Sitting of 21 June 1881

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Herring Brand (Scotland) [No. 293].
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Land Law (Ireland) [135]—R.P.; Coroners (Ireland) (re-comm.) * [187]—R.P.
Report—Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1)* [167]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* [168].
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Acton, &c.) * [159]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* [161]; Summary Jurisdiction (Process)* [179], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER—THE HALFPAST TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he desired to put a Question to the Speaker on a point of Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had a Motion down for the Evening Sitting, the second part of which was intended to draw attention to the operation of the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule. The adjourned debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) on the same subject was
  982
  fixed for Friday night; and he wished to know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow would be in Order in anticipating in any way that debate?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have not had an opportunity of comparing the two Motions to which the noble Lord refers; but my impression is that there is a considerable difference between them. The question of Order will more properly arise when the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow is brought forward; and, meanwhile, I will inform myself upon it.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.
  MR. HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he can, before the end of the Session, lay upon the Table of this House a Statement of the number of acres thrown out of cultivation in each of the several counties in England and Wales?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, that some time ago, in answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), he promised that he would lay upon the Table, simultaneously with the Agricultural Returns, a Statement as to Unoccupied Farms and Holdings. He fancied this would give the hon. Member all the information he desired; and he hoped the Returns would be in the hands of hon. Members certainly not later than the beginning of September

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CARROWAN, BOHOLA, CO. MAYO.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER (for Mr. PARNELL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the eviction of Thomas Leonard, of Carrowan, Bohola, county Mayo, who was evicted, with five in family, by Mr. Malachy Tushy, of Ballintubber, Castlebar, county Mayo, on May 13th, who, with his family, have been sleeping in an outhouse where the rain comes in, as the police patrol the grounds at night to prevent them from sleeping in the house, and they are in consequence living in the yard attached to it; and, whether the police have a right to move persons by force from an empty house of which the door is left open?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the Constabulary authorities had

  983
  informed him that Thomas Leonard, with his wife and three children, were evicted from his holding on the 13th of May for non-payment of rent. He was a sub-tenant, and was evicted at the same time as the tenant. He slept in the house of his brother-in-law. His family slept in the house from which they were evicted, and none of them slept in an outhouse. In reference to the question of the police patrolling the grounds at night to prevent them sleeping in the house, they did not patrol on that account, but on this account. The night after the eviction, 13 head of cattle, the property of the landlord, were driven off the farm, and were recovered with great difficulty. On the same night his herd's house was attacked by a number of armed men, who took the herd out of bed, brought him outside, and cautioned him not to look after anything belonging to the tyrant, or they would come back and finish him.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARREST OF MR. H. O'MAHONY.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Henry O'Mahony, Poor Law Guardian, was on the 4th instant rescued from the police in the village of Ballydehob, after being arrested on "reasonable suspicion," upon a warrant ordering him to be lodged in Limerick Gaol; whether Mr. O'Mahony informed the police that he would proceed of his own accord to Limerick Gaol; whether he at once travelled to Limerick unescorted by the police, and delivered himself up to the authorities in Limerick; whether Mr. O'Mahony has not now applied to Sub-Inspector McDonnell for the expenses of his journey from Ballydehob to Limerick; and, whether the Government have any objection to refund him what he might reasonably be supposed to be out of pocket?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the facts were correctly stated by the hon. Member. The question of expenses was under consideration. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) considered Mr. O'Mahony's actual travelling expenses might be refunded, and he had given the necessary directions for that purpose.

  IRELAND—MR. EAGER, GOVERNOR OF LIMERICK GAOL.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Eager, the present Governor of Limerick Gaol, is the same person as the Mr. Eager who was deprived of his position as Governor or Steward, as they were then called, of Cork Gaol, and afterwards sent in a subordinate capacity to the Phillipstown Prison in consequence of a slanderous charge made by him against the then matron of Cork Gaol; and, whether there is any objection to the production of the Report of Captain Whitty, then Inspector of Prisons, who held the investigation in 1857 on the subject?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the Mr. Eager referred to was the same person. He was not at any time Governor of the Cork Prison. In 1855 he was promoted to the position of clerk, and afterwards to that of steward of the temporary female convict prison at Cork. In 1857 he brought charges against the superintendent and matron of the prison, but they were not proved. He was consequently censured by the Governor, and ordered to return to the position of clerk in Mountjoy Prison. He was subsequently appointed Deputy Governor of Phillips-town Prison, and in 1862 Governor of Limerick Prison. The Report of Captain Whitty could not be produced, as it was of a confidential nature. Indeed, in any circumstances it would require strong reasons to justify the production of a Report of that character, made 24 years ago.
  MR. HEALYfurther asked, whether Mr. Eager, when in another position, had not made an attack on the warders?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the hon. Member to give him Notice of the Question.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM—THE ZOLLVEREIN COLLECTION OF MINERALS, &c.
  MR. HICKSasked the Vice President of the Council, with reference to the Correspondence between Dr. Percy and Captain Donnelly of 23rd March 1863, and the Letter from the German Director, Dr. Wedding, to Dr. Percy, dated 25th November 1879, Whether the Zoll-

  985
  verein collection of minerals and mining products was given and accepted on the distinct condition that it was to be kept intact as a whole at South Kensington for public exhibition?
  MR. MUNDELLA: This Question relates to the gift of a Geological Collection, 18 years ago, to the Science and Art Department by the Zollverein Commission, which was given soon after to King's College Museum, and other similar Institutions. There is no official record of the correspondence referred to; but, from an extract furnished by Dr. Percy, it apparently consists of one, more or less private, letter said to have been written by him in 1863, stating his version of what occurred at an interview between Dr. Wedding and Mr. Cole, then Director of the South Kensington Museum. Although, no doubt, Dr. Wedding seems to have been under the impression that the Collection in question would be exhibited at South Kensington, there is no condition or promise to that effect in the official correspondence; and, as far as I am aware, no objection was taken at any time by the Zollverein Commissioners to the arrangements made in 1863 with regard to this Collection.

  ACCOMMODATION FOR REPORTERS.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has been able to carry out his intentions with regard to the increase and improvement of the accommodation provided for the reporters in this House?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The resignation of Colonel Forester has given me an opportunity of giving the increased accommodation for the reporters which the hon. Member has so much pressed upon me. It is not considered necessary that the successor of Colonel Forester should have an official residence under the roof of this House; and, accordingly, with the approval of the Speaker, I have appropriated the two top stories of the residence lately occupied by Colonel Forester for the increased accommodation of the reporters; and I hope it will give all the accommodation required by them. Additional accommodation has been very much wanted, and is very necessary. The main portion of the residence—the lower story—will be appropriated to additional private rooms for Ministers; and I have
  986
  also made arrangements that will give better accommodation to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
  MR. ONSLOWwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman what compensation he proposed to give to the Assistant Serjeant-at-Arms now that his rooms were taken away? He believed that the rooms given to the late Assistant Serjeant-at-Arms were irrespective of his salary; and it appeared to him that the Assistant Serjeant-at-Arms who had been recently appointed—[Murmurs]—
  MR. SPEAKER, interposing, said, the hon. Member could not go into a matter of that kind.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he would simply ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended to give the present Assistant Serjeant-at-Arms any compensation?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I believe the question of the salary of the Assistant Serjeant-at-Arms is at present under the consideration of the Treasury.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would take this opportunity of giving the reporters another smoking-room instead of the little room downstairs? That room might be converted into a covered way for Members going to the railway station.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I propose to take from the reporters the room to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but they will have ample accommodation for smoking in another part of the building.

  FRANCE AND TUNIS—PRIVILGES AND IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, by Article II. of the General Convention between the Governments of Great Britain and Tunis, signed on the 19th of July 1875, there occurs the following stipulation:—
  "Every mark of honour and respect shall at all times be paid, and every privilege and immunity allowed, to Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General accredited to His Highness the Bey which is paid or allowed to the Representative of any other Nation whotsoever; "
  and, whether, under this stipulation, Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Tunis is entitled to and enjoys all the marks of honour and respect and

  987
  every privilege and immunity paid or allowed to the Representative of France in that Regency?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes; I answer the Question in the affirmative.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to ask the hon. Baronet, whether he wishes the House to understand that at the present moment Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Tunis has the same right of access to the Bey as M. Roustan?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I stated the other day that we have no right of access to the Bey by Treaty. We have no reason to believe from anything which has yet taken place that the stipulation L contained in the Article on which the noble Lord's Question is based has affected the privileges and immunities of Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General. Those privileges and immunities are as follows:—Immunity from criminal and civil jurisdiction; immunity of house and goods; freedom from import duties; liberty of worship; power over suite; privilege to employ Tunisians as dragomans, who are to be protected. These are the privileges and immunities of Oriental countries.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Has M. Roustan a right of access to the Bey whenever he wishes?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: M. Roustan has been appointed Foreign Minister to the Bey of Tunis, and we have nothing to do with his rights in that capacity. As the Representative of France, he has no more rights than the Representative of any other Power.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: How is it possible to bisect the individuality of M. Roustan? When is he to be looked upon as the Foreign Minister to the Bey, and when as the Representative of France?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have already stated that the difficulties which might possibly arise out of the double nature of the functions of M. Roustan are engaging the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: As I understand the hon. Member for Burnley intends to withdraw his Motion on the subject of the Anglo-Turkish Convention which stands for Friday night, I beg to say that I will, on that occasion, draw attention to the affairs of Tunis, and move a Resolution.
  MR. RYLANDS: I beg to say that I have not intimated my intention of withdrawing my Motion which stands for Friday night.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE REVISED MEMORANDUM—SECONDED OFFICERS.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Secretary of State for War, If it be intended under the new scheme of Army organisation to maintain the existing system of seconding officers employed away from their regiments as adjutants of Militia and Volunteers; and, if those captains, now so employed, who may on the 1st July obtain their substantive majorities, will be seconded in their new rank?
  MR. CHILDERS: If the hon. Member will refer to the additions to paragraph 6, at the head of page 2, in the revised Memorandum, he will find an exact answer to each of his Questions.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he intends to introduce a new system of drill for the infantry of the Army, so as to allot duties for the increased number of officers on horseback (six instead of three) which it is proposed to give to each battalion under the new organisation; and, if not, whether he will state what duties in the field the new mounted officers will be required to perform?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to inform him that the drill will remain as at present. The two Field Officers next in rank to the Commanding Officer will be mounted on parade, and will perform the duties assigned in the Drill Book. The other Field Officers will command companies on foot, but they will be mounted on the line of march, and will perform Field Officers' duties in garrison. My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that great care will be taken to clearly define the duties of these officers.
  LORD ELCHOasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Regulations were to be retrospective by which a lieutenant colonel would, after four years' service, be made a full colonel; and, secondly, whether the tenure of the command of a regiment would be reduced to four years?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my noble Friend, I have to say that the Regulation as to the promotion of a lieutenant-colonel, after four years' ser-

  989
  vice, to the rank of colonel is to be so far retrospective that every existing lieutenant-colonel, who will have completed the qualifying service by the 1st of July, will be promoted colonel from that date. As regards the tenure of regimental command, the new rule of four years' tenure will not be retrospective, as those lieutenant-colonels appointed before the 1st of July will be allowed to complete their five years, subject to retirement on account of age.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—MIDDLEMACE, CLAREMORRIS.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER (for Mr. PARNELL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the recent eviction of Michael Scanlan, of Middle Mace, Claremorris, who was evicted with six in family by Mr. Walter Burke, of Curraleigh, Claremorris, and who with his family have been living in a state of extreme destitution in a small but built of sods in a ditch, the but being so small and badly constructed, that there is not room within it for their little furniture, consisting of a table and a chair, which have been left outside; whether the police patrol had prevented them from going back into the house from which they were evicted, although the door of the house is open; and, whether the police are legally entitled to move persons by force from an empty house of which the door is left open?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the man Scanlan was evicted for non-payment of one and a-half year's rent, and he and his family were living in a but now, as described in the Question. The police did not prevent these people from re-taking possession, but they had been served with a summons for doing so. [The right hon. Gentleman then read a letter from the landlord denying that there was any hardship on the tenant in the case.]

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS—THE ARMY ESTIMATES.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that, on the previous day, in reply to two Questions, he had promised to state on what day he proposed to place the Army Estimates on the Notice Paper with a view to an opportunity being given of discussing, as far as they could be discussed on the
  990
  Army Estimates, the different arrangements of the organization of the Army that were contained in the Memorandum which had been laid upon the Table. The question was one of some little delicacy, and had to be considered carefully. On the one hand, it was important that no interruption should take place to the discussions of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill in Committee; and, on the other hand, he had promised, as far back as March last, that before the 1st of July a day should be given for discussing the Estimates and the impending change. He had advised the Prime Minister that the spirit of that promise would be best observed by assigning a full day to the discussion; and his right hon. Friend had accordingly authorized him to say that if the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would withdraw his Amendment on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply on Friday evening—an Amendment that would probably occupy the whole of the Sitting—and if other hon. Members would do the same, the Government would put down the Army Estimates for Friday at 4 o'clock. That was the proposal of the Government, it being understood that the Land Law (Ireland) Bill should stand second on the Orders, so that if the debate on the Army Estimates, as far as they related to the new Organization Scheme, ended at a reasonable hour, the consideration of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill might be resumed that evening. He, therefore, appealed to his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley to withdraw his Motion for Friday evening, and would urge the great importance of discussing the new Army Scheme before it took effect on July 1. He also hoped that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, would use his influence with hon. Members on his side of the House with the same object.
  MR. RYLANDSconfessed that he felt himself placed in a rather difficult position. He thought his right hon. Friend was dealing rather hardly with him under the very peculiar circumstances of the Motion which stood in his name. He was fortunate enough to get a day fixed for the discussion of the Motion; but from circumstances over which he had no control, arising from the action of the Government in connection with the Peace Preservation Act, a Motion for Adjournment was unexpeet-

  991
  edly made, and the entire night was occupied by Irish Members. The Motion which now stood for Friday night had excited considerable interest on the part of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, and he believed on the other side of the House also, and he had received intimations from several Gentlemen who intended to take part in the discussion. He did not know whether the Government, in the event of displacing him, would give him facilities for bringing forward the Motion at a reasonably early period; but it could not be expected that he should give way, however willing he might be to meet the convenience of the Government, unless they gave him another night. If he now withdrew his Motion, it must be on the distinct understanding that other hon. Members whose Notices had precedence of Government Business would do the same. There were two other Notices on the Paper for Friday evening, and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) had also announced his intention of bringing forward a Motion of great interest; so that it was necessary to appeal to others besides himself, and, if they declined to withdraw, he could hardly be expected to do so. And, even if the noble Lord undertook to efface himself, there was no guarantee that the whole evening would not be occupied by hon. Members from Ireland. He, however, placed himself unreservedly in the hands of the House. He did not wish to stand in the way of the progress of the Public Business, least of all did he wish to interfere with the arrangement of his right hon. Friend at the head of the War Department; but he appealed to the Government not to press him to give up the evening unless it was quite clear that it would be occupied with Government Business. He might, perhaps, suggest that next Tuesday would suit the purposes of the Government equally well.
  MR. T. COLLINSsaid, he would be happy to give up his position on the Paper for Friday if the Government would give him another day, or indicate that they were prepared to accept his Motion. Otherwise, it would be impossible for him to give it up.
  EARL PERCYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposed to take the Militia Votes at the same time as the Army Estimates, as he understood
  992
  there was a desire to take a separate discussion on the point?
  MR. CHILDERSreplied, that he intended to take the Militia Vote No. 5.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: So far as I can at present form an opinion on the subject, I think the proposal made by the Government seems to be a very fair and reasonable one. There is no doubt that an undertaking was given early in the Session that an opportunity should be given for the discussion of the new Army Organization Scheme. If that discussion is to be at all valuable it ought to take place before the end of this month. There is, no doubt, a good deal of difficulty in the proposal that hon. Members should give way for the purpose of enabling the Motion of the Government to be brought forward. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) says, very fairly, that he is ready to give way for the convenience of the Government and of the House, with the full understanding that if he does so others will do the same. I am able to say, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver), with whom I had some conversation on the subject, that he would be perfectly prepared to waive his Motion if the hon. Member for Burnley did not proceed with his. With regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins), he speaks for himself, and it is unnecessary that I should say anything further. But it does not seem to me necessary at this moment to come to an absolute arrangement on the subject. I think with reference to the possibility of other hon. Gentleman putting down Notices at the last possible moment that it is hardly to be expected, as it is not usual when arrangements of this sort are made for that course to be taken.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, as the subject of which he had given Notice was a very important one, and in order that there might be no mistake, he wished to state that should the Paper be vacant on Friday, he should certainly take advantage of the opportunity for bringing on his Motion.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that this question of Army Organization was most important, and that they ought to have a full discussion on the Scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. That could be done only in one of two ways

  993
  —either by the Government giving a day, or by postponing the operation of the Scheme to the 1st of October. He was told there was great difficulty about such a postponement. But supposing they could not get the whole of Friday, he would ask whether they could not commence the discussion at 2 o'clock on Friday, or on the Tuesday of next week, with the Speaker in the Chair? If that were done they would have an opportunity of discussing this important and most pressing question.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Baronet did him great credit. He knew how anxious the hon. and gallant Baronet was for a full discussion. The hon. and gallant Baronet had also appreciated the extreme difficulty—indeed, the absolute impossibility—of postponing the operation of the new Regulations. If the hon. and gallant Baronet and other hon. Members would accept the proposal that the debate should commence on Friday morning at 2 o'clock with the Speaker in the Chair, the views of the House upon Army Organization, or upon the two or three leading questions connected with it, might be satisfactorily gauged; and he would undertake after the 1st of July to press upon his right hon. Friend the propriety of giving him a day for discussing the Votes. If the hon. and gallant Baronet would accept that view, he would do his part to have the Army Estimates put down as the first Order of the Day on Friday.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, that it was not only in March, but also a few weeks ago in June, notwithstanding the numerous Amendments on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, that the right hon. Gentleman promised that the Government would find a day before the 1st of July. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Government to give a day for discussing this subject, which affected not only the Army in this country, but the Army in India.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had stated, in discussing a Vote which came on late at night some weeks ago, that that discussion should not, in the slightest degree, interfere with the promise he had given.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFremarked, that the reason his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) had given
  994
  Notice of a Motion with respect to Tunis was the great reticence shown by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to the position of the English Consul General at Tunis. If the Under Secretary would, on Thursday, in reply to a Question which would be put to him, place them in full possession of the information desired, he believed his noble Friend would not persist in his intention.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should not be in a position to give full information on Thursday, because communications were going on.
  EARL PERCYfeared that the proposal of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would hardly meet the question of the Militia. If the discussion was taken on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair the two questions of the Army and Militia would be mixed up, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, the discussion as to the Militia would go to the wall.
  MR. CHILDERScertainly thought there should be a further discussion on the subject of Militia arrangements, and that was what he intended.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, as he understood it, on Friday next the new scheme of Army Organization was to be discussed with the Speaker in the Chair, no Votes were to be taken, and when the Votes came on upon a later occasion the noble Lord would have an opportunity of raising the question in which he felt interested.

ORDER 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. [TWELFTH NIGHT.]
    [Progress 20 th June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    PART I.

      ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES.
      Clause 4 (Incidents of tenancy subject to statutory conditions).
      DR. COMMINSsaid, the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper

      995
      was, practically, merely a verbal one. It introduced no new principle whatever, and only purported to carry out what he understood to be the object of the framers of the Bill—namely, not only to give to the tenant his interest in his own improvements, but to render him quite capable of taking away buildings and substituting others for them, or allowing them to go to ruin if they did not suit him. Under the clause as it at present stood, a tenant who had erected a house or a wall, or any other building, and afterwards found it of no use to him, would, nevertheless, be compelled by the landlord to keep it in repair or forfeit his tenancy. He proposed to insert words in the clause to prevent the eviction of a tenant for such a cause as that.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 4, line 31, after "buildings," insert "which have been wholly or principally erected by the landlord," or the entire interest in which he may have acquired by any separate or other title than that of owner of the land."—(Dr. Commins.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press the Amendment. It was admitted on all sides that the landlord was interested in the preservation of the premises in a good condition, as he had a reversionary interest in them; and he (the Attorney General for Ireland) thought it was undesirable that there should be any relaxation of the Common Law rules, by which a tenant was bound to keep all buildings on his holding in repair. No doubt, they had the security that the tenant would keep these buildings in repair for his own sake; but that was not enough to protect the property. As to the fear of actual eviction, there would be a provision in the Bill to enable the Court in fit cases to relieve the tenant from the forfeiture. He did not think that it ought to be punished as waste for a tenant to pull down an old building for the purpose of erecting a new one.
      MR. HEALYwished to draw a comparison between the manner in which Amendments coming from the Irish Members and those coming from other hon. Members were treated. Hon. Members sitting near him proposed
      996
      Amendments in the interest of the tenant, some of which were extremely reasonable; but the Government met these Amendments with the statement that they were not required by the equity of the case, or that the object for which they were advanced had already been effected; and no enthusiasm was excited in the minds of the Liberal Members, who were willing to leave the matter in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. The Liberal Party had no enthusiasm in the interests of the tenant; but the case was very different when they came to deal with the interests of the landlord. Amendments against the tenant, and in favour of the landlord, were proposed and were disposed of merely by a nod. He (Mr. Healy), for one, was not content to allow this sort of thing to continue. They had been dealing a little too softly with the Government, and had got nothing for their pains. The Government had not opposed this Amendment on its merits, but had made one of those excuses that the Committee were continually hearing. For the future, when the Irish Members brought forward a reasonable Amendment, they should insist on it, and, if the Government refused to accept it, divide the Committee upon it. He himself had brought forward half-a-dozen reasonable Amendments, and only in one case had he gone to a division; but, owing to the way in which the Irish Members were being treated, it would be necessary to change these tactics. He would, therefore, advise the hon. and learned Member to go to a division on the Amendment.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot allow the statement made by the hon. Member who has just sat down to pass without a reply. So far as we are concerned, it is without the smallest foundation. He said the right hon. and learned Gentleman near me (the Attorney General for Ireland) did not oppose the Amendment on its merits; but, so far as this is concerned, he is wrong in his statement of fact. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not attempt to exaggerate the situation; but he said that the Amendment was a reversal of the principle of Common Law, and he laid down that the landlord had an equitable interest in the efficient condition of the entire holding, in which the tenant had a joint partnership, and in

      997
      which he received, or is to receive, tenant right. Therefore, it was upon the merits that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposed the Amendment. I beg the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) to believe that there is a strict and undeviating effort made by us to judge every Amendment according to its merits, without the smallest regard for the quarter of the House from which it comes.
      MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the Attorney General for Ireland entirely missed the point of the Amendment, which was with regard to buildings to be erected by the tenant himself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken as though it related to buildings which were the property of the landlord.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he could not agree with the Prime Minister as to the manner in which Amendments were received from different parts of the House. They had had an illustration only last night of the kind of thing to which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had objected, for directly after a reasonable Amendment, proposed by an Irish Member, had been rejected by the Government, a similar Amendment, coming from another quarter, was accepted by a nod. That was not the way to treat Amendments "on their merits," and some reason should have been given by the Government for their change of front. The formula of all Liberal Associations in the Kingdom was that this Bill was an honest attempt to deal with the Irish Land Question; but it appeared to him to be nothing but a splendid attempt to sit upon two stools—to make it appear that they were giving something very considerable to the tenant, when, in reality, they were giving him little or nothing. What had occurred in regard to this Amendment?—
      THE CHAIRMAN: Just as the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) sat down, I was about to say to him that he had spoken for some time, but had not alluded to the merits of the Amendment before the Committee. I must call the attention of the hon. Member for Cavan to the fact that he is not discussing the Amendment.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he was not speaking upon the general question, but as to the mode in which Amendments were received by the Members of the Govern-
      998
      ment. In the present instance, the Amendment had been met by a quibble. When a man signed a lease he contracted to keep in good repair all buildings on his holding; but it was a well-known fact that in Ireland there were very often no buildings on the land when the tenant entered into possession. The tenant himself built the houses, and there was no contract as to what repairs should be done. The clause, as it stood, without Amendment, would introduce an entirely new law, and would attach a penalty upon that which, in times past, had not been in any way penal. Some tyrannical landlords, without having spent 1d. on the farm buildings themselves, would avail themselves of the powers of the clause, and, taking advantage of every lapse on the part of their tenants, prosecute them and treat them unfairly. That which belonged to the landlord was merely the land in its natural state. The buildings belonged to the tenant, and, under the powers of this Bill, he would have the right to sell them. If he allowed any dilapidations to occur it was to his own injury, and-not to the injury of the landlord. The Government imagined a contingency which never would arise, for the parties who would ultimately get the land would be the tenant's heirs or his creditors; but certainly not the landlord.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that by the law as it stood the tenant from year to year was bound not to commit voluntary waste. That was all they said the tenant in this case should not do. They did not oblige him to keep the premises in repair; but, in cataloguing his obligations, they made him responsible for the buildings on his holding just to the same extent as the ordinary tenant from year to year was at present.
      MR. MARUMsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. It must be borne in mind that the buildings on a farm did not belong to a' tenant, although he was entitled under the Act to compensation for them. He could wish to see some equity clause framed, whereby there would be some means of preventing the grievances that hon. Members imagined would arise.
      MR. LEAMYsaid, that, as he understood the principle of the clause, it was not one of Common Law at all, but of feudal law, which gave everything at-

      999
      tached to the land to the owner of the freehold. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland said the Amendment would interfere with that principle; but that principle had been interfered with over and over again. It had been interfered with by all the enactments dealing with fixtures, and it would be interfered with by this Bill, which would enable the tenant to sell his improvements. He would ask the Government whether they proposed that the landlord should be able to treat persistent waste by the tenant of buildings which he (the tenant) had himself erected as a breach of statutory conditions entitling the landlord to claim forfeiture, or that he should go before a magistrate and obtain an order against waste, disregard of which on the part of the tenant would render that individual liable to a month's imprisonment, which was already the law under a re-enactment of an Act of Geo. IV.? This old law was a strong protection to the landlord. What was waste? A tenant built houses on his farm, and, perhaps after three, or four, or five years, he took it into his head to knock them down for the purpose of erecting new buildings. This would be called waste, for which the landlord could claim forfeiture; and this, it appeared to him, was extremely unreasonable. The landlord should only be protected so far as buildings he himself had erected were concerned. By the Bill they were giving the tenant the right to dispose of his own improvements, and it was exceedingly unlikely that he would allow those improvements to get into a state of dilapidation and become valueless to himself. He submitted, therefore, that the Amendment was one which might very reasonably be accepted by the Government, and one which would not in any degree prejudice the landlord.
      DR. COMMINSsaid, it was not a tenant from year to year that a landlord could evict for dilapidation; therefore, the Attorney General's argument fell to the ground. The landlord had never had power to evict for dilapidation; but this clause purported to give it to him, and not only did it give him that power, but it gave it to him in perpetuity—power to evict for dilapidations of the tenant's own property, and which the tenant could go into the market and sell if he thought proper. The principle
      1000
      introduced in the clause might be used for most oppressive purposes by the landlord. One of the objects of this Bill was to take away the landlord's power of oppression; and, while he did not desire to deprive them of one farthing of their right in their property, he was anxious to take away from them every right that they could use oppressively.
      MR. SHAWasked whether the Government could not introduce words which would, in some way, meet this case? No doubt, there was something in the objection of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Dr. Commins). He himself had known cases where buildings had been allowed to fall gradually into decay. There was such a thing as changing the style of farming and having no use for buildings in the second method that were valuable in the first. The question was, whether the Government would not introduce some words which would prevent a landlord bringing before the Court dilapidations that did not involve any substantial injury. It would be a very serious thing if, for an alteration that could do no injury to the landlord, and no injury to the farm, such a severe penalty as forfeiture could be imposed upon the tenant.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, that one of the complaints in Ireland was that the landlords indulged in interferences which were unreasonable, and unnecessary, and troublesome. The late Lord Leitrim would not allow his tenants to make improvements on their farms without first obtaining his permission. In one instance the tenant had gone to the trouble and expense of building a new house; but the landlord's permission had not first been obtained, and the result was that when his Lordship saw the structure he insisted upon the tenant's pulling it down again. This was, no doubt, an extreme case; but, according to this clause, which the Government seemed disposed to force upon the Committee, it would be within the power of every landlord in Ireland to act as Lord Leitrim had done. There were still, in some parts of Ireland, landlords who acted as Lord Leitrim had done—Mr. Ogleby, of County Mayo, for instance. This gentleman was another edition of Lord Leitrim, and had made all sorts of rules for his tenants, keeping them in a constant state of

      1001
      anxiety and turmoil. The effect of the Amendment, if it were accepted, would be to give the tenantry throughout Ireland a feeling of security and independence.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he did not wish to give his vote without some explanation. He supposed that if a landlord had erected a building on a farm, persistent waste would he to allow that to go to ruin; but did the Attorney General for Ireland mean that if a tenant took a farm on which no building existed, and, say to-morrow, built a house upon it, and, five years hence, allowed that house to get into a condition of dilapidation, that the landlord would be able to evict him? Where, he would ask any Member of the Committee, was the justice of a law which would permit such a thing as that?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the matter seemed to be getting into a grave state of confusion. There were two kinds of waste known to the law. One was permissive waste, where the tenant did nothing, but the thing went, as all things would in time, to decay. That was not within this clause at all, whether the building belonged to the tenant himself or to the landlord. By the Common Law of the land a tenant from year to year who got a loan of a thing for a time, though not bound to keep up buildings and make good natural decay as a leaseholder would be obliged to do, was still bound not to destroy anything. He was bound not to commit voluntary waste, and with that alone this clause dealt. There seemed to be a little misapprehension on the subject. A tenant built a house on his farm; he could not sell that house apart from the farm, and when they talked about his owning the improvements and being able to sell them what they meant was that he could sell his tenancy with the improvements on it, but whatever was attached to the soil belonged to the owner, of that soil, though he should pay the value of such addition. A landlord built and let a farm, and the hon. Member opposite supposed that the tenant let it go to decay. It was said—"For that, under the Bill, the landlord can claim forfeiture;" but that was not the nature of the clause at all. That was what was called "permissive waste;" but if the landlord let the farm with a
      1002
      building on it, and the tenant persisted in knocking that building down in spite of having received notice from the landlord that he was not to do so, that constituted "voluntary waste," for which he could be proceeded against and forced to quit. As to the manner in which these conditions were to be enforced, he had already stated that, acting in the spirit of an Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), they proposed to enable the Court to refuse to declare a tenancy forfeited and to deal with each case on its merits and award damages, or nothing, as might be just. They merely enacted in this clause what was a Common Law obligation in regard to yearly tenancies. By enlarging the powers of the Court and rendering them more flexible, they hoped they would be able to secure justice both to the landlord on the one side and the tenant on the other.
      SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, that the fixing of rent by the Court would be governed by all the incidents of the tenancy existing at the time.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that not only was it not a matter of common sense that what one man put on the soil belonged to another, but it was directly contrary to it. That seemed to be an oppressive law—a remnant of the feudal system. If the landlord let a farm with buildings on it and the tenant pulled them down, it was right that he should be punished for it; but, on the other hand, if the tenant put up buildings and pulled them down again himself, it was contrary to common sense that he should be punished for it. When one man purchased a holding from another he might find buildings on it built by his predecessor which were not suited to his wants, and might pull them down for the purpose of erecting the kind of premises he required. Surely it would be very hard to punish him for doing that.
      MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that although this seemed a very small matter on the surface it was really very important. In Ireland, in 99 cases out of 100, it was the tenants who erected all the buildings on a farm. Changes might be made in the character of farming in that country; indeed, it was very likely that they would be made, looking at the immense cattle trade between Ame-

      1003
      rica and this country. The Irish farmer might have to go back to tillage, and all the cattle sheds and cow houses might have to be pulled down. Would such a demolition be considered waste? It might in the future be necessary for the proper working of a farm that buildings of this character should be removed; and yet, if he understood the clause aright, a tenant might be evicted for such "voluntary waste." He knew of a case where there was an old mill on a farm. If the landlord were to compel the tenant to keep that in repair all his profits would be swallowed up, in a few years it would fall down from sheer old age, and the tenant would have lost all his "improvements."
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that there would be no forfeiture in cases of permissive waste, but only in the case of wilful waste. It was suggested that there ought to be no condition of this kind except in the case referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins); but there were cases in which the landlord should be protected which were not covered by the Amendment. The buildings that the landlord had erected might be pulled down in order that similar structures might be put up in another and more convenient part of the holding. These buildings would not have been erected by the landlord, still they would be the only buildings for the purposes of the farm, and it would be unreasonable to allow the tenant to destroy them at will. But there should be no right to evict where the landlord could be completely protected by the payment of damages. The Government intended to protect the tenant in this way by giving the Court, in all cases, ample power to restrain ejectments.
      MR. PARNELLwished to know what was the advantage of retaining this portion of the sub-section if they intended, as it appeared they did, by a subsequent Amendment, to enable the Court to impose a fine on the tenant for wilful waste. The landlord, as had been shown by several legal Members, was fully protected already. He had a variety of remedies, and it was entirely unnecessary to give him the additional one provided by this sub-section. The Solicitor General had announced that the Government proposed to give the Court power,
      1004
      as an alternative to this sub-section, to inflict a pecuniary fine.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): No, to give compensation.
      MR. PARNELL: Well, to give compensation. Surely that was sufficient. As the clause now stood, it furnished an inducement to the landlord to enter upon harassing law suits. The Attorney General for Ireland had explained that this sub-section was only intended to deal with persistent waste—that was, waste actually committed by the action of the tenant and not by the neglect of the tenant; and he had said that surely no landlord out of a lunatic asylum would bring a suit against his tenant where the persistent waste committed was of a beneficial character. But they were entitled to reply—"Surely no tenant out of a lunatic asylum would commit wilful waste of his own improvements, unless that wilful waste was of a beneficial character." It was a fact that many landlords in Ireland refused their tenants permission to remove any permanent improvement whatever—that was to say, in the nature of a wall, fence, or building. That part of the Bill which the Amendment was intended to veto would keep alive that power, which was one of a very objectionable character. Illiterate men, as many of the Irish tenants were, would not find it easy to describe the improvements they intended to execute in such a way as the office of the great landlord desired. It would be difficult for them to make maps of them and to indicate the expense and their exact nature beforehand; therefore it was desirable that they should not give the landlord power to initiate an expensive law suit against the tenant merely on account of an act which, by the converse of the argument of the Attorney General for Ireland, no tenant out of Bedlam would be guilty of. He thought the case for the adoption of the Amendment had been fully made out.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that if they were making a law which was to regulate the relations between landlord and tenant it ought to be made as plain as possible to both. It ought to be made plain to the landlord that the buildings he had erected were his own, and that if the tenant injured them he was liable to all the penalty; but it ought also to be made evident to the

      1005
      tenant that he was master of his own farm, and had a right to erect and pull down any buildings that he pleased. What were they doing? In the Bill they were doing precisely what caused, in so great a measure, the failure of the Act of 1870. They were making provisions of an absolute character and then putting in some extraordinary equity clauses, which were to undo those provisions. What would happen here? The tenants were ignorant men; the agent of the landlord might go to one of them and say—"You pull down that building or do anything to injure it, and you are guilty of waste, and we shall proceed against you." It was all very well to say that the Court would get all the facts brought out, and proceed to award damages. Going to the Court meant enormous exertion and great anxiety on the part of the tenant, great expense and a very uncertain result, because the Committee knew perfectly well that what one Court had decided another was very apt to settle in an opposite way. Why, in the name of common sense, could the Government not make it clear in the clause that if the buildings belonged to the landlord, having been erected by himself solely, or with the assistance only of his tenant, he had a claim to them; whilst, on the other hand, if the tenant erected them they were his, and he had a right to do what he liked with them? This clause would act as a direct discouragement to tenants to improve their farms. The Irish tenants were a suspicious class—and naturally so from what they had suffered—and were not likely to improve their farm buildings. They would never attempt to improve their houses, which was the great object to be obtained; they would not put up farm buildings when they were told—"You once put that up, and you have no power of altering it or pulling it down, otherwise the landlord may proceed against you for ejectment, and the Court will have to decide whether you were entitled to pull it down or not." It might seem absurd to English Members to hear this matter argued; but the cases were without number in Ireland, where the agents of landlords had refused most reasonable permission to tenants to erect or alter buildings. The proceedings on Lord Leitrim's estate ought to be a beacon to guide the Government in dealing with
      1006
      this matter. What had been done on that estate might be done elsewhere. If the matter was taken to a division, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) should certainly vote for the Amendment, regretting deeply that the Government had not met the hon. and learned Member in some way.
      MR. WARTONwas sorry to see such a great waste of time owing to the determination of hon. Members below the Gangway not to be convinced. After the very clear and lucid statements of the Attorney General for Ireland and the Solicitor General for England, he should have thought there was no room for argument; but the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had twice risen to show that he was unconvinced. The clause only dealt with voluntary waste—persistent voluntary waste.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was unable to reconcile the statements made by the Attorney General for Ireland and the Solicitor General for England with what they had all along—or what he had all along—understood to be the spirit of the clause. The clause introduced statutory conditions and enacted what, practically, amounted to fixity of tenure; and they were, therefore, importing a new principle into their English legislation. This novel, dangerous, and mischievous principle of fixity of tenure was, he understood, qualified by certain conditions, a breach of which would bring the tenancy to an end; but they now heard that a breach of those conditions would only entail a nominal fine. The Amendment was only another illustration of the futility of the attempt to establish a co-partnership in land in Ireland. As the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) stated, the Government were trying to sit between two stools; and he should not be surprised if, before long, they came to grief between them.
      MR. E. COLLINSsaid, that the tendency of the law in Ireland had been to award damages for breaches of conditions. Was there anything in the subsection they were dealing with that would interfere sensibly with the spirit of those decisions—did the sub-section carry new conditions that did not involve damages?
      MR. DALYsaid, that, in a case where a person had bought a tenant's improvements and interest in a farm, and proceeded, for reasons of his own, to throw down some of the buildings constructed

      1007
      by his predecessor, the landlord, if this sub-section was not amended, could serve him with, a notice, and, if he persisted in the operations, claim forfeiture of the tenancy. Every protection should be given to the tenant, who, of the two parties—the tenant and the landlord—was the weaker.
      MR. WIGGINwished to point out that, where a farmer bought up the tenant right of a farm adjoining his own holding, he very likely would not have use for the house on the newly acquired land, for which rates and taxes would be charged, and might desire to pull it down or convert it into a cow-shed or barn. If he followed his inclination in the matter, surely it would be very hard to punish him for it.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that for merely allowing buildings to go out of repair or to fall down the clause did not propose to inflict any punishment at all. There might be cases where a landlord let a piece of land on condition that certain buildings should be erected on it, and if those buildings were erected and subsequently demolished by the tenant, it would be very hard if the landlord had not a legal remedy. With regard to the case that had been put to him of a tenant buying an adjoining farm, it might be assumed that it would not be regarded by the landlord as waste to pull down some of the buildings; but, even if it was, the matter would have to be' gone into in Court, and the tenant could make out his case. Hon. Members would remember that this clause did not deal at all with the remedy; it merely stated what were the obligations of the tenant. The clause said the tenant should pay his rent, and should not commit actual and positive waste by pulling down buildings or doing other damage after receiving caution from the landlord. The remedy for these breaches of condition was in the 13th clause. There, it would be seen, the Bill said that for non-payment of rent the landlord must proceed by ordinary process of ejectment, and for the other breaches by notice to quit, and they proposed to add that the Court should have the power to say whether there was any, and, if so, what amount of harm done, and to award damages accordingly.
      MR. CALLANsaid, the arguments of the Attorney General for Ireland con-
      1008
      clusively proved to him that the language of the clause should be altered. He learned, for the first time in his life, that "dilapidations" meant wilfully pulling down buildings after notice from the landlord to desist. With submission to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he understood that to be destruction. Persistent waste by dilapidation could mean nothing else than permissive dilapidation—that was to say, not keeping in repair. He certainly hoped that the interpretation given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not be adopted by the Committee.
      MR. GLADSTONE: We understand that the Amendment, in its present form, would assert the principle that improvements which have been effected by the tenant were so absolutely the property of the tenant that he may do with them exactly what he liked, without anyone calling him to account. But that is not our view. Our view is that when a tenant puts improvements on a holding, they become part of the holding, and that both the landlord and tenant have an interest in them—the tenant a limited interest in respect of his tenant right, and the landlord a permanent interest as owner of the whole. We have noticed that objection has been taken by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), and that the point has been raised that there may be dilapidations which in themselves are really improvements—where, for instance, a tenant might destroy an old building in order to supply a more suitable or better building—and it is said an operation of this kind ought not to become the subject of presumptive forfeiture, or even of the first stage of an operation of the kind. Certainly, there is wanting a distinction between dilapidations that are mischievous and those that are beneficial; and, therefore, we should do, I think, quite right to insert after the word "buildings" the words "to the prejudice of the holding."
      LORD JOHN MANNERSthought that the suggestion of the Prime Minister was a reasonable one, and that the discussion might now very properly be allowed to terminate.
      MR. MARUMreminded the Committee that the late Mr. Butt, in drawing his Bill, had made use of the word waste in the same way as it was used in this Bill.
      MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, the Government did not appear to include permissive waste in the Bill, and he called the attention of the Committee to the fact that permissive waste included dilapidation—it meant, in the case of a building, that it was falling to pieces. Again, deterioration of the soil unquestionably meant permissive waste—that was to say, not attending to the crops. It did not mean active waste. He suggested that the Government should recast the clause in such a manner that ordinary persons engaged in farming in Ireland could understand it. They were contemplating a period when not noble Lords, but the tenantry of Ireland, should be owners of the soil. He thought the clause should be put in such a form that there could be no possibility of a mistake with regard to it.
      MR. LITTONsaid, he sympathized with the spirit of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins). He, however, regarded the word "principally," in connection with the last part of the phrase, as too strong, and suggested that the word "partly" should be substituted for it in the Amendment, the first line of which would then run—"Buildings which, have been wholly or partly erected by the landlord." If that alteration were made, he thought the Committee might then proceed to a division.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, that, in considering the provisions of this Bill, which, limited the rights of tenants, it should never be forgotten that one of the probable effects of the measure under the Purchase Clauses would be the creation of a large number of average sized owners, and that very possibly many of these new proprietors would after a time become anxious to let a portion of the farms of which they had become owners. It therefore became all the more necessary that Parliament should not provide these new proprietors with any of the feudal remedies which were given under the old system to the old landlords. These new proprietors would be men living on the spot and looking after their interests very narrowly; and he thought it would be disastrous if, by increasing the number of limitations, the number of law suits should also be increased, which would come before the Court established by the Bill. The Prime Minister had drawn a distinction
      1010
      between the interest of the landlord in the tenant's improvements, and the interest of the tenant in such improvements. That was a distinction of which they had that evening heard for the first time, and constituted rather an alarming disclosure. He had supposed that the Bill purported to confer on the tenant the sole right to the beneficial interest in his own improvements; but it now appeared that the landlord was to have a beneficial interest in the improvements also. He should therefore like to know what that interest was to be; how it was to be defined; and whether it was to be maintained by a number of harassing conditions, such as abounded in the Bill, or in some other way? There had been a suspicion that the Bill would not secure to the tenant the full right to his improvements, and they now found their worst suspicions verified by the statement of the Prime Minister, who now admitted that the landlord had an interest in the tenant's improvements. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon should withdraw his Amendment, the Government on their part agreeing to the insertion of the words "to the prejudice of the holding." But he (Mr. Parnell) thought the exigencies of the case would be better met by a slight addition to those words, and that the words to be inserted should be "to the prejudice of the interest of the landlord in the holding."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)saw no objection to the words suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork.
      DR. COMMINSsaid, that, as the Attorney General for Ireland had adopted the words suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, which provided for the mischief he wished to guard against, he was in favour of the Amendment being withdrawn.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 4, line 31, after "buildings" insert "to the prejudice of the interest of the landlord in the holding."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. BIGGARwished to refer to a remark of the Attorney General for Ireland—namely, that the present clause

      1011
      was influenced by the 13th clause of the Bill. By the present clause the landlord might serve the tenant with notice to quit on the allegation that injury to the land had taken place. That would, no doubt, be fair if the improvements were the work of the landlord; but it was, of course, notorious that the greater part of the improvements on farms in Ireland was the work of the tenant, but it was perfectly impossible for any casual observer to know to what extent they had been executed by the tenant. He contended that if the landlord could not show that the improvements had been made by him that he should not have the powers which in this particular case were conferred by the clause. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 4, line 31, after "soil," insert "In cases where such improvement beyond its natural state has been made by the landlord."—(Mr. Biggar.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)was understood to say that the Amendment could not be accepted.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, the questions of deterioration of the soil and of dilapidation of buildings stood on an entirely different footing. He was not able, therefore, to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend, if he went to a division.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, as there appeared to be a feeling that it was undesirable to proceed with his Amendment, he was willing, with the permission of the Committee, to withdraw it.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, that both the Bessborough Commission and the Duke of Richmond's Commission had reported in favour of the improvements of the tenant in his holding being taken into account in fixing the rent. The 7th clause of the Bill, also, empowering the Court to determine the rent, laid it down that the Court, in fixing the rent, should have reference to the improvements effected by the tenant or his predecessor in title. If that was so, it was quite clear that these improvements, when taken into consideration, ought not to be disturbed except the landlord received compensation. He
      1012
      was unable to see the necessity of retaining the words—
      "After notice has been given by the landlord to the tenant to desist from such dilapidation or deterioration of soil."
      Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 31, to leave out from, "soil" to the end of the section.—(Sir Gabriel Goldney.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Government must retain these words. The meaning of "persistent waste" was not waste simply, but a continuance of the mischief after the landlord had given notice that it should stop.
      SIR ROWLAND BLENNERHASSETTremarked, that the Committee last night had agreed to retain the word "persistent." There could be no persistent waste until notice to desist had been given by the landlord to the tenant. No doubt it would have been better and plainer that the sub-section should simply state that the tenant should not commit waste. This expression would have been quite intelligible and adequate, like the requirement of the French law, that the farmer should cultivate his land "en bon père de famille."
      MR. GIBSONadmitted that the waste committed by the tenant after notice to desist had been given was "persistent waste;" but that was not the question involved here. It was whether the clause was so framed as to supply the landlord with reasonable, fair, and equitable protection against the destruction of his property. The sub-section was so framed that it might be that a wasteful tenant behind the back of the land-land, and before the latter had time to give notice, would destroy the buildings on his farm. Such a case as that was entirely uncovered by the clause. Every tenant knew that in committing downright real waste he would be doing that which the landlord would stop him in doing. On the other hand, the tenant would know perfectly well that certain methods of dealing with the land, which would secure him, perhaps, remunerative results, were in themselves positive and direct waste. His objection to the sub-section was that there was every-

      1013
      thing in it to intimate to the tenant that he was safe provided the waste could be committed before the landlord gave him notice. It was a warning to the tenant to be quick with his waste, if he did not wish to be too late; it was as much as to say—"If you want to burn the turf of pasture land, you have only to go out and do it before the landlord has served notice, and then you are within the statutory conditions, because no notice has been served." As the clause stood, unquestionably a farm might be ruined in respect of buildings and soil before the landlord had an opportunity of serving notice upon the tenant to desist. If the sub-section remained unaltered, he was of opinion that this statutory condition was so much waste paper to the landlord, and that the notice required, instead of being a protection to the landlord, was a beacon to the tenant warning him against the shoals and quick-sands which he had to avoid in order to commit waste with impunity.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he was in favour of the elimination of the words proposed to be omitted by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sir Gabriel Goldney). He thought that when once a tenant was placed in possession of his holding he ought to be held responsible for its preservation in good order, and that the fewer the occasions on which he had to look for notice from the landlord the better for both parties. The tenant would, of course, know that he would be doing wrong in pulling down buildings, and he would also know that he ought to abstain from such an act, without receiving notice from his landlord to desist. Evidence had been given before the Commissioners that one of the strongest reasons why the soil of Ireland had deteriorated was the burning of the soil, which caused heavy crops to grow. It was stated that the persons in possession of land where that baneful practice was carried on reaped extraordinary harvests for a time, and that it was only by the most watchful care on the part of the landlord that it could be prevented. He thought that everyone would allow that the burning of the soil was a great deterioration of it, and that the tenant should not be placed in the position to say—"I can do this because my landlord has not given me notice to desist." He objected to the landlord's having to
      1014
      give notice to the tenant that he was doing something wrong.
      MR. MARUMpointed out that the landlord had already power, on suspicion of waste merely, to summon the parties supposed to have committed it, who could be brought before the magistrate, and, if found guilty, committed to prison for one month. He admitted that this power was not incorporated with this Bill; but there never had been any fear that, during the absence of notice, the tenant would commit pernicious waste. He therefore thought the Amendment was unnecessary, and hoped that it would not be agreed to.
      MR. GORSTsaid, he could see no reason why the Irish landlord should be forced to have recourse to summary procedure and Criminal Law. It would be much better to protect him by this simple Amendment than to require that notice from the landlord should become a condition precedent to the operation of the clause for the protection of the holding. There were many cases in which this notice could not be given. The landlord might be temporarily absent; he might be a minor, or suffering from illness, or otherwise placed in a position in which he could not serve the notice upon the tenant. Then why, he asked, should the giving of a notice be made precedent to the protection which the clause was intended to give to the landlord? The Amendment was of so reasonable a character that he believed Her Majesty's Government would make the concession asked for.
      MR. M'COANsaid, it seemed to have been forgotten that this clause positively created a new penalty against the tenant, and provided a remedy for the landlord over and above that already existing in law. No lawyer in the House, and probably few laymen, need be reminded that the proper and sufficient remedy for waste was an action. If the clause did not exist, the landlord would still have his legal remedy; and, therefore, he thought there were no grounds for limiting the clause by the omission of the words proposed to be struck out by the Amendment before the Committee. He pointed out to the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that such minors, sick persons, and others who might not be in a position to serve the required notice would still have their remedy by an action at law.
      MR. SHAWsaid, he hoped the Government would not consent to eliminate the words. It was unreasonable that the tenant in Ireland should be left subject to all the penalties of the clause without a single notice from the landlord.
      LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the safeguard against the penalties which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down suggested that the present clause imposed upon the tenant was to be found in the fact that the landlord could not call upon the tenant to desist, unless there was persistent dilapidation or deterioration. He did not wish to argue the question from the point of the landlord's interest or the tenant's interest, but with regard to what had been too generally neglected in those discussions—the interest of agriculture in Ireland. The retention of the words it was proposed to omit, if they were to have any practical operation, must be against the improvement of the soil of Ireland. If they had any meaning at all, it was that the tenant might persist in deteriorating the soil, until and unless he received notice from his landlord that he was not to continue this persistent deterioration. It was well known, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), that the deterioration of the Boil of Ireland by burning had been going on for many years; and the Committee were also aware that it was of great practical importance that this deterioration should no longer be continued; but, in his view, the retention of these words would encourage the tenants of Ireland who might be so disposed to persistently deteriorate the soil, in the hope that the landlord would not detect what they were about, and consequently give the notice which was necessary, according to the clause, for his protection. For these reasons, he cordially supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sir Gabriel Goldney).
      MR. GIVANagreed with the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) that the Government should not consent to omit these words from the clause. Inasmuch as the acts referred to would constitute a breach of statutory conditions, he thought the tenant should be guarded by this notice against their commission, which would involve the forfeiture of his tenancy.
      MR. PELLthought if the Amendment were agreed to it would be necessary, in the interests of agriculture as well as in the interest of the landlord, that some words of warning should be addressed to the tenant not to commit acts by which the soil was deteriorated or injured. As the clause stood, the tenant might continue for a considerable time in a course of action which would cause permanent injury to the soil, far beyond anything the framers of the Bill contemplated. It would be of no use to give the tenant notice after the mischief had been done; and therefore he should move at the proper time that notice be given to the tenant not to commit acts which were perfectly well known to be the cause of deterioration of the soil.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was not an inequitable proposal on the part of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) that this notice should be given, and he was prepared to agree to the suggestion.
      SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, after the readiness expressed by the Prime Minister to agree to the words suggested by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, he was willing, with the permission of the Committee, to withdraw his Amendment.
      MR. O'SULLIVANobjected to the slight protection given by this clause to the tenant being withdrawn, and trusted that the Prime Minister would not agree to the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 32, after "tenant," insert "not to commit or."—(Mr. Pell.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. T.D. SULLIVANsaid, the result of this Amendment, if accepted by the Committee, would be the serving upon the tenant of a whole series of prohibitory regulations that would leave the tenant no liberty of action whatever. For his own part, he preferred the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sir Gabriel Goldney). If it could be shown that his fears were groundless with regard to the notices of a prohibitory kind that would be served upon the tenant, he should, of course, withdraw his opposition to the Amendment.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he thought there ought to be as few notices passing between the landlord and the tenant as possible. His hon. Friend opposite argued that if the tenant committed waste after notice he would ipso facto forfeit his holding. But that was not the case. The effect of the clause was, that if a tenant persistently deteriorated the soil and injured buildings the landlord could bring him into Court, and it would be determined whether the acts of deterioration had been committed, and the Court could then put the powers of the Act in operation. No notice was necessary for that purpose. He trusted the Government would agree to leave out the words relating to the notice.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the notice would not be a general notice, but must state specifically that the tenant should desist from dilapidation or the deterioration of the soil, for instance.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he was unable to see, the tenant farmers on large estates being able to keep their lands in good condition, why the landlords should be allowed constantly to interfere with the tenants in the management of their holdings. He could not see the slightest advantage in any of the precautions which were proposed to be set up in the interest of the landlords by the clause in the Bill now under discussion. There could be no doubt that under the existing system the agents were bribed almost every day to permit the tenants to do pretty much what they pleased; and as the bribes took the form, in many cases, of whisky, it was well known that numerous instances could be adduced, if necessary, of agents who had died from drinking whisky. This must show that the system now in existence was a thoroughly demoralizing one, and one which ought not to be encouraged. The Bill under consideration would have that effect among others; and therefore he wished that the measure, as a whole, and this clause in particular, should not receive the support of the Committee. The proposals which stood on the Paper, or, at any rate, a large number of them, opened the door to a system of meddling in Irish affairs which ought to be got rid of at the earliest possible moment.
      MR. T. D. SULLIVANopposed the introduction of the words, believing, as
      1018
      he did, that the effect of the Amendment would be to enable the landlords perpetually to serve their tenants with notices and regulations which would, of necessity, interfere with the liberty they had a right to expect in the management of their holdings.
      DR. COMMINSthought the Amendment in its amended form was equally unnecessary, though not, perhaps, equally mischievous, as the original proposal. The proposal had reference to the deterioration of the soil and the buildings; but no one could suggest that any deterioration of the soil could take place in the course, say, of a single night, and it could not, therefore, be watched without an amount of vigilance which would not only be impossible, but unnecessary. Then there were the statements which had been made by a gentleman who was one of the most notorious land agents in Ireland, and who had written a book on the subject with the title, Realities of Irish Life. This book professed to give statements of fact; but the so-called facts were simple fictions mixed up with praises of the author's own vigilance in his calling, coupled with a statement that, as far as he was concerned, there had been no vexatious interference with tenants. He believed that the same vigilance was still exercised, and that no deterioration of the soil could be effected without ample notice of the fact being given to the landlords. With regard to the deterioration of buildings, there could be no doubt that the caretaker, or bog-ranger, or whatever else he might be called, would be sure to report anything of the kind to the landlord, who would have ample time to give any necessary notices to his tenants. It must not be forgotten that if the damage or deterioration did not exceed £5 there could be punishment by fine or imprisonment for a short period; but if it was beyond that amount, the offending person could on conviction be sent to prison for as long a term as two years. Was not this, he asked, sufficient for the landlords without their having in addition the power to do that which came within the scope of the Amendment before the Committee? He should certainly be very much surprised if Parliament consented to allow landlords, by means of office rules, to be continually serving on their tenants notices and regulations which would of necessity interfere with

      1019
      their liberty in the management of their holdings. If this Amendment was passed, in short, it would give to the landlords or their myrmidons arbitrary powers which they ought not to possess in regard both to the cultivation of the farms and what might, or might not, in strict equity, be called waste.
      MR. PARNELLthought the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) to the Amendment was a very vital, if not, indeed, a fatal, one, and was certainly one that ought to be very carefully considered by the Government. The Government had very fairly said that they did not think landlords ought to be permitted to serve notices on their tenants when they entered on their tenancies; but the Amendment now moved left it open to the landlords to serve notices on their tenants at any period of their tenancies forbidding them to do certain things under the term dilapidations of buildings or deteriorations of soil, and in this way re-introducing the whole old system of office rules. The Government had expressly stated that this was not their intention; but he did not see how, on the spur of the moment, any Amendment could be framed which would have the effect of carrying out the intentions of the Government, which was that the landlords should have the power of stopping waste whenever it was about to be committed, without, at the same time, conferring upon them power to set up a number of office rules. He would therefore suggest that the Amendment might be withdrawn, and that before the Report the Government should consider how the clause could be best redrafted in order to carry out the intention to which he had referred as being that of the Government. For his own part, he thought the law of the land as it stood provided ample and summary means for the prevention of waste by tenants of agricultural holdings. He did not think it equitable to remedy waste by allowing a landlord to put into his pocket the result of that waste, or that the tenant should be punished as a criminal because he chose to injure what, after all, was his own property. If a tenant so injured his property he was injuring the whole community; but his punishment should not take the form of a resumption of his whole interest by his landlord.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, there need be no apprehension that the Government would facilitate the setting up of office rules. If the Amendment were agreed to, he would propose a further Amendment to omit the words "such dilapidation or deterioration of soil," so that the clause should read "not to commit or desist from the particular waste specified in such notice." This was a matter which he would consider before the Report, in order to determine whether the words he proposed would not have the effect of carrying into effect that on which all seemed to be agreed.
      MR. GILLthought the Amendment was a very misleading one, in addition to which it was bad grammar, for it did not make it clear whether the landlord was not to permit certain things to be done, or whether the tenant was not to permit someone else to do them.
      MR. PARNELLsuggested to meet the difficulty by inserting the word "projected" after the words "waste or dilapidation."
      Amendment (Mr. Pell) agreed to; and, on the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, sub-section further amended by the substitution of the words "from the particular waste specified in such notice," in lieu of "such dilapidation or deterioration of soil" at end.
      MR. PARNELLproposed further to amend the Amendment by adding, after the word specified, the words "intends or commenced and."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member would make the clause run very awkwardly, in addition to which they were, in his view, unnecessary, because what was intended by the Bill had already been made perfectly clear.
      MR. BIGGARthought the whole affair was thoroughly misunderstood, for, as far as he could grasp the matter, the proposal in its present form would give perfect freedom to landlords to re-introduce office rules, they having spies and bailiffs all over their properties, who would be constantly taking bribes from the tenants in order that they might grow their crops in such rotation as they pleased. Reference had been made to the breaking up of permanent pastures, concerning which he would only say that it was not the custom in Cavan, He

      1021
      hoped the Government would not defer too much of the Bill to the stage of Report, as that would only lead to further discussion and expenditure of time, without, he feared, a corresponding advantage.
      MR. PARNELLstill thought that notwithstanding the decision at which the Committee had arrived, it would be wise, if possible, to defer the matter until the Report, in order that it might be further considered; for he could not but think that, in its present amended form, the Bill would permit landlords to serve notices in advance, specifying every possible form of waste which the tenants were not to commit, and so to bind down the tenants just as they pleased.
      SIR ROWLAND BLENNER-HASSETTthought the question before the Committee was one which would be much more appropriate to be raised on the 8th clause.
      Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. LITTONmoved, in page 4, line 33, after "soil," insert—
      "But if the Court, on the application of the tenant, and in case of proceedings by the landlord to determine the tenancy for such waste, shall be of opinion that justice can be done by awarding damages, then upon payment by the tenant of the amount of damages so to be awarded, or if the Court shall so direct upon the expenditure of the amount so awarded in making good the injury, the Court may stay the ejectment proceedings, and make such order as to costs as may be just."
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he agreed with the spirit of the Amendment; but suggested that this was not the point at which it should be moved. It should come at the end of the 13th clause, which prescribed the mode of proceeding for breach of these statutory conditions, and where the Government intended to provide that the Court should consider each case as it arose, in order to do justice between landlords and tenants.
      MR. LITTONwas willing, though rather reluctantly, to withdraw the Amendment.
      MR. GLADSTONEthought his hon. and learned Friend did not quite understand what the Attorney General intended to do. The right hon. and
      1022
      learned Gentleman proposed to do more than the hon and learned Member proposed.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. RANKINwished to move an Amendment to prevent the tenants doing anything to annoy the landlords. The tenant, under the Bill, would be under no conditions for 15 years, except those laid down in Clause 4. He did not wish to insinuate that Irish tenants were more ill-disposed than others; but other landlords had the power to make their own arrangements with their tenants, such as Irish landlords had not. He would also point out that the nuisances or annoyances which he had in mind were not such as would come under the legal technicality of this clause. They might not be waste or dilapidation; but a tenant might put up a garden wall, which, though useful, might interfere with some beautiful prospect the landlord wished to retain. That could not be brought under the clause; but it might be a very serious annoyance. Again, a tenant might put up a shop near the landlord's gate, which would be a serious annoyance. In moving this Amendment, he did not wish to press for any particular form of words. It was the spirit and not the letter of the Amendment which he wished to press on the Government and the Committee. If the Government would undertake to bring up an Amendment in somewhat the same form he would not press this Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 4, line 33, after "soil," to insert "and the tenant shall not do, or permit to be done, anything which may be or which may become a nuisance or annoyance to the landlord or his other tenants."—(Mr. Rankin.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. GLADSTONEthought the hon. Member had moved this Amendment under a temporary misapprehension as to the meaning of the clause. It was a very peculiar clause. It was a clause to specify not what was to be done, but to specify what were the wrongs which might be followed by forfeiture. The hon. Member would hardly say that erecting a garden wall, which would be useful, but which might be injurious to some prospect of the landlord, was a proceeding which should be followed by

      1023
      forfeiture. The clause proposed a general law which ought to prevail.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsuggested that a tenant might erect a public-house, which would be a great annoyance to the landlord, especially if the landlord strongly objected to public-houses.
      MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYreminded the noble Lord and the Committee that the magistrates in Ireland never granted a licence to a man to open a public-house on an agricultural holding. Therefore there was no fear of that difficulty arising; but there was this peculiarity about the Amendment—that the proposed words were not limited at all to anything the tenant might do with reference to the holding. They were very broad—
      "Anything which may be or which may become a nuisance or annoyance to the landlord."
      They did not limit this to the corpus of the holding; and a man might suffer a forfeiture if he took to cursing, or smoking bad tobacco, if that was disliked by the landlord.
      Amendment negatived.
      MR. W. HOLMSsaid, it appeared to him that the sub-section, as it stood, was likely to lead to misunderstanding between the landlord and tenant. He apprehended that the object of the subsection was to define what were the rights of the landlord as to certain things he wished to do, and in order to effect that he proposed to leave out the words "the tenant shall not persistently refuse to allow;" and, if that were carried, then he would move to insert, after the word "thereby," the words "the landlord shall have the right to enter upon the holding." To avoid misunderstanding, the position of the landlord and the tenant should be as clearly defined as possible.
      Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 34, leave out from "the," to "allow," both inclusive.—(Mr. W. Holms.)
      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 it desirable that, if the landlord desired to exercise his rights, the
      1024
      tenant should have the dangerous power of refusing to allow him to do so. The idea, as the clause stood, was that whilst the tenant had a legal right to object, he was not to use that legal right. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment was a better plan. It was conceived in a proper spirit, but it did not come very happily in this place. It would come better where the things which the landlord might do were stated. It could then be discussed separately.
      MR. W. HOLMS: You propose to remove the whole clause?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Yes.
      MR. GIBSONsuggested that the matter should be allowed to stand over for Report, and that the Government should deal with it themselves. The clause required consideration also on another point. In all Mr. Butt's Bills, which introduced statutory tenancies, words were inserted declaring that such tenancies should be deemed to contain the reservation to the landlord of all royalties, mines, minerals, &c. That was the intention of the Government, and he thought it would be better to make that perfectly clear. The Amendment would lead to confusion if it was taken out of its order.
      MR.R. H. PAGETthought that if words were to be inserted specifying the rights of the landlord in this particular sense, they would require very careful consideration lest they should not contain all the rights intended to be included. He wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it was clear that when a landlord let a holding he had the right to impose conditions of his own in the contract of tenancy outside and beyond those contained in this clause?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)replied that the landlord could, of course, let land on other conditions than those in the clause, provided they were not inconsistent.
      MR. R. H. PAGETunderstood that during the statutory term there might be other conditions than those expressed in the clause, although it was only the conditions therein expressed which would justify the termination of the holding.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, as he understood, the Government intended to propose some words in Clause 13 which would enable the Court to mitigate the possibilities of forfeiture. It would be too

      1025
      serious a thing to say that all the things which a tenant might do should not involve a forfeiture. The Committee had rejected the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), saying that the tenant should not do any of these things; but it would be unwise to say that under those circumstances should the doing of these things be a matter of forfeiture. The matter had better stand over for Report.
      MR. T. COLLINSsuggested that the hon. Member should withdraw his Amendment and bring it up again in its proper place. He thought, however, it would be better to discuss the question in Committee than on Report.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)proposed that sub-section 3 should come in the place of this sub-section.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLinquired whether the Committee had decided to omit these words, in order to insert them in some other place?
      MR. LITTONcould not support the suggestion to withdraw the entire subsection. He could quite understand the suggestion of the Attorney General for Ireland that these conditions would come better at the end of sub-section 4; but the withdrawal of the entire sub-section would imply that the spirit of the Amendment was accepted, and then, if the matter were taken on Report, the opportunity of discussing it would be very much restricted. Lower down there were some important Amendments with regard to timber and sporting, which would then have to be relegated to the Report stage, and that would be very inconvenient.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, his proposal was to strike out the sub-section at this place and move it again, not on Report, but in Committee.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought it would be better for the Government to undertake this matter.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his proposal to strike out the subsection. This sub-section stated conditions, the breach of which would form matter of forfeiture, and, as he understood, the intention of the hon. Member (Mr. W. Holms) was that the landlord's rights should be so defined that there
      1026
      could be no doubt about them; but he did not appear to suggest that if those rights were violated that should involve forfeiture. Then the Attorney General said there was a mistake, and he proposed to strike out the section altogether at this point; but unless the principle was to be given up entirely this was the proper place for the section, and he thought the best plan would be to proceed to consider the other parts of the clause, and afterwards, if the Government thought fit, to make any alteration that could be made on Report.
      MR. W. HOLMSsaid, that what he understood from the Attorney General was that the sub-section should be transposed to another part, and he would withdraw his Amendment and bring it up later, if that was the proper course.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he thought there was some misapprehension on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), who wanted something more than a mere condition, and was not satisfied with a reservation of the landlord's rights. It obviously would not be consistent with the framework of the clause to insert here a declaration of the landlord's rights in the middle of the clause. But if the 3rd sub-section was left out here, it could be re-introduced at the end of the clause.
      MR. GIBSONpointed out that the hon. Member clearly wanted to assert here the distinct right of the landlord to do certain things, and he suggested that it would be better to let the existing sub-section stand, to provide that the tenant should permit the landlord to exercise his rights; and then, after line 11, they could bring in a clear statement asserting what the landlord's rights were. Here they were dealing with the obligation on the tenant to permit the landlord to exercise his rights, which must remain in the Bill, and might remain here as in the proper place; and the Amendment, which, he thought quite reasonable, would contain a statement that these things which the landlord might do had been clearly preserved in the statutory tenancy.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he thought it would be more convenient first to reserve the rights, and then have a provision preventing the tenant from interfering with them.
      MR. CHAPLINsuggested that greater progress would be made by going straight on with the Bill as drawn by the Government.
      MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he hoped the suggestion of the Prime Minister would be accepted. When the clause was brought up again there would be two distinct points—one, a breach of conditions, which would involve forfeiture; the other, a declaration of the landlord's rights.
      THE CHAIRMAN: As I understand the proposal before the Committee, it is that for the present we strike out this sub-section, which is necessary, but which we cannot postpone technically, and at the end of Section 5 re-introduce it and consider the Amendments.
      MR. ONSLOWinquired whether, if the sub-section was omitted, the Prime Minister intended to put in any other rights of the landlord than those in the paragraph now under consideration? If there was to be a new clause specifying all the landlord's rights he could see no end to the discussion.
      MR. GLADSTONE: All that we ask is to postpone the sub-section.
      MR. WARTONsaid, he was anxious that the Committee should clearly know to what they were agreeing, and he thought it his duty to point out what he understood to be the result of such a transposition. This clause, down to line 11, was framed on the assumption that there were a certain number of statutory conditions which, if broken, were to be the subject-matter of forfeiture. But he failed to see how the clause could possibly run if they omitted this 3rd sub-section now, and then, after line 11, indulge in an abstract declaration of the landlord's rights, and restore the 3rd sub-section. That would completely break the framework of the Bill.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, "That the words from 'the,' in line 34, to the word 'landlord,' in page 35, line 4, stand part of the Clause."
      COLONEL BARNEpointed out that to put sub-section 3 in after sub-section 5 would make perfect nonsense of the clause; because sub-sections 4 and 5 had nothing to do with the reasons for which a tenant was to forfeit his holding.
      MR. LEAMYunderstood that the Question before the Committee was that the sub-section should stand part of the Bill.
      THE CHAIRMAN: That is a mistake. If this part of the section is omitted at present, the Government have undertaken to bring it up after Section 5, and consider it with all the Amendments as it stands on the Paper. That I understand to be the proposal.
      MR. PARNELLrose to a point of Order, and asked whether, if these words were negatived in the first part of the clause, they could be again brought up and inserted at a subsequent portion of the clause? It appeared to him that if the Committee had negatived the words as part of the clause they could not re-introduce them.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The question is really practically the same. The Committee desire to postpone the section and introduce it in another part of the clause. Therefore, although it is an inconvenient proceeding, and one which can only be adopted under exceptional circumstances, it is within the power of the Committee to take that course. In fact, it has already been done in an earlier part of this Bill.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsuggested that the whole of the Amendments should be dropped here and allowed to re-appear in another place.
      MR. TOTTENHAMasked whether, if the proposition was negatived, it would be competent to take the Amendment in the same form again?
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked if it was to be understood that this course could be pursued by the Committee because it was proposed by the Government; but if it had been proposed by a private Member it could not be adopted. The proceeding was distinctly in Order or it was not, and he observed that the Chairman had said that it was an inconvenient course, which, however, might be adopted under the exceptional circumstances.
      THE CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, the Government intend to propose the sub-section in another part, and with a different arrangement; and if that is the meaning of the Government they are in Order. It might be better, in order to explain such a proceeding, which is not uncommon, for the Chairman to put the Question "that these

      1029
      words be here omitted," instead of negatived; but that form of putting the Question has never been used.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLpointed out that, in answer to a question by himself, the Prime Minister had stated that the clause would be brought up again in the same form. If words were omitted now, how could it be in Order to move that they stand part of the clause in a subsequent part of the Bill?
      MR. W. HOLMSunderstood that although sub-section 3 was to be postponed until after line 11 had been disposed of, he would be allowed again to bring forward his Amendment. He withdrew the Amendment now, for the convenience of the Committee, on that understanding.
      MR. GLADSTONE: The question is one for the Committee; and, therefore, the noble Lord misunderstands the position. There is no privilege. The difficulty simply arises in this way. What is wanted is a transposition of a certain portion of the clause in order that it may be brought up as a matter of convenience in another part of the Bill. The power of the Committee apparently does not extend to postponing part of the clause. If we could do that it would be another matter; but we have no power to do that, and the only way is to strike out the words where they now stand, and then to re-propose them. Then I am asked if we will re-propose them in the same form. We do not wish to bind ourselves absolutely on that point.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, it was perfectly clear from the remarks of the Prime Minister, and from the ruling of the Chair, that the course the Government proposed would not be in Order, because the Chairman had distinctly said that the Government intended to bring the clause up in another and a different sense; and he (Lord Randolph Churchill) contended, therefore, that the proposed course would not be in Order.
      MR. LITTONsaid, if the identical words could be brought up again the Committee would be called upon to restore to this clause the words which they had decided should not be in the same clause. If the Government brought up different words, and altered the language of the sub-section, what would
      1030
      then become of the Amendments now on the Paper?
      MR. TOTTENHAMurged that on so important a question the Committee should not come to a decision without understanding in what shape the subsection would be brought forward again. If the Question put from the Chair was negatived, would it be competent for the Government or any hon. Member to bring up the sub-section in the same words?
      MR. W. H. SMITHthought a great deal of time would be saved if the Committee proceeded with the section as it stood, and leave the particular Amendments for Report. That would not, in the slightest degree, alter the structure of the sub-section.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked whether it was not the rule that a clause if postponed could not be brought up again until the end of the Bill?
      MR. GORSTsaid, if the Chairman's ruling was correct, the Committee would have no power to transpose one part of the clause. It would have been decided that the words stand part of the clause in that place, and that decision could not be reversed.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down a great deal more clear than that of the Government; and he believed it was wholly impossible to re-introduce the same clause, or to introduce words which were substantially the same.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the only way to try the question was whether the words should stand part of the clause. It did not signify whether it was a question of one word, or three words, or 30 words.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I want to explain exactly what I understand to be the difficulty. If these words be now struck out, and brought in in another part of the clause, that will remove ambiguities which attach to them. There is nothing new in this proposal, for exactly the same thing was done in a previous part of the Bill by transposing a line, while the proposal transposes a section.
      MR. HEALYasked whether all the Amendments put down would re-appear on the Paper?
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLunderstood that the Chairman ruled that the words should be left out here, be-

      1031
      cause they were ambiguous. It appeared to him that they would be ambiguous if stuck in after line 11. The question had nothing to do with the ambiguity or non-ambiguity of the words, but whether there was any precedent for such a proceeding.
      MR. W. HOLMSsuggested that his Amendment should be withdrawn in favour of the proposal of the Attorney General to transpose sub-section 3 to line 11.
      MR. A. M. SULLIVANthought it preposterous that when once a phrase had been negatived in a particular part of a Bill it must never re-appear.
      MR. CHAPLINwished for a distinct statement from the Government as to whether they would undertake to re-introduce the same words at the end of the sub-section. Many Members attached great importance to this sub-section.
      MR. GLADSTONEreplied, that the difficulty in giving a literal answer was that a double character was to be given to this enactment, and he wished to reserve a consideration of the section before bringing it up again.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked whether all the subjects at present mentioned in the sub-section would re-appear?
      MR. GLADSTONE: Yes.
      MR. BIGGARthought the proposal of the Government unreasonable, pointing out the inconvenience of Amendments which were now in their proper place being postponed to a place where they would not fit into the sub-section. He suggested going on with the subsection as it stood, allowing the Amendments to be moved in their proper order.
      MR. MACARTNEYsuggested that the difficulty might be met by a declaration of the landlord's rights being introduced on Report at the beginning of Clause 4, and that the Committee should go on with Clause 4 as it stood now.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      MR. BIGGARmoved to leave out the words "his landlord," in line 5, subsection 4, and insert the words "the Court." It was, he said, obviously undesirable that the landlord should have the right to come in, and to have the power of extorting a fine when the tenant found it desirable to sub-let or sub-
      1032
      divide his holding. He was not in favour of sub-letting except in exceptional cases; but he did not think the landlord should have the right to interfere with sub-division, further than to appear in Court and state his objections.
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 5, leave out "his landlord," and insert "the Court."—(Mr. Biggar.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that Amendment had practically been decided when it was said that there should not be subdivision without the decision of the Court.
      MR. HEALYpointed to the probability that a landlord might pretend to refuse to allow sub-division, although he would be glad to see sub-division if he was paid for it, and so he would practically impose a fine on the tenant. The decision should be in the hands of the Court and not the landlord.
      MR. BIGGARthought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was wrong in saying that a decision had been come to on this point on a former part of the Bill. This was a new clause, and he urged the Government to accept the Amendment.
      MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), who had a similar Amendment on the Paper, had left that Amendment in his hands; but had said he did not feel he could move it, because the point had been already decided.
      MR. MARUMasked the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention had been directed to the 9th section of the Land Act of 1870, which would, on assignment or bankruptcy, deprive the tenant of his right to compensation for disturbance?
      MR. LEAMYreferred to the same section of the Act of 1870, and mentioned that by that Bill a tenant could not recover compensation for disturbance if he sub-let or sub-divided without the consent of the landlord.
      Amendment negatived.
      MR. WARTONmoved to insert the words "in writing" at the end of line 5, sub-section 4, and said, it seemed to him very important that the consent of

      1033
      the landlord should be given in writing, because disputes might arise and lead to long litigation. This proviso was inserted in many leases, and it would frequently prevent strife.
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 5, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "in writing."—(Mr. Warton.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. E. STANHOPEconsidered the Amendment very desirable, in order to prevent disputes as to the consent of the landlord having been given; and he should, therefore, support the Amendment.
      MR. BIGGARhoped the Government would not agree to the Amendment. It might be a plausible Amendment, but it should not be accepted, because, if the matter came to be one of evidence, and the Court was not satisfied with the evidence, then there would be room for controversy.
      MR. BRODRICKpointed out that although the consent of the landlord might be given at the beginning of a 15 years' term, at the end of the term some dispute might arise upon which, without this Amendment, there would be no documentary evidence. He hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 217: Majority 136.—(Div. List, No. 261.)
      And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman reported Progress; Committee to sit again upon Thursday.
      The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
      The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
      House adjourned at ten minutes after Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Tenterden, after the death of his uncle.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Acton, &c.) * (121); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (122).
Second Reading—Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland)* (113); Consolidated Fund (No. 3)*; Post Office (Land)* (114).
Select Committee—Stolen Goods* (86), nominated.
Committee—Local Government Provisional Orders (Birmingham, Tame, and Rea, &c.)* (111).
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Ballymena, &c.) * (110); Local Government Provisional Orders (Cottingham, &c.) * (112).
Third Reading—Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment * (92); Inclosure Provisional Order (Thurstaston Common) * (76); Land Tax Commissioners' Names* (109), and passed.

BULGARIA (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question, of which he had given him private Notice, with regard to recent events in Bulgaria. It was now some weeks since Europe was surprised by a sudden announcement that either the Bulgarian Constitution must be suspended, or the Bulgarian Throne declared vacant. As to the immediate causes which led to this sudden
  956
  announcement, they had hitherto received no official information; and, as a month had since elapsed, it was not premature to ask the noble Earl whether he could give the House any information which would throw light on the subject?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I can quite understand the wish of the noble Earl to receive information upon this important question. The feeling in this country is very naturally inclined to revolt at the idea of anything that looks like a coup d'etat, or the disruption of a Constitution by anything but legal and constitutional means. But I am desirous to state what I have to say in an impartial and practical manner. It should be remembered that the Constitution of Bulgaria was not provided in the Treaty of Berlin. One was drawn up by the Russian Commissary and presented, before the accession of the Prince, to the Assembly of Notables. Important changes were made in this Constitution by the Assembly; they struck out the clerical, judicial, and nominated members; they gave universal suffrage, and abolished the Council of State, which, I apprehend, was intended to act as a Second Chamber. It appears that the Prince thought this democratic Constitution unfitted to a population unaccustomed to political life, and of whom only a small number were educated. The Prince was much dissatisfied with the Constitution as it was then settled—so much so, indeed, that, looking at the Papers at the Foreign Office, it appears that the Prince was very unwilling to accept the Throne at all, and he only did so after receiving encouragement from some of the Great Powers. His Royal Highness has continued, from time to time, to complain of the inefficiency of this Constitution and of the impossibility of his usefully discharging the duties intrusted to him with such imperfect machinery. Very different accounts are given with regard to the working of this Constitution. Those who oppose it declare that the result has been no government at all; that the Assembly represents exclusively the peasants, who are ignorant of politics, impatient of any taxation, and are only desirous of opposing all authorities; that reforms of the Administration have been thus rendered impossible; that great injustice has been done to the Mussulmans, contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of

  957
  Berlin. The opposite party say there is a gross exaggeration in these complaints, and appeal triumphantly to the great increase of revenue under this Constitution. The English Representative at Sofia during the late Government recorded his opinion that there was no government at all, although he thought the Prince exaggerated to himself the difficulties created by the Constitution. Mr. Lascelles, whose excellent judgment and tact seem to have acquired for him the respect and confidence of both parties, and who has uniformly recommended prudence and moderation to both, has been of opinion that the Constitution does require revision, though he is opposed to any violence in effecting the change. A Report fully describing the working of the Constitution is shortly expected from him. I have been informed by Englishmen of great authority, but whose names I have not received permission to quote, that in their opinion the weakness of the Executive is such as to make good government almost impossible. I am bound to admit that I myself have observed that whereas it is so desirable that Bulgaria should act for herself, it was impossible to secure fair treatment of certain minorities without the undesirable pressure of ourselves and other Powers. The Prince claims the right, which every man has, to abdicate a position in which he feels he can be of no use. Such threats or offers of abdication have not been without precedent. The late King of the Belgians, a very sagacious Sovereign, at an important crisis at Brussels, made such an offer with success, and with general approval. But this claim is not one which can be universally recognized without any qualification. I remember the late Sir Robert Peel, when criticizing a fact of contemporary history, dwelling upon the duty of a Minister in ordinary times to be ever sensitively ready to resign; but in a time of crisis he maintained that the responsibility lay in the opposite direction. The Prince may be perfectly right to desire some revision of the Constitution as an alternative to his abdication; he may be perfectly right to appeal to the National Assembly itself to decide the matter. We have not yet had any full explanations of some of the steps he has taken. But I think it is clear that before taking the final step, which may plunge the
  958
  country which he agreed to govern into internal anarchy, and possibly into complications with powerful neighbours, he ought to try all he can to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement—I may almost say compromise—with the Assembly. On the other hand, it appears to me that it would be madness on the part of a population lately emancipated, with little political experience, of whom it is said that none but the schoolmasters and stationmasters have sufficient education to fill official situations, not to try to arrive at a friendly understanding with the Prince, and to agree to improvements and reforms which, while they did not sacrifice liberty, would also secure order and justice to all classes of the community. The matter is, no doubt, one of very great importance, and I hope it will be settled in a manner satisfactory.

ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION—THE MEMORANDUM—OFFICERS—GOOD SERVICE REWARDS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CHELMSFORD, in rising to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it is still intended to deprive general officers, who maybe retired under the provisions of the warrant which is to come into force on the 1st July next, of the good service reward which under present conditions they are entitled to retain until they are appointed colonel of a regiment or colonel commandant? said, he had already on a previous occasion pointed out to their Lordships how unjust it would be to deprive general officers of this reward. He had hoped that the representations made by several of these officers, pointing out how unfair the proposal was, would have had some effect, and that some remedy would have been applied; but he regretted to find that the intention still existed to deprive these officers of the reward. Under the proposed scheme that mark of Her Majesty's approbation would be taken from those, officers, and what was called a pecuniary equivalent would be given in its place. No doubt general officers, as a class, were not rich men; he might say they were generally poor men. They did not spurn the benefit of pecuniary emolument; but he thought it was somewhat unfair to take away this distinguished

  959
  service reward, even from a sentimental point of view. The rule, at the present moment, was that an officer should hold a distinguished service reward until he was appointed to the colonelcy of a regiment. The colonelcy of a regiment was merely a higher development of that distinguished service reward; and when the officer received the colonelcy of a regiment he resigned his distinguished service reward only to receive a more honourable position in the Army. Under the new scheme, those officers would be placed on the retired list, with nothing to show that Her Majesty had specially rewarded them for their service. They were not allowed to remain on the active list, and many of them could not ever expect to receive the colonelcy of a regiment in consequence of their position on the list. They attached very great value indeed to the mark of distinction they possessed, and they felt hurt at being deprived of it. If this question was to be taken in a purely commercial point of view, he thought it was right that it should be done in a logical and just manner, and an officer receiving a higher rate of pay should be dealt with more liberally than an officer receiving a smaller rate of pay. It would be replied that officers were not compelled to accept the new conditions, and that they might remain under the old rules. That sounded very plausible, but it was not correct; for they would not be allowed to remain on the active list for employment. The Secretary of State for War, in his speech in the House of Commons on the 3rd of March, said that he proposed with respect to general officers of the Army to apply to them the system of pay, promotion, and retirement which applied to flag officers in the Navy. That promise, as he understood the matter, had not under the new scheme been carried out. Flag officers and general officers of the Marines were allowed to retain their good-service reward when retired, and he thought that the general officers, to whose case he was referring, might fairly claim that the same conditions as were accorded to the Navy should be accorded to them. There were minor points connected with retirement in the Navy which were also much more favourable than the system applied to general officers, particularly with regard to compulsory retirement. The rule proposed was that general officers
  960
  who have been unemployed for five years should be compulsorily retired. In the Navy a flag officer was not compulsorily retired until he had been 10 years unemployed. An Admiral at the age of 65, after 30 years' sea service, would have £850; and if he were entitled besides to count five years' extra sea service, he would have £100 a-year more, making up £950. General officers at the same age would receive £980; but each of those officers had sunk £4,500 in his commission, the interest on which alone was £200 a-year; and no one could therefore say that £30 a-year more than a flag officer received was an adequate pension for a general officer. In conclusion, that matter was deeply felt by the general officers who held that distinguished service reward; and he could but express his hope that the Secretary of State for War, who had dealt so liberally with other officers, would give his best consideration to that question, and would do what was possible to alleviate the grievance under which the general officers laboured.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he had no reason to complain of the manner in which the noble and gallant Lord who had just spoken had brought forward that subject; but he would venture to maintain that, practically, no injustice whatever was done to those officers on retirement under the Regulations which would come into force on the 1st of July next in respect of their good service reward. The point which had to be considered was, what would be the position of officers under the present system as compared with the new? Existing general officers would have the absolute option on the 1st of July of accepting the new scale of half-pay and of retired pay, or of continuing on the same terms as regarded unattached pay, good-service pension, and prospects of obtaining a regimental colonency as at present, whether they were removed from the active list either by reaching the age of 62 as major-generals, or 67 as lieutenant-generals or generals, or by having been unemployed for five years. If they elected to continue as at present, they would, as at present, retain their good-service rewards till they obtained a regiment. If they chose to accept the new terms now offered, which we might presume they would only do if they were more advantageous to their interests

  961
  than those to which they were at the present time entitled, they would then, like all generals appointed after the 1st of July, have to surrender their good-service rewards on retirement. There was nothing at all unfair in this. At present, all general officers drew the same unattached pay—namely, £450 per annum, with which they might also receive £100 reward for distinguished service. But on obtaining a regiment, which was worth, in ordinary cases, £1,000 per annum, and must be regarded as the great prize offered to an officer at the end of his military career, he at once relinquished his rewards. Under the proposed new arrangements there would be graduated rates of half-pay for generals on the active list—namely, £500 for major generals, £650 for lieutenant generals, £800 for full generals; and, similarly, there would be a graduated rate of retired pay for general officers of each rank when removed from the active list—namely, £700, £850, and £1,000 respectively, and the six field marshals would receive £1,300 a-year. These pensions, together with higher rates of half-pay, were calculated to be equivalent to the lower rate of unattached pay now drawn, and the paid colonelcies, because in the lower grades these retired pensions would be open to general officers at a much earlier age than they could now hope to obtain a regiment. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, strictly followed the precedent which now obtained with regard to distinguished service rewards, and when an officer retired with £200 more than he received, as long as he was on the active list he should resign his reward, just as he did now when he obtained a regiment, the value of which was about equivalent to the new retiring pension. If the two scales of remuneration were on an average nearly equal, it was clear that if a general were allowed to retain his reward when he was drawing the new retired pay, while he was under existing regulations prohibited from doing so as colonel of a regiment, they would be giving him an additional advantage which he had no right whatever to claim. He might add that field marshals, who were not subject to retirement, might retain their rewards. The new rates of half-pay and retired pay were calculated on the principle that the good-service rewards would not be
  962
  held with retired pay. The noble and gallant Lord referred to the naval rates, and maintained that they were more advantageous than the rates offered to generals, because Admirals were allowed to carry their distinguished service rewards into retirement; but the naval pensions were on a lower scale than the military, the latter having been deliberately raised, so as to include the rewards. If the noble and gallant Lord were to insist upon retired generals retaining their rewards together with their pensions, it could only be done by entirely re-modelling the whole scale of half-pay and pension, and he (the Earl of Morley) did not think that this would be to the general advantage of officers affected.

TUNIS.

  ADDRESS FOR CIRCULAR.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in asking what were the present diplomatic relations, between this country and the Regency of Tunis, and in moving an Address for
  "Copy of M. Roustan's Circular promulgating a decree of His Highness the Bey of Tunis constituting him, as French Minister resident, the sole official intermediary between all foreign representatives and the Government of Tunis; also for copy of the instructions issued to the British Political Agent at Tunis on the subject, and for other papers and correspondence relative to the treaty recently concluded between France and Tunis;"
  said, he wished to address their Lordships on a subject which he believed the noble Earl opposite the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs thought ought to be allowed to sink into oblivion sub silentio—"unwept." He would not say "unhonoured and unsung," for he gathered from what had fallen from his noble Friend at different times that transactions which had recently taken place, to which he was about to allude, were in his view honourable, and that it was a matter of rejoicing that a nation which made civilization its watchword had discharged what had been described as a "sacred duty" in taking an uncivilized country, as it was said, under its protection and nurturing care. He was sorry to say that he entirely differed from his noble Friend. He deeply lamented what had occurred. He saw in the steps taken by France with regard to Tunis much to deplore. He could not see that the course which had been adopted was an honourable one, neither

  963
  Could he see any cause for rejoicing that the so-called greater civilization of France was to be introduced into the Regency of Tunis. Viewing it apart from British interests, he conceived that Tunis was regarded as an uncivilized country, and that it needed the genial influence of a great Western Power to soften its manners and reform its abuses. He was inclined to take a somewhat different view. He doubted the existence of much sympathy between Western and Eastern civilization, and the good resulting from the contact of one with the other, and he thought he discerned in the Treaty of 1875 between this country and Tunis traces of civilization as great as in Treaties between what were generally regarded as the most civilized countries of Europe. Events had passed in rapid succession. It was but a few months ago that he himself saw the Regency of Tunis a prosperous and a contented country, under the mild sway of its own Ruler, where natives and foreigners traded together in friendly intercourse, with agriculture and commerce flourishing. But a change had passed over it. A foreigner now ruled; the Sovereign was all but a prisoner; his officers had been dismissed; and the Political Agents of Foreign Powers accredited to him could no longer approach him, save only through the Minister of the Power which had laid violent hands upon his country. He desired to abstain from the use of any expressions which might be construed in an offensive manner; but he did think that the time was come when secrecy and dark and ambiguous forms of speech should cease to be used, and that the truth of all that had taken place should no longer be concealed. The subject was not a new one. As long ago as July, 1878, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke) was asked in the other House of Parliament—
  " To explain whether there are any grounds for the rumours about changes in the Mahommedan territories of Tunis and Tripoli as respects their transfer to Italy and France?"—[3 Hansard,, ccxli. 1580.]
  No information was, however, given. But it would be noticed that the question of Tripoli as well as Tunis was at that time also supposed to be agitated; and if any of their Lordships should be disposed to regard what had happened at Tunis as a solitary instance of aggressive
  964
  action, he would ask whether it was likely to continue to be so? There was another country not very different in geographical position, and not very different in its political status, which might be found before long to be inconveniently close to Tunis, as Tunis was to Algeria. He alluded to Tripoli; and beyond Tripoli there was a country with which the interests of England were closely allied. He meant Egypt; and if at the present time not even a protest was made against the aggressive action of France, we might be involved not long hence in graver and more serious complications. He could assure their Lordships that he was not speaking without some knowledge of what had passed and of what was now going on. If he asked for information from the noble Earl opposite, possibly he might be told either that there was none, or that it would be given at a future day, or that it was inconvenient that any should be given at all, or that he was in possession of all that the noble Earl knew, as it came from an undoubted source—and so it did, and he did not hesitate to say that he relied upon it more than upon what had been given from other sources; and therefore it was that he felt he might ask their Lordships' serious attention to the present position in which this country was placed with regard to its political and commercial relations with Tunis. Now, in the year 1875, a Convention was concluded between England and Tunis, by which this country was treated as "the most favoured nation," and great advantages were given, both politically and commercially. By this Treaty Her Majesty's Political Agent and Consul General was accredited to the Bey with "every privilege and immunity which is paid or allowed to the representative of any other nation whatsoever," and also the most favourable terms were made with reference to the import of British goods and manufactures. An ad valorem duty of 8 per cent was fixed as the maximum, or a specific duty equivalent thereto. But what was the present state of affairs? They were informed that Her Majesty's Political Agent and Consul General accredited to the Bey had been removed from the position which he occupied so far as that he could now no longer communicate with the Bey or his Government except through the medium of the French Mi-

  965
  nister. This was the first result of the Treaty which had been forced upon the Bey. The consequences of this were manifest. All transactions, political or commercial, between this country and Tunis must be carried on through the Minister of a Foreign Power, who might or might not be friendly to us. If Treaties were to be made or revised—and the Treaty of 1875 might be subject to revision in 1882—all must pass through this channel, and England, which had been treated "as the most favoured nation," and had Treaties of great commercial value with Tunis, might be obliged to make very different terms when commercial questions were brought under French supervision. Now, in the despatch of the noble Earl opposite, dated May 20, 1881, great stress was laid upon the assurance given by the French Government "that all existing connections between Tunis and Foreign Powers will be maintained and respected;" but he would really ask his noble Friend whether it was possible, even with the greatest diplomatic ingenuity, to say that the Treaty was maintained and respected when the Agent and Consul General of Her Majesty was excluded from access to the Bey or his Government, except through the medium of the French Minister? This was a question of grave importance, and one which excited considerable interest throughout the country, especially considering how important it was to us to maintain our prestige and supremacy in the Mediterranean. He would, therefore, put it deliberately and seriously to Her Majesty's Government whether these things were to be passed over in silence, as though they were matters of no concern to the country, as if outside their Lordships' House no notice was taken of them? He could not for a moment suppose that the manufacturing and commercial interest of this country would rest satisfied with this transfer of English influence to France. He believed if this Treaty were acknowledged and no protest were made against it, that perplexing and complicated questions would arise and the political and commercial position of this country would be seriously affected by it. But, apart from this, which was, it appeared to him, a most important aspect of it, he would ask was it consistent with the honour and dignity of this country that
  966
  Her Majesty's Political Agent and Consul General accredited to the Bey should no longer be able to approach him, and that he should be informed by a Circular from the Minister of a Foreign Power that he could only do so through him? Such, as it seemed, was the present position of diplomatic relations between this country and Tunis; and it must not be forgotten that there were not less than 10,000 British subjects in the Regency of Tunis, who, if this Treaty, which had been forced from the Bey, were acknowledged by Her Majesty's Government, would be handed over to a Foreign Power and their interests placed under its protection. These were some of the reasons why he wished to ask the noble Earl opposite what were the present diplomatic relations between this country and Tunis, in what position Her Majesty's Political Agent was placed, and how he was to discharge the duties with which he had been intrusted, if all communications between the Sovereign to whom he was accredited and the Government of this country were to pass through the hands of the Minister of a Foreign Power? He would further observe that by the Convention of 1875 the rights of British subjects were secured, Consular Courts were established for the adjudication of all cases between British subjects, so also were their rights secured in cases where British and Tunisian or foreign interests were concerned. He might refer to the Enfida case still pending, of which they had heard so much. But how would it now be? All would be subjected to the authority and will of a Foreign Power over which we had no control. He could hardly conceive a position more humiliating or more injurious to British interests. And now he must refer for one moment to the recent protest of the Porte, which appeared in The Times of the 16th of June, of which he concluded the noble Earl opposite had received an official copy. It would seem that already French interference had reached Tripoli. We were informed that the French Consul addressed a letter to the Governor General of Tripoli stating that, in pursuance of the recent Treaty between France and Tunis—
  "He begged to submit to him a list of Tunisians resident in Tripoli and requested that those persons be henceforth considered as French protected subjects."

  967
  No wonder some alarm was felt in various quarters as to what might be the next step, what further violations of International Law might take place, or what further aggressions might be made. Their Lordships well knew that England was not the only country watching passing events on the Northern shores of Africa. Italy was not a silent spectator, for Italy was deeply interested in them. He firmly believed that if the voice of England had earlier been raised—and he trusted that it was not yet too late—this unhappy complication, so damaging to English interests and dangerous to the peace of Europe, would not have occurred.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for copy of M. Roustan's Circular promulgating a decree of His Highness the Bey of Tunis constituting him, as French Minister resident, the sole official intermediary between all foreign representatives and the Government of Tunis; also copy of the instructions issued to the British Political Agent at Tunis on the subject, and for other papers and correspondence relative to the treaty recently concluded between France and Tunis."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he thought their Lordships were indebted to the noble Earl for having brought this question forward, as the matter involved was one of very great importance in many of its aspects, and one, morever, concerning which their Lordships' House and the country had a right to ask for information at the hands of Her Majesty's Government which would have a tendency to smooth out the tangled skein of difficulty in which this country was placed, not only in reference to the Bey of Tunis, but to the Ottoman Porte and to France. The French began by saying that their only object in landing a force on Tunisian territory was to punish some unruly Kroumirs, and to see that French interests were better attended. The result, however, was that they had actually annexed the country. He did not wish to impute any bad faith on the part of France, knowing how difficult it was at the commencement to estimate how far matters would go; but he thought they had grounds sufficient to justify them in asking the Government to give them some information as to what it was thought affairs would lead to, and how far English interests were likely to be involved. He could not but think that
  968
  the Treaty which had been signed between the Bey of Tunis and the French Government had altered the relations of Her Majesty's Government to that of Tunis, in that, as was well known, it abrogated the right which the British Consul or Political Agent in Tunis had always hitherto enjoyed of free access to the person of the Bey in cases where the interests of British subjects were affected. This right had been taken away by a Treaty which the Bey said he was compelled by force to sign. On this point he would venture to quote the opinion of Wheaton, who, in his work on International Law, wrote as follows:—
  "The usage of all times, and especially the more recent times, authorizes public Ministers of every class to confer on all suitable occasions with the Sovereigns at whose Courts they are accredited on the political relations between the two States."
  In a subsequent portion of his work Wheaton used these words—
  "Consuls and other commercial agents not being accredited to the Sovereign or Minister of Foreign Affairs are not in general considered as public Ministers, but the Consuls maintained by the Christian Powers of Europe and America near the Barbary States are accredited and treated as public Ministers."
  He had not the slightest doubt that their Representative in Tunis enjoyed the privilege of access to the person of the Bey, and that such privilege had been taken away from him by the French Political Resident after signing the Treaty of the 12th of May, which Treaty their Lordships were aware the Bey signed under protest, stating that he was compelled to sign by force. It had been stated that their Treaties were to be maintained; but it was impossible that they could be maintained, seeing that they must, of necessity, be broken in the most important part he had mentioned—that their Minister should have access to the Bey, and be able to appeal directly to him in cases affecting the interests of British subjects. As far as the actual position of affairs in Tunis was concerned, it seemed to him to resemble, for all practical purposes, an annexation by France, though it was described as being simply a temporary occupation. How far their duty, as one of the Signatories of the Treaty of Paris, was affected by the present situation in Tunis he hoped they should hear from the noble Earl the Secretary

  969
  of State for Foreign Affairs. The question affected them in three ways. In the first place, it affected their duty as a Signatory of these Treaties; secondly, as to how far the state of things in Tunis might affect their commercial and Imperial interests; and, also, they had to look at it to consider the manner in which the state of things existing in Tunis had been brought about, and whether it had been conducted with proper deference to the honour and dignity of this country. Tunis, at all events, had always been considered as forming a part of the Ottoman Empire by this country, and, he believed, was so considered by France up to 1824; it was so recognized by Russia, seeing she withdrew her Representative upon the war with Turkey; and it was so recognized by Germany. It was stated in the most straightforward and clear language the other day by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that England still looked upon Tunis as forming part of the Ottoman Empire, and that he did not feel it right to interfere in the disposition of that country. Well, he (the Earl of Dunraven) would like to know whether they intended not only to interfere with the partition of the Ottoman Empire, but whether they, as Signatories of the Treaties of Paris and Berlin, were bound to interfere, if the integrity of the Ottoman Empire and the rights of the Sultan were interfered with? That was a question which it would be interesting to their Lordships to have an answer to, if Her Majesty's Government could give one. Even if the occupation of Tunis was not an infringement of the rights of the Sultan, or an invasion of his Empire, there could be no question of one thing—that France had taken over the management of the foreign affairs; in other words, France adopted the position of a Suzerain over Tunis. In the discussion on the Transvaal some time ago, the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) stated that England's having control over the Transvaal Boers made her, in fact, a Suzerain, and that suzerainty exactly described the position of England in having control over the foreign affairs of the Transvaal Boers; and the noble Earl went on to state that their having control over 40,000 people without any access to the sea was a matter of very
  970
  considerable importance. If it was, how much more important must be their relations with 2,000,000 of people, forming a portion of the Great Ottoman Empire, having a sea-board of 500 miles on the Mediterranean, and commanding a great portion of that sea? It seemed to him that whether the Dominions of the Sultan were infringed upon or not, France, in Tunis, had taken upon herself the suzerainty in that country which they had hitherto allowed to exist in the Ottoman Porte. As to the effect on their power he did not wish to say much. With respect to their immediate interests, England had a considerable amount of trade with Tunis, and through Tunis with the interior of Africa, as to which trade very favourable arrangements had been entered into with Tunis. In these days, when already certain ports were closed against them, they ought to be thankful for small mercies. Their goods were only charged 8 per cent ad valorem duty and they had had considerable trade. But if the entry into the interior was blocked to them through Tunis, there would remain only Morocco; and if Morocco were blocked to them, the interior of Africa would be entirely closed to their trade. That was a matter which was rather serious, because they must not forget that their only trade was with savages aud semi-savages, and their Colonies and Dependencies. If they were shut out of Tunis they could not deal with the semi-savages of the interior. Then, again, the whole of their Indian, Australian, New Zealand, and China trade passed through the Malta Channel, and he need not point out the change that would arise if that channel were at all threatened. That, indeed, was the most important part of the export trade of this country, and anything which could, in the slightest degree, endanger that trade was a subject which deserved the most serious consideration by Her Majesty's Government. Malta was supplied with meat and grain from Tunis, and a great deal of the coasting trade was carried on by Maltese vessels. The effect, therefore, upon the British Empire of the overthrow of the balance of power in the Mediterranean which would be caused by the preponderance of one Power on the littoral of the Mediterranean could scarcely be overrated, as it might render necessary the consideration on the part of this country of

  971
  how the balance of power in that sea could be re-adjusted. But the question as to their trade was that which was of more immediate importance, because, as he had said, the greater bulk of their export trade must pass through the Malta Channel, and that trade could be very much threatened and placed in a difficult and precarious position by any Power having control of or the capability of endangering the safety of that channel. But what he thought was more of present moment than anything else, was the most extraordinary manner in which recent affairs had been conducted in Tunis. The danger to England of French preponderance in the Mediterranean was one which could not now be considered very pressing. France was, and had for a long time been, a good friend and Ally of this country; and, that being so, he confessed he was more than astonished at the extraordinary way in which she had acted in Tunis as regarded this country. Their Lordships were aware that an English vessel had been stopped on the high seas and searched by a French vessel, and that another English vessel had been taken into port and searched. That was an action of which, as far as he knew, between two friendly Powers they had no other instance. At all events, it was a most extraordinary circumstance, even for a belligerent, and one very hard to find a parallel for. The French Government stated very properly that the commanders of their vessels had exceeded their orders; and, certainly, they had exceeded them in a most extraordinary manner. However, this matter had been apologized for, and nothing more was to be said about it; but he should have thought the French officials would afterwards have been more careful not to offend the dignity of this country, or hurt the feelings of Englishmen again. He saw, however, in the papers that Englishmen had been recently more or less grievously insulted in Tunis. One of Her Majesty's Consuls was accused of intriguing against France, another was accused of murder, and a third of selling powder to the Arabs, and so forth; and, as far as he knew, no explanation or apology had been offered in respect of these matters. But the most remarkable matter of all was the extraordinary attitude which our Political Agent had been forced to
  972
  assume, and the novel manner in which the intelligence had been communicated to him and to the other Foreign Representatives resident in Tunis. This country had had Treaties with Tunis for 200 or 300 years, under which the privilege of a direct appeal was allowed to our Political Agent in respect of the lives and properties of the 9,000 or 10,000 British subjects resident in Tunis. What had recently occurred, however, placed the Sovereign of this country in a very novel position. Having concluded a Treaty giving the privilege to our Political Agent to which he had referred, that privilege had been set aside and the Treaty altered, not by the Bey, or by the Sultan, but by the Representative of another foreign country. That was a novel position, he ventured to say, for a Representative of England to find himself placed in. He thought the situation of British subjects, who found themselves in Tunis, was also a novel and peculiar one. Instead of being entitled to appeal through our Political Agent directly to the Bey to demand justice, a British subject in Tunis would now be forced to sue for justice to the Representative of a Foreign Power. That was a state of things which he could only describe as being insupportable; and he trusted they would have some information from Her Majesty's Government which would explain these matters, and would tend to allay the uneasiness which must be felt, not only by that House and in Parliament, but throughout the country. These matters did not improve by keeping. Such a state of things was a novel sensation for the people of this country, and the sooner such uneasiness in their minds was removed the better it would be. He trusted Her Majesty's Government would find it convenient to give information on these subjects. He should be the last to ask Her Majesty's Government for information; but these matters were of a serious and pressing nature, and if Her Majesty's Government could give them information that would set their minds at rest, he thought it would be to the interest of Parliament and the country.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, that he concurred in the opinions expressed by the noble Earl who had introduced the subject. He could not but think, however, that at the outset the noble Earl

  973
  the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had treated the action taken by the French Government in a proper spirit. The explanation given in the earlier stages of this matter to the effect that the French Government had informed Lord Lyons that there was no intention of annexation was satisfactory enough; but the subsequent conduct of France through its Agents had been far from satisfactory. The question now stood in a very different position to what it formerly did. There were most important interests on the part of this country to be conserved, compared with which the question of annexation dwindled into insignificance. The result of the unhappy policy of the French Government was seen in the recent events which had happened at Marseilles. He must express his approval of the course taken by the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He trusted, however, that the Government would display firmness as well as prudence in their future policy on the subject, and that they would be able to place on the Table Papers which would be of a satisfactory character.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the attitude now taken by Her Majesty's Government was inconsistent, since the country had been told that British interests and Treaty rights should be maintained, and it had also been, told that the British Political Agent must go to M. Roustan on behalf of British subjects; yet it was but a few years ago that Her Majesty's Government had waged war against China for the sake of obtaining access to the Emperor for Her Majesty's Representative. It was much less necessary to obtain access to the Emperor, instead of to the Chinese Ministers, than it was to get access to the Bey himself, instead of to the representative of interests which were frequently opposed to those of British subjects. Another point was that it was often stated that the hands of Her Majesty's Government were tied by what had been unadvisedly said by a Member of a former Government; but that must be left out of account, since the affair had taken a new departure from the declarations made by M. Barthélemy St. Hilaire to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, and it was no offence to France to hold the French Government to those declarations.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that it was quite clear, whether the word "annexation" was used or not, that France was now in possession of Tunis. It was equally clear that the Bey was in subjection to a Power with which a few months ago he was on equal terms. It was not, however, equally clear what had been done by England from the first. They had all read with very great interest the letters which detailed the conversations which had been alluded to elsewhere by the noble Marquess opposite; but what he should like to know was what was the position which England took up from the first with regard to this question at the time of those conversations? Everything that England had done since that time had been explained to Parliament. But the information on the attitude of England in the first instance was still very insufficient, and it would be a great advantage if some further information were given on that point.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have no doubt that my first few sentences will be satisfactory to your Lordships, whatever may be the case with the others. I have very great pleasure in agreeing to the Motion of the noble Earl opposite, and, in point of fact, had he not made the Motion, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to have presented the Papers for which he has asked. I have no doubt that they will give the best explanation of the question as to the relations between this country and the Regency of Tunis. Having said this, I do not quarrel in the slightest degree with the noble Earl, either for his tone or for what he has said. He has been perfectly consistent throughout. He has been perfectly consistent in utterly condemning Her Majesty's Government for not having opposed—I do not know to what extent he would have carried the opposition—that great increase of political supremacy which there is no doubt France has now established in Tunis- I twitted him the other day for standing alone in this opinion in this House. I can no longer use that taunt, because he has now been more or less supported by individual Members of this House. What I wish to point out is this—that until I hear a contrary opinion more generally expressed, I am of opinion that the great majority of this House do not think that we were wrong in the course we have taken, and that

  975
  they really agree with what the noble Marquess opposite stated, who thought that under all the circumstances of the case we had taken the right course. But, be this as it may, that course has been taken, and concurrently we have received the strictest engagements, and recorded them as such, from the French Government, that our Treaty rights, as far as commerce and as far as British subjects are concerned, will not be invaded. It appears to me absolutely unavoidable that in a novel and unusual state of things incidents should have arisen which will require careful examination from Her Majesty's Government. They will take the best advice they can about these points, and they must certainly not refrain from having, not only very friendly, but very frank explanations from the French Government upon these points. On the other hand, I cannot conceive, not having opposed the substantial point—namely, the political supremacy—that there is any advantage in getting up petty squabbles and petty cases of irritation with the French nation, except where our Treaty engagements are in any way endangered. My noble Friend (the Earl of Dunraven) has made a long speech, and has gone over a great many topics. He stated that he did not wish to embarrass the Government, and I completely give him credit for that assertion. The fact is, a speech of that sort does not embarrass the Government; but I am not sure that it was a very useful speech to make, scraping together everything he could gather, both from official Papers and newspapers, calculated to create an irritated feeling in this country against that great country with which, whatever may have happened lately, it is our own interest and wish to remain on the most friendly terms. The noble Earl began about the integrity of the Ottoman Empire and the Treaty of 1856. We have always held that Tunis was part of the Ottoman Empire; but that opinion has not been universal. The French Government have consistently denied it since the taking of Algiers; and the Italians, 10 year's ago, utterly denied that Tunis was in the Ottoman Empire. I believe that Germany and Austria theoretically consider it is; but we have reason to know that they would not have given us the slightest encouragement if we had come forward to support that political doctrine.
  976
  This is a great subject for declamation; but for practical statesmanship it does not very much affect the question. I think the noble Lord took rather an unworthy course in bringing forward that incident of the searching of the two vessels. It was contrary to law, and the French had no right to do so. But what happened? The commanding officer immediately gave all the redress in his power, and assured our naval officer that the thing was absolutely contrary to the instructions he had given. The captain of the vessel was severely reprimanded, and both himself and the vessel were sent away from the station. Really, to bring these questions forward in order to embitter this sort of discussion was not, I think, quite worthy of the great ability of my noble Friend. He asked another question. He spoke very strongly on the right of access to the Bey. I believe we have no right by Treaty to get access to the Bey, and I am not aware that any right of access that exists is taken away. In any case, I feel that in present circumstances the right of access to the Bey is not one of paramount political importance. These are points to which Her Majesty's Government are paying great attention. Several of these questions have arisen; they will arise, and it is our duty to examine them most carefully and bring them before the attention of the French Government. But I do say that, having conceded the great point of the political influence now exercised by France in Tunis, it would be quite unbecoming in us to raise any unnecessary questions merely to embitter feelings between the two countries.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, my noble Friend on previous occasions brought this matter, as he was fully entitled to do, under the attention of the House, intending to deal mainly with the question of the acquisition of great political influence by France in Tunis. Upon that point I was not able entirely to agree with him. My opinions are well known to the House, because they are the opinions of the late Government, and they appear in despatches which are now on the Table of the House. They are opinions which have been fully stated, and I think I have nothing to add to them. In fact, as far as I am aware, no other communications proceeded from this Government to that of France upon the sub-

  977
  ject; and from those despatches your Lordships will have gathered that we held the view that the political influence of France in Tunis was not a matter of which this country had reason to be jealous—that we had no objection to its extension, and, as a matter of fact, we were willing to have given to the phrase a very liberal interpretation. I expressed my opinion, however, on that occasion, that France had gone a little further—or some considerable distance further—than the liberal interpretation of the phrase "extension of political influence "would permit; but, nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government had thought fit to acquiesce in the conduct that France pursued on that occasion. I saw nothing in the interests which this country has in Tunis, or interests which it possesses generally, which should make it wise in us to compromise our relations with an old and trusted Ally; and, therefore, I was not prepared, as the noble Earl has reminded the House to-night, to challenge the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. In fact, I am quite prepared to go with the noble Lord who spoke behind me, and who has left the House (Lord Lamington), and say that the despatches of the noble Earl opposite appear to be worthy of approval as far as that point has reached. But I confess I agree—though I feel it is a subject upon which one must speak with much reserve and care—with the noble Peers who think that the matter has now entered upon a some what new phase, and that the considerations which guided us before do not wholly continue to apply. I am not alluding in this respect to the matter of Tripoli, to which my noble Friend referred. The case of Tripoli and Tunis are entirely different. As to Tunis, we have held that it was a part of the Ottoman Empire; but for a long time France never agreed to that contention. But there is no doubt whatever that Tripoli belongs to the Ottoman Empire, and is, practically, governed by the Ottoman Power; and, therefore, no interference, no dealings with the rights of territory of Tripoli, could take place except by way of negotiations with the Porte, and subject to the sanction of the Porte. And I imagine that the Signatories of the Treaties of Berlin and Paris would hold themselves bound to observe such a condition. I do not think that the question of Tripoli is one which is
  978
  within the range of practical politics at present; but it is, in this respect, that the question of Tunis has assumed a new shape—that, whereas before, we were only dealing with the relations between Tunis and France, we are now dealing, to some considerable extent, with the relations between England and English subjects and the Government of Tunis. That is a matter which is, undoubtedly, very different in its nature, and may become a matter of very considerable importance. I do not, however, go so far as to say that it has become a matter of considerable importance now. On that point I would rather wait for information; but I confess I cannot help expressing my concurrence with the noble Earl who spoke on the Back Benches that the proceedings of France in this matter are not wholly intelligible. I should have thought, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would have been the object of the French Government to adopt a conciliatory attitude to other nations having relations with the Tunisian Government. I confess neither the news received this morning, nor the action of the French Government, or rather the Circular of M. Roustan, makes me absolutely confident that that could have been the intention of the French Government—at least, that it could have been the intention of the subordinates of the French Government. I cannot refrain from saying that there has been on the part of these subordinates an unnecessary disregard of the feelings and interests of other Powers. In saying so, I am not speaking principally of Great Britain. The noble Earl opposite has, no doubt, the best guidance as to the attitude taken up by M. Roustan, and whether there has been any infraction of International Law. I suppose no one can take exception as a matter of international right to the appointment of M. Roustan as Foreign Secretary by the Bey. I imagine it would be quite competent for Her Majesty, as a matter of International Law, to appoint M. Challemel-Lacour her Foreign Secretary if she pleased; but when we come to the statement that the access to the Bey of Tunis is barred by the recent Circular of M. Roustan, I think a grave matter for reflection arises, and I shall look with some curiosity to see in what manner Her Majesty's Government will treat that claim. I earnestly hope, and

  979
  I am inclined to believe, that it will be found that claim, precisely as stated, has not really been made, and that the undoubted right, not by Treaty, but by the Comity of Nations, every Power possesses of sending an Ambassador if it chooses to the Ruler of another nation has not been in any way interfered with. If it is the case, of course it explains the language held by the noble Earl, and the attitude which he is inclined to take up in respect to this question. The matter is, undoubtedly, one of considerable difficulty. There are many considerations arising bearing upon it not touching merely English interests and politics. In this matter I feel it is our wisest plan, so long as we have no grounds that could drive us to abandon such a position, to leave these transactions and the responsibility to Her Majesty's Government, reserving to ourselves in the ultimate issue the right to express the opinions which we may entertain. But there is some danger that if we discuss the question too early, or at too great length, we may raise questions which would rouse feelings between the two countries, and also might tend to envenom the feelings which have arisen between France and one of her Neighbours. On these grounds—although the noble Earl is well aware that, if it was a question of maintaining the rights of Englishmen, he could command the support, not only of his own Friends, but of Englishmen of all Parties whatever—on all these grounds, I think we should be adopting the wisest course if we did not pursue this debate at any very great length.
  EARL DE LA WARRasked, whether, there being no access to the Bey, there was an access to the Government of Tunis?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the noble Marquess had explained very clearly how the matter stood, and he himself had stated that they had no Treaty right of personal access to the Bey; but that what had been the usual course would not be interfered with.
  EARL DE LA WARRasked, whether our Diplomatic Agent had personal access to the Government of Tunis?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, if the noble Earl would explain what he meant by the Government, he would answer him.
  Motion agreed to.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK, in moving for a
  "Copy of a letter, dated 29th October 1880, and written by the Earl of Limerick to the Secretary to the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Acts Inquiry Commission,"
  said, he should not have troubled their Lordships with the Motion only that he had been represented as expressing views upon the Land Question which were entirely inconsistent with those which he held and which he had avowed, or intended to avow, before the Land Commissioners. He had the honour of being examined before the Land Commission on the 28th of October last; but the evidence which he gave was rather of a conversational character. Owing to that circumstance, he thought afterwards that he might possibly have failed adequately to express his views, and, therefore, on the very next day he wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Commission, giving a summary of the opinions he entertained, and which he had intended to express in his evidence of the previous day. He regretted very much that that letter was not attached to his evidence, because he did not receive any proof of his evidence; and the first he saw of it was when he saw it in print in the Blue Book which was laid on the Table of their Lordships' House. Last week he saw in that evidence that he was made, on a very important point, to express views which he did not entertain. In the Blue Book he was made to say, in answer to the question, "Then practically you have fixity of tenure?"—"Yes; but whether it works satisfactorily or not is another thing." He did not wish to raise the question; but this was a very important matter, and precisely the opposite views to those which he intended to express and to those which were contained in the letter he moved for were printed in that answer. He therefore begged to move for the letter in question; and could only regret that it had not been printed with the evidence, especially as it must have been observed that there were discrepancies between the words which appeared to have been taken down and what he stated in the letter.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered to be laid before the House.

  STATIONERY OFFICE (CONTROLLER'S REPORT').
  Message from the Commons that they have appointed a Select Committee of five members to join with the Select Committee appointed by this House "to consider the first Report of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office."

  STOLEN GOODS BILL [H.L.]
  The Lords following were named of the Select Committee:

  Ld. Chancellor.

  V. Sherbrooke.

  E. Waldegrave.

  L. Aberdare.

  E. Morley.

  L. Winmarleigh.

  E. Beauchamp.

  L. Ramsay.

  E. Cairns

  The Committee to meet on Friday next at Four o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.