Sitting of 28 June 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Roads Provisional Order (Edinburgh) * [185].
Select Committee—Report—Erne Lough and River* [171–200].
Committee—Land Law (Ireland) [135]—R.P.
Third Reading—Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3) * [169], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—VACCINATION— DEATH AT PLYMOUTH.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph which appeared in the "Times" of June 18th:—
  "An inquest was held at Plymouth yesterday on the body of a child four months old named Florence Maud Woodley. She was recently vaccinated. On Thursday the arm became inflamed, and the child died yesterday. Independent medical testimony was to the effect that

  1481
  the child had been strong from birth and had died from exhaustion indirectly due to vaccination. The jury returned a verdict to the same effect;"
  and, if he will cause inquiry to be made into the facts of the case?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, my attention has been called to the case, and I have made some inquiry with respect to it. I find that an inquest was held on the child, who, according to the mother's testimony, had not been nursed from its birth, but simply had milk and water and a little sugar. But, so far from the jury having returned a verdict to the effect suggested, it appears by the inquisition that the child died from natural causes; and the medical man who was called in when the child was dying, and who gave evidence at the inquest, has stated in a public letter that vaccination had nothing whatever to do with its death.

  THE COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH ITALY.
  MR. J. COWENasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any steps had been taken to renew the Commercial Treaty with Italy?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Commercial Treaty with Italy remains in force till the 31st of December. A Bill is before the Italian Legislature to prolong the duration of the Treaty, and will probably prolong its duration up to March or June next. Negotiations were last year begun by us with a view to the conclusion of new Commercial Treaties with the countries that produce strong wines—especially Spain, Italy, and Portugal. The change of Government in Spain caused these negotiations to be temporarily set aside; but there is every prospect that they may be soon resumed. Under certain eventualities the simultaneous conclusion of Commercial Treaties with these countries might be of considerable importance to British trade.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. HODNETT, A PRISONER UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could state to the House on what authority he informed the House on the 17th instant that Mr. Hodnett, one of
  1482
  the gentlemen confined in Limerick Gaol, sent for the Governor, admitted he had done wrong, and promised not to offend again; whether he is aware that Mr. Hodnett denies the whole story as told to the House; whether it is true that Mr. Hodnett's demand for a sworn information into the subject of his complaints has been refused by the Prisons Board; and, whether he will direct that no further Coercion suspects be sent to Limerick Gaol?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that his authority for the statement made by him in the House on the 17th instant was the report of the Governor of the Prison which was transmitted to him by the Prisons Board. Since then he had been informed that Mr. Hodnett denied the accuracy of the statement. It was true that Mr. Hodnett's demand for a sworn inquiry into the subject of his complaints had been refused by the Prisons Board, who did not consider such was called for, as the entire subject had been already inquired into by the Board's Inspectors. As to the request the hon. Member made at the end of his Question, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) could give no such undertaking.
  MR. HEALYasked, was it true that Mr. Hodnett had been transferred from Limerick to Dundalk Gaol, which prison was the farthest in Ireland from the family of Mr. Hodnett; and whether Mr. Hodnett's son was not imprisoned at Limerick as a suspect?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was a fact that Mr. Hodnett was transferred to Dundalk, and he had heard that Mr. Hodnett was glad of the change.
  MR. HEALYasked, would the Government, for the sake of mitigating to Mr. Hodnett the horrors of prison life, allow that gentleman's son, who was a prisoner, to be in the same gaol with his father?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must leave that to the discretion of the authorities immediately concerned. He could not undertake to say to what prison a particular prisoner should be sent.

  BOARD OF THE LUNATIC ASYLUM, LIMERICK.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can hold out hope that His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant will permit the Limerick Town Council to

  1483
  submit three names of members of the Town Council to be made members of the Board of the Lunatic Asylum, in order to represent the Town Council thereon; and, whether a similar course has not been pursued with regard to the city of Cork?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, the Corporation had made this request; but the city was already sufficiently represented on the Board. The population of the city was 38,700, and of the county, 138,000; the valuation of the county, £465,000, and of the city, £66,000. The Board consists of 26 Members, of which 10 might be taken as representing the interest of the county and eight of the city, while eight might be taken as representing both city and county. It appeared, therefore, that the city had a fair share of representation. As to Cork the facts were different there, and the Corporation had not the same share of representation on the Asylum Board.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked whether, as vacancies arose, the Corporation would be allowed to submit the names of gentlemen to fill the vacant places on the Board?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwould be glad to have the names of suitable persons submitted; but he could not without further consideration increase the members of the Board.

  COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH FRANCE—THE NEW FRENCH TARIFF.
  VISCOUNT SANDONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the increasing anxiety on the part of a large body of manufacturers, artizans, and mechanics in all parts of the Country respecting our future commercial relations with France, and their desire for accurate information respecting the new French Tariff, by which their interests are largely affected, he will reconsider his refusal, addressed to the honourable Member for Sheffield, to grant an English translation of the Return presented to the House on May 26th, which gives in French terms only the many and various articles of British produce and manufacture respecting which changes of duty are proposed to be made under the new French Tariff? He wished to add that when he had obtained the Return he had assumed that it would be furnished in English, and not in French.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, the noble Lord has apparently been misled by some inaccurate report of the reply which I gave some time ago to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart Wortley). I did not meet his request for a translation with an absolute refusal; but I pointed out to him difficulties in the way of complying with it. There are, in the first place, the difficulties of translating what is a technical document; and, in the second place, the fact, as I am informed, that the manufacturers, artizans, and mechanics referred to in the Question of the noble Lord, are already thoroughly acquainted with the French terms used in their own trades, and do not therefore require any translation. Under these circumstances, I suggested that the Return would involve an unnecessary expenditure of public money, and that I hoped he would not press for the translation. In answer to the renewed request of the noble Lord I have to add to what I have already said, in the first place, that the general Tariff referred to has not been a basis of negotiations with the French Government; but that these negotiations have been founded on a tariff à discuter, which is a confidential document which at present we are not able to produce. In the second place, I have to point out that I have not received a single application for a translation from any Chamber of Commerce, or from any other representative commercial body; but if the noble Lord in the face of these facts still thinks it desirable to have the translation, I will communicate with the Chambers of Commerce, and ask whether they think that the usefulness of such a document would justify the expense of the translation.
  VISCOUNT SANDONgave Notice that, in the interests of the large industrial population he represented, he should feel obliged to press the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, without reference to the views of any Chamber of Commerce.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he would communicate with the Chambers of Commerce at once, and would inform the noble Lord of their opinions on the subject.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that he should not be satisfied with the opinions of Chambers of Commerce only.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that would be a matter for discussion when the Motion was brought forward.

  INQUESTS (IRELAND)—CASE OF MR. T. COOKE.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If his attention has been called to an inquest held on the body of Mr. Thomas Cooke, who died of apoplexy at Baltinglass, county Wicklow, on the 9th instant, as reported in the "Leinster Leader" of Saturday last, from which it appears that for several hours after the apoplectic seizure Mr. Cooke was not attended by a duly qualified medical man; that Dr. McDowell, the dispensing doctor at Baltinglass, who attended the case, when asked by a highly respectable juror if he was at home when sent for replied that "he would not answer impertinent questions;" that the Coroner, Mr. Philip Newton, when asked by another juror, had he received a medical certificate as to the cause of death, replied, "That was an impertinent question;" that during the progress of the inquest, which appears to have lasted from Twelve o'clock noon till after Four o'clock next morning, the Coroner refused for several hours to send for the doctor though pressed by the jury to call him as a witness; that he refused to receive the following verdict:—
  "That the deceased died on the morning of the 9th instant from an attack of apoplexy; that we consider the reply of Dr. McDowell in refusing to say whether he was at home or not when he was called on to attend deceased most unsatisfactory;"
  it further appears from the Report that the Coroner caused the jury to be locked up in the court-house until they brought in a verdict, drawn up by him at 4.45 a.m.; whether the Doctor McDowell in question has charge of the dispensaries at Baltinglass, Ballytore, and Stratford-on-Slaney, as well as of the Poor-house at Baltinglass; and, whether the proceedings at the inquest were legal; and, if they were not, whether he will take steps to prevent a recurrence of similar proceedings on the part of public officials?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW),in reply, said, that his attention had been drawn to the subject, and he found on inquiry that the facts were substantially as stated in the Question, except that the inquest did not last until 4 o'clock in the morning, but only until half-past 1. In
  1486
  looking through the accounts of the incidents that occurred, he did not find that there was any actual illegality in the proceedings. He found that Dr. McDowell filled the offices mentioned

  TUNIS—THE ENFIDA CASE.
  THE EARL OF BECTIVEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it has been reported to Her Majesty's Government that, in consequence of the pressure brought to bear upon him by M. Roustan, the Sheik-el-Islam, who originally put Mr. Levy in possession of the Enfida Estate, has declined to proceed any further in the matter, and has delegated the decision of the case to another Caid; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take any steps for the protection of the British interests involved?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have been informed that two edicts have been issued by the Bey of Tunis, the one prohibiting the Sheikh-el-Islam and Haafy Tribunal from adjudicating upon the Enfida case, and the other directing the Military Court to try and pronounce judgment upon the case. The matter has been referred for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: By whom were the edicts issued?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: By the Bey of Tunis.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Were they issued by direction of M. Roustan?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No; my information says by the Bey of Tunis simply.
  THE EARL OF BECTIVEsaid, that the hon. Baronet had not given a direct answer to the question whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to take any steps for the protection of British interests?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had stated that the subject had been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and until they had delivered their opinion Her Majesty's Government could not take any further steps in the matter.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—LIEUTENANT ADJUTANTS.
  MR. DALYasked the Secretary of State for War, Will Lieutenants in In-

  1487
  fantry Regiments who are now and for some time past have been acting as Adjutants, continue under the new scheme of Army Organisation to hold the appointments until they get their companies?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir, they will. If the hon. Member will take the trouble to look at paragraph 43 of the Revised Memorandum, he will find the information he wants.

  THE PROPOSED INDIAN LOAN.
  MR. J. K. CROSSasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, in order to obtain the highest subscription price for the proposed Indian Loan of three crores of Rupees, such arrangements can be made as will enable intending applicants to tender in England in sterling as well as in India in rupees?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, in all Acts of Parliament which have been granted since 1858 to enable the Secretary of State in Council to raise money in the United Kingdom on the credit of the Revenus of India, the whole amount to be charged on the Revenues of India has been limited. The point involved in the question is whether the Secretary of State, acting as the Agent of the Governor General in Council, can, without the previous concurrence of Parliament, receive money in London for an Indian Rupee Loan. In 1858 a Bill was introduced into Parliament, containing a clause empowering the East India Company to receive subscriptions in the United Kingdom for loans opened by the Governor General in Council, the precise object suggested in the Question; but, after considerable discussion, the clause was withdrawn. In 1859 the then Secretary of State (Lord Stanley) was asked whether it were necessary for him to apply to Parliament every time he required a loan of money; and he replied that the Secretary of State might raise what money he required, without the sanction of Parliament, but only by a circuitous process. The Government of India might, by its Agents here, raise the money; but he added that such a course, although within the letter of the law, would be contrary to its spirit. I do not think that under these circumstances it would be desirable to make such arrangements as are suggested in the Question.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—LIGHTING OF THIS HOUSE.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the First Commissioner of Works his intentions with regard to the electric light in this House?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he gathered from the general opinion of Members that they were not satisfied with the electric lighting of the House. The experiment, however, it was only right to say, had been tried under considerable disadvantage. The manager of the Company told him that many improvements could still be effected, especially with reference to the position of the lamps, which could not be made so long as it was necessary to maintain the existing gas lights. Under these circumstances, further experiments would be postponed until the Recess.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—MACLEOD'S HIGHLANDERS.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the headquarters of 71st Highland Light Infantry, embodied in April 1778 at Elgin under the denomination of "Macleod's Highlanders," are to be transferred from Fort George to Lanark, a town with which they have no connection?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to state that the 71st Highland. Light Infantry will not be localized at Lanark, but at Hamilton. The reason for the battalion being separated from the 78th is that the 72nd and 78th, both in their own opinion and in that of the district, naturally form one regiment, being both Mackenzie Highlanders, and the 71st, being thus displaced from Fort George, is joined with the 74th, another trews regiment of the same character, and will recruit from the large Highland population in Glasgow and its neighbourhood.

  INDIA—THE GOVERNORSHIP OF MADRAS.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, considering that the charge of the establishment of a Governor and two members of Council in the Presidency of Madras amounts to £38,000 a-year, and in view of the large financial saving

  1489
  which would accrue to India by the substitution of a Lieutenant Governor, as in Bengal, he intends to abstain from appointing a successor to the late Mr. Adam until a final decision has been arrived at on the subject? He desired to explain that the Question was a repetition of a Question put by the Earl of Camperdown in the House of Lords prior to the appointment of Mr. Adam, in reply to which it was stated on the part of the Government, by the Earl of Northbrook, that though the appointment of Mr. Adam could not be delayed the matter was well worthy of consideration, and that it would be discussed and decided by Her Majesty's Government after taking the opinion of the Governor General in Council.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member was out of Order. He was quoting what had been said in the other House of Parliament during the present Session.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, his object was merely to learn the decision of the Government, which he had no doubt would be satisfactory.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I have no doubt my hon. Friend is aware that the change he suggests could not be made without legislation. There is a great difference of opinion in India on the question, and, in my opinion, the policy of the suggested change is open to a very great deal of doubt. But in any case the necessary legislation to be obtained with the consent of Parliament would be a work of considerable time, and under the circumstances I think it would be quite impossible to contemplate the not filling up of this office until the decision of Parliament had been arrived at. I am quite aware that in "another place" it has been stated that the subject was well worthy of consideration, and that the attention of the Government of India was directed to it. The opinion of the Government of India has not been formally communicated to me; but I have been in communication with my noble Friend the Governor General on the subject, and the result of these communications is that legislation on the question cannot, within a reasonable time, be initiated.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: Is the vacancy yet filled up?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No, it is not yet filled up.

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I rise to move—
    "That on and after Wednesday next, the several stages of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions on all days when it is set down among the Orders, until the House shall otherwise determine."
    I think the House has been, in a considerable degree, prepared for a Motion of this kind. The House is aware that we regard the duty of pressing the Land Bill as one paramount above all others, so far as we are concerned, and that nothing that is in our choice will be allowed to interfere with its progress. However, I am bound to say I do not think that sentiment is confined to us, but, unless I am much mistaken, pervades not only what is commonly called the majority of the House, but also the minds of many who do not belong to that majority. I therefore hope there will be a general disposition to entertain favourably a Motion of this kind. Perhaps it is necessary I should say that in one point of view, and one only, I feel, at least personally, a little disappointed, and that is in the point of time. We have had 13 Sittings in Committee on the Land Bill, and we have only completed four clauses of the Bill. The Bill, no doubt, is a very complex one; but, at the same time, I have had to do with other very complex measures in this House, and have been responsible for them in the same sense and manner, and I must own that the experience of the Committee on this Bill has been, in regard to time, more discouraging than any I have had formerly to do with. Anybody who would be kind enough to refer to the proceedings of the Committee on the Irish Church Bill, on the Irish Land Bill, on the Succession Duty Bill, on the Reform Bill of 1866, and I might mention other measures, will see what I mean—I do not intend to convey anything beyond the fact, and to notice that we have been perhaps too sanguine in our expectations; but they will understand what I mean with regard to the progress of the present Bill in Com-

    1491
    mittee. As the matter stands the case is a serious one, for I speak on the 28th of June. But it must be borne in mind that the 28th of June in the present year corresponds with the 28th of July in any other year, because the House of Commons met one month earlier in the present year than usual. And not only so, but I do not believe it would be easy to find in the records of Parliament that in any other year the time before Easter was a time of such close application by the House. It is only fair and natural that there should be a desire to know what are the views and intentions of the Government beyond the passing of the Land Bill during the present year. I am assuming that there will be a disposition to afford additional facilities to promote the progress of the Land Bill as the consequence of approaching exhaustion on the part of the House. [Mr. WARTON: No, no!] I did not say approaching exhaustion on the part of the hon. and learned Member, for his capacities of endurance and some other faculties he possesses are really inexhaustible. My sentence would have ended to this effect—It is, perhaps, a sign of the approaching exhaustion of the House, which should not be overlooked, that on Tuesday evenings, when it is left entirely to its own spontaneous action, limited as are the opportunities of private Members, it has not shown a disposition to rally its energies for the purpose of doing Business on those occasions. So far as the Government are concerned, under ordinary circumstances, it would be a most fair demand to ask of us what other measures we propose to proceed with, in addition to the Land Bill. At the present time I cannot give a positive answer to that question in detail, and for the reason that as yet we do not feel able to form a definite expectation as to the progress in Committee of the Land Bill, and, until we are able to do so, we cannot well say what else besides the Land Bill we can do. I do not refer now to any minor measures; the House would not probably raise any questions about them; but I refer to measures of importance, such as those mentioned in the Queen's Speech. Two, or, perhaps, three, things I may venture to say. First of all, the catalogue of anything we attempt beyond the Land Bill will be a short one.
    1492
    Secondly, I do not look forward to the possibility, or, I may say, the propriety, of our endeavouring to carry through the House after the Land Bill any measure which is likely to be a subject of prolonged and general controversy; I think hon. Gentlemen may dismiss that idea from their minds. There are questions which do not stand quite in that category, and with respect to which we should like to see the progress we have made with the Land Bill by the beginning of next week before we give a positive engagement. There is another way in which I can indicate the disposition of the Government, and that is to refer to what we hope and contemplate as to the termination of the Session; because if we are really speaking on the 28th of July in an ordinary year, the Government would be expected to give definite and distinct information on this subject. My only difficulty now is that we are entirely dependent on the Land Bill; everything I say must, and will, I hope, be understood to be subject to the conviction we entertain of our paramount obligation not to spare ourselves nor to spare the House in begging it to make every exertion for the passing of this measure. But subject to that consideration, we shall do our very best to procure the Prorogation of the House early in August—I hope not later than the close of the first week in August—and shall not ask the House to sit longer to deal with some particular Bill. There is no Legislative Assembly in the world that makes such free and large sacrifice of the time, convenience, and health of its Members as the House of Commons; and this year the House has been called upon to make those sacrifices even in an unusual degree. We, therefore, feel it to be our duty to the House to see that no obstacle, apart from the Land Bill, so far as we can judge from the materials now before us, shall be interposed so as to interfere with the prospect I now hold out. In the course of a short time I trust to be in a position to enter more into detail; but I hope that what I have now stated may suffice generally to indicate the intentions of the Government so far as they are elements in determining the length of the Session. With regard to the question of the Transvaal Debate, my hope is that we may be able to close the Committee on the Land Bill in time to

    1493
    make it convenient to have that debate immediately after the close of the Committee and, therefore, before the Report. As we have been disappointed before we may be disappointed again; but if the debates in Committee should be prolonged beyond what we are led to expect, I should feel myself bound, though with great reluctance, to interrupt the proceedings in Committee before its close for the purpose of fixing a day. I do not like to name a day at the present time; I hope that I may speak with more definiteness early next week. This is all, I think, that I need say in recommending this Motion to the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, on and after Wednesday next, the several stages of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions, on all days when it is set down among the Orders, until the House shall otherwise determine."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The Prime Minister, in recommending this Motion to us, has given us some general assurances which, so far as they go, are more or less satisfactory; and, in return for those assurances, he asks us to give him a very specific concession of time; and he promises that he will make the general assurances more specific when we have given him the power he asks us to confer upon him. I must call attention to the particular character of this Motion. It is not such as is sometimes made towards the close of a Session when the Government comes forward to ask that the whole time should be given up for the remainder of the Session to Government Business. When that has been done it has almost invariably been accompanied by a specific statement of the measures with which the Government intended to proceed and of the time they hoped to conclude the Session. The House is now asked to give precedence, not to Government Business generally, but to a particular Bill. No doubt, it is a Bill of great importance; but we on this side of the House cannot accept the views of the Government with regard to that Bill. We look upon the Bill as being by no means of that perfect character which its promoters think; but we do look upon it as a Bill of great importance which requires careful consideration; and we are glad to facilitate arrangements for the full and fair dis-
    1494
    cussion of it while the House is still able to give attention to it. Therefore, it is desirable we should support reasonable proposals for giving the opportunity of full discussion. If the proposal had been made on the same terms as the proposal that was made earlier in the Session with regard to the Protection of Life and Property Bill and the Arms Bill, I should have seen little cause to doubt the wisdom of the proposal. The former proposal was that the several stages of the Bill should have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion from day to day until the House should otherwise order, the effect being that the Bill was proceeded with to the exclusion of all other Business. Now, the Government ask us to do a very different thing. They ask us to say that certain stages of this particular Bill shall have precedence of all other Business on all days when it is put down on the Order Book. That puts the matter entirely in the hands of the Government. They may put the Bill down on the Orders of the Day upon all nights which are usually given to private Members, and they may put other Government Business of any kind down on other nights. I do not suggest that they will do anything of the kind; but it is necessary to ask what use they intend to make of the concession. We cannot help seeing that there is very much of other Business in arrear. The right hon. Gentleman said truly that, having regard to the time at which the Session opened, the 28th of June was almost equivalent to the 28th of July. I venture to say that on no 28th of July in any ordinary year has the Business of Supply been so far behind as it is now. There are 193 Votes to be got there; only 43 have been voted, and 150 remain. Not one single Vote has been touched in Classes III., IV., V., VI., and VII. of the Civil Service Estimates, nor in those for the Revenue Departments, and only a small number of Votes have been taken in the Army and Navy Estimates. We are, therefore, extremely behindhand with Supply, and we ought to have some assurance that the Government will use the time which is to be put at their command, so far as it is not required for the Land Bill, for going on with Supply rather than undertaking measures about which they have not defined their position, whether they regard them as necessary or not. Of course, there

    1495
    are some which are of an indispensable character; it is not difficult to name them; and the Secretary to the Treasury would in a quarter of an hour give a list of the measures which are really indispensable. There are other measures which may or may not be important or desirable, but which cannot be regarded as indispensable. We ought to be told what are the measures which the Government consider as indispensable. We ought to have an assurance that the Government will not ask the House to sit beyond some such time as that indicated for any other purpose than that of getting through the Land Bill and the measures which are no w indicated, before the House parts with its power. We ought to have an assurance, also, with regard to the Transvaal debate. While we accept the assurance we have received that it shall come on as early as possible, I should be glad if it could be made a little more precise; and we ought to have a clear and distinct statement as to the measures with which the Government intend to proceed. Let me remind the House of the exceptional character of the Session. Not only was it begun so early as the 6th of January, but the earlier part of the Session was taken up with the measures relating to Ireland. The debate on the Address lasted 11 nights. The Government had all the time, from the 25th of January to the 11th of March, when we were subjected to exceptional Rules of Urgency, and when it was over an attempt was made to get Urgency for Supply; but we could not stand that, and we did what we could to facilitate Business without resorting to that disagreeable alternative. Since then we have had nothing but the Irish Land Bill, and we have only got through four clauses. Some of the remaining clauses contain principles which are of much consequence and details which are of the greatest perplexity, and which must be debated by those who take an interest in questions connected with property with considerable fulness and care. It is not enough for the Prime Minister now to say that the Government do not intend to press forward any measure which may involve prolonged discussion. I should like to know what measures they are able to say they think it necessary to carry. We ought to know, for instance, what is to be done with the Corrupt Practices Bill. I do not express
    1496
    any opinion with regard to the general details of it; but I say it is a subject which demands the careful attention of Parliament when it is dealt with. Then, the Bankruptcy Bill is one of great importance. Do the Government think they will get it through in the present Session? It would greatly facilitate matters for us all if we knew what their real programme was. Then there is the Ballot Act Continuance Bill. Of course, a Continuance Act is a matter of necessity; but are we to have other provisions imported? If so, they will require a great deal of discussion. There is another measure which, no doubt, would lead to prolonged controversy—that is, the Parliamentary Oaths Bill. We wish to know whether it is intended to proceed with the Floods Bill or the Charitable Trusts Bill? There are several other measures as to which we should like definite information before we take such a very strong and really unprecedented step as the Government ask us to take. It is to give the Government power to take precedence of all other Business when they choose by putting the Irish Land Bill on the Orders of the Day, without any corresponding obligation on the part of the Government, and without any security with regard to Supply. I hope before the Motion is agreed to we may obtain a little more definite information.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, there was a good deal of fairness and justice in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. It was only reasonable that hon. Members should expect the Government to prove their sincerity with regard to the Land Bill by putting it down from day to day before giving them the power they asked. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said that he was far from regarding the Bill as being so perfect as the Government and their Supporters considered; and he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) might not think even so highly of it as the right hon. Gentleman; but still, such as it was, he should wish, if it was to do any manner of good to the Irish people, to push it on and pass it as soon as possible, and to clear Parliament of an encumbrance. He had considerable sympathy with English and Scotch Members. He thought it was somewhat trying for them to find that the whole time of the House was taken up, and every mea-

    1497
    sure that concerned them pushed aside, from Session to Session, by the work of Irish legislation; but English and Scotch Members would please to recollect that that, at least, was no fault of the Irish Members. They had, over and over again, urged upon the House the necessity of withdrawing from the Imperial Parliament this great mass of purely domestic Irish legislation. Then, he could not allow this opportunity to pass without reminding Her Majesty's Ministers that two months of the best part of the Session were absolutely wasted in the most useless and wanton legislation that had been tried in that House for many years. It was, again, no fault of the Irish Members that those two months were thrown away on legislation which had proved to be perfectly useless, if not, indeed, calamitous, instead of being employed in getting through the Irish Land Bill, and thus getting rid of any possible necessity for Coercion. Those two months had been wasted on legislation which had made the state of Ireland much worse than it was before. Under these circumstances, if the Government proposed to take away the last chance from private Members during the Session, it should be for the definite purpose of pushing forward this Land Bill to the end. There were many important measures that had but little chance, he feared, of coming on. There was one very important measure with regard to Ireland, and which had been mentioned in the Queen's Speech from the Throne. He meant the Bill for the establishment of County Boards. He supposed there was little chance of seeing that measure introduced this Session. He would repeat, then, that if the Government took so much time from private Members, he thought it should be for the sole purpose of bringing this Land Bill to a conclusion.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had dangled before them a bait which opened up a tempting prospect. The Land Bill was to be happily and speedily got through Committee; the catalogue of other measures was to be exceedingly short; no subject involving political controversy was to be brought before the House after the Land Bill; and the Session was to end the first week in August. This was charming, delightful; but, unfortunately, it was based on a series of assumptions. Sup-
    1498
    pose the Land Bill did not pass through Committee in the manner contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman, what would become of all the prospects which were held out by the Prime Minister? Before the House assented to the Motion, they ought to have something more definite from the Government. There could be no doubt the Government were making most unusual, most extreme demands on the forbearance and patience of the House. This was not only a Motion for giving precedence to the Irish Land Bill; it was in reality a Motion for giving precedence to whatever Business of their own the Government might choose to put before that of private Members for the rest of the Session. He did not want to throw the least doubt on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, but the Motion went a great deal further than the statement. He should, therefore, move an Amendment to bring the Motion into accord with the statement, and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. Considering the time of private Members the Government had already absorbed this Session, it was a grave question whether the private Members would not be within their rights in declining to give up more for the Irish Land Bill. Under ordinary circumstances, no doubt, the House would refuse to do so without a struggle. But the circumstances of the present time were not ordinary. He regretted deeply the desperate condition to which Ireland had been brought since the present Government unhappily came into Office. Under the circumstances, they should be disposed to meet the Government as far as they could. The right hon. Gentleman thought that in many parts of the House there was a prevalent feeling of the paramount importance of proceeding with the measure. That was not his own opinion; and outside he never recollected a measure of such importance being treated with so much apathy, which arose from doubt as to whether it would effect the permanent good that was hoped from it. Be that as it might, they were disposed to meet the Government with a fair compromise, and he therefore suggested an Amendment to carry out what was said by the right hon. Gentleman. He would move to omit from the Resolution the words "when it is down among the Orders. "That would leave

    1499
    the Government complete and entire precedence for the progress of the Land Bill, which they had asked the House to concede. He was not sure whether, at this period of the Session, private Members ought not to retain Fridays; but he would not himself move that. He hoped the Government would give the distinct assurance asked for by the Leader of the Opposition—that they would not prolong the Session beyond the ordinary time in order to take anything but the Land Bill and whatever else was indispensably necessary, and to attain that object he moved the omission of the words "when it is down among the Orders."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "when it is set down among the Orders."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the demand of the hon. Member that, as far as we are concerned, we should not prolong the Session beyond the ordinary time by any Business as to which we have an option, is, I think, a perfectly fair demand, and I intended to convey the most complete acceptance of that demand by anticipation when I made my statement. I am very sorry that I did not supply a verbal comment upon the Motion, which I really thought was unnecessary. Undoubtedly, the Motion, as it stands, is open to the objection that we might propose the most arbitrary or most ridiculous selection of Business for the House upon Government days, and on private Members' days to absorb the time of the House with the Land Bill. Well, Sir, I think an answer to that objection might be found in the various pledges we have made to devote to the Land Bill every moment of time at our command. Of course, I should have thought it quite unnecessary to trouble the House with the superfluous statement that it would be our intention to continue in that course; and when asking sacrifices from Members for the purpose of enabling us to pursue it more effectually, that was in addition to what we have been already doing with the Land Bill, and not in substitution for it. However, if it is necessary for me to descend to give that assurance, I give that assurance. It was asked, at an
    1500
    early period of the Session, whether we meant to use Mondays and Thursdays for the forwarding of unimportant Business, and I gave an assurance that it was not, and I give what I should have thought an equally unnecessary assurance now. But the substantial point raised is that to which I ought, perhaps, to have referred—namely, the variation of the Motion from that usually made towards the end of the Session; and I think I can show to the House several reasons for the variation. The right hon. Gentleman and his Friends seemed disposed to press upon us the necessity that might arise of interrupting the Committee on the Land Bill in order to take the Debate on the Transvaal. I have admitted there might be circumstances, though I hope they will not arise, under which it would be our duty to interpose a day for the Debate on the Transvaal; but I should like to know how I am to reserve a liberty to give a day for that discussion, except by the very variation objected to in the terms of the Motion? Therefore, it is a little hard that from that quarter there should come this objection to the Motion in its present shape. But it is not only the question of the Transvaal; but there might arise a necessity for proposing a Vote in Supply. We might be absolutely compelled to interrupt proceedings in the Land Bill for that purpose; and, over and above that, it is quite obvious it would be most unwise to frame the Motion in the form of an engagement to press the Land Bill from day to day; because, plainly, when we come to the close of the Land Bill, it would be a matter of absolute necessity to introduce an interval—I hope not a long one—between the Committee and the Report. That will be the time when it will be the duty of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland to redeem the pledge he has given as to the consideration of various matters not unimportant in the Bill, and Members would naturally and most justly require that there should be a short interval given for the consideration of other Amendments on what the Government might propose. I hope, therefore, the House will see that I have given the assurance which was requisite—I mean that we should not take advantage of this for the most unworthy and discreditable purpose of pressing

    1501
    our own measures forward on Goverment days, and using private Members' days for the Land Bill; and likewise it is a matter of absolute necessity to frame the Motion in such a way that there shall be a power to interpose other Business—either that which is deemed to be necessary and indispensable, or that which is required for the due consideration of the Land Bill itself. With regard to asking now for an exact determination of the measures which we are to go forward with, and those which we are not, it has certainly appeared to us that we have given sufficient pledges for the moment in describing our views as to the length of the Session, and in stating that we should not willingly be parties, so far as we had an option, to pressing upon the House any question that was likely to be the cause of prolonged and general controversy. Shortly, when we have got over the remaining most knotty points of the Land Bill, which I hope will be in a few days, I propose to go further. You might, undoubtedly, plant your foot down, and say you will not give the additional power until we have told you all these things in detail. Well, if that were a wise course, let the House take it. But the Motion I am now making I can truly say is not for the interests of my own convenience, or even for the convenience of the Government at large; but in consequence of a very sincere conviction that the House has suffered much and endured much in the severe labours of the present Session, and in a very earnest desire to suggest such means as appeared to us most likely to enable us to bring those measures to the earliest and most satisfactory termination. We shall not lose a moment in giving assurances in detail upon this subject; but, in the meantime, I may refer to the assurances I have already given.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he stood in a somewhat peculiar position; in fact, he stood alone on that side of the House in having supported the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, that the Rules of Urgency, which had been adopted originally for passing the Irish Coercion Act, should be continued for the passing of the Land Bill. The House had refused that proposal, and now it found itself in this position, that having refused "urgency," it had fallen
    1502
    under the absolute discretion of the First Minister of the Crown as to what Business it should entertain. That was the result of action of the House itself. What, he asked, had they seen in this Parliament? Why, that a section or party from Ireland had proclaimed its determination to coerce the House. The House had passed Coercion Acts for Ireland, and had otherwise returned the compliment. That, he thought, was the real explanation of what had occurred in the present Parliament. He had voted for a continuance of the Rules of Urgency, because he felt that those Members who pretended that they formed exclusively the Irish Party was aiming, and not altogether unsuccessfully, at controlling the free action of the House—in fact, that the House had to choose between coercing them or being coerced itself. He thought, therefore, that the present position of the House amply justified the difference of opinion he had entertained on the occasion to which he had referred, when he voted against the hon. Gentleman, with whom he had had for so many years the pleasure of acting. He hoped, then, the House would see that, so long as the rebellious disposition of Ireland was in so marked a manner manifested within its walls, it would be necessary that the House should adapt its action and its forms to that very unfortunate state of things. As an old and independent Member of the House, he had for years humbly endeavoured, however inefficient might have been his attempts, to maintain the honour and efficiency of the House; and he trusted that hon. Members would excuse his begging them gravely to consider the experience they had gained in this Parliament—that they would consider what measures were necessary to guard the honour and efficiency of the House of Commons from similar interruptions hereafter. He could not be accused of being actuated by factious or by interested motives in thus addressing the House; because the present Government had proposed measures to which he, personally, was decidedly adverse; but he deemed it fortunate that the Liberal Party had, while in Office, gained experience of the necessity of promptitude on the part of the House in defence of its own freedom of action against a system of obstruction, which was alien to the principles of the

    1503
    Liberal Party as it was destructive of what true Conservatives desired to preserve. He still felt confidence in the patriotism of hon. Members generally, and confident that, as true Englishmen, they would forgive an old and independent Member for having ventured upon this appeal, in the hope that measures would be adopted to guard the honour and efficiency of the House of Commons.
    MR. J. COWENsaid, he thought the Prime Minister in his opening remarks correctly described the state of feeling in the House. Members were all anxious to be rid of the Land Bill. Those who were in favour of it wanted to see it pass into law with all possible expedition. Those who opposed it—knowing that it must pass, at least through the Commons—were desirous that it should pass speedily, so that they might reach either the Recess or more agreeable legislation at an early date. It was not his intention to offer any opposition to the Resolution; but he desired to take that opportunity, as he had taken previous opportunities, of recording his protest against the persistent and systematic encroachments that were made upon the time and privileges of independent Members. These privileges were getting small by degress, and rapidly less. There were two Parties in that House—
    MR. HEALY: Three.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Four.
    MR. J. COWEN: Well, there might be three or four; but these were political Parties. He was not referring to such divisions. There were only two Parliamentary Parties—the official, and the non-official. The officials, being combined and organized, were making incessant and excessive encroachments upon the domain that Parliamentary Rules, as well as of generations of usage, had assigned to private Members. ["No, no !"] Some hon. Gentlemen contested the statement. He would appeal to history, and he would justify his assertion by the recital of facts that were within the knowledge of all, or nearly all, present. The Motion the Prime Minister had submitted was a Motion usually made towards the termination of every Session. It was a proposal that was for the convenience of Members and for the advantage of
    1504
    the Legislature. A few days before the Prorogation, the Leader of the House generally requested that all the time should be committed to the charge of the Government for the purpose of enabling it to complete measures that had made fair progress, to get the remaining Estimates voted, and the Appropriation Bill passed. In fact, the concession was made to the Executive with a view of aiding them in winding up the Business of the Session. No one objected—no one could reasonably object—to such an arrangement. The tendency of Government—he did not speak of the present, but of past Governments as well—was stealthily and systematically to encroach upon the time of private Members, and, while lessening it to increase that at their own command. ["No, no!"] He was only stating what everyone familiar with the practices of Parliament knew to be the case. There were some Members near him who evidently did not like to hear the truth. There were no more intolerant persons in this world than illiberal Liberals. He was struck with a remark recently made by his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), when he said he was not a modern Liberal, because he loved liberty. And, certainly, the justice of that remark was borne out by the intolerance that was constantly manifested by the Members near him when anyone ventured to express an opinion which they in their wisdom could not agree with. Their censure, however, should not deter him from saying exactly what he thought, and with such force as he chose to exercise. He repeated the statement—the entire drift of the present and past Executives was to increase their own power at the expense of that of the non-official Members. In 1874,the first Session of last Parliament, the late Prime Minister asked the House to place the whole of its time at the disposal of the Government in the first week of August. This was nine or ten days before the Recess. The next year, 1875, there was a similar application; but instead of being made in August, it was made in the closing days of July. The year after it was made still a few days sooner. Every year the time absorbed by the Government was enlarged—not much, he admitted, only a day or two each Session; but still it was absorbed—with the result that towards the

    1505
    end of the Session of 1879 the late Government asked for the control of all the time of the House on July the 20th, instead of, as at starting, the beginning of August. The present Government bettered that application. Last Session they asked for the whole of the time of the House from July the 12th. They did more than that. Instead of concluding the Business of the House within a few days after that date, they sat on until some time in September. In other words, last Session, for all practical purposes, lasted little more than three months, and out of that period the Government had nearly the exclusive control of two months. This year matters were worse. The House met a month earlier than usual, and one of the first demands made by the Ministers was that the Government should have possession of every night. They got this in the first instance, by courtesy, to vote the Address. They next applied for a formal assignment of all the time, with a view of passing their hateful, humiliating, and demoralizing Coercion Bill. Even this, however, did not satisfy them. The progress of that odious legislation was not sufficiently rapid, and they constituted a Parliamentary despotism which they euphemistically called "Urgency." The outcome of this arrangement was that from January till Easter the Government not only had command of all the time, but during many weeks the liberty of speech was largely curtailed. Up to that time the Speaker had been the servant of the House. He had simply to give effect to Rules that the Legislature adopted. But by their scheme of "Urgency" they made the Speaker their master. He not only put the Rules in force, but he made Rules of his own, and applied them as he liked, in order to close discussion when he pleased. [Home Rule Cheers, and"No, no !"] He knew it was unpleasant to have these facts stated, but they were true; and truth was very often troublesome. When the House met after Whitsuntide the Government adopted a system of Morning Sittings. This did not ignore private Members' rights, though it certainly curtailed them. Now, little more than a fortnight after Whitsuntide, and before the end of June, the Government were applying for powers to control all the time of the House, a demand which in previous Parliaments was not made for nearly a month later; and this
    1506
    they did in spite of the fact that the House met nearly five weeks earlier this year than usual. The Prime Minister said he hoped the Session might terminate by the first week in August. He hoped so, too, as they were all weary, and would be glad to be away from duties which had lately become both troublesome and irritating. But he feared the Premier's predictions were not likely to be verified. It was more likely to be the end than the beginning of August before the work the Government had on hand could be completed. The Session would in all likelihood run on for eight months instead of six; and he would undertake to say that during these eight months there would not have been eight weeks, barely five in fact, wherein private Members had been at liberty to exercise the privileges that the Rules of Parliament and the customs of the Legislature accorded them. He was astonished, something more than astonished, indeed, at the strange indifference that was manifested by Gentlemen near him to this steady and insidious encroachment on unofficial Members' rights. If it went on without check the Executive would become uncontrolled masters; and anything more undesirable, anything more inconsistent with what he understood to be Liberal principles, he could not well conceive. Surely Liberal Members would not deny the advantages that had been derived from the exercise of private Members' powers. One of the brightest pages in the history of Parliament was that recording the efforts which despised private Members had made for the country, for the Legislature, and for freedom. Parliament had three functions. The first was to make the laws; the second, was to control the administration of the State, to levy and to expend the taxes; and the third, and by no means the least important function, was to act as an engine for the creation of public opinion. Whoever else decried this ancient attribute, he was certain that English Liberals ought not to do it. Some of the most brilliant achievements of the British Parliament had been won by the class of Representatives that it was now fashionable to sneer at. Was it not by the efforts of independent Members that slavery was abolished and the Slave Trade destroyed? Was it not unofficial Members who forced the question of Parliamentary Reform,

    1507
    of Free Trade, of factory legislation through the House? The speeches they made, the Resolutions they succeeded in passing, the information they distributed, created a state of public opinion that made possible the enactment of the laws on these subjects that they now boasted of. And yet, in spite of these achievements, these honourable and beneficial achievements, they had Liberals to-day not only consenting to the surrender of their privileges, but running in hot haste to press their surrender upon the acceptance of the Executive. He could not understand such a course of procedure. He was sure it was suicidal, and if he stood alone he would protest against it and resist it. He was not blaming the Government. It was natural for Ministers to wish to get their Business through. Every Executive was reasonably concerned for the passing of their measures. If Parliament was willing they would, no doubt, be glad to get control of all the time. The Government was, to a large extent, the victim of a system. And this Session affairs had been exceptional. Yes, he admitted that; but, unfortunately, nearly every Session now was exceptional. This one was exceptional, the last one was exceptional, and the next would be exceptional. These exceptions in time made a rule, and they would make a rule all the sooner if someone did not raise a protest against them. It must be manifest to everyone who followed the proceedings of the House that the work had got too heavy for the machinery. It was necessary to recast it; but, until this was done, better progress might be made even with the old mechanism. If a little more consideration was shown by one Party for the other, the dead-locks that they sometimes experienced would not arise. Members talked too long and too often. ["Hear, hear!"] He understood what that cheer meant; but it could have no reference to him. He was not accustomed to obtrude his observations upon the House, or to talk at unnecessary length. He had not been given to move adjournments, or obstruct either the present or the past Ministry, as some who stood near him had done. He held, notwithstanding all the old restrictions, that much more work could be got out of Parliament than was now got if moderate forbearance was shown by
    1508
    one Member to another and by one Party to another. But, while he admitted this and did not ignore the faults of the system, he wished also to say that the confusion into which the Business of the country had been landed this year was in no small measure due to the action of the Ministers themselves. They introduced Bills at the commencement of the Session which struck at the very foundation of popular liberty. They took from an entire section of the population of the United Kingdom the commonest privileges accorded them by the Constitution. It was not reasonable, it was not natural, that the men whose liberties were thus assailed, and amongst whose countrymen a system of arrogant and offensive despotism was set up, should quietly acquiesce in such measures. They resisted them, and his only fault with them was that they did not resist them more determinedly than they had done. The Government ought to have known, might have known, that it was impossible to pass Coercion Bills without protest and without opposition. They admitted that the law in Ireland was unjust. If, instead of passing a Bill to enforce an unjust law, they had passed a measure to amend the law, much of the opposition they had encountered this Session, and much of the delay that had taken place, would have been avoided.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he desired to contrast the sentiments to which expression had been given on opposite sides of the House. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) recommended a policy of universal coercion as the only remedy for obstruction and the turbulence of Irish Representatives, while the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. J. Cowen) consistently opposed coercion, and declared that the principles of liberty ought to be universally applied to the conduct of debates in the House and to discussions outside it. If the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne had not made similar protests in former Parliaments, perhaps there might have been some reasons for the interruption he was met with. In point of fact, however, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne had made the same protests in former Parliaments; and he, who had been a witness of the hon. Gentleman's consistency, would not withhold from

    1509
    him the tribute of his approbation. The Leader of the Opposition had reminded the House that he and his Friends readily conceded facilities to Her Majesty's Government for passing the Coercion Bill; and he could not help contrasting the difficulties which the right hon. Baronet had raised to the present Motion with the case and readiness with which he assented to the proposal of the Government to suppress Constitutional liberty in Ireland. As an Irish Member, he wished to give the Government facilities for carrying the Land Bill. There could be no longer any doubt that if this Resolution was passed, Her Majesty's Government would put the Land Bill in the very forefront of the Order of Business till it passed through this House. The Prime Minister himself had said so; and the right hon. Gentleman never violated any pledge he had ever made to the people of England or to the people of Ireland. [Murmurs.] He noticed that they all admired the quality of independence when it was observed in someone who was not a Member of their own Party. He accepted the consequences of that proposition, and he repeated that no leader of an Irish Parliament, conducting a measure of the greatest importance to Ireland, could exhibit greater industry, more singleness of purpose, and more love for the masses of the people than the Prime Minister had exhibited. He would now ask the permission of the House to join his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) and his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the effort which they had made to fix the attention of the House on the real root of the difficulty in connection with the block of legislation. Every Session Motions of this character had been made; and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne was right in referring to the indifference with which a large number of private Members regarded the taking by the Government of the time which constitutionally ought to belong to them. After the passing of this great measure, and of other measures which were in contemplation, the Government would still be face to face with the question of allowing all the different parts of this great Empire to manage their own local affairs.
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that whatever views hon. Members on that side
    1510
    of the House entertained on the Land Bill, all were agreed that it was necessary to expedite its progress. But he had one point to press. They had to consider, not the convenience of the House only, but the convenience of the country. He wished to remind the Prime Minister that there were before the House several very large and important measures in which the large business communities took the greatest interest. He referred to the Alkali Bill, the Floods Bill, and the Bankruptcy Bill. Many large associations were conferring together on those Bills, and many gentlemen were preparing to come up to London to consult their Representatives with regard to them. It was, therefore, of the greatest importance that the Government should state, as early as possible, whether or not it was their intention to proceed with them this Session. He would also ask whether it was intended to take Morning Sittings under this Rule?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked if the night of the 22nd July would be appropriated, because he had a Motion to submit on that night with respect to the late occurrences at Tunis? The question had been debated in the French and Italian Chambers; therefore, if the night which had been selected, after two or three ballots for the discussion, was taken away, would the Government give facilities for bringing it forward as early as possible?
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Prime Minister had divided the Bills of the Session into two classes—those that were absolutely necessary, and those that were disputed and were likely to lead to much discussion. In which category did the right hon. Gentleman place the Parliamentary Oaths Bill? It was essential that the House should know the intentions of the Government regarding that Bill, as its continual re-appearance on the Order Book day after day suggested the suspicion that the Government, always exceptionally strong at the end of a Session, would ultimately endeavour to pass it through the House.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERasked what was to become of the Corrupt Practices Bill? When first introduced he thought it a measure whose principle all Parties would be anxious to support, however they might differ about details; but since then it had been publicly stated

    1511
    by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), an eminent Liberal electioneerer, that its object was not to promote purity of election, but to serve the interests of the Liberal Party. Hence it would be the duty of the Conservatives carefully to consider it.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the hon. Gentlemen who had put questions with regard to two Bills would see that they justified him in making the request that they would kindly wait for the time he had suggested. If he answered with regard to one or two Bills, other Members who took an interest in other Bills would ask as to the probable fate of those; and he was not now in a condition to go through that catechism satisfactorily. However, the time would be very short when he would be able to put them in full possession of the intentions of the Governments. He was very sensible indeed of the weight of the considerations addressed to him by the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) with regard to Morning Sittings. They had not formed any intention to ask the House to discontinue them; but in that matter they would be guided by the general feeling. As regarded the question of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), he thought by the time mentioned the rule would have ceased to operate; and, at all events, he might be pretty sure that the necessities of the Government, with regard to Supply, would afford him the opportunity he desired.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought the answer of the right hon. Gentleman satisfactory, as far as it went, and would recommend his hon. Friend not to go to a division. They must feel there was force in the observation with regard to the particular form of the Motion, and that it enabled him to take up Business such as the Transvaal debate and Supply. The Government might, perhaps, have taken the House more fully into its confidence; but they would soon know its intentions more explicitly.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he would yield to the appeal just made to him, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR.T. COLLINSsaid, that before the Amendment was withdrawn he wished to protest against the continuation of Morning Sittings. There was no excuse for them, for, although there was a gain of two hours in commencing the Busi-
    1512
    ness at 2 o'clock instead of 4 o'clock, that gain was neutralized by the loss of two hours—the period during which. Business was suspended between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the Prime Minister had yet to earn the character given him by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power). At any rate, the hon. Member's speech had enabled him again to pose in his present character of an independent Member of the Irish Party. He would remind the House that last year a promise had been given that a Franchise Bill for Ireland should be introduced, and that the Registration of Voters Bill, which had been defeated in "another place," should this year be brought in and passed as a Government measure. Neither of these promises had been kept, and this year the promise of an Irish County Government Bill was to be added to them.
    An hon. MEMBER: Whose fault wag that?
    MR. HEALYsaid, he heard the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Barran) ask whose fault it was that these measures had been delayed.
    MR. BARRANbegged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He had not made any such remark.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was sorry he had mistaken the hon. Gentleman; but the hon. Gentleman so constantly interrupted him that he had naturally thought he had heard his voice. There was also the Limitation of Costs Bill, a Bill introduced by an hon. Member sitting on the Government side of the House. This Bill was passed by the House of Commons last year, but was thrown out by the House of Lords. The pledge was, therefore, given that the Bill would be passed this Session; but it had not been carried out. The Limitation of Costs Bill and the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill were both on the Paper for to-morrow, and the right hon. Gentleman proposed to seize that day. The Prime Minister had said that the House had been engaged on the Land Bill for a considerable time and had only passed four clauses. The fact was that the House of Commons had been engaged on questions relating to what was called the "Sister Island"—it ought, perhaps, to be called the "Forster-sister island"—but during five months they had been able to pass only four clauses of a reme-

    1513
    dial measure, while in two months they passed what ought to be called a "Bill for imprisoning Honest Men in Ireland." If those small Bills to which he had referred were put down for a Saturday Sitting, the right hon. Gentleman would find that some of those who were said to be so exhausted were pretty lively still.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he would urge the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire to press his Amendment, which only put the promises of the Prime Minister in black and white. Memories were sometimes very treacherous, and it was always easy to construe a pledge in a way which conveyed a different idea to one mind from what it conveyed to another. The real object of the right hon. Gentleman was to make the Land Bill as little valuable to the tenant and as valuable to the landlord as possible. As to what had been said by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), it was not, he thought, surprising that the conduct of the hon. Gentleman should be looked upon with suspicion, because when they saw a Government which had acted as this Government had done praised for its conduct to Ireland, no friend of Ireland could hear that praise with anything but suspicion. He did not, he added, agree with the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) in sympathizing with English and Scotch Members, on account of their not getting Business done, seeing that these hon. Gentlemen had given themselves into the hands of the Government for the purpose of passing a Bill which was founded upon falsehood and fraud. ["Oh!"] He did not mean that the Prime Minister knew it was founded upon falsehood and fraud; but the result had proved it.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to refer to a passage in a speech made by the Chief Secretary of Ireland last year, with respect to the two Irish Bills rejected by the House of Lords. The question of their rejection was brought up on the Appropriation Bill, and it was suggested that the Registration of Voters Bill should be tacked to the Appropriation Bill, and sent back to the Lords in that shape. The Chief Secretary on that occasion pledged the Government very distinctly that they would take up, at least, the Registration Bill next Session, and endeavour to take up the Limitation of Costs Bill. That, in his opinion,
    1514
    amounted to a distinct pledge that the Government would use their best exertions to get those two measures passed.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was perfectly true that his right hon. Friend, on behalf of the Government, expressed his great regret at the miscarriage of those two Bills in the House of Lords. It was the desire of the Government then, it had been their desire since, and it was their desire now, to have forwarded those Bills and seen them passed. But if anybody would cast his recollection back to the history of the last six months, he would see that the Government could not be blamed for not bringing forward measures of secondary importance. And when the House considered how English and Scotch Business of the highest moment had been entirely put aside in order to bring forward great Irish measures—[Cries of"Oh !"] The hon. Member did not consider the Irish Land Bill a great Irish measure; but the great majority of the Irish people did. But, whatever might be the opinion formed of that measure, it occupied the whole of the Session. ["No!"and"Coercion!"] At all events, the complaint that would be made against that Parliament in that Session would not be that it had given too little time to Irish measures. Therefore, though it was perfectly true that his right hon. Friend did express his desire to bring forward those measures to which the hon. Gentleman had referred and to have them supported by the Government, everybody would see that the course which Business had taken made it impossible. He did not desire to raise any dispute at this moment; but if the Irish Business had passed more rapidly, those measures would have had an opportunity of being entertained before now. Therefore, to make a charge of breach of faith against the Government on that head was a thing which the majority of the House would not entertain.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, after what had been stated by his hon. Friends on that side, he would not have interposed were it not from a strong sense of duty. The question, which had been debated fairly enough, was that of the operation of the Resolution proposed by the Prime Minister. But the go-by had been given to a great extent to the larger question at the bottom of that discussion—namely,

    1515
    whether it was worth while, at that period of the Session, to forward the Land Bill in the state in which it was proposed to the House? The Prime Minister had understated the position in which the House found itself. After 13 Sittings in Committee, it was not right to say with self-congratulation that four clauses of the Bill had been passed, for two of those clauses were to re-appear on the Report, one of them in a new form, so that it would have to be discussed, and the other with a sub-section, which was practically a new clause, and requiring new discussion. The Land Bill was really three Bills in one, and he was not at all satisfied that the Government, even with the time given to them, would, be able to push the Bill in relation to labourers' holdings, and that with respect to emigration, through the House. He would suggest that the Irish Land Question would best be dealt with by adding one clause to those already agreed to, declaring that every tenancy existing at the beginning of this year or hereafter to be created should be a statutable tenancy for 15 years, subject to the conditions contained in the Act. This would relieve the House from present embarrassment and get rid of the main difficulty, which was the constitution of the Court.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he must congratulate the Home Secretary on the possession of a wonderfully convenient memory. The right hon. and learned Gentleman managed to remember what he pleased and to forget all he did not choose to remember. It was impossible for the Irish Members to relax their opposition to the Coercion Bill; and, therefore, the Government themselves were responsible for the loss of time and the sacrifice of Irish and Scotch measures which had been the consequence, and it was useless for them to attempt to shift the responsibility on to the shoulders of the Irish Members.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the declaration made by the Secretary of State for India on September 2, 1880. The noble Lord then said—
    "I understand from what was stated yesterday that the desire of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his Friends was to obtain some expression of opinion from the Government as to the action taken by the House of Lords in relation to a certain Bill, and to endeavour to obtain a binding pledge from the Go-
    1516
    vernment that they would do their best to pass the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill into law. On that subject I believe there is very little difference of opinion between the hon. Member and Her Majesty's Government."—[3 Hansard, cclvi. 1060.]
    The House, too, would not soon forget the language applied by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in condemnation of"the hereditary Chamber" for their rejection of the Registration Bill. The Government were, therefore, pledged to do something for that Bill, and he hoped they would still introduce such a measure.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he quite admitted that the Government were pledged to support a Registration Bill and also a Limitation of Costs Bill; but, of course, Bills differed in their degree of importance, and the Land Bill necessarily took precedence of all others. At the same time, the Government would be prepared to give their support to those two measures, if the hon. Gentlemen who had charge of them would proceed with them. He did not even yet despair of seeing them carried.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That, on and after Wednesday next, the several stages of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions, on all days when it is set down among the Orders, until the House shall otherwise determine.

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. [FIFTEENTH NIGHT.]
    [Progress 21 th June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    PART I.

      ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES.
      Clause 5 (Repeal of part of s. 3 of Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, and enactment of New Scale).
      MR. FITZPATRICK,in moving in page 5, line 26, at the beginning to leave out from "there" to "land" in line 37, both inclusive, said, that the

      1517
      tenants who accepted this clause of the Act of 1870 did so with their eyes open; and he, therefore, objected to the new and increased scale of compensation which the clause now provided. It would increase the maximum very largely, and, by placing the new tenants under the new scale, it would inflict a very large loss upon the landlords. He would instance a case to show how the purchase of the tenant right would be affected. Supposing that a man bought a farm under the Act of 1870 at a valuation of £100, taking one-third more as the real valuation above Griffiths', the value would be about £130; and the landlord, if he wished to evict the tenant, would have to pay £130, or one year's rent. If the full maximum was awarded, he would have to pay £250; but now, under the new scale, he might become liable to pay the sum of £390. He had always been under the impression that the scale laid down was to enable the tenant to go out of a farm with capital in his possession, and he was not at all unwilling that the scale secured by the Act of 1870 should still be retained. But he saw no reason why they should increase the scale of money compensation towards tenants who held farms of above 100 acres in extent. In many cases the tenant was actually a richer man than the landlord himself, and to improve the new scale would be to penalize the landlord to a very considerable extent. Of course, the smaller tenants were more at the mercy of the landlords; but the large tenants were perfectly able to make a contract and to look after their own interests in the best possible manner. Therefore, it would be most unjust to bring in this new scale of compensation in regard to the larger farms, and he was very anxious to know what the reason of Her Majesty's Government was for proposing this change. He took the text of this Land Bill to be the Bessborough Commission, and, turning to the Report of that Commission, he found that in Ireland there were 32 County Court Judges, but only 10 of them were examined as witnesses, and only three of those asserted that the scale was too low. The other seven were of opinion that the scale was fairly reasonable; and it was not the practice even now to award the maximum. Mr. Darley said—"I think the scale of payments is fair and rea-
      1518
      sonable, and in only two cases did I award the maximum. "Mr. Burgess said that, in the case of capricious eviction, a higher amount would probably be awarded; and Mr. Greer stated that he had never found it necessary to award the maximum.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to point out to the hon. Member that, if we take this proposal, and if he intends to submit it as it appears on the Paper, the effect would be to leave out a large portion of the clause, and to leave the rest without any meaning at all. The hon. Member proposes by another Amendment to leave out another part of the clause; and, therefore, practically, he proposes to negative the clause altogether. This, however, is not the right place to do that; but when the question is proposed that the clause shall stand part of the Bill, it will be perfectly competent for the hon. Member to object to that Question and to negative the clause. But his present proposal, considered in connection with his future Amendment, is to destroy the clause without substituting anything for it.
      MR. FITZPATRICKsaid, he had intended to alter the Amendment slightly, and to propose the insertion of different amounts in the Schedule.
      THE CHAIRMAN: There is nothing to show that that is the intention of the hon. Member, and unless he alters his proposal altogether, I cannot put the Amendment, because it practically destroys the whole clause.
      MR. FITZPATRICKintimated that he would withdraw the second Amendment.
      THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member withdraws the second Amendment without also withdrawing this, he will leave the whole clause nonsense.
      MR. FITZPATRICKremarked that, if he was out of Order, of course he would submit to the ruling of the Chair.
      THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will hand in a new Amendment, I will inform him whether it is in Order or not; but at present it would be impossible to put the Amendment which stands in his name on the Paper. The hon. Member will be perfectly justified, when the clause is called, in objecting to it and in refusing the whole of it; but, at the present stage, such a course would not be in Order.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he had now to submit an Amendment to the Committee—namely, to insert in page 5, line 26, after the word "repealed" the words—
      "In relation to every tenancy to which this Act applies, and which has not become subject to a statutory term."
      The Amendment he had to submit was practically raised in a slightly different form from that of his hon. Friend; but it altogether raised the question of the policy and principle of the clause. He himself was opposed to the entire clause, and he should vote against it at the end. He thought it right to say this at the outset. He was of opinion, with great deference to Her Majesty's Government, that the clause was an entire mistake, and that it was quite out of place. He thought it was illogical and opposed to the remaining portions of the measure; and that, as a matter of fact, it was entirely unsupported by any principle on which any scale of compensation for disturbance was originally applied by the Act of 1870. That Act provided that it was desirable and expedient, under the then circumstances of Ireland, to give an opportunity to the minor and smaller class of tenants—it being supposed that the rich tenants were able to take care of themselves—to give to the smaller class of tenants with small rents and small valuations something in the shape of compensation when they were dispossessed of their holdings, so as to enable them to seek new homes. That was the principle which underlaid the whole of the legislation of 1870. It was necessary, however, to look at clauses sanctioning claims for disturbance with great jealousy, because they knew that what was the avowed intention of the Act of 1870 had been largely departed from. As the Prime Minister put it last night, it was not perceived by anyone during the passing of the Act of 1870 that the foundation of tenant right was being laid. The House was not only unconscious of what it was doing, but the object of the Land Act of 1870 was to fine the landlord on eviction. The case was very different now. They were now giving to the tenant the right of selling the tenant right. It was necessary, therefore, to scrutinize with great care any advance in this direction; because they might be told five or ten years hence that what was not intended now, by the logical sequence of facts, had become the further basis of
      1520
      an advance of tenant right. This Bill was a Bill to amend the Act of 1870—not by restoring the intention proclaimed in 1870, but by enforcing, as a matter of new law, what was disclaimed as being then the intention and foundation of the Act. All the speeches in support of the Bill were based on the necessity of giving some security for the tenant's tenure. This might be accomplished in two ways, each absolutely and strictly independent of the other. It might be done by breaking all contracts and converting all tenancies into tenancies of 15 years, with the power of renewal; or it might be done by increasing the scale of compensation for disturbance, and so checking evictions. The first mode of action was a substantial interference with all the existing contracts from year to year, as its effect was to expand the tenants into tenants for 15 years. That was the modus operandi adopted in regard to the present Bill; and he ventured to think that in making this great change in favour of the tenants, and in giving them this great statutory security, it would be illogical and out of place at the same time, and in the same Bill, to go back upon the 3rd section of the Land Act of 1870, and increase the compensation for disturbance. In point of fact, he thought, if this Bill became law, there would be little or no scope for the operation of that section, and that, practically, the scale for disturbance would be very little applied. He believed that that was the opinion of almost everyone who had carefully studied the Bill. How would this section affect the future? He failed to see the necessity of putting in a strong section for the development of a very objectionable principle, when they were unable to show that it would have anything like a large practical operation. He would ask the Committee to consider how this section could be imagined by anyone to have any operation upon the different classes of tenancies which might by possibility come under its operation. He did not propose to criticize the various Amendments which followed his; but there was one point which he thought was important in connection with this clause, and it was that it dealt with rent and not with rating. If one thing had come out overwhelmingly clear in all the Commissions it was this—that the valuation had been proved conclu-

      1521
      sively to be a wholly untenable and unreasonable test. Therefore, he thought the Government were quite right in taking the rent rather than the rating. As to tenancies, there were two broad classes of tenancies to which, by a possibility, this new scale might apply. What were they? The ordinary tenancies were the tenants who would practically have declined to avail themselves of the Bill—tenants who had abstained from asking for a statutory term, or from having a judicial rent fixed. He admitted that eviction was possible by a notice to quit; but a tenant of one of these ordinary tenancies would have the remedy in his own hands. He could invoke the other machinery of the Bill, and could apply at once for the other equities which were provided for him in the Bill. In other words, he need not go, but could have his rent measured if he thought it unreasonable, and have it fixed as a fair rent, and thus have his tenancy turned into a statutable term of 15 years. Consequently, the remedy was in his own hands if he did not wish to be evicted. Then, what was the necessity that existed for this clause? He had so framed his Amendment to leave ordinary tenants who had not got statutable terms the benefit of the scale that might be adopted; but as to the other classes of tenants who might come under the operation of the new scale, he thought they would have no right, in reason, or in common sense, or in justice, to have any scale at all. Now, what was the position of a tenant with a judicial rent and a statutable term? He was a man who could not be evicted capriciously. Capricious eviction was absolutely out of the case. A man with a statutory term was subject to statutory conditions, and within the four corners of those statutory conditions they would find contained every single right of the landlord to evict. What would be the probability of the tenant of a statutory tenancy invoking the aid of this increased scale for disturbance, and where would be its justice? He could only be evicted on a notice to quit for the breach of a statutory condition. What were the statutory conditions? He need only mention two or three of them. A tenant could only be evicted by his landlord on notice to quit for breaches of three broad statutory conditions, every one of which went to his ordinary, decent, quiet conduct as
      1522
      an ordinary tenant. The first of these was if the tenant had persistently committed voluntary waste. Now, what right had a tenant, who persistently insisted upon committing voluntary waste, to get damages for disturbance on any scale? The next case was where a tenant persistently obstructed his landlord in the execution of his usual and necessary rights. Again, he asked where was the right of a statutory tenant to persistently obstruct his landlord in the performance of his usual and necessary rights, and then to invoke the aid of a scale for disturbance? The last case was where the landlord had been compelled, owing to the sub-division and sub-letting of the holding, committed by the tenant in clear breach of his statutory obligations, to invoke the aid of the Bill in order to obtain his legal rights. There, again, what right had the tenant, who, contrary to the law, sub-divided and sublet the holding, and thereby contravened the clear statutory condition—what right had the tenant to receive one farthing upon an increased scale of disturbance? There was one other point he might mention by way of illustration. In Clause 13 of the Bill power was given to the landlord, on breach of the statutory conditions, to serve notice to quit, and to evict the tenant if the tenant did not elect to sell. But they were told that it was the intention of the Government, in this same Clause 13, to further favour the position of the tenant by proposing that when a tenant was served by the landlord with notice to quit for a breach of statutory conditions, he should have power to appeal to the Court not to allow him to be evicted, but to measure the amount of damage to which it was considered the landlord was entitled. What, then, would be the position of the tenant who, under this clause, would be permitted to receive the increased compensation for disturbance? He must, in order to apply for the increased scale for disturbance, have violated some one of the statutory conditions just referred to. He must afterwards, under the new statement of the Government's intentions, have failed to satisfy a Court of Equity that it was not within the landlord's right and duty to get rid of him; and he must have failed to satisfy the Court that damages would be any compensation. Therefore, the clause, as it stood, was framed on a monstrous piece

      1523
      of absurdity—namely, that a tenant who had failed to satisfy the Court of the justice of his proceedings should, nevertheless, compel his landlord to pay him upon an increased scale for disturbance. He did not propose to go over all these topics again. The matter had now, he imagined, been fully and fairly stated by him. He had not considered it necessary to weary the Committee by going into details upon the Amendment he had now to submit; but he had simply told the Committee shortly what his grounds were. He would repeat again, so that there might be no misconception about it, that at the proper time, when it was proposed that the clause should stand part of the Bill, he should vote against that proposition; and he did not think that there would be any interference with the scope and efficiency of the Bill if the clause were struck out. His Amendment was only directed to this point—that whatever case there might be established for giving the increased scale of compensation to an ordinary tenant, there was none whatever for giving the increased or any scale for disturbance in the case of a statutory tenant, who could only be asked to leave the holding for a breach of his allotted duties.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 5, line 26, after "repealed" to insert "in relation to every tenancy to which this Act applies and which has not become subject to a statutory term."—(Mr. Gibson.)
      MR. MARUMsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had overlooked the fact that the clause was in strict accordance with the Ulster tenant right custom, which it was the object of the Government to extend by the Bill to the other parts of Ireland. By the Ulster tenant right custom, a tenant who was evicted at Common Law for the breach of conditions involving forfeiture could, nevertheless, obtain the benefit of the redemptory clause, and, under the Ulster Custom, would be allowed to sell and get the benefit of the value of the tenant right, notwithstanding that he had committed a breach of the conditions involving forfeiture. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out that there would be a less number of tenants who would come under the forfeiture, or under the operation of the
      1524
      provision for disturbance. That had been abundantly proved by the fact of new legislation being called for by that House. It had been abundantly proved that compensation for disturbance had been inadequate; and, therefore, it was necessary now to come to Parliament for the present measure. It had been shown that by enacting penalizing clauses such was the competition for land in Ireland that they had very little effect; and unless the measure touched the tenure it would not provide a remedy for the grievances complained of. The experience of the past had proved that the present amount and weight of compensation for disturbance was insufficient for the protection of the tenant. He understood, however, that all these questions would be more completely raised on the 7th clause by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin).
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Marum) that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had raised a bogey for the purpose of slaying it. He did not suppose that a tenant who had obtained a statutory term, and could not be turned out except for a breach of statutory conditions, would be entitled to compensation under the clause; but only those tenants who were compelled by their landlords to sell their tenancies. If a tenant were got rid of for a breach of his statutory conditions, he certainly ought not to be entitled to compensation for disturbance.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, it appeared to him that the effect of the Amendment would be to debar the tenant who once became subject to a statutory term at the expiration of that statutory term, providing he did not feel disposed to enter into a new one—the effect of the clause would be to debar such a tenant, if he became again an ordinary yearly tenant, from obtaining compensation for disturbance. From that point of view, although it was true that a tenant in the enjoyment of a statutory term would not be entitled, and could not in any way be entitled, since he could not be disturbed, the provisions of this Bill were unnecessary. Yet, at the same time, as regarded the contingency that he had just pointed out, the contingency of a

      1525
      tenant who at the end of the statutory term became an ordinary yearly tenant, if the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were accepted, it would, practically, debar all such tenants from having a claim for compensation for disturbance.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I have no hesitation in saying that the Government accept the general principle on which the Amendment is founded—namely, that inasmuch as under a statutory term a tenant would be evicted only for a breach of conditions, it is not necessary and it is not right that he should be able to claim compensation for disturbance. I believe that the remarks which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) has made are open to this observation—that he has mixed up together, rather inconveniently, the question whether the scale for compensation for disturbance should be increased and the question of what tenants it should be applicable to. Now, the question raised by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), whether, in the event of resumption by the landlord, the tenant should be able to claim compensation for disturbance, is a different question; and I do not wish to say anything upon that subject now. But with regard to the Amendment, I think it is further open to the objection raised by the hon. Member for the City of Cork that a tenancy once having become subject to statutory terms, would thereafter, though it ceased to become subject to them, be excluded from obtaining compensation for disturbance. Now, I do not think that that is intended; but I have also another doubt—namely, whether that is the right way of attaining the object which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in view. The effect of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment would be, I apprehend, to leave the old scale of compensation applicable to the present statutory term. It is quite clear that that ought not to be so; and I think it would be better that we should get rid of the Amendment at the present moment on the distinct understanding that we assent to it in principle. It is only plain justice that a man evicted for a breach of a statutory condition should not be entitled to compensation for disturbance, either under the old scale or the new; but we believe that that will
      1526
      be the effect of the Bill as it stands at present.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he had no desire to prolong the discussion. He was quite satisfied with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and he would therefore withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that the Government would draw up words to give effect to the intention expressed by the right hon. Gentleman.
      MR. H. R. BRANDwished to say a few words before the Amendment was withdrawn. He confessed that he did not understand what the object of the clause was at all, and he believed that the Bill would be just as effective without it as with it. It would be unjust that an old tenant for a statutory term should be able to obtain compensation for disturbance when he was turned out for a breach of statutory conditions. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) said the case he wished to present was that of a tenant who, having been a statutory tenant, had become an ordinary tenant. His (Mr. Brand's) answer to that was that an ordinary tenant under the Bill would be able to sell his interest, and therefore the question really came to this—In what cases would this clause relating to compensation for disturbance be operative? As he understood, it was provided by the Bill that compensation, for disturbance, first imposed by the Act of 1870, should be a penalty upon the landlord for eviction. By this Bill it was constituted a penalty in perpetuity, and the tenant would be allowed to sell the value of that penalty. If the tenant had a right to sell the value of the penalty when he was evicted, why should he have the option as well of obtaining from the landlord compensation for disturbance? In what cases would it act? It could only act when the tenant was evicted, and when his rights had been run so far down that his interest which had been left in the farm had no value whatever. Why, in such a case, should the landlord be called upon to give compensation for disturbance, especially where the tenant, by breach of statutory conditions, had so depreciated the value of the farm that he was unable to sell his interest in the open market?
      THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is now discussing the whole clause, and

      1527
      not the Amendment before the Committee.
      MR. H. R. BRANDsaid, he bowed to the decision of the Chair; but he wished to ask the Government this question—whether the Bill would not be quite as effective without this clause as with it?
      MR. GIVANthought the acceptance by the Government of the principle involved in the Amendment might place the Committee in an embarrassing position. He understood the concession of the Government to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) was to depend upon the committal of a breach of statutory conditions, and that such a breach of statutory conditions was absolutely to be a bar to a claim for compensation. But might not that be converted into a premium to the landlord to seek for a breach of statutory conditions, and in that way to impose a penalty upon the tenant? As he understood the 15th clause of the Act of 1870, there was an adequate protection of the landlord, because, under the Equity Clause, the Court had power to take everything into account in calculating the scale of compensation the tenant was to receive. It was therefore open to the Court to consider everything that could be brought against the tenant, and if the tenant had been guilty of any unreasonable conduct, either in reference to dilapidations or anything else that was detrimental to the holding or the interest of the landlord, it would be brought against him when he came before the Court. Personally, he was cognizant of many claims which had been made for disturbance; and he never yet knew, except in one or two instances, of a case in which the maximum had been awarded. Therefore, if this Equity Clause in the Act of 1870 continued unrepealed for the protection of the landlord, he thought it exceedingly dangerous that the Government should now commit itself to any undertaking not to award the tenant compensation for disturbance, even where there had been some trifling breach of a statutory condition. He was of opinion that the landlord ought not to be afforded any opportunity or facility for improperly getting rid of his tenant.
      LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he had no wish to continue the
      1528
      discussion, but must acknowledge that he had never read this section of the Bill as covering the cases which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) seemed to think it was intended to cover. He was glad to hear what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, that it was never the intention of the Government to enable a tenant to recover under those vexatious circumstances. If he was not mistaken, the cases it was intended to cover were those that were mentioned in the sub-section of Clause 3.
      MR. CHAPLINwished to have the opinion of the Chairman upon a point of Order. He had ruled just now that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) was out of Order because he was discussing the whole clause. He wished to know if hon. Members were to be precluded from referring to any part of the clause except those lines which the Amendment covered?
      THE CHAIRMAN: It is within the province of any hon. Member, by way of illustration, to refer to another part of the clause; but it is not in Order to discuss any part of the clause not affected by the Amendment until the Chairman puts the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not wish to be misunderstood upon the matter. In saying what he had just now, he was under the impression that, as the Bill stood, a tenant, when he became a statutory tenant, if he was evicted for a breach of statutory conditions, could not claim compensation for disturbance. That was his impression of the construction of the Bill as it stood. He was told, however, by some of his hon. Friends who were learned in the law that a tenant, under such circumstances, would be able to claim from the Court compensation for disturbance. Of course, if that were the case, he should not be willing to lessen the right of the tenant under the Bill.
      MR. MARUMasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether, if a tenant committed a breach of statutory conditions, such as the non-payment of rent, he would be entitled to claim compensation for disturbance?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the remedy the tenant would have in such a case

      1529
      would be to sell his holding; and if he was foolish enough not to claim a sale, he certainly could not come in for compensation for disturbance if there had been a breach of his ordinary duties.
      MR. BIGGARasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland under what provision of this Bill a tenant would be authorized to sell his tenant right if he was served with notice to quit?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): The 13th.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. PLUNKET,in moving, in page 5, line 28, to leave out from "compensation" to "and" in line 30, said, that the part of the clause which repealed the declaration of the Act of 1870, that in no case should the compensation paid to the tenant exceed £250, was quite independent of the remaining portions. The reason why he had put down an Amendment for striking out the words to which he referred in his Amendment was that neither in the Reports of the Commissioners, nor in the evidence given before them, had he been able to find any statement whatever in support of the proposal contained in this clause. He was quite unable to make out on what grounds the proposal was made to repeal that portion of the 3rd section of the Act of 1870, which restricted the amount of compensation to be paid to the tenant. All the clauses of the Land Act of 1870, all the particulars of the scale of compensation, were most carefully debated during the passage of that Act through the House. Moreover, there was very little in the Reports of either of the Royal Commissions to support any part of this clause; and, as he had said before, nothing at all that he could find to support this particular portion of it. He found in the Report of the Bessborough Commission a statement that the security given by the 3rd clause of the Act of 1870 was not sufficient, and that an alternative scheme was proposed; but when they came to deal with the suggestion that the clause should be increased in stringency, the Commissioners said that the change should be effected without placing the landlords at an unfair disadvantage in the exercise of their legitimate rights. Again, neither in the Report of the minority nor of the majority of the Richmond Commission was there any reference at
      1530
      all to the subject of repealing any portion of the 3rd section of the Land Act of 1870. As a matter of fact, some of the County Court Judges did say that the compensation for disturbance at the lowest grade of the scale was not sufficient; but they carefully guarded themselves from any suggestion that it was not sufficient at the upper end of the scale. But there was very little in this; and he challenged any person to show in any of the authorities he had referred to one word pointing to the repeal of this particular sub-section of the Act of 1870. The sub-section in question was not in that Act as it was originally introduced into the House of Commons; it appeared first as an Amendment to the Bill, and received the support of the Prime Minister. His argument was that there was nothing in the Reports or in the evidence submitted to the Royal Commissions to support the present clause of the Bill as repealing the particular sub-section referred to therein of the Act of 1870; that the arguments in support of that portion of the Act of 1870 remained untouched; and that, therefore, the limit of £250 should be adhered to. He was quite unable to understand why they should now be asked to repeal on any ground the sub-section deliberately and unanimously adopted in the Act of 1870.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 5, line 28, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "pounds," in line 30, both inclusive.—(Mr. Plunket.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, in his opinion, the non-appearance of a recommendation for the repeal of this portion of the 3rd section of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, was no argument worth introducing into the debate. The Commission of Lord Bessborough did not undertake to re-consider the Act of 1870. It was perfectly natural that at that time there should have been a maximum for the fine on the landlord. They had now, however, to consider the just interest of the tenant in regard to compensation quite apart from the interest of the landlord, and having given the tenant the right of realizing the full value of his tenant right, the amount of compensation which he could claim ought

      1531
      to have relation thereto; consequently, there was no reason in fixing any limit to the operation of the scale.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 235; Noes 110: Majority 125.—(Div. List, No. 272.)
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he was very anxious to expedite the passage of the Bill, and should therefore be very brief in stating the point of the Amendment he was about to move. That Amendment was framed in the interest of the fair-dealing landlord, who allowed his tenants to occupy their holdings on what he should call livable terms. The Act of 1870 provided that compensation should be awarded to the tenant with reference to the loss sustained; and hon. Members would see that in the case of the tenant who held his farm on livable terms, there would be a greater interest than in the case of a man who was under a rack-renting landlord. Now, the effect of the 3rd section of the Act of 1870 was that the fair landlord was mulcted, while the rack-renting landlord was let off completely. The object of his Amendment was to rectify this inequality.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 5, line 37, after "waste land," insert "and the said section three shall hereafter be read, as if from such section were omitted the words 'for the loss which the Court shall find to be sustained by him by reason of quitting his holding,' so that the said section shall he read as providing that the tenant therein mentioned shall be entitled to such compensation as the Court, in view of all the circumstances of the case, shall think just, subject to the scale of compensation hereinafter mentioned."—(Mr. Charles Russell.)
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not see any objection to this Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, although, so far as the 3rd section of the Act of 1870 was concerned, he did not see how it would practically affect the operation of the clause as now administered.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, he was astonished at the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He was sure he would agree that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk constituted a pure departure from the construction that had always been placed upon the Act of 1870. In a treatise of the highest autho-
      1532
      rity, it was clearly laid down that it was impossible to regard the damages paid to the tenant as being for anything but the loss sustained by quitting his holding. Of course, it was quite possible for the Government to depart entirely from that principle and establish that departure by means of their majority. If the Government thought fit to take that view, and alter the language of the Bill, in order to put an entirely new construction on the Act of 1870, let them do so; but let them not say that their view was the true interpretation of the 3rd section of the Act of 1870.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was unable to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, inasmuch as he thought quite a different construction to that which he supposed would be put upon the words he proposed to introduce. If you allowed the tenant's interest in his holding to be measured by the amount of compensation, it was quite clear that his interest was larger at a low rent than at a high rent; and, therefore, great injustice would be inflicted on the landlord who let his land at a low rent.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought that the position of the case was exactly the reverse of that pointed out by the noble Lord. The real intention of the Amendment was that the tenant should get compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. It was the case in the North of Ireland, when a tenancy under the Ulster Custom was sold, that if he was paying a moderate rent the tenant received a large sum for his holding; but if, on the other hand, the tenant was under a grasping landlord, who charged him more than a reasonable and fair rent, his interest sold for a very small sum; and, if the landlord evicted the tenant, he was able to get off with the payment of a comparatively small amount of compensation. In that way the landlord received a double benefit. The Amendment was one which he should be glad to see carried out in connection with other parts of the Bill.
      MR. WARTONpointed out, in reference to the observation of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), that he brought forward his Amendment in the interest of liberal landlords, that the meaning of a fair rent was that which was

      1533
      fair and just to both landlord and tenant, whereas the term liberal rent implied one which was more in favour of the tenant than the landlord. A landlord who charged the tenant a liberal rent would now have to suffer in two ways—first, by the loss of rent which he ought to have had; and, secondly, by the increased sum given to the tenant for compensation because the rent had been moderate. The effect of the Amendment would be to expand the action of the Courts to an unnecessary degree. His hon. and learned Friend was perfectly aware of the doctrine of consequential damages, and they would probably find not only that the tenant was compensated for disturbance, but also for the removal of his furniture, as well as for a number of things which were not down in this 3rd section.
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he would now move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).
      THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. Member for Cavan that the hon. Member for the City of Cork was in the House, and could, therefore, move his Amendment if he desired to do so.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, the Amendment in his name had for its object to give tenants, especially the smaller tenants, an alternative to that provided by the Bill, so that they might elect to apply to the Court for compensation for disturbance in case of ejectment for nonpayment of rent instead of selling their tenancies. The proposal was, however, one which would give rise to much contention, and to which he feared it would be difficult to get the Government to agree. Therefore, as the Session was so far advanced, he did not intend to move it.
      MR. HEALYsaid, that anyone who had gone through the evidence given before the late Royal Commissions upon the subject of leases could not but be impressed by the way in which leases had been forced upon tenants in Ireland upon the knowledge that if the landlord gave them a lease of 31 years there would be no compensation. Instead of taking warning from what had taken place, the Government were now about to do very much the same thing as was enacted in 1870. He pressed
      1534
      upon the Government the desirability of considering whether that portion of the Act of 1870 which gave no compensation to the holder of a lease of 31 years should be continued. He did not know why it should be considered right that, if a landlord entered into a contract to let his land to a tenant for 31 years, the tenant should not be entitled to compensation. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 5, line 37, after "land," insert "and so much of the same section as enacts that a tenant of a holding under a lease made after the passing of the said Act, and granted for a term certain of not less than thirty-one years, shall not be entitled to any compensation under the said section."—(Mr. Healy.)
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he was quite unable to understand why the Government had not paid any attention to the subject referred to by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), which was one of very great importance. The operation of the Act of 1870, in the case of the holders of leases of 31 years, was very unfair to the tenant, because when a tenant obtained a lease of this kind, he probably laid out money in improvements at the early part of his tenancy which would not be exhausted at the end of the term; nevertheless, the landlord got the full benefit of them without paying any compensation for disturbance. The question as to whether or not the tenant would have compensation at the end of his lease had given rise to great difficulty in Ireland. He trusted that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford would be accepted.
      MR. GLADSTONE: The question as to the position of lessees at the close of their leases is one of very great importance; but it is not the question we are now discussing. We are considering whether a certain section of the Land Act of 1870, which now excludes tenants under certain conditions from compensation for disturbance, shall be repealed or not. We do not see our way to the adoption of the proposal of the hon. Member for Wexford; but I may say, with regard to the question as to the future position of a lessee at the end of his lease, that it is one which we carefully reserve.
      MR. HEALYcomplained that, whenever an Amendment was moved by Members below the Gangway, the Govern-

      1535
      ment always met it with, the statement that they did not see their way to adopt it; while every Amendment that came from above the Gangway was argued out to the fullest extent. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had advanced no argument whatever against the Amendment. On the second reading of the Bill the Premier said the landlords of Ireland had been tried and, generally speaking, they had been acquitted. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The Prime Minister shook his head. But it was the right hon. Gentleman's invariable practice to shake his head whenever anyone made a quotation from one of his speeches. So far as his (Mr. Healy's) recollection of the Prime Minister's words went, they were these—that the landlords had been tried and had not been found wanting. [Mr. GLADSTONE: As to rents.] He supposed the right hon. Gentleman was acquainted with the evidence taken by the Bessborough Commission. He (Mr. Healy) had taken the trouble to go through that mass of evidence, and had cut out that portion of it bearing on leases. It was nearly a week's work; but he had found numberless cases where the leases had been forced on the tenants. The Prime Minister said he saw no reason for accepting the Amendment; but, in reply to this, he would tell the right hon. Gentleman that it was to be found in the evidence of his own Commissioners. Owing to the character of that Commission, the farmers of Ireland, generally, held aloof from it; therefore, it was a mere tithe of the evidence that might have been forthcoming that was to be found in the Blue Book. The Government had packed a jury of landlords, headed by Lord Bessborough, one of the most stringent, and, he would almost say, one of the most tyrannical agents in the whole of Ireland—he was on the Fitzwilliam property. This packed jury had taken the evidence; but, bad as was the Commission, there was plenty in the Blue Book it had furnished to justify the Amendment, and, unless he could get more satisfaction out of the Government, he should certainly press his proposal to a division. He desired a more satisfactory statement from the Government than that they did not see their way to accepting the Amendment.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the point
      1536
      raised by the hon. Member had regard to the clause in the Land Act which enabled the landlord to exempt himself from liability to pay compensation for disturbance by giving a lease for 31 years, wholly irrespective of whether the lease was fair or unfair. All these contracts which had been made during the past 10 years, however fair they might be, were alike included in the Amendment of the hon. Member. This, he was sure, the hon. Gentleman would himself see would be extremely unjust.
      MR. SYNANsaid, he had presented several Petitions to the House on the subject of leases, and the prayer of all of them was that the matter should be referred to the Commission, and not that the section of the Land Act should be repealed. If the Government made up their minds to refer all these leases to the Commission, no doubt the Commission would see justice done; but it would be a monstrous thing to repeal the section of the Act of Parliament, and thereby put fair leases and unfair leases on the same level. If there were no leases of this kind the Commission would find it out and set people's minds at rest; and if there were such leases justice would be done.
      MR. MARUMappealed to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to withdraw his Amendment.
      THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that when the Land Act of 1870 was passed leaseholders in the North of Ireland were not allowed, on the expiration of their leases, to claim tenant right; but since then that privilege had been conceded to them under the Ulster Custom. He thought his hon. Friend might reasonably claim an equal privilege for leaseholders in other parts of Ireland under the 3rd clause.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he could not support the statement of the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue). He knew cases in the North of Ireland where no allowance was given in the shape of the Ulster Custom to tenants at the end of their leases. No allowances were given on the Marquess of Donegal's estate, for instance. The Bill proposed that a ten-ant-at-will should have a statutory term—that was to say, that he should have his rent fixed for a period of 15 years. If a lease had been given in 1870 for 31 years there would be 20 years to run, or five years longer than the statutory

      1537
      term which would apply in the case of a tenant who took his holding after the passing of the Bill. In the one case the man would have to wait 20 years for compensation if he were to be turned out; whilst, in the case of the tenant-at-will, he, under similar circumstances, would get compensation at the end of 15 years. The tenant-at-will, therefore, would be better off than the leaseholder. He could not agree to the suggestion of the Government that they should depend on the chance of some clause being hereafter introduced to meet the cases in question. They should not allow this unjust law to continue. If they waited for a new clause, it might be pushed through the House without proper consideration, and might clash with the other provisions, with the result of making the matter worse than it was at present.
      MR. MACFARLANEsaid, there were a great many Amendments lower down touching the question of leases. He himself had one, which proposed to transfer the matter to the decision of the Court. Such an Amendment as that ought to satisfy the hon. Member; therefore, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, the question involved in the Amendment simply amounted to this—whether a tenant, at the expiration of a lease, should be a present or a future tenant. The question was to be discussed later on; therefore, he thought it would be better to put off the Amendment. He was speaking, of course, under the impression that what he had stated would be the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member. Of course, a tenant holding a lease could not be disturbed until the expiration of his term. By the Bill, as it at present stood, a man would become, at the expiration of his term, a future tenant, without a future tenant's right. The hon. Member sought to convert him, indirectly, by his Amendment, into a present tenant. The Amendment should be postponed until the clause dealing directly with the question was under discussion.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had not been aware at first of the full scope of the Amendment. He was surprised that the hon. Member should have thought of proposing that which, if carried, would amount to a direct breach of faith.
      MR. HEALYprotested against the tone of the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, he should not press the Amendment after the discussion which had taken place; but, at the same time, he must point out that there was no breach of faith in the matter, or none that was not reasonable and precedented. Was it not a breach of faith against the Act of Union when the right hon. Gentleman passed the Irish Church Act? He did not mean to insist on the Amendment; but he was decidedly of opinion that where leases had been forced on tenants—and there were hundreds of such cases—the tenants should receive compensation for disturbance. He did not believe there was a landlord in Ireland who, since 1870, had given a lease to a tenant at a low rent. They had all exacted the full value of the holdings from the tenants.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he had an Amendment to propose, part of which was merely nominal, and part of which was substance. The Bill stated that the compensation payable under Section 3 of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, should be—
      "Where the rent is under thirty pounds, a sum not exceeding seven years' rent; where the rent is under fifty pounds, a sum not exceeding five years' rent; where the rent is under one hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding four years' rent; where the rent is one hundred pounds or upwards, a sum not exceeding three years' rent."
      The clause, on the face of it, proposed to increase the scale of compensation for disturbance. He did not suppose the Government meant that to be illusory, although it seemed to him that the provision, as it stood, would have that effect. He did not know why the clause had been framed in this way—why the test had been changed from valuation to rent—but, when he had heard the explanation, he would, with regard to his Amendment, take that course which seemed to him to be expedient.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 5, line 40, leave out from "holdings," to end of Clause, and insert" valued under the Acts relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland at an annual value of—

      1. Thirty pounds and under a sum which shall in no case exceed seven years' rent;

      2. Above thirty pounds and not exceeding fifty pounds a sum which shall in no case exceed five years' rent;

      1539

      3. Above fifty pounds and not exceeding one hundred pounds a sum which shall in no case exceed four years' rent;

      4. Above one hundred pounds a sum which shall in no case exceed three years' rent."—(Mr. Charles Russell.)

      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, with regard to the formal portion of the Amendment, he was obliged to the hon. and learned Member for correcting an error in the drafting—an error which had been observed by several persons. He would state the reasons which had guided the Government in framing the provision. They had altered the figures in the scale in such a way as considerably to extend the limits upwards; hut, at the same time, they had changed the test by which the classes were divided from valuation to rent. His hon. and learned Friend asked why that change had been made? This was the reason. At the time when the Act of 1870 was framed the rents of Ireland were so extremely unequal that it would have been impossible to found a scale on them. By basing the scale on the rents they would have given the landlord an inducement, which he would have had no difficulty in acting upon, to raise the rents. This ought to be a conclusive proof of the object of adopting the test of rates in 1870; but, since the Act of 1870, two changes had taken place. One was the change, not yet effected but contemplated, in the present Bill, a change the principle of which had received the approval of the House—namely, the power to be given to the tenant to obtain the fixing of a judicial rent. This, it was hoped, would do much to secure an approximation to equality in the rents of Ireland, 80 that they might safely assume, not that they would be absolutely equal, but that the range of their variation would be greatly contracted. Rents, therefore, would be a much better test than they were 10 years ago. Again, there would not be that inducement to the landlord to raise his rent for the purpose of taking the holding into a class where the amount of compensation would be measured by the small number of years' value given. The landlord would not be able to raise his rent without serious consequences ensuing. Then, as to valuation, they had also had considerations to take into view. In the first place, when they adopted valuation as a basis in 1870, the subject of valuation
      1540
      had never been one which was critical in a political sense. No attempt had been made to associate valuation with rent, or to exhibit valuation to the country as the measure of the rights of the landlord. They, undoubtedly, felt that it would be a more serious matter to trust to valuation now than it was then, from that point of view alone. And, besides that, they had clearly exhibited to the world the fact that valuation itself was extremely unequal. He would put it in this way—that the valuation, under the present Valuation Acts, as it now existed, was likely to be much more unequal than rents. In 1870, they looked upon valuation merely as a Treasury question, and they used to look forward from year to year to bringing in a Bill which would adjust the question. Since then the valuation of Ireland had become a much more serious question; and, at the present time, he did not see his way to rectify it or bring in any Bill whatever in regard to it. Therefore, under present circumstances, the Government were convinced that the rent test would be much more simple and equal than the valuation test was likely to prove.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he did not intend to press the part of his Amendment which was objected to by the Government.
      MR. LITTONconsidered that an important question was raised by this Amendment in regard to the dealings of those landlords who raised their rents beyond the valuation as compared with those who, from generous motives, allowed them to remain at the valuation. There was no doubt that the landlord who had raised his rent and so brought it above the first step in the scale would get off with five years' compensation, under the Bill, as against seven years in the case of the landlord who had not raised it. He, however, was very much impressed with the arguments which had fallen from the Prime Minister; and, therefore, he did not propose to delay the Committee on the subject. Still, there was a provision which ought to be inserted in the Bill which would tend to correct the evil at which the clause was aimed—namely, a provision rendering it optional for a tenant in a higher class to claim compensation under a lower class. If this was adopted, his object would be gained,
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he tad an Amendment on this subject on the Paper.
      MR. HEALYsaid this scale, by which it was proposed to increase the compensation, would actually diminish it. Where the valuation was £30, and the rent £50, five years' rent would be awarded under the old scale; whereas, under the new scale, only four years' rent, or £200, would be given. Under the new scale, therefore, the tenant would get £50 less than be would under the old scale. No doubt, this was an extreme case; but such cases were to be found. He ventured to say that anyone who knew the way that rental had increased on valuation could, in a very short space of time, put his hand on at least 1,000 cases in the West of Ireland, where the valuation was £10, and the rent £30. He would ask the Attorney General what he intended to do in cases where the clause, whilst purporting to increase, really brought about a diminution of compensation?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that in cases where there was such a considerable disparity between the rent and the valuation, if the latter was approximately correct, the first alteration would be to have the rent reduced. The rent might be improperly high, or the valuation improperly low, or it might be that, at the same time, the valuation was much too low and the rent much too high. All this, however, would be corrected by the provisions of the 7th section. The Government could not attempt to deal now with valuation by bringing in a Bill on the subject.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      On the Motion of the ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Law) the following Amendments were made:—In page 5, line 41, by leaving out the word "under;" in page 5, line 41, after "pounds" by inserting "or under;" in page 5, line 41, by leaving out "under" and inserting "above thirty pounds and not exceeding;" and in page 6, line 1, by leaving out "under" and inserting" above fifty pounds."
      MR. W. H. SMITHproposed, in page 6, line 5, to omit the words "or upwards," in order to insert" and under £150,"so as to give some limitation to
      1542
      the amount for which compensation might be claimed. Under the Act of 1870 it was expressly provided that £250 should be the highest amount awarded, and he thought in the higher scale of compensation not more than one year's rent should be given.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 6, line 5, to leave out the words "or upwards," in order to insert the words "and under one hundred and fifty pounds."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
      MR. GLADSTONEwould not say that this proposal was in direct contrariety to the decision of the Committee that day; but the decision of the Committee was to strike out the limit which was inserted in the Act of 1870; and the principle upon which the Government were going was that although that limitation was agreeable to the view with, which compensation for disturbance was adopted in 1870, it was not agreeable at all to the view now held, because it was now proposed as an alternative form of showing the tenant's right to get money, and they could not stop at a particular point, and say that if the claim was larger than that it should not be allowed on the same scale.
      MR. W. H. SMITHwished to know if the right hon. Gentleman contended that in addition to full compensation for improvements, the tenant was also to have a right to something, which was not money expended by him, not labour given by him, not capital embarked in his enterprize, but a something which should be equivalent to three years' rent in case of eviction?: It seemed to him to be an extraordinary statement that tenant right, independently of compensation for improvements, should consist of three years' rent.
      MR. GLADSTONEobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to assume a case which led apparently to this position, that the tenant's right was confined to his improvements. The right hon. Gentleman, however, said the tenant had -not paid anything for his right; but in a great many cases the tenant had paid for it—in cases, for instance, where one tenant had been evicted to make way for another. But that was not what the Government looked to. What they looked to was to secure remuneration to the tenant for his right of occu-

      1543
      pancy. If it was a desirable thing—it did not signify what he had paid for it—and persons were willing to give him a price for it, then he ought to be allowed to secure such remuneration. That was not the question now before the Committee; but if the tenant was allowed to secure by the present Bill his right of occupancy, they ought not to prevent his getting remuneration when the property reached a certain value.
      MR. GIBSONwished to mention a minor, but important, point to which the Prime Minister had not referred. Every single scale of compensation, except the last, had a limit of height beyond which it could not pass. All the Amendment of the right hon. Member proposed was that the last scale should not be exceptional, and should not be the only one without a limitation. Take a case where the rent was, say, £100."A sum not exceeding four years' rent" was fixed; but the next scale was not limited, and it was that which the Amendment touched. The clause read this way at present—"Where the rent is £100 or upwards a sum not exceeding three years' rent;" but was not that entirely opposed to the preceding branches of the scales? Suppose a tenant was paying £500, £600, £700, or £1,000, or even £1,500, a-year in rent, was it intended that the landlord should pay £4,500 in compensation? Either the limits were wrong in the earlier parts of the scale, or consistency required some limit now. The Amendment sought to draw a line, and say there must be a point in high-class tenancies where not more than a certain amount should be allowed. He did not pause on the figure, for every figure was more or less arbitrary, and the principle that underlay the Amendment was only raised on the particular figure put in. The clause, as it stood, would enable a man who was paying £2,000 a-year rent, to get three years' rent in compensation, which would be £6,000; but the Amendment proposed that the maximum should be £450, or three years' rent at £150 a-year. The maximum under the Act of 1870 was £250, and the maximum proposed by the Amendment was nearly double that amount. Whether the particular figure was taken or not, it was reasonable that in this scale, as in all the other branches, there should be the principle of limit.
      MR. GLADSTONEargued, that it could not be said that the tenant should be excluded from realizing his interest on account of the magnitude of his holding; but he could admit that the man whose holding was of great size might be in a condition of greater freedom to contract himself out of the Act. The Government could not, however, accept the proposal in the Amendment.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he could understand the Prime Minister's argument in regard to the landlords of the higher class having tire remedy in their own hands, if that freedom of contracting out of the Act would apply to all existing landlords up to a particular margin; but that was not what the Government proposed to do. They took all existing tenancies, no matter how high the figure, or who the landlord was, and applied the scale to them all, and attached this limit, nolens volens, to all present tenancies.
      MR. H. R. BRANDsaid, he considered this a very important question. A tenant of a holding paying £1,800, who was perfectly well able to take care of himself, would, if the landlord raised the rent, claim three years' rent for disturbance, and get £5,400, or three times the rent. The tenant rightly had an interest in his holding, and might sell that interest; but it was monstrous that he should not only have that right to sell, but should also be able to call upon the landlord, for three times the amount of his rent.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was convinced that the Government did not intend such a result, and asked why the scale did not go on a little further? They might fix any figure; but while giving three years' rent in the case of rents of £100 or £150, they should come down to one year's rent in cases of a higher rent. He was perfectly convinced that no Cabinet Minister could contemplate giving the right to a tenant of £500 rent, which was no uncommon rent in the grazing counties in Ireland, to go to the Court on his rent being raised, and get £1,500. The Bill applied to every tenant, and how was any landlord to get a tenant to contract himself out of it? The effect of the clause could not not have been fully discussed or understood by the Government; and he asked whether the Government would undertake to change

      1545
      the scale, so as to make it gradually fall and approximate to the Act of 1870, in which the scale ended with one year's rent as the limit? The present provision was not only extravagant, but it was really ridiculous?
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had raised a very important question as to the application of this clause to existing tenancies, and as there was then no further time to discuss the question, he thought Progress had better be reported.
      Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
      And it being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
      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 five minutes after Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Court of Bankruptcy (Ireland) (Officers and Clerks)* (133); Coroners (Ireland)* (134); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3) * (135); Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension* (136).
Second Reading—Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, Amendment (118); Summary Jurisdiction (Process) (124).
Committee—Veterinary Surgeons* (127–137).

VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL, [H.L.]
(The Lord Aberdare.)
VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL, [H.L.]

  (NO. 137.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order).
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Provisions as to register of veterinary surgeons).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he proposed that the period of practice which should qualify a man to exercise
  1460
  the profession of veterinary surgeon without examination should be reduced from five years to three years.
  Moved, In page 1, line 28, after ("College") insert ("or unless he has been in practice as a veterinary surgeon for three years at the time of the passing of this Act.")
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that the object of the Bill was to prevent persons from practising who were utterly unfitted to do so. Many suggestions had been made to him, and some persons thought that five or even ten years' practice should be required.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he thought five years ought to be retained, though he had no great objection to the proposal of the noble Marquess.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,in moving the insertion of the following new Clause after Clause 3:—
  "The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons shall be bound to make provision in the manner permitted by their charters for the examination in Scotland of the students attending the several Scotch Veterinary Colleges, and to admit and register such students as have passed the examination as members of the said Royal College under the provisions of such-charters and this Act,"
  said, that the object of the clause was very simple, being merely to compel the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to do by statute that which they now did of themselves in one of their bye-laws. Students were permitted to be examined in Scotland; and if that were discontinued, it would be a great disadvantage to students, and as the Bill proposed to give the monopoly of granting licences to the College, it would only be fair that it should be compelled by statute to hold examinations in Scotland.
  New Clause moved, to follow Clause 3:
  (Provision for examination of students in Scotland.)
  "The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons shall be bound to make provision in the manner permitted by their charters for the examination in Scotland of the students attending the several Scotch Veterinary Colleges, and to admit and register such students as have passed the examination as members of the said Royal College under the provisions of such charters and this Act."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he saw no objection to the Amendment, and would, therefore, accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 4 to 14, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he begged to propose a new clause for the purpose of exempting all veterinary surgeons who had been placed on the register from serving on juries and other public offices, in the same manner as dentists were exempted. He contended that as the services of veterinary surgeons were urgently required they should not be obliged to attend as jurors at the Assizes and Quarter Sessions, or be called upon to serve on Local Boards and in other Public Departments.
  Moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following Clause:—
  "Every person registered under this Act shall be exempt, if he so desires, from serving on all juries and inquests whatsoever, and from serving all corporate, parochial, ward, hundred, and township offices, and from serving in the militia; and the name of any registered person shall not be returned in any list of persons liable to serve in the militia or in any such office as aforesaid."—(The Lord Aberdare.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was sorry to differ in opinion on this subject with his noble Friend; but he hoped this Amendment would not be agreed to. The number of exemptions led now to much inconvenience, as all those who had to attend the Assizes and Quarter Sessions well knew. Besides, a Judge had always the power to excuse any person from serving on the jury if it were shown that his services were required on an important matter. He greatly objected to all veterinary surgeons who were well qualified to serve as jurors being exempted by statute.
  LORD DENMANsaid, no doubt a Judge or Chairman could abstain from fining or excuse a fine in the case of any veterinary surgeon who had been detained by a case; but he should support the Amendment, on the ground that it was important to have the services of a veterinary surgeon the first moment he was sent for. He had asked if farriers, without calling themselves veterinary surgeons, would be fined? Some people employed cow-leeches for the euro of their horses and cattle. He remembered a case of a practitioner in Notts pronouncing a horse ill of symtanic fever, which he defined to be "mutual sensations;" and on that opinion the Earl of
  1462
  Surrey returned a horse for which he had paid £400. But the opinion was worthless, and a return of the horse to the purchaser and payment of costs ensued. If a veterinary surgeon were at a county town for Assizes or Sessions, he could not save the life of cattle almost choked, or young animals seized with inflammation.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that in some counties it was the practice not to summon veterinary surgeons to serve on any jury; but in other counties they were required to serve. It would be only reasonable that the law and practice should be uniform. If dentists were exempted, he thought veterinary surgeons ought also to be exempted.
  On question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 32; Not-Contents 51: Majority 19.

  CONTENTS.

  Devonshire, D.

  Denman, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Salisbury, M.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Lathom, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Morton, E.

  Lamington, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hawarden, V.

  Melville, V.

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

  Aberdare, L. [Teller.]

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Chelmsford, L.

  Trevor, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Colchester, L.

  Waveney, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Morley, E.

  Powis, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Spencer, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Airlie, E.

  Yarhorough, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Eversley, V.

  Derby, E.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Bucclench and Queens-berry.)

  Abinger, L.

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Blachford, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

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

  Minto, E.

  1463

  Brabourne, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Mount Temple, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Cottesloe, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Digby, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Dorchester, L.

  Foley, L.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Harlech, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Hatherton, L.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)

  Wrottesley, L.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Resolved in the negative.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 137.)

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT, 1880, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 118.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to provide that whenever it was lawful to kill birds it should also be lawful to sell them. At present, wood pigeons and certain other birds might be killed all the year round; but they could only be sold at certain seasons.
Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (PROCESS) BILL.—(No. 124.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it contained a clause dealing with the Law of Bastardy, and to enable the English and Scotch decrees of bastardy and aliment to be effective in either country.
Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

ARMY ORGANIZATION—TERRITORIAL REGIMENTS—THE BUFFS OR EAST KENT REGIMENT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DORCHESTER,in rising, pursuant to Notice, to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the proposed change of the title and facings of the 3rd Regiment of Infantry (Buffs) has been approved by Her most Gracious Majesty; and whether that approval is signified under Her Majesty's sign-manual: also, whether any reason other than that it was recommended by the (so-called)"territorial Committee," has been assigned for this alteration of title and the abolition of time-honoured and distinctive facings borne by a distinguished regiment and their ancestors during a period of over two hundred years? said, that he rose to address the House upon a Question of Privilege. There was no class of persons in the Kingdom who valued them and their titles more than did the officers and men of Her Majesty's Army. Those privileges had necessarily, by the recent amalgamation and the introduction of new general measures for the Army, been, in some degree, trenched upon. But he thought there were occasions when needless changes had been made. In advocating the cause which had been placed in his hands on very short notice, he trusted that he should not unduly trespass on their Lordships' patience. When the Army was first constituted in the reign of Queen Elizabeth—for our Army could hardly before that time be called a standing Army—the patriotic spirit which prevailed amongst the men induced the adoption of certain titles and colours for their clothing. The facings of the regiments were derived from the liveries or colours of those raising them. The sober colour ashen or buff, no doubt, was derived from the buff jerkins then worn by sober citizens. The facings and reverses of the uniform often represented the original colours when red was adopted. But a most absurd reason had been given by

  1465
  the Secretary of State for War, or those who advised him, that buff became white; if so, buff should not be allowed if it was a valid objection. But, if so, why were no less than six battalions by the new regulation to receive buff? But buff was, to say the least, as easily kept bright as white or the washy blues and greens of various regiments of their original colours. But the Secretary of State for War might have some knowledge from the past of the varied shades that the funnels of Her Majesty's ships bore, each shade the special vanity of a commander. The right hon. Gentleman had not much experience of the Army, but might have seen Gendarmerie abroad with bright primrose belts and the uniforms of foreign troops. Each regiment took pardonable pride in such trifles, and in their various badges transmitted from generation to generation. He hardly could expect the buff facing would be disallowed by a Member of a Party who for so long hung out the buff and blue as their insignia, and that in a London regiment, where their colours had been as many years hung out. Had the noble Lords opposite done that, it might have surprised us less. No one who had not served could know the advantage old corps derived from such petty insignia, and the proper pride taken in them. Soldiers tried to be smart, and did not like being ticketed as convicts, or as bullocks were marked when taken to market. He should be told, perhaps, the officers and men had no feeling on this subject. That, he fearlessly asserted from his knowledge, and he was ready to afford the evidence if required, was not the case. A very strong and sad feeling existed throughout the old officers, and throughout those at present serving, on the matter. What would have been easier than to consult them? The same clanship did not exist—the pride of tartans, as in Scotch regiments. The Buffs of all the Army, save, perhaps, the Blues, clung most to their colour. The Buffs were 300 years old, and were continued from Morgan's Regiment, by Special Warrant from among the citizens and 'prentice lads of the City of London. The 7th Fusiliers were raised 100 years later by James II., not from among the citizens, but to keep them in subjection by that unconstitutional Monarch. It was true that where territorial and not municipal titles were in favour 100 years
  1466
  ago, the appellation of East Kent was given to the 3rd Buffs; but, at the same time, the 7th were designated East Derbyshire. If any regiment had a claim to a name it was the Buffs. Their very flag was proof of this. Was Mr. Childers prepared to do away with this, or to deny their claim? Was it not their privilege alone of all regiments of the Line to march through the City, drums beating and colours flying? Why was this? And why, without one jot or tittle of reason, were the 7th Fusiliers, who did not seek for it, given the title? In asking the Question on the Paper, he ventured further to ask whether this change met with the approval of Her Majesty; whether the change with others had been signed, as invariably used to be the case, as could be shown on all such occasions in past years, by the Sovereign, whose name in Royal Warrants had been more than once strained, more than the quality of mercy? Civilians in that House might, perhaps, not fully appreciate the altered feelings of a regiment which a change in their facings might cause. He could not comprehend what object would be gained in taking away the buff facings of this regiment. It was a remarkable fact that while the buff facings of this regiment were taken away, they were retained in the case of eight other Infantry and two Cavalry regiments. He appealed forcibly to Her Majesty's Government, he appealed to their Lordships, not to suffer such needless changes to take place, which, although trifles in themselves, created a painful feeling, without the least just cause or reason, to a gallant body of men under a Liberal Government. He was aware of the hard task entailed upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War by his Predecessor. He gave him every credit for the manner in which he had got over great difficulties; he appealed to him not to allow this blot to remain. The Buffs had far more claim to the title of City of London Regiment than any other corps. Their facings were of more ancient date than almost any other corps; they had just right to expect that their claim to both title and their facings should be duly considered. Her Majesty had expressed her desire that all justice should be done, and that all ancient privileges should be respected as far as could be. In the name of that justice, he asked their Lordships

  1467
  to uphold such privileges so long as they were permitted to retain their own titles and armorial bearings. He asked for no new privilege; he asked for nothing that would be a departure from the new system; he asked them to do that which would not enrich others, but which would leave the Buffs poor indeed—rob them of their old name. He appealed to Her Majesty's Government not to deprive an old corps of their title and adornment in favour of a new creation, and he appealed for justice to their Lordships' House.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he would not follow the noble and gallant Lord into this somewhat long argument; but he assured him that the title of Buffs, which was so highly prized with a feeling worthy of the high reputation of the regiment, would still be maintained in the new organization, and that its title would be "The Buffs—East Kent Regiment." That was the name which the regiment had borne for the last 100 years, and under which they had achieved great success and victories in many parts of the world. Therefore, that part of the noble and gallant Lord's speech which related to the title of the regiment came to nothing at all.
  LORD DORCHESTERasked whether the regiment was to retain its facings?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that, with regard to the facings of the regiment, it was, no doubt, the intention of the War Office that they should be changed from buff to white. If the noble and gallant Lord would study the Report of the Committee, presided over with great ability by the Adjutant General of the Forces, he would learn the whole of the reasons given by that Committee for the proposed change in the facings. In consequence of the new Organization of the Army, it had become necessary, in many cases, to alter the facings of regiments, and the opportunity was then taken of simplifying the facings of the regiments generally, and of giving to those that were not Royal Regiments, which retained their old facings, in the case of English regiments white, of Scotch yellow, and of Irish green facings. The proposed change would conduce to greater uniformity, and would consequently be attended by a considerable saving of labour and expense in the clothing of the Army. The greatest pains had been taken in carry-
  1468
  ing those alterations into effect to do as little violence as possible to any associations attaching to regiments; yet it was necessary in some cases, as he had explained, to alter the facings, and among them this change from buff to white had been made. There were some regiments which had suffered even more violent changes in their facings than this particular regiment had done. He felt sure, however, that this change would in no way effect the esprit de corps of the different regiments.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he did not think the answer of the noble Earl altogether satisfactory. He had stated before that the principal motive for the alteration adopted was economy, and if that was so, it would be interesting to learn what amount of saving was effected in the Army by the alteration in the facings under the new system. He thought it was most unfortunate that, by the arrangements which were now to be carried out, the only regiment which was known to all military men by the colour of its facings should have been one of the regiments selected for the alteration of the facings. It should be remembered the facings of a regiment were mixed up with the great actions they had performed, and were really part of their distinctions. The regiment in question was now to be known as the "Buff Regiment" instead of by its old name of "The Buffs." He could only express his regret that it had been found necessary to make these alterations.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, that when a general alteration in the organization of the Army was made, it was found that a great many changes were necessary. He was not going to discuss the question that night, because there appeared to be so much feeling upon it that he thought it better to put it all on one side. He agreed, however, that it was right that a fixed principle should be adopted, and that one colour should be adopted for English, one for Scotch, and one for Irish regiments, with one exception—namely, the Royal Regiments, which were to be dark blue. He thought that was a proper distinction to be made in the case of Royal Regiments, and they did not make it in any others; as a fact it would not make much difference. There was no wish to put one regiment before another, and cer-

  1469
  tainly no wish to make changes distasteful to the regiments themselves; but when such changes were necessary they must make some difference, and the explanation was that they desired to organize the Army on one fixed principle. No doubt there was much to be said against any change in this particular case; but if they were to yield to the feelings of this regiment, they would have found it difficult to resist other demands of a similar character. He did not, however, think that the alterations in the facings had been made with the view of saving expense. He should be sorry, at the same time, to do anything to offend the esprit de corps for which the various regiments were distinguished.
  After a few words from Lord STRATH-NAIRN,
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that he had heard with satisfaction that the regiment in question was to retain the name of "Buffs;" but he wanted to know whether, under the new system, they would, when on parade, still be allowed to call themselves "The Buffs," and not be obliged to use their county designation?
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he thought the whole scheme must have emanated from Bedlam. The territorial arrangement of regiments was entirely out of harmony with the circumstances of the military system of this country. The recruiting for the Army was not territorial; large districts supply no recruits at all. The scheme required to be very nicely adjusted to work at all, and was liable to be deranged by a sudden demand for extra forces for any emergency.
  LORD ABINGERexpressed a hope that the Government would even yet reconsider their decision.
  LORD WAVENEYurged the importance of the Militia regiments retaining their distinctive facings and colours.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the Militia regiments would come under the general rule. In reply to the question of the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Chelmsford), he might say that there was no intention to alter the title of the regiment, which would remain as before—The Buffs, East Kent Regiment.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, the reply of the noble Earl did not answer his question, which was as to the title which
  1470
  the regiment was to be allowed to use when on parade.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that was a purely military question which he could not answer.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, the last reply of the noble Earl showed the danger of intrusting the management of the Army to civilians. This miserable disorganization scheme had caused great dissatisfaction—with very few exceptions—in every rank of the Army. He believed it was only adopted for the gratification of a very few persons. He strongly objected to the Edinburgh regiments being sent to the City of York.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwished to ask whether he was or was not in error in supposing that the noble Duke was a Member of the Committee appointed in 1876 which recommended the adoption of the system of territorial regiments?
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH,said he was a Member of the Committee, and found himself obliged, as many other persons had before and since, to acquiesce in many things of which he did not approve. One soon found out whether he was in a minority, and whether there was any use of fighting against the others. From what he had seen since, his opinion was that the territorial system might be a very fine one in theory, but would be an ultimate failure in practice.

ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE REVISED MEMORANDUM—GENERAL OFFI CERS—THE FIVE YEARS' RULE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT BURY,in rising to call attention to paragraph 48 of the revised Memorandum on Army Organization, so far as it relates to what is known as the "five years non-employment rule," as applied to general officers; and to ask, Whether the Secretary of State for War will give orders to omit from the warrant which comes into force on the 1st of July 1881, the words "general officers after five years subsequent promotion to major-general," in order to afford time for the said words to be further considered? said, that he was sorry to trouble their Lordships with another military matter; but he would do it very briefly. He should not have done it at all had it

  1471
  not been that the Warrant would come in force for the re-organization of the Army on the 1st of July, and he hoped he should convince his noble Friend that it would bear very hard upon young general officers in the Army, and that he should not be too late to induce him to promise on the part of the Government that some modification should be made in the Warrant before it was issued. He was not going to argue the question on the basis of injury to the junior general officers alone; but it was a very great grievance generally, and a number of general officers felt that it fatally concerned their military prospects and the professional future of their relatives entering the Army. This was not wholly a pecuniary question. He freely confessed that the retiring pensions which were about to be established by the new Warrant were very fair and liberal in their character, and if this was a pecuniary question alone he did not know that he should have troubled their Lordships at the last moment. But it was not a pecuniary question, but a grievance affecting the professional status of distinguished officers, and, if they liked to call it so, a sentimental grievance, which could not be measured by an actuary and compensated for by pounds, shillings, and pence. General officers under the new Regulations were to be compulsorily retired either at 62 or 57, according to whether they were major generals, lieutenant generals, or generals. He did not object to that, because he knew how necessary it was to provide for a rapid flow of promotion, and it was necessary that officers of 60 or 65 should be removed from the active service list. He did not complain of that, nor did the officers who were affected by it; but Clause 48 provided that in addition to the compulsory retirement from age, the non-employment of officers for five years should also involve compulsory retirement at earlier ages, and that was very repugnant to the feelings of the general officers to whom he had alluded. The rule was laid down that if there was a continuance of non-employment for five years from their attaining the rank of major general they must retire; and their Lordships would see that in such a case it must lead to the country being deprived of the services of young, efficient, and trustworthy officers at a very early age, and, indeed, there would be
  1472
  many cases of retirement at a comparatively early age. Where an officer, by his talents and bravery, had greatly distinguished himself, and consequently advanced rapidly in his profession, he would become a major general before he was 50, so that such an officer would be retired at an early age—by reason of non-employment for five years subsequently—solely in consequence of his distinguished services. However desirable it might be to retain the services of distinguished officers as long as possible, he did not think that his noble Friend would say that that was insured under the new system. If the Under Secretary of State for War could assure him that in future, in consequence of the reduction of the number of general officers, those who should be retained on the active list would be certain to obtain employment, his objections must fall to the ground. But he did not think his noble Friend would give him any such assurance, as there were not more than 50 or 60 posts which general officers could fill. It was all very well to say that they would have better pensions, but, as he had said, it was not a question of price; but looking at it financially they must remember that when an officer became a major general he sacrificed £4,500 regulation money, and he did it to obtain a fair chance, which he did under the old system, of getting access to the higher ranks of the Army and their increased emoluments, and of obtaining higher employments—higher distinction, together with the honours and rewards paid for distinguished services. In addition to the sacrifice of £4,500 regulation money, they also sacrificed a large sum of over-regulation money, about which he should say nothing; and then, being compulsorily retired after five years' non-employment, they found that they had not fulfilled the promise of their youth, it was no consolation for them to be told that the retired pension was larger than it was before. There were two classes of officers, one composed of those who having passed through with distinction the lower ranks, and even the higher regimental ranks, having become generals, felt that they had done with military service, and married and had children, or, perhaps, succeeded to their patrimony and had nothing to complain of; and there was another class

  1473
  who, being independent from their youth upward, entered the Army as a career, and looked forward to obtaining the highest employments and honours, and to distinguish themselves in the field in the highest ranks of the Army. On that class these regulations would fall very heavily. He did not wish to cite any instances; but he had received a letter from an old brother officer of his own, who, having become major general nearly six years ago, complained that he would have compulsorily to retire in 1882 unless he could obtain some employment, and this general officer, being only 55 years of age, felt that he was as good a soldier as ever he was, and he found that he had sacrificed his £4,500 regulation money for a moderate pension and the reversion to a colonelcy of a regiment, which would be worth, perhaps, £1,000 a-year. He hoped his noble Friend would be able to say that this non-employment clause would be modified, so that young men possessing health and strength and energy would be induced to adopt a military career. He did not know that it was right to refer to individuals; but he might point out that if his noble and gallant Friend behind him (Lord Chelmsford) continued unemployed for three years longer, he would be compelled compulsorily to retire—of course, he would be employed—but he asked whether it was advantageous to the country that they should lose the valuable services of so young a general? A man who retired at the age of from 62 to 67 had nothing to complain of; but an officer who was compelled to retire at 58 was in a very different position, and if the War Office could find no chance to employ him, he had no option but compulsory retirement. That brought him to what was the alternative. There was another clause of the Warrant (74), which had reference to lieutenant generals and major generals being allowed an option under the rules, which required some explanation. The new rules would be better in some respects, because the pensions would be higher; but what would be the use of telling a man that he might remain with a smaller pension and the chance of obtaining a colonelcy if, at the same time, they said he must be employed within five years? The old system permitted generals to remain on the list, no matter how many there were of them.
  1474
  But under the new rules the field of selection would be considerably narrowed, though the cost to the country would be much more. He now came to what he thought ought to be done. He would suggest that the words in the Warrant, "general officers after five years subsequent to promotion to major general," be omitted, or at least that they should not be in the Warrant for some time, so that the authorities might have further opportunities of re-considering the matter. If it should be thought that his suggestion came too late, he would submit this alternative—that, instead of five years, the Warrant should say 10 years, or at least seven years, and that would give the Government time to see how the new rules were likely to work in regard to the 63, or thereabouts, employments which could be held by general officers. He would prefer that the term should be 10 years, as that would be ample time to absorb all those who could hope for employment, and the younger officers would be benefited by this change. If this suggestion should be thought not to be a good solution, he would exempt those who chose to remain under the old scale of pension and allow them to go on in the old way as under Clause 74, until they came to the time for compulsory retirement. Many generals had applied over and over again to the Government and could not obtain employment. The Government could not find it for them within the limit of five years. He should like an explanation of the term "employment." A Staff appointment for two years, or in the discretion of the Secretary for State for a shorter period, constituted "employment." But he wished to know whether an appointment to watch manœuvres in some foreign country on behalf of the Government would be considered as being continuously employed, so that the time should count in his two years? He would also be glad if his noble Friend would explain what was the meaning of the words in reference to the five years and seven years as connected with employment as colonel, and then promotion to major general rank. Would such a man be retired at the end of five or seven years? If his noble Friend could give some assurance that there would be a reasonable probability that all these officers would be employed within the limits of five years

  1475
  before they would be compulsorily retired, he should be satisfied. But he feared his noble Friend could not do that, as there was not a sufficient number of employments. That being so, he sincerely trusted that his noble Friend would not hastily reject the suggestions which he had offered—on the contrary, that he would adopt one of them, and thus remove the grievance which weighed so heavily upon these officers.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he would like to ask the Government whether it was desirable that they should deprive themselves of the power of selecting men for service who were still in the vigour of age? The most disadvantageous results would have followed in times past if such rules had then prevailed as were now to be made. In that case, the services, for instance, of Lord Hill and of Lord Hardinge would to a large extent have been lost to the country. Neither of them could have filled the office of Commander-in-Chief. Would not this, in each case, have been a great national loss? Besides, it would be a great misfortune if officers of a certain age should not be able to be in the House of Commons. This was not a question of expense to the country. If non-employment was to be a reason for paying higher pensions, then he thought that the suggestion of putting 10 years instead of five years in the Warrant as the limit would be much more reasonable—at all events, it would be a much safer thing to do, and it would be easy to make a further alteration after experience had been gained by the Government.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, that the apprehensions of the noble Earl (the Earl of Powis) that the House of Commons would be deprived of the services of those who were officers in the Army had already been realized, for it was in consequence of the proposed Memorandum that Parliament had lost the services of the late Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan). He had to resign his seat in order that he might accept employment. He (Lord Waveney) would suggest that the Secretary of State for War should reserve to himself the power of exempting certain officers from the operation of the new rules.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he fully understood the object of his noble Friend
  1476
  in bringing this matter forward; but he could not assent to his noble Friend's proposal. He thought he should be able to show to their Lordships sufficient reasons why the suggestions put forward could not be accepted, which, perhaps, his noble Friend would admit, even if he did not think that the Government were justified in the course which they had taken. He would answer first the questions which his noble Friend put at the end of his speech as to employment. He wished to point out that it was a Memorandum that was on the Table of their Lordship's House, and not a Warrant. It showed the principles on which the Warrant would be based; but it was not so precise in language as the Warrant would be. He believed the Warrant was now in the printer's hands, and he hoped that by Thursday next it would be issued to to the public.
  VISCOUNT BURYasked when the Warrant would come into operation?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the Warrant would come into force on the 1st of July. As to employment, he might state that the time occupied in attending any foreign manœuvres would not count as field service. It was not likely that the Government could make any exception in the rules of that kind. The question of his noble Friend as to the number of employments for general officers must be answered thus—that the number varied from time to time; but he thought he would not be far wrong in saying about 64 or 65. The next question was as to the term of seven years of combined service as colonel and general. He would answer this question by giving an illustration of the working of this rule. Assume an officer retired from employment as colonel at the age of 47 years, and did not get his promotion until he was 50 years; he would then be retired after four years' non-employment as a general officer, or seven years of non-employment in the two ranks of colonel and general combined. His noble Friend admitted that the rates of pay on retirement were fixed upon a liberal scale; but he would not discuss that matter further. He would confine himself to the point of the retirement of general officers. The greater part of his noble Friend's speech was based upon an assumption, which could not be justified, that the young

  1477
  general officers would, as a rule, be retired. But those would be the very officers who would obtain employment; for the fact of the reaching the rank of general at an early age was at any rate a presumption that they had shown ability, or had distinguished themselves in the field. No doubt, there were instances where officers would be compulsorily retired; but the great point which they had to consider was the efficiency of the Service generally. He spoke most positively when he said that these rules had been framed on that ground, and not based on motives of economy at all; for it was clearly cheaper to keep an officer on the active list than to retire him on a pension of £200 a-year more than his general's pay. When his noble Friend referred to the case of younger general officers, in whom he seemed to take so much interest, he must consider what effect his suggestions would have upon the list of colonels, because it was of the greatest possible importance that all officers below the rank of general should have their fair chance of promotion. There were about 400 generals upon the active list, and only a little over 60 employments for them. Now, after the retirements had taken effect under the Warrant, there would remain about 56 or 57 generals supernumerary to the new establishment. Until these were absorbed there could be few chances for colonels to move up, every other vacancy only giving promotion to a colonel. The Government were bound, in dealing with the higher ranks, to consider the question of the colonels. He would not say that five years non-employment made a general unfitted for employment; but there was a certain presumption that after five years of non-employment an officer was less likely to be fit for, or less likely to desire, employment than one who had been recently employed, and if there was a smaller list there would be, of course, the greater chance of employment. His noble Friend had made some suggestions as to the omission from the Warrant of all mention of five years' non-employment at present. For the reasons he (the Earl of Morley) had given, and especially on account of the disastrous effect it would have on the colonels, and because it would seriously interfere with the whole scheme of promotion which would come into force on the 1st of July, it would be
  1478
  impossible to accede to that suggestion. Then his noble Friend suggested an extension of the five years to ten, or, at least, to seven. He could assure their Lordships that the question as between seven and five years had been most carefully considered both by the military authorities and by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers); and he thought the illustrious Duke would confirm him in what he said when he stated that it was generally admitted that the advantage which would be given by an extra two years would not counterbalance the disadvantage which would arise in other directions. It had been said that the period in the Navy was 10 years; but when the time was fixed in the first instance for flag officers it was done experimentally; and, moreover, it was not merely service, as in the Army, but sea service, which was much less liberally interpreted than military service. The distinction between ordinary service and sea service made the whole difference, and vitiated the comparison which had been made between the cases of the Army and the Navy on that point. His noble Friend had suggested another alternative—namely, that all general officers who elected to remain under the existing terms should be exempted from the non-employment clause until their compulsory retirement by age. He ventured, however, to think that that would exactly exclude the class of officers whom the noble Lord was most anxious to save to the Army, because the officers who would be most likely to remain under the existing terms would be those high on the list of generals, who had the best chances of obtaining regiments. Therefore, they would save by that means the older and not the younger officers. The suggestion would not be feasible; neither would it have the effect of saving those efficient young officers who, in common with his noble Friend, he should be sorry to see compulsorily retired from the Service. His noble Friend had asked him for an assurance that under that scheme no officer who was fit for employment or who desired it should be compulsorily retired. It would be quite impossible for him to give such an assurance as that. If he did so, he should be practically stating a proposition which many officers would at once challenge—namely, that all those who were com-

  1479
  pulsorily retired on the 1st of July were unfit for employment, or that they did not desire employment. He should be sorry to say that any general officer was unfit for employment, and he had no means of knowing what their desires as to employment were. Those officers who saw that they had no chance of employment would take the higher rate of pension granted by the Warrant as being of greater advantage to them, and thus the number would be diminished. Those who remained would have greatly improved chances of employment if they were efficient officers; at any rate, there would be a greater chance than now, when there were about 400 on the active list. He did not think he should be justified in detaining their Lordships any longer. The scheme had received the most careful and anxious consideration of the Government, in the great hope that it would tend to the efficiency of the Service generally.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, it was clear that the five years' non-employment rule had come with surprise upon the Service. The five years should be extended, at least experimentally, and some other and less objectionable means should be adopted for providing for the proper flow of promotion which was promised when purchase was abolished in the Army.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, with reference to a remark of the noble Lord the Undersecretary of State for War, that sea service had nothing to do with the retirement of flag officers. It had to do with maximum pension; but, according to the system adopted in the Navy, a flag officer was not compulsorily retired until 10 years after hauling down his flag—that was to say, "continuous non-employment." Then, and then only, would a flag officer be retired on his pension. Therefore, by taking away their good-service pension, and by fixing on five years' non-employment, instead of 10 years, as the condition of compulsory retirement, officers of the Army would be placed at a great disadvantage as compared with those of the Navy under the present scheme. He contended that the Memorandum was an infringement of the promise made to officers upon the abolition of purchase, and it would be a great hardship on those who had sunk the sum of £4,500 to gain a general officer's position. They did not
  1480
  object to retire for age, but they did for non-employment, and this Warrant was a breach of the promise made by the Government to those officers who were eligible for employment. He hoped that some other arrangement would be made, as the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) would be read with dismay by all those who would be affected by that harsh rule of five years' non-employment, and consequent compulsory retirement.

  INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES LOANS EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to extend for a period not exceeding three years the term fixed for the repayment of loans granted by the Governors of the Bounty of Queen Anne for the Augmentation of the Maintenance of the Poor Clergy to incumbents of benefices—Was presented by The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY; read 1a. (No. 136.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.