Sitting of 4 August 1881

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Railways [No. 374].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [August 3] reported.
PUBLLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Irish Church Act Amendment [235]; Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections) [238]; British Honduras (Court of Appeal) [233]; Pedlars (Certificates) [234]; Universities (Scotland) Registration of Parliamentary Voters, &c. [232].
Withdrawn—Poor Relief and Audit of Accounts (Scotland) (re-comm.) * [239]; Exemption from Distress [116]; Canal Boats Act (1877) Amendment * [197].

WITHDRAWAL OF RESOLUTION.
  POLICE SUPERANNUATION (GREAT BRITAIN).
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that although he had for the fourth time secured the first place for his Motion respecting Police Superannuation, he did not intend to bring it forward, and for two reasons—first, because he did not wish to stand in the way of the Government in their natural desire to obtain Supply, especially at this period of the year; and, secondly, on account of the unavoidable absence of the hon. Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who presided over the Select Committee which was appointed by the late Government, and who was anxious to take part in the discussion. He regretted this the more because he believed the Home Secretary intended to accept the principle of the Motion; but if next Session the Government did not deal with the subject of Police Superannuation, both in England and Scotland, he should be prepared to bring forward the Resolution of which he had already given Notice.
QUESTIONS.

  BULGARIA—ARREST OF M. ZANKOFF.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any confirmation of the statement in the public journals, that M. Zancoff, the President of the late Ministry in Bulgaria, has been arrested; and, whether, if so, he will instruct Her Majesty's Representative in that country, to urge that M. Zancoff be secured in every respect the Constitutional and legal rights assured to him by the Constitution which was adopted by Bulgaria in 1878 with the concurrence of all the Great Powers?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, according to the information received by Mr. Lascelles from the Bulgarian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Zankoff and Mr. Slaveikoff, after leaving Sistova, held meetings at various places in opposition to the new order of things; and on their arrival at Plevna, which is in a state of siege, the authorities placed them under arrest, and informed them
  822
  that they were not to remain in the town. On their expressing a wish to proceed to Rustchuk, they were set at liberty and allowed to go there.

  POST OFFICE—METROPOLITAN LETTER-CARRIERS.
  MR. SCHREIBERasked the Postmaster General, Whether, before the Post Office Vote is taken, he will arrange to receive a deputation from the Metropolitan letter carriers, who desire to be heard by him in support of the statements contained in their Petitions of the 26th April?
  MR. FAWCETT MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, that he could only repeat what he had already stated on this subject. He had received numerous Memorials from the letter-carriers in various parts of the country, and those Memorials were now being carefully considered. As yet he had not found it necessary to supplement the statements contained in them by personal interview; and he was, therefore, unable to accede to the request of the hon. Member that he would receive a deputation.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE NEW ROYAL WARRANT—PURCHASE LIEUTENANTS AND CAPTAINS.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would explain why a purchase lieutenant, who may possibly have invested about £800 in the State, is not allowed some recompense on compulsory retirement for the retention of that sum, while a purchase captain with (say) £2,400 invested in the State is allowed £100 a-year for life for its use on being compulsorily retired?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the right hon. and gallant Baronet, I have to say that the cases of the purchase captains and purchase lieutenants are altogether different. The former, who have not been promoted, were compensated by the Warrant of 1877 for the loss of their over-regulation money, and now will receive further compensation to the extent of £50 a-year, in consideration of their compulsory retirement at 42 instead of at 55. The purchase lieutenants who become non-purchase captains were liable, under the Warrant of 1877, to compulsory retirement at 40. They are benefited, not injured, by the Warrant of 1881, which enables non-

  823
  purchase captains to obtain half-pay majorities, and ultimately honorary lieutenant-colonelcies. Of the £800 mentioned in the Question, only £100 was over-regulation money, and this, in 1877, was considered to be fully met by the promotion given to the officer. Under these circumstances, it is manifest that I should not be justified in disturbing the settlement of 1877 as to these officers.

  INDIA—LAW AND JUSTICE—CASE OF JADHAVRAI HARISHANKAR.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been directed to the Petition of Jadhavrai Harishankar, now a prisoner in Tanna Gaol, praying for a new trial, or for the revision of his case by an independent judge; whether the principal witness against Jadhavrai has been subsequently tried and convicted, and, in the course of this subsequent trial, certain missing documents relied upon by Jadhavrai to prove his innocence, were actually produced; whether the Judge and Sessions Judge of Tanna reported to the Bombay Government in favour of a review of Jadhavrai's case by an independent judge; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the reasons assigned by the Bombay Government for refusing to grant the petition for a new trial or a revision of this case?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, my attention has not been previously directed to the Petition referred to. It appears, however, from the political proceedings of the Bombay Government that Jadhavrai Harishankar, a prisoner under sentence for forgery, has submitted to that Government two Petitions, in which he has alleged that fresh evidence has been discovered which went to establish his innocence, and he prayed to be released. It appears that Mr. Coghlan, the Sessions Judge of Tanna, did represent to Government "as an official visitor of the gaol," that the case of the prisoner Jadhavrai Harishankar appeared to him to be one which deserved consideration. Several Reports have been made on the case by the two judicial officers, Mr. Candy, who had tried and sentenced the prisoner, and Mr. Aston, who had tried and sentenced one of the witnesses against the prisoner, and by the political officer at Kattiawar.
  824
  The Bombay Government resolved, on both occasions, stating no reason, "not to interfere with the sentence appealed against." The Government of Bombay appear to have acted entirely within the limits of their authority, and, no doubt, on legal advice. There was no obligation on them to state the reasons for their decision, and it would have been unusual for them to have done so. As at present advised, I do not see that there is on the face of these proceedings any ground for calling for further explanation from the Government of Bombay.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE NEW ROYAL WARRANT, SEC. 66.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case (as has been stated) that, by Article 66, of Section 1, Part 1, of the new Army Warrant, commanding officers of battalions of Infantry will be unable to exchange with other commanding officers (as hitherto allowed when such exchanges were approved by the Commander in Chief) without losing their position as commanding officers, and becoming subordinate officers under the command of the newly created second lieutenant colonels; and, whether he will alter the Warrant so as to rectify so great an injustice?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; my hon. and gallant Friend has rightly interpreted the New Warrant; but I have no intention to amend it in the way he suggests. We deprecate, on the score of efficiency, exchanges between lieutenant colonels commanding battalions of different regiments, and I have no wish to make such exchanges more easy.

  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA—REPORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
  MR. E. H. PAGET, who had the following Question on the Paper:—
  "To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will endeavour to arrange for the transmission, each month, as soon as published, of the Reports issued by the Agricultural Department of the United States at Washington; and, if he will place a Copy in the Library of the House of Commons, and send a Copy to the Central Chamber of Agriculture, with a view of securing the circulation of the information to all interested in agriculture?"
  said, that in consequence of a private communication received from the Under

  825
  Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for which he thanked the hon. Gentleman, it would not be necessary for him to put the Question.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that instructions to the effect stated in the Question had now been despatched to Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at Washington.

  ARMY—BARRACK SERGEANTS.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will avail himself of the present opportunity, when the position of Non-Commissioned Officers in the Army is being generally improved, to review the conditions of service of Barrack Sergeants; and, whether in view of the onerous and highly responsible duties performed by Barrack Sergeants, when in sole charge of stations and stores, he will be good enough to consider the advisability of improving their position, as to pay and pension?
  MR. CHILDERS: NO, Sir; I am not prepared, so long as barrack sergeants are chosen from pensioners, to increase their emoluments; but I am not quite satisfied that the present system is a good one, and that it would not be better to select barrack sergeants from men still in their Army engagements, which might possibly be extended. I will look into the question during the Autumn.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MESSRS. M'DONOUGH AND FINN, PRISONERS UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. D. O'CONORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has further considered the case of Messrs. M'Donough and Finn who have been arrested under the Coercion Act at Gurteen, county Sligo; and, whether it is not a fact that Finn is a man of weak intellect, and not likely to be the leader of any conspiracy against Law and order?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that he had carefully considered the case of the two men, and he did not believe it would be consistent with the peace of the county to release them at present. Their cases, however, should be carefully reconsidered at the end of three months. He understood that al-
  826
  though Finn suffered occasionally from an attack of sunstroke, that was only occasional, and did not affect him to any very serious extent.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—UNION RATING.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will consider the possibility of introducing next Session a Bill to Assimilate the Law of Union Eating in Ireland to that prevailing in England?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he considered that the argument was strongly in favour of the assimilation of the law of union rating in the two countries; but he was aware that there would be a good deal of opposition to such a measure in Ireland. He should be disposed, however, to consider very carefully the possibility of carrying it into effect; but he could not pledge himself that a Bill on the subject would be brought in next Session.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that the opposition to the proposal came from the landlords?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was not aware of that. He repeated that, in his own opinion, there were strong arguments in its favour.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—OUT-DOOR RELIEF.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will cause an inquiry to be made into the exclusion of certain non-able-bodied classes from outdoor relief in Ireland, the same classes being entitled to it in England?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that he would certainly ascertain the precise position of this matter; but he was not quite sure that his hon. and gallant Friend was not under some misapprehension. The Boards of Guardians had considerable power in this case. Section 1 of the Poor Law (Ireland) Act provided—
  "That Guardians of the poor of every union in Ireland shall make provision for the due relief of all such destitute poor persons as are found to be disabled from labour by reason of old age, infirmity, or bodily or mental defect, and of such destitute poor persons as may be disabled from labour by reason of severe sickness or

  827
  serious accident, and who are thereby deprived of the power of earning a subsistence for themselves and their families, and of poor widows having two or more legitimate children dependent upon them; and it shall be lawful to the Guardians to relieve such poor persons in or out of the workhouse as to them may seem fitting."
  If his hon. and gallant Friend found that that section did not cover all cases, he should be very glad to receive private information of cases that it did not cover.

  STATE OF IRELAND—DISTURBANCE AT NEW BOSS.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to an outrage committed by soldiers in New Ross on Friday the 22nd instant, the circumstances of which are reported as follows in the "Wexford People" of the 27th instant:—
  "Shortly after eleven o'clock on Friday night last, Edward Murphy, who is employed as a driver by Mr. Keely, of Cross Lane, New Ross, was returning home from Kilkenny, where he had been in the discharge of his duties. He had reached the locality known as Sugarhouse Lane, when he was met by a crowd of drunken soldiers. One of the number, who has the privilege of going out in plain clothes, and who is said to be an officer's servant, jumped up on the car upon which Murphy sat and demanded to be driven to the barrack. Murphy refused, when the soldier struck him with all his might, felling him to the earth. Several others of the party immediately sot upon the unfortunate man, whom they beat and kicked in the most savage manner. Murphy was unable to defend himself, and lay entirety at the mercy of his assailants, who, when they rendered their victim insensible, went to amuse themselves with the horse and car. Murphy's cries for assistance having been heard in the meantime, his wife and some neighbours soon arrived and conveyed the wounded man to his residence. At present he is in rather a critical condition, his head and shoulders being a mass of wounds;"
  whether the foregoing report is substantially accurate; and, if so, what steps he has taken to insure the punishment of the perpetrators of this outrage and to protect the inhabitants from a repetition of such scenes; whether he is aware that continual complaints have been made of the conduct of these soldiers since they have been stationed at New Ross; and, whether he will inform the House of the grounds upon which the Government deem it necessary to maintain a military force in the town?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; I am satisfied that the report in The Wexford People quoted by the hon. Member is greatly exaggerated. I find that a sergeant, two corporals, and a private, all of whom were sober, were returning to barracks on the evening of the 22nd of July, when the private slipped and hurt his knee. They hailed a passing car, and the carman at first offered to take them to barracks, but, being in liquor, he afterwards refused, although the fare was tendered, pushed two of them off the car, and struck them across their faces with his whip. A scuffle ensued, and he was knocked down, but very slightly injured. The matter was settled between the soldiers and the carman, who, at first, complained at the barracks, but afterwards declined to pursue his complaint. I am also satisfied that continual complaints are not made against the soldiers at New Ross, whose conduct is exemplary. They have on several occasions been pelted with stones, but have never retaliated. In answer to the third Question, I have to say that troops were sent to New Ross on the recommendation of the magistrates.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, that, in consequence of the reply which had just been given to his Question, and which was at variance with the details supplied to him from information the credibility of which he could not for a moment question, he thought it his duty to make two or three observations, and, in order to enable him to do that, he would conclude with a Motion. ["Oh, oh!"] He was not surprised to find that some hon. Members were impatient to hear that he proposed to do so; but he offered no apology for taking this course. The exceptional and unconstitutional manner in which government in Ireland was being carried on at present, not only warranted, but seemed to him to demand, the strictest investigation and the utmost vigilance from the Irish Members. During the prolonged discussions which had taken place on the Land Bill they on the Irish Benches sat in patience and reticence, while events had been happening which, under other circumstances, would certainly have called for the promptest interference on their part; but that Bill having been taken from the House of Commons, they thought it to be their imperative duty to draw attention to things which were being done in the

  829
  name of law and order. With regard to this outrage in New Ross, he could state deliberately that this was not an isolated case. It was one of many instances of this conduct which had disgraced these troops while they had been stationed in New Ross. In the present condition of feeling in Ireland, and especially in a place like New Ross, this was a matter of very grave importance. It was not alone that the people looked upon their presence there as an absolute insult to them. It was not alone that their feelings were continually outraged by the presence and conduct of the troops; but actually the peace and good name of the town were imperilled by their conduct and presence. He held in his hand letters which he had received from respectable men—from men who were intimately concerned in maintaining the public peace and order of New Ross—from clergymen, from gentlemen who held offices of public responsibility and trust, and every one of these men informed him that the presence of these troops in New Ross was not only a source of anxiety to them, but was a constant source of irritation to the people. Last February he had occasion to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he would state upon whose representation these men were sent to New Ross, and of course the right hon. Gentleman refused to disclose the names of the individuals who had "reasonably suspected" the locality; but he (Mr. Redmond) happened to know something about the circumstances under which these troops were sent there. He happened to know that a memorial was got up in New Ross which pretended to speak on behalf of the people of New Ross. He had reason to know that some of the local magistrates actually refused to sign this memorial, and that ultimately it only received the signature of a few individuals in no sense representative men, every one of whom was directly interested in creating a state of things which would warrant coercion. New Ross was absolutely peaceful at the time; but it was absolutely essential that an excuse for coercion should be produced, and consequently this demand was made for military protection. He had no hesitation in saying, from his own personal knowledge, and the information supplied to him from responsible men, that these troops since they
  830
  had been sent to New Ross had been the perpetrators of outrages which had more than once almost led to serious collision and conflict with the people. He had received a letter from the Chairman of the New Ross Town Commissioners, who stated that there was no doubt that the soldiers were concerned in a very brutal and cowardly attack upon poor Murphy, a most inoffensive man. They attacked him without the least shadow of reason, beat him, dragged him, and kicked him off the car, made his head one mass of bruises, inflicted several wounds upon him, and then drove off. The fact that the soldiers paid £5 to hush the matter up formed a strong case against them. Murphy would not accept the money, but his employer induced him to do so, as if he took further proceedings it might injure the employer in certain quarters. More than one of the attacking parties were sergeants or corporals. He (Mr. Redmond) would recommend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he wanted "dissolute ruffians," to go to the men who perpetrated such outrages as these, and leave alone the peaceable respectable men upon whom he was now laying hand in Ireland. He sincerely hoped that the announcement that appeared in that day's papers that the right hon. Gentleman intended to give up the reins of government in Ireland would turn out to be true. The Chairman of the New Ross Commissioners further stated that—
  "The conduct of these soldiers had given much annoyance, and caused much offence to the people. They were not required to establish law and order; but they irritated public feeling, and increased the dissatisfaction of the population generally with British institutions."
  He had another letter from a well-known and esteemed clergyman, stating that the facts set forth in his Question were substantially correct, and adding that Murphy, who was one of the most inoffensive of mortals, was brutally beaten by the soldiers out of mere drunken wantonness. In another portion of the letter the rev. gentleman stated that before Murphy came up that night the soldiers were engaged somewhere near or outside the chapel, mimicking the confessional, one representing the priest, and another representing a girl supposed to be confessing to him. He need not say that an outrage more insulting to

  831
  the feelings of the Irish people, or more likely to lead to a breach of the peace, could not have been committed. Would the Government undertake that the men who committed these outrages would be sought out and punished? They heard a great deal about disturbance in Ireland; but when provocation of this kind was given to the people, how was it possible that peace and order could be maintained in the country? How long more would these soldiers be kept in a town that was utterly free from outrage? The Chief Secretary for Ireland looked at him, as much as to say that he knew from his myrmidons that certain threatening notices had been posted up there. So they had, but he now stated advisedly that a deliberate attempt was being made by certain people in New Ross to induce the Government to proclaim the district; that the outrages reported were bogus outrages, got up by the enemies of the popular party in New Ross. He now challenged the Government to sift this matter to the bottom, and to withdraw these troops from the town where they were not required, and where their presence was a source of danger to peace and order. The hon. Member concluded by moving the adjournment of the House.
  MR. HEALY MR. HEALY, in seconding the Motion, said, all the ill feeling between the people and the soldiers in Ireland arose from the fact that the Government were now sending over English regiments instead of Irish regiments, which used to be popular in the country. Unfortunately, the Government did not seem inclined to trust Irish regiments at present, and the Englishmen they sent to Ireland despised the population, and insulted them in every possible way. He received a letter a few days ago from Birr charging the 28th Regiment, stationed there, with serious misconduct, and he intended to ask the Chief Secretary to investigate the very grave allegations his correspondent made. Again, that morning, they had a report of an outrage by Marines in Bantry. The Secretary of State for War, no doubt, only stated his account of the affair as it was represented to him. But it had not even an air of vraisemblance. It was not likely that one of these soldiers, who were generally pretty steady on their pins, would fall down and cut his knee in the way described. There was no necessity
  832
  whatever for these soldiers in this district.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Redmond.)
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the practice of moving the adjournment of the House had grown very much of late years, and in some cases the right to make that Motion had been abused. There was no doubt, however, that in this instance the hon. Member had adopted a course which had been taken in no other instance. Generally, when a Motion of this kind was made, it was made on the sudden, in consequence of some unexpected answer, or in consequence of some excitement of the moment; but in this instance the hon. Member had come down with a number of cases in his hand and with volumes of notes of minute particulars relating to them, and fully prepared to move the adjournment of the House. In his opinion, that was a manifest abuse of the liberty of moving the adjournment of the House; and if such a practice were to become general it would be utterly impossible to transact Public Business. The hon. Member had asked him a definite Question with reference to an occurrence at New Ross, and he had asked the hon. Member to give him time to make inquiries into the matter; but now the hon. Member came down with a number of other cases, such as the priest and the girl who were interrupted in the course of confession, and of the two soldiers who assaulted a woman, of which cases he had had no Notice, and with regard to which he had received no information whatever.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, that he had only referred to those cases in reply to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that no other outrages had been committed by soldiers in the district.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he must repeat that the course that had been taken by the hon. Member was extremely inconvenient. With regard to the case referred to in the hon. Member's Question, he could only say that inquiry showed that the soldiers were sober and that the carman was drunk, and that a scuffle having ensued between them, blows were exchanged after the carman commenced the affray. Eventually the matter had been settled by the carman receiving, he believed, the sum of £5

  833
  in compensation, on which he withdrew his complaint. In these circumstances, he did not think that he was called upon to re-open the matter. With regard to the case of the priest and the girl, he asked whether the former had made any complaint?
  MR. REDMONDsaid, that the priest had complained to him on the day of the occurrence.
  MR. CHILDERSasked whether complaint had been made to the military authorities?
  MR. REDMONDsaid, that he had been asked to take the matter up.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that it was the duty of the priest to have made a complaint to the military authorities, who would have inquired into the matter. If the soldiers had done anything wrong, it was the duty of the person injured to make an application to the officer in the first instance, and he would have inquired into the case. As to the second Question, apparently the case to which it referred was not brought under the notice of the commanding officer. And yet the hon. Gentleman, without Notice, moved the adjournment of the House, thereby causing great delay. He hoped that the answer he had given to the hon. Gentleman would be satisfactory, at all events, to the House.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had complained bitterly of the practice of moving the adjournment of the House; but it was no uncommon thing even for right hon. Members to come down prepared to move adjournments of the House if answers were not satisfactory. It was not so long since a noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench had given Notice that he would come down the next day, and if a certain Question was not satisfactorily answered, would move the adjournment. Was it not true that the right hon. Gentleman knew nothing about the £5 which had been paid? That fact should make him more inclined to make further inquiries into the matter, so as to provide for justice being done. The question was not a question between the men and the soldiers, but it was a question affecting the public of Ireland, and the payment of £5 had not changed the character of the case; therefore, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would make further inquiries into the matter.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had complained bitterly of the adjournment being moved, and it was undeniable that the privilege of moving an adjournment of the House at Question time had been abused during this Session, and especially for about two months past; but the Government had themselves alone to thank for that, because, about two months ago, he had the first place on the Notice Paper for a Motion to put an end to this practice, and if the Government had come down to keep a House that night, his Resolution would have been passed with the greatest facility, and these Motions for adjournment could not have been made. They had been made very often since then, and had taken up a great deal of the Government time most unnecessarily, and had tended greatly to prolong the Session.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he trusted that the House would retain some means of entering a protest against Motions for adjournment. They placed the House in a most ridiculous position. They were asked to take the command of the Army, and he, as an humble Member of the House, protested, against being placed in the position occupied by the Dutch Commissioners during Marlborough's wars, as he knew nothing of the subject.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that when he complained of very grave outrages committed in Dungarvan by a body of troops, the only reply he got from the responsible Minister was an account read by him which had been communicated to him by the colonel of the regiment, who stood up for his soldiers. The people of Dungarvan, finding from the way in which the Question was answered, that no attention was paid to their complaints, formed a local popular police, which resulted in the removal of the riotous soldiers from Dungarvan. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to put some check upon the conduct of those militarians in Ireland; at all events, he ought to be able to do so. And he ought also to be able to give better information than he had been able to do on the present occasion. It was a very disagreeable thing to the parish priest or to the people of the place to have to go to the barracks and make complaints to the officers about the soldiers; for the officers, as a rule, did not disguise the very slight respect they

  835
  held for Irish opinion. In his opinion, the best way was for the people to make appeals direct to their Members of Parliament, who could bring the subject before the House.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he thought it was hardly to be wondered that so many complaints were made about the soldiers in Ireland, when it was borne in mind that wherever a case was brought against a soldier it was generally dismissed by the magistrate. About six weeks ago, a tradesman and his wife and sister were walking through the streets of Dublin, when they were met by a couple of soldiers. One of the soldiers used some infamous language towards the women. The tradesman turned round and asked what he meant. The answer he got was a blow with a stick. He prosecuted the soldier. Four witnesses proved the case; the soldier, however, denied it. An officer came forward and gave him a good character, and the magistrate dismissed the charge, notwithstanding all the witnesses who proved the assault. The very next case on the list, before the same magistrate, was one in which a labourer was charged with assaulting a soldier. The labourer denied the charge; but the magistrate held it was proved, and he passed sentence of seven weeks' hard labour. The course that was being pursued now by the soldiery in Wexford was very similar to that pursued by the soldiery sent there by Castlereagh to precipitate the rebellion. The soldiers insulted the priests and their religion, until at length the men of Wexford rose to arms and made such a splendid resistance, that the name of Wexford has become an inspiration and a hope. If, at the time, every county in Ireland had done as well as Wexford, his hon. Friend would not have been under the necessity of coming here and asking foreigners to redress outrages done to the people of Ireland.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to explain that he had not said anything about the payment of £5 as compensation in his reply, because nothing had been said about it in the Question. What he said was that the carman had settled with the soldiers.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he was of opinion that the practice of moving the adjournment of the House was the only safeguard which the Irish Members had that
  836
  any attention would be paid by the Treasury Bench to their applications. Mischief was likely to arise when soldiers were placed in a position where they were not required, and when they acted the part of a riotous mob in a peaceable town, the charges made against them for their misconduct ought not to be allowed to be withdrawn simply because a particular complainant might not choose to appear.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, he would have thought the Secretary of State for War knew sufficient of the incorrigible character of the Irish Members to prevent his taking up the time of the House by addressing lectures to them. As the right hon. Gentleman had not promised to re-investigate that case, he would certainly press his Motion to a division.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 191: Majority 180.—(Div. List, No. 352.)

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSIONERS, —CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he will state what is the present position of the scheme for the future management of Christ's Hospital which the Endowed Schools Commissioners have been occupied in framing; and, when it is likely to be laid before Parliament?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I have caused inquiry to be made of the Charity Commissioners as to the position and prospects of the Christ's Hospital scheme, and I have received the following answer:—
  "The draft scheme prepared by the Charity Commissioners for Christ's Hospital was published last August, and the Governors and others were allowed until the 31st of December to state their objections and suggestions. The objections and suggestions received are very numerous and weighty, and in respect to some of the points raised further investigations are requisite and are in progress. It is impossible at present to say when the Commissioners will be in a position to submit the scheme to the Education Department."
  MR. CAINEasked whether the Vice President of the Council was aware that the Governing Body of Christ's Hospital insisted upon the production of a certificate of baptism before admission to the benefits of the foundation, thereby excluding members of the Society of

  837
  Friends, Baptists, and others; and whether, in framing a new scheme, he would suppress such an aggressive and unjust prohibition? Such a case had happened that day with regard to the child of a Baptist.
  MR. MUNDELLA MR. MUNDELLA, in reply, said, he was not aware that such a provision existed; but when the scheme came into the hands of the Education Department he should be ready to omit any inequality of that description.

  ARMY—PROMOTION BY SELECTION.
  THE EARL OF BECTIVEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, owing to the promotion on the 1st July 1881 of a Major from the half-pay list to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the 6th Dragoon Guards, the senior Major of that Regiment has been superseded by thirty Majors of Cavalry and one hundred and forty-nine Majors of Infantry; and, if so, if he will explain the reason?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I gather from the Question of the noble Lord that he considers that the senior major of a regiment is entitled to be promoted to a lieutenant-colonel's vacancy. That, no doubt, is a common practice; but since Lord Cardwell's declarations in February, March, and June, 1871, to the effect that while promotion in the lower regimental ranks would generally be by seniority, those to the higher ranks would be generally by selection, the Royal Warrants have made it quite clear that no officer has a right to consider that he has a claim to this promotion, and the responsibility is thrown on the Commander-in-Chiefs, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to select lieutenant-colonels. In the present case, the Duke of Cambridge proposed, and I approved the exercise of this responsibility; and it would evidently establish a bad precedent if I gave the reasons for taking this course.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—GEORGE PATTERSON, A PRISONER UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph headed "A Suspect's Career," in the "Leinster Leader" of the 16th July, in giving an
  838
  account of the career of Mr. George Patterson, of Edenderry, a veteran soldier; and, if he has ascertained of what offence this old soldier, who has served in several campaigns and shed his blood for the Queen is suspected?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that I have obtained a copy of the paragraph in question, from which I gather that a Mr. George Patterson had been arrested under the Act of this Session, and that he is stated to have enlisted in the Army 41 years ago, and since his discharge to have been until lately living in New South Wales. I find that a private of that name was discharged in 1853, and I presume he is the same man. I have no information as to the offence of which he is suspected beyond the statement in the Parliamentary Paper of this Session, No. 316, item 155, to which I must refer the hon. Member. It is not my duty to follow up the career of soldiers who left the Army some 30 years ago.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—TELEGRAPH TO SHETLAND.
  MR. LAINGasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that, owing to the interruption of the Postal Telegraph to Shetland from the delay in procuring a repairing ship, storm warnings cannot be conveyed there by telegraph, which might often, and especially on the occasion of the late disastrous gales, be the means of saving the lives of many of the poor fishermen; and, whether, in view of this lamentable occurrence, the Treasury will at once sanction the acquisition by the Post Office of a suitable repairing ship to maintain those Telegraphic Cables to Orkney, Shetland, the Lewis, and other islands of Her Majesty's dominions?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, I am informed that the Meteorological Office did not predict the gale of July 20 to the north of the Shetlands. Storm warnings have never been sent north of Kirkwall, nor has there been any application for them from Shetland; but even had it been the custom so to send them, no warning could have been. sent of this particular gale. I can only repeat the answer I have previously made, that I admit the inconvenience that has been experienced this year from having no repairing ship, and that I will

  839
  carefully consider the question in connection with next year's Estimates.

  FOREIGN JEWS IN RUSSIA—EXPULSION OF MR. L. LEWISOHN, A NATURALIZED BRITISH SUBJECT.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Russian Government has not made any complaint as to the conduct of Mr. Lewisohn during his stay in Russia, and that the sole cause of his expulsion from that Country was that endorsed on his passport, viz. that he is a Jew; whether both the legal adviser of Her Majesty's Embassy at St. Petersburg and the Law Officers of the Crown have declared that the expulsion of Mr. Lewisohn from St. Petersburg was illegal; if so, whether any representations have been made to the Russian Government on the subject, and with what result; and, whether Mr. Lewisohn will now be permitted to go to Russia for purposes connected with his ordinary business as a London merchant, and be enabled to claim the protection accorded to all other British subjects in that Country who are not Jews?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, it is true that the Russian Government have made no complaint against Mr. Lewisohn, and that we are not aware of any reason for his expulsion, except the fact of his being a Jew. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires has, under instructions from Earl Granville, addressed a Note to the Russian Government calling their attention to the proceedings in Mr. Lewisohn's case; but although Mr. Wyndham has reported a conversation on the subject, no written answer has yet been received. I am not in a position, therefore, at present to state whether Mr. Lewisohn will be allowed to return to Russia.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: Will the Papers be laid on the Table?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir. I have promised that they will be produced; but they cannot be laid on the Table until the Correspondence now going on is completed.

  STATE OF IRELAND—LAND LEAGUE MEETING AT DROGHEDA.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  840
  Whether his attention has been directed to the Correspondence in the "Freeman's Journal" between Mr. Clifford Lloyd, R.M. and the Rev. H. M'Kee, P.P., the Rev. W. P. Kearney, C.C., and others, as to the alleged threat made by Mr. Lloyd to cause the police to fire on the people at Drogheda on New Year's Day; and, whether the Government will grant a sworn investigation into the matter?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had seen the correspondence in question, and did not consider the case one in which it was the duty of the Government to order an investigation to take place.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (EXPERIMENTS ON STEEL).
  MR. DILLWYN (for Mr. CARBUTT)asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has seen a Blue Book entitled "Merchant Shipping (Experiment on Steel)."—Memorandum issued by Board of Trade for use of Surveyors, containing the Remarks of the Engineer Surveyor in Chief and his Assistants upon the use of Milled Steel manufactured by the Steel Company of Scotland, together with an Appendix showing the Tabular Results of Experiments made with regard thereto; and, if so, whether he would take into his consideration how far it is fair to other manufacturers of steel who have been longer engaged in perfecting the material, and who have had more experience, that the weight of the Department should be used to bring before the public one of the latest established steel works in Great Britain; whether he will give the same facilities to the large steel works in South Wales, Lancashire, and Yorkshire, who for years have supplied Her Majesty's Dockyards, to have experiments on their steel brought under the notice of Parliament with the same publicity; and, whether he would state the total cost of the Blue Book issue, which is charged 5s. 6d. to the public?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I am glad the Question has been asked, as it gives me an opportunity of publicly correcting a misapprehension on which it is based. The facts of the case are these. The Board of Trade is under statutory obligation to fix the maximum pressure beyond which marine boilers shall not be worked, and recently, in

  841
  consequence of the introduction of milled steel, out of which these boilers are now made, applications have been made to the Board of Trade by the makers of steel and users of these boilers to reduce the prohibition as to safety. The Board of Trade replied that they could not do that without proper evidence, and then the makers of steel requested the Board of Trade to undertake experiments for that purpose. The Board of Trade replied that they had no funds out of which to conduct such experiments, but that they would have no objections to allowing their officers to attend and supervise the experiments, and to publish the results if conducted at the expense of the companies concerned. Six considerable firms accepted the offer of the Board of Trade, and the first experiments were made by the Northern Company of Scotland, and were the first completed. The Blue Book referred to in the Question gives the result of those experiments. There are five other series of experiments to be made, and the results will be published in their turn. The Board of Trade will be ready to extend the same facilities to any other Companies under the same conditions. I do not think the Blue Book has been an expensive one; but it was absolutely necessary that the results of the experiments should be published for the information of the Board of Trade and the Admiralty.

  GROUND GAME ACT—PROSECUTION FOR TRESPASS.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a trespass case tried at Stone-haven on Wednesday last where the sheriff substitute inflicted on a farm servant a fine of one pound, with four pounds expenses, for walking over rough pasture on his master's farm with a gun, his master having the benefit of the Ground Game Act, and the servant having alleged he had a written permission from his master, which he had left at the farmhouse; whether he did not say, when the Bill was passing this House, that, under circumstances as described, production of the written permission at the farmhouse would be held to be production on demand, and no
  842
  judge would convict; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will remit the sentence?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he had made inquiry into the case mentioned, and he had received a report from the sheriff. It was not a case in which the man had left his written permission behind him, as he never had any permission at all. Even if he had, however, he would have violated the law by going in search of game in the month of June, which was an unlawful time under the Act; therefore, the point did not at all turn upon his leaving his permission behind him. He had received a statement of the gentleman who acted for the landowner in the prosecution, and he stated that if it had been shown to Dr. Young or his factor that the accused had a permission, the proceedings would have been withdrawn; but no such permission was ever shown to have existed.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL—RELEASE OF PRISONERS UNDER THE PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881.
  MR. J. COWENasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government will accompany the "message of peace" which they are about to send to Ireland either by the release of the two hundred persons kept in prison without trial, or accord them the constitutional right of having an opportunity of defending themselves before being punished? The hon. Member, after putting his Question, said, he would not put it at the present moment if the right hon. Gentleman thought the period inopportune.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I hardly feel justified in asking my hon. Friend to delay this Question, because if I were to ask him to do that, it would be like making myself a party to the Question, and, probably, giving occasion to expectations which I might not be able to fulfil. I think it would be better to take the Question as it now stands, and to say this. Naturally and necessarily when a Bill of an exceptional character is in force under which a number of individuals have been confined upon the responsibility of the Government, it is the desire and duty of the Government at all times, in connection with any Land Bill or any other way, to look at the

  843
  question whether at all, and if so how far, it is in their power to counteract or put an end to such a state of things. That is a standing duty. This Question, however, places the exercise of the duty in especial connection with the Land Bill, which is glanced at in the Question as a "message of peace." Of course, it will be obvious to my hon. Friend that we do not at all know what decisions the House of Lords, in the exercise of its discretion, may arrive at with regard to the Land Bill, nor what view this House may take in respect of that decision. Consequently, the contingency which my hon. Friend has proceeded upon is one that is not yet realized as one which it is possible for us to have before us, as one of the facts of the case. But, in making that declaration, I must beg not to be understood as conveying, in any manner or degree, any anticipation of any decision of the Government in one of the gravest matters it could have to consider, which it only can consider from time to time, according to the circumstances of the case, on a comprehensive view.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— THE CONVENTION.
  MR. GLADSTONE: A Question having been put to me more than once, very naturally, on the subject of the Convention with respect to the Transvaal, I may mention that the Government have today received a brief intimation that that Convention has been signed; that the transfer of the functions of Government will take place upon the 8th; and that the Commission is breaking up. The Chief Justice and the President of the Orange Free State had actually departed; Sir Evelyn Wood has gone back to Natal; and on the 6th Sir Hercules Robinson was to return to the Cape.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—A SATURDAY SITTING.
  MR. GLADSTONEstated that it would be necessary for the Government to ask the House to sit on Saturday, in order to proceed with the Business in Committee of Supply.

  NAVY—TORPEDO BOATS.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, as
  844
  stated in the "Nautical Gazette of New York" of the 9th ultimo, two vedette or torpedo boats have just been built in the United States for the British Government; whether these boats are faster, cheaper, and better than any that can be produced in this Country; when he expects these boats to arrive; and, if he will be good enough to state the size and cost of these boats?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, two vedette boats have been built of wood in the United States for the British Government. They are 48 feet long, and are designed for a speed of 14 knots. They have been delivered in England, but have not been tried yet. Their cost is £2,500 each, delivered in England. English-built, wooden vedette boats are a little slower, and cost something less. English-built torpedo boats of steel, with 16 knots speed and 67 feet long, cost no more than these Hereshoff vedette boats; which will, however, put us in possession of a very novel form of boiler, which is supposed to be remarkably free from danger of explosion.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "INFLEXIBLE."
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is true, as reported, that H.M.S. "Inflexible" draws some three feet more water than was calculated in her design; and, if not, if he will state the exact difference between the contemplated and real draught of said ship?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Inflexible, equipped and stored, with bunkers full, and with the rig which would not be used in time of war, when only the two lower masts will be retained, will have a mean draught of 25 feet 6 inches. Since the Inflexible was designed first her guns have been changed from 60 to 80 tons, her torpedo equipment and torpedo boats have been added, and her complement of men has been raised by 100. Allowance was made for all these changes in the amended estimate from time to time, and the Inflexible draws within an inch and a-half of what she was expected to draw by the Constructive Department.

  JAPAN—TREATY REVISION.
  SIR EDWARD REEDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

  845
  Affairs, Whether the Government will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence which has taken place with the Government of Japan respecting the application of the Laws of Japan to foreigners; the trade in opium; and the closing of the Foreign Post Offices; if he will state the present position of the question of Treaty of Revision; and, when the Papers upon this subject will be presented to Parliament?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the question of the application of the laws of Japan to foreigners is dealt with incidentally in the general Correspondence relating to Treaty revision. The importation of opium into Japan is prohibited by Treaty, but a question has arisen with reference to the supply of opium for medicinal purposes to the foreign community, and it is proposed to discuss this question in the course of the negotiations. The foreign Post Offices were closed by agreement in 1879, and there will be no objection to lay the Papers relating to this subject on the Table, together with the general Correspondence, when the negotiations are concluded. At the request of the Japanese Government, it has been agreed that the negotiations for the Treaty revision shall take place in Japan, and Her Majesty's Government are at the present moment in communication on the subject with the other Treaty Powers, and with the Chambers of Commerce in this country, and the principal firms interested in the trade with Japan. Her Majesty's Government have signified their willingness to proceed with the negotiations on the basis of Article 22 of the Treaty of 1858, under which notice of revision was given by the Japanese Government, and which provides that either party may demand a revision of that Treaty with a view to the insertion therein of such amendments as experience shall prove to be desirable. It is not possible at present to state how soon the Papers on the subject may be presented to Parliament.

  TUNIS—THE ENFIDA CASE.
  THE EARL OF BECTIVEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the Bey of Tunis, under the instigation of M. Rous-
  846
  tan, has issued a decree removing the Enfida case from the Hanafi local court to the Meliki local court, although, early in the present year, he declared he had no power to control the action of those courts; if Her Majesty's Government are aware that the Meliki court formerly declared itself incompetent to entertain the suit, and that the French Government, prior to the 12th May, declined the jurisdiction of the local Tunisian courts for the Enfida case; whether Her Majesty's Government consider these acts of M. Roustan and the Bey are an infringement of the Anglo-Tunisian Treaty of 1863, and contrary to the tenor of Lord Granville's Letter of the 21st April, and therefore violations of the rights of a British subject; and, if Her Majesty's Government can inform the House, whether or not the acts aforesaid are approved by the French Government, and if they are prepared to take any steps in the matter?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Enfida case has been removed by a decree of the Bey from the Hanafi to the Meliki Court, and Mr. Levey having protested against this measure, further proceedings have been suspended. As regards the second part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government have been given to understand that the Maliki Court had formerly declared itself incompetent to entertain this suit; and it appears from Lord Lyons' despatch of the 16th of February—which has been laid before the House—that the French Government had declared—
  "That it was impossible, under the circumstances, that the French Government could consent to leave the Enfida question to the decision of the Tunisian local authorities."
  Her Majesty's Government are awaiting a further Report as to the facts of the case, and, in the meanwhile, they are not in a position to form an opinion as to whether the proceedings that have taken place constitute a violation of the Anglo-Tunisian Treaty of 1863, or of Mr. Levey's rights as a British subject. Her Majesty's Government have directed Mr. Arpa, the Judge of the Consular Court at Tunis, who was absent on leave, to return to his post, and furnish a Report on the legal bearings of the case. Recent communications have passed between Her Majesty's Govern-

  847
  ment and the French Government on the subject with a view to a satisfactory solution.

  TRINIDAD—OUTBREAK OF MALARIAL FEVER.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the attention of the Colonial Office has been drawn to an unusual amount of malarial fever of a malignant kind existing in Trinidad, by which a number of valuable lives have been lost; if he is aware that the inhabitants have had indignation meetings blaming the Governor for his supineness and apathy in not taking steps for improved sanitation, and particularly for not insisting on the removal of one special nuisance arising from the lees pond of the Colonial Company to which much of the sickness is attributed; and, whether he will send out such instructions to the Governor as will lead to the allaying of the dissatisfaction that exists?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, no official Report on this matter has been received, but the local newspaper contains a report of a meeting on the subject of the lees pond of the Colonial Company which is alleged to be a nuisance and to have caused serious illness in its neighbourhood. One of the resolutions at this meeting complains of the Executive not having taken decided steps to abate the alleged nuisance. A Report from the Governor will probably be received by next mail, as it appears that the resolutions of the meeting were to be sent to him with a request that he would forward them to the Colonial Office. I may add that a letter has been received from the Colonial Company, in which they assert that it is quite impossible that the outbreak of fever in question can be in any way attributable to the lees pond, and that the nuisance was entirely removed when the rains set in.

  COOLIES (INDIAN) AT LA REUNION.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the "decret" for the protection of the Indian labourers in the Island of La Réunion has yet been received by the Colonial Office; and, if so, whether he can make any statement as to the views of the Colonial Office with regard to the "decret," and as to the expe-
  848
  diency of sanctioning further emigration from India to La Réunion?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the "décret" has been communicated to Her Majesty's Government by that of France, and is now under the consideration of Commissioners appointed on the part of the Foreign and India Offices to discuss the question of coolie emigration to La Réunion with the French Government.

  IRELAND—CROPS IN MUNSTER— HARVEST LABOUR.
  MR. WARTON (for Lord ARTHUR, HILL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that in Munster some crops are likely to be lost, owing to the fact that labour cannot be obtained; and, if so, whether he will give directions that assistance shall be rendered by the troops, when practicable, or whether he will devise some other mode by means of which those crops will be saved?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER, in rely, said, he was aware that there was a dispute between the labourers and the farmers in regard to wages and other matters, and he saw some hope that it might be arranged, and, therefore, could not say that the crops would not be obtained. As to assistance being rendered by the troops, it was a very serious matter indeed to give directions to the troops to interfere in what was after all a wages dispute between the parties. A very strong case would be necessary to warrant such interference.
  MR. PARNELLasked whether the constabulary had assisted in mowing and storing hay on farms in possession of the Emergency Committee, and whether an aide-de-camp, a member of the Lord Lieutenant's household, had been used as an agent for the purpose of making extensive purchases of agricultural implements on behalf of the Emergency Committee?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the hon. Member to give Notice of his Questions.

  COURTS MARTIAL—INDIA.
  MR. GRANTHAMasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received any communications from India as to an alleged refusal on the part of the Government in India to reimburse Lieutenant Colonel Malcolmson, C.B.

  849
  and Major Currie, the expenses they were respectively put to in defending themselves at the trial by court martial, ordered to be held in consequence of charges made against them by Brigadier General Burrows and Nuttall, which charges were disproved at the trial on which Colonel Malcolmson and Major Currie were honourably acquitted?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, no communication had been received from India on the subject of the refusal on the part of the Government to reimburse the officers mentioned, nor had the Home Government received any applications in any other form. Of course, if any such application were made it would be considered; but it would be contrary to all precedent to grant it.

  WAYS AND MEANS—TERMINABLE ANNUITIES BILL.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, on the second reading of this Bill he should move an Amendment which he had not yet formulated, and asked the Prime Minister for information as to when the Bill would be proceeded with?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, with reference to the Notice that has just been given by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is of great public importance that this measure should be proceeded with this Session, because I think that it would lead to more discussion than it was originally thought would take place upon it? I do not put the question in a hostile spirit, and if it is inconvenient to the right hon. Gentleman to reply to it just now I shall not require an answer at this moment.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I certainly will consider the matter. I have no reason to suppose that any considerable opposition will be given to the measure; but nothing has been determined in reference to the matter at present.

  NAVY—THE ROYAL MARINES.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERinquired whether the proposed re-organization scheme for the Royal Marines would be laid upon the Table in time for it to be discussed during the present Session?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, there is nothing that can fairly be called a re-
  850
  organization scheme for the corps of Royal Marines, nor has any such been promised or foreshadowed. The alterations that are to be made will date back to the 1st of July, so that no one who is to be benefited by those alterations will suffer by the delay. I think the hon. and gallant Member's request a very fair one; and I will see if the details of our proposals can be laid before the House before it rises.

  EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS— THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. ONSLOWasked when the Indian Budget would be taken; and whether it would be taken before facilities were given for bringing on the Welsh Sunday Closing Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that the Indian Budget, being a matter of Imperial concern, must undoubtedly be taken into consideration before the Welsh Sunday Closing Bill was brought on. At the same time, there was no reason why, if the promoters of the latter measure found themselves in a position to bring it on previously, they should not do so. He could not fix a day for the Indian Budget until further progress had been made with Supply.

  CATTLE DISEASE—THE SIBERIAN PLAGUE.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of Mr. Spear relative to the Siberian Plague, and the extreme danger of its spreading to our flocks, and also the danger of fatality to the wool sorters; whether it is a fact that upwards of 100,000 bales of Eastern wool are annually imported into England, and proved to be capable of much danger; and, whether he has considered, in view of its dangerous properties, the desirability of prohibiting the sale of the sweepings from the manufacturers' sorting rooms, and also the sale of the old bags?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, Mr. Spear's Report has been considered by the Veterinary Department, and Professor Brown has written a Memorandum on the subject, which I propose to lay upon the Table. Outbreaks of "anthrax" are not uncommon in Russia, and have occurred occasionally in this country, although the disease has not generally

  851
  extended beyond the farm where the outbreak took place. There is only a single instance recorded where the disease arose on lands which had been partly manured with refuse from woollen factories. Under these circumstances, there does not appear to be any necessity for the prohibition suggested by the hon. Member.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ELEMENTAR SCHOOLS—GRANTS FOR DRAWING.
  MR. G. PALMERasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If he is aware that the payments for results in drawing in the Elementary Schools have been this year in many cases unsatisfactory to the teachers and managers; and, is he willing to state to the House why the payments are so much less this year in comparison with last year?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I have been made aware by numerous complaints that the payments for results in drawing in the elementary schools have this year been unsatisfactory to teachers and managers as compared with last year. The reason why the payments are much less this year than last is that in 1879 a Circular was issued, the Department announcing a change in the mode of assessing the grant. This change was made with the view of securing better instruction in drawing, and in lieu of a payment of Is. for every child who had been taught drawing, Is. would be paid for each satisfactory exercise, not being more than three in number. The Circular also gave notice that the standard of examination would be raised "sufficiently to counterbalance the increase in the number of payments." It would appear that, instead of both these changes being brought into operation simultaneously, the schools had the benefit of the increased grants in 1880, but that the raising of the standard was deferred till 1881. Hence there is a falling off in the grant this year as compared with last.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER—MOVING ADJOURNMENTS AT QUESTION TIME.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government had arrived at any conclusion as to what they would do with regard to his Motion as to proposals for adjournment
  852
  during Question time? If the Prime Minister desired it, he would move the Motion that evening.
  MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he was not ready to make any announcement on the subject—not because the intention of his hon. Friend did not commend itself to him, or that he did not agree very much with the proposal which he believed he intended to make, but because the question connected itself with so many matters of detail relating to the Business of the House that it was a grave question whether it was desirable to deal with it as an isolated matter, or whether it would not be more advantageously included in the general consideration of the arrangements of the House and the despatch of Public Business.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that, under these circumstances, he would not move his Resolution.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE (MR. BRADLAUGH)—NEW WRIT FOR NORTHAMPTON.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that he wished to put the following Question to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair:—Whether, as the House has decided forcibly to prevent Mr. Brad-laugh, one of the duly elected Members for Northampton, obeying the statutory obligation under which alone he can serve his constituents in this House, the seat for Northampton is now vacant; and, whether it is competent for any Member to move that a Writ be issued for the election of a Representative to serve in Parliament for the borough of Northampton in the room of Mr. Brad-laugh?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Carlisle will allow me to state that the Speaker is bound to answer all Questions on points of Order that may be put to him as they arise; but I must respectfully observe that the Question that the hon. Baronet now puts to me is one which relates to a matter which is for the determination of the House itself. I may say, however, that the House does not entertain any proposal for issuing a new Writ for any constituency unless the seat be vacant.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked how the seat was to be declared vacant?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not a matter for me to determine.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  ARMY—MOUNTED INFANTRY.

    RESOLUTION.
    SIR ROBERT LOYD LINDSAY SIR ROBERT LOYD LINDSAY, in rising to move—
    "That, in order to meet the requirements of modern warfare, and to secure rapidity of movement for troops armed with breech-loading rifles, some provision be made in this year's Army Estimates for the formation of corps of mounted infantry, and that a proportion of such corps form part of the Army establishment in future,"
    said, he did not desire to see a new branch of the Service established; but he wanted greater mobility to be given to our Infantry, who were, nevertheless, not to relax their efforts to improve themselves in the use of the rifle. Almost inestimable service was rendered in a campaign by giving additional power of locomotion to the troops engaged in it. He had no doubt that hon. Members who had taken interest in modern campaigns had observed that themselves. They might remember the very wonderful marches which Sir Hugh Rose made in India with troops mounted on ponies and mules. If his hon. and gallant Friend the late Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) had been in the House he would have said something in support of the Motion he had brought forward. The success of Sir Henry Havelock's mounted riflemen was recorded in Malleson's History of India, from which he begged to quote the following passage:—
    "Thus 60 men, organized on a novel plan—that is to say, as mounted riflemen—had effected, with almost nominal loss, in five days, during which they marched about 40 miles a-day, what 3,000 regular troops had for six months failed to accomplish—namely, the complete expulsion of 4,500 rebels from the province, and in the infliction on them of a punishment which has not to this day been effaced."
    With reference to operations in Cabul in December, 1880, the advantage of having a body of mounted infantry available for service was forcibly brought to notice, and Lieutenant General Sir Frederick Roberts accordingly gave
    854
    orders for the formation of such a body. A committee was assembled to consider the subject, and the result was as follows:—One officer and 60 rank and file were selected from each regiment from men best able to ride. Each man was provided with a pony or mule from the regimental transport. The baggage saddles were so far converted as to make them suitable for riding, and were furnished with stirrups. Each man was provided with a pair of "khoojins," or native saddle bags, and in these were carried 60 rounds of ammunition in two tin cases holding 30 rounds each, three days' rations, and one day's grain for the pony; the total weight of these articles was 17 lb. Blankets were carried, folded under the seat, and fastened by a surcingle; greatcoats were carried, rolled up behind; also a picketting rope and peg; spare shoes and nails were carried in a pocket in the saddle. For British soldiers a small Warren's cooking pot was adopted for every four men, carried by one of each squad in a bag specially suited for the purpose. The equipment of the infantry soldier was not changed; but when mounted the men carried their rifles slung across their backs. There was no doubt that a body of infantry possessed of such mobility might on many occasions prove invaluable, whether the object was to relieve or reinforce a distant post, or seize a point of vantage; while the increased distances they would traverse might be of the greatest service. In an essay written for the Wellington Prize in 1871, Sir Garnet Wolseley said—
    "The next time we take the field, if the general has the same views as the writer, he will be as strong in mounted infantry as he can, with due regard to the forage resources of the country to be operated in."
    He added—
    "The offensive operations of mounted infantry must be by flank attacks. Its great power of moving enables it to make wide turning movements, knowing that, if beaten off, the enemy's infantry cannot pursue, and that from his cavalry it has nothing to fear."
    In the same essay he said—
    "With reference to the use of cavalry in attacks upon an enemy's position, the more one studies the battles lately fought in France, the more one is convinced that the chief use of cavalry henceforth will be as the eyes and ears of an army. The days of grand imposing charges of horsemen in masses are past, and only to be remembered among the spirit-stirring

    855
    deeds of a bygone era. During the late war (Franco-German), the cavalry on both sides remained idle listeners to the roar of distant guns, or, when this course was departed from, the result proved the folly of the proceeding. We read of whole regiments of French cavalry being, as it were, crushed to death by the infantry fire at Sedan in their efforts, not so much for victory, as to prove that all chivalrous gallantry had not departed from their army."
    The deductions which Sir Garnet Wolseley drew, therefore, from the most recent lessons in war was that during an action, cavalry, as a combatant arm, could seldom be of much decisive use; while the duties of obtaining information of the enemy's doings and of protecting the flanks could be more effectively performed by corps consisting of mounted infantry and cavalry in the proportion of four to one in favour of the mounted infantry. In a lecture on mounted riflemen at the United Service Institution, delivered in 1873, Sir Evelyn Wood, now second in command in the Transvaal, said—
    "The experience gained during the war of 1870–1 has confirmed the opinion, long held by many soldiers, that mounted riflemen are now essential to every enterprising army."
    In the course of that lecture, delivered seven years ago, Sir Evelyn Wood, then Colonel Wood, urged with great energy—and, let him say, with great courage—as an army reformer, the necessity of forming such corps, and he laid down this resolute proposition—namely, that before the next war a scheme for establishing mounted riflemen must be decided upon. And on that question, he said,
    "all thinking soldiers are agreed, and that it only remains necessary to ascertain which plan is the most suitable for the British nation."
    But he added—
    "If the formation of such troops is postponed until war is imminent, it will be hurriedly and, therefore, badly executed."
    He would read an extract from Sir George Colley, written from the camp, at Newcastle, January 17, 1881, which showed that Sir Evelyn Wood's words were almost prophetic. In that letter Sir George Colley said—
    "I confess that I was greatly disappointed that the effect of the artillery fire, which, even when the Boers came out of their cover, and crowded the ridges pretty thickly, seemed absolutely nil; and to this and the failure of Brown-low's charge I attribute the loss of the day. But in justice to Brownlow's second troop it
    856
    must be remembered that they consisted only of mounted infantry very recently organized. It was a steep and bold charge, and some of their horses, with little training, could not be brought to face the fire."
    It was rather curious that Sir Evelyn Wood should have had an opportunity of proving the very thing that he said nine years ago, when he remarked that unless that matter was taken in hand at leisure and done in time of peace, they would have it done in time of war, and done badly and insufficiently. Now, he himself was not an alarmist as to this country, with its small Regular Force, being able to hold its own in every part of the world, as it was called upon to do; but it was a matter of grave consideration how that could best be done in future. In every war in which we had been engaged, from the Peninsular down to the Zulu War, the British troops had invariably met other troops who were not so well armed as themselves. Even in the Indian Mutiny, the Sepoys, although trained by English officers, were only armed with Brown Bess, while our troops used breech-loading rifles. But things were reversed in the case of the late contest with the Boers of the Transvaal. Breech-loading rifles were now so cheap and so easily obtained that every nation, and even every savage tribe that intended to go to war, would take care to provide themselves with those weapons. Unless, therefore, we took such steps to keep ourselves in advance and to alter our tactics and the equipments of our Army as our most experienced officers recommended, we might be placed in a position of great difficulty at no distant clay. He trusted the Secretary of State for War would take the matter into consideration; and he (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) believed that if it were shown, as he thought it could be, that the additional outlay requisite for that important purpose was not large, the House would cheerfully vote the funds which the Secretary of State for War deemed necessary. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON, in seconding the Resolution, observed that its importance could hardly be over-estimated. He was convinced of the necessity of organizing a mounted infantry force in time of peace, instead of leaving it to be improvised to meet emer-

    857
    gencies when war broke out. He thought that the men employed in the force contemplated by the Resolution should be men from 5 feet 3 inches to 5 feet 4 inches in height. In fact, the smaller and lighter they were the better; and the horses on which they should be mounted should be small and under 15 hands high. They should be taught to act in very small bodies. He agreed in every word which had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend, and he thought that the object in view might be carried out without adding anything to the Army Estimates, or, at least, with only a trifling increase of their present cost.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words '' in order to meet the requirements of modern warfare, and to secure rapidity of movement for troops armed with breech-loading rifles, some provision be made in this year's Army Estimates for the formation of corps of mounted infantry, and that a proportion of such corps form part of the Army establishment in future,"—(Sir Robert Lloyd Lindsay,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of thanking the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire for having brought the question forward, and for the trouble he had taken in directing the attention of the military authorities to it. He had himself, as a civilian and as a retired Volunteer, made inquiries on the subject, and was convinced of its importance, but saw difficulties in the way of giving practical effect to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member. There was, in the first place, the difficulty of carrying the rifle on horseback. They had, however, a regiment of Carbineers in the Service, and he believed they would never get the Yeomanry of the country to carry firearms until the example was set them in the Army. The proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was one which ought to be taken up with more spirit; and he trusted.hat, between this time and next year, the question would be considered at the War Office in all its bearings.
    MR.CHILDERSsaid, he looked upon the question as being a very important One, and though, technically, the ques-
    858
    tion could not, he thought, be put, as it would involve an addition to the Estimates, he very cordially thanked the hon. and gallant Gentleman for having brought the question before the House. So alive, indeed, were they to its importance that, in connection with the outbreak of hostilities in South Africa, they acted in the direction suggested by making an experiment, which, however, did not bear fruit, as hostilities had ceased before the troops reached the Cape. In the first place, they did what had been urged by many officers of experience—they armed a certain number of Cavalry with the long rifle. The question as to whether Cavalry could conveniently carry the long rifle had, no doubt, been a matter of much dispute; but there were those in the War Office who thought it could be accomplished, and that it might be possible to arm a large proportion of British Cavalry with that weapon. In the second place, they organized and sent out to South Africa under Major Barron a body of Mounted Rifles. As he had stated, owing to the cessation of hostilities, they were not brought into action, but if they had, then there would have been a good test of the value of the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. The Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire contained the words "corps of mounted infantry." Now, the formation of a regular standing corps of Mounted Infantry was a matter which required to be well weighed. They had already Dragoons, Carbineers, Hussars, and Lancers, and to add a fifth denomination would be a movement in the wrong direction. What they wished to do was to simplify the divisions of the Cavalry rather than to add a special corps, which would soon come to be regarded as a Cavalry regiment. What he hoped might be done was to take measures to have among our Infantry soldiers a considerable proportion of men who knew how to ride, and to provide in time of peace a sufficient store of saddles and other necessary equipments. If this could be done it would meet the object which the hon. and gallant Member had in view; because we should then have ready on our hand, when the time came, facilities for using our Infantry soldiers in the way he had suggested. He was very much disposed to see whether something could

    859
    not be done which would give us, in time of actual service, a good Mounted Infantry, trained in the use of the rifle, and with the simplest accoutrements. There were at the War Office several experienced officers who had given this question their careful consideration, and with their assistance he hoped before next year to be able to arrive at some decision which would be generally acceptable to the House.
    LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he wished to express his pleasure that this important question had been raised by his hon. and gallant Friend, and his satisfaction at the answer given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. There would, however, as he feared, be a difficulty in providing the horses. He suggested that as there was at present a light company in each regiment, there should also be a mounted company, which could act either upon foot or upon horseback, as the case might require. There had never been a better corps than the Cape Mounted Bines. It did very good service, and seemed to him to be a model for mounted infantry. He was only sorry that that body had been done away with, and he should be very glad if his right hon. Friend would come down to the House and say that he would revive it in another form.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, it would be useless to arm the Cavalry with long rifles, unless the whole of the accoutrements were altered, and even then he doubted their efficiency. What was wanted was a corps of small men, with light sling rifles, and mounted on small horses, lightly accoutred, so that they could gallop up to a given point without unnecessary fatigue, dismount, and fire as rapidly as possible, and then be ready in a moment to mount and ride off.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTurged the Secretary for War to act upon the lines which he had suggested without delay.
    GENERAL BURNABYsaid, he should be glad to see a larger distribution of pistols amongst soldiers than there was at present. The foreign Armies were extensively armed with them. The Evans' pistol, of American make, was the best. As to magazine rifles, those of the Evans' make were admirably adapted to use by mounted infantry. The magazine of this rifle carried 21
    860
    rounds, and it did not possess the disadvantages of the spiral spring. Russia had recently purchased 20,000 of these rifles, and he thought a trial should be made of them.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  ARMY—LONG SERVICE SOLDIERS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    COLONEL COLTHURST COLONEL COLTHURST, who had a Notice on the Paper to call attention
    "To the necessity that exists for retaining a certain proportion of soldiers serving for pension exclusive of non-commissioned officers,"
    said, he would not delay the time of the House by discussing the question; but, believing that men of that character would give increased strength to the British Army, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers who had a moral, if not a legal, claim to re-engage, provided their characters and physique were satisfactory, would be allowed to do so? To make short service effective it was necessary to have a considerable leaven of old soldiers.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he approved the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. It was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of discipline that there should be a certain proportion of old soldiers in a regiment.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the soldier—other than the non-commissioned officer—had no right or expectation to be re-engaged; but he had stated that it had been determined to allow commanding officers to make recommendations of individual soldiers enlisted under the former rules for re-engagement, and each case would be considered on its merits. But, as a general rule, if a man was not fit to be a non-commissioned officer within the first 12 years of his service, he would not be likely to give fair value for his money during the succeeding nine years. Part of the attraction of the new system was that after a non-commissioned officer had served 14 or 15 years, it was very likely that he would get on to the permanent staff of the Militia or the Volunteers. Again, by an arrangement between the War Department and the Government of India a certain proportion of short service men would be allowed to extend

    861
    their period of service with the Colours from 8 to 10 or even 12 years. As to the influence of old soldiers, he doubted very much whether the influence of the re-engaged private was good; and, on the whole, he thought it better not to establish any general principle as to re-engagement.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was glad to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, because he was satisfied that young soldiers in India were not capable of performing the work required from them.
    COLONEL NORTHsaid, that in 1870 Mr. Cardwell spoke of "the importance of retaining in the Army that most valuable member, the old soldier," and that the late Duke of Wellington said the old soldier was the life and soul of the whole Army. But at present no veterans were to be found in the Army, He was ready to give every credit to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War for his desire to promote the efficiency of the Army; but he thought the greatest mistake the right hon. Gentleman made was to interfere with the regimental system of our Army. The recent changes had given great dissatisfaction to the Service, especially the changing of the names of the regiments. There was also very great dissatisfaction at regiments losing their numbers.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—ANTRIM ARTILLERY MILITIA.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the irregularities committed by some of the officers and men in the Antrim Artillery Militia. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would institute a searching inquiry into the charges against them; otherwise it might be necessary early next Session to move for a Select Committee to investigate them.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had no right to speak again; but by permission of the House he would do so. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cavan would allow him to ask a question. He spoke of charges. What charges were they, and who made them? The matter had not
    862
    recently been raised in a formal manner. Part of the charges to which the hon. Member referred originated in 1879, and had been disposed of in an answer given to the hon. Member on a Motion which he raised. Now, he spoke of something that occurred this year; but some conversation was going on in the House, and the hon. Member's words were difficult to follow. But if he referred to charges, he this year must ask who had made those charges, and where were they made?
    MR. BIGGARexplained that the charges he referred to arose out of the 1879 business, and the general want of discipline in the regiment at the time; and, though one of the persons implicated had resigned, there were others who since had obtained promotion instead of censure.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, that being the case, he had to say that the matter was fully looked into; and last year the regiment was reported as in a thoroughly efficient state. He must decline to accept a proposal for any further inquiry next year when the hon. Member made his Motion, unless some new facts came to his knowledge.
    MR. BIGGAEsaid, he did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a promise for an inquiry, but only that he would himself make inquiries.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER—SUSPENSION OF MR. O'KELLY.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he rose to draw attention to a Motion which had stood on the Paper in his name for a month in regard to the suspension of his hon. Friend the junior Member for the county of Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly). It was to the effect—
    "That it is not in accordance with the orders and precedents of this House that a Member of this House should be suspended from its service for describing as lying and calumnious statements reflecting on the honour of the same Member."
    It was not desirable that a Motion of that kind, which might seem to bear on the action of the highest authority in the House, and to dispute the ruling of the highest authority of the House, should remain any longer on the Paper than was absolutely necessary. Therefore, although he could not now take a

    863
    division or submit his Motion formally, he would, with the permission of the House, bring the matter forward by way of discussion, which would have the effect of finally disposing of it. The circumstances in which the suspension of his hon. Friend took place were of rather a peculiar character. On the 3rd of June last, a Question was asked by the hon. Member for the county of Lei-trim (Mr. Tottenham) with reference to a false report as to firing at a Mr. Daly, near Loughrea, in the county of Galway. The hon. Member for Leitrim, as he was much in the habit of doing, accompanied that Question with reference to the truth of that report, which had turned out to be false, with an innuendo against the organization known as the Irish National Land League, of which several Members of that House were members. The hon. Member asked whether that was not the third murder or attempted murder within the last three weeks in the same locality attributable to the Land League? A point of Order was then raised by the hon. Member for the city of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor)—namely, "whether a Question mendaciously attributing to the Land League the responsibility—" The hon. Member for the city of Galway was thereupon interrupted by loud cries of "Order! "and by the rising of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) to another point of Order. The right hon. Baronet asked whether the word "mendacious" could properly be applied by one Member of the House to another? And the Speaker ruled that if the hon. Member, when he used the word "mendacious," applied it to a Member of the House, he was clearly out of Order, and called upon the hon. Member to withdraw it, and he did withdraw it and substituted the expression "inaccurately." Then the hon. Member for the county of Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), after some further conversation had taken place, rose to another point of Order, and, with a considerable appearance of very natural indignation, asked the Speaker whether it was proper for an hon. Member, in putting Questions in that House, to make, in regard to Gentlemen sitting on those Benches, statements that were "lying and calumnious?" At once there broke forth loud cries of "Order!" and "Name!" The Speaker thereupon said
    864
    that he was bound to name Mr. O'Kelly, and the Prime Minister made the Motion that Mr. O'Kelly should be suspended from the service of the House during the Sitting, which was carried by a considerable majority. He would presently show that the words used by Mr. O'Kelly had been ruled by two former Speakers—Mr. Denison and Mr. Lefevre—to be not out of Order. The Standing Order under which Mr. O'Kelly was suspended was adopted by the House in pursuance of a recommendation of the Committee on the Business of the House which sat in 1877 to consider the question of Obstruction and the best means of dealing with it. Among the witnesses examined were the then Chairman of Committees (Mr. Raikes) and the Speaker, and their evidence was directed, not to the obstruction of a particular measure by those who were interested in it, but to the question of general obstruction by repeated and long speeches, repetition of arguments, the moving of the adjournment of the House and of Progress, and by other means. It was to meet the case of general obstruction that the Rule was framed; but Mr. O'Kelly had not been guilty of particular or general obstruction of any kind. His hon. Friend was one of the most inoffensive Members of the House, and, so far from obstructing its proceedings, had only addressed the House twice that Session and once only last Session. His suspension did not take place, because he had committed the offence against which clearly the Rule in question was adopted. But even if his hon. Friend had offended against the Rule, he might at least have been warned before the penalty of suspension was inflicted upon him. That, however, was not the case, and he was suspended without having been called to Order or asked to withdraw the expressions he had used, and was so on the ground that the hon. Member for County Galway had used the word" mendacious," and was called to Order for doing so, which fact, it was said, ought to have warned Mr. O'Kelly to be careful of the language he used. He would now come to the precedents to which he had referred. On the 27th of April, 1855, a discussion took place in reference to some charges made by a Member of the House against the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and in the course of the discussion Colonel Knox said that there

    865
    "was not a word of truth" in the charge made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury against General Cunningham. The word used by his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon was "lying," a rougher word, but conveying the same meaning as the words "not a word of truth." The hon. Member, however, using those words was not suspended for doing so. He was asked to withdraw them as un-Parliamentary, and he did so. In the course of the same debate Lord Palmerston said that "every Member who heard the charges made must be convinced that they were false and calumnious." The words "lying and calumnious" were used by his hon. Friend; but here were words used by Lord Palmerston which were the equivalent of those words. On that occasion Mr. Otway drew the attention of the Speaker (Mr. Lefevre) to the words "false and calumnious," and what happened? The Speaker on the occasion ruled that the words were not out of Order. But he (Mr. Parnell) had other precedents and more recent ones in the spirit of his contention. In the debate on the Resolution moved by Mr. Disraeli on the 27th July, 1864, Mr. Gathorne Hardy—now Lord Cranbrook—said an hon. Member had used language which did no credit to himself or the Government which he represented; and he pointed out that the words "false and calumnious" had been used. Mr. Denison, who was then Speaker, said there was nothing in those words calling for his interference. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—the Present Prime Minister—intervened in the debate, and although he was present when these words were uttered, said he had not heard the disorderly words, and he agreed with the Speaker that the words "false and calumnious statement" were within Parliamentary limits. Yet it was for using these words that the Prime Minister asked a few weeks since that the Member for Roscommon should be suspended. He (Mr. Parnell) had established that these words were within the right of debate; and, consequently, the motive or reason for condemning his hon. Friend because he used those words was not sufficient. His hon. Friend would have withdrawn the words if he had been asked to do so; but he got no opportunity of withdrawing them, having been immediately subjected to the
    866
    very summary and stringent ruling of the Chair. He (Mr. Parnell) wished to say that a question of this kind, brought forward without Notice, and imputing an offence of a highly criminal and scandalous character to an organization with which Members of that House were connected, was one very likely to excite angry feelings. Although he was willing to admit that the words of his hon. Friend were stronger than should be used, yet he submitted the hon. Member was entitled to be told that his words were un-Parliamentary. When such precedents had been set and deliberate rulings given them before a Member was suspended for using such words he was entitled to receive warning from the Chair. It was because the Irish Members felt the injustice of that ruling that he (Mr. Parnell) had put this Motion on the Paper, and which he was now precluded from moving; but he was satisfied he had said enough to show the injustice done to his hon. Friend by the suspension on the occasion in question.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am sorry to say that I must impugn the course of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in a wider sense than merely contesting his argument. I do not quite understand the liberty which he assumes to himself, for he seems on one night to appeal to the Rules of the House for protection, and on another to ruthlessly trample those very same Rules under foot. He knows very well to what I refer, because the facts are recent.
    MR. PARNELL: I submit that the Prime Minister is out of Order in referring to a past matter which has been definitely decided by the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: I cannot see that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman are irrelevant.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Why, during the whole of the discussion the hon. Member has himself been referring to a past matter which has been definitely decided by the House. But in applying to the Chair he was perfectly consistent, for, as I said before, he appeals to the rules of the House one night, and on another night he not only tramples the Rules under foot, but insults the authorities I object to the proceeding of the hon. Gentleman in this House also. I admit fully that every Member of the House is en-

    867
    titled to impugn and pronounce censure upon the conduct of the Speaker on grave and sufficient grounds; but if he does this, I contend that he is bound so to do in a manner of which the House may judge and on which it may pronounce a judgment. This the hon. Member has carefully refrained from doing, and the House can only, if it chooses, bandy words without pronouncing a judgment. I should have thought that it was an elementary principle of common sense that charges should not be lightly made against the Speaker of the House. The Chair of this House is not made to have dirt thrown upon it—it is not made to be the subject of loose and random talk such as that in which the hon. Member indulges. But whether such charges are lightly made or not, it is the prime duty of the hon. Member as a Member of this House, when he makes such charges, to make them in such a manner that the Chair can either be acquitted or condemned. The hon. Member, however, on the contrary, makes these charges against the Chair to-night at a time when he himself tells us the Chair cannot be either acquitted or condemned. The Chair can be made the subject of abuse or of vituperation; but the charges cannot either be met or substantiated. The hon. Member, in the course he has thought fit to pursue, therefore, has entirely mistaken the first elements of his duty as a Member of this House. The hon. Member, who has chosen to give to his censure the character of a lecture to the Chair, seems entirely to forget that the proceeding of the Chair was recognized and adopted by an enormous majority of this House. "Why had not the hon. Gentleman the manliness to say at once that he was impugning the judgment of the House? No doubt, that judgment was founded upon the proceeding of the Chair; but that proceeding was taken up and adopted and made the basis of the judgment of the House. I should have thought it was a well-known principle of our system in this House—and I am astonished that a man with one-tenth part of the discernment of the hon. Member should not have perceived it, and had the hon. Member been guided by a right sense of his duty to the House he would have perceived it—that the judgment of the House stands between himself and the Chair, and protects the Chair from the charges that he
    868
    has brought against it. Well, Sir, I think I have shown that the proceedings of the hon. Member recoil upon himself, and lead us to pass a sentence of condemnation upon the course he has thought fit to adopt on this occasion. I now turn to a little matter—a very little matter—the argument of the hon. Member. It may, perhaps, be said that I have dealt warmly with this matter; but I feel warmly with regard to it, and it will be a bad day for England, and a bad day for us all, when we cease to feel warmly upon such a subject, which involves the existence of the essential Rules of debate. The hon. Member has put forward two contentions—the first being that the Rule under which the Speaker acted was not intended to apply to the purpose to which you, Sir, applied it, but only to meet a case of persistent Obstruction. With all submission to the hon. Member, I am prepared to maintain that your application of that Rule was strictly justified. The Rule adopted by the House was intended, not only to meet the case of persistent Obstruction, but to insure the decency, the propriety, and the order of the proceedings of this House. The hon. Member says that you, Sir, are armed with a power of noticing, and, in certain cases, of punishing persons whom you may think require such notice or such punishment; but that you are not justified in using that power when it is merely a question of maintaining the decency and propriety of the language used. But what proof, Sir, does the hon. Member give in support of that assertion? That the power with which you are armed sprang out of a certain set of circumstances connected with a system of persistent Obstruction I fully admit—a system which came into existence contemporaneously with the entrance of the hon. Member into this House. The hon. Member quoted the evidence of yourself, Sir, and Mr. Cecil Raikes in support of his proposition. But although that might have been part of the argument used at the time, it did not limit the terms of the measure that was adopted. What are those terms? "Disregarding the authority of the Chair." [Mr. PARNELL: Wilfully disregarding.] Although that may be so, what I contend is, that the limitation applied by the hon. Gentleman is a limitation imported by his private judgment into

    869
    the Order of the House. I took it on the credit of the hon. Gentleman; but the Standing Order has just been supplied to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair). It is dated the 25th February, 1880, and runs thus—
    "Whenever any hon. Member shall have been named by the Speaker or by the Chairman of the Committee of the whole House as disregarding the authority of the Chair."
    Therefore, I say the hon. Gentleman should not supply interpolations of that kind without verifying his ground in the first instance. The meaning of those words is much wider than that which the hon. Member placed upon them—namely, that the Standing Order only referred to cases of persistent Obstruction. But the hon. Member comes finally to this—that the words which were used by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) were covered by the previous ruling of the Chair. I will consider specifically the two words "lying" and "calumnious." I remember a portion of the circumstances cited by the hon. Member—indeed, I took the opportunity of referring to them on a former occasion, and they are now fresh in my mind. I feel, Sir, a debt of gratitude to Mr. Speaker Denison as a very able and excellent Speaker of this House, and who possessed an acuteness of mind and a capacity to deal with difficult questions which I think was not exceeded by any of his Predecessors. On the occasion referred to, Mr. Speaker Denison, on the appeal first of Lord Palmerston and then of myself, declined to exclude the word '' calumnious'' as un-Parliamentary. But, looking at the matter historically, I am not bound to assume that Mr. Speaker Denison was infallible in the matter.
    MR. HEALY: The Irish Members are compelled to recognize the Speaker as infallible.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the hon. Member is so carried away by his own feelings in this matter that he is totally unable to comprehend my meaning. I am dealing with an historical review. It is one thing to be compelled to submit to the authority of the Speaker at the moment, and it is another to look back to the annals of history. Though you may be bound to accept the ruling at the moment, there is nothing to prevent you impeaching that ruling at a future time. If I am cast by what I
    870
    deem to be an unjust verdict, I must submit to it for the time, though afterwards I may condemn it. I do not hesitate, therefore, to say that with regard to the use of the word "calumnious "I should have felt under a great obligation to you, Sir, if you had re versed the decision of Mr. Speaker Denison, because it appears to me that the word. "calumnious" inevitably and essentially involves the imputation of motive. I hope the one result of the present discussion will be to enable us to put an end to the Parliamentary use of that word. I come now to the most vital part of the argument of the hon. Member, in which it appears to me that his reasoning entirely breaks down. The hon. Member argues that the word "lying" is also covered by the previous ruling of the Chair. The speech, however, to which the hon. Member refers in support of his contention does not contain the word "lying," but merely asserts that the statement in question had not a word of truth in it. Such an expression as the latter may be discourteous; but it does not necessarily imply that the Member who makes it is uttering an untruth to his knowledge; but the use of the word "lying" imputes that the Member knows that he is telling and intends to tell a lie. One word upon the case itself. The word '' mendacious'' had been used by another Member, and there had been an appeal to the Chair, and immediately after the word "mendacious" had been used, censured, and withdrawn, another Member described the statement to which the word "mendacious" had been applied as "lying and calumnious." I say, in the first place, that the expression "lying and calumnious "was not merely a repetition, but it was a heavy aggravation of that which had been just before declared to be offensive, and acknowledged as offensive and withdrawn. And this is what the hon. Member for the City of Cork rises to cover and defend to the extent of saying that it ought to have been treated tenderly. He has instructed us as to what the Speaker ought to do, and says hon. Members should be guided by him in the course which they should adopt. You, Sir, have very frequently given warnings to Members as to the evil way in which they were walking before resorting to an exercise of your authority. You have done this

    871
    with a patience that is astonishing—with a patience, let me tell you, that sometimes make Members impatient—and then I am to be told that because of this patience, by which you are even spoiling Members of this House—if I may make such a charge—when a great outrage is committed, when most violent language is used, and used by a person who must have known it was a very great aggravation, the matter should be taken up by an hon. Gentleman who occupied about an hour of the time of this House in contending that you came down too rapidly upon an innocent and valuable Member. [" Oh! "] I beg the pardon of the hon. Member. Let him listen to his own Leader. The hon. Member for the City of Cork urged the special claims of the hon. Member for Roscommon because he was innocent and valuable. I deny that because he is innocent and valuable he is to be allowed to violate the Rules of this House, the rules of common courtesy, and the rules which I do not hesitate to say ought to influence gentlemen in private life. I hold that the arguments of the hon. Member have not been maintained, that the discussion is ill-timed and ill-chosen, and that by this manner of impugning the Chair by a censure directed against a tribunal of the highest authority, a tribunal untainted with the least suspicion of partiality, when he knows that no issue can be taken, and no verdict of conviction or acquittal pronounced, the hon. Member does no credit to himself or to those with whom he acts.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the charge against members of the Land League on the occasion in question was that they were participes crimines in a murder committed in a particular district. Members of the Land League had a right to repel that charge with indignation. The Prime Minister, with an animation of manner which he had so much at his command when Party purposes demanded his warmth, had justified the conduct of the Speaker; but that was not the course he took yesterday when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster supported a Re-solution which virtually condemned the conduct of the Speaker. On the contrary, the Prime Minister sat in complacent silence. The style of reply which had now become stereotyped in the case of Questions put by Irish Members to Members of the Government
    872
    ought to be given up. There were precedents for the use of the word "mendacious" in that House. One of the Predecessors of the Speaker had decided that it was not un-Parliamentary for one Member to say of another Member that he had made a mendacious statement. The word "calumnious" was an epithet, as the Prime Minister justly observed, which imputed motives; yet that epithet was actually allowed to pass by two Predecessors of the present Speaker, and its use was not discouraged on a former occasion by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Nothing could be more dangerous than that the Irish Members should have any just reason to suspect that they were treated with a severity which was not extended to other Members of the House. [" Oh! "] He was not asserting that that was now the case. The rights of majorities were always safe; and he thought it was the duty of the Chair to be the guardian and protector of any Party in the House, however small it might be numerically, which was likely to be unfairly dealt with in the chances and struggles of political warfare.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYadmitted that the words "calumnious and lying" were somewhat too strong for fair Parliamentary discussion; and he confessed that he did not particularly admire even that sort of invective which an eminent authority had pronounced to be "an ornament of debate." He thought that on the 3rd of June both the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) and the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) had offended against the unwritten law of Parliament. But the latter Gentleman, it should be remembered, was a prominent member of the Executive of the Land League, a body which the hon. Member for Leitrim had charged with inciting to murder. In the heat, naturally excited by disgust at so odious and calumnious a charge, it was not surprising that any hon. Member should have lost his temper, although it was also perfectly fair that the Chair should have interfered to prevent the use of such strong epithets as "lying and calumnious." With every respect, however, for the Speaker, he thought the Chair might well have interposed to prevent the application of such an abominable charge as that brought by the hon. Member for Leitrim against the

    873
    Executive of the Land League. He could not refrain from protesting against the theory, which had. lately been encouraged by Her Majesty's Ministers, that the Members of the House were the bondsmen of the Chair—that the Speaker was the master, the dictator, and the law-giver of the House, and that in questioning anything which he said or did they were offending against the law and order of Parliament. Such a notion was, to quote the language of the Prime Minister, a gigantic innovation in the history of this, country.
    MR. JOHN BRIGHTsaid, reference had been made to something which took place in the House yesterday; and it had been sought to make it appear that he especially, and some others, had called in question the action of the Speaker yesterday, and had, in fact, given some support to a Motion which was intended to censure the Speaker. Both of those things were entirely inaccurate. In the observations which he made yesterday he said distinctly that the Speaker had no option; that he was only carrying out the instruction of the House, given in a certain Resolution passed some months ago. It was a Resolution which he had voted against, and which he was going to say was one of the most foolish Resolutions, but that that term would not be respectful to the House. It was, however, he thought, one of the most unhappy Resolutions which had been come to in his time. The Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton yesterday had not the intention of censuring the Speaker. That hon. Member, and the seven or eight other Gentlemen who had voted with him, voted in condemnation of the general proceedings of the House on the question in regard to Mr. Bradlaugh. No Member of the House had the slightest intention of censuring the Speaker. What had been done was most unhappy; but it was not to be attributed to the Chair, but to the course which the House itself had taken, and many of the Irish Members sitting opposite had supported the policy which had led to the unfortunate transaction of yesterday. It seemed to him that the whole discussion was beside the question, because it was not a question of precedent at all. What had happened was this. The hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) put a Question which was not a very friendly one to the Irish
    874
    Members who sat opposite. The Speaker himself said that had he previously seen the words of the Question he should have objected to them. However, the Question was put, and the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) characterized it as "mendacious." The Speaker called the hon. Member to Order, and the word was withdrawn. Almost immediately afterwards the hon. Member for Roscommon rose in his place, and there was this excuse for him, that he seemed to labour under the influence of passion that was not simulated. [" Hear, hear!"] Well, he had seen a great deal of passion lately which was simulated. The hon. Member, with feeling which was not simulated, said that a certain statement was calumnious and lying. The Speaker thereupon called him to Order. [Mr. HEALY: No, no!] What, then, was the state of the case? The hon. Member for Galway had withdrawn words he had used as un-Parliamentary, and almost immediately afterwards another Member, sitting behind him, got up and uttered words in a fierce manner, even far more un-Parliamentary than the words which had been withdrawn. The Speaker immediately rose, and, in accordance with the Standing Order, declared that the hon. Member for Roscommon was disregarding the authority of the Chair, because he had risen and spoken words far more blameable than those the Speaker had just been condemning. It was not, then, a case of precedent. It was a case of violent disregard of the authority of the Chair; and, therefore, the Speaker was not only within his right, but within his duty—he was sorry to say—when he found it necessary to take the step he did. He must say that he thought at the time the language of the hon. Member for Roscommon was a passionate expression, which possibly, in a quieter mood, he would not have made, and he was sorry the hon. Member did not rise immediately and withdraw it. [Mr. HEALY: He had no opportunity.] It was clear that the authority of the Chair had been disregarded; and the Speaker was not only within his right, but within his duty, in taking the steps he had adopted. If the hon. Member had withdrawn the words, the necessity for the Speaker taking those steps might have been avoided; but as to the propriety, legality,

    875
    and consistency of those steps, he thought there could be no doubt whatever. He thought that the hon. Member for the City of Cork, notwithstanding some rough experience which he had had in that House, would admit to his own conscience that the Speaker had been entirely free from blame, and that he could not hope for either that Assembly, or the visionary Assembly to which he was looking forward, to be presided over by a Speaker that was more distinguished for impartiality and a wish to do justice to every side than was the right hon. Gentleman who now occupied the Chair.
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he desired to state the reason which had actuated him in putting the Question, to which reference had been made, upon the Paper. There had been three or four murders committed within a very few weeks in districts governed by the Land League, and the perpetration of one of those murders was known at the time it took place, or within an hour afterwards, at a village five miles from the place where it occurred. The prisoners who were arrested on a charge of having committed some of those murders were furnished with counsel and food by the Council of the Land League. It was, therefore, a justifiable conclusion to arrive at that the Land League were at the bottom of those occurrences. His conviction was as strong now as it was then that the Land League were directly responsible for those murders, and for the outrages which had disgraced Ireland for the last 12 months.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that the hon. Member for Leitrim might as well say that the Government of Ireland were responsible for those murders, as to say that the Land League were responsible for them. With respect to the question under discussion, the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken admitted the whole case when he said that his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon had not had an opportunity of withdrawing the words he had used. [Mr. JOHN BRIGHT: What I said was that I regretted he had not withdrawn them.] His hon. Friend the Member for Eos-common (Mr. O'Kelly) had not an opportunity of doing so; and he was not, in fact, asked to withdraw them. In his (Mr. Healy's) opinion, the remark of the right hon. Gentleman strengthened the
    876
    position of the Irish Members; for it appeared to him to be an admission that the hon. Member had been suspended without being afforded an opportunity of withdrawing his statement. Having referred to former debates, it appeared that because one hon. Member used an expression not so strong as others that had already been allowed, therefore he was to be suspended. This was on the principle that, because Solomon was a wise man, because someone else was a strong man, therefore someone else played the harp. It was astonishing to him to notice the way in which Irish affairs were treated by the occupants of the Treasury Bench. A charge of murder being made against Members sitting near him was described by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as being not particularly friendly; but the same right hon. Gentleman used the most delicate and silken words when referring to anything that might be alleged against Members sitting on his own side of the House. As far as he and those who sat near him were personally concerned, they had become so inured to this sort of thing that they took no notice of anything that proceeded from the Treasury Bench, and were simply amused at the means by which they were tried to be enmeshed. When the Prime Minister got up that evening, there were few Members in the House; but the Liberal Whip soon procured an audience to witness the mechanical passion of the right hon. Gentleman, and to hear him work himself up to that pitch of wrath with which the House was so familiar. It would have been more in consonance with the view of the Irish Members if they could have taken a vote of the House upon this matter; but, that being impossible, they had been compelled to content themselves with calling attention to the matter.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the hon. Member for Leitrim had declared that the Land League was a "murderous organization," which the hon. Member for Galway had declared to be a "mendacious" statement. The Speaker having ruled that "mendacious" was an un-Parliamentary expression, the hon. Member for Galway withdrew it, whereupon the hon. Member for Roscommon asked whether there was to be no protection against "lying and calumnious" state-

    877
    ments. The use of those words by no means imputed to the hon. Member for Leitrim that he was knowingly stating that which was false. Speaking as a journalist, and as one accustomed to write the English language, he maintained that there was no journalist who did not know the vast difference between saying that a statement was a lying and calumnious statement, and saying that a statement had been made mendaciously by any man. In the one case you said a man was a liar, in the other that he had made a lying statement, and you threw on him the onus of showing how that statement got into his paper.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £52,400, Divine Service.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he was not going to raise any objection to this Vote, but merely desired to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. There was a certain number of military chaplaincies provided for in this Vote which were in the gift of official personages, amongst these were the chaplaincy of the Tower and the chaplaincy of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. With regard to these, it seemed to him that it was rather an anomaly that they should not be in the gift of the Secretary of State for War. He had nothing whatever to say against the manner in which these offices had been filled up. The present chaplains were both known to him; they were Army chaplains, although by no means senior chaplains of the Army, and it therefore seemed to him that it would be advantageous if the Secretary of State for War would take these appointments into his own special patronage, and reserve them in future for men who had for many years served their country at home and abroad. He reminded the right hon. Gentleman that there were very few prizes for Army chaplains who had to retire from the Service in the full vigour of their age.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite should be looked into.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £39,800, Administration of Military Law.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the charges for a number of officials under this Vote were given in a lump sum, instead of in detail. For instance, there was one item of £9,229, which represented the pay of the Governors, chief warders, warders, assistant warders, messengers, and others, at the military prisons. The same observations applied to the charge for the pay of the provost staff and military police, £7,000; and likewise to the item of £5,000 for the pay and extra duty pay of provost marshals and military police in garrisons and camps. He failed to see any reason why these items should not be given separately in detail, and trusted that in future the Estimate would be framed on that principle.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would look into the subject to which his attention had been drawn by the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite, with the view, if possible, of giving the desired information.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could do anything to improve the cumbrous and clumsy procedure now adopted in general courts martial. The Committee might possibly not be aware of the dilatory way in which the proceedings in these cases were conducted. Every question originated, either by the prosecution, by the prisoner, or by any member of the court, must, in the first instance, be reduced to writing; it had then to be passed to the Judge Advocate and the President, and, if approved by them, it was then read aloud; but, if it was not approved, it was returned to the person who propounded it. In the case of Colonel Crawley the delay was so intolerable that the two sides came to an arrangement with regard to the questions; and, as stated in The Times, after a few days, the plan was adopted of allowing each party to read its own questions. He remembered that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Home Secretary, who appeared for the defence, was, according to the present practice, which permitted a lawyer to advise the prisoner but not himself to address the court, not allowed to read the speech which he had prepared on the occasion, and which, being read by another, suf-

  879
  fered very much in consequence. He was aware that these things did not occur very often; but still they were not so infrequent as not to deserve attention. The Committee would remember that last year a sergeant was tried for fraud, in connection with the marking at Wimbledon; and he ventured to say that the questions which had occupied the court martial for so many days in that case would have been settled in one by a civil court. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to remedy this form of procedure.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for calling attention to the subject. Under the Army Discipline and Regulation Act of 1870 it became necessary to draw up a totally new set of rules, which would very much simplify the procedure of courts martial; and the Government had had to consider whether these rules should be included in the Bill introduced a few nights since—the Regulation of Forces Bill—or whether they should wait until the Bill was passed, and then establish one simple and entire Code. The rules were finished, and would be issued before the end of the year. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he should mention that he was himself rather in advance of the opinions of some hon. Members.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he had given Notice some time ago of a Motion for a Return of courts martial; but the Secretary of State for War had not seen his way to grant it. He thought the present was not an unfitting occasion on which again to call attention to the subject, and to ask what objection there was to a Return of the punishments awarded by courts martial being furnished. It might be urged that this Return would draw invidious distinctions between some regiments; but, for his own part, he could see no reason why contrasts should not be made between one regiment and another in respect of the punishments awarded by courts martial. On the contrary, he thought the Return would be of great use in drawing the attention of commanding officers to the position of the various regiments. There might, of course, be reasons why the authorities should refuse the Return he asked for; but the question, at any rate, was one
  880
  upon which information should be afforded.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would rather see the Return asked for by his hon. Friend included in the General Annual Return of the British Army than given separately. The Return would be very voluminous; but his hon. Friend might rely that the subject should receive his attention.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONpointed out that the present system of procedure in courts martial was very much in favour of the prisoner. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be content with the changes he had already made this year in Army affairs.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £300,500,MedicalEstablishments and Services.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, here, again, the whole charge for the pay of the officers in this Department were lumped together in one sum of £227,723. As he had said before, there was no reason whatever why the Committee should not know what these officers received. Further details were also desirable in the case of Netley Hospital on page 30.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he believed that if the hon. and gallant Baronet would refer to the Appendix he would find there much of the detail that he desired. At the same time, he would look further into the matter.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYhoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that the class of men best qualified for the duty were placed in the position of hospital attendants. Short service men were, in his opinion, not the best for the purpose of nursing soldiers; and he thought that when men were found to be good orderlies they ought to be retained in that position.
  MR. FINDLATERwished to urge upon the Secretary of State for War the claims of the Army medical officers. Many of these gentlemen, in addition to risking their lives in the field, incurred serious illnesses in the discharge of their duties; and he contended that they should be placed in the same category as combatant officers of the Army. It must be clear to hon. Members that the medical officer who, without the excitement to support him which was felt by the combatant officer, really displayed

  881
  the highest degree of true courage in attending to the wounded. The records of our recent wars furnished many instances of the bravery displayed by medical officers, the terrible risks they ran, and the sacrifice of life in action which their duties entailed upon them. But these officers, although running the same risks as their combatant brethren, for the simple reason that they were non-combatant, were deprived of the privilege conferred upon other officers of the Army by the Army Circular of March, 1880, in respect of counting time not exceeding one year on half-pay towards voluntary retirement. The right hon. Gentleman had, on a former occasion, promised to look into this matter; and he could assure him that it was very desirable that some steps should be taken, because, undoubtedly, great discontent existed amongst the medical officers of the Army, who felt strongly the invidious distinction that was drawn between them and the combatant officers in the Service. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would hold out some hope to these very deserving gentlemen that, at an early day, he would be able to do something for them.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he considered that the proposal of the hon. Member, that medical officers should be placed on the same footing as combatant officers, would involve a great disadvantage to them, inasmuch as they were, in some respects, as compared with combatant officers, much better treated. The Regulations with regard to medical officers had been settled by his Predecessor with extreme care and after long consideration; and, on the whole, he believed that the alteration proposed by the hon. Member would place them in a worse position than they now occupied.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £476,900, Militia and Militia Reserve.
  EARL PERCYsaid, he rose to call attention to a subject upon which he had before asked a question of the right hon. Gentleman, and which had excited considerable interest amongst the officers of Militia regiments. It had been for a long time past the custom of the Government of the day to make constant changes in the uniforms of the Army and Militia; and during the years he had served in the latter branch he had
  882
  in consequence of these Regulations, changed the character of almost every garment once or twice. Now, these repeated alterations were not only vexatious in themselves, but they were the source of very serious expense to officers whose means were rather limited. In the present instance, it was proposed to change the whole of the uniforms of the Militia, and to assimilate them to the uniforms of the linked battalions of the Regular Forces of the district. He had, through the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, addressed a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, as to whether the proposed change would not entail upon the officers of the Militia the very serious cost of £ 80,000; and the answer received from him was to the effect that he had, to a great extent, exaggerated the expense which it would entail—that he had no reason to believe that the expense would approach the sum named, and that in many cases but a small outlay would be necessary. He would not enter upon a lengthy discussion on the expediency of the proposed change; but, for his own part, he was quite unable to see the advantage of dressing the Militia officer in borrowed plumage. Although he was aware that his opinions upon this subject were not shared by all the officers of the Militia, yet it was hardly correct of the right hon. Gentleman to say that the proposed alterations had been received with general approval, because he had received many representations from Militia officers that they extremely disliked them. Nor was it a correct statement to say that the substitution of gold for silver lace had been recommended by the Committee, because their Report did not contain one word about any change in this respect. They pointed out that, in their opinion, a strong ground existed for establishing similarity of colour, and that it seemed a question whether the Militia should not be clothed in the undress of the Regular regiments. But that was quite a different thing. His estimate of £80,000 as the cost to the officers of the Militia of making the alterations contemplated by the authorities was arrived at by taking £20 as the cost to each officer, and multiplying that figure by 4,000—the number of officers in the Militia. He had, in consequence of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman

  883
  that his estimate was incorrect, taken the trouble, by actual experiment, to ascertain the accuracy of the figure of £20, which he had adopted as the basis of this calculation; and he was entitled to say that his estimate was fully borne out by the fact that the amounts quoted by the Army tailors, to whom his inquiries had been addressed, all ranged between £34 8s. 6d. and £30 13 s. 9d. for field officers, and £20 0s. 6d. and £18 1s. 6d. for subalterns. Moreover, in addition to his estimate of £20 for each officer, there would be special extra expenses in assimilating the Militia uniform to that of particular regiments of the Regular Forces. As an instance of which he would mention the cost of £5 5s. for a new bearskin in the case of Light Infantry battalions assimilated to Fusilier regiments. Now, considering that the Militia were only in training for a month during the year, the change must necessarily be a very gradual one, and, besides the hardship of compelling them to incur this great expense, there would be the disadvantage that it would take many years before the officers of the Militia were all dressed alike. The variety of costume which would result from this would be intolerable; and if the change must really be carried out, he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it should not be effected more rapidly than was proposed. It was most desirable that no slur should be cast upon the officers of the Militia; and, therefore, he entreated that the points to which he had invited the attention of the Secretary of State for War should receive his serious consideration. The proposed changes would undoubtedly throw a great strain upon the Militia, and any help which the right hon. Gentleman could give would be thankfully accepted, and would, at the same time, tend to efficiency and to the preservation of good feeling and esprit de corps.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, he thought the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) had done much good in bringing forward this matter. For his own part, he was at a loss to see the object of the authorities in making this change, one result of which would undoubtedly be that for years Militia officers would be dressed some in one uniform and some in another. If he could be made to under-
  884
  stand the reason for the proposed alteration, it might possibly meet with his approval. The change would throw a considerable expense on the Militia officers, and particularly on the mounted officers, for which he thought they should certainly receive some compensation. He was himself an honorary colonel of the Militia; and, as an old soldier, he regarded that branch of the Service as most valuable. It had been called upon by the country more than once, and it had never been found wanting. It supplied the Army with recruits; and he rejoiced that endeavours were being made to amalgamate it more closely with the Regular Forces. But why, he asked, was this burden of expense to be cast upon the officers of Militia without compensation? He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this matter, and that the few remarks he had felt it his duty to make would have the good effect of obtaining compensation for the officers in question, if the change proposed must indeed be carried out.
  MAJOR CHESTER-MASTERsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken (Colonel Kingscote). He had been for 21 years in the Militia, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there were reasons, beyond those which had been advanced, which tended to show that by the contemplated changes the Militia would be placed in an unfair position. It appeared that the lace and facings of the uniforms were to be changed; and he would point out, as the result of the inquiries he had made, that the cost of this alone would amount to £30 in the case of colonels, and £15 for second lieutenants, the other ranks being in proportion. He also pointed out that a new uniform was incumbent on an officer of the Line when he retired from his regiment and joined the Militia, but that it was not so in the case of the Yeomanry and Volunteers. He could not see the reason for this inequality. It appeared to him only fair, as the Militia were made one with the Line, that the same benefits should be enjoyed by both with regard to promotion.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he could see no reason whatever for making the proposed changes of uniform in respect of the Militia. What possible advantage could there be in putting the crown on

  885
  the shoulder-strap instead of on. the collar? The crown and other marks of rank were more visible on the collar than on the shoulder-strap, and less likely to be rubbed by the cloak. These alterations had imposed a tax never less than £5, and up to £30, on every officer. He could only suppose that they were proposed at the instance of the Army tailors. For his own part, he was in favour of a very simple and inexpensive uniform; and he pointed out that the efficiency of some foreign armies was in no way secured by the quantity of lace displayed.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that ever since he commenced soldiering there had been one constant complaint that perpetual changes were being made for no purpose whatever. He could not but think that the right hon. Gentleman would do well to leave these matters in relation to the Army and Militia as they existed at present. But he rose principally to ask the right hon. Gentleman to state his views with regard to the advantage to be derived by the country from the formation of territorial regiments composed of two battalions of the Regular Army and two battalions of the Militia. He would be glad to know in what way the War Office were going to make use of the two Militia battalions, and how they were going to draw more closely the connection between the Militia and the Army. Certainly, he did not think that this close intimacy would be promoted by merely placing gold lace upon the uniforms of the Militia officers. Again, what was to be done with the two Militia battalions in case of imminent danger to the country? Did the right hon. Gentleman intend to make it compulsory that the men should go into the Army, or did he expect to get more volunteers for the Army than he had before? There was an opinion abroad to which he would refer on the present occasion, because it was one which ought either to be contradicted or affirmed, that it was the deliberate intention of the War Office to do away with the officers of the Militia as they now existed, and to place in the Militia officers who had retired from the Army on half-pay. That was a question as to which he should very much like to receive an answer from the right hon. Gentleman. The proceeding might be wise, or it might be one of
  886
  those things which were inevitable; but, whatever might be the truth with regard to it, he thought it should be at once clearly stated in what way the Militia was to be dealt with. He believed that a far larger Army Reserve could be got out of the Militia Reserve than out of the Reserves that it was now attempted to create. He believed the Army and Militia Reserves might be amalgamated with advantage, and that they ought to be annually drilled with those regiments with which they would have to serve in case of emergency. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state his views upon that question. There was another point to which he would refer. In places where there were not two regiments of Militia, was it the intention that a second regiment should be formed? Because there were many places where there was only one weak regiment, and yet it was said to consist of two battalions. He wished again to suggest that the Militia Reserve and the Line Reserve might be called out and drilled together, so that when they joined their regiments they would know each other and also their officers. It was a great object, when men were sent on foreign service, that they should know their officers; but, as the Reserves were formed, he would undertake to say they would not know their officers, and recent occurrences showed what disastrous consequences would occur. Another matter was this. He was informed that when the 3rd and 4th Battalions of the Royal Lancashire Militia were out they had no waterproof sheets provided for them, and everything they had was saturated with rain. Such a thing ought never to occur in this country; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would inform the Committee how such an occurrence could have taken place.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, with regard to the amalgamation of the two Militia battalions with the two Line battalions, he would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Report of the Committee in 1876, presided over by his right hon. and gallant Predecessor (Colonel Stanley), which strongly recommended the combination, by which they hoped to effect a better system of recruiting, both from the Militia to the Line and to the Line direct. Those arrangements would strengthen both the

  887
  Militia and the Line; and he hoped the time was not far distant when it would be more practicable to attach the Reserve men residing in the regimental district to the regiment in their district, instead of the men having to belong to regiments scattered all over the country, and not knowing where to go when called out. It was one of the objects of the combination that the men should have no doubt upon that point when called out either in an emergency or for training. He believed a great advantage would be gained by amalgamating the two battalions of the Line. With regard to the question of uniform, although that was of less importance than some other considerations, he believed that if the uniform was practically the same that would tend to attach the men of the Militia battalion to the Line battalion, for they would feel that they belonged to the four battalions, with headquarters at the place from which the regiment drew its men. As to the number of field officers in the Militia, the whole system of promotion and retirement in the Militia was distinctly different from that in the Line. In the Line the age of retirement was much earlier than in the Militia. With respect to the question raised by the noble Lord (Earl Percy), the experience of the War Office was that there was a great desire on the part of the officers in the Militia to have the same uniform as the Line. There was no intention to change the dress of the Yeomanry this year; and, with regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) respecting the change made some months back in the uniform of officers, that was a matter with which the Secretary of State had nothing to do; and he could, therefore, give the House no practical information upon it. But, in consequence of representations made to him, he had given an order that no further alteration of the kind should be made without the sanction of the Secretary of State for War.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLwished to draw attention to a matter of more importance than the difference between gold and silver lace. As at present carried on, the musketry instruction in the Militia was nothing but a farce. The time of training was necessarily very short, and might very fairly be occupied
  888
  by ordinary drill, without any laborious and delicate work such as musketry instruction. Of the 27 days allowed for training, three must be set aside as Sundays, one or two days were absorbed in settling into camp, or barracks, or billets, four days must be allowed at the end of the period for inspection and leaving quarters. There was thus very little time for drill and musketry instruction. A few years ago an officer in command of a company out for training was ordered, on a certain evening, to take his company to a range five miles distant on the following morning and fire 20 rounds. The company consisted of 113 men, and for that number to fire 20 rounds each in a single day was a farce if it was supposed to be done at all properly. No means of transport were provided, and the officer had to transport the men at his own expense, and to provide rations of bread and cheese at the range. He made no complaint of the expense; but he felt it humiliating to have to hurry the men through the instruction in that way. That was only a sample of what took place in every battalion of the Service; and the only way out of that system was either to give up musketry instruction, entirely, or to call out each company during the non-training period for leisurely instruction in musketry, with every necessary facility, or, again, to have alternate annual trainings for field exercise and musketry.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he wished to draw attention to the question of assimilating the two corps in the field when in action. Five mounted officers had lately been added to every Infantry battalion; but it now appeared that that increase was not for the performance of duties in the field, but merely for the sake of promotion. If that was the case, he believed the time would come when the House of Commons would not allow the addition of mounted officers not for the performance of duties, but for the sake merely of promotion. The system of drill for the Infantry must now be changed to suit the increased mounted officers. The same drill ought, therefore, to be applied to the Militia; otherwise, the Militia and the Line would not be able to act together in the field at the critical time. It would be too late, when the Militia were called out to defend the country,

  889
  to assimilate them by adding the same number of mounted officers and the same system of drill. The two corps could not act together as one brigade unless their drill was identical; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the point.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he had little sympathy with the noble Earl (Earl Percy) as to the question of clothing, for everyone in the Army knew that changes of dress were more for the benefit of the tailors than anyone else. He thought there might be a service dress as well as a dress for the ball-room; and he wished to suggest that the kersey dress used by officers might be used for drill. Officers who wanted a smart dress could have it at their own expense. Then, with regard to the number of the Militia, the total at the training in 1880 was 115,307; but the maximum voted by Parliament was 139,000. That showed a deficiency of over 23,000 men, and he wished to urge the right hon. Gentleman to adopt some way of bringing up the attendance of the Militia to the maximum voted by Parliament. There had been an improvement in the number of Militia officers who had obtained certificates; but he wished to know the proportion of field officers who had passed in the same way; for now that the Militia was to be amalgamated more or less with the Line, it was essential that the field officers and captains should be equal in every respect to the same officers in the Line.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERwished to know what arrangements had been made for giving proper quarters to Militia adjutants? They were appointed from the brigade depots; but when they joined the Militia they had to give up their quarters, and put up with one room. That ought to be inquired into; and he also wished to know whether any further remuneration would be given to them, as to the depot brigade adjutants.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he wished to draw attention to the question of second battalions of Militia. In his regiment there was some difficulty in raising a sufficient number of men for the single battalion the regiment had, and he did not see how these second battalions were to be raised, unless some steps were taken in that direction. He hoped, further, that the right
  890
  hon. Gentleman would not adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord for a cheaper dress. There ought to be a uniform laid down for officers of Militia, and it ought to be a sine quâ non that all such officers should obtain the full uniform. He agreed that the proposed change in the uniform was one that was desired by Militia officers generally, for they were extremely anxious to be identified as much as possible with their brethren of the Line. The question of uniform might be considered, a sentimental one; but to his mind it would be a good thing to increase the sympathy between the Militia and the Line by rendering the uniforms identical. The hon. Member who had brought the matter forward had reason, he thought, to be satisfied with the assurance the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had given him, and his noble Friend might reasonably conclude that all he desired would be carried out. No doubt it was the desire of the Militia officers that their uniforms should be the same as those of the Line; but, he presumed, it was not merely because of the desire of those officers that the change would be made. It would be made in the interest of the Service; therefore, he did not think the Militia officers should be called on to bear the whole of the expense.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he would not take up the time of the Committee for more than two minutes; but he wished to say that the Report of the Inspectors of Musketry recently issued as to the Militia fully bore out all that had been said by the hon. Member for Wigtownshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell). The Report said that though one or two regiments were good in rifle practice, notably the South Wales Borderers and the Wiltshire Regiment, the firing, altogether, was not satisfactory. The Report referred to the insufficiency of the musketry drills; and hon. Members had only to look at the Army Re-turns published this year to convince themselves of the fact that there was not enough spent on musketry practice. The Inspector General of Musketry said that in some individual cases the firing was good; but the volley firing was very unsatisfactory. Why was the individual firing satisfactory? It was because individuals who were good shots were nursed and coddled beyond all concep-

  891
  tion. The musketry instructors thought only of their averages. Their whole ideas were concentrated upon averages, just as some hon. Members looked to their averages in divisions. At Alder-shot, there was a flag put up to say when regiments should fire and when they should not. Sometimes the firing was discontinued for days and days together, the weather seeming beautiful. They might be at a loss to account for it, and might ask a question about it, when the answer they would receive would be something like this—"There is a strong wind blowing from the left rear." But that strong wind might be blowing from the left rear for months and months. No doubt, there was a strong wind blowing from the left rear during the battle of Majuba Hill; and the Boers, unfortunately, would not wait until that wind changed. The system pursued was thoroughly antiquated, only 90 rounds a-year being allowed, and that was clearly not enough. The Volunteers fired 2,000 rounds, and that was not too much. There had been some alteration made in the Regulations, he believed; 10 rounds less in volley firing, and 10 more in skirmishing being allowed; but the fact remained the same, that 90 rounds were insufficient. Our Army was one of the most expensive in the world, and that being so, no pains should be spared to render it efficient. However unpleasant the fact was, they must face it, and it was this—that our soldiers were the very worst shots of any army in the world. There was one other point on which he wished to say a word—one which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War—namely, the new rules as to retirement in the Militia. It appeared that the right hon. Gentleman had been dealing rather tenderly with commanding officers in the Militia, in allowing them to serve on to the age of 67 in command of regiments, when they knew that field officers of the Line retired at the age of 55. Eventually, he knew, that would not be the ease; but he was talking now of present commanding officers, who were to retire absolutely at 67. He found fault with the provision in the Regulations which followed that fixing the age, and which dealt with special cases. He was afraid this provision would open the door to a great deal of jobbery. What were
  892
  special cases? Were men to be retained because they were thoroughly good officers, or because they were county men? How was the general officer commanding a district to decide upon the special cases? They were throwing a very unpleasant duty on the general officer, and he was sure that would not work. The Department should make a rule and abide by it; but there had hitherto been a rule that officers should retire at the age of 60, and that rule, as he had been told the other day, had not been carried out. He was afraid that, in a similar way, they would find out that this new Regulation would not be carried out. He wished, further, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was true, as reported, that the recruiting for the Militia had fallen off lately, in consequence of the men being called up for training immediately on enlistment? The Militia Committee had expressed an opinion on this matter, and he wished to know if the Report in question was correct?
  MR. CHILDERS: I saw a statement similar to that now made by the hon. and gallant Member in the newspapers the other day, and I asked if it was true. I was told that it could not be, and for the best of all reasons, that the new system has not yet been put into operation. I quite agree with a deal of that which has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member with respect to the musketry practice of the Militia and the Line. Something ought to be done to improve it; and, feeling this very strongly, some months ago, as the Committee are aware, I appointed a Committee, presided over by Sir Daniel Lysons, to consider the subject, and that Committee has been inquiring into it with great patience and great care, both in regard to the Regular Army and the Militia. It is not, to my mind, a question which should be lost sight of. As for our soldiers being the worst shots in the world, I cannot agree with that. There are, at least, two Continental Armies whose shooting is far worse than that of our Army; but, at the same time, there are other Armies whose shooting, no doubt, is better. The British Army should not be behindhand in this matter, and I have reason to believe that the Committee will make such a Report as will enable us at the War Office to introduce great improvements into the

  893
  whole system of musketry instruction. With regard to retirement from the Militia, the change has not been made on the ground of economy.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, it was not as a matter of economy that he had raised that objection, but as a matter of numbers and efficiency in the field.
  MR. CHILDERS: If the arrangement is challenged, I shall be able to show that it was not made for purposes of economy. A question has been put to me about adjutants of Militia, and their position has been compared with that of adjutants at the depot. The question has not been before me, but I will look into it. I know nothing about additional uniforms for the Militia.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had quite understood his suggestion, which was that, there being two uniforms, one of blue—in which all the Militia officers, he believed, performed their drill—and one of red, the young officers, who had to wait a year or two years before going into Regular Line regiments, should be only called upon to provide themselves with blue uniforms, and should not be forced to get the red.
  MR. CHILDERS: I must confess that I am not familiar with this point; but I promise the noble Lord to look into the matter. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) said I had not answered the question put to me by an hon. Gentleman behind me. Yes; we do wish to encourage the formation of a second Militia battalion where such does not exist now, in, of course, those districts where the formation of a second battalion is feasible. One difficulty with which I am met in the matter is this—that where proposals have been made to raise that second battalion, they have been accompanied, generally, with awkward questions as to interfering with the recruiting ground of other Militia battalions. I should be loth to form second battalions where there was a serious difficulty of this kind. I may say that I am anxious to get both the Militia and the Militia Reserve up to their full numbers.
  MAJOR-GENERAL BURNABYsaid, that with regard to musketry practice he could not agree that ours was the worst shooting Army in Europe. Perhaps the Militia were not as good marksmen as the hon.
  894
  and gallant Member (Colonel Alexander) and himself (General Burnaby) could wish; but the Militia did not have those advantages which were given to the Army, and which, he trusted, shortly would be conferred upon them. The present system was to "cram" the men in this respect—if he might be allowed to use the word. He trusted that this would be altered, and that the men would not be compelled to fire a certain large number of rounds within a short space of time. The number of rounds appointed to be fired should be distributed over a certain number of months in the year. Then, as to extra ammunition which the men either purchased themselves or were supplied with at their captain's cost, he thought it should be sold at as low a price as possible. The men complained that this ammunition was too dear for the purpose, and that the Government charged for it more than it cost them to manufacture. This ammunition should be supplied at as low a price as possible, for the lower the price the greater would be the number of shots fired, and the greater the number of shots fired the more efficient would the men be. As to the change of badges, facings, and in some cases head-dress, of certain regiments, in order to adapt them to the territorial system, the cost was one which should not be borne by the officers, but by the State. In Leicestershire, the 45th and 17th Regiments and the Militia were put together under the territorial arrangement. The 45th had no badge, but the 17th happened to have a tiger; whilst the Militia regiment had a harp, and was sore at having to give it up. They did not know why they should have a tiger any more than an elephant. The harp was an emblem which they very much respected, owing to their connection with Ireland, and they hoped they might be able to retain it, not only as a matter of sentiment, but also for economical reasons.
  MR. O'SHEAwished to put a question with regard to the quartermasters' quarters, because, he believed, the same thing would occur in regard to the Militia as would occur in the Army. A Memorandum of the Horse Guards gave quartermasters a right to field officers' quarters, so that a quartermaster just promoted from the ranks had a right to similar quarters to captains of 20

  895
  years' standing. There was great complaint about this.
  MR. CHILDERS: I have done a great deal for the quartermasters; but I doubt whether the complaint the hon. and gallant Member speaks of is one of importance.
  MR. ROUNDwished to know whether, in the case of Rifle Militia regiments, where a change of uniform was determined on, the same allowances would be made by the Government as it was understood had been made in the case of Highland regiments of Militia under similar circumstances? He would also like to know whether field officers of Militia, who had retired with permission to wear their uniform, might continue to wear that uniform, although it had been changed in the case of their regiment?
  MR. CHILDERS: I will consider the question of allowing a change of uniform on retirement. With regard to the Rifle Brigade, as I have said, allowance will be made to them for the difference.
  EARL PERCYbegged to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he had met his appeal. If the change proposed was a good one, it should be made whether the Militia officers liked it or not; and, if those officers had a claim on the Government for assistance in paying for their uniforms, that claim should be met.
  MR. CHILDERS: The Government having made the concessions they have made, should hardly be asked now to make others.
  SIR ROBERT LOYD LINDSAYsaid, that before the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to add a second battalion to existing battalions, he hoped he would take an opportunity of informing himself whether such additions would be advantageous in the individual districts. The right hon. Gentleman should call for a Report from the commander of each battalion and ask him to state whether, in forming the second battalion, injury would not be done to the first battalion. The same thing should be done in the case of the Volunteers. In his district they could not find in the county officers sufficient to officer two battalions of Militia and Volunteers; and he was under the impression that in forming second battalions the first battalions would suffer.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £73,900, Yeomanry Cavalry.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not so organize the Service as to render the existing number of adjutants in the Yeomanry unnecessary? In the Cavalry there were only 19 adjutants on duty all the year round; but in the Yeomanry there were no less than 39. By a better organization, also, something else besides the annual eight days' training might be found for the adjutants to do. They were only at work eight days, and during the rest of the year they were paid for doing nothing. [An hon. MEMBER: It is a mistake.] It was no mistake at all. They only attended the training, and he did think some plan might be adopted by which greater economy and more perfect organization might be secured. Surely the duty that was performed by 19 adjutants in the Cavalry all the year round could be peformed in the Yeomanry for only eight days in the year by a similar number.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he was no advocate for the Yeomanry as it at present existed; but he could assure the Committee that both the officers and men took a great deal of trouble to render themselves efficient. The hon. and gallant Member (Sir Alexander Gordon) said the adjutants were only up for eight days in the year; but that was not the fact. He had known an adjutant at work for a month going amongst the men and instructing them in shooting and other matters. If a regiment was to be properly kept up they must have an adjutant who would give the necessary amount of attention to it.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £540,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Volunteer Corps Pay and Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882."
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that, in the first place, he wished publicly to thank the right hon. Gentleman opposite—and in so doing he was expressing the feeling of the whole Volunteer Force—for the way in which the Volunteers had been treated at the recent Review at Windsor, not only by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but

  897
  by the War Office and the Horse Guards. The Volunteers had done their best to show what they were worth and what they were made of, and they had been well backed up by the Staff; and he would venture to say that nothing could have been better arranged, not only for the reception of the different corps at the different stations, but also for their despatch from those stations. Every civility and attention was shown, the most complicated arrangements were admirably carried out, and, in fact, nothing was omitted which made up the sum and substance of a most successful Review. The Staff showed that they had the interests of the Service at heart; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman and the officials with whom he was associated were of opinion that discipline, which was so essential to the well-being of the force, had been well maintained. It was essential that the Volunteers should go into camp every year. The Volunteer Force to be useful must be efficient and in a good state of discipline; and the only way to effect that was by putting it into camp every year. He was quite sure that money spent in that way would be well spent. He also advised that sergeant instructors should be compelled to go to the depôt centre every year for drill, because they were apt to become rusty. He sent his every year; and he thought such instruction should be given, and at the public expense. There was some doubt as to the retiring allowances and the age in the case of adjutants, and he would like to have some information on that point.
  SIB THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he was not prepared to say that sending sergeants to the depot would be enough, for although a civilian he had seen a great many sergeant instructors; and, while he had a high respect for their many qualities, there was a great deal to be done in the way of teaching them the art of teaching others.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERcorroborated the hon. Baronet, and wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War if he could not, now that he had taken the Volunteers in hand, do something more for them than had been done during their 22 years of existence? The Volunteers had no greatcoats or water-bottles, and although the commanding officers had put their hands into their pockets very frequently the
  898
  regiments were still deficient in those necessary articles. With regard to the pay of the adjutants, the old adjutants were in some doubt as to whether they would be placed on the same footing in regard to retirement as Militia adjutants were; and if the right hon. Gentleman could say that they would be placed on the same footing it would give great satisfaction. The Volunteer officers had great difficulty in getting colour-sergeants, because those men were not fully acquainted with what they would receive when they had finished their term of service. In the present system a colour-sergeant, when transferred from a Line regiment to a Volunteer regiment, was simply a sergeant; and what he was anxious to know was whether colour-sergeants, on the completion of their 21 years' service, would receive the pension of a colour-sergeant or simply that of a sergeant?
  MR. W. N. NICHOLSONsaid, he had been requested to bring before the notice of the Secretary of State for War the claim of Volunteer officers to be exempted from service on juries as a small been which they deserved in acknowledgment of the time they gave to the country. Referring to a recent reply of the Secretary of State for War on this subject, that the rank and file had an equal claim for exemption, he believed it would be found that but few were eligible, and that even if the exemption were extended to the whole body of Volunteers, he thought, considering the comparatively small number, the pressure on the public would be very slight. He regretted to see, under the head of "Miscellaneous Charges" for Volunteers, a reduction of £5,000 this year. Those items included travelling expenses for attendance at camp, regimental drill, and gun practice. Last year the grant was so small that officers complained that many of their men were prevented from attending camp drill because their regiments could not afford it, and he hoped that next year the allowance would be increased. He also urged an increased Capitation Grant to relieve the commanding officers from the disagreeable necessity of having to ask for subscriptions to meet the expenses of their corps.
  SIR ROBERT LOYD LINDSAYalso wished to draw attention to the diminution of the allowance for attendance at

  899
  military camps. The last Secretary of State for War appointed a Committee to inquire into the financial and other conditions of the Volunteer Forces; and amongst other things they considered the question whether the Capitation allowance was sufficient to meet the burdens which were cast on the Volunteers, such as uniforms, ranges, and other items of expense. After very careful consideration, that Committee reported that the Capitation Grant was sufficient with a close economy, but could not bear all those extra charges for camp drill. He therefore recommended that an allowance of 2s. per head should be granted to Volunteers for the six days while they were in camp. Thus, every Volunteer might earn, during encampment, 12 s.; but the number of men who were to receive this allowance was limited. Therefore, if a regiment sent 600 men into camp, it might be that only 300 would receive the allowance; and thus, although 2s. per head was given, the result in that case would be, practically, that only 1s. a-head was allowed. He knew that at a time of great pressure in regard to the Estimates the weakest must go to the wall; but he wished to draw attention to this matter now, in the hope that in the future the War Office would give this full allowance to every man who went into camp.
  Mr. CHILDERSbegged to thank the hon. and gallant Member for the manner in which he had expressed himself with regard to the concessions made by the War Office to make the Volunteer Service successful. Although a great failure had been anticipated for the Windsor Review, he thought the arrangements that had been made were sufficient to justify the encomiums which were accorded to the War Office. That, however, would have been nothing but for the efficiency of the Volunteers themselves; and he could not speak too strongly of the discipline of the Volunteers and the knowledge shown by their officers at the Review. Since the first Review in the early days of the Volunteer Force, the Volunteers had shown a remarkable improvement; and the result was that at Windsor they had aroused the admiration of not only the general spectators, but of a large number of distinguished and experienced military officers, both English and foreign. Great credit was due to the
  900
  Railway Companies for the manner in which they conveyed the troops to and from the ground, but far more to the admirable discipline of the men and the experience and skill shown by the officers. With regard to the allowance for attending camps and travelling expenses, the amount taken this year was really the same as last year, taking the two Votes together. A larger number of men had attended the camps this year, and that would have to be considered in framing the Votes for next year. He had no wish to exercise an unwise economy in a matter of that kind, for it was a great advantage to Volunteers to gain experience in camp. With regard to adjutants, Volunteer adjutants would be placed on precisely the same footing as the Militia adjutants. If 55 years of age with 20 years' service they would be retired compulsorily at 10 s. a-day. With regard to service on juries, he could not see why a Volunteer officer should have absolute immunity from that duty. But, as a matter of fact, the question had been decided by Act of Parliament, and he had no power to excuse Volunteer officers from serving on juries. He did not see how the privilege could be given to the officers and not to the men; and, if the men were exempted, the exemption of 200,000 men would throw a serious burden upon the rest of the community.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he regretted to be obliged to take a division on this Vote; but he must do so on the ground that, although Ireland was compelled to pay a contribution towards the cost of the Volunteer Force in England and Wales, she was not allowed to have a Volunteer Force. This matter had been brought before the House several times, and in dividing against the Vote he did not do so out of any hostility towards the English Volunteers, whom he recognized as a fine body of men of whom this country ought to be proud. But there was no way of separating the amount paid by Ireland from that paid by England, and, consequently, he must divide against the whole Vote. In 1879 a Bill was brought in by Mr. O'Clery for the constitution of a Volunteer Force in Ireland, and passed by the House of Commons; but the House of Lords threw it out after very slight examination. When the Liberal Government came in, and announced their intention

  901
  to equalize the laws of England and Ireland, it was supposed they would take some steps to remedy this grievance; but now, in their second Session, they seemed to have no intention to give a Volunteer Force to Ireland. The Irish Members were thus obliged to begin again to protest, and the only way to do that was to oppose this Vote.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he admitted that the hon. Gentleman had stated his case in a fair spirit; but he would remind him that there had been a Bill on the subject introduced this Session, upon which the views of the Government might have been stated. The Bill was, however, dropped, and he regretted that, because he had desired such an opportunity of giving the objections of the Government to the formation at this juncture of an Irish Volunteer Force.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the Bill alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman was in charge of the junior Member for Tipperary (Mr. P. J. Smyth), who sat on the Ministerial Benches, together with several other Members representing Irish constituencies. It was a remarkable phenomenon that those Gentlemen made proposals, and when the proposals came forward they themselves disappeared. However, he thought the Irish Members might bring in a Bill next Session; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, following the example of the late Government, would give them his support. He objected to the Vote on different grounds from those of his hon. Friend. The Volunteer Force had been described by Sir Garnet Wolseley as a force for increasing the martial spirit of the people. He objected to the martial spirit of the English people; and he thought the increase of their martial spirit was detrimental to the public peace, and essentially hostile to the principles of the Liberal Party. If it had not been for the Volunteer Force and the unwholesome feeling it had created, he did not think the Government would have had much difficulty in keeping down public opinion on the Eastern Question. He should take every opportunity of protesting against the Volunteer Force.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that after 15 years' service they would receive 10 s. per day, if compulsorily retired; but he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) wished
  902
  to know what a man who voluntarily retired after 15 years' service would get?
  MR. CHILDERS: There is no change in the present scale for ordinary retirement. For compulsory retirement 2s. a-day has been added at the top of the scale.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was much pleased to hear some observations which had been just made. He saw, on looking at the Votes, that they had 315,000 troops for Home and Colonial service. If they could not carry on all the wars they wished to wage with these, it was time they gave up fighting.
  MR. CHILDERS: Our Army, if maintained in an efficient state, will do more to maintain peace than if so reduced as to provoke attack.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 16: Majority 115.—(Div. List, No. 353.)
  (7.) £218,800, Army Reserve.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERwished to know what provision had been made for drilling and training the Army re-serve. He knew the rule was that they should be called out for 12 days each year; but, as a matter of fact, except when they were permanently called out in 1878, calls had only been made upon them in rare instances, and even then only a few at a time had been called up at Aldershot and other places. It would be better to call them up twice during their entire Reserve Service for 28 days each time, instead of 12 days annually. It was when a man had got half-way through each period of non-activity in the Service that he became rusty; therefore, instead of only calling the men up for 12 days annually, it would be better to call them up for two periods of 28 days each. There was one other point to which he wished to call attention. He had seen some of the Reserve in his own district, and they had struck him as being men who would be by no means fit for active military service if called upon. It did not seem to him that sufficient precautions were taken to see that the men were thoroughly fit if called upon for active service. He wished to ask whether, in the case of the men who enlisted to pass into the Reserve after three years with the Colours, and who, failing to obtain employment in civil life, wished to rejoin their regi-

  903
  ments, the right hon. Gentleman could not, under any circumstances, allow them to do so? He had seen a letter from General Luard, commanding the Royal Canadian Militia, who stated that when he was employed at Manchester he found many cases of men who had been passed, after three years' service with the Colours, into the First Class Reserve, and who subsequently came to him to be re-admitted into their old regiments, but had to be refused and sent away. The consequence was that many of them re-enlisted under other names.
  MR. CHILDERS: I am not prepared at this moment to say whether a change in the practice of not annually calling out the Reserve for drill is desirable. It is certain that the more you impose obligations on the men, the more unpopular the Service will become. We require o be very cautious in this matter of calling out the Reserve. Some weight is, no doubt, to be attached to the point contained in the letter the hon. and gallant Member has quoted. I can well imagine that some of the men have a difficulty in finding employment; and it is a fact that a few—but, probably, very few—have come back again into the Army.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £444,800 (including a Supplementary Sum of £40,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Commissariat, Transport, and Ordnance Store Establishments, Wages, &c. which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882."
  MR. CHILDERS: I think, perhaps, hon. Members will allow me to make a brief statement on this Vote. This is the first Vote we have taken to-night in which we have incorporated a portion of the Supplementary Estimate for the War in South Africa, and I ought to explain why that Estimate is necessary. The original Estimate this year was framed in January and laid before Parliament, I think, on the very day the news of the first action was received and a request by Sir George Colley for more troops. In moving the Estimates I explained that beyond the amount incorporated in the General Estimate for the War in South Africa, and which was shown separately in each, item, later in the Session there would have to be a Supplementary Esti-
  904
  mate, as the original Votes only provided for the troops arranged to be sent out to the end of January. That we have done now. I may say, as to the framework of the Estimate, that it assumes this—that the present force in South Africa will be retained until the end of the three months allowed for the ratification of the Treaty—that is to say, at the end of October. After that the force will be reduced to about half, and we provide for this during what remains of the present year, 1881. If in the remaining three months of the present financial year—that is to say, up to March, 1882, there should be any necessity to make an addition to the normal force in South Africa—that is to say, if all the excess on the normal force is not withdrawn at Christmas, we shall have to ask for a Supplemental Vote next Session.
  COLONEL DAWNAYwished to call attention to the condition of the troops serving at the Gold Coast, the most unhealthy climate in the world. The normal unhealthiness of the place rendered it necessary that the greatest precautions should be taken to put the towns in as good a sanitary state as possible. The sickness amongst the British troops, which had been extremely great this year, was owing to the severity of the summer and the defective sanitary state of the Native towns. He would urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider the desirability of putting the Fanti towns in the neighbourhood of Cape Coast Castle under proper sanitary regulations, and of compelling the Native populations to keep the towns clean and get rid of the horrible cesspools and open drains which existed there. There were several healthy stations in the interior within a few miles of Cape Coast Castle, and to these places our troops should be sent, if, indeed, it was deemed necessary to keep any British troops in the country at all. We could have our West Indian regiments quartered at Sierra Leone; and these, with the Native Houssa Police, officered by Englishmen, would be quite sufficient to protect the settlement.
  MR. CHILDERS: I entirely sympathize with the object of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but I would point out that the state of things at the Gold Coast recently was quite exceptional. A large additional body of troops were sent there. The mortality of the small

  905
  force at Cape Coast Castle, I am informed, is not unusually great, and the place is not in a worse sanitary condition than might be expected. I do not think it is worse than Sierra Leone, or other places in that part of the world. The exceptional state of things I have referred to was the necessity of taking very prompt defensive measures to meet the action which was expected on the part of the King of Ashantee. We sent off the troops in great haste, and it was very well that we did so, because their arrival undoubtedly prevented the outbreak of hostilities. We sent the troops in such a hurry that there was no time to communicate with Cape Coast Castle before they arrived, so as to enable the authorities to take measures for putting the place in a better sanitary condition. The troops suffered severely in consequence. Ordinarily, the men are not quartered in the Native towns, and the accommodation provided for them is not more unhealthy than is usual in these bad climates. On the general question, I may say it is not in my power to give orders for the improvement of these Colonial stations. The matter rests with the Colonial Office; and as to the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion that we should withdraw British troops altogether from Cape Coast Castle, that is a thing I should be loth to do without the distinct approval of the Colonial Office. Up to the present time, I have been advised by the Colonial Office that it would not be proper to leave the Cape Coast Castle solely protected by the Houssa police without Her Majesty's troops. We, therefore, must keep a small force there.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to some complaints that were made by the Assistant Commissary General of the Ordnance Stores. Two years ago the Secretary of State for War had said that the Ordnance Store officers should be placed in the same position as other officers. They believed they suffered under a disadvantage from the fact that while there was at headquarters one Commissary General, they had there no permanent representation. A very decided opinion had been expressed by them as to the importance of having permanent representation at head-quarters, having regard to the vast number of details which came under their notice. That was the first point
  906
  The second was that the Ordnance Store officers were not placed in a fair position with regard to pay as compared with the Commissariat officers. The wording of the Warrant relating to them was almost the same as that of the Warrant which regulated the pay of Commissariat officers; but, as a matter of fact, the operation of the two Warrants was very different. Almost every Assistant Commissariat officer of 25 years' service could draw 30 s. a-day; but he believed there was no single assistant officer in the Store Department who could draw more than 24 s. a-day. Most of the assistant officers of the former department could, if they thought fit, retire on 20 s. a-day. The third grievance related to the titular rank of the Ordnance Store officers. It was a fact that in consequence of the regulation that officers of the Army who were appointed to the store branch should retain their military titles, many seniors in that Department would be styled "Mr.," while their juniors would be described as "Captain." Although some hon. Members might be disposed to laugh at the importance attached to that distinction, it undoubtedly constituted a great anomaly, and had given rise, as he understood, to a good deal of heart-burning. Such were the three points which he knew had led to much dissatisfaction in the store branch; and he would suggest that a very slight alteration in the Warrant of 1880 relating to officers in that branch would fulfil the promises which those gentlemen thought they were warranted in understanding that the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Benches gave them two years ago.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILadmitted that he had stated, when the last Government were in Office, that they were prepared to put the officers of the Store Department and the Commissariat Department on an equal footing. He understood the three points raised by the hon. Member for Queen's County to be—first, that there were no Ordnance Store officers at head-quarters; secondly, that they received less pay, as compared with the officers of the Commissariat Department; and, thirdly, that a grievance existed amongst them with regard to titular rank. All these questions were attentively gone into at the time referred to by the hon. Member. As regarded titular rank, he believed civilian officers in the Commissariat Department

  907
  still held the title of "Mr.;" and, consequently, in that respect, there was no difference between the two branches. It was an understood thing that the Army officers who came into these Departments should retain their military rank; and, of course, having been competent officers, it would have been very hard to take that rank away from them. On the other hand, he thought it would be impossible for any Government to give military titles where they did not already exist. He did not think there was ever any intention to give Army titular rank to the officers of the Commissariat or Ordnance Store Departments who did not already possess them—that was to say, to those who had not gained it in the Army. With regard to the Commissary General at head-quarters, no doubt hon. Members would know that the Commissary General was under the Commander-in-Chief. The number of officers of the Commissariat Department was larger by 60 or 70 than that of the Ordnance Store Department, and it was believed that the Assistant Commissary General would be able to represent both Departments. He certainly had said that this matter should be considered, and that, if it were possible, a gentleman of the Ordnance Store Department should be appointed. Then, as regarded difference of pay, he had not been able to discover that there was any difference between the two Departments in respect of pay. Such differences, however, might exist, and he had promised to look into the question to see what could be done. It was perfectly true that he had made that statement; but it was, of course, not binding on his successors in Office, who would answer for themselves; and he had no doubt whatever that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would have good reasons for what he had done, and for what he might do in future, with regard to this Department of the Public Service.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, since the present Government had been in Office the question to which the hon. Member for Queen's County had drawn attention had not come before him in any shape. The hon. Member would understand that there were some extremely difficult questions in connection with the subject he had referred to. For his own part, he had every wish to see the Ordnance Store Department treated fairly.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he hoped that something like an equality of pay would be established. As a matter of fact, the officers belonging to the Store Department had had very much longer service, and yet they received a lower average rate of pay than the officers of the Commissariat Branch.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he observed on page 40 a charge of £5,202 for police employed under the Contagious Diseases Prevention Acts. There was a good deal of difference of opinion with regard to the operation of those Acts. He should not enter into any detail, because the subject was not an agreeable one; but, no doubt, while there were arguments which might be used in their favour, a considerable number of persons were opposed to them, some on the ground of inefficiency, others on the ground of immorality, while others believed that they could not be carried out without doing wrong to respectable persons. Under these circumstances, he did not think there was sufficient general assent in their favour to justify public money being spent upon them. He should, therefore, move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £5,202.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £439,698 (including a Supplementary Sum of £40,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Commissariat, Transport, and Ordnance Store Establishments, Wages, &c. which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member for Northampton had brought forward this Motion on the present occasion, because, although his present opinion was in favour of it, he should have liked a little further time for consideration. As it was, however, he should have no choice but to vote with the hon. Member. With regard to the quartermasters in the Store Department, he understood that considerable dissatisfaction existed amongst those officers on account of the loss or deterioration of social position, which they believed they sustained in connection with the alteration of their titular rank. If the right hon. Gentleman would say a word or two on the question, it might, perhaps, remove a good deal of the feeling which existed amongst these gentlemen in consequence of their

  909
  being treated with a great want of consideration by the military authorities.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he was aware of the difference of opinion which existed on the subject of the Contagious Diseases Acts; but he trusted that the hon. Member for Northampton would not press his Motion to a division on this occasion. He reminded the Committee that a Committee, of which he himself had been a Member, was sitting for the purpose of considering these Acts; and until that Committee had reported, it was certainly necessary that police should be employed to carry the Acts into operation.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would venture to add his request to that of the hon. Baronet opposite, that the hon. Member for Northampton would not think it necessary to call upon the Committee to proceed to a division upon his Motion. He made this appeal in the interest of those persons who were opposed to the Acts, because a great many hon. Members would vote for the Estimate as requisite so long as the law was in operation, although they did not agree that the present state of the law was satisfactory. He could speak for several Gentlemen who were not satisfied with the present condition of things, who could not but vote the necessary expenditure for carrying out the law, but who, if the question were whether the law should be changed or not, would certainly vote against its continuance.
  An hon. MEMBER said, he also hoped that the Motion would not be pressed. He believed the Acts in question were both useful and moral in their tendency. Anyone who had heard the evidence given before the Committee upstairs must have been impressed with the benefit which had been derived from their operation in garrison towns.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he regretted he was unable to yield to the appeals made to him to withdraw his Motion. But he felt very strongly upon this subject, as did also his constituents. No Report of any Committee, nor even the opinion of his constituents, would ever convince him that an error had not been committed in regard to these Acts.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 80: Majority 67.—(Div. List, No. 354.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (9.) £780,000, Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILwished to urge the Secretary of State for War to go very thoroughly into the prices at the clothing establishments, especially in regard to the cloth for tunics and caps and badges. These might be small things, but they involved a large sum of money. There was a great deal of waste; and he also would suggest that a large amount of the clothing made elsewhere might be made at these establishments.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he quite agreed that these small things were important, and promised to consider the matter.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, there was a large reduction in the amount of material sold to contractors; and he wished to know if any substantial change was to be made in the Clothing Department?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that this was only a matter of account, and that there was really no change.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, the new Regulation required soldiers to surrender their uniform on retiring from the Army, and to purchase new clothing. Would any allowance be made on that account? There was, he added, great dissatisfaction among the men.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not think there was anything like general dissatisfaction upon this matter, and that the change was made on the recommendation of the whole body of commanding officers.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, the commanding officers had advised that the men's uniforms should be taken away on their leaving, for many men had gone about begging in their uni forms, and so disgraced the Service.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,290,000 (including a Supplementary Sum of £120,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply, Manufacture, and Repair of Warlike and other Stores (including Establishments of Manufacturing Departments), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882."
  LORD EUSTACE CECILdesired to know in what position the question of breech-loading guns stood; what the

  911
  Committee on that subject were doing; whether they had hit upon a gun that would suit the Naval Service; and whether they proposed any change in the breech-loading guns for land service? He also wished to know if there was any disposition to consider magazine guns as any part of our armed service; and why there was so large an increase for gunpowder? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain the decrease for materials and metal; and why there was an increase of £17,400 in regard to machinery?
  MAJOR-GENERAL FEILDENmoved that Progress be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Major-General Feilden.)
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped the Committee would not report Progress at a quarter before 2, considering what had still to be done in the few remaining days of the Session. There was no contentious matter in the remainder of this Vote, and he hoped the Committee would proceed.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, in reply to the noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil), that the question of breech-loading guns would come up on the Navy Estimates, and he should take part in that discussion. Undoubtedly, the use of prismatic powder did necessitate longer guns and larger chambers. Both those considerations pointed to the advantage of breech-loading guns over muzzle-loading guns, especially when the guns were in a confined position, and when a larger chamber was required for the powder than for the projectile. Guns which were not in a confined position, or in turrets—muzzle-loading guns—could be loaded, so far as their length was concerned, as well as breech-loaders; but the larger chamber was coming more and more into use, and that tended more and more to the use of the breech-loader; and he did not doubt that there would be a large increase in those guns, especially for service at sea. The Committee were making most careful experiments, and he had not hurried their operations. The question of magazine guns was not yet settled; but he had seen them all, and he was
  912
  satisfied they had a great many faults. As to the items of the Vote, there had been a saving on metal due to the requirements having been less this year, and the stock sufficient for all that was wanted. The increase in gunpowder was owing to increased demands, and to the stock having become low.
  MAJOR-GENERAL BURNABYsaid, he believed that the gun-spikes carried by the pioneers in Infantry regiments would not effectually spike any modern gun; moreover, the number carried was too few.
  MR. CHILDERSthanked the hon. and gallant Member for drawing attention to the matter.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTmoved to report Progress. He was willing, if necessary, to sit there; but he thought it too much to put forward, at 10 minutes past 2, all these Estimates, and to force them down the throats of hon. Members. He protested against the practice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had no intention to force these Votes against the wish of any considerable number of Members, and he would agree to take the remaining Votes to-morrow.
  Motion agreed, to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  IRISH CHURCH ACT AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 235.]
  (Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  IRISH CHURCH ACT AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 235.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in moving that the Bill be read a second time, said that at that late hour the House would probably consider it desirable that he should only give an outline of the measure. The term of the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland under the Irish Church Act had

    913
    come to an end, and their powers were now temporarily continued by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. Practically, all that remained to be done was to pay the annuitants that remained of the former establishment, to collect the income that remained for the Temporalities Office, and to pay off the debt due to the National Debt Commissioners and the debt for Intermediate Education. The object of the Bill, therefore, was to provide for the dissolution of the Church Temporalities Commission, and to transfer to the Irish Land Commission all the property vested in the Church Temporalities Commission.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
    MR. WARTONasked, if the Irish Land Commission was not appointed, what would be done?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Church Temporalities Commission would be temporarily continued for another year by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill now before the House.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he did not object to the policy of the Government; but he wished for an exact statement of the affairs of the Church Temporalities Commission. When a particular Bill of this kind, involving an important change of policy, was advanced, the House ought to have a distinct statement of accounts.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, the measure had only been distributed to Members a very short time, and they had not had sufficient opportunity for examining it and turning it over in their minds. Were the Church Temporalities Commissioners aware of the Bill? Either the measure should have been introduced earlier, or the Commissioners should have received some intimation of it.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he knew the Commissioners were aware of the existence of the Bill, because in an interview which he had had with Mr. Justice Lawson, who was one of them, this subject had been mentioned. There had been published a complete Report of the Church Temporalities Commissioners for the year 1880; and this summed up all that the body, with so much advantage to the public and credit
    914
    to themselves, had done from 1869 up to the present time.
    MR. WHITLEY: What is the title of it?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it was entitled "The Report of the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland for the period from 1869 to 1st July, 1880." It gave a brief summary of what had been done. It stated that they had realized all the land, and had sold it to occupying tenants willing to purchase, and, outside those purchasers, had sold to the general public. The manner in which the sales were made, the simple method in which the whole of the arrangements were carried out, and the plainest information carried in the most intelligible manner to the doors of the poorest, were shown in the Report.
    MR. CALLAN: When did the Act expire?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): In 1879.
    MR. CALLAN: And how long do the present Commissioners hold office—when was the Act continued?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The present Commissioners hold office until the 31st December, 1881, under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, which was passed in 1880.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the 3rd clause of the Bill said they should be entitled to receive salaries up to the 31st December next. Mr. Justice Lawson would have no objection to this measure, because it would continue his salary and that of his brother Commissioners up to that date, although the duties had entirely ceased. There was an evil spirit pervading the whole of the Bill, and its practical effect would be to hamper and impede the action of the new Land Commission. It would place on their shoulders an incubus—a new "Old Man of the Sea." The Land Commission would have to take over an old effete staff of officials, and be hampered with men whose old duties in no way resembled those to be imposed on the new Land Commission. The Land Commissioners were to have the power of appointing a Secretary and Solicitor; but the effect of this Bill would be to hand over a Secretary and Solicitor. If this was not intended, the clause in the Bill

    915
    to which he was referring was merely unnecessary verbiage, and should be struck out. He should like to hear from the Government when the salaries of Mr. Justice Lawson and the other Commissioners would cease, and why, considering that their work had ceased, and that they had only technical duties to perform, a Bill should be brought in to confer upon them salaries up to the 31st December? If the salaries were merely a gift to these gentlemen, let it be so stated. In the provisions of the Bill nothing was said about the payment being merely a gratuity.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, that if the Bill were now read a second time, the Committee should not be taken before Monday. Time should be given for its consideration.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) upon one of the points he had raised. The hon. Member objected to the staff of the Church Temporalities Commission being transferred to the Land Commission; but it seemed to him (Mr. Biggar) that if the Secretary and Treasurer and other officers of the former Commission were efficient, it was desirable that, instead of abolishing them, they should be transferred to a new Department. His opinion was that as little patronage as possible should be placed in the hands of the Government. They knew it must always be extremely difficult to refuse a whole crowd of applicants. He would, however, remind the Government of this in making the transfer—that at the time the Church Temporalities Commissioners made their sales under the Church Act, land was much more valuable in the market than it was now; and it would be very injurious if the valuators in their transactions acted upon the same principles that guided them a few years ago.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES (SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS) BILL.— [BILL 238.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  CORRUPT PRACTICES (SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS) BILL.— [BILL 238.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in moving that the Bill
    916
    be now read a second time, said, that it consisted of only one section, and it was absolutely necessary that it should be passed. When it became necessary to postpone the consideration of the greater question, there arose this difficulty—that there were constituencies in which corrupt practices had extensively prevailed which had elected Members, and if those Members died, new ones could be elected; also, if there were a Dissolution of Parliament, new Members could be elected. The object of the Bill was to suspend for a limited time the holding of Parliamentary Elections in certain cities and boroughs.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that before they took away from a city or a borough the right to return Members there should be some reason given for it in the Bill.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  BRITISH HONDURAS (COURT OF APPEAL) BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 233.]
  (Mr. Courtney)
  BRITISH HONDURAS (COURT OF APPEAL) BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 233.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. COURTNEY MR. COURTNEY, in moving that the Bill be read a second time, said, the measure was of a very simple character. The Court of British Honduras consisted of only one Judge, and he was not, he believed, supported by a very strong Bar. At present, the appeal from this Court was to the Privy Council. The Supreme Court of Jamaica had three Judges, and it was proposed in the Bill to make the appeal from the Court of British Honduras to the Court of Jamaica. The Legislative Council of Jamaica had assented to this course.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he hoped the Bill would be read a second time. There had always been a difficulty about appeals in British Honduras; and as both Colonies agreed to the pre-

    917
    sent proposal, and as it was distinctly desirable to bring British Honduras and Jamaica into closer union, he looked upon this as a step in the right direction.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  PEDLARS (CERTIFICATES) BILL. [Lords.]— [BILL 234.]
  (Mr. Courtney.)
  PEDLARS (CERTIFICATES) BILL. [Lords.]— [BILL 234.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. COURTNEY MR. COURTNEY, in moving that the Bill be read a second time, said, that, owing to the present state of the law, pedlars were exposed to great inconvenience. They obtained hawking certificates from the places in which they resided; but when they went into other districts they were bound to obtain an endorsement. If they visited three or four different districts in one day, they were obliged to obtain a separate endorsement in each. The opinion of the police authorities had been asked on this matter, and they had reported in favour of a relaxation of the law; consequently, it was now proposed that the certificates obtained in the district in which the pedlars resided should be deemed sufficient, without endorsement, to enable them to carry on their trades in other districts.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not want to oppose the Bill, which was a very reasonable one; but he wished to bring under the notice of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department that which in the suburbs of London—and, in fact, in the suburbs of all large towns—was an intolerable nuisance to the respectable poor. Pedlars were in the habit of going through the streets where these persons resided, knocking at every door, and inquiring whether the inmates desired to purchase any of their wares. In some small streets sometimes as many as 20 summonses of this kind were answered in a day. It appeared to him it would be a good thing if the Home Office authorities would direct the attention of the police
    918
    to this matter, which was really a very serious grievance.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) REGISTRATION OF PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS, &c. BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 232.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the Speaker and of the House to a point in this Bill which, he thought, was of some importance in a general sense, though it might not appear at first sight to involve anything very serious. He read in the 16th clause of this measure these words—
    "On and after the passing of this Act, no person shall be allowed, after examination, to graduate at any of the Universities of Scotland until he shall have paid, as a registration fee, a sum not exceeding twenty shillings to the general University fund of the University at which he wishes to graduate."
    Now, that was an imposition of a tax on the subject, and the Bill containing it had been brought from the House of Lords. The House of Lords, he believed, had no right to impose such a charge. On more occasions than one—on many occasions—the House of Commons had declined to proceed with a Bill which involved the imposition of a charge upon the people coming from the House of Lords; and in Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice he found these words—
    "So strictly had the right of the Commons been maintained in regard to the imposition of charges upon the people, that they denied to the Lords the power of authorizing the taking of fees, and imposing pecuniary penalties, or of varying the mode of suing for them, or of applying them when recovered; though such provisions were necessary to give effect to the general enactments of a Bill."
    Then Sir Erskine May went on to say—
    "A too strict enforcement of this rule, in regard to penalties, was found to be attended with unnecessary inconvenience; and, in 1831, the Commons judiciously relaxed it; and, again, in 1849, they introduced a further amendment of their rules, by the adoption of the following Standing Orders—

    919
    'That, with respect to any Bill brought to this House from the House of Lords, or returned by the House of Lords to this House with Amendments, whereby any pecuniary penalty, forfeiture, or fee shall be authorized, imposed, appropriated, regulated, varied, or extinguished, this House will not insist upon its ancient and undoubted privileges. In the following cases:—
    '1. When the object of such pecuniary penalty or forfeiture is to secure the execution of the Act, or the punishment or prevention of offences.' "
    As to the 1st clause, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) admitted that this particular provision in the Bill was not covered by it. The second provision was—
    "Where such fees are imposed in respect of benefit taken, or services rendered, under the Act, and in order to the execution of the Act, and are not made payable into the Treasury or Exchequer, or in aid of the public revenue, and do not form the ground of public accounting by the parties receiving the same, cither in respect of deficit or surplus."
    He would submit that this imposition of a fee was not of such a character as to come within the condition of that Standing Order, because it was not imposed in respect of "benefit taken or services rendered." It was imposed after examination, precedent to graduating in the Scotch Universities. The object of this Bill was, not to enable people to graduate, but to make provision for the registration of voters. The last condition was this—"When such Bill shall be a private Bill for a local or personal Act." He would submit that this was not a mere local or personal Act; therefore, it did not come within the third condition of the Order. Therefore, having regard to the invariable practice of the House, there was only one course open to the House—namely, to decline to proceed with the consideration of the Bill. He submitted this matter to Mr. Speaker, first of all, as a point of Order.
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR): This is not a tax at all. The Universities have to appoint registrars and clerks to keep the registration books; and, having no fund out of which the expenses can be defrayed, they charge a small fee for the services they render in making the graduate a member of the General Council for life. In some of the Universities the fee just about pays the cost of the service the University renders. In one of the Universities it yields rather a small profit; but, as a rule, it just represents the
    920
    amount expended by the Universities on the registration book. It is no tax, but a payment for a service rendered by the University to the men it enrolls.
    MR. HEALYsaid, on the point of Order, he wished to remark that so recently as Monday last, in the Coroners (Ireland) Bill, the House of Lords having inserted a provision to the effect that the Grand Juries might, at the end of five years, if they thought fit, revise the salaries of the Coroners, which salaries were a charge upon the county rates, this House disagreed with the Lords' Amendments, and refused to allow it to be considered. In this case there was no tax imposed on the public whatever.
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR): It was a charge on the county rates.
    MR. HEALY: It was not a charge on the county rates. The Amendment was simply to give power to the Grand Juries every five years to reconsider the question of Coroners' salaries.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that not only was there a charge made on the graduates for the purpose of defraying the expense of having them enrolled for voting purposes, but it imposed a fee on him in his character of graduate for a degree in the University. The words are—
    "No person shall be allowed, after examination, to graduate at any of the Universities of Scotland until he shall have paid, as a registration foe, a sum not exceeding twenty shilling's to the general University fund of the University at which he wishes to graduate."
    He contended that this, coming from the House of Lords, was against the Privileges of the House of Commons.
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR): It appears to me that this case is governed by the second paragraph of the Order of 29th July, 1849, which states that—
    "Where such fees are imposed in respect of benefit taken, or service rendered, under the Act, and in order to the execution of the Act, and are not made payable into the Treasury or Exchequer, or in aid of the public revenue, and do not form the ground of public accounting by the parties receiving the same, either in respect of deficit or surplus."
    It appears to me that the fees contemplated are to be charged for the purpose of effecting this registration; and I do not, therefore, see sufficient ground for

    921
    the Bill being laid aside in consequence of informality. That is my own view of the subject.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, his objection was that the clause said that a man should not be allowed to graduate without paying the fee, not that it said he should not be eligible to vote. The object of the Bill was to establish a proper registration of voters, and yet it declared that a man should not be allowed to graduate without paying a certain sum of money.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, that the fee was paid by the intending graduate at the London University before any examination took place at all.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that was not the point. The point was whether the House of Lords had a right to impose a fee upon the public before allowing them to enter the Universities.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, that the object of the Bill was to effect an improvement in the manner of conduct-Parliamentary Elections in the Universities, simplifying the existing arrangements and assimilating them, so far as practicable, to those already in use in elections for the University offices of Chancellor and General Council's Assessor in the University Court. This matter was referred to by the Scottish Universities Commissioners, who reported in 1878. A Bill dealing with the subject was introduced into this House and passed in the early part of the present Session; but in the House of Lords, owing to an accident, it became a dropped Order. A noble Lord who had been a Member of the Commission had accordingly introduced another Bill—the one now before the House—which equally carried out the recommendations of the Commission as well as other minor changes which had commended themselves to the Universities. It proposed what was believed would be a great improvement in the matter of registration. There were evils found attending the present system of registration, and it was to cure those that the provision to which the hon. Member for Queen's County objected had been inserted in the Bill.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  EXEMPTION FROM DISTRESS BILL.
  (Sir Henry Holland, Mr. Rodwell, Mr. Joseph Pease, Mr. Cropper.)
  EXEMPTION FROM DISTRESS BILL.

    [BILL 116.] CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    SIR HENRY HOLLAND SIR HENRY HOLLAND, in moving that the Order for the consideration of this Bill be discharged, said, he regretted that a measure intended to benefit the agricultural interest, and to exempt the property of third persons from liability to distress, should have been blocked by hon. Members who professed to represent the Farmers' Alliance.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Order for the Consideration of this Bill be discharged,"—(Sir Henry Holland,)—put, and agreed to.
    Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Ecclesiastical Courts Regulation* (201); Superannuation (Post Office and Works) * (203).
Committee—Land Law (Ireland) (187); Removal Terms (Scotland) * (184).
Committee—Report—Presumption of Life (Scotland) * (197).

LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 187.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 187.)

  COMMITTEE. [FIRST NIGHT.]
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  LORD DENMANrose to move, as an Amendment, that the House do resolve itself into Committee on that day six months. He (Lord Denman) had read and written out all the Amendments upon the Bill, so that he did not hastily condemn the measure; but he was sure that litigation might be increased by it, and an appeal to the House of Lords had been proposed as an Amendment.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIErose to Order, observing that it would be irregular to enter into a discussion of the Amendments at that stage of the Bill.
  LORD DENMANremarked, that he was often interrupted in that House, and referred to his Protest of 12th July, 1869, in which he showed how Lord Dunboyne, an Irish Peer, had been prevented from speaking on the Irish Land Bill. He went on to allude to 1844, when three noble and learned Lords, all pupils of a most eminent Special Pleader (Mr. Tidd), had overruled Lords Lyndhurst and Brougham on the O'Connell case, and reminded their Lordships that, although from an irregularity as to the jury, the defendant (O'Connell) escaped eight out of 12 months of imprisonment, and a fine of £5,000, yet the law was vindicated. He also alluded to 1846, when his noble and learned Relative had proposed clauses for the Protection of Life Bill, empowering the Lord Lieutenant and Magistrates to bind accused parties over
  766
  to keep the peace; and as it was in that year deemed safe to throw out the Protection of Life Bill, so he thought the present Ministry, having a Coercion Bill and an Arms Bill, might well dispense with this Bill. He feared that he might be alone, like the Father' of Lentulus, when he voted against buying off the Gauls with gold; but he could not willingly go on with this Bill, full of such sweeping changes as were devised by it, and concluded by moving his Amendment.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the motion ("on this day six months.")—(The Lord Denman.)
  On question, that ("now") stand part of the motion, resolved in the affirmative.
  House in Committee accordingly.

  PART I.

    ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES.
    Clause 1 (Sale of tenancies).
    LORD WAVENEYmoved, in page 1, line 20, after the word ("thereof") to insert—
    ("Provided always, that in defect of agreement it shall be lawful for the landlord to present for the approval of the Commissioners the purchaser whose holding shall be considered most advantageous to the estate by reason of contiguity.")
    The noble Lord said, the object of the Amendment was that where two persons were willing to purchase a particular lot, the landlord should have the power of making the selection most advantageous to the estate. No damage would be done to the tenant in the circumstances.
    LORD HARLECHsaid, he was glad that this Amendment had been moved by an Ulster landlord who was in favour of tenant right. The principle was a good one, because where consolidation could be effected within certain limits it was a most advantageous thing both for landlord and tenant.
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, the Amendment had been carefully considered by the Government, and he could assure the noble Lord behind him that it would be quite unnecessary, because the Bill did not contemplate, nor would the Court require, directions as to a presentation of this kind. The matter would be found to work itself satisfactorily out in practice.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Amendment was absolutely unnecessary. If the landlord objected, on reasonable grounds, to any proposed purchaser, his objection would receive effect; and if he choose to exercise his own right of pre-emption, the uncontrolled selection of a new tenant would rest with him.
    Amendment negatived.
    LORD DUNSANYmoved to amend sub-section 4, by providing that where the tenant "shall agree" to sell his tenancy to some other person than the landlord, he should inform the landlord of the name of the purchaser, and state therewith the amount of the consideration agreed to be given for the tenancy. The words of the clause were, ''where a tenant has agreed," and that, he thought, was rather indefinite. If a tenant, either through inadvertance, or from any other cause, did not give notice at all to his landlord that he had sold his farm to any other person, the sale was not null and void, as one might naturally suppose it would be, but it simply became voidable. As the clause now stood, the landlord had no right of pre-emption whatever.
    Amendment moved, in page 1, line 21, leave out ("has agreed") and insert ("shall agree.")—(The Lord Dunsany.)
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he did not think that the dangers apprehended by the noble Lord would arise; but he (Lord Carlingford) thought they might trust the Commission with a matter of this kind, since the determination of other matters of greater importance was left to their discretion.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked by what possibility a sale could be allowed to stand if there had been no notice given to the landlord?
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, if the landlord did not object, no harm could be done. He would not be bound to admit the purchaser as a tenant, unless he had received the proper notice.
    THE EARL OF DERBYasked whether he was right in concluding from the clause, as it now stood, that a sale might be valid of which no notice had been given to the landlord?
    THE EARL OF LEITRIMasked a similar question, observing that the matter
    768
    involved other interests of the landlord besides his right of pre-emption.
    EARL CAIRNSsaid, he thought the point of considerable importance, as the landlord would not always wish to exercise his right of pre-emption, but would sometimes prefer that the purchaser should be the owner of the adjacent holding, or some other desirable person.
    THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsuggested that a difficulty would arise if the tenant sold his interest without notice to the landlord and then left the country.
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that the Government did not differ on the real point, only as to the method of procedure, and therefore the Government would accept the Amendment.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the better way would be to insert the words "in writing," so as to secure that the notice should be given in writing.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmoved, in page 2, line 5, after ("court,")
    ("Provided that the landlords objection shall be conclusive in the case of any tenancy in a holding where the improvements in respect of which, if made by the tenant or his predecessors in title, the tenant would have been entitled to be compensated under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, have been made by the landlord or his predecessors in title, and not by the tenant or his predecessors in title.")
    The noble Duke said, the Amendment was, to his mind, of considerable importance, although, perhaps, it might not be apparent at first sight. They had now, by reading the Bill a second time, assented to its principle, and he could assure his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal that he should neither move nor vote for any Amendment which, in his opinion, was in derogation of the main principle and purpose of the Bill. As their Lordships had voted for the second reading of the Bill, this was the only just and straightforward mode of proceeding. What he considered the main principle of the Bill was this—that every tenant in Ireland should have the power afforded of re-valuation; and, in the second place, that every tenant in Ireland, with but few exceptions, should have the power of sale. He had already stated at considerable length his objections to this power of sale, and he would now say what might be urged in its

    769
    favour. He thought it was absolutely just in all cases where, by the custom of the country, the tenant had it, and in all cases in which, without the custom of the country, the tenant could pay for it. He admitted, that probably the power of sale might be the most convenient form in which the tenant could be repaid for improvements, and as a large proportion of the tenantry of Ireland had done the improvements, it was the most proper form; and he fully admitted that the power of sale mitigated very much the harshness of eviction. In the case of the very smallest class of tenantry, though he thought the power of sale in their case was, perhaps, the most mischievous, yet incidentally it might have the advantage of enabling the wealthier tenant buying out the poorer one, and thus, to some extent, consolidating the property. On those grounds, he agreed there was much to be said for the power of sale. He did not intend by his Amendment to touch the power of sale in any of the cases to which those arguments applied. Having stated the arguments in favour of free sale, he thought his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal would admit he had. stated them fairly, and he would remind the House of one of the strongest objections to that power. In the Report of the Bessborough Commission, in one of the few passages with which he entirely concurred, this statement occurred—
    "The right of free sale, even more than fixity of tenure, interferes with a landlord's right of control over his property in respect of his power to choose the tenants by whom he is surrounded, and to surround himself by those whom he prefers."
    And in another paragraph they pointed out the consequences of this, and they said—
    "Except for main drainage and similar improvements on a large scale which may be undertaken by the landlord as a commercial speculation, the result of depriving them of the settlement of sale must eminently he to discourage still further, if not to extinguish, every expenditure upon the soil."
    That was a definite objection; and surely the Government would admit that, in cases where none of the arguments for free sale applied, it was a most unreasonable thing to apply this power to the destruction of the landlord's sentiment of ownership. His Amendment applied solely to cases where landlords had, at
    770
    some time or other, either by themselves or their predecessors in title, executed all the improvements, as was generally the case in England and in Scotland. He must press this Amendment on the Government, because the Government had admitted that this Bill referred to a most exceptional state of things, and Mr. Gladstone had expressly said that he hopefully looked forward to the time when Ireland would be able to arrive at a healthier state of things. Then, why shut the door to a healthier state of things? In cases where landlords had executed all the improvements, for any sake, let them retain that sentiment of ownership, out of which the whole zeal for agricultural improvements had its rise. No man could pretend that this Amendment was contrary to the principles of the Bill. This matter, he thought, was even more important in the future than in the present. As regarded the efficiency of this clause in the future, the Government professed to desire that a great number of persons would buy land in Ireland. Supposing a number of tenants bought their farms and made all the improvements as it was expected they would do, some circumstances, say, occurred which prevented the farmer continuing his residence there—as, for instance, sickness—and he desired to let it to some person whom they chose. Now, under the Bill as it stood, they could not do this without the next day the chance of this tenant selling the tenancy to some other person. He hoped the Government would agree to the Amendment.
    Amendment moved,
    In page 2, line 5, after ("court") insert—("Provided that the landlords objection shall he conclusive in the case of any tenancy in a holding where the improvements in respect of which, if made by the tenant or his predecessors in title, the tenant would have been entitled to be compensated under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, have been made by the landlord or his predecessors in title, and not by the tenant or his predecessors in title.")—(The Duke of Argyll.)
    LORD CARLINGFORDsympathised with a good deal which had been said by the noble Duke, and it had given him a great deal of pleasure to hear him recognize some, at least, of the advantages which they believed would arise from the sale of the tenant's interest. At the same time, he was not convinced

    771
    by the noble Duke that this Amendment was a necessary one. It would, he thought, in respect to the present state of things, have a very narrow operation indeed. If it were to be adopted, he should ask that the words "substantially maintained" should be inserted with reference to the improvements, because it was obviously possible that improvements might have been made by the landlord 50 years ago, but maintained ever since by a long succession of tenants, in which case, of course, the exemption should not apply. But, setting that aside, what he said was, that in the existing state of things in Ireland cases in which landlords could possibly take advantage of this provision were of so rare occurrence that he did not think it advisable to create such an exception to the general system of tenure which the Government thought ought to be applied to the country, and this all the more, seeing that when a landlord expended money in improvements it was open to him to raise the rent of the holding in order to compensate himself for his outlay. He objected, also, to the mode in which his noble Friend proposed to proceed, inasmuch as direct exemption from the Act was preferable to this indirect exemption. He would not, however, put their Lordships to the trouble of going into the Lobby on the question.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble Lord accept the Amendment, then?
    LORD CARLINGFORD: No; but we will not go into the Lobby on it.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Why does my noble Friend not answer my arguments? He has said nothing against this Amendment whatever, and I am very much afraid that his real objection is this—that it is an unpopular idea in Ireland that the landlord should ever improve his own land. He rather wishes to discourage than to encourage the improvement of the land by the landlords of Ireland. I shall certainly divide the Committee.
    THE EARL OF LEITRIMsupported the Amendment, contending that, as the Bill stood, confiscation of landlords' improvements would follow.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that if the landlord had not charged a fair rent, having regard to his improvements, this ought to be—and he had no
    772
    doubt would be—-taken into account. Then, with respect to future improvements, it was distinctly provided, that if, after the rent had been fixed, improvements were made by agreement between the landlord and the tenant, there might be an additional rent charged in respect of them. He, therefore, greatly doubted whether it was wise, in the interests of those who approved of the proposal, to insist upon this Amendment. The landlords had already, let them remember, the means of compensating themselves for their outlay on improvements. If the Amendment were to be adopted, he suggested that after the reference to the Act of 1870 there be inserted the qualifying phrase "as amended by this Act." But, while he suggested this, he must point out that it would not be wise to place tenants on estates where the landlords made the improvements in a worse position than that occupied by other tenants.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he had no objection to accept the words suggested; but he must direct attention to the argument of his noble and learned Friend. It was said that they should not place the tenant of a holding on which the improvements were made by the landlord in a worse position than the tenant of a farm where the landlord did not make the improvements. His reply to this was that the Bill itself placed the one tenant in a worse position than the other, and that, therefore, the argument for uniformity at once fell to the ground.
    THE MARQUESS OF "WATERFORDsuggested that the requirement of the Amendment should not be that all the improvements should be made by the proprietor. If this requirement were kept in, then the tenant might, by erecting a pigstye, throw the entire clause out of gear, for then it would not, of course, be possible to say that all the improvements had been made by the tenant.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYpointed out that the suggestion of the noble Marquess introduced quite a new element, because what it really amounted to was that they should exempt from the operation of the Bill farms on which some of the improvements had been made by the tenant, and some by the landlord. If they begun with a pigstye, they intro-

    773
    duced an element of doubt into the whole matter.
    THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: That matter would be left to the Court to decide—that is, whether the improvements were permanent or not, and whether they had been made by the landlord—whether, in fact, the estate had been managed after the English system.
    THE DUKE OF LEINSTERwas understood to oppose the Amendment.
    LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEpointed out that amongst permanent improvements was main drainage, and if it were not kept up, all other improvements would be valueless. The landlord made this improvement.
    Amendment amended, and agreed to.
    THE EARL OF BELMOERmoved, in page 2, line 5, after ("court,") to insert—
    ("The landlord's objection shall be conclusive where the Ulster tenant right custom, or the benefit of the usage corresponding to such custom, has been purchased or acquired by the landlord or his predecessors in title.")
    Cases of the purchase by a landlord of the tenant's interest were by no means so rare as had been thought. He had made inquiry both within and outside Ulster, and had collected a number of cases which occupied seven pages. There were several cases in county Down; at least eight cases in county Armagh. In Antrim £4,500 had been given by a landlord for the tenant right in 116 acres, £1,200 for that right in 60 acres, £700 in 170 acres, £110 in 16 acres, and £1,500 in 72 acres. Outside Ulster he found that a gentleman in Queen's County had bought up the tenant's interest in 14 farms. He had been asked whether the landlords in such cases had not increased the rent in proportion to the sum given for the tenant right? He had made inquiry, and had been informed that in some cases possibly there might have been some increase; that in certain cases there had been none at all; and that in no instance had the rent been unreasonably increased. He was of opinion that where the landlord had acquired the tenant right he should be freed from liability under the Act; and, therefore, he moved the present Amendment.
    Amendment moved,
    In page 2, line 5, after ("court,") insert—("The landlord's objection shall be conclusive where the Ulster tenant right custom, or the
    774
    benefit of the usage corresponding to such, custom, has been purchased or acquired by the landlord or his predecessors in title.")—(The Earl of Belmore.)
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that the noble Earl had not been able to show that there were many cases to which, his Amendment would apply.
    THE EARL OF BELMORE: Sixty-five.
    LORD CARLINGFORD: In the whole Province of Ulster?
    THE EARL OF BELMORE: Sixty-eight.
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he would not dwell upon that, as he did not rest on this contention. The Government were quite unable to accept the Amendment. The provision of the Land Act of 1870 was that when the Ulster tenant right custom was bought up by the landlords that custom ceased to attach to the holding in which it had been bought; but the Act went on to say that all the general provisions of the law should apply to the holding just as they applied to every other holding in Ireland. That was the principle of the present Bill. The noble Earl was proposing that to such cases the general provisions of the Bill should not attach. The landlord in such cases looked upon the purchase money of the tenant's interest as an investment. If he had not increased the rent so as to pay a return on that investment the Government could not help him as to the past; but he would be entitled to raise it for the future. The landlord could not be paid in these cases both ways, both by an increase of rent and a return of the capital sum invested.
    EARL CAIRNSsaid, it was very difficult and dangerous to be certain as to what this Bill meant; but he was under the impression that that which the Lord Privy Seal said could be done could not be done. He understood the noble Lord to say that any money paid for the tenant right by the landlord would be recouped by increasing the rent. On Monday night the noble Lord assured the House, in the most solemn way, that the sum paid for the tenant right had nothing to do with the rent, that they were drawn up on parallel lines, and had nothing to do with each other. The Act of 1870 declared that where the landlord had purchased or acquired the benefit of such a usage as the Ulster Custom, the holding should not thence-

    775
    forward be subject to such usage. But now, in 1881, this Bill came in and said that all over Ireland the tenant might sell that which in the interval the landlord had purchased with his money, and on the strength of an Act of Parliament. The number of landlords who had purchased in this way was, no doubt, small; but the principle was very important. He had never before known an instance where Parliament had been so openly asked to violate the most solemn engagements. It was said that the landlord could recoup himself by raising the rent, which, in consideration of the other elements of the Bill, was, in effect, saying—"If you are a landlord, recoup yourself by raising your rent; if you are a tenant, the way to recoup yourself is to get your rent lowered." He trusted that by this Amendment, or by some similar means, those unfortunate persons who had spent many thousands of pounds on their estates would be protected.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the objection of the noble and learned Earl was more apparent than real as applied to this Bill. If the tenant's interest was bought by the landlord, he was entitled to charge interest in the shape of additional rent against the tenant; and that, no doubt, was what took place. But, apart from this purchase, what the tenant had to sell was his own; it did not belong to the landlord. ["Oh!"] His improvements were his own, and would it be contended that the landlord had a right to dispose of them? The Ulster tenant right depended upon custom on estates in Ulster, which settled the terms between landlord and tenant in many ways which deviated from the particular provisions in this Bill, under which the right of sale was given generally in Ireland. The Ulster Custom remained; and the new law being extended over all the country, it was difficult to see any sound reason for this Amendment, which would seem to suggest that those who had bought the tenant's goodwill in Ulster were to be regarded as more unjustly treated than those who never were subjected to the Ulster Custom.
    THE MARQIUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, if any person came before the noble and learned Lord and proposed to escape from engagements solemnly entered upon on the reasons he had alleged, the proposition would be repelled with expressions of indignation. "What the land-
    776
    lord bought up under the Act of 1870 was not the tenant's improvements; it was the Ulster tenant right custom. The landlord had acted under that which the Government had systematically despised and trampled under foot in this Bill, and the extent of which they appeared to have forgotten. What induced the landlords to pay up the Ulster Custom was the sentiment of ownership—the desire to be masters of their own estates, and that was the thing which Parliament solemnly guaranteed to them. Now, the noble and learned Lord said that it was a sufficient fulfilment of the promise—sufficient compensation—that the landlords should have the power which they then had of raising the rent to any extent which the tenants would pay. The sentiment of ownership was the thing which was bought up, and no proposals to give any additional rent were a fulfilment of the contract which Parliament had made. He earnestly hoped their Lordships would honour the signature of Parliament in this respect, and would not allow it to be dishonoured by accepting the proposal of the Government.
    THE DUKE OF ABERCORNobserved, that no landlord could raise his rent without rendering himself unpopular; and, therefore, the suggestion that he could do so in order to compensate himself for the loss of the tenant right was impracticable.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the assumption of the Government appeared to be that a landlord in the case where he had bought up the Ulster tenant custom would be able to recoup himself by raising the rent; but there was this paradox attaching to the Ulster right, that in dealing with it they could not say that two and two made four. The tenant right and the landlord's fee simple together made a sum far in excess of the selling or letting value of the farm as a whole. In a case in which the landlord's interest might be worth 25 years' purchase, and the tenant right worth 25 years' purchase, the landlord could not charge additional rent representing the interest on the sum paid by him. The purchases made by landlords, though few in number, had not been made as commercial speculations, but had been made in order to liberate the holdings from a custom the operation of which they believed to be detrimental to their estates, The purchases had

    777
    been made by the landlords in order to give them the power of dealing with their land as they thought proper, and exercising freedom in the selection of their tenants. It was a great injustice when, on the invitation of Parliament, landlords had bought the tenant right with these objects, that Parliament should turn round upon them and tell them that the money they had invested had been expended in vain.
    THE EARL OF ANNESLEYsaid, it was impossible that any private person could find out the number of cases that had occurred. He had purchased tenant rights and also made improvements. The injustice proposed to be done was analogous to a tradesman claiming the payment of an account for the second time.
    THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, he was of opinion that the tenant's improvements would be invaded by the introduction of this Amendment.
    THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he thought the case was hardly met by the Amendment before them.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that if this Amendment were accepted one of his own, which followed, would be useless. It had the same object, but would, he believed, attain it in a better form. He denied that the landlords had increased their rent by an amount corresponding to the sum spent on the purchase of the tenant right. On the contrary, they had in repeated cases reduced their rent. He contended that there had been no recouping on the part of the landlord. The tenant being allowed the power of sale which the Bill gave him, the landlord should be entitled to prove to the Court that he had laid out a certain sum of money that he had not been recouped, which, as a matter of common honesty, should come out of the purchase money. The form of his Amendment to give effect to this view seemed to be more consistent with the provisions of the Bill than the Amendment now before them.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYconsidered that it would be quite possible to pass both Amendments, but recommended the withdrawal of the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Belmore) if the Committee thought that that of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) would come more within the scope of the Bill.
    Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmoved, in page 2, line 28, after ("tenancy,") to insert—
    ("Where before the passing of this Act the landlord or any of his predecessors in title has purchased or acquired the Ulster tenant right custom or the benefit of a usage corresponding to the Ulster tenant right custom to which any holding was subject, and such holding has in pursuance of section one or section two of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, ceased to be subject to such custom or usage; or
    ("Where before the passing of this Act the landlord or any of his predecessors in title has purchased or acquired the right of sale of the tenant's interest in such holding, and where the tenant or any of his predecessors in title have been paid the consideration for such purchase or acquisition either by payment of a sum of money, or by a corresponding abatement of rent, or where the tenant or any of his predecessors since such purchase or acquisition is or are not proved to have paid money or given money's worth with the express or implied consent of the landlord or any of his predecessors in title on account of becoming the tenant of such holding; and
    ("The tenancy in such holding is sold for the first time after the passing of this Act, the landlord shall be entitled to apply to the Court to have paid to him out of the purchase moneys of the tenancy the sum which he can prove to the satisfaction of the Court to have been paid by him or his predecessors in title by way of consideration for the purchase or acquisition of the Ulster tenant right custom or of the benefit of such usage or of any right of sale of the tenant's interest in such holding; subject nevertheless to any deduction which the Court may deem just in respect of any money received by the landlord or his predecessors in title by way of fine, increased rent, or otherwise on account of the sum so paid as aforesaid.")
    The noble Duke wished to say, as one of those who were responsible for the Act of 1870, that he felt that there was an absolute contract between Parliament and those landlords in Ireland who purchased land under it. As a matter of common honour and honesty, and not as a question of policy, he held that they had no right to violate that contract. But he admitted to the Lord Chancellor and to the Members of the Government that if before this new Triumvirate, which was invested with the power not of valuing rent, but of re-distributing the property in Ireland—if before that High Commission, vested with such powers of disposing of the property of every man in Ireland, the tenant could prove that he had recouped the sum paid for the tenant right, then he admitted that the contract might be departed from; but

    779
    unless that could be shown, he contended they would be guilty of a direct and violent breach of contract. He entirely dissented from what was stated on this subject by his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor the other night, and he maintained that he was perfectly accurate when he said that this Bill would give the tenant power to sell what was not his own. From that injustice, he was sorry to say, they could not wholly escape. However, they might in some way mitigate the injustice. There were hundreds of landlords in Ireland who had allowed their tenants to sit at a far lower rent than could have been exacted from them, for the purpose of keeping out the power of sale. Their Lordships swallowed a great deal when they swallowed this proposal for indiscriminate sale by the tenant of tenant right; but he could not swallow the proposal to break faith with those who tad purchased property in Ireland under the solemn guarantee of Parliament. In moving his Amendment he was perfectly willing, as was distinctly stated in it, to take the opinion of the new Court which had been set up as to whether or not the landlord had been recouped for what it was now proposed to dispossess him of; but, for his own part, he regarded the Triumvirate as a barbarous convention of a barbarous condition of things.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not for a moment call in question the motives which influenced the noble Duke in proposing the Amendment, nor did he deny that there was a good deal in the considerations his noble Friend had advanced; but the adjustment of this question upon principles of absolute justice under the Bill was a more difficult matter than the noble Duke seemed to be aware of. He would not repeat the arguments he had used before, but would only say that they were merely removing impediments which previously existed by law to a man taking his own goodwill and his own improvements to the most available market. The latter part of the Amendment appeared to be quite just; but as for the other part he would ask, By whom was the landlord to be repaid? Not by the person who had received the money from him, but by the existing tenant, whether he had been a short or a long time in occupation, and whether he had derived profit from it or not. If the view taken by his noble
    780
    Friend of the Act of 1870 was sound, it would rather follow, that it might be the duty of Parliament to make compensation. He could understand the argument that a man who had sold the tenant right and received money for it should repay the landlord; but he could not understand why a man who had derived no benefit from the transaction should be called upon to do so.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that his noble and learned Friend's argument was a good deal inconsistent with the preceding provision of his own Bill, which said that where permanent improvements were made by the landlord the landlord should be recouped. The only difference between the cases was that in the one instance the landlord had spent his money in making improvements, in the other in purchasing the tenant right. But in both cases he had spent his money. If the Amendment was not accepted a tenant who had only been in the farm some six months might sell something that was really not his own.
    EARL CAIRNSsaid, the fallacy of the noble and learned Lord was this—he assumed that the person who was at present in possession had a property in the tenant right. But these holdings were different from others, in that they had stamped upon them a distinct character by Parliament, which declared that they should not be subject to tenant right, as formerly they were. By this Bill they were going to say that those holdings should be put up to see what some person would give for the tenant right. It was a fallacy to say that that money belonged to the tenant in possession. It rather belonged to the landlord, who had bought the tenant right by Act of Parliament.
    On question? (leave being given to the Earl GRANVILLE to vote in the House) Their Lordships divided:—Contents 219; Not-Contents 67: Majority 152.

    CONTENTS.

    Canterbury, L. Archp.

    Marlborough, D.

    York, L. Archp.

    Norfolk, D.

    Northumberland, D.

    Beaufort, D.

    Richmond, D.

    Buckingham and Chandos, D.

    Somerset, D.

    Sutherland, D.

    Cleveland, D.

    Wellington, D.

    Grafton, D.

    Leeds, D.

    Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

    Manchester, D.

    781

    Abergavenny, M.

    Strathmore and King horn, E.

    Bath, M.

    Bristol, M.

    Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

    Exeter, M.

    Hertford, M.

    Verulam, E.

    Lansdowne, M.

    Waldegrave, E.

    Salisbury, M.

    Winton, E. (E. Eglintoun.

    Winchester, M.

    Zetland, E.

    Amherst, E.

    Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.

    Annesley, E.

    Bandon, E.

    Cranbrook, V.

    Bathurst, E.

    Doneraile, V.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Gough, V.

    Belmore, E.

    Hardinge, V.

    Bradford, E.

    Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

    Cadogan, E.

    Hereford, V.

    Cairns, E.

    Hood, V.

    Caledon, E.

    Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

    Camperdown, E.

    Carnarvon, E.

    Lifford, V.

    Chichester, E.

    Melville, V.

    Clonmell, E.

    Sherbrooke, V.

    Coventry, E.

    Sidmouth, V.

    Dartrey, E.

    Templetown, V.

    De La Warr, E.

    Denbigh, E.

    St. Albans, L. Bp.

    Derby, E.

    Devon, E.

    Abinger, L.

    Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens berry.)

    Amherst, L.(V. Holmesdale.

    Annaly, L.

    Eldon, E.

    Ardilaun, L.

    Ellesmere, E.

    Arundell of Wardour, L.

    Feversham, E.

    Fortescue, E.

    Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

    Gainsborough, E.

    Aveland, L.

    Haddington, E.

    Balfour of Burleigh, L.

    Hardwicke, E.

    Harewood, E.

    Bateman, L.

    Ilchester, E.

    Beaumont, L.

    Jersey, E.

    Belper, L.

    Lanesborough, E.

    Borthwick, L.

    Lathom, E. [Teller.]

    Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.

    Leven and Melville, E.

    Lindsey, E.

    Brabourne, L.

    Lovelace, E.

    Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

    Lucan, E.

    Lytton, E.

    Byron, L.

    Macclesfield, E.

    Calthorpe, L.

    Mansfield, E.

    Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

    Manvers, E.

    Mar and Kellie, E.

    Castlemaine, L.

    Minto, E.

    Chelmsford, L.

    Morton, E.

    Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

    Mount Edgcumbe, E.

    Nelson, E.

    Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

    Onslow, E.

    Clinton, L.

    Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

    Cloncurry, L.

    Colchester, L.

    Portarlington, E.

    Colville of Culross, L.

    Powis, E.

    Cottesloe, L.

    Radnor, E.

    Crofton, L.

    Ravensworth, E.

    De Freyne, L.

    Redesdale, E.

    De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

    Romney, E.

    Rosse, E.

    De Mauley, L.

    Rosslyn, E.

    Denman, L,

    Sandwich, E.

    de Ros, L.

    Somers, E.

    De Saumarez, L.

    Sondes, E.

    Digby, L.

    Stanhope, E.

    Dinevor, L.

    782

    Donington, L.

    Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

    Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

    Penrhyn, L.

    Dunsany, L.

    Penzance, L.

    Ellenborough, L.

    Plunket, L.

    Elphinstone, L.

    Poltimore, L.

    Emly, L.

    Raglan, L.

    Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)

    Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

    Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

    Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

    Rayleigh, L.

    Rodney, L.

    Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)

    Rowton, L.

    Sackville, L.

    Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

    Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

    Harlech, L.

    Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

    Saltoun, L.

    Scarsdale, L.

    Hatherton, L.

    Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

    Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

    Heytesbury, L.

    Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

    Hylton, L.

    Inchiquin, L.

    Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.

    Keane, L.

    Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

    Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

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

    Stanley of Alderley, L.

    Stewart of Garlies, L.(E. Galloway.)

    Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

    Stratheden and Campbell, L.

    Kintore, L.(E. Kintore.)

    Lamington, L.

    Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

    Lawrence, L.

    Leconfield, L.

    Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

    Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

    Talbot de Malahide, L.

    Lovat, L.

    Templemore, L.

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

    Tollemache, L.

    Truro, L.

    Lyveden, L.

    Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

    Manners, L.

    Massy, L.

    Ventry, L.

    Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

    Vernon, L.

    Vivian, L.

    Monteagle of Brandon, L.

    Waveney, L.

    Wentworth, L.

    Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

    Westbury, L.

    Willoughby de Broke, L.

    Napier, L.

    Northwick, L.

    Wimborne, L.

    Norton, L.

    Windsor, L.

    O'Neill, L.

    Wynford, L.

    Ormathwaite, L.

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

    Canterbury, V.

    Eversley, V.

    Devonshire, D.

    Falmouth, V.

    Westminster, D.

    Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

    Ailesbury, M.

    Torrington, V.

    Northampton, M.

    Exeter, L. Bp.

    Airlie, E.

    Durham, E.

    Aberdare, L.

    Granville, E.

    Ampthill, L.

    Kimberley, E.

    Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

    Morley, E.

    Northbrook, E.

    Braye, L.

    Saint Germans, E.

    Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

    Spencer, E.

    Sydney, E.

    Camoys, L.

    Yarborough, E.

    Carew, L.

    783

    Carlingford, L.

    Monson, L. [Teller.]

    Carrington, L.

    Mostyn, L.

    Clermont, L.

    Mount Temple, L.

    Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

    O'Hagan, L.

    Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

    Crewe, L.

    Dacre, L.

    Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

    Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine)

    Ribblesdale, L.

    Fingall, E. (E. Fingall.)

    Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

    Foley, L.

    Sandhurst, L.

    Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

    Saye and Sele, L.

    Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

    Greville, L.

    Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

    Houghton, L.

    Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

    Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

    Sudeley, L.

    Kinnaird, L.

    Suffield, L.

    Leigh, L.

    Thurlow, L.

    Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)

    Vaux of Harrowden, L.

    Lyttelton, L.

    Methuen, L.

    Wolverton, L.

    Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

    Wrottesley, L.

    Moncreiff, L.

    Amendment agreed to.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmoved, in page 2, line 34, after ("tenancy,") to insert—
    ("Or for moneys payable to the landlord under the preceding sub-section in respect of the purchase or acquisition by the landlord or his predecessors in title of the Ulster tenant right custom or the benefit of such usage, or of any right of sale of the tenant's interest in such holding.")
    Amendment agreed to.
    EARL CAIRNSmoved to insert, in page 3, line 30, after ("usage,") the following words:—
    "(14.) Where a sale of a tenancy is made under a judgment or other process of law against the tenant, or for the payment of the debts of the deceased tenant, the sale shall be deemed to be made by the tenant, and shall be made in the prescribed manner and subject to the conditions of this section."
    THE LORD CHANCELLORobjected to the Amendment on the ground that the Bill, as it stood, did not interfere with the ordinary process of law.
    EARL CAIRNSwished to know whether the Government, after creating this right of sale, intended to allow a judgment creditor to put up a holding for sale, and thereby to deprive the landlord of all the safeguards which were thrown over the right in the previous part of the section? If so, any tenant who wanted to get rid of those safeguards would only have to allow a collusive execution to be taken out against him.
    Amendment agreed to.
    EARL CAIRNSmoved to insert—
    ("Any sum payable to the landlord out of the purchase moneys of the tenancy under this section shall be a first charge upon the purchase moneys.")
    Amendment agreed to.
    EARL CAIRNSmoved the following Amendment:—
    "(15.) A landlord, on receiving notice of an intended sale of the tenancy, may, if he is not desirous of purchasing the tenancy otherwise than as a means of securing the payment of any sums duo to him for arrears of rent or other breaches of the contract or conditions of tenancy, give notice within the prescribed time of the sum claimed by him in respect of such arrears and breaches, such sum failing agreement between the landlord and tenant to be determined by the Court, and may claim to purchase the tenancy for such sum if no purchaser is found to give the same or a greater sum; and the landlord, if no purchaser be found within the prescribed time to give the same or a greater sum, shall be adjudged the purchaser of the tenancy at that sum."
    The noble and learned Earl said, there was no doubt that the Bill gave to the landlord the right of pre-emption of tenancy on any occasion of sale, and there were many cases in which the right would be exercised; but he was bound to say that he did not think, as a general rule, the landlord would be desirous of purchasing the tenancy, and thus enter into a controversy with the tenant as to the value of the tenancy. The consequence would be that the occasions would be few on which the landlord would buy the tenancy as a purchaser; but there would be a great number of occasions on which he would take a very lively interest in the sale for other reasons. The landlord under the Bill was informed that, practically, the remedy by eviction against a tenant would be of very little worth, and that the way in which he must look for re-imbursement for arrears was by giving the power of free sale to the tenant. The tenant would be driven to make a sale of the tenancy, and the landlord would be paid out of the purchase money the sum due to him. Therefore, the landlord would have a vital interest in two things—namely, that sufficient should be produced by the sale to pay the arrears of rent and other charges; and, secondly, that some machinery should be provided by which he would really know what sum the incoming tenant paid, because their Lordships would see that as between the incoming and outgoing tenant the object of both

    785
    would be to keep the landlord in the dark as to what sum really had been paid in the change of tenancy. It was most desirable that some machinery should be provided enabling the landlord to ascertain the sum, as nothing could be easier than for the outgoing tenant to have a contract by which the incoming tenant would appear to pay a certain sum, say £100, whereas, in reality, the amount that would be paid would be £200. Nothing was easier than to pay another £100 to a third party, to be given to the outgoing tenant after the landlord was disposed of. For these reasons he thought his Amendment should be added to the clause. The landlord, if he did not wish to purchase, should be allowed to go into Court and say—"I have a claim against the tenant, and, unless that sum is forthcoming, I claim to have the tenancy adjudged to me." There could be no possible harm done to the tenant if a purchaser were found to buy at a price more than the sum due to the landlord.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that if the landlord passed over the pre-emption right, and did not wish to become the possessor, he ought not to stand in the way of the tenant realizing his tenant right in the best way he could. This Amendment would give the landlord a double advantage over the tenant. If the noble and learned Earl had proposed an Amendment simply to prevent a collusive sale the Government would have been prepared to consider it; but the Amendment, as it stood, would prevent a sale where the bona fides were undoubted, and it was of excessive stringency against the tenant.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought that the opportunity of collusion pointed out by his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns) was one of the greatest dangers they had to encounter. The danger was that the tenant would sell his holding nominally for a small price, but really for a large one, and so try to escape the debt he owed to the landlord. The sympathies of the noble and learned Lord opposite (the Lord Chancellor) were highly excited for fear the tenant might be forced to pay the rent due; but the remedy was very simple. The moment the tenant paid his arrears all the rights of the landlord given by the Amendment would fall to the ground. In other words, the tenant would prac-
    786
    tically exercise the very common right of buying in the tenancy for the price he pleased; and if he choose to pay the money due from him to the landlord the rights of the latter ceased, and no possible injury could be done to the tenant.
    LORD O'HAGANargued that if the Amendment were passed it would deprive the tenant of the advantages contemplated by the statute, inasmuch as it would tend to limit the right of free sale. Why should the landlord, if he had arrears paid to him, have any advantage over anybody else in the sale? Why should he not be in the open market competing with anybody else, so that the tenant might have freedom to obtain the largest amount which might be given in the open market for his interest in his tenant right? If the landlord got the amount of his arrears and was prepared to pay the full value according to the opinion of the Court on ascertainment of the justice of the tenant right without question, he got all he wanted and all he was entitled to. He got the amount of his arrears, he had the holding of his own land. He lost nothing whatever. Was it so very unfair that the tenant pressed by circumstances should have as fair a chance of obtaining the full value of his tenant right, the landlord having the same pull upon him as to the amount of his arrears as he would have if he went into the open market? As the Amendment was in contravention of the principle of the clause, and the machinery of the Courts, he, for one, would oppose it.
    EARL CAIRNScontended that, so far from its being in contravention of the clause, it was merely incidental to it. The object of the Amendment was that the tenant should produce the utmost shilling that could be produced upon the holding. The landlord and tenant were in the same boat. They both wanted to get the utmost possible sum that could be got for the tenant right. It might be that the landlord did not want to become the purchaser, and that he had no wish to interfere in the transaction at all except for the purpose of having his arrears paid. The tenant came to him in Ireland, and said—"I wish to sell my tenancy." "Well, you owe me arrears of £'200, and of course that is a sum which I am anxious to have." The tenant said—"It may produce that sum or it may produce less."

    787
    "I do not want to buy your tenant right; all I want is the sum due. I do not wish to hamper you in any way in selling your interest. Get the highest price you can get by auction or by private contract, or in any other way; but the sum due to me should be treated as a reserve price, so that if you cannot get a higher sum, then I take the holding for that sum. By all means get £200 or £300. I won't exercise my right of preventing you; and, rather than have a settlement by the Court, if you do not get more than £200, let that and the amount of the arrears be the reserve price." How was that against the principle of the Bill? He had never heard that the reserve price was against the principle of any sale.
    THE EARL OF DERBYasked if the noble and learned Earl would explain whether a tenant, having given notice of an intended sale and having reason to suppose that he would not get what he thought an ample price for his tenancy, would have the power of withdrawing from the sale? If he would have that power it did not seem to him that any injustice would be done to him by this Amendment; but if he would not have it, the Amendment would put it in the power of the landlord to take advantage of the tenant's temporary inability to find a purchaser at a fair price. At the same time, they must all be desirous of preventing collusive sales.
    EARL CAIRNSsaid, he had no hesitation in answering that question. The transaction should be perfectly free, and he intended the utmost liberty in that respect to the tenant. He would be willing to add words to make that intention quite clear.
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that the objection raised by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) was the only one which he entertained. So explained, he had no objection to the Amendment. But it was quite plain that, as the Amendment stood, the tenant, if he once gave notice of sale, would be bound to go on.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he thought the intention would be made quite clear by the insertion in line 8 of the words "and the tenant determining to proceed to a sale." He moved to insert those words.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the Government would accept the noble
    788
    and learned Earl's Amendment with the insertion of these words.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    LORD CARLINGFORDmoved, after Clause l, to insert the following clause:—
    ("The tenant from year to year of a tenancy to which this Act applies shall not, without the consent of the landlord, sub-divide his holding or sub-let the same or any part thereof.")
    The effect would be that such tenancies would be null and void, and sub-tenants so created would have no existence in the eye of the law.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked whether this Amendment was necessary, as he thought it was covered by the existing law? If there was one point on which all parties were agreed it was that it should not be in the tenant's power to sub-divide the holding. Why was it necessary that this Amendment should be introduced in that House?
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the object of the Amendment was to show clearly that the sub-division without the landlord's consent was illegal.
    EARL CAIRNSsuggested that the following words should be added to the clause:—
    ("Any act done by the tenant in contravention of this provision shall be absolutely void.")
    THE LORD CHANCELLORaccepted the addition, though he thought it unnecessary.
    New Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Incidents of tenancy subject to statutory conditions).
    THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDproposed to leave out the words—
    ("After notice has been given by the landlord to the tenant not to commit or to desist from the particular waste specified in such notice.")
    He said that the Government would not have put in these words if they had considered at the time what they were going to put in in Clause 12, as it affected the tenant. The word "persistent" waste therein contained was a great protection to the tenant.
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, the requirement of notice would tend to limit and simplify the inquiry before the Court as to the waste. He should like

    789
    the words to remain. He did not know whether the noble Marquess was anxious to leave them out.
    THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he was very anxious to have these words left out.
    Amendment agreed, to.
    LORD DUNSANYmoved, in page 5, line 13, after ("notice,") to insert ("the tenant shall not break up pasture or meadow land contrary to express covenants.") That which he sought to prevent by the Amendment was one of the most destructive things that could be done on a farm.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, their Lordships had already passed a clause which provided, as one of the statutory conditions, that the tenant should not make persistent waste by the deterioration of the soil. He apprehended that breaking up ancient pasture would come within the meaning of the term "persistent waste." These statutory conditions were intended to take the place of covenants, and therefore any reference to covenants in leases would be out of place in this clause. As to a pasture which was, not ancient, there was no reason why it should not be broken up.
    LORD DUNSANYsaid, the argument did not apply, because there was an absence of persistency if all the injury could be done at once without any repetition of the wrong-doing.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that would not rob the act of the character of persistency. It would be persistent waste to burn down a house which could be burnt only once.
    LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsupported the Amendment, and suggested the omission of the reference to covenants.
    THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONconsidered the words of his noble Friend's Amendment went further than he intended, because, in his opinion, the Amendment, if adopted, would prevent any tenant breaking up pasture or meadow, which, in many cases, might be a great benefit to the landlord and tenant.
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, it might be necessary to do it in the ordinary course of rotation. But if it were waste to do it, that would be only one form of waste; and if they were to enumerate
    790
    the different forms many others would have to be inserted—such, for instance, as burning the soil. He thought it would be better to leave the clause as it stood.
    LORD HARLECHalso objected to the Amendment, but believed the clause would be improved by inserting after the word "persistent," "or wanton waste."
    EARL CAIRNSobserved, that in many cases it was absolutely necessary to break up pasture.
    LORD DUNSANYexpressed his readiness to accept a modification of his Amendment, in order that his object might be carried out.
    LORD INCHIQUINsaid, that the lands with which the noble Lord wished to deal were old pasture lands of 20 years' standing, and. if those lands were ploughed up it would be an injury from which they might not recover for many years. He would suggest that the words inserted should be "the tenant shall not break up ancient pasture or meadow land."
    THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid he was owner of pasture land which was all the better for breaking up.
    LORD DUNSANYsaid, he was willing to insert "ancient pasture" in his Amendment, and to omit the latter part of it with reference to express covenants.
    Amendment negatived.
    To the words in page 5, line 13, "the tenant shall not, without the consent of his landlord, sub-divide or sub-let his holding," the following words were added:—" or any part thereof."
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved, in page 5, line 15, after (" holding,") to insert—
    ("Nor erect, or suffer to be erected thereon, save as in this Act provided, any dwelling-house in addition to those already upon the holding at the time of the passing of this Act, nor suffer to he used as a dwelling-house any building which at the time of the passing of this Act was not so used, with the knowledge and consent of the landlord.")
    He said his object was not to alter the scope of the provision against sub-letting or sub-dividing, but to make the words more effectual. All were agreed that sub-letting or sub-dividing should not be allowed. This was a matter of national concern. What they wanted to secure was that an area should not be burdened with a population it was

    791
    not able to support. Sub-letting and sub-division were brought about in this way—the tenant took in under the name of a lodger some member of the family, and established him in a cabin adjoining his own, or in a building intended for some other purpose, and not fit for the accommodation of human beings. Upon a miserably small holding, scarcely sufficient to accommodate a single family, would be sometimes found four or five families huddled together under circumstances of great misery. Hitherto landlords had been able to check such excessive sub-division; but they had now been deprived of all means of preventing it. He wished, therefore, to insert in the Bill words which would remove all doubts upon the subject.
    LORD LECONFIELDsaid, it frequently happened that the cottages had a room on either side of the door, with a kind of attic over without a window. The tenant knocked a hole through the wall, and put in a window afterwards, letting a part of the cottage to another party, and he suggested that words should be inserted to prevent that kind of sub-division.
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he could not accept the latter suggestion. If they were to do battle by Act of Parliament with every piece of ingenuity that might possibly occur to an Irish tenant it would require a good deal of ingenuity and time on their part to do so. He was, however, willing to accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne).
    THE EARL OF DUNRAVENregretted that the Amendment had been accepted.
    Amendment agreed to.
    VISCOUNT LIFFORDnext moved an Amendment exempting the landlord from liability for damage occasioned by cutting and removing turf in the exercise of his right to enter upon the holding for such purposes as mining, quarrying, road-making, draining, and sporting.
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he could not accept the Amendment; but he would consider the point before the Report.
    THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDalso objected to the Amendment, which, in his opinion, went too far.
    Amendment negatived.
    THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDmoved, in page 5, line 28, after ("mine-
    792
    rals") to insert ("or digging or searching for minerals.")
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE MARQUESS OF WATEEFOEDmoved, in page 5, line 32, after ("title") insert—
    ("And which the tenant at the time of the passing of this Act may he entitled by law to cut and remove.")
    As the Bill stood the tenant could claim almost every tree. There was no intention, of course, of interfering with those that were planted for ornament or shelter.
    LORD LECONFIELDsaid, if some such Amendment as this were not accepted, in a short time there would not be a single stick of timber standing in Ireland.
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that the tenant who claimed the statutory term of 15 years might have a plantation on the farm, for which he was bound to pay rent during those 15 years; and yet it was now proposed that the landlord should be allowed to come forward during that time and sweep away such a plantation.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUBYobserved, that the landlord always had the right to take the trees which were on his property. He was now asked to give the tenant something which he never possessed before, and that was the right to those trees; and simply because the tenant made some improvement, or for some other reason, the noble Lord proposed an additional spoliation to those contained in the Bill—namely, by giving the possession of trees which the tenant never had, and to which he could not possibly lay a claim.
    EARL SPENCERremarked that a tenant who had a statutory term of 15 years would have to pay a certain rent for that particular period, and it was undesirable that the landlord should be allowed to diminish the value of the holding during that period by cutting down the trees.
    THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that if the tenant wished to grow trees during his statutory term he could register them under the special Act of Parliament.
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE MARQUESS OF WATEEFORDmoved, in page 5, line 34, leave out ("may be required,") and insert—

    793
    ("The tenant under the contract of tenancy subsisting immediately before the commencement of the statutory term was lawfully entitled to cut.")
    LORD CARLINGFORDagreed to accept the Amendment, if the words relating to "the contract of tenancy subsisting" were omitted.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDmoved, in page 5, line 38, after ("game,") insert ("as defined for the purposes of the Act twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth Victoria, chapter sixty-seven.") He said his object was to include snipe and woodcock. In many parts of Ireland snipe and woodcock were the only game, and to preserve game in Ireland without preserving snipe and woodcock would simply be like mockery.
    LORD CARLINGFORDconsidered the proposed definition unnecessary.
    THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, if his Amendment was not accepted, a landlord would not be able to prosecute in his own name.
    EARL SPENCERsaid, the landlord would be able to prosecute under the Act of last year in his own name.
    THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that Act only had reference to cases where the landlord reserved his rights.
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE MARQUESS OF WATEEFORDmoved, in page 6, line 1, to leave out the word ("persistently,") and insert ("unreasonably") in the clause. The object was to prevent tenants from unreasonably obstructing the landlord in his shooting, even though they did not persistently do so.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORthought it would be undesirable, as a thing which was of no real consequence might sometimes be unreasonable, though, unless persisted in, it might do no harm. It was not desirable, in a clause settling conditions of tenure, to raise questions as to anything which was not of real importance between the landlord and tenant.
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDmoved, in sub-section 5, which provides that the shooting and fishing should belong to the landlord, subject to the
    794
    Ground Game Act, 1880, in line 41, after ("game,") to insert ("as defined for the purposes of the Act twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth Victoria, chapter sixty-seven;") and, in line 48, after ("1880,") to insert—
    ("And the provisions of the Act twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth Victoria, chapter sixty-seven, shall extend where such right of shooting and taking game belongs exclusively to the landlord as though such exclusive right were reserved by the landlord to himself by deed.")
    And in line 4, after ("section,") to insert—
    ("During the continuance of a statutory term, all mines and minerals, coals and coal pits, quarries of limestone and other stone and slate, gravel and sand pits, woods and underwoods, and all bogs and bog timber, turbaries for cutting turf, and rights of turbary, except such of the said rights as the tenant, under the contract of tenancy subsisting immediately before the commencement of the statutory term, was lawfully entitled to exercise, shall be deemed to be exclusively reserved to the landlord.")
    Amendments agreed to.
    LORD CARLINGFORDmoved, in page 6, after line 6, add, as a new paragraph—
    ("Nothing contained in this section shall prejudice or affect any ejectment for non-payment of rent instituted by a landlord whether before or after the commencement of a statutory term, in respect of rent accrued due for a holding before the commencement of such term.")
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUBYtook exception to the wording of the 6th subsection of the clause, which said that during the continuance of a statutory term in a tenancy, "consequent on an increase of rent by the landlord," the Court might, on the application of the landlord, and for certain purposes, authorize the resumption of the holding, and require the tenant to sell his tenancy, or part of it, on such terms as the Court might approve. The purposes for which the land might be resumed included grants or leases of sites for churches or other places of religious worship. These were very desirable objects, no doubt, for which the landlord was to have the power of resuming the land; but this power of resumption was not to be given to every landlord. In order to be able to exercise this power, a landlord must have qualified himself by a certain special qualification.—namely, that he should

    795
    have previously raised the rent of his tenant. Now, he (the Marquess of Salisbury) was entirely desirous of protecting the right of the landlord to deal with the rent; but he had never, in his wildest moments, gone so far as to look upon the raising of the rent as a special mark of holiness in a landlord. He, for one, should venture to claim for landlords who had not risen to so exalted a height of virtue as to raise their rents the liberty of building churches on their estates. He therefore moved to omit the words "consequent on an increase of rent by the landlord."
    LORD CARLINGFORDpointed out that the noble Marquess had not read an important part of the clause, which empowered the landlord to resume—
    ("The holding, or part thereof, for some reasonable and sufficient purpose having relation to the good of the holding or of the estate.")
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But why is it to be consequent upon an increase of rent by the landlord?
    LORD CAELINGFORDexplained that, as the Bill stood, the power of resumption was confined to the case of statutory terms not created by the intervention of the Court, but by the mere fact of the landlord and tenant having agreed upon an increase of rent without having recourse to the Court. He would, however, take this opportunity of stating a proposal which the Government was prepared to make on this subject. It was this—first, that the power of resumption should be made universal in all cases and in respect of all statutory tenancies, beginning from the time of the passing of the Bill; and, secondly, that for a certain number of years there should be no power whatever under any circumstances to convert present into future tenancies. That was to say, the creation of future tenancies would be for a certain time postponed. If their Lordships were prepared to consider this suggestion in its double aspect, the Government would be prepared with words on Report to carry it into effect. If they were not disposed to accept it, the only course open to the Government would be to stand by the words which the noble Marquess wished to omit.
    THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the noble Lord had raised a much larger question than that brought forward by the noble Marquess; it was one requiring a good
    796
    deal of consideration, and ought to be kept distinct from the other.
    THE DUKE OF AEGYLLsaid, he was not sure that the Committee fully understood the nature of the mine that had been sprung upon it by the observations of the Lord Privy Seal. When he left the Government, and when the Bill was introduced into Parliament, it was a fundamental idea of the Government, and a fundamental principle of the Bill, that there should be a distinction between future and present tenancies. Every possible device was adopted in the Bill to make present tenancies continuous and almost permanent. They were, in fact, to be entails in favour of the present tenants of Ireland. But the Prime Minister left open a door through which in some future time they might hope to return to a healthy and natural condition of things in Ireland. A door was, in fact, left open for a return to the principle of freedom of contract; and the Government had repeatedly said that they looked to that result as the ultimate hope for peace in that country. The Lord Privy Seal, who, for all he knew, was one of those who had always been jealous and suspicious of the notion of a return to the natural state of things in Ireland, now proposed to substitute for a very innocent proposal of the noble Marquess opposite a complete abandonment of what he (the Duke of Argyll) considered the fundamental principle of the measure. His noble Friend said that the postponement of the power to create future tenancies would be temporary. Well, they all knew what would occur. Another agitation would be got up, and the postponement of the power would be continued indefinitely. The suggestion of the Lord Privy Seal was the result of his hatred of the plan by which a door would be left open for a return to freedom of contract. He did not believe that the Irish tenants were alarmed at the proposal that bits of their land might be taken from them for certain purposes, for they understood that they would be properly compensated. He quite understood, however, that many of them disliked the idea of a return to the principle of freedom of contract for themselves and their landlords, although they insisted upon absolute freedom to contract between themselves and their fellow-tenants. He would much rather keep the Govern-

    797
    ment to the fundamental principles of the Bill than assent to the further Amendment which had been indicated.
    THE DUKE OF ABERCORNwas understood to say that where the statutory terms were granted landlords would not make improvements.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that if landlords wanted to resume possession for any of the purposes named, they must sacrifice the valuable privilege of freedom of contract; and yet in another Bill simultaneously introduced into the House by the Government it was provided that persons in possession of land might make leases of it for the erection of churches and schools and for the promotion of public education. But as regarded this Bill the question was why the power of resumption given by the clause was restricted to a special class of landlords—namely, those who had raised their rents. The inconsistency of these provisions showed the haste with which the proposals of the Government were made. The Committee would do well to reflect upon them more than the Government had done.
    EARL CAIRNSsaid, the clause as it stood would induce a landlord who wanted to build a church to raise the rents of his tenants.
    EARL FORTESCUEwished to say a word on the matter as a sanitary reformer. The evil consequences in Ireland of the overcrowded and bad state of labourers' cottages were enormous; and it was monstrous that they should have a large question brought before them when all they cared for in the clause was the very simple power of enabling the landlord to resume for the purpose of building decent dwellings for the labourers.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYcould assure the noble Marquess that the proposal which had been described as the springing of a mine was not made without the fullest consideration.
    LORD WAVENEYhoped that the Government would not give up this clause.
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that the power of resumption was an exceedingly important modification of the statutory term, which might be made under the direction of the Court for reasonable and sufficient purposes, and not alone for the building of churches or schools.
    EARL CAIRNSsaid, no doubt it was important; but the question was why it
    798
    should be limited to cases in which there had been an increase of rent.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he understood the noble Marquess to adhere to his Amendment in spite of the important modification which the Government had offered to make; but if the offer were not accepted and the Amendment were carried, the Government would not consider themselves bound by the offer that had been made.
    EARL CAIRNSsaid, that the Government professed a desire that landlord and tenant should agree; but the way they proposed to induce them to agree was by making the unfortunate landlord raise the rent.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he began to despair of getting a clear statement on this question. What he understood to have taken place was this. An Amendment moved by the noble Marquess opposite was met by a statement of the Lord Privy Seal that it was the intention of the Government to accord to the landlord an universal right of resumption, instead of the very limited right now accorded by the Bill. But the Lord Privy Seal added that, in order to quiet the minds of the Irish tenants, he intended to accompany this modification of the Bill by a proposal under which the conversion of present into future tenancies should be delayed for an indefinite time, which he did not name. In these circumstances, their Lordships ought to accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess, which was not foreign to the object of the Lord Privy Seal; and when they had before them that mysterious and indescribable proposal for quieting the minds of the Irish tenants, they would be able to consider it with the attention it deserved.
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF PEMBROKEmoved, in page 6, line 12, after ("estate") to insert ("or for building purposes.") He said that the Government probably intended to give the landlord the right of resumption for building purposes, and the only question was whether that object was covered by the words "for the good of the estate." An ingenious lawyer might argue that the good of the landlord and of the estate were two different things; and, therefore, it would be desirable to have a distinct declaration on the subject.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had no doubt that the words in the Bill covered the object of the noble Earl, and that the words proposed were unnecessary.
    EARL CAIRNSsaid, it was quite possible the Court might say that a scheme of building was not for the good of the estate. Therefore, his noble Friend proposed to insert the words in question, to indicate one of the purposes which should be deemed for the good of the estate. He thought, however, a subsequent Amendment to be proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Belmore) was preferable.
    Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
    THE EARL OF BELMOREmoved, in page 6, line 12, after ("estate") to insert—
    ("Or for using or letting the same for manufacturing purposes, or for building ground, or for villa sites or gardens.")
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the words "for the good of the estate" embraced every purpose for which the landlord ought to have a right to resume possession.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked whether "for the good of the estate" meant for the good of the proprietor's pocket, or did it mean the actual improvement of the land as land '?
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEasked whether the words meant "for the advantage of the proprietor;" if so, why was this not stated on the face of the clause?
    THE LORD CHANCELLORobjected to these words.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked whether it was the intention of the Government that the proprietors should have the power of resumption in order to apply the land as building land'?
    THE LORD CHANCELLORreplied in the affirmative.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked why, then, they should not say so in the Bill? There were many estates on which the sole hope of redemption lay in converting a portion of the land to building purposes.
    Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
    EARL CAIRNSmoved the insertion of the words "including the use of the ground as building ground."
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, the Government would accept this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Repeal of part of s. 3 of Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, and enactment of new scale).
    THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved, in page 6, to leave out from ("provides") in line 27, to ("as") in line 32, both inclusive. He said that he fully understood the necessity of protecting tenants against capricious evictions; but the old scale of compensation was sufficient, especially as the Bill put within the reach of the vast majority of tenants what was practically a 15 years' lease, renewable for ever.
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that though in the case of the great majority of the tenants the sale of the tenants' interest would take the place of the scale of compensation adopted in 1870, and would be better for all parties, there would be a residuum of tenants who would not find protection in the sale of their interests and with whom it was necessary to deal in another way. The Government, therefore, proposed to retain the sections giving compensation for disturbance, and also, influenced by the opinion of the Judges who were administering the Act of 1870—many of whom said that in cases frequently before them they felt the amount of compensation which they were empowered to award was too small—to increase the scale, and strengthen the power of the Court.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be adopted. He admitted, of course, that through the medium of the scale of compensation it would be possible to give absolute perpetuity of tenure; but the change proposed by the Government would not make the scale prohibitive.
    EARL CAIRNSsaid, the noble Lord had stated that there was a small residuum of tenants who would have no saleable interest. It was a strange thing that, because this small residuum of tenants had holdings which were of no value, they were not only to be compensated for those holdings, but compensated on a far higher scale than had been known up to this time, Many of the

    801
    County Court Judges said the remedy up to the present time had been the Compensation Clause of the Land Act of 1870. They said cases had come before them in which the landlord was willing to pay full compensation, because he was certain to get a new tenant who would come in and recoup him all he had paid for compensation. Therefore, the very cases which the County Court Judges said they wished to provide for were cases in which, according to their own statement, there was a power of sale on the part of the tenant; and, consequently, it would be unnecessary to resort to the new Compensation Clause of this Bill. He had heard no argument for making compensation to the tenants on a very much higher scale than hitherto. It was proposed to increase the compensation, and in some cases to nearly double it.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYcontended that the argument of the noble and learned Earl who had just spoken was inconsistent. He did not object to the continuance of the clause of the Act of 1870; but he was opposed to the clause being made satisfactory. The County Court Judges, whose judgment might be accepted on this point as superior to that of even the noble and learned Earl, gave it as their experience that the clause of 1870 had been found to be imperfect.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that when the County Court Judges, or a certain number of them, gave an opinion that this compensation was not sufficient for the purpose, they did not know that it was contemplated to enact a system of free sale. All the cases they cited for the purpose of establishing that this compensation was insufficient were cases which never could arise under a system of free sale. Their opinion might, therefore, be put aside, because it applied to a system which had now altogether ceased to exist. He did not think the clause was of the first importance, because he agreed with the Lord Privy Seal that in the working of the Bill this Compensation Clause would almost entirely disappear. Still, as far as it went, he entirely agreed with the Amendment that was now before the Committee, because it seemed to him that the system of compensation in its principle was anomalous, and that it was not to be defended on any of the ordinary
    802
    principles on which property was based. It was impossible to defend a system of compensation for disturbance which applied to tenants paying £500 or £1,000 a-year, for it was quite absurd to say that such tenants were weak persons who were unable to make a contract for themselves, and it was palpably ridiculous to give it the extension proposed.
    On question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 91; Not-Contents 180: Majority 89.

    CONTENTS.

    Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

    Carew, L.

    Carlingford, L.

    Carrington, L.

    Grafton, D.

    Clermont, L.

    Somerset, D.

    Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

    Westminster, D.

    Dacre, L.

    Ailesbury, M.

    De Mauley, L.

    Bath, M.

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

    Lansdowne, M.

    Northampton, M.

    Emly, L.

    Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)

    Airlie, E.

    Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

    Camperdown, E.

    Foley, L.

    Chichester, E.

    Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

    Derby, E.

    Durham, E.

    Greville, L.

    Fitzwilliam, E.

    Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

    Ilchester, E.

    Hatherton, L.

    Kimberley, E.

    Houghton, L.

    Minto, E.

    Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

    Morley, E.

    Northbrook, E.

    Lawrence, L.

    Spencer, E.

    Leigh, L.

    Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

    Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

    Sydney, E.

    Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)

    Yarborough, E.

    Lovat, L.

    Lyttelton, L.

    Canterbury, V,

    Methuen, L.

    Falmouth, V.

    Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

    Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen)

    Moncreiff, L.

    Monson, L. [Teller.]

    Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

    Monteagle of Brandon, L.

    Powerscourt, V.

    Mount Temple, L.

    Sherbrooke, V.

    O'Hagan, L.

    Torrington, V.

    Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

    Exeter, L. Bp.

    Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

    Aberdare, L.

    Ribblesdale, L.

    Ampthill, L.

    Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

    Ashburton, L.

    Belper, L.

    Sandhurst, L.

    Blachford, L.

    Saye and Sele, L.

    Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)[Teller.]

    Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

    Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

    Braye, L.

    Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.).

    Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

    Stafford, L. (V. Enfield.).

    Calthorpe, L.

    Camoys, L.

    Sudeley, L.

    803

    Suffield, L.

    Waveney, L.

    Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

    Wenlock, L.

    Wolverton, L.

    Thurlow, L.

    Wrottesley, L.

    Vernon, L.

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Beaufort, D.

    Redesdale, E.

    Buckingham and Chandos, D.

    Romney, E.

    Rosse, E.

    Leeds, D.

    Sandwich, E.

    Manchester, D.

    Somers, E.

    Marlborough, D.

    Sondes, E.

    Norfolk, D.

    Stanhope, E.

    Northumberland, D.

    Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

    Portland, D.

    Strathmore and King-

    Richmond, D.

    Sutherland, D.

    Waldegrave, E.

    Winton, E. (E. Eglintoun.)

    Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

    Abergavenny, M.

    Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

    Bristol, M.

    Exeter, M.

    Combermere, V.

    Hertford, M.

    Cranbrook, V.

    Salisbury, M.

    Doneraile, V.

    Winchester, M.

    Gough, V.

    Hardinge, V.

    Amherst, E.

    Hawarden, V.

    Annesley, E.

    Hereford, V.

    Bandon, E.

    Hill, V.

    Bathurst, E.

    Hood, V.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Hutchinson, V. (E Donoughmore.)[Teller.]

    Belmore, E.

    Bradford, E.

    Brownlow, E.

    Lifford, V.

    Cadogan, E.

    Melville, V.

    Cairns, E.

    Sidmouth, V.

    Caledon, E.

    Templetown, V.

    Carnarvon, E.

    Clonmell, E.

    St. Albans, L. Bp.

    Coventry, E.

    Dartrey, E.

    Abinger, L.

    Denbigh, E.

    Alington, L.

    Devon, E.

    Amherst, L.(V. Holmesdale.)

    Doncaster, E. (D. Buecleuch and Queens berry.)

    Annaly, L.

    Ardilaun, L.

    Ellesmere, E.

    Arundell of Wardour, L.

    Fortescue, E.

    Gainsborough, E.

    Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

    Haddington, E.

    Aveland, L.

    Hardwicke, E.

    Balfour of Burleigh, L.

    Harewood, E.

    Bateman, L.

    Lanesborough, E.

    Beaumont, L.

    Lathom, E. [Teller.]

    Borthwick, L.

    Leven and Melville, E.

    Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.

    Lovelace, E.

    Macclesfield, E.

    Brabourne, L.

    Mansfield, E.

    Brancepeth, L. (V Boyne.).

    Manvers, E.

    Mar and Kellie, E.

    Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

    Morton, E.

    Mount Edgcumbe, E.

    Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

    Nelson, E.

    Onslow, E.

    Castlemaine, L.

    Pembroke and Montgomery, E.-

    Chelmsford, L.

    Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

    Portarlington, E.

    Powis, E.

    Clifton,L. (E. Darnley.)

    Radnor, E.

    Cloncurry, L.

    Ravensworth, E.

    Colchester, L.

    804

    Colville of Culross, L.

    Norton, L.

    Crofton, L.

    O'Neill, L.

    De Freyne, L.

    Oranmore and Browne, L.

    De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

    Ormathwaite, L.

    de Ros, L.

    Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

    Digby, L.

    Dinevor, L.

    Penrhyn, L.

    Donington, L.

    Plunket, L.

    Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

    Poltimore, L.

    Raglan, L.

    Dunsany, L.

    Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

    Ellenborough, L.

    Elphinstone, L.

    Rayleigh, L.

    Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

    Rodney, L.

    Rowton, L.

    Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

    Sackville, L.

    Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

    Saltersford, L. (E Courtown.)

    Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)

    Saltoun, L.

    Sandys, L.

    Hartismere,L. (L. Henniker.)

    Scarsdale, L.

    Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

    Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

    Heytesbury, L.

    Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

    Howard de Walden, L.

    Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

    Hylton, L.

    Inchiquin, L.

    Stanley of Alderley, L.

    Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

    Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

    Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

    Strathnairn, L.

    Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

    Strathspey, L. (E. Sea field.)

    Lamington, L.

    Talbot de Malahide, L.

    Leconfield, L.

    Templemore, L.

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

    Tollemache, L.

    Tredegar, L.

    Lyveden, L.

    Trevor, L.

    Manners, L.

    Ventry, L.

    Massy, L.

    Wentworth, L.

    Monteagle, L.(M. Sligo.)

    Westbury, L.

    Willoughby de Broke, L.

    Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

    Wimborne, L.

    Napier, L.

    Windsor, L.

    Northwick, L.

    Wynford, L.

    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 6 agreed to.

  PART II.

    INTERVENTION OF COURT.
    Clause 7 (Determination by court of rent of present tenancies).
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved, in page 8, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words (" after having demanded from such tenant an increase of rent.") He did not think that such a demand should be a condition of the landlord's access to the Court. He thought it hardly required argument to show that the landlord and tenant should have equal access to the Court, and, when there, be treated on equal terms. He was again obliged to think that there was some especial grandeur

    805
    attaching to the landlord who increased his rent, for it was only those who should have increased their rent who would have access to the Court. Could he conceive himself selecting any class of landlords, or any special disabilities, he should be rather inclined to lean against landlords who increased their rents. But such was not the view of the wise men who ruled them. He would have justified his opinion to the House and attempted to demolish the arguments of the Government if they had condescended to give the slightest reason for the abnormal limitation of the provision under consideration. As matters stood, however, he would simply propose that landlords and tenants, like all other subjects of Her Majesty, should be placed upon the same level with regard to their rights of access to Courts of Justice; and with that view he begged to move that the words ("after having demanded from such tenant an increase of rent, which the tenant has declined to accept,") be removed from the Bill.
    LORD CARLINGFORDexplained the reason of the limitation to which the noble Marquess objected was a desire to induce the parties, if possible, to settle their affairs out of Court. If a landlord should wish to increase his rent, and should not be influenced by the desire of keeping out of Court to come to an agreement with his tenant, he would not be prejudiced by the limitation provided in the clause. He could not accept the Amendment.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that he could see no reason, nor had he heard any, for placing a landlord who had not raised his rent in a less advantageous position than a landlord who had raised his rent.
    EARL CAIRNSasked what a landlord was to do who desired to have recourse to the Court for some other purpose than that of raising his rents?
    THE LORD CHANCELLORasked for what conceivable purpose could the landlord be disposed to go to the Court if he did not want to increase the rent? He would not go to the Court to get the rent reduced. If the tenant did not want to go to the Court to get the rent reduced, he would assuredly not go to get it increased. The motive for putting the clause in its present form was that it indicated that if the landlord did wish his rent increased, the better course for him would be to propose the increase he
    806
    thought right, and then, if he and his tenants could not agree, to go to the Court.
    THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not think the Amendment very material; but he thought the landlord who desired to protect himself ought to have the opportunity afforded him of going to the Court, even though he had never entertained the idea of raising his rent. He might wish to sell his estate, and to be able to state the amount of the rental as it would stand in future.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLpointed out there was another occasion when a landlord might wish to go to the Court, and that was when he was denounced by the Land League as a rack-renter. It was well known that over and over again professional agitators had gone about denouncing certain landlords as rack-renters; and tenants, as an excuse for non-payment of their rent, said they were coerced by the Land League. Therefore, he could conceive the landlord wishing to go to the Court to prove before a judicial authority that he was not a rack-renter. He could not conceive why the Government should debar him from doing that.
    THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, the obvious reason for the limitation in this clause was that the Government, as he understood it, considered that the Court was a necessary evil. They wished to encourage recourse to it as little as possible. He hoped the Government would stand by the words of the Bill.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he could not admit that the provision in the clause was unreasonable. In the present relations of landlords and tenants in Ireland it was a matter of doubtful policy to encourage the landlords to go to the Court when they did not require an increase of rent, and bring their tenants—generally poorer men than themselves—into Court.
    Amendment agreed, to.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved, in page 8, lines 20 and 21, to leave out the words (" and having regard to the interest of the landlord and tenant respectively.") They had been embarrassed frequently in dealing with this Bill by finding, from time to time, strange phrases, wholly unintelligible or useless in the position in which they were placed. They had never hitherto been able to obtain from the Government any clear

    807
    or satisfactory account of these curious fragments occurring in various parts of the Bill; and they were compelled, therefore, to conclude that they were really the seed-bed in which legislation by inadvertence grew up—that they were planted there with a purpose—not with a purpose, but an accidental intention—of creating in future time some right for some favoured class at the cost of some other class The words he had quoted furnished an illustration. They were one of the wandering fragments to which he had referred. If the Court was not composed of dishonest men, why should they be told that they were to consider the interests of the parties before them? It was like telling a Judge and jury to consider the interests of the plaintiff and defendant respectively. This curious phrase was much more like the end of a lame peroration in some speech than the wording of a sober clause in a grave and important Act of Parliament. Then, it might be asked, why not leave it? Well, Courts of Law had an awkward tendency to imagine—it was very foolish of them—that when the Legislature said something it meant something; and if the meaning was not evident in the words, they would seek it by some mysterious juxtaposition, and strive to honour the Legislature by fixing a meaning to all the words they might use. They had every reason to believe, both from what generally took place in such cases, and from what they had heard from Ireland, that some meaning or other—and that a meaning rather advantageous to the tenant than the landlord—would be placed on this phrase by the Court. The words were either surplusage, or worse than surplusage. If surplusage, they had better not be retained; if worse, the sooner they were got rid of the better.
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he did not know whether the noble Marquess attached much importance to this Amendment or not. It was true the words were not the words of the Government; they were introduced by the House of Commons. They did not make any substantial change. The Government looked upon them as nothing but a general instruction to the Court to give both parties a fair and impartial hearing. He did not see the cause for alarm.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the words were not accepted until after a
    808
    good deal of consideration had been given to them. He knew that a good deal of suspicion attached to these words; but he could not conceive why. As originally proposed, the Government believing that the tenant was the weaker party, and required special protection, the Court was directed to consider his interest alone; but that was felt to be so unfair that this direction was extended to the interest of the landlord also.
    EARL CAIRNSsaid, it was proposed to leave out the words altogether; but in the interest of the tenant the words were inserted as they now stood in the Bill.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORasked, was it not right that the Court should have regard to the interest of the tenant and to the interest of the landlord? The words would alleviate dissatisfaction among the smaller tenants in Ireland; and he thought their Lordships would act wisely in retaining them.
    EARL CAIRNSsaid, the words in the clause were as full as could be desired without the words objected to.
    THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the Amendment was verbal and unnecessary, and he hoped it would not be agreed to.
    THE EARL OF ANNESLEYsaid, that in Ulster the value of tenant right was often double the value of land; and if the Court had regard to the interests of landlord and tenant, as indicated by this fact, the landlord might be ruined.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that as the words were admitted to be surplusage, he was afraid he must divide the Committee.
    On question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 93; Not-Contents 184: Majority 91.

    CONTENTS.

    Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

    Dartrey, E.

    Derby, E.

    Cleveland, D.

    Fitzwilliam, E.

    Devonshire, D.

    Kimberley, E.

    Grafton, D.

    Minto, E.

    Somerset, D.

    Morley, E.

    Northbrook, E.

    Westminster, D

    Saint Germans, E.

    Ailesbury, M.

    Spencer, E.

    Northampton, M.

    Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

    Airlie, E.

    Sydney, E.

    Camperdown, E.

    Yarborough, E.

    809

    Canterbury, V.

    Houghton, L.

    Falmouth, V.

    Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

    Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

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

    Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

    Lawrence, L.

    Powerscourt, V.

    Leigh, L.

    Sherbrooke, V.

    Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

    Torrington, V.

    Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)

    Exeter, L. Bp.

    Lovat, L.

    Lyttelton, L.

    Aberdare, L

    Methuen, L.

    Ampthill, L.

    Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

    Ashburton, L.

    Moncreiff, L.

    Belper, L.

    Monson, L. [Teller.]

    Blachford, L.

    Monteagle of Brandon, L.

    Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

    Napier, L.

    Braye, L.

    O'Hagan, L.

    Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

    Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

    Calthorpe, L.

    Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

    Camoys, L.

    Carew, L.

    Ribblesdale, L.

    Carlingford, L.

    Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

    Carrington, L.

    Clermont, L.

    Sandhurst, L.

    Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

    Saye and Sele, L.

    Sefton, L.(E. Sefton.)

    Crewe, L.

    Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

    Dacre, L.

    Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

    De Freyne, L.

    De Mauley, L.

    Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

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

    Sudeley, L.

    Emly, L.

    Suffield, L.

    Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)

    Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

    Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

    Foley, L.

    Thurlow, L.

    Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

    Vernon, L.

    Waveney, L.

    Greville, L.

    Wenlock, L.

    Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

    Wolverton, L.

    Hatherton, L.

    Wrottesley, L.

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Beaufort, D.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Buckingham and Chandos, D.

    Belmore, E.

    Bradford, E.

    Leeds, D.

    Brownlow, E.

    Manchester, D.

    Cadogan, E.

    Marlborough, D.

    Cairns, E.

    Norfolk, D.

    Caledon, E.

    Northumberland, D.

    Carnarvon, E.

    Richmond, D.

    Clonmell, E.

    Sutherland, D.

    Coventry, E.

    Wellington, D.

    Denbigh, E.

    Devon, E.

    Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

    Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens berry.)

    Abergavenny, M.

    Bristol, M.

    Eldon, E.

    Exeter, M.

    Ellesmere, E.

    Hertford, M.

    Feversham, E.

    Salisbury, M.

    Gainsborough, E.

    Winchester, M.

    Haddington, E.

    Hardwicke, E.

    Amherst, E.

    Harewood, E.

    Annesley, E.

    Lanesborough, E.

    Bandon, E.

    Lathom, E. [Teller.,]

    Bathurst, E.

    Leven and Melville, E.

    810

    Lovelace, E.

    Chelmsford, L.

    Lytton, E.

    Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

    Macclesfield, E.

    Mansfield, E.

    Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

    Manvers, E.

    Mar and Kellie, E.

    Clinton, L.

    Morton, E.

    Cloncurry, L.

    Mount Edgcumbe, E.

    Colchester, L.

    Nelson, E.

    Colville of Culross, L.

    Onslow, E.

    Crofton, L.

    Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

    De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

    Powis, E.

    de Ros, L.

    Radnor, E.

    Digby, L.

    Ravensworth, E.

    Dinevor, L.

    Redesdale, E.

    Donington, L.

    Romney, E.

    Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

    Rosse, E.

    Rosslyn, E.

    Dunsany, L.

    Sandwich, E.

    Ellenborough, L.

    Somers, E.

    Elphinstone, L.

    Sondes, E.

    Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

    Stanhope, E.

    Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

    Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

    Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

    Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

    Verulam, E.

    Grey de Radcliffe, L.(V. Grey de Wilton.)

    Waldegrave, E.

    Zetland, E.

    Harlech, L.

    Hartismere, L.(L. Henniker.)

    Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

    Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

    Combermere, V.

    Heytesbury, L.

    Cranbrook, V.

    Howard de Walden, L.

    Doneraile, V.

    Hylton, L.

    Gough, V.

    Inchiquin, L.

    Hardinge, V.

    Kenlis, L. (M. Head fort.)

    Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

    Hereford, V.

    Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

    Hill, V.

    Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

    Hood, V.

    Lamington, L.

    Hutchinson, V. (E Donoughmore.)

    Leconfield, L.

    Londesborough, L.

    Lifford, V.

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

    Melville, V.

    Sidmouth, V.

    Lyveden, L.

    Templetown, V.

    Manners, L.

    Massy, L.

    St. Albans, L, Bp.

    Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

    Abinger, L.

    Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

    Alington, L.

    Amherst, L. (V. Holmesdale.)

    Northwick, L.

    Norton, L.

    Annaly, L.

    O'Neill, L.

    Ardilaun, L.

    Oranmore and Browne, L.

    Arundell of Wardour, L.

    Ormathwaite, L.

    Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

    Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

    Aveland, L.

    Bateman, L.

    Penrhyn, L.

    Beaumont, L.

    Plunket, L.

    Borthwick, L.

    Poltimore, L.

    Botreaux, L. (E. Loudown.)

    Raglan, L.

    Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

    Brabourne, L.

    Brancepetn, L. (V. Boyne.)

    Rayleigh, L.

    Rodney, L.

    Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

    Rowton, L.

    Sackville, L.

    Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

    Saltersford, L.(E. Courtown.)

    Castlemaine, L.

    Saltoun, L.

    811

    Sandys, L.

    Templemore, L.

    Scarsdale, L.

    Tollemache, L.

    Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

    Tredegar, L.

    Trevor, L.

    Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

    Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

    Stanley of Alderley, L.

    Ventry, L.

    Stewart of Garlies, L.(E. Galloway.)

    Vivian, L.

    Wentworth, L.

    Stratheden and Campbell, L.

    Westbury, L.

    Willoughby de Broke, L.

    Strathnairn, L.

    Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

    Wimborne, L.

    Windsor, L.

    Talbot de Malahide, L.

    Wynford, L.

    THE EARL OF PEMBROKEmoved, in page 8, line 23, after ("rent,") to insert—
    ("Provided always, that where application is made to the court under this section in respect of any tenancy, and the court is of opinion that the tenant of the holding in which such tenancy subsists, or his predecessors in title, has or have caused or suffered such holding to become deteriorated, contrary to the express or implied conditions constituting the contract of tenancy, the court may refuse the application, or may postpone the further hearing of the same until after the performance by the tenant of such conditions as the court may think proper.")
    He said, that this Amendment was a very important one. Its object was to prevent the deterioration of the holding. One of the greatest dangers which would arise under the Act was that it would hold out a strong temptation to the tenant to allow his farm to get into a bad condition during the last year, with the view of obtaining a lower rent for the next 15 years. The Irish landlords had a right to demand that they should be protected against that kind of thing. He doubted whether, as the Bill stood, the Court would hold that such conduct was "unreasonable" within the meaning of the "equities" clause, and would, on that ground, refuse a statutory term. The Amendment was the outcome of persons who had thoroughly considered the subject. It would be a wise and fair way of meeting a difficulty, and no honest tenant in Ireland need fear anything whatever from it.
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that such a case as was contemplated in the Amendment would be prevented by Clause 8, which provided that where the Court was of opinion that the conduct of either landlord or tenant had been unreasonable, the Court might refuse the application or accede to it, subject to certain conditions.
    Amendment agreed to.
    LORD VENTRYmoved, in page 8, line 23, after ("rent,") insert—
    ("Provided always, that the court shall not entertain an application made under this section by any tenant who owes more than one-half year's rent until satisfied that such tenant has tendered to his landlord within one year previous to his making such application a sum or sums equivalent to one year's rent of his holding.")
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, the Amendment was inconsistent with the intentions and with some of the provisions of the Bill.
    LORD VENTRYpointed out that the Amendment ran on the same lines as the clause relating to arrears of rent.
    Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved, in sub-section 3, which provides that where the judicial rent of any present tenancy has been fixed by the Court such present tenancy shall be deemed to be a tenancy subject to statutory conditions, to leave the following words out:—
    ("With this modification, that, during the statutory term in a present tenancy consequent on the first determination of a judicial rent of that tenancy by the court, application by the landlord to authorise the resumption of the holding or part thereof by him for some purpose having relation to the good of the holding or of the estate, shall not be entertained by the court, subject nevertheless to the provisions in this Act contained for the benefit of labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments. Provided also, that such application for resumption may be entertained by the court, if it is satisfied that before the passing of this Act the reversion expectant on the determination of a lease of the holding was purchased by the landlord or his predecessors in title with a view of letting or otherwise disposing of the land for building purposes on the determination of such lease, and that it is bonâ fide required by him for such purpose.")
    He remarked that he could discover no reason for drawing this distinction between the first statutory term of 15 years and a subsequent term.
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he could not consent to the Amendment. The Government thought it of great importance that every tenant in Ireland should feel that he had it in his power to obtain a fixed term of at least 15 years, not liable to the chances of resumption by the landlord.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLwas entirely at a loss to understand what object the Government had in putting so heavy a

    813
    penalty upon landlords as that proposed by the 3rd sub-section of the clause.
    THE MARQUESS OP SALISBURYremarked, that the object of the Government was to show the tenantry of Ireland that they were extremely zealous in punishing the Irish landlord; and the 3rd sub-section, which the Government wished to retain, was an example of their zeal in that direction.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the object of the clause was of the greatest importance in the estimation of the Government. Its object was to give the tenants of Ireland 15 years' rest; and if the noble Marquess thought that a laughing matter, those who were responsible for the government of the country took a different view. He might remind the Committee that nearly all their Lordships were landlords. They might not agree with many of the tenants' ideas on the subject—and he certainly did not agree with them all—but it was unreasonable to think that because their Lordships held certain views that they were to dominate entirely over the opinions of all 'who were concerned in a settlement of this question. He warned their Lordships from looking at the matter in such a light; and as there was an obvious reason why Ireland should have a respite from disturbance for 15 years, he hoped their Lordships would not resist the retention of the words proposed to be omitted.
    THE EARL OF AIRLIEsupported the Amendment.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he quite understood the object of the Government. But the unrest of Ireland was not due to the inequality of the laws, for the Prime Minister himself had said that the laws of Ireland were more favourable to the tenant than those of any other country. The unrest was caused by the false doctrines which had been preached in Ireland, and which had been encouraged by the language of Ministers. It was most important that this privilege should be left to the owners of land for the good of the country. He could not support the Amendment, because he did not think it fair and just, and he wanted nothing to be given to the landlord that was not fair and just.
    THE EARL OF ANNESLEYasked, how it was possible to expect to obtain a respite from the agitation existing in Ireland if they refused such an Amendment
    814
    as this, which would prevent landlords from having the power of doing good to the country when they wished?
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he would be exceedingly glad to believe that there would be a respite to agitation. Nothing would be more gratifying to all of them, and it was simply to bring about that result that the clause was framed. They felt that, as landlords, it was necessary that they should make some little sacrifice to avoid friction as far as possible. They therefore thought it well to postpone for a time the exercise of those privileges of the landlord, which, though in themselves reasonable, might cause great harm if too freely exercised.
    EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that, for the first time, he would vote with the Government. There was a good deal in the reasons they had given; but there was no justice in the course they proposed to take. He was afraid that the Government were too hopeful in thinking that there would be a respite of agitation.
    On question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 77; Not-Contents 195: Majority 118.

    CONTENTS.

    Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

    Aberdare, L.

    Ampthill, L.

    Ashburton, L.

    Devonshire, D.

    Belper, L.

    Westminster, D.

    Blachford, L.

    Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

    Ailesbury.M.

    Northampton,M.

    Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

    Derby, E.

    Calthorpe, L.

    Durham, E.

    Camoys, L.

    Fitzwilliam, E.

    Carew, L.

    Fortescue, E.

    Carlingford, L.

    Kimberley, E.

    Carrington, L.

    Minto, E.

    Clermont, L.

    Morley, E.

    Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

    Northbrook, E.

    Saint Germans, E.

    Crewe, L.

    Spencer, E.

    Dacre, L.

    Sydney, E.

    De Mauley, L.

    Yarborough, E.

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

    Falmouth,V.

    Emly, L.

    Gordon,V.(E. Aberdeen.)

    Ettrick,L.(L. Napier.)

    Fingall,L.(E. Fingall.)

    Leinster, V.(D.Leinster.)

    Foley, L.

    Granard, L.(E. Granard.)-

    Powerscourt, V.

    Torrington,V.

    Hare, L.(E. Listowel.)

    Kenmare, L.(E. Kenmare.)

    Exeter, L. Bp.

    815

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

    Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

    Lawrence, L.

    Sandhurst, L.

    Leigh, L.

    Sandys, L.

    Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)

    Saye and Sele, L.

    Lyttelton, L.

    Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

    Methuen, L.

    Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

    Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

    Strafford, L. (V. En- field.)

    Monson, L. [Teller.]

    Monteagle of Brandon, L.

    Sudeley, L.

    Suffield, L.

    O'Hagan, L.

    Thurlow, L.

    Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

    Waveney, L.

    Wenlock, L.

    Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

    Wolverton, L.

    Wrottesley, L.

    Ribblesdale, L.

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Beaufort, D.

    Ilchester, E.

    Buckingham and Chandos, D.

    Jersey, E.

    Lanesborough, E.

    Grafton, D.

    Lathom, E. [Teller.]

    Leeds, D.

    Leven and Melville, E.

    Manchester, D.

    Lovelace, E.

    Marlhorough, D.

    Lytton, E.

    Norfolk, D.

    Macclesfield, E.

    Northumberland, D.

    Mansfield, E.

    Portland, D.

    Manvers, E.

    Richmond, D.

    Mar and Kellie, E.

    Somerset, D.

    Morton, E.

    Sutherland, D.

    Mount Edgcumbe, E.

    Wellington, D.

    Nelson, E.

    Onslow, E.

    Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

    Pembroke and Mont-

    gomery, E.

    Abergavenny, M.

    Powis, E.

    Bristol, M.

    Radnor, E.

    Exeter, M.

    Ravensworth, E.

    Hertford, M.

    Redesdale, E.

    Lansdowne, M. [Teller.]

    Romney, E.

    Salisbury, M.

    Rosse, E.

    Winchester, M.

    Rosslyn, E.

    Somers, E.

    Airlie, E.

    Sondes, E.

    Amherst, E.

    Stanhope, E.

    Annesley, E.

    Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

    Bandon, E.

    Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

    Bathurst, E.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

    Belmore, E.

    Bradford, E.

    Verulam, E.

    Brownlow, E.

    Waldegrave, E.

    Cadogan, E.

    Winton, E. (E. Eglintoun.)

    Cairns, E.

    Caledon, E.

    Zetland, E.

    Camperdown, E.

    Carnarvon, E.

    Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

    Clonmell, E.

    Coventry, E.

    Combermere, V.

    Denbigh, E.

    Cranbrook, V.

    Devon, E.

    Doneraile, V.

    Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

    Gough, V.

    Hardinge, V.

    Hawarden, V.

    Eldon, E.

    Hereford, V.

    Ellesmere, E.

    Hill, V.

    Feversham, E.

    Hood, V.

    Gainsborough, E.

    Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

    Haddington, E.

    Hardwicke, E.

    Lifford, V.

    Harewood, E.

    Melville, V.

    816

    Sherbrooke, V.

    Inchiquin, L.

    Sidmouth, V.

    Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

    Templetown, V.

    Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

    St. Albans, L. Bp.

    Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

    Leconfield, L.

    Abinger, L.

    Lovat, L.

    Amherst, L. (V. Holmes-)

    Lovel and Holland, L.

    dale.)

    (E. Egmont.)

    Annaly, L.

    Lyveden, L.

    Ardilaun, L.

    Manners, L.

    Arundell of Wardour, L.

    Massy, L.

    Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

    Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

    Aveland, L.

    Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

    Balfour of Burleigh, L.

    Bateman, L.

    Napier, L.

    Beaumont, L.

    Norton, L.

    Borthwick, L.

    O'Neill, L.

    Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

    Oranmore and Browne, L.

    Brabourne, L.

    Ormathwaite, L.

    Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

    Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

    Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

    Penrhyn, L.

    Plunket, L.

    Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

    Poltimore, L.

    Raglan, L.

    Castlemaine, L.

    Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

    Chelmsford, L.

    Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

    Rayleigh, L.

    Rodney, L.

    Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

    Rowton, L.

    Clinton, L.

    Sackville, L.

    Cloncurry, L.

    Saltersford, L. (E.Courtown.)

    Colchester, L.

    Colville of Culross, L.

    Saltoun, L.

    Cottesloe, L.

    Scarsdale, L.

    Crofton, L.

    Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

    De Freyne, L.

    De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

    Stanley of Alderley, L.

    Stewart of Garlies, L.(E. Galloway.)

    de Ros, L.

    Digby, L.

    Stratheden and Campbell, L.

    Dinevor, L.

    Donington, L.

    Strathnairn, L.

    Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

    Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

    Dunsany, L.

    Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

    Ellenborough, L.

    Elphinstone, L.

    Talbot de Malahide, L.

    Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

    Templemore, L.

    Tollemache, L.

    Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

    Tredegar, L.

    Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

    Trevor, L.

    Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

    Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)

    Ventry, L.

    Harlech, L.

    Vernon, L.

    Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.

    Wentworth, L.

    Westbury, L.

    Hatherton, L.

    Willoughby de Broke, L.

    Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

    Heytesbury, L.

    Wimborne, L.

    Howard de Walden, L.

    Windsor, L.

    Hylton, L.

    Wynford, L.

    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the Amendment he now had to move was complementary to one which had been already accepted. Its object was to carry further the exception made

    817
    with regard to English-managed estates. By the Amendment made in the 1st clause, it was decided that free sale should not exist upon English-managed estates, and the Amendment which he was now about to propose would exempt such estates from application to the Court to fix a judicial rent. It was unnecessary to argue at length in favour of this exemption. For many years a great deal of money had been expended in bringing those estates up to the level of English estates, and unless this exception was made, such efforts would be discouraged. He begged to move in page 9, line 14, to leave out (" may if it think fit") in order to insert ("shall if the landlord so requires.")
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he would be willing to accept the Amendment if the noble Marquess would consent to retain the words with regard to the improvements that they should be "substantially maintained."
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that, practically, the improvements were maintained by the landlord; but if the tenant occasionally cleared out a ditch, it might be alleged that the improvements were not substantially maintained by the landlord.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the word "substantially" implied that the landlord in the main maintained the improvements.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLremarked, that in Scotland the tenant was under the obligation to maintain the improvements, subject to wear and tear. What he wanted to know was whether the word "substantial" was put in to give case to the Court in its interpretation of the clause, or whether, on the contrary, it was intended to make it more rigid?
    LORD LECONFIELDobjected to the use of the word "substantial," on the ground that if it were employed the tenant might, under the clause, require the landlord to carry out any substantial repairs which were rendered necessary by the neglect of the former.
    Amendment agreed to.
    LORD CARLINGFORDmoved, in page 9, after sub-section (5.) insert as a separate sub-section—
    ("6.) Subject to rules made under this Act, the landlord and tenant of any present tenancy to which this Act applies, may, at any time if such tenancy is not subject to a statutory term,
    818
    or if the tenancy is subject to a statutory term, then may, during the last twelve months of such term, by writing under their hands, agree and declare what is then the fair rent of the holding; and such agreement and declaration on being filed in court in the prescribed manner, shall have the same effect and consequences in all respects as if the rent so agreed on were a judicial rent fixed by the court under the provisions of this Act."
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYexpressed approval of the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    LORD INCHIQUINmoved to insert, in page 9, line 39, after the word ("term,")—
    ("Provided, that nothing in this section shall apply in the case of any tenancy in a holding the rent payable in respect of which amounts to or exceeds one hundred pounds.")
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the Amendment of the noble Lord was one of the greatest importance, and he had looked forward to its being pressed in their Lordships' House. His interest in it was the greater because it was moved by a near Relative of his in "another place," where it received a large amount of independent support. The arguments brought forward in support of it appeared to him to be unanswerable. On the one hand, it affected only a very small number of tenants, and on the other it recognized a principle upon which, till now, they had always insisted—the principle that these large tenants were men perfectly able to protect their own interests and not requiring the protection of exceptional legislation. They could not, however, consider the proposal on its merits alone. When it was made in "another place" it encountered the strenuous opposition of the Prime Minister, who founded his opposition on the statement that if the Amendment were agreed to, and these 12,000 tenants excepted from the benefit of this clause, there would remain in Ireland a focus round which the discontent of the future would centre, and which would prevent the Bill from having the good effect which he anticipated for it. These words were, no doubt, weighed by the Prime Minister, and it was their Lordships' duty to weigh them also. They must look forward to the events with which they were likely to be brought face to face during the coming winter. He could see no reason for anticipating that this Bill would

    819
    allay the agitation now prevalent in Ireland. Already there were sinister indications that that agitation was likely to be renewed in a shape not less dangerous than that which it had hitherto assumed. Under these circumstances, what would happen if this Amendment were insisted on? The agitation would continue, and they would be told that it was attributable to the alteration made in the Bill by their Lordships. They had already had some experience of the manner in which the House of Lords "mutilations" had been misrepresented, and they might depend upon it that in this case the agitation would be justified as a legitimate protest against their Lordships' action. There was another reason which induced him to think that this Amendment might be dispensed with. They had already inserted in the Bill provisions dealing specially with holdings which had been improved by the landlords, and in a later part of the measure an Amendment would be moved dealing with the question of leases. Both of these Amendments would principally affect the larger holders, whom the noble Lord wished to exclude. Under these circumstances, he ventured to ask his noble Friend whether the inconvenience which might arise from the acceptance of his Amendment might not outweigh any advantages to be derived from it by the landlords?
    THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDhoped his noble Friend would withdraw his Amendment. If the line were to be drawn anywhere it ought to be at £20; but it was the larger tenants whose number it was desirable to increase, and to agree to the Amendment would be to discourage men from taking or buying holdings of £100 in value.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was disposed to join in the appeal made to the noble Lord. If the Amendment were inserted the tenants to whom it applied would think after the language of the Prime Minister that the vote of the House was specially levelled against them. The advantage to the landlords would be very slight, and would not compensate for the discontent and disaffection which it would excite.
    LORD CARLINGFORDheartily concurred in what had been said against the Amendment. The tenants against
    820
    whom it was directed were the very men whom the Government wished to protect, for they were the tenants who were most ready to make their own improvements, and the effect of the Amendment would be to discourage them from laying out any of their capital on their holdings.
    Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
    LORD VENTRYmoved, in page 9, line 39, after ("term") insert—
    ("Provided that if the tenant has not before the expiration of the statutory term paid and satisfied the rent payable during the same a further statutory term shall not commence, and the tenant shall become a future tenant.")
    LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he could not accept the Amendment.
    THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
    Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
    House resumed; and to be again in Committee To-morrow.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend an Act of the Parliament holden in the Third and Fourth Years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety -three—Was presented by The Earl BEAUCHAMP; read 1a. (No. 201.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock A.M., till Four o'clock.