Sitting of 26 May 1881

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—William Farrer Ecroyd, esquire, for Preston.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Summary Jurisdiction (Process) * [179].
Fist Reading—Board Schools (Scotland) Teachers * [178].
Committee—Land Law (Ireland) [135]—[First Night]—R.P.; Alkali, &c. Works Regulation [119]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Customs and Inland Revenue [136]; Bankruptcy and Cessio (Scotland) (re-comm.) * [174]; Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) [41].
Considered as amended—Water Provisional Orders* [146]; Newspapers * [154].
Third Reading—Gas Provisional Orders * [147], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  SALE AND EXPORTATION OF ARMS AND AMMUNITION—SALE OF "OLD STORES."
  MR. MAC IVERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is in possession of any information, confirmatory or otherwise, in regard to the following statements which appeared some time ago in the "Ironmonger" newspaper:—
  "Provincial Trail, Reports, Birmingham.—Arms and Ammunition.—The troubled state of Ireland has given rise to an active inquiry for weapons for defensive purposes as well as for some which, it is feared, are intended for aggressive use. Several orders for guns and pistols for landlords' defence organisations have been placed hero during the last month or two, and a large quantity of bulldog and other revolvers, both for Government and private use, have been despatched to Ireland since the commencement of the Land League agitation. * * * Orders of another character for old military rifles for Inland have also been plentiful lately, and it is calculated over 5,000 Snider Enfolds, which wore sold by the Government a few years ago as 'old stores,' at an average of 3s. or 4s. a piece, have been bought up since Christmas by supposed agents of the Irish land agitation at from three to four times their former cost. Stocks of old guns have tints been relieved, but at considerable risk to the peace of the Country. * * * In anticipation of the outbreak in the Transvaal, high class sporting rifles were in good request last autumn for Natal and Delagoa Bay, where the Westley-Richards Company did a large business. With the Orange Free State, also, business in high class guns has been very

  1305
  brisk of late, and throughout Cape Colony weapons of every kind have been in good request of late, on account of the Basuto War and the disturbed state of the neighbouring tribes on the eastern seaboard:"
  and, if these statements are true, whether Her Majesty's Government cannot discourage the sale of old stores for such purposes, as well as the exportation of arms and ammunition known to be intended for use against ourselves?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, that the statements which the hon. Member had extracted from The Ironmonger newspaper appeared to be somewhat indefinite in their character. He did not think they justified the Question which the hon. Member had founded on them. He had no special information on the subject to which those statements related; but he was strongly of opinion that no British manufacturers of arms were exporting arms and ammunition known to be intended for use against ourselves. As regards the sale of military arms from the Government stores, the hon. Member asked a Question which had been twice replied to in the House. He could only repeat that in the time of the late Government 200,000 old Enfield rifles were sold at an average price of 1s. 6d. apiece. He was not aware whether any of those arms had found their way to Ireland; but if the hon. Member was under any apprehension on the subject, he might be relieved to know, on the authority of the noble Lord who represented the late Government in that matter, that all those arms were unserviceable, and some of them were dangerous to the persons using them. He had only to add that during the time of the present Government these sales had been entirely discontinued. No arms whatever had been sold by the present Government under these circumstances.
  MR. MAC IVERremarked that his Question referred to the time of the present Government.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: No arms whatever have been sold by the present Government.
  COLONEL STANLEY: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred with emphasis to the action of the late Government, may I ask whether it is not the case that the sale of arms was begun by the former Liberal Government and stopped by the late Conservative Government?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me a Question which is not within my knowledge. Probably it would be better to address it to the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether it was legal for a Government official to sell dangerous weapons to the public; and, if not, whether it was the intention of the Government to institute a prosecution against the official of the late Government responsible for such sale?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINrequested the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of his Question.

  LAW AND POLICE—FAILURE OF JUSTICE.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why, in a recent case of the abuse of a child of nine years of age, the police permitted the offender to escape from England without endeavouring to bring him to justice; whether he will cause inquiries to be made why no prosecution was instituted by the police authorities; and, whether he will give instructions that in future the police shall take the necessary steps to prevent such a failure of justice; or, if the police have no jurisdiction in such cases, whether he will state who is the proper person to undertake prosecutions in matters of this kind?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This matter is now under investigation. I have not got the facts properly before me, and it would be premature for me to express an opinion on them.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE POLITICAL PRISONERS.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he can state the number of hours of exercise or intercourse allowed to political prisoners in Kilmainham, Galway, Naas, and Limerick Gaols, And if there is any difference in the periods allowed, and the reason?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAID): Six hours is daily allowed in exercise and association. There is no difference in that respect in any of the gaols.

  POST OFFICE—KIDDERMINSTER POST OFFICE.
  MR. BRINTONasked the Postmaster General, If the statement in a local paper is correct that, owing to the unsafe and dilapidated condition of the front of the Post Office at Kidderminster, letters can be removed from the letter-box by passers by; and, whether he will take immediate steps to remedy the complaint?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, so far as he had been able to ascertain, the only probable cause of insecurity was that the box might have become obstructed through persons attempting to post in it parcels too large to pass properly, instead of handing them over the counter. There was nothing, he was informed, in the condition of the front of the office to cause insecurity. The building, however, was an incommodious one, and steps were being taken to provide a new post office.

  NAVY—THE MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any orders have been given to the Commander in Chief in the Mediterranean within the last month or six weeks or so, for the dispersion of the vessels ordinarily composing the Mediterranean Fleet?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir Beauchamp Seymour, the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, wrote on the 17th of March to ask that the large ships under his command might have a mouth's independent cruise, preparatory to the long cruise of the whole Squadron which takes place during the summer. The Board replied to this, which, I am told by those who know, is a very workmanlike proposal, by a letter which ran thus—
  "With reference to your letter of the 17th inst., I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that, they approve of the large ships of your squadron being detached for a month's independent cruise provided you are in telegraphic communication with them at the ports to which each ship will proceed. My Lords consider the ports of Villafranca, Barcelona, and Port Mahon are too far from Malta, and should not now be visited."
  The iron-clads accordingly cruised about well within call in case of need, as was proved directly the Monarch was wanted; and the Squadron has now rejoined Sir
  1308
  Beauchamp Seymour's flag at Malta, and is waiting orders to sail on its summer cruise.

  LAW AND POLICE—PUBLIC MEETINGS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to complaints made by various gentlemen who obtained access to the platform at Exeter Hall on Friday last, on the occasion of a meeting at which the chair was taken by Earl Percy, M.P. and who were provided with tickets by the Committee that organised the meeting, but who were forcibly removed from the platform by a body of the Metropolitan Police; and, whether the Police were justified in taking this course of action?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: in answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that, in the interests of public meetings and of free discussion in this country, it is the duty of the police to see that the people who call public meetings should be protected and supported in the holding of the meeting tranquilly, and not be interrupted or interfered with by those who wish to create disorder. The report of this meeting made to me by the police is that a great deal of disorder prevailed on the occasion; that a large number of persons overpowered the official managers who called the meeting, forced their way, took possession of the platform, and created great confusion. The police were requested by the managers to assist in clearing the platform, and I have a positive assurance that no more force was used than was absolutely necessary. The meeting then tranquilly proceeded. The police performed a difficult duty with moderation and good temper.

  CITY OF LONDON—THE MITCHELL CHARITIES—THE SCHEME.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEasked Mr. Attorney General, What steps have been taken to carry into effect the charitable dispositions made by the will of the late Mr. Mitchell in favour of the poor of the city of London; and, whether he can state in what manner such fund will be disposed of?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, a scheme had been prepared, under which the

  1309
  application of the fund would be intrusted to 15 Trustees, nine of whom would be nominated by the City Corporation, the Governors of Christ's Hospital, and the School Board of London. He had allocated the bequest in the proportion of one-third to the physical wants of the poor, the remaining two-thirds to be devoted to educational purposes. The bequest would ultimately amount, he believed, to between £3,000 and £4,000 per annum.

  METROPOLITAN BRIDGES AND FERRY ROADS BILL—EAST AND WEST INDIA FERRY ROADS.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether Clauses for providing for the free use by the public of the East and West India Ferry Roads, in the parish of Poplar, had not been inserted in the Metropolitan Bridges and Ferry Roads Bill, and subsequently struck out after such Bill was committed, but before it had been considered by the Committee; if such Clauses were struck out, the reason for so doing; if it is not the fact that the East and West India Ferry Roads are the only roads in the Metropolis on which toll is levied; and, whether the Metropolitan Board of Works propose to take further action to relieve the public from such tolls, and extinguish the ferry rights created by the Act 52 Geo. 3, and dissolve the Poplar and Greenwich Ferry Company?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG, in reply, said, that the Metropolitan Bridges and Ferry Roads Bill did contain the clauses in question, and that they were struck out. This course was taken under advice, in consequence of the opposition of the Poplar and Greenwich Ferry Company, with the details of which he would not take up the time of the House. He was unable to inform his hon. Friend whether the East and West India Ferry Roads were the only roads in the Metropolis on which toll was levied, or whether the Metropolitan Board proposed to take further action in the matter; but he was sure that their best attention would be given to any representation which might be made to them on the subject.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED OUT RAGE BY SOLDIERS IN DUBLIN.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Secretary of State for War. Whether his attention
  1310
  has been called to an attempt to murder committed by three soldiers on Sunday morning, May 16th, near Portobello, Dublin; whether the military authorities have made any effort to discover the guilty parties; and, if so, what efforts; and, whether he will order a list of men belonging to the detachment of the Army Service Corps, stationed in Portobello, who were absent from barracks between twelve o'clock on Saturday night and six o'clock on Sunday morning to be furnished to the police, in order to facilitate the discovery of the authors of the attempted murder?
  MR. CHILDERS: I have read the papers in this case, and I find that on the 15th of May a man named M'Call, and a woman, came to Portobello Barracks and stated that the former had been thrown into the Canal by some men of the Army Service Corps. Inquiries were made, and next morning all the men of the Array Service Corps at Portobello who had been on leave the previous night were paraded for identification by M'Call; but he failed to identify the culprits. The military authorities have used every endeavour, and given every facility to the police, to discover the culprits, but without success.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. J. C. Gardner, Henry Thynne, Rodolphus Harvey, David Harrell, policemen and chiefs of the detective force, and H. A. Blake, sub-inspector of the police, all of Belfast, have been appointed judges or stipendiary magistrates in Ireland; and if such appointments are not calculated to shake the confidence of the people in the impartial administration of the Law; and, if he will place upon the Table of the House, the certificates recommending them to the office of resident magistrates?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): It is true that these gentlemen were each at the head of the Belfast branch of the detective force for some time during their services as Constabulary officers, and that they have been appointed stipendiary magistrates. They are most efficient magistrates, performing their duties in a very satisfactory manner, and their appoint.

  1311
  ments are in no way calculated to shake the confidence of the people in the impartial administration of the law. I do not know to what certificates the hon. Member refers. There are no such things.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN ELLIOTT.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, in view of the fact that Captain Elliott's murderers must have formed part of a detachment which was appointed to escort prisoners over the frontier, any satisfactory explanation has been yet received from the Boer leaders of the delay in the apprehension of the persons concerned?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: We are informed by Sir Hercules Robinson that the explanation of the Boer leaders as follows:—They say that during the war their hands were so full that they had no time to think of anything else, and that their promise to co-operate was made on the 21st of March, after which date the government was out of their hands, and they had no power to arrest. They have given the names of the persons believed to be implicated, and say they are willing to assist the officers of justice in arresting these persons when a warrant of apprehension is issued.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman mention the names?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: I do not know them.

  FRANCE—THE NEW COMMERCIAL TREATY (NEGOTIATIONS).
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the ensuing negotiations with France for the conclusion of a Commercial Treaty, the representatives of Great Britain will be instructed to insist on the insertion of some provision to prevent the spirit and intention of one Treaties being broken by the giving a bounties, referred to by Lord Granville in a despatch to Mr. Adams, dated July 30th, 1880, as follows:—
  "It is a fair matter of representation that such bounties are contrary to the spirit and intention of those Treaties, and will, in another way, produce the very effect which their stipulations with reference to useful duties are intended to prevent. This view of the case will
  1312
  be borne in mind in any commercial negotiations with France which may be conducted in London;"
  and, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of entering into negotiations with other Foreign Powers with a view of making such alterations in existing Treaties as will bring the letter of those Treaties in accord with their spirit and intention?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The question of the sugar bounties is dealt with by the Board of Trade; but the Foreign Office have undertaken to bring before the French Commissioners, in the course of the ensuing Commercial negotiations, the complaints respecting the effect of the bounties granted in France to sugar and shipping. Her Majesty's Government cannot tie their hands by undertaking to make the conclusion of any Commercial Treaty dependent upon the acceptance of a foreign Government of their views upon any given point.
  MR. RITCHIEgave Notice that, on going into Committee of Supply, he would call the attention of the House to the despatch of Lord Granville to Mr. Adams.

  OUTRAGES AGAINST JEWS IN RUSSIA —INQUIRY BY SPECIAL AGENT.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in cases where no consular officers are stationed at the districts in Russia reputed to have risen against the Jewish population, Her Majesty's Government will follow the precedent created by the mission of Mr. Baring into Bulgaria, and despatch a special agent to examine and report into the alleged outrages?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir. A deputation, representing various Jewish bodies, which waited on Lord Granville on Tuesday, pointed out that no analogy existed between the cases which the hon. Member compares.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—MILITIA BATTALIONS.
  EARL PERCYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Militia Battalions are to become the 3rd and 4th Battalions of Regular Regiments after the 1st of July; and, whether those which have not hitherto had a permanent Adjutant will then be supplied with one?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the noble and gallant Lord, I have to state that, practically, Militia Regiments will be treated, as a general rule, as 3rd and 4th Battalions of Territorial Regiments from the 1st of July. Technically, however, formalities have to be observed, which will defer for a short time this affiliation being completed. It is not yet finally settled in which cases the two Adjutants will be allowed; but this will be decided before next year's training.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—MILITARY TITLES—THE NEW WARRANT.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Secretary of State for War, If, in the case of Colonels who are retired compulsorily or voluntarily under the new Warrant, and who will be entitled to retire as Major Generals, he will permit them to retain the designation of Colonel should any of them express a preference for retiring with that grade?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; by all means.

  POST OFFICE—LEGAL STATUS OF TELEGRAPH CLERKS—OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  MR. MACLIVERasked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been called to the opinion given, on the 19th instant, by Mr. Attorney General, defining the legal status of the Telegraph Clerks; and, whether he will adopt that opinion and act upon it?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, that anyone who had heard or read the answer of his hon. and learned Friend on this subject would come to the conclusion that he had not defined the legal status of the telegraph clerks, and he had certainly not been asked to do so.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS, BELFAST.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the manner in which the annual election of Poor Law Guardians for Cromae Ward, in the Borough of Belfast, has been conducted for the present year; if it be true, as disclosed in evidence before the magistrates at petty sessions, in Belfast, on the 13th May instant, that the police man entrusted with the delivery and collection of voting papers at said elec-
  1314
  tion was guilty of grave neglect in the discharge of his duty, by failing to collect voting papers in the houses of several of the streets in which he had laid them down, and in other districts having called at the residence of the voters at ten or eleven o'clock at night, when many of them had retired to bed; if it be true that the policeman in company with Mr. James R. Christian, one of the successful candidates, under their system of election, entered a public-house in the said ward, and partook of refreshments, and whilst thus regaling themselves, is it true that the parcel of collected voting papers then in the constable's possession were opened, examined, and altered by the said Mr. Christian, or one of his agents, who was also present; and, if any or all of those assumptions be accurate, will he take into consideration the form in which the last election for the Poor Law Guardians for Cromae was conducted?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Since my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland replied to a previous Question on this subject, we have received a Report in reference to it from the Inspector General of Constabulary. It appears that certain allegations having been made against the sub-constable affecting his conduct in the distribution and collection of the Poor Law voting papers in the Cromae Ward, the Inspector General directed that charges of neglect in the performance of this duty should be framed against him and brought before the magistrates, under 6 Will. IV. c. 13, s. 19, for adjudication. These charges were fully investigated by the magistrates on the 13th instant, and after a careful and protracted inquiry they acquitted the sub-constable. It was not proved that he partook of refreshments from the candidate, Mr. Christian, in a public-house; and there was no charge or even suggestion before the magistrates that the voting papers wore in any way tampered or interfered with. This imputation has now been made for the first time in the Question of the hon. Member. My right hon. Friend has already stated that the Local Government Board do not think that the case is one for the exercise of their powers of inquiry under the 23rd section of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 92; and it appears to me that the Report of

  1315
  the Constabulary authorities does not disclose any new facts requiring further investigation.

  H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE—REPORT OF THE CONTROLLER.
  MR. BUXTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When he will move for the appointment of a joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, as promised in another place, to inquire into the Report of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office; and, whether ho can inform the House of the scope and particular points to be referred to such Committee for decision?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I hope to be able to move in a few days for the appointment of the Committee referred to by my hon. Friend. The general object of the inquiry which. I should propose would be the existing arrangements for the printing, distribution, and sale of Acts of Parliament, Orders in Council, and Papers printed at the public expense for the information of Parliament, and for the storage of Parliamentary Papers.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRAD LAUGH)—GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AT WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take steps to inquire if any of the Government officials of the Arsenal at Woolwich have been using their influence with the employés in the Arsenal to induce them to sign a Petition against one of the duly elected Members for the borough of Northampton taking his seat in this House; whether, in violation of regulations, a labourer was sent round amongst these employés during working hours by certain of the officials to obtain signatures for such a Petition; and, whether, if he finds that this was the case, he will take measures to punish the officials guilty of this conduct?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question he should like to ask another, although he had not given Notice. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman considered that workmen employed in the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich were, in consequence of such employment, precluded from expressing any opinion on the ad-
  1316
  vance of atheistic, obscene, and disloyal opinion in the country?
  MR. CHILDERS: As to the last Question, I should have Notice of it, because it requires a very careful answer. It involves a distinction between what the workmen may do on duty and off duty. If he excuses me for saying it, my hon. Friend had time to give me Notice of this Question. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, I have to state that I have ascertained that an officer of the Store Department in Woolwich Arsenal obtained signatures there to a Petition against the alteration of the law on the subject of Parliamentary Oaths, and employed an office messenger for the purpose. I also find that a labourer in the Royal Laboratory brought a Petition to the same effect into the Department, but not at the request of any officer. I have taken care that the persons who have committed these irregularities are made aware of my disapproval of their conduct.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS—THE MAGISTRACY.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that one or more surgeons employed in the compulsory examination of prostitutes under the Contagious Diseases Acts have been made justices of the peace, in order that they may carry out the Acts in a twofold capacity, administering and executing the Law; whether he will state by what Minister such gentlemen were recommended to Her Majesty for appointment; whether he approves of such a confusion of duties; and, whether the individuals in question should not be called upon to make their choice once for all to act either as magistrates or as surgeons?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that he had made inquiries on the subject, and had not been able to discover that any such appointments had been made.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he believed the appointments were made by Earl Cairns, the ex-Lord Chancellor.

  VACCINATION—VACCINE LYMPH.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the President of the Local Government Board.

  1317
  Whether his attention has been directed to the fact that an absolute diversity of opinion exists at this moment amongst our highest medical authorities in regard to certain lymph still used, Sir Thomas Watson declaring that the lymph which has been largely used at Brighton and elsewhere for the last forty years is variolous, and such as "must have spread about a vast amount of mitigated smallpox;" while Dr. Carpenter asserts that—
  "No vaccinator could be charged with propagating smallpox even though it were put beyond doubt that his vaccine lymph had been remotely derived from a smallpox pustule;"
  and, whether he does not think it would be safer to discontinue the practice of vaccination altogether until at least our highest medical authorities can agree upon the not unimportant point as to whether the lymph employed is a protection against smallpox, or whether it may not be simply an agent for the diffusion of smallpox?
  MR. DODSON: I believe that Sir Thomas Watson did use the words quoted in a letter to The British Medical Journal for January 17, 1880. In a subsequent letter, however, to that journal, on February 28, 1880, he says, referring to an important paper by Mr. Ceely, of which he had no previous knowledge—
  "A careful study of it has convinced me that I have been in error respecting the mutual relations between small-pox and cow-pox. I hasten, as in duty and honour bound, to acknowledge my mistake, and to apologize to the gentleman upon whose measures upon this subject I have commented."
  I cannot admit that there is any substantial difference among the highest medical authorities upon the point as to whether the lymph employed is a protection against small-pox, or whether it may not be simply an agent for the diffusion of small-pox, as the great bulk of the Profession are agreed that the lymph employed in vaccination is, if successfully inserted into the human subject, a protection against small-pox, and not a means to its diffusion. At the same time, if all measures for preventing or curing disease in regard to which a difference among doctors may be found are to be postponed until they all agree, not only would vaccination, but medical treatment altogether, have to be suspended indefinitely.

  INDIA—GRANTS TO SIR FREDERICK ROBERTS AND SIR DONALD STEWART.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he can state the grounds, actuarial or other, on which a sum of £12,500 was given to Sir Donald Stewart and Sir Frederick Roberts, in commutation of an annuity of £1,000 a-year respectively awarded to these two officers, it being the fact, as stated in recognised works of reference, that Sir Donald Stewart is about eight years older than Sir Frederick Roberts?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I did not state that the sum of £12,500 had been given to Sir Frederick Roberts and Sir Donald Stewart as the exact commutation of the pension of £1,000 a-year granted to them. What I stated, I believe, was that legal difficulties having arisen with regard to these officers' pensions of £1,000'a-year, pending their tenure of commands in India, it was decided to make an alternative offer to them, and that they had been finally offered either £1,000 a-year at the expiration of their term of service, or a lump sum, which I said was in both cases in excess of what the actuarial value of £1,000 a-year, if now calculated, would have been. When pensions from the India Office are commuted the interest is calculated at 5 per cent, and at that rate of interest the actuarial equivalent of the pension of £1,000 a-year to a person of Sir Frederick Roberts' age would have been £11,892. At 4 per cent it would have been £13,153. It was considered, on the whole, desirable to offer these officers a lump sum intermediate between the value on these two calculations. Of course I am perfectly aware that Sir Donald Stewart, being older than Sir Frederick Roberts, the sum he received is more largely in excess of the commuted value of the pension than that received by Sir Frederick Roberts.
  Sin H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Perhaps the noble Lord will inform the House what was the actuarial value of the pension of Sir Donald Stewart?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I cannot now say.

  WESTMINSTER SCHOOL—EXCHANGE OF ESTATES—ORDER—QUESTIONS.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the Right honourable Baronet, the senior

  1319
  Member for the University of Oxford, Whether the members of the governing body of Westminster School, present at the meeting of May 2nd (when the house of the late Sub-dean of Westminster, secured to the School by 31 and 32 Vic. c. 118, s. 20, and others vacant, was not claimed, and another house of far less dimensions, and of far less convenience for the purposes of the School, was accepted in exchange, the prospects of obtaining the latter house being contingent on the death or resignation of the occupier), were more than a moiety of the governing body; whether the members of the governing body received notice that business of the highest importance to the welfare and efficiency of the School was to come under the consideration of the governing body; whether the governing body has powers under 31 and 32 Vic. c. 118, to exchange premises secured to the School for other premises, or any premises except those provided under sub-section 13; whether the hour at which the meetings of the governing body are summoned is not fixed at a time at which it is notoriously impossible for the Right honourable the Chairman of Ways and Means to attend to the business of the School; whether there are not four Deans and two Canons of Westminster in the governing body; and, whether it is not the duty of a member of the governing body to consider the interest of the School, whose affairs he is appointed to administer, beyond everything else?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHrose to a point of Order arising out of the Question of the hon. Member. Sir Erskine May, in his Parliamentary Practice, had laid it down that Questions might be put to Ministers of the Crown on matters of Public Business, or to private Members having charge of a Bill or Motion on the Paper of the House, or to persons occupying certain high positions. Under the latter head Questions were asked of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, of Members serving on Parliamentary Commissions, or even on temporary Commissions, of Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or the Trustees of the British Museum. But he would ask whether the privilege of asking Questions in that House might be exercised in respect of Members who happened to be Members of the Governing Body of a school on
  1320
  a subject relating to the action of the Governing Body of that school? It appeared to him that if this practice was to be introduced, it would involve a dangerous extension of the right of asking Questions, and would justify Questions being addressed to any hon. Member who happened to be a Member of any public body whatever—of a Board of Guardians, or a Railway Board, or any other body acting under the authority of an Act of Parliament—with regard to matters connected with their different Boards or Companies.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet has, no doubt, quite correctly stated the Rule of the House that no Question shall be put to any Member of the House, other than a Minister of the Crown, unless that Question relates to some Bill or Motion that happens to be before the House. At the same time, when the Question now under discussion appeared on the Notice Paper of the House, I considered whether it was proper that the Question should be put; and it certainly did appear to me—seeing that it related to the proceedings of the Governing Body of an important public school, established by Act of Parliament—that it would not be proper for me to interpose between the hon. Member proposing to put that Question and the House.
  SIR, JOHN R. MOWBRAY: In reply to this long series of Questions, mixed up with suggestions, I beg to state that, although in deference to what has fallen from the Speaker I answer the Questions put to me, I wish it to be understood that I am neither the Chairman nor a very active member of the Governing Body of Westminster School. The matters to which the series of Questions refer were discussed at two meetings of the Governing Body, duly convened, with proper notice, on March 31 and May 2. On the former day 11, on the latter 7—out of 14 in number—of the existing Governing Body were present. The Resolutions on each occasion were unanimously carried. The Governing Body resolved to take the necessary steps to acquire the late sub-Dean's house, in accordance with the Act of Parliament, and promised to take into favourable consideration any proposal in the nature of an exchange. Such proposal having been afterwards received, the Governing Body accepted an

  1321
  offer of another house, in their opinion adequate and convenient, with the prospect of immediate possession, and upon the understanding that an adequate space of ground would, if practicable, be provided for a fives court. The Governing Body were advised by counsel that they had the right, with consent of the Charity Commissioners, to effect such change. I know nothing of the hour fixed for the meetings. It is usually 4 o'clock, and has been found convenient for Members of both Houses of Parliament and for Judges and members of the Bar. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Richard Grosvenor), before he held Office, was a most constant attendant. Now, the hon. Member for Southwark is, we know, an accurate scholar, yet the next part of his Question is very difficult to understand. He asks me whether there are not four Deans and two Canons of Westminster in the Governing Body? The proper construction of that is that there are four Deans of Westminster. Well, there are not four Deans of Westminster; but the Dean and two Canons of Westminster and the Dean of Christ Church are members of the Governing Body ex officio. The Master of the Temple, who is also Dean of Llandaff, and Dr. Church, who is Dean of St. Paul's, have been elected members. In my opinion, it is the duty of a member of the Governing Body to consider the interests of the school beyond everything else. I can only speak for myself, without any authority to represent others. If the hon. Member for Southwark wishes to exhaust that portion of the subject, he must interrogate the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Lyon Playfair) and the other members of the Governing Body. With the majority of them, including all the four Deans, the hon. Member for Southwark is in closer political sympathy than I am.

  AFFAIRS OF BULGARIA.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have reliable information as to what is passing in Bulgaria; whether the meagreness of the news in the public prints indicates that the Prince has possession of the telegraph; and, whether he can state yet what course Her
  1322
  Majesty's Government have adopted in the matter?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government are beginning to receive detailed information as to what is passing in Bulgaria; and, judging from the telegrams which appear in the newspapers and those received by Her Majesty's Government, no hindrance is being put in the way of communication by telegraph. Her Majesty's Government have not been called upon to pronounce any opinion upon the circumstances.
  Sin GEORGE CAMPBELL: Is the British Agent in Bulgaria still maintaining communications with the Prince?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: So far as I know, yes.

  TURKEY—THE CAPTURE OF MR. SUTER BY BRIGANDS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in consequence of instructions previously issued, the Turkish troops were not allowed to interfere with the brigands who carried off Mr. Suter, lest in so doing they should injure an Englishman; whether the Turkish Government is nevertheless held responsible for the occurrence; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have again adopted the plan of compounding with the brigands, paying them large sums and guaranteeing their security, as was done on a former occasion, and so giving them the utmost possible temptation to capture as many Englishmen as possible?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government considered it their duty to take such steps as were in their power to save the life of Mr. Suter. Her Majesty's Consul General at Salonica was accordingly authorized to pay the ransom demanded by the brigands, if they could not be induced to accept a smaller sum; and the Turkish Government were informed that they would be held responsible for the amount, and for an indemnity to Mr. Suter's widow in the event of his being killed by the brigands. Mr. Blunt considered it necessary, to insure Mr. Suter's safety, that the brigands should not be pursued by troops as long as he was in their hands, and the Turkish authorities were requested to give orders to that effect. A telegram has been received stating

  1323
  that Mr. Suter has been liberated; but that Mr. Blunt was obliged to pay the whole ransom demanded. We are not aware that the security of the brigands has been in any way guaranteed. A notice has been issued warning British subjects that Her Majesty's Government will not in future be responsible in similar cases.

  ITALY—OCCUPATION OF TRIPOLI.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any record a conversation by Lord Salisbury with reference to the occupation of Tripoli by Italy, as compensation for the entry of France into Tunis?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I can quite understand the curiosity of my hon. Friend on this subject, and I am sure he will understand my reticence. All the information that Her Majesty's Government are in a position to supply is contained in the Papers which have been laid upon the Table of the House, and I am unwilling to be drawn, in replying to my hon. Friend's Question, into a discussion upon the subject.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION BILL.
  MR. ARTHUR PEELasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, seeing that the Rivers Conservancy Bill has after reference to a Committee passed the House of Lords, and has in this House been carried on the Second Reading by a large majority, the Government will take immediate steps for the nomination of the Select Committee to which the Bill has been referred, so that its provisions may be duly considered with a view to legislation in the present Session?
  MR. DODSON: Considering that the Bill in question is substantially one for giving facilities to those localities which may desire to obtain legislation suitable to their necessities, and that the importance of such a measure has been recognized not only by the present, but by the preceding Government, Her Majesty's Government certainly had hoped that the nomination of the Select Committee would have been assented to without difficulty as soon as the House re-assembled after the Easter Recess.
  1324
  But the number of miscellaneous Notices that have been given, coupled with the pressure of Business and the operation of the Half-past Twelve Rule, have delayed the nomination of the Committee. I am perfectly well aware, and deeply sensible, of the urgent importance in the case of several river basins of legislation of this description. I very much sympathize with those hon. Members who do not altogether agree with me in regard to the proposed composition of the Committee, or to the method of procedure which I propose on behalf of the Government to adopt; but, considering the importance and urgency of the subject, I would venture to hope that those hon. Members may waive their Notices and allow the nomination of the Committee to proceed. Be that as it may, it, has been, and it remains, the desire of the Government to prosecute this measure with the least possible delay, and to secure legislation on the subject in the present Session.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE—PROMOTION.
  MR. GRANTHAMasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the rule which prevails in the Army, making it compulsory on officers to retire at certain ages, with a view of securing a steady and healthy flow of promotion in the junior ranks, might not with equal advantage be applied to the Civil Service generally; and, if there is any reason why the regulation now in force at the Admiralty, requiring clerks of forty years' service to retire or, attaining the age of sixty, should not be extended to the War Office and other Public Departments, in which, failing the introduction of any such measure, the prospects of advancement are exceedingly remote?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: By the Superannuation Act of 1859, any member of the Civil Service of 60 years of age and 40 years' service is qualified, on retirement, for the maximum pension of two-thirds of fns pay and allowances. Formerly, the rate of retiring pension increased up to 50 years' service, when it might be equal to the full pay and allowances. Undoubtedly, the tendency of that system was to detain men in the Service too long; but under the one now in force it is not very usual for any clerk in the Public Departments to remain after he

  1325
  is qualified for the full retiring pension. The Regulation now in force at the Admiralty, to which the hon. Member alludes, was promulgated at a time when great changes were being made. I am not aware of any case which calls for a new general Rule; it is, however, in the power of the Head of any Department to propose to the Treasury for adoption the Admiralty Regulation.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE NEW WARRANT.
  COLONEL KENNARDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the vacancies created by the new Army Organisation will be filled up in the battalions in which they occur, or in the new double battalions, according to seniority; and, will officers, who by existing regulations are already disqualified from further promotion, gain any benefit in promotion by the new Warrant, or be obliged to retire at once?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to state that the question to which his inquiry points has been fully discussed; and that in the General Orders, which will give effect to the new organization, clauses will be inserted fully providing fur the equities of these cases. I do not think that I need, at the present time, give further detail as to a portion of the very elaborate scheme which will shortly be before Parliament.

  AFFAIRS OF TUNIS—THE CONVEN TION OF 1875.
  THE EARL OF BECTIVEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government has taken any steps to ascertain the views of the French Government respecting the renewal of the Convention of 1875, which expires in 1882; and, if so, if he will communicate the answer of the French Government to the House? He also asked, If Her Majesty's Government consider that any alteration in the jurisdiction of the Consular Court at Tunis is required under the present confused state of affairs in the Regency; and, if not, will Her Majesty's Government obtain an undertaking from the French and Tunisian Governments that the jurisdiction of the Court shall be as extensive in the future as it was when the Court was first established?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: If the noble Lord will turn to the Convention with Tunis, which was laid before Parliament in 1876, he will perceive that Article 40 provides that at any time after the expiration of seven years from the date of the Convention, either of the high contracting parties shall have the right to call upon the other to enter upon a revision of the same; but until such revision shall have been accomplished by common consent, and a new Convention shall have been concluded and put into operation, the present Convention shall continue and remain in full force and effect. With regard to the second Question of the noble Lord, I have to say that the Convention of 1875 determines the jurisdiction of the Consular Court, and the subject is therefore covered by the reply which I have given to the noble Lord's previous Question.
  THE EARL OF BECTIVEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is to be inferred from Lord Granville's letter of the 20th May to the French Ambassador that England does not recognise the Treaty forced upon the Bey on 12th May; whether, as a matter of fact, Her Majesty's Government does or does not recognise such Treaty; and, whether the Order in Council of the 18th May does or does not treat Tunis as a part of the Ottoman Empire; also, if Her Majesty's Government is aware that M. Roustan has ordered the Bey of Tunis to surround the house of the Sheik-el-Islam with soldiers; and that M. Roustan has sent an intimation to the Sheik-el-Islam as to the decision he must deliver in the Enfida case?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am unable to give within the limits of a reply a full statement of the views of Her Majesty's Government on the points raised by the noble Lord; and I must leave him to appreciate the views expressed in Lord Granville's Note. With regard to M. Roustan, Her Majesty's Government have received no information of the kind referred to from Her Majesty's Consular General at Tunis.

  OPEN SPACES (METROPOLIS)—LIN COLN'S-INN-FIELDS.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any arrangements are in progress, and,

  1327
  if so, what arrangements, for opening the inclosure in Lincoln's Inn Fields as a recreation ground for the public?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I believe that a proposal has been made to open Lincoln's Inn Fields to the public; but I am afraid it has not made much progress, owing to the legal difficulties raised by the householders in the neighbourhood. The question is one which concerns the Metropolitan Board of Works more than the Office of Works.

  GROUND GAME ACT, 1880—REMISSION OF FINES ILLEGALLY INFLICTED.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has yet come to any decision in regard to remitting the fines levied upon three men (John West, Isaac Martin, and John Basset) at the West Powder Petty Sessions, for killing rabbits, on the invitation and at the request of the occupier of the land?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that, after careful consideration, he had come to the conclusion that the magistrates had misconceived the law, and that the conviction could not be sustained. He had, therefore, directed that the fines imposed by the magistrates should be remitted.

  SCIENCE AND ART—MUSEUM AND LIBRARY, DUBLIN.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether before deciding on any plans for the building of the new Science and Art Museum and National Library in Dublin the Corporation of Dublin will be consulted; and, whether in the construction of the National Library regard will be had to the improved mode of construction which separates the public reading rooms from those in which the books are stored?
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked whethey, considering the number of years the project had been under consideration, the Government would use all their exertions to bring it to a speedy completion?
  MR. MUNDELLA, in reply, said, there had been no delay since the matter came into their hands. The only hindrance they had experienced, they had experienced in the City of Dublin itself. As the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) was, no doubt, aware, the acquisition of the Leinster Lawn site was wanted, and the Government were pre-
  1328
  pared to acquire it immediately they came into Office. They had, however, been defeated by local opposition. Now they were thrown back upon the Kildare Street site, and they were making arrangements for a public competition in respect to the plans and valuations for the proposed new buildings. Every facility would be given for the criticism of the plans by the Corporation and the public generally before a selection was made. The hon. Member might rest assured that the Government would do all it could to secure the best possible arrangements for the Library; but it would be premature to state before the plans were prepared what those arrangements would be. He could assure both the hon. Gentlemen the Government were as anxious to push the matter forward as they themselves were.

  EVICTIONS, &c. (IRELAND).
  MR. DAWSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, since the 5th May, the Government have received any information on the subject of the necessity of suspending evictions in Ireland in the case of tenants unable to pay their rents; whether that information has received the close and early attention of the Government; and, whether, in view of the delay of legislation, he will bring in some provisional measure to check evictions in such cases, and thus remove serious sources of disturbance in Ireland?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORinquired whether the attention of the right lion. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had been called to a Return issued that morning, stating that there had been 91 judgments entered in the High Court of Justice between January 29 and May 1, and that ejectment decrees had been granted during the Easter term to the number of 3,003?
  MR. GRANTHAMasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that many tenants who were well able to pay their rents refused to do so under pressure of the Land League; and whether he would consider the propriety of simplifying the procedure for the recovery of rent in Ireland?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My attention is not commonly called to Papers such as those to which the hon. Member for Galway refers except upon some collateral suggestion; and I have not had

  1329
  the opportunity of considering these Returns. I am afraid it is the case that a considerable number of persons who are able to pay their rents are under sinister suggestions to avoid payment; but I cannot at this moment say whether it is desirable to take any steps, or, if any, what stops, in the peculiar state of the law, with regard to the recovery of rents in Ireland. In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson), I believe it refers to a previous reply of mine, which reply seemed to invite some further information on the subject to which it referred. I can only say that, so far as the Members of the Government in London are concerned, and so far as my right lion. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland is concerned, at the time when he left London, we had not as yet received any such further information; but, undoubtedly, all information which we do receive will be for us a matter of very serious consideration. With respect to exceptional legislation, I would remind the House that our Compensation for Disturbance Bill last year met with no success. I fear that further legislation of the same kind now, while very uncertain in its own direct issue, would cause serious delay to other legislation which we hope may be of a more permanent character.

  POST OFFICE—THE MAILS IN ARGYLL SHIRE AND THE NORTH OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. FRASER MACKINTOSHasked the Postmaster General, Whether ho has now concluded negotiations for expediting the mails to and from Inverness and the North of Scotland; and, if so, whether he will be good enough to indicate the new arrangements?
  MR. FAWCETTinformed his hon. Friend that negotiations had been concluded for the acceleration of the mails to the Highlands; but he would not trouble the House with the details. He might say that the London night mail would arrive at Inverness an hour and a quarter, and at Wick two hours and 20 minutes earlier than at present, while the day mail would arrive at Inverness 50 minutes earlier. He had decided upon all arrangements as to arrival of the mails, and he could send the hon. Member a copy of them. He would only add that this improved postal arrangement would come into operation on Wednesday next, the 1st of June.

  ARMY (INDIA)—BENGAL STAFF CORPS —CASE OF CAPTAIN CHATTERTON.
  MR. GRANTHAMasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether after the holding of the Court of Inquiry on the state of Captain Chatterton, as mentioned by him last Thursday, there were not general, brigade, and divisional orders issued in reference to his case, dated respectively March 15th, 16th, and 17th, 1869, and whether in consequence of such orders Presidency Surgeons Baillie and Brougham, and Garrison Surgeon Powell did not place Captain Chatterton in the officers' hospital at Fort William, Calcutta, for urgent surgical treatment, as the operation, however simple it might have been if performed in the September previous, had become a serious one owing to delay; whether Garrison Surgeon Powell has not certified that after full examination he found Captain Chatterton suffering from a contracted limb, for which he considered the division of the left tendon achilles necessary; that he attended him daily; prepared his papers, and proposed to take him before the Medical Board in Calcutta on the 28th April, with a recommendation that he be granted twelve months' leave of absence to visit England, in order that the operation might be performed under favourable circumstances, but that he was unable to take him before such court in consequence of an order from the India Council being served on him on the 26th April requiring him to dismiss Captain Chatterton from the hospital; whether that India Council order was not founded on the previous Despatch of January, and in ignorance of the opinions subsequently formed by the highest medical authorities in Calcutta; whether, in consequence of Captain Chatterton being so hastily and improperly turned out of the hospital, he was not left to find his way back to England to undergo the operation the best way he could; and, if he will allow this officer to be examined by the Medical Board at the India Office to report to the House whether Captain Chatterton is not now a cripple for life, notwithstanding five operations performed in England, in consequence of the delay in attending to his case in India, owing to the differences of opinion existing among the medical authorities in India?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Since this morning, when I first observed this Question on the Paper, I have not had time to examine the details of Captain Chatterton's case. The General Brigade and Divisional Orders issued with reference to it have never been received at the India Office, as it is not the practice to send such Orders home from India. I will have the matter carefully examined, in order to ascertain whether it requires further inquiry in India; but I cannot hold out to the hon. Member any hope that it will be possible to take further action in reference to it in view of the amount of consideration it has already received and the number of Secretaries of State before whom it has been brought.

  ARMY—THE 50TH REGIMENT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state the reason why the 50th Regiment of Foot has been kept at home since June 1869, while every other regiment in the service has had its tour of foreign service?
  MR. CHILDERS: For the reasons which I gave to the House on the 23rd instant, when I was asked about the 58th Regiment, I do not think that the House will expect me to give detailed explanations as to the time during which the 50th Regiment has been at home beyond this—that there is nothing exceptional in the case.

  POST OFFICE—PURCHASE OF CHRIST'S HOSPITAL SITE.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Postmaster General, If there is any truth in the report that has appeared in the newspapers that the Post Office authorities have nearly completed negotiations for the purchase of the site of Christ's Hospital; and, if not, whether they have any intention of endeavouring to secure it?
  MR. FAWCETT: The great increase of business in the various departments of the Post Office has raised the question of providing improved accommodation. This question is under the consideration of a Departmental Committee, which has not yet arrived at any conclusion as to whether a new site for buildings ought to be acquired or not. In these circumstances, it is scarcely
  1332
  necessary to say that no negotiations have been entered into with regard to the purchase of Christ's Hospital.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked, whether the question had been considered of selling the present valuable site of the Post Office, and erecting a new Post Office which would be nearer the principal railway termini—in the vicinity, for instance, of Bedford Square?
  MR. FAWCETT: Of course, the question has been carefully considered; but no definite conclusion respecting it has yet been arrived at.

  THE PUBLIC SERVICES—VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Prime Minister, Whether he proposed to take any Vote on Account before Whitsuntide?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he believed it would be necessary to do so.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE TEKKE TURCOMANS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government had received any confirmation of the report that Russia had formally annexed the country of the Take Turcomans?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have received no information on the subject.

  LICENSING LAW (IRELAND)—PUBLI CANS' CERTIFICATES.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary o the Treasury, If it is the intention of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to instruct their officers in Belfast to permit persons, whose applications for transfers and confirmations yf publicans' certificates may not be heard until the annual licensing sessions on 30th October, to continue trading from the date their licences expire until that date, without requiring such person, as last year, to obtain ad interim authority from the Lord Lieutenant?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The Board of Inland Revenue intend to instruct their officers not to interfere with the sale of intoxicating liquors in the cases mentioned by the hon. Member pending confirmation of the licences at Quarter Sessions upon deposit being made of the proper amount of licence

  1333
  duty. This course has been approved by the Lord Lieutenant, and will be pursued in all similar cases in future, so that it will no longer be necessary to apply to the Lord Lieutenant for his ad interim authority.

  EVICTIONS, &c. (IRELAND).
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANwished to put a Question to the Prime Minister with reference to an answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member for Carlow Borough; and, with the indulgence of the House, he would preface his Question with one or two observations, which would be confined within the narrowest possible limits. He desired to make a suggestion, or, rather, an appeal, to the Prime Minister with reference to the present lamentable state of things in Ireland, as to evictions on the one side and as to the retaliatory spirit in which the Land League was resisting them on the other. He could say that there were some Irish Members who deplored both of those evils, and who were honestly desirous of seeing some truce established which would spare the country the horrors which were now being enacted. He would, therefore, appeal again to the Prime Minister, Whether it would not be practicable to do something whereby the rush of evictions could be eased, and at the same time the people could be called upon to discharge their honest obligation to pay rent where they could? He was the ambassador of no one; but he could say that there were some Irish Members cordially acting with their Colleagues round about them in his part of the House who would heartily throw themselves into an effort to effect, in the interests of peace, an honourable adjustment of the terrible state of things prevailing in Ireland.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that at the meeting of the Land League held on Tuesday, the list of evictions for the past week was larger than any list made at any previous meeting of the League; also, whether his attention had been called to a statement in The Irish Times and Freeman's Journal that the Lord Chamberlain (the Earl of Kenmare), the Earl of Arran, the Earl of Courtown, the Earl of Charlemont, the Earl of Granard, Bishop Alexander, Sir W. M'Mahon, Sir Nugent
  1334
  Humble, and Lord Cloncurry wore among those who were pushing things to an extreme against their tenants; and whether he would endeavour to establish something like a truce between the relentless landlords and their impoverished tenantry?
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYwished, before the right hon. Gentleman replied, to ask him whether he was aware that at the meeting of the Land League which the hon. Member had just referred to, the gentleman who was in charge of the League (Mr. Kettle) suggested a propaganda for the non-payment of any rents whatever; whether he was aware that many persons had refused to pay any lawful rent, though admittedly well able to do so; and also whether he was aware that the evidence given before the Richmond Commission by Mr. Kettle showed what was the position he held as a tenant farmer.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to what has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Galway, I have to say that I heard with great dissatisfaction and pain generally, though not in the precisest terms, of the announcement at the Land League meeting to which he has referred. Every such announcement, of course, adds to the difficulty, not only of governing Ireland, but likewise takes away from the chances of bringing that country to a state of peace and prosperity. I have not received the particulars mentioned by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). It may be my fault in his opinion, but I am not in possession of the most recent details on the subject; and I would suggest that, as the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant will be in his place on Monday, the hon. Member should postpone his Question till that occasion.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would sooner make the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman himself. He asked him whether, in his opinion, the number of evictions by landlords did not largely increase the difficulty of governing Ireland at the present moment?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is extremely inconvenient that I should be called upon to give any answer with regard to the particular character of any set of evictions unless I had an opportunity of examining into the circumstances in detail. Harsh, cruel, and needless evictions are at all times most censurable,

  1335
  and now more than ever. But, on the other hand, it is impossible to expect or to ask that a class of men invested with legal rights, and believing that others are withholding from them dues which they are able to pay, should refrain from enforcing the rights which are given to them by law.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINEES— THE DERBY DAY.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he had seen it stated in the newspapers that if any Member moved the adjournment of the House over the Derby Day it would be moved at a Morning Sitting. It would be convenient if the Speak or would kindly state when that Motion would have to be made.
  MR. MELDONpointed out that a Morning Sitting had been already fixed for to-morrow for the consideration of a Government Bill.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that yesterday an Order of the Day was actually appointed for a Morning Sitting to-morrow, and therefore there would naturally be a Morning Sitting to-morrow. In answer to the Question of the hon. Baronet, he might say that the Motion for the adjournment of the House over the Derby Day world have precedence. That Motion, whether made by a Minister or by another Member, had, according to custom, always had precedence.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked whether that Motion would take precedence of all other Business at 9 o'clock?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the contingency of a Morning Sitting rather complicated the matter; and, as the question of adjournment over a given day related to the Business of the House, he thought it ought to have precedence over the other Business at the Morning Sitting, according to the usage of the House.
  MR. R. POWER: Does the Prime Minister mean to move the adjournment himself?
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: I appeal to the Prime Minister, in the interest of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, not to move the adjournment.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is the only curtailment that has taken place in Government, or in the Government share of the Business of the House in late years, and I am very unwilling
  1336
  to sacrifice it. I do not propose to meddle in my official capacity in the adjournment over the Derby.
  MR. R. POWER: Then, Sir, I beg to give Notice that on Tuesday, at 2 o'clock, I shall move that the house, at its rising, shall adjourn till Thursday.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: And I shall oppose it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 136.]
  (Mr. Playfair, Mr. Chancellor of the Excheqner, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 23 rd May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  PART II.—TAXES.
  Clause 20 (Grant of duties of Income Tax).
  MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to say a word or two in regard to this clause, which I think may obviate the necessity for moving the Amendment which appears on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton), and a further Amendment which, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) proposed to move. I bad no knowledge before Monday last, when we were in Committee upon this Bill, that this question was about to be raised in the House, and therefore I had no prior opportunity of considering it; but since that time I have examined it with some care, and I find two things. In the first place, I find that it is a matter which will not require legislation at all. It is entirely within the competence, and therefore within the responsibility of the Executive Government to give remission of taxation laid upon any commodity or any description of property in cases where it is sufficiently proved that the profit on which the tax has been levied has not been realized. In the second place, some explanation is required as to the method of doing it. Of course, I am quite sure my hon. Friend does not mean to apply that rule so as to alter the whole basis of the Income Tax in regard to the land which is in the occupation of landlords for the purpose of order, convenience, or sup-

  1337
  port. He means only to meet what may be called the present distress, in consequence of which a great number of farms have been thrown upon the hands of the landlords, which landlords are doing the best they can to turn the land to good account, but who, it may often happen, fail to make the usual farm profits out of them. On this basis I think I can say that we should be prepared to take the responsibility of framing a measure which will meet the case; and we have in the Land and Income Tax Commissioners a body of gentlemen to whom would properly belong the duty of determining whether the loss has been incurred in such a way as to justify the remission. It is obvious, of course, that there must be some cognizance in the measure of the relief thus given; and an impartial tribunal such as I have named would be proposed by the Bill, which would not be likely to be prejudiced in favour of the Government. The Land Tax Commissioners have property in the district in which they act, and they are likely to be interested in the land itself. There is also another question—whether, in this case, it is not fair that estates should receive some corresponding relief in respect of local rates. The ground is exactly the same, and, moreover, there is a still closer analogy, and for this reason—wherever any land is in the hands of the owner as occupier, the practice of the Rating Department is to consider its value on the basis of the Poor Law valuation. It is substantially on this Poor Law valuation that any abatement would be made in respect to losses shown to have occurred, and in the case we are now considering there would certainly be strong reason why there should be a corresponding abatement in respect of local rates. This, however, is a matter which I should like to have time to consider, and in the course of the Session we can easily return to this question. In the meantime, I hope I have said enough to be satisfactory to my hon. Friends, inasmuch as I accept the principle of the proposal of which Notice has been given. As I have said, I believe that the Government have powers that are sufficient for the purpose, and that they do not require altering, and if hon. Gentlemen will return to the subject in the course of a few weeks, probably by
  1338
  that time I shall be able to give them distinct information in a more formal manner.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, that he believed it would not be competent for him to move his Amendment in the present clause; but it would be competent, if necessary, to move it in Clause 21. But after the generous concession which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make he did not intend to proceed with either of the Amendments which stood in his name. He should like to know, however, whether the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman made would take the form of a Treasury Minute?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think it would come through the Board of Inland Revenue, and it would probably be approved and accepted by the Treasury.
  SIR BALDAVYN LEIGHTON: The question of the remission of rent? [Mr. GLADSTONE: Yes.] He (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) assumed that the order would have effect upon Income Tax, payable under Schedule A this year, in January last. He also assumed that specific directions would be given after the proposal had been finally determined upon, so that all persons interested might know that this concession had been made, and that they were entitled to relief; otherwise a great many persons might not be aware of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that night. These were points upon which he should like the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee an assurance. There was, he believed, one precedent. In 1879 there was a remission of Income Tax upon rents not received, which he thought was on all fours with the present proposal. He would not say that it was exactly the same; but on that occasion the course taken by the Government was found to work very well. He had no doubt that the present proposal might be made to work equally well, and it ought to have reference to the payment which became due in January last. He presumed that the right hon. Gentleman would take care to have the matter sufficiently notified in the local papers.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It will be necessary that I should examine into the legislation for the remission of taxes in bygone years. I shall have to inquire into the matter, and see whether there

  1339
  are any precedents or not. Undoubtedly, whether it is done by advertisement or not, I will take care through this House, and otherwise, that ample information shall be given.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, the practice of remitting the Income Tax on rents which had not been received was commenced by the late Government; and he thought the present Government were entitled to credit for having sufficient discernment and generosity to follow the course then set. He believed the present Government had so far shown the sincerity of their intentions by actually making a return of the tax where there was evidence that the rents had not been realized. But the right hon. Gentleman hail raised a subsidiary question having a very close connection with this, which was also one of very great importance—namely, the liability of property in this position to pay local rates. In many cases it would be found that the rental had been repeatedly reduced in consequence of bail seasons; and he thought there should also be a reduction in the amount of taxation to which the property was liable. He did not know, however, that the right hon. Gentleman could do more than promise to consider how far these equitable returns or remissions could be carried out. He might take this opportunity of saying that he had, early in the Session, asked for leave to bring in a Bill touching upon the question of taxation; but which, in view of the pressure of the great Irish questions, he had hitherto abstained from bringing forward. It would be within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that the proceeds of landed property were at present divided between the encumbrancer and the real owner—he (Mr. Hubbard) believed that, in point of fact, the product was about equally divided. This fact disclosed a serious inequality in the
  incidence of their taxation. Tito capitalist who had a mortgage upon the estate, when he got his interest, had to pay Income Tax only on that interest, where as the owner was not taxed upon the residue alone, but upon the whole of this outgoings; consequently, while the capitalist was only paying 5d. in the pound, the owner might be paying 10 d. That was the state of things last year; but what was it now? The reduction of rent had been so great that the mortgagees in many cases were
  1340
  receiving the whole proceeds of an estate, and yet the unfortunate nominal owner was required to pay Income Tax, not on the residue he received, because he received no residue at all, but out of other funds. That was a question which ought to be considered, perhaps not at the present moment, but certainly in the future; and he trusted that his right hon. Friend, if he happened to be Chancellor of the Exchequer in another year, would take care, both as regards Imperial and local taxation, that all measures of legislation concerning them should be brought on at the same time, and that each should be in harmony with the other, so that in future the Queen's Taxes and the local taxes might be charged on the same principle, and levied through the same medium. This would economize labour, mitigate the grievances of which the taxpayers complained, and would tend to facilitate and make more pleasurable the duty both of levying and paying taxation.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had earned the gratitude of a very large class who were interested in the concession he had made. He (Mr. Magniac) disclaimed any participation in the Amendment which had been placed upon the Paper by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Baldwyn Leighton). The principle contained in that Amendment was one which involved an entire repeal of the Income Tax; and that he, for one, was not prepared to advocate. All he desired was that the tax should be levied upon some principle of justice. Perhaps he might be permitted to say a word as to the best means of carrying out the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to make. He thought the best way would be to amalgamate Schedules A and B in regard to the owners of land. A remission made in that form would be most effective. He wished also to say that he was satisfied, and the agricultural Members would agree with him, that the west service ever done for the farmers of England was placing them under Schedule B. If they had been placed under Schedule D, they would have been obliged to keep their own accounts, and they would not have been, as they generally were, in a state of uncertainty as to whether they were making any profits or not. He trusted that some arrangement might be made

  1341
  for getting rid of that difficulty in future, and for placing the Income Tax upon that particular class in a more just and equitable position. He cordially thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had made.
  MR. HICKSsaid, that he also, in common with the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) and the hon. Baronet below him (Sir Baldwyn Leighton), wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had made. He desired, at the same time, to draw his attention to this fact—that the question did not merely apply to farms which the owners were obliged to take into their own hands in consequence of not being able to find proper tenants, but it also applied to land absolutely lying waste. There were in many parts of England farms that were not occupied either by a tenant or by the landlord. He understood that the whole question would be dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, there was one point with regard to this clause which was not satisfactory—namely, the way in which farm lands were dealt with under Schedule B. Of course, he was not raising the question with any idea of altering the present Bill; but, as he understood the matter, if a farm was assessed under Schedule Bit was charged a duty of 2½d. on the rent; but if the occupier was able to show that, owing to bad seasons, he had not made any profit, or had not realized the full amount of rent, then the Commissioners were at liberty to reduce the assessment so as to give the farmer relief. There could be no objection to the farmers having relief in bad seasons, providing, like other traders in the country, they paid the higher rate of Income Tax when the seasons were good. The present arrangement appeared to be altogether objectionable. If the farmers were to have a reduction in bad times, to which he did not for a moment object, he thought they ought not to be put under Schedule B, but under Schedule D. Farmers should be treated like all other traders, and should be required to keep books like all other traders, and if it was shown that they had made a profit then they should pay Income Tax on that profit, and only have relief if they could show that they had made no profit at all.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question in reference to local taxation. The right hon. Gentleman, in the remarks he had made, threw out a hint about local taxes; and he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) wished to know what the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was, because, as he understood local taxation, the Government had no power to interfere or to deal with local taxation at all. If the right hon. Gentleman meant to suggest that local rates should be lowered in the interest of one class of persons, it might be found that everybody else would be disinclined to accept such a happy consummation for that particular class; and there would be, he thought, a great difficulty in making any satisfactory arrangement, unless the assessment committee agreed in their different districts to carry out the arrangement in some other way than it was carried out at present. What he would press upon the right hon. Gentleman was this—that he would do good service to the agricultural interest if he took care that local burdens were decreased by assisting local taxation by other modes of taxation than those which at present existed. This was in reality one of the most pressing questions of the present day, and until something was done in that direction he believed that no real relief would be given to the agricultural interest.
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the question, wished to call attention to the position of landed property under Schedule A. Heretofore it had always been the custom to assess the property of the country every three years. The last valuation was in May, 1879, and there would be no fresh valuation until May, 1882. What he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman was, whether he did not think it would be advisable to have a new assessment this year? There had been a complete revolution in the value of lauded property throughout the country, and the Returns supplied by the Surveyor of Taxes in 1879 would be altogether at variance with those supplied in 1881. He would, therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there should be a fresh assessment this your. He knew that it was not advisable that there should be annual assessments. An assessment every three years was the

  1343
  general rule. Assessments occasioned great trouble and annoyance, and involved a considerable amount of expenditure. Therefore, he would not advise annual assessments; but this year was an exceptional year, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to undertake that one should be made of the value of property under Schedule A.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwould also like to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to what was exactly meant by the information he had conveyed to the Committee. He wished to know how the concession generously given to land in the occupation of the owners at the present time could be extended to any valuation for the purposes of local rates? Under the existing law there was a process by which any landlord holding land which produced no return could apply to the assessment committee and obtain a reduction of rates. If the Bill which he had introduced when the late Government were in Office had passed into law, an annual opportunity would have been afforded by which any person could have his assessment reduced every year on showing that there had been a decrease in the value of his hereditament. He certainly regretted that the measure was riot enacted, and was not in force at the present moment. As his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had pointed out, the effect of remitting and reducing local taxation in the case of one particular class of persons might produce dissatisfaction among other persons in the same parish whose property or trades might have been injuriously affected by the same causes—namely, bad seasons and general depression. He only wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in extending the remission of the Properly Tax to local rates also, ire might be acting from an entirely different point of view and under altogether different circumstances.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that before the right hon. Gentleman replied ho should like to ask question in respect to the concession proposed to be made by the Government. He very much agreed with what had fallen from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) and the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex
  1344
  (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) in regard to local rates; but what he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman was this. He understood that it was intended by the Government to take the necessary measures for remitting Income Tax on Schedule A and Schedule B in cases where the farm was in the occupation of the owner against his will, and without his deriving a profit there from. But did the right hon. Gentleman mean to provide for the case of a landlord whose tenant had become bankrupt, and had failed to pay the rent he ought to have paid? This would be a case where, although the land was not in the occupation of the owner, he would have received no rent at all, and he was afraid that in these days it was a case that only too commonly occurred. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would make some provision for such an occurrence.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In reply to the last question by the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), I may say that it is a matter which has not come under my consideration. My attention has been confined to the relief of the persons distressed alone, and has not been turned to the case of landlords whose tenants have become bankrupts. Under any condition of things a tenant may become a bankrupt or get into difficulties; but that is a case to be met by the ordinary law, and it is no part of the subject I have had under consideration. It will remain exactly where it does now. There is no question at all that any system of remission, in regard to local rates, must be done by course of law, and cannot be done by the Government; and, therefore, before any proposal can be made which is likely to affect the question of local rates, hon. Members, who are interested in the subject, will have ample opportunity for considering it. The whole matter has come upon me suddenly, and I have only been able to give it a very hasty examination. It only seemed fair that when we proposed to tax the income of the landowner we should do so on some principles of justice, and on the supposition that we were really dealing with income, and I simply suggested that if a man should not be taxed on an income he has not got, it would seem to follow that he should not be rated upon an income he has not got. I am very doubtful whether it would be advisable

  1345
  to alter the present system of assessment, and the machinery for levying and collecting the Income Tax. This machinery is difficult and complicated, and I should not certainly venture, on my own responsibility, to make any alteration until there lied been a thorough and careful inquiry into the whole matter.
  MR. ILLINGWORTIIsuggested that if the concession were given by the Government it should not be confined to the agricultural interest. The pressure was equally great in some of the manufacturing districts of the North of England. It would be very acceptable to employers of labour and gentlemen engaged in commerce in the manufacturing districts just now to have shorter periods in which the assessments might be levied. He thought the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was unanswerable—that if remissions of this nature were to be made in adverse times they ought to abandon the present system of assessment, and insist upon the Property Tax being levied in full when times were good.
  MR. BIDDELLasked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain the great difference there appeared to be in the taxation of the latter's farming constituents in Mid Lothian, and his (Mr. Biddell's) in West Suffolk. He was aware that the different modes of letting land would in some degree account for the difference between ten farthings in the pound and the seven which the Scotch paid. He was also aware that this difference had existed from the first institution of the present tax; but no time would make good an injustice. It would be best understood if he put the case of two farms of equal merit and size—the one in England, the other in Scotland. Take a farm of 400 acres in England, it would be taxed as follows:—Rent—say 25 s. per acre—£500. Tithe—say 6s. per acre—£120. Total £620. From this total one-eighth was allowed to be deducted, £77 10 s., leaving a net total of £542 10 s., which, assessed upon at ten farthings in the pound, would give for the farmer to pay £5 12 s. 10 d. In Scotland, the rent would include the tithe and the parish rates, which, taking them at £50–2s. 6d. per acre—about the same in both countries,—would make a total sum of £670—for the Scotch farmer to be assessed upon, at
  1346
  only seven farthings per pound, and would give for him to pay £4 17 s. 8d., or about 15 per cent less than the English farmer. He knew how desirable it was to get on with the Bill, and therefore did not like to trouble the right hon. Gentleman; but proposed that he should explain the matter at some future stage or opportunity, more especially as the case involved figures suddenly put, and which possibly might be incorrect.
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied, that the difference had, as the hon. Member was aware, existed from the first, and arose from the Scotch farmer hiring under other terms, his rent including the tithe and half the rates; but he would suggest to the hon. Member to furnish him with his calculations, and he would be happy to explain the point at some future time.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Provisions of Income Tax Acts to apply to duties hereby granted) agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Provisions of Income Tax Acts to apply to duties to be granted for succeeding year) agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Assessment of Income Tax under Schedule (A) and (B), and of the inhabited house duties for the year 1881 — 1882, 32 & 33 Viet. c. 67) agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Interpretation of "servant" and "other person" in exemption from inhabited house duty).
  MR. ANDERSONmoved, in page 10, line 25, after "1878," to insert—
  "Houses that are not strictly inhabited houses but which are institutions of a public or an educational character, and which can be called 'inhabited' solely because a servant or caretaker dwells in some small part of them, shall not be assessed to the inhabited house duty, except in respect of the annual value of such part of them as is in the actual occupation of the servant or caretaker, and if such annual value comes within the limits of the tax."
  The Amendment was aimed at a practice which, in regard to the Inhabited House Duty, had long been looked upon as a grievance. The law had been interpreted by those who levied the Inhabited House Duty to mean that it should be levied on the full rental of the house, whether it was strictly an inhabited house or not, provided anybody lived in it at all. Thus a large public institution, worth, perhaps, £1,000 a-year, if it bad

  1347
  as much as a caretaker living in it and occupying one or two rooms, was rated at its full rental. This had long been felt to be a great grievance. A few years ago the London merchants succeeded in passing an Amendment by which it was provided that merely having a caretaker living in a house should not subject a large establishment to the duty to the extent of the whole rental, provided that the establishment was used for purposes of gain; and it did appear to him that a large establishment not used for the purposes of gain had, à fortiori, a much stronger claim for relief than places used for gain. It was most unfair that such institutions as Museums, Colleges, Schools, or other public buildings of various kinds, should be charged the duty on their full rental value because it happened that a caretaker occupied a room in them. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question in reference to this particular grievance a month or two ago, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that the Treasury instructed the tax collectors not to levy on educational establishments, and that they gave a wide and liberal interpretation to the term "educational establishments." But when he (Mr. Anderson) came to inquire into the facts of the case, he found that however much that might be the understanding of the right hon. Gentleman and the desire of the Treasury, the practice of the tax collectors was to levy the tax in a great many cases all over the country in a most capricious fashion. Some establishments were allowed to escape altogether, while others, in precisely the same position, were heavily taxed. He was informed that of late a new instruction had been sent out by the Treasury, and that the grievance would, to some extent, be mitigated. But unfortunately in one of the cases which had occurred there had been an appeal to the Court of Session, and the Court of Session decided that the tax was a justifiable statutory tax. Having been so decided by a Law Court, he was very doubtful whether a mere instruction from the Treasury would be sufficient to cause the practice to be discontinued in future. It would certainly be in the power of any tax collector to say that any instruction of that kind was not to overrule and set aside a decision of the
  1348
  Law Courts. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to grant relief by a statutory enactment of the kind suggested by the Amendment. and he trusted that the words he proposed would be accepted.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 10, line 25, after "1878," to insert "houses that are not strictly inhabited houses, but which are institutions of a public or an educational character, and which Can be called 'inhabited' solely because a servant or caretaker dwells in some small part of them, shall not be assessed to the inhabited house duty, except in respect of the annual value of such part of them as is in the actual occupation of the Servant or caretaker, and if such annual value comes within the limits of the tax."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend proposes this Amendment because he is afraid that, in consequence of a declaration of the law by the Court of Session, the authority of the Executive Government will not avail to give the necessary remissions of duty. Now, the Executive Government were parties to obtaining that declaration of the law. They were unwilling that any statutory right should be established against them; but they see no difficulty in the relaxation of the conditions, and they are even disposed to add something to that relaxation. I can, therefore, assure my hon. Friend that he need be under no apprehension at all upon the ground he has stated—namely, that the declaration of the Court of Session will be an obstacle to giving this just relief in remission of the tax upon houses beneficially occupied by any person acting under the name of caretaker or servant. And the additional relaxation we propose to give is that in the case of buildings such as those referred to by my hon. Friend—buildings held in trust by municipalities for the advancement of either science or art—the assessment will be limited to beneficial occupation.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, after that declaration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he should not press his Amendment.
  MR. W. FOWLERwished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a small but important point in connection with this clause. There were many large buildings in the City

  1349
  of London in which more than one caretaker was required, and under the peculiar wording of the Act of 1878, it had been suggested that in cases of that kind the house should be dealt with as an inhabited house. That appeared to him to be an absurd proposition, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would say that under this Act it was not intended to put it in practice.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the matter should receive attention.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Amendment of 43 & 44 Viet. c. 19, s. 53) agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Provisions as to assessment to inhabited house duty on houses let for short periods).
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, he did not think attention had been sufficiently directed to this clause, nor did he believe that hon. Members fully realized the effect which it would have upon the owners of property, especially in our large cities and towns. The Inhabited House Duty was essentially a tax upon occupation; but the effect of this clause would be to transfer the incidence of taxation from the occupier to the landlord. It was difficult to realize the extent of the prejudicial result which this proposal would have with regard to property in large towns. He believed almost every hon. Member connected with those places would know that, say, eight-tenths of the houses in them were not let in annual tenancies, but at three, six, and even one month's notice. If, therefore, the owner of property were made liable not only for Property Tax, but also for Inhabited House Duty in cases where he might not receive his rent, their position would be greatly prejudiced. He was convinced, from the representations made to him from many quarters, that the owners of property in large towns had no idea of the extent to which they would suffer. They would ho unable to protect themselves, because it was almost impossible to get tenants for their houses, and it would necessarily bear very hardly upon them if they were exposed to this extra taxation. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
  1350
  ascertain the vast amount of property held in every large town upon occupation of under 12 months, he would see that his proposal would produce a very serious injury to the owners of property therein. For that reason he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the clause, which, as it stood, simply called upon one class to pay a tax that another class ought to pay, and agree to its postponement.
  MR. T. COLLINSagreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool in thinking that the Committee were not at ail aware of the effect which this clause would have. For his own part, having been a Commissioner of Income Tax for many years, he had never heard of such a proposal as this being made. Certainly, ho did not think the clause was understood throughout the country as making the owner, instead of the occupier, liable for Inhabited House Duty if the house was let for any period less than a year. Many houses in Yorkshire were let out three months' tenancies. The Inhabited House Duty was essentially a tax levied upon the occupier; but the country was now given to understand that the owner was responsible. In view of the great importance of the proposal in its effect upon property throughout the country, he suggested that the best course would be to omit the clause from the Bill, and then, at some future time, when the country had fully considered it, it might, if necessary, be brought up again. It had rather the appearance of stealing a march upon the country to make the owner liable for the occupier's tax.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEpointed out that the Inhabited House Duty was always paid by the occupier in the case of houses let upon lease. That was not the case with the Land Tax, which was always paid by the landlord, unless he covenanted with the tenant to the contrary. He did not think the Treasury ought to impose further conditions upon landlords in order to make them liable for default of the tenant more than they were at present; but, according to this clause, every landlord would be liable for House Tax in cases where the property was let for a less term than one year.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that the term "Inhabited House Duty" implied occupation, and had, therefore, always been

  1351
  the tenant's tax. The distinction between the landlords' taxes and the tenants' taxes was perfectly well known at present; but, as he understood the clause, it would entirely relieve the occupier from the payment of a tax which had always been paid by him and throw it upon the landlord, notwithstanding any previous contract that might exist between the parties.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the object of the clause was to prevent the recurrence of loss, which, under the present arrangements, had occurred to the Revenue. At the same time, he should be sorry that a proposal such as that contained in this clause should be adopted without full consideration on the part of the House; and he was, therefore, willing that it should be omitted from the Bill.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  PART III.—STAMPS.
  Clause 27 (Stamp duties to be under the care and management of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue) agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Grant of duties in respect of probate and letters of administration, and on inventories).
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEcontended that the duty under the next grade of the scale would fall more heavily on estates of between £300 and £500 than those in any portion of the scale; and he therefore hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would receive with favour his proposal to extend the duty of £1 on every £50 to those estates.
  Amendment moved, in page 12, line 19, to leave out "£300" and insert "£500."—(Mr. Alderman Lawrence.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was not convinced that the operation of the duty would be more severe at the particular point indicated by the Amendment of the hon. Member than at any other; but as it would afford relief to a large number of persons, and as there would be no great loss to the Revenue in consequence, he was willing to extend the limit of £300 to £500.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. GREGORYsaid, the Committee would be aware that the Probate Duties
  1352
  were considerably raised last year by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had upon that occasion taken some objection to the measure, but had been unable to pursue the subject fully in consequence of the dispersion which occurred at the General Election. There was, however, no doubt that the former alteration had a very considerable effect in the way of increasing the charge on estates. The present Bill now proposed a further advance. Upon an estate under £4,000 the old duty was £80; it was, under the arrangement of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, raised to £130, and the present Bill would increase the duty to £147. The original duty on an estate under £10,000 was £180; under the present Bill it would be £297. In the ease of estates under £30,000, the old duty was £400; it was raised last year to £690, and would now be increased to £897. He admitted that lineal descendants would be relieved—that was to say, those in direct descent would be relieved to the extent of 1 per cent; but, as he understood it, there would be no relief for those in remoter degrees of consanguinity. This alteration was very material in view of the possibility of the Probate Duty being extended to real estate, and should be borne in mind by those who were in favour of that change. He did not raise any objection to the amount of the duty, but thought it right that the Committee should understand the real effect of the clause.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the aim had been to make the scale almost entirely equal. He felt rather dissatisfied with the arrangement proposed, because the ½per cent Probate Duty was not the exact equivalent of the Probate Duty which had been given up. It was something less, and if they had not been led by a desire to keep to round numbers the charge would have been a little higher. It was perfectly true that the change did not operate with perfect equality as regarded lineals and collaterals; but this change had been instituted on the principle that the residue generally went to the lineal. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gregory) might be assured of the correctness of the general assertion that the lineals would receive relief somewhat greater than the tax, while they would have no expense in connection with the payment of the

  1353
  duty. On the other hand, the Department would get earlier payment.
  MR. DODDSpointed out that under the proposed assessment every £100 had to bear its proper share of the duty, and that the blots which existed in the old system, and had been complained of for so many years, were now got rid of. No doubt, some estates had now to pay which formerly escaped duty altogether.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, that the clause made no alteration whatever with regard to the legacies received by collaterals, who would have to pay the same amount of duty as before. They would have to pay more only in case they were residuary legatees. He hoped the principle would be brought to bear upon freehold legacies, which now had to pay an infinitely smaller amount than they ought to pay.
  MR. WHITLEYwished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was proposed that the duty should be paid upon affidavit instead of on probate? At present the duty had to be paid before it was possible to ascertain the value of the estate, and in case of error the practice was to pay back the excess in fees. Of course, in the case of a mistake—say, of £1,000—it would be very inconvenient to receive the overpayment in this way and not in cash. If it was thought desirable to change the present practice, and transfer the duty from probate to affidavit, perhaps some directions might he given to the officers to settle the form of the affidavit before the Probate Duty was paid. If the money was returned in fees it would cause great difficulty to the Profession. He had heard no reason for the change that was proposed up to the present time, and should, therefore, be glad to receive some explanation with regard to it. Numbers of representations had been made to him from the Profession, and he was sure that the removal of the difficulties to which he had referred would be received with great satisfaction.
  MR. DODDSsaid, he was in a position to re-assure the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley). He had brought this point under the attention of the authorities at Somerset House, and had received from them very satisfactory assurances as to the way in which the proposed alteration would be worked. The conclusion at which he had arrived, after fully considering the question, was,
  1354
  that there would be no difficulty whatever in connection with it. Some difficulty existed at the present time in ascertaining the amount of the estate, but, in future, payment would simply be made upon the affidavit; the duty, however, would not be charged until all preliminaries were settled—until it was ascertained whether there were any difficulties with regard to probate, and whether any caveat was entered. He was assured there would be no inconvenience under the new system. On the contrary, there would be the benefit of deducting the debts in a way that was not before practicable. For his own part, he was grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this benefit.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Power to deduct debts and funeral expenses when deceased died domiciled in the United Kingdom).
  MR. GREGORYsaid, the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to insure that if affidavits were made of the debts of the deceased, they should not be taken as an admission of liability, as between the creditor and the estate or representative of the deceased. On applying for probate a person had to swear in an affidavit that such and such amounts were due to certain persons. But it was well known to be impossible, in many cases, immediately after the death of the deceased to ascertain what the debts were. Many of the debts sworn to might be doubtful, and be only confessed afterwards, in the course of administration. In case of litigation it might materially prejudice the estate of a debtor to have it put in evidence that he had made an affidavit to the best of his knowledge and belief that certain debts were due by him. If the Solicitor General would say that the party in question would not be prejudiced, he would give up his Amendment. He regarded it as a most serious matter that the affidavit should be held to be an admission of liability; and as the insertion of his Amendment would, at all events, do no harm, he trusted it would meet with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not think it afforded anything like an adequate protection to say that the admission made in the affidavit would be withheld by the office, which could be compelled by the ordinary process to produce it.

  1355
  Amendment moved,
  In page 13, line 9, after the word "exhibited," to insert "but such Schedule, or any statement therein, shall not be taken as an admission or evidence of a debt as between a creditor and the estate or representative of the deceased."—(Mr. Gregory.)
  MR. DODDSthought the Amendment would encourage laxity on the part of executors in the preparation of statements of debt, and that it might induce some persons to put in claims for which there was no foundation. On the whole, he did not think the Amendment was ready required, and he trusted his hon. Friend would withdraw it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The whole change we are making is a change for the benefit of the taxpayer. In giving him that relief we run the risk, more or less, of his entering debts in order to get a large remission of the Probate Duty; and we must, therefore, have some security for correctness in the case that debts are not put in for that purpose. If a man has a debt about which he is uncertain, no doubt his proper course is not to enter it, but to wait and claim rebate afterwards. The hon. Member will see the danger of persons being encouraged to include debts not meant to be acknowledged, without suffering any inconvenience whatever; and it is, therefore, quite necessary that the effect should be against him, as far as it goes, in order to prevent the abuse of the very considerable opportunity we are giving for a somewhat culpable laxity.
  M. GORSTsaid, the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) seemed to be entirely at issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect of this clause. While the former hon. Member argued that the affidavit would not be an admission of liability as between debtors and creditors, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to indicate that it would be an admission. In this conflict of great authorities, he thought the Committee would be instructed by an opinion from the hon. and learned Solicitor General. If lie would state whether or not the affidavit would be an admission as between debtors and creditors, they would be better able to appreciate the arguments of the hon. Member and the Prince Minister.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he did not think there was any necessity for him
  1356
  to inform the Committee whether or not the affidavit would constitute an admission of debt. At the same time, he was quite unable to see the slightest inconsistency between the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton and those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should, therefore, not attempt to reconcile a difference that he was unable to distinguish.
  MR. GREGORYwas understood to say he could only gather from the observations of the hon. and learned Solicitor General that he did not differ from him with regard to the admission made by the affidavit. It was to meet the cases of persons who were willing to give the best statement they could under the circumstances that he wished the Amendment inserted. He believed that the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman would have little practical operation, as it would be impossible for representatives to depose to debts until they had investigated them, or for the office to accept statements of debts without the subsequent production of vouchers for the payment of them.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEwould point out to his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) that all he had been alluding to with regard to defrauding the Revenue might occur even now in the matter of partnership. When a man had been a partner in a concern, the Inland Revenue Department knew nothing about his debts, and all that the hon. Member had said about a statement concerning them being inaccurate would apply to every statement of any partner.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEcould not agree with the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, who said that he could see no difference between the statement of the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). The statement of the hon. Member for Stockton was that these words that his hon. Friend proposed would do no harm, and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was that they would do a great deal of harm—at any rate, he had understood that to be the right hon. Gentleman's argument. This showed a material difference in the appreciation of the two. The words the hon. Gentleman proposed were open to the objection taken by the Prime Minister—namely, that the risk the Re-

  1357
  venue must run was so great that it ought to be guarded in every way that could be thought of. If the representatives of the Exchequer told them that they required this safeguard they ought to be very chary indeed in depriving them of it. Though everyone admitted the great boon that was conferred, and, in a certain sense, the act of justice that was done in levying the Probate Duty so as to exclude debts, yet the risk was very considerable. They were making an experiment, and the Government should be very cautious and careful in every step they took.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, this was not so much a question of law as a matter of common sense. Under this Bill they were enabling parties to gain considerable advantage by making an affidavit of the amount of the debts due from them—by setting forth in an affidavit a schedule of their debts. "But," said his hon. Friend opposite, "let them have the full benefit of this affidavit as against the Government, by its being accepted as a positive evidence of the amount due from them; but take care not to put them to any disadvantage in the event of their putting down a debt which is not actually due, or, at all events, an amount which is in excess of that which they have to pay." The matter was one which did not admit of argument, and if the parties were prepared to make an affidavit, he thought they might fairly be left to the consequences of their position.
  MR. GORSTsaid, the speech of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) showed how desirable it was that the Committee should be enlightened as to the law on the subject by Her Majesty's Solicitor General. The hon. Member for Burnley argued in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory), which was advanced on the ground that the Schedule would be taken as an admission of liability. He wished to know from the hon. and learned Solicitor General whether that was the case? Surely the Committee were entitled to know, as a matter of law, whether the Amendment was or was not necessary. The hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) wished for an answer to the question. He (Mr. Gorst) was happy to see that the hon. and learned Attorney General had just come into the House; and now, perhaps, he would tell
  1358
  them whether, as a matter of law, the Schedule of this account would or would not be taken as an admission between the creditors and the executors. On receiving his answer, the Committee would know whether the Prime Minister ought to refuse the Amendment on the ground that it was desirable that the Executive should be under every possible safeguard, or whether he should accept it on the ground that it would make clear that which would otherwise be obscure.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)found it very difficult to believe that the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down was really serious in this matter. Of course, this statement would be admissible, and would be evidence as against the person making it. It would not be conclusive evidence, still it could be used for what it was worth. He had not answered the question before, because he had not thought the hon. Member was serious in putting it.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he should be happy, after what had been said, to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he experienced some difficulty in rising to speak on this question after the statement of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) that this was not so much a question of law as a matter of common sense. He wits afraid to say anything, as the hon. Member said the matter did not admit of argument, and had pronounced upon it in the spirit of "Rome has spoken, and the cause is finished." Infallibility had at length spread to England, and was, seemingly, concentrated in the hon. Member. He (Mr. Warton), however, claimed to possess an opinion of his own on the matter, and it was that the question really did, to some extent, admit of argument. There was one reflection which he should like to submit to the hon. Member for Burnley and the Committee, and it was this—that if any representative or executor should be so foolish as to put down a wrong statement of debts, he would be running a very great risk for a very small gain. No one would run such a risk for the sake of saving 1 per cent, or, perhaps, ½ per cent on £100, £200, or £300. This consideration, perhaps, had not struck the hon. Member for Burnley; but now that he was aware of it, perhaps he would tell the Committee, presently,

  1359
  whether it made any impression on him. The hon. Member seemed to think that the amount the State might be defrauded of was a small matter. He (Mr. Warton) complained of the waste of time on the part of the occupants of the Front Ministerial Bench. First, they made a pretty little speech refusing to accept the Amendment, but saying nothing on the legal question; and then, when repeated protests were made as to the absence of an opinion from the Government, they got up in order to say that they did not think hon. Members meant what they said. He was glad to hear that what he was saying with regard to waste of time met with the approval of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds); and he hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would not again be led into a useless wrangle. Let the Committee bear in mind that a person would run a very great risk by putting down a fictitious debt for the purpose of saving a mere trifle.
  MR. GREGORYfelt that he had not received that support which would entitle him to press the Amendment to a division. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), he would point out that the affidavit would be mere primâ facie evidence, and that they ought to require vouchers to be prepared for any subsequent action.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 30 (As to forms of affidavit).
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he had a question to propose on this clause, which he had intended to bring up on Report; but perhaps the Government would tell him whether he ought to proceed with it now. The Inland Revenue Commissioners were to sell stamps, and he complained that the Government were changing the method of disposing of stamps without making the necessary compensation in the case.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that, according to the proposal, postage stamps and receipt stamps could be used alternatively.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, it included other forms of stamps. He was informed that it was a question affecting the distributors of stamps, and he was not certain how the matter stood.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The only change is in another clause.
  Clause agreed to.
  1360
  Clause 31 (Probate or letters of administration to bear a certificate in lieu of stamp duty).
  Amendment moved, in page 13, line 34, after "Probate," insert "and;" and after "Matrimonial," leave out "and Admiralty."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. WARTON: I should like to know what this Amendment means?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: It is only a verbal alteration.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved, in page 13, line 37, leave out "setting forth," and insert "showing."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved, in page 13, line 38, after "delivered," insert "and that such affidavit, if liable to stamp duty, was."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Provision for return of duty overpaid).
  MR. DODDSsaid, he had several Amendments to this clause; but it would save time if he mentioned them all at once, and not separately as they arose. The clause, as it was drawn, seemed to him scarcely so liberal as it ought to be; therefore, he had given Notice of these Amendments, which touched the point the Committee had been discussing—namely, the amount to be deducted from the deceased's estate on account of debts. His first Amendments were to leave out certain words in order to insert others of a much more comprehensive character.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 14, line 4, after "deceased," insert "at the time when the grant was made, or if at any time within three years after the grant, or within such further period as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may allow, it shall appear that no amount or an insufficient amount was deducted on account of debts and funeral expenses."—(Mr. Dodds.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. DODDSsaid, ho had understood that the preceding and the following Amendments would be accepted by the Prime Minister. The adoption of the last Amendment had rendered unnecessary one standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr.

  1361
  Gregory), which was to insert after "deceased," the words "it shall be shown that a sufficient amount has not been deducted or allowed for the debts of the deceased."
  Amendment moved, in page 14, line 9, after "value," insert "or, as the case may be, the amount or corrected amount of deduction."—(Mr. Dodds.)
  MR. GREGORY: As the hon. Member has said, I have an Amendment down before this; but I do not propose to move it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 14, line 13, after "deceased," leave out to "certificate," inclusive, in line 14, and insert "were at the time of the grant of probate or letters of administration of greater value than the value mentioned in the certificate, or that any deduction for debts or funeral expenses was made erroneously."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 33 (Provision for payment of further duty).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 14, line 17, after "stamped," leave out to "excess," in line 19, inclusive, and add "for the amount which, with the duty (if any) previously paid on an affidavit in respect of such estate and effects, shall be sufficient to cover the duty chargeable according to the true value thereof, and shall at the same time pay to the said Commissioners interest upon such amount."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. DODDSsaid, the next two Amendments, which stood in his name, were covered by the alterations already made in the Bill, therefore he would not move them. The next was in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 14, line 20, after "grant," insert "or from such subsequent date as the Commissioners may, in the circumstances, think proper."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved, in page 14, line 25, after "ascertained," insert "or, as the case may be, the corrected amount of deduction."—(Mr. Dodds.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  1362
  Clause 34 (Provisions as to obtaining probate, &c., where gross value of estate does not exceed three hundred pounds).
  Amendment moved, in page 14, line 28, leave out "deceased."—(Mr Dodds.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 14, line 28, after "person," insert "(inclusive of property by law made such personal estate and effects for the purpose of the charge of duty, and any personal estate and effects situate out of the United. Kingdom)."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 14, line 28, after "person," insert "dying on or after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."—(Mr. Dodds.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved, in page 14, line 31, after "deliver," insert "to the proper officer of the court or."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved, in page 15, line 3, after "probate," insert "and."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved, in page 15, line 3, after "matrimonial," leave out "and Admiralty."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved, in page 15, line 7, after "of," leave out "the notice by the officer," and insert "notices by officers of Inland Revenue."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved, in page 15, line 11, leave out "the officer is," and insert "officers of Inland Revenue are."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved, in page 15, line 13, after "president," insert "or judge."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is in the name of Mr. Patrick Martin, and is as follows:—
  "Clause 34, page15, line 18, add.—"Provided however, That in every case where district regis

  1363
  trars are now paid in Ireland by fees, and it shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury that such registrars may be damaged under the provisions of this section, then the commissioners shall direct that each such registrar respectively shall be paid a fixed salary equal to the net annual amount of profits derived by them from such, fees, on an average, of five years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act, or sums of money, at the option of the Commissioners, equal to the damage sustained by each such registrar.'"
  This Amendment cannot be put, as it proposes to increase the taxation of the people, and that increase can only be proposed by a Minister of the Crown, and not by a private Member.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 35 (Provision as to inventories where gross value of estate does not exceed three hundred pounds).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 15, line 19, leave out from beginning of clause to "seventy," in line 24, inclusive, and insert "'The Intestates, Widows, and children (Scotland) Act, 1875,' and 'The Small Testate Estates (Scotland) Act, 1876,' as amended, by 'The Sheriffs' Court (Scotland) Act, 1376.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved, in page 15, line 25, leave out "deceased."—(Mr. Dodds.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 15, line 25, after "person," insert "dying on or after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."—(Mr. Dodds.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 15, line 27, after "pounds," insert "whoever may be the applicant for representation, and wheresoever the deceased may have been domiciled at the time of death."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 36 (Effect of false statement of value as under three hundred pounds).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 15, line 34, after "obtained," leave eat to "value," in line 37, inclusive, and insert "in Conformity with either or the two preceding sections."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  1364
  Clause 37 (Relief from legacy duty in cases under three hundred pounds) agree to.
  Clause 38 (Power to Commissioners to require explanations and proof in support of affidavit or inventory).
  MR. GREGORYdid not by any means object to this clause; on the contrary, not only did he think the Commissioners would have power to alter an account, but he thought they should be required to do so where necessary; but what ho did object to was the want of limitation as to time. As the clause stood, it was totally indefinite in that respect, and an executor or administrator might be liable for all time to be called on for a further account. If a man was liable to be called on at any time, practically, he could never hand over the residue to the legatees. He thought, therefore, that some period should be fixed during which the Commissioners had power to call upon an executor for an account, and, to his mind, the period should be one year after the death of the deceased. By that time the Commissioners ought to have made up their minds as to the accounts of the deceased; consequently, it seemed to him that his proposal was a reasonable one.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move the Amendment on the Paper?
  MR. GREGORYreplied in the affirmative.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 16, line 11, leave our "and from time to time," and insert "within one year after the death of the deceased."—(Mr. Gregory.)
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHhoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. In the opinion of the Revenue authorities the clause was necessary for the proper protection of the Revenue. Its absence might lead to fraud.
  MR. WARTONtrusted his hon. Friend would press the Amendment. It was absurd for the noble Lord to talk of fraud; but perhaps it would be well if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) would consent to give a little more time—say two years—in which the executor would be required to act.
  MR. WHITLEYthought it would be better to allow two years. Some time ago he was executor, and paid the duties

  1365
  according to the demands of the Inland Revenue Office. Two years after that he wound up the estate; but then a new clerk had been appointed in the Office, and he said the authorities were of opinion that other duties were to be paid. An executor was placed in a very difficult position when, after he had paid what were understood to be sufficient duties, he was called upon to pay additional duties. Two years would be enough time to allow, and during that period he ought to be able to answer all questions.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, at any rate, it seemed clear that it would not be proper to accept the Amendment as it now stood. If the hon. Gentleman would accept the words" within three years from the date of probate" he would consent to the Amendment.
  MR. DODDSsuggested that the Amendment should take the following form:—"Within three years after the grant of probate or the letters of administration."
  Mr. GREGORY AND LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH Signified their assent
  Amendment amended, and agreed top
  clause 39 (Grant of duties on accounts of certain property)
  MR. GREGORYmoved, in page 16, line 26, after "made," leave out "by any person so dying," and insert "after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one." The object of the clause was to extend the payment of Probate Duty to voluntary settlements. He did not object to such extension hereafter, but did not believe duty ought to be levied upon settlements made heretofore. The effect of his Amendment would be that the settlement must be made after the 1st of June, 1881; upon any made prior to that date no duty could be charged.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 16, line 26, after "made," leave out "by any person so dying," and insert "after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."—(Mr. Gregory.)
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, if the hon. Member would read the clause he would see it only applied
  1366
  in cases of those settlements made within three months of the death of the deceased. It would, therefore, apply in an infinitesimal number of cases, and, except as a matter of principle, the change was of no great importance.
  MR. LEWISremarked, that the noble Lord had answered the well-founded objection of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) by saying it was limited by the three months' clause at the foot. He had not been able to look critically into the matter; but if it was so insignificant why did not the noble Lord give way? The Committee could not be too careful, especially in matters connected with property, in objecting to retrospective alterations. It might be in this case, as the noble Lord observed, that the clause only applied to those settlements made within three months of the death of the deceased; but the Committee must remember that in every one of these cases they were establishing precedents which, on subsequent occasions, would be cited. As to the question of voluntary settlements, the Legislature had advisedly abstained for years past from inflicting upon a person a penalty for dealing definitely with his property. It had distinctly refused to charge the same Stamp Duty upon these settlements as it did upon property left by will. Why should not the man have the benefit? The noble Lord said he intended to alter the system; but he would only do so to an infinitesimal extent. The Committee were entitled to say—"Don't inflict new burdens on the people retrospectively, and don't alter a burden which is properly payable on a particular transaction, even three months after it occurred, by increasing the duty which the Legislature has settled upon it." It seemed to him his hon. Friend was not only right in principle, but from a common sense point of view.
  MR. WARTONsaid, this was only another instance of the injustice of the policy of the present Government. He hoped the noble Lord would respect the rights of property, and agree to the Amendment. If not, the Committee ought to go to a division.
  MR. WHITLEYasked if it was worth while to complicate the clause for the purpose of catching people just three months before their death. As he understood the noble Lord, all settlements

  1367
  were good except those made three months before death? In his opinion, it would be wise if the clause were made to read "all settlements made before the passing of the Act."
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHmoved, in page 16, line 11, after "interest," insert "in such property."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 40 (Delivery of accounts on oath) agreed to.
  Clause 41 (Double duty payable, in case of default) agreed to.
  Clause 42 (Cesser of legacy and succession duties at the rate of one per cent. in certain cases) agreed to.
  Clause 43 (Charge of legacy duty on legacies not amounting to twenty pounds).
  MR. DODDSmoved, in page 18, line 3, after "of residue," to insert"—
  "Under the will or the intestacy of a person dying on or utter the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 44 (Power to Commissioners to accept composition for legacy duty under a will).
  MR. DODDS, with the view of giving more elasticity to the clause, moved in page 18, line 12, after "names," to insert "or description of class."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Miscellaneous.
  Clause 45 (Reduction of stamp duty on silver plate).
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHmoved the omission of the clause.
  Clause omitted.
  Clause 46 (Amendments of the Stamp Act, 1870) agreed to.
  Clause 47 (Stamp duty on transfers of county stock) agreed to.
  Clause 48 (Stamp duty on stock certificates to bearer) agreed to.
  1368
  Clause 49 (Stamp duties of one penny may be denoted by postage stamps, and vice versa).
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he understood that under the new regulations the Post Office would appoint the distributors of stamps; and, therefore, those people who had hitherto distributed stamps would lose a considerable amount yearly. lie wished to know if the Government would take the case of these people into consideration. The justice of the case might be met by a small compensation. The Government were making a change which, on the whole, would be beneficial; but in carrying it out no one interest ought to be prejudiced.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the vested interests in the sale of stamps appeared very small. The House had always felt it to be its duty Li make an alteration in respect to stamps without having to compensate the sellers of stamps. The reform now proposed was much needed, and he could not recognize any vested interests.
  MR. LEWISasked if it was possible to make any arrangement as to the destiny of the revenue from stamps when issued? He did not see how the difficulty was to be got over; but it appeared to be a complication which was most unfortunate. He would not say it was not outweighed by the public convenience; but there seemed this disadvantage—that whereas hitherto they hail been able to keep the revenue from stamps perfectly clear, they would not be able to do so under the altered arrangements. They were now about to confuse the items of revenue without the means of dissecting them. They all knew the revenue of the Post Office came in a very large sum—one gross item—on the one side of the balance sheet, and that the expenditure on the other side went out as an annual charge on the country. It ought not to be forgotten that they were mixing up two branches of the revenue which hitherto had been distinct.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that on careful consideration it had been found the advantage to the public would outweigh the statistical disadvantage. The Inland Revenue and the Post Office were considering the best means of obtaining a satisfactory statistical arrangement.
  MR. LEWISinquired which portion of the revenue would be credited with the amount derived from stamps? Would the Post Office get one portion, and the Inland Revenue the other, or would the Post Office the whole or the Inland Revenue the whole?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, at present they knew the proportion of the two classes of stamps; and it would be perfectly easy hereafter, by Rule of Three, to arrive at a just apportionment of the revenue.
  MR. DODDSsaid, he had intended to move an Amendment with the object of rendering valid the bonâ fide use of receipt stamps as postage stamps, and vice versâ, before the passing of this Act. He did not know whether an alteration of that kind could be made; if it could on Report he should be very glad.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it was proposed to have a uniform stamp for both purposes.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 50 (Repeal of enactments in Schedule) agreed to.
  MR. GLADSTONEmoved, in page 9, after Clause 23, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Particulars to be stated in collectors' receipts.)
  "Where any collector of the duties on inhabited houses and of income tax under Schedules A and B has not, in a demand note delivered previous to payment, distinctly described the property assessed, and specified the amount of the assessment, and the rate at which the duties are charged, the description of the property, the amount of the assessment, and the rate of charge shall be specified in the receipt."
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 135.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE. [FIRST NIGHT.]
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. R. POWERrose to move—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert such Clauses as may check the evils
  1370
  arising from absenteeism, and to impose upon absentees such conditions and restrictions with respect to their estates as the Committee may direct."
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he was bound to inform the hon. Member that the Instruction would not be regular or permissible, because it proposed to authorize the Committee to do that which it already had the power to do.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, there was no reference to the subject in the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was, nevertheless, competent to the Committee to insert Amendments in the sense indicated. The same objection would apply to the proposed Instruction of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) to take the fifth part of the Bill first. The Committee would have such authority; and, therefore, the Instruction could not be put.
  MAJOR NOLAN, if not out of Order, proposed to move an Instruction to the Committee to do that which it would certainly not be within the competence of the Committee to do without authority from the House. It was to the following effect:—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to snake provision that sums may be advanced to Irish tenants for the purchase of their holdings from such funds as Parliament may direct, and without further restriction as to amount than the Committee may direct; and also that the Committee may direct that money may be advanced to poor law unions, town commissioners, or other public bodies to provide land for labourers to such an amount and with such restrictions as Parliament may direct."
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the proposed Instruction was inadmissible on different grounds to those which applied to the Notices of the hon. Members for Waterford and Bridport. It was inadmissible because it involved a charge, and according to the Standing Order such a proposition could only be introduced in Committee of the Whole House, and upon the recommendation of a Minister of the Crown.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTrose to move to leave out all the words after "That," in order to insert the words—
  "No Bill can be a satisfactory solution of the question unless it includes provisions enabling the court to hear all claims by landowners for compensation for losses proved to have been sustained under the provisions of the Bill, and, on sufficient proof thereof, to award reasonable compensation."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORrose to a point of Order. He submitted that the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was to impose a charge, and could not, therefore, come from a private Member.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Resolution was in terms of so general a character that it did not, in his opinion, fall within the Order referred to. He had considered the point carefully, and the Resolution appeared to him to be in such general terms that it was competent to the hon. and gallant Baronet to move it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether it would be in Order to move an Amend- meat to the Resolution, provided it was in equally general terms?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it would be impossible for the hon. Gentleman to do that till the House disposed of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet. Should the House think proper to affirm the Resolution it would then become the Main Question, and the hon. Member would be at liberty to propose an Amendment before it passed.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that he was well aware of the difficulty of his position in making this Motion on the Question that the Speaker leave the Chair. If he believed that remedial measures of this kind, hastily passed, could produce pacification and friendship in Ireland, he would be the last man to say a word about the Bill at this stage. What was the condition of Ireland at this moment? Did the reception of the Bill justify any expectation that it would alter the attitude of the agitators in Ireland? Had agrarian outrages ceased? No. On the contrary, they had rather increased. The state of Ireland, in fact was such that he thought he was quite justified in interposing at that stage of their proceedings to make a few suggestions which might be the means of helping the Government forward in the course which they wished to follow. He knew it might be said that he was only endeavouring to obstruct the Bill; but he was perfectly ready to take the responsibility, because those who know him knew perfectly well that he would not get up to obstruct any Bill unless he thought there was some very good reason for making some remarks upon it. He appealed to the Attorney General for Ireland to tell the House, whether, in his Parliamentary experience, a measure of such grave importance had ever been
  1372
  treated upon its second reading as this Bill had been. Notwithstanding the very able speeches that had been made, and notably by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), no one, not even the Prime Minister, and certainly not the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India, who closed the debate, had stated what the real principles of the Bill were. They did not oven now know what the principles of the Bill were, or how much was contained within its four corners. While, at one time, they were told that unlimited free sale was to be given to every present tenant holder of land, they were told, at another time, by occupants of the Treasury Bench, that the principle of free sale was to be regulated and controlled. No one had described what "fair rents" were, or informed the House what was proposed to be taken out of the pockets of the landlords, or how those who had obtained a Parliamentary title under the Act of 1848 wore to be dealt with. Then he should like to know what was fixity of tenure, as contained in the Bill. They land to look all over the Bill in order to find what its principles were; and if Clauses 1, 3, 4, 7, and 13, were looked at together, it would be seen that a landlord who should once part with his land in favour of a tenant would practically be debarred by the penalties to which the Bill would subject him from ever regaining possession of his property. The Bill, therefore, provided perpetuity of tenure; and if they found within the four corners of the Bill free sale, fair rent, and fixity of tenure, he had a right to ask the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor what was the value of the statements they so solemnly made, and which both houses so implicitly believed, when the Land Bill of 1870 was under discussion? The First Lord of the Treasury said, at that time, that the Legislature had, no doubt, a perfect right to reduce the landlord to the position of a pensioner or rent-charger, giving hint proper pecuniary compensation for his loss; but that it was bound not to do that unless it was shown that the change was for the public good. The right hon. Gentleman continued—
  "Is it for the public good that the landlords of Ireland, in a body, should be reduced by an Act of Parliament to the condition practically of

  1373
  fundholders, entitled to apply on a certain day, from year to year, for a certain sum of money, but entitled to nothing more? Are you prepared to denude them of their interest in the land; and, what is more, are you prepared to absolve them from their duties with regard to the land? I, for one, confess that I am not; nor is that the sentiment of my Colleagues. We think, on the contrary, that we ought to look forward with hope and expectation to bringing about a state of things in which the landlords of Ireland may assume, or may more generally assume, the position which is happily held, as a class, by landlords in this country—a position marked by residence, by personal familiarity, and by sympathy with the people among whom they live."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 351.]
  The Lord Chancellor said that fixity of tenure meant the taking away the property of one man and giving it to another, and declared that when they deprived landlords of their property compensation must be given. The tendency of this measure would be to turn the landlords out of Ireland, which was the last thing that they ought to do; because their great object ought to be to induce the landlords to live in the country, and to work in harmony with their tenants—in such harmony as existed on the estates of the late Lord Bessborough. It could be clearly shown that, in many cases, the landlords would he severely and hardly treated under the provisions of this Bill. He knew there were landlords who acted most harshly and unjustly; but to condemn all on that account was indefensible. Those landlords who lead done what they considered to be their duty to their tenants; who had fixed their rents at a moderate sum; who had done half the improvements, and who had reduced rents when the tenants had made efforts to carry out improvements, would be greater sufferers under the Bill than those who had exacted rack rents; because tenants would give a far larger sum in open market for holdings where the rent was low, and the laud was held under a fair, just, and good landlord. Then they came to the case of the landlord who did all the improvements. He should like to know by what right in the world, when a man had done all the improvements, and treated the estate fairly and justly, and done everything he could to make his tenants comfortable, free sale was to be given on an estate like that? He might be told that was guarded against under the 8th sub-section of the 7th clause, or under the 7th sub-section of the 1st clause.
  1374
  In his humble opinion it was not. He should therefore like to know what was to be done in a case like that? He believed that properties like that ought to be excluded entirely from the Bill. Tie believed they should then have a definite notion how men who had done the best they could for their estates were to be dealt with. Turning to the landlord who had purchased up the tenant right, which was a totally different case, he should like to know how that landlord was to be treated? The hon. and gallant Member having rend to the House extracts from The Pall Mall Gazette tending to show the great hardship that would result to the landlord by this proposal to grant free Sale, proceeded to remark that he was glad to see the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had an Amendment on the Paper in the direction of the landlord going into Court. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would ask what could be more unfair than that, whilst any tenant could any moment drag the landlord into Court, the landlord was to be excluded from going into Court at all? He ventured to think that some definite answer ought to be given to that proposal before going into Committee on the Bill. It had been said that the worst feelings existed between landlords and tenants; but he would venture to say there was lying dormant at the bottom of the mind of the Irish tenant a feeling of respect and regard for the landlord, in many instances, which not even all the tyranny of the Land League, or any other tyranny could break through. In illustration of this the hon. and gallant Member read to the House a Memorial which had been submitted to the owner of a very large estate by his tenants in the year 1879, in which, after acknowledging his past kindness and consideration, they asked for some reduction of rent. The prayer of the Memorialists, it was hardly necessary to add, was granted. He contended that there were in Ireland a large number of landlords who would be pressed to act in a similar manner if the occasion arose. In the present instance, the landlord had made reductions at a time of great depression; but at a time when he believed three parts of Ireland were in a better position to pay their rents than England or Scotland. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members might say "No,

  1375
  no;" but he would ask them to look at the fact that last year 1,800,000 head of cattle of all sorts came from Ireland to England, while not more than 1,200,000 came from all the rest of the world to this country. A great deal of power for good or evil rested in the hands of hon. Members below the Gangway, and he was sorry to say that hitherto they had used it only for evil. He ventured to ask them whether, by a different course of conduct, they might not promote in an important degree the returning prosperity of their country. When it was said that the tenant had done everything to improve the land, he might call attention to a letter from Mr. Kavanagh, who showed that 6,700,000 acres were held by a certain number of owners who had done all the improvements; the number was a little more than 11 per cent. The tenants who had done all the improvements were about 26 per cent, while 63 per cent of landlords and tenants had equally divided the cost of improvements between them, which showed conclusively that in many parts of Ireland a fair—he might even say a large—proportion of the improvements had been made by the landlords. [Mr. PARNELL: Over what period?] He did not think the period was stated in the letter. [A laugh.] It was all very well for hon. Members to laugh; but they could not say that Mr. Kavanagh was a man who was likely to put forward misleading figures, or against whom, as a landlord, any reasonable complaint could be made. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was not defending all the landlords of Ireland; but what he wanted was a fair, reasonable, and just settlement established between the two classes. He appealed to the hon. Member for Cork, for he had stated it not once, but over and over again, that if they wished to get the estates of the landlords a fair price ought to be paid for them. [Mr. PARNELL: Hear, hear!] That was all he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was asking for. If the landlords who had done their duty were placed under the statutory conditions of this Bill, they ought, in fairness and justice, if it was wished that they should be relieved from their properties and become mere rent-chargers upon them, be enabled to go into Court and offer their estates at a fair and reasonable price. When he looked at the Bill, and saw the condition
  1376
  of the Notice Paper, he would venture to ask the Attorney General and Solicitor General for Ireland whether, in their experience, a Bill which now was met by 80 pages of Amendments, with the probability of 20 or 30 more being added, could be accepted with confidence, seeing that its provisions were so much misunderstood? What did all those Amendments, many of which came from the Ministerial side of the House, show? It meant that the Bill was one which ought never to have been introduced in its present shape. He was not going to say anything against the draftsman of the Bill. The draftsman might have been blamed from the Front Ministerial Bench; but they knew from whom the draftsman received his instructions. This was a drastic measure which took all one's time to master, and when one thought he had mastered it he found he could not understand it at all. That portion of the Bill which dealt with the condition of the landlord and tenant had received great prominence; but the subject had been so mystified that he defied even the clearest-headed man to know where he stood after reading those provisions. The Notice which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had put upon the Paper showed his bent and inclination. He only asked for definite information. He was quite sure if any of those who sat on the Front Ministerial Bench would clearly state what the Bill really and positively did contain, they would do more towards passing the measure than anything which they had yet heard. He ventured, therefore, to hope he would receive some answers to the questions which he propounded for the consideration of the Government.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)could certainly not complain of the tone of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member, whom he acquitted of ally desire to obstruct the Bill. The Lon. and gallant Member's remarks were perfectly fair from his point of view. He had not, however, been able to gather very clearly from the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on what ground he asked that the Court should be empowered to award compensation to landlords. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) had expected to hear somewhat more of the way in which it was proposed to entitle the

  1377
  landlords, as a class, to require compensation for the rights of which they were said to be deprived. Most of the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman were simply repetitions of the arguments which were urged against certain clauses and parts of clauses in the debate on the second reading of the Bill, and which more properly belonged to a discussion in Committee. The principles of the Bill were, he submitted, abundantly clear. The Prime Minister had shown them to be simply fair rents, a certain amount of fixity of tenure, and free sale, subject to certain qualifications for the protection of the landlords' interests; but from the commencement to the end of his able speech the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not touch on, much less controvert, any one of those principles. The same might, indeed, be said as regarded other speeches which had been made by hon. Gentleman opposite, even including that of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), which was, after all, only an able and acute criticism of some of the details of the Bill. Now, ho would like to know upon what ground the landlords claimed to be entitled to compensation. Was it because of the clause in the Bill which was to effect a fair adjustment of rents? Was any Irish landlord prepared to come forward and say that he was aggrieved and injured because he was not allowed to enforce more than a fair rent? In 1870 no claim to compensation was preferred because, for the first time, the tenant was secured a property in his own improvements. No landlord then complained that he was thus deprived of the right to take every building, for example, that had been erected on the land—that he was prevented from any longer appropriating the tenant's improvements without paying for them. Was it, then, because of the qualified fixity of tenure established by the Bill? If a fair rent was rightly left to be fixed by a Court, some degree of fixity of tenure was inevitable; for without this it would be absurd to attempt to fix a fair rent. He must, however, remind the House that the fixity of tenure proposed in the Bill was by no means equivalent to perpetuity of tenure in the sense those words were used by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government in 1870. It was not at all a
  1378
  necessary consequence of the Bill that all the tenants in Ireland would go into Court and, getting their rents fixed, obtain a statutory term of 15 years. If tenants were well treated and paid only reasonable rents they would do wisely to keep out of Court. Thus one very large class of tenants would be excluded. Another class to a large extent excluded would be future tenants. In fact, all that would probably happen would be that a certain number of rack-rented tenants would get their rents reduced and have a limited fixity of tenure. If, after that, the tenant wished to sell, the landlord had the power of pre-emption, and under the 4th clause he had the power of resumption whenever he could show that the benefit of the estate required that he should do so. Therefore, to call this perpetuity of tenure in the sense of practically transfering the fee simple of the land from the landlord to the tenant was a mere abuse of language. It was said, however, that the Bill, at all events, would substantially convert the landlord into a rent-charger, and would therefore tend to drive the landlords out of Ireland. One fact was worth a dozen theories of this kind. In Ulster, where this system existed to the fullest extent—where it had existed for centuries—and especially in those parts of Ulster in which it was unfettered and unrestrained, there were more resident landlords than in any other part of Ireland, and they had just as much notion of quitting Ulster as the hon. and gallant Gentleman had of quitting England. They had better tenants, and they had far happier relations with their tenants, than were found in other parts of Ireland where such a system did not prevail.
  MR. PARNELL: Yet the ejectments in Ulster are more numerous than elsewhere.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): If a man in Ulster could not pay his way he disappeared, and instead of an insolvent the landlord obtained a solvent tenant. The tenant simply went out because he could not meet his engagements. That was how the Ulster landlords and tenants managed their affairs. The hon. and gallant Member, in a dim, shadowy way, made a claim for compensation to the landlord on the ground that his rights could or might he in some undefined re-

  1379
  spects infringed upon, and proposed that the ascertainment of this should be devolved on the Court. But was the Court to determine the question of compensation to be paid out of public money? He should entirely object to the Court having the matter of compensation submitted to it. If landlords as a class, or any class of landlords, claimed to be entitled to compensation, the question must be decided by that House. The Government, however, did not admit that there would be any loss to the landlord except the loss of a power which he ought not to exercise; and he must protest against the idea that landlords, any more than other people, could be regarded as having a vested interest in a right to commit injustice. The cardinal and central principle of the Bill was one which was admitted by statesmen on all sides—that they must have a tribunal to determine what were fair rents as between landlords and their occupying tenants. The farm and all its equipments in England belonged to one man, and therefore ho could charge what he liked. The farm with its equipments in Ireland belonged to two men—the landlord and the occupying tenant—and to allow the landlord, under the terror of eviction, to enforce from the occupying tenant as much rent as he could, under such pressure, be induced to promise to pay, was a thing which that House would not sanction, and which every Commission had protested against. In Ireland, part of the farm as it stood belonged to the tenant, and for that part, whatever it was, he could not honestly be charged with rent. [Mr. TOTTENIIAM: In Ulster or out of Ulster?] In Ulster or out of Ulster, just the same. No good landlord in Ireland ever dreamt of acting in any other way. Unfortunately, in cases of this kind the class feeling was very strong, and the best landlords, many of whom were in that House, made common cause with the worst because they thought that a common danger threatened their entire order. He knew very well that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Tottenham) did not act upon the principle of the proverb which he had hastily quoted on a former occasion. He knew very well that the hon. Gentleman was perfectly willing to treat, and did treat, his own tenants fairly; but there was the question of what those might do
  1380
  who should come after him. Hon. Gentle-opposite were doubtless willing to treat their tenants with all possible fairness; but it seemed as if, in their opinion, this must be the outcome of their own free grace, and not be claimable as a right by the tenants, who must be satisfied to get as much as the landlord was pleased to give, trusting simply to his sense of honour. He (the Attorney General for Ireland), however, would remind them that during the debates upon the Agricultural Holdings Act which was passed for England, the true principle was laid down by the late Lord Beaconsfield, who said that the rights of tenants must depend, not on honour, but on justice. Now, apply that principle to the present case. It was clear there must be a tribunal to determine what was a fair and just rent; and there could be no right to compensation for enforcing what was just and fair. Again, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) submitted there could be no right to compensation for enabling the tenant to sell his interest, for they carefully guarded the landlord's right. Allow the tenant to sell what belonged to himself. There was here no transfer of property from one class to the other. The harsh and unjust landlord could not claim compensation because his harshness and injustice would be checked; and as to the other class of landlords referred to—the good landlords, who, it was said, did half the improvements and charged a moderate rent-their case was fully provided for in the Bill. The landlord would be entitled to come to the Court, and in dealing with the purchase money, the value of the improvements made by him and not charged for was to be considered; so that if the landlord, under such circumstances, had made the whole of the improvements, then he would get the value of the whole. As to the arguments which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had founded on the letter of Mr. Kavanagh or on that of the correspondent of The Pall Mall Gazette, why, the sale of the tenancies by the tenants in the cases mentioned was no such alarming matter, though the amount might be equal to many years' rent. Had those gentlemen stated what amount of building or other improvements had been done by the tenant? No; all that was omitted, and yet everything depended on it. It was idle to

  1381
  argue from a special case without knowing the facts. Suppose the tenant had added valuable buildings or turned wild mountain into arable land, was he not to got the full value of those improvements because that value amounted to 30 or even 40 times the rent of the land in its improved or natural state? So, also, as to the case in Kerry, where the holding at £35 a-year rent sold for £800, what did they know about the value of the improvements? Every Commission, from the Devon Commission in 1845 down to the Bessborough and the Richmond Commissions in 1881—all stated that as a general rule the buildings, improvements, and equipments of a farm were the work, and therefore the property, of the tenant. These high figures, then, did not necessarily mean extravagant prices. Could the hon. Member explain why all the Ulster Conservative landlords acknowledged that the system did them no harm, but, on the contrary, did them good? They knew that the tenant right, with its clement of free sale, meant greater exertion on the part of the tenant, bettor cultivation, and more and more improvements, and therefore increased security for the rent. If the tenant fell into arrears, the landlord was thus secured against all risk of loss. With regard to the number of Amendments on the Paper, and the allegation that this of itself showed the Bill to be badly drawn, it must be remembered that the Government had to deal with a large and complex question, and had to regulate the rights of landlord and tenant, so that if possible the one should be secured against the encroachment of the other. In conclusion, he must repeat that, for his part, he could see nothing in the Bill that interfered with the just rights of the landlord, though he saw in it a great deal which preserved the just rights of the tenants, by preventing unjust conduct on the part of landlords; but, as he had already said, he submitted that no landlord had a vested interest in injustice, or any title to be compensated for not being allowed to practise it. The Government, therefore, could not accept the Motion which had been proposed by the hon. and gallant Member opposite.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that the language of the Bill was extremely obscure. He believed that it was intentionally and purposely obscure. No man knew better
  1382
  than the Attorney General for Ireland that it was not because the draftsman was deficient in skill, nor because he and his Colleagues were incapable of showing the Government how to make the Bill clear, that it was obscure. It was not a Bill, but a treaty. It came before the House in the shape of a Bill; but it was a treaty which satisfied the conflicting views of at least two parties in the Cabinet, and it was difficult to say how many parties out-of-doors. If the language of the Bill was such that it was not easy to be understood outside that House, it was because it had been carefully framed to mean one thing to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham and another to the Secretary of State for India—one meaning for the Constitutional Whigs behind the Treasury Bench, and another for the Irish Members—and everybody must have remarked the oscillation in the Attorney General's speech between the Scylla of one and the Charybdis of the other. If the Government would allow him to give them a piece of advice, it would be that before the Speaker left the Chair, and before they began the discussion of the clauses of the Bill, the Government should make up their minds what it was they really meant to enact; for there was an irreconcilable difference of opinion between the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. They should throw one or the other overboard, and go into Committee with the distinct understanding in their own minds what the measure was they intended to try and carry through the House. It did not require much Parliamentary experience or political foresight to predict that if they did go into Committee without making up their minds, they would find themselves unable to carry some particular clauses without creating such a split in their own Party as might possibly prove fatal to them.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, it seemed to him that Gentlemen opposite would best consult their own interests if they were to put aside all Party feeling and prejudices and lend their practical knowledge to the Committee in the consideration of the clauses of the Bill. The noble Lord who was to have fathered the Resolution adopted to express the deliberate convictions of the Conservative Party on the Irish Land Bill asked a very perti-

  1383
  nent question. It was—" What is the difficulty which we have to meet?" He thought he could answer that question; and, further, he thought he could show from facts and experience how that difficulty had arisen. The difficulty which they had to meet, and which must be met before Ireland could become contented and prosperous, a source of strength instead of weakness to the Empire, was that the bulk of the Irish people were not on the side of the law; that they did not regard it as their protector, their friend, and their ally; and they could not so regard it as long as the law did not protect the property of so large a portion of the Irish nation, and left that property to be protected only by custom and good feeling. The great misfortune in the case of Ireland was that the law in the past had been in so many ways unjust, especially in relation to the tenure of land, that the bulk of the people had acquired a conviction, which, unfortunately, was not unnatural, that the law was their enemy, and not their friend and protector. In the matter of land, the injustice of the law had been admitted even by authorities such as the Duke of Richmond, the Duke of Buccleuch, and other persons, whose position and circumstances certainly would not expose them to the suspicion of being affected with Communistic ideas. What did the Duke of Richmond's Report say—
  "Bearing in mind a system by which the improvements and equipments of a farm are very generally the work of the tenant, and the fact that the yearly tenant is at any time liable to have his rent raised, in consequence of the increased value given to his holding by the expenditure of his own labour and capital, the desire for legislative interference to protect him from an arbitrary increase of rent does not seem unnatural, and we are inclined to think that by the majority of landowners legislation to accomplish this end would not be objected to."
  He did not know that they could find anywhere more clearly expressed than in this extract the radical injustice of the Land Laws in Ireland, which injustice consisted in not recognizing the property which the tenant had acquired in his holding by furnishing the labour and capital, which had greatly added to the permanent value of the land. One mischievous consequence of this state of things was that it had stimulated the demand for the separation of the two
  1384
  countries, because the Irish contended that if they had made their own laws such an injustice as this could not have remained unremedied. They had, therefore, a deep interest in settling this question, not only in order to cement upon a firm and peaceable basis the union of the two countries, but also because they might depend upon it that in these days, when throughout Europe Communistic ideas were in the air, it was not the interests of holders of any kind of property to allow the law to remain in such a state that large masses of the population were induced to question and cavil at the fundamental basis on which the rights of property rested. The difficulty being probably admitted, could it be removed? They had the actual facts of experience to show that it could. In alluding to these facts, he must correct a statement that was made with respect to the action of the landlord of the Portsmouth estate, and the effect of the custom which was introduced by the late Lord Portsmouth some 60 years ago. They had there exactly the results they wanted to produce by this Land Bill; they wanted to have landlords receiving fair rents punctually from prosperous tenants, and farms which, without cruel evictions, should yet be of a size large enough to maintain a family in prosperity and comfort. At the last annual settlement lie had Lord Portsmouth's authority for stating that he had only £500 of arrears out of a rental of £13,000 a-year; so the landlord was satisfied, and he could go to any of the farms on his property and be certain of a cordial welcome, while the fact that the tenants could and did pay the rents after the bad times they had passed through was in itself a proof that they were prosperous and contented. He believed, moreover, it was the one part of Ireland where the visits of the Land. League had not been successful. But perhaps the most valuable experience of all which this property furnished was the effect of free sale in doing away with tenancies too small to be profitably worked. The tenants, by the effect of free sale, when they found that they could not properly cultivate farms under 20 acres, sold out before they were ruined, and had taken their capital and their labour elsewhere; and he was assured by Lord Portsmouth that what the hon. Member for Cambridge-

  1385
  shire (Mr. Rodwell) stated the other day—that this was the result of evictions—was a mistake. It was the natural result of free sale in enabling a tenant to realize his capital when he found that it was not advantageously employed in the cultivation of unusually small farms. But the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire and the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) objected that, under such a system, the landlord became a mere rent-charger. Well, of course, it was much better to have wealthy landlords who could, by doing all the improvements to their own property, with justice to the tenant, retain the whole of their property in their own hands. But you could not produce that result by leaving unprotected the property of the tenant or confiscating it; and if you had not landlords in the position to be generous, they should, at least, begin to be just. That was what Lord Portsmouth had been; and as long as the tenant had a property we should, if we protected it, teach the tenant to consider the law as his protector and his friend. Much had been said of the importance of producing peasant proprietors. On that point all were agreed. But he would ask hon. Members to consider whether, if that could not be done to the extent wished, could they not do something very much akin to it, and which would have the same effect, by letting the tenant feel that he had, protected by the law, in his tenant right, a property in the land? The sense of property was so Conservative, that he was satisfied that if, by this Bill, they could accomplish for Ireland what Lord Portsmouth had done for his own property, they would find Ireland to be the most Conservative and easily governed part of the Empire.
  MR. LEWISsaid, that, as one of those sitting on the Opposition side who voted in favour of the second reading of the Bill, he desired to say a few words in order to put himself right with the public and his constituents. He should support the Motion to go into Committee on the ground that it was absolutely necessary to do something with reference to the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland. Whatever might be the causes, those relations were simply intolerable; and if he had to speak of the causes he should speak mainly of
  1386
  the part the Government had taken in allowing the present state of things to be brought about. It was useless to go very far back or minutely to investigate the causes; but they must recognize the fact that the Bill would and could fairly be looked at as neither more nor less than the endowment of agitation and outrage. He supported the Bill in the main, because in one of the later portions it afforded the opportunity to landlords to escape from the difficulty of their position—namely, by selling their ownership to occupying tenants. He believed that experience told them that unless they dealt with the question of ownership and the occupation of the land in Ireland in that way, they would be only nibbling with the fringe of the evil. He took a strong view, because they had experience to guide them. No one could doubt, although the experiment had been a small one, that the working of sales to tenants under the Church Act had been satisfactory. It was idle to attempt to fritter away the great results of that experiment. A large number of purchases of Church lands by occupying tenants had been carried out, the advances having been repaid with singular regularity; and when they looked at the amount of the arrears they could not fail to appreciate that the result had not only been advantageous to the tenants, but that the State was not likely to run much risk by the transaction. This system gave the tenant the solid position as owner, and, at the same time, it gave solidity to the State, loyalty to the people, and good order to society. He believed by a due extension of the purchasing portion of the Bill they had one of the best solutions of a grave public difficulty. He thought the State might, with great advantage, advance a larger portion of the purchase money than was now proposed. There had been a good deal of discussion as to the principles of this Bill. What were they? The first was the institution of a Court of Arbitration with reference to rents. Such a Court was necessary and expedient; but they had a right to ask the Government for some distinct statement of their definite views as to this Court. The foundation of the whole matter was the establishment of a satisfactory Court likely to do justice and give satisfaction to both parties that came before it. The County Court Judges had

  1387
  accumulated a vast amount of experience in deciding land cases. The tenant, of his own motion, might pass by the Civil Bill Court. He strongly objected 0 the power which was given to the Court of naming Assistant Commissioners, about whose qualifications and emoluments nothing was said in the Bill. They were to have plenary powers, but they would exercise them with a rope round their necks, for they were subject to almost instant dismissal. It was of the greatest importance to have further information as to the structure of this Court from the Government. It had been found fault with on both sides. His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had discussed the question of compensation, a claim which was based in justice. This opened up a great practical question. What was likely to be the condition of the Land Court under this Bill fur three or four years? It would be congested with business. There must inevitably be a vast amount of delay and arrears. What was likely to be the result? The tenant knew that by taking his landlord into Court to fix a judicial rent, he would be able to delay the enforcement of all arrears of rent till the case was disposed of. That would be a great hardship on the small owners of laud in Ireland, of narrow means and solely depending on their rents. He would next deal with the question of compensation, as to which he thought that the landowners could clearly make out a case with the Bill as it now stood. What were the ordinary conditions of ownership of property? There was the right of resuming possession—the right of selecting a tenant. Were not these rights taken away by the Bill? That first right was one of the primary advantages of property in land, and was entirely destroyed by the Bill, if the tenant thought fit to exercise his power of bringing the landlord into Court. Was not that a valuable right? Then the right of entering into, or rather resuming possession, was taken away. He was not speaking of Ulster, for in some respects he thought the Bill would be disadvantageous to the tenant in Ulster. He was speaking of property in the rest of Ireland. What would be the direct and immediate result of the Bill? He thought owners of property would have a right to say, with respect to the application of the compensation for disturbance
  1388
  clause, as the value of the tenant right, that the amount of the judicial rent was being fixed on a new standard, created ex post facto, a standard wholly beneficial to the tenant, and necessarily taking away from the owner some of the primary elements of property. Would not the result of the establishment of that system be to limit the number of purchasers from the owners of land in Ireland? In many eases the only persons who would buy would be the tenants. In that way the Bill was reducing the enjoyable and the money value of the property of landowners in Ireland, and formed a just basis for a claim to compensation. The Attorney General for Ireland had said that the landlord who bought the tenant right of a farm and then let it to another tenant would do a foolish thing. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND dissented.] He (Mr. Lewis) was in the hearing of the House, and he believed they would bear him out in saying that the Attorney General for Ireland stated that a landlord who let a farm after he had bought the tenant right would be guilty of a folly, thus showing that injustice might be done under the Bill, in compelling a landlord to farm his own land, or to re-let under the disadvantage of incurring liability to pay the value of tenant right twice over. The landlord could not go to the Land Court unless the tenant brought him; and, as the Prime Minister had said, the landlord could only get into Court by increasing his rent so that the tenant would deem it necessary to drag him there. This was not a mere matter of sentiment, but it would bring about a state of bad feeling between landlord and tenant, and the landlord only in these circumstances could come into Court as an accused person, so to speak. He would next advert to the condition of another class of persons, who had been entirely overlooked. They were persons who had bought under a Parliamentary title—under the Church Act of 1869. He was not referring to the occupiers, who were not the only purchasers from the Church Commissioners. He had received a letter from a gentleman—a stranger to himself—which described the condition of ordinary purchasers. His correspondent stated that about four years ago he had invested all his money, and that brought to him by his wife, £2,400, in laud pur-

  1389
  chased from the Commissioners of Church Temporalities. The rental of the estate had remained unchanged for the last 30 years, but was about 50 per cent above Griffiths' valuation, and the price paid for the land was, therefore, correspondingly high. Now, if the Court to be established by the Bill reduced the rents, as it probably would, it came to this—that the Government, having sold land as worth a certain price, now proposed to reduce its value without giving compensation. That was an exceptionally strong statement of the hardship that would be inflicted by the Bill. If such a thing were done by a private individual, it would be barely possible to describe or denounce it in sufficiently strong language. The case he had mentioned was, no doubt, one of those instances in which small and suffering interests had to content themselves with being overridden for the good of the State; but its injustice was palpable and undeniable. He feared it was only a sample of many others, and that it represented in a minor degree the unfairness with which a landlord would be treated who found himself for the first time under new rules and a new valuation. He, however, did not despair, despite the disadvantageous circumstances of the Bill, as it had been presented to the House, that it might be made a more workable measure. They had been told in that House, and outside it, what might be expected to happen to the Opposition if they attempted to alter the Bill to any extent, and also what might happen to those in "another place" if they interfered with the principle of the Bill. He, however, should hope and believe that it would be so amended before it ultimately left the Legislature that it would be made less liable to objection than it was in its present form. He hoped that the Government would, as regarded upholding the authority of the law, act in the bold and intrepid manner indicated in the Prime Minister's recent speech, and that it would not be followed by weak and vacillating conduct. Whilst he had stated his principal objections to the Bill, he (Mr. Lewis) would not vote for anything that would delay its receiving full consideration, because he believed that by means of substantial alteration it would be possible to remove some of the provisions unfavourable to landlords, and so make it, on the whole,
  1390
  a safe and expedient measure under the difficult circumstances of the position.
  MR. A. GREYobserved, that he would not follow the example of the two hon. Members who had preceded him by making a second reading speech, nor would he attempt to explain the vote which he had given in favour of the second reading by professing his belief, as the hon. Member opposite had done, that this Bill was an endowment of agitation and outrage. He was anxious—earnestly and outrage. He was anxious—earnestly anxious—that the Bill should reach Committee stage with the least possible delay; and he would only trespass upon the indulgence of the House for a very few moments. The Question before the House was that the Speaker do now leave the Chair, and no Amendment had been moved as yet to prevent this course being taken by the House; for he understood the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite had not moved the Amendment which he had placed upon the Notice Paper, and very glad he was that he had not done so, for, although he agreed with the substance of the hon. and gallant Baronet's Amendment, it would be impossible for him to vote for it, if pressed to a division at the present moment as a vote against the Speaker leaving the Chair would be as hostile to the Bill as a vote against the second reading. At the proper stage, however, when the Bill was in Committee, he hoped to support an Amendment in the direction of the hon. and gallant Baronet's Resolution. He was emboldened to hope, too, that the Prime Minister would give to such an Amendment his very favourable consideration, for what did such an Amendment amount to? It amounted to this—that in those cases where it might be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that injury had been done to any party by the operation of the Bill, that the Courts should have the power of awarding fair, reasonable, and just compensation. He was aware that the Prime Minister was of opinion that no injury would be inflicted on anyone under the provisions of the Bill, and he heartily hoped that that would be the case; but he ventured to submit, that if the right lion. Gentleman was right, there could be no objection to granting to the Court such powers as were proposed to be conferred upon it by the hon. and gallant Baronet's Amendment,

  1391
  inasmuch as those powers would never be called into play. But if, on the other hand, it did happen that in some way, perhaps unforeseen at present, the Bill did inflict injury, then it was unquestionably only fair and right that the Court should have the power of awarding such compensation as might, in its opinion, appear just. The terms of the hon. and gallant Baronet's Amendment were, he thought, capable of improvement. He only contemplated the case of the landowner. But there were other persons besides landowners whose interests might be injuriously affected by the working of this Bill. There was the case of the middle man, who would be required to fulfil the terms of his lease and pay the rent agreed upon to the head landlord, but who might have the rents which he received considerably lessened by the intervention of the Court. This Bill was admittedly a departure from sound principle, brought forward as an exceptional measure in consequence of the exceptional condition of the country; but when a departure from what was recognized to be the principles which should govern general legislation was taken, then it became impossible to foresee all the consequences that might arise. It might very well happen that cases unforeseen and uncontemplated by the Prime Minister might occur in which this Bill would inflict direct injury on certain persons. He, therefore, maintained that he was on very strong ground when he asked that the Court should have the power of awarding compensation in those cases in which, in its opinion, injury had been proved. He hoped the Prime Minister would give the House some assurance that an Amendment such as that proposed by the hon. and gallant Baronet would receive his favourable consideration when in Committee; and he would most respectfully venture to hint to the right hon. Gentleman, if it were not presumption in so young a Member to do so, that if he would give the House such assurance he would conciliate and disarm, both inside and out of the House, what threatened to be a very angry opposition, and he would greatly facilitate the passing of this Bill through the different stages of Committee.
  MR. GRANTHAMsaid, it was rather anomalous, that the strongest speeches
  1392
  against the Bill had been made by two hon. Members who either voted for the second reading or abstained from voting for it. The great difficulty which he and others had in this matter was in determining whether there would be injury or not, and he hoped that a satisfactory answer would be given to the question. He had heard with pleasure the speech made by the Prime Minister in introducing the Bill, and agreed with nearly all he had said; but when the Bill was brought in they found that it went far beyond what the right hon. Gentleman said or intended. He complained that the Government had given four or five different constructions of the meaning of the clause relating to fixed rents, and the Attorney General for Ireland had delivered two speeches that were altogether inconsistent with one another. On the first occasion he had given his opinion as to the way in which the clause would affect the Ulster tenants, The right hon. and learned Gentleman said—
  "Although I am not going to tell you what it dons mean, it at any rate means a minus quantity."
  He would, however, vote for the Bill if those who were responsible for it would give to the clause the same interpretation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given to it to-night. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] He was glad to hear the Prime Minister adopt that interpretation. But the Attorney General for Ireland in his first speech asserted that the Ulster Custom was to be treated as a minus quantity, and how could they have a minus quantity unless it were taken from something? To-night, the Prime Minister had intimated that it was not his intention that anything should be deducted from the rent in consequence of the right of sale. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND: What do you mean by rent?] He wanted to know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant by rent. Judging from what he had said, there was nothing to show that those persons who were in receipt of rents qua rents would have justice done to them under this Bill. In reference to sub-section B, his right hon. and learned Friend had said it was clear that something was to be deducted from the rent. He presumed it would be for compensation for disturbance and other rights which were

  1393
  equivalent to the Ulster right. Consequently, if there were to be a minus quantity in the one case there must also be a minus quantity in the other, and it must be deducted from the property of the landlord. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had informed the House to- night that it was no loss to the landlord to have the power to commit injury taken from him. That he quite admitted. If that power existed now he would not move a hand to enable the landlord to retain it. He quite agreed also that the landlord ought not to be able to get a rent or to increase his rent for any improvement which had been made by the tenant. This was a different thing, however, from deducting from the rent something which the tenant had in the shape of a right to sell. If the tenant was to give more for the right of sale why was it to be deducted from the landlord in the first instance? He understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say to-night that if the landlord took to himself the land and bought up the tenant right he would get a higher rent when he let the land again. He presumed the meaning of that to be, that where a tenant had the right of selling his holding it was worth something to him plus the rent. He believed the Prime Minister wished to improve the position of the landlord rather than to make it worse. He would like to see the Bill leave Parliament in such a form that while justice was done to the tenant justice would also be done to the landlord, and there would be no need, therefore, for a clause providing for compensation to the landlord. But if the matter were left in the uncertain state in which it now was, he was certain that difficulties were in store, because the clause would be interpreted differently in different parts of the country. It had been assumed that the question of tenant right was one which only affected people in Ireland, and that there was no such thing as tenant right in England. As far as he knew, there was no county in England in which tenant right did not exist. The county of which he had the honour to be one of the Members (Surrey) had as extensive a tenant right as any county in England. In Ireland the foundation of tenant right was exactly the same as in England—that was to say, when a tenant was going out of a farm he would be en-
  1394
  titled from the incoming tenant to the value of what he had done in preparing the soil for future crops, and of the crops which were in the ground at the time. He approved of the proposal for fixing a judicial rent; but he thought to the Court to take some of the fixing of rents. He hoped that the Bill would be so shaped that Gentlemen on both sides of the House could vote for it, and he believed that it would then go a great way towards bringing peace and prosperity to Ireland.
  MR. MACARTNEYwished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland a question. He understood him to say, in stating what was the position in Ireland with regard to rent, that landlord and tenant had a joint interest in the holding, that each of them had a certain interest, and that in estimating the rent the value of the improvements by the tenant was to be taken from the rent. Now, he wished that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and, if he could not answer, the Prime Minister or the Solicitor General, might explain what was the real meaning of those words. The other day the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) gave a meaning to the clause that was so satisfactory as to make him (Mr. Macartney) feel quite happy about it. But to-night he felt as much confused as before. If they were to take the meanings given by four or five Gentlemen on the Treasury Benches, and that given by their followers which had not been contradicted, how were they to look at the Bill? He was completely puzzled, and should be glad to receive an explanation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)explained that what he had said was this—He was drawing a contrast between England and Ireland, and said that in England, where the farm with all its equipments belonged to one man, and he the landlord, he was entitled to the highest rent he could get—in other words, a full competition rent—but that in Ireland, where the farm only belonged to the landlord, whilst all the improvements and equipments belonged to the tenant, it was impossible to allow the landlord to charge that tenant the highest rout that might be obtained from a stranger in the open market, because this would

  1395
  be making the tenant pay for what belonged to himself as well as fur what belonged to the landlord.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLcomplained of the want of explanation of the Bill in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and said, that if this Bill bad said exactly what was proposed to be done he should not have ventured to trouble the House either now or on the second reading of the Bill. But the measure was drawn with such a singular facility of difficulty that it was impossible that anyone could let it pass by without inquiry for some answers on one or two points. Tie did not wish to go further into the subject of the Amendment now before the House than to quote the words of the Prime Minister, who had said—
  "I deny that there is confiscation; but if there is confiscation, then I agree that there should be compensation."
  On that it might be sufficient to remark that it might be left to the House after they got through Committee to say whether there was any confiscation in the Bill, and then they should inquire whether there should be compensation. He next called attention to the first five lines in the operative part of the Bill. They began thus—
  "The tenant for the time being of every tenancy to which this Act applies may sell his tenancy."
  Now, before they could understand the meaning of that part of the clause they must turn to the Interpretation Clause, and there they would find that the interpretation of the word "tenancy" was "the interest in a holding of a tenant." That reminded him of the definition he once saw in a Cattle Plague Order of the term "private sale" namely, "everything shall be considered to be a private sale which is not a public sale." The definition in the Pill wars very little better than that. It might be meant that every occupier of land might sell any interest which he had in that land; but if that was what they meant, why did they not say so? The 1st clause stated that every tenant for the time being to whom the Act applied might sell his tenancy—
  "Subject to the following regulations, and subject also to the provisions in this Act contained with respect to the sale of a tenancy subject to statutory conditions."
  1396
  In order to understand what those very obsure words in the first five operative lines of the Bill meant they had to turn to five different parts of the measure. The Prime Minister had stated that he was proud of his draftsman; the right hon. Gentleman had precious little to be proud of, and he (Mr. Staveley Hill) hoped he might have greater cause to be proud of him hereafter. It was a matter of great difficulty for any person to understand the Bill. He would in particular ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the explanation of the 7th clause? The Prime Minister waved his hand as if he would say—"What a very stupid person you are not to understand that." He had listened to every word of the Prime Minister and of the Attorney General for Ireland, and also of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). But he was sorry to say he had not yet been able to grasp its meaning. Now, he would first controvert the statement which he had heard that evening that there was such a thing as an Ulster Custom in this country. There was no such custom, and every effort was made to prevent such a custom arising. But he would ask, was it meant by the 7th clause that when a man had kept his agreement he should receive something ultra what he had bargained for? He agreed to the justice of giving a 15 years' tenancy when a fair rent was fixed. But when they spoke in the clause of a fair rent being what a solvent tenant could pay, did they mean a man who intended to remain solvent? The second question he had to ask was—Did they consider that the total amount of fair rent was to be calculated as the profit arising out of the land? If so, what proportion of that amount as fair rent was to be returned to the landlord, and how much to the tenant in respect of tenant right, and as compensation for his improvements? Outside of Ulster the valuation was to be made on the scale of compensation for disturbance, so that where the rent was £30 per annum the capital sum represented would be, on seven years' purchase, £210, the interest upon which would be about £8 10 s. Now, what he wanted to know was whether that £8 10 s. would be deducted from the landlord's rent? Under the 3rd sub-section of the 7th clause—["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. and learned Member that he could not criticize the clauses of the Bill at the present stage.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLbowed at once to the ruling of the Chair. As an Englishman, he cared nothing about Ulster tenant right. If they liked to have their custom in Ireland, let them have it. But if the Government proposed to give persons who were carrying out a contract something outside and beyond the contract, they would violate, not only the principles of political economy, but of honesty also. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) put the case in this way. He spoke of the sales of tenant right taking place on the Duke of Abercorn's estates for land that produced a rent of £1,093 a-year, as realizing when bought in £26,000. Taking these figures, and for the purposes of calculation, the proportionate prices of land in Ireland with 25 years' purchase, did the clause mean that taking the rent at £1,093, and the tenant right at £26,000, if you multiply £1,093 by 25 that brings £27,325, and adding £26,000, was it to be understood that the capital value of that estate must be taken as £53,325? Of this, was a 25th, or 4 per cent, to be taken as the tenant's interest? Alluding to the words used by the First Lord of the Treasury in reference to the murder of the late Emperor of Russia, he said he trusted that nothing was about to be done by the Government which might bring about a state of things akin to the present peasant proprietorship in Russia. ["Question!"] He concluded by assuring hon. Members from Ireland that he had no wish to impede the progress of improvement in their country, and, exhorting them to forget grievances of days gone by, asked what would be thought of the Saxon population in England were they ceaselessly to bemoan the miseries brought upon them by the filthy Norman robbers?
  MR. W. FOWLERhoped the House would go into Committee. He should have liked to make some observations on the question, but he did not think that was the right time to do so; and he thought the evening would have been spent far more usefully if the House had been in Committee, because all the speeches had been on details which arose
  1398
  out of the clauses of the Bill. He would only refer to two points in connection with the speech of the Prime Minister in introducing the Bill, which had disappointed him. The right hon. Gentleman had said that English managed estates could be taken out of the Bill; but it appeared from the Bill itself that the Court had power to take such estates out of the operation of the Bill as to one clause only. The representation made by the Prime Minister was thus not borne out by the Bill. Then there was a point respecting tenants' improvements which he thought required great consideration. A great deal had been heard about the improvements in Ireland made by tenants; but sufficient had not been heard as to how far those improvements were due to the land being under-let, and, therefore, were practically made out of the property of the landlord—out of the rent which would have been the landlord's if he had chosen to take it. That had been spoken of as a matter of great importance, and he thought more ought to have been made out of it. Then, he failed to understand how injustice to the landlords would be prevented when free sale was established where the land was notoriously under-rented and where the landlord had made the improvements for many years. He had listened with the utmost attention to all that had been said, and the only answer he had heard had been that the landlord might raise the rent, and thereby protect himself from the effect of the Bill. That was to say, on all those estates which were now decidedly under-rented, and where there existed most contentment, the rents were suddenly to be raised in order to protect the landlords. If that were done, the Bill would prove a great disappointment to its authors, and he earnestly hoped that would not be the result. Those hon. Members who were in the House in 1870 could not forget that the Act of 1870 was described as an Act which would bring about a great and happy settlement of the Land Question. He hoped they might so consider this Bill in Committee that their prophecies might not again be unfulfilled. He had voted for the second reading because he strongly felt that a measure with regard to the Land Question in Ireland was required; but he also felt that in passing such a measure they must have regard to justice to all classes.

  1399
  They must do justice to the tenants, and they must do justice to the landlords; and if they lost sight of either class they would find it out hereafter. If there were injustice under the Bill, that injustice ought to be compensated; but he was not prepared to say that there would be injustice. He hoped the Bill would be so framed that there would be no injustice, and if there were none, they would not need to talk about compensation. The House ought, however, to go into Committee at once, and not waste more time in discussing details of the Bill when they were not in Committee.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise for the purpose of seconding the appeal with which my hon. Friend commenced his speech, and I think I could have done so with greater effect but for the latter portion of the speech, which practically amounted to a contradiction of the recommendation with which it began. There is, however, only one point to which I need refer. It was with great regret that I heard his reference to the Act of 1870. He thinks that was a bad measure, and his remarks were cheered; but sentiments of a peculiar order and penitential expressions by those who voted for the Act of 1870 will draw plenty of cheers from that quarter of the House. I am sorry he thought it necessary to go that far, and I am not at all disposed to accompany him in that operation—I hope we shall go into Committee now—because that might involve us in controversy. I rose to second his appeal, and at the same time to say that I had listened not without satisfaction to the discussion which has taken place this evening. The hon. and learned Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill) was so good humoured and kindly in the most energetic part of his speech, that I was quite sorry when the Rules of Order made you, Sir, find it necessary to check him. The hon. and learned Member, passing from clause to clause, appeared to me like a bee flitting from flower to flower, gathering from each a fresh load of honey. That is a most pleasant process; but, at the same time, we cannot make practical progress at this stage by a discussion of this kind. The hon. and learned Member calls energetically for an explanation and definition of the 7th clause. In speaking on the second
  1400
  reading, I endeavoured to give as good and full an explanation and definition as I could; but if that was not sufficiently full and explicit, the best way to get a more full and explicit definition is to go into Committee. Then we can get to the point of the definition of a fair rent, so that every man may be held to it; but when we pass from point to point of the Bill, as must necessarily be the case, all these discussions become indeterminate, and although they may be useful, yet there is a point beyond which they cease to be useful. I think, after the long discussion we have had on the second reading, I may fairly urge that that point has been reached, and if we are in earnest, as the majority of the House are, it is well that we should go into the details of the Bill. For instance, a good deal has been said to-night on the subject of the arrangement by which the landlord and the tenant are placed on a different footing as to the power of going into Court; but the House will recollect that we have never stated that as one of the essential conditions of the Bill. We have referred to it as a matter fairly open to discussion. That arrangement was misunderstood: but we have left it open for discussion in Committee, when we could hold ourselves bound to come to a particular conclusion. But it is plain that we cannot make further progress until we get into Committee. There is, however, one subject on which I wish to give an assurance. With regard to the question of fair rent, although the deduction has been an idea, as we think, forced upon us by the interpretation placed on the clause by hon. Gentlemen, we have never once, on any occasion, propounded that method of proceeding as the mode in which we thought fair rent should be arrived at. I disclaim that altogether, and when we get into Committee we shall be prepared to deal with the clause in that spirit. Again, it is asked what a tenant has to sell? Well, Sir, that we should consider when, in the 1st clause, we come to deal with tenant right. But I would ask the hon. and learned Member what it is that traders in England have to sell, and how it is that a tradesman when he wishes to sell, finds his successor quite prepared to give him something not only equal to the value of his premises and his stock, but something considerably beyond?

  1401
  That shows that there may be something beyond the limits of the contract under which the tradesman holds, that he may have to sell and for which another person is willing to give him money, and for which it is right and legitimate that he should receive money, and in receiving money for which he does not interfere in the slightest degree with any just right. The hon. and learned Member also asked whether it is not a monstrous thing that where there are two parties to a contract one is to receive something for the mere performance of his contract—something not included in the contract? That was put as a crucial test, the answer to which, if we meant to do that, would be absolutely fatal. But what was my surprise when, after he had declared that where there are two parties to a contract, neither of them is to receive anything except what was in the contract, he said he found that when a judicial rent was fixed the tenant might enjoy it for 15 years without any removal or change, except for his own misconduct, and he thought that was perfectly just and right. Then he is prepared to give to the tenant for keeping his contract something that is not in the contract? The remarks I am now offering are, I admit, open to the criticism I have mentioned; but it is only in Committee that we can make further progress. I have noticed the spirit of most of the speeches with great satisfaction, and the hon. and learned Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham), who said he had not been able to vote for the second reading, delivered a speech the spirit of which was eminently calculated to encourage rational and, at the same time, sanguine hopes that we may find some solution of the problem. I would also offer my congratulations to the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) in respect, not of the Motion he has made, but of the Motion he has not made. When I saw that Notice, and that it was to be persevered with, I regretted it. It appears to me that if he had made that Motion in the present state of Business, it would have been an error from his point of view, and would have interposed obstacles to the legitimate discussion and progress of this Bill. Clearly, I think that, according to the ordinary and reasonable mode of proceeding, we could now set about dealing with the actual provisions
  1402
  of the Bill which will determine the relations between landlord and tenant under the new law; and when you have fixed those relations, then will be the time to consider whether there is injury of a nature requiring compensation on the one side or the other. The hon. and gallant Member has allowed us—and I thank him for it—to approach the consideration of these practical questions, and according to the decisions on these practical questions, and according to the light that may be thrown upon them, he will have the means of judging at the proper time whether he has occasion to raise them or not. If I do not in detail refer to some of the remarks upon other passages of the Bill, I hope it will be understood that is from no want of respect for the hon. Members who have made them, but is simply because we have reached a point when we cannot make proper progress except in Committee. The preliminary obstacle has been removed, for it appears that those hon. Gentlemen who proposed to give Instructions to the Committee were not in a position to give those Instructions. That being so, I hope that, the evening being now spent, we may be permitted to take the preliminary and first essential step of dealing with the Motion that you shall leave the Chair, and then we can proceed with the provisions of the Bill one by one to-morrow.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I am not at all disposed to deny that the time has come when it would be convenient to take the step which has been suggested. At the same time, I do not think there is any blame to be thrown on the House for the manner and the fulness of the discussion that has taken place upon this Bill; and even if there had been a disposition to carry on the discussion at the present moment for a longer time, I think there would have been much to be said in view of the very large number of Amendments which have been placed on the Paper, with regard to which it is not inconvenient that there should be some discussion indicating which of those were the Amendments upon which the greatest stress would be laid, for the matter now seems to have resolved itself into this—that we may do well to enter into a discussion of the clauses as they stand, bearing in mind that when we are in Committee we shall be met with another

  1403
  difficulty in discussing the principle of these clauses—that the whole scheme hangs a great deal together; but when we are discussing one clause we shall not be allowed to refer to another when the two are connected. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) expressed surprise and regret at the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) having made some observations with regard to the Land Act of 1870. Well, but we certainly cannot help from time to time recalling the memory of that Act. There were many things in connection with that Act; and when the Prime Minister told us that, in reference to a particular question, neither he nor any of his colleagues had propounded a particular mode, or a particular interpretation of a clause, we could not be satisfied what he and his Colleagues propounded. We must look into the Bill itself, for there were a great many things that were propounded which, after all, we find are now thrown aside. We are referred, in regard to certain matters, not to the interpretation put on the clause, but to the Bill itself; and therefore I was not surprised to hear the hon. Member for Cambridge, who took an active part in the proceedings on your Bill, express some astonishment at the change which seems to have come over the feelings of the friends of the Act of 1870 in respect to every important question such as those we are discussing. With regard to the question that has been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), it is really one of the very highest importance. It is one, I readily grant, that we could not bring to the vote at the present moment with full advantage, because it is difficult to show what is the precise amount of damage and confiscation this Bill will cause until we have made some progress with it. But my hon. and gallant Friend, having called attention to the subject as one of the prominent matters for consideration will be understood before we discuss the Bill that we have the question in events in our minds. I think I may gather from what has been said other Gentlemen that that feeling is not confined to Members who sit on this side; but I think that there will be a mutual disposition to do justice to those who may suffer in consequence of any steps which may be taken. I under-
  1404
  stand that we are now asked simply to move the Speaker out of the Chair, and that we shall proceed to discuss the clauses of the Bill to-morrow morning at the Morning Sitting. We shall be quite prepared to do all we can to give proper facilities for the discussion of the Bill with no desire whatever to obstruct it. At the same time, I hope that we may not be called to task if we discuss very fully and carefully the important questions which will be raised, and that we shall not be taken too strictly to account for considering the bearing of particular provisions upon the other parts of the Bill.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERmust apologize to the House for rising at that moment, after the two speeches they had just listened to from the Leaders of the House. His apology, however, must be this—that in the course of the long debates which must ensue in Committee, he did not intend to trespass upon the attention of the House. He was only anxious now to state the objections which he entertained to the Bill. His views were in accordance with those which had been expressed by the noble Lord the Member for the county of Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho). He objected to the Bill on two grounds. In the first place, it was a Bill which violated the great principle of freedom of contract; and in the next place, he regarded the measure as a concession to sedition. In regard to the first objection, he knew that right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite were staunch maintainers of the principle of freedom of contract, and for the life of him he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was to have the privilege of buying his goods in the cheapest market and selling them in the dearest, while his Colleague the Lord Chamberlain was to be refused the privilege of letting his farms to the highest bidder. In the next place, he could not but feel that the Bill was a concession to the sedition which had prevailed for some time in Ireland. He had referred to the noble Lord the Lord Chamberlain. He recollected the present Lord Chamberlain, when Lord Castlerosse, sitting on the Benches opposite,; and the Members of Her Majesty's Government would agree with him, although he was afraid they would concur with him in nothing else, that a more

  1405
  high-minded and courteous Gentleman never occupied a seat on the Treasury Bench. But what did they find in regard to the Earl of Kenmare? This high-minded Nobleman, who had done so much to improve his estates in Ireland, and who was not an object of any religious difficulty, because, as was well known, his religious views coincided with those of the great majority of the Irish people—this excellent and distinguished Nobleman had been driven out of Ireland by the conduct of his neighbours and tenants. It seemed to him (Mr. Fowler) that, under these circumstances, they ought to hesitate before they assented to a Bill which was a concession to the sedition of the Irish people. He had the honour of a seat in that House when the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister came down and proposed to cut clown the Upas tree of Protestant ascendancy, in order to send a message of peace to Ireland. At that time the right hon. Gentleman was at the head of as powerful a majority as he possessed at this moment. It might not be numerically as large, but it was practically as powerful. The right hon. Gentleman cut down the Upas tree of Protestant ascendancy; he abolished the Irish Church; and when he (Mr. Fowler) recollected the debates which took place on the Irish Church, he might say that there was no portion of his life upon which he looked back with more unmingled thankfulness and satisfaction from the knowledge he had that in every division he had voted against the right hon. Gentleman. The Upas tree of Protestant ascendancy had now been cut down; and he should like to know how many hon. Members on the other side of the House would get up and tell him that Ireland was as peaceful, at this moment, as it was when the right hon. Gentleman acceded to power in 1868? He should like to know if any hon. Member would say that Ireland, at the present moment, was in as peaceful a condition as when the Duke of Abercorn left it in that year? The result of the legislation of the right hon. Gentleman in his previous Government was depicted in a few burning words uttered by that illustrious man whose recent loss they, on that side of the House, so deeply deplored. Mr. Disraeli, when sitting on the Bench below him, said—
  1406
  "Under the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman we have legalized confiscation; we have consecrated sacrilege, and we have condoned high treason."
  He (Mr. Fowler) believed there was no more sacrilege to consecrate; but with regard to legalizing confiscation and condoning high treason, although he hoped never again in the course of these debates to trouble either the Committee or the House, he wished emphatically to say that on every occasion he hoped to give his vote against this Bill.
  Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  PART I.
  ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES.
  Clause 1 (Sale of tenancies).
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to move that the Chairman do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there was one question he would like to ask the Prime Minister. In the course of the debate on the second reading he understood that the wording of the Bill in the second part, which related to the intervention of the Court, and especially of the 7th clause, was not happy, and that it was desirable to amend it. He wished to know from the Prime Minister whether any Government Amendments were likely to be put down? If the right hon. Gentleman would indicate at an early period how the language of the 7th clause might be amended, it would probably greatly facilitate the discussion of the clause in Committee.
  MR. CHAPLINthought it would be a great convenience to the House if the right hon. Gentleman would explain the course he proposed to adopt in regard to the further progress of the Bill, and whether he intended to take Morning Sittings or not. It would be convenient for private Members to know whether Morning Sittings would now be continuous; because, if they were, private Members would be deprived of the only days now open to them.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I thought it was understood that the Government in-

  1407
  tended to proceed with the Bill at Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays. With regard to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman, we have considered the matter to which he refers, and our proposal is to deal with Clause 1 in the first instance. By taking that course we believe that we shall raise the several points in the most convenient form. After we have dealt with Clause 1, we shall have something to guide us in framing the proper phraseology of the rest of the Bill.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, this was a convenient opportunity for asking the Government if it was intended to take perpetual Morning Sittings for the rest of the Session, to give to private Members some opportunity for bringing on the questions they desired to submit, by making a House and keeping it in the evening? He alluded more especially to Tuesday evenings. The Government were already under an absolute obligation to make a House so far as Friday evening was concerned; but the duty of keeping it devolved upon independent Members themselves. He took it that the duty of making a House was, by the Rules of the House which related to Sittings on Friday, a positive engagement on the part of the Government. But then came the Tuesday Sittings. He thought that the House had some claim upon the Government to assist hon. Members in making and keeping a House on Tuesdays, at all events, during the remainder of the present Session. The same claim might not apply to an ordinary Session; but, as the House was aware, all the private Members' nights before Easter were taken by the Government, and independent Members were obliged to give up a large number of Motions they were anxious to bring forward. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some kind of assurance that the Government might be able to find it in their power to make some bonâ fide effort to make a House both upon Tuesday and upon Friday, in the event of private Members not objecting to Morning Sittings on those days.
  MR. HEALYhoped that the Chairman would be able to give some contradiction to a rumour to the effect that when the consideration of the 2,000 Amendments of which Notice had been given came on, it was his intention to
  1408
  allow the first Amendment to be disposed of, and then to follow the course adopted in the debates on the Coercion Bill, and rule all other Amendments relating to the same matter to be out of Order. He knew what newspaper gossip was, and did not himself give much credence to the rumour. It would be most unfair, in the event of an hon. Member obtaining precedence for a bad Amendment, to rule that any other Amendment, although there might be several good ones on the same point, were to be shut out. He would, therefore, put the Question direct to the Chairman, whether there was any foundation for the rumour, and whether such an intention really existed, so that hon. Members in that and other parts of the House who proposed to move Amendments might have timely Notice? He certainly thought that a clear and distinct intimation ought to be given by the Chair.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is not for me to interpose between the Chairman and the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), or to make any answer to his appeal; but I must say that I heard the assertion with surprise that the Rules upon which the procedure was conducted in Committee upon the Protection of Person and Property Bill for Ireland involved anything new. The proceedings in regard to that Bill were conducted upon the fixed and established and usual Rules of the House, and which are, in fact, justified by the necessity of making progress. No doubt, the hon. Member is justified in saying that there is a great deal that is arbitrary in the precedence given to one Member over another; and it may often, unfortunately, happen that an insignificant Amendment obtains precedence, while an important and significant Amendment is excluded. But that is an evil under which we continually suffer. For instance, Motions are put down for a private Members' evening. It so happens that the first two or three of them are Motions in which no one feels the slightest interest, except the Members who bring them forward, whereas there may he Motions in the rear of them of very great interest and importance, which are shut out by those which have been more favoured by fortune. I do not know whether our Rules in this respect can be improved; but it is quite clear that they cannot be arbitrarily changed, and we must pro-

  1409
  ceed upon them until we are able to substitute better. In regard to the observations of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), while it is perfectly true that independent Members suffered heavily during the first three months of this year, I am sure the candour with which the noble Lord has spoken will prevent him from saying that there was any gain to the Government. The Government were themselves as completely shut out from prosecuting Public Business as private Members were shut out from prosecuting the Motions they wished to bring forward. It was a common loss. With regard to Morning Sittings, my understanding is this—So far as Tuesdays are concerned, the making and keeping of a House is an affair for private Members themselves; and the House must take its chance, depending entirely on the interest taken in the Motions about to be submitted. But with regard to Fridays, the case is different, because while the Government are called upon to use their best endeavours to make a House—and, I believe, their engagement does not go further—it is their duty, I think, as far as they can, to make every reasonable endeavour to keep a House.
  MR. E. STANHOPEremarked, that, so far as he understood, the Morning Sitting on Friday had been obtained by appointing a Bill of comparatively no importance—the Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill—for 2 o'clock on that day. By that means the arrangement was made without the knowledge of many hon. Members. So far as he was concerned, he should certainly not offer any opposition to the appointment of a Morning Sitting for to-morrow; but he thought the matter ought not to have been settled at the backs of hon. Members. It was most desirable that, when it was intended to take Morning Sittings, hon. Members having Notices on the Paper should be aware of it, so that they might have an opportunity of challenging the proposal if they thought fit to do so.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was not in the House when the arrangement was made; but he understood that the announcement would be that the Government would ask for Morning Sittings for the purpose of prosecuting this Bill. The arrangement, he believed, was made
  1410
  with the concurrence of all persons concerned in it. In order that there might be no misunderstanding, he should ask, when the Chairman left the Chair, that the Bill be fixed for a Morning Sitting to-morrow.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEwished to note that there was a distinct step backwards, so to speak, in what the Government now said. With regard to the Sittings on Tuesdays, of course no one understood that the Government were under any special obligation to make or keep a House; but, up to the present time, it had been the rule—at all events, the late Government acknowledged and continually acted upon it—to come down and make a House at 9 o'clock, leaving the House to continue or not according to the view which might be taken by hon. Members. It appeared that the present Government acted on the principle of reversing this policy.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that his recollection did not confirm the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The imperative duty, which the right hon. Gentleman stated to belong to the late Government, of making a House on Tuesday evenings must have been very imperfectly performed, because he was quite sure that on many occasions those unfortunate "counts-out" actually occurred, in spite of what, he had no doubt, was the sincere desire of the late Government to prevent them.
  MR. W. H. SMITHobserved, that he had a distinct recollection that during the tenure of Office by the late Government, the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was very rarely in his place at 9 o'clock on Tuesdays and Fridays when there had been Morning Sittings. From his own knowledge, having been present in the House throughout the greater part of the last Parliament, he could say that when it was the duty of the late Government to ask the House to sit on Tuesdays, they made it the rule to be in their places at 9 o'clock in the evening. It was true that the House had been frequently counted out; but on those occasions there were some 18 or 20 Members of the Government present. The late Government regarded it as their duty to make a House; but, having done so, they were not responsible for what afterwards occurred.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that, whatever had been the rule of the Government, they were certainly unfortunate in their endeavours to carry it out. He remembered that when the Motion on the Endowed Schools of Ireland was appointed for discussion at an Evening Sitting after a Morning Sitting the House was obviously and notoriously counted out through the influence of the late Government.
  MR. NEWDEGATEexpressed a hope that the sudden announcement of Morning Sittings for 12 or 2 o'clock the following day would not be made after 12 o'clock at night. It was totally impossible that hon. Members could conduct their correspondence and their ordinary business if they were not informed by that time at what hour the House would meet next day. He remembered this had been the practice during a former Administration of the present Prime Minister; and he trusted the House would insist that at an early hour of the Sitting on the day previous they should be informed at what hour they were to meet again. Unless this was done it was impossible for private Members, or for any Member of the House, to conduct the necessary communications with their constituents, or to prepare themselves for debate. The result of violating this understanding was the perpetual moving of adjournments. Again, when the Rules of Urgency were adopted by the House, it was provided that adequate Notice of bringing those Rules into force should be given. That was the last precedent set up by the House bearing upon the subject; and he trusted that the House, out of self-respect, would insist upon its observance, and that it would never submit to Morning Sittings unless Notice was given before post time on the preceding day.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, before the Question was put he should be glad to relieve the mind of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) by stating that after a hard day's work he had only succeeded in getting through the Amendments on Clause 1. He had been working with the object of preventing one Amendment killing another.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government proposed to take the Bill to-morrow, immediately after the Report of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill.

  ALKALI, &c. WORKS REGULATION BILL— [Lords.]— [BILL. 119.]
  (Mr. Dodson.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 2nd May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 3 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Provisional Order to prevent discharge of certain gases in salt works).
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONsaid, there was an Amendment down in the name of his noble Friend (Earl Percy), which, in his absence, he would move.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 8, after "carried on," insert "or in any galvanizing or tin-plate works in which iron is treated with acid previous to receiving a coating of tin or other metal."—(Mr. Wilbraham Egerton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DODSONwas sorry to say he could not accept the Amendment. He would not detain the Committee by discussing its merits; but would merely point out that if it were accepted it would be extremely unfair to a great many works in the country which had been given to understand that they would not be affected by the measure. There were a considerable number of these works scattered over a wide part of the country which would come under inspection if this proposal were adopted, and a large additional staff of Inspectors would have to be appointed. Under the circumstances, although the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners had not been followed, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that at this hour—1 o'clock in the morning—and as they had a Morning Sitting before them, he thought it only reasonable that they should now allow the Chairman to report Progress. The President of the Local Government Board appeared to be so exhausted that he could not speak loud enough for any

  1413
  hon. Members to hear him. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had been unable to catch one single word the right hon. Gentleman had said, and it must be confessed that the Members of the Government were not the only persons in the House who were exhausted. He would move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(MR. Arthur O' Connor.)
  MR. DODSONhoped the hon. Member could hear him now, and was sorry that the words he had uttered had failed to reach everyone in the House. As far as he and his Friends were concerned—and he thought that, on this matter, he could speak for the majority of hon. Members opposite—they were anxious to see this matter settled. The clauses he was asking the Committee to go through were, substantially, agreed to. He might say that with the exception of that now under discussion there was not an Amendment to the clause he wished the Committee to take which was opposed by any hon. Member interested in the measure on either side of the House. He might say that all he proposed to do to-night was to go through the Bill as far as the 25th clause, which was a contested provision. Under the circumstances, he trusted hon. Members opposite would allow the measure to go forward. It was not in any sense a Party measure. It was a Bill in which manufacturers and residents in the neighbourhood of manufactories were alike interested, both being anxious that it should become law as soon as possible.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANpointed out to the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that he had had sufficient proof that he had been labouring under a misconception as to the physical powers of the Member of the Government in charge of the Bill, and appealed to him to withdraw his Motion. It had been clearly demonstrated that not only was the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) physically, but mentally, and in the best possible temper, prepared to go on with the Bill. There was another reason he would venture to suggest to the hon. Member why he should not press on his Motion, and it
  1414
  was this—that in the future an Irish Bill would have to make large demands on the time of the House; and for that reason he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), for one, as an Irish Member, was prepared to remain in the House an hour or two longer in order to help through an English Bill which was desired by the English people. He was sure he was not appealing in vain to his hon. Friend.
  Mr. WILBRAHAM EGERTONsaid, that after the appeal from the Government he would withdraw his Amendment. It was the opinion of the Commissioners—or so his noble Friend (Earl Percy) had thought—that such a clause as this should be inserted in any measure introduced on this subject. So far as the Bill dealt with a certain class of works, however, it had his (Mr. Wilbraham Egerton's) support, and he would not delay its progress by pressing his Amendment.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) must have a very short memory if he thought the Irish Members were anxious to pass the Government Land Bill, which they looked upon as a most absurd measure. He would not ask his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) to withdraw his Motion. What they had to consider was, were they going to consent to stay in the House until 2, 3, and 4 o'clock every morning? For his own part, whenever a Motion to report Progress was made after 1 o'clock in the morning he should support it.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that before the Committee went to a division he wished to say that, for an opposite reason to that given by the hon. Member who had just sat down, he intended to vote with the Government. In his opinion, the Land Law (Ireland) Bill was not an "absurd" measure, and he would appeal to the hon. Member for Queen's County not to offer any obstruction to any Government measure which could in any form or way delay the progress of that Bill. It must not be supposed that many of the Irish Members—he amongst the number—abstained from voting on the second reading because they considered the measure absurd; and he wished to enter a most decided protest against any such language being used in regard to the Land Bill.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that after the very satisfactory, though

  1415
  unusual exhibition they had had of sympathy and agreement between the hon. Members for Meath and Louth (Mr. A. M. Sullivan and Mr. Callan), he was not disposed to interfere with the continuance of those feelings. Unquestionably, there was a disadvantage in proceeding with measures at this hour of the morning, when their Business was conducted in whispers. Yesterday an hon. Member sitting on the Treasury Bench, distinctly and intentionally placing his hand before his mouth, had conducted a portion of the Business in a low whisper, in order that the course he desired the House to take should meet with no opposition. In the lowest tone that he could contrive, he had proposed that the House should sit at 2 o'clock to-morrow; and it was not until the Speaker had refused to recognizes such an unusual proceeding, and had called upon the hon. Member to state his proposal clearly, that the proposal was made known to the House. That was one example of the dangers they would have to face if they allowed the Business to be conducted in whispers; and it had taught him that it was always desirable, when they could not hear what was going on, to propose an adjournment of the discussion. The first short speech of the right hon Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) he had been unable to hear, and he had said so to the Committee; but after the manifestation the right hon. Member had since given of the excellence of his physical powers—which he hoped he might long continue to enjoy—he (Mr. O'Connor) was ready to admit that the President of the Local Government Board was in a position to conduct the Business of the Committee. As it was the feeling of the Committee that they should go on with the Bill he would withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 13, after "discharged," to insert "Also whether in any works in which aluminous deposits are treated for the purpose of making cement, hereinafter called 'cement works,' such means as aforesaid can be adopted with respect to the noxious or offensive gases evolved from such works."—(Sir Sydney Waterlow.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DODSONsaid, the hon. Member's Amendment was to insert cement works in Clause 9. That had been substantially agreed to in an Amendment already adopted, and the present proposal was only a formal one to make the words of the clause agree with the intention of the Committee.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHfailed to see how that was so.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the hon. Member evidently had a wrong copy of the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 10, after "gas," insert "and in the case of cement works of any noxious or offensive gas."—(Sir Sidney Waterlow.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 28, at end, add, "The Board shall take such steps as they may think fit for giving notice to persons interested of the provisions of any order made by them under this section before any Bill for confirming the same is introduced into Parliament."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  PART III.
  (i.) Registration of Works.
  Clause 10 (Registration of works, and stamp duty).
  MR. DODSONsaid, he now rose to move an Amendment which had been put down by the hon. Member behind him (Sir Sydney Waterlow).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORrose to Order. He wished to ask the Chairman whether it was competent for the right hon. Gentleman to move the Amendment of another Member without giving. Notice? The Speaker had ruled that it could not be done.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, the Amendments were put down very late last night, and they appeared in his name by a mistake.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) refers to a Rule of the House which is not a Rule of the Committee. There is no previous Notice necessary.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 34, leave out "scheduled."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  Amendment agreed to.

  1417
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 34, after "work," insert "to which Part II. of this Act applies."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments proposed,
  In page 5, line 1,1eave out "scheduled," and page 5, line 1, line 8, and line 17, after "work," insert "required to be registered."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 17, after "work," insert "not being an alkali work."—(Mr. Stevenson.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Certificate of inspector prior to registration of new works).
  MR. STEVENSONmoved, in page 5, line 34, to leave out "an," and insert "the chief." His object was to lay the responsibility upon the Chief Inspector.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. STEVENSONformally moved, in page 5, line 34, after "inspector," to insert "after his own examination or that of an inspector."
  MR. R. POWERthought it but proper that the hon. Gentleman should state why he proposed to make this alteration.
  MR. STEVENSONsaid, he had understood no objection was raised to the Amendment. In explanation, he might say that this was a case in which a certificate was required before a new work was allowed to be registered. The certificate was, by the Amendment just adopted, to be granted by the Chief Inspector; and he (Mr. Stevenson) now proposed that either the Chief Inspector, or a Sub-Inspector, should make the preliminary examination of the works.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  (ii.) Inspection.
  Clause 12 (Appointment of Inspectors).
  MR. DODSONmoved to add, after line 20, page 6—
  "The salaries and remuneration of the inspectors, and all such expenses of the execution of this Act as the Commissioners of Her Ma
  1418
  jesty's Treasury may sanction, shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONmoved to add at end of the Clause—
  "A person holding the office of Chief Inspector, other than the person at the commencement of this Act mentioned, shall not be employed in any other work except by the authority appointing him to such office."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the Amendment was worded quite differently to that of which Notice had been given. He took it for granted that, as it was now put, it referred to the office of Chief Inspector; and he supposed they would have an assurance that the salary of the Chief Inspector would be something very different to that which he now received.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the object of the Amendment which had been proposed by his hon. Friend, and which he (Mr. Dodson) had accepted, was to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission that all the Inspectors employed by Government should give their undivided services to the public. The only exception was in the case of the very eminent person who now held the office of Chief Inspector, and he had always been in an exceptional position.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered him. He said he took it for granted that the Amendment applied only to the case of the Chief Inspector. The right hon. Gentleman had now said all the Assistant Inspectors were to devote their whole time to the public service. They now received something like £200 or, £300; but he had no hesitation in saying the expense would be three or four times as large as now if they were to give all their time.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was labouring under a mistake. All the Inspectors except the Chief Inspector now gave their whole time.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Disqualification of certain persons for inspectors).
  MR. ERRINGTONmoved, in page 6, line 39, after "applies," to insert "or in any other chemical work for gain." The Amendment was simply intended to extend the definition of disqualification of certain persons holding inspectorships.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. PELLasked at what point it was intended to report Progress?
  MR. DODSONproposed to go to the end of the 24th clause. Hon. Members would excuse him for reminding them that that was what he proposed at the onset to do, and in doing so he stated there was no seriously contested Amendment up to that point. Under the circumstances, he trusted the Committee would allow them to proceed.
  MR. CHAPLINwould be sorry to interrupt the progress of the Bill; but it was possible they might have to wait half an hour or an hour, or even an hour and a-half, before they got to the end of the 24th clause. He must remind the right hon. Gentleman that, although some of them might not be taking an active part in the consideration of the Bill now before the Committee, there were several Bills on the Paper which they felt obliged to remain for and watch. As they all hoped to be in their places again at 2 o'clock this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman ought to consent to report Progress at this point.
  MR. STEVENSONbelieved 10 minutes would enable them to complete the work contemplated at the rate of progress they were making.
  MR. PELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) did inform them at the commencement that there was no cause for serious disagreement; but since then an Amendment had been moved which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) declared would impose an enormous cost on the country.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhoped his hon. Friends would allow the Amendments to go on, because really they were most unimportant. The Bill was greatly needed, and, as everyone knew, was originally prepared under his direction.
  MR. HEALYasked if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to report Progress at 2 o'clock?
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he would support his hon. Friends, unless the Government would say they would consent to
  1420
  report Progress in 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour.
  MR. DODSONsaid, they would make much better progress with the Bill if they proceeded with the clauses up to the point he had mentioned, than if they stopped to discuss at what precise moment they should report Progress. If it should be found the hour was getting late before they reached the 24th clause, they might then consider whether they would report Progress.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Powers of inspectors) agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Facilities for inspection).
  MAJOR NOLAN (for Mr. DILLWYN)moved, in page 7, line 22, to leave out all after "shall," to "render," in line 30. It was very proper that the owner of the works should be obliged to give a plan to the Chief Inspector of the furnace in which he carried on his secret process, and the Amendment was to secure that this should be done.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 22, to leave out from the word "shall," to the word "render," in line 30.—(Major Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. DODSONhoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press the Amendment. If he would look into the matter, he would find that the Bill was a Consolidation Bill of the Acts relating to alkali works, and this provision was in those Acts, and the marginal note showed them where it was to be found.
  MR. GORSTsaid, it was quite clear they ought to report Progress. They had come to a very seriously contested point, and, therefore, he moved to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gorst.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 108: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 214.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he could not believe that the Government really intended to go on with the Bill; and, in order to give them an opportunity of explaining their position to the House,

  1421
  he would move that the Chairman leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 104: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 215.)
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLthought the Government would now be willing not to insist on making further Progress with the Bill, and he should, therefore, move that Progress be reported. He wished the Committee clearly to understand that the reason why he and his hon. Friends objected to further Progress being then made was, not that they objected to the principle of the Bill or the purpose of the Bill, but to the extremely unusual, irregular, and he thought he might say slovenly manner in which the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had carried it on. The Bill affected important and large pecuniary interests; but it had been perfectly clear that the right hon. Gentleman had not made up his mind as to the particular Amendments which he would or would not accept. He had never seen a Committee of that House the proceedings of which more nearly approached to farce. Hon. Members produced Amendments from their pockets; the Chairman of the Committee could not understand them; he was assisted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, who was again assisted by the President of the Local Government Board, who was himself contradicted by the former President of the Local Government Board. Hon. Members on that side of the House had been anxious to take part in the proceedings; but they could not understand what was going on. The right hon. Gentleman had said he would only go as far as the 24th clause, because there were no seriously contested Amendments before that clause; but the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had produced an Amendment raising a most important question, and therefore the ground on which the right hon. Gentleman thought the Committee should go was altered, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would see that discretion was the better part of valour, and would not insist upon proceeding. The Bill was not blocked, so that Pro-
  1422
  gress could be very well made at some other time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
  MR. OTWAYthought the best answer to the noble Lord would be found in the division that had just taken place. Members of great experience on that side of the House had supported the Government; but the noble Lord said he had never known a Bill managed in a more slovenly manner. He (Mr. Otway) had sat in the House for a great many years, and he had rarely known a Bill to be so well managed. This was a Bill of very great interest to the country generally; and it was a Bill of a highly technical character not easily to be contemplated by hon. Members who were not interested in the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had followed the extremely sensible course of coming to an agreement with hon. Members who had Amendments on the Paper, and the result was that up to the 23rd clause there had been no Amendment of any importance upon which he had not been able to arrive at an understanding. The noble Lord, and some hon. Members who supported him, had chosen to prevent the prosecution of the Bill to a successful issue; but he would put it to him and those who supported him—for he felt certain they had no wish to interfere with Business that was not of a Party character, but was of substantial benefit to the country—to allow the Committee to proceed. Two divisions had shown a great majority; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite, representing the action of the late Government, might claim the adhesion of the noble Lord. He hoped the noble Lord would withdraw his Motion and allow the Committee to proceed in a reasonable manner.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was in accord with the feeling that the Bill should proceed, and he regretted that his hon. Friends had not shown a little more self-restraint, seeing that by that time they could have made fair progress. At the same time, he was not prepared to sit up all night; and he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) whether he had not already advanced to within a few minutes

  1423
  of the time which he had expected to reach.
  MR. CHAPLINdid not wish to enter into a discussion as to whether the Bill had been well or ill managed, nor did he presume for a moment to criticize the mode in which the measure had been conducted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson). The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Otway) had said, very truly, that there was no desire to impede the Bill; but there was a great desire on the part of the Members on that side of the House, of whom he did not hesitate to say he was one, to go to bed, because they would be obliged to be there again at 2 o'clock that day. There were other Notices and Orders still on the Paper which possessed great interest for some hon. Members, and which they were obliged to watch; but until the discussion of that Bill came to an end it was impossible for them to go home to bed. He hoped the Government, at that time in the morning, would not persist. It was all very well to say that the discussion would be over in a few minutes; but Amendments had been introduced raising important questions, and the discussion might last one and a-half hours or longer.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he did not wish to continue this matter unnecessarily, and he would make a proposal to hon. Members opposite, which he hoped they would be willing to accept—namely, that they should dispose of the clause they were then on and then agree to report Progress. He would not enter into a controversy with the noble Lord as to the manner in which he had conducted the Bill. He would not dispute with the noble Lord as to his competency or in competency; but he wished to say that he had endeavoured in conducting the Bill, whether ill or well, to conduct it with courtesy to hon. Members, and he did not wish to make an exception in that respect, even with regard to the noble Lord.
  MR. HEALYremarked, that if half-an-hour ago the right hon. Gentleman had accepted his suggestion to continue until 2 o'clock he would have got the Bill through whole and entire by this time.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that, after all, this was only a question of one or two clauses, and he objected to working at that hour, because he believed that legislation after midnight was
  1424
  fraught with serious inconvenience to the country. Acts were habitually passed with very little consideration and examination in the small hours of the morning; and it was invariably found, after a Session or two, that they were incomplete, and must be amended. That was his objection to proceeding further with this Bill.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERwished to know how it was possible that any measure of a non-contentious character could be passed if such objections were raised. This was a Bill in which there was no disputed principle, and he thought the Committee should proceed with it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MAJOR NOLANcomplained that the Bill proposed to extend the principle of requiring people to give up plans to other than works involving muriatic gas. There were certain processes in regard to sulphur which were very expensive, and he wished to point out that the Bill would increase the force of that provision at least 10 times. It was one thing to give up ordinary plans, but quite another to give up secret and technical plans. He thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), who spoke with great authority, was a very proper one; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) would give a pledge that the provision should only apply to works in which muriatic gas was produced.
  MR. STEVENSONsaid, this was a Consolidation Bill; it included principles which had been the law of the land since the passing of the Alkali Act of 1862, and by the Act of 1874 it was applied to other gases than muriatic gas. He believed there was no real objection to this clause on the part of the manufacturers.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked, that if the words were omitted which were proposed to be left out, all reasonable objects would be attained by the clause. The owners would still be required to render all reasonable facilities for inspection. In the third line of the clause it was provided that plans should be given, but that they should be kept secret. In the second part of the clause, however, it appeared that the plans were to be communicated to the Inspectors, the Assistant Inspectors,

  1425
  and all the agents of the inspectors. What amount of secrecy could there be in such an arrangement? It was upon this ground that he supported the Amendment.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that if he got no answer from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board he should certainly move to report Progress. He thought he was entitled to some kind of answer when he brought forward a reasonable proposition.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he had not answered the hon. and gallant Member, first of all because he thought he had answered the objection already; and, secondly, because an answer had been given by his hon. Friend behind (Mr. Stevenson), who spoke from practical experience of the working of the existing Acts. It was not from any want of courtesy towards the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he had not risen to reply. He was sorry that he could not accept the Amendment, which would involve a breaking down of what had hitherto been the legislation of the country. He hoped the Committee would agree to the clause, and he should then be prepared to report Progress.
  MAJOR NOLANremarked, that the references in the Bill to previous Acts were badly drawn. He would not press the Amendment; but he hoped the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), in whose name it appeared on the Paper, would have an opportunity of bringing it up again upon the Report.
  MR. WARTONcomplained that the President of the Local Government Board had dictated to the Chairman seated in his place with his hat on when he should put the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 41.]
  (Mr. Litton, Mr. James Richardson.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 16th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  New Clause,—
  (Superannuation.)
  "The superannuation or retiring allowance of each petty sessions clerk retiring from office through ago or infirmity shall be estimated upon his salary and emoluments of his office at the time of his so retiring, and shall be chargeable on the petty sessions clerk's fund,"—(Mr. Litton,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwould object to the second reading of the clause unless the hon. and learned Member in charge of the Bill could inform the Committee what were the emoluments received by the clerks of petty sessions in addition to the salaries paid. He believed that in some instances these emoluments were very considerable, and the effect of this clause might be to throw an unfair burden upon the ratepayers.
  MR. LITTONsaid, the case stood thus—under 21 & 22 Vict. provision was made by which the petty sessions clerks received pensions regulated by the amount of the salaries they received, but which salaries fluctuated with the amount of fees received from year to year. The present Bill required that these pensions should be based upon the amount of emoluments received, as well as salaries, which by the Bill were proposed to be fixed for the future. The emoluments had reference to a certain portion of the dog licence tax, which the petty sessions clerks received as remuneration. It was only reasonable that when they came to receive their pensions the pensions should be calculated upon the emoluments as well as the salaries.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked what the emoluments were? He questioned very much whether any hon. Member could inform him.
  MR. MELDONsaid, that he knew something about the matter. The clause originally stood in his name, and the hon. and learned Member who had charge of the Bill agreed to adopt it. The petty sessions clerks were paid in two ways—by salaries, and by emoluments from fees on prosecutions, fees on licences, &c. The Bill provided, as it was introduced, that the clerks should be entitled to superannuation

  1427
  allowances on their salaries only, ignoring the fact that they were also paid by fees. Thet present clause merely provided that the fees as well as the salaries should be taken into account, as they were, at this moment, in the remuneration received.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the Bill took away all inducement from the petty sessions clerks to advise the magistrates in favour of convictions. Looking at the measure from a popular point of view, or from what was called the people's standpoint, it was a very desirable Bill. Strange to say, it received the sanction of every class in Ireland, so far as he could ascertain. In a recent visit to Ireland he had discussed the matter with every class of the people, and he had found there was a universal feeling in favour of the Bill. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) would withdraw his opposition, unless he had received strong representations from Ireland against the measure. In the event of his hon. Friend not having received such representations, he hoped he would allow himself to be guided by the opinion of those who had really considered the question.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, said, he had not the least objection to the Bill, and had promoted it as much as he could on the second reading. He knew that it was a good Bill, and all that he objected to was this particular clause. He objected to it because he believed that the emoluments of the petty sessions clerks were not exactly known, anal, therefore, that it would be unfair to saddle the ratepayers with a permanent charge on the strength of emoluments of which they knew nothing. Among the emoluments were the licences on the dog tax. The hon. and learned Member in charge of the Bill said nothing about that.
  MR. LITTONsaid, the hon. Members was mistaken. He had referred to the dog tax.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, was certainly of opinion that the majority of the Irish Members were not aware what these emoluments were. His contention was that they were not of a kind that superannuation ought to be calculated upon.
  MR. HEALYwas in favour of the Bill; but he should certainly like to
  1428
  know from the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) what was done with the dog tax?
  MR. MELDONreplied that the dog tax was one of the sources from which the petty sessions clerks were paid. Up to the present time it had been to the interest of the petty sessions clerks to bring about as many convictions as possible, and it was for the interest of the public that the present mode of proceeding should be altered. In bringing in the Bill his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Litton) had apparently forgotten that the superannuation allowances should be calculated on certain fees received from fines which did not fall upon the ratepayers at all. It was to remedy that omission that the present clause had been proposed.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (PROCESS) BILL,
  On Motion of Mr. MARJORIBANKS, Bill to amend the Law respecting the service of Process of Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in England and Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MARJORIBANKS, Colonel HOME, Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, and Mr. ARTHUR ELLIOT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 179.]
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.