereby certify in writing such our determination to you.
And whereas charges were made in the said Petition of corrupt practices having been committed at the said Election, we, in further pursuance of the said Act, report in writing to you as follows:—

1. That no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any Candidate at the said Election.

2. That the following persons were proved at the trial to have been guilty of corrupt practices at the said Election: —John Baker, William Johnson, William Smale.

3. That we have reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the Election to which the said Petition relates.

GEORGE DENMAN.
HENRY C. LOPES.
Bewdley,
June 23rd 1880.
And the said Certificate and Report were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

QUESTIONS.

  MR. BRADLAUGH.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to give Notice that I shall move on Tuesday next that the Resolution passed by the House in regard to Mr. Bradlaugh on Tuesday, the 22nd of June, be read and rescinded. I will take this opportunity of asking the Prime Minister, Whether the Government will afford me on that day facilities for bringing the matter before the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have not had any opportunity of consulting my Colleagues on this important question. Therefore, I wish to reserve my answer in a certain degree—that is to say, as to the particular form of proceeding it may be right to adopt—but as to that which I take to be the essential part of the Question which has just been put to me, I will say that I certainly am of opinion —I can undertake to say on the part of my Colleagues that we are distinctly of opinion—after the proceedings of yesterday, that it is requisite and necessary the subject of Mr. Bradlaugh's right should be effectually re-considered, and we will consider at the sitting of the Cabinet tomorrow what may be the best method of proceeding. I may also say at once to the hon. Member that I think the day for such consideration should not be later than Tuesday next.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to ask the hon. Member for

  835
  Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), Whether, in accordance with the declaration that he made yesterday, it is Mr. Brad-laugh's intention to continue his attempts to disturb the peace of the House? ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot allow the noble Lord to put a Question with regard to the intentions of Mr. Bradlaugh. I am bound to say that such a Question is irregular, and is not a question relating to any Bill or Motion before the House, and therefore cannot be put.
  Afterwards—
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, with reference to the answer the Prime Minister has given to the sitting Member for Northampton, which I understand to convey his decision to announce to the House what conclusion the Government may come to on the suggestion for rescinding the Resolution of Tuesday last, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, for the convenience of hon. Members, and for your convenience, Mr. Speaker, Whether, until he has made the announcement of the Government, he will resist any attempt to use the privilege given by the Standing Order of 1866 of raising the question at any time, or to renew past scenes, which may be attempted on the part of Mr. Bradlaugh or his Friends?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not quite sure that I caught the meaning of the hon. Gentleman. What is the privilege that he refers to?
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I will put the matter very shortly. The right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of this House, has announced that he will communicate to this House the opinion of the Government with respect to the present position of the person who claims to represent Northampton. ["Oh, oh !"] May I not be allowed to answer the right hon. Gentleman? I want to know, Whether, as Leader of the House, until he has made that announcement, he will resist any attempt to renew the scene which occurred on Wednesday in this House.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE: Before my right hon. Friend answers that Question, perhaps he will also inform the House, Whether, supposing the case is taken on Tuesday, it will be at a Morning Sitting or at 4 o'clock.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, as I understand the matter, the Question would be
  836
  raised at the Morning Sitting on Tuesday, and what I have said was on that assumption. It is quite possible, however, that it may be the subject of re-consideration on Monday. I am at present under the impression that if the Motion is made, it will not be desirable for those who make it, or for those who resist it, to enter upon a revival or renewal of the lengthened arguments we lately had on the occasion of the former debate. If the meaning of the Question is what course I shall take in the event of the occurrence of anything calculated to disturb the Order of the House before the interval for further discussion has elapsed, then it appears to me to be quite impossible to give an answer until I know what the occurrence is. I should then, of course, endeavour to discharge my duty in maintaining Order.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is right that I should point out to the House that at a Morning Sitting it has usually been the practice to proceed with the Orders of the Day, the Sitting being suspended from 7 to 9. I would, therefore, submit that if this matter is to be considered on Tuesday, it would be for the convenience of the House if the House met at the usual time.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Probably, in the present state of matters, it will be better to allow the question to stand over until Monday. I say this with due deference to your opinion, Sir.
  MR. COURTNEY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, considering the probability—I may say the certainty—of legal proceedings following the admission of Mr. Bradlaugh on Affirmation, he will take into consideration the expediency of introducing a Bill to extend to all persons elected to serve in Parliament as Members of the House of Commons, who may be unable or unwilling to take or subscribe the Oath, the liberty of making an Affirmation instead of taking the Oath, such as has been conceded to Quakers and other persons, so as to remove all doubts as to what persons are at liberty to make an Affirmation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am unwilling at this moment to add anything to the general views I expressed in the recent debate. What I have stated is, that tomorrow, when the Cabinet will meet, we shall feel it our duty to take the whole question into consideration.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to convey that there would be a Sitting of the House on Saturday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: What I meant to convey was that there would be a meeting of the Cabinet to-morrow.

  POOR LAW—CATHOLIC INSTRUCTORS IN WORKHOUSES.
  MR. BYRNEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has observed in a discussion of the West Derby Board of Guardians, at a recent meeting, on a motion to pay a salary to the religious instructor of the Catholic inmates, it was stated that such a payment would be illegal, and would be disallowed by the Local Government Board; whether the present state of the law gives the Local Government Board the right to disallow a salary voted by a board of guardians to Catholic instructors in a workhouse; and, if it is so, whether he will take steps to call the attention of the board of guardians to the matter?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, a payment to a Roman Catholic instructor would not be held illegal, and could not properly be disallowed if such an officer were appointed and his salary approved by the Board, as has been done in several instances.

  COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE (IRELAND) BILL—PAYMENT OF TITHE RENT-CHARGE, &c.
  MR. MUNTZasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, in the event of the passing of the "Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill," provision would be made to enable landlords affected by the Bill to postpone the payment of tithe rent-charge, and other payments for which they are liable, by virtue of their holding such property, until the 31st December 1881?
  MR W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I must observe to my hon. Friend that the question of this Bill will be before the House this afternoon. I cannot make such a provision as is suggested. I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman would wish me to give the reasons why; but really I must decline to do so pending the debate.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—DRAINAGE WORKS AT BRUFF AND ATHLACA, COUNTY LIMERICK.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If a joint application for a loan was received (by the Board of Public Works in Ireland) from the Earl of Sandwich and the Earl of Buckinghamshire, for the purpose of sinking the Morning Star River between Bruff and Athlaca, in the county of Limerick, which river overflows its banks every wet season, and destroys thousands of pounds' worth of hay on the property of those noblemen; and, if so, why the loan was not granted, the people being so badly in want of employment in that district?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I find, Sir, that application was made by the Earl of Buckinghamshire and two other gentlemen for the purpose mentioned, and that the Board of Works were asked in the month of February last to give £2,120 for the purpose of draining the river alluded to. The loan was granted, and a first instalment of £320 issued; but in consequence of a delay in obtaining a power of attorney for the local agent, it was kept back until the 25th of May. On the 5th of the present month an application was made for the second instalment, but no reply has yet been officially given.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—THE GALWAY MODEL SCHOOLS.
  MR. MARTINasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, if an allowance of 3½ per cent per annum be made on the money invested in the erection of the Gal way Model Schools, and the average annual cost of repairs and other expenses be calculated, it be not the fact that the amount expended by the Commissioners of National Education in preparing each child in the girl's department for the result examinations during the two years ending the 3lst March 1879, did not on an average for each child during these years exceed £9 each year; or, if not, can he state the amount expended by the Commissioners for each child during these years; has the aid given by the Commissioners for the preparation of each child in the

  839
  King's Inn Street Convent National School exceeded 10s.; and, if so, by what amount; is it not the fact that these last named schools have during these years supplied about thirty-one teachers, and the Model Schools but one, to other schools, or how otherwise; is it not the fact that in the last published Report of the Inspectors made by Mr. Gillies he has not stated that the King's Inn Street Schools was the best National School of any class he ever examined; and, whether, having regard to the small amount of State aid given to the King's Inn Street Schools and the high educational results there obtained, any steps have been taken or suggestions made with the view of increasing the payments made to the King's Inn Street Schools; and, if not, can he state the reasons for the continued application by the Commissioners in a manner so disproportionate to the educational work done as between the Model and King's Inn Street Schools?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, with regard to the Question of the hon. Member, I must say that as far as the money invested in the erection of the Galway Model Schools is concerned it would be impossible, or at any rate very difficult, to ascertain the proportion of the cost which was expended in the girl's department. As for the capitation grant, the amount per head in the Galway Model Schools in the year ending the 31st of March, 1878, was £7 4s., and in 1879 was about six guineas. The King's Inn Street Convent National Schools have had an average grant of 10s. per head; but in 1878 it was £1 2s. 8d., and in 1879, £1 3s. I have no information as to the last part of the Question, which opens up the whole question of the Model Schools, and I cannot at present enter into it.
  MR. MARTIN: I beg to give Notice that I shall call attention to this subject on the Estimates for the Board of National Education in Ireland being brought forward.

  ARMY — AUXILIARY FORCES — THE MID ULSTER ARTILLERY REGIMENT OF MILITIA — DUNGANNON WORK-HOUSE.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of
  840
  Ireland, Whether it is the case that the Local Government Board in Ireland has refused to allow the Board of Guardians of Dungannon Union to afford to the Mid Ulster Artillery Regiment of Militia the accommodation which it has hitherto enjoyed in Dungannon Workhouse during its period of training, which accommodation has, up to the present year, been allowed upon terms satisfactory' to the ratepayers of said Union; and, if so, what are the grounds upon which said refusal is based.?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I find that the Local Government Board, in consequence of the distress of this year, think it necessary to keep the workhouses as available as possible for any emergency. I hope that there is no special distress in this district; but I shall try if this difficulty can be avoided without any great breach of the general rule.

  CHURCH RATES (ST. SAVIOUR'S, SOUTHWARK).
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the letter in the "Daily News" of 23rd June, from Mr. Fielding, of Findlater's Corner, London Bridge, and from Mr. Stannah, of 20, Southwark Bridge Road, complaining of distresses being levied on them for church rates collected by the churchwardens of St. Saviour's, Southwark; and whether it is possible for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, from the funds at their disposal, to make such payments to the minister of St. Saviour's Church as will obviate the practice complained of?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I believe the state of the case to be this. These proceedings are not accurately described— though I do not hold the hon. Member responsible for the inaccuracy—as distresses levied for church rates. As far as I understand the matter, they have no connection whatever with a subject which was at one time so well known to us under the name of the church-rate controversy. Under a private Act of Parliament, a compromise, as it was deemed at the time, was effected between the incumbents concerned and the parishioners. The incumbents, on the one hand, surrendered the extensive claims of which they conceived themselves to

  841
  be legally in possession, and the parishioners agreed to constitute an endowment of the church by a charge on the property of the parish. That, as I am informed, is a correct statement of the case. The distresses which have been levied, and of which I know nothing except from the Question of my hon. Friend, must have referred to the payments which fell due in respect of such endowments. I have communicated with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on the subject, and the answer I have received from them is to the effect that they do not feel at liberty to appropriate their funds, which were destined for the relief of spiritual distress, in order to enable the authorities of Southwark to dispense with an income that is already available under statute.

  DISTRESS (IRELAND.)
  LORD ELCHOasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in any of the districts scheduled in his "Bill to provide compensation for disturbance in certain cases of ejectment in Ireland," a state of destitution and suffering now exists such as prevailed so generally in Ireland in the great potato famine in 1846–7; and, whether, at that time any measures for the suspension or remission of rents was introduced into Parliament and passed by the Government of the day, or whether there is any record in the Irish Office of such a measure having been contemplated or considered?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I believe and trust there is in no one of the distressed Unions a state of destitution such as existed in the great Famine of 1846–7. I sincerely hope that not in the lifetime of my noble Friend, of his grand-children, or any of his descendants will there be such a famine again. As regards the measure now brought forward, I find no record of any previous similar measure. I will remind the noble Lord that what happened during the Famine cannot be considered as much of a guide for legislation. I will also further remind him that the Land Act has been passed since then.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following paragraph in the "Echo" of June 24th:—
  "Kildysart, Thursday.
  "At the Ennis and Kilrush Quarter Sessions' which have just concluded, nearly 100 cases of ejectment were disposed of and the decrees obtained. The greater part of those against whom the decrees were taken out are people who are dependent upon the relief funds for support. At Kilrush a decree was obtained against a man named Nash, with ten children, the holder of half an acre, for which, with a dwelling house, he paid four pounds yearly. A few days before the sessions the sum was made up by subscription, and he forwarded it, together with ten shilling's costs, to the landlord's solicitor, but it was almost immediately returned;"
  whether it is the fact that numerous ejectments have also been served throughout Ireland generally, and whether the Government will introduce any provision into the Compensation for Disturbance Bill to prevent landlords forestalling its operation; and, whether the Return of Evictions for the last six months, founded on district returns from the various head constables and sub-inspectors of Irish Police, will be presented to Parliament; and, if so, what are the circumstances taken into consideration by the police in filling up the column "hardship or not" contained in this return?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, his attention had only been called to the paragraph referred to when he read the Question of the hon. Gentleman. As to the second part of the Question, he would have something to say on that head when the provisions of the Bill about to be introduced were discussed. He would ask that the application for the Return should for a short time be postponed until further information was obtained.

  ELECTION PETITIONS—REPORTS OF ELECTION JUDGES.
  MR. WHITBREADasked Mr. Attorney General, If he will state the position of the House in relation to its power, when, on the trial of an Election Petition, the Judge has reported the existence of extensive corruption?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, he was glad to have the opportunity of correcting an inaccurate report of what he had said with respect to the action of the House on Election Petitions. He would briefly state the position of the House in relation to its power over the Reports of Election Judges. In

  843
  cases in which a Report was made to the House that extensive corrupt practices had prevailed, it was within the power of the House, under the Statute of 1852, to move for a joint Address with the other House to Her Majesty, representing that a report of extensive corrupt practices had been received, and praying that a Royal Commission might issue to inquire into the existence of such corrupt practices. By the Statute of 1863, the obligation was cast on Committees of the House in all cases of bribery and corruption to Report to the House whether such practices had extensively prevailed. The Statute of 1868 transferred the obligation to the Judges, and the House had the power, but not the imperative duty, of moving an Address in the terms he had mentioned to the Crown jointly with the other House. It was usual to regard the Report of the Judges as final; but it was within the power of the House to review their Reports.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked, Whether any real difference of facts was implied in the distinction between the two forms, "corrupt practices have extensively prevailed" and "there is reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed?"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)replied, that the latter form was, in his opinion, equivalent to a direct Report of corrupt practices.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked what would be the Business of the House on Monday?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he proposed to proceed with the Navy and Civil Service Estimates, and on Thursday he hoped to take the Employers' Liability Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked at what time the Prime Minister would ask the House to consider the second reading of the Burials Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will take care to give full Notice of the time of the second reading of this Bill; but, viewing the state of Business in this House, it cannot be on a very early day.

ORDERS OF TEE DAY.
  COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 232.]
  (Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 232.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: As the House is aware, this Bill, though it is only a short one, and is also a temporary one, yet excites much interest, not to say opposition—in fact, I do not know that I ever had anything to do with a Bill to which I found so much opposition — arising, I believe, from very great misapprehension. I find, for the first time in my life, that I am looked upon as a very extravagant and revolutionary person. The Bill also has been termed revolutionary—it has been described as a measure to encourage the non-payment of rent, to confiscate the property of landlords, and to destroy all rights of property. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen cheer the statement— but, possibly, they will cheer still more the description of the Bill given by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), who, doubtless, considered that he combined almost every epithet of opprobrium, when he said that it "embodied all the worst and most noxious features of the Land Act of 1870."I am sure, however, the House will give me a fair hearing while I explain what I understand to be the object, meaning, and probable effect of this Bill. And, in doing so, I must trouble the House with some explanation of what I believe to be the intention of some of the clauses of the Land Act of 1870—because there is great misapprehension with regard to them as well as with regard to this Bill. Before I sit down I hope to show that this Bill is expedient and just—that it is brought in to carry out the spirit of the Land Act, and that it is required as a temporary modification of that Act, under the special circumstances of the case. Now, let me explain its principles. There is in it a limitation of time, and there is also a limitation of area—it is limited to the end of next year and to the area of those districts which are scheduled as dis-

    845
    tressed. We introduce these limitations, first, because we do not think the House is ready—and, in fact, we ourselves are not ready—for the introduction of any permanent Bill with regard to the Land Question; and next, because in the special circumstances of this year, and in the special circumstances of these districts, we think that a Bill with regard to evictions—why, I shall explain hereafter —is especially urgent, and, in fact, to our minds, necessary. Now, what are these districts? They have not been defined by me, or by the present Government, or by the present Parliament —they are those districts which were declared to be specially distressed by the late Government and by the late Parliament. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) asked me a Question yesterday with regard to these districts, and I think he was rather surprised to find that none had been scheduled since the 29th February. None could legally have been scheduled since, and there has, of course, been no intention to break the law. They were scheduled by the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (the Duke of Marlborough), in consequence of the belief that the Government had—a belief that has been confirmed by the unanimous vote of this House—that exceptional temporary legislation was required for the exceptional circumstances of these districts. There has been exceptional legislation. Loans of very large sums have been granted in order to meet the distress of these districts on terms, I believe, never offered before. It was because we wanted to fasten this Bill on the attention of the House and the Country, that when we thought it necessary to propose this measure, we first tried to introduce it as an amendment to the Relief of Distress Bill. I mention this in order to explain to the House why we took that course. There was no intention whatever to take the House by surprise—if we had been allowed to keep this clause in the Relief of Distress Bill, we should have had to move an Instruction, and hon. Gentlemen would have had the same opportunity of discussing it, and of rejecting it if they choose, as they will now have on the second reading of this Bill. I should be very sorry if any Member of the House thought I had wanted under any circumstances to take an un-
    846
    fair advantage. The proposal is limited, as I have said, to the scheduled Unions, generally speaking, to the Western half of Ireland; but there is, practically, another limitation—that is, it is limited to those Unions outside Ulster and outside of the districts where Ulster Tenant-right exists. And for this reason—that I cannot conceive that any tenant in Ulster would seek to make use of this Bill when he has a much stronger and more speedy remedy, and one which gives him a much larger compensation.
    Now, what is this temporary proposal? Simply this—that if in the distressed districts, and during this year of distress, it shall appear to the Court—meaning the County Court Judge, the official to whom these questions are referred by the Land Act, who has under that Act much more important cases of compensation to decide than will come under this Bill — if it shall appear to this Court, first, that one of the tenants is unable to pay his rent; secondly, that he is unable to do so on account of the distress arising from the bad harvest of this and the two previous years; thirdly, that he is willing to continue in his tenancy on just and reasonable terms as to rent, and arrears of rent, and otherwise; and, fourthly, if those terms are unreasonably refused by the landlord— then, and then only, can he obtain such compensation as the Court may think just under the 3rd section of the Land Act, 1870. Now, observe that all these conditions must be fulfilled. No compensation will be given unless the tenant cannot pay his rent; unless he is too poor to pay; and unless his poverty arises, not from sickness, unthriftiness, or from his own action, but from the special grounds of these three bad harvests. Then, again, he must be willing to try his utmost to pay a reasonable rent—that is, to submit to pay a rent either reasonably reduced under the circumstances of this year, or with reasonable time given in which to pay, and the landlord must be unwilling to make that reasonable reduction, or to give him that reasonable time. If all these conditions are fulfilled, then the landlord and tenant come under the scope of Section 3 of the Land Act. I hope the House will not think I am wearying them if I remind them what that section is. The reason why I go back to the Land Act is, because, although it was passed only

    847
    some 10 years ago, it seems to me that its provisions are most wonderfully forgotten—there seems to be a most curious forgetfulness with regard to them. I hear hon. Gentlemen speaking of the Land Act as if it merely enacted two provisions—one, to legalize the Ulster Tenant right, and, secondly, to give compensation to tenants all over Ireland for improvements. But Section 3 of the Land Act did a great deal more. It went so far as to establish the principle that not only in Ulster, but out of Ulster, the tenant had some right to his holding. I will not now enter into a discussion as how that right should be termed—whether property or goodwill, but some interest of the tenant in his holding is very clearly acknowledged by that section; and there was so much interference with the right of the landlord to do what he will with his own, or there was so far a declaration that his land was not absolutely his own, that he was not allowed to do what he could do in England or Scotland—namely, turn out his tenant when the tenancy expired, simply because he wished to do so. Remember that is what the Land Act enacted by Section 3. It clearly enacted that there was to be compensation for what was called "disturbance," by the landlord making the tenant leave his holding. Well, what does "compensation for disturbance," mean? It means that the tenant is to receive a sum of money which was regulated by the number of years' rent—the maximum of compensation being limited to £250—because he was dispossessed of his holding. I suppose that is what the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) calls "the worst and most noxious feature of the Land Act." But, after all, the Land Act was passed almost unanimously in this House, and unanimously in the other House. It is quite true that when this clause was brought forward, many hon. Members thought it a startling one. It was, no doubt, a clause new to the British Statute Book. The objections to it were most powerfully put, for the Motion against it was moved by the present Lord Beaconsfield; but the House declared by a large majority in its favour. I do not know, however, that it is my business, at this time, to defend what was done by Parliament in regard to the Irish Land Question in 1870. I believe this House is not less
    848
    likely to consider the claims of tenants or more likely to consider the claims of landlords than was the House of 1870; but I will add that, looking back to the history of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, we must regard this clause as a "just and wise one. And I will go further, and say that my belief is that without some such clause as that Ireland would have had at this time to be governed by martial law. I remember being present in Ireland, not very long ago, at a meeting of gentlemen who were not, generally speaking, of my own side of politics. A very pleasant evening I spent with them; but though they complained a great deal of the Land Act, they admitted that, at all events, it had had the effect of putting an end to capricious evictions—and we know that, though Irish landlords will, as I believe, compare favourably with any others as regards justice and kindness, yet still capricious evictions did occur. But, in taking away this power from Irish landlords of capricious eviction—that is, of getting rid of his tenant simply because he did not wish to keep him as his tenant—we acknowledged and declared this principle to the tenants of Ireland— especially to the smaller tenants of Ireland—that they have by the very fact of their tenancy some right and some interest in their holdings different to what is possessed by the tenant either in England or Scotland. I am perfectly well aware that there is an exception to this clause, and it is one which I hope may give the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire some comfort, and may lead him to acknowledge that the Land Act was, after all, not altogether so bad as he supposes. Section 9 of the Act declares that except on some specific limitation—which I will allude to afterwards—the power of discretion given to the Court to compensate evicted tenants shall not be exercised in the case of tenants who are evicted for non-payment of rent. Therefore, the question we have now before us is this—whether or not I am right in saying that, under the special circumstances of this year, and for the relief of these distressed districts, this exception ought not itself to be modified? Remember, Section 3 was not only framed with the intention of putting a stop to capricious evictions, inasmuch as it made the landlord pay heavily for them, but it also gave the Court power to give the

    849
    tenant such compensation as it might think just, where the rent was raised without the consent of the tenant. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen are aware of the fact that by the law as it now stands, throughout the whole of Ireland, with the exception of Ulster— that is, even where there is no Ulster Tenant-right—if the landlord chooses to raise the rent of the holding, he can only do it at the expiration of the tenancy; and if the tenant does not consent to pay the increased rent, he has to give notice to quit, and that notice will bring the tenant within the operation of this 3rd section, and he will then get the compensation for disturbance which the Court may award him. Bearing this in mind, I ask hon. Gentlemen whether I am not right in saying there is very good ground to suppose that in a good many cases the keeping up in 1880 of the same rent, or anything near the same rent, as was paid in the good years before 1877, is really very much the same thing as if in good or average years the rent had been raised; and whether this temporary Bill is not merely carrying out the spirit of the Land Act, when it proposes that in these cases a tenant may be treated as though his rent had been raised? I have described Section 9 as a limitation of Section 3; but Section 9 has its limitation within itself—and that, again, I suppose, is another "noxious feature." Section 9 declared, as it finally passed, that certain tenants, if the rent be "exorbitant," could apply to the Court for compensation. This part of the clause has, however, been, in fact, rendered a nullity by the use of the word "exorbitant," which has a special legal meaning. The word "exorbitant" was inserted in the clause in place of the word "excessive" by the House of Lords, and thereby the operation of the section was defeated; but the principle of this Bill is there—for the principle was affirmed that where the rent is "exorbitant," a tenant may be entitled to compensation even when he is evicted for non-payment of rent. This is what the clause affirmed, as it finally passed; but how was it passed in this House? It left the House of Commons with words in it which provided that ejectment for non-payment of rent should not be deemed disturbance of the tenant by the act of the landlord, unless the Court so decided, on "special
    850
    grounds," in the case of persons claiming for compensation at the termination of the tenancy existing at the time of the passing of the Act. That is how the Act left the House of Commons, and if it had been passed in that, it would have been a greater interference with landlords and a greater protection to tenants than the Bill which I am now submitting to the House. But "special grounds" is a very wide and grave description. Who can doubt that if the Court have power to take into consideration "special grounds," it would deem the harvests of the last two or three years such "special grounds" as would authorize it to afford greater protection to the tenant? I may be told, what has that to do with the question— what does it matter what passed in the House of Commons? We must take the Act as it passed both Houses of Parliament. But I am dealing with the House of Commons, and I repeat, I do not think the House of Commons of 1880 will be less disposed to consider the claims of the tenant than the House of Commons of 1870 was; more especially, seeing that the change in the Bill was only effected after two or three conferences between the two Houses, and was only reluctantly assented to on the part of this House for the purpose of saving the Bill. I shall be told that this limitation only referred to tenancies then existing. True; but who doubts that the circumstances which demanded special protection for some tenants then, are similar to the circumstances which demand it for some tenants now? And who can suppose that, if it had been thus passed, its operation could have been limited by date of tenancy among tenants similarly circumstanced? Very probably words will be quoted from speeches of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), separating the fact from the fiction. It is not for me to defend him; but it may be that he and most of us in the Government of that day had more hope and faith in the absolute settlement of the Land Question by the Land Act than has been justified. I believe it has done great good, and I believe without it we should have had incalculable evil. Nevertheless, it may be true that, at the time it was passed, the tremendous strain of the last three years was not foreseen.
    Well, I have tried to tell the House what the Bill is, and how it amends the

    851
    Land Act. Perhaps the House will allow me to refer to a statement I saw to-day, because it really shows how, even among gentlemen connected with Ireland, there are great misapprehensions. There is a letter in the papers to-day from a noble Lord who, I believe, is a gentleman of great Irish experience (Lord Annesley), in which he says—
    "Were it to become law, a creditor who asked his debtor to pay him what he owed him would in some parts of Ireland he fined seven times the amount of the debt; in other parts, where Tenant right prevails, from 20 to 40 times that amount. If a tenant refuses to pay his rent, the only means of enforcing payment is by an ejectment."
    Really, this is a remarkable statement. The writer seems to forget that if the Ulster tenant is ejected at this moment for non-payment of rent, and under circumstances discreditable to himself—if he cannot pay from want of thrift—still he does not lose the value of his tenant-right; and if the landlord chooses to take his farm into his own hands, he has to pay him that value, whatever it is. If hon. Gentlemen would only test what they hear by the facts, they would find that much that is said is not altogether justified. But, now, what is the actual position of affairs? Practically, this Bill will mainly affect small tenants. The scale of possible compensation is seven years' rent for tenants under £10, five years' under £30, one year above £100, and the highest sum that can be awarded, whatever the size of the holding may be, is £250—that is the utmost a County Court Judge can give. Against this sum have to be set the arrears of rent, which, I suspect, will, in many cases, sweep off all the compensation. Now, I want to ask the House to consider who are these small tenants with whom we have to deal. First, they are men unable to pay the rent, or else the Court would not consider the claim; secondly, it is the circumstances of the time—the distress of the year and the failure of the harvest — that have made them thus unable; thirdly, they are willing to pay the rent if the landlord would give them reasonable terms in reduction or time; and, lastly, the landlord will not give them these reasonable terms. It is only under all these conditions that the tenants can get compensation from the Court. They are—or a very large majority of them are—attached to their holdings—it may be by what we call a
    852
    sentimental attachment. Considering the misery that they and their families have lived in for centuries, it is only surprising that they should be so attached; but there are sentiments with which we cannot reason, and this is a sentiment much akin to patriotism, without which very few countries would be what they are. Remember, too, that these are men whose interest in their holdings has been acknowledged by the Land Act —whether by what is called its "noxious features" I do not know, but by this Act—passed by an enormous majority in this House, and, I believe, unanimously in the House of Lords. Remember, also, in the vast majority of cases these small tenants have no other means of living than their holdings. I will read a letter I have received to-day from a friend who worked with me in the Famine of 1847 (Mr. Tuke), who went to Donegal to see the state of things now as compared with what it then was. He does not find the destitution now equal to the famine in those days; but he does find great distress due to the two or three bad crops that have deprived the people of their sustenance. He says—
    "It is extremely difficult to an Englishman to realize the intensity of feeling which exists on the Land Question in Ireland; and, in looking for some of the causes which have led to this, we shall find that it is due to a large extent to the overwhelming proportion of the population which is engaged in agriculture. To nine-tenths of the population of Connaught the possession of a bit of land is the sole means of existence. Of manufacture there is none, and, the majority of the farms being too small to need hired labour, of agricultural labour there is scarcely any. Take away from the tenant his little holding, and nothing is left to him but the workhouse. Except in some of the towns, there is not even an unoccupied house which a man could hire if he obtained work apart from his holding. Hence the tenacity with which the holding is retained and defended. They are like shipwrecked sailors on a plank in the ocean; deprive them of the few inches by which they 'hold on,' and you deprive them of life. Deprive an Irishman of the few feet of land by which he 'holds on,' and you deprive him of all that makes life possible. For the workhouse, distasteful enough to an English labourer, is simply unendurable to an Irish peasant. That this is no mere sentiment is often impressed upon the visitor who enters the cabins of the people, where it is so common to find some infirm or aged person dependent on the kindness of the family for the miserable subsistence he obtains, and who in England would without doubt have been sent to the workhouse long before. Who would wish to lessen this kindly feeling, or break down the almost insurmountable repugnance to the workhouse;"

    853
    Well, I have said that no Ulster landlord need regard with fear the operations of this Bill. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Hervey Bruce) asked me a question about it, and, knowing he was an Ulster landlord, I could understand his interest; but I hope his sympathy with the landlord out of Ulster will induce him to consider whether the better position of the Ulster landlord may not be, in some measure, owing to the better position of the Ulster tenant. Now, what is the position of the Ulster tenant? What did this Land Act do in Ulster? First, it legalized the Ulster Tenant-right—that is, it made the goodwill of the farm or the property in the tenancy a legal property. Next, it made the County Court Judge the judge of the value of the property; and, thirdly, it acknowledged the right of the owner of the property—that is, of the tenant—to obtain compensation in every case—in case of ejectment for non-payment of rent as well as in others. I refer to this fact partly for this reason. We have many champions of political economy in these matters; I do not know that they are exactly the same Gentlemen who advocate political economy in other matters. However, I ask them to consider whether, seeing that after long debates such provisions as I have described, to be applied in Ulster and out of Ulster, were passed by Parliament in 1870, there must, after all, be some circumstances in Ireland affecting landlords and tenants which prove that the rules of political economy as between buyer and seller do not absolutely apply? But, however this may be, I want the House to compare the position of the Ulster tenant with the position of the non-Ulster tenant, because I have had to compare them, and I have had to make the comparison because tenants out of Ulster make it themselves. Do not imagine that they do not know what this Act has done in legalizing the position of the tenants in Ulster. Take an estate, part of which is in Ulster and part out of it. Suppose there be small tenancies in each case; suppose distress arising from failure of crops has had the same effect in one place as another; the tenant on the Ulster side of the border gets his compensation for disturbance—upon having to leave his farm, he gets something that he can go to America with. The tenant outside Ulster, unless there be special
    854
    kindness on the part of the landlord, is driven out helpless and hopeless. I am not one of those who would discourage emigration by these small tenants—I believe that some of them are in such a difficult position on account of the numbers existing on very poor land that no law that we could pass would give them a comfortable life—and, instead of discouraging them, I would encourage them to emigrate; but there is all the difference between a man emigrating with the means of re-starting in life, and a man emigrating without a farthing and finding himself helpless and hopeless in the slums of New York, suffering greater misery than he did in Ireland. I do not want the emigrant to go away with a feeling of hardship and injustice. I am not making any charge against the landlords as a class; it would be most unjust and untrue to do it. But there are exceptions; there are landlords who are hard by nature; there are others who are hard through circumstances, because they are in the power of others, or because they are too far away from their property and do not know the facts. I shall not allude further to these exceptions, because I want the House to feel what I feel—that if the landlords have the letter of the law behind them, we must enforce their rights. Remember this, if the landlords carry out the letter of the law, the Irish Government must enforce the landlords' legal rights. We must do this, because, whatever may be the hardship to the tenant, that does not equal the evil of allowing the law to be disregarded and disobeyed.
    Now, you may say, with these facts before you, why did you not bring in this Bill at the beginning of this Session? You knew the distress—you knew the meaning of the Land Act—you knew the relative positions of the Ulster tenant and the non-Ulster tenant. Well, we did not do so because we hoped that we might put off legislation until we had all the facts before us, and knew how the Land Act was working, and then we might bring it before the House, and inquire how far it required amendment. Then, it may be said, "If you did not bring it in then, why have you brought it in now?" Well, for this reason—that we found we could wait no longer. Pacts are accumulating upon us. Evictions have increased and are increasing—I have here the figures as to the evictions the Consta-

    855
    bulary have had to conduct—they are not all that have been effected, only those in which the aid of the Constabulary has been required—and I deduct from them all the cases where the evicted tenant has been re-admitted—this list, moreover, has nothing to do with process-serving. The average evictions for the five years ending in 1877 was 503 for each year; in 1878 the number of evictions was 743; in 1879 it was 1,098; and up to the 20th of June in the present year it has been 1,073.
    MR. CHAPLIN: How many of these evictions were for non-payment of rent?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I cannot say exactly, but I know that a very large portion of them have been for non-payment of rent. Well, with this exceptional increase of evictions has come the necessity of using an exceptional amount of force to carry out the law. Now, I take merely the West Riding of Galway. Since the 1st of January in this year, the number employed in protecting process-servers has been 107 officers of Constabulary and 3,300 men, and 16 officers and 626 men in carrying out actual evictions; there have been from 40 to 50 cases of process-serving, and 12 of actual evictions. I have read these figures, because I want the House to sympathize with the Government in this matter. I want them to see how we find it to be serious. Three or four Sundays ago I was informed that 87 processes would have to be served upon a village in the wildest part of Galway, where there was a very poor tenantry and very few roads, and in which village there had been an effectual resistance in the spring of this year. I was told that 150 men were told off for the duty, and that the probability was that they would be resisted and would have to fire their way through the mob. Of course, I did what any man in my position would do. I gave directions at once that the process-server must be protected in the discharge of his duties, but that every possible care must be taken to avoid collision between the people and the Constabulary, and that, therefore, a force must be sent out which would make resistance hopeless; and if the Constabulary was considered insufficient, the aid of the military must be called in. The result was that a large force of Constabulary—a force of 200 men well led—
    856
    were sent down, and proceedings were conducted with the greatest success. If there had not been enough of men there might have been something approaching a battle. What happened, however, on that same day in another village in Galway not far off? A force of 50 men went with another process-server—I was not previously informed—but the force was not strong enough to prevent resistance, and the consequence was that the Constabulary had to charge through the mob with their swords drawn. I am glad to hear that no one was killed, though several were wounded; but I trust none of the wounds were serious. Two days before that, 100 men were engaged at no great distance in seeing an ejectment carried out. I am not going to condemn the landlords upon any one of these occasions, and I am perfectly aware that the law must be enforced; but what I want the House to consider is, whether, with facts such as these before them, they will not make such modification in the present law as will carry out the spirit of the Land Act, so that we may be enabled to carry out the law with a clear conscience?
    I cannot sit down without saying a word or two with reference to the objections that either have been or may be raised to this Bill. It has been said that, in introducing this measure, we are making a concession to what is called the Anti-Rent agitation. I must here remark that there are very few agitations for which there is absolutely no ground. There are very few cases of great smoke where there is absolutely no fire. My belief is that by passing this measure we shall be putting out the fire, and doing very much to destroy the agitation. Do not let hon. Members suppose for a moment that I approve of this agitation—I deeply lament it—I deeply condemn it. If any Gentlemen here have been promoters of that agitation—I beg them to recollect that if they have ever been at meetings, and have used any expressions which would give these poor people, who have got the distress of centuries rankling in their minds, the notion for a moment that they could resist the law, or that they would have the slightest success in such an attempt, they could not by any possibility be doing them a greater harm or be incurring a greater responsibility. I do not know that I can better express my

    857
    opinion on this subject than by reading the following extract from the Flag of Ireland, which certainly is not written in the interest of the landlords of Ireland.
    MR. PARNELLhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would also state that that newspaper did not represent the Irish Land League.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: When the hon. Member hears the extract read, he will see that it is unnecessary to point out that fact. The extract, which appeared on the 19th of this month, is as follows:—
    "A representative of the Land League, at a meeting held last Sunday, said that the League 'had in view a set of objects, and if they enabled them to carry out those objects they would make the property of Irish landlords so worthless that they would leave it with them.' These objects were that they should endeavour to 'keep a grip' of their holdings, and that no one should be allowed to take a farm from which a tenant had been ejected. Their American friends, he said, were going to work in the right way. 'They could not send them arms, but they could send that which created arms—money, and he trusted they would band together and agitate and organize for the total extinction of landlords '—by' constitutional agitation,' of course. We say deliberately that talk such as this is iniquitous. To goad an unharmed and helpless people, by thinly-veiled incitements like this, to deeds for the attainment of objects which are unattainable—which must bring ruin, swift and sudden, upon themselves and their families—is entirely unjustifiable, and the men who do this incur very grave responsibility."
    I cannot leave this matter without making some allusion to what has happened in the West of Ireland. There have been many bad cases of great cruelty to tenants who have paid rent, or who have taken holdings from which others have been evicted; and, in order to injure their owners, there has been great cruelty to helpless and unoffending animals. A subject I do not like to talk about is the way in which the anger of men has been gratified by maiming and torturing dumb animals; but why do I refer to this? These men are not well taught— they have the teaching of centuries of wrong to guide them, but there are gentlemen going among them who have been well taught, and who know well what to tell these men; and I feel it my duty to say that I have looked in vain— and, because in vain, with deep regret— to the speeches of those gentlemen who have addressed these people for any
    858
    denunciation of these outrages, and for any word informing their hearers that, however unjust they may think the law to be, yet that there are duties owing to their fellow-men, and even to beasts. I find myself confronted now with what I said on this matter when I was not in Office; but I do not see the slightest reason to charge me with having changed my views or action. I said then what I say now—that the law must be maintained—that individual outrages against law ought to be denounced by the friends of those who suffer from what they consider to be bad laws, not merely because of the highest interests of justice, but because of the interest of those men themselves; but I also said that the House of Commons and Parliament ought to consider with the utmost fairness and impartiality any measure brought forward for a change in the law. Well, the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) has brought forward an amendment of the law, involving a considerable change in the Land Act. It is, to some extent, an improvement, but it goes much further than we think it ought to go, and, to a great extent, it is not an improvement; and we think it our duty to oppose it. I have seen it stated in many places that we ought not to have considered that Bill for one moment, because it was brought forward by the hon. Member and those who act with him. We do not think so. We are not responsible for the hon. Member and his Friends— we should be sorry to be so; but we cannot forget that they are Members of Parliament representing these very districts that are distressed, and we are bound to hear them and give the fullest consideration to what they say. We are bound to take into account the fact that an amendment of the Land Act has been proposed by an hon. Member from one of the districts that are suffering most at the present time. But it is said we ought at once to have declared that we were opposed to the principles of the Bill, instead of waiting for it to be discussed. So we should if, as some suppose, it had been a Bill for simply enacting that there should be compensation in all cases of ejectment for non-payment of rent. But the Bill did not do this; it referred to the Land Act, and thereby brought in incidentally the discretion given to the Judge, and we were, therefore, bound to con-

    859
    sider how far it brought it in. We have considered the hon. Member for Mayo's Bill, and we oppose it, because it is misleading, and would give tenants the idea that they would get more than they could really obtain; and we also oppose it because we think this is not the time for permanent legislation. We adhere to the opinion which, as the organ of the Government, I expressed earlier in the Session. We do not think this is a year for permanent legislation on the subject of the Land Act. But we accompany this temporary Bill with the declaration that we propose the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the working of the Land Act, and we hope to get a Report from this Commission as speedily as the proper prosecution of their inquiry will make possible. In bringing forward this Bill, I wish the House to understand that it is done to meet what we consider urgent distress in certain districts during the present and, perhaps, the succeeding year. But it will leave the House perfectly free and uncommitted; so that whatever may be the result of these inquiries, and whatever may be the opinions of the House or the Government with regard to them, the House and the Government will be perfectly free to take whatever course they may think fit. It may be that, as the result of this inquiry, the House may return to or rather establish perfect freedom of contract between the buyer and the seller—between the landlord and the tenant. I myself do not expect this; I doubt whether we shall find that both parties are absolutely free. The House may declare that a landlord is able to do what he likes with his land, just as he may do what he likes with his money in the Funds—that is, it may repeal the present Land Act. I do not expect that. Or the House may declare that, putting aside the present exceptional circumstances, it is best not to interfere with the Land Act. Or, lastly, the House may favourably consider the extension of the Ulster Tenant right, or some one of the other changes proposed. But, however that may be, the House is left absolutely uncommitted. Do not let anyone think that he is giving his vote for or against anything except a proposal to meet present circumstances. As to its effects, it will, to my mind, improve the position of the reasonable landlord, insuring, as
    860
    it does, the carrying out of just terms between landlord and tenant. I do not believe it will even put the unreasonable landlord in a much worse position than he is. Policemen cannot by any means insure that a process shall be served. Whether by the collusion of the process-servers, or from some other cause, it is very difficult, in present circumstances, to get the law carried out. Is it likely, then, that the landlord who has to suffer from difficulties of that kind, will suffer from the operation of the Bill? There is great distress in Donegal, but we have had no difficulty. Donegal is almost entirely under Ulster Tenant right, and in Donegal no necessity exists for sending small armies with the process-servers. Why is this? Because there is some possible compensation; because the Donegal tenant has some hope of his rights receiving due attention. Instead of endangering property, this makes it more safe, and thus the strain of this year is borne. With regard to the discretionary power to be given to the County Court Judges, I am, on the whole, perfectly surprised to find how little complaint there has been made—in a country where complaints are not uncommon— against the action of the County Court Judges. I now ask hon. Members who criticize adversely the provisions of this Bill to put themselves in the position of the Lord Lieutenant and myself. We have to conduct the government of Ireland, and we must take the responsibility. We find distress not only existing, but acknowledged—not only by the previous Government, but by the recent Act of the last Parliament—and claiming most urgently our consideration. We find, at the same time, that with this distress there are many evictions, and that they are increasing. We feel bound to carry out the law, and enforce these evictions with any exercise of force however severely they may press upon this distressed people. So long as I remain where I am, and that law exists, it will be my hard duty to enforce it, because nothing can work so much harm in Ireland as to allow the law to be disobeyed or disregarded. At any exercise of force we must enforce the law. And mark what I am going to say—let the House realize our responsibility, in order that they may realize its own. We must enforce the law, even at the cost of life. On the other hand, we find a feel-

    861
    ing of injustice; and, looking at the Land Act, we believe, that under the circumstances of this year, its spirit can only be carried out by such a modification in its letter as we are now proposing. We make this proposal, guarded in such a manner that it cannot, as we believe we can prove, work injustice to the reasonable landlord, and will hardly leave the unreasonable landlord in a worse position than he is in if he tries to strain the law; and we make this proposal so that it does not commit the House, but leaves it perfectly free to deal with the subject when it gets before it all the facts, and, we may trust, without the exceptional and painful circumstances of this year. On our part, we are forced to declare that the responsibility of not permitting this temporary and, as we conceive, this necessary modification of the law must rest upon Parliament, and not upon us. For my own part, I feel confident that the House of Commons will not take upon itself that responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)
    MR. CHAPLIN: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman, in the closing sentences of his speech, appealed to the House for sympathy in the position in which he finds the Government is placed. I think the Government indeed require, if they do not deserve, that sympathy; and on every personal ground I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he has mine with great sincerity. But, politically speaking, and with regard to the course which the Government has pursued, there is, I regret to tell him, absolutely none. I think that the course pursued from first to last by the Government, with regard to this measure, is, perhaps, the chief and the greatest blunder of a Session which consists, I am afraid, of little else than blunders. The right hon. Gentleman tells us of the distress in Ireland. I will not yield to him for one moment in my sympathy for the distressed people in that country. There is something, I always think, in the qualities, the history, and the race of the people of that country which appeals to the imagination and which touches the hearts of their fellow-countrymen
    862
    in England. But the duty of the Government is clear. It is no kindness that you do them, but the most cruel injury, when, by propositions of this kind, you fire their quick and sensitive imaginations, and excite in their minds feelings, hopes, and delusive expectations which the Government know, as well as I know, it is impossible can ever be fulfilled. The duty of the Government at this time is clear. They have to relieve distress in Ireland. Let them do it with a liberal and, if necessary, with a lavish hand. Let them come, if necessary, to Parliament again and again, and Parliament, I know, will give ungrudgingly whatever is needed for the wants of the people of that country. Let them also do that which is the first duty of every Government in the world—let them enforce law and order in a manner which cannot be mistaken, and let them give security for life, for peace, and for property in Ireland. Is there that security to-day? It is for the Government to make answer to that question; and if there is not, then I tell them that great is the responsibility which rests upon them at this moment. Both sides of the House will acknowledge the importance of the statement which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman. It is a statement in reference to a measure of which I shall say this—and my views are not shaken in the least by the sanguine anticipations or assurances of the right hon. Gentleman—that it touches, and, indeed, assails, the rights of property in Ireland directly, and indirectly the rights of property throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. It is one which departs entirely from every principle of legislation which has hitherto been sanctioned and admitted in civilized society in the country and in the age in which we live.[Murmurs.] If hon. Members opposite do not agree with my opinion they will have an oportunity of answering me afterwards; but I hope I may be allowed to conclude my observations. Under these circumstances, I confess it would have been more satisfactory to the House, and certainly to myself, if, following the more usual and ordinary practice in regard to questions of this great and vital importance, this statement had been made on the first introduction of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman has given us no reason for departing from that course, and, con-

    863
    sequently, there is no other course open to us to-day except to bow to that decision with the protest which I make. The House will recollect that the introduction of this measure is a new and a complete departure from the views announced by the Government earlier in the Session. The right hon. Gentleman not only told us he did not intend to introduce an Irish Land Bill or to deal with the Irish Land Question during the present Session; but he gave us most admirable and convincing reasons in support of that wise decision on the part of the Government. He told us that the Land Question was one with which it is exceedingly difficult to deal in a comprehensive manner, and that, therefore, it would be impossible to deal with it in the remainder of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman said that to introduce a Ten Minutes' Bill would be, in his opinion, an unwise course to adopt, though it seems to be that that is almost exactly what he has now done. He said that if such a Bill as the ad interim Bill proposed by an hon. Member from Ireland had been introduced by the Government, that every branch of the questions connected with Irish Land would have to be thoroughly discussed. The right hon. Gentleman further said that the Irish Land Question was just one of those questions with which it was impossible to deal without a general knowledge of principles and a full knowledge of details, and that if any mistake were made as to the actual condition of the country, the whole matter might be thrown into a state of confusion that would probably do infinitely more harm than good; and he showed conclusively to the House that the Government did not possess this information, for almost immediately afterwards he intimated to the House the intention of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission for the express purpose of obtaining that information in which he acknowledged that the Government were deficient. Under these circumstances, I have listened with the utmost interest to the right hon. Gentleman to-day, in order to learn what are the reasons which have brought about this change of policy on the part of the Government, and which have induced them, almost at a moment's notice, to submit to Parliament a measure of this most extreme and most alarming character. First, the right hon. Gentleman tells us that
    864
    the Government were mainly induced to introduce the Bill on account of the evictions. I asked at once, across the House, how far have the number of evictions increased since the commencement of the Session? That question the right hon. Gentleman was unable to answer. So it is established to the House that the increasing number of evictions form no reason whatever for this change of policy on their part. They knew at the commencement of the Session, when they decided not to introduce the measure as well as they know now, that exictions were increasing; and they are unable to say now if there has been any further increase since their first intention was announced. With regard, also, to evictions increasing in Ireland, that is one of my chief causes of complaint against this Bill. Why, it is the anticipation of these revolutionary proposals on your part that is driving the landlords of Ireland, in self-defence, to make these evictions, and to rescue their property from what they believe will be complete annihilation. If the evictions have influenced you at all, they are, in considerable measure, owing to yourselves. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say he had no intention of surprising us, and of springing upon us anything in the nature of a surprise. I entirely acquit the right hon. Gentleman of that intention. Then, he said, unless I misunderstood him, that this measure was necessary, because, otherwise, he was convinced that Ireland must be governed by martial law. Why, what a commentary this is on the policy which was pursued 10 years ago. Next, the right hon. Gentleman went on to speak of Clause 9, and he endeavoured to show to the House that the principle contained in this Bill was contained in Clause 9 of the Land Act of 1870. It is all very well to say that; but, unless I am entirely mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman himself is very considerably in error. Clause 9 of the Land Act referred exclusively to tenancies in the past. When that clause was being discussed, the present Prime Minister said —"Nothing would induce them to apply anything of the kind to the future." And Lord Carlingford (then Mr. Chichester Fortescue) remarked—
    "The clause had no reference whatever to tenancies created after the passing of the Act, It was entirely confined to the past."

    865
    Therefore, this argument of the right hon. Gentleman fell to the ground. Then the right hon. Gentleman pointed to the Ulster custom, by which the tenant gets his compensation, and, no doubt, he does get compensation. But there is an important distinction between tenants under the custom in Ulster and in other parts of Ireland. Under the Ulster custom, he buys his right when he comes in, and is paid for it when he goes out; while in other parts of the country, he would, under the Land Act, have a claim for compensation for disturbance, whether he had purchased the goodwill on entry or not. This is the distinction between the two cases; and the argument with regard to the Ulster custom, therefore, falls to the ground. Again, though I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman with great attention, I can find nothing in his speech to account for the sudden change of policy on the part of the Government, or to remove in the least the objection I have to the nature and character of this measure. What is the effect of the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman has told the House this afternoon that I hold, and have always held, that the principle of compensation for disturbance was the worst and most vicious feature in the Irish Land Act. I acknowledge and entirely adhere to that opinion. The right hon. Gentleman has given us his version of the meaning of compensation for disturbance. Now, there must be many hon. Members in the House who do not remember the discussions on that principle when the Bill of 1870 was being passed; and as some of them, probably, do not realize the true purport and meaning of the principle, perhaps I may be permitted to give my version of it also. I am not speaking now of compensation for improvements, of what would be called tenant right in England, in the direction of which few men would probably be disposed to go further than myself. Compensation for improvements is one thing, compensation for disturbance is another. The improvements which a tenant makes on a farm are provided for elsewhere, in the 4th clause of the Land Act, largely and liberally, as they ought to be, and especially in the case of Ireland, where, owing to the immense competition for land, the tenant is in a worse position to make a fair bargain with his landlord
    866
    than in England. But over and above his compensation for improvements, and after he has been repaid for everything which he has spent upon his farm, the tenant is entitled in Ireland, under the 3rd clause, to a further claim besides, to what is called "compensation for disturbance," a principle by which the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Land Act of 1870 apparently desired to give to the tenant a proprietary interest in the soil, and did, in fact, entitle him to levy on the landlord a fine, amounting in some cases to seven years' rent, or one-third of the value of the fee simple of the land. It is to that principle, to which I objected from the first that it was indefensible and inexpedient, that I renew my objections more strongly than before, after 10 years' experience of its actual operation. Let me point out to the House a few of the extravagances to which some of the principles of the Bill may lead. I need not remind hon. Gentlemen that the position of the occupier of the soil in Ireland is one very eagerly sought after, and that the privilege of holding a farm is very highly prized. But we must remember that it is the landlord who first confers this privilege upon the tenant; and it seems to me absolutely monstrous to make a landlord compensate a tenant for the loss or rather the non-continuance of a privilege which in the first instance emanated from himself. You might as well—or, perhaps, even with more justice—compensate a man for the refusal of a farm in the first instance, and with this additional good reason—that while in the first case he has enjoyed the profits of the farm for years, in the latter he would have no chance of making any profits at all. This is the first absurdity to which we are logically driven by the principle of compensation for disturbance. I may venture to quote the opinion of a very high authority on the subject. Judge Long field says with reference to this measure—
    "The landlord under the Bill may be called upon to pay seven years' purchase for taking hack from the tenant a possession -which he had delivered to the same tenant without receiving anything."
    Then he goes on to say—
    "He is liable to he called on to pay £70, the whole rent that he had received; and the tenant, who need not have laid out a penny on the land, will have had the enjoyment of it for seven years rent free."

    867
    Again, take the case of a tenant holding a farm at £10 a-year for three years, at the end of which time, after he has paid £30, he is evicted. On eviction he immediately claims £70—that is to say, he holds his farm for three years for nothing, and finally receives a bonus of £40 for doing so. What I have stated justifies in some degree my hostility to the principle of compensation for disturbance. I must, however, admit that the Land Act of 1870 had one redeeming feature, that the principle of compensation for disturbance was not extended to cover the case of tenants who were evicted for non-payment of rent. That exception is now to be swept away by a dangerous and alarming piece of legislation. I should like to describe in a few words the chief effects of the measure on property in Ireland by reading a statement sent to me this morning:—
    "The main result of the Bill, if passed into an Act, will he to foster the notion so sedulously promulgated by agitators in Ireland, that every man who, by any undertaking or promise, has induced another to put him into possession of lands becomes thereupon endowed with a right to retain that possession, though he may violate the promises by which it was procured. It gives public recognition to the principle that there is nothing dishonest, nothing of which a Member of Parliament need be ashamed, in taking from one party to a contract a substantial portion of his property, unles3 he will allow the other to violate his side of it with impunity. During the period named for the operation of the Act, it is plain that in those parts of Ireland to which the Bill refers no ejectment can be brought for nonpayment of rent, or any other cause, unless at the risk of a heavy loss on the part of the landlord. In Ireland, ejectment is the only remedy in the vast majority of cases for the recovery of land, the rent of which is now deliberately and in concert withheld by many tenants perfectly able to pay. To this combination, notorious and boasted of, it is proposed to give a triumph by Act of Parliament. Nearly all landowners have charges on their property which can only be met out of rents as they are received. Jointures, younger children, mortgagees, must all, under the proposed legislation, be left without their incomes until they shall have succeeded in forcing the depreciated estate of the involuntary defaulting landowner to judicial sale at a sacrifice ruinous to him and perhaps to themselves."
    That reminds me that the right hon. Gentleman has omitted to answer in his speech a question put to him with regard to the effect of the measure on mortgages, and I hope he will give us some explanations on this point. I know on good authority of a case in which £15,000 was to be raised by mortgage on a certain estate in Ireland, and
    868
    the solicitor for the mortgagee immediately drew back on the announcement of the Bill, and on finding that the estate in question was within the scheduled districts. In such circumstances as these we are entitled to have some explanation of the course which the Government may intend to pursue in dealing with cases of this kind. Viewing the measure as a whole, I regard it as unwise, impolitic, and unjust. It is not in this way that you will restore peace and prosperity to Ireland. Where, I should like to know, is the distinction between the Bill of the Government and that of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and to which the Government have tardily announced their opposition? The principle of the two Bills is the same; and, except for the limit of time, the schedules of districts, and the discretion of the Courts, there is no difference between them whatever. The hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Grey) who moved the Address in reply to the most gracious Speech from the Throne with an eloquence and ability which commanded, and justly commanded, for him compliments from the Leaders on both sides of the House, and who, I believe, inherits with the name the power and qualities of a statesman by descent, gave public Notice of his intention to ask the House of Commons to reject the measure proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot doubt that I shall have the support and assistance of the hon. Member on this occasion, and I will not, I cannot, believe that he will stand alone upon that side of the House. I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, I would appeal to them to take warning for the future from that which has happened in the past. Let them look at the condition of Ireland to-day, and as they look let them remember that 10 years ago the same man who is Prime Minister at this moment was Prime Minister then, and that he had his way and had his will almost unchecked in Ireland. The results of this fatal and reckless policy were prophesied at that time, prophesied in the words of one whose voice must, and ever will, command the attention and respect of Parliament, and with reading them I will conclude:—
    "There will be an ewgrievance—the payment of rent; and the non-payment of rent will be-

    869
    come a principle, asserted by the same rural logic, the startling consequences of which have filled the mind of the country with apprehension and horror almost every day. The argument of the Irish tenant—belonging to the very class that you think you are now setting up by this violation of the fundamental law of the country—will be to this effect:—' I have lost my holding because I did not pay my rent; can anything be more flagrantly unjust than that a man should be deprived of his contingent right to a third of the freehold because he does not pay his rent? That is a natural view which may lead to a much more successful agitation than any we have yet heard of. The question is unanswerable; we may think it is abstractedly unreasonable, but it is the necessary result of our legislation. And what will be the consequence? Why, that payment of rent will become a grievance, and you will find yourselves in exactly the same position in which you are now placed. There will be great complaints of the consolidation of farms, great complaints of vexatious and tyrannical evictions, and, on the other, side the most violent means by which the supposed rights of the occupiers to property in the soil may be vindicated will be resorted to. And so far from the improvement of the country, so far from terminating all these misunderstandings and heart burnings, which we seem now so anxious upon both sides of the House to bring to a close,"—
    [Murmurs.] I have no doubt it is objectionable to Irish Members. ["No !"]
    —"you will have the same controversies still raging, only with increased acerbity, and under circumstances and conditions which inevitably must lead to increased bitterness and increased perils to society."—[3 Hansard, cc. 1184–5.]
    This is no prophecy by one who is wise only after the event. These words were spoken, Mr. Speaker, upwards of 10 years ago, by a Member of this House, when the foresight of a statesman told him what must be the inevitable results of the reckless policy of the right hon. Gentleman. His name was Mr. Disraeli. His words, his language are literally fulfilled in the transactions of this hour. Comment upon my part would be utterly superfluous. I ask the House of Commons—I ask hon. Members on both sides to support me when I move, as I do now, the rejection of this most ill-timed, most ill-advised, and most unrighteous measure.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELL,in supporting the Bill, said, he hoped when the
    870
    hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had made himself more completely master of the circumstances in Ireland which called for that legislation — which had justified that legislation — he would find the Bill more acceptable than he had done that day. He was very glad, however, to find English Members entertained themselves with the consideration of Irish questions, because the more they were entertained the more they would see the justice of the views of the people of Ireland. He had no doubt that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken would be prepared in a spirit of sincere generosity to deal with the funds of the Imperial Exchequer for the relief of Irish distress; but there he seemed to stop. This Bill, however, proposed to do something—although by a temporary measure—to redress the state of things which had led to the present condition of Ireland. The hon. Member had told an interesting story of a mortgage for £15,000, which was very near completion, but which, owing to the introduction of this Bill, fell through, the landlord being unable to effect a loan. If the views of the parties to that commercial transaction were based on the opinions entertained by the hon. Gentleman as to the extravagant character of the present Bill, he could well understand that the transaction should have fallen through. But it would probably be found that the result of this debate, and especially of the speech of the Chief Secretary, would be that the transaction would be carried out. He recognized the perfect consistency of the hon. Gentleman in his opposition to this Bill, seeing that he was an opponent of the legislation of 1870. Those who like the hon. Gentleman, had set themselves against the legislation of 1870, were justified in taking the course which he had taken. But hon. Gentlemen on both sides who were willing to accept the legislation of 1870 would not be led away by the arguments of the hon. Member. This was a Bill which was not only limited in time, but limited in area; it was in harmony with the Bill of 1870, and was justified by the exceptional circumstances of the present time. Its object was to restrain ejectments for non-payment of rent in Ireland in a limited area and for a limited time under certain stringent conditions. And here he would mention what was not gene-

    871
    rally known, that no such thing as ejectment for non-payment of rent merely was known to the Common Law or to the Statute Law of England. He wished to accentuate that point. But if by the terms of the compact between landlord and tenant there was a clause of re-entry, then upon failure by the tenant to observe the covenants, among others payment of rent, the landlord had the right of ejectment. It followed, therefore, that in every case of letting which did not comprise this clause of re-entry, the landlord's remedy was to terminate the tenancy by notice. Now he wished to point out the peculiar hardship which this power of ejectment entailed in Ireland, and how injuriously it operated. Even on the best managed estates in Ireland it was usual to leave a half-year's rent in arrear, which was called "a running gale." On well-managed estates, where the tenants paid their rents with some punctuality, it was not considered unreasonable that the rent which was due in May should be paid the following Christmas. Now let them mark the operation of the exceptional law in Ireland as to ejectments. Let them suppose that by the 1st of May following the tenant was unable to pay his rent. He would then be a year's rent in arrear, and by the law of Ireland—which was not the law of England—the tenant could be turned out of his holding by the landlord without any notice to quit whatever, and the only means by which he could live could be taken from him without any compensation. In similar cases in England the landlord must give a year's notice to quit ending with the year of tenancy. Was it surprising that a man who was turned out of his farm in Ireland under such circumstances should leave it with a sense of oppression and wrong rankling in his breast? He had lived there, it might be for years; he had spent such means as he had upon it; he had spent the power of his body upon it, and his children had laboured, sweated upon it to improve it, and yet, according to the law, he might be turned out, as he had said, without any notice to quit, and under the law, as it now stood, without one penny of compensation except in one case, to which he should presently refer. He knew it would be said—"Oh, but landlords of honour and character would not do
    872
    such things." He believed not; but laws were and ought to be made to restrain the doing of that which honourable men would voluntarily abstain from doing. For his part, he desired not to say one word which would seem to savour of an attack upon the landlords of Ireland. He attacked the land system. He had said frequently, looking at the enormous power which the law gave to the owners of the land in Ireland, the wonder was not that that power had been used so much, but that it had been abused so little. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had said that he did not understand what the 3rd section of the Act of 1870 meant; what it was intended to recognize and give compensation for. He would endeavour to give an answer to that question. First of all he must remind the House that they were dealing, as a general rule, with a relation very unlike the common relation between landlord and tenant in England; but they were dealing in Ireland with a relation in which the landlords supplied nothing but the staple commodity of the industry—namely, the land; and the tenants supplied all else that was necessary to work the land. He did not stop to notice the rather curious language of the hon. Member when he spoke of the origin of this relation as the conferring of the privilege by the landlord upon the tenant. Where was his rent to come from unless it be out of the bone and sinew of the tenant? The landlord also conferred upon the tenant the privilege of paying a full rent! To his mind such language as that which had been used by the hon. Member smacked much too strongly of the old feudal days, when the landlord was the lord of all, and treated the men who dwelt upon the land very little better, in his estimation of property at least, than the cattle which grazed upon the farm. But these days were happily gone, and the result of the state of things to which he had referred was to bring about an exceptional and a complex relation between landlord and tenant in Ireland, which might not be inaptly described as a partnership. From that relation had grown up to be recognized by the moral sense of mankind a right of the tenant in its intrinsic nature —in the first foundation upon which it rested as truly property as the fee simple of the landlord itself. He need not point out that that was an interest which

    873
    the law had recognized, though tardily. Nor need he detain the House by pointing out a somewhat analogous case in this country, where rights beginning on such slender foundations as these had grown to be the real acquisition of property in land. What was the history of the law of copyhold in England originally? The lord of the manor allowed his men, who were the copyholders and servants, to dwell on the land; they were strictly what the law called tenants at the will of the landlord, whatever their early status had been; but owing to the fact of the moral claim which, in consequence of their occupancy and their labour, these tenants acquired in process of time, and under the healthy and fostering influence of a strong public opinion, which, he regretted to say, was wanting, to a great extent, in Ireland, they came to be recognized until the copyhold right was now little inferior to the fee simple right. Nay, that copyhold tenure supplied another feature which threw some light on the present discussion. The lords of those days said —"Oh, although we must recognize this customary continuance of occupation, we have one means of asserting our rights. When you, the tenants, who are now in possession of my land, die, the person who has to succeed you must come to me for admission, and I will bar the door against him, and assert my right by imposing a fine for admission." And the lords of the manor imposed those fines. How were they restrained? By the intelligent action of the Courts of the country, backed up by public opinion, which imposed upon the landlords in that case the stipulation that the fine should be a reasonable one. In the case of Ireland the right of the tenant was tardily recognized by the Act of 1870, which he recognized as the great act of a great statesman; because although he was not going to say that that Act was not defective, yet when he recalled the powers which were arrayed against it, and the high assertion of feudal rights which even that day had found utterance in the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, he said that too much credit could not be given, not merely to the wisdom, but to the resolution of the statesman who successfully carried that legislation. The Act of 1870 recognized the right on the part of the tenant to compensation for im-
    874
    provements and also for disturbance, that disturbance being the deprivation by the landlord of the tenant right, or goodwill which the man acquired in his holding. But it had two defects. First of all, it did not in any degree meet the case of land which held to-day at its fair value fell in value, and next it suffered no claim for compensation to be considered by the Court, except where rent was exorbitant. Under the operation of the Act as it stood at present the landlord could push up his rent shilling by shilling until it had reached the point just short of this exorbitant limit; and the tenant failing then to pay could be turned out without one penny of compensation. He said that was not just; but he had a still greater objection to make. Section 3 unquestionably recognized the property of the tenant in respect of something for which he was to be compensated if he was disturbed in it, but measured the extent of compensation which he was to get in an extreme case by seven years' rent where the rent did not exceed £10. What he wanted to point out was this—If that right, which lie called the goodwill of the tenant, was legalized and recognized as a right of property in the tenant, why, for one year's non-payment of rent, was he to have confiscated what might be the six or seven years' value of his interest? Under the Ulster tenant right, a tenant in arrear of his rent for one or two years had a right to sell his tenant right interest; and if he sold it for many years' purchase, all that the landlord got was his arrears of his rent, the tenant receiving the balance. Now, one other reason in favour of this Bill, which he thought was a small one, although he gratefully recognized the spirit which had prompted its introduction, was that it would undoubtedly bring the law, to some extent, into harmony as affecting land over the whole of Ireland. The difference between Section 9 of the Act of 1870 and this Bill was the smallest in the world. The former Act provided that the tenant might get compensation if the Court held that he was ejected for non-payment of a rent that was exorbitant; the present Bill allowed compensation if the Court found that he was unable to pay the rent in consequence of the prevailing distress, and that he was willing to remain on just terms, but that those terms were unreason-

    875
    ably refused. The difference between exorbitant rent and unreasonable terms was not such as to justify the extravagant language which had been used of this Bill. It was designed to meet a state of things which could hardly be realized in England. It was said that the effect of the measure would be to give an additional inducement to tenants in Ireland not to pay their rent. He wholly disbelieved that statement; and, speaking from a somewhat extensive experience, he could say that the cases were few in which tenants really able to pay their rent did not do so. The reason was obvious. They dared not run the risk of subjecting themselves to ejectment, not having any other avenue of industry open to the them. Deprived of their land, they were thrown upon the world. There were not in Ireland, as in this country, those large industries which made the land for agricultural purposes almost a secondary want. He desired to say nothing which would offend any hon. Member, or rake up any bygone memories needlessly, but retrospect was sometimes necessary; and it was not unimportant for the House of Commons to bear in mind that the past legislation of the Imperial Parliament, in stifling and putting down all such industries as were growing up in Ireland, had thrown the people upon the land as their sole means of subsistence, and for the exercise of their industry. Though that legislation no longer existed its effects did. After all, centuries in the life of a nation were but as years in the life of man. If exceptional circumstances were needed, they surely existed to justify this Bill. Famine almost stalking the country, and people still flying in their hundreds and thousands—a fact of great import addressed to a people so peculiarly attached to the place of their birth—or receiving, as they had been told, something like a pauper's dole at the hand of charity. So strong, too, is the feeling of the country as to this Land Question, that the posse comitatus of the Sheriff, a small army, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly termed it, were necessary to execute an ejectment process. Surely this was a state of things which called for the best efforts that Parliament could make for redressing existing grievances. Let the House recollect the responsibility that rested upon this coun-
    876
    try. The Imperial Parliament had now for many centuries charged itself with the destinies of Ireland. It was its duty to legislate for the just needs of that country; and if it now failed to do so it supplied the motive and reason for "the Third Party" in that House which many hon. Members deplored. Was not the state of things in Ireland a reproach to hon. Members representing English and Scotch constituencies—a state of things which, at one time, was said to be accounted for upon theories, forsooth, of race and of religion. But, happily, these theories had been exploded; and finally they came back to the question that the state of things in Ireland, the result of past legislation and of misrule, called for, in this day, generous and exceptional treatment on this question of the land in Ireland. The philanthropic men alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, who assisted to relieve the distress of 1846, tried to look beneath the surface, and to ascertain the cause of it; and they put it on record, as their deliberate opinion, that the state of the Land Law in Ireland was, in a great measure, accountable. That being recorded in 1846 and 1847, was it not a reproach to Parliament that until the present Prime Minister took the matter in hand in 1870 nothing really effective was done? The state of things which existed cramped industry, because it gave no motive for industry; it prevented that full development of the land which it ought to be the object of all just land legislation to promote; and it prevented improvements in the social life of the lower classes of the country. He knew cases in which men able to pay their rent pretended that it was by the greatest effort they were able to pay it, though they did pay it, that they were in great poverty, wore bad clothes, and had untidy houses. And why? Because they knew that the thrifty and industrious tenant who exhibited the appearance of prosperity and comfort, and improved his house and land, was at the mercy of the unscrupulous landlord. Whilst recognizing the importance of this measure of the Government as indicating an honest desire on their part to do what they could for the Irish tenant, he did not think it touched more than the extremest fringe of the question. He could not believe that in any

    877
    state of society in our time, certainly not in the condition of things existing in Ireland, it could be right, or just, or conducive to the good of the State, that the landlord should have the power, if he chose to exert it, of depopulating a whole country side. The only restraints upon him were self-interest and public opinion—restraints not always effectual. It was the existence of such a power that shackled the hands and arms of the industrious man, who would otherwise receive the fruits of his industry; and he failed to understand how there could be any injustice in allowing a man to be secure in the possession of the land on which he laboured so long as he did nothing to injure the property of his landlord, did not sub-let it, and so long as he paid a fair and just rent. Until some such state of things as that was brought about, he did not believe there would be any real or permanent settlement of this question. It was not alone the social evils of the system. Let the House consider the moral evils of it. Whilst Ireland was freer than England from other classes of crime, agrarian crime abounded, and a largo part of the population sympathized with it. Surely that was the loudest and most eloquent denunciation of the present state of the law, coming, as it did, from a people not wanting in other matters in high moral qualities. He desired to be understood as speaking as one seriously anxious that there should be real union between England and Ireland, and that Ireland should share the career, the destiny, and the prosperity of the people of this country; and he hoped to see the time when the people of Ireland, prosperous and contended, would lend a willing obedience to laws which fostered their industry and secured its fruits.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he felt sure the House would agree with him when he congratulated the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down on the speech which he had addressed to the House. He would not follow the hon. and learned Member in his large argument and the general treatment of the question, which, it seemed to him, would have been better adapted to some debates in the year 1870, before the Land Act was passed, or which might be raised at a future time when another Land Act was before the House; but
    878
    which, he thought, went a little wide of the particular subject of discussion. There was very much in what he said as to the existing distress in Ireland in which he concurred and sympathized. Everything spoken on this point by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in introducing the debate he freely adopted. He had never denied that there was severe distress in certain districts; and though this distress was happily diminished in extent and intensity, some still existed. But, as the Chief Secretary said last night, the greater portion of the danger from famine—the extreme pinch—had been successfully grappled with. With the efforts of those who effectually cheeked the increase of distress he entirely sympathized; and he could bear testimony, from what he had seen in the West of Ireland, to the extraordinary patience and endurance with which many of the tenantry bore their great privations. He would be proud to join in any effort to relieve this distress, and on this account he was glad that the measure before the House did not form part of the Relief of Distress Bill; because, while willing to support the Government in any Bill having that object, he must say at once he looked upon the Bill before them in a wholly different light. It was not a Relief Bill, it was a political proposal; and he should resist it, because he believed that as between landlord and tenant it would do the greatest amount of injury and the least amount of good. It was a direct confiscation of the income of one class in favour of another—of the landlord in favour of the tenant. He was certain, also, that the mere introduction of the measure—for he could never believe that it would pass—had done much, and would do more, to strengthen and confirm that disastrous agitation which for 18 months had raged in Ireland. He was bound to give the Bill, which strengthened the most violent proposals of agitators, his strongest opposition. He had felt somewhat at a loss to know how the Chief Secretary would justify the introduction of such a Bill. What hidden statistics, carefully sifted, while entirely undreamt of by the public, he was going to spring upon the House in asking for this exceptional and extraordinary measure? But what were the facts? Not one figure that could be vouched for as ap-

    879
    proaching correctness—and he said it with no disrespect—the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to understand his own proposals. He produced a number of ejectments; but he was unable to say what proportion applied to the country and what to the towns; how many for non-payments, and how many for other causes. He adopted an average of five years previous to 1877, and then made the addition from year to year. Was it possible to ask the House to take action on such a statement? So far as he understood the contention of the right hon. Gentleman, it was that some ejectments were for non-payment of rent, and that this number had considerably increased lately. Well, of course, in a time of the prevalence of extraordinary distress, ejectments for non-payment would increase, as in England the same cause threw a large number of farms on the hands of the landlords. They could not expect a normal state of things under such exceptional circumstances. But he did note one thing, and that was that the increase in the number of ejectments for the last 18 months kept pace with and accompanied the unhappy and disastrous land agitation of that time. Was this remarkable when by orators, who had the ears of the people, the latter were told not to pay rent except as the last payment to be made? Every other claim was first to be settled. Could it be surprising, then, that landlords were obliged to take action now to a greater degree than at other times? It would have been more surprising had there not been this increase in the number of ejectments for non-payment. He knew also that simultaneously with this agitation agrarian outrage had blazed out with fearful intensity. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman speaking with some degree of decision, in condemnation of the anti-rent agitation; but the conclusion he drew was rather a strange one. He spoke with warmth and justice of the agitation which had misled the people, and which was likely to mislead them further; but here in the Bill was practically the same principle and the same view put forth in the House as had been pressed in Ireland by the Land League. ["No, no !"] Certainly he understood the Bill lately introduced by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) was put forward by eminent members of the League. There-
    880
    fore, he said that the Bill practically gave a Government sanction to some, at least, of their strongest demands, for he was right in saying that the principle of the Government Bill and that of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) were the same. The Government sanctioned the strongest immediate demands of the League. He said the immediate demands, for what the ulterior effects might be he could not say. But as to the propriety of intrusting to some third person to settle what was or was not a reasonable rent, as to the propriety of interfering between landlord and tenant, simply on account of the prevailing distress, it did sanction and adopt the principles which had been put forward for months by the Land League. He would undertake now to prove that in principle the proposal was almost identical with that of the hon. Member for Mayo. If the Government had pleased they could have introduced, by way of amendment to the hon. Member's Bill, all the limitations which they had put into their own Bill. Without any departure from principle this might be done; and, as he understood, the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) had intimated his intention of proposing Amendments to this Bill to make the two Bills similar. What was the principle of these two Bills? He quite admitted that in one sense they were framed on a principle the germ of which was found in the Land Act of 1870. As the House was well aware, in that Act very large provisions were made for the protection of the tenants at the expense of the landlords of Ireland. By the 3rd clause protection was given against eviction; by the 4th clause the value of improvements was secured; and by the 7th clause compensation was secured for goodwill paid by the incoming to the outgoing tenant. Not to go through all the clauses, it was alleged by the Prime Minister, on the second reading, that it did confer on the tenantry of Ireland such benefits and protection as were not enjoyed by the occupiers of the soil in England or Scotland, who were amongst the most favoured nations in this respect; but, though large concessions were made at the expense of the landlords, two principles were insisted upon as a kind of setoff against these concessions, and great credit was taken by the Prime Minister for the maintenance of those principles.

    881
    The first was that, though protection was necessary for the tenant as regards the existing contracts, and, as regards the future, freedom of contract should be complete; and the second principle laid down was that the enjoyment of these concessions to the tenant must be correlative with the strict performance of their duty by the tenant and the landlord. It was in this very 9th section of the Land Act that one of these principles was most carefully set forth, for by that section it was declared that ejectment for non-payment of rent or breach of agreement should not be an act of disturbance—that was to say, for this the tenant should have no claim against the landlord. He quite admitted that in a subsequent part of the clause there was another provision enabling the Chairman or the County Court Judge, in certain cases clearly stated and strictly defined, to treat as disturbances ejectments for non-payment of rent, and there was the vicious admission; but it was admitted not so much as a principle as an exception to these. In fact, he should rather call it the vicious exception, and it was this same exception they were now asked to concede, under certain limitations of time and circumstances, it was true, but to allow as a principle. This only showed how difficult it was to retrace false steps, and how easy it was to get an error of this kind expanded. If such a provision as was contained in the present measure had been in the Land Act of 1870, that Act would never have become law. In fact, it would be impossible, if such provisions were insisted upon, that it could be carried out in the country in the manner in which it should be. The Chief Secretary had pointed out with some good humour, and without being apparently much disturbed by the admission, that several of the most important provisions of the Irish Land Act had proved to be unsuccessful in their effect. He would now ask the House to recollect how solemnly the whole matter was considered at the time; and he would, therefore, quote a few extracts from those proceedings to show how the present Prime Minister expressed himself on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman then said that the Bill ought not to include anything which would interfere with the good faith and fulfilment of contracts. In the present Bill, however, those very principles had
    882
    been evaded, and the necessary restrictions which were then included had been entirely left out. The Bill now stood before the House untrammelled by any such restrictions as those which were advocated so strongly by the Prime Minister in 1870. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, however, that that Bill was quite a different measure before it was passed, as compared with its condition when it was introduced into the House of Commons. But the fact was that the Act of 1870 was in the nature of an award by Parliament sitting in a great arbitration, and the second reading was carried through the House almost without a division, and passed in "another place" without any division at all. The excuse as to how the Bill of 1870 had emerged from the House of Commons was not, therefore, fairly open to the right hon. Gentleman; and, indeed, it seemed to be a very strong argument when he appealed to the House against the restrictions which, in 1870, had been insisted upon by the House of Lords in the face of the very solemn arrangement which was then arrived at, and owing to which arrangement alone the Bill was carried through both Houses of Parliament. He was bound to remind the right hon. Gentleman of all limitations which were contained in that measure, and that the principle of it was to keep the contract free. This measure before the House, however, was cutting off another great slice from the principle of freedom of contract. It must not be forgotten either that the House only consented to the former measure after due reason had been given and accepted. The House insisted on the Amendment in the 9th clause of the Land Act of 1870, because it would have been an unjust measure without it; and he now submitted to the judgment of the House that it should observe the same wholesome principles which were advocated by the Prime Minister and then adopted. He would refer to the restrictions which had been introduced into the present measure, and which had been represented as depriving the Bill of its most dangerous consequences. Firstly, he contended from that point of view that the Bill was unjust in applying to ejectments which had taken place under certain specified conditions only. The exact principle of the restriction had

    883
    not been clearly stated; and he would like to know whether there were any restrictions so described as to cause reliance to be placed upon the course of action which should be taken. They certainly affected a considerable part of Ireland, inasmuch as the Bill applied to 13 counties, and to more than one-half of the whole country. Why should that distinction be drawn? The Schedule in which those districts were specified was drawn up for the purposes of the distress, and, no doubt, much distress had existed in some parts; but there were some parts mentioned in the Schedule which had been entirely free from distress, although surrounded by distressed districts; while, on the other hand, there were some parts not included in the Schedule which were as much in distress as those within the bounds of the Schedule. Now, he wished to know why a Schedule of that kind ought to be taken as a guide for a measure of the nature before the House, and should at all interfere with the bargain which had been made between two men by saying that the landlord's rent should not be obtained from a tenant? There was no ground upon which they would be able permanently to base such a capricious restriction. The measure provided that if an owner of land came within the Schedule, he came within the benefit of the Act; whereas those who owned land outside the Schedule did not come within the purposes of the measure. What justice was there in refusing the right to men outside, while they granted it to those inside? [Mr. PARNELL: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Cork thought there was injustice in such a result, and he could well understand such a conviction in his mind. Now, there was another restriction to which he wished to refer. The Bill was confined to two years, or to one year and a-half. But why should any such time be fixed upon? He had heard from some authorities on the other side of the House that the distress had already almost passed away. ["No, no!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had certainly stated the other night that in some parts the distress had been successfully grappled with, and that in other districts, though there was still suffering, there was hope of an abundant harvest, which it was believed would entirely remove it. ["No, no!"] But
    884
    supposing they had one good year or two good years, followed by another wet autumn and a bad spring, were they going to continue this Bill? And if they were not, how could they rest firmly on such insecure restrictions as these? He had no faith in any limitation of time when once the right principle which should pervade the measure had been departed from. But the most extraordinary part of the Bill was probably that relating to the tenant's ability or inability to pay. If they wished to evade the payment of rent they should do it straightaway by a Bill like the one introduced by the hon. Member for County Mayo; but to throw upon the County Court Judge the onus of deciding in such a matter was an utterly impracticable and absurd proposal. He would have to ask the' tenant—"Are you able to pay?" Well, the answer they would easily guess, for there were very few tenants in Ireland, or even in England at the present time, who did not experience more or less difficulty in meeting their payments. Then, how could the Chairman cross-examine the tenant as to his means, or the landlord contradict the statements which might be made by the tenant? It was important to remember that the Bill only referred to the landlord's debt, while there was nothing about the tradesman and the money-lender. The tenant might simply come forward and say that there had been a very bad year for the crops, that he was in the scheduled district, and that he had found it very difficult to get on; that he had had to take goods on credit and to get money from the money-lender. The law the Government wished to establish would then in principle lay down that the tenant must pay the tradesman and the moneylender, but not the landlord. Such distinctions introduced into the measure some of the worst principles put forward by the anti-rent agitators. The result would be exactly the same, and the discretion given to the Chairman and the County Court Judge would be perfectly useless. The Bill would keep an open door for the dishonest tenant; it would be a terrible temptation to the honest one; it provided that the duties to the landlords would be in quite a different category to the other creditors; it would prove bad teaching to the people of Ireland, and no need would exist for anyone to urge a tenant not to pay his rent. The right

    885
    hon. Gentleman had expressed a hope that the Bill would be a great advantage to landlords in recovering their debts. In point of fact, however, a landlord would be deprived of the only effectual remedy he had to recover his rent. The honest tenants who hitherto had paid their rents would be tempted to exclaim—"What fools we were!" Even if this Bill should not become law, the mere initiation of it would have done a fearful amount of mischief. For some time past great courage was required on the part of those who opposed the unprincipled agitation in Ireland. ["No!"] He maintained that it was an unprincipled agitation. Ministers of religion and ecclesiastics high in the Church to which the majority of the Irish people belonged had stood forward and warned the people against the agitation. ["No !"] The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, in his Pastoral of November 17, said—
    "Very rev. fathers, while standing forward to support our flocks in this their dark hour of distress, we must not fear to raise our voices to warn them against the results of their faults or mistakes. Our principle must he to give to Caesar what Caesar justly claims, else we cannot give to God what God commands. If just debts, fairly demanded, he not honestly discharged, a principle fatal to the prosperity of our country will he established, and sooner or later it will recoil on the heads of those who to-day may seem to he gainers by its adoption. But let us pray, rev. fathers, that the day may he yet far distant when Irishmen, who in olden times were renowned for their love of impartial justice, should set to the world an example of faith disregarded."
    The sanction which this Bill seemed, as he had shown, to give to the programme of the agitators must paralyze the efforts of these holy men. He must now say a few words on behalf of the unhappy landlords of Ireland, many of whom were among his own constituents. The sources of their income in many cases would be dried up by the Bill when it became law; while, on the other hand, their taxes and other outgoings would still have to be met by them. Hundreds and thousands of landlords would practically receive no rent at all until 1882, and would so be ruined. He had endeavoured to show that, in principle, the Bill was really precisely the same as that for which it was brought forward as a substitute, and which made ejectment for non-payment of rent a disturbance. Such a principle was not
    886
    based upon any sound lines. By adopting it they conferred as little benefit as possible on the honest tenants, and inflicted as much injury as possible upon landlords. It was his firm and strong belief that the measure would be regarded as a surrender to the land agitation. He knew the right hon. Gentleman had spoken generally against the agitation, and that he had pledged himself not to take any further steps in the same direction; but he should remember that his words would be read by only a few of the people to whom they referred, whilst the concessions he had made would be known to all. It was well known that Government had, at first, refused to do anything of the kind during the Session, and that they had refused to accept the Bill of the hon. Member for Mayo; but that Parliamentary pressure had been successfully put upon them by those who favoured the anti-rent agitation, and that the leaders of the movement were induced to withdraw their Bill on the pledge of the Government to introduce the present measure. He knew that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was satisfied with the change which had come over the Government in this respect. The hon. Member recently remarked—
    "Within the last few days the general situation has entirely changed, so far as the attitude of the Government upon the Land Question is concerned. Having announced at the beginning of the Session that they would not touch the subject this Session they now introduce a Bill very similar to that of Mr. O'Connor Power, and to effect an object which the draughtsmanship of Dr. Commins in Mr. Power's Bill has taught them how to accomplish. We shall now have an opportunity of introducing a clause for the suspension of ejectments, and also any other amendment of the Land Laws which it may he thought desirable this Session to press for."
    He thought, therefore, that after that frank declaration on the part of the hon. Member for Cork, who was, at least, the godfather of the hon. Member for Mayo's Bill, it was unnecessary for him further to prove how identical they were in principle, and how likely this Bill, if passed into law, was to countenance the anti-rent agitation by carrying out one of the main articles in their programme by depriving the landlords of their rents.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he thought hon. and right hon. Members

    887
    of that House, on whichever side they sat, and however they voted, must regret that on all occasions whenever the words "landlord" and "tenant" were introduced in debate in that House they invariably acted as Shibboleths which resolved the House into two hostile camps, instead of being an inducement to the House to do all they could to promote the union, most intimate as it should be, of those who were so closely connected together in interest and relation. Whatever injured the landlord would re-act on the tenant, and whatever was injurious to the tenant would re-act on the landlord. He could not understand why the principle of the Bill had been denounced as inequitable, for it appeared to him to give perfectly equal justice both to landlords and to tenants. The principle of this Bill was the principle which was endeavoured to be introduced into the Land Act of 1870 in the interest of the landlord class. The principle of this Bill was that if a tenant in a limited area, for a limited time, and in exceptional circumstances, was willing to continue in occupation of his holding on just and reasonable terms, and if those terms were unreasonably refused by the landlord, then, and then only, did the scope of the Act come into operation for the protection of the tenant. Now, the 18th section of the Land Act of 1870 gave the Court power to deal with the equities both on the one side and the other, both of the landlord and tenant—
    "If," said the Act of 1870,"it shall appear to the Court in any case in which compensation shall be claimed under Section 3 of this Act, that the landlord has been and is willing to permit the tenant to continue in the occupation of his holding upon just and reasonable terms, and that such terms have been and are unreasonably refused by the tenant, the claim of the tenant to such compensation shall be disallowed."
    The application of that principle was the governing principle of the Bill before the House. Would not hon. Gentlemen opposite repel with indignation the aspersion that they were not just and reasonable, and were not willing to act justly and reasonably? But then the Bill did not override any right they would desire to exercise. They would not be deprived by this Bill of the means of recovering their rent. The Bill had been denounced by hon. Members opposite, and by the hon. and
    888
    gallant Member for the County of Leitrim (Major O'Beirne), as a revolutionary measure, introduced to confiscate the property of the landlords. Now, with great respect, he could hardly think, if Gentlemen would look at the matter impartially and fairly, they would think that a fair or adequate description of the principle of the Bill. A great calamity had befallen a large part of Ireland. It might be described as pervading half Ireland—that was to say, if they drew a line down Ireland through Athlone, the districts to the west of that line were distressed. It was the object of the Bill to assist distressed parts of the country; and the principles of this Bill had, in fact, been sanctioned by the last Parliament and by the Conservative Government by the first Act, passed in 1880. That Act originated in a Motion by the hon. and gallant Member for Gal-way County (Major Nolan), who would, he supposed, be classed by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Plunket) with those to whom he applied such strong language. The question, then, was, whether large tracts of Ireland were to be left uncultivated and waste, or should means be furnished in the interest of the community at large for their cultivation. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway County proposed that present relief should then be given by the distribution of seeds. No voice had then suggested that Parliament thus had confiscated the property of landlords or any property. That Bill was limited to the distressed districts, and was also limited in time. Did anyone ever say that that Act which Parliament thus sanctioned was intended to establish the principle that tenants thereafter were not to provide their own seeds, or rely on their own resources; and that, because assistance was given them when they had been scourged by the visitation of Providence, therefore they were not in future to exert their own powers? In distressed districts assistance had thus been given to the cultivators of the soil; but it yet remained temporarily to arrange satisfactorily the mutual and relative duties of the landlord and the tenant in distressed districts lest large tracts of land subjected to the visitation of Providence, which might have been uncultivated, should yet become waste and untenanted. Notwithstanding the energetic and denunciatory language of the

    889
    right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket), he could hardly think the House would hesitate to agree to this Bill. Let them look at parts of the district to which the Act was intended to apply. He would take a district from Ulster, another from Con-naught, and another from Munster; and he would ask, should not assistance be given to the men to whom this Bill would apply? They were men of small and struggling circumstances; but were they, therefore, to be refused the fair relief which this Bill would give? In the County Donegal, where tenant right prevailed, and where the action of the police, and the assistance of the military, was not required to protect and enforce the process of the law, there were 1,100,000 acres divided into 33,000 holdings. 17,000 of these holdings did not exceed £4 valuation, 8,000 exceeded £4, but did not exceed £8, valuation. Out of 33,000 holdings, therefore, nearly 25,000 did not exceed a valuation of £8. Now let the House come to the aid of those 25,000 holdings, which represented, in most instances, the head of a family with a wife and children. Then as to the County of Mayo. It contained 1,300,000 acres, divided into 36,000 holdings. Of these, 19,000 holdings did not exceed £4 valuation, while 10,400 exceeded £4, but did not exceed £8, valuation. Nearly the same figures would prevail in the County of Galway, where there was an acreage of over 1,000,000 divided into 38,000 holdings, of which 28,000 did not exceed £8 valuation. The facts in the County of Kerry were much the same. With those figures before it, would the House consider that in the present circumstances of exceptional distress the power which the law gave of recovering rent by ejectment was to be used for the indirect purpose of clearing the land of its occupiers? To prevent that, and for that purpose alone, this Bill was introduced. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) had sketched with great accuracy the growth of rent ejectment in Ireland, and had shown how in this great and prosperous country this power did not exist in the same degree as in Ireland. No one would object to the law being made use of for the legitimate purpose for which it was originally intended—namely, of recovering rent. It was not until 1850
    890
    that in the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland landlords were empowered to maintain ejectment for non-payment of rent in respect of yearly tenancies held without writing and merely by oral and verbal arrangement, and it was not until the year 1860 that similar jurisdiction was given to Superior Courts. These constituted the great bulk of yearly tenancies in Ireland. It was thus only for the purpose of enabling the land lord to recover his rent that this power of eviction was given, and it was never contemplated that it was to be used for the purpose of clearing the land of its inhabitants. But, after all, the landlord would retain all the same power to recover his rent. He might also, like any other creditor, bring his action for what was due; he could get a judgment of the Court, and by virtue of that judgment he could realize through a Sheriff's sale the property taken in execution. The interest in the holding, if any, might be sold; and if anything over and above the liabilities was realized the tenant might get it. Amongst other benefits of the Ulster custom, where it. prevailed, the tenant was secured the right to sell his interest, if he did not wish to remain, or if he became unable to pay his rent and was ejected for non-payment of rent. If the House- would compare the Bill with the Land Act, it would see that both were on the same lines. It was not introduced for any political purpose. It was honestly introduced to meet exceptional distress from failure of crops. It run in the same groove as the Seeds Act. Its principle was simply this—that where a tenant was unable to pay, and where his inability was caused by the distress which had arisen from the failure of crops, and he could satisfy the Court—which, be it well remembered, was not to be an arbitrary Court, but one which Parliament had set up for the purpose of the Land Act—that his propositions for the arrangement of his rent and its arrears and otherwise were just and reasonable, and that his landlord unreasonably rejected those fair overtures, then that he should be compensated for the disturbance. Was that a Bill which was a subversion of the rights of property? Hon. Gentlemen who were so generous to their own tenantry were, at this moment, doing what the Bill would force those in whom justice and generosity

    891
    had no place also to do. Was it to be that the bone and sinew of the country-were to have no consideration after their recent bitter famine experiences? Stung with despair, they might be driven to emigrate to foreign lands. Would the House send them away with a feeling rankling in their hearts that the farms where they were born—where, perhaps, they had closed their parents' eyes in death—were not to be protected, and that they could not obtain the smallest consideration at the hands of the House of Commons of a United Kingdom. Would they not rather take from the hand of the agitator one of his most fatal weapons, and, at all events, show the people that that great Assembly was not afraid to be just?
    MR. TOTTENHAMmoved the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Tottenham.)
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, considering the importance of the question, and the limited number of hon. Members who had had an opportunity of addressing the House upon it, he would consent to the adjournment of the debate until Tuesday at 2 o'clock.
    MR. PARNELLthought it was much more likely to be brought to a close at an Evening Sitting than at a Morning Sitting.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government had already lost two Mondays, and he must ask them to go into Supply on Monday. It was absolutely necessary.
    THE O'DONOGHUEremarked that Tuesday had been mentioned for the Bradlaugh affair, and it was a matter of Privilege.
    MR. GLADSTONEreplied, that they would see what happened; but they were in hopes that that would not be taken.
    MR. GIBSONhoped that before the debate was resumed the Papers which had been quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would be laid upon the Table, in such a form as to distinguish evictions for non-payment of rent from other causes. He also hoped Returns would be given of ejectments in cities and towns. He trusted that the Chief Secretary would hurry on the printing of the Poor Law Returns which he mentioned the other day.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERwas afraid it would be impossible to produce all these Returns within the time mentioned.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

  SAVINGS BANKS BILL.— [BILL 188.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Fawcett, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  SAVINGS BANKS BILL.— [BILL 188.]

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [18th June],"That the Bill be now read a second time."
    And which Amendment was,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the extension of the limits of deposits in Savings Banks proposed in this Bill would result in so serious a discouragement of private enterprise that, in the opinion of this House, no such step should be taken without careful inquiry,"—(Mr. William Fowler,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. BARINGexpressed a hope that the Prime Minister would not press the Bill, since many hon. Gentlemen who were interested in it had gone away under the impression that it would not come on.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the objections were only in regard to matters of detail, which could be perfectly well discussed in Committee. The debate was only adjourned on the last occasion in consequence of the interposition of one hon. Gentleman.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not insist on reading the Bill a second time at present. He knew several Gentlemen who wished to speak on the subject.
    MR. GLADSTONE,interposing, said, he had given Notice that he would take the second reading of the Bill the first opportunity he had.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that in that case he should talk it out. He did not think it was fair of the right hon. Gentleman to push the Bill so, and take advantage of the absence of hon. Gentlemen who took an interest in it.
    MR. GLADSTONEhoped the hon. Baronet would not use language of that kind. He was not taking advantage of anyone in their absence.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he begged pardon if he had said anything amiss, and would withdraw the expression.
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this day.
    The House suspended its Sitting at five minutes before Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  CLOSING OF PUBLIC-HOUSES ON SUNDAY—RESOLUTION.
  MR. STEVENSON,in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the Law which limits the hours of sale of intoxicating drinks on Sunday in England and Wales should be amended so as to apply to the whole of the day,"
  said, that in bringing forward this important question he was greatly encouraged by the result of the discussion which took place only a week ago on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). He believed his hon. Friend would not think he was criticizing in a hostile spirit the Resolution which he introduced, if he submitted that the Resolution he (Mr. Stevenson) had to propose was one of a much simpler character, and attended, in many respects, with fewer difficulties, and ought, therefore, more readily to command the attention of the House. There was no doubt about "Sunday closing," though some hon. Members had expressed a doubt as to the meaning of "Local Option." There was no question of compensation connected with this Resolution. He was glad to think that no question of com-
  894
  pensation could possibly arise in connection with this Resolution, because, during the discussion of an analogous measure relating to Ireland, the question of compensation was considered and deliberately rejected as having no foundation. Nine-tenths of the population of Ireland were under the régime of Sunday closing, and the whole of Scotland between 20 and 30 years had been under a similar law. It appeared to be a great anomaly that the only trade to be carried on openly and generally on Sunday should be that of persons who, under the name of Licensed Victuallers, furnished anything rather than victuals, and little in the way of refreshments, to travellers. The contraction of the hours of sale on Sunday began in London. The Preamble to the Act of 1848 recited that provisions which had been in force in the Metropolitan Police district for some time had been attended with great benefits. A further contraction was made by the Act of the present Lord Winmarleigh, when Colonel Wilson Patten, which closed public-houses in the afternoon. It was a misunderstanding to suppose that there was any connection between that Act and the Hyde Park riots, for the Act had been in successful operation 10 months, and the riots were brought about by an attempt to limit Sunday trading in other articles in certain parts of London. Some publicans took advantage of the opportunity to direct the attention of Parliament to the subject, and in a panic the number of open hours was increased from seven to eight-and-half; but still afternoon closing was retained. In 1868, the last year of the £10 householder Parliament, Mr. Abel Smith brought in a Bill to reduce the hours and to alter the character of the sale from consumption on to consumption off the premises. It was said the last Session of that Parliament was chosen because the promoters of the measure dared not have proposed it in the reformed Parliament; but the real state of the case was just the other way, for in the reformed Parliament there was greater possibility of dealing with the subject than there was in that which represented the £10 householders. The new Parliament had the better means of knowing what the views of the constituencies were. He believed the great majority of the people desired Sunday closing. He believed

  895
  that public opinion was ripe for this measure. What was wanted was, not a partial measure, but total closing— not a compromise, but full liberty to all in the trade to take a day of rest for themselves and their families. The last Parliament might have been considered a most unlikely one to deal with the question, and yet it passed the Irish Sunday Closing measure, because there was irresistible proof that it was desired by the people of the country. Their feeling was elicited by a house to house canvass, carried on with self-denial and honesty; and the votes of the Irish Members also showed that the people of Ireland desired what they succeeded in getting. In a similar way in England house to house canvassing had been carried on for many years, and with a corresponding result. It showed that about eight householders were in favour of the Sunday closing to one against it. When a question was put as to a modified measure, it was found that there was just as great a majority against that. Therefore, he wished to give the people, not what they did not ask for, but that which they did ask for, which was total Sunday closing. Last year's discussion of this subject disclosed an advance of public opinion for which many were not prepared. He was then pressed by many friends of temperance in the House to make a concession; and before the division, which was on the second reading of the Bill, he said that he would accept, in the way of clauses, the modification indicated, which was the opening of public-houses for two separate hours for the sale of dinner and of supper beer. He was not prepared to make that concession now; he should hope for better terms from this Parliament. The hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. J. W. Pease) wanted to advise a middle course with the hope of reaching the final result with greater safety. But what he wanted to know was how long they were to be in reaching Sunday closing? He wanted it now. But if it was to be approached gradually, was there to be the chance of adopting Sunday closing in any one parish? He could understand one kind of compromise—one of areas, such as the exemption of towns in Ireland, whose turn, he hoped, would come very soon. He could not, however, understand a compromise which gave
  896
  what nobody asked for, and of which they had no experience; whereas the simpler plan of total closing had been tried over the whole of Scotland and in nine-tenths of Ireland. The compromise was proposed by Members to their constituencies, and not by the constituencies to their Members. The publicans did not propose it, for they wanted an unbroken day of rest for themselves and their families, and a compromise would not do that. After the last debate, he received a letter from a publican in the neighbourhood of London expressing the conviction that Sunday closing would be a great boon to the great majority of Licensed Victuallers and no material inconvenience to the public, and that it would, to some extent, prevent excessive drinking by working men, to which they were tempted by leisure when they had their wages in their pockets. The nine hours' movement gave the working man 54 hours a-week; but the open hours of the publican were double that, or 108 hours a-week. Thinking the publican who had written to him knew something of the question, he wrote to him about the stale beer difficulty, and the reply received was a valuable one for the House, for it stated that the difficulty was practically got over now by families who wanted their dinner beer earlier than the houses were open on Sunday, who obtained it on the Saturday night, and kept it in stone bottles to their own satisfaction. Another publican wrote him a letter, in which he said—
  "Many of my customers at the present time get their beer for Sunday's use in stone bottles, for which they leave a small deposit; and although, no doubt, the beer when it comes to be used is not as good as when it was originally taken from the cask, yet it is far better than thousands of those beverages for the use of private families which are sold in 9 or in 18 gallon casks under the name of table beer."
  Certainly, the small convenience of being able to obtain one's dinner beer direct from the public-house on Sundays was purchased at a very great cost indeed, the price being the toil and bondage of the publican and of his servants for the seven days of the week. His object, however, was to give them a complete break of one day in the week. In fact, some of the large public-houses never opened at all upon Sundays, and those employed in them felt the advantage of the rest. He objected to the compromise which

  897
  had been suggested, on the ground that it would not effect any substantial improvement in the existing state of things, and would continue the temptation to Sunday tippling which existed under the present law. As far as the persons who kept public-houses were concerned, he did not think that they wished to carry on their business on Sundays. The profit which they made on that day was not particularly large; and they had, as he believed, a wish not only to rest themselves, but to give a day of rest to those in their employ. There was, of course, on their part a great show of opposition; but no one was willing to work continuously for seven days if he could get off for six. There was, at all events, considerable difference of opinion between them on this question of Sunday closing, as he gathered from the Report of a Conference of Licensed Victuallers lately held at Newcastle. In carrying out this opposition, the Protection Society of London, when he was about to bring forward this question early in the present year, sent out a number of Petitions among the trade to be exhibited for signature in every public-house. All persons above 16 years of age of both sexes were invited to sign it; and The Morning Advertiser, in March last, in a leading article, said:—
  "We are anxious to point out to the trade, a great many of whom display too much apathy on the question, the absolute necessity there is that they should look to the instructions of the Committee."
  Still, the result was not very satisfactory. In one town the average number of signatures was six to each public-house. In another town they averaged 17, and in another 21. This, he thought, showed that the publicans were not greatly opposed to it. Indeed, a canvass from house to house, which Dr. Norman Kerr originated at Jarrow, showed they were in favour of it. Again, as regarded their customers, it was not the poorer classes who wished to have the public-houses kept open, but the members of the middle classes of society. The greatest enemies of the public-houses were the wives of the labouring classes, and they were unanimous in wishing to have them closed on Sunday. He regretted to find the Bishop of Llandaff stating his opinion in favour of keeping them open, as
  898
  there was no district in England which suffered more from Sunday drinking than a portion of his diocese. The district in question was a colliery one, and he found that on Monday there were 5,178 men in the pits; on Friday there were 1,000 men more. In other words, on Monday morning, owing to how they had spent their Sunday, there were 1,000 incapable of resuming their work, which represented a great loss to their families. But, more than that, whereas the quantity of coal raised on Monday was only six tons per man, the quantity raised on Friday was eight tons per man, showing how much their physical energy was impaired by Sunday drinking. The operation of the Forbes-Mackenzie Act in Scotland had been severely tested—first, by the inquiry of a Royal Commission, which in its Report demonstrated by statistics that not only had committals for Sunday drinking been reduced to less than one-tenth of what they had been before the passing of the Act, but that Saturday and Monday drinking had been greatly reduced also. It had been tested, too, by the working of the Irish Sunday Closing Act, which had been productive of the most beneficial effects; so much so, that the Dublin Correspondent of The Times was able to state that the operation of the Act had falsified the predictions of its opponents and exceeded the expectations of its supporters, and that not only had the consumption of intoxicating drinks fallen off, but there were fewer families in want, and drinking in she been houses had become somewhat mythical. If they really wanted to understand all the evils of Sunday drinking, they should, as he had done, go round the public-houses and see how the trade was carried on. No one could do that without feeling a desire to put down so much misery and mischief. So far he was a Sabbatarian that he desired that every person should enjoy one day's rest in seven, and the burden of proof to the contrary lay upon those who denied it. In the interest, therefore, of the general public, and especially in the interest of the 300,000 or 400,000 persons who were deprived of a day of rest by the operation of the existing law, he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. BIRLEY,in seconding the Motion, pointed out that not only had the

  899
  result of the canvass been uniformly in favour of the proposal to close public-houses on Sundays, but there had been vast public meetings in support of the object, attended not by motley crowds, but, for the most part, by stalwart labourers who were in earnest in the cause of temperance. There had also been a great number of Petitions, which, however, he would pass over, because he knew that many hon. Gentlemen did not think much of Petitions. There had also been Memorials from the clergy and other considerable bodies. What were the arguments against the proposal? By some it was urged that as the rich man had his club to go to on a Sunday, so the poor man ought to have the benefit of his beerhouse. But gin palaces were not clubs; and he hesitated to indulge in the Utopian hope that working men would patronize clubs very largely apart from indulgence in intoxicating liquors. Others, again, said that they ought to rely on the gradual improvement in the habits of society. It was said that not long ago persons in the highest classes thought it no shame to be seen in a state of intoxication; and it was argued that they would soon see the day when neither artizans nor labourers would allow themselves to be seen in that state without a sense of self-reproach, and a still greater sense of reproach from their comrades. He could not help thinking that, in this argument, they ventured upon very severe reflections upon their grandfathers. No doubt, there were grandfathers and grandfathers; but he thought the state of the case was sometimes put more strongly than the facts justified. Moreover, the history of this country did not favour the conclusion that there had been a gradual improvement in the habits of the people in this respect. Authorities of the highest value bore their testimony to the fact that the greatest outbreak of intemperate habits took place in the first half of the last century, when the distillation of gin began in this country, and when the tax upon it was so small. He was not sure whether there was any tax at all in the first instance. The people were able to get drunk for the most insignificant sum. When the regulations were made more stringent, there was a conspicuous change in the habits of the people. Again, as to the habits of the
  900
  higher classes of society—and he said it without any disrespect—he was not sure that the decrease in intoxication was not more due to the custom of drinking lighter wine than to the fact that there was less actual consumption of liquor; and he suspected that casual drinking was rather on the increase in this country. As to the influence of education, he believed that without the power of moral control in the nature of the persons themselves, strengthened by religious teaching, they would not preserve even the persons who were educated from the temptation to intemperate habits. He trusted that Sunday closing would be carried to the extent which this Resolution suggested; but he would be glad to see even a mitigation of the present evil, and he would suggest to the Home Secretary to issue six days' licences as a rule, instead of seven days' licences. That would be a move in the right direction. He believed the publicans as a body were favourable to the proposal of his hon. Friend, as, without it, it was impossible for them to indulge in any ramble or excursion, or in any relaxation on the Sunday, which they desired as much as other people. Then something might be said on behalf of the 200,000 or 300,000 barmen and barmaids, including pot-boys, who would be affected by the change. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had the Factory Acts in his charge, which prevent the over labour of women and boys in factories, and he might well extend the beneficial restrictions in the direction of beershops. It was a very common thing to say that grown-up men were able to take care of themselves in regard to temptation. He held a different view. He thought they ought to agree to abolish certain passages in the Lord's Prayer if they were to maintain that causes of temptation were not to be avoided as much as possible. Sir Walter Scott, in the days before temperance societies were established, spoke of the difficulties a working man had in passing a given number of public- houses. He was a man little influenced by any fanatical views; but he seemed to feel that there was a point at which the repetition of temptation acted upon a man to a degree that those who were not so influenced could scarcely understand. They all knew that even well-principled persons were not always able to resist such temptations. It was a

  901
  matter of wonder to some people that, while men in the higher classes were often indifferent to Sunday closing, those in the lower strata were almost unanimously in favour of it. The fact was that these latter were the men who knew the terrible ravages of intemperance. If it were not for these men they would hear little of temperance societies or temperance reforms. These men who attended the meetings and signed the Memorials did it not for the sake of depriving their neighbours of a moderate indulgence; far from it. He did not think English people were of that disposition. But it was because in their own persons or in their families, or their immediate neighbours, they saw the fearful ravages from that cause. They saw it in every street and in every village. It was not merely a question of broken fortunes; it was a question of broken homesteads and broken hearts. These were the causes which had led public opinion in this direction. He had great pleasure in seconding the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the Law which limits the hours of sale of intoxicating drinks on Sunday in England and Wales should he amended so as to apply to the whole of that day,"—(Mr. Stevenson,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. J. W. PEASE,who had an Amendment on the Paper proposing that the law limiting the hours of sale of intoxicating drinks on Sunday should be amended so as to apply—
  "As nearly as possible to the whole of that day, making such provision only for the sale during prohibited hours of beer, ale, porter, cider, or perry, for consumption off the premises, in the country; and for the requirements of the inhabitants of the Metropolitan district, as may be found needful to secure public cooperation in any alteration of the law,"
  said, that he was sure the House must concur in the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley) in depreciation of the prevalence and the evils of intemperance. Little, he said, had yet been done in the direction of Sunday closing, because the advocates of that step were not content to proceed by
  902
  degrees, but strove to reach their object at a bound. He was as ready as anyone to give the publican the opportunity of taking rest; but it should be remembered that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, and that those who desired to use intoxicating liquors on a Sunday must have somebody to supply them. On that account, while thoroughly sympathizing in the object which the Amendment contemplated, he had given Notice of an Amendment to it, and as he could not move it in consequence of the Rules of the House, he found himself obliged to support his hon. Friend's Amendment, and when it became the substantive question he should ask leave to amend it in the sense of which he had given Notice. The advocates of total Sunday closing desired to remove temptation from the lower classes. Well, so did he; but they could advance in that direction without limiting very materially the liberty of the people to act as they might think fit with regard to supplying their homes with intoxicants on Sunday. The evidence that had been taken before Mr. Abel Smith's Committee proved conclusively that it was not necessary, in order to accomplish most of what was desired, to take the temptations out of the way of people during the whole of the Sabbath. He did not see why those who advocated the total closing of public-houses on the Sabbath day did not advocate the adoption of the same course on every other day in the week. If public-houses were to be shut throughout the whole of Sunday, it must be because they were intrinsically bad institutions; and if they were intrinsically bad on Sunday, they surely were so on Monday, Tuesday, and the remaining days of the week. He held that the advocates of temperance ought to aim at accomplishing their object without trenching too much upon the liberty of the people, and to refrain from taking an extreme step such as that proposed by his hon. Friend—a step which it would be perfectly impossible to carry into practice. In large towns it was proposed to close all restaurants and refreshment places except to the bonâ fide travellers and travellers at railway restaurants. That meant perfunctory teetotalism for all who did not travel or keep a store, or who had no clubs to dine at. Then the Resolution made

  903
  no exemption whatever in the case of the Metropolitan district. Not many Sundays ago, being anxious to observe for himself how public-houses were used on Sundays, he went through the streets in the neighbourhood of the Broadway, Westminster, and, contrary to what was represented, he found that there was no rush, as soon as the houses were opened, by people anxious to get drink, but that neat and respectable girls, children, and young men were coming out of the public-houses with their small jugs of beer for home use; and he felt it would be impossible for him to vote for entire Sunday closing, and so deprive those people of their beer, whilst he could go home to his own luncheon where liquors were on the table, and supplied by his own servants. Mr. John Tremayne, who represented Cornwall in the late Parliament, and who took great interest in this question, had estimated as the result of his investigations that in London there were thousands of people who had no other place for their Sunday dinners but the restaurants and public-houses— a class consisting of those who lived in lodgings, and were accustomed, during their business hours in London, daily to get their principal meal at a restaurant. It would, therefore, be perfectly impossible, with due regard to the legitimate wants of the population, to have entire Sunday closing in the Metropolis, unless this House, backed by the country, came to the conclusion to have perfunctory teetotalism throughout the Kingdom. There was another aspect of the case. On another Sunday he came down the road leading from Epping Forest, and found that from Epping Forest to London there was an unceasing traffic. The large public-houses were surrounded by people who were taking their glass of liquor, and bringing it out to their wives and children, which might be morally wrong. ["No!"] He formed an estimate that on three miles of that road there were no less than 7,000 people travelling; and, although the public-houses were surrounded, there was nothing that could be called disorder, but the people seemed to be enjoying themselves, and he, for one, saw no crime in their doing so. But these travellers, according to his hon. Friend, were to have what they wanted; and whilst they were supplied the quiet people who stayed at home were to be compelled by
  904
  law to go without liquor. This question had been attentively considered by the Lords' Committee, which was composed of men fully competent to take a statesmanlike and just view of it. The conclusion they came to was that there could not be absolute Sunday closing; but they suggested, as regarded the Metropolis, that the houses should remain open as now—from 1 o'clock until 3, and from 6 until 11; but that during the latter term the liquor should be sold to be consumed off the premises only. He thought the people of the Metropolis were prepared to accept shorter hours—namely, from 1 to 3, and from 7 to 10 o'clock, which would meet the requirements and wants of the Metropolis; and he would, in their case, allow the sale both on and off the premises during both terms. It was argued that as it was with London so it was with other large towns; but, even if it were, there were only some 14 or 15 very large towns representing a population of about 3,000,000; and if they excluded all the considerable towns they would only cover a population of about 6,000,000. There would thus be left 16,000,000, to whom they could deal out more stringent provisions. He was in favour of a similar reduction in hours to that which had been recommended by the Lords' Committee; and he would desire to put an end to the sale of spirits in the country on Sunday, so that in the restricted hours which he recommended the consumption would be limited to beer, cider, perry, and other similar drinks which would, not keep fresh for any length of time, and for consumption off the premises only. His hon. Friend had received a letter from a South Durham clergyman. He had received letters from dozens of country clergymen, who had told him that the solution which he proposed of the question was the only practicable one, and those letters were from persons of both political Parties. It had been said that they could with safety follow the example of Ireland and Scotland in this matter. But there was a great difference between those countries and England. They were essentially spirit-drinking countries; whereas beer was the staple drink of England, and beer was a drink which it was essential to get fresh, and it could not be expected that people would like to keep it in stone jugs or in any other way. It would pot be wise to drive people to keep

  905
  stocks of been in barrels at home; the cure might turn out worse than the disease. He believed his hon. Friend and those who thought with him had mistaken the feeling of the country. They had spoken of Petitions; but they had deduced no sound argument from those Petitions. Up to the 18th of June there were 74 Petitions, signed by 167,000 persons, against the Resolution, and 1,500 signed by 174,000 in its favour. His hon. Friend had also spoken of the statistics that had been circulated throughout the House as to the results of a house-to-house canvass in several towns; but the canvass had been very imperfect. Of this he would give instances. In Aberdare 4,069 only out of a total of 6,500 houses had been canvassed; in Barrow 1,272 out of 2,700; in Bradford 6,191 out of 29,000; in Darlington 2,600 out of 4,631, and Darlington was known to be a very temperate place; in Canterbury 1,134 out of 4,171, and in Liverpool 44,000 out of 78,000. Besides, this was not a householders' question. It concerned rather that part of the population which was not composed of householders, but lived in lodgings, and were dependent upon the restaurants for their dinners who would most feel the inconvenience. What became, then, of that great consensus of opinion which had been spoken of? Those only who were least interested had been canvassed. It was fallacious, also, to speak of what worked well for Ireland and Scotland as being necessarily well adapted to England. The towns in those countries were not nearly so large as those of England. When the Sunday Closing Act for Ireland was passed, the five principal cities were exempted, and were called by some the five cities of the plain, or the five cities of refuge for the man-slayer; but the largest of those cities had smaller populations than most of the manufacturing towns in England. In Scotland—Edinburgh had only 169,000; Aberdeen 60,000; Dundee 108,000. Glasgow, with its 500,000, was the only town which compared with the largest towns in England. Nor was there absolute Sunday closing in those towns. Everyone who knew Glasgow and the working of the Forbes-Mackenzie Act was aware that the bonâ fide traveller could always obtain liquor on Sunday, and that every inn that had four bed-
  906
  rooms was a house of call for the bonâ fide traveller, and that there were many of them. On the Clyde steamers drinking went on with little or no regulation. And when once it was proved, as he had conclusively proved, that there could not be absolute Sunday closing, it became a question of degree, and they must draw a line somewhere. He thought that he had indicated that line in advocating the entire prevention of spirit drinking and the reduction of hours. Spirit drinking was the root of most of the evils which arose from intemperance; and it was the drinking which took place in the last hour or two which did the greatest mischief to public order. He thought the question was ripe for legislation; but it would not be wise to legislate against the feeling of the country. He thought the plans he had suggested would be backed by the country. They could not have complete Sunday closing, and he hoped the House would support the proposal of his hon. Friend, in order that he might amend it afterwards.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he was glad to bear his testimony to the beneficial effects of Sunday closing in Ireland. The arrests for Sunday drunkenness had gone down 70 per cent since the Act passed. The consumption of drink was less by £1,250,000 in 1879 than in 1878. And almost every Judge of Assize had referred to the decrease of crime and drunkenness since Sunday closing became the law. It was natural at first to connect these results with the distress; but in 1846–7–8, concurrently with distress, there was an increase of drunkenness. He could testify from his own experience to the happy results that had followed Sunday closing, and could well believe that a similar boon would be a great Messing to this country. During the agitation of the question he was frequently assured by many publicans that it would give them great satisfaction to be compelled to close. It was incumbent on Members who supported the closing of public-houses to do what they could to provide the working classes with other means of recreation than those furnished by the public-houses. They ought, therefore, to support the opening of museums, and to do what they could to promote working men's clubs, for in that way the people could be weaned from that which was their greatest curse.
  MR. COURTAULDconcurred in the remarks of the hon. Member for South Durham. (Mr. Pease), and, in fact, he had taken the wind out of his sails. If total Sunday closing were carried, it would be essentially class legislation of the worst character, because it would interfere with the poor, while it would leave the rich alone. The rich man had his cellar to go to, and could always drink what and when he liked; but the poor man had, as it were, to buy his liquor from hand to mouth. The practical effect of this Resolution would be to prevent people drinking on Sunday what he considered to be, in moderation, a wholesome beverage. The staple drink of this country was beer, and beer bought on Saturday for Sunday drinking could not be kept in jugs and bottles as fresh and as wholesome as it ought to be. He could understand that indoor drinking was a temptation to the poor man on his leisure day, and that open public-houses might be sometimes a nuisance; but it was a perfectly distinct thing to open them for the sale of beer to be carried away for consumption. Then, what was the traveller to do if the public-houses were to be closed on Sunday? It was alleged that the working classes were in favour of total Sunday closing; but he was not sure that was borne out by the Petitions, which were signed in many cases by those whom Sunday closing would not affect. This Motion would be a great interference with what was called the liberty of the subject, and he was surprised to find that amongst the supporters of the Motion there were many Members who had always stood up for individual freedom. There were men who denounced the fining of a man for not having his children vaccinated as great tyranny; but who looked upon a Bill for total Sunday closing as mild and beneficent legislation, although it would deprive the poor man of his Sunday beer. He trusted that if the measure were carried one effect of it would be to stimulate the formation of working men's clubs. He had always done his best to help forward these institutions, because in them there were few inducements for men to drink more than they should. Men in working men's clubs could take as little liquor as they liked, or, if they preferred it, none at all, for they would be under no obligation to drink for the good of the house, as they were in the
  908
  public-house. He should vote against the original Amendment, and should gladly support one to the effect suggested by the hon. Member for South Durham.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLquite agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) that the country was not now ripe—if, indeed, it ever should be ripe—for legislation that went the length of total Sunday closing. Those who had conducted the temperance movement deserved all honour, especially the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and those to whom the country was deeply indebted, for their efforts in making temperance a popular question. But popular as it was, and popular as he would ever hope it might be, he did not think that in this country they would ever reach the point at which they would enforce total abstinence upon those who might be unwilling to adopt it. When he had heard the Mover of the Resolution, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson), speak on behalf of total Sunday closing, he had certainly expected to hear him carry the proposition to its full and logical conclusion, and to have done away with the reservation as to the bonâ fide traveller. What did the bonâ fide traveller mean? Simply that a person who was physically separated by distance from his own cellar should be enabled to make use of the cellar of a publican. What difference in principle was there between this man and the man who was physically separated by a want of money from keeping in his house what he might want? If the one should be allowed to have drink on Sunday, why should not the other? He understood that the hon. Member for South Durham wished, by his Amendment, rather to indicate the direction in which they ought to proceed than to bind them down to its exact terms; and to that extent he went entirely with that hon. Member. Having himself had to deal with the Licensed Victuallers, he could say that he had always found them to be generally a well-conducted body carrying on a difficult trade, and most willing to have their hours reasonably shortened. He felt convinced that some hour might be hit upon which should be suitable to the Licensed Victuallers, and conducive to the temperance of the public without putting them to any inconvenience. They had been told by an hon.

  909
  Member from Ireland (Mr. Blake) that the Act which had been passed for that country had been a success—that the arrests for drunkenness on Sunday were fewer; and he hoped they would succeed in fixing such an hour as would not inconvenience the Licensed Victuallers in this country, and would tend to further improve the habits of the people.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would have been glad if he could have been a silent listener to that interesting debate; but, from the Office he had the honour to hold, it was hardly possible for him to give a vote on that occasion without stating the reasons which actuated it. He had to look at the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson); and it seemed to him that no one—and especially one who occupied any responsible position with reference to it—could vote for such a Resolution without being prepared to give immediate effect to it. The Resolution differed very materially from the one submitted to the House the other night by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Law-son), which stated a general principle admitting of many interpretations, and capable of being applied in various ways —namely, the principle of Local Option. The present one was not such a Resolution, because it stated distinctly that a particular thing was to be done—namely, that every public-house in England should be closed on Sunday. It was an absolute and peremptory Resolution; it did not say that the law should be amended, that the hours should be further limited; but that all public-houses should be closed. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had the other night pointed out, in the discussion on the Resolution of the hon. Member for Carlisle, that that was, above all, a question on which public opinion ought to govern, and that Ministers were bound to follow, but could not lead public opinion on a matter of that kind. And, therefore, the question they had to consider was whether the public opinion of England demanded or justified the adoption of such a course as that now proposed? The Lords Committee, certainly in no spirit adverse to the end at which his hon. Friend aimed, had declared in their Report their precise opinion that the country was not yet ripe for entire Sunday closing. As
  910
  far as he knew, that was an accurate statement. His hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), he might add, in his eminently judicial speech, had pointed out that the number of Petitions which had been presented to the House in favour of the Resolution was not much greater than that of those which had been presented against it. This, therefore, did not point to anything like an overwhelming preponderance of opinion. Now, the House well knew what was the case of the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. In almost every one of the numerous divisions on that Bill he had voted in its favour, because he was satisfied of the entire unanimity of Irish opinion on the subject. They had had evidence in every possible way—by Petitions, by representations from persons of all classes and opinions, and with a singular unanimity on the part of the Irish Members on both sides of the House—that the intervention of Parliament was justified, and, indeed, required. But could anybody say that anything like a similar unanimity of opinion on the subject prevailed in this country? He would confess that he himself was unable to come to that conclusion. He might also observe that the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for South Shields went further than the Irish Bill. Ireland, as the House was well aware, was not rich in great towns, yet five of the chief towns of that country were omitted from the operation of the Irish Bill; while his hon. Friend did not propose to make an exception even in favour of the Metropolis. The hon. Member for Carlisle had invited them to found temperance reform upon the corner stone of Local Option. Well, he (Sir William Harcourt) had voted, the other evening, in support of the principle of Local Option; but the proposal embodied in the present Resolution was absolutely inconsistent with that principle, for it was to be carried into effect whether a community desired that it should be so or not. There were, therefore, two principles of temperance reform; and he could not help feeling that, however excellent might be the object of a Motion such as that before the House, it was possible, by going too far, to defeat the object which they were all anxious to attain, and that any violent action in advance of public opinion, so far from promoting, might injure the

  911
  cause of temperance. His hon. Friend the Member for South Durham, who seemed to him to have made a very good speech against the Resolution, was yet going to vote for it with a view to amending it after it had passed. He, however, did not feel himself able to take that course. He was expressing only his own views, and was not in any sense speaking for the Government as a whole, this being a subject upon which every man might vote according to his own views. There was some advantage in the form in which this Resolution was submitted, because it followed upon the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair; and, consequently, the Motion which would be put from the Chair practically amounted to the Previous Question. The hon. Member for South Shields had put his proposition in so absolute a form that he was unable to support it; and he did not see how the House could vote for such a Resolution, which was direct and precise, unless it really meant that it could be immediately carried into effect.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: There is no person in this House who does not wish to do all he can to promote the cause of temperance, and the only fault I find with persons who are naturally anxious upon such a subject as this is that they may make up their minds in what particular way the object is to be accomplished, and unless others agree with them in that particular way, they will not believe you are as anxious as they are to promote temperance. I make the greatest possible allowance for the conclusions at which people arrive, because no person who really has the interest of the community at heart can possibly see the crime, misery, and vice which come from drunkenness and not feel his heart stirred to do all in his power to alleviate that misery and put an end to that state of things. But when we feel how necessary it is to do something, we are often in danger of doing that something rashly, and bringing about a condition of affairs which cannot by any possibility last. With regard to the proposition before us, I think it is a fair sample of what I spoke about. If you could see that public opinion would carry you out in what you are going to do, I do not think there is a man on either side of the House who would not be for the total closing of public-
  912
  houses on Sundays. I mean if it could be carried out in accordance with the reasonable wishes of the people. But the people really are not ready for such a change. There is a strong feeling in this country that something ought to be done to put a stop to drunkenness; but this particular step, if it were carried to-night and passed into a law, would not have any practical effect of that kind. If this Resolution became law to-night, you would have—I do not say before the end of this Session, but certainly the first thing next Session—to repeal it. You cannot legislate in this way in advance of public opinion; you cannot legislate even quite up to it. So far from effecting the object you have in view, you would do a great deal to check the public opinion in favour of temperance. I was not here to hear the speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson), who moved this Resolution; but to my mind there is a great contrast between the hon. Member who introduced this Motion and the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) who has spoken upon it, and I will tell the House where I think the difference lies. The hon. Member who has introduced this Motion has done it for the sole purpose of doing all he can to promote temperance by physical force. The hon. Member for South Durham has studied this question in all its bearings, as I know, because when I had the honour of holding the Office which is now held by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), he came to me and asked me if I would give him facilities for obtaining information and forming an opinion on the subject. Let me take London for a moment. Can you imagine it would be any more possible to shut up public-houses now than when you stopped Sunday trading in London some years ago? It is a thing which is absolutely impossible. I am sure the Home Secretary would find before that law had been in force for a month that he would have the greatest possible difficulty in keeping the peace of the town. I said when I was in Office that if Sunday closing was carried I would not be responsible for the peace of London. I say the same now that I am out of Office; and I am certain if the Home Secretary looks into the matter he will come to the same conclusion. There are large numbers of

  913
  people walking about with nothing to do on Sundays, and many of them, I am sorry to say, take a great deal more than they ought to do, not only on Sundays, but on other days; but quite irrespective of all that, there is a vast population in London who, if this proposition were carried, would have to change their whole habits of life. Where are young persons who live in lodgings to get their dinner? Why are they to be deprived of their glass of beer on Sunday more than any other day? I want to know whether they will not say—"It is all very well for you people to legislate for us; what are you going to do for yourselves? Are you going to close your Clubs?" There is a great difference in this matter between Ireland and England. The regular drink of Ireland is not beer, but spirits. The drink of England is beer. A society for which I have the highest possible admiration—the Church of England Temperance Society —have often been before me, and they have told me that a man might buy his beer on Saturday night and drink it in the middle of the day on Sunday. Why, the thing cannot be done. It would not be beer, but almost poison by the middle of Sunday. You cannot change the habits of the people by legislation. You are trying to change the innocent, the necessary habits of the people because you want to prevent that which is bad. As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for South Durham, I take an entirely different view of the subject. I should be very glad indeed to see the hours for the sale of liquors on Sundays curtailed, both in the middle of the day and also in the evening. I do not think the State ought to be called upon to pass sumptuary laws either upon this subject or any other. The chief duty of the State is to see that order is preserved. There can be no doubt that, owing to the late hour of public-houses being open, order is endangered, and, so far as that is concerned, the State has a perfect right to step in and say—"You shall not have your wish granted at the sacrifice of the order which the State has a right to preserve." I should be very much in favour of seeing the hours for selling strong liquors on Sundays curtailed, because I do not think it is necessary that public-houses should be kept open as long as they are. The public order is not maintained as it should be,
  914
  owing to their being open so long. If you take your stand upon that, and not go into sumptuary laws, which have always failed in this country from the earliest times, when persons were not allowed to eat more than so many courses at dinner; if you ground your law on the maintenance of public order, you are on a safe footing. There is one other point I want to impress strongly on this House, and that is that this question should be dealt with once and for ever, or, at least, for a very long time. The Prime Minister told us the other night the Government were prepared to consider the whole question of the Licensing Laws, to consolidate them, and to bring forward a measure on the subject before long. I say that should be done. The trade, however, should not be harassed more than any other trade, and the bringing forward of such Motions as the present was virtually harassing them. The Acts of 1872 and 1874 worked great good. I am prepared to say that you can now go further in the way of legislation than you could have done in those years, because the growth of public opinion is in your favour. Let us not, however, check that growth of opinion by passing such a Resolution as this. If you pass this Resolution you will do harm to the cause of temperance, and drive people away who are willing to help you; and when the Government measure is brought forward you will have more chance of passing it than if the Resolution before the House were carried. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who has just sat down, said that he was rather in favour of the Resolution passed the other day with reference to Local Option, and that it would be wise to proceed in that direction. I hope before the Government brings forward their promised measure they will make up their own minds as a Government. The right hon. Gentleman said he hoped it would be understood that he was expressing only his private opinion, and that he was speaking as the Member for Derby and not as Secretary of State. I deny that the right hon. Gentleman as Secretary of State could speak on this subject merely as the Member for Derby.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I did not say so. What I said was, that in the Office I held I felt bound to express my opinion, but that I did not profess

  915
  to speak for all the Members of the Cabinet.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: Wait a moment, and you will see what I mean. On a question of this kind I do not think there ought to be a difference between Members of the same Government. You were discussing the other day the question as to Local Option, and the right hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of Local Option on one part of the question, but that, in his opinion, Local Option on the other part of the question could not be sustained. That only makes my case stronger. We had the Secretary of State a promoter of Local Option, while the Prime Minister was against it. The suggestion of the Prime Minister was that it was a very grave question which required discussion. The right hon. Gentleman did not know whether there ought to be a restriction on the number of public-houses or free trade altogether. When the Government brought forward that great measure which they were pledged to do by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State this evening, I hope they will deal with the whole question and at an early period. But let the Government make up its mind. The Prime Minister says one thing, the Secretary of State another. The Government ought to make up its mind whether they will have free trade or restriction. I think the introducer of this Resolution has made a great mistake. I think it would check public opinion, and I hope it will not be pressed to a division. If it be, I must vote against it. I will follow the Secretary of State, who has said the proper course will be to move that the Speaker should leave the Chair, which is equivalent to the Previous Question. The Government has undertaken to deal with the whole question next Session. [Sir WILLIAM HAE-COURT dissented.] At all events, the Prime Minister has said so. Whenever that measure is brought in, I and my Colleagues will give it careful consideration. [A laugh.] Notwithstanding that laugh, I can honestly say that if it is calculated to promote temperance without breaking through the general principles of legislation, I and my Colleagues will give it careful consideration, not in a spirit of hostility, but with every desire to support and carry it into effect.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes 117; Noes 153: Majority 36.

  AYES.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Leamy, E.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Leeman, J. J.

  Bass, A.

  Leigh, R.

  Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

  Leighton, S.

  Birkbeck, E.

  Litton, E. P.

  Blackburne, Col. J. I.

  Loder, R.

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Long, W. H.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. P.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Lyons, E. D.

  Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

  Macdonald, A.

  Burnaby, G. E. S.

  Makins, Colonel

  Buxton, Sir E. J.

  Manners,rt.hon.LordJ.

  Churchill, Lord E.

  Martin, P.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Master, T. W. C.

  Cobbold, T. C.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Coddington, W.

  Miles, Sir P. J. W.

  Coope, O. E.

  Mills, Sir C. H.

  Courtauld, G.

  Monckton, F.

  Crompton-Roberts, C.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Cross, rt. hn. Sir E. A.

  Murray, C. J.

  Cubitt, right hon. G.

  Musgrave, Sir E. C.

  Daly, J.

  Northcote, H. S.

  Davenport, H. T.

  O'Gorman Mahon, Col.

  Duckham, T.

  The

  Dyott, Colonel E.

  Onslow, D.

  Egerton, Sir P. G.

  Patrick, E. W. C.

  Egerton, hon. W.

  Philips, R. H.

  Emlyn, Viscount

  Portman, hn. W. H.B.

  Estcourt, G. S.

  Powell, W.

  Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

  Power, E.

  Feilden,Major- General E. J.

  Puleston, J. H.

  Rendlesham, Lord

  Fenwick-Bisset, M.

  Rolls, J. A.

  Filmer, Sir E.

  Ross, A. H.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Rothschild, Sir N.M.de

  Forster, Sir C.

  Russell, Sir C.

  Fort, R.

  Schreiber, C.

  Fremantle, hon. T. F.

  Scott, Lord H.

  Gabbett, D. F.

  Scott, M. D.

  Galway, Viscount

  Seely, C. (Lincoln)

  Gardner, E. Richard-son-

  Severne, J. E.

  Smith, A.

  Garnier, J. C.

  Smithwick, J. F.

  Goldney, Sir G.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Guest, M. J.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Thornhill, T.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

  Thynne, Lord H. F.

  Tollemache,hon. W. F

  Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

  Torrens, W. T. M'C.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Warton, C. N.

  Harvey, Sir E. B.

  Watney, J.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Wiggin, H.

  Hermon, E.

  Williams, 0. L. C.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Wilmot, Sir J. E.

  Holms, J.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Hope,rt.hn.A.J.B. B.

  Wolff, Sir H. D.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Johnson, W. M.

  Labouchere, H.

  TELLERS.

  Lacon, Sir E. H. K.

  Hill, S.

  Lawrence, Sir T.

  Worms, Baron H. de

  Laycock, R.

  917

  NOES.

  Agar - Robartes, hon. T. C.

  Illingworth, A.

  Ingram, W. J.

  Allen, H. G.

  James, C.

  Allen, W. S.

  James, W. H.

  Anderson, G.

  Jardine, R.

  Archdale, W. H.

  Jenkins, D. J.

  Armitstead, G.

  Joicey, Colonel J.

  Barran, J.

  Lambton, hon. F. W.

  Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Beresford, G. De la P.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Biddulph, M.

  Leatham, W.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Leigh, hon. G. H. C.

  Blake, J. A.

  Lewis, C. E.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Lloyd, M.

  Borlase, W. C.

  Lusk, Sir A.

  Brett, B. B.

  Mackie, R. B.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Macliver, P. S.

  Brogden, A.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Brown, A. H.

  M'Arthur, W.

  Bryce, J.

  M'Clure, Sir T.

  Burt, T.

  M'Coan, J. C.

  Buszard, M. C.

  M'Intyre, A.E. J.

  Buxton, P. W.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Byrne, G. M.

  M'Laren, C. B. B.

  Caine, W. S.

  M'Minnies, J. G.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Magniac, C.

  Carbutt, E. H.

  Maitland, W. F.

  Cavendish, Lord E.

  Mappin, F. T.

  Chambers, Sir T.

  Mason, H.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Middleton, R. T.

  Cowan, J.

  Milbank, F. A.

  Craig, W. Y.

  Moore, A.

  Cunliffe, Sir R. A.

  Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Davey, H.

  Morley, S.

  Davies, D.

  Noel, E.

  Davies, R.

  O'Connor, A.

  Dilke, A. W.

  Palmer, C. M.

  Dundas, hon. J. C.

  Palmer, G.

  Edwards, P.

  Palmer, J. H.

  Ewart, W.

  Parker, C. S.

  Farquharson, Dr. B.

  Pease, A.

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Pease, J. W.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. C. W. W.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Playfair,rt.hon. L.

  Fitzwilliam, hn. W. J.

  Potter, T. B.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. W.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Flower, C.

  Power, J. O'C.

  Foljambe, F. G. S.

  Price, Sir B. G.

  Fowler, H. H.

  Pugh, L. P.

  Fowler, W.

  Ramsay, J.

  Fry, L.

  Ramsay, Lord

  Fry, T.

  Redmond, W. A.

  Givan, J.

  Reed, Sir C.

  Gladstone, H. J.

  Reed, E. J.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Richard, H.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Richardson, J. N.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  Roberts, J.

  Grafton, F. W.

  Russell, Lord A.

  Grant, A.

  Rylands, P.

  Greer, T.

  St. Aubyn, Sir J.

  Grey, A. H. G.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir H.

  Stafford, Marquess of

  Henderson, F.

  Stanton, W. J.

  Heneage, E.

  Stewart, J.

  Herschell, Sir F.

  Sullivan A. M.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Thompson, T. C.

  Holland, S.

  Trevelyan, G. O.

  Howard, E. S.

  Verney, Sir H.

  Howard, J.

  Vivian, A. P.

  Hughes, W. B.

  Vivian, H. H.

  918

  Waugh, E.

  Wilson, C. H.

  Webster, Dr. J.

  Wilson, Sir M.

  Wedderburn, Sir D.

  Winn, R.

  Whitley, E.

  Woodall, W.

  Whitwell, J.

  Whitworth, B.

  TELLERS.

  Williams, B. T.

  Birley, H.

  Williams, W.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Williamson, S.

  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. J. W. PEASEsaid, that inasmuch as he had already addressed the House with regard to the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper, he should not then enter again upon an explanation of it. He begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
  To leave out all the words after the word "apply," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "as nearly as possible to the whole of that day, making such provision only for the sale during limited hours of beer, ale, porter, cider, or perry, for consumption off the premises in the country; and, for the requirements of the inhabitants of the Metropolitan district, as may be found needful to secure public co-operation in the alteration of the Law,"—(Mr Pease,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the' said proposed Amendment."
  MR. STEVENSONsaid, that as his Motion had then become the substantial one, he wished to say that the terms of it were precisely the same as those of the Motion on which the Sunday Closing Act for Ireland had been afterwards founded, with the exception of the simple alteration of the words "England and Wales" instead of Ireland. That Motion had been introduced by the late hon. Member for County Londonderry (Mr. Smyth), and was carried by a large majority, with which the present Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) voted.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the Law which limits the hours of sale of intoxicating drinks on Sunday in England and Wales should be amended so as to apply as early as possible to the whole of that day, making such provision only for the sale during limited hours of beer, ale, porter, cider,

  919
  or perry, for consumption off the premises in the country; and, for the requirements of the in-habitants of the Metropolitan district, as may he found needful to secure public co-operation in any alteration of the Law.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he begged to move that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair in order to enable the Government to take a Vote on Account.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished to make a remark with regard to taking Votes on Account. They knew that the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who then occupied seats on the Treasury Bench did not always agree with taking such Votes. He did not wish to interfere with the proposal at all; but he desired to state that he thought if Supply had been arranged as it ought to have been such Votes would not have been required. He would not oppose the Motion of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish); but he wished to recall to their minds what was said on that subject when the late Government was in Office. He trusted they would not think he was placing obstacles in the way. He quite admitted that such a step as that proposed was rendered necessary this year from the somewhat peculiar position of the Government only having been in Office so short a time, and there being many measures which they wished to bring forward. He only rose to say that he hoped that that Motion would not be made a precedent, but that Government would follow the good advice which was tendered to them (the preceding Government) when the present Government were in Opposition—namely, that Supply should not be put aside because certain measures of the Government had to be brought forward. He hoped that the proposed Vote on Account would be the last, and that the Government would take care that before the Vote now asked for was expended to put Supply down in such a manner as that it might be unnecessary
  920
  to take any more such Votes during the present Parliament.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that he did not think it possible for anything that was done in that matter that Session to be taken as a precedent hereafter, because of the peculiar circumstances of the case. The late Government had thought it necessary to have a Dissolution of Parliament in the middle of the Session, and in consequence of the change of Government there had necessarily been to a very great extent disorganization of the Business of the House. Therefore, the proceedings in a late Session such as the present could hardly be taken to be usual. He felt bound to observe that the necessity of taking a Vote on Account did not arise from any undue pressure of the Government in bringing forward their own measures, for they had always arranged for Supply to come on in the usual course; but owing to the shortness of the Session they had had little or no opportunity of taking Committee of Supply. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would have anything different to propose with reference to propose with reference to that matter; but he wished it to be understood that the conduct of the late Government was not in the slightest degree reflected upon by the Motion then before the House.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had taken a great interest in the discussions on Votes on Account; and, although he disliked them, he thought they were necessary in the case of a late Session, such as the pre-sent. The right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had recognized the peculiar circumstances of the present Session; the present Government had only been in Office for a very short time, and, of course, they were all aware that during two months of the Session it had been quite impossible to proceed with any Public Business whatever. He was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the course which had been taken in former Parliaments. He (Mr. Rylands) recollected having opposed the then Government for having brought forward Votes on Account at late periods of the year, and it should be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman who was then in Office justified the late Government in asking for Votes on Account. For his

  921
  own part he thought there could be no defence made for dealing with matters of Supply in that way; but, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he did not see how in this instance it was to be avoided. He considered that it was incumbent on them to assist the Government in that matter, inasmuch as it had been impossible to bring Supply on at an earlier period.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he did not wish to oppose the Motion for a Vote on Account; but, at the same time, he did not like the mode of procedure of that kind which had been in vogue for the last two or three years. It had been said that the circumstances of the case were peculiar; but if they were so it was nothing new, for they had been in a similar position often before, and he must say he objected to the Business of the country being done in that way. The fact of the matter was this—and he wished to tell the Government so—that there were too many Bills brought in, and in consequence the financial affairs of the nation were pushed into a corner, and in many cases voted without any notice being given. That was not the right way to do the Business of the House. He himself would probably never occupy a seat on the Front Bench, and he eared little what Party was in power so long as the Business of the nation was properly attended to. He had no wish to oppose the Motion; but he did hope that there would be a change in the mode of doing business.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, no doubt the present circumstances were peculiar, and he did not see how the proposed course could be avoided. They were all aware that there had previously been as much as £4,000,000 absorbed, in providing for the debt of the country which had not been provided for out of Ways and Means. Under the circumstances existing last Session, he thought the House had afforded every facility to the then Government, and he had no doubt but that the House would acquiesce in the Motion then before them. The noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) must, however, expect that all the Estimates would receive, not only a severe, but a rigid examination when Votes on Account were taken in that manner. It was no more than right that the House should expect that when any Gentleman criticized the Estimates he should receive
  922
  full explanation of the various Votes. He had observed, in the course of the discussion on the Estimates, that excuses had been given on account of the Estimates of the Predecessors of the present Government. He must say that he was of opinion that they had heard sufficient on that subject, when he came to consider the advantages which had accrued to hon. Gentlemen in Office from the change of Government. He had often heard it said, when a man came into a large estate, that he would have been much richer without it; but he never heard of any gentleman giving up the estate on account of the great trouble which it entailed. That was, he considered, the position of the Government. They had received a legacy, which was attended with considerable difficulty, no doubt, from their Predecessors; but, at the same time, they had received a legacy both of honour and responsibility, and he thought it was their bounden duty to fall in with the feeling prevalent in the country, and to give a full and fair explanation whenever anyone chose to criticize the Estimates. Under those circumstances, he felt sure that when the Estimates came on full criticism would be allowed and a full explanation given.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he wished to make a remark with reference to the time that Vote on Account was calculated to last. The sum of £100,000 put down for purposes of education— which was the subject with which he was most acquainted—would not last a fortnight. Of course, if there was a sum already voted which had not been spent, that might be added to the sums now asked for. It seemed to him, however, that the sum then applied for was not sufficient for a period of six weeks.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that if the Vote was carried the period at the expiration of six weeks would be rather a late one for the Estimates. He thought that it was most inconvenient that those Votes should be taken when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was not present. The responsible Ministers were not then there, and he really thought that was not respectful to the House. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) was really the only Minister of consequence that he saw on the Treasury Bench; and he really thought that it was not respectful to the House, when

  923
  they were asked to give blind confidence to the Government in a Vote which would carry them on to the middle of August, that the Prime Minister, who was also Chancellor of the Exchequer, was not present to answer any questions that might be put.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that in reply to the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), he wished to say that he believed that the sum now asked for for educational purposes would be found to be sufficient. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), he would only say he would do all in his power to bring forward the Estimates so that they might be properly discussed.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to mention a matter for which he saw the Government proposed a vote of £190,000 —namely, the Vote for the Irish Constabulary. It was a question that had never been sufficiently debated in that House; and yet there were important considerations connected with that Force, as at present constituted, which it would be necessary to bring before the House of Commons. By that custom of taking Votes on Account, the Irish Estimates were habitually pushed back to the end of the Session, when there were no adequate means for discussion. He knew there were excuses for the present Government in reference to the course proposed to be adopted. That was practically the first Vote on Account the present Government had taken, although he did not think that it was the first that had been taken under those Estimates, so there was some excuse. He hoped the noble Lord the manager of that Business in the House (Lord Frederick Cavendish) would be able to see his way to giving an assurance to the Irish Members that a fair opportunity would be afforded on a subsequent stage for discussing the Vote of the Irish Constabulary.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, he thought that if the noble Lord who had charge of those Estimates would give a definite assurance that the questions regarding the enormous sum of money which was then to be voted for purposes which partially referred to the maintenance of a Military Force would be allowed to be taken on some definite day, the Irish Members would really be quite content. Looking over the abstract of the Estimates which that Vote referred to, he
  924
  found that there was no real work proposed to be done under them in regard to that part of the country with which he was himself connected. There was, in fact, only a sum of £2,500 asked for, which was for work to be done on the Shannon. That was really a small sum, considering the fact that that river ran through a district which really was very much in need of labour.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the Vote, and is out of Order.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding£l,842,500, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, viz.:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

  Great Britain: —

  £

  Royal Palaces

  4,700

  Marlborough House

  300

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  14,100

  Houses of Parliament

  4,500

  Public Buildings

  14,600

  Furniture of Public Offices

  2,000

  Revenue Department Buildings

  23,000

  County Court Buildings

  6,300

  Metropolitan Police Courts

  3,500

  Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland

  1,000

  New Courts of Justice, &c.

  14,000

  Courts of Law and Offices, Edinburgh

  —

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  16,700

  Science and Art "Department Buildings

  2,500

  British Museum Buildings

  600

  Natural History Museum

  3,700

  Edinburgh University Buildings

  —

  Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade

  2,500

  Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland)

  25,000

  Metropolitan Eire Brigade

  2,500

  Ireland:—

  Public Buildings

  18,600

  Science and Art Museum, Dublin

  200

  Shannon Navigation

  2,500

  Abroad:—

  Lighthouses Abroad

  1,400

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  2,700

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.

  Scotland:—

  £

  Board of Supervision

  2,300

  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.

  England:—

  £

  Public Education

  100,000

  Science and Art Department

  40,000

  British Museum

  10,000

  £

  National Gallery

  2,200

  National Portrait Gallery

  300

  Learned Societies, &c.

  2,000

  London University

  1,400

  Deep Sea Exploring Expedition (Report)

  600

  Sydney and Melbourne International Exhibitions

  500

  Scotland:—

  Public Education

  30,000

  Universities, &c.

  2,300

  National Gallery

  300

  Ireland:—

  Public Education

  35,000

  Teachers' Pension Office

  300

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  100

  National Gallery

  300

  Queen's University

  700

  Queen's Colleges

  1,700

  Royal Irish Academy

  250

  CLASS V.—COLONIAL, CONSULAR, AND OTHER FOREIGN SERVICES.

  Diplomatic Services

  £ 29,000

  Consular Services

  31,000

  Colonies, Grants in Aid

  4,500

  Orange River Territory and St. Helena

  300

  Suez Canal (British Directors)

  200

  Suppression of the Slave Trade

  900

  Tonnage Bounties, &c.

  1,500

  Cyprus Police

  3,200

  Subsidies to Telegraph Companies

  —

  CLASS VI.—SUPERANNUATION AND RE-TIRED ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES FOR CHARITABLE AND OTHER PURPOSES.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  £ 50,000

  Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.

  3,500

  Relief of Distressed British Seamen Abroad

  4,000

  Pauper Lunatics, England

  —

  Pauper Lunatics, Scotland

  —

  Pauper Lunatics, Ireland

  —

  Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland

  2,100

  Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiency

  —

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

  500

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland

  550

  CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS, SPECIAL, AND TEMPORARY OBJECTS.

  £

  Temporary Commissions

  7,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  800

  Total for Civil Services £1

  £1,212,500

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  £

  Customs

  65,000

  Inland Revenue

  100,000

  Post Office

  . 205,000

  Post Office Packet Service

  . 100,000

  Post Office Telegraphs

  . 170,000

  Total for Revenue Departments

  £630,000

  Grand Total

  £1,842,500

  MR. PARNELLsaid, he would now make the request to the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) to which he had already referred. He trusted that he would be able to give them an assurance that the Government would afford an opportunity for discussing the Vote as regards the Irish Constabulary.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he could not at present state the day on which it would be possible to take the Vote. The hon. Member might, however, be sure that it would be taken shortly.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to ask a question of the noble Lord with regard to Class IV. (Ireland). He saw there was a Vote of £640 for the Endowed Schools Commissioners. There were, however, two sets of those in Ireland—there were, first, the Commissioners of Education, who were a permanent body; and then there was a temporary Commission of Inquiry into the condition of schools. Which Commissioners did the Vote affect? Secondly, he wished to say that the Endowed Schools Commissioners, appointed by the late Lord Lieutenant for a temporary purpose, of which he himself (Lord Randolph Churchill) was a Member, applied for an extension of time, as they found that they could not complete their task by the day fixed—namely, the 13th of June. They had applied, for that extension, and up to the last few days, as far as he could hear, there had been no answer. It was of importance that there should be such an extension. A representation had been made to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and no definite answer had been received. If that Irish Vote referred to that body, he should be glad to know if the extension of time applied for would be granted.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that if the noble Lord would repeat his question on the Report of the Com-
  928
  mittee he would be happy to give him a reply; but he could not do so now.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that the Commission would have reported long ago had it not been for the dilatory proceedings of the Treasury. He believed that for three months there had been no answer.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he wished to ask a question with regard to acquiring the consular buildings in the several capitals of Europe. The Berlin Embassy House was hired at a very high rate; and he thought it would be economy to buy it. At Cairo, also, the house was hired at a very high rate; and it was perfectly clear that they would always require a considerable establishment to be kept there. He should like to know whether any progress had been made with regard to purchasing those houses. The house at Brussels, also, was hired at an enormous rate. He would not trouble the noble Lord to give a direct answer, if he would give an assurance that the Vote would be brought on in time for fair discussion, and that it would not be put off till the end of the Session, when no time would be at disposal for discussing it.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, with respect to the inquiry that had just been made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), he would observe that, little as the Government liked those Votes on Account, they disliked Supplementary Votes still more. It was simply impossible to consider a larger Supplementary Vote at that time.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, with regard to the remarks which had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), he must say that the operations of the Commission he had referred to were exceedingly slow. They were looking forward to the time when they should see that Commission brought to a close. He did trust that, having been in existence over two years, no extension of time would be given to it. He felt sure that when the Treasury had carefully inquired into the matter no such extension would be granted.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that with reference to Class III., referring to the Business of Ireland, he should like to ask the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish), or

  929
  the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Forster), if the Government intended to carry out the promises of the late Government as regarded a convict establishment in county Galway, or if they would take steps to have that convict establishment filled from the county itself only, which at present was not the case? He wished to know if the present Government would redeem the promises of their Predecessors in that respect?
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, he should like to call the attention of the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) to Item No. 18, the rating of Government property. It would, he believed, be a great assistance if they had separate rates for the different buildings. At present, the Assessment Committees were in difficulty when matters relating to those Government buildings were brought before them. He should like to be satisfied with regard to each locality in respect of such rates, as no comparison could be made now between the valuation put upon prisons and other Government buildings. He should also like to ask, with reference to the prison convict establishments, whether such establishments were under inspection, as was promised they should, by gentlemen acting independently of the prison authorities?
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that he could answer the Question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Magniac), as he was a member of a Committee during the late Government which had had convict establishments in England under consideration. Practically speaking, they were independent of the prison authorities; gentlemen were appointed who visited those establishments and reported upon them. With regard to Ireland, it was his intention to put a Question shortly to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Forster) upon the subject.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, with regard to Consular buildings, that was not the first time he had pressed the matter upon the attention of the Government. He had endeavoured to instil into the Government the necessity of buying the buildings, and thus making permanent establishments. They had lost already more than one opportunity of buying Embassy houses. Houses that could have been bought for £15,000
  930
  or £20,000, were now worth between £200,000and£300,000; and, there fore, a great saving would have been effected if those houses had been built or purchased. He did not think it would require a large Supplementary Vote; but he should like some assurance that, when there was a possibility of a real saving being effected, the Government would see what could be done with regard to the purchasing of buildings. He had gone fully into the question, and he found, in the new List, that we were paying £3,000 a-year at Berlin for a house which might be bought for £60,000 or £70,000, and probably they would have to pay £4,000 or £5,000 a-year for the same house, if it were let again. He hoped they would consider the necessity of making a large expenditure under that head, with a view of avoiding a much larger expenditure.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he could not allow the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) to pass without submitting to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish)that there were a great many objections to what he had proposed. The hon. Gentleman had stated that we could purchase Continental Embassy houses on favourable terms; but he knew as well as he (Mr. Rylands) did, what enormous values were placed on them, and how it was almost impossible to get them. A large sum of money had been voted for the erection of the Embassy house at Constantinople— as much as £200,000—and when the money had been laid out the house was burnt down, no precautions having been taken to prevent such an accident occurring. All the apparatus was found to be out of order. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would not readily fall in with the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), in undertaking to spend money under that head. It should also be borne in mind, that the Embassy houses differed very much; in some places they were suitable for the requirements of the Embassy, and in other places not at all so.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he could not quite agree with the hon. Member who had just sat down, for it was perfectly ridiculous that a house for the Embassy could not be hired at Constantinople; and if the one formerly belonging to the Embassy was burned down, that was owing entirely to the

  931
  neglect of the Liberal Government which, refused to make proper provision in order to secure proper precautions. The present Embassy was a very cheap house, for the land was presented by the Sultan. It was built at a very cheap rate, and the cost of hire would be a very good interest on money expended. He did not usually agree with his hon. Friend opposite; but on this occasion he agreed with him, as he thought, rather less than usual. He hoped the noble Lord would consider this question carefully, because it was a very great economy to the country; and by judicious building they would save much expense.
  LORD HENRY SCOTThoped that he would be pardoned for rising to address a few words to the Committee, but he happened to know something about this Embassy house; and, although a great sum of money had been laid out on it, he was able to say that it had been built very well, and of substantial materials. As to the fire, that was a matter of pure accident which might happen to any house. He merely wished to support the statement of his hon. Friend, that the money was very well invested in this way, and it was better to pay a reasonable sum for building an Embassy house, than to pay large yearly sums for hiring one.
  MR. FINIGANwished to ask some Questions about works on the Shannon, in Ennis, at a place called Clare Castle. About six months back he was told by the Treasury that those works would be at once proceeded with, and he was innocent enough to believe them. Since then he had found that those promises were untrustworthy; and, on the other hand, he was much troubled by questions from his constituents why the Liberal Government did not carry out what the Conservative Government had promised, but had refused to do? This money was not money given by the Treasury at all, but it was simply money obtained from shipping coming into harbour. Therefore, he could not at all understand why the Treasury did not keep these promises and carry out these works. If he received a definite promise that that should be done, he would be very happy not to oppose the Vote; but in the meantime he should certainly feel obliged to do so. These works
  932
  were in a distressed district, and, therefore, they ought to be conceded for the benefit of the population.
  MR. NORTHCOTErose to support the statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth in regard to the accommodation at the Embassies. With regard to that at Constantinople, he might be allowed to confirm the statement; and, for his part, he believed it to be a real economy of expenditure if the Government would see their way to purchase a permanent residence at most of the capitals. As an ex-diplomatist himself, he ventured to make an appeal to the noble Lord opposite to see if some scheme of this kind could not be carried out.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, for his part, he believed these proposals might better be supported as a matter of generosity to the Diplomatic Service than as a matter of economy. He believed the erection of buildings for the Embassies had not, as a rule, been found economical. There were certain cases, of course, in which it was almost necessary, or, at any rate, certainly desirable. Those cases were, from day to day, coming before the Treasury, and he had already had one or two laid before him, and he could assure hon. Members they had received the most careful consideration. At the same time, he could not see that it was the most economical way of providing Embassy houses. As to the Shannon works, they were being proceeded with as rapidly as possible; but from the nature of the work it was impossible to go on fast, because they were begun below and worked up the river. He could assure the hon. Member that the Board of Works were working very energetically at these works, and others similar.
  MR. BLAKEcalled attention to the fact that the Irish officials were paid considerably less than those in England for the same work, although provisions, clothing, lodging, and other expenses of the same kind were quite as heavy in Ireland as in England. At this moment there was an Irishman acting as warder in an English prison who had a brother filling the same post in Ireland, yet the English official had a much larger salary than his brother in Ireland; though he was assured only the other day that both

  933
  he and his brother were in precisely the same position as regarded duties. A promise had been held out for a very long time that something should be done to improve the condition of the Irish officials, and he hoped the Government would now carry it out.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHwished to suggest to the Committee that these matters might be much better discussed on the individual Votes. He might also observe that, although they always heard the Committee of Supply was for the object of checking the expenditure of the Government, yet the tendency throughout this debate had been to increase the expenditure. With reference to the question just raised, he would be very happy to talk it over with the hon. Member.
  An hon. MEMBER pointed out, that while it was proposed to spend £20,000 for Shannon works, the Government only took £2,500 for the next six weeks, while those weeks were the very best of the whole year. If the Government acted in this way, the greatest possible distrust would be aroused in the minds of everybody along the banks of the river. The Government ought to utilize every means in their power to give relief. These works were one of the best means for that purpose; and, therefore, he hoped the noble Lord would explain why he had not spent more than this £2,500.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, there was a reason why Irish Members should be more constant in discussing these finance questions than English Members, because the officials in the two countries were totally different. The English Members were able to go to the Departmental officers and discuss points of interest with them, and they always found those officials ready to pay great attention; but Irish Members had no means of communicating with those Boards in Ireland, or using any influence on them except through debates in the House of Commons. That was a misfortune; but it was, nevertheless, a fact that they had no opportunity of getting anything done from influence brought to bear, except through debates in that House. They were not, therefore, doing their duty to the constituents if they did not press these matters on the Government on every conceivable occasion. On the Report, he hoped the noble Lord
  934
  would give them an answer as to convict establishments. That question had been reported on several times, and the late Government were very much in favour of the proposal. He also wished to call attention to the question of training schools. There were certain training establishments for teachers, the instruction given in which was very good; but, on the other hand, there was a strong dislike to sending children to be trained among persons who held certain denominational views, and it was held that the Government ought to deal with the question, so as to remove one great blot on their primary system. The change which had been recommended, also, would not cost any money—the only result being that more teachers might be trained.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHreplied, that he could only repeat, what he had already said in reference to the Shannon works, that the contract had been entered into and the work begun. It was utterly impossible to say, however, how the work should be contracted. With respect to the convict establishments, he would be prepared to make a statement on the Report; and he did not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman would expect him to deal with the question fully at that moment.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, he did not blame this Government or the late Government, but he did blame the Irish Board of Works which was a resident body. He had been given to understand that this Board of Works was to be re-constituted and made really a responsible body. Until this was done, he must quite agree with his hon. and gallant Friend opposite that they must appeal to the Government here. He might also add that the Clare Castle Harbour works were connected with the Shannon works. All that the place wanted was re-building, it having fallen out of repair for want of proper attention by the Irish Board of Works.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  HIGHWAYS (HORSE RATE) BILL.
  (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, Mr, Reginald Yorke, Mr. Chester Master, Mr. Heneage.)
  HIGHWAYS (HORSE RATE) BILL.

    [BILL 203.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Heading read.
    MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he did not propose by the measure which he now had the honour to submit to the House to disturb any present arrangements with respect to the funds by which highways were now maintained. His Bill was simply based upon the principle that those who used the roads should pay for their maintenance; whereas, under the present system, many people by reason of not being rated at all, or not being sufficiently rated, were able to use the highways far more frequently than they were entitled to do. It was proposed by this Bill, which he hoped the House would approve, that Highway Boards should be able to levy a rate of 10s. on every horse within their district, and the amount so raised was to be expended by them on the highways of the district. This rate was not at all intended as an interference with the present system, but merely as a rate in aid of it. He believed it would be very much preferable to any Imperial tax, because, if subventions were given by the Government to the rates, that necessitated Government control and inspection; and, for his part, he believed that it was very much to the public advantage that that sort of control should be as limited as possible. There had been, however, large additions to the rates of late years, and he might mention particularly three as weighing very considerably on the local taxpayers—namely, sanitary matters, education, and roads. Of all these, he believed the highway rate was that which was most particularly felt by all classes of the unfortunate ratepayers. His Bill would not, of course, be necessary if turnpikes had not been done away with; but as those modes of raising funds had now been nearly abolished, this Bill was proposed in order to some extent to take their places. The system of turnpikes had many drawbacks, because a large sum was always wasted in establishment charges; but it also had this merit, that it did carry out the fair and equal principle that those who used
    936
    roads should pay for them in proportion as they used them. When that system disappeared, extra rates and burdens were thrown upon the agricultural interest; while many, who for trade or for pleasure used the roads, escaped money payment at all through not being rated, or, at any rate, did not pay anything like a fair amount. The late Government in 1874 abolished the horse tax, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in explaining his statement on the subject, gave the House the figures of the duty at that time. It appeared that the horse tax brought in £410,000 a-year, and the horse dealers' duty and the race-horse duty £70,000 in addition, or, in all, £480,000. The hon. Baronet who had been his (Mr. Estcourt's) Colleague in the last Parliament, commenting at the time on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, said—
    "With regard to the remission of the horse duty, he thought some of those who benefited most would he among the richer classes. Local taxation was very heavy, and in danger of being-increased, and this was one item which might have helped in its reduction by providing for the expenses of turnpike roads after the trusts had expired."
    His own proposal by this Bill was to attain somewhat of the same end. If the Bill he now proposed were passed, and the tax re-imposed in the shape of a local rate, the sum raised from it, whatever it was, would be expended in the local districts, and would be a real relief of a burden which of late had become almost too heavy for some of the ratepayers. It did not, of course, rest with him to meet by anticipation the objections of the opponents of this Bill; but still he did feel himself bound to look at it fairly, and it certainly was an objction to it that in some respects inequality would result. His proposal was that each Highway Board should have the power of levying this rate. Money should be expended in each highway district. There was, then, this difficulty—namely, that towns having a mayor and corporation, or a local board of their own, were a highway district of themselves. It might happen, of course, in that way, that where horses were kept, for instance, in a hunting town, the money would not go to the relief of the rates of the extended district around, but to the relief of the rates in that town and in that town only.

    937
    That was an inequality, he admitted, which he regretted very much. He should have liked to omit such towns altogether from his Bill, and to allow the rate to apply to the main roads only, paid for out of the county rates; but then there were some towns which had their own quarter sessions, and for which no contribution was made to the county rates, so that would have raised another difficulty. He thought, therefore, there was no alternative but to leave the Bill as drawn; and though the rural districts would not, for the reasons stated, benefit under the Bill in equal proportion with such towns, still they would not be injured by the extra advantage which those towns would get. They would, at any rate, gather a large amount of money into the fund for the maintenance of the roads, and be able to use it in their own districts in a way in which they were not now able or empowered to use it. He believed that the principle of the Bill was sound. It was simply that a rate should be levied locally and expended locally in the maintenance of the roads, taking the place of the old horse duty. He believed that the application of that principle, as provided in the Bill, would injure no one, while, in his opinion, those who kept horses were perfectly willing and able to pay for the advantage or amusement which they derived from them.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Sotheron Estcourt.)
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, he could entirely sympathize with the hon. Member who had moved the second reading of this Bill, because it was, he thought, generally admitted not only in that House, but throughout the country, that the highway system was in a most unsatisfactory condition. Everybody knew and acknowledged that the increase of charge upon those who had to pay the cost of the highways had become intolerable. He could cordially support any measure which might be brought in for dealing with that matter, and had himself endeavoured to get a Committee appointed for the purpose, because he believed it would be impossible to deal with it satisfactorily without a full knowledge of facts. The hon. Member had said that the principle of the Bill was that those who used the roads should pay for them; and if the Bill were likely
    938
    to obtain that object he should certainly have approved it. But, practically, that would not be the case. The 12th section of the Bill provided that the highway authority were to have power to apply the tax or charge which it was contemplated they should levy to their own purposes. But, in many cases, for instance, where a large number of horses or packs of hounds were kept, the district rates would not obtain any advantage from the tax which the highway authorities imposed. The whole levy might be collected for the sole advantage of one parish. The object was that the tax should take the place of the old turnpike tolls; but there was no reason why they should again recur to the old system of obstructing communications. The country had made a great sacrifice for the purpose of facilitating communications throughout the country; and, having freed the roads, they were now about to charge a tax upon their means of locomotion upon the roads. That, he thought, was not a system which the House would approve. It was impossible to deal with the question except by a much more general system than was proposed in the Bill. The subject was one which, he thought, could not be discussed at that hour of the morning (5 minutes past 1 o'clock), unless in a very perfunctory manner; and he, therefore, begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Magniac,) —put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Wednesday next.

MOTIONS.
  GLOUCESTER ELECTION PETITION—(JUDGES' REPORT).

    MOTION FOE A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL,in moving—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the matter contained in the last paragraph of the Judges' Report on the Gloucester Election Petition, and the circumstances under which the abandonment of the Petition against the return of Mr. Monk took place,"
    said, he did not think it would be necessary for him to trouble the House with many remarks in calling attention to the extraordinary and somewhat

    939
    striking passages contained in the Report which had been presented to the House by Mr. Justice Hawkins and Mr. Baron Pollock in reference to the Gloucester Election. The last paragraph of the Report was as follows:—
    "Under these circumstances, we are not satisfied that the abandonment of the charge against Mr. Monk was not the result of an arrangement made with the view of withholding from us the evidence of the extensive corrupt practices which there is reason to believe have taken place at the Election."
    It was necessary to take the paragraph in connection with the preceding paragraphs of the Report, which was of a very remarkable character. The Judges having reported generally on the Gloucester Election, went on to say—
    "And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we especially report the following matters which arose in the course of the trial, an account of which, in our judgment, ought to be submitted to the House of Commons. The Petition was presented against the said Thomas Robinson and Charles James Monk jointly, and charged them, jointly and severally, with bribery, treating, and intimidation, and undue influence, before, during, and after the said Election."
    The Judges continued—
    "On the day before the trial"—[And here he would observe that the Report had evidently been drawn up with the greatest possible care.]—"the Respondent, Thomas Robinson, by a notice under his hand, signified his intention not to oppose the Petition. At the trial, the Respondent, Thomas Robinson, did not appear either in person or by counsel, or otherwise, to oppose the Petition. The Respondent, Charles James Monk, did appear by counsel. The evidence of Joseph Stoddart and John Clement Morris— shorthand notes of which accompany our Report— was abundantly sufficient to satisfy us that bribery had been committed by John Clement Morris, an agent of the said Thomas Robinson; and that he bribed Joseph Stoddart, Thomas Meadows, and a third man whose name was unknown, to vote."
    It was curious that the Judges should have stated that the sitting Member for Gloucester appeared by counsel; and it, no doubt, meant to imply that the appearance by counsel of the sitting Member was one part of the arrangement by which the Judges suspected that the facts had been glossed over. They then proceeded to allude to the evidence of Stoddart, the first witness examined, who said he was asked by Morris to vote for Monk and Robinson. It was also curious that this should have been mentioned, unless there were other circumstances which lent a peculiar strength to it, because it showed that Morris had
    940
    acted for both parties, and made a joint canvass. The Judges then say—
    "This witness was allowed to leave the box unquestioned by Mr. Monk's counsel. It is due to Mr. Monk to say that Morris, who was afterwards called, denied that he had mentioned Mr. Monk's name; but this was after Stoddart had left the box."
    It would be seen that the Judges qualified that last statement in a way which rather destroyed its value. The Report continued—
    "No other evidence was offered with respect to any one of the other cases mentioned in the particulars, and there was no attempt made to establish any one of the charges made against Mr. Monk or his agents. We have no reason to suppose that in delivering the particulars the petitioners acted otherwise than under a belief that they would be in a condition to affect both seats."
    It would appear from this that the learned Judges wished it to be understood that the charges were intended to be brought against both Members. And then they say—
    "Before the trial, we believe that the charges of present bribery against Mr. Monk were abandoned, but no application was made to withdraw the charges of corrupt practices through his alleged agents, and his counsel appeared in Court as if those charges were to be persisted in."
    He did not wish the House to be under the impression that he committed himself to the truth of these statements, or to the inferences to be derived from them. He simply pointed out the inferences which arose on the Report. The next paragraphs were as follows:—
    "No explanation was offered to us as to the reasons why no attempt even to prove those charges was made, notwithstanding they had never been withdrawn, and no observation was addressed to us by Mr. Monk's counsel which indicated to our minds that he was surprised at the course adopted, and at the sudden abandonment of the Petition so far as it affected Mr. Monk. Moreover, after our judgment was given declaring Mr. Monk to have been duly elected, Mr. Monk's counsel made no application for his costs, which we were prepared to award him had he asked for them, as we intimated to him; hut he declined to make any application upon the subject."
    That was the only passage in the Report which seemed to contain any direct evidence against the hon. Member for Gloucester. The Judges concluded with the statement which he had read on rising to address the House. By that statement it seemed to him that the Judges were under the impression that they had been baffled in their inquiry,

    941
    and that, as it were, irritated by the impression, they appeared to have resolved on a victim—namely, the sitting Member for Gloucester. Now, he could not conceive a more serious charge to bring against a Member of that House than to accuse him of having been a party to a corrupt transaction of a pecuniary nature in order to compound practices which were illegal and even criminal, and also to prevent the House of which he was a Member being placed in possession of the actual facts and circumstances of a contested Election, concerning which the Judges were endeavouring to arrive at the truth. He thought it would be agreed, that if such devices were to be connived at by the House the trial of Election Petitions would become a mere form, and that the constituencies would gradually relapse into that corrupt condition from which recent legislation had endeavoured to rescue them. For that reason—if such an arrangement as was imputed in the Report were proved against a Member—it would be difficult for the House to mark its sense of the evil of such a contract too severely; otherwise, he affirmed that the character of the House would be seriously affected. On the other hand, viewing as he did, and as he thought all hon. Members must view, matters in that light, he could imagine nothing more unjust and nothing more intolerable than that the Judges should, upon grounds of mere suspicion, arising from some cause or other in their own minds, and unsupported by any clear evidence, have imputed a transaction of so corrupt a nature against a Member of the House of Commons, whom they were obliged to declare duly elected, and stigmatize in that marked and permanent manner the character of a Member in a special Report which must ever remain upon the Journals of the House. Therefore, he had brought the Report under the Notice of the House in the interest of Members and in the interest of the House, and, as he had endeavoured to explain, in no sense hostile to the hon. Member for Gloucester, for whom he had a great respect, and who, he was convinced, was incapable of such transactions as were imputed in the Report. He thought the Government had acted rightly in signifying their intention to agree to his Motion for the appointment of a Committee, and that the hon. Member had done
    942
    wisely in giving it his support. Should it turn out, as he had no doubt it would, that the Committee reported there was no foundation for the charges made by the Judges, then he thought it would be the duty of the House to pass a Resolution, not indeed of censure, but of protest and strong remonstrance against judicial aspersions which would have been proved to have been far too lightly and too hastily made. He need only further remark generally that the position of a Member of Parliament was at no time a very easy one. It was a position full of difficulties, anxieties, and responsibilities. The risks which candidates had to run at Elections, without their knowledge and absolutely without their consent, were very great; and whilst it was undoubtedly the duty of the House to insist that Parliamentary Elections should be conducted with a strict and rigid adherence to the dictates of legality, morality, and purity, he ventured to suggest that it was equally the duty of the House, when those conditions had been complied with, to protect its Members from additional anxieties and unnecessary dangers, arising out of Election Petitions, which were calculated seriously to damage their reputation and character, and weaken, if not destroy, their influence for the good of their country. He, therefore, begged to move for the Select Committee of which he had given Notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the matter contained in the last paragraph of the Judges' Report on the Gloucester Election Petition, and the circumstances under which the abandonment of the Petition against the return of Mr. Monk took place."— (Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    MR. MONKsaid, he had no objection to the noble Lord, or to any other Member of the House, calling attention to what he fully admitted with the noble Lord to be the very remarkable, not to say extraordinary, Report submitted to the House by the learned Judges whose names were appended to it. But the noble Lord, who must have seen him in his place last Thursday week, had given him no Notice that it was his intention, to call the attention of the House on a future day to the Report of the Judges. Had the noble Lord done so, he might have deemed it right at the time to offer some explanation to the House, or, at

    943
    all events, he would have been prepared to state what course it was his intention to adopt. The noble Lord had now stated that he had called attention to the Report in the interests of Members of the House of Commons. He accepted the explanation of the noble Lord. He had before him the Report of which the noble Lord had read certain portions. The learned Judges stated that they made a special Report in this case, and said that the Petition was a joint Petition presented against his Colleague, Mr. Thomas Robinson, and himself, charging them jointly and severally with bribery, treating, intimidation, and undue influence before, during, and after the election. It was necessary for him to say that he thought the learned Judges must, through inadvertency, have stated—
    "Before the trial we believe that the charges of personal bribery against Mr. Monk were abandoned"—
    for he held in his hand a Report of the proceedings which took place before Mr. Justice Hawkins, as Judge in Chambers, which he would read—
    "On the 28th May in the present year, upon hearing counsel for the petitioners and for the respondent, Charles James Monk."
    The House would observe that this alone applied to himself, and had no reference to his Colleague—
    "And it being stated to the said Sir Henry Hawkins by counsel on behalf of the petitioners that there was no intention to offer any evidence of personal bribery, treating, intimidation, or undue influence against the respondent, Charles James Monk, it is ordered that the Petition be amended accordingly on or before the 1st of June. And it is further ordered that the particulars be given in 24 hours; the said Sir Henry Hawkins having expressed his opinion that the particulars delivered by the petitioners are not in accordance with his Order dated 18th May, 1880."
    That Order was indorsed, as follows, in the handwriting of the learned Judge himself:—
    "It being stated to me by counsel, on behalf of the petitioners, that there is no intention to offer any evidence of personal bribery, treating, intimidation, or undue influence against respondent Monk, I order that the Petition be amended accordingly."
    He thought it was remarkable that the learned Judges, one of whom must have had that Order in his mind, should have merely stated—
    "We believe that the charges of personal bribery against Mr. Monk were abandoned."
    944
    Those charges, as well as the charges of treating, intimidation, and undue influence, were ordered to be struck out of the Petition by one of those learned Judges himself. He also held in his hand another Order of the High Court of Justice which had been served upon him by the agent for the petitioners. It was as follows:—
    "I hereby give you Notice that the Petition was this day amended by striking out the allegations of personal bribery, treating, intimidation, and undue influence."
    A Return had been ordered of the Orders made in Court and in Chambers in relation to the Petition, which would be laid before the Select Committee. But the noble Lord had laid some stress upon the fact that this was a Petition presented against both the sitting Members for Gloucester. That was perfectly true. But the statute enacted that such Petition shall be deemed to be a separate Petition against each respondent. And he begged to inform the House that his committee, his agent for election expenses, and his election agent, were entirely distinct from those of his late Colleague. Further, it had come to his knowledge, though the Petition was presented against the two sitting Members, that that Petition was presented against both, not in consequence of any desire, or in consequence of any intention, of attacking his seat; but because, as the petitioners had stated, they had been advised by counsel that it would weaken their case if they presented their Petition against Mr. Robinson alone. For that reason only, he had been given to understand, was the Petition presented against him as well as against Mr. Robinson. The Judges went on to say that—
    "No application was made to withdraw the charges of corrupt practices through his alleged agents, and his counsel appeared in Court as though the charges were to be persisted in."
    He certainly attended in Court with his counsel, and he had no knowledge whatever whether any evidence would be offered with regard to those charges. His counsel was prepared to meet those charges if they had been brought forward. The noble Lord had drawn attention to a passage in the judgment to the effect that a witness deposed that he was asked by Morris to vote for Monk and Robinson. That statement was positively denied by Morris, who was after-

    945
    wards called and questioned as to whether he had mentioned Mr. Monk's name. He denied having done so. The noble Lord drew the inference that this was a case of a man who went about bribing or offering to bribe persons to vote for himself and Mr. Robinson, and who offered no explanation of his conduct. When the noble Lord led the House to suppose that Morris had asked for votes for Monk as well as for Robinson, he evidently had not the evidence before him. Did the noble Lord know who Morris was? Mr. Robinson was a corn merchant in the city of Gloucester, and Morris had been for upwards of 10 years in his employment as traveller When he went into the witness-box, the learned Judge asked him if he canvassed for Mr. Monk. He said no; he only wanted to see his employer returned. When, therefore, he gave three men sums of 10s. each, he admitted that he gave them to induce the recipients to vote for his employer, Mr. Robinson. It was never pretended by the counsel for the petitioners that this money was given on his account, and, indeed, Mr. Matthews opened no case whatever against him. Counsel on his behalf appealed to the Judges as to whether there was any case against him to answer, and one of the learned Judges replied, "Certainly not." He believed the evidence on this subject would be in the hands of hon. Members in the course of a day or two, and they would find that it confirmed the accuracy of the statements he had made. It had also been said by the Judges that no explanation was offered of the reason why no attempt was made to prove the charges against him, notwithstanding that they were never withdrawn. In his opening speech, Mr. Matthews spoke of him in much higher terms than he deserved, and referred to his services as an old Member of the House in a manner far more flattering than he had any right to expect. Mr. Matthews said that it was the opinion of the petitioners that any bribery that had taken place had not taken place with his cognizance, and he spoke doubtfully as to any responsibility attaching to his agents. When that was said, it was not for his counsel to insist upon the withdrawal of charges which were not brought forward against them in Court. There was another circumstance which he wished to bring under the notice of
    946
    the House. The moment the trial of the Gloucester Petition was fixed, he instructed his agent to obtain an Order for particulars. He obtained an Order from Sir Henry Hawkins that particulars should be delivered 14 days before the trial. No such application was made at that time by his Colleague. But the day before that on which particulars ought to have been delivered, a summons was taken' out by the petitioners against him to show cause why the particulars should not be delayed another six days. That motion was opposed by counsel on his behalf, and was dismissed with costs. If he had been a party to a compromise with regard to this Petition, was it not probable that he would have agreed to the proposal? But, in fact, it was out of the question for his counsel to assent to any postponement of the delivery of the particulars. He would ask the House, was it possible for any hon. Member who had sat so long in that House to allow charges of personal bribery to be made against him, and then, when an Order had been made for the delivery of particulars in respect to them, to consent to a second Order postponing the delivery of those particulars for a further time? When the particulars were delivered, there was not one charge of personal bribery, or undue influence, or intimidation brought against him. The summons which he read to the House was heard before Mr. Justice Hawkins, and every charge against him personally was ordered to be withdrawn. That brought him to the last point. The noble Lord drew attention to the fact that the Judges in the last paragraph of their Report said that Mr. Monk's counsel made no application for costs, which they were prepared to give if he had done so. He was in Court at the time, and he confessed that when his counsel did not apply for costs he was surprised. His counsel stated that he was not instructed to ask for costs. Had he been near the learned counsel at the time he would have insisted upon his asking for costs. He believed that his counsel, finding that the petitioners made no charges against him, and that they did not attempt to prove any of the cases of which they had given notice, took upon himself the responsibility of not asking for costs. The learned Judges were in error in saying that particulars were

    947
    delivered to him in respect to 80 cases; 80 cases were included in the particulars with respect to his late Colleague, but only 61 were lodged against him. Had those cases been gone into at the trial it would have lasted five or six days, and the costs would have been very considerable. When he subsequently asked his counsel why he did not apply for costs, he stated that the agent had told him that if the case did not go on it would be better not to apply for costs. With regard to this matter he had no further explanation to give to the House; but he stated most distinctly that he had never at any time since the election, and until he was declared the duly elected Member for Gloucester by the learned Judges, entered into, or been a party to, a compromise enabling him to retain his seat. He begged to submit himself to the judgment of the House.
    MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, he should like to learn from the Solicitor General whether the two Inquiries, the one before the Royal Commission and the other before the Select Committee, were not rather antagonistic? In the case of witnesses coming before the Royal Commission, an indemnity was given to those who came forward to give evidence. But with regard to the tribunal now proposed to be constituted, there would be no such privilege. There would, therefore, be the anomaly of witnesses coming one day to give evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons and having to give evidence without being indemnified, and a little later on having to repeat that evidence before the Royal Commission which had power to guarantee them against the consequences of what they said. It did appear to him that it was a very exceptional course to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into matters which would be investigated a little later on by another tribunal.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that the matter into which the Committee would inquire would be different from that into which the Royal Commission would inquire. The object of the Commission was to inquire into the question of corrupt practices at the recent election, as well as at prior elections. The Committee was proposed to be appointed simply to inquire whether any imputation rested upon a Member of this
    948
    House with regard to the settlement or compromise of an Election Petition.
    MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, that it appeared to him that, according to the terms of the Reference, the province of the Royal Commission and of the Select Committee would not be distinct.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, it would be in the province of the Royal Commission to inquire into all matters connected with the election, but the sole question which the Select Committee would deal with was the reflection upon the conduct of a Member of that House. He had no doubt that the same question might to some extent be raised before the Royal Commission and the Committee; but, practically, the Committee would confine itself to inquire into the facts concerning the hon. Member now sitting for the City of Gloucester.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Select Committee appointed," to inquire into the matter contained in the last paragraph of the Judges' Report on the Gloucester Election Petition, and the circumstances under which the abandonment of the Petition against the return of Mr. Monk took place."—(lord Randolph Churchill.)
    And, on June 30, Committee nominated as follows:—Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, Viscount GALWAY, Mr. GIBSON, Sir HENRY JACKSON, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, Mr. STANHOPE, and Mr. WHITBREAD:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records.

    TIPPEKARY BOROUGHS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MOORE, Bill to constitute the borough of Cashel, the town of Tipperary, the town of Nenagh, and the town of Thurles into a Parliamentary Borough under the name of the Tipperary Boroughs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MOORE and Mr. P. J. SMYTH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 249.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
TOOK THE OATH—Several lords.
PUBLIC BILLS — First Reading — Elementary-Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cardiff, &c.) * (100); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) * (101); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law)* (102); Consolidated Fund (No. 1) *.
Second Reading: — Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister (85), negatived; Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order * (87); Local Government (Highways) Provisional Order (Salop) * (88).
Third Reading —Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Dublin, &c.)* (80), and passed.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL—(No. 85.)
(The Lord Houghton.)
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL—(No. 85.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HOUGHTON,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that as the subject had been so frequently discussed on former occasions it would not be necessary for him to deliver a long speech. In the various discussions which had taken place on the question with which the Bill dealt, matters of antiquarian, historical, and ecclesiastical interest had been thoroughly considered; and he should not,

  811
  therefore, again travel over the ground which they covered, nor need he refer to the legal difficulties which had arisen from the differences between the law in this country and the law in those of our Colonies, where marriages of this description were legal. But he proposed to say a few words upon the ecclesiastical and upon the social aspects of the question. He gave the first rank to the ecclesiastical question, because it constituted the real difficulty which had to be encountered in dealing with the subject. While no one would more regret than he the absence of the right rev. Bench from the deliberations of that House, there could be no doubt that the measure would almost instantaneously become law but for the resistance of the right rev. Prelates. It should, however, be remembered that if the right rev. Prelates prevented the measure passing, with them also lay the responsibility. Already the people of England were beginning to understand that it was the Church of England, as represented in their Lordships' House, which came between them and what many of them thought a portion of their public rights, and thus interfered, so far as this question was concerned, with their domestic happiness. He had never disputed, either in their Lordships' presence or in the Lower House, that there was a general consensus in the Christian Church from very early times in regard to the prohibition of marriages of this kind. There was no doubt that the Christian Church soon began to bring within its domain the law of marriage, and several new provisions on the subject were added at an early period to the Canon Law. Among those provisions were some which dealt with marriage in certain degrees of kindred and affinity. What was the animus of the Christian Church in this matter was not easy to decide. It might be that it felt itself bound in some degree to go upon the lines of the Levitical Law. It might be that in those rude ages it was thought that every possible restraint should be placed upon the indulgence of the sexual passion. It might have been also that the Church was anxious to extend its own powers by imposing restrictions in regard to marriage. The Church might also desire to increase the sanctity attaching to marriage by every means in its power, although it always preached
  812
  the superior piety of the celibate state. Whatever the motive, these rights of restriction asserted at a very early period by the Church were confirmed by the State. But with the right of restriction there was always associated the right of dispensation. But with the changes of time the right was asserted, but the practice of dispensation had disappeared. When, in the order of events, the question of marriage fell out of the hands of the Church and came into the sphere of the State, there came with it the necessity of a change in the law; and the consequence of the development of these views was that they had adopted civil marriage as the absolute law of the country. No religious ceremony was required—no connection with the Church of England or any other religious body. What was the consequence? Could the right rev. Bench any longer assert their authority over the question? An enormous body of their Nonconformist fellow-countrymen asserted that there was no religion in the question at all, and that the Bishops of the Church had no right to enforce their opinions upon others by allying their opinions with their office. Had the right rev. Prelates any right to impose their views upon that important section of the community? He remembered being struck many years ago by the remarks made to him by a distinguished Prelate, Bishop Phillpotts of Exeter. That eminent man said to him that he was only concerned in the question so far as it concerned the Church of England; if the House of Lords gave the right to contract such marriages to the Dissenters, he had not a word to say against it; there was no reason, he said, why he or his Episcopal Brethren should dictate to other communions than their own. What Bishop Phillpotts had expressed his concurrence in was all that he asked from the Episcopal Bench. Let the Bishops continue their ecclesiastical legislation as they chose; but they ought not to attempt to impose it upon the enormous body of Nonconformists; and he called upon them to show by what right they could interfere with what many thought to be their social and religious liberties. So much for the ecclesiastical aspect. He would next call attention to the social view of the question. This was not a matter which affected only one single class of the community; and he believed that its

  813
  social aspect affected their Lordships more than the former. If the question concerned only the class of society in which their Lordships lived they would have a full right to follow their inclinations in the matter; but they were a Representative Assembly, and as such they must legislate not for a section alone, but for the community generally. His first inclination to take an interest in the question originated in what he had seen in his own neighbourhood in the North of England. There, in the great towns, he found those marriages were most frequent, and were made utterly regardless of the law. These marriages had been contracted in enormous numbers— and not only in the large towns, but in the rural districts— and would continue to be formed, because the grounds on which the interposition was based were purely ecclesiastical. What right had a certain number of people to oppose themselves to the comfort and honour of thousands? There was little knowledge of human nature in those who thought that the system of family relationship would be damaged by such a measure as this. The responsibility of marriage was the one thing which cheeked the appetites of men. But looking still deeper into human nature, it would be seen that the real danger lay in our best feelings— feelings of devoted attachment, of sisterly love ripened into affection, and which now came on without check or warning, which the proposed change in the law would suggest and interpose. He believed their Lordships would not be justified by refusing this Bill to oppose the desire of a large portion of the British people.
  Moved," That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Houghton.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMP,in moving an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, their Lordships were fully aware of the very active canvass which had been made on behalf of the Bill, and to the powerful influences which had been brought to bear in its favour. He trusted, however, that their Lordships would not be deterred from applying their minds carefully to the examination of a proposal which mainly affected that family life which was the foundation of society and the source of all their purest joys. The Bill he must, in the first place, point out
  814
  contained that very retrospective clause to which so much objection was taken last year; and, considering the promises repeatedly made by the noble Baron (Lord Houghton), that if the Bill was re-introduced it should deal only with the future and not with the past, he failed to understand why that pledge, given only last year, was not redeemed, and why in the Bill on their Lordships' Table it was provided that all marriages whatever which had been contracted within those prohibited degrees in this Kingdom or without should be valid. Some of their Lordships might think that, even if it were right to permit such marriages in future, there were good reasons why that legislation which was to apply to the future ought not to apply to the past. Those who had deliberately and with their eyes open entered into marriages which the law forbade had no just claim to the indulgence now demanded for them. The only reason he had heard from the noble Baron was that these marriages were contracted in enormous numbers. He begged leave to doubt the accuracy of that statement; but, at the same time, it was a fact that inducements had been held out for many years, and representations had been un-blushingly made, that although those marriages were invalid if contracted in England they would be valid if contracted abroad. No one pitied more than he did persons who had been misled by those who ought to have known better into entering into those unions. But, even assuming that they had been contracted, as alleged, in enormous numbers, that was no reason whatever for refraining from considering the circumstances in which they had been contracted. If their Lordships were to be told that infractions of the law were to be reasons for changing the law, he asked, where was that principle to stop? Were they prepared to abolish contracts because one of the parties declined to fulfil the conditions into which they had entered? Would they abolish the law against bigamy because some men and women were not faithful to their marriage vows? Or would they repeal the law of larceny because there was an increase of juvenile crimes? He protested against that doctrine as being subversive of all legislation and morality. Whatever might have been the case previous to the year 1835—whatever obscurities or

  815
  difficulties might have existed as to the enforcement of what had been the law for 1,200 years, and, indeed, since Christianity was part of the law of the land— since 1835 the path had been plain and the road clear, and there could be no doubt that those marriages in the cognizance of every Court of Law were null and void. They were always null and void before; but a defect in procedure prevented the enforcement of the law in the temporal Courts. Their Lordships were asked to pass that Bill because it had been repeatedly brought up to them from the Lower House. Now, to urge that the measure had constantly received the support of the House of Commons was grossly to misrepresent the real facts of the case. The measure had been before Parliament since 1841, and there had been eight or nine Parliaments since then, and, speaking broadly, the measure had been before every one of those Parliaments. In the Parliament elected in 1841 the House of Commons refused to allow the Bill to be introduced at all. In the Parliament elected in 1847 the Bill was twice read a second time. In the Parliament of 1852 it was once read a second time and once rejected on the second reading. In the Parliament of 1857 the Bill was twice read a second time; in that of 1859 the House of Commons twice rejected it; in that of 1866 they rejected it once; in that of 1868 the second reading was four times carried; and in that elected in 1874 the second reading was negatived. This showed that in the majority of Parliaments the House of Commons refused to accept the Bill, and in the Parliament most favourable to the Bill, that of 1868, the majority in favour diminished from 100 to 35. So far as any argument could be drawn from the House of Commons its votes were conclusive against the Bill. Certainly, the noble Baron ought to be convinced by these statistics that the Bill had not been hitherto defeated by the action of the Episcopal Bench; and even when the Bill was last before their Lordships' House, the second reading was rejected by a majority of lay Peers. He thought the reference to the Episcopal Bench was an invidious one, and devoid of the basis of fact. But he did not know any question for which the presence of Bishops in that House was more appropriate than one such as this affecting the in-
  816
  terests of morality and religion. The majority of the House of Commons had rejected the Bill; and, therefore, he hoped their Lordships would not listen to misrepresentations which were industriously circulated. The law of England, as it was in this matter, had stood for 1,200 years. It was clearly defined by the Westminster Confession of Faith. The principle there laid down was that a man might not marry of his wife's kin one nearer than he might of his own. This was the principle on which the law rested, and if that principle were once encroached upon he could not tell how they were to escape from further encroachments. The whole of the English family-life rested on the clear lines of this marriage law, and once they departed from those lines they could not possibly stop. It was said there was no country in Europe where these marriages were not allowed, and they were told to take the case of Germany; but their Lordships had not been told that wherever these marriages were allowed, marriages between uncles and nieces were permitted. Among the Royal Houses of Germany arrangements of this description were frequent from political purposes; and there was one ease in which a ruling Prince had married two of his own nieces in succession who were sisters. The noble Baron told them to look at America. He should decline to go to America. He did not prefer the social and domestic life of America to that of England. He might point to the peculiar arrangements that prevailed in certain classes in the United States, and would refer their Lordships to the enormous number of divorces as a proof of how slender was the family tie in that country. In whose interest was this change in the law proposed? It could not benefit the children, for in thousands of families the children received the greatest possible benefit from the tender teaching of the mother's sister. But if this Bill became law, the aunt could not give the same attention to her sister's children which she now gave, and desolation and dismay would be brought into hundreds and thousands of homes. Jealousy would take the place of love, and suspicion would be found where now there was confidence. They would not increase the confidence of the children in the aunt by making her a stepmother. It would not benefit

  817
  the widower, who now was able to seek consolation with his wife's relatives, but who, were this Bill to become law, would be deprived of their society for himself and his children. Who, then, would benefit by this Bill? The rich and powerful? No one ventured to say so, and therefore he would pass over that part of the question with this remark— that the money lavished in promoting this Bill could not have come from the very poor. Would this alteration of the law satisfy those who were moving in the matter? He deplored the well-known fact that among the lower classes so many men and women should be living together without being bound by the marriage tie; but that was no proof that this was owing to the restrictions imposed by the law upon marriages of the description now in question. He had been supplied with some statistics referring to a certain parish, by which it appeared that out of a total of nearly 30 cases there were three cases of union with a deceased wife's sister, and two cases of union with a wife's sister while the wife was still living; but there were seven cases of men living with their own daughters, ten cases of men living with their own sisters, and six cases of men living with their own nieces. Therefore he said that if they were to deal with the case of the poor, this measure really brought them no relief whatever; but it did unsettle the foundation of our marriage law. The noble Baron had alluded to the Roman law in respect to marriage in terms of depreciation. But he would read to their Lordships a passage from the history of Mr. Gibbon, which would show in what light the Romans regarded this subject. He says—
  "The freedom of love and marriage was restrained among the Romans by natural and civil impediments. An instinct almost innate and universal appears to prohibit the incestuous commerce of parents and children in the infinite series of ascending and descending generations. Concerning the oblique and collateral branches, nature is indifferent, reason mute, and custom various and arbitrary. In Egypt the marriage of brothers and sisters was admitted without scruple or exception; a Spartan might espouse the daughter of his father, an Athenian that of his mother; and the nuptials of an uncle with his niece were applauded at Athens as a happy union of the dearest relations. The profane law-givers of Rome were never tempted by interest or superstition to multiply the forbidden degrees; but they inflexibly condemned the marriage of sisters and brothers, hesitated whether first cousins should
  818
  be touched by the same interdict, and revered the parental character of aunts and uncles, and treated affinity … as a just imitation of the ties of blood."
  On one occasion, when this Bill was under consideration in the House of Commons, Lord Russell said that if they made this change in the law they could not stop there—that this change would be, in his opinion, utterly imperfect unless they made it applicable to both sexes and to all degrees of relationship. Those who sought to defend this Bill by resorting to the Scriptural argument would find themselves standing on very slippery ground. He implored the House not to pass the Bill, because it would destroy the happiness of English homes and the trust and purity of English family life, while it would introduce confusion into our law.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, that while he could not agree with the arguments of the noble Earl who had just sat down (Earl Beauchamp), neither could he altogether join in the conclusions of the noble Baron (Lord Houghton) who moved the second reading. Our marriage law, no doubt, was founded upon the Levitical law; but there was nothing in Holy Scriptures which in any way tended to forbid such marriages as those with a deceased wife's sister, and it was not until that most iniquitous Pope, Alexander VI., sanctioned the restriction in the Canon Law that such a restriction became a law of the Church. He would here take the liberty of reminding the right rev. Bench that the Canon Law prohibited the marriage of priests. He thought he need hardly ask whether the right rev. Prelates acknowledged such marriages to be null and void? His own opinion was that these marriages, not being forbidden by the law of God, it became very much a matter of taste and inclination, and there was no reason why we should not revert to the old Levitical law. He believed that these marriages were much more numerous than was imagined, and the reason was that the people who contracted them considered that they were doing nothing contrary to Scriptural law. On the whole, he had come to the conclusion to support the Bill.
  LORD COLERIDGE: I should like to say in a few sentences why I am still unable to vote for the second reading, or adopt the principle, of this Bill. It is not a question to be looked at from a Party point of view, nor is one's judgment upon it to be affected by Party considerations. Why supporting it should be supposed to be a portion of the Liberal creed I have never been able to make out; why Liberals more than Tories should desire this particular marriage, or care less than Tories for the comfort and delight which unmarriageable sisters-in-law can give, I confess passes my comprehension. It is possible that the grounds on which this measure is opposed do not approve themselves to the majority of Liberals; but dissent from some of the reasons of opposition is quite consistent with a strong dislike for other reasons to the thing which is opposed. 80, at least, I find it in my case, and I will, with your leave, proceed to tell your Lordships why. I do not argue the religious question. I do not pretend to oppose the sanctioning of this measure because it is forbidden either in the Old Testament or the New. I have no pretence to the scholarship which would enable me to appreciate the Old Testament argument; and I can see nothing in the text of the New Testament, at any rate, in terms directed against this marriage. But if it were otherwise, I should deliberately refuse to argue the question upon any such grounds. Such reasons, if they exist, are no doubt binding on the consciences of those who believe in their existence; but they have no force for those who do not, and it is useless—it is merely irritating—to attempt to silence an adversary by an authority which he does not acknowledge; it is a waste of time to argue except on common ground and from premisses which are admitted. Thus much, and thus much only, I think, may be said from a religious point of view. We are standing upon an existing state of things; to change it will, in the opinion of many persons entitled to respect, be a breach of religious obligation. Without disputing whether it be so or not, you who wish the change ought to have some very strong reasons of another sort to justify you in changing the law when the change will so heavily affect many good and honourable men. Thus far, and thus far only,
  820
  do I feel inclined to push the religious argument. Furthermore, I freely admit that the whole question of marriage is more or less one of convention. Reflection shows us that there is, with hardly an exception—parent and child is probably no exception—no abstract right or wrong in these things. The marriage law of any country as to the degrees within which marriage is to be contracted is the result of what the cultivated intelligence of that country thinks wisest and best for the regulation of that sacred and intimate relation from time to time. It is obvious that connections from which we now quite rightly shrink, and which we quite rightly esteem as unholy and impure, and therefore as unlawful, were sometimes, must have been under some circumstances, pure and chaste and lawful. There is not a trace that Abraham's marriage with his half-sister shocked the feelings of the writer of the Book of Genesis. The Ptolomies and Cleopatras, following in this the customs of the Persians, allowed marriages between brothers and sisters of the whole blood apparently without scandal. To the nobler civilization of the Romans this connection had become intensely repulsive in the time of Juvenal. His condemnation of the Jewish King—
  "Barbarus incestæ dedit hunc Agrippa Sorori."
  is familiar to your Lordships. Yet to the Romans themselves the marriage of an uncle and a niece from the time of Claudius and Agrippina to the days of the Christian Emperor Constans was allowed without offence by the public law of the Roman Empire. It would be tiresome and pedantic to multiply examples. What I wish to draw from those with which I have troubled you is the consequence that you cannot argue conclusively from any former times that in this matter of marriage you must get, if you can, at the general sentiment, and aim at the general good, and that you should maintain that which conduces to the general good and which the general sentiment approves. Now, can it be said that the general sentiment approves this marriage? Go back 20 years, and no one can say that the current of opinion has, on the whole, been in its favour. The House of Commons has repeatedly rejected it. Even in the Parliament of 1868 the majorities in its favour steadily and largely diminished. Your Lordships' House—not a popular elective

  821
  Assembly indeed—yet in this, which is not a Party question, no bad index of the sentiment of educated men—has steadily rejected it. The richer and well-to-do are classes at least much divided on it. The poorer—I rejoice to think that we have nothing of the exploded nonsense as to its being a poor man's question—are, as far as I may presume to speak of them in my part of England, certainly against it. Scotland is not, perhaps, unanimously, but largely, against it. So, happily, without distinction of creed, is Ireland too. In all this I am speaking of men, and of men only. But to every marriage besides the man there is another party, and that is the woman. And whatever unpopularity may have been incurred, justly or unjustly, by woman's rights and by those who advocate them, it will, I suppose, hardly be disputed that in such a matter as this women have rights, and equal rights with men. If the vast majority of Englishwomen in point of number, if the great majority of refined and cultivated Englishwomen are opposed to this measure, if it is abhorrent to their feelings, what right have we, even if we were all agreed, to overbear them and disregard their wishes? That the women of these Islands in an enormous majority are opposed to it I absolutely believe. Such a matter as this is not easy of demonstration. I can but speak as I believe. I know that many women who shrank from any public action some years ago did not shrink from petitioning against this Bill. I know that amongst my own acquaintances I scarcely know one who supports it. I know that, as a rule, men most in earnest in support of the measure have admitted to me with regret that the women, as a whole, dislike it. I do not deny to Englishmen the legal power; I do deny to Englishmen the moral right to pass a law of marriage contrary to the wishes and repulsive to the feelings of the great body of their countrywomen. It is not generous, it is not manly, it is not, in my opinion, just. That there are some men who wish to contract this marriage, and some women too, of course I am not so foolish as to deny; but that the majority of those who support this measure are eagerly desiring to marry their sisters-in-law I must entirely disbelieve. It is, and always has been, the result of an agitation for which I have neither
  822
  sympathy or respect. And, further, I believe that a like case and a like agitation might be got up for legalizing marriage with any other kinswoman of the wife. Certainly, for example, with the wife's niece, if the same trouble were taken and the same money spent. I could have some sympathy and some respect for an agitation which had for its object a reconsideration of the whole marriage law, which went upon some principle which distinguished, for example, broadly between consanguinity and affinity, between kinsfolk and connections. I do not say I should agree with, but I should respect and understand an argument founded upon a sensible distinction which said that the kindred of the wife were not the kindred of the husband, nor the kindred of the husband the kindred of the wife. But this Bill is founded on no principle; it sets man free, but it leaves woman bound. It lets the husband marry his wife's sister, because it is said she is not his sister; but it forbids the wife to marry her husband's brother because he is her brother. Where is the justice, where is the common fairness of this? Suppose it were stepchildren, where there is no blood in common, would anyone bear for an instant with a proposition that a man might marry his wife's daughter, but that a woman might not marry her husband's son? My noble Friend knows that he dare not bring forward a measure founded upon any principle. He knows that the whole feeling of the country would rise against it with indignant scorn. Is it unfair, then, to say that this is advocated to please a few men who have broken the law, and to set free a few men more who wish to break it, but who are firmly determined that the liberty they claim themselves they will deny to their widows? My Lords, I deny that the general sentiment supports the Bill. I deny also that it is for the general good. It is not easy to overstate the benefit which the whole of society derives from the social relations at present possible between the husband and the wife, and the family of the other. Affection into which passion does not enter is the great civilizer of mankind. Passion we share with the brutes. The lowest savages equal in passion the most civilized races in the world. But unpassionate affection refines and lifts

  823
  up, and is the source of half the graces and more than half the beauty and delight of social life. Now your wife's sisters are your own, and the circle of unpassionate affection is largely widened. But pass this Bill and they become to you like any other women, and the circle of unpassionate affection is at once contracted. My Lords, I admit that, as a rule, you should be tender to minorities. I admit that, if possible, you should indulge men's affections. But this is a case in which you cannot indulge the wishes of the minority without doing a great injustice, and inflicting a terrible hardship on the majority. Let me explain. Most men do not lose their wives, and for them this Bill has no significance. To some men there comes a time when a great shadow falls upon them, when the light of their life goes out and hope dies within them. Some of them recover, form fresh ties, begin their lives again, and marry another woman. The majority of such men do not wish to marry their sisters-in-law, and for them, too, this Bill is of no use, but may be most mischievous. There remain those who do not recover, and who do not desire to form new ties of marriage. To these men and to those who do re-marry, till they re-marry, the society of a sister-in-law is a blessing perfectly unspeakable. Who can count the sum of innocent delight and comfort which this relation has given to men who most need such comfort, and at a time when they need it most? Why, for the sake of the few who do want to marry their wives' sisters, are sisters-in-law to be abolished for the vast majority of those men who do not so wish? Because you do abolish them. I said many years ago, and I venture to repeat it here because it is true, that by passing this measure you point out by statute the sister-in-law as the proper Parliamentary successor of the wife, and what modest woman will put herself in the way of a succession when most people will say that she is manifestly seeking it? Why is this hardship to be done to the great majority who are contented with the law for the sake of a very few who want to break it? My Lords, I will admit that the law of marriage having been altered in some of our Colonies, and altered in the direction of this Bill, somewhat complicates the question. As to some of them I do not
  824
  deny that the law of marriage is within their competence to alter. Disliking this marriage as I do, I myself, when Attorney General, advised, I believe— the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies will correct me if I am wrong—that Colonial Statutes, at least in the ease of some Colonies, for such an object were not illegal. But much as I regret this, and disagreeable as some of the consequences may be, I cannot admit that we are to change a law which we in these Islands think for the general good because our Colonies have passed a law which we do not think wise or beneficial. I will not speak of dragging down or dragging up; but I say that if in a matter of social concern affecting the tenderest and holiest relations of life, one or the other is to give way, it ought not to be this great country, the mother of nations, the home of a domestic purity and happiness, I will not say unequalled, but I will say unsurpassed, in the whole history of the world. There is much more to say, but I will not longer abuse a patience which I know I must have tried; and on these grounds, most inadequately and imperfectly stated, I ask your Lordships to reject a measure which tampers dangerously with a most delicate yet a most important subject upon no fixed principle, without sufficient reasons, with aims which are not entitled to respect and sympathy, and which I believe will lower the morality and impair the happiness of the great mass of the people.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down has said what really amounts to a truism— namely, that this question is not a Party question. His putting it so clearly encourages me, in my personal capacity, and entirely apart from any Party connection or feeling, to say a few words, although I am not prepared to make any elaborate speech on this subject. The noble and learned Lord asked why it should be thought that this question should recommend itself more to the Party with which I am connected than to the Conservative Party. I can give no answer to that, except that the idea may have originated in the fact that the tendency of the Liberal Party is to think that any restriction upon freedom requires to be carefully justified on the ground of the public advantage. The noble Baron who has introduced this

  825
  Bill used an argument derived from the position of their Lordships with respect to the Nonconformists, and has urged that this House, being composed chiefly of Churchmen, should be careful to remove any restrictions bearing unjustly upon Nonconformists. But, in supporting this Bill, I do not claim it as a measure of justice to Nonconformists, but quite as much as a measure of justice to those Members of the Church of England who believe they are morally entitled to form this sort of marriage. I claim it as much for the parishioners of the late Dr. Hook as for the Nonconformists. The noble and learned Lord made certain admissions not made by the noble Baron opposite, for he put the religious question out of court in considering this matter; but I cannot for myself personally consent to put the religious question entirely out of Court. Certainly, if it were shown to me that this particular marriage is against God's Word, and that it is forbidden in the Old and New Testament, I should most decidedly be influenced to give my vote against any Bill of this sort. When the noble and learned Lord makes a merit of putting the religious question aside, I cannot help remembering that at the beginning of this agitation against the law as it stands at present—a law which is not so old as has been represented, and was only passed 45 years ago— the chief arguments used by its opponents in this House and "elsewhere" were almost exclusively founded on the statement that such marriages as this Bill contemplates were contrary to God's Word and Scriptural text. I believe, however, that this kind of argument has now been almost entirely abandoned. The noble and learned Lord talked about Colonial and American marriage laws, and I entirely agree with him that we are not bound to adopt a law because it happens to have been passed either in the United States or the Colonies. But I think we may learn from their experience, and when we find that bad results do not in our Colonies follow from such legislation as is now proposed, that we may reasonably be encouraged to make the change, if we deem such change desirable. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Beachamp) sought for an argument against the Bill in the number of American divorces in States where, it must be remembered,
  826
  unusual facilities exist for divorce; but it appears to me that that is a matter entirely unconnected with the question whether a man should be allowed to marry his deceased wife's sister. The noble and learned Lord made much of the prospect that this Bill would destroy the sanctity of our present family relations. Well, I am not sure that we are not suffering from some delusion upon this point. The noble and learned Lord says that the relations of a man's wife are his own relations. As to that, I can only say that I am very fond of my wife's relations; but they are not my relations, and nobody can make them so. In the same way, I would tell the noble and learned Lord that we do not all wish to marry our wives' sisters. As for myself, I solemnly declare that I have not the slightest wish to marry any one of my wife's sisters, though I dote upon them all. The fact that I do not wish to do so is, however, no reason why others should be debarred from contracting the marriages in connection with which this legislation is proposed. Is it, I would ask, so perfectly clear that a man's sister-in-law can enter his house and take care of his children and remain indifferent to everything but domestic duties? I have known recently a case where a lady moving in your Lordships' society deprecated, in consequence of the painful trials to which she herself had been exposed, the constant intercourse of a young widower with a young sister-in-law. With regard to any young daughter or sister of mine, I should not object, if the present legal prohibition were removed, to her marrying her sister's widower, and thus becoming the mother of her sister's children; but I should certainly strongly object to any such young person entering the household of a young widower merely to look after his children. The noble and learned Lord thinks that it is "rubbish" to say that this is a poor man's question. It certainly cannot enfeeble the argument in regard to the poor that the only person to whom the poor man, who has the misfortune to lose his wife, can look to for the care of his children is her sister; whom he, perhaps, employs as a servant, while the rich man with a family has ample means of providing governesses and others to take care of his children. I was quite astonished to

  827
  hear it said that the cases in which a widower and his wife's sister share the same home are very few. I believe, on the contrary, that in certain parts of the country they are very numerous indeed. The noble and learned Lord says this is a question to be decided entirely by the cultivated minds of the community, and that the cultivated women of the country do not desire the change. Well the law does not oblige these cultivated women to marry, and there is not the slightest obligation upon them to marry their sisters' widowers; but it surely would be wrong, because they may not wish to do so, to deprive others of that which they believe would be a great consolation to them. The noble and learned Lord stated that the feeling in Scotland was opposed to this Bill. But only a few days ago a Memorial in favour of this Bill was presented on behalf of the Convention of all the Royal and Parliamentary Burghs in Scotland, after a resolution had been passed by an enormous majority in support of the measure. It was stated at the time that in Scotland the practice of marriage with a deceased wife's sister was largely followed by the poor, and was rapidly spreading among the middle classes, and that these marriages were contracted without exciting the slightest moral or social reprobation in the circles in which they took place. In conclusion, I wish to say that no real reason has been given us why this amendment of the law should not be made; and, therefore, I, for one, will cheerfully give my support to the second reading of the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that it had been suggested that the right rev. Bench ought not to seek to impose its ecclesiastical opinions upon Nonconformists. But was it not possible that those who sat upon the Episcopal Bench should take an enlarged view of an important question quite apart from ecclesiastical considerations? He did not desire to touch upon any ecclesiastical considerations, but to deal with the matter simply as one which concerned all classes of the community. The Bill before their Lordships was, in fact, a Bill for the abolition of the table of prohibited degrees. Now those degrees were degrees of nearness; they prohibited marriage in the nearer degrees and allowed it in the more remote. The Bill allowed the near, and prohibited the more remote. A man
  828
  was to be allowed to marry his wife's sister, but not the wife's niece. The Bill, in fact, would put an end to the idea of nearness of kin in relation to marriage. To talk of nearness of kin in the connection of marriage would be thenceforth idle words. He was surprised at the statement of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) that the present law was only 45 years old. He always hesitated to dispute a statement of the noble Earl; but he was bound to say that his statement was absolutely incorrect. He understood that in a leading case decided about 19 years ago it was stated by the Lord Chancellor that Lord Lyndhurst's Act made no change in the law; it only related to procedure. Moreover, the question of a deceased wife's sister was not mentioned from beginning to end of the Act. The Act made a retrospective distinction between affinity and consanguinity, and thus embraced the whole range of incestuous marriages. The House could not deal with the question otherwise than by making a broad distinction between marriages of affinity and of consanguinity. Lord Lyndhurst's Bill dealt merely with procedure, leaving the law of England exactly where it had been for 300 years. The right rev. Bench were interested in the question for other than purely ecclesiastical reasons. They were often, as a social matter, asked to advise on the question of marriage. If the Bill were passed, and they were consulted on the advisability of a marriage between persons related by affinity, they would be asked what possible ground they could have for discouraging such marriages, when the principle on which they were prohibited had been abandoned. He had not heard a shadow of reason in favour of the Bill. He should have thought that such a Bill would not have been brought in light-heartedly. It was proposed to do away with one principle without substituting another. On so important a question he thought that the advice of competent and learned men would have been sought before the introduction of such a measure. But he did not think that narrow prejudices should be inputed to the episcopal body without better reasons than he had heard that evening.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN: My Lords, I would not have risen but for an ex-

  829
  pression which has just fallen from the noble Earl (Earl Granville). The noble Earl said that he would withdraw his support from this Bill if he thought that the marriages which it proposed to legalize were forbidden by the law of God; but that he did not imagine that anyone held that opinion, and that, though it might have been formerly entertained, it was now wholly abandoned. My Lords, I feel bound to declare solemnly that this opinion has not been abandoned, and to affirm no less solemnly my deliberate conviction that these marriages are forbidden by the law of God. But, it may be asked, why, as a mere private individual, do you venture to assert this? My Lords, I do not say this as a private person, but on the authority of the Church and Realm of England, and of the Universal Church of Christ for 1,500 years. The Church of England in her Canons of 1603 (Canon 99) declares that marriages contracted within the degrees of kindred and affinity which are set down in the Table of Degrees published in the year 1563 are illegal, because they are prohibited as such by the Word of God; and in that Table of Degrees to which she there refers, she says—"A man may not marry his wife's sister." She affirms, therefore, that the marriages which this Bill proposes to legalize are forbidden by the law of God. And this affirmation, grounded by her on the Word of God—namely, on the 18th chapter of Leviticus, which chapter contains the general law of God concerning marriage—is confirmed by the judgment of universal Christendom for 1,500 years. A noble Lord opposite referred to the late revered and beloved Bishop Selwyn, and quoted him as saying that the first dispensation for such a marriage as this Bill would legalize was given in the year 1500 by Pope Alexander VI.—Borgia. My Lords, Bishop Selwyn was quite right in saying so. The first dispensation for such a marriage was given by that Pope, who was made infamous by an illicit connection with his own daughter, who was also his own daughter-in-law, Lucrezia Borgia, on whom that celebrated epitaph was written—
  "Hoc jacet in tumulo Lecretia nomine, Bed re
  Thais, Alexandri filia, sponsa, nurus."
  Such, my Lords, is the authority for these marriages; but the authority
  830
  against them is the judgment of the Church of England, adopted by the Realm of England; and it is the judgment of the Universal Church of Christ for 15 centuries. My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the second reading of this Bill referred to the position of the Bishops of the Church of England in this House, and to their action with regard to this Bill. I, for one, do not know why the Bishops of the Church are admitted to a seat in this House, if it be not for the sake of declaring the law of God on such grave and religious and social questions as these. And it is, therefore, my Lords, because I am firmly convinced, by careful examination, and on the authority to which I have referred, that the marriages which this Bill would legalize are contrary to the Divine law, that I earnestly entreat you, in the name of God, to reject it.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, if they passed this Bill it would be but the beginning of the disruption of all social ties. These marriages were forbidden by the Church of Rome, which, however, in exceptional cases, would grant dispensations. No such power existed in the Anglican Church, and he could not sanction their permission without any restriction. He should vote against the Bill.
  LORD DENMANopposed the Bill.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 90; Not-Contents 101: Majority 11.

  CONTENTS.

  Wales, H.R.H. the Prince of.

  Ilchester, E.

  Edinburgh, H.R.H. D.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Connaught, H.R.H. D.

  Kimberley, E.

  Minto, E.

  Bedford, D.

  Morley, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Northbrook, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  Onslow, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Spencer, E.

  Sydney, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Zetland, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Northampton, M.

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Falmouth, V.

  Camperdown, E.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Cawdor, E.

  Chichester, E.

  Gough, V.

  Clarendon, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Clonmell, E.

  Leinster, V. [D. Leinster.)

  Derby, E.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Lifford, V.

  Granville, E.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Harrington, E.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  831

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  Leigh, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Abinger, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Bateman, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Monson, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Brabourne, L. [Teller.]

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Mostyn, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Norton, L.

  Carew, L.

  Penzance, L.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Robartes, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Dorchester, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Ebury, L.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Gerard, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Gwydir, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Suffield, L.

  Houghton, L. [Teller.]

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Howard de Walden, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Keane, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Vaux of Harrowden,L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Wentworth, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, L. (J. Chancellor.)

  Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

  York, L. Archp.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Wicklow, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Cranbrook, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Bath, M.

  Hawarden, V.

  Bute, M.

  Strathallan, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Templetown, V.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Beauchamp,E. [Teller.]

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Bradford, E.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Denbigh, E.

  Devon, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Effingham, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Gainsborough, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Haddington, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Harewood, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Lanesborough, E.

  St. Albans, L, Bp.

  Lucan, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Mansfield, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Balfour of Burleigh, L

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Beaumont, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Redesdale, E.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Brodrick,L. (V. Midleton.)

  Selkirk, E.

  Shaftesbury,E.[Teller.]

  Byron, L.

  Sondes, E.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Stradbroke, E.

  832

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Lyveden, L.

  Massey, L.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Northwick, L.

  Clinton, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Coleridge, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Delamere, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Denman, L.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  De Saumarez, L.

  Sackville, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Dinevor, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Forester, L.

  Greville, L.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Hammond, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Hatherley, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Trevor, L.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Windsor, L.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the Negative.
  Bill to be read 2athis day three months.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CARDIFF, &c.) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 100.) A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Education Department under "The Elementary Education Act, 1870,"to enable the School Boards for Cardiff, Liverpool, Southampton, and Walton-on-Thames to put in force "The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,"and the Acts amending the same: And
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 101.) A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under "The Elementary Education Act, 1870,"to enable the School Board for London to put in force "The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,"and the Acts amending the same:
  Were presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.