Sitting of 18 July 1881

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Alexander Asher, esquire, for the Elgin District of Burghs.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES, £1,685,600—Class II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS; Class III.—Law AND JUSTICE; Class IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART; Class V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES; Class V1.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICE; Class VII.—MISCELLANEOUS; REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, £660,000.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Seed Supply and other Acts (Ireland) Amendment [217].
Second Reading—Public Loans (Ireland) Remission* [212]; Veterinary Surgeons [214]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [204]; Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension [213].
Committee—Land Law (Ireland) [135]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Metallic Mines (Gunpowder)* [196], and passed.
Third Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance* [206], and passed.
Withdrawn—Bankruptcy* [137].

QUESTIONS.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— BUMATROSHAN PIER.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in reference to works on Bumatroshan Pier, co. Donegal, If he could state what is the

  1113
  amount of the contract for this work; the date at which contractor was bound to complete work; the total amount actually paid to contractor; and the several amounts paid on account of such works, and to whom and for what such amounts were paid; if the work is yet completed; and, if not, how soon it will be; if time of contract has already run over; and, in this case, if Board of Works will levy any penalties; if any extra works besides those mentioned in contract have been ordered to be executed by the contractor, the nature of such works, and the price paid or to be paid for them; and, how soon the extra works, amounting to £980, mentioned in Return 244, will be commenced, as the people in the district are in sore need of employment?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, the amount of the contract for this work was £1,900, and £1,898 has been paid to the contractor, besides which only some £16 has been paid for expenses. The work is all but completed, although the contract time does not expire until the 1st of October next. Extra works were required to the value of £68; on the other hand, there were savings of £70. The extra works referred to in the last paragraph of the Question will, I am informed, be commenced immediately.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— WATERFORD TRINITY SESSIONS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the recent Trinity Quarter Sessions for the city of Waterford and for the division of Lismore, county Waterford, were legally fixed for the 20th June and 1st July respectively; whether accordingly the suitors in all cases before the court, with their witnesses and the professional gentlemen who practise at those sessions, attended in due course to transact their business; whether the sessions were immediately adjourned, notwithstanding that no notice had been given to the public of any intention to adjourn the court; whether this was done solely to suit the convenience of the county chairman, Mr. Waters; whether this gentleman, being chairman of the county Waterford, was recently appointed chairman of the amalgamated counties of Cavan and Leitrim; whether his appointment in this double capacity
  1114
  has not caused the utmost inconvenience to the two districts so remote from each other; whether immediately on being appointed to Cavan and Leitrim, Mr. Waters attempted to adjourn the Easter Quarter Sessions there in the same way; whether, notwithstanding that several weeks' notice of the adjournment was duly given, the Law Officers of the Crown did not decide that such a course was quite illegal; whether this attempt at adjournment was accordingly abandoned in consequence of the remonstrances in this House of the county Members; whether the adjournment of the sessions for the county Waterford is equally illegal; and why it was that no previous notice of the intended postponement was afforded as in the Leitrim case; whether Mr. Waters, having been made aware that his action, re Leitrim, was illegal, gave no notice of postponement to prevent protest; if so, what notice the Government propose to take of Mr. Waters' conduct; and, whether the appointments in question are in the gift of the Lord Chancellor?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, the first four Questions involved in this inquiry relate to the Trinity Sessions of this year for the City of Waterford and for the Lismore Division. The City of Waterford Sessions were fixed for the 23rd of June, and held on that day by the County Court Judge, who disposed of all the business. The Lismore Sessions were fixed for the 1st of July, and held on that day by the County Court Judge, who disposed of all the business in which there was any attendance, and then adjourned the Sessions to the 8th of July. This adjournment was necessitated by the public exigency, because the County Court Judge had to sit elsewhere; it was not for his convenience. Previous notice was given to the practitioners, and I am not aware that inconvenience was occasioned by it. With respect to the last eight Questions, Mr. Waters, the County Court Judge of Waterford, was transferred in December last to the County Court group of Cavan and Leitrim, then vacant by the death of the Judge, and as Waterford cannot at present be united to the counties with which it is to be grouped, Mr. Waters, whose counties were as near as those of any Judge who could have been appointed under the Statute, was appointed tempo-

  1115
  rary County Court Judge of Waterford. These appointments are not in the gift of the Lord Chancellor. No attempt was made by Mr. Waters to adjourn the Easter Sessions in Cavan and Leitrim, and no opinion given by the Law Officers on such attempt. What occurred was this—The dates were altered by a Privy Council Order; but the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) drew attention to the circumstance that sufficient time was not given for service of certain classes of process, and the dates were accordingly altered by a subsequent Order. The adjournment of the sessions for the division of Waterford was legal and pursuant to statute, and I am not aware of anything illegal in the action of the County Court Judge.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked whether the sessions at Lismore and at Carrickon-Shannon were not fixed for July 1st, at the same hour; and also whether the Chairman of Leitrim, instead of coming at 12 o'clock on the 1st, came at 1 o'clock on the 2nd?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I am afraid I cannot answer the Question now. I will inquire, if the hon. Member desires it.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked where Mr. Waters was sitting on the day appointed for holding the sessions at Lismore?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I am not certain which of the divisions in the group it was, and therefore cannot answer specifically; but if the hon. Member desires to know, I will ascertain.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "VANGUARD."
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is true that after Captain Coppin was refused the extension of time asked for the lifting of H.M.S. "Vanguard," that he then wrote to the Admiralty on the 3rd of December 1878, offering to purchase the ship as she lay for the sum of ten thousand pounds, and to give security therefor in the usual way as soon as the offer was accepted; and, if so, why was the offer so made refused which thereby entailed a loss of ten thousand pounds to the Country?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, on the 19th of October, 1878, Captain Coppin offered to purchase the Vanguard for £10,000, and to pay for her in 90 days from date
  1116
  of acceptance of his offer, providing the "customary contract sureties." The usual practice in sales is to require cash, but Captain Coppin was requested to furnish the names, addresses, and callings of the gentlemen who would be willing to stand sureties for the payment of £10,000 in three months. On the 14th of November he declined to do so, on the ground that acceptance of his offer should precede the production of his sureties. The experience which the Admiralty had had in their previous relations with Captain Coppin—an experience which I related the other day—led them to consider his proposal unsatisfactory. I need not remind the House of the grave inconveniences that might arise if a Government Department was to give bargains out of which money might directly or indirectly be made to persons of whose financial position they were not assured.

  ARMY—DECEASED SOLDIERS' EFFECTS.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can explain why the pay and effects of Robert Maclean, private 72nd Foot, who died at Cabul 6th December 1879, have not been paid to the father of the deceased, notwithstanding several applications, and that the War Office instructions are very plain on the point of delay in such cases?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I do not think that the delay in this case has been so great as might appear. Private Maclean died in Afghanistan, and his regiment did not return to India till the end of 1880. It is not possible, with due regard to the interests of the man's representatives, to dispose of a soldier's effects until they can be bought at a fair price; and this cannot often be got on active service, or until the return of the regiment. The account in this case is expected daily, and the proceeds will be duly dealt with; but I cannot say that there has been no delay, and I have called for explanations. If it is not satisfactory, the responsible officer will be censured. I may repeat what I have said before in the House, that the instructions on this subject are quite precise, and that I intend to take serious notice of every case of non-compliance.

  STATE OF IRELAND—SHERIFF'S SALE AT RED CROSS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that a force, consisting of a resident magistrate, two officers, and seventy-two policemen, was sent down to a Sheriff's Sale at Redcross, in the county Wicklow, on the 30th June, in direct opposition to the publicly expressed desire of the sheriff, Mr. W. H. Brownrigg; whether his attention has been called to a correspondence printed in the "Daily Express "newspaper between the sheriff, the secretary of the Emergency Committee, and the solicitors of the Rev. Mr. Johnson, the landlord, at whose suit the sale took place; whether he has noticed the following passage in the sheriff's letter of 1st July:—
  "As I anticipated, the entire amounts of the respective writs were willingly and peaceably paid, not as the result of the attendance of the Emergency Committee, but the good faith and honesty of the parties I had to deal with, and of which I was well assured before I wrote the letter your article referred to. I cannot help adding that in my mind such unnecessary displays of physical force are calculated to inflame the minds of the people, and add very much to the difficulties of the sheriff in the proper discharge of his duties;"
  and, whether he will inform the House on whose information or application, and by what authority, the county of Wicklow has been subjected to the expense consequent on the movement of this force?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the hon. Member was asking this Question under a misapprehension. There would be no expense to the county of Wicklow for the movement of the force. From information received, the Government had reason to believe that but for the precautions taken there would have been a serious disturbance at the sale.

  FRANCE—THE FRENCH MARRIAGE LAWS.
  MR. LEEMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, having regard to the misery and distress arising out of the dissimilarity now existing between the English and French Marriage Laws, Her Majesty's Government will introduce a measure rendering it incumbent upon any legally authorised person celebrating a marriage
  1118
  in Great Britain or Ireland between English and French subjects to require proof of compliance with the French Marriage Laws?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, we have done all we could in the matter by making as public as possible the provisions of the French Marriage Laws, and warning persons against the risks of marrying French subjects in this country; but I do not know that we could go to the extent of making persons who celebrate marriages in this country enforce the conditions of a foreign law.
  MR. LEEMANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, having regard to the misery and distress constantly occurring through the dissimilarity between the French and English Marriage Laws, Her Majesty's Government is prepared to recommend to the Government of France such a modification of the French Marriage Laws as shall in future prevent English Women being entrapped into marriage with Frenchmen only to be dishonoured and cast off at will?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government appreciate the serious nature of the results of the French law in regard to marriages contracted by English women with French subjects, but do not consider that it would be of any practical use to ask the French Government to propose to the French Parliament to alter the law.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—MRS. BLAKE'S ESTATE AT RENVYLE.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received information in reference to the estate of Mrs. Blake, at Renvyle, to the effect that her tenants, John Heany and Patrick Heany, are under sentence of eviction for one year's rent, these tenants being clothed in rags, having all the appearance of starvation, and dwelling in wretched cabins; whether it is a fact that the majority of the tenants on the estate have as their only food Indian meal, and, in some cases, a little milk; and, whether he still adheres to the statement that the tenants have potatoes for sale? The hon. Member further asked whether the Chief Secretary had seen a letter written by Mr. William Thompson, who was the Special Correspondent of "The

  1119
  Standard" last year in Ireland, concerning the statements made by Mr. Bernard Becker, the Special Correspondent of "The Daily News?"
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that he had seen the letter referred to; but before seeing it he had ordered special inquiries to be made into this subject, and he must therefore ask the hon. Member to put the Question off for a few days.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had put the Question upon the Paper several days ago, and that it was practically a repetition of one to which he had got an answer which proved to be incorrect.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought that if the hon. Member said the answer was incorrect, he was taking matters for granted. He wished the inquiry should be made by some person not living on the spot, and had thus been obliged to give some time to it.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO- PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. J. A. MACAULAY, A PRISONER UNDER THE ACT—CONDITIONAL RELEASE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. T. A. Macaulay, a matriculated student in arts of the Queen's University, confined under the Coercion Act in Kilmainham Gaol, was on the 9th instant informed that he would be released on signing a document then presented to him; whether Mr. Macaulay refused to sign; whether he is still detained in gaol; if so, whether he is now confined for refusing to sign this document, or for being "reasonably suspected;" if the latter, would he state on what grounds the Government proposed to release him; if the former, whether there is anything in the Coercion Act authorising the Government to keep a man in gaol for refusing his signature to conditions; whether, in consequence of Mr. Macaulay's refusal, it is intended to keep him the full eighteen months in gaol; and, if it is the fact that, after his refusal to sign, he was dismissed by the prison doctor from the hospital where he previously was, and sent back to his cell?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, Mr. Macaulay was offered his release if he would sign the undertaking now usually signed by such persons on their release.
  1120
  His release was offered him chiefly on account of his health, and partly because it was considered safe for the public peace to set him at liberty. But he refused to sign the undertaking, and consequently he is still detained in prison. When I read to the House what the undertaking is, I think the House will understand that a refusal upon the part of prisoners to sign it is proof that it is not safe to release them. It is simply this—
  "I——now a prisoner in——Jail under the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act, hereby undertake, on being released from custody under the said Act, not to commit any treasonable practices or to commit any act of violence or intimidation against any of Her Majesty's subjects, or in any manner, directly or indirectly, to incite others to the commission of such an act; and I hereby acknowledge and I shall be liable to be re-arrested if I fail to comply with this undertaking."
  It is an argument against liberating a man that he refuses to sign such a document. On the 11th, Mr. Macaulay and two others were discharged from the infirmary, but his discharge had no connection with his refusal to sign the document.
  MR. HEALYasked whether it was not the fact that Mr. Macaulay said he would not sign, because that would have been an admission of guilt; and if he was suffering, as the Chief Secretary had admitted, as he was about to release him on account of ill health, from some form of pulmonary disease?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I am not aware that he made such a statement, and I do not see how he could have made such a statement. The document is purposely drawn up so as to avoid giving the impression that there is any acknowledgment of guilt in signing it. Such an impression is an extraordinary one, and on consideration it will be seen that it is a mistaken one. As to the state of his health, I am informed that he was well enough to be discharged from the infirmary, and that is all the information I have.
  MR. HEALYasked how, if Mr. Macaulay was not well enough to be kept in prison, he was well enough to be discharged from the infirmary and sent to a cell, and whether it was the intention of the Government to keep him in prison till the end of the term?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the idea of this man——
  MR. HEALY: This gentleman. He is a matriculated student.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, resuming, said, the idea of Mr. Macaulay on this matter had nothing to do with the question of his release. The reason for offering him his release was the condition of his health; and, secondly, because it was deemed safe for the public peace to release him; but his extraordinary refusal to sign the undertaking rather removed the latter impression.

  JAMAICA—ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW—FLOGGING.
  MR. FIRTHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to a sentence of fourteen days' imprisonment and twenty lashes with the cat, recently passed by Judge Ernst in the Northern District Court of Jamaica upon a man named Evans, charged with stealing a dogwood tree of the value of two shillings; whether it is the fact that such imprisonment and flogging were inflicted, but that afterwards upon an appeal to the Court of Appeal, the judgment was reversed, and the Court held that there was no right to inflict flogging for such an offence; and, whether the conduct of Judge Ernst has been reviewed, or Evans compensated; or whether it is proposed that either of these things shall be done?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, his attention had been called to this subject by paragraphs in the newspapers, and those paragraphs confirmed and fully bore out the statements contained in the first two branches of his hon. Friend's Question. No Report had been received from the Colony on the subject, but a Report had now been called for.

  THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES— FRENCH RIGHT OF FISHING.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the present position of the question between this Country and France as to the west shore of Newfoundland; and, if the statement in the "Standard" is correct that the French Commandant on the Coast expressed his approval of the conduct of the residents there in resisting the officials of the
  1122
  Newfoundland Government in the execution of their duty?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, a Commission consisting of Admiral Pierre, representing the French Government, and Admiral Miller, representing Her Majesty's Government, is now sitting in London for the consideration of the questions which require settlement in connection with the French rights of fishery on the coast of Newfoundland. The French Commandant appears to have expressed the opinion that the residents in St. George's Bay are not liable to the payment of Customs duties to the Newfoundland Government. Explanations have been asked for, and it is not yet possible to state precisely what has occurred.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked when it was likely that Papers on the subject would be laid on the Table?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Commission had been now sitting for three months, and he did not know when its labours would be concluded. He was not, therefore, in a position to give an answer to the Question.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT, 1870—THE BESSBOROUGH COMMISSION.
  SIR WILLIAM PALLISERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Report of Lord Bessborough's Commission was altered after the 4th of January last, the date on which it was signed, in consequence of the study by the Commission of the rebutting evidence subsequent to that date; and, if so, what alterations were introduced; and, whether he will request the Commission to supply the dates of the "Statements in reply to or in explanation of evidence," as well as the dates at which those statements were received back from the printers?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had no information which would enable him to answer the Question, and did not know that he had any authority to call upon the Secretary to the Commission for any explanation on the subject. The Question ought to be addressed to the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), who was a Member of the Commission, and would, no doubt, be perfectly ready to answer it.

  CUSTOMS—CLERKS IN THE WARE- HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
  MR. LALORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in the event of the contemplated changes in the Warehousing Departments of the Customs leading to the displacement of any of the Upper Division or Redundant Clerks, the Government will make every effort to provide them with suitable clerical situations, either in the proposed Department of Agriculture and Commerce, should it be formed, or in other branches of the Public Service; and, whether the Government will ask Parliament for power to grant to those clerks who may have to retire similar terms of retirement to those recently granted to the clerks of the Admiralty and War Office?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, in the event of the contemplated changes in the Warehousing Departments of the Customs leading to the displacement of any of the clerks, the Treasury would much prefer providing for such clerks by transfer rather than by pension on retirement. The Superannuation Act provides for the case of clerks compulsorily retired; and there is, consequently, no intention of applying to Parliament for additional power.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE WORCESTER MILITIA.
  MR. A. MOOREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that three Subaltern Officers of the Worcester Militia, anxious to present themselves for examination for the Line in September, are debarred from so doing by reason of not having completed their second training previous to 1st July; whether these officers were informed by the Adjutant of the Regiment that he had distinct instructions from the War Office to the effect that they might be permitted to train with their Regiment in July, and present themselves for examination in September, this having been done in a similar case in the previous year, and that consequently they need take no steps to train with another Regiment at an earlier date; whether the adjutant has since written to the War Office acknowledging that he was the cause of the whole mistake; and, whether these young officers are to suffer in consequence of the mistake of their
  1124
  superior officer, notwithstanding that they took the proper course and made the necessary inquiries?
  MR. CHILDERS: This is a very peculiar and difficult case. Under the plain directions of the Army Circular, dated January 1 last, subaltern officers of Militia desiring to compete for direct commissions must complete two trainings before the date at which their applications should be received, and this date for the September examination is the 1st of July. The colonel and adjutant of the Militia battalion of the Worcestershire regiment appear to have acted in direct contravention of this Regulation, and to have misled the officers concerned, who have represented that they made every inquiry, and who seem to have been prepared to complete their training with other regiments. Under these circumstances, I have decided that if, on further inquiry, the Commander-in-Chief should be satisfied that the allegations of these officers are borne out, and blame attaches solely to the colonel and adjutant, the latter shall be severely censured, and the Regulations will be relaxed in this as a very special and exceptional case.

  ARMY—WIDOWS' PENSIONS—THE NEW ROYAL WARRANT.
  MR. J. COWENasked the Secretary of State for War, If in previous Warrants treating of pensions it was provided that a pension might be awarded to the widow of an officer who was twenty-five years younger than her late husband should the officer have lived for seven years after the marriage; and, will he in the new Warrant provide that the wives of those officers who have married previous to the 1st July 1881 may be allowed the same advantages as they would have possessed under the old Warrants?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; any officer's widow who married him before the 1st of July instant will, in this respect, retain any claim she might have had under former Warrants.

  ISLANDS OF THE WESTERN PACIFIC —THE SOLOMON ISLANDS—PUNISH- MENT OF NATIVES.
  MR. RICHARDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he can state by what authority Commodore Wilson

  1125
  despatched Captain Maxwell with Her Majesty's ship "Emerald," to attack the inhabitants of the Solomon Islands; whether Her Majesty's Government approve of the manner in which the attack was carried out, when, according to Captain Maxwell's Report, without preliminary inquiry into the alleged guilt of those assailed, without any resistance on the part of the natives, flourishing villages were burned, crops were destroyed, fences were levelled, large numbers of the cocoa-nut trees were cut down, and houses shelled, although these houses did not, in one instance at least, even in the opinion of Captain Maxwell himself, belong to the culprits against whom the expedition was nominally directed; and, whether hostilities have been concluded with these islanders, or whether any further attack is in contemplation?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Commodore Wilson, when he despatched the Emerald, acted in communication with, and with the full approval of, Sir Arthur Gordon, the High Commissioner of the South Pacific. I am bound to state a fact which is not referred to in my hon. Friend's Question. The Emerald was sent in consequence of five different outrages, in which 27 unoffending people, including a woman, had been barbarously murdered in cold blood. In the case of the Sandfly, we have reliable evidence now in England that the Chief whose tribe butchered our people was thoroughly aware that they belonged to a race which did not encourage, but had, as far as its power would go, suppressed the abuses of the labour traffic. As a result of the expedition, only one life, so far as we know, was taken; but acts of war of a very rigorous nature were inflicted, the only method of checking and punishing these outrages which at present exists. Her Majesty's Government regret that no other method exists, and are doing their best to find one; but they believe that Commodore Wilson and Captain Maxwell did their best under the very trying circumstances in which they were placed. No further acts of war are in contemplation; but two of Her Majesty's ships, the Cormorant and the Beagle, are now in and about the Island, with Mr. Romilly, a Deputy Commissioner, on board, and Mr. Romilly will visit all the principal trading and mission stations in those seas.
  MR. GORSTasked whether the House was to understand that Sir Arthur Gordon, the Governor of New Zealand, had authority from Her Majesty's Government to declare war upon the inhabitants of the Island in question?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that Sir Arthur Gordon undoubtedly had authority to send a ship of war to exact retribution for violence of the nature to which reference had been made.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked if the hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to a passage in the Report of Captain Maxwell, which stated that troubles were not infrequently caused by the violence of the captains of so-called trading vessels?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that, undoubtedly, several outrages had been caused owing to the conduct of the captains of trading vessels; but it was well known that, so far as this country was concerned, the abuse of that traffic had been entirely brought to an end. The outrages to which he referred were, he repeated, committed when it was known quite well that the people attacked had no connection with this traffic.

  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND— DEGREES.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What are the steps necessary to place the Royal University of Ireland (in the words of the eleventh section of "The University Education (Ireland) Act, 1879,") "in a position to confer degrees;" when it is proposed to take those steps; if, having regard to the interest felt in Ireland in the working of "The University Education (Ireland) Act, 1879," Her Majesty's Government will proceed to arrange for the dissolution of the Queen's University within the time primarily fixed for its dissolution by the eleventh section of the Act, namely, before the 27th April 1882, when two years will have elapsed from the date of the charter of the Royal University; and, if, for the guidance of the large number of young men who desire to matriculate in the Royal University as soon as possible, he will inform the House whether the Royal University will hold a matriculation examination before the close of 1881?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that by the 10th section of the Universities Act rules were made by the Senate which must have the approval of Her Majesty. The Senate would not be able to place the Royal Universty "in a position to confer degrees" without funds; but Lord Carlingford was just about to introduce a Bill into the House of Lords to facilitate the carrying out of this object. By the 11th section of the Act referred to the Queen's University could not be dissolved until the new University was in a position to confer degrees. The holding of a matriculation examination depended upon the passing of the Bill he referred to; but he hoped one would be held before the close of the year.

  THE INDIAN VERNACULAR PRESS ACT, 1878.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he is able to give the House an assurance that "The Vernacular Press Act, 1878," will be repealed without any unnecessary delay?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the only answer he could give to the hon. Member was to refer him to the Despatch of the Government of India, dated 28th February last, which had been laid on the Table of the House. In that Despatch it was stated that the Act in question would be repealed on the re-assembling of the Government of India early next winter.

  MALTA—TAXATION—FOOD AND GRAIN TAXES.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true that the entire cost of the Military Services of His Excellency the Governor, who is at the same time the Commander of the Garrison, is cast upon the Maltese; whether it is true that the native inhabitants are subjected to taxation upon food from which Her Majesty's Government claim exemption in respect of the British garrison and of the fleet; if the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to a petition from the inhabitants of Malta to this honourable House which was presented a few days age; and, whether it is intended by Her Majesty's Government to give any, and what, attention to the prayer of that petition?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, the Governor General of Malta received, out of the military funds voted by Parliament, pay and allowances amounting to £1,000 a-year. The rest of his emoluments were defrayed by the Colony of Malta. There were taxes on grain imported into Malta, which the Government had desired to see reduced or abolished. This tax was not levied upon food imported for the Military Service. This was the ordinary practice in the Colonies. Lord Kimberley had not yet had an opportunity of perusing the Petition presented to the House on Friday last from the inhabitants of Malta; but another Memorial, which was believed to be identical, had been received at the Colonial Office, and would at once be considered. The subject of the reduction or abolition of the tax upon grain was also being considered.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE MAGISTRACY —CORNISH MAGISTRATES.
  MR. BRYDGES WILLYAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, now that his attention has been called to the very serious charge brought in his Report by the Inspector of Metalliferous Mines for Cornwall, Devon, &c. against "a very large number" of the magistrates for the county of Cornwall, and which reads as follows:—
  "On looking down the list of fines, one cannot help being struck by the fact that most of them are absurdly small. It almost seems that some magistrates think more of the life of a pheasant than they do that of a man, for I believe that if a similar number of convictions for poaching cases were taken at random, the average fine would be greater;
  "The fact is, a very large number of the magistrates are interested directly or indirectly in mining. Many of them are owners of mining property, and have been troubled by repeated notices to fence dangerous abandoned shafts, and have thereby been put to considerable expense, some indeed have been prosecuted for neglecting to attend to these notices, others are shareholders in mines in the district, and, as such, are not disposed to look favourably upon Government restrictions which they think may interfere with their profits. As a natural consequence fines have on the whole been light, and the inspector's labours have been increased considerably;
  "If the offences had been punished with greater severity, mine agents would have attended to the provisions of the Act with much more diligence. I am convinced that this mistaken leniency on the part of the magistrates leads to a delay in carrying out all the pro-

  1129
  visions of the Act, and thereby tends to keep up the death rate from accidents;"
  and, whether he will cause immediate and searching inquiry to be made as to the truth or otherwise of the charge, and, in the event of the allegations made in the Report not being substantiated, whether he will relieve the Inspector from further service in his present capacity?
  MR. A. VIVIANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in making so serious a charge against the Magistrates as that contained in the Mines Inspector's Report for Devon and Cornwall, and quoted by the honourable Member for Stafford yesterday, he, the Mines Inspector, should not have substantiated and justified it by actual facts, and that as this was not done, whether he will not now call upon him to do so, and will lay such further Report upon the Table of the House?
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, that before these Questions were answered he had another to ask. He wished to know whether, in the event of the charges made by the Inspector being substanstiated, he would direct the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the fact, with the view of having every magistrate in the county of Cornwall who valued human life at not more than 5s., or 7s. 6d., or 10 s. to be removed from office?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was not surprised at this Question, because the Report of the Inspector involved a very serious charge. He would not weary the House by going into the Report; but he might just mention two of the examples given by the Inspector in support of his charge, in one of which a fine of 5s. had been imposed for an offence at a place where no other offence had been previously reported, while in the other, for the filling-in of a facing, the fine was only 10 s. There were other cases in which the fines were only 2s. and 2s. 6d. Upon these facts the Inspector had made the charge in question, and in the circumstances he (Sir William Harcourt) considered that the matter was one deserving of further inquiry, and he had called for a special Report from the Inspector on the matter.

  STATE OF IRELAND—AGRARIAN CRIME IN KERRY.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
  1130
  land, Whether his attention has been directed to the charge of Mr. Justice Lawson in opening the Kerry Assizes on the 13th instant, wherein he states that there have been 155 agrarian offences in the county since the Spring Assizes; whether he is correctly reported to have said as follows:—
  "The character of these offences is still more alarming, when they came to look into every case, because they consisted of outrages of a most dreadful kind—crimes upon persons, property, cattle, houses. And, in fact, he could only say that the picture they presented was really and truly an appalling one, and demonstrated that the reign of law in this county is practically suspended and superseded by some other different authority;"
  And, whether, in view of the oft-repeated assertions to the same effect by Her Majesty's Judges and others best qualified to form an opinion, the Government intend to take such action, in the interests of the Country, as shall no longer permit the Land League to terrorize peaceable and well-disposed subjects of the Queen?
  MR. O'DONNELLrose to Order. The Question of the hon. Member for the County Leitrim conveyed very serious imputations; and he (Mr. O'Donnell) wished to ask Mr. Speaker whether it was not in its terms contrary to the Standing Orders of the House? These statements were in reference to the Land League, to which Judge Lawson did not refer in any way in the speech from which the hon. Member for Leitrim quoted. He wished to ask whether these statements made by the hon. Member against the Land League did not require to be proved before they were asserted as facts in a Question in this House?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he rose to a point of Order also. He would venture to recall to the memory of Mr. Speaker the fact that a similar attempt was made by the hon. Member for the County Leitrim on a former occasion to drag in debatable matter respecting the Land League, and his Question was ruled out of Order.
  MR. SPEAKER: My attention has been called to this Question by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). I examined it, and it has been, to a considerable extent, revised at my direction by the Clerk at the Table. At the same time, I think that, having quoted the extract from the Charge of the Judge, the passage to which objec-

  1131
  tion is taken is naturally the consequence of that Charge.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORrose to a point of Order. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The point of Order has already been settled.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: But I wish to raise another point of Order, and to ask whether, in the quotation from the Judge's Charge, any allusion whatever, by name or implication, is made to the Land League?
  [The Speaker did not reply.]
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I have seen the Report to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for County Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) refers. I am no better able to state than the hon. Member is whether it is correct. The Judges, as I have often stated in this House, furnish no official Report of their Charges; but, having seen it in several newspapers, I have no doubt in my own mind that it is a correct report. The quotation in the hon. Gentleman's Question says that Judge Lawson states that there have been 155 agrarian offences in Kerry since the Spring Assizes. I do not find that he said agrarian offences. I believe what he said was very serious offences. As regards the last quotation. I can only say that this statement of Judge Lawson and some other similar statements have occupied, and do occupy, the serious and anxious attention of Her Majesty's Government; and we are using our best endeavours, with the powers which the law has placed in our hands, to protect person and property and prevent intimidation.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland would cause to be procured, and lay on the Table of the House copies of Judges' Charges at the recent Summer Assizes in Ireland?
  [No answer was given to this Question.]

  TURKEY—ASIATIC TERRITORIES OF THE SULTAN.
  MR. FITZPATRICKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is not a fact that representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government by the British Embassy at Constantinople, stating that it is advisable to increase the Consular Staff in
  1132
  Asia Minor; and, if so, what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government are on this subject; and, whether, having reference to Article I. of the Constantinople Convention, dated June 4th 1878, Her Majesty's Government propose to take any steps for the introduction of reforms into the Asiatic territories of the Sultan?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, no such representations have been made. Her Majesty's Government will continue, in concert with the other Powers, to urge upon the Porte the introduction into the Provinces inhabited by Armenians of the improvements and reforms stipulated by the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin, and also to counsel the introduction of reforms throughout the Ottoman Empire.

  BULGARIA (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a Renter's telegram from Sistova, published yesterday, in which Prince Alexander is reported to have said, in addressing the Diplomatic Body accredited to Bulgaria, "I thank you for the lively sympathy you have displayed towards me during the Crisis;" whether Mr. Lascelles, Her Majesty's Representative in Bulgaria, did display "lively sympathy" with the Prince in his endeavours to replace the Constitution by seven years of personal power; and, whether, if he did not do so, or if he did so without instructions, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to acquaint the Prince as to the views of the Government in regard to his recent proceedings?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I have seen the telegram to which my hon. Friend refers. Mr. Lascelles has not, as far as I am aware, displayed lively sympathy with the recent proceedings of the Prince. The action of Her Majesty's Government and of Mr. Lascelles will be shown by the Papers which will be presented to the House as soon as a full report of the last proceedings has been received and considered. Any further communications to Prince Alexander will be in favour of His Highness exercising with moderation and liberality the powers which have been intrusted to him by the Assembly.
  MR. J. COWENasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it was to be understood from the answer that he had given to the hon. Member for Northampton that Her Majesty's Government approved or disapproved of the action taken by the Prince of Bulgaria in suspending the Constitution and establishing personal rule, and whether the intimation that had been served on him meant that if he did not conduct the affairs of his State with their approval, they would withdraw Her Majesty's Representative?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have not been called upon to express, as to the main portion of the action of the Prince, either approval or disapproval. They expressed their opinion with regard to the constitution of the Military Courts in Bulgaria, and their general attitude will be seen by the Paper, which will almost immediately be laid upon the Table.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the hon. Baronet whether the Prince had given orders for the opening of letters addressed to private individuals?
  [No answer was given to this Question.]

  METROPOLIS—ST. JAMES'S PARK— DAMAGE TO THE TREES.
  MR. MONKasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been directed to the serious injury done to many of the trees in St. James's Park on the side nearest to the Bird Cage Walk by large heaps of rubbish having been deposited against them; whether he is aware that many of those trees are dead, and that others are dying; by whom, and with whose authority, the rubbish has been so deposited; and, whether he is prepared to take immediate steps for the preservation of the trees which are still suffering from the formation of the mounds about them?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, this "rubbish," which consisted of the mud taken from the bottom of the lake in Buckingham Palace Gardens, was placed in St. James's Park 13 years ago, and as its removal would cost £2,000, and the trees which it was supposed to injure were now hopelessly be-
  1134
  yond recovery, he did not think it worth the expenditure to remove it.

  CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
  MR. FIRTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to proceed with the Charitable Trusts Bill during the present Session; whether he is aware that, when the Bill was before the House of Lords, there were many petitions presented against it from corporate bodies throughout the Country, such petitions having been procured through the agency of the Corporation of London; and, whether, in view of similar proceedings being repeated, he can state whether there is any statutory or other authority justifying the expenditure of municipal funds in promoting through the Country an agitation against Bills in Parliament?
  MR. PULESTONasked whether the suggestions reflecting on the Corporation in question were in Order?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he was very anxious, of course, to proceed with the Charitable Trusts Bill. He should have thought that measure was one which would not have met with serious opposition, and any which had arisen was, he imagined, due to an entire misapprehension of the scope of the Bill, which was only to remove some obstacles to the action of the Commissioners. He had no official knowledge of the course which the Corporation had taken in this matter; but one of the objects of the Bill being to deal with the evils of the parochial charities, he should think the Corporation of London would be exceedingly ill-advised if they were to make themselves the champions of a maladministration of public funds.

  ARMY—THE ARMY HOSPITAL CORPS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that the officers of the Army Hospital Corps, more than fifty in number, who have enjoyed the rank of Captains and Lieutenants down to the present, consider themselves to be cruelly wronged by the proposal to reduce them to the position of Hospital Quartermasters under the new Organisation scheme; and, whether he will consider the case of this body of most deserving officers,

  1135
  who have all earned and obtained their promotion by merit?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the hon. Member for Dungarvan cannot have been in the House when I answered a similar Question on Thursday last. He is in error in supposing that the rank of captain has been taken from these officers. On the contrary, what was relative rank has now become honorary rank, which, as I before stated, is really better, so far as their social and military status is concerned. As to the "cruel wrong" done to these officers, I do not suppose that any one of them would prefer his former title, rank, pay, and pension to what the Warrant gives him. I have no intention whatever to alter the Warrant in this respect.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL—DEFINI- TION OF THE TERM "TOWN PARK."
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether there is any legal definition for a "town park" in Ireland; if so, what it is?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, a legal definition of the term "town park" was given in the Land Act of 1870. It must consist of not less than four acres, be called a "town park," and belong to the residents in the town.

  THE COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND)—REPORT FOR 1880–81.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the Report of the Commissioners of Public Works (Ireland) have submitted to the Treasury their Report for 1880–81, if he can say when the same will be presented to Parliament; and, whether the requirements of the 12th s. of the 1 and 2 Will. IV. c. 33, in respect of Account of Proceedings of the Commissioners have been complied with, as also the requirements of 5 and 6 Vic. c. 89, s. cxxix.?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, the Report in question was presented on the 7th of July, and a Copy of it is in the Library. It will, I hope, be generally distributed before long. Of the two sections of Acts named in the latter part of the Question, the latter has been repealed and the former is more than complied with by the existing practice in rendering accounts and making reports to the Treasury.

  SOUTH AFRICA—NATAL—PROMISED LIBERATION OF LANGALIBALELE.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will consider whether the time has not arrived when Langalibalele might be justly and safely permitted to return to Natal?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it is quite correct to suppose that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies was desirous to have ordered the release of Langalibalele; but the very serious dangers which have arisen from complications with the Natives have forced him to the conclusion that it would not be prudent to order him to be set free until a more settled state of affairs arises. The particular district to which this Chief belongs has not been agitated, but it is the neighbourhood of those which have been agitated, and, therefore, the Secretary of State for the Colonies could not assume the responsibility of setting him free; but he very heartily desires the arrival of a time when such a step could be taken.

  RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION BILL.
  MR. EVANS WILLIAMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering that the number of Amendments on the Notice Paper to the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill show that Bill to have the character of "contentious business," it is intended now to proceed further with the Bill?
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the amount of opposition that will be given to the passing of the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill, he intends to proceed with that measure this Session?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have really nothing to add to what I have said in reference to this subject on a former occasion. The question is a very serious one for the districts concerned, and it is extremely desirable that these districts should be brought under some central control by legislation; but until we get further advanced with the Public Business, or, at all events, until we get clear of the Land Bill, it is not possible for me to give any further answer on the subject.

  CURRENCY—INTERNATIONAL MONE- TARY CONFERENCE AT PARIS— BI-METALLISM.
  MR. WILLIAMSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will cause an English translation of the proceedings of the Monetary Conference at Paris, prior to its recent adjournment, to be printed without delay for the information of the commercial and manufacturing classes throughout the Country?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; we shall be prepared to order the documents to which the hon. Member refers to be printed with an English translation.

  CURRENCY—THE SCOTCH CHARTERED BANKS.
  MR. MACLIVERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government is prepared to carry out the proposal made to the Scotch Chartered Banks for replacing their private issue of notes by a public issue framed to meet the special requirements of Scotland; and, whether a similar provision will be made for England in any future legislation on the subject?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, this Question refers to a subject of great interest in Scotland, and is of considerable importance as a matter of principle. I am afraid that I cannot undertake to give au answer on the subject, until we may see our way a little as to the time when we may be able to act. On subjects of this kind it is not desirable to announce positive intentions on the part of the Government until the time when they can be acted on. I may, however, say that undoubtedly the convictions, intentions, and desires of the Government are in the direction indicated by the hon. Member's Question.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can answer the Question without Notice; but I should like to know whether it is true that the Scotch unlimited banks have agreed to reregister under the Companies' Act of 1879? I see it has been mentioned in the papers.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; we are inclined to believe that is so; but we have not any official information on the subject.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I will put a Question on the subject in a day or two.

  COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE (NEGOTIATIONS).
  MR. J. K. CROSSasked whether it was true, as stated in the newspapers of to-day, on the authority of The Republique Française, that England had admitted, without contest, the principle of specific duties, and demanded the renewal of the negotiations?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the statement that has appeared in several newspapers seems to suppose that there has been some communication on the subject since the French Commissioners left this country. That is not the case; but we are expecting a communication from the French Government which was foreshadowed by the Commissioners. Nothing has taken place since they left England.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL—THE COMMISSION.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to give Notice that I shall move to insert in Clause 34 of the Irish Land Bill, the clause constituting the Commission, the following names:—As Judicial Commissioner, Mr. Serjeant O'Hagan; and as other Commissioners, who are to be on a footing of equality with the Judicial Commissioner, Mr. Edward Falconer Litton, the Member for Tyrone, and Mr. John E. Vernon, of Mount Merrion, Booterstown.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I beg to give Notice that on the discussion on the 34th clause I shall take a division against every one of the names.

  WAYS AND MEANS—INLAND REVENUE —FORGED STAMPS (IRELAND).
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, whose name all missed with sorrow from the list which had been just read, Whether he had seen the statement in the newspapers that there had been a discovery in Dublin of very serious frauds with regard to stamps and legal forms; whether it was correct that several thousands of legal documents were now invalid, having been used by officials; and, whether he would recommend the Government to bring in a short Bill to legalise the documents in question?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he had

  1139
  seen the statement; but he had no official information on the subject. If the statement was true, the subject deserved consideration, and he would draw attention to it.

  INDIA—THE INDIAN ARMY STAFF.
  In reply to an hon. MEMBER,
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the conditions of service for the Staff in the Indian Army differed in many respects from those of officers in British regiments in the Indian Artillery, and in the Engineers—some to their advantage, and others to their disadvantage. It was not desirable to assimilate their conditions. There was no intention, in revising the scale of offices in the Indian Army, to make any changes in the conditions under which they were at present.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS).
  SIR THOMAS BATESONgave Notice of his intention to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works whether his attention had been called to the deplorable condition of Rotten Row, owing to clouds of irritating dust; whether he would explain the reasons for the cessation of almost any attempt to allay the dust by watering the ride, especially in the morning; and, whether, when the Irish Land Bill had passed through Committee, he would undertake to consider seriously the desirability (taking into consideration the present low prices of iron) of laying down piping alongside the ride, with hydrants at proper intervals, on the same principle as has been so successfully adopted in Paris?
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 135.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 135.]

    COMMITTEE. [TWENTY-NINTH NIGHT.]
    [Progress 15 th July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    COMMITTEE. [TWENTY-NINTH NIGHT.]
      PART VI.

        COURT AND LAND COMMISSION.
        Appointment and Proceedings of Land Commission.
        The Attorney General for Ireland
        Clause 42 (Rules for carrying Act into effect).
        Amendment again proposed, in page 24, line 16, after the word "of," to insert the word "judicial."—(Mr. Healy.)
        Question proposed, "That the word 'judicial' be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)stated that he proposed to withdraw from the clause the sub-section giving the Commissioners power to make rules for regulating civil bill processes on ejectments and for recovery of rent. He would then move the introduction at another place of a clause enabling the Lord Chancellor and the five County Court Judges to make the rules required.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not consider the proposal satisfactory, and that the clause as it stood was sufficiently clear and distinct. An Amendment was put down a few days ago by the hon. Member for the County of Wexford (Mr. Healy) to remove the sub-section, and the proposal was met by the Attorney General for Ireland proposing a kind of compromise. It was not proposed to strike out the whole thing, and he admitted that that left the matter in a very illogical position; but what was the substitute now proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman? He proposed that the Lord Chancellor and five County Court Judges should make rules in reference to this matter. That was not satisfactory. Why should it not be enacted that every County Court Judge should have the same power as to serving process the moment the Bill passed as the Superior Court had? That would be clear and intelligible and immediate; but the plan suggested would be contingent, uncertain, and remote. There was nothing whatever to compel the County Court Judges to make these rules. There was nothing to indicate when they were to meet, and their duties might prevent their meeting for many months. That created an element of uncertainty; but the right hon. Gentleman balanced all that by the absolute certainty of insuring that the moment the Bill passed, whether the rules were made or not by the County Court Judges, the landlord who appealed to the Superior Court as to the serving of processes should be compelled to undergo

        1141
        the chances of being denied all his costs. He did not think that was fair or reasonable, and until there was something more satisfactory he should prefer the easy and intelligible simplicity of the existing drafting of the Bill.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)explained that there was no more obligation imposed by the clause on the Commission to make rules than on the Judges. It simply provided that the Commission might make rules, and that the Chairman of the County Courts might. The only doubt entertained hitherto was a doubt as to whether it covered the 79th section. He thought those doubts were hardly justified; but the Government proposed to remove them by a declaratory clause, and that was the only object of the Amendment he had now proposed. He recommended the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment at present before the Committee, and the Government would strike out the clause; but they must in one way or other get rid of that which really ought to have no place in the clause at all.
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwanted to know whether, if this Amendment were withdrawn, it would be competent for the Attorney General for Ireland to move the Amendment he proposed, because the Committee had now arrived at the word "of" in the 16th line, and he submitted it was not competent for the Attorney General for Ireland to go back to line 15.
        MR. WARTONwished to raise the same point, and desired the Committee to remember the fact that they had passed all the words down to the word "or" in line 16.
        THE CHAIRMAN: The only Amendment which has been proposed hitherto was to insert the word "judicial." Unless that is withdrawn there can be no proposal to omit the words under consideration; but if it is withdrawn the Committee can, no doubt, go back to the last Amendment.
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that was not the point he wished to raise. The Chairman had called the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford in line 16, and the Attorney General for Ireland had intimated that if that were withdrawn or decided upon he would ask the Committee to go back to line 15 and omit the words from the word "the"
        1142
        to the word "rent." He (Lord Randolph Churchill) submitted that was wholly and completely out of Order.
        THE CHAIRMAN: As far as I recollect, the original Amendment was to leave out lines 15 and 16; that was withdrawn, and afterwards an Amendment was moved to introduce the word "judicial" before the word "rent." If that is pressed to a division it will be impossible to strike out those lines; but if the Amendment is withdrawn it will be possible.
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Then I may as well say I shall not allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Of course, if my noble Friend objects to the withdrawal of the Amendment the question cannot be put in the form suggested by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland; but on the merits of the point I wish to say that while I do not like to interfere with questions of a technical character, it is of the very greatest importance for the working of this Bill that there should, concurrently with the new system, when it comes into operation, be a means and a certainty that those means should be used for the making of proper arrangements for the serving of processes, because we cannot help feeling that a great part of all the troubles and outrages of which so many complaints have been made, and which have so deeply struck the public mind, have arisen from attacks made on process-servers. We shall all agree that if we are to have this legislation, which is sure to lead to increased litigation, we should have, at all events, some advantages, and especially this advantage, which should at once be secured, of the introduction of a better system of serving processes. It seems to me that this is a consideration which must have been present to the mind of the Government and to the mind of the draftsman when this clause was drawn, because, whereas in every other part relating to the Commission it is said that they are to take this or that step or proceeding "under this Act," with regard to the serving of civil bill processes, they are not confined by any such limitation, and the power is given to them generally. It is not difficult to see that in reference to the general working of the system it would be desirable and not unnatural

        1143
        that this power should be given to the Land Commission, and that they should exercise it. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that that power can be more conveniently and quickly exercised if you intrust it to the Laud Commission than if you allow it to stand over and be dealt with as the Attorney General for Ireland suggests—in a clause to be put upon the Paper. It seems to me there is great reason and force in that suggestion. We know the great object of bringing this Court into operation would be frustrated to a considerable extent if opportunities are still left for collisions such as we see so much cause to lament between the people and process-servers. Even the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), who has never used violent language in regard to this point, has told the people that he felt his blood boil when he saw process-servers going about; and we do not want to have the blood made to boil by process-servers going about. If any improvement in the manner of serving can be devised, I think we should act most reasonably if we retained this sub-section as it was originally drawn by the Government and placed in the Bill; and if subsequently, when we get on with the remainder of the Bill, the Government can suggest any other method equally effective and rapid of carrying out the object in view, it would be possible to consider it and, if necessary, subsequently to amend the clause; but we should not part with these words, which are really valuable, inasmuch as they show it is the intention of the Government to preserve the spirit of the recommendation of my right hon. and learned Friend.
        MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the present system of serving processes was most disadvantageous; but he doubted whether the method now proposed to deal with the matter was the best, and whether it would not almost certainly load to disaster. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had thought the matter a perfectly clear one; but he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was bound to take the advice of the Legal Advisers of the Government, and they told him it was not perfectly clear, and that if the Bill were passed in the form in which it now stood, one of two things might happen
        1144
        —either that the Land Commission, in reading the words of the preamble of the clause, would not consider that a mere omission of the word "Act" would give them the power which it was urged they would have, or if they did, and they made rules and regulations for the serving of these notices by other Courts than themselves, and if, in consequence, a landlord acted under those rules and the tenant subsequently disputed his right to do so, and said—"You were not acting legally," he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was informed that an interesting law suit would probably arise, and that that law suit might, after all, be decided against the new rules and make them of no avail. He was perfectly willing to admit that there had been a mistake in the drafting, which the Government ought to have found out before; but he thought they would be to blame if, with their eyes open, they incurred that danger of almost certain litigation, which might entirely defeat the object they had in view. He thought the better plan would be to let these words now be withdrawn and to permit his right hon. and learned Friend to bring up a clause, and then would be the proper time for taking a discussion upon it.
        MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the little arrangement which had evidently been come to between the two Front Benches must really have been rehearsed, and certainly the Tory Party ought to be delighted with the concession they had got from the Government, especially as the skilful Member for the University of Dublin had succeeded so well in his obstructive course. Now that he had been so successful, no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to get something more out of the Government; but he (Mr. Healy) would like to remind those who sat on the Front Bench that there were other sections of the House, insignificant though they might be, who intended to make themselves heard, and who were deeply interested in this question. He wished to remind the Government of what took place on Friday night. On that occasion he (Mr. Healy) moved an Amendment striking out these two lines. The Government said, fairly enough, through the Attorney General for Ireland, that it would not be desirable that the Court should not have the power in the case of

        1145
        a judicial rent. He (Mr. Healy) at once accepted that suggestion, and moved an Amendment inserting the word "judicial" before rent. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) spoke against the proposal; but the Government put up man after man to defend the Amendment, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland—though without much enthusiasm, for he knew he was defending something his heart was not in—gave his argument, and the Solicitor General for England did the same. The Tory Party then, in the exercise of the function they were always happy to use when it suited them, moved that Progress be reported. When the Irish Members did that, they were accused of wasting the time of the House; but it was very different when a Member of the Tory Party proposed such a Motion. What did the Chief Secretary say? Why, that the Government must take a division. But did they take it? No; because several others got up and made it perfectly clear that they would keep the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues here all night. Then the Chief Secretary, seeing that there was a spirit of accommodation among hon. Members below the Gangway, gave up. Now, the Government, seeing that the Tory Party had made a demand, and were strong enough to impose it upon the Government, had asked the Government to recede from their position and to accept an Amendment which was a sop to Cerberus. But what would happen if the proposal were accepted? The proposal now before the House would, no doubt, pass in "another place;" but what security would they have that another place" would not throw out the clause suggested by the Attorney General for Ireland, and when the Bill came back to this House in the genial days of August, when there were only some two or three score persons present, what guarantee had they that the Government would provoke a legislative crisis by sticking to the words which they had offered as a sop to the Irish Members? There was no guarantee whatever. Let the Government stick to the arguments which they thought so strong on Friday. What had happened since? Why, the right hon. Gentleman had consulted the Prime Minister. When the Irish Members suggested
        1146
        that the Prime Minister's absence was inconvenient, on a former occasion, they were told that they were insulting him; that he was taking his necessary rest; but now, when right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench spoke of it, there was no insult suggested. Oh, no; that came from the Tory Party, who were, of course, infallible, and whose actions were at all times to be approved. They had in the Attorney General for Ireland a man who sympathized with the tenant; but the Prime Minister was the evil genius of this Bill, as far as the acceptance of Irish Amendments were concerned, because they found that, whenever the Tories wanted an Amendment accepted, they wanted the Prime Minister present; but whenever the Irish Members wanted to have an Amendment of theirs accepted, they wanted to have the Prime Minister absent. He put it to the Government whether, seeing that this Amendment had been accepted, not by any single Member of the Government, but by three of them, all in a bunch, on Friday, they would not now stick to the words that they themselves proposed?
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it seemed to him that the course which the Government proposed was entirely logical. The proper course was, as the words now in the Bill were not within the scope of the clause, that they should be left out; but if the Amendment was not to be withdrawn, the best course for the Government to take was the course they proposed the other evening, and when a new clause was proposed these words could be struck out.
        MR. PARNELLsaid, that, as the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) would not allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would be obliged to go to a division upon it. He regretted very much that the Government should, by the course they had taken to-day, have mixed up two questions. He agreed it was desirable that there should be power to frame special rules for the service of processes and resuming possession of holdings in the case of tenants who came into Court and applied to the Court to fix a judicial rent. But the other proposal which came from the Front Opposition Bench—namely, that there should be an

        1147
        amendment of the County Officers and Courts Act of 1877, would necessarily introduce a great variety of controversial matter into this portion of the Bill which was entirely beyond its scope. It would be better if the Committee would agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford. The Committee should bear in mind that it was evidently the intention of the draftsman that this power should only have reference to judicial tenures, and that the extension to the Act of 1877 was not in the mind of the Government, or of the draftsman, when the Bill was being framed. They should also bear in mind that ejectment for non-payment of rent for yearly tenants did not exist in England at all; and if the Government accepted the invitation of the Front Opposition Bench, they would give a facility which did not exist in England at all.
        MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he should prefer the omission of the sub-section on the understanding that they brought up a clause in accordance with the suggestions of the Attorney General for Ireland; but as they were not able to do that by the Forms of the House, unless the Amendment were withdrawn, they should vote for the insertion of the word "judicial," because they thought it was quite clear that the Government were open to the objection of not having found out the defect of drafting before, and that this clause should not contain any enactment as to the power of the Land Commission, other than those intended; they should, therefore, vote for the insertion of the word on the understanding that they would hereafter move to settle the matter in the way suggested by the Attorney General for Ireland, by proposing, at a future stage, the insertion of a sub-section.
        Question put.
        The Committee divided:—Ayes 214; Noes 102: Majority 112.—(Div. List, No. 310.)
        MR. WARTONmoved to insert, in line 25, after, the word "Act," the words, "or any part of any Act incorporated herewith." The words, he said, occurred earlier in the clause, and ought obviously to be repeated here, in order to make the clause complete.
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he had no objection to the insertion of the words for the reasons stated by the hon. and learned Member.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Clause 43 (Existence of Land Commission not to create vested interests).
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, in moving, in page 24, line 36, after "otherwise," to insert—
        "No Commissioner or Sub-Commissioner appointed under this Act shall, during his continuance in office, be capable of being elected or sitting as a Member of the House of Commons,"
        said, the words of his Amendment were taken from the Irish Church Act of 1869; and he hoped that, in moving them, he should have equal success with the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Wanton), who seemed always to be successful in getting his Amendments accepted by the Government.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW), said, he admitted the principle of the noble Lord's Amendment to be sound, and would himself incorporate it in a later clause of the Bill, as he proposed to withdraw the present one.
        MR. WARTONsaid, the Amendment spoke of sub-Commissioners; it ought to be Assistant Commissioners.
        MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to know, as a matter of Order, whether he was to understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether it was intended by the Government to propose to render it impossible for a Commissioner appointed under the Bill to sit as a Member of Parliament?
        THE CHAIRMANsaid, the question put was not relevant to the Question before the Committee, which was, not as to the capacity of Commissioners to sit in Parliament, but whether this particular clause be ordered to stand part of the Bill.
        MR. HEALYwished to ask whether, if this principle was to apply to every official, it would not be better for the Government to make some statement as to how far the principle of superannuation on abolition of office would apply? Before agreeing to strike out the clause, he thought the Committee had a right

        1149
        to information on this point—namely, as to the class of officers to whom superannuation allowances were to be made when the offices to which they had been appointed were abolished.
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Chief or Judicial Commissioner would, without doubt, be entitled to compensation or a pension in the circumstances referred to; but there would be no other person so entitled by virtue of the office which he held. The matter was, however, one worthy of consideration, and he thought that if it was left over until the Report it might probably be settled in a satisfactory manner.
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLhoped it would be made clear whether the salaries to be fixed were to be held to include all titles to superannuation or compensation on the abolition of the offices which were held.
        Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      PART VII.

        DEFINITIONS, APPLICATION OF ACT, AND SAVINGS.
        Clause 44 (Definitions).
        On the Motion of the ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Law), Amendment made, in page 25, after line 5, by inserting "'county' includes a riding of a county."
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 25, line 14, after the word "landlord" to insert the following sub-section:—"The expressions 'limited owner,' 'tenant for life,' and cognate words used in this Act, shall, in addition to the interpretation of same given by the twenty-sixth and thirty-third sections of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' include the assignees, whether such by operation of law or otherwise, or any such limited owner or tenant for life, and the said 'Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' shall be for the future read and be held to apply in all respects in the same manner as if this extended definition of the above expressions had been there originally inserted in both said twenty-sixth and thirty-third sections thereof."—(Mr. Findlater.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he could not assent to the introduction of the words proposed by the hon. Member, if for no other reason than that they were rendered unnecessary by other provisions of the Bill which had been inserted in order to answer the object which the hon. Member desired to attain.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, the matter was far wider than his right hon. and learned Friend considered it to be. It was asked that anyone who came under the operation of the law should have all the powers given to a tenant for life or to a limited owner. A man, who might be a petty shopkeeper in a neighbouring town, might be given the immense powers conferred under this Bill. The matter would not stand argument. He did not object to the courteous undertaking of his right hon. and learned Friend to consider the matter before Report; but he hoped the result of that consideration would be to leave the matter very much as it was.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. HEALY, in moving, in page 25, to leave out lines 24 to 27, and insert—
        "Present tenancy means a tenancy subsisting at the time of the passing of this Act. For the purposes of this Act any tenancy created within two years after the first day of January, 1882, shall also be deemed to be a present tenancy, and shall be subject to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to such a tenancy. 'Future tenancy ' means a tenancy beginning after the first day of January, 1885,"
        said, he did think it would be a very hard thing that after this Act passed there should be no such thing created as a present tenancy. Yet that was what would be. Suppose a landlord desired to confer on his tenants a present tenancy under a new letting, he actually had not the power to do so. Surely the Government did not mean to say that if a landlord evicted a tenant, and put him back for good reasons, he could not confer on that man the right to go into Court and get back his status. What was wanted was in all the cases for which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had such sympathy that it should be in the power of the landlord to confer, if necessary, upon his tenants the right to have present tenancies—that was, the restoration of status. There were men who had suffered from bad years, and whose farms were lying idle. Was the landlord to be prevented by Act of Parliament from giving back these men their status? If the Government were now willing to settle the Land Question they must do something to quiet the existing state of things in Ireland. There were hundreds of farms lying vacant; but he hoped it was the aim of the

        1151
        Government that in time equitable conditions would be patched up between landlord and tenant. No one could think it was desirable, under the Bill as it at present stood, that the landlord should be shut out from giving back to the tenants the status they had had hitherto. The Conservative Party would recognize the justice of that proposal equally with hon. Gentlemen opposite. Another thing he would like to say was that suppose this Bill passed on the 31st of August, a man to whom land had been let would be a present tenant; but if a man took land on the 1st of September he would not have the right or status of a present tenant. The relations of landlord and tenant were rent asunder. There were standing dangers in consequence; and it was very desirable that the landlord should have the right of conferring something like present tenancy. What advantage was it to a man who was in arrears to be told that he had six months' equity of redemption. That man would be in no better position to pay his arrears at the end of six months than at the present time. Probably he might be in New York, in the slums of Liverpool, or on the plains of Manitoba. The Government should, at least, give the men who were now wandering about homeless some chance to make conditions and terms with their landlord. Perhaps he was proposing a little longer period than the Government could accept. Perhaps they would give 12 months or a year and a-half; but, at least, let them give something like hope to those who were now being driven out without hope.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 25, leave out lines 24 to 27, and insert "Present tenancy means a tenancy subsisting at the time of the passing of this Act. For the purposes of this Act any tenancy created within two years after the first day of January, 1882, shall also be deemed to be a present tenancy, and shall be subject to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to such a tenancy. 'Future tenancy' means a tenancy beginning after the first day of January, 1885."—(Mr. Healy.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was willing to receive with indulgence many suggestions; but this Amendment was out of place. Its proper place would be in the next clause. It was distinctly an enacting Amendment, and this was
        1152
        simply a defining clause. As to the arguments of the hon. Member, he might say that the principal point was the proposition that the landlord should have the power, if he thought fit, of conferring a present tenancy on his future tenant. By the insertion of a few words in the Bill, the object of the Amendment might be attained, and the Government were quite disposed to entertain the proposal, or to make a proposal for attaining the object.
        MR. HEALYsaid, he quite recognized the force of what the Prime Minister had said as to the wrong place; and if it was considered desirable that he should move the Amendment in another place, he would do so. Might he ask if it was the intention of the Government to make the proposal themselves?
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, on the part of the Government, he could not say that they could accept the whole of this Amendment.
        MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he hoped the Government would consider, when the time came, on Clause 45, the desirability of making it a little wider than was proposed in the Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he proposed to move an Amendment in the interest of farmers principally in the North of Ireland, who had erected upon their holdings, either they or their predecessors, scutch mills for the purpose of scutching flax, for which the farmer in the North of Ireland was noted. This was not by any means a manufacturing process. It was in the nature of the process of a threshing machine, or as a man threshed corn before carrying it to the market. Formerly, until 15 years ago, or a little more, this scutching of flax was done by the family of the farmer on winter nights, by the use of wooden knives, and that was how it was principally done in Belgium at the present time. But gradually the power of water came into use. Farmers erected these scutch mills, first of all with two or three handles or revolving pins to scutch the flax for themselves. Then they gradually commenced to scutch for their neighbours also. He found from the Returns of last year that there were 1,182 scutch mills in Ireland, of which 1,140 were in Ulster. Most of these

        1153
        mills were built in Ulster on the faith of the old Ulster Custom, because it was to the interest of the farmer and to the interest of the community that flax should be grown. Before 1870 they felt secure; but since 1870, on account of their fear that landlords would stand more upon their rights than formerly, they became very uneasy. But he must say for the landlords in the North of Ireland, that when they brought the matter before him, he did not find one single instance in which that Act had been taken advantage of. Now, when this Bill was coming into law, they were still more afraid that the landlords would stand upon their rights; and on account of the scutch mills not being actually suitable to the holding itself, they feared that advantage might be taken. A deputation from Ireland called on the Chief Secretary, at which he had the honour of being present; and he did hope the Government would allow some such words as those he was about to propose to go into the Bill in order to make the position of those industrious and enterprizing farmers thoroughly secure.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 25, after line 38, insert new paragraph "Improvements shall, in addition to the interpretation of same by section seventy of the Landlord and Tenant Act (Ireland), include any buildings or machinery erected on the holding by the tenant or his predecessors in title, for the purpose of rendering the agricultural produce of the holding or neighbouring holdings suitable for market"—(Mr. J. N. Richardson.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, there was a great deal worthy of consideration in what the hon. Member had mentioned. The tenant ought to have the power of selling his holding as it stood, and nobody doubted that the construction of these mills was valuable. Still, he did not think this Amendment, as it stood, could be safely introduced; but if the hon. Member would trust him to take charge of it, he would see to the insertion of suitable words in the Report.
        MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the 2nd section of the Act of 1870 defined an improvement to be a work which, being executed, added to the letting value of land on which it was executed if suitable for such land. They could not
        1154
        go beyond these words. Either the work did add to the value of the land or it did not add to the value of the land. If it did, the tenant should be compensated; if it did not, it was very hard that it should be added to the liabilities of the landlord.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the apprehension that was felt was that the scutching mill, not being confined to the use of the holding, might be held not suitable for the holding.
        COLONEL BARNEsaid, this appeared to him to be a fair Amendment. He did not like the words "for the purpose of rendering the agricultural produce of the holding or neighbouring holdings suitable for market." Although this machinery might be put up for the purpose of rendering the produce suitable for market, it might not have that effect; and, of course, it would be very hard to make the landowners pay for some machine put up by the tenant which might do more harm than good. If this Amendment was to be pressed he should move an Amendment to the Amendment, after the word "market," the words "will have the effect of." That would allow the Court to give full value to the tenant for the value of the mill, and would prevent the landlord from paying more than he ought to pay.
        MR. P. MARTINsaid, he did trust the Government would accept the Amendment. It was most desirable that farmers should be stimulated and encouraged to develop small local industries. The limitations imposed by the definition in the Act of 1870 had been found to be most injurious. In some of the cases County Court Judges had been unwillingly compelled to deprive tenants of the benefits of expenditure made, on the ground that the buildings did not add to the letting value of the farm as an agricultural holding. If the landlord derived benefit from improvements made by the tenant, and these improvements were held to increase the letting value of the holding, in equity and justice, then, fair value ought to be allowed to the tenant. The argument was stronger in favour of the tenant, under the provisions of the present Bill, when such value was realized by sale and not by payment, as in the Act of 1870. It was a novel matter, and ought to encourage the Government to grant

        1155
        the concession asked and thus supported from the Conservative side. If the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland did not accept the whole of the Amendment, he trusted he would accept the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the other side (Colonel Barne).
        MR. J.N. RICHARDSONsaid, that, on the understanding that suitable words would be introduced by the Attorney General for Ireland, he would withdraw the Amendment.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not understand that the Attorney General for Ireland undertook to introduce any words at all. He said he would consider the matter before the Report. Under the Land Act of 1870, everything was an improvement which added to the letting value of the land, and was suitable to the land. Was it reasonable to go beyond that? They were asking that that was to be regarded as an improvement which might not add to the letting value of the land, and was not necessary to the holding. They could not argue in a circle. As he understood, the Attorney General for Ireland left it open, and did not accept the Amendment. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Law): I do not accept it.] In that case, he did not understand the position, because the hon. Member for the County of Armagh (Mr. Richardson) had said he had had the undertaking of the Government that they would introduce words that would have the effect of carrying out the principle of the Amendment he had moved. He (Mr. Gibson) did not know whether such an undertaking was given or not; but what he understood the Attorney General for Ireland to promise was merely that he would consider the matter before the Report, which was a much more hazy undertaking. As the law stood under the Act of 1870, everything was an improvement that, first of all, added to the letting value of the holding; and, secondly, that was suitable to it. If the completeness of this definition were challenged, he had a right to ask whether they challenged as incomplete the thing that added to the letting value of the holding, or that which was suited to the holding? No one desired to damage the Ulster tenant, or any other tenant, and he was merely testing the words in which this object was presented. Let them take it both from the tenant's point of view and from the
        1156
        landlord's point of view. This was an Amendment that sought to include as improvements against the landlord any buildings or machinery that might have been erected, not necessarily for the holding itself, but which might have been put there as a speculation on the part of the tenant, who might have maintained it simply for his own profit, although it might not come within the definition of the Act of 1870, under which the landlord might be asked to pay compensation. Was this just to the landlord? Let them take the case of a future tenant. Was the landlord to be compelled to pay for things which were not suited to the holding; because, otherwise, it was not necessary to give the definition? The landlord might not succeed in getting an equally speculative tenant, or he might go into the market to look for a new tenant, and come upon a lot of men eligible to take the holding in its ordinary condition, but none of them willing to pay the extra amount in respect of the buildings and machinery erected by the speculative tenant, and that were not necessary to the holding. Another reason that ought to make the Government hesitate to accept the Amendment in its present shape was that the tenant might go into the market, and, if he met with an equally speculative tenant, might get, in addition to the purchase money, what might recoup him for his expenditure; and he thought he had a right to ask that the landlord should not be called upon to pay for what did not really come under the head of improvements. He would only add that he had not understood his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland to undertake to alter the clause in the sense of the Amendment; and it was only because of the silence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman when the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Richardson) had put a different interpretation on what had been said, that he (Mr. Gibson) had thought it right to speak.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, no landlord in Ulster had ever contested his liability to pay for as improvements such buildings as were contemplated by the Amendment.
        LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Martin) had stated that, in a county in the South of Ireland, there was a case in which a man had erected a very large

        1157
        building for the storage of wood, not for the use of his own farm, but for his neighbours, and under the operation of the Act of 1870 he claimed compensation for that building, and compensation was not awarded to him. Such a building could do no possible good to the holding on which it was erected; and if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Armagh were adopted, the result would be that they would have a complete change in the Act of 1870, and all sorts of claims would be allowed which, under the present law were, very properly, disallowed. He must say that he thought the reasons alleged for the adoption of the Amendment constituted a very poor ground for so serious a change of the law, and he trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would, on re-consideration, consent to leave the law where it stood at present, and where, on the whole, it worked well.
        MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Armagh would withdraw his Amendment, in order that his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland might suggest something that would meet the case.
        MR. P. MARTINsaid, before the Amendment was withdrawn, he wished to briefly comment on the statement just made. When the Bill was introduced, the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), and others, had said that they would not be able to pacificate Ireland by improvements of the Land Act of 1870, but rather by the promotion of industrial enterprize among the Irish people; Yet, when an opportunity was now presented of stimulating the creation of local industries in Ireland by giving the tenants the right to claim for valuable buildings and machinery erected on their holdings in view of their well-founded apprehension that they would otherwise be deprived of their interest in that industrial enterprize under the definition of the present Land Act, the noble Lord opposed such a concession on the part of the Attorney General for Ireland. He trusted, however, that notwithstanding the opposition they had had put forward against the Amendment, the Attorney General for Ireland would adhere to what he had said. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had approved of a decision come to by Mr. Justice Lawson—a name
        1158
        that ought to command the respect of the noble Lord—and if that were a wise decision as applied to Ulster, he (Mr. Martin) thought that now they were extending the Ulster Custom all over Ireland they ought to take care not to allow any words in the Definition Clause that would deprive the tenants of rights which were conferred on the Ulster tenants. The noble Lord spoke of the case of a wood store. He (Mr. Martin) would remind the noble Lord that these wood stores were used partly for the purposes of the tenants and partly for ensuring a supply of wood for their neighbours. Under the restricted Definition Clause of the Land Act of 1870, the tenant was deprived of all right to claim for such buildings, and he certainly trusted that the Attorney General for Ireland would not go back upon the assurance he had given that he would bring up on the Report of the Bill a form of words that would substantially put an end to what was rightly conceived to be a great grievance by tenant farmers.
        MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he wished it to be clearly understood that it was only on account of the undertaking on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, that he had offered to withdraw his Amendment.
        MR. H. R. BRANDobjected to the proposed Amendment, and contended that the words of the Land Act of 1870 were quite sufficient. If the scutching mills that had been spoken of were additions to the letting value of the land, and were suitable to the holding, they would come within the definition of the Land Act, and if they did not come within that category the landlord ought not to be compelled to pay compensation; while, in the majority of cases, the tenant would be able to sell the buildings and machinery he had put up. Under these circumstances, he thought the better course would be for the Committee to negative the Amendment.
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the general rule laid down by the Land Act of 1870 was perfectly safe, sound, and just; but here was a peculiar and exceptional case. He entirely approved of the pledge which his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had given to bring up a provision that would meet the case.
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLhoped that some such provision would be added to the Bill, always provided there was an addition to the letting value of the property.
        MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, the question was how the value was to be determined. The improvements were all against the incoming tenant, and in that case their market price would determine their value; but he did not see how the value was to be assessed as against the landlord.
        MR. H. R. BRANDsaid, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he should not challenge the withdrawal of the Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
        Clause 45 Rules as to determination of tenancy).
        MR. GIBSONsaid, he had put an Amendment on the Paper, but he had mentioned the matter before in speaking on the second reading of the Bill. It was maintained that this Bill was to be read as one with the Land Act of 1870; but he thought it would be seen that the last paragraph of the clause required amendment as a matter of drafting, in order that the intention of the Government might be fully carried out. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would consider the matter before the Report.
        MR. FINDLATER, on behalf of Mr. GIVAN, moved as an Amendment, in page 26, line 2, to leave out from the word "determined" to the word "whenever" in line 6. He said his object was to omit the provision that a tenancy should be determined whenever it was sold in consequence of a breach by the tenant of a statutory condition, or in case of a tenancy not subject to statutory conditions of an act or default on the part of a tenant which would, in a tenancy subject to such conditions, have constituted a breach thereof. It struck him as rather anomalous that a tenancy should be declared to be determined on a sale, when, in order to make his purchase of any value to the buyer, the tenancy should still exist. There was some amendment required if the words were to be retained.
        Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 2, leave out from "determined" to "whenever" in line 6.—(Mr. Findlater.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, as he held it to be right and politic that a substantial breach of covenant should lead to the creation of a future tenancy. Future tenancies might arise in three ways—either from the resumption of the land by the owner, or from the exercise of his right of pre-emption, or from a breach of covenant on the part of the tenant. If there were to be future tenancies at all, it was quite as reasonable that they should result from the last cause as from either of the others, and he must decline to alter the Bill in this respect. It would, he believed, be found that the provision to which his hon. Friend objected would give the tenant a motive for the exact observance of his engagements. The Government were not, as at present advised, disposed to part with that portion of the clause.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, the Government had intimated that it was their intention to recognize the early part of the clause, and preserve the substantial identity of the meaning. He understood that the Amendment was in manuscript, and he expected it to be carried out with the modification of the Chief Secretary's Amendment.
        MR. HEALYregretted that the Prime Minister should have expressed himself in such strong terms with regard to this Amendment. He thought that freedom of contract was the bête noire of this Bill. The whole contention in Ireland had been caused by want of security of tenure, and by the exorbitant rents exacted by the landlords; and he certainly did not want to see those evils arising again and again in connection with future tenancies, and, therefore, he objected to the multiplication of these opportunities for contention in the manner proposed by the Government. The Government admitted the necessity in Ireland of some one to interpose between the landlord and tenant for the purpose of fixing rents, and that something like security of tenure was desirable for the great body of present tenants. He asked was not that also desirable for the

        1161
        future tenants? He ventured to say that, within a few months after the passing of this Bill, hundreds of future tenancies would be created, which would give rise to more burning questions for English statesmen to deal with. He could not conceive why this system of freedom of contract was put forward by the Prime Minister. It appeared that if he (Mr. Healy) desired to buy a farm which was being sold for breach of statutory conditions, his tenancy would be a future tenancy. But that would not be what he wanted; he wanted a present tenancy—that was to say, something that would stand between him and future exactions on the part of the landlord.
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he regarded the provision sought to be struck out as a serious blot on the Bill. An earlier provision of the Bill provided that the landlord should receive rent and damages due from the tenant out of the purchase money, and that rule had been found to work well in the North of Ireland in the interest both of the landlord and tenant. But what did the Government propose in this clause? It was not only that the tenant should pay rent and damages, but that he should also forfeit his tenancy at the same time. The difference between present and future tenancies appeared to him enormous. The future tenancy was a tenancy from which a man might be turned out in a week, subject only to compensation for disturbance, and, so far as this clause was concerned, the landlord might continue this practice ad infinitum. But, although he wished to see the privileges of the future tenant enlarged, he was much more concerned with the position of the present tenants; and he confessed he viewed with great apprehension the words of the Prime Minister uttered that day, as well as on a former occasion, that this clause of the Act would have a wide operation. He understood from the Prime Minister, that, after having elevated the present tenants to a higher stage by the present Bill, it was intended to strew pitfalls in their way in order to entrap them into a lower position. The clause would bear very harshly on many of the smaller tenants who would not be able to fulfil the condition of paying the rent. He regretted that the Government did not see their way to making the desired concession.
        MR. GLADSTONE: I know not how to interpret what has fallen from my
        1162
        hon. Friend, except by supposing that he means that we ought to extend the intervention of the Court to the transactions of private life. I imagine that is so because the intervention of the Court is somewhat different in the case of the present and future tenants under this Bill, and it is that intervention of the Court which my hon. Friend, applying rather too readily his Indian experience, regards as such a permanent security for the dignity and well-being of Ireland, not only now, but for all time. From the way in which my hon. Friend spoke of the advantage of everyone being able to apply to the Court, one would suppose that a new view of the garden of Eden was before us, by simply saying that every transaction of life shall be subject for ever to the intervention of a Court, so that if a man buys a coat from a tailor the Court shall intervene to fix the price. This the hon. Member describes as progress and advancement. But if once we venture to narrow this intervention of the Court so as to provide individuals with the means of coming together to settle matters that can be very well settled without the intervention of the Court, my hon. Friend pronounces on the consequence in the most dorolous terms. Our view is that the Court is a remedy for serious and intolerable evils. It is upon that ground alone that we bring it in; and, consequently, it is no unnatural deduction to say we will not ask Parliament to affirm in the year 1881 that this intervention of the Court is to be stereotyped perpetually and universally throughout Ireland. I have some hope that my hon. Friend has not exactly measured what the condition of future tenants will be, because the future tenant, notwithstanding the opinion of my hon. Friend, is by no means relegated to the provisions of the Act of 1870, even with the alteration which has been made in the scale of compensation for disturbance. That is not the case at all. The future tenant will have exactly the same right of disposing of his tenant right, and in the same manner as the present tenant, and, in my opinion, will be on a better footing than the present tenant in one important respect, inasmuch as the present tenant, if he goes to Court, is liable to have a judicial price put upon his rights which will stand for the whole of his statutory term, whereas the man who does not

        1163
        go to the Court will obtain the market price. The latter has, therefore, a more free enjoyment of his tenant right, and along with that he has the protection given to him by this Bill against the augmentation of his rent. That is the position of the future tenant; and, undoubtedly, while in some respects his position is in my opinion improved, unquestionably it is not deteriorated in any one thing except that of the delightful privilege of going to law, which would seem to be my hon. Friend's compensation for all the ills of life. This intervention of authority is, I think, proposed by my hon. Friend more in accordance with Indian than English views. It is hard to say whether the loss of that privilege is now a greater boon to the tenant than the landlord; but 20 or 40 years hence the privilege would, I am perfectly sure, be a greater loss to the tenant than the landlord. It must be remembered that this modification of the conditions of tenancy will be by an enactment under which not only the tenant can take the landlord into Court but under which the landlord can take the tenant into Court. That is no slight consideration. As a general rule, in such cases, one of the parties is a rich man and the other a poor man, and, undoubtedly, the man who stands at the door of a Court of Justice with a long purse has an advantage over the man with a short purse. I say it is a hasty assumption that it will be an unmixed loss to the tenant that he is not able to go to law. I hope I have removed some of the apprehensions with regard to the sufferings of these future tenants, which I am afraid have disturbed the slumbers of my hon. Friend for some time past. At any rate, I have desired to do so. This is a matter on which the Government have arrived at their present conclusion, after much consideration, and without being idolatrous believers in freedom of contract. We have thought that it would be a very serious matter indeed to ask Parliament to extinguish it for ever in consequence of circumstances which are wholly abnormal and belong to the present very peculiar position in Ireland, and with regard to which we are sanguine enough to believe that they will not be permanently established from generation to generation.
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLadmitted readily that his great fear was with re-
        1164
        gard to the degradation, so to speak, of present and future tenants. He had also no hesitation in saying that his own view was that freedom of contract might best be attained in Ireland by making future tenancies as free as possible, subject only to compensation for improvements, and, unless a very long lease was granted, then compensation for disturbance. His wish was that present tenants should not be degraded, and up to the present time he had been under the impression that it was intended by this Bill to give that which existed in one part of Ireland to the other parts—to allow the tenants in those parts of the country to regulate their condition by fixity of tenure, with fair rents and free sale of their tenant right. His impression was that the old tenants of Ireland were to be given the "three F's," and that a property in the soil was to be created for them. His idea was certainly not that their property was to be the subject of continual litigation between themselves and their landlords—for he was no more enamoured than was the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister of litigation—but that they should follow the example of the tenants of the other countries of Europe, and progress without that expense. On the whole, he felt much disappointed at the words which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman.
        MR. BIGGARsaid, he had always failed to understand the object of the Government in making a distinction between present and future tenancies, because, according to their contention, they wished to get rid of what they called a crying evil—namely, the possibility of landlords charging exhorbitant rents. The Prime Minister said that the future tenant was in a very grand position. But would anyone affirm that he would get a fair price for his tenancy if the landlord was known to be extortionate? It was the object of the Amendment to prevent that loss to the tenant, and the result of the clause as it stood would undoubtedly be that the incoming tenant would say—"I cannot give a high price for the holding, seeing that the rent is very much higher than the judicial rent would probably be." He and his Colleagues did not suppose that there would be any great number of changes of tenancy. They wished the alterations contemplated by the Bill to take place, and to see a succession of

        1165
        more or less prosperous tenants; but they certainly did not desire that the land should be changing hands every day and hour. For his own part, he did not value as highly as some persons appeared to do the power of free sale, because he regarded it as a minor part of the question. But suppose a man, who perhaps did not hold on statutory conditions, by some accident committed an act that would amount to a breach of statutory conditions in the case of a tenancy so held, he would be in this position, that he must sell the holding, and that subject to any increase of rent the landlord might choose to demand. That seemed to him to be too heavy a penalty to impose upon a tenant for the breach of a statutory condition. Take the statutory condition relating to the dilapidation of farm buildings. The damage might amount, perhaps, to £100 or £200; but the loss to the tenant under this provision would be many hundreds of pounds more than the damage resulting from dilapidation of the premises. Then in the case of the tenant becoming bankrupt, if the tenant would not join in the sale of the tenancy for the benefit of the creditors, one of the creditors would probably make him bankrupt, and the land would be sold, no doubt by collusion with the landlord, in such a way that the remaining creditors would get almost nothing. A very great injustice would therefore be done to the creditors, and a substantial benefit to the landlord by enabling him to extort from the incoming tenant an amount of rent above that which would probably be fixed by the Court. In this respect, then, the clause would do a great deal of harm. It would also be mischievous in the case of future tenants, because it was a matter of certainty that the number of future tenants would constantly increase, while that of the present tenants would be decreasing. The result of all this would be continuous agitation for a new Land Act—an agitation as strong as there had been during the last 10 years.
        MR. GILLsaid, as the Prime Minister had explained the matter, there was a considerable difference between the position of present and future tenants, and, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Attorney General for Ireland being present, he desired to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland for some
        1166
        further information on this point. There appeared to exist a very considerable misconception with regard to future tenancies, and he had quite recently read two pamphlets on the subject which took diametrically opposite views of the position of the future tenant. One writer was of opinion that as soon as he obtained the statutory term of 15 years by accepting a rise of rent, he became for the future in exactly the same position as the present tenant; that he could at the end of 15 years apply to the Court for a revision, and, if necessary, a reduction, of his rent. The other writer was of opinion that at the end of 15 years he must accept another increase of rent in order to get another 15 years. If the future tenant was in that position, he could not regard him as dwelling in that paradise described by the Prime Minister; on the contrary, he thought he was in a lamentable position. He would be in a worse position than the leaseholder of the present time, because at the end of every 15 years, in order to hold his farm, he would have to accept an increase of rent. There were many hon. Members sitting around him who had all along thought that, according to the language of the Bill, after having accepted a rise in rent, the future tenant would have all the advantages which were connected with the statutory term; and, therefore, as the Attorney General for Ireland was now in his place, he desired very much that he would state the exact difference, if any, between the position of a future tenant who obtained statutory tenure by accepting an increase of rent, and the position of a present tenant who obtained it by an appeal to the Court.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)was understood to say that of the two descriptions given of the position of the future tenant, the latter was the correct one.
        MR. THOMASSONsaid, he thought the matter would have been better discussed on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford to the last clause, the latter portion of which provided that future tenancies should begin on the 1st day of June, 1885. He should have been prepared to support a proposal fixing a still later date for their commencement; indeed, it seemed to him that it would have been better to de-

        1167
        fine a future tenancy as one commencing 15 years after the passing of the Act. During that time landlord and tenant would have found a modus vivendi; we should have peace and quiet in Ireland; and the tenant having obtained a sense of security, future tenants might at the end of that time have been left to make their own contracts with their landlords.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)suggested that they should get rid of the present Amendment. He would afterwards move an Amendment at the end of the 46th section.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, he understood it to be absolutely clear, from the previous statement of the Prime Minister, that although the words under discussion were to be struck out, the Government were pledged to introduce words exactly a the same sense, but in an altered form.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)signified assent.
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLremarked, that when the Attorney General for Ireland introduced an Amendment, no amount of argument would induce him to agree to any alteration of it.
        Question put, and negatived.
        MR. HEALYsaid, he had an Amendment to propose which was not on the Paper. He had, at a former part of the discussion, raised the question as to whether it would not be desirable to give the landlord power to re-create a present tenancy by writing under his hand. It was said that the power already existed to do this; but he had not had time to go thoroughly into that matter, and had prepared an Amendment to give the necessary power. He did not say that the reading was the best that could be arranged for the purpose.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 26, line 9, add "Provided, That notwithstanding any such determination, the landlord may by writing under his hand, or by reinstating the former tenant or his legal representative, rehabilitate and re-establish the tenancy previously subsisting."—(Mr. Healy.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the hon.
        1168
        Member for Wexford had fairly stated that he did not expect the Government to adopt the exact wording of his Amendment. Adopting its principle, however, he would bring up a clause on Report, with the object of enabling the landlord to do in a simple way what he might already do by a cumbrous and round about process.
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: We understand that the principle is that the landlord may voluntarily re-instate a tenant.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Yes.
        MR. HEALYsaid, in asking leave to withdraw his Amendment, he must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he had given no explanation with regard to present and future tenancies. Irish Members were in an awkward position from not having received some statement from the Government with regard to the suggestion contained in his Amendment to the last clause—namely, that present tenancies should be created until within two years after the passing of this Act.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. HEALYsaid, the Amendment he was about to move was a corollary to Clause 6. Under the old law, if a man made improvements, he could not obtain compensation except on notice to quit. As he held it to be undesirable that there should be any creation of future tenancies upon what he called "technicalities," he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 26, line 13, after the word "tenancy," insert new sub-section—"A present tenancy shall not be converted into a future tenancy by reason only of the determination by surrender or otherwise of such present tenancy, and the acceptance by the tenant for the time being of a new tenancy. Notwithstanding any such determination of any present tenancy by surrender or otherwise, and such acceptance of a new tenancy, such present tenancy shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be still subsisting so long as the tenant for the time being and his successors in title continue in possession of the holding, whether the incidents of his or their tenure be varied or not."—(Mr. Healy.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not

        1169
        think the Government could adopt this Amendment. He pointed out that they had provided by the 1st sub-section that the surrender to the landlord of a tendancy for the purpose of the acceptance or admission of a tenant, or otherwise, by way of transfer, should not be deemed to be a determination of the tenancy. That operated as a surrender to the landlord, and, of course, it was understood that the provision, which merely acted as a piece of machinery, created no legal title. But the Amendment of the hon. Member went further than that provision. He could not see the object of the Amendment clearly. Suppose a man held five acres, and surrendered them to get 50, it would be hard to say that that should not be a future tenancy. Taking either less or a great deal more must, of necessity, make a new tenancy. Again, mere change of rent did not operate to change the tenancy, as was obvious, when it was proposed to fix a judicial rent. The hon. Member's Amendment referred to determination by surrender "or otherwise," and it was, therefore, objectionable on that ground, because it could not be expected that the Government should reverse the Common Law. They would, however, provide, on Report, for technical breaches of statutory conditions.
        MR. HEALYsaid, upon that undertaking on the part of the Government, he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. It was only natural that Irish Members should be suspicious of the pitfalls contained in the clause; and he asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give the matter his serious consideration between that time and Report.
        MR. BIGGARremarked, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had put the case of a person who gave up five acres of land in order to get 50 acres. But he wished to take, also, the converse of that position, and suppose the case of a tenant who wanted to get a smaller piece of land than he had in possession. Now, in both these cases the dimensions of the tenant's holdings would be more or less changed; and he asked the Attorney General for Ireland whether or not in both cases the tenancy would be determined?
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he proposed
        1170
        to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Cavan at a later stage.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he proposed to move to leave out sub-section 2, which restrained a landlord from exercising his rights for 15 years after he had purchased the tenant's interest in his holding. The sub-section in question ran as follows:—
        "Where a present tenancy in a holding is purchased by the landlord from the tenant in exercise of his right of pre-emption under this Act, and not on the application or by the wish of the tenant, or as a bidder in the open market, then if the landlord within fifteen years from the passing of this Act re-lets the same holding to another tenant, the same shall be subject, from and after the time when it has been so re-let, to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to present tenancies."
        That was a restriction upon freedom of contract to a degree which he could have hardly expected from the framers of this Bill. The present occupier had received the full value of his interest in the holding, as determined by the Land Commissioners; he had exercised his right of pre-emption from a desire of benefiting his property; he had a strong opinion that it was not, on the whole, desirable that the tenancy should be charged with the interest on the purchase; he desired to let the land again, and did not wish to get a large premium from the tenant, because he preferred that the tenant's money should rather be invested in the land itself by way of improvements. In short, he had no wish to embarrass the tenant. But under this sub-section he would be absolutely prohibited from taking the course which an English landlord would take of enabling the tenant to apply all his capital to develop the resources of the land. This appeared to him so great a restriction on freedom of contract that he hoped the Government would agree to strike out the sub-section, the omission of which he begged to move.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 26, line 14, to leave out from the word "where," to the word "tenancies," in line 21, both inclusive.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
        LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he was not enamoured of the sub-

        1171
        section. As he understood it, it drew a distinction between the first term of 15 years and the subsequent term; in fact, it raised a tenant, who otherwise would be a future tenant during the first 15 years, into the position of a present tenant. The Attorney General for Ireland would, perhaps, inform him whether he understood the sub-section correctly, when he believed that whereas a man, after the exercise of pre-emption by the landlord, would otherwise be a future tenant, and would not be able to go to the Court to get the rent fixed and the term determined during the first 15 years, he would, under this sub-section, be able to do so? The point was germane to the section. He had previously raised it; but he was not prepared to raise the question over again or press it to a division. It did, however, seem to him that all these small distinctions and differences did unnecessarily encumber and complicate the Bill, and he believed it would be a great improvement, and the tenant would not suffer in the least, if they were omitted. He respectfully pressed on the Government to consider whether there was any substantial advantage to the tenant in keeping up these distinctions, or, at least, to consider whether the small advantage accruing to the tenant was not outweighed by the amount of matter by which the Bill was encumbered.
        MR. GLADSTONE: I must own we are not at all prepared to agree to the removal of this sub-section. My noble Friend says it would be well to do away with these minute distinctions; but then he should recollect that earlier in the evening there was application made of that principle by others in a very different sense, and that was that it would be well to abolish the differences between present and future tenancies. It was argued that if we wanted to simplify the Bill we must do this. But we decline to simplify the Bill at the cost of such a change as that. We must consider whether this proposition in subsection 3 is a proposition fit to be maintained or not. I think the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. Smith) attach to the omission of this sub-section a greater consequence than really belongs to it. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if upon the omission of this sub-section it would be in the power of the landlord to
        1172
        get rid entirely of the provision which enables the tenant to whom the land is re-let to sell his tenant right. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the landlord's desire to relieve the land from the burden of this price of the tenant right, paid on interest; he thought it would empower the landlord, if this sub-section were omitted, after the exercise of pre-emption, to get rid of the tenant right when he let a holding again. Of course he might, if he thought fit, put such a rent on it as would absorb it. That is another thing. But after all, you must remember you cannot absorb so much of the tenant right in rent as you suppose. The Irish tenant is willing to pay for the tenant right what he is not willing to pay for in the form of rent. Now, Sir, suppose we were to omit this sub-section, what might happen? I reckon this power of pre-emption exercised by the landlord to be a very large power indeed left in his hands by the Bill, and a particular landlord might have a great fancy for the exercise of this pre-emption, and might take advantage of the position of the tenants to change extensively the tenure, and to re-introduce the tenants as future tenants. We do not think it would be wise, having regard to the general tranquillity of Ireland, that there should be a large introduction of these future tenancies until such time has elapsed as the Act generally shall have had a fair trial. That is really the motive which led us, when we came to consider the Pre-emption Clause, to determine that it was necessary we should guard the clause so as to prevent its being used, even by particular persons—perhaps eccentric parties when compared with the general mass of landlords—for the purpose of a rapid and early introduction of a considerable number of future tenancies. That would not give the Act fair play. We do not think it would be to the interest of the general settlement of the Irish Land Question, which we take to be a matter equally for the advantage of landlord and tenant, that this sub-section should be omitted. These are the main grounds on which we support the sub-section, and on which we must adhere to it.
        MR. WALTERsaid, he was anxious to hear what the Government had to say in defence of this sub-section. He could not help thinking that on the face of it it bore a construction extremely illogical.

        1173
        They gave the landlord, in the very first clause of the Bill, the right to pre-emption. That was not a right to be exercised on his mere motion; it could only come into existence when the tenant had signified to the landlord his desire to sell his holding. Upon that the landlord came in and sought to exercise his right of pre-emption. First of all, they gave him the opportunity of coming to a friendly agreement with his tenant, and if this agreement could not be arrived at, the parties go to Court. He wanted to know, therefore, in what respect, upon the Government's own hypothesis, was the outgoing tenant, anxious to sell his holding, injured? If they had any faith in their Court—and he had faith in it—for the future adjustment of these difficulties, why could they not be content with its decision? Recollect the whole, or the greater part of this Bill, so far as it related to present tenancies, turned upon the existence of certain existing relations between two particular persons or their representatives. But there were no existing relations between the landlord and future tenants. Why, therefore, should they attach something of a penal character upon the action of the landlord? It was argued that, in consequence of his having taken an unfair advantage of the outgoing tenant, the landlord was to be precluded for 15 years from making a contract with another tenant. Now, that was illogical. There were three possible ways in which a landlord might acquire the exercise of the right of pre-emption. He might do so upon the application of the tenant, or in the open market, or by the settlement of the Court. Why was the third course to be considered so much less safe, less secure, less just to the tenant, that it was to involve the forfeiture of the 15 years' freedom to begin a new contract? As a mere matter of policy, there might be a great deal in favour of the Prime Minister's statement; he would not say that policy might not be sufficiently strong to outweigh other considerations. As a mere matter of justice between man and man, he could not see how the subsection could be defended.
        MR. GLADSTONEasked hon. Members to recollect that, in the present state of Ireland, whatever value might be set upon the power of going to Court, a tenant right which conveyed the power of going to Court and the tenant right
        1174
        which did not convey that power would fetch very different prices indeed. He apprehended there was little doubt about that, and that was a matter which the Court would have to take into consideration in fixing the tenant right. As far as justice was concerned, it was not a question of the defence of the future tenant, who would pay a price proportionate to the value, but it was for the defence of the present tenant, with whom the landlord had relations, that this subsection was inserted.
        MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he understood that a present tenant had now the right to go to Court in order to have his rent fixed before he sold his interest in the holding. The present tenant sold his interest in the holding by agreement with the landlord, or at a rate ascertained by the Land Commission to be a fair price for the holding. For what reason were they to prevent the landlord doing what he felt to be, on the whole, in the interest of his holding and in the interest of the future tenant, in making a contract with the future tenant? Why were they to penalize the action of the landlord? Why were they to prevent him coming to an arrangement with his tenant under the 1st section of this Act? If they told the landlord that he was to be held under the conditions of this sub-section in coming to an arrangement with a tenant, they put him under great difficulty in exercising his power of pre-emption. They would almost make it impossible for him to exercise his power of pre-emption, because a tenant coming in would know perfectly well that he had his landlord completely at his mercy. Why should they not leave the landlord's hands perfectly free? Having done everything so far as the present tenant was concerned, why should they not leave the landlord to make the best terms he could with the future tenant?
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that this subsection would interfere with the power of the landlord. The right hon. Gentleman would observe the clause was confined to the exercise of seignorial right of pre-emption, and did not apply to where the landlord bought on the application or with the consent of the tenant. If the landlord lay by until the tenant signified his intention to sell, and then stepped in and said he would buy, that

        1175
        would be a different thing. The object of the clause was to put a restraint on the landlord for a certain very obvious purpose. If the landlord wanted the land for himself, or for his demesne, or for some other like purpose, the clause would not apply; but if he bought the tenant right for the purpose of defeating one of the provisions of this Act, if he exercised his right of pre-emption for the purpose of turning present tenancies into future tenancies, if he used his power for the benefit of his own estate, and to deprive his tenants of the protection of this Bill, and to produce in a few years a recurrence of the misery which now prevailed in Ireland, the clause would apply. Very few landlords would do that, but there were some landlords who would take a sort of pleasure in defeating the purposes of the Act in this matter. The Government did not desire that the provisions of the Act, which were meant to secure a certain amount of quiet and contentment to the Irish tenant, should be defeated by the landlord exercising his power of pre-emption in order to turn present tenants into future tenants. There was no interference with the power of the landlord to buy if the tenant was willing to sell in the ordinary way; the clause applied only when the landlord intervened on notice of sale being given, and said that nobody else should buy.
        MR. WALTERsaid, inasmuch as one case had been put, he might be allowed to put another. Suppose a landlord having exercised the right of pre-emption kept the farm in his own hands for five or six years, and then sold it, was the purchaser to be bound by this limitation—could he not create future tenancies?
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the more he listened to the explanations given by the Government the more puzzled he was to know what the point was the Government insisted on. Their real object seemed to be to debar the landlord, as far as possible, from exercising the right of pre-emption, and not to do justice as between landlord and tenant; their purpose seemed to be to prevent the landlord dealing with his land hereafter upon a system over which Government had no control. He quite understood that the Government, in making the proposals contained in this Bill, were, to a very considerable ex-
        1176
        tent, departing from what they recognized as the sound and normal conditions of free contract between landlord and tenant. They did so in the belief—and there were certain grounds for that belief—that it was necessary to make provisions for the protection of tenants as against their landlords. The Government began the Bill by saying that they gave to the tenant the right of freely selling his interest in his holding, and that they gave to the landlord the right of pre-emption. But the landlord could only exercise that right if, in the first instance, the tenant had chosen to take the step of saying he would sell, and, of course, the promoters of the Bill had taken steps to guard the interests of the tenant so that he would have no injustice done by the landlord exercising the right of pre-emption. The landlord would pay that which the Court considered fair, and would pay it upon the tenant's own motion. The tenant, therefore, could have no further interest in the holding. He had had no injustice done him, and the holding was in the hands of the landlord, who, if he chose to, had a perfect right to hold and cultivate it. The Attorney General for Ireland had said they meant to refuse the right of pre-emption to the landlord if he intended to use it for the purpose of benefiting his own estate. Well, but how might he benefit it? He might benefit it by converting large holdings into small holdings; he might benefit it by taking a holding and joining it to another; he might benefit it by re-adjusting his land; and each of these courses would be to the interest of the tenants on his estate, and of the tenantry in that part of the country. Then why was he to be restrained, when he had got land in his own hand, from doing that which might appear to be the very best thing he could do—namely, letting it on fair and reasonable terms? "Oh," said the Government, "that will interfere with the system which we contemplate as the best system to be in future adopted in Ireland, and we do not want to have any of this free contract, because it may prejudicially affect the relations of present tenants with their landlords in every part of the country." The Government did not want free contract lest it should interfere with the good working of their new patent system. It was not the injustice

        1177
        done to existing tenants, or the harm done to anybody, that the Government feared; but it was the harm that might possibly be done to their new system if there was free contract. That was the only meaning he could attach to the explanation of the Government—an explanation which was so unsatisfactory to him that he was bound to ask for more instruction.
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, it was very possible that under this sub-section they might arrive at a very ridiculous complication. Suppose that after the passing of the Act—say, next year—a landlord created a future tenancy, that the present tenant of a farm of 30 acres adjoining was obliged to sell, that the landlord exercised his right of pre-emption, and wished to let the farm to the future tenant, with whom he had contracted for the adjoining farm, under this sub-section he could not dispose of it in the way he wished.
        COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, the question seemed to be whether the intention of the Bill was to be more or less frustrated by the omission of this sub-section, because the whole Bill proceeded on the assumption that it was necessary to restrain the competition for land in Ireland, and this was one of the means of restraining it. He did not think the argument of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) was at all applicable. If a landlord wished to take land into his own hands, and was willing to pay a proper price for it, there was nothing to prevent his doing so; but he thought the Government were perfectly justified in restraining any attempt on the part of the landlord to create future tenancies with the object of defeating the Bill. He was glad to hear the Government did not intend to make any concession on this point.
        MR. BRODRICKsaid, the Bill seemed to him to be inconsistent with itself. The original demand was that future tenants should be altogether exempt from the operation of the measure; and when the right hon. Gentleman opposite talked of standing as arbiter between the parties, he forgot that he had already made terms with one side, who were now asking only half of what they asked before.
        MR. A. MOOREsaid, this was vital to the principle of the Bill, and he did not know that he could add anything to
        1178
        that which had fallon from the hon. Member for the County of Cork. It was perfectly evident that there was underlying all these criticisms a consciousness of what would be done if further concessions were made; the landlords would go into the Court and exercise the right of pre-emption at as low a value as possibe, and they would realize the pretium affectionis from incoming tenants. In that way in a very short time there would not be a single present tenant in the whole of the country. It was essential, if this Bill was to have a chance, that those provisions should remain.
        MR. PLUNKETwished to know on what ground this had been put forward as the policy of the Bill? It was said that if it was struck out any landlord could go into the Court and would have the right of pre-emption. Hon. Members must know that the landlord would not have a chance of exercising his right of pre-emption unless the tenant wished to sell. How was the landlord to get all his tenants to give him the opportunity of exercising his right of pre-emption in the way contemplated by the clause? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) objected that by the excision of this clause the unfortunate tenant would be left without protection, and that they would in that way defeat the policy of the Bill. But the tenant was already protected, for he had the Compensation for Disturbance Clause, and he also had the advantage that before this terrible transaction he would have seen the rent fixed for the former tenant. He would know what was a fair rent, and he would have a very fair standard to go by in order to judge what was a fair amount which he himself should be asked to pay. The present tenant would be there, or, if he desired to sell, they must assume that he had had his rent fairly fixed by the Court.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): He may or may not have had his rent fixed.
        MR. PLUNKETsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must see that if he had not a fair rent he would go to the Court and have the rent ascertained. How could it be maintained that the tenant was unprotected if this sub-section was struck out? The tenant would know very well what kind of rent he ought to be asked to pay, and he would

        1179
        be better protected than he was at present. It was said they would defeat the object of the Bill, which was to encourage free sale, if the sub-section were struck out. Well, he admitted that the policy of the Bill was to encourage a system of free sale, but it was not to encourage a system of free sale at exorbitant prices, and what he understood to be the great boon given to the landlord in this right of pre-emption was that he would thereby have the power of preventing the interest in the holding being sold at an exorbitant price—that the landlord might step in and say, "I prefer to have the fair price estimated for me and I will pay it myself." If the policy of the sub-section were to be to encourage reckless bidding amongst would be tenants, the excision of the clause would put a check upon the practice; but it all came back to this, in the end, that the clause was inconsistent in its various members. He could not see how the arguments of the hon. Member for Berkshire had been in the least degree answered; it seemed to him that the clause was not only inconsistent in its various members, but was contrary to the policy of the Bill.
        MR. MARUMwished to say a word with regard to the justice of this transaction from the point of view of the tenant. Supposing there was no 1st clause in the Bill, the tenant would have a Common Law right to sell his tenancy at the highest price he could obtain for it. The 1st clause rather cut him down, and what the tenant enjoyed was not free sale, but restricted sale—restricted by the right of pre-emption on the part of the landlord. As an equivalent for that restriction this sub-section was required. So far as the landlord was concerned, it was voluntary. He could come in unfettered by conditions if he liked; but, from the statement of the Prime Minister, it was quite evident that in justice to the tenant this provision should be inserted.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, the argument of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) certainly had the advantage of being logical; his argument was entirely against any such thing as the right of pre-emption. The hon. Member seemed to think that pre-emption was so bad that the more it was watered down and killed the better; and that the provision under discussion really
        1180
        would have the effect of emasculating the right of pre-emption given in the 1st clause. From his (Mr. Gibson's) point of view the right of pre-emption should either not have been given at all, or, if given, it should have been preserved and strengthened. When it was given nothing was heard about a landlord wanting to exercise it for selfish purposes, such as increasing the demesne. On the contrary, it was said it was one of the means by which a landlord might exercise some influence over the management of his property. They had been reminded that the right of pre-emption was one of the means given to the landlord by which he could moderate some of the disturbing influences that might be brought about on his property by a reckless use of the privileges of free sale. The Government expressly took away from the clause those words enabling the Court to moderate the price, and allowed it to remain so as to confer upon the Court the humble function merely of ascertaining the fair price. The landlord could only exercise the right of pre-emption, therefore, by paying the proper price ascertained by the Court. If the Court had ascertained what was the fair price, why should not the landlord be restored to perfect property in what he had bought? Do not let him buy if they did not want him to have the rights of property, and if they did let him buy do not restrict him in this way. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had put a case to the Committee which had rather reduced this to an absurdity, and he (Mr. Gibson) would give another which would have the same effect. Supposing a landlord had bought a farm on the conditions under the Bill, and he then said, "family reasons," or "my own health compel me to give up the farm," he (Mr. Gibson) would contend that they would not allow that person to go into the market to make a new letting, but they compelled him to make a letting with a present tenancy. Was that just or reasonable? Where was the equity of the provision? Thus was a proposition which, if defended at all, should be defended in the interest of the future tenant. The old tenant was not in question; he had been paid—he had gone away, he was done with, and it was immaterial to him what became of the let-

        1181
        ting. The Prime Minister had said that the object of this provision was to avoid changes which a few years after the passing of the Bill the landlord might otherwise effect. The landlord might acquire the land by pre-emption, and might endeavour to make a letting in the nature of a future tenancy. But the landlord could only buy from a tenant who desired to leave the holding; therefore, the interest of the old tenant, who voluntarily announced that he did not wish to stay and could not stay, would not be affected. The old tenant, therefore, was out of the question. This was in effect to penalize the right of pre-emption which the Government had given at the outset. They should not have given it at all if they were not prepared to allow the landlord to exercise the right with freedom. Having given the right the Government was bound to leave the landlords in possession of it, and not to fetter them in the extraordinary way proposed by the sub-section.
        MR. LALOR, said, he quite agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, that the right of pre-emption was a very inconsistent right to put in the Bill; and not only was it inconsistent, but it was a most dangerous power to have left in the hands of the landlords of Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Opposition had maintained, in the course of this discussion, that the sale was a free sale between the landlord and tenant. This very thing showed the opposite. It was not a free sale between the landlord and tenant. What did the sub-section say? It said—"That where a present tenancy in a holding was purchased by the landlord from the tenant in exercise of his right of pre-emption under this Act, not on the application or by the wish of the tenant, or as a bidder in the open market, then if the landlord, within 15 years from the passing of this Act, re-lets the same holding to another tenant, the same shall be subject, from and after the time when it has been so re-let, to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to present tenancies." Surely that was a free contract between the landlord and tenant; but it would be more candid if hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches argued the question on a different basis altogether. Why did they not say at once
        1182
        that the application of future tenancies as compared with present tenancies was the best form in which the tenantry of Ireland could hold the land? Now, if future tenancies were the best for the tenant farmers of Ireland, why did not hon. Gentlemen say so at once, and argue against present tenancies altogether? Hon. Gentlemen, however, did not say so; and if they allowed that the present tenancies were better, was it not right on the part of the Government to try and prevent landlords creating tenancies without having something bôna fide, at the bottom of them? Hon. Members were not prepared to argue in that way, because they wished to throw dust in the eyes of those who were in favour of present tenancies. They wished to show hon. Members that they were not against future tenancies, but that they were fighting entirely for justice to the landlords as between them and the tenants.
        MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had declared that Gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House were not prepared to argue that future tenancies were not better than present tenancies for the people of Ireland. He must say for his own part he thought they were. They were told, with reference to present lettings, that it was necessary to appeal to the Court because, in many cases, they had been over-rented. It was said that the tenants under such circumstances might have become attached to their farms, and, in spite of the heavy charge made upon them for their improvements, were reluctant to give up the holdings. None of these arguments, however, applied to future tenancies. An hon. Member had asked—"Why should not I, as a landlord, be allowed to take a farm on the same conditions as a tenant?" and he had said that the future tenant, it was to be presumed, would not pay a rent unsatisfactory to himself, and if he did he was protected by the Bill from any subsequent raising of his rent. The landlord could not raise the rent without the tenant having a right to go to the Court and appeal against it. When the Bill was brought in great stress was laid on the clause giving the right of pre-emption to the landlord, and it was said that that was one of the means that would be looked to to prevent extravagant prices

        1183
        being given under the right of free sale. Well, he agreed it was the most important part of the Bill; but, if it was so, and if it was necessary to guard against extravagant prices being given under the right of free sale, why introduce a condition which would have the effect of altogether limiting the power that the landlord ought entirely to possess over the land he had so acquired? He could see no reason for it whatever. The Bill was open to the objection that had been made against it generally—namely, that the present tenants were to be benefited at the expense of the future tenants in time to come. It was only right that they should modify that objectionable part of the measure.
        MR. CHAPLINsaid, he wished to add this to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) had taunted the Conservative Members with not saying what they meant about the Bill. He had asked—"Why do not hon. Gentlemen behind the Front Opposition Bench argue against present tenancies or against some of the main principles of the Bill?" Surely the hon. Member must know that very often—far too often, in the opinion of some Members of this Committee—the Conservative Members had done nothing else but argue, to the best of their ability, against the principles of the Bill from beginning to end, and they believed they had done it with success—they believed they had demolished the arguments advanced in favour of the Bill, not only out of their own mouths, but from the mouths of the authors of the measure themselves. It was therefore rather a strong thing for Irish Members to turn round upon the Conservative Members at this point and say that they were afraid to declare what they thought of the principles of the Bill. There was one thing with regard to this sub-section which he had not yet heard mentioned, and that was that if it was retained in its present form the result would be that the same thing would be sold, it might be, twice or three times over, or as many times over and over again as anyone might like to imagine. Take the case of a landlord who had purchased the tenant right, and supposing he re-let the farm, the holding, according to the sub-section, would have to be subject to all the con-
        1184
        ditions of a re-letting. Then the tenant might sell the tenant right over again. Surely never before had such a preposterous proposal been made. The tenant could sell the value of his occupancy when he desired to leave the farm. Supposing it fetched 20 years' purchase, the landlord might buy it under his right of pre-emption; he might let it again at a fair rent, and again the tenant would be allowed to sell the tenant right. The tenant might sell at the same price that had been fixed before by the Court; and they were told that whatever happened the tenant right was not to be carved out of the rent. The tenant right might be sold ten times over, and yet it was said it was to have no effect whatever on the rent at which the farm was to be let in the future. He did not know what course the Mover of the Amendment intended to take—it was no use voting against a mechanical majority, the Members of which fought at the behest of the Prime Minister, without thinking for themselves—but, for his own part, he should be inclined to take a division against this sub-section.
        MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he could not understand on what principle this sub-section had been introduced. It seemed to him that the purchase of the tenant's interest under this Bill was the same thing as the purchase of the tenant right by the landlord in Ulster under the old tenant right system. When that tenant right was purchased by the landlord the tenant right was extinguished; the landlord paid what was supposed to be the value of it, and both the landlord's and tenant's interest became vested in the landlord. If he might use a legal phrase, the tenant's title became "merged" in the landlord's title; but now they wanted the title to emerge again, and become the tenant's instead of the landlord's.
        Question put.
        The Committee divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 95: Majority 90.—(Div. List, No. 311.)
        MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, that, seeing that the sub-section had been passed, the bad effect of it might, to some extent, be mitigated by adopting the Amendment that he would now move. His proposal was that the re-letting should have had the approval of the Court, and that the agreement should have been an

        1185
        agreement in writing. He hoped the Government would not object to this Amendment.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 26, line 21, after "tenancies," insert "unless such re-letting be made by written agreement and approved of by the Court."—(Mr. Mulholland.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he could not accept the proposal.
        Amendment negatived.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he had an Amendment to propose to re-enact a certain provision which had been struck out, in order that it might be brought up in a more perfect form.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 26, after line 27, to insert the following words:—"Whenever a present tenant issued in consequence of a breach by a tenant, after the passing of this Act, of statutory conditions, or, in case the tenancy is not subject to statutory conditions, of an actual default on the part of the tenant, after the passing of this Act, which, if the holding has been subject to such conditions, would have constituted a breach thereof, the purchaser from such tenant shall not at any time be entitled to apply to the Court to fix a judicial rent for the holding; but this provision will not affect the right of such purchaser to hold at a judicial rent during the remainder of a statutory term:"—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, it was necessary that they should see this in print on the Paper before they were asked to discuss it. He must confess he failed to gather its meaning from hearing it read by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland and by the Chairman.
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the matter was explained at an earlier hour in the evening. The real truth was that the legal difficulty arose upon the question of expression. On account of that legal and technical difficulty the words between the second and the sixth line of the clause were struck out and brought down to the place where his right hon. and learned Friend now moved them; and the words, as moved by his right hon. Friend, with one exception, were
        1186
        precisely what were necessary to give legal effect to the word "now" in the clause as it stood in the Bill. The one exception which he made was that the operation of the word was now confined, in conformity with an intimation previously given to the Committee, to breaches of condition committed after the passing of the Act. That was the only change introduced.
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he thought he might assure the hon. and gallant Baronet that there was really nothing to be afraid of in the Amendment. It appeared to him a very small matter indeed; and, though he had no objection to the Amendment passing, it appeared to him that they were wrangling about nothing.
        MR. HEALYsomewhat sympathized with the hon. and gallant Baronet in his objection, because, although he had had the advantage of listening to the discussion, he had felt considerable doubt as to what the difference was. It was an intensely Tory Amendment, and if the hon. and gallant Baronet would take a division he would support him.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, the peculiarity of the change was that it introduced, in deference to the discussion carried on below the Gangway by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his Friends, a most important and very concise Amendment in the name of the Chief Secretary, which rendered it absolutely impossible for any man to be turned into a future tenant by any breach or act that occurred before the passing of the Act. How that could be called an intensely Tory Amendment he could not imagine.
        MR. MARUMsaid, there was only a difference in terms from the expression that existed before; and, therefore, he could not agree that it was a Tory Amendment.
        MR. LALORsaid, he stood up, on the part of the people of Ireland, to protest against the Amendment. The unfortunate Irish tenants were men who might, by ignorance, be guilty of breaches of statutory conditions. Now, what was the class and who were the men against whom that clause was certainly directed? They were acknowledged on all hands to be an ignorant class of people, and when he recollected that there was probably not one in 10 of the Members of that House who

        1187
        thoroughly understood the Bill as it then stood, how could he imagine that the small tenant farmers of Ireland would be fully alive to the dangers of those statutory conditions? Was it not a direct premium for the landlords to try and watch for a breach of the statutory conditions that might be made by every tenant? He believed there was no enactment that would be so fatal in its operation as that section of the Amendment which had been moved by the Attorney General for Ireland.
        MR. WARTONsaid, he objected to Amendments being moved which were not on the Paper. Having only heard the words as they were read by the Chairman, he had the greatest difficulty in understanding the question. He would suggest, however, a small Amendment to the Amendment, and would call the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland to the fact that there were breaches of two sorts. There was a difference between committing a breach after the passing of the Act and continuing a breach already committed. He would suggest the words—
        "In consequence of a breach committed, or the continuance by the tenant after the passing of this Act."
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Clause 46 (Tenancies to which the Act does not apply).
        MR. MARUMmoved to leave out after "any holding which is not agricultural or pastoral," the words "or partly agricultural and partly pastoral." He wished to qualify the clause, because no one wished that any villa residences should be included in the Act. There were 175,000 small tenants, who had holdings of under the value of £4. The question would arise as to whether these men had really residential holdings, and whether they might not be excluded from the Act. He was not acting entirely upon his own judgment, but had referred to Mr. Butt's work upon the subject, in which he stated that the definition in the legislation of 1870 was extremely lame and indefinite, and ought to be qualified in some way. The effect of his Amendment was that the exception made by the clause should not apply to any holding let to be used wholly or mainly for agricultural purposes.
        Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 32, after "pastoral," leave out "or partly agricultural and partly pastoral."—(Mr. Marum.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not think the Amendment would at all alter the clause. The words used in the clause had been adopted from the Land Act of 1870, and he did not see his way to adopt the Amendment, which would not carry the clause any farther.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MAJOR NOLANmoved, in page 26, line 33, to add the words—
        "Except in the case of towns of under thirty thousand inhabitants, in which case so much of this Act as relates to compensation for improvements shall apply."
        The object of it was to include in the clause houses in the smaller towns of Ireland. He had not introduced any provision for compensation for disturbance for the tenants in the smaller country towns; but he considered the tenant was entitled to the value of his improvements. He did it for two reasons, because, in the first place, the cases were continually occurring; and, in the second, because the small towns in Ireland were practically the same as the country. The inhabitants of the small towns had all the ideas of the country, either from having small holdings of their own, or having friends who were interested in the land. In the smaller country towns the landlords thought it was the tenant who ought to do all the improvements; and it was a very great discouragement to a man when he had improved his house and found he could not get compensation for what he had spent on it. People who travelled in Ireland would tell them that there was a great deal of dilapidation in the holdings on account of the landlord not caring to improve his property, and the tenant not having any security for his improvements. Some of the smaller country towns wished to go farther, and to have disturbance clauses introduced; but he had not seen his way to do so. That was not the first time the Question had been brought before the House, as both he and the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P.

        1189
        Martin) had brought in Bills on the Subject.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 26, line 33, after the word "pastoral," insert the words, "expect in the case of towns of under thirty thousands inhabitants, in which case so much of this Act as relates to compensation for improvements shall apply."—(Major Nolan.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that the object of his hon. and gallant friend would not be carried out by the Amendement, which was one that the Government could not at all accept. It was foreign to the scope of the Bill, which made no provision for giving a right of compensation. It contained one single clause regulating the devolution of title, as there might be some difficulty in the way of proving title; but the right to compensation rested entirely upon the Act of 1870; and, therefore, when they said that the Bill should not apply to holdings, neither agricultural nor pastoral, they did so because they had got an Act at work. The whole purport of the Bill was to relieve the tenant under the Act of 1870 from a technical difficulty
        MAJOR NOLANsaid, it would be very easy to remedy the technical difficulty on Report.
        MR. H. R. BRANDsaid, he wished to know whether an Amendment which was to give a claim for compensation for improvement to tenants of houses in towns was within the scope of the Bill?
        THE CHAIRMAN: I certainly very much doubted whether it was when I saw it; but as the Attorney General for Ireland did not take exception to it, I let it pass.
        MR. P. MARTINsaid, it was plain this Amendment was in Order, and had reference to a matter within the scope of the Bill. Land, as any lawyer knew, meant not only the soil, but anything placed on the soil, but anything placed on the soil in the nature of the buildings. Indeed, a question of a similar character was debated at the time of the Land Act of 1870; and he thought that one of the very reasons of the great dissatisfaction which was felt throughout Ireland in respect of that Act arose from the exclusion of town holdings from the benefit of the Act.
        1190
        There was no class of cases which required legislation more than that class of town holdings in the small villages of Ireland. They knew that such houses had been, for the greater part, constructed by the tenants, out of their own industry and earnings; and one reason why they were in such a wretched way at present arose from the fact that no protection whatever was given to the tenants in respect of improvements which they had effected in that manner. He was of opinion that the town holdings required rather more protection than the country ones.
        LORD JOHN MANNERSwished to know the opinion of the Chairman upon the point of Order.
        THE CHAIRMAN: I was in great hopes that the lawyers would assist me on the point of Order. It is impossible that a Chairman can decide matters of this kind, involving a legal construction of terms, unless he is assisted. I understand that this Bill is for agricultural and pastoral land; but I desire to be assisted by the legal gentlemen.
        MR. P. MARTINsaid, on the point of Order, that the Bill was a Bill to amend the law relating to the occupation and ownership of land, and for other purpose relating thereto; and he considered that the word "land," in its ordinary signification, not only meant the soil itself, but everything that rested upon it—that was to say, buildings and houses. It was under a somewhat similar title that in the Act of 1870 there was a debate as to whether those town holdings should be subject to that the Act; but he regretted to say that the Committee came to a conclusion averse to the view which was gallant Friend, and which he trusted he should induce the Committee to accede to.
        LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he wished to point out that there was not single country town in Ireland of 30,000 inhabitants. There were only four towns possessing that number—namely, Dublin, Belfast, Limerick, and Cork. He considered the present discussion was out of Order.
        MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he hoped that the Chairman would not lay stress upon the argument of the noble Lord, because the object of the Bill was to promote large and flourishing towns. Because Irish towns had not prospered up to the

        1191
        present was no reason for helping to continue such a deplorable state of things as was to be implied from the statement of the noble Lord. There was one reason why they should make the scope of the Bill as wide as possible, and that was that under that Bill they intended to remedy some of the mistakes and failures of the Act of 1870. Under that Act was there was no doubt—and the Attorney General for Ireland would corroborate him—that a great deal of harm was done to the smaller towns in Ireland by depriving them of benefits which had previously existed. The Act of 1870 was most generously conceived, and it was intended to do a great deal of good; but it failed in some respects, and in no respect more than in the encouragement it gave to persons interested of depriving holders of their plots of lands and the hirers of small houses of all the tenant right to compensation for improvements which they had enjoyed previously.
        THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he need hardly say that one's inclination was rather in the direction of finding the Amendment out of Order, because it would widen considerably the scope of discussion on that part of the Bill, and it was the common knowledge of everybody that the Bill was only intended to deal with agricultural holdings. The whole of the arguments had proceeded upon that assumption, and it was thoroughly understood. But when they were dealing with the Amendment as a point of Order, they were bound to proceed, not by what were the intentions of the framers of the Bill, but by what they found within its four corners. When they looked at the title, Land Law (Ireland) Bill, and when they saw it was a Bill to further amend the law relating to the occupation and ownership of land in Ireland, and for other purposes relating thereto, he was bound to suggest to the Committee that the Amendment was in Order.
        THE CHAIRMAN: I have looked carefully at the Bill, and have come to the conclusion that the Amendment is within the title. At the same time, I consider that throughout all the discussions this Bill has been held to be of an agricultural nature; but still I cannot stand between the decision of the Committee and the Amendment.
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not press his Amendment. If he would bring in a Bill to enact by law what he there suggested, he would support it. But he objected to clogging the Bill with Amendments which everybody knew would be out of place. There was a good deal to be said in favour of those who had built holdings in towns of less than 30,000 inhabitants and more than 10,000. Therefore, he would ask his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw the Amendment, and not to offer at that stage any serious obstacle to the Bill.
        MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he was very sorry the hon. Member for Youghal objected to the Amendment. He thought it was a very reasonable one, as it merely asked that persons who laid out their money in small towns should be protected. He did not see how the Amendment would clog the Bill, and it would not do injury to anyone.
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he did not object to the principle of the Amendment. He only contended that it was hopeless to try and carry it into law on the present occasion by means of the machinery of that Bill. If the hon. Member went to a division, he would mark his sense of the importance of the question by voting for the Amendment; but he believed such a course would have no satisfactory effect.
        MR. REDMONDsaid, it seemed to him that they had overcome the technical objection raised by the Attorney General for Ireland, and that it would be well that before they went to a division they should have a few words from the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon the merits of the Amendment itself. It was evident that to the condition of the small towns of Ireland a provision of this nature would be an immense improvement. The absence of security for the tenant's efforts kept these towns back in the condition in which they now were; but if it was just that tenants of agricultural holdings should be protected, there was no reason why the tenants in towns should not have the same protection. If improvements in agricultural holdings were the property of the man who made them, then equally so should it be in towns. The improvements that were made in the town properties in Ireland, few as they

        1193
        were, were to a large extent made by the tenants, just as they were in the counties. With regard to the limitation in the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend, he did not entirely approve of it; it was too large, or it ought not to exist at all. He would prefer to have no limit. If the principle was right in towns under 30,000 inhabitants, then it was right in all towns. If there was to be a limit at all to it, logically it should be a small limit if the Amendment was to apply to towns only of such a small character that the tenants were more or less agricultural. Then the limit should be much lower, because, as pointed out by the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench (Lord George Hamilton), there were only four towns in Ireland having a population larger than 30,000. He would much prefer no limit at all; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman had done good work in bringing the subject forward. It was an important and a growing question on which a strong feeling existed in the towns of Ireland in favour of some such provision as this. He knew that the feeling in support of security for improvements was growing in intensity among the people of the small towns, who were looking with interest on the Land Bill, and were filled with a sort of anxious jealousy that it did not take into account their admitted and well recognized grievances. If his hon. and gallant Friend effected nothing more by his Amendment than keeping the question to the front, and preventing it being lost sight of by the leading politicians of the Kingdom, he would be justified in having brought it forward. He hoped it would be carried to a division, for, though it might be defeated, it would show that Irish Members were not forgetful of the towns, and the Division List would show how many amongst those who were so fond of talking of the privileges, rights, and property of tenants, were sufficiently logical to go to the further end of the argument and extend the same protection to the undoubted property of another class of tenants.
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had no doubt the Amendment was seriously proposed, still he could not doubt that the judgment of the Committee would be for a moment held in suspense as to the course they should take. Technically, no doubt, the case of the tenants in towns might come within the purview
        1194
        of the Bill; but who could suppose it would be a rational course to take on the 18th of July with regard to a great and complicated subject of which until now they had never heard a word to invite the Committee to begin to open up this new untrodden field? But even if this were practical with regard to themselves, there was another consideration that put it out of the question, and that was regard to the parties affected. What did the Committee know of their desires and their circumstances, and what Notice had been given that Parliament was about to deal with their interests? When they began to legislate upon Irish land everybody knew what Parliament was about to do; but this would be a complete surprise to landlords and tenants of town property. The Committee could not entertain a proposition of this nature without giving the fullest means to the parties concerned of making known their wants and opinions.
        MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he agreed in the general scope of the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman; but the fact was there was a great feeling in a large part of Ireland that a great deal of the wrong done to occupiers in small agricultural towns came from the right hon. Gentleman's own Act of 1870. He could quote several instances of small agricultural towns in Ulster where, practically, tenant right existed for generations, where a tenant sold his right of occupation in his house, and where he could get compensation for his improvements, but where, in consequence of the Land Act of 1870, landowners could now, and had, in numerous cases, confiscated the traditional rights of the tenants in towns. There was one case in a town in Donegal, in a town of 700 or 800 inhabitants, where nearly £20,000 of the tenants' property had been transferred from the tenants to the ground landlord under the operation of the Land Act of 1870. Could there not be a reasonable compromise suggested by which they might give up trying to obtain protection for improvements in those towns that could not by any figure of speech be considered agricultural villages? Could they not recognize the fact that there were so-called towns that were really agricultural villages depending exclusively on the agricultural population? Could not security for improvements be extended Ito towns up to, say, 1,000 or 1,500 inhabitants? Assuredly, without some pro-

        1195
        tection the small country towns of Ireland would remain what they were now—a disgrace to our civilization. It was impossible for a tenant in an agricultural village in Ireland to improve his holding when he knew the only result would be that the landlord would come in and confiscate his improvements. Ulster Members could say that the well-meant scheme of the Prime Minister in 1870 had the effect of robbing poor men in hundreds of cases. In small country towns, so small that they were practically undiscernable from villages or hamlets, there, at any rate, the property of the tenant might be protected, and it was absolutely essential that it should be so to allow the tenant to make his habitation fit for a human being. In 99 out of 100 cases, the filth, the squalor, the misery of an Irish country town was simply due to the fact that the tenant was prevented from making his house tenantable by the fear that his improvements would be confiscated.
        MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, it was extremely difficult to vote on the Amendment. He felt, when it was introduced, that it would dangerously encumber the Bill by mixing up with agricultural property a property that was really distinct from land; but he was in this difficulty—that he shared largely the feeling of his hon. Friend who had just spoken, and knew himself the position of these agricultural villages. But going up to the limit of 30,000 inhabitants, did not that prejudice the good intentions of the Amendment, because it was trying to treat in an agricultural Bill house property in towns? In these agricultural villages, as his hon. Friend said, the squalor and untidiness arose from the neglect of the landlord and the fear of the tenant to make any improvements. Some few beautiful exceptions there were where villages were cared for by landlords. Santry was one, which had been built on a plan, had houses clean and tidy, with flowers about them; but agricultural villages generally were built in a haphazard manner, the houses being run up in a corner of a field, the tenants not caring to make them neat for fear they would, in consequence, have to pay more rent. He could not support the Amendment, for the limit fixed carried it far beyond the case of agricultural villages. The Amendment would now be voted down; but the equity of the thing was so
        1196
        apparent that ultimately some measure must be introduced dealing with the subject.
        MR. HEALYsaid, he believed that this was a remarkable beginning of a new agitation, and he was glad the Amendment had been proposed. These unfortunate people would see that something would be done for them, and he believed that some Government would some day recognize that legislation could not stop in this matter. If it was desirable to protect the improvements of tenants in agricultural holdings, why not in every holding? His hon. and gallant Friend put the case fairly when he said, as a rule, the small towns were intimately connected with agriculture. Without going into the question of limit, he would say that in towns up to 10,000 there were many that might be called agricultural in their tenancies. In the cases of the small towns, such as Bantry, tenants had no security. English tourists had often remarked to him upon the miserable condition of Irish country towns. The reason was simply that the people had no leases, and dared not build and improve, for they were at the mercy of the landlord. He trusted the Amendment would be pushed to a division, for, though it might not be carried at the present time, still it was a beginning of an agitation for a much needed reform.
        MR. MAC IVERsaid, he thought the Committee were very much indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for his useful and instructive Amendment. The reasons he gave in support of it were better than many reasons alleged for Amendments that had been accepted by the Government. With equally good reasons, another hon. Member proposed to remove the limitation, and the views presented afforded much for consideration; and, perhaps, in a future Session, the Government would take up this sequel to their legislation and deal with the question of household tenants. If such legislation were reasonable at all—and he (Mr. Mac Iver) did not mean to imply that it was—there was not the slightest reason for confining it to agricultural land or to Ireland. This particular proposal had a good deal to commend it. Landlords were few and tenants were many; and he (Mr. Mac Iver) thought that an extension of the principle of tenant right to householders generally would do much to satisfy the

        1197
        Vote-hunger of Her Majesty's Government. They might begin again next Session with a re-distribution of the property of landlords in the City of London.
        MR. P. MARTINsaid, he was sorry to intervene, more especially after the Prime Minister's observations, still, as he had been alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), and as he had introduced a Bill embodying the principle of the Amendment, he wished to say a few words. So far as the Amendment went, it was perfectly reasonable; and, notwithstanding that the subject was considered at the time of the passing of the Act of 1870 and then rejected, the Committee must reflect that they had in the present Bill gone far beyond the principle in that of 1870; and he was certain that if the subject were disregarded a new agitation would spring up in Ireland having a well-founded sense of injustice to sustain and encourage its progress. As to the results of the Act of 1870 in the small towns in the North of Ireland, they did not rest on mere statement. Mr. Butt, in his valuable work, and in speeches in the House, presented the gross injustice there was in the exclusion of these small holdings in those places where the Ulster Custom prevailed, and what he stated was corroborated by Mr. Donnell, the Secretary to the Bessborough Commission. The Poor Law Inspectors appointed in 1870 gave several very interesting accounts as to the manner in which, by giving protection and security to the improvements made in towns by the occupying tenants, well-built, thriving, and prosporous towns had been created instead of a cluster of mud hovels. The history given of the town of Enniscorthy well deserved perusal. No reason existed why tenants in small towns should be thus denied the benefits of the present Bill. Nay, there was even a greater sense of insecurity in Ireland, unfortunately, amongst this class of tenants than those who held agricultural holdings. If the act of injustice perpetrated in 1870 by the exclusion of this class of tenants was continued, if all concession was unwisely rejected, a serious agitation would spread over Ireland.
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was clear that whatever might be thought of the "three F's," on which
        1198
        the Bill was said to be founded, there was one "F" that it did not include, and that was the "F" that stood for "finality." Here was a door being opened, the closing of which was rather difficult to see. He thought everybody would see it was impossible to take up so large a question as would be involved in the adoption of the Amendment. Surely the Committee had got quite enough on their hands.
        MAJOR NOLANsaid, he only wished to point out that he in no way bound himself to the limitation in his Amendment; that only expressed his own idea. So that those who thought the limit was too large or too small might fairly vote for the Amendment, he did not insist upon the 30,000 beyond expressing his opinion that some moderate limitation should be admitted. It was no hobby of his own; but it was a subject that had engaged the attention of many.
        MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the Committee might be saved the trouble of a division if the Government would give some opportunity of meeting the supporters of the Amendment if they thought the proposition too large. The Prime Minister would certainly go so far as to redress the wrong done to poor tenants by his Act of 1870. He saw the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea) in his place, and he would ask him had he not received representations from his constituents on this subject urging him to support an Amendment of this nature? He could certainly promise that there would be a beginning of a new agitation if these requests were disregarded. If the limit of 30,000 was too large, then let the Government say what they conceived a fair measure of relief.
        MR. LEAsaid, he was very unwilling to detain the Committee a single moment; but the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had so distinctly alluded to the Members for Donegal that he felt compelled to trouble the Committee with a few observations. There was a good deal more in the question than hon. Members imagined, and especially where it bore upon the North of Ireland, where little towns, villages, and hamlets had sprung into existence entirely upon the faith of the Ulster Custom, and in which the tenants' erections were thus entirely unprotected, and inroads upon their property were constantly occurring, and this was

        1199
        especially the case in the counties of Derry and Donegal. He could hardly quote a better instance than the small town referred to by the hon. Member—namely, Carndonagh, in County Donegal, and it might be taken as an example of many other places in the North. The hon. Member was right in saying that £20,000 was about the value of the tenants' interest, and that it was certainly unprotected by law. The tenants had put up the buildings under the promise that they should receive the full benefit of the Ulster Custom, and now they were told they should be excluded from legal protection, as had unfortunately been the case under the Act of 1870. By that special exclusion of the Act the Ulster Custom might not be allowed to protect them; for, although the landlord, who had encouraged them to build, had kept his promise, the property had, perhaps, passed to his son, who, it was reported, might dispose of it, and the purchasers would not be bound by the late owner's promises. Was it, therefore, likely that the tenants would leave £20,000 worth of property at the mercy of the landlord? He would remind the Committee that the small towns and villages were the focus of the agitation; and if this provision allowed the sense of injustice to remain, the better classes of the inhabitants would join with any who might be more disposed to get up an agitation which would be of little or no importance if the injustice were removed. He wished his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) would alter his Amendment, so as to reduce it to towns of from 2,000 to 3,000 inhabitants; because places of that size were certainly the snore within the scope of the Bill, as they might clearly be supposed to depend upon agriculture; at all events, the question was a serious one, and he hoped it would be placed in a proper shape, for sow a great injustice might be committed by a landlord, and the law utterly failed to protect the property of the tenant. Indeed, by specially excluding his interest it almost seemed to invite appropriation by the landlord.
        MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would move to amend the Amendment by altering the figure to 2,000. If this were agreed to, the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member would apply to towns of 2,000 inhabitants.
        Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
        To leave out the words "thirty thousand," in order to insert the words "two thousand,"—(Mr. O' Donnell,)
        —instead thereof.
        Question proposed, "That the words 'thirty thousand' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
        MAJOR NOLANsaid, he could not accept a lower figure than 10,000, because he was sure towns of that size would barely come within the definition of towns influenced by agricultural ideas. He should much prefer 30,000; and although he should not now expect to carry that proposal he thought it would be better to divide on 30,000.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
        The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 261: Majority 226.—(Div. List, No. 312.)
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I understand that we are now to report Progress in order to take a Vote on Account. Of course, if the necessities of the Public Service require that money should be taken on account we cannot object; but I think it ought to be very clearly understood, if we are now obliged to take Votes on Account—and we have also a very large amount of Supply still undiscussed and voted—we ought to have a clear understanding from the Government as to the Business with which they intend to proceed. We are now at the 18th of July, and we have still a great deal of work before us on the Bill with which we are engaged. There are necessary measures which we are aware must be got through before the end of the Session, and there is a great deal of Supply to be taken. When, a week or 10 days ago, the Prime Minister made a proposal with regard to the order of Business, he stated, with regard to several measures, that it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with them, but that there were some one or two of great magnitude upon which he, for a time,

        1201
        reserved his opinion. We think we ought, now that we are asked to report Progress, to have an understanding with regard to these measures. I refer particularly to the Bankruptcy Bill, the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill, and the Charitable Trusts Bill.
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it would be irregular to answer these questions in Committee, and he would reserve his statement until the House got out of Committee.
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: We may be very willing to report Progress for the purpose of going into Supply; but it is perfectly true that we may be unwilling to report Progress if it is to give up the Land Bill in order to get a Vote on Account, and the Government are then to say they do not care to go on with the other Bills. That is exactly what we cannot allow. A Vote on Account was given some months ago on the distinct understanding that no further Vote should be asked for.
        THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that this discussion should be made on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: It is a question of absolute Order, and not a question of reporting Progress. I want to ask a question of positive Order. When a suggestion is made to report Progress for the express purpose of going into Supply, are we not entitled to discuss whether we shall go into Supply or not? All I want is a distinct ruling on a point of Order.
        THE CHAIRMAN: As a point of Order, I have no doubt that the discussion upon a Motion to report Progress should be relevant to the Bill, and should not embrace subjects quite extraneous to it. It is not in Order to discuss subjects which belong to the House before the Chairman of Committees.
        MR. HEALYsaid, the Prime Minister had promised to make a statement as to present tenancies when the next clause was reached; but when they came to Clause 45 nothing was said, and the Committee was still as much in the dark as ever. There was considerable uneasiness among Irish Members and in Ireland upon this matter; and he thought it was rather hard on those who had three times tried to raise the subject that they should now be told this was not
        1202
        the proper place to do so. He appealed to the Government to say what they meant to do.
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would consider the point.
        EARL PERCYsaid, that the Prime Minister had moved to report Progress earlier than usual on this Bill, and wished to know whether it was in Order to ask why that course was taken, and to discuss the reasons which had influenced the Prime Minister?
        THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is a question which the Chairman has to decide as a point of Order. I have stated that questions relating to the Business of the House and to other Bills before the House should not be brought before the Chairman while the House is in Committee upon a particular Bill referred to it; but that they should be brought forward when the Speaker is in the Chair.
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: When we are in the middle of a discussion on an important Bill and a Motion is made to report Progress, is it not in Order to put questions as to the reasons and grounds upon which the Government think we can suspend our discussion?
        MR. GORSTsaid, the sixth Order of the Day was the second reading of the Bankruptcy Bill, and asked if he should be in Order in asking the Prime Minister whether he moved to report Progress in order to take that Order?
        THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. and learned Member would be in Order. The Question is that we report Progress in reference to the Irish Land Bill now before the Committee.
        MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had no objection to reporting Progress on the condition that the Government eliminated from the Vote on Account the Votes which were distinctly contentious.
        THE CHAIRMAN: I have explained that such questions should come before the Speaker in the Chair, and not before the Chairman of Committees.
        MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORthought that, as a matter of Order, he had a perfect right to state why he should be in favour of a particular Motion, or why he should be against it. If the Government would eliminate the contentious Votes, he should be willing to report Progress.
        THE CHAIRMAN: Under cover of the Motion, the hon. Member cannot anticipate the discussion which would properly take place before the Speaker on a Motion to leave the Chair. The hon. Member cannot pursue that discussion.
        MR. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!
        MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would have the Prime Minister understand that he would take no dictation from him on points of Order. He did not wish to raise any improper discussion; but he wished the Committee to understand why he would not consent, at the present moment, to report Progress unless he had some assurance from the Government that they would abstain from going into contentious matters.
        MR. CHAPLINsaid, he did not understand whether the Chairman had ruled that the Committee were precluded from inquiring what was the object of the Government in moving to report Progress, nor whether he had ruled that the Government were precluded from informing the Committee; but he should oppose the Motion unless and until the Government condescended to inform the Committee of their objects, upon which they had not had the slightest information.
        MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member is as inaccurate in point of fact as he is irregular in his proceedings. He was informed, with the Speaker in the Chair, several days ago of the reason why Progress would be moved this evening. With regard to answering the questions, that has been ruled by you, Sir, as out of Order, and it is not for me to interpose, however high may be the authority from which that ruling has been challenged. The proceedings are so unusual that I never, in my whole Parliamentary experience, witnessed anything of the sort. I shall reserve any information I have to give until the Speaker is in the Chair.
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Do I understand that the explanation will be given when the Speaker is in the Chair? because if we are satisfied that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement we have nothing further to say; but the question I put was not at all so unreasonable a question.
        MR. GLADSTONE: My words were that I would reserve my explanation till
        1204
        the Speaker was in the Chair, and I did not give the right hon Gentleman credit for so narrow or blunt an understanding as not to infer that that explanation would be given.
        Question put.
        The Committee divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 58: Majority 104.—(Div. List, No. 313.)
        Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

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

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I did not enter into the questions that were put to me at the time they were asked; but nothing could be more reasonable than that information should be asked for as to the intentions of the Government with respect to certain Bills, and as to the necessity under which we come before the House to ask for a further supply of money. That necessity is extreme and absolute, and without the Vote for which we ask—and we have delayed it till the last moment—we are not able to meet the necessary demands of the Public Service. It was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross)—I cannot but think under some misapprehension—that I had given an absolute and positive pledge that no such Vote should be taken. I am very confident that I never gave a pledge to that effect. I have no doubt I said nothing but extreme necessity would drive us to do so; but an absolute pledge I cannot plead guilty to. The demand we now make is an absolute necessity. As regards the particular Bills, there is one of them, and one upon which the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I think, laid the smallest emphasis in this sense—I mean the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill—with which we shall persevere. It is, I believe, a Bill in which the Scotch Members are almost, if not absolutely, unanimous, and it is the one single subject upon which the House of Commons will have performed any work on behalf

  1205
  of Scotland this Session. The most important measure by far is, of course, the Bankruptcy Bill, and that is a Bill to which we have clung with great tenacity, deeming it to be a matter of the highest importance; but it is our duty to estimate the impediments in the way of its passing; and I perceive with regret—I am not entitled to question the judgment of hon. Gentlemen on the matter—but I regret that they are disposed to offer considerable difficulties. That being so, and in view of the general state of things, we think the time has come when we must abandon the Bill. With regard to the Charitable Trusts Bill, I am sorry my right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt), who gave a reply earlier in the evening, is not present, and perhaps I shall be excused from making any positive declaration in his absence. A declaration can be made to-morrow—that can be done to-morrow; but I will undertake to represent to him my own impression with respect to the facility for, or difficulty of, proceeding with that Bill; and I am bound to add that I think the representation I shall have to make will be one that will induce him to desist from proceeding with the measure. With regard to other Bills, perhaps hon. Gentlemen will address their inquiries to the right hon. Gentlemen who have them in charge.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Bankruptcy Bill as though it were a Bill to which hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House might be disposed to offer a good deal of resistance. It was not in that sense that I drew attention to it. It is obviously a Bill of great importance, and one requiring careful discussion; and it cannot, therefore, be hurried through. The point I was directing attention to was the prospect of our being relieved of our attendance here within reasonable time, considering the large amount of necessary Business we still have to transact. The Business of Supply is still so much in arrear that if we are to give any attention to Supply at all it is absolutely necessary to abandon Bills which, however excellent and important, will involve considerable discussion, unless we are to sit to an unreasonable period. I am glad to hear that the Government have decided that it will not be possible to go on with the Bankruptcy Bill; but I hope it will be
  1206
  understood that it was not to that measure, but to save time, that I drew attention to the matter.
  MR. CHAPLINwished to ask the President of the Local Government Board a question with regard to the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill. He was not opposed to the Bill, but he observed that there were a great number of Notices of opposition to it on the Paper; and, remembering that the Prime Minister had given a general understanding that Bills involving much controversy would not be taken, he presumed he was right in supposing that the right hon. Gentleman would not proceed with it.
  MR. DODSON, in reply, assured the hon. Member that he should use every effort to carry the Bill; and he hoped that, with the goodwill of the House, he should be able to do so. The Bill, after being carefully considered by a Select Committee of the Lords, had passed that House; it had been read a second time by a majority of three to one in this House, and had gone through another Select Committee. Although there were a certain number of Amendments on the Paper, he ventured to think that when they came to be discussed they would be found not very serious.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, that as he did not see the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) in his place, he would ask the Prime Minister what course he proposed to take with regard to the South African Question? This was not a question simply of the Transvaal, but of other matters connected with that country. The whole question of the position of the Natives in the Transvaal was a very serious one. There were 670,000 Natives in that country, and a White population of something like 40,000; and it was very important that before the House separated that and other questions should be discussed.
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied that if the hon. Member would repeat the question that afternoon he should probably be in a position to answer it.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked for an assurance that the moment the Land Bill was through Committee the House would at once go into Committee of Supply. The House would strongly object if other matters were dealt with after the Vote on Account.
  Mr. GLADSTONEsaid, it would be remembered that when it was expected that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would propose his Motion on the subject of the Transvaal immediately after the Committee on the Irish Land Bill, then the interval before the next stage of the Laud Bill he proposed to devote to Supply, and he had promised to give an answer tomorrow, and to state, as far as he could, his intentions with regard to Supply. With regard to other matters, it was not possible to say more than that there were matters of legislation that were quite indispensable; but, at the same time, they were not subjects of much controversy.
  EARL PERCYsaid, perhaps the Prime Minister could say, either now or tomorrow in taking Supply, what Votes would be taken first—the Civil Service or the Army Votes?
  MR. ONSLOWdesired to know if the Government this Session intended to bring in an Indian Budget at all? This would at least occupy one Sitting; and, if there was such an intention, would the Government give facilities for its discussion, before affording facilities for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Wales) Bill, a subject of less importance than the Indian Budget?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had no doubt whatever that his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) would, as a necessary part of his duty, have a day for the Indian Budget. As for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Wales) Bill he was not at all sure that he would be in a position to offer facilities for it; but the position would more likely be one in which the Government would have to ask the promoters of the Bill to give facilities for Government Business; but, until he had arrived at the means of determining, it would be premature to say more. Due Notice would be given of the Votes to be taken in Supply.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, the President of the Local Government Board had expressed a hope that the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill would be carried through this Session, because it had passed the House of Lords and been considered by a Select Committee. But it was understood from the Prime Minister that it was not proposed to take any matters of a controversial character, and he
  1208
  would like to call attention to the number of Notices of opposition to this Bill down on the Paper to-day. There were no less than eight for the postponement of the Committee for six months in the names of hon. Members representing various sections in the House. In the first place, there were three from Members of the Conservative Party, the next stood in the name of a supporter of the Home Rule Party, and there were others in the names of hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government side. Members of every shade of politics had put down their names, and, besides, there were two other Notices upon points upon which an immense amount of opposition might be expected. It was not at all likely that the Bill would get through in reasonable time, and, if it was persevered with, the House would not be released from its labours much before Christmas.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, the President of the Local Government Board could not be aware of the feelings of hostility to the Bill in the country. He had been a member of the Central Chamber of Agriculture for 16 years, and he never knew a Bill excite such a unanimous opposition from the Associated Chambers. He was certain that the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues would only waste their strength and energy in attempting to go on with the Bill at that late period of the Session.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the President of the Local Government Board to reconsider his opinion. He did not think it was fair to invite the House at that period of the Session to discuss a Bill which, in its full extent, was only known to a few. From his own county, and from other counties interested, he had that day received expressions of opinion that showed how unwise it would be to press the Bill this year. It required much discussion. It received none on the second reading, and was just one of those instances of the inconveniences of allowing that stage to pass sub silentio. The Bill demanded that discussion which it had never received, and which it was now too late to enter upon.

  JUDGES' CHARGES (IRELAND).

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he did not rise to join in this little

    1209
    interlocutory conversation, but for the purpose of moving an Amendment to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. He might say that the Motion was entirely due to the courteous and elegantly polished manner in which, early in the Sitting, the Chief Secretary for Ireland refused to give an answer to the Question put by himself and his hon. Friend the Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham). His hon. Friend put an inquiry which was of great importance in reference to the state of Ireland, and the inquiry met with no response from the Chief Secretary. He now felt it his duty to protest against the course adopted by the Chief Secretary; and he rose to move, as a formal Amendment to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will cause to be procured and laid before this House, Copies of the Charges delivered by Judges Harrison and Lawson, of the Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, and of Chief Justice May, at the recent Summer Assize in Ireland."
    This was a matter of considerable importance, for they had been unable to extract any information whatever from the Government on the state of Ireland. Alarming accounts were seen in the newspapers of an unbroken series of outrages and disturbances, although the House knew that for the purpose of dealing with this state of things Government had been armed with powers of a most unlimited nature. What was the exact state of Ireland so far as he had been able to get at it? He found that while the House for the last two months had been engaged in discussing the Land Bill there had been a large increase of crime, and that not only of the less serious class of agrarian offences, but of crimes of a serious character. There had been also a large increase in the number of arrests, and in the proclamations issued for dealing with these evils. That was the state of Ireland. Now, what was the number of agrarian offences in March last, when the Chief Secretary asked for his Bill? The agrarian offences were 145. In April, after the passing of the Coercion Bill, they rose to 291; in May they rose to 337; and in June they remained 336. This was the testimony of figures; but the House also wanted on this point independent testimony, and no testimony was of such
    1210
    value as that contained in the Charges of the Judges delivered to Grand Juries when they proceeded on their Circuits. More than that, it was by these Charges that the Government were themselves guided in estimating the state of the country, and it was made a strong point by the Chief Secretary in bringing in the Coercion Bill. Now, the Government seemed to be under an impression that they held no responsibility to Parliament at all, that this Bill relieved them from that, that all the ordinary Business of the Session might be loft to go anyhow; even when the Government had suspended all the Constitutional liberties of Ireland, they were relieved from all responsibility on their part, because they were engaged in the Irish Land Bill. Now, he did not think that was at all the right view to take. He asked the Chief Secretary if he would endeavour to procure the Judges' Charges and lay them before the House. Of course, these Charges contained most valuable information as to the existing state of things in Ireland after four months of the Coercion Act; but the Chief Secretary made no answer at all. The Chief Secretary did say previously that there was a difficulty in procuring copies of these Charges; but to this it might be said there would be no real difficulty, because, in all probability, the Judge would have made notes; there were also the shorthand writer's notes, and, in any case, there were full and ample reports in the Irish newspapers, and it was perfectly easy to submit the report to the Judge for correction. It was no uncommon thing to lay Judges' Charges before the House. It was done in the case of trials on Election Petitions, and he should think that a Judge's opinion on the state of Ireland was more important than his opinion of a corrupt borough. Those who read Irish newspapers knew perfectly well that the Reports of these Judges presented a most gloomy picture of the state of Ireland; but these Charges had been shortly and imperfectly reported in the English Press, and the public, as a whole, were not acquainted with the real state of Ireland. Now, it was in order that the English public might have the state of Ireland brought home to them, and might know, in spite of the Coercion Act and the Land Bill, what success the Government had had in governing Ireland, that he

    1211
    moved for this Address. Unless Parliamentary attention was drawn to this matter, it was impossible to get at the state of affairs, and he could find no better way than by laying these Judges' Charges before Parliament. He would also point out that not only was there a serious increase in crime, and that of more serious crime, but the general strike against all payment of debts went on in a more acute manner than ever. He could tell the House of instances that would show the extent of this. He knew of two cases in London where ladies, dependent for their living upon their portions charged upon Irish estates, had actually to apply to a London workhouse for out-door relief, they having received no payments since the Government came into Office. That might be but a coincidence, but it was a fact. The other day he heard of a gentleman, who had a large property in Ireland, who had had to remove his two sons from school and send them to a Board school. [Laughter.] That might seem a good joke to the hon. Member for Stockton and the Radical Party; the more poverty and misfortune overtook the upper classes the more were the Radical Party satisfied with that state of things. All this while crime in Ireland was increasing, arrests were increasing, proclamations were increasing, while time was idled away on the Land Bill, which was made the excuse for the neglect of all ordinary Business. When opportunity offered, the Government were ever ready to accuse the Opposition of making unfounded charges; but they were now only asked for information. If what he had said was not correct, let the Government produce their Judges' Charges, they would give a far better description of the state of Ireland than he could pretend to give. But if the Chief Secretary wrapped himself in silence, as he did in answer to a Question that afternoon, at least, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) was justified in calling attention to the importance of the subject, and to the inference that the Government dared not produce these Charges.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will cause to be procured and to be laid before this House, Copies of the Charges of Judges Harrison and
    1212
    Lawson, of the Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, and of Chief Justice May, at the recent Summer Assize in Ireland,"—(Lord Randolph Churchill,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not know whether he owed an apology to the noble Lord, but he was sure he did to the House, for an unfortunate reticence on his part, which had led the noble Lord to give the Chief Secretary and the House the benefit of his remarks at greater length than was expected. If those remarks had merely been addressed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it was not so much matter. The simple reason why he did not answer in the afternoon was because he did not think the Question was seriously intended. He did not repeat, what he had stated before, that he had no power in respect to these Judges' Charges to procure an official Report, and he thought it was generally understood that he had no authority to lay these Charges on the Table. They were not written documents. The noble Lord said they might be obtained from newspaper reports, after asking the Judges to correct them; but that, surely, was not the way to procure documents to lay on the Table. The noble Lord also stated that the Charges in the case of Election Petitions had been produced; but in those cases it was well understood beforehand that this was to be done, but it had never hitherto been done in the case of Judges' Charges to juries. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) could not undertake to produce them. He would be glad if they were produced, for there was nothing that he could not wish to make known. It was quite true that in former debates he referred to these Charges; but he quoted them from the newspapers, as the noble Lord had done; but it was out of his power to make them official documents, and it would be creating a remarkable precedent to do so. He would not detain the House at that time; he would only say it was not in his power to comply with the noble Lord's request. But as to a general debate on the state of Ireland, if the noble Lord wished to call it up, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) would be prepared at the proper time to meet it.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he recognized the noble Lord's sincerity when he desired that the English people should know the truth about Ireland, and he said that the truth was to be learned from the Judges' Charges. But then he picked out just three or four special Charges, and that was the way he would instruct the people of England on the state of Ireland. Now, he would beg leave to tell the noble Lord that when the English people wanted to be informed on the state of Ireland, the last place where they would get a true picture would be in the gloomy colouring of the Charges he had made the object of his Motion.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was not surprised that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not regarded the noble Lord's Question as serious, and he doubted if anyone in the House did. But he did not propose to detain the House on that subject; but he wished to point out that the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair was made in order that the House might go into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Votes, which numbered 115. Some of these were very different from others, and he wished to ask the Government if they had any objection to postpone five out of the number? These five involved very small sums; but they were distinctly of a contentious character, and a discussion upon them could not be taken at that hour. One of these Votes was for the Office of Privy Seal, for which the Government only asked £500. It was an Office which the Liberal Party a few years ago proposed to abolish when in Opposition, and a division was taken, in which the Motion was only defeated by a majority of 32. The other Votes he referred to were those for the Lord Lieutenant's Household, the Chief Secretary's Office, the Vote for Criminal Prosecutions (Ireland), and the Constabulary Vote. He thought the Government would see the application was reasonable; and, if granted, he thought there would be no opposition to going into Committee.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) complained that the noble Lord had selected only four Judges' Charges; but there was nothing unreasonable in that—[Interruptions.] He would be grateful to the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr.
    1214
    Dodds) if he would refrain from interruptions by means of inarticulate noises. The hon. Member was in the habit of doing this without, so far as he could judge, contributing anything to debates and discussions in the House. He would be glad if the hon. Member would control himself. The noble Lord had selected those Charges which contained a description of the state of things in Ireland at the present time, and which contained most reliable statements. However, as the Chief Secretary for Ireland had pointed out that it was out of his power to produce these Charges, he had no doubt that, under the circumstances, the noble Lord would not persevere with his Motion. But he might venture to remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in the answer he gave to the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham), he stated that these Charges were under the grave and serious consideration of the Government. Now, if that were so, as it was undoubtedly right it should be, and if there was no precedent, then it was worthy of serious consideration whether the Government were not justified in establishing a precedent for the future by taking such measures as would enable them, where it was necessary and proper, to lay these Charges on the Table of the House. The House had grave reason for anxiety. He recollected that at the close of last Session attention was called to the condition of Ireland, and statements and assurances had been given by the Government which had not been strictly fulfilled. And now they were approaching the end of another Session, and, under the circumstances, and considering the state in which Ireland was, the noble Lord, in calling attention to the subject, had done nothing but fulfilled a duty.
    MR. DODDSsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), as well as the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), had taken the liberty of referring to him (Mr. Dodds) personally in a manner which he conceived to be wholly unwarrantable. He called the House to witness how constantly they wasted valuable time in a way which, in the opinion of the great majority of the House, was wholly unjustifiable; and because he (Mr. Dodds), in common with many other hon. Members of that House, had, as they were perfectly justified in doing,

    1215
    in accordance with the established usage and practice of the House, expressed their disapprobation of such unwarrantable conduct, they had been subjected to those personal attacks by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire. Those hon. Members constantly and persistently wasted the time of the House in a most unwarrantable manner; and if, instead of that, they more frequently imitated him (Mr. Dodds) and other hon. Members and kept their seats, the Business of the country would make greater progress, and there would be no necessity for any manifestation of impatience. If every Member of the House abused its privileges in the same manner as the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire it would be impossible to transact any Business whatever. The noble Lord had, by his injudicious Amendment to the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," at that unseasonable hour—between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning—set up a windmill; and it was a humiliating spectacle to see the noble Lord crawling up the Gangway to his Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire, to get him to help him out of his difficulty, and knock it down by suggesting, as he had done, that the Motion should be withdrawn. He (Mr. Dodds) hoped that the House would not permit that groundless Amendment to be withdrawn, but would emphatically negative it, and thus mark their sense of the conduct pursued by the noble Lord and the hon. Member opposite.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not wish to interfere in a charming domestic quarrel with which he had nothing to do; but he expressed his personal regret that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been unable to comply with the request of the noble Lord. Those who knew Ireland would understand that many of these Judges' Charges were in the nature of prize essays in competition for the Land Commission; and, perhaps, now that was over, there would be less of these pictures with Salvator Rosa colouring. Those who understood the people of Ireland and the undercurrents of Irish life, and the movements that went on behind the judicial scenes, were perfectly aware why Mr. Justice Lawson and several other of the learned
    1216
    Judges indulged in these histrionic performances on the Judicial Bench. The production of these Charges would, if accompanied by something like a truthful description of the gyrations of those political personages when they were delivering their Charges, be a great advantage to the House. If the Charge delivered by Mr. Justice Lawson at the Kerry Assizes could have been given, with some comment on the excited tone in which it was delivered, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would have been able to bring before the House a Motion which it had long been his purpose and desire to introduce calling for the removal from the Bench of Mr. Justice Lawson and Mr. Justice Fitzgerald. He did not know whether he would include all the four Judges; but he would have moved for the prompt, if not the immediate, removal from the Bench of those two hot partizans, who went through those ignoble performances on the Bench in the hope of getting every bit of patronage.
    MR. MACARTNEYrose to Order, and asked whether it was competent for any Member of that House to speak in such disrespectful terms of the Judges of the land?
    MR. SPEAKER: The language of the hon. Member with reference to persons of high position and character is unguarded, to say the least of it; but I am not prepared to say that it is not within the bounds of Order.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would not have alluded to those Judges except for the noble Lord having spoken of them as trustworthy persons. They were the men who had been calumniating the character of their countrymen; and was he to be mealy-mouthed when he came to tell the House what he thought of these ermined partizans, who were running away with the character of their country? He did not think there would be many more such Judicial Charges now that the Government had bestowed the Commissioner-ships under the Land Bill, for the Judges would adopt a much milder tone, and their pictures of Irish life would be much less exaggerated.
    MR. HEALYobserved, that the Chief Secretary had said that he did not think the noble Lord, in asking his Question to-day, could be serious—and it was a most remarkable thing that whenever the Chief Secretary was put in an awk-

    1217
    ward position he did not think the question serious. That was his refuge. There was another remark made by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that this was not the time to bring this matter forward. That was the favourite method of meeting matters of this kind, and the Chief Secretary knew very well that there was no other opportunity but when the adjournment of the House was moved for Members to elicit information. It seemed to him that the time of the Chief Secretary never would come. He only wished it would; and, with regard to these particular Charges which the noble Lord, with his knowledge of Irish life, laid so much stress upon, the noble Lord knew that everything that was said by the Judges was rehearsed in the Privy Council. The way the little game was worked was this. The Government wished to suspend a province or a county, and the Privy Council and the Judges received the tip from the Chief Secretary, and the Judges then went down into the country and made a great cry about its condition, which they painted in the blackest hues they could. It was by these means that the Coercion Act was passed. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, at Cork, knew beforehand that it was the intention of the Government to apply for coercion, and he having blown the last trumpet in Cork, the Chief Secretary camp to the House and read long extracts out of his Charges. He put it to the noble Lord whether he ought to treat the Judges' Charges seriously? They were echoes of Dublin Castle, and ought only to be treated in that way.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHthought every hon. Member would agree that this discussion had lasted long enough; and, with regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), he should be very glad, if possible, to accept his proposition; but he felt that it would not be in his power to do so. The Votes referred to were taken on the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee of 1866 and 1867, who advised that Votes on Account should be taken for such Services as had already been sanctioned by Parliament. Therefore, it was not the fact that only such sums should be taken as were necessary. These Votes had been examined most carefully, and nothing had been asked
    1218
    for that was not required. The noble Lord had stated that there were contested Votes; but there would be exactly the same opportunity for testing these Votes whether these Votes were taken on account or not, and the hon. Member would have as good an opportunity of opposing any of the Votes when they were dealt with in Committee of Supply as if no Vote on Account were taken. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Member would be content to allow the Government to take a certain amount on these contested Votes.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he thought the House was entitled to ask the President of the Local Government Board for an answer to the appeal made to him by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) and the hon. Member for Mid Somersetshire (Mr. R. H. Paget). The Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill, no doubt, dealt with a subject of great interest, and was intended to remove a serious evil. It covered a great tract of country, and introduced into local taxation a principle of which—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not at liberty to discuss the merits of this Bill on the Motion before the House.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he was only desirous to learn from the President of the Local Government Board whether it was intended to proceed with the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill?
    MR. R. N. FOWLERwished to say one word in consequence of what fell from the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). That hon. Member had charged the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire with wasting the time of the House. With regard to the noble Lord, he would remind the hon. Member of an authority which he would respect—namely, the Prime Minister. In a debate last Session the Prime Minister had paid a high compliment to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock on the speech which he delivered upon the course taken by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), and other Members, in regard to the financial policy of the Government. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had been a Member of the Duke of Richmond's Commission,

    1219
    and he would appeal to the House whether the hon. Member was in the habit of wasting the time of the House?
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that with reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), he did not believe that the Judges did act in any way in concert with the Privy Council in getting up mock statements with regard to the state of the country. He believed that they stated the facts that appeared before them; but he was happy to say that in one part of Ireland, where the population was more loyal and industrious than in other parts, one Judge had had the agreeable task this year of receiving from the Sheriff a pair of white gloves. That was in the county which he himself represented.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the Government seemed to him to have acted in an erratic manner, and from some underhand motive, and to have obtained information unobservable by any one individual from any part of the outside world. He was very much opposed to these Votes being brought on at this time of the night; and he thought it would very much facilitate Business if the Government postponed the four or five Votes suggested by the hon. Member for Queen's County. The first Vote was for the Privy Seal, which was a Vote that could not be defended upon its merits, and he would suggest that the Government should agree to postpone the contested Votes. The Land Bill could not last more than another week, and on Monday those Votes could be properly discussed instead of having to be discussed twice over.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £2,345,600, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, viz.:—

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

    CIVIL SERVICES.
    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

    England:—

    £

    Colonial Office

    Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

    Privy Seal Office

    500

    Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

    20,000

    Charity Commission (including Endowed Schools Department)

    5,000

    Civil Service Commission

    5,000

    Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission

    2,000

    Inclosure and Drainage Acts Expenses

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    5,000

    Friendly Societies, Registry

    1,000

    Local Government Board

    25,000

    Lunacy Commission

    2,000

    Mint (including Coinage)

    15,000

    National Debt Office

    2,000

    Patent Office

    3,000

    Paymaster General's Office

    2,000

    Public Works Loan Commission

    1,500

    Record Office

    3,000

    Registrar General's Office (including Census)

    10,000

    Stationery and Printing

    40,000

    Woods, Forests, &c., Office of

    2,000

    Works and Public Buildings, Office of Secret Service

    5,000

    Scotland:—

    Exchequer and other Office

    500

    Fishery Board

    1,000

    Lunacy Commission

    500

    Registrar General's Office (including Census)

    2,000

    Board of Supervision

    10,000

    Ireland:—

    Lord Lieutenant's Household

    1,500

    Chief Secretary's Office

    7,000

    Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

    300

    Local Government Board

    30,000

    Public Works Office

    10,000

    Record Office

    1,000

    Registrar General's Office (including Census)

    2,000

    Valuation and Boundary Survey

    5,000

    MR. DILLWYNsaid, after the discussion that had taken place, he did not wish to occupy time beyond saying that he unwillingly assented to taking Votes on Account, and always had objected to a course that gave the possibility of Supply being put off to the very end of the Session. He hoped the Government would not make use of this power. He was aware that the Government on this occasion were not to blame for the delay in Supply, and that the circumstances were altogether exceptional; but he could not avoid expressing his opinion that if Supply were taken in a more business-like manner the necessity for Votes on Account would not arise.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would not divide the Committee on the Vote; but if any other hon. Member

    1223
    had felt it his duty to do so, he would have supported him. He endorsed the remarks of the hon. Member for Swansea, and protested against a system that relegated to the last week of the Session Votes which the Committee were then not in a position to scrutinize. The Prime Minister had said Votes did not obtain the scrutiny they deserved; and he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was convinced that a needless burden was thrown on the public by the fact that details of the expenditure by Public Departments were not investigated as they ought to be by the Committee. He thought he might lay claim to moderation when he abstained from a detailed criticism, for he had very strong feelings with regard to the Votes he had already mentioned. He would put aside the Irish Votes, which he thought he should be justified in challenging in any case, and refer only to one Vote. When the Party opposite were in Opposition they were prepared to do away with the Office of Privy Seal, and it was only retained by a majority of 32. It was this Vote that he sought the opportunity of challenging, and he thought it was hardly reasonable for the Government to refuse the postponement of the five Votes he had asked for.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he recognized the moderation with which the hon. Member had urged his request, and he should have been glad if, without inconvenience to the Public Service, he could have acceded to the postponement. But he reminded the hon. Member that he would, in a short time, have the opportunity of raising the discussion he desired.
    MR. HEALYsaid, as there had been a lengthened discussion on Supply, his remarks should be few. There was a Vote for Secret Service, and he wished to know how it was possible to make any practical use of this, seeing the unskilful manner in which those who were set to do the work of spies went about their business. It was usual to set spies on the houses of Irish Members; but this was done in such an unskilful manner that it was perfectly obvious to those concerned that they were being watched. How was it possible for the detectives, and those who got blood-money, to be of any use in hunting up murderers of the Lefroy description when they carried on their system in such
    1224
    a manner that the objects of their attention were perfectly conscious of what was going on? He did not so much complain that the Home Office should have an interest in watching his movements, and perhaps Irish Members might find interest in setting a watch on the private habits of Members of the Government; but he could not think the detective system was efficient, when even such unsuspecting persons as Irish Members knew exactly when the spying was carried on. But when the time arrived he would refer to this—his point now was this. The other night they had a discussion on the Public Works (Ireland) Department, and the burden thrown upon it by the Land Bill; and he asked the noble Lord whether they should have any opportunity of discussing the Board of Works and the proposed scheme of reform, and the noble Lord told him they would not.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the discussion would be on the Vote, not on the scheme of reform.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was told there was no scheme of reform. Now, he complained that they were induced to pass a certain class of Bills on the representation that reforms would be carried out in the Board; that changes, at all events, would be made in the Office. The noble Lord's answer was that the Board would be strengthened; but he now understood that the strengthening was merely the addition of another Commissioner, and this appointment was absolutely necessary to bring matters within the legal provisions of an Act of Parliament. The Board had actually been below its legal strength. When the subject came on for discussion he should offer a few remarks upon it, when, perhaps, the noble Lord would be better prepared. There was another feature he desired to mention in connection with the Registrar General's Department, which was concerned in the preparation of the Census Returns. It was astonishing that the English Department issued their Abstract so much earlier than the Irish Abstract was issued. It was much to the credit of the English Department that they did this, considering the amount of work in each case. In connection with the Census of 1871, he had occasion to speak with a gentleman in the Irish Census Department, and asked him when he

    1225
    thought all the Returns would be out? His reply was characteristic. He said, with judicious management, he thought they might be made to last four or five years more, and this was two years after the Census.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he might be allowed to remark that this year the Irish Abstract was out first.
    MR. HEALYsaid, if that were so, he was glad to hear it. All he could say was that he had had the English Census delivered among his Parliamentary Papers, but not the Irish. Another point he desired to question was the Irish Law Charges and costs for prosecutions. There was no information as to the cost of the State Trials, and he would like to know from the Attorney General for Ireland if any statement could yet be given, before the matter came on for discussion? It was seven or eight months since the trials, and it was not too much to ask now for some idea of the cost.
    House resumed.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL— [Lords.]
  (Mr. Mundella.)
  VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL— [Lords.]

    [BILL 214.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Mundella.)
    Dr. LYONSdesired to remind the Government of the necessity of a Veterinary College for Ireland. Ireland stood very much in need of veterinary surgeons, and strong representations had been made to the Government on the subject; and he begged to ask on behalf of many persons interested, whether the Government could give any assurance that they would advise the issue of a Charter for an Irish Veterinary College?
    Mr. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the entire question was before the Lord Lieutenant for consideration; he was not aware that the question would be raised now. He was not prepared to say the Government would advise the issue of the Charter.
    MR. HEALYasked the Vice President of the Council if he would postpone the Bill for a day or two?
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the provisions of the Bill were well known, and it had been amply discussed in the other House. He hoped the second reading might now be taken. He might add that it was as much in the interests of the owners of cattle and of humanity as of veterinary surgeons.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, the Bill contained one highly objectionable clause, which would allow a man who simply had practised for some years, though without any qualification whatever, to represent himself as duly qualified. He did think that such a clause should b e expunged, and he believed the President of the Veterinary College had drawn attention to the point.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that was really a question for Committee; but, at the same time, he might say that the President of the College had called upon him, and had urged him to take charge of the Bill. There was a clause that would allow a man, who had practised for five years, to continue that practice hereafter; and he thought that such a term of practice argued that a man was qualified.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.— [BILL 204.]
  (Lord Frederick Cavendish, Mr. John Holms.)
  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.— [BILL 204.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he hoped the House would allow this Annual Bill to be now read. There were various points to be raised in Committee, and that stage would be fixed at a time to allow of discussion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
    Mr. FIRTHhoped the Bill would be read a second time now; but he wished to call attention to the fact that it contained the power to raise—4,500,000, and this had never been discussed by the Representatives of the people of London. There were a number of items

    1227
    contained in it that required the closest criticism, and a number of charges which it was questionable whether the Board of Works should have the power to incur. Among the items were £300,000 for the Artizans' Dwellings Act, the whole effect of which was now being considered by a Committee; an expenditure of £1,500,000 for street improvements, which the Board were not likely to proceed with; an enormous sum for bridges, and a power to lend £50,000 to the Asylums Board, for purposes condemned by all parts of London. But these matters could not be discussed now. He would, therefore, call attention to the necessity of having these matters discussed by some body representing the ratepayers, who had to find the money Half-past 2 was not the hour to discuss a Bill dealing with £4,500,000. He hoped the Bill would be read a second time; but he wished to protest against the system, and to take the opportunity of pointing out the necessity of having these matters discussed by a representative body, without the House being troubled with them.
    MR. MONKsaid, this was not a proper hour to discuss the Bill, and thought the discussion would be more appropriate on the Committee stage than on the second reading. There were matters that might well be considered in a small Select Committee, and he should be glad if the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) would agree to send the Bill to a Select Committee before the House was asked to give its assent to so large an expenditure as £4,500,000 by the Metropolitan Board of Works.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he was glad that opposition was not offered to the second reading. The matters contained in the Bill had already been submitted to Parliament, and every possible facility given for discussion. He might point out that by means of this Annual Money Bill, which was introduced a few years ago, the House had the means of discussing the matters twice over, and, in fact, a double cheek. As to the one or two matters mentioned by the hon. Member for Chelsea, he would be glad to discuss them in Committee. The two bridges which it was proposed to rebuild, were fast tumbling down, and if not rebuilt must cost a continual expenditure in patching up. The other items were in respect to
    1228
    schemes that already received the sanction of Parliament, and which the Board was bound to carry out. As to the suggestion for a Select Committee, he hoped that would not be pressed, for, if adopted, the Bill might be prevented from passing this Session.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION (re-committed) BILL— [Lords.] (Mr. Dodson.)

    [BILL 120.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. CHAPLINasked the Government what were their real intentions with regard to this Bill? Did they really mean to proceed with it this Session? He was quite aware that, at an earlier part of the Sitting, the President of the Local Government Board said that was his intention; but after he made that statement the Government must have observed that great opposition was manifested towards the Bill—opposition coming from both sides of the House. When private Members consented to surrender their own days for the rest of the Session, they did so to facilitate the progress of the Irish Land Bill and all necessary measures—nothing else—and it was also on the distinct understanding that the Session should not be unduly prolonged by taking measures upon which any considerable controversy would arise. Now, he would ask the Government, after the manifestations displayed this evening, and seeing that there were 10 Notices of opposition to the measure on the Paper, whether this Bill did not come within the category of controversial matter; and if, under the circumstances, they really intended to proceed with it this Session? He asked this question for the information and on behalf of many Members not then present; and he might say for himself that the objection he entertained for the measure as originally introduced had been, to a great extent, removed by the changes that had been made in it. But, whatever might be his own view, that did not alter the fact that, having regard to the Notices on the Paper, the Bill was certainly of a controversial character; and he hoped that, under the

    1229
    circumstances, the Government would reconsider their decision, and not proceed with the Bill that Session.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, it was not a strong opposition.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the Government would do well to take very little notice of what the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire called "manifestations" in the House that evening. It was within his (Mr. Arthur Arnold's) knowledge that during the last 48 hours no fewer than 80 Members belonging to both sides of the House bad signed a letter to the Prime Minister, begging him to go on with the measure. With this expression of strong support he hoped the Government would proceed with the measure.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, the opposition to the Bill came from a very small minority of Members, and he sincerely trusted the Government would not give way to it. Let them remember the enormous number of poor struggling tradesmen, labouring people, and tenant farmers who were suffering each year from the want of some such measure. He certainly looked upon it as a Bill so important that the House should remain in Session until it was passed, and as only second in importance to that Bill upon which the House had been so long engaged.
    MR. DODDSsaid, he hoped the Government would not listen to the admonitions of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire with reference to the Bill, but would rather listen to the advice of their own Friends.
    MR. LEEMANexpressed his astonishment at the slur east upon the Government by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire in regard to this measure.
    Mr. CHAPLINsaid, he cast no slur upon the Government; he merely reminded them that they had undertaken not to proceed with measures of controversy.
    MR. LEEMANsaid, this Bill was one which affected the whole of England very materially, and he trusted the Government would not be inclined for one moment to refrain from adhering to their intention.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER, referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton, mentioned that the Bill was blocked by four Members, who were usually supporters of the Government.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, there was a very strong feeling in favour of the Bill being proceeded with; and if it was possible to carry the Bill through, his right hon. Friend and the Government would endeavour to pass it.
    MR. DUCKHAMsaid, that, whatever might be the feeling of the Government, there was a very strong feeling throughout the country against the Bill. It had been discussed very freely and fully at the Central Chamber of Agriculture a few months ago, and a unanimous opinion had been expressed in opposition to the measure.
    EARL PERCYsaid, that, after the speech just made, he should like to ask the Government, not whether any Members were in favour of the Bill, but whether there was a distinct expression of feeling against the Bill by a respectable section of the House, not animated by Obstruction, and whether the measure had not come, therefore, under the description of contentious matter? He was strongly in favour of Members using all the power they had to prevent a measure being proceeded with if they objected to it, after the promise which had been given by the Government.
    Committee deferred till Thursday.

  SUMMARY PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL— [Lords.]
  (The Lord Advocate.)
  SUMMARY PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL— [Lords.]

    [BILL 216.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that, looking to the fact that the Government had withdrawn the Teinds Bill because hon. Gentlemen had threatened to oppose it at every stage, he would ask the Government whether the time had not come for moving that the second reading of this Bill should be discharged? He announced that if the Government did not take that course by Thursday next, he himself should move the discharge.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)stated that this was a Bill to extend to Scotland the provisions of the Sununary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who, he believed, had intended to extend it to Scotland.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEobserved, that the Bill was not in the hands of Members, and he therefore thought it would

    1231
    be wrong to go on with the second reading.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)admitted that, technically, that was the fact; but copies of the Bill had been printed for the House of Lords, and had been procured by hon. Members. Of course, it was in the power of the hon. Member to postpone the Bill on that ground; but he thought his object would be met by allowing the Bill to be read a second time, and then he (the Lord Advocate) would be willing to defer the further stages.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, there were strong objections to the Bill on the part of some of the Procurators Fiscal, and he thought it would be better that the Bill should be in the hands of Members before it was discussed.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that in order to give an opportunity for Members to see the Bill, he moved the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Colonel Alexander,)—put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES LOANS EXTENSION BILL— [Lords.]— [BILL 213.]
  (Mr. Monk.)
  INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES LOANS EXTENSION BILL— [Lords.]— [BILL 213.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. MONK, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was simply a Bill enabling the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to extend the time for the repayment of loans advanced to incumbents of benefices for one, two, or three years, in consequence of the agricultural depression throughout the country, which had affected the clergy as well as other classes of the community. The Bill had been passed through the House of Lords, and he hoped the second reading would be agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Monk.)
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORdid not think it was right at that time of night to allow the Bill to be read a second time. As he
    1232
    understood from the hon. Member opposite, this Bill allowed the interference of the Government—
    MR. MONK: No; it is simply to allow the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to postpone the period of repayment of sums lent by them to poor clergy.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not know what the character of Queen Anne's Bounty was; but he took it that it was, to some extent, a representative body. The principle which the hon. Gentleman wished to fix in this Bill was that a certain body, more or less a State body, should interfere between—or, at least, that the State should forego—well, at least, to give a respite for the payment of debts due to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty. If that was a private body, the object of the Bill was to interfere between a private body and its debtors. That was a principle, he was glad to find, which had received acceptance in "another place," because it was not a principle which usually commended itself to Legislators; but, all the same, he thought that 3 o'clock in the morning was rather too late to ask for the sanction to a proposal of such importance. The hon. Member had alluded to agricultural depression, and he hoped that House would always show the same keen appreciation of distress, because, whenever an Irish Member tried to bring before the House the distress suffered by a poorer body than the English clergy, the cheers were swelled by the hon. Member for Gloucester when the House refused to allow the State to interfere. As a protest, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. T. P. O' Connor.)
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not obstruct this Bill. A Bill of a similar character was before the House—namely, the Seeds Bill, the object of which was to give some extension of time to Irish tenants who were unable to meet their debts to the State. The Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty were emphatically a public body responsible to the State, and the object of the Bill was only a postponement of the repayment of sums lent to men who had been severely handled during the distress.
    MR. WARTONhoped the Motion would not be pressed.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, his object having been sufficiently accomplished, he would withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

MOTION.
  SEED SUPPLY AND OTHER ACTS (IRE- LAND) AMENDMENT BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to make provision for the payment by reduced instalments of loans under "The Seed Supply (Ireland) Act, 1880," and for other purposes, said, that a large sum of money had been advanced for the purchase of seed in Ireland; but it had been found that some of the Unions to whom the money had been advanced desired to postpone the repayment. The object of this Bill was to enable the Boards of Guardians, with the assent of the Local Government Board, to obtain a division of repayment over a period of two years of every sum due in one year. The effect would be that, while there were a certain number of Unions making their payments this year, and others, whose payments were postponed till next year, those who had to repay this year would have their payments divided into moieties, one this year and one next year, and those whose payments had been postponed till next year would repay in four years instead of two. The only other provision in the Bill was to remove a difficulty which had not been foreseen. Power was taken to grant money to some Boards of Guardians, while the provision for giving outdoor relief was in force. That provision had ceased, and grants of money could not be made unless this Bill was accepted. He hoped the Bill would receive the general agreement of the House.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to make provision for the payment by reduced instalments of Loans under "The Seed Supply (Ireland) Act, 1880;" and to amend and explain "The Relief of Distress (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1880," and "The Local Government Board (Ireland) Act, 1872," ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD
    1234
    FORSTER, Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 217.]
    House adjourned at Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, Amendment (118–166); Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act (1855) Amendment* (131); Sale and Use of Poisons* (159), discharged.
Committee—Report—Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (126).
Third Reading—Commons Regulation (Shenfield) Provisional Order* (132); Alsager Chapel (Marriages)* (153), and passed.
Royal Assent—Newspapers [44 & 45 Vict. c. 19]; Married Women's Property (Scotland) [44 & 45 Vict. c. 21]; Post Office (Land) [44 & 45 Vict. c. 20]; Bankruptcy and Cessio (Scotland) [44 & 45 Vict. c. 22]; Court of Bankruptcy (Ireland) (Officers and Clerks) [44 & 45 Vict. c. 23]; Summary Jurisdiction (Process) [44 & 45 Vict. c. 24]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Askern, &c.) [44 & 45 Vict. c. xcviii]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Horfield, &c.) [44 & 45 Vict. c. xcix]; Inclosure Provisional Orders (Thurstaston Common) [44 & 45 Vict. c. c]; Land Drainage Provisional Orders [44 & 45 Vict. c. ci]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Birmingham, Tame, and Rea, &c.) [44 & 45 Vict. c. cii]; Gas Provisional Order [44 & 45 Vict.c. ciii]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation [44 & 45 Vict. civ]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) [44 & 45 Vict. c. cv].

RAILWAYS—CONTINUOUS BRAKES.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to call attention to the Parliamentary Return ending 31st December 1880, relative to railway continuous brakes;
  1102
  and to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to enforce the regulations of the Board of Trade? said, the subject was one that had lately attracted much attention, and he should not have brought it forward again but for the unsatisfactory nature of the Returns just issued. It would be remembered that in 1878 an Act was passed that made it compulsory for Railway Companies to send in Returns every six months specifying the kind of brakes used by them, and the number of carriages and engines fitted with brakes, with other particulars on the subject. Previously to this the Board of Trade had made a very careful investigation into the question of railway brakes, acting in accordance with the recommendation of the Railway Accidents Commission; and in 1877 a Circular was issued by the Board, which referred to the little progress which had been made by the Companies even in—
  "The first step of agreeing upon what are the requirements which in their opinion are essential to a good continuous brake."
  The Circular then proceeded to specify certain conditions or requirements for an efficient brake, which were these—
  "The brakes to be efficient in stopping trains, instantaneous in their action, and capable of being applied without difficulty by engine-drivers or guards.
  "In case of accidents to be instantaneously self-acting.
  "The brakes to be put on and taken off with facility on the engine, and every vehicle in the train.
  "The brakes to be regularly used in daily working.
  "The materials employed to be of a durable character, so as to be easily maintained and kept in order."
  Such were the conditions laid down by the Board of Trade as indispensable for an efficient brake. This took place in 1877. It was then added in this Circular—
  "There can be no reason for further delay, and the Board of Trade feel it their duty again to urge upon the Railway Companies the necessity for arriving at an immediate decision and united action in the matter."
  But what had been done? These Returns of the Railway Companies had been carefully and periodically made; but he regretted to say that they showed comparatively but little progress. It was true there were some of the

  1103
  large Companies which were conspicuous for the good example they had set. The Brighton and South Coast Railway, among these, were successfully employing efficient continuous brakes—the Westinghouse—throughout their system. He might also mention the North-Eastern, the Great Western, and the Midland Companies, as taking active steps to comply with the requirements of the Board of Trade; also the Glasgow and South Western and North British, in Scotland. But if they looked to the general result, as shown by the last Return to the 31st of December, 1880, they would arrive at a very unsatisfactory conclusion, which was this—that of the 61 English Companies, there were only 10 which had in use any brakes that fully complied with the requirements of the Board of Trade; of the eight Scotch Companies five so complied, but of the 21 Irish Companies, not one complied. Thus, of the 90 Companies of the United Kingdom, there were only 15 who had complied to some extent with the requirements of the Board of Trade. But from these 15 must be deducted those whose compliance was little more than a matter of form, running only a few trains with continuous brakes, as if only to show by the Returns that they were giving them a trial. Among these were the Great Northern, the Lancashire and Yorkshire, the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, the London and South-Western, the London, Chatham, and Dover—all of them important lines. Thus, as appeared by the Return, the Great Northern had only four engines and 35 carriages fitted with brakes as required by the Board of Trade; the London, Chatham, and Dover had only six engines and 31 carriages so fitted; the South-Western had only two engines and 10 carriages so fitted. It furthur appeared that the London and North-Western, one of the most important lines, had from the first made no attempt to adopt a brake as recommended by the Board of Trade, and were now compelled to admit that the brake which they had been using was a failure. Upon the whole it would appear that there were only about seven Companies out of 90 who were actively carrying out the recommendations of the Board of Trade, and the number of passenger carriages so fitted with continuous brakes amounted to 11 per cent of the
  1104
  passenger carriages in the United Kingdom. He thought, therefore, there was but one conclusion at which they could arrive, which was that the repeated warnings and recommendations of the Board of Trade had hitherto failed to produce any real effect upon the great bulk of Railway Companies in the United Kingdom with reference to the use of continuous brakes. These facts would bear him out in the appeal which he wished to make to Her Majesty's Government as to the course which they intended to pursue. There were differences of opinion as to what was the best kind of brake, and this was not a matter which could be discussed with advantage in their Lordships' House. It was a matter which Railway Companies ought themselves to decide as they had the means and opportunities of doing so; but he would urge that the time was come when some decision ought to be arrived at, either individually or collectively, by Railway Companies, that an efficient brake in accordance with admitted principles of construction should be adopted. The question had been much considered, and many eminent engineers and others had expressed their opinions with regard to it. He believed there was not one of them who would not say that efficient railway brakes were essential, not only on the ground of utility, but also for the actual safety of the public. Railway Companies deserved praise for the manner in which their lines were conducted generally; but with regard to the mechanical appliances to which he had drawn attention, they ought, he held, to bestir themselves. Voluntary action on their part would be preferable to Parliamentary interference. The noble Earl concluded by asking, Whether the Government proposed to take any steps to enforce the regulations of the Board of Trade, and whether they would lay on the Table of the House a Copy of any Correspondence between that Department and the Railway Companies?
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, he would not attempt to follow the noble Earl through his detailed analysis of the Return; but he thought it would, perhaps, have been fairer not merely to have stated that only seven out of 90 Companies were carrying out the recommendations of the Board of Trade, but to have shown the number of carriages and engines

  1105
  fitted with continuous brakes. An examination of the Returns relating to continuous brakes on railway trains showed that 1,645 engines and 17,654 carriages used in passenger trains were so fitted on the 31st of December, 1880; or, in other words, that of the entire stock used in passenger traffic 33 per cent of the engines and 41 per cent of the carriages were fitted with continuous brakes, and that 10 per cent of such fittings were effected during the year 1880. Although some of the Companies had wholly and others partially adopted a brake which fully complied with the conditions specified in the Schedule to the Railway Returns (Continuous Brakes) Act, 1878, yet others, and notably one of the largest Companies, used brakes which did not fulfil the suggestions contained in the Board of Trade Circular of 1877 with regard to continuous brakes. The Board of Trade had been in communication with the London and North-Western Railway Company, who up to the present time had not adopted a continuous brake, but used a sectional brake. They were informed by that Company that the chairman (Mr. Moon) had a meeting with several of the chairmen of the largest Railway Companies, and the result of that interview was that directions were given to the locomotive superintendent of the London and North-Western Railway to consult with the locomotive superintendents of some of the other Lines in the matter. The first question to which that committee devoted itself, as shown in a letter from Mr. Webb, the locomotive superintendent of the London and North-Western Railway, of the 10th of March last, was to obtain a standard coupling which would make it possible for the carriages of one Company to interchange with the carriages of another Company, whatever continuous air-brake they might have adopted. In the opinion of the London and North-Western Railway Company, an universal coupling was the principal thing to be brought about to insure the interchangeability of stock. The Board of Trade were informed that when the question of this coupling should have been arranged, there was every reason to believe that the London and North-Western Railway Company would see their way to adopting a continuous air-brake of some description. Although the Company were
  1106
  not in a position to give any pledge on the subject, yet the negotiations were being actively pressed forward, and there was reason to hope that before many months should have passed a great stride would have taken place with regard to the use of continuous brakes all over the United Kingdom. In these circumstances, and while fully recognizing the necessity for continuous brakes for providing for the safety of the travelling public, the Board of Trade did not think it desirable at the present moment to take any further steps in the matter. The inquiries into the accidents of the last few months had again shown that many of them might have been mitigated, if not altogether prevented, had continuous brakes been adopted; and that fact, combined with the pressure of public opinion, and with the fact that the Board of Trade were urging on the Companies to allow no delay in the matter, would, it was hoped, bring about the end which the noble Lord bad in view, and would prevent the necessity of any further legislation in the matter.
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSSsaid, he thought that the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) had gone out of his way in complaining of the Great Northern Railway Company, as instead of that Company having done less than any other in England, it had, in his opinion, done more to fulfil the wishes of the noble Earl than any other Company. Ninety per cent of their carriages were fitted with continuous brakes. A few weeks ago 12 railway engineers, representing the London and North-Western Railway, the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway, the Great Northern Railway, the South-Eastern Railway, the Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland), the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, the London and South-Western Railway, the Midland Railway, the Great Western Railway, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, and the Metropolitan Railway, had met to consider the question of continuous brakes, and their expressed impression was that the simple vacuum brake became spoilt when converted into an automatic brake. Vacuum brakes, however, could be made automatic at an expense of £10 in the case of an engine and of £5 in the case of a carriage. The London and North-Western Railway Company had given

  1107
  up the chain brake, and, like the other Companies, were going to adopt the simple vacuum brake.
  LORD HOUGHTON, speaking on behalf of Railway Companies with which he was connected, said, they greatly appreciated the manner in which the Board of Trade had exercised its powers. Had those powers been enforced with pragmatic severity, the cause of railway science would have suffered seriously. He submitted that they had every reason to be satisfied with the progress which had been already made in the use of continuous brakes, and in the case of the Company with which he was chiefly connected, everything desired by the noble Earl opposite would soon be carried into effect.
  LORD NORTONobserved that, though 90 per cent of railway carriages might be now fitted with continuous brakes, the question was rather what number of Railway Companies might have adopted those improvements; and it would be but small satisfaction to people living on lines where the insecure 10 per cent of carriages were used, to know that in other parts of the Kingdom the lives of travellers were in less danger. He thought the noble Earl opposite (Earl De La Warr) was incorrect in stating that the Act of 1878 prescribed any particular form of brake. On the contrary, the Board of Trade had wisely abstained from doing so. Its Circular, issued in 1877, called upon the Railway Companies to state what brakes they used, in order to bring the subject before the public; but it had not directed the use of any one brake lest it should take upon Government a dangerous responsibility, and practically preclude the adoption of mechanical improvements. The Westinghouse brake, which was generally considered the best at that time, had been already improved upon three or four times. Nor was it the case that the Board had laid it down imperatively that brakes should be continuous and automatic, though five specific qualities were declared in their opinion to be required, a deficiency in any of which would entail a heavy responsibility on the Company in the event of an accident by collision. The progress made in brakes might be slow; but he thought, on the whole, that any imperative Parliamentary action would make it slower. All that could be done
  1108
  was to call the attention of the public to the subject, require annual statements of what was being done to be published, and leave the Companies to find out the best brake to be used.

MILLS AND FACTORIES (INDIA)— LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYasked the Under Secretary for India, Whether any Bill for the regulation of labour in mills and factories in India has been brought in by the Supreme Government?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD, in reply, said, that an Act to regulate labour in factories had been passed, and had received the assent of the Governor General on the 15th of April this year. It applied to the whole of British India, and was compulsory therein. Its chief provisions were—the determination of the age of children employed, seven years being the minimum; the limitation of the hours of employment to nine hours, with one hour's interval of rest; the prohibition of the employment of children on certain dangerous work; the fencing of dangerous machinery; the reporting of accidents, and the appointment of Government Inspectors. While, however, the Act applied to the whole of British India, some discretion was left to local Governments to make their own rules regarding the fencing of dangerous machinery, ventilation, inspection, hearing of appeals, sanitary, and minor matters. The Act regulated Crown Factories, except in certain emergencies; but indigo factories and tea and coffee plantations were exempt. He might add that the restrictions on the hours of labour applied to children only.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT, 1880, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 118.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT, 1880, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 118.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Amendment of s. 3 of 43 & 44 Vic. c. 35).
  On the Motion of Lord ABERDARE, Amendments made, in page 1, line 23, by leaving out ("or taken"); line 25, by leaving out ("or taking"); line 27, by leaving out ("or taken"); by leaving out lines 28 and 29.
  LORD WALSINGHAM, in moving, in page 1, line 18, after ("repealed")

  1109
  to insert ("save and except any wild bird named in the schedule annexed unto the said Act"); and after line 29, to insert:—
  "(3.) Provided always, that the present Act shall not apply to any wild bird named in the schedule annexed unto the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880,"
  said, that if the Act passed in its present shape it would be practically doing away with all protection to wild birds, and particularly wild duck, snipes, and plovers. His Amendments would leave to owners and occupiers of land the right to dispose of such birds as they had now a right to kill on their own ground, such as rooks, pigeons, and so forth; but they would tend to maintain the protection extended to wild fowl and other birds named in the schedule of the Act of 1880.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, he understood the noble Earl to say that foreign wild birds could be sold under the Act unless it was amended, and that would open the door to selling native birds.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he agreed that unless some Amendment of this kind were made the Act might be evaded and the birds left unprotected.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 166.)

ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND— THE SCHEME OF THE SENATE.

  QUESTION.
  EARL CAIRNS, who had the following Notice on the Paper:—
  "To ask Her Majesty's Government Whether the scheme for the organization of the Royal University, Ireland, has been presented to this House, and, if so, why it has not been printed; and whether, before any Bill is introduced affecting the surplus funds of the Irish Church an estimate will be laid before Parliament of the amount which will be appropriated for the Royal Irish University, showing the expenditure estimated under separate heads? "
  said, since he had given Notice of this Question, he had ascertained that the scheme for the organization of the Royal University was presented by the Senate to this House in the last Parliament; and that, although it was not printed at the time, copies had been supplied to the House since then. He would, therefore, confine his Question to the latter
  1110
  part of the Notice. What he wanted to ask the Government was this—a scheme had been prepared and money would be required to work it. No statement had been made as to the amount which would be appropriated. He should like to ask whether the Government could produce any estimate of the amount of money which would be required to carry out the proposed scheme?
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, before answering the Question of the noble and learned Earl, he should like to say one word about the nature of the scheme. It did not appear, as he understood it, that the scheme had any binding force whatever upon anyone. He did not understand that the scheme had any legislative character whatever. It was, of course, of great importance on account of the information which it conveyed to the Government and to Parliament, but no legislative power was contained in the scheme. It was possible that the germ of legislation would be found in it; but the matter must come before Parliament in the shape of statutes, rules, and orders, which would be made by the Senate of the University as soon as they were aware of the means which would be at their disposal; and, under the Act of Parliament of 1879 and under the Charter, these rules and orders, before they had any validity, would require the Royal Assent under the Sign Manual, and would have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Thus by the provisions of the Act of Parliament and the Charter, both the Government and Parliament would have very ample means of control over the action of the University. If, indeed, the scheme had anything in it essentially objectionable, or if the Senate of the University had violated the conditions laid down in the Act of 1879, it would before now have been the duty of Her Majesty's Government to make objections, and the Senate would have no power of revising the scheme or of presenting a new scheme; but, as a matter of fact, Her Majesty's Government had not found it necessary to make any objections of the kind. All that could be said against the scheme, he thought, was that there was, perhaps, a certain amount of largeness in it, an apparent want of limit, which, it might be, would require some notice and control on the part of the Government. He thought

  1111
  the noble and learned Earl did not need to have much occasion for alarm, because the Government and Parliament had control over the rules and orders which might be hereafter made with respect to the standard of examination; and if that standard was not sufficiently high it would not be accepted. The prizes would depend upon the standard to be selected, and the standard would be included in the rules and orders. The Government would shortly be prepared to lay before Parliament, both in their Lordships' House and in the House of Commons, a communication with the Royal University, stating the sum which the Government would propose to Parliament as sufficient for the University, and expressing the views of the Government upon the scheme and the allocation of the funds. At the same time, he would say that he thought it would not be well to pledge the Government as to details in a matter of this kind. He thought that the document which he should shortly be able to lay before Parliament would plainly show what was the opinion of the Government on the subject, and he believed it would satisfy the noble and learned Earl and others who felt interested in the matter.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Lord that the scheme communicated by the Senate had no binding effect of itself; but, of course, if the Government were to present that scheme to Parliament, and to accompany it with a request that Parliament would provide out of the Church Surplus, or any other fund, a certain amount of money to give effect to that scheme, that would, of course, be an endorsement, in the first place, by Her Majesty's Government, and, in the second place, by Parliament, of the scheme of the Senate. If the Government were able to lay the communication on the Table, it would be so far satisfactory.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that was what he understood. The Government and Parliament would be perfectly free to deal with the rules and orders of the University when they came before them.
  LORD EMLYsaid, he had put a Question the other evening to his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal as to whether the Government would undertake to put the Senate of the Royal Irish University in a position to hold their matriculation examination during the present year.
  1112
  His noble Friend stated that the Government would do so; but he thought there was some misapprehension out-of-doors on the subject. He would be much obliged if his noble Friend would now repeat the statement he made the other evening.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he was not aware how there could be any doubt about his words. He had said that it was the intention of the Government within a very short time to bring in a Bill for the purpose of simply charging an annual sum on the Irish Church Fund for the Royal Irish University.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.