Sitting of 27 May 1881

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Considered as amended North British Railway (New Tay Viaduct)*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Lord
Lieutenants of Counties (Ireland)*[180].
Committee—Local Government Provisional Orders (Acton, &c)*[159], discharged; Land Law (Ireland) [135]—[Second Night]—R.P.
Report—Land Drainage Provisional Orders*[153]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Bandon, &c.)*[163]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Halifax, &c.)*[159].
Considered as amended—Customs and Inland Revenue* [136].
Third Reading—Water Provisional Orders*[146]; Bankruptcy and Cessio (Scotland)*[174]; Newspapers* [154], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—BULGARIA.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any action has been taken on the part of Her Majesty's Government to call the attention of Prince Alexander of Bulgaria, who became the constitutional Prince of that Country, in accordance with the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin, to the sacred character of the oath by which he bound himself to maintain the constitution of Bulgaria, and to the possibly serious consequences of his violation of that oath; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have received any confirmation from Her Majesty's representative in Bulgaria of the assertion of Prince Alexander, in his manifesto which accompanied his revolutionary attack upon the Representative Bulgarian Assembly, that the Country was in a state of such disorder that a coup d'état was necessary?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that, before the hon. Baronet answered that Question, he wished to ask, whether it was true that since the declaration of the Prince of Bulgaria, he had received a new Russian Minister, with whom he proposed to proceed into the interior?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, no such action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government, and it is understood that the intention of the Prince of Bulgaria is to offer his abdication to the Great National Assembly, stating at the same time the conditions on which he would consent to remain, and which he considers indispensable to enable him to carry on the Government. Her Majesty's Government are in communication with Her Majesty's Agent at Sofia on the subject of presenting Papers to Parliament, which will explain the reasons which have induced the Prince of Bulgaria to take this step. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) will give Notice of his Question.

  ARMY—SICK LEAVE—CAPTAIN BUTLER.
  MR. M'COANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that Captain Butler, 9th Regiment, has been granted eighteen months' sick leave from India, his illness having been contracted in and by the Service while surveying on the Perso-Turkoman Frontier, as shown by proceedings of a medical board dated 4th July 1879, Murree, India; whether it is a fact that, at the conclusion of his eighteen months' sick leave, he reported himself fit for duty, and a medical board passed him as such, but that while waiting for his orders a severe recurrence of his illness seized him, upon which he sought the independent medical advice of Dr. Russell-Reynolds, and that Captain Butler forwarded his doctor's certificate corroborating the above illness, and stating that it was quite unsafe for this officer to proceed at this season to India, but that in a few months he would be quite recovered; and, if so, on what grounds he is now refused sick leave, the last board held on him having sat before his relapse above mentioned; whether there is any provision in the Queen's Regulations, or elsewhere, drawing a hard and fast line as to the limit of sick leave to be granted to officers who have lost their health in and by the Service; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the names of such officers as have received sick leave within the last five years, showing the total terms of such leave granted to each; and, whether the sickness for

  1453
  which they have been granted has been contracted in and by the Service, or otherwise?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, it is the case that Captain Butler was granted 12 months' sick leave from India, which leave was further extended for six months; but he was informed that if, at the expiration of that period, he was still unfit for service, he would be called upon to resign. However, he reported himself fit, and was so found by a medical board, and was accordingly ordered to embark for India. On the day before he should have embarked he sent in a certificate from a civil doctor stating that he was unfit to return to India, and he asked for four months' more leave. Upon this, he was called upon to retire. There is another reason, not medical, that makes Captain Butler unwilling to return to India—that is, as he himself officially states, a belief that he will be arrested for debt as soon as he arrives in Bombay. There is no provision in the Queen's Regulations as to the limit of sick leave, each case being considered on its merits. I do not propose to lay on the Table such a Return as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I do not believe that it is the wish of the House to interfere in questions of this kind, which are essentially for the Commander-in-Chief, under the responsibility of and subject to an appeal to the Secretary of State.

  UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXPENDITURE— WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether remonstrances have been lately received at the Colonial Office from Western Australia, as to the way in which expenditure has been incurred in that Colony, without previous legislative sanction; and, whether the subject is under the consideration of the Secretary of State?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, it might be enough to say that the hon. and gallant Baronet's information is quite correct; but as he has asked me, for good reasons, to give a somewhat full answer to his Question, I must state a few particulars. The Legislative Council of Western Australia, in September of last year, presented an Address to the Governor in connection with a
  1454
  "Bill to regulate the receipt, custody, and issue of the public moneys, and to provide for the audit of the public accounts,"
  in which Address the Council represented that the control of the Legislature over the public purse has been merely nominal, and not real, as the present constitution of the Colony contemplates. They further stated that during the past 10 years some £160,000 has, in fact, been expended over and above the sums submitted to vote in the annual Estimates. The Governor pointed out, in reply, that this irregularity has been, to a great extent, due to the practice of framing the Estimates on an insufficient scale, leaving it to the Governor to issue on his own authority Supplementary Warrants, which had to be legalized by subsequent legislation; and he quoted the Report of a Select Committee on over-expenditure for 1878, which stated "that due regard to economy was, as a whole, observed by this Government." The Secretary of State is now considering this matter, and proposes to issue such instructions as may remove, as far as practicable, the irregularity of spending money without the previously obtained authority of the Legislature. Her Majesty's Government are confident that they will have the full co-operation of the Governor in securing the legitimate control of the Legislature over the Public Expenditure.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—POLI TICAL PRISONERS (MR. HODNETT)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (for Mr. HEALY)asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is true that on yesterday, Ascension Thursday, being a Catholic holiday, Mr. Hodnett, a political prisoner in Limerick Gaol, was deprived of the privilege of associating with other prisoners as a punishment for hurrying from his cell into chapel, a distance of 20 yards?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, on receiving private Notice of this Question yesterday, I at once made inquiry of the prison authorities by telegraph; but I have not yet received an answer.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman heard today?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): No; Sir.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— PRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is, Whether by any statement made in this House, or by any Papers that can be laid on the Table of the House, the right hon. Gentleman can give any information with respect to the state of affairs in the Transvaal, and as to what may have occurred there during the past few weeks. Perhaps in explanation I may say that we are absolutely without any information on the subject, and pending the arrival of the time when, in the opinion of the Government, it may be possible to raise a discussion on the Transvaal Question, we can only attempt to obtain information by isolated Questions, which is a very unsatisfactory method. The points to which I wish to direct attention are these. As to the case of Potchefstroom—have the guns and rifles been restored; if not, when will they be restored? When will Potchefstroom be re-occupied by British troops? What are the present relations, and what have been the relations during the last few weeks, between the Boers and the English or other loyal subjects of Her Majesty in the Transvaal, and particularly what are the relations now existing between the Boers and the large Native population? I do not doubt that Her Majesty's Government, through Sir Evelyn Wood, are in communication with the officials in the Transvaal who acted on behalf of this country, and, therefore, are able to obtain information on all those points. We have seen this morning most alarming telegrams in the Press on the subject. From my own experience such telegrams are often inaccurate. But it is obvious that if they are inaccurate, full and accurate information ought to be given as soon as possible.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, I will try to give as full an answer as possible to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman. Some time ago the Boer leaders apologized fully for the breach of faith committed by their subordinate officer at Potchefstroom, agreeing also to the cancelling of the capitulation and the restoration of all the articles taken over as per inventory. They further entirely
  1456
  acquiesced in our demand to send back the garrison, or a military force equivalent to it. Our contention was thus fully admitted, but certain measures had, as mentioned by the Prime Minister, to be adopted with regard to it, and finally we left the precise time and manner of the sanding back of the garrison, or its equivalent, to Sir Evelyn Wood, and we do not know precisely in what stage the process of its replacement is at this moment. With regard to the guns, Sir Evelyn Wood telegraphed on the 21st that they were promised about the 26th. Turning now to the right hon. Gentleman's two other Questions, communications in the Transvaal, slow and imperfect at the best of times, are now, of course, slower and more imperfect than ever, and, as the right hon. Gentleman and the House know, the telegraph between Pretoria and the frontier has been interrupted. But if these stories which appear in some of the papers about fighting between Boers and Natives, and serious quarrels between Beers and loyalists were not grossly exaggerated, Sir Hercules Robinson and Sir Evelyn Wood, who are much nearer the Transvaal than the place from which many of these reports come, would necessarily know all about them; and the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, knows Sir Hercules Robinson too well to doubt that so experienced an official, now, I think, in his tenth governorship, would take care to keep the Secretary of State thoroughly informed of what it would be so material for him to know, even if our repeated questions, suggested by inquiries in Parliament, had not specially directed his attention to these subjects. I have told the House from time to time what Sir Hercules Robinson has replied to us. Thus, on the 19th, I mentioned that Major Buller had been sent with Mr. Joubert to part a Native tribe and some Boers in the Keate Award territory, while on the 23rd I mentioned that Major Buller had reported from Potchefstroom that the rumours as to the Boer Commando against Montsoia were much exaggerated, and that no forward movement had been made. We shall hope before long to be in a position to lay some further Papers on the Table, chiefly, of course, telegraphic; and, meantime, if the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with me as to any further points connected with these rumours on which he would

  1457
  like to be informed, we will telegraph to Sir Hercules Robinson. But knowing, as we all do, on what slender foundation great fabrics of rumour are built, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not think it right for us to be always telegraphing to ask Sir Hercules Robinson if this or that sensational story is or is not true. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman, who has been Secretary of State for the Colonies, suggests a doubt, or a question, the matter at once becomes important, and he may rely upon our doing all we can to obtain for him the fullest information possible.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I am sorry to say I cannot accept the answer of the right hon. Gentleman as being by any means satisfactory, and, with the indulgence of the House, I will specify two points in regard to which information is particularly desirable. In this morning's papers there is a long telegram from Natal, in which it is stated that a certain force, the exact companies and regiments of which are defined, is to march for Potchefstroom on a certain day. Has the right hon. Gentleman any information on that subject? The second point is this—There is a most alarming statement in this morning's telegram that all the Natives, whether in the Boer Service or the English Service, have been summoned by their Chiefs to be at their war kraals at a certain date. Is that true, or is it not true? The right hon. Gentleman has asked me for suggestions. What I would venture to suggest is that he should at once telegraph to Sir Hercules Robinson or Sir Evelyn Wood, and ask them to require at once from all the British officials in the different parts of the Transvaal full Reports as to the present state of affairs.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Sir, I also wish to ask whether it is true that the Native loyal Chief Montesui, whose only offence was that he protected loyal subjects against the Boers, had been attacked and defeated, with a loss of 90 men, by the Dutch Commander Kronge, the man who had been guilty of a great breach of faith against ourselves?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: The Colonial Office has received no information on any one of these subjects. I need hardly say that I shall at once communicate with Sir Hercules Robinson on
  1458
  the points referred to by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GORST: I beg to ask whether any steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government for the protection of the Natives who are British subjects? I should like to have an answer, if it can be given without detriment to the Public Service.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, the protection of the Natives and the protection of the British and other loyalist settlers in the Transvaal are matters to which the attention of Sir Hercules Robinson and the other Commissioners has been pointedly drawn. I have no doubt that Sir Hercules Robinson and the other Commissioners are doing their duty.
  MR. GORST: Have Sir Hercules Robinson and the other members of the Commission power to take active military measures, if such should become necessary, for the protection of the unhappy Natives?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: As I have already intimated, Her Majesty's Government is at this moment responsible for the maintenance of peace in the Transvaal, and will enforce its authority to the best of its ability.

  EAST COAST OF AFRICA—SUBSIDIZED MAIL CONTRACTS.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it be true that the Government have determined to withdraw the annual subsidy of £10,000 from the British India Steamship Company which has hitherto been granted to that Company to enable them to run a monthly steamer between Aden and Zanzibar, and having in view the fact that owing to the stoppage of the subsidy to the Union Company they have already ceased running between Natal and Zanzibar, they are aware that the whole of the East Coast of Africa between Aden and Natal will be without mail communication, and that utter ruin will be inflicted upon the rapidly growing trade between this Country and the East Coast, and the exploration, civilising, and opening up of the regions of Central Africa will receive a decided check by the withdrawal of these subsidies?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, the existing contract with the British India Steamship Company does not expire until the end of 1882, and if it be

  1459
  then renewed—which is not probable—it will be for political reasons only, as the present contract entails a heavy loss upon the Exchequer. I must observe that the Union Steamship Company now run a monthly line of steamers between the Cape, Natal, and Delagoa Bay. From the latter point vessels belonging to the British India Company run at regillar intervals to Zanzibar, and thence to Aden. There is, therefore, at present regular steam communication along the whole East Coast of Africa, and this would probably continue even after the withdrawal of the Aden and Zanzibar subsidy. I must also remind my hon. Friend that the new line of telegraph from Aden to Natal, which touches at Zanzibar, Mozambique, and Delagoa Bay, and to which a large subsidy is paid by this country, has provided great additional facilities for trade and exploration.

  IRISH EXECUTIVE.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), When he proposed to seek the opportunity of continuing the debate on his Resolution censuring the conduct of the Irish Executive for the arrest of certain "suspects" under the Coercion Acts?
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYin reply, said, he thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley would have done better to address his Question to the Prime Minister. So far as he and his Friends were concerned, they were most anxious to have the debate brought to a conclusion. The question had not been thoroughly discussed. Neither the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), nor any Member of the Executive of the Land League had spoken. It was his intention to lose no opportunity to bring on the discussion, and the Motion would not be removed from the Notice Paper until it had been fairly discussed.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there was considerable difference of opinion between the hon. Member and the Government, and he thought between him and the House, as to the proceedings which had taken place on that Motion. Of course, the hon. Member held to his opinion, and he himself held to his own. But there had been three separate and several occasions when the question might have been brought forward. The
  1460
  hon. Member knew he could not ask the House to put aside the Land Bill, and lie did not suppose it would do so. However, he thought the best course would be this—On Monday night the Government would be quite content to adjourn the debate on the Land Bill not later than 12 o'clock. There was no other Business before or after the Land Bill, except the third reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. He was not aware that that would take long. He would suggest that the discussion might then be resumed, and he would take care that no Government Business should interpose.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORdenied that there were three nights when the question might have been brought on. There had only been one discussion with reference to the Motion of his hon. Friend. On a previous occasion the right hon. Gentleman and his subordinates took refuge in obstinate silence. There had only been one discussion, in which one speech had been delivered on one side and one on the other. The offer of the Prime Minister was not satisfactory. It was not easy to continue a discussion after midnight. They must ask that the discussion should begin not later than 10 o'clock. If the Chief Secretary was really sincere in his desire to have the question discussed, he would accede to his request.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— THE DERBY DAY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked Mr. Speaker, Whether it was really inevitable that most important Public Business was to be postponed next Tuesday to make way for a debate over the adjournment for the Derby Day, and whether some arrangement could not be made to avoid such a waste of time?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have no further information to offer to the hon. Gentleman than the House is already in possession of.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he proposed to persevere with his Motion for asking a Vote on Account, and, if so, on what class of Estimates he proposed placing it?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government intended to take a Vote on Account for all classes of the Estimates. If they

  1461
  were in a position to go into Committee of Supply they could take the Vote for special classes; but as they were not they had to adopt the other course.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEdesired to learn from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for what period of time it was proposed to take the Vote on Account, and whether he would propose it late on Monday evening?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that the Vote would be taken for six weeks, and it was absolutely necessary that it should be taken before Whitsuntide. He was afraid there was not much prospect of the Vote being taken at an early hour.
  MR. HEALY: Before what hour?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, they should endeavour to report Progress not later than 12 o'clock.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, he hoped the Prime Minister would reconsider the proposal of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), and take the discussion at 10 o'clock. He thought it would be better for the objects of the Government if he would do so. He did not expect an immediate answer to the suggestion, but hoped it would be considered.
  MR. MACARTNEYthought that, considering the enormous number of Amendments on the Land Bill, it would be unfortunate if an adjournment took place early on every evening.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he would oppose any adjournment of the debate on the Land Bill unless it was to bring on one of the important English subjects which had been mentioned in the Queen's Speech.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 136.]
  (Mr. Playfair, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that he had been prevented from bringing on his Motion with respect to the heavy duty on tobacco. He should not bring it on this year; but he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would con-
  1462
  sider the high duties on tobacco, and make some modification.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a point as to which there had been some little misunderstanding. His right hon. Friend had stated in his Budget speech that, as regarded Probate Duty, the question of settled property was a difficult one; that it was unreasonable that heavy Probate Duty should he levied on unsettled property, while a duty of 5s. only was levied on settled property; but that he had looked carefully into the question and found that it was so mixed up with the question of real estate that it was impossible to deal with it except as a separate matter. But there was a clause in the Bill which had caused some anxiety. That was the 39th clause, which, among other things, made property subject to a voluntary settlement liable to Probate Duty. He wished to know if the effect of those words was to make settled property subject to the duty; or, as he rather supposed, was weight to be given to the word "voluntary," so that marriage settlements should not be included? It was desirable to have the point cleared up.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the question entirely beyond doubt. The construction suggested by his right hon. Friend was perfectly correct. Voluntary settlement was dealt with because that sort of settlement, with a reserve power to the settler to revoke it and resume possession, was, as the Treasury conceived, a complete evasion. He hoped that his Amendment in Clause 9, which, in place of testing by Sykes's hydrometer, provided that—
  "A sample of such spirit may be distilled or treated by such other process as the Commissioners of Customs shall direct, so that the true strength of the spirit may be ascertained by the said hydrometer,"
  would be accepted. It did not correspond in terms with the engagement he gave to the House, though he would hold to the engagement if it were insisted on. He wished the House to understand that they were carrying out the spirit of the engagement. The testing with a view to the duty would still remain to be carried on by the criterion of the instrument known as Sykes's hydrometer, as it had always been, and

  1463
  the only new power given to the Department was to enable them to direct means for clearing the commodity which was to be valued, and bringing it into a proper state for distillation. He was bound to say that he thought the clause stood better as it did now, because this duty of arranging means for bringing spirit into a state for distillation was an executive and administrative duty strictly belonging to the Department.
  Amendment proposed,
  In Clause 9, page 4, line 19, leave out all after "hydrometer," to end of Clause, and insert "a sample of such spirit may be distilled or treated by such other process as the Commissioners of Customs shall direct, so that the true strength of the spirit may be ascertained by the said hydrometer."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAconsidered the Amendment not only suitable, but needful. The hydrometer was, no doubt, a highly efficient instrument, but not universally operative. For instance, if applied to liquors, the specific gravity of which was affected by the presence of sugar, the hydrometer would not show their true alcoholic strength; and an Amendment such as that now proposed was requisite to permit another testing process to be adopted in such cases—for example, distillation, which it was the practice to apply at present for testing the strengths of wines.
  MR. WARTONconsidered the objectionable feature in the clause to be the words "or otherwise;" and he, therefore, suggested to the Prime Minister that they should be omitted.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHwas quite willing to accept the suggestion; but he proposed that the words "direct will be sanctioned" should be inserted.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid; that he had suggested the Amendment in the first instance, and was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had adopted it. He would, however, move to insert, after the, word "process," "as should have been previously approved by the Treasury, and notified to the trade."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought he could persuade the hon. and gallant Member that this Amendment was a most unwise one from his point of view. If they were to specify in the case of a particular measure that the regulations would be made known to the trade, others would have to be made known.
  MR. WARTONcontended that all the evil lay in the words "or otherwise," and would again suggest that they should be left out.
  MR. CHILDERSpointed out that the strength of the spirit would be decided by the hydrometer; but it might be necessary, at the same time, to remove certain impurities before it could be so tested. The real test, however, about which the trade was anxious, was preserved in its entirety.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WARTONbegged to draw attention, in Clause 39, line 23, to the words "donation mortis causâ." It was his opinion that they should speak either English or Latin; and, therefore, he proposed that the word "donatlo" should be substituted for the word "donation." The First Lord of the Treasury was so good a scholar that the alteration must recommend itself to the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he was grateful to the hon. and learned Member for the suggestion which he had made.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 135.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE. [SECOND NIGHT.]
  [Progress 26 th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  PART I.
  ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES.
  Clause 1 (Sale of tenancies).
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he rose to move the Amendment which stood first on the Paper—namely, the postponement of the 1st clause until after the consideration of Clauses 31 to 43, which dealt with the Court and Land Commission. In moving this Amendment, he desired to take the first opportunity of assuring Her Majesty's Government that he did not do so in any dilatory spirit. He felt that, for every reason, it was the duty of those who sat on that (the Ministerial) side of the

  1465
  House to do everything they could to contribute towards the early discussion and settlement of what they must all feel was a most arduous and a most difficult question; and he also felt, and felt most deeply, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government had, for many reasons which he need not mention, because they were perfectly well known, a claim upon the attention and patience of the House which everybody, at any rate on that side and, he believed also, on the other side, of the House, would be very unwilling to deny. Probably no more difficult task had ever been undertaken by any Government; and he, for one, would do nothing that could retard Progress. He should be able to show to the Committee that if Her Majesty's Government would adopt the Amendment he was moving, they would be in a far more favourable position for getting the clauses through than would otherwise be the case. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said—and had said with great truth, as it had appeared to him (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice)—that the Court and Land Commission were the core of the measure. To quote from a recently-published volume of Hansard, the words the Prime Minister used were these—
  "Now, Sir, I come to the great question which I think must constitute the salient point and the cardinal principle of the Bill, the institution of a Court which is to take cognizance of rent, and which, in taking cognizance of rent, will also, according to the provisions of the Bill, not be debarred from taking cognizance of tenure and assignment."—[3 Hansard, cclx. 904.]
  He thought that elsewhere in his speech the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Court as the "core" of the Bill. He said—
  "We have accordingly made the entrance into Court an essential part of the Bill; indeed, it is the very core and centre of the measure we now submit".—[Ibid., 923.]
  He had observed, and he thought other Members had also observed, that it was now the practice of the draftsman, in drafting important Bills, to place in the forefront of the battle, as it were, the main or principal clause of a Bill, so that what might be said to be the principle of the measure—the "salient point" and "cardinal principle"—and the "core and centre" of the measure—might be discussed and settled as
  1466
  soon as possible. Accepting, as he did, from the Prime Minister that the Court and Land Commission was in reality the "core and centre" of this Bill, it appeared to him that it would have been well if the draftsman, following the modern practice, had placed the Court and the Land Commission first in the Bill. No one could have followed the interesting discussions they had had on the second reading without becoming aware that the Court, both in regard to procedure and the persons who were to constitute it, was a question of very grave doubt and anxiety to many hon. Members, even to those who were amongst the most cordial supporters of the Bill. There was a tolerably general agreement, coupled, no doubt, with a difference as to details, with regard to what might be called the main outlines of the duties which were to be conferred on the Court; but there was no such agreement as to what the Court was to be, and he could not help feeling that the discussion of the first 30 clauses of the Bill would be very much coloured in Committee, as it had been on the second reading, by the idea which hon. Members might have formed to themselves of what the Land Court was to be. There were many proposals which hon. Members would be willing to accept, if the Land Court were to be constituted in a certain manner, which they would not accept for a moment if it were differently constituted. For example, they had all heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leitrim. (Mr. Tottenham). He had a great and holy horror of the lawyer, and seemed to be exceedingly anxious, as far as possible, to withdraw questions under the Bill from the cognizance of the lawyers, and to trust them rather to agricultural experts. Then there was the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the County of Antrim (Mr. Macnaghten), in which he disclosed a plan of his own for the appointment of certain roving Commissioners in each of the four great Provinces of Ireland. There was, also, an important Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the County of Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett), and another in the name of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). All these were Amendments to be moved by Gentlemen possessing either considerable knowledge

  1467
  of Ireland or a very great knowledge of agricultural questions, and sometimes of both. He had every reason to believe that other Amendments had been, or were about to be, placed on the Paper in regard to such questions, so that it was perfectly clear that if they entered on the discussion of the first 18 clauses of the Bill without settling what the Land Court on which they were to confer all these delicate, difficult, and arduous duties was to be, they would be more or less legislating in the dark. He had, on the other hand, been told that it was absurd to constitute a Court before they had ascertained what the duties of that Court were to be; but his reply to that was a very simple one. It was, as he had said just now, that there was, on the whole, a tolerable general agreement as to the main duties and outline of what the work of the Court was to be; therefore, if they discussed the constitution of the Court first, they would not be discussing the question of the duties of the Court in the dark in the same manner that they would be discussing the constitution of the Court in the dark if they took first the question of what the duties of the Commissioners were to be. These seemed to him to be tolerably satisfactory reasons for the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper. He might just add, in case any objection was taken on what might be called technical grounds, that there were an abundance of precedents for the course he had suggested; but he had no wish to detain the Committee by stating them, unless an objection was taken. If Her Majesty's Government would take the course he proposed, they would materially facilitate the passing of their own Bill, and would take a course which would give very great satisfaction in Ireland, where a great number of persons viewed the question of the constitution of the Court, both in regard to the formation of it and also in regard to the persons who were to compose it, with the greatest anxiety. These persons would view the other clauses of the Bill from a much clearer standpoint if they knew exactly how they were situated in regard to the composition of the Court. If his Motion were agreed to, he should move, as a consequential Motion, the postponement of the subsequent clauses between Clause 1 and the beginning of Part VI.,
  1468
  so as to take Part VI. before they approached any other matter.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Clause I be postponed till after the Consideration of Clauses 31 to 43 (Part VI. Court and Land Commission.)—(Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice.)
  MR. MEALYsaid, that, from a very different reason to that stated by the noble Lord, he rose to give a certain amount of qualified support to the proposal. He was totally opposed to the insertion of the 1st clause in the Bill, believing it to be worthless and even mischievous. If it were true that the Duke of Argyll had seceded from the Cabinet on account of this clause, he could only wonder why on earth he had taken the trouble to do so, because, though proposing to confer the right of free sale on the tenant, the clause really did nothing of the kind. It simply proposed to put on that right certain restrictions which did not exist under the present law. Nothing could be clearer in Common Law than that every man who had an interest in selling, whether it were hay, corn, or land, had the right of free sale. As to the interest of the tenant in the land, he would quote from the handbook of the Chairman of County Kilkenny, in which it was stated on pages 101 and 102—
  "It may be stated that every person having a legal interest in land may assign it, and the right to assign it is legally vested in every lessee."
  He maintained that every tenant in Ireland had the right of free sale; but why could he not exercise that right? It was not because of the want of the one "F," but of the other two "F's"—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is simply the postponement of Clause 1. Clause 1 cannot be discussed until it is put as part of the Bill.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that if that was the case he should have to postpone his remarks; but he had been under the impression that he was at liberty to give his reasons for supporting the Motion for the postponement of the clause. His Opinion was that the clause should be held over, because it was utterly worthless. He saw the Prime Minister laugh. He was aware of the large amount of time and study and patience the Government had given to the measure—no one who had read the clauses could doubt

  1469
  that they had given an enormous amount of consideration to them. He freely and readily admitted it; but what he said was this—that the tenants of Ireland did not want free sale; but what they required were the other two "F's." The Prime Minister had said that the measure did not give all three "F's," and that was certainly true. The tenants of Ireland could not exercise free sale, because the landlord could prevent an outsider who had purchased a man's improvements from remaining on the land either by raising his rent or turning him out. The outgoing tenant's right to sell was undoubted; the incoming tenant's right to pay the other the money was undoubted; and if the Government wished to settle this matter, they must not restrict the undoubted rights which the parties possessed to buy and sell; but they must give the tenant two things, the absence of which at present enabled the landlord to encroach upon the right of free sale—namely, fixity of tenure and fair rent. It might be said that if the clause was struck out, if a man assigned his property, the incoming tenant could be turned out by the landlord; but such was not the case. If there was anything clear in law it was that there was an abstraction called a "tenancy" created by the letting of land. That abstraction—if the clause were struck out—as soon as the new tenant entered into possession, with or without the landlord's consent—as soon as he stood in the other man's shoes—gave him the right of his predecessor. The landlord could not come in and summarily turn him out. If he wished to remove the person, he would have to get an ejectment decree, as he would have been obliged to do if he had wished to proceed against the original tenant whilst in occupation. Therefore, he (Mr. Healy) contended that what was wanted was not an encroachment upon a man's present rights, but the conferring upon him of that which he did not possess already—namely, fixity of tenure and fair rent. He should like to put two or three questions to the Prime Minister, and he would do so, of course, subject to the Chairman's ruling.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will have an opportunity on Clause 1 of giving a full explanation of his views with regard to the provision. If he dislikes it when it is moved to stand part
  1470
  of the Bill, he can speak against it; but the question now before the Committee is simply whether Clause 1 shall be postponed until after some other clauses have been considered.
  MR. HEALYsaid, in that case he would postpone his remarks for the present.
  MR. P. MARTINconsidered that the Amendment was a most proper one, and, if adopted, would tend materially to facilitate the progress of the Bill. The noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) asked the Committee to determine the constitution of the Court and Commission before they should be called on to discuss the powers and extent of the jurisdiction the Committee might be called on to vest in that body. As the noble Lord had very rightly said, the Court and Commissioners was the salient point and cardinal principle of the Bill. If a proper Commission and a proper Court were constituted, he thought, so far as he was acquainted with the matter, that the Irish Members and the Members of this Committee would be very likely to confer, freely and generously, all powers to give effect, practically, to the operations of the Commission. Let the Committee reflect on the nature, character, and jurisdiction of this Commission that the Government at present required them to constitute under the provisions of the Bill. It was a Commission wholly unknown heretofore to our law. It would be superior to every Court in Ireland, possessing powers greater than the Court of Appeal, greater than the Court of Queen's Bench, and possessing a jurisdiction never before exercised. In coming to consider the question whether they should decide this part of the Bill first, it was of the utmost importance that they should have these points clearly in view. The Court would have power to rescind and vary its orders. It would have power, in point of fact, over everything affecting the law of landlord and tenant. It would have the power of distributing millions of money, freed from all restraining or controlling powers. He would not go into the question of decisions as a Court of First Instance, as that would he rather entering into a discussion of the clauses; but he would confine himself solely to the question of the Commission. Seeing that it would have to consider matters touching the every-day life of

  1471
  landlord and tenant in Ireland, that it would be absolutely without control, and that the distribution of many millions of money would be handed over to it, they ought, he contended, to proceed, in the first place—before going further—to settle what was to be the character of the Court they were going to intrust with these powers. He could understand something being said against that course if this was a judicial tribunal governed by known usages and rules; but, unfortunately, as he said, this was a tribunal sui generis. Then, he might remind hon. Members who had taken the trouble up to the present to look through the Amendments on the Paper, in many instances their consideration must necessarily be much influenced and discussion prolonged if the Committee remained in doubt as to the character and constitution of the proposed tribunal. Let him take, by way of illustration, the Amendments of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), which increased the powers of the Court in the 1st clause of the Bill. Well, if they had a satisfactory tribunal—one which the House and the people of Ireland could have confidence in—of course, they could fairly accede to all propositions of this kind. But it was said that the tribunal which was to exercise these enormous powers over so many millions of property was to be movable, at the option of the Government of the day. That was a singular feature in the Bill. The Court of Queen's Bench were to be prevented from exercising jurisdiction over the Commission, and the Land Court was to be constituted solely at the pleasure of Her Majesty, and, consequently, removable by the Government for the time being. Under these circumstances, when they saw what were the final intentions of the Government in respect to this matter of the Land Commission, they would be in a far better position to come to a decision as to the provisions they should insert in the measure than they were now. He would not enter into the question whether a Court of this character should not be a Court of dignity and independence, free from all Governmental influence, for that would be entering into the merits of the clauses; but he did think that the Committee, before entering upon the consideration of the various
  1472
  sections, had a right to know whether the Government would accede to the suggestions which had been thrown out, and would give them a Court free from Governmental influence. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] He (Mr. Martin) was glad to hear that intimation from the right hon. Gentleman; and, as to that part of the question, he would say nothing further. All he would say was this—there were, as they all knew, all through these clauses, in respect to the Land Court and Commission, references of vital importance, and many of the difficulties in connection with them might be removed by the admission they had had from the Prime Minister. The progress of the measure, he had no doubt, would be much facilitated by what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am anxious, without delay, to correct a mistake which there appears to be in the minds of some hon. Members, and to make what I imagine is only a just concession to the House. I am very sorry that this Motion has been made; but I am bound to say that I think it possible I have been myself in some degree the cause of its being made. I would only ask thus much indulgence from the Committee, the admission that there is a limit to the labours of man. I can assure the Committee that I have not economized labour and effort on this Bill; but I am bound to admit—and I do it frankly, and at once—that, having worked hard with my Friends and Colleagues on those which I thought the most vital parts of the Bill, I did not pay as much attention to some of the particulars of the constitution of the Court as I should have done. One consequence of that has been—as I have already intimated—that we have not, as we intended to do, given to the parties the option of passing by the Civil Bill Court and going at once to the Commission; and I may state, also, that it is a clear and manifest error due to a shortcoming of my own, that no provision has been inserted in the Bill to render the Commission irremovable. I state that at once, because I think it may, probably, influence the judgment of the Committee with regard to this clause. In response to the noble Lord's repudiation of any such intention I must at once say that I do not cast the slightest

  1473
  imputation upon him of having brought forward this Motion for dilatory purposes; and I should not have thought it necessary to mention such a subject if he had not thought it right to disclaim it. I think the noble Lord is under a mistake when, in quoting me, he says I described the Court and Land Commission as the "core" of the Bill. What I consider to be the cardinal principle of the measure is the proposal to refer to a public authority the determination of questions of rent and tenant right. That I believe to be the very heart and centre of the Bill; but, as to the particular constitution of the Court, I never used any expression of the kind, and it would be entirely alien from my views to do so. On the subject of the constitution of the Court, I have assumed all along that if we could agree on the technical matters we have to deal with in considering "tenure" and "interest," we should have no difficulty worth naming as to the constitution of the Court, because we all feel that it is in the interest of the framers of the Bill, and in the interest of the landlords, the tenants, and all parties that the Court should be the most efficient we can constitute. That being so, I am sorry to say that I must resist my noble Friend's Amendment, as, in my opinion, it would throw the discussion of the Bill into confusion. There are, and there must be, a great number of provisions of detail in reference to this Court, and for two causes—first of all, the great extent and diversity of its functions in any case; and secondly, on account of the uncertainty as to the form these functions will take. It is doubly uncertain. It will be uncertain to no very small degree when this Bill becomes an Act, and, in order to meet that uncertainty, we must make the provisions elastic; and I fully admit that you can only do that by giving confidence to those who are to administer the Act. We are not desirous of turning the Bill to any account for purposes of patronage; but our position will be to give as great a control and as much power as can properly be given to the Central Commission, which Central Commission will have complete independence. But my argument as to the proposal of my noble Friend is not merely that it is not necessary if these general principles are granted, but it is that we really do not know, and cannot
  1474
  know until we have gone through the enacting provisions of the Bill, what will be the duties to be performed, the number of persons to be appointed, the powers to be exercised by subordinate agents, and the manner in which they are to be brought home, as nearly as we can, to the doors of the people interested in the Bill. Until we have disposed of a number of substantial questions raised in the Amendments, it is impossible for us to judge how we are to arrange the machinery. Now, my noble Friend spoke of precedents, and certainly there is no technical objection to be taken to his Motion. From a technical point of view, it is open to us to proceed in either way; but the particular measure which most bears upon this question—namely, the Land Act of 1870, does not supply anything like a precedent. We went through all the provisions—all the material provisions—relating to the claims of the tenant and the landlord respectively before we proceeded to deal with the Court. It was in the 22nd clause that we proceeded to define what the Court should be. The functions of the Court constituted by the Land Act were less difficult than those which we are going to confer upon the Commission; but the functions conferred upon that Court were quite as novel, when they were conferred, as will be the functions proposed to be conferred on the Commission. My noble Friend thinks that we have got already a very good view, subject to some differences in details, of the details of the duties the Court will have to perform. If my noble Friend can convince me of that it will almost reconcile me to his proposal. According to him, we can go at full gallop through the clauses as to the constitution of the Court; but I, on the contrary, see that there are a number of questions of very great importance to be discussed. I hope we may agree upon them; but they are of very great importance, not only as to the nature, but the amount of the duties which the Court would have to perform. For example, there is a disposition on the part of some persons to lower the privileges of ordinary tenants in Ireland, and Notices of Amendments have been given with that view. That is a point of great importance. If you raise the privileges of ordinary tenants to a somewhat high standard, they will have, comparatively,

  1475
  very little inducement to go into Court, and the amount of litigation will be narrowed in proportion; but if you lower the privileges of ordinary tenants very much—if you say they shall not have a recognized tenant right, or under an increase of rent they shall have no security of tenure following, the consesequence will be that the whole of the tenants in Ireland will be driven into the Court. They will go into the Court in order to obtain security. It is, therefore, vital that the judgment of the House should be taken on these questions before we proceed to consider the exact amount and character of the instrument that is to do the work. The Government have carefully considered this matter, and have a very strong conviction on it. They desire, and, as far as they are concerned, their determination is to raise, quite independently of the Court, the question of the privileges of the ordinary tenant in Ireland; and they think that in so doing they are consulting both the interests of the landlord and tenant. But others may differ from us, and the consequence will be that the whole magnitude of the circle may be varied enormously. We may have a Court with an extremely large or a very moderato power of discretion; and I cannot help saying that I hope it will be kept within moderate limits, according to the decision that the Committee may arrive at. I might enlarge upon this very much. There is a disposition on the part of some hon. Gentlemen—quite from another quarter—in approaching the Bill, to forbid all increase of rent except through the action of the Court. The Bill does not subject the increase of rent absolutely to the action of the Court; and I do not say whether we are right or wrong; but it is plain that if the landlord has no means of increasing his rent, except through the action of the Court, that the matter has a bearing upon the operation and constitution of the Court. I might mention other points, but I have said enough to show that the character of the duty the Court will have to perform—how far it can be guided by the Bill, and how far it will depend on its own discretion—will have to be determined. If we look at Part V. of the Bill, there it is still more uncertain what will be the functions of the Court. According to one of the Amend-
  1476
  ments on the Paper, the purchasing operations of the Court are to be enlarged, so as to enable it to purchase the estate of every landlord who wants to sell. If that is to be done—I will not say that I have not an opinion about it, or that I have not come to a decision upon it in my own mind—it will have an immense bearing on the amount of the Court and the strength of the machinery with which you will have to provide it. The same thing runs through all the provisions of Part V. Some people say—"Let the Commission undertake works of reclamation all over Ireland." That would give a new character to the proceedings of the Commission; but I do not wish to weary the Committee with further argument. There can be no doubt that the duties of the Court must be settled before we can properly determine what shall be its constitution and its strength. Its ditties may vary enormously, and we should land ourselves in great confusion if we were to accept the Amendment of my noble Friend.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I must own that the observations of the Prime Minister do not in any degree remove the feeling which I entertain, and which I believe many entertain, as to the importance of really deciding the question of the constitution of the Court at a much earlier period than the right hon. Gentleman seems to think desirable. He says—"I will not go into the question whether this Court is really the 'core' of the Bill or not; that it is clear the Court is the cardinal principle of the Bill, and that the working of the measure, throughout all the various details which the Committee has to consider, depends upon the constitution and capacity of the Court." Now, undoubtedly, we shall find, as we go through the different clauses of the Bill, that on many occasions reference is made to the Court; and when we are discussing whether these or other provisions ought to be adopted, and when we say "there is a difficulty here," or "we don't understand the language there," we shall always find ourselves cut short at the end of our reasoning with—"Oh, that will be a matter for the Court to settle." My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Mr. Macnaghten) put this extremely well, in reference to one of the points to which he called attention in the discus-

  1477
  sion on the second reading. He said there was great uncertainty as to the mode in which you will consider this; but, after all, we need not trouble ourselves much about it, because the real solution will be found in whatever happens to be the decision as to the constitution of the Court or Commission. Considering the enormous extent and ground over which this Bill travels, and considering that we are going, by this Bill really, as it seems to me, to re-constitute and re-construct the whole agricultural, and, to a great extent, social organization of Ireland, it is of very great importance that we should know from the very beginning to whom really these great functions are to be confided. We have been told a very important thing within the last few minutes. The right hon. Gentleman has assured us that this Committee is not to be of a removable character, and that is a matter of enormous importance. Up to the present moment we had no reason at all to imagine that that point would be conceded. It appeared that the Committee would be removable. We want to have this matter clearly and decidedly pointed out and explained, not merely by Ministerial statement, but in the clauses of the Bill as we proceed, in order that we may know what sort of a measure it is we are working with, and, therefore, what kind of tasks it is possible to throw upon it. It may be said that this is a very curious view, and we may be told—"Get your work first and provide your machinery for doing it afterwards; "but unless we consider the character of the machinery, we can hardly judge whether it can do the various pieces of work that may be imposed upon it without breaking down. Nothing is easier than to say that the Court, which is an abstract creature of the imagination about which we know nothing, is to remain unknown until all its functions have been first settled for it; but then we may find that it is impossible, with any satisfaction, to establish a tribunal that can perform all those various pieces of work. It will then be too late to go back, because you will have passed all the clauses affecting work—you will be unable to get all the work done, and you will have wasted a very large number of nights in order to bring about a settlement which will be
  1478
  absolutely thrown away if you do not agree to a machinery of some sort. The Government will tell us, in this emergency, "this is what we have to propose," and then we shall find ourselves compelled to accept it. I do not wish to go into the details of the Bill, but these things are obvious. We are talking about postponing the 1st clause; and it is clear that there are no less than six or seven places in which reference is made to the Court. The Court has to do work of various kinds, involving questions of valuation, questions of law, questions of fact, and questions of discretion; and when you are discussing these matters, you will decide according to the confidence you have in the Court. No human being can tell whether you are going to have confidence in that Court or not until its composition has been discussed. Then there are all the other functions, to which the Prime Minister has referred, that arise in Part V. of the Bill. It is a difficult thing to constitute a Committee that will be able to exercise all these powers, and be able to exercise them properly. Do let us begin by considering whether these things are possible, and how much you dare throw upon your machinery without almost the certainty of its breaking down under your hands. Considering the difficulties of the case, it appears to me that the noble Lord has made a very reasonable proposal.
  DR. LYONSsaid, he was glad to hear the Prime Minister's statement, and thought the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) recalled the old story of Procrustes and his bed; and that to constitute a Court without first providing the work that that Court was to do, was an absurd course of proceeding. If the Court were constituted on a limited scale, it was quite possible that they would have to argue, subsequently, that such and such a provision did not fall within the scope of the Commission as constituted. This would be almost a necessary consequence in regard to many of the great and wide provisions that would come on for consideration. It seemed to him that the most natural course they could take would be to proceed with the main features of the measure, fur there was nothing like facing a great and difficult question manfully in the first instance. Let them come to an understanding upon

  1479
  the vital principles of the Bill, and all would be plain sailing after that. The statement of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had come upon him with great surprise. He had not been aware, and, to speak the truth, he did not know even now, that there was such a thing as free sale largely recognized throughout Ireland—although he had his own opinion as to whether it ought or ought not to be recognized. This touched one of the provisions which no doubt, would be warmly contested; but until that provision was settled, and until they came to an understanding as to how that principle was to be carried out, it was impossible to conceive how any Court could be so framed as to deal successfully with the matter. He did trust that without further loss of time Her Majesty's Government would press to question to an issue, and that they would go at once into the work of considering the important provisions of the 1st clause.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he would venture to submit that the argument which the Prime Minister made use of in the first part of his speech greatly strengthened the position taken up by the noble Lord the Member for Calve (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice). The right hon. Gentleman had said that the "core" of the measure was the reference of the question of rent to a judicial authority. That was the "core" of the Bill—that was the novel feature of the Bill—and the right hon. Gentleman had said that the free sale conferred by the measure did not arise out of any natural right of the tenant. The Prime Minister declared that they could not have a Court to fix a judicial rent that should last for a certain time without conferring on the tenant, who had to pay that rent, some property that he was to sell. That was not an illogical view—that free sale and fixity of tenure was the consequence of a valued rent. Well, it did seem curious, if valued rent was the novel principle of the Bill, that its consideration should precede that of the authority that was to fix the rent. Had the Government considered how great a disadvantage the Committee was under in considering the provisions of the measure as compared with their own position? The Government had a fair idea of what the Court was likely to be, because they knew what they were going to exert all their powers to make it. The
  1480
  rest of the Committee had not the slightest idea as to what it was likely to be; they were completely in the dark, and were, therefore, not in a position to come to a sound judgment on the Amendments that might be proposed as the Government themselves were. There were a great number of Amendments on the Paper which would vitally depend upon the constitution of the Court. Certain hon. Members who followed the lead of the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) had proposals on the Paper, and if the Court was of a certain character, those proposals would, without doubt, be opposed by a great number of Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and, certainly, by a great number on the Ministerial side; whilst if the Court was of another character, hon. Member on both sides might be disposed to take a very different view of those Amendments. There was the question of the "three Fs." An hon. Gentleman who had taken a deal of interest in this question, and had considered the matter very deeply, had asked him whether the "three F's" were in the Bill; and he had replied—"I do not know; but the Prime Minister says they are not." They could make a Court that would administer the "three F's" in a moderate manner, so that, under the particular circumstances of Ireland, but little objection would be raised; but, on the other hand, they could have a Court the character of which would render the "three F's" very objectionable. This was a matter on which the Prime Minister had had such a conflict with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson)—the question of whether in fixing a fair rent there was to be a certain deduction. The whole question turned upon the composition of the Court—of its value as a legal authority, and of the view which such an authority would take of the wording of the clause. This was a question which they could not decide until they know who were to be the Commissioners. Then, there was another point—what was to be the standard of the men they were going to employ, because the salary they mentioned in the Bill was very small? They were told that one of the Commissioners was to be a Judge of the Court of Appeal; but how could they get a man of that character to perform

  1481
  the functions that would be imposed by the Bill for £2,000 a-year? In fact, in considering the whole of this question, they could not shut their eyes to the disadvantage they were under in not knowing the character of the Court that was to administer the new law. There was another great question upon which a deal might turn. As the Court at present stood there was no appeal from it—it was a Court of final jurisdiction. He could quite understand that a very different view to that at present held would be taken of some parts of the Bill if an appeal were allowed either to the Supreme Court or to some other Court in Ireland. This was another instance of how greatly the view taken of this Bill would be influenced and guided by the Committee being put in possession of the views of the Government. No doubt the Government had not adopted this curious course of proceeding without a reason, and he clearly saw that if the nature of the Court had been explained it would be impossible to please both hon. Members with whom he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had the honour of acting and hon. Members from Ireland. The result would have been irreconcilable hostility to the Government proposals. Well, no doubt, this was a drawback which was worth considering; still, he did not think the Committee should be asked to consider the Bill and come to a judgment upon all the important Amendments which would be proposed on it, and to decide on the value of the various arguments submitted, when they were totally, completely, and hopelessly in the dark as to the authority that would administer the Bill. In the case of the University Bill of 1873, which was decided against the Government by a very small majority, although one sufficient to throw out the Bill, the, Commissioners who were to constitute the authority were named by the Government. That was a distinct precedent; and he submitted the question of Education was not nearly so important as this of Irish Land. Therefore, the noble Lord had founded his Motion on the best of all possible precedents—namely, the decision of the House against the Prime Minister in 1873. He would not detain the Committee any longer on this matter, except to say that he should certainly support the proposal of his noble Friend.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he had been a Member of that House long enough to have precedents of the kind referred to by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) in his recollection, when Members on both sides of the House combined for the purpose of defeating Government measures. One of the most important occasions on which this plan was successful was that referred to by the noble Lord, when the Bill for settling the University question in Ireland was defeated. That Bill had been defeated in a manner that ought to furnish a warning at the present time; and he hoped his hon. Friends would not be entrapped on the present occasion by an Amendment which would possibly lead to the same result. If the machinery of the Court was such as would please the opponents of the Bill, they would be, no doubt, very conciliatory, and give it their support; but if a tribunal was defined that would be satisfactory to the Irish Members, they would give every kind of opposition to it, both in that House and in "another place." He asked whether Irish Members ought to place themselves in that dilemma, and, instead of securing the substance of the Bill for the Irish tenants, whether they ought to adopt an Amendment which would have the effect of leading them into a cul de sac, and of defeating the Bill altogether? What were the arguments of the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote)? Why, that the machinery was to be appointed before it was known what work it was to do. For his own part, he had never heard of machinery being framed before it was known to what it was to be applied. Therefore, it was to his mind conclusive, and ought to be so to the mind of all hon. Members, that the business of the tribunal ought to be set down before the tribunal was appointed. Of course, the argument would not be conclusive to those who were not in favour of the Bill, and whose object was to defeat it in every possible way. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon had asked to whom was this business to be referred. But he (Mr. Synan) contended that it made no difference whether the names of the persons were given now or hereafter;

  1483
  but that it was most necessary to know the business to be entrusted to them before they were appointed to their duty. Because if the functions of the tribunal were small, inferior men would be equal to discharging them; but if they were very important, superior men would be required. Upon every ground, therefore—upon that advanced by the Opposition themselves, and upon the ground that the nature of the case demanded it—he hoped the House would unanimously reject the Amendment of the noble Lord.
  MR. H. R. BRANDprotested against the imputation of the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan), that a combination existed between the noble Lord the Mover of the Amendment before the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman opposite for the purpose of defeating the Bill. The speech of the hon. Member greatly differed from that of the Prime Minister, inasmuch as the latter did not for one moment accuse the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) of any desire to impede the Bill. He was certain his noble Friend was actuated by no such desire. For his own part, he supported the Amendment of the noble Lord with the sole intention of hastening the progress of the measure. But the Court and the Commission, which were to fix the amount of rents, were the foundation of the Bill—the solid basis on which the house, so to speak, was to be built. No one would dream of setting up the walls of a house before constructing the foundation upon which they were to rest; neither ought the Committee to be asked to settle and regulate the matters contained in the early clauses of the Bill before they knew whether the Commissioners to be appointed would be able satisfactorily to perform the duties to be imposed upon them. It had been said by the Prime Minister that it was absurd to appoint this Commission before the duties to be cast upon it were defined. But to this he replied that the Bill, as it was, defined this Commission, and stated what its constitution was to be. He found, upon examination, that there were 30 clauses antecedent to the clause which constituted the Commission; and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon had pointed out, there would be many
  1484
  questions addressed to Ministers in the course of the discussions upon earlier portions of the Bill which, for want of the definition of the Commission, they would be unable to answer. The constitution of the Court and of the Commission occupied from the 31st clause to the end of the Bill, and one or other of them was mentioned 59 times between the 1st and the 31st clauses. He had analyzed the duties to be performed by the tribunals. They would have to settle conditions of sale, regulate statutory tenancies, determine rents, administer equities between landlords and tenants, construct leases, create tenancies, make advances to tenants, purchase estates, reclaim land, and, lastly, to conduct emigration. And the Committee were asked to consider all those important questions before they came to the question of the constitution of the Court, and when it was known that the Court would not meet with the approval of the majority of the Irish Members. Further, the evidence of one of the principal witnesses, Professor Baldwin, given before the Bessborough Commission, was that—
  "One of the first duties of the Government would be to take the administration of the Act of 1870 and any future Act out of the hands of the County Court Judges."
  With regard to the County Court Judges, he was sorry to hear the Prime Minister say that one of the strongest proofs of their giving satisfaction in Ireland was that there were very few appeals from their decisions. The reason there were few appeals was that the Irish tenants did not like litigation, and as to the power of bringing their landlords into the higher Courts, that was quite beyond their means. He contended that this question was of the greatest importance. It was necessary, in his opinion, to consider, first—whether the Court would be a strong one, commanding respect for itself; and secondly, to determine that there should be no appeal to a higher Court. In conclusion, he pointed out that one of the first duties the Court would have to perform was that of valuing rents. It would have to adjudicate between parties upon questions which had excited a great deal of passion; and his contention was that there should be no suspicion of weakness with regard to any such Court. That certainly could not be said to be the case with the Court pro-

  1485
  posed to be established by this Bill. Without any disrespect to the County Court Judges, he was bound to say that they could not have been the most successful of men, either in law or politics, or they would never have been County Court Judges in Ireland. As the constitution of the Court was a matter of transcendant importance, and the proper discharge of its functions meant the good government of Ireland for a generation, he begged to support the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Calne.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he had felt at first somewhat deterred from giving his support to the proposal of his noble Friend opposite by the sudden attack and warning which had been delivered by the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan). In referring to the circumstances which occurred in connection with the University Bill in 1873, the hon. Member spoke with some severity of the combination that resulted in the defeat of the measure. But the Prime Minister, who was listening to him, could hardly have felt that it lay in the mouth of the hon. Member to make a charge of the kind. He thought the Prime Minister might well exclaim, with Prospero in the play—
  "I had forgot that foul conspiracy Of the beast Caliban, and his confederates."
  He had been looking over the Division List upon the second reading of the University Bill of 1873, and he found the name of the hon. Member for Limerick County in company with that of his right hon. Friend Colonel Taylor and others who voted against the Government on that occasion. With reference to the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite, he thought the proposal, if adopted, would tend very much to increase the facilities for passing the Bill. There had been important changes announced that very day with regard to the composition of the Court in connection with a point that seemed to have received very little attention. He was sure the Committee had received with unanimous satisfaction the statement of the Prime Minister that the Commission was to be irremovable. The right hon. Gentleman also stated that tenants could pass by altogether the County Court, as a Court of First instance, and go straight to the Commission. Now, he was not going to
  1486
  say one word with regard to the County Court as a Court of First Instance. But, at all events, it was known what the County Court was, while it was certainly not known what the Commission or Sub-Commission was to be. He would not dwell on the importance and functions of the Court and Commission. But the Prime Minister had described them as "the heart and core of the Bill." With regard to fixing the rent, the House was told last night that the first business of the Court would be to ascertain what was the fair rent, and then make a deduction from it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I said nothing about a deduction from the fair rent. I said the Court would have to ascertain the fair rent.
  MR. PLUNKETasked pardon of the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he had mis-stated his words; but he said the business of the Court was to ascertain what a solvent tenant would pay, and then make a deduction. The words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were "the tenant's interest must be subtracted from the rent." The absolute discretion of the Court to settle this he held to be the heart and core of the Bill. His hon. Friend, who sat below the Gangway, had said that the Government might be supposed to know what they intended; but he (Mr. Plunket) only knew that whilst many hon. Membre had spoken upon and criticized the clause, a great number of them had spoken adversely to it, and no one had spoken in its favour. In giving his support to the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Calne, he expressed his fear that unless it was adopted the jealousy of the Committee towards the Bill would be increased.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)observed. that, no doubt, the question was one of those on which it might plausibly be said—"Tell us exactly what your Court is to be, and then we will say how far we can trust it." On the other hand, it was certainly a more important consideration to determine what was the work which the Court would have to do, and then determine the efficiency of the Court for its performance. No doubt, it might be said, in discussing this clause, there were certain references to the Court, and that hon. Members ought to know what

  1487
  its constitution was to be. But what did hon. Members who supported the Amendment propose? Did they mean to assent to the view that substantially they were agreed as to the provisions of the Bill, and that the Court was to do all the things which had been enumerated? It appeared to him an irrational course of proceeding to discuss the constitution of the Court, and how far it was fitted to do the work, and then, possibly, after three weeks' discussion, to deprive it of the opportunity of doing anything. He suggested that the Committee should proceed at once to the consideration of the provisions of the Bill, and then determine what Court should carry them out. The Government were fully conscious of the enormous importance of providing the best possible tribunal for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the measure, and they hoped, with the aid of the united intelligence of the House in a frank endeavour to arrive at the best result, to fix upon a tribunal that would be reasonably satisfactory to the great body of the people.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had told the Committee that there were some plausible reasons for postponing this clause; but he had also said there was a more plausible reason for not doing so in the fact that some of the minor provisions of the Bill might not be submitted to the Court. He ventured to say that a more important question with regard to the welfare and interest of the people of Ireland than the adjustment of the relations between landlord and tenant could not possibly be considered. But until it was ascertained and known what was to be the constitution of the Court, the serious questions which would arise in discussing the first portion of the Bill could not be fully and properly dealt with. He had understood the Prime Minister to say that the Court was of primary importance, and that everything turned upon its constitution. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] Then, if the right hon. Gentleman did not say that, he thought he ought to have made some statement of the kind, because the primary consideration was that there should be confidence in the Court which was to adjudicate on the delicate relations between the landlord and tenant. But the
  1488
  right hon. Gentleman stated that he intended to introduce an Amendment into this Bill, by which the tenants might pass by the Court of First Instance. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I said the parties.] Then, if the right hon. Gentleman said that "the parties" were to be allowed to pass by the Court of First Instance and go to the higher Court, it was ten times more necessary that the Committee should know how that Court was to be constituted; and therefore he asked whether it would not be wise and prudent, under the circumstances, to give the Committee some inkling with regard to a matter in which they were at this present moment in complete ignorance?
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, his own opinion was that the Bill was not the best arranged measure, so far as the clauses were concerned; but it had certainly never occurred to him that such a proposal as the noble Lord's was applicable to their due arrangement. The question appeared to him to lie in a very small compass, and was as to whether they should in the first instance proceed to constitute the Court, before it had been decided what work the Court was to perform. If they were about to lay down a separate Code of Law, they would not begin by constituting a Court for the purpose of administering that law, but would, in the first instance, ascertain the law; and, then, in determining the constitution of the Court, they would be influenced to a great extent by knowing what were the duties which the Court had to discharge. It might be that all the proposed duties could not be satisfactorily discharged by the same Commission. For instance, it might be desirable to have some other Commission to deal with the question of emigration; and a consideration of that point would show the imprudence of attempting to constitute the Court, without first agreeing upon the character of the work to be done by it. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had said if the composition of the Court was made known, and if it was such as would not be likely to be influenced, certain Members below the Gangway might agree to some provisions of the Bill. That amounted to the extraordinary argument that one would be influenced very much in deciding the justice and pro-

  1489
  priety of a code, by knowing the names and bias of the officers who were to administer it. It was true that he did not quite approve the arrangement of the clauses in the Bill; but the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Calne was certainly the last alteration he should think of making by way of re-arrangement. He should, therefore, give his vote in opposition to the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had only heard one argument advanced by the Government against the Amendment of the noble Lord. It was, that "you cannot determine the constitution of the Court until you have determined what its functions are to be." Primâ facie there was some weight in that argument. But it was well known that this Court would have to discharge functions which no Court had ever been called upon to discharge before. However the Bill might be modified in Committee, it would have to settle delicate relations between two classes of the community in a manner that was entirely without precedent. Hon. Members knew this to be the case, because if the Bill were so modified in Committee in a different sense the Government would be obliged to drop it, as being a merely illusory measure. Again, the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan) had urged, perhaps, the most extraordinary argument against the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Calne that had ever been heard in that House. He urged the Government not to state finally what was to be the composition of the Court, because they would offend by so doing either the Tories or the Members for Ireland, and that the Bill would in consequence be bitterly opposed by one of those Parties. The argument of the hon. Member was nothing else than a direction to the Government to keep the House in the dark, in order that, by playing alternately upon their hopes, both Parties referred to might be induced to pass provisions in the Bill which otherwise they would certainly reject. A more cynical argument he did not remember to have heard. Of course, he and his hon. Friends objected fundamentally to the regulation of relations between the parties concerned by any Court at all. Their objections were not directed now to matters of detail. They held that this Court would have
  1490
  to decide matters which it was beyond their competence to decide; that the Government were imposing duties upon the Court which required omniscience for their fulfilment; and, further, that they wanted to get that omniscience cheap. For those reasons, they felt they ought to know absolutely how that Court was to be constituted on which the proper working of the Bill must finally and entirely depend.
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he should detain the Committe but a very short time in giving his reasons for supporting the Government on the present occasion. The noble Lord the Member for Calne referred, in the course of his remarks, to a passage in the speech of the Prime Minister; but, in doing so, appeared not clearly to have understood the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister had said—"That the salient point of the Bill was the institution of a Court to take cognizance of rent;" and by that he (Mr. Fowler) understood him to mean that the reference of the rent to the Court, and not the formation of the Court, was the main principle of the Bill. They all agreed that the formation of the Court was a matter of great importance; but in comparing the two questions—the formation of a Court, and the making of a new code as between landlords and tenants—he regarded the making of the code as the more important of the two. For that reason, he thought it should be taken in hand before the Committee became wearied with discussion upon other parts of the measure. The amount fixed for the salaries of the Commissioners—namely, £2,000—was a matter that required further time for consideration, and should not be dealt with at first. The Committee had to consider what were the views of those responsible for this Bill; and it would, in his opinion, be adopting a strong course to take out of their hands the mode of procedure. For these reasons, he should give his vote in favour of the Government.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he should certainly support the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. He believed that in so doing he should be facilitating the progress of the Bill through Committee, because he was certain hon. Members on that side of the House would be much more inclined to listen to the arguments of Her

  1491
  Majesty's Government when they had confidence in the Court to which the questions between the landlords and tenants were to be referred. As the matter stood, it appeared that the landlords in Ireland were in every county to be at the mercy of the County Court Judges, many of whom, as was well known, held different opinions upon the questions that would be referred to them, At present the landlords might be at the mercy of one Assistant Commissioner. For his own part, he should listen to the discussion of the earlier clauses of the Bill with much more satisfaction when he knew at whose mercy he was to be. He had been quite unable to under stand the arguments of the Attorney General for Ireland, who had differed from every other hon. Gentleman with regard to the meaning of words in the Bill.
  MR. MITCILELL HENRYmaintained that the Bill gave all the information as to the constitution of the Court which, in the present stage of the matter, hon. Members could reasonably expect. It set forth that the Court was to be composed of a small number of persons, and its characteristics were well defined in the statement that the legal member of the Court was to be a Judge—one who either w as or had been a Judge of a Superior Court—thereby showing that the Court was to have the legal talent that could be obtained for it. The two other members nominated would be analogous to the Church Commissioners, had administered already functions of the same character as those to be discharged under this Bill. Everyone admitted that the object of the Bill was to create a number of tenant proprietors, and that had bean the kind of duty performed by the Church Commissioners to whom he had referred, and which would devolve upon the Commissioners appointed under this Bill. The Commissioners would have to settle difficult questions, undoubtedly, with regard to rents, and with. regard to the value of the tenant' holdings. But as to the settlement of rents being such an un-hoard of and delicate operation as it was now said. to be—why, it wigs a matter that had. been in the hands of time County Court Judges in Ireland ever since the Act of 1870. Everyone familiar with that Act knew that the County Court Judges had to take into consideration,
  1492
  when giving judgment, the fairness of the rent as between the landlord and tenant. It was perfectly true that this duty was not performed as actively as it might have been. Had it been so, it was probable that affairs in Ireland would not have been in their present dreadful position. He could well believe that, if very detail with regard to the Court to be established had been given in the Bill, it would have been said—"The Government have a cut-and-dried scheme for patronage, which the passing of this Act will give them an opportunity of carrying through the House of Commons." The Government, however, had simply indicated the character of the Court; and in so doing they had, in his opinion, acted for the best. The Prime Minister had never stated that he was unwilling to enlarge the Court, if it were found desirable to do so. Neither had he expressed any opinion as to the amount of the salaries to be paid to the Commissioners. Therefore, he had no doubt that if the Government, in the curse of the discussions upon the Bill in Committee, found that the duties which would devolve upon the Court were of a very onerous and multifarious character, they would agree to the enlargement of the Commission; and that in the matter of the salaries to the Commissioners, which was one of considerable importance, they would also be guided by the decision of the Committee. For these reasons, it seemed to him that it was scarcely reasonable or wise, when they ought to be constituting the relations of landlord and tenant, to debate upon the constitution of the Court which was to administer the Bill. He should, therefore, vote against the Amendment of the noble Lord.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, it was as the first time in his life that he had heard it gravely argued that the ship should be made for the crew and not the crew for the ship.
  MR. GIBSONthought no one would wisely seek to introduce into this discussion anything of heat, or the imputation of motives. Nothing could have beta more courteous than the way in which. he Prince Minister had alluded to this subject; and, therefore, in the same spirit, he wished to submit one or two ponds to the consideration of the Committee, without any intention of interfering with the progress of the Bill.

  1493
  It was perfectly obvious that if the clauses were discussed in their present order, there must be some appeals made to the Government in the course of the debates in Committee, in order to ascertain what the constitution of the Court was to be. He believed the Court was referred to something like 49 times before the clause was reached under which it was constituted. And there was little doubt that when the Committee entered upon the discussion of the powers and duties to be intrusted to the Court, the Government would be pressed over and over again to indicate its constitution something more in detail, and to reply, with more precision than they had done up to the present time, as to the duties of the Commissioners. That was all the more obvious because it appeared that the mind of the Government had fluctuated, and was still fluctuating, upon the important questions of the constitution of the Court of First Instance and the constitution of the Commission which was to be the Court of Appeal. From a statement made a few nights since by the Prime Minister, it appeared that the Government had not clearly made up its mind what was to be the Court of First Instance. It was also understood from the speech of the Prime Minister, when asking leave to introduce this Bill, that it was thought desirable that the County Courts alone should be the primary Courts. But it now appeared—and it was quite right that the Government should present their measure in the best form—that such was not their deliberate intention. That circumstance rendered it all the more necessary that the Committee should know at the outset what was intended to be the final proposal of the Government with regard to the Court of First Instance. He now came to the constitution of the Commission, which, after all, was the most important point, because the Commission was to be the Court of Appeal from the Court of First Instance, and was, moreover, clothed both with unbounded discretion and absolutely unlimited jurisdiction. It was, therefore, obviously a matter of supreme importance that the House should be shown what was to be the constitution of the Commission. He had listened with attention and respect to the statements of the Prime Minister; and he now asked if Her Majesty's Government had, at the present moment, a
  1494
  clear and definite plan in their own minds with regard to the constitution of the Commission? If they had, why did they not state it to the House? What possible inconvenience could result from a frank and clear discussion at that stage of the parts of the Bill which really came first under their consideration? The only suggestion of inconvenience that would result from this, so far as he had been able to gather from the discussion which had taken place, was that until you know the extent and character of the jurisdiction—whether limited or extended—you could not tell how wide a discretion it might be necessary to confer. Although, in his opinion, precedent was not at all conclusive of the question before the Committee, because each case of this kind must stand upon its own merits, and be considered with reference to the special circumstances that surround it, yet he would remind the Committee that when the Solicitor General made his observations just before in such a fair spirit, it had occurred to him that there were some precedents that might have presented themselves to his mind. He would pass by the Ecclesiastical Commission, and the case of the Charity Commissioners, whose constitution was given at the outset. But in Sections 2 to 10 of the Irish Church Act, 1869—the very earliest sections of the Act—the Commissioners were named, their jurisdiction was set forth, and the power of expanding or contracting their staff was conferred upon them. He admitted at once, however, that this was not a question to be decided by precedent. The constitution of the Commission was of very great importance, and if that were decided and frankly stated by Her Majesty's Government, the Committee could then proceed with advantage to consider what the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India had called the modus vivendi. Looking at this matter as one of convenience, he ventured to hope that the clauses specified in the Amendment of the noble Lord would be postponed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)objected to the postponement of the first clauses of the Bill, in order that the final clauses should be considered before them. He would not attempt to repeat the arguments which had been so well placed before the Com-

  1495
  mittee by the Prime Minister and his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. He would only say it appeared to him that, notwithstanding the arguments which had been advanced in support of the Amendment of the noble Lord, the balance of convenience was in favour of proceding in the way which the Government proposed—that was to say, to discuss and settle what were to be the functions of the Commission before fixing its constitution. His right hon. and learned Friend opposite had appealed to a precedent which, no doubt, had a strong bearing upon the point now before the Committee, and he must venture, with their indulgence, to state precisely what were the facts of the case thus referred to by his right hon. and learned Friend as decisive of the present question. Upon the 14th of March, 1869, the Irish Church Bill was introduced by his right hon. Friend. The 3rd clause of it ran as follows:—"The following persons, A, B, and C, shall be constituted Commissioners under this Act;" and it then went on to prescribe their tenure of office, and other formal matters. The Prime Minister, on the 15th of April, when that part of the Bill was reached in Committee, moved that tile 3rd clause, appointing the Commissioners, should be postponed upon the ground that, in the opinion of the Government, both they and the House would be in a better position to judge of the proposals as to the appointment of the Commissioners and their constitution, after they had gone through' the operative clauses of the Bill and determined what were to be the duties of the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman (now Viscount Cranbrook) who was then acting as Leader of the Opposition, said he had no desire whatever to offer any opposition to the postponement of the clause if the Government would, at the same time, postpone also the three or four following clauses, which dealt with the appointment of officers, the fixing of salaries, and other incidental arrangements. This was at once agreed to by the Government; and, accordingly, during the whole of the month of April and the greater part of the month of May, the Committee was occupied in disposing of all the other clauses of the Bill; and it was not until the Committee had completely discussed and settled all the rest of the Irish Church Bill that his
  1496
  right hon. Friend moved the adoption of the 3rd clause, with the names of the Commissioners in full. He hoped his right hon. and learned Friend opposite would now act in accordance with this precedent to which he had so confidently appealed.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the debate, but to put a question to the Chairman upon a point of Order for his own guidance. He had upon the Paper an Amendment, the object of which was that Part V. of the Bill should be taken before Parts I., II., III., and IV.; and he wished to know whether, when the Committee decided upon the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Calne, he should be in Order in moving the Amendment standing in his name? If not, he should vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire is substantially different from that of the noble Lord, the Member for Calne. The Committee has to decide upon the Amendment of the noble Lord whether Clause 1 shall be postponed till after Clauses 41 to 43. After that Amendment has been disposed of, it will be in the power of the hon. Member to move the Amendment in his name.
  Question put.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I rise to a point of Order. I have always been under the impression that no clause could be postponed except to the end of a Bill.
  MR. GORST (remaining seated, with head covered): Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask whether after a division has been called an hon. Member is entitled to speak?
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the House does not desire to hear the right hon. Gentleman, he is not in Order. It is only competent to speak, at present, on the question of the division. The question of Order will arise after the division is completed.
  MR. GLADSTONE (remaining seated, with head covered): Mr. Chairman, I have always been under the impression that it was not competent to move the postponement of a clause of a Bill except to the end of the Bill. I ask whether a postponed clause can be taken except at the end of a Bill?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The ordinary mode of postponing a clause is that the clause passes to the end of the Bill; but this Question is, not that the clause should be placed at the end of the Bill, but that it should be postponed until after particular clauses have been considered. Although that form of Motion is unusual, there are precedents of an analogous character both in this House and in the House of Lords. I must, therefore, put the Question in the manner in which it has been placed on the Paper.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 163; Noes 246: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 216.)
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDrose to Order. He wished to ask whether the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) was in Order in moving an Amendment in the words on the Paper? The Committee had already decided not to postpone Clause 1, and the Amendment of the hon. Member proposed to postpone that clause together with others.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The point of Order raised by the First Lord of the Treasury is not without its difficulties. The Motion already negatived was not in the usual form. The Committee has decided that Clause 1 shall not be postponed until after Clause 41. Usually, as I have said, a postponed clause goes to the end of the Bill. But, in view of former precedents, I cannot rule that the Committee has not the power to do otherwise. Only yesterday, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) proposed to move an Instruction to the Committee to take Part V. of the Bill before Part I., which is the exact proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin); and the Speaker then said—
  "That as the Instruction of the hon. Member for Bridport was to take the 5th part of the Bill before the 1st part, this was a power which the Committee already possessed, and, therefore, his Motion could not be put."
  Under this ruling I am not prepared to refuse to put the Motion, which is substantially different from that negatived. But it is clear that such Motions, following on such a Motion in regard to one of these clauses, might lead to grave abuse as a means of obstruction, and I should be unwilling to consider this as a
  1498
  precedent which it is advisable to follow, and I only admit it in the present case from the peculiar character of the Motion which the Committee has already negatived—not that Clause 1 should be postponed, but that it should be postponed until after Clause 41. The Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) would have come better as an Amendment on the Motion of the hon. Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) than as a substantive Motion.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, the point of Order having been decided, he would endeavour to submit to the Committee the reasons by which he was governed in moving the Amendment standing in his name. He was anxious that what he conceived to be the fatal mistake in the legislation of 1870 should be avoided now. It had always appeared to him that the circumstances of Ireland which caused nearly all the evils of that country were at that time entirely ignored, and that the Government directed attention to little, if anything else, than an alteration of the relations between the landlords and tenants. The circumstances of Ireland, however, remained the same, and, consequently, almost entirely defeated the object of the Act of 1870. That admission had been made during the discussions which had taken place upon this question, and had been moreover more distinctly brought into prominence in the Reports of the Commissions appointed to inquire into the facts connected with the present condition of Ireland. It was true that in the Bill before the Committee there were some provisions for dealing with the greatest evil in the country, described by the Prime Minister as the "land hunger which prevailed in Ireland." But the clauses which were introduced in order to deal with it were, as far as he could judge, inadequate to their purpose; while, at the same time, they occupied an entirely subsidiary position in the Bill. That appeared to him to be entirely recognized, because the right hon. Gentleman had stated in the course of the debates on this Bill that the Land Laws of Ireland were not to blame, and that it was to other causes than the Land Laws that the present state of things in Ireland was to be traced. It was, therefore, necessary to go to the root of the question if they desired to deal with it in a man-

  1499
  ner that would really alleviate and better the condition of the Irish people. The condition of the people in the West of Ireland was such that, whatever alteration was made with regard to the Land Laws, it was impossible that they could ever enjoy any material degree of prosperity. But how was any remedy to be made effective? There were proposals contained in the Bill for emigration, for making a peasant proprietary, and for the reclamation of land. These were contained in that part of the Bill which, as he had already pointed out. Occupied a subsidiary position. He should be disposed to aid the scheme of so-called migration, because he believed it would be popular amongst the people of Ireland. Emigration, he knew, was unpopular; it did not commend itself to the views of many persons in that country; while several Irish Members had raised great objections to even the limited proposal of emigration in the Bill. He Would like to give a short description of the benefit which might be expected to result from emigration, by one who could speak with knowledge and profound judgment on that question. The writer of the communication, which was sent to him a few days ago, spoke to this effect of the condition of the people in the West of Ireland—
  "But for the extreme West of Ireland, what hope is there from any of the foregoing devices: Along that region there extends a broad river of hopeless misery, width no change in the present relations between landlord and tenant is likely to alleviate.… It would be impracticable to make them proprietors; even to give them land for nothing would afford no permanent alleviation. Many of them have no land at all. Manifestly, the only remedy is emigration."
  The writer went on to say that—
  "In little more than a week a proportion of these unhappy multitudes might be landed in America."
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDrose to Order. As he understood the question, it was whether Clause 1 of the Bill should be postponed or not. He asked if it was competent for the hon. Member to discuss the general provisions of the Bill, and make observations which would more properly form part of a speech on the second reading?
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire discusses the principle of the Bill, he will be out of
  1500
  Order; but I understand him to be referring to emigration by way of general argument in support of his Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, it was clear the hon. Member did not in the least understand the object he had in view. He regretted that he had made himself so little intelligible. His Motion was not that Clause 1 should be postponed, but that Part V. should be taken before the other parts of the Bill.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLrose to Order. He was unable to find in the Amendment any word about Part V. The Amendment simply stated "before Clause 1 postpone Clauses 1 to 18 inclusive (Parts I. to IV)." He submitted that the hon. Member was not saying a word about Clauses 1 to 18, but was discussing another clause altogether.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that if the hon. Member would take the trouble to look at the Amendment, he would find the words were "Parts I. to IV." It appeared, however, that the hon. Member, in spite of his great experience, had not yet been able to learn that five came after four. He felt bound to express his great regret that there should be suck an extreme indisposition on the other side of the House to take into consideration what appeared to him and to many others to be a duty to consider the question what it was that really constituted the misfortunes, misery, and unhappiness of Ireland. He hoped that he might be allowed to repeat that he was not making these observations for the purpose of delay, but because he desired from his heart to call the attention of the House of Commons, and the people of this country, to that which he believed to be the real cause of the troubles which afflicted Ireland at the present time. [Cries of "Oh!"] He trusted that he might be allowed to finish the few observations he intended to make without being interrupted by the other side of the House. He was endeavouring to point out to the House, and, through that House, to the people of Ireland themselves, the advantages of emigration over the existence now led by the cottier tenants in the West of Ireland. Upon this point he would quote a passage from a letter which had been published by Lord Dufferin. Lord Dufferin said—

  1501
  "But for the extreme West of Ireland, what hope is there from any of the foregoing devices? Along that region there extends a broad ribbon of hopeless misery, which no change in the present relations of landlord and tenant is likely to alleviate. Perennial destitution, accentuated by periodical seasons of famine, has been the sole experience of its inhabitants during the present century. To convert these poor people into peasant proprietors would be impracticable. To make them copyholders under a quit-rent would be scarcely more to the purpose. Even to give them the land for nothing would not prove a permanent alleviation. Many of them, indeed, have no land at all. What, then, is to be done? Manifestly, the only remedy is emigration ….. Within the compass of a little more than a week, after a pleasant voyage, a proportion of these unhappy multitudes might be landed on the quays of Quebec, the women healthier, the children rosier, and the men in better heart and spirits than ever they have been since the day they were born. Four or five days more would plant them, without fatigue or inconvenience, on a soil so rich that it has only to be scratched to grow the best wheat and barley that can be raised on the continent of America. I myself have seen an immeasurable sea of corn clothing with its golden expanse what two years before had been a desolate prairie ….. simply through the exertions of a small Russian colony that had run up their shanties in that favoured land."
  Lord Dufferin went further into this question; but he (Mr. Chaplin) had already read the concluding statements of Lord Dufferin on the second reading of the Bill. There were no proposals in the Bill at the present time for migration to other parts of Ireland; and he wished to press upon the Government the desirability of accepting Amendments in that direction. He would say nothing then as to the proprietary clauses of the Bill, as he had already expressed his opinion at some length on that subject; but he was certainly of opinion that the Government, instead of placing this part of the Bill in a merely subsidiary position, ought to give prominence to it and deal with it at once, because it was the only part by which they could effect any real or permanent improvement in the position of the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had given them the reason why the last part of the Bill should have greater prominence than it now occupied. He told them what he had omitted altogether to tell them in 1870, that land hunger in Ireland was at the root of all the evil. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman called it the rooted and standing evil of the country; and yet in the first four parts of the Bill nothing was done to alleviate that evil,
  1502
  but the provisions proposed would tend rather to increase it. Without further delay he would move the Amendment which stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed, "before Clause 1, postpone Parts to IV. inclusive."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: My noble Friend behind me (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), in moving his Amendment, with unquestionable sincerity stated that he did it in order to expedite the progress of the Bill. The hon. Member who has just sat down has made no such declaration about expediting the progress of the Bill. The hon. Member is incapable of putting forward a profession inconsistent with his intention. I wish, therefore, to point out to the Committee the principle on which the hon. Member makes this Motion. He objects practically to the first 18 clauses of the Bill. Then comes Part V., to which he does not object, and his argument amounts to this—that any hon. Gentleman who objects to any part of the Bill should make a Motion which would allow him to select the particular part of the measure he prefers, and to take that part for consideration first. Now, as to the question of progress and expediency. If the Committee were to assent to the Motion of the hon. Member, we should be travelling as straight as we could the road to utter confusion. It would be in the power of anybody to raise an indefinite number of questions of postponement, and to make upon the Motion for postponement a speech upon the merits of the clause which he prefers, so that in this way every clause of the Bill could in turn be brought into discussion before the 1st clause. Her Majesty's Government have made a proposal which shows the House what it is we think ought to be done. I submit that our course is to go forward with the 1st clause of the Bill, and not postpone it for the sake of considering any other clause. The hon. Member must excuse me if I decline now to enter into any discussion in regard to Part V. of the Bill.
  Colonel STANLEY and Mr. MAC IVER rose together.
  THE CEIAIHMANasked if the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) withdrew the Amendment?
  MR. CHAPLINreplied in the negative.
  THE CHAIRMANthen called upon the right hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORrose to Order. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) was the first to rise, and he believed that it was the recognized Rule of the House that the hon. Member who was the first to rise had the right to address it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead rose together. and the former caught my eye. I first addressed a question to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, and then I called upon Colonel Stanley.
  COLONEL STANLEY: I am very reluctant to interpose between the Committee and the hon. Member for Birkenhead. There can be no doubt, however, that what you, Sir, have stated is entirely correct. I sat down after I first rose, having risen at the same time as the hon. Member for Birkenhead, while you addressed a question to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. I wish now to give my reasons why the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire does not appear to me to be quite as unreasonable as it does to the Prime Minister. Indeed, I find in the statement which has been made by the Prime Minister himself an argument in favour of the proposal which my hon. Friend makes. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is competent in this case to discuss what part of the Bill should be taken first, and that it is competent for any hon. Member to make a Motion to take that part of the Bill first which he prefers the most. No doubt, the Government are justly entitled to say what part of their Bill should come first and what should come last; but, at the same time, judging from the language which had been used by different Members of the Cabinet, there seems to be some difference of opinion among the Government themselves as to the relative importance of the various parts of the Bill. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India has expressly said that he looks upon some of the provisions in the later part of the Bill as containing substantial remedies for the undoubted evils which exist in Ireland, and that he looks upon the first part of the Bill as being merely the modus vivendi. Now, I can-
  1504
  not help recalling to my mind what took place in 1871. There was brought into the House by the Government at that time a Bill not very dissimilar in its general character from the Bill now before the House, inasmuch as it consisted of one provision which was likely to give rise to considerable discussion, and of other provisions which would probably meet with general approval. I refer to the Army Regulation Bill. The first part of that Bill was for the abolition of Purchase, and was made the subject of considerable debate. The other portions of the Bill met with general favour in all parts of the House, and some Members of the Committee will recollect what was done in reference to that Bill. Perhaps some hon. Members may draw some analogy from what occurred then, which may tend to guide them as to what may happen in this case. I have no intention of making these remarks in any unfair spirit; but so far as the pressure of time is concerned, the Army Regulation Bill was introduced in March, whereas the present Bill was not introduced until April. Many persons voted for the second reading of that Army Bill, not because they had any love for the first part of the measure, but out of regard for the good which they thought might be done by the latter part of it. Now, upon the present Bill many hon. Members, in the debate which has taken place, have laid much less stress upon the first part of the Bill than upon the latter part which contains provisions in reference to emigration, purchase, and so forth. It is not unlikely that history may repeat itself, and that we may find in this case a repetition of what occurred in 1871, when Mr. Cardwell came down on the 13th of June and stated that in consequence of the protracted debate which had taken place on the earlier part of the Bill, it was necessary to drop all the remaining part. The Government then claimed the support of those who had voted in favour of the second reading of the measure. I do not say that this was intentionally done, and that it was never intended by the Government to proceed with the last part of the Army Bill; but, at any rate, the effect was the same. Having obtained the general support of the House to the first portion of the Bill, the last part was afterwards dropped, and was not heard of until a year later.

  1505
  Now, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and others have justly laid such great stress upon the purchase clauses of the Bill, the provisions for enabling the tenant to acquire the holding, and the emigration provisions, that it does not appear to me to be as unreasonable as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister wishes the House to believe that the first part of the Bill might be suspended until we have had an opportunity of considering the last part. Therefore, if my hon. Friend goes to a division, I shall certainly support him upon this ground, and I shall neither be deterred by the objections which have been raised, nor by the question of Order, which, Sir, I thought you had effectually disposed of.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he had risen, not with any intention of interposing between the Committee and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just addressed them, nor had he any desire to impede the progress of the Bill; but he had thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had misapprehended the purport of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). He thought that hon. Members opposite would agree in the view he took that the Bill contained many useful provisions, but that there was a great deal in it which tended to overweight those useful provisions; and he therefore thought that there was a good deal more than appeared at first sight in the proposal that they should postpone the earlier clauses of the measure, in order that they might take the clauses which he could not help thinking had a great deal to do with the present troubles of Ireland. Indeed, he would appeal to a very high authority—namely, to speeches which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He thought the speech he was about to quote was applicable to the present circumstances. It was made at a time when the right hon. Gentleman represented a Lancashire constituency, and he used these words—
  "As a Lancashire Representative, I protest most solemnly against a system which drives the Irish population to seek work and wages in this country and in other countries, when both might be afforded them at home."
  1506
  But in a former part of the same speech the right hon. Gentleman showed that he was sometimes inconsistent. [Loud cries of "Question!"] Perhaps the Committee would allow him to quote a further portion of that speech sufficient to indicate the varying views which, even in the course of one single evening, that right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) presented to the House. While at one moment censuring the Irish people in a way they little deserved, he was in the next full of praise and commendation for them. Speaking in 1847, the right hon. Gentleman used these words—he quoted from a report of the speech contained in a work edited by the hon. Gentleman who now represented Southwark—
  "The great cause of Ireland's calamities is that Ireland is idle. I believe it would be found on inquiry that the population of Ireland, as compared with that of England, do not work more than two days per week. Wherever a people are not industrious and are not employed, there is the greatest danger of crime and outrage. Ireland is idle, and therefore she starves; Ireland starves, and therefore she rebels. We must choose between industry and anarchy; we must have one or the other in Ireland."
  Perhaps the Committee would pardon him (Mr. Mac Iver) if he said at once that he cordially agreed with the general spirit of these remarks, with one exception, and that was where the right hon Gentleman described the people of Ireland as idle.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is now travelling beyond the Amendment before the Committee, which is simply to consider the propriety of postponing Clauses 1 to 18.
  MR. MAC IVERthought he would be able to show the bearing of these remarks. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was more nearly right when he showed how industrious the Irish people could be in foreign lands. The right hon. Gentleman in the same speech showed, notwithstanding the extract just quoted, that the Irish people—wherever the opportunity to labour was not denied them—were known to possess habits of industry, as well, as many other good qualities. Wherever they had migrated to districts which had been too thinly populated they were industrious and thrifty; their usefulness in our Colonies was apparent to all. Under these circumstances, he could not but think that

  1507
  there was a great deal of force in the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) that they should put the early clauses of the Bill on one side, until they could have an opportunity of considering seriously the questions which more nearly affected the well-being of the Irish people. What were the clauses which his hon. Friend proposed to put on one side? Not one of them dealt with the terrible question of eviction, that had so much to do with emigration. He could not help feeling that there was no more serious question before the nation than the present condition of Ireland, and that there was no more serious question affecting Ireland than eviction. He felt, therefore, that the Government had done wrong in not giving emigration and eviction, two subjects which were necessarily connected, a much more prominent position in the Bill than they had done. In his opinion, it would have been far better if the Government, instead of introducing this confused Bill, had dealt broadly with this part of the question; and he put it to the Committee that it was necessary to discuss the position of those unfortunate tenants, and the compensation which would be necessary, if it were intended to deal honestly with those landlords whose property would be injuriously affected. He trusted that the Committee would consent to postpone these clauses, the discussion of which only involved a waste of time, so that they might come at once to pressing and less controversial portions of the measure, and by this means they might be able to pass a really useful Bill with as little delay as possible.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) really was to cut away the body and leave the tail of the Bill. The first part of the Bill would come into immediate operation in Ireland, whereas the remaining clauses could only come into operation gradually. He did not dispute the importance of the emigration clauses; but it seemed to him that the best thing they could do now was to go to a division upon the Amendment at once, and then to proceed seriously with the discussion. of the Bill.
  MR. BRANDsaid, that he had voted for the Amendment moved by the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Ed-
  1508
  mond Fitzmaurice); but, as a large majority of the Committee had decided that the Government ought to be left to deal with the measure in the order they thought best, and as he was of opinion that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire would really lead to further delay, he should, on this occasion, vote with the Government. He trusted, however, that his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. BRODRICKthought the remarks of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) formed one of the best arguments in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. The basis of the hon. Member's argument was that the latter part of the Bill should be treated as if it were of no importance. He regarded the earlier clauses as the body of the Bill, and the other part of it as simply the tail. Taking into consideration the course taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the views which were entertained on that (the Opposition) side of the House in regard to the relative importance of the two portions of the Bill, he thought the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had done good service in asking the Committee to direct their attention, in the first instance, to the 5th part of the Bill.
  MR. RITCHIEthought that the Prime Minister had hardly done justice to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire in the remarks he had made on the proposition submitted by the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that the object of his hon. Friend was to set aside the first four portions of the Bill, because he did not like them. Now, he (Mr. Ritchie) was not one of those who were strongly antagonistic to the first portion of the Bill. For his own part, he had come to the conclusion that a moderate tenant right was absolutely essential for Ireland; but he had also come to the conclusion, from the evidence which had been given, both in Ireland and England on the subject of Ireland, that there was even a more important question than that of an alteration of the laws between landlord and tenant—he meant the condition of the poverty-stricken, wretched, inhabitants of the Western part of Ireland. It was a disgrace to this country that the state of

  1509
  things which prevailed there should have been so long tolerated. It could not be said that those unfortunate people lived there, but rather that they existed. Professor Baldwin and Major Robinson gave very valuable evidence before the Richmond Commission as to the necessity of dealing with the present condition of this population. They put in the forefront the necessity of dealing with the question of emigration and immigration. The hon. Member for Galway, who had taken great interest in the question of reclamation of waste lands, had, he thought, established conclusively that this was one of the most important questions they had to deal with. It was immaterial to those unfortunate people what rent they paid. They herded together on a few acres of bog land totally incapable of keeping themselves alive decently if they paid no rent at all. Therefore, he was free to confess that, although he attached considerable importance to the first portions of the Bill, modified as he hoped they would be in Committee, he was satisfied that by far the most important portion was that which dealt with this festering sore in the West of Ireland, and which could only be dealt with by a prudent scheme of emigration and reclamation. He, therefore, supported the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire, because he was afraid that, looking at the fact that they had not disposed of two Amendments in one whole day's Sitting—[Cries of "Hear, hear!"] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House ironically cheered that remark; but he begged to remind them that the chief part of the day had been taken up in discussing an Amendment put forward by one of their own supporters, and if they were anxious to cheer ironically they should address their cheers to the noble Lord the Member for Calne. At the time he was interrupted ho was going on to say that he was very much afraid, from the small progress they had made to-day, and from the number of Amendments which had been placed upon the Paper by the friends of the Government, that by the time they came to the most important part of the Bill they would find it necessary to drop it altogether, because there would be no time to consider it. Therefore, believing that it was the most important part of the
  1510
  Bill, and that they should consider it while they were fresh and had all their energy about them, instead of postponing it until a time when every Member of the House would be exhausted, he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORremarked, that he had voted for the Government in the last division, and he would gladly vote for them now, if they would make it possible for him to do so. He confessed that he was strongly prejudiced against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire—first, because of the Amendment itself, and, secondly, because it was proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. He thought he was entitled to look with a certain amount of suspicion on any Amendment in regard to the tenure of land which came from such a quarter. He gave the hon. Member full credit for believing that he was right; but if the hon. Member was right, then certainly he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was wrong. He thought the Government had a right to ask the Committee to allow them to proceed with the Bill in the order which best recommended itself to their judgment, and it was a most serious thing for any Member of the House to ask the Committee to reverse the order at which they had deliberately arrived, because the effect of such a proposal, if carried, would be to throw all the plans the Government had made for carrying the Bill into operation into a state of confusion which might imperil the measure. There was also another side of the question, and it was this—if the Government were strongly of opinion that in this matter, to use the phraseology of the hon. Member opposite (Sir George Campbell), that it was necessary to proceed with the body first and the tail afterwards—it was not desirable that they should reverse the order, and take the tail first and the body afterwards. They were agreed that the true solution of the Irish difficulty was to buy up the property of the landlords very largely, and not to attempt a solution by patching up the relations between the landlord and tenant. The part of the Bill which the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire wished to discuss was that which dealt with the purchase regulation. Now, his (Mr. T. P. O'Connor's) opinion was that, if

  1511
  they gave a Court or a Commission power to purchase and power to expropriate, they would do far more, directly, to give the existing tenants
  relief than by any other means, because, if they give power to purchase from the landlord who was willing to sell and the power of expropriation against the landlord who was unwilling to sell, they would have a guarantee for the good conduct of the landlord much better than would be afforded by any tedious process of litigation. He therefore thought that the Government had better proceed with Part I. of the Bill first. Furthermore, he was afraid that the Government, from what they had said, had net yet made up their minds as to the scope of these purchase clauses. There seemed to be an extraordinary difference of opinion on this part of the Bill between the Prime Minister and the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India. The noble Lord had spoken of the first part of the Bill with something akin to contempt, as being merely transitory or a modus vivendi, preparing the House for the happy state of things that was to be introduced by the later part of the measure. Now, whenever the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister referred to the first part of the Bill, he always gave the House to understand that his desire was not to maximize, but to minimize the later portion of the Bill, and decrease the amount of money spent in the creation of a present proprietary. He hoped the Prime Minister would condescend to say whether he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had placed a true or a false interpretation upon his views, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would even go a little further, and say that he was not entirely hostile to the principle of compulsory expropriation, but that he would apply to bad and rack-renting landlords in Ireland, for the common weal, the same principle of compulsory purchase that was applied to the purchase of property for railway purposes. If the right hon. Gentleman would give him and his Friends some such assurance as that their course would be more easy; and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would cordially join with the right hon. Gentleman, as he did in the last division, in opposing the Amendment.
  LORD ELCHOmerely wished to say a word upon the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He cordially sympathized with
  1512
  the view that was held by his hon. Friend that the remedial part of the Bill, and that which was for the real benefit of those who were suffering most in Ireland, was the fifth part. That was the most useful part of the Bill; but, unhappily, it was quite antagonistic to the first part. But, although he made these remarks as to the first part of the measure, he thought his hon. Friend ought to rest satisfied with what he had done in bringing the matter before the House, and that he should not divide the Committee, provided a distinct understanding were given by the First Lord of the Treasury that he would persevere with the fifth, which was the only remedial portion of the measure. He hoped to receive from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that he would persevere with that part of the Bill until the bitter end, and carry it through as much as he would endeavour to carry the other parts through. He thanked his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley) for reminding them of what took place in regard to the Army Purchase Bill. At the time that Bill was introduced, there were many hon. Members who did not believe in the value of the abolition of purchase, and who believed that the measure would do very little for the Army if it only dealt with purchase, but who were of opinion that there were other parts of the measure which were valuable, and which would improve our military system. He recollected seeing the then Secretary of State for War walking up and down the Horse Guards, and holding consultations under the shade of the trees in the Park, considering what he would do with the latter part of the Bill, and the next day the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and threw the rest of the measure overboard. He very much dreaded that a similar course might be taken in regard to the present Bill; and, therefore, he would urge his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire to press for a distinct understanding that the Government would persevere to the end with the fifth portion of the Bill.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I rise for the purpose of saying very nearly what has been said already—namely, that if the question is one of the order in which the clauses are to be

  1513
  taken, it would not be fair, after the decision at which the Committee has recently arrived, to stand against the convenience of the Government. But there is really, I apprehend, in the mind of my hon. Friend, as there is in the minds of many other hon. Members, something very much beyond the mere question of order. Whether it is justified, or whether it is not justified, there does lie at the bottom of many minds a strong suspicion that the 5th part of the Bill, much as it is looked upon as by far the most promising portion of the measure, does not command the same sympathy and support from Her Majesty's Government as do the former parts. If we could be well assured that that is not so, of course there would be no reason why we should endeavour to press for any alteration in the mode of proceeding; but I am bound to say that there have been expressions used from time to time by the Prime Minister and others which have given grounds for the not unnatural suspicion that everything is not quite right about this 5th part. If we could be assured that we are wrong, I should advise my hon. Friend not to delay the Committee, but to rest satisfied; but if otherwise, then I think he ought to divide.
  MR. CHAPLINwished to take this opportunity of removing the impression which appeared to prevail on the other side of the House that his Amendment had been moved for the purpose of delaying the progress of the Bill. He could assure the Committee that it was not so. If he had desired to impede the progress of the Bill, he would have done so in a manner that could not have been mistaken. He certainly should not aim at one thing while pretending to do another. He had moved this Amendment for the reasons he had stated just now; and he had an additional reason for so doing—namely, that one or two observations had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in regard to this question which justified hon. Members on that side of the House in entertaining an uncomfortable feeling of suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman was not himself altogether enamoured of the 5th part of the Bill. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had said on one occasion that the question of emigration was open for consideration; and, that being the case,
  1514
  the right hon. Gentleman could not be surprised that they who on that side of the House attached importance to the 5th part of the Bill should desire emphatically to press their views on the Committee. Some hon. Members on the other side of the House spoke as if this was the first time the question had been mentioned; but everything that had been uttered, the very words that had been used, had been heard before. Everything told them now the House heard in 1870, and with this result—that the Government failed as completely and utterly as never a Government failed before. Desiring to avoid the cardinal mistakes committed in 1870, he wished to impress upon the Government the immense importance of recognizing above all, and before all, what lay at the root of all the miseries of Ireland. They had the word of the right hon. Gentleman for it. The right hon. Gentleman had himself called the attention of the House of Commons and of the country to the fact that what lay at the root of all the suffering in Ireland was the land hunger which existed in that country. Then, was it not natural that he (Mr. Chaplin) should impress upon the Government the necessity of acting on their own words, and going to the root of the question to begin with, and not at the end? To show that he had no desire of impeding the progress of the Bill, he would not proceed with his Amendment now; but he might be allowed to say that, as the right hon. Gentleman distinctly assured the House the other night that there was no confiscation in this Bill, they on that side of the House had since then proved and demonstrated beyond the possibility of doubt that there was confiscation in it. So far, they had received no answer from the other side of the House. No single Member of the Government had attempted to meet or grapple with the question; and although on that occasion he should not further delay the progress of the Bill, he reserved to himself the right of taking whatever course he thought fit in future until it was made distinctly clear that there was no confiscation in the measure.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I must confess that it appears to me very little is gained in the progress of the Business of the House by raising debates of this kind, in which an hon. Gentleman, after de-

  1515
  livering himself twice of his sentiments, concludes by saying that he will proceed no further at present, but that he will reserve to himself the right of raising the question again. I am also asked for an assurance as to the relative importance I attach to the different portions of the Bill. [Mr. CHAPLIN: I made no such request.] No, it was the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but we were told by the hon. Gentleman that no Member of the Government has attempted to make the simplest reply to his demonstration on the subject of confiscation. Now, to the charge of confiscation brought against the Bill, I endeavoured to make what I thought was a sufficient reply, though, probably, the hon. Member, from the sublime height on which he stands, has failed to observe so minute an object as a counter-argument. The hon. Member says that no answer has been made to that charge. Answers have been made and answers will be made. There is no confiscation in the Bill. If there were confiscation to be found in this Bill it would be found in the recommendation for which the hon. Gentleman is responsible, which would enable the tenant to obtain the judgment of the Court to prevent a landlord from obtaining the rent he might obtain in the open market. If there is anything in the shape of confiscation the hon. Member is the author of it. But I will not enter into that matter now. I will only take the opportunity of assuring the hon. Member that he shall have it elucidated to his heart's content. As to the seductive prospect which the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) holds out to me of having his support in the coming division, if I will only give an assurance that I am ready, at the expense of the people of the Three Kingdoms, to authorize a Commission to go into Ireland and compulsorily to buy the estates of the landlords, or to buy them without any particular limit as to the amount, and for the Government to undertake the responsibility of providing the means, I will not add a syllable to what I have already said on the subject. I have gone very far in proposing that liabilities should be undertaken by the Public Exchequer; and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who likewise wants assurances as to the importance I attach to Part V. of the Bill, and is jealous that it may be dropped,
  1516
  appears to have forgotten that on the night of the introduction of the Bill he pointed to the large and dangerous liabilities which the measure involved. Under the present circumstances, I do not think it wise to enter into a large discussion of this part or that part of the Bill. The Bill has been proposed by Her Majesty's Government as a whole. They draw no distinction between one part and another part of the Bill. The importance they attach to it is more than they can describe in words, and that importance they have never limited to Parts I., II., III., or IV., or any other part. Upon that ground they are prepared to stand, and as I trust we are all desirous of dealing with the matter, and of proceeding with the Bill, we may now pass to the consideration of the 1,500 Amendments which stand on the Paper in order that we may make some progress with the measure.
  MR. GORSTwished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that having been challenged to give an assurance, he had sat down after having carefully avoided giving any. This was one of the points in which the Committee were placed in a position of great difficulty by the two voices with which the Government spoke to them. When the Secretary of State for India addressed some observations upon the subject, he laid the greatest possible stress upon Part V. of the Bill as the cardinal portion of the Bill, and the noble Lord did what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said the Government would not do—he did draw a distinction between one part of the Bill and the other. [Mr. THOROLD ROGERS: Where?] It was not in the House of Commons. The learned Professor who gave that ironical cheer appeared to think that the words of a Minister were not binding unless they were uttered in that House. He (Mr. Gorst) imagined that Ministers of the Crown were bound by their public utterances everywhere. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India did what the Prime Minister said no Member of the Government would do—he drew a distinction between the two parts of the Bill, and stigmatized the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th parts as a mere modus vivendi until Part V., which was the really valuable part of the Bill, should come into operation. All he (Mr. Gorst) now wished to call the attention of the Com-

  1517
  mittee to was that on scores of occasions it would be their fate to listen to two distinct voices on the part of the Government, and that they would have the greatest difficulty in making out which voice they were to believe. The Secretary of State for India said the 5th part was to be the important part of the Bill. The Prime Minister, when challenged, slurred over the 5th part, evidently attaching no importance to it, and his (Mr. Gorst's) belief was that when Part I. and the earlier parts of the Bill wore safely got through Committee, they would see Part V. dropped altogether.
  THE MARQUESS OF FIARTINGTON: The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred again and again to what I said in the City not long ago; and I may as well, therefore, state exactly what it was I did say on that occasion. I referred to the different parts of the Bill, no doubt; but I am not aware that I drew a distinction between them. Certainly I did not do what the hon. and learned Member says—"stigmatize" the first portion of the Bill. I do not know why the hon. and learned Member should assert that a statement that the first portions of the Bill are intended to provide a modus vivendi must be called "stigmatizing" the Bill. I should like to know what could be more important than to provide a modus vivendi? What can be a more essential object of this Bill? No doubt I said, as I would still say, and I think most of my Colleagues would say, that the provisions of the Bill which relate to emigration and the increase in the number of landowners are the provisions most likely to effect a permanent improvement in the condition of Ireland. At the same time, I stated plainly, as I state now, that we cannot look to these parts of the Bill and to these provisions to produce any very rapid or immediate improvement in the condition of Ireland; and it is absolutely necessary, until the beneficial influence provided by that portion of the Bill can come into full operation, that other measures should be adopted which will enable the country to tide over the present state of things. I certainly never drew any distinction between the relative importance of these objects. If I am asked which is the most important object—whether to provide a permanent but very gradual
  1518
  cure, or to provide the means for making the existence, either of landlords or tenants, tolerable and pleasant in the meantime—I should say the immediate object is the more important one. But I do not wish to be drawn into giving precedence to the importance of one part of the Bill or the other. Nothing I have said is inconsistent with what was said by my right hon. Friend that the Government regard this Bill as a whole, and that as a whole they intend to go on with it. The condition of Ireland appears to me to be that of a patient, who from some cause—perhaps of very long standing—finds himself extremely ill. There might be an opinion that certain changes in his mode of living would alone restore him to complete good health; but these changes could not be applied immediately to restore him, and it is a remedy to be actually applied at this moment that the Government are proposing in the first part of the Bill. I hope that, having now stated what I said and what I intended to say at the Fishmonger's Hall, there may be an end of any attempts on the part of hon. Members opposite to attribute to me a desire in any way to disparage the importance of the first portion of this Bill.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: It must be a matter of satisfaction to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) and to other Members of this House who take the view which he does—namely, that the material part of the Bill for the permanent improvement of Ireland is to be found in the 5th part, and not in the first four portions—to find that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India adheres entirely to the statement which he made some nights ago in the City. It is most satisfactory to be informed, on the authority of the noble Lord, that not only does he hold that view, but that he is authorized to say that that view is shared by most of his Colleagues. I am sorry that the noble Lord has not been able to go a step further, and to assure the Committee that that view is shared, not only by "most," but by all of his Colleagues. Still, that assurance is most satisfactory, and I trust that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary, after that assurance, to press his Amendment to a division. With regard to the statement of the Prime Minister I have only one word to

  1519
  say, and that is that in the course of it the right hon. Gentleman thought it expedient again to attempt to fix on my hon. Friend that most unfounded charge that he is responsible for the constitution of the Court for settling the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland. No doubt my hon. Friend, as one of the Commissioners, assented to the Report of the Commission; but I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to find in that Report any mention of the word "Court."
  MR. MAC IVERwished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India a question in regard to the meaning of the statement which he had just made. When he, on the part of the Government, declared that they took their stand on the whole Bill, did he mean that they gave the House the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, and that the House must accept it without having regard to any of the important Amendments which had been placed on the Paper by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and without the omission of a single clause? Did the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister mean that when they said that the House must take the whole Bill absolutely and precisely as it stood? If the noble Lord did not mean that, would he kindly point out in what direction Amendments would be accepted?
  MR. BIGGARthought that the Irish Members, on a question of this sort, should have an opportunity of saying a few words. It seemed to him that the policy of the Tory Party in regard to the Bill was, if possible, to get the only portion of the measure which the Irish Members looked upon as beneficial to the Irish tenants shelved, and simply carry that part of it which the Irish Members conceived to be, not only valueless, but mischievous. Hon. Members with whom he acted were all of opinion that the clauses which had reference to emigration would be highly mischievous; and they thought the Prime Minister should not stick too firmly to the idea he had propounded that it was necessary to have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. The practical result of adhering to that policy would be that the Bill would still be in Committee, at least, until the 1st of August, with the certainty that it would not be passed into law during the pre-
  1520
  sent Session. There were two parts of the Bill that it was most important and desirable to pass into law this Session—namely, those parts which proposed to fix the rents of the holdings, and to make provision for the purchase of holdings by the tenants. If those portions of the Bill were not rapidly disposed of there would be no chance of having any really valuable measure passed this Session, and all the time which had been occupied over the Bill would be entirely wasted.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the next Amendment on the Paper stood in his name, and was merely a formal Amendment to enable him to move other Amendments further on, excepting certain tenancies from the operation of the clause. He was simply anxious that when he reached the part of the clause in which he wished to move a substantial Amendment, he and others having similar Amendments should not be debarred from having the right to move them on the ground that, having accepted the earlier portion of the clause, they had shut themselves out from proposing these alterations. He hoped the Prime Minister would be able to assure him that when the exceptions to which he referred were reached, neither his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), nor the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay), nor himself, should be considered as having deprived themselves of their right. He mentioned this because it had been stated on another Bill that when a clause had been practically passed a proposal for an alteration or exception at the end was too late, the Member making the proposal having been a party to accepting the clause as it stood, without there being anything to show that there was to be an exception further on. He wished, if possible, to have an assurance from the Prime Minister that the Rules of the House for regulating the proceedings of Committees would not be used to prevent him from bringing up subsequently the Amendment which he wished to move. The best course would certainly be to discuss the exceptions on their own merits when they reached the last part of the clause.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, before the words "the tenant," insert

  1521
  "except as hereinafter provided."—(Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he apprehended there would be no difficulty in moving the Amendment the noble Lord desired to move at the end of the clause.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that, in that case, he would, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw the Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMANput the Question that the Amendment be, by leave, withdrawn, and declared that the "Ayes" had it.
  MR. WARTON: I object, Sir.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment has been, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WARTON: No, Sir; I challenged it before you said that it was withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member may have challenged my decision; but his challenge did not reach me until after I had declared that the Amendment was withdrawn.
  MR. WARTON: I spoke loudly and distinctly.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE: I heard the hon. and learned Member challenge the decision of the Chairman.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: Is not the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) resisting the authority of the Chair?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have no doubt the hon. and learned Member for Bridport is perfectly correct in his statement, and I can only regret that I did not hear his challenge until after I had said that the Amendment was withdrawn.
  EARL PERCY: Would it not be as well that the Chairman, on rising to put an Amendment, should kindly look round the House before he decided?
  MR. BRAND: I rise to Order. I wish to ask what is the Question before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is no Question before the Committee on which the noble Lord (Earl Percy) is entitled to speak.
  EARL PERCY: I rise to Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is no Question of Order. I always endeavour to look round.
  MR. WARTON: But you did not. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name him!"]
  MR. GLADSTONE: If the hon. and learned Member does not retract that
  1522
  expression, I must move that the words be taken down.
  MR. WARTON: What words?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The words, "You did not." It is a direct contradiction of the Chair.
  MR. WARTON: My words were not the contradiction they appeared to be, and were probably not distinctly heard owing to the noise which prevailed. I should not have been so rude as to contradict the Chair. I did not say, "You did not." The expression used by the Chairman was, "The Chair endeavours to look round," and I said, "But does not." If it is an expression I was out of Order in using, I at once withdraw it; I only wish to say that I did challenge the decision of the Chair before the Amendment was declared to be withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member denies having used any offensive expression. The next Amendment on the Paper is one in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy)—Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at commencement, insert—
  "From and after the passing of this Act the 13th section of "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' shall be, and the same is hereby repealed."
  That Amendment cannot be put, because it proposes to insert words at the beginning of the clause. It can, however, either be brought up as a separate clause, or as an addition to the clause. The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand).
  MR. HEALYsaid, he did not propose to challenge the decision of the Chair; but he wished to know upon what grounds an hon. Member could not propose an Amendment at the beginning or in the middle of a clause just as well as at the end? He had never heard it laid down before that an Amendment must appear at a certain corner or turning of a clause. As far as he was concerned, the present ruling did not make the slightest difference, as he was indifferent whether the Amendment came at the beginning or at the end of the clause; but he would submit that for the purposes of the Bill the Amendment would really be better at the beginning, and he did not think that he ought to be fettered in his judgment as to where it should be inserted by the judgment of

  1523
  any other Member, even if it happened to be the Chair. [Cries of "Order!" and "Chair!"] He had said nothing disrespectful to the Chair. He had only submitted that hon. Members ought not to be fettered in their judgment by the views of any other hon. Member.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDrose to Order. He wished to know if the hon. Member was in Order in challenging the ruling of the Chair?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already explained to the hon. Member that his Amendment would not be out of Order if proposed at the end of the clause; but it is inconsistent with the construction of the clause to take it at the commencement; and I, therefore, rule that it is out of Order. I call upon the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand).
  MR. BIGGARrose to Order. He begged to move that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again. There would be no use in commencing the discussion of a new Amendment two minutes before the time at which they would be obliged to adjourn the consideration of the Bill.
  MR. CALLANasked whether, as the Chairman had called upon an hon. Member by name to move an Amendment, it was competent for the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to intervene, and, stating that he rose to Order, proceed to move to report Progress?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) is perfectly correct. It is not competent for the hon. Member for Cavan to intervene on a question of Order, and then to move to report Progress.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that he had also risen to a point of Order, and had not concluded his remarks when lie was interrupted by a Welsh Member. Mr. Playfair, without allowing him (Mr. Healy) to conclude, called upon the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Brand). He apprehended that the Chairman had ruled his Amendment to be out of Order simply upon his own ipse dixit—[Cries of "Name!"]—but he did not propose to challenge the decision of the Chair. It had been ruled that he could not move any Amendment at the present time. Of course he submitted to that ruling; but he respectfully asked the Chairman to state upon what grounds he (Mr. Healy) was unable to move the Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Chairman is intrusted with the duty of presiding over the conduct of Business in Committee. After consulting the officers of the House, who have had the greatest experience, and who coincided with me that it would be inconsistent with the construction of the clause for the hon. Member to move his Amendment at the beginning of the clause, I ruled that the Amendment was out of Order. I now call upon the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand).
  MR. BRANDremarked, that it was impossible to move his Amendment then (6.50); and he would, therefore, move that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Brand.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  And it being ten minutes to Seven of the clock the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (ELECTION SYSTEMS).
    RESOLUTION.
    MR. BLENNERHASSETTin rising to call attention to the importance, in view of probable changes in the electoral franchise and the distribution of political power, of full and accurate information with respect to the relative advantages of various systems of election including proportional representation, the cumulative vote, and the restricted vote; and to move—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the system of election of Members of this House best calculated to secure the just and complete representation of the whole electoral body."

    1525
    said, it was impossible to exaggerate the serious nature of the change which was impending, and which would bring upon the register a larger number of electors than had been enfranchised by any previous Reform Bill. Before embarking upon a change so great, it was of the first importance that the fullest possible information should be obtained, in order that the change might be made in a way which should produce the maximum amount of advantage and the minimum of danger that might attend it. He was most anxious that the House of Commons should reflect the mind of the country; but, in order that it should do so, the utmost care should be taken so to organize the electoral body as that it should not remain inaccurate, misleading, and unjust, owing to the present extremely anomalous distribution of electoral power. At the last General Election, 181,000 electors failed to return a single Member, while 785,000 electors returned no fewer than six Representatives to Parliament. It was a fact that, taking many important electoral divisions, a majority of electors were represented by a minority of Members, the result in all such cases being to stultify the opinion of the majority of electors. It ought not, therefore, to be overlooked that, under the existing system, a large majority of the electors might be excluded from direct representation in that House. They were, no doubt, told, in answer to that grievance when it was put forward, that if the complainants were not directly represented in their own constituencies they were indirectly represented in other constituencies. That argument had, however, he thought, been sufficiently exploded during the debate on the Reform Bill of 1832. They had now no guarantee that the majority of Members in the House represented the opinion of the majority of the electors of the country. At the last General Election no fewer that 70 Liberal seats and 48 Conservative seats were won or saved by majorities not exceeding 1 in 20. Slight changes in the feeling of the country might thus lead to disproportionate changes in the composition of the House of Commons, and a small section of weak-minded persons in the constituencies might bring the political life of the country into a dangerous and unsettled condition. Besides, it should be re-
    1526
    membered that in the case of what might be called an equilibrium of opinion, where a small number of electors could influence au election, the inducement to corruption was always greatest. The question was, whether they could not preserve all the advantages of representative government, and yet free themselves from the disadvantages which he had pointed out. The Act of 1867 admitted the principle of the representation of minorities, and another and very important recognition of that principle was to be found in the Act relating to School Board elections; but the question was, whether the existing system could not, as he believed it could, be improved. He believed it was possible to give to every Member, both of a minority and a majority, representation in Parliament by the proportional system, as advocated by Mr. Hare. He believed the plan of proportional representation to be the true solution of the problem of representative government. His Resolution, however, did not pledge the House to that opinion; it simply asked for inquiry into the system, in order to find out what was best; his case, as regarded proportional representation, was that it was worthy of careful inquiry and consideration. It was impossible to speak of proportional representation without mentioning the name of Mr. Hare, to whom it owed its origin. He was indebted to Mr. Hare for extracts from unpublished letters of eminent public men which were addressed to Mr. Hare on the publication of his work. [The hon. Member proceeded to read strong expressions of opinion in favour of the scheme from Mr. J. S. Mill, M. Prévost Paradel, and Professor Cairnes. The last-named remarked that it disposed of bribery without any additional machinery.] As to the objection that the plan was new and unfamiliar, the answer was that it was neither mysterious nor complicated, and that it was easy to understand and to practice. The best description of it was to be found in the words of Mr. Mill in proposing the clauses which he endeavoured to insert in the Reform Bill of 1867. There was nothing more in it than that votes were to be received in every locality for other than local candidates; an elector would be allowed to bestow his vote on anyone, and he would naturally vote for the

    1527
    person who would represent him best. If a sufficient number of persons fixed their choice on anyone, he would be elected; and the number of votes sufficient to elect a candidate would depend upon the proportion of the total number of Members to the total number of the whole constituency. Taking certain figures, the number of votes necessary to elect a candidate in this way would be 3,000, and when that number of votes had been put to the credit of a candidate, those whose votes had not been counted would not lose them if they had put down the name of a second candidate, to whom they were to be given if not required by the first. In that way an elector might vote alternatively for a first, a second, or a third candidate. This plan would prevent the throwing away of votes, and it would give no trouble to any but the scrutineers; while, as a matter of fact, their work would be simpler than many operations of daily occurrence. He refrained from entering into questions a detail, which could be better examined in Committee. The answer to those who said the plan was unworkable was that it had been working well many years. It had been adopted in the elections of Denmark for the last 20 or 30 years; and Lord Lytton, when he was Ambassador at Copenhagen, gave a clear account of the simplicity with which the plan was worked. It had been successfully tried in an election in London within the last few days. The effect of its adoption in Parliamentary Elections would be to make the House of Commons a truer reflection of the mind of the people, a truer image of the feelings of the nation. Every voter might have a due share of political power, and no one need be nominally represented by a candidate against whom he had voted. Under the system which he recommended power would be given to educated and enlightened minorities to elect men to represent them, and the House of Commons would become the representative of the national intelligence. No sudden and violent changes would take place in the House not corresponding with changes outside. What were the objections which were urged against the system? One objection was that it would destroy the local character of our representative institutions. He contended that no such effect would follow. On the contrary, while
    1528
    the electoral system was made more elastic, local attachments would remain as strong as ever. Another objection was that crotchets and interests would increase, and legislation on the broad principle of the general good would be interfered with. Now, he thought that crotchets ought to be represented if a certain number believed in them. He sincerely believed the only real objection and difficulty in the system was its unfamiliarity to the public mind. But that ought not to influence them. At the last General Election a peculiar form of electoral machinery originated at Birmingham, and shortly after that election the President of the Board of Trade wrote a letter to The Times newspaper that, whether for good or evil, the organization had taken firm root in the country, and politicians would do well to give it in future unprejudiced attention. He cordially admired the energy and skill by which his right hon. Friend and those who worked with him had attained results so eminently satisfactory. He contrasted this with the secret caucus system in America, by which the franchise was so manipulated before the voter went to the poll that there was no such thing as the exercise of free suffrage. He entertained no doubt that such a system as this would be eminently distasteful to the President of the Board of Trade, for, in his address to tile National Liberal Federation in Leeds in 1879, he insisted that every section of the Party should be represented, and that none should suffer from exclusion. That was the strongest argument in favour of minorities. He claimed the support of all who honestly and sincerely held the Democratic theory of government. He hoped he had said enough to convince the House that there were grave and serious considerations involved in this matter, considerations which did not appeal to political passion or partizan zeal, but to the calm judgment of thoughtful men, who looked to the future, as well as the present. They had now an interval of political calm; no one could say how long that calm might last; but what he desired was that it should be used in collecting information upon this subject. There were many reasons why the Government should not refuse the Committee for which he asked. Those who believed in the system believed in it so

    1529
    strongly and with such entire conviction that the question could not possibly be suppressed. Some felt so strongly on the subject that, anxious as they were to support Liberal progress in every direction, they would find it utterly impossible without this inquiry to support any proposal for electoral reforms, and would feel it their duty to give their most strenuous opposition to any measure for the extension of the franchise if they had not full information on the subject. This was no class or Party question. It was in the interest of all classes, and in accordance with the principles of both Parties; the question was how they could get the most perfect safeguards at once against Democratic passion and oligarchical re-action. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    MR. A. ELLIOTsaid, that a great many on that side of the House hoped that the great question of County Reform would be dealt with next Session, and if that were so, they should not delay to make inquiries into the subject now before them. In supporting the Resolution he did not wish it to be supposed that in all respects he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett). His desire was, before Party passion and individual prejudice became excited, in view of another General Election, to look as deeply as they could into the different methods by which true representation was to be provided. The House of Commons was now on its trial; it was not the only great debating place in the country—discussions were held outside as well as inside that House. For their own credit they ought to take care that their character as a Parliament, where great measures were to be discussed, should be kept up by making the House truly representative of the nation. They had heard from Mr. Mill and Mr. Lowe equally gloomy anticipations of the terrible evils of a monotonous electorate, and how monotony would reign in that House. He denied that there was one uniform way of thinking in the present House of Commons, or that variety did not exist. By a proper re-distribution of seats, and an increase in the system of one-membered seats—the plan always favoured by Mr. Cobden—if any strong opinions were held in the country, Members would be found in that House to repre-
    1530
    sent them. It was supposed that there was little chance of a minority being
    unrepresented in that House; but there was a chance of it. Let them take the case of Scotland. While he rejoiced that in Scotland the Liberals were so strong, he must say, as a Liberal, that Scotland would not be so well represented if Scotch Conservatives were shut out from that House. The House would be less representative, and no good would be done to the country at large. They must remember that under the next Reform Bill the increased county electorate would necessitate, if they were to regard numbers at all, a large increase of County Representatives. Without discussing all the various systems that had been proposed, he would only express his preference for small or moderate-sized constituencies, each electing one Member. What he desired was that a constituency should have some knowledge of its Members, which was, of course, impossible if the number of voters was very large. As things were, the constituencies had the power of electing Members, but were, in most cases, practically unable to select candidates. To his mind, it was one of the main objections to the celebrated system of Mr. Hare that it would tend to prevent the expression of local feeling. At the same time, the plan might be tried in a modified form, in Lancashire, for instance, where large minorities were, in more than one case, virtually unrepresented. The changes that were, in his opinion, most urgent, were such as would increase the elector's power of choice, and would secure the proper representation of local feeling and interests. He was glad to second the Resolution of his hon. Friend.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the system of election of Members of this House best calculated to secure the just and complete representation of the whole electoral body,"—(Mr. Blennerhassett,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDobserved, that the speech of the hon. Member for Kerry was substantially a recommenda-

    1531
    tion of Mr. Hare's system of voting, the objections to which were, perhaps, more obvious than its advantages. He saw no reason for referring the question to a Select Committee, though he admitted that some of the principles enunciated by the hon. Member would probably improve our present scheme of representation. It was a matter which might rather be referred to the electors of the country to consider for themselves. It would probably happen on the occasion of every General Election that they would have one man elected the supreme Representative of the country. There were several important questions which would be brought before the people of the country at no distant date—the liberation of the Church, the liberation of the land, in which he was more intimately interested, and possibly the liberation of Parliament from control by the other House of the Legislature. It was therefore important that every means should be used for insuring the most effective representation of the people of this country. With regard to the manner in which minorities were represented in three-cornered constituencies, he could not say that he was an admirer of the system. Suppose his hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), at the time when he was the minority Member for Liverpool, had been nominated one of the Ministers of the country, it would have been utterly impossible for him to seek re-election, as it would now be for a Conservative in Manchester. He could not vote for the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry, for while he thought the subject was one of great importance which the people ought to investigate for themselves, he did not believe it could be usefully considered at the present time by a Committee of the House of Commons.
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, he was surprised to hear a Radical Member like the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), who, he thought, did believe in principles, state that what was just and right was not expedient. He (Mr. Rathbone) was not prepared to say whether Hare's system of representation was the best form of minority representation or not; but he was prepared very cordially to support a Motion for examination into what would be the best system of insuring the representation of minorities in the very great ex-
    1532
    tension which they were bound to give to the representation of the Democratic part of the community. When he first advocated the system of the representation of minorities, he had not the slightest expectation of being a Member of that House, and also at that time he believed that the extension of the franchise in Liverpool would have given entire power to the Liberal Party. So it would have done if it had not so happened that the first election for Liverpool was on the Irish question of the Disestablishment of the Church, which raised the very strong feeling which exists in Lancashire of an anti-Irish and somewhat anti-national character. He advocated that system, because, believing it was necessary that every part of the community should be represented, it seemed to him that there was a strength and a weakness in every kind of Government which they had yet seen. An aristocratic Government was apt to be somewhat narrow and oppressive, though having its own virtues; and certainly a Government confined to the middle classes, as they saw it in Louis Philippe's time in France, was narrow and mean, though it also had very great advantages; while a solely Democratic Government would be apt to be swayed by great tides of public opinion, and, therefore, not be sufficiently stable. What they really wanted was a Government which should represent the strength of every section. The second ground on which he thought a representation of minorities was very important was, that while believing, as he did, that the instincts of the people were good and right, yet he did believe it was necessary, especially in a Democratic constituency, that a number of men should be kept before it, and, as leaders of that constituency, should be so independent that they would be able, when there was a great wane of public opinion in one direction, to keep before the community, from an independent, a prominent position, the other side of the question. Even on our very imperfect form of minority system Mr. Cobden would have continued to represent the West Riding; the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Manchester; and the Prime Minister, South West Lancashire. He believed that would have a most beneficial effect on the country, and would not have been without its advantages on those

    1533
    distinguished men themselves, for he considered it very important that those who led the Government should represent large constituencies. Such representation brought them in contact with very different sections of the community, and it had a tendency to steady a politician and prevent him from running into extremes. Minority representation gave a man a very great advantage in taking a bold course against particular sections of the community. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had said that if a man represented a minority be could not take Office; but that difficulty would be removed if they could only throw away the absurd old system which required a new election when a Minister took Office, and which enabled a small constituency to reverse the determination of the nation. He was now no longer a minority Member, and could speak without any personal interest. What a monstrous thing he said it would be if, in a constituency of 60,000 electors, where 5 per cent would turn the scale either way, that the minority, which with a slight wave of public opinion might become the majority, should for the term of years be absolutely unrepresented. They might say that the minority of Conservatives in the towns would be represented by the Conservatives in the country, and vice versâ; but he pointed out that the Liberal Members for the counties represented a different shade of opinion from the Liberal Representatives in the towns.
    MR. ASHTON DILKEsaid, he thought the attitude assumed by the Liberal Members who had joined in this discussion justified the course taken by the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett) in bringing forward this Motion. It was curious to notice the differences of opinion on the subject in the present Ministry. The President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were strong supporters of the absolute representation of the majority. On the other hand, the Postmaster General and the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department advocated a totally different system. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was also much interested in the question of the best way to secure the representation of minorities. It was a strange fact that the late Conservative Government had been returned to power by a minority of electors. The inade-
    1534
    quate representation of Scotch Conservatives had been referred to; but there was a more striking instance in England. The English Catholics had not been able to return a single Member in the House of Commons. He thought this Committee was needed more for the Government than for independent Members. Two statements had been lately made by the Prime Minister which he thought justified the case of the hon. Member for Kerry. The one was, that the Government staked its existence on the Irish Land Bill; and with this ought to be compared the statement of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that the present Parliament would not be dissolved until it had dealt with the question of county representation, for which it had been elected; he hoped that was so; and the other was, that the late Conservative Ministry had had a perfectly Constitutional right to act as they had done, just like the present Ministry, though the former only represented a minority of the nation. This Committee, if appointed, would do useful work in dealing with other important points, such as the residential franchise—the assimilation of the county to the borough franchise, and the different kinds of voting—for even in Parliamentary Elections there were two kinds, the minority vote being one; and there were different systems in Parliamentary, municipal, and school board voting—all these were questions of the greatest interest; and he hoped the Government would accept the Resolution of the hon. Member for Kerry.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that the hon. Member for Kerry advocated what was known as the Hare system. The Resolution was, at all events, an innocent one, and would simply involve a Committee of Inquiry, a great mass of evidence, and the publication of Blue Books which nobody would read. He had himself practical experience of the tyranny of a majority in municipal matters, where the majority absolutely overrode the minority, and incurred heavy liabilities which bore equally on the minority with the majority. He should oppose the scheme of the hon. Member for Kerry, for the reason that it would favour, as he believed, wire-pulling on the part of the Leaders of one of the two political Parties.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that though the discussion had been of

    1535
    a very interesting and instructive nature it could not be denied that the speech of his hon. Friend, with which it opened, was more of an academical than of a practical character. He could only say that it had never before been the custom of the House of Commons to refer matters of this kind to Select Committees—indeed, he remembered the saying of a very distinguished statesman, that he would never submit the Constitution of this country to a Select Committee. Any alterations of the laws of this country ought to be based on a deliberate expression of opinion of the country, and not upon the Report of a Select Committee. If a Committee were appointed, what practical result would follow? It could only be very much a reproduction of the debate of to-night. There would be a very ingenious speech in favour of the Hare system, and ingenious speeches in favour of other systems; and he saw no possibility of arriving at any practical result. For his own part, he was one of the old-fashioned school, and he had never been able to bring himself to admire the notion of turning the electoral system of England into a sort of Chinese puzzle, or selecting Members of Parliament by a sort of double acrostic. That might be a very ingenious occupation for people who had nothing to do; but it would greatly puzzle and confuse the great mass of the electors. He therefore thought it would be more wise for the House to decide at once in reference to the proposal of his hon. Friend, and to proceed with the Business which had been set down for transaction in Committee of Supply.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he could not support the Resolution in its present form, but would accept one directing a Committee to collect information as to the various systems in operation.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 40: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 217.)
    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    THE ROYAL CONSTABULARY (IRE LAND)—THE CONFIDENTIAL CIRCU LAR TO COUNTY INSPECTORS.
    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. CALLANwhose Notice that he would call attention to the "Confiden-
    1536
    tial Circular to County Inspectors," and move a Resolution censuring the same, stood next on the Paper, said, that although he regretted to lose this opportunity, he did not think it right to proceed with his Motion in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORbegged to appeal to the Prime Minister to furnish facilities for a resumption, on Monday evening, of the debate on the question of the Irish arrests.
    MR. GLADSTONEwas understood to say that he could not stop the progress of the Irish Land Bill on Monday night at 10 o'clock. He would, however, agree to report Progress at 12; and then the discussion referred to by the hon. Member might be resumed.

    IRISH FISHERIES.—OBSERVATIONS.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwho had given Notice that he would draw the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee appointed by the Colonial Office in 1880 to distribute the grant of £2,000 voted by the Dominion of Canada towards the relief of Irish distress, and to the aid afforded by the Committee to the fishing population on the West Coast of Ireland; and to move—
    "That, in view of the surprising and excellent results obtained by the expenditure of a comparatively small sum of money on the construction and repairs of harbours and piers, and on the provision of boats, nets, and gear, it is expedient, in the opinion of this House, that further assistance should be given for the development of the Irish fisheries, that such assistance should be given from public sources, and should be in the form of a free grant,"
    said, that if the Government intimated that it would be inconvenient to discuss the subject in the absence of the Chief Secretary, he would refrain from bringing it forward at present. On two or three occasions previously attention had been called to the fisheries of Ireland; but the House had never manifested any great interest in them, and it had not entertained any large scheme for their development. It had been said on those occasions that there were no actual facts to bring before the House to show that any outlay of money would be remunerative. Now, however, there was some evidence of the return that might be obtained by pecuniary outlay. In the winter of 1879, at the time when very severe distress existed along the West

    1537
    Coast of Ireland, the Dominion of Canada voted £20,000 for its relief, and the late Secretary of State for the Colonies intrusted the distribution of it to a Committee selected from the two central Relief Committees then existing in Dublin. The Committee came to the conclusion that the proper way to carry out the wishes of the Canadian donors was to expend the money on works or objects that would have a permanent and lasting effect. The importance of harbours and piers on the West Coast of Ireland had long been recognized. For some years it had been in the power of the Government to make grants to localities for the purpose of assisting to construct harbours and piers for the advantage of the coasting population engaged in fishing pursuits. But those grants had been of a very niggardly character. They were limited to about £5,000 a-year from the Treasury; it was stipulated that the locality should provide one-fourth of the sum required, and from the outset the conditions laid down rendered the liberality of the Treasury almost useless. So poor were the people that it was all but impossible for them to find even a fourth of the money for any such works as were required. It followed that the works constructed had been very few in number, and the authorities had been unfortunate in the selection of sites. The Irish Board of Works had failed in this as in other things, and had enforced the necessity for its re-construction. The Canadian Grant was a godsend to a poor population, who were peculiarly situated in this respect, that no amendment of the Land Laws would place them in a satisfactory position, because they could not subsist wholly on agriculture. In the West of Ireland the resources of the people, so far as agriculture was concerned, were deplorable; but on the coast the compensation of nature was remarkable in the great productiveness of the fisheries. Some years ago the Western population derived very great profits from the fisheries. Kelp was also an unfailing source of income; but that trade had entirely failed from no fault of theirs. From year to year the funds which enabled them to provide boats and nets had disappeared. Repairs were not carried out; their boats became unseaworthy, and their nets rotten. He thought the House would gladly recognize the deep
    1538
    debt of gratitude they owed to the Parliament of the Dominion in voting spontaneously a very liberal grant of money for the relief of the poor Irish population. The Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies determined to apply this sum of money partly in the erection of piers and harbours, and partly in the provision of boats, and nets, and fishing gear. With regard to piers and harbours, the greater number were either completely dilapidated or out of repair. They were fortunate enough to secure the assistance of Dr. Brady, who was most enthusiastic in his devotion to the cause of Irish fisheries. That gentleman gave himself heart and soul to the distribution of the grant. His information was always of the most reliable character, especially as to the localities on which they should expend their money in providing piers and harbours, and they were able to contribute more than 24 piers. The Committee provided the one-fourth required to be advanced by the locality, and the Treasury advanced the other three-fourths. But the Treasury made an additional grant, and instead of the usual £5,000, they made a grant last year of £45,000, which had enabled a very large number of works to be commenced. He regretted, however, to say that the Treasury, with that extreme prudence and caution which were, perhaps, right at the time when great demands were made for Irish distress, had given the House to understand that this £45,000 was an accumulation of the grants for nine years to come, so that Ireland would have to go so long without any grant from the Treasury for these harbours. He hoped the Government, on re-consideration, would not adhere to this resolution. The Committee had been able to contribute to 24 piers. There were 79 other applications for improvements to harbours, for many of which other resources were available; but in consequence of the insufficiency of the Government grants they could not be proceeded with. The total cost of the 24 piers was £55,000, and the estimated cost of the 79, which the Committee, after careful investigation, thought absolutely necessary, and to which the localities were willing to contribute, was £181,000. The works appeared to have been carried on very carefully and satisfactorily, some by the Board of Works and others by contracts.

    1539
    They were not completed; but the Committee reported that when completed they would be of the greatest possible value to the population, and would stimulate the fisheries very much. If hon. Members had been on the West Coast of Ireland, on the tremendous coast of Donegal, for instance, as his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Law) had been, they would understand that, with the terrific gales on that coast, unless shelter was provided, men could not be expected to run the risk that would have to be incurred. The richness of the Irish fisheries had been brought out by the Committee in the most remarkable way. In some localities the Committee said that each canoe returned laden with mackerel from 50 to 80 dozen in each. There had not been so heavy a fishing for years. They also said that for miles along the coast of Clare there were no nets among the fishermen until they provided them. According to their Report, one boat realized £60 in three nights, and the cost of the boat was only £12. In another locality, where nets were given to 50 fishermen at a cost under £200, in four weeks over £1,200 worth of mackerel were sold. These poor Irish fishermen had for years been prevented from going to sea by the paralyzing effects of a poverty which had grown on them year by year; but the tiny aid which had been given by means of this fund in various parts of Ireland had done great good. If the Government were anxious to do good on a large scale there were results to encourage them. The men went to sea regardless of weather, and were so skilful as to make enormous captures. The first necessity was the provision of harbours for the population of the West Coast. If the Government wanted to effect any real improvement they must not proceed at the rate of £5,000 a-year, as they had been doing of late years; but they must set aside a very considerable sum for the scientific construction of harbours all over the West Coast, and there was no question but that the outlay would be highly remunerative. He would recommend an absolutely free grant for the purpose, and he was perfectly convinced the arguments in its favour were very strong. It was said that the liberality of Liberal Members extended only to dividing among Irishmen the property of a particular class. After all, the sum he
    1540
    asked for was not very large, considering the enormous resources of the country. His own idea was that at least £250,000 might be expended on Irish fisheries in a manner that would be exceedingly popular, judging from the results of much smaller loans. About the population of the West Coast of Ireland there was something very remarkable. Probably the Attorney General for Ireland had seen the Reports of the Irish Fishery Inspectors. If so, he could not have failed to notice that the Inspectors, whose visits made them acquainted with the fishing population all round the coast, invariably spoke of them in the highest terms as peaceable, orderly, and well-conducted, even in the disturbed districts. In short, while the difficulties of the country were wholly caused by the attitude of the agricultural population, the fishermen were worthy objects of liberality. It would be understood, of course, that if piers were constructed by means of a free grant of money, a small tax should be levied on those using them in order to keep them in repair. But piers were not all that was wanted. He had also to advocate a grant that was not equally defensible from a business point of view. It would be useless to provide piers and harbours for men who had no fishing-gear, and who were too destitute to buy it. In this case, however, a much smaller sum would suffice, or, rather, would be more than sufficient. He had good authority for saying that £50,000 would do a great deal of good in supplying proper fishing appliances. At present the fishing people were in a condition of extreme poverty. Their misery was undeniable, and had been caused by no fault of their own; and the remedy that he suggested had also been indicated by the Duke of Edinburgh as the result of his experience while distributing The New York Herald Relief Fund among the people of the West Coast. Considerations of political economy might, no doubt, be urged against the grant; but political economy had been banished to Jupiter and Saturn, and it would be hard indeed if it were recalled from those heights as an argument against needful liberality. It was to be borne in mind that the distribution of the grant would be a very easy task. The Coastguard officers and the parish priests would be able to furnish certificates

    1541
    stating the names of the individuals who were in need of some such State system as he had described, and it could be arranged that a certain sum should be paid back by the fishermen themselves out of their profits. If a grant were made on such a scale as he had suggested a most important supply of fish would, doubtless, be brought into the English market. There was already a fair extension of railways to the West Coast of Ireland, and there would be little difficulty in getting the fish to the market. At present there were three times as many English as there were Irish boats—to say nothing of French boats—gathering this valuable "harvest of the sea," which was the property of Ireland. If the people on the West Coast had the appliances by which they could become accustomed once more to the management of boats and to marine exercises, and if the Admiralty were to place one or two training ships on that coast, a most valuable recruiting ground would be provided for the Navy. In conclusion, he was sorry he could not ask the House to come to an absolute decision on his proposal at the present moment; but, on the other hand, he bad been glad to avail himself of this opportunity of bringing the subject before the House.
    MR. O'SHEAsaid, he could corroborate the character which the noble Lord had given the fishermen on the West Coast of Ireland; and he thought there was no part of it which showed more clearly the advantage of such a proposal as that now made than the district at the month of the Shannon. Before the Canadian Grant to the fishermen there, the fishermen in the neighbourhood of Loop Head were in the most dreadful poverty. To-day he had had a a letter from the parish priest, Father Vaughan, who was regarded as the father of the fishermen in that district, and he told him the poor people there were getting on well this year, and, as an instance of this, he wrote, "their rents are nearly all paid." The rev. gentleman pointed out that in the district there had been caught this year £100,000 worth of fish; but this quantity had been nearly all caught by English and French boats. At the same time, the canoes in which the natives fished had done extremely well. Although the people were poor, they
    1542
    were extremely honourable, and he (Mr. O'Shea) knew instances in which they had repaid loans in the most unexpectedly prompt manner. It was impossible for those who had not been on the West Coast of Ireland to understand the great difficulties which fishermen there experienced. He must offer his testimony to the numerous services of Mr. Brady on the West Coast of Ireland. It was marvellous how that gentleman had devoted his time for months past for the good of the fishermen on that coast; and he could assure the House the gratitude of the men towards him was very deep. He sincerely hoped some means would be taken by the Government to show they were not insensible of Mr. Brady's services.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, he would not trespass upon the House beyond a few minutes, because he had given Notice of a Motion on the subject of the Irish Sea Fisheries, and he could state his views fully when that came on. The noble Lord, to whom too much credit could not be given for the admirable manner in which he had introduced this matter, had spoken about the Canadian Fund. That fund could not have been so advantageously made use of if it had not been for the exertions of his late Colleague, Mr. Brady, who, at great sacrifice to his comfort, had worked at its distribution most laboriously, zealously, and efficiently. The noble Lord had not time to touch upon the benefits conferred on the maritime population by another fund. As many hon. Gentlemen were aware, there was a sum of £40,000—the residue of a charitable fund raised some 40 years ago—which, during the Viceroyalty of the Duke of Marlborough, it was determined to use in granting loans to the Irish fishermen. In six years £32,000 had been advanced, and £20,000 had been repaid. There was overdue for arrears £856; but the greater portion of that sum was in course of repayment. In a couple of years the whole amount would be repaid. He himself, as Inspector of Fisheries, was engaged in the distribution of that fund. They could have advanced advantageously 10 times as much as they had at their disposal. In the county of Galway ho had, the first year, only £1,400 to advance, while £20,000 was applied for. That, of course, was an excessive figure; but he

    1543
    believed, had he had £10,000, it would have been usefully employed. The expenditure, according to the noble Lord, of the Canadian Fund, had boon attended with the most beneficial results, for the amount of fish captured was 50 times greater than it would otherwise have been. Only eight counties in Ireland had the benefit of the Reproductive Fund. It would be of the greatest advantage if the sum available could be increased, and the eight counties which had been left out, but in which fishing was carried on, could participate in the benefits arising from the advances. There was one thing particularly wanted for the Irish fisheries, and that was a vessel to look out for new fishing grounds and for surveying purposes. Scotland had for a long time been possessed of a vessel—an efficient vessel, under the Fishery Board; but, notwithstanding repeated requests, Ireland had never succeeded in obtaining one. If such a vessel were provided, he was sure much more fish would be caught. Upon the coast of Kerry, as, indeed, upon the coast of different parts of Ireland, vast shoals of mackerel were coming in, and there could be no doubt that if the seas around Ireland were properly fished, the wages and food of the people would be enormously increased. It was a deplorable thing that so magnificent a field of industry as the Irish fisheries afforded should be so much neglected and comparatively unused; and he hoped the earnest and powerful appeal of the noble Lord would have the effect of causing the Government to do something in the direction of taking some steps to render more available the fisheries of Ireland.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORthanked the noble Lord for the careful attention he had given to this subject, and said, his excuse for intervening in the debate was that he represented a portion of the country that was more largely affected by the question than, perhaps, any other part of the country—he meant the town of Galway. What must have struck everybody who had visited Galway was the almost appalling rapidity with which the fishing population in the town had decreased. There was no part of the Irish problem that more immediately demanded the attention of Parliament than that of the Irish fishery population. With regard to the
    1544
    loans, the noble Lord had shown, first, that they were profitable; secondly, that they could be granted with security; and, thirdly, that the people fully deserved the loans, and would properly employ them. He had proved that they were profitable, and shown that the comparatively small sum of £11,000 spent on fishing gear had resulted in a profit of, at least, treble the outlay. One of the a numerous correspondents who had written on this subject had shown the immense difference there was between the people who had had the advantage of loans and those who had not. In the second place, it had been proved that those loans could be given with security, and he thought that that was a lesson in the direction of further loans from the State. On this point he could speak with a certain amount of local knowledge, because in a village just outside Galway a large number of loans had been granted in the course of nine years, and he was sure that an instance was unknown of anything like a breach of engagement by those to whom the loans were made. One of the most painful difficulties that had occurred to his mind upon this question was that somehow or other it seemed very hard to find out how the wishes of the people could best be met and their interests best advanced. One of the difficulties was that the population were rather backward; and owing to their antagonism to anything like innovation, and in order to relieve people, especially people of the unlettered class, the State must not only give relief, but they must give them relief in such a way as to secure the co-operation of the people themselves. The people in some parts of Ireland had had considerable difficulty with the persons sent to deal with them through a want of sympathy and a true knowledge of the way in which to deal with those people. It was from no want of zeal or industry on the part of the fishing population that they did not make use of such opportunities as were placed at their disposal, for he found that the Connemara men engaged in lobster fishing were sometimes found hundreds of miles away from their homes, living for weeks together in a small boat under the shelter of an old sail. It was true that that showed in a way that the people had not yet made much progress in the best means of utilizing their opportunities, because

    1545
    with better management they might, perhaps, have been more comfortable in their fishing operations; but when they were found spending weeks in an open boat, and travelling hundreds of miles in pursuit of their occupation, it was a strong proof that they were perfectly willing to spare themselves no trouble to gain such advantages as their opportunities gave them. He had been told of a remarkable instance in his own constituency of the difficulties placed in the way of developing the fishery industry in Ireland. There was a place where a harbour was very badly wanted, and his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford County (Mr. Blake), when he occupied an official position, had recommended the construction of the harbour, and the local landlord was willing to give one-fourth of the money required. The harbour was also recommended by the Board of Trade; but those were the halcyon days when one who had since been removed to a higher sphere, under the title of Lord Sherbrooke, was the disposer of the finances of this country, and when the proposal came before Mr. Lowe it was with a single stroke of the pen dismissed. No reasons, he believed, were given for the refusal; and this place still remained without a harbour. Thousands of pounds a-year were in that way kept from the fishermen in that district. He wished to guard himself against the expression of any opinion which would subject him to the charge of believing in Government encouragement to trade in any country. His opinions were rather in the other direction; but he thought this was a case in which it was the duty of the State to largely foster the industry of the people.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he might mention the case of a village at Cape Clear as an instance of the development of fisheries through the system of loans granted by the Baroness Burdett Coutts. Three or four years ago there were only nine boats there; but now the people had 25 boats. Those loans certainly were granted without interest, and when they were repaid, as they had been punctually, they were thrown into a fund from which loans were granted to other people; but he was satisfied that the people who took those loans without interest would be willing to pay the Government a small amount of interest. With respect to piers and harbours, a
    1546
    change in the present system was, no doubt, required. In the present system the locality interested demanded a grant; but before the Treasury would commence the work the district had to raise a certain amount of the money required. He thought the system ought to be reversed, and managed by the Commissioners of Fisheries, who might decide where harbours might most suitably be constructed, and could carry out the work irrespective of the local contribution. There were long stretches of coast in the county of Cork where there was no sort of harbour; but the Commissioners, if they could act, would find good places for harbours. Then, with regard to the loans from the Reproductive Loan Fund, they only amounted to about £800,000; and when the House considered the three bad years which Ireland had experienced they ought to be ashamed of that amount. The fund ought to be entirely re-organized.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHregretted that, owing to the absence of the Chief Secretary, it had devolved upon him to take part in this discussion. Time was valuable, and he should have been glad if, instead of this long discussion, they could have been providing the money for the year's expenditure; but he admitted that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had done well by calling attention to the good work done by the Canadian Committee. He thought we owed a tribute to the generosity of Canada, and to the gentlemen who had administered the liberality of Canada so beneficially and so well. His only complaint against the noble Lord was that, whilst calling attention to the subject, he did not seem to have given very close and minute attention to it himself. Anyone studying this question would have avoided the singularly incorrect statement in the Resolution as to the amount of the Canadian Grant, and also the conclusion of the noble Lord as to the conditions which were now attached to loans. Again, the amount of money lent was not so small as the noble Lord thought. He had given a marvellous instance of the results of the money advanced by the Canadian Committee. The conclusion which occurred to him (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was that, as few, if any, of the fishery piers to be provided by the assistance of the Canadian Grant were

    1547
    as yet completed, they could not as yet have been of any assistance to the fisheries; yet, in spite of that, there had been the marvellous development, in bringing to the coast large shoals of fish this year, of which the noble Lord had spoken. He thought a great deal of that development was due to the merciful interposition of Providence rather than to the expenditure of loans. Then, if it was true that the money had earned 500 per cent in a few days or weeks, how came it that fishermen generally were in the deplorable state described? The noble Lord had complained with severity of the niggardliness of the advances which Parliament had made for many years in aid of the fisheries; but those grants were very much larger than those made for the similar industry in Scotland; and the conditions which the noble Lord had so bitterly complained of simply consisted in asking that the locality benefiting should show some interest by contributing one-fourth of the cost. And how had that engagement been fulfilled? Was it unwise for the State to take some precautions to prevent the money it spent being absolutely wasted by the neglect of those to whom it was intrusted? He feared that the expenditure of £5,000 a-year had, so far, resulted in but little real gain to the fisheries; and he was not quite so sanguine as the noble Lord as to the expenditure of further sums. The noble Lord asked the Government to make a grant of public money for the purpose of developing the Irish fisheries. This year's Estimates included a grant of £28,000, irrespective of the ordinary grant; and he thought they had better see the result of the expenditure of this large sum before embarking upon any further undertaking in this respect. The noble Lord wished, also, that grants should be given for the purpose of providing the fishermen with nets and boats; but many of the hon. Gentlemen who had supported him had not gone so far as that. He would ask a question of the noble Lord. Why should this particular industry be singled out for State favour? They might just as well, and with equal propriety, find money for the development of agriculture. He held that the State would incur very considerable responsibility if, by offering grants, it induced men to enter on this trade, which he believed was a very
    1548
    precarious one, inasmuch as it greatly depended on the seasons. He did not know whether the noble Lord had read all the Report to which he had referred; but if he had done so, it was wonderful that he had escaped the warning which its pages gave as to the danger of the proposed generosity of the Government—if they called it generosity—being abused. In the Report of Mr. Brady, and of the Canadian Committee, attention was strongly drawn to the difficulty of selecting cases in which to make grants. They stated they were flooded with applications; but, upon investigation, many of the applicants turned out to be improperly recommended. If this were the case with a Committee of gentlemen administering a voluntary fund, was there not a likelihood of a greater abuse if a grant were made by the State? Every locality would think it right to get as large a share of the plunder as possible. But whilst he thought it would be unwise for the State to embark upon the experiment, he considered the Canadian Committee had done good by the example it had set. It had shown how money might be applied by the liberality of individuals; but he hoped he had explained the detrimental results which would follow if the State attempted to foster by direct grants a particular industry.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had done very valuable service in bringing this extremely important Irish subject under the notice of the House; and, bearing in mind the difficulty of the position of those in charge of the Treasury, he did not think it could have been expected of the noble Lord opposite to say much more than he had just addressed to thorn. They could not expect the Treasury to be anxious to make grants for every purpose; but, at the same time, it must be borne in mind that the Irish fisheries presented immense opportunities for a great fishing industry, and that now they were not as prosperous as they were some years ago. It was quite true, as stated by the Secretary to the Treasury, that it was impossible to be sanguine as to every proposal made in this matter; but he did hope the Irish Members and people interested in the question might regard the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) as indica-

    1549
    tive of an earnest desire on the part of the Government to foster and encourage the fisheries of Ireland in every legitimate way. They must look at the matter rationally, practically, and with a discriminating eye; and he thought they might expect the Government would do everything they possibly could to develop this great Irish industry. It would be unreasonable to ask the noble Lord or the Government to say very much more on the present occasion, particularly at this hour; but he trusted, when the matter came again before the House, it might do so at an earlier hour, so that they would have the opportunity of considering it at greater length.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, there were one or two points which the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury had overlooked. Ireland contributed to the Imperial Exchequer £3,000,000 a-year over and above the amount spent in Ireland; and, therefore, it was not unreasonable for them to ask a very small portion of this money for the development of their fisheries. Furthermore, the English people altogether forgot they had crushed all organization in Ireland for the last 150 years. It was only for the last 30 years they had had Corporations and Farm Commissioners, and as yet they had no county organization. The English aristocracy had carefully crushed out all means of organization in Ireland. At this moment Ireland, which in reality had great industrial resources, was suffering from former oppression and present neglect, and until the Government did something to remedy such a state of things it was not fulfilling its duty.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANwould not have risen to take part in the debate but for the concluding words of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury. The noble Lord devoted a great portion of his speech to showing what a great mistake it would be for the State to expend any money upon piers and harbours in Ireland, and upon nets or boats, or upon anything which would tend. to develop and encourage Irish fisheries; but he wound up by telling them that it would be an excellent thing for foreign Governments and charitable and benevolent individuals. How did it happen that what was not befitting an English Government was noble and good on the part of the Canadian Government? So much for the development of
    1550
    Irish industry under the fostering rule of the British Parliament and a Liberal Administration. Charitable ladies and gentlemen would do exceedingly well to come and do for Ireland what the British Government and British Exchequer thought very wrong on their part. The sum of money sought by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) was very small; but, nevertheless, it was refused. He had often noticed that millions of money were readily granted to carry on some disgraceful little war in some distant part of the world, or in pursuit of a scientific Frontier; but when it was proposed to foster a native industry in a country which had been oppressed by British rule the question was too large to be considered, and a vast number of objections were taken on the score of political economy and other things. The present question had been met on the part of the Government in a very paltry, ungracious, and niggardly manner. They did not want to take away anything from the pockets of the British taxpayer; but this was a question on which they missed the care of a native Government. Under self-rule in Ireland, 12 months would not elapse without a liberal outlay, which would be fully justified and repaid in a short time. If the British taxpayers would leave them to manage their own resources and use their own money and credit, they would not ask a farthing from England; but while they were oppressed and impoverished they might fairly claim that the British Treasury should give them that small instalment of justice. The case had been powerfully stated, the arguments were conclusive; but the case had been met in the manner in which such proposals usually were.
    Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. CHILDERS: My noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish)does not propose at this hour to take the Civil Service Votes, which, of course, would involve some debate; but I beg leave to ask the Committee to take the Vote for provisions, fuel, and transport in the Army Estimates, as that does not involve any contested matter. It is very important

    1551
    that we should, if possible, take that Vote now in order to have sufficient Supply, and later on, after the Irish Land Bill is disposed of, we may devote a whole of one or two evenings to the discussion of the Army Estimates, without having to take the items of this Department later than 10 or 11 o'clock. If the Committee will allow me to take this Vote, which does not involve any of the questions of Army Organization, I will undertake that the other Votes, which do involve questions of principle, shall be taken at such an hour as shall enable the House to discuss them fully. The only object we have is to enable that discussion to take place at a convenient time, and I trust the Committee will allow this Vote to be taken.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,411,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Provisions, Forage, Fuel, Transport, and other Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882."
    COLONEL STANLEY: These Benches are not much occupied at the present time; but, speaking for those who sit round me, I may say there appears to be nothing at all unreasonable in the proposal the right hon. Gentleman has made, and we shall do our best to support him. The House has already voted the number of men, and the establishments of the Services, and the right hon. Gentleman now merely asks to be allowed to take the Votes necessary to keep those establishments in existence. That seems a fair proposal, and although it would be too much to say of any Vote that it involves no controversial matter, yet after the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that on other matters, which involve organization and questions of change, there shall be fair discussion at a future time, the proposal seems to me to be altogether reasonable.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORfailed to discover any grounds for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) taking upon himself to answer for that side of the House. [Colonel STANLEY: I said—"Those who sit round me."] He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) thought there was very good reason to object to the Vote being taken at that time. It was a Vote for £3,411,000, and it appeared to him a monstrous proposal that it should be
    1552
    treated as if it were a mere flea-bite, and that they should vote nearly £3,500,000 as a matter of course, without inquiry, simply because the House had voted the number of men. He entirely objected to the proposal, and he should 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.)
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the alternative course seemed to be, if the Committee did not take that Vote, that they would have to give a Vote on Account. The only question he wished to ask was, whether the Vote contained the necessary sums for carrying on the war in the Transvaal? He presumed that it did; but he also presumed that the right hon. Gentleman would have to come presently for a Supplementary Vote for that war. That being so, and seeing that this was the Vote they usually had to pass, and that, in his humble judgment, it would be far better to give the Vote as it stood than to give a general Vote on Account, which was not usual on Army Estimates, he should support the Vote.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, the hon. and gallant Baronet was right. This was the ordinary Vote, and, of course, it would be necessary to bring in a Supplementary Vote as to transport in South Africa. He had selected this particular Vote as the one least open to discussion; but he would pledge himself that the House should have ample opportunity, not at a late hour, but at the beginning of a Sitting, for discussing Votes which raised questions of importance.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONreminded the Committee that a Vote of £3,000,000 would enable the Government to go on without other Votes till a late period, and the House would probably at the end of the Session be asked to give further Votes, and then adjourn at once. Would the one or two nights promised be given before the new Warrant for Army Organization, to which the Army were looking forward with such apprehension, came into operation? What the Army and the country wanted was more detailed information on the important changes about to take place, which were carrying dismay into the hearts of all the old officers in the

    1553
    Army. No doubt they would be all right; but the Army wanted to know, and it would be a great misfortune if the new Warrant came out on the 1st of July without the House having an opportunity of getting information upon it.
    MR. CHILDERSassured the hon. and gallant Member that he would lay on the Table, not at the end of July or the beginning of August, but as soon as the details were completed, full and ample information. Then, as to the further Votes, he should not allow the fact of this Vote being taken now to delay the other Votes fur a single day. The Army Estimate Votes could not be taken until the Land Bill had been dealt with; but he would undertake that the original intention of bringing on those Votes at the very earliest day should be adhered to. The House should have the most ample opportunity of discussing them.
    MAJOR NOLANwished to point out the inconvenience of taking this Vote at such an hour without a special undertaking. The custom was to take a first Vote for £5,500,000, and that opened up all questions as to the men for the Army. This Vote preceded a long discussion on the whole details of the Army, and all those points would have to be dealt with on another Vote. By giving one Vote in Committee they would be unable to raise any general discussion at all, unless the Government would agree to allow it on other Votes under which general questions did not strictly come.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the Vote, because he considered it most important. It was connected with forage and fuel and transport, which must be provided for as soon as possible. He hoped the Committee would support the Secretary of State for War, and pass the Vote. They had had an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that they should have an opportunity on the Estimates of bringing forward all matters connected with organization, and he hoped the Committee would allow the Vote to be taken without any further debate.
    MR. O'SHEAasked whether the details of the new organization would be before the House before that scheme was carried out?
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, the details in the second Memorandum would be laid
    1554
    on the Table before the new scheme was carried out—in fact, in a very few days. Whether the discussion could be taken before the 1st of July lie could not say, because that would depend on the progress made with the Irish Land Bill.
    MR. O'SHEA: Will the House have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it before it comes into operation?
    MR. CHILDERS: Certainly.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he did not think the answer of the Secretary of State satisfactory at all; and, as a general rule, when there was this agreement between the two Front Benches, he thought it was the bounden duty of hon. Members below the Gangway to oppose the Government. Nobody know better than the hon. Member for Swansea that the Government had all sorts of little arrangements—a kind of Masonic practices, only known to themselves, and only to be detected when the two Front Benches agreed. That agreement was the only intimation independent Members had that they had better be upon their guard. On that ground he should offer some resistance to the Vote. Another point that he considered objectionable was that the Secretary of State, having already had £4,500,000, should ask for the enormous sum of £3,500,000 at this hour of the night for a certain purpose, when he did not intend to apply the money to that purpose. The money was got under a name that would apply to all sorts of things, and therefore the money was being obtained under—well, not being obtained for the real purpose set before the Committee. The general principle on which the Government proceeded was thoroughly unsound, and one which Liberal Members would not agree to if a Conservative Government were in power. That was that every Vote of Supply, every English measure, every mortal thing that came before the House, had to be put off indefinitely until the Irish Land Bill had made progress. That was thoroughly wrong, for the Land Bill might not leave this House till the end of July or the middle of August.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he must point out to his noble Friend that there were exceptions to the best established rules; and it was within their experience that the two Front Benches had been right when they agreed. He thought this was one of those occasions, and he should

    1555
    support the Government if they went to a division. He thought it would facilitate matters if the Secretary of State would assure the Committee that he would not take any Vote later than the middle of July.
    MR. CHILDERSassured the hon. Member that he would not postpone the Army Estimates one single day beyond what was necessary; but, for the general purposes of the Government, he would have to ask their forbearance.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONquite agreed that these collusions between the two Front Benches were dangerous things. The fact was that the ex-Secretary of State for War had prepared a scheme which his own Government would not bring into operation, and he had put it into a pigeon-hole in his Office, and the present Secretary finding it there now asked the House to sanction what the late Government would not do. He thought the late Government were quite right, and showed great prudence; but the right hon. Gentleman had not stated whether the House would have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the new organization before it came into operation, and he wished they could have an assurance to that effect.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he wished to disabuse the mind of his noble Friend and some others of the idea that there was necessarily any arrangement be-the two Front Benches on this occasion. What caused him to deprecate undue discussion was that the House, having already voted the men and material of the Army, would stultify itself if it refused to allow the head of the Army to carry out the previous Vote. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman would facilitate the progress of the Vote by letting the Committee understand that, not only so far as he was concerned, but so far as the Government were concerned, there would be an opportunity for discussion before the Regulations of the 1st of July were acted upon.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would repeat the assurance he had already given that he would not delay by one single day these Estimates, and that he would do his very best to get them before July. He did not think he could be more explicit than that.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that on this occasion he should support the noble Lord. Night after night these Esti-
    1556
    mates were pressed upon them at a late hour, because of the Irish Land Bill. They were voting away the money of the people of this country, and that was what they ought to consider long before the Land Bill, which would do no good at all. In the meantime, however, he wished to know if this Vote included the cost of transport in the recent operations in the Transvaal. If the right hon. Gentleman assured them that the Vote was absolutely necessary, he would not oppose it; but he had not told them so. He deprecated this hasty way of voting £3,500,000. It was a course which the Liberal Party would never allow others to follow, and the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that he would oppose such a course, and had opposed it when it was proposed by another Government.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had never objected to any Vote of this kind when it had been declared to be necessary for the Public Service. The charge with respect to the Transvaal was for troops who had gone out in the early part of the year, and the other matters there would be an opportunity of discussing.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Secretary of State had told them that this Vote was necessary, and on that ground he should support the Government. It was not in the least from any agreement between the Front Benches, but because it was absolutely necessary to carry on the Services of the country. A word about the Civil Service Estimates. It was an enormous temptation to the Government, especially when they had got a heavy Bill before them, to put off the Estimates to the latest possible time. He understood they were going to ask a Vote for six weeks on account for the Civil Service Estimates; and he understood, from the peculiar circumstances of this year, that that Vote would be granted to them. But he wanted to give the Government warning that they were not to expect another Vote on Account, and, having had the indulgence of the House so far, they must not ask for that indulgence again simply because they had a Bill before them which must go on. He should oppose any further Vote on Account, because it was time they resorted to the old practice, and that the Votes for the Civil Service and also for the greater Services should not be put off to a late period. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman

    1557
    was right in saying that under the previous Government he had never opposed a Vote which was declared to be absolutely necessary for the Public Service. At the same time, he was bound to say that when the late Governmerment did ask for Votes on Account they were opposed by a great number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, and were requested to give up their Bills and go on with Supply.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he thought a good deal of the money expended on transport at home was wasted. There was £116,000 for the escort of prisoners, and his own experience was that there were more escorts going about than were necessary. This employment took the men away from drill and cost the country a great deal of money, and very often persons were taken up for deserters who were not deserters at all. If attention were called to this, several thousands of pounds might be saved. It often happened that men who were merely absent without leave were arrested and sent under escort. A large number of Roman Catholic men were sent out without any chaplain; and although the late Secretary to the Admiralty promised that when there were a large number a Catholic chaplain should be sent out with them, he (Major Nolan) believed the promise had never been executed, and he would like to know whether that was so or not.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, his attention had been drawn to the question of deserters, and as to the Roman Catholics he would take care that when there were a large number sent out, a Roman Catholic chaplain should be sent with them. A promise to that effect had been given in general terms, and in one case a Roman Catholic chaplain was sent with a troop-ship this year to South Africa. He believed that what had been done had been entirely satisfactory to those who looked after that question. The troop-ship expenditure did not come under this Vote. It was an Admiralty Vote.
    MAJOR NOLANdid not think the promise as to chaplains had been fulfilled, and he urged that if men of other religions had chaplains, the Roman Catholics should.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that to the best of his recollection the promise was given, not by himself, but by the right
    1558
    hon. Gentleman the then Chancellor of the Exchequer; but when the matter was looked into it was found to be impracticable. At the same time, as far as he was aware, the question had not been lost sight of.
    MR. HEALYreminded the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) that some of the Irish Members wished to discuss the presence of soldiers in Ireland assisting in evictions. They could not attempt to do that at so late an hour, and if the right hon. Gentleman would give them an assurance they would be willing to waive the matter then. There was, however, another matter. Public feeling in Ireland was very high; there were Irish soldiers there who sometimes went out on the spree, and cheered Irish leaders. For that exceptional sentences were inflicted, and there was one case in which a young man of the 18th Royal Irish was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. The Irish Members would also like to discuss the conduct of the Guards in Dublin, which was, beyond all doubt, a disgrace to the British Army, and a standing menace to every peaceful citizen in Dublin. There was a case the other day in which two or three of those roughs had knocked down and beaten a man, and the man could get no satisfaction; and there was the celebrated case of the man who was thrown into a canal by some Army Service Corps men and nearly drowned. There was a series of these cases, and, seeing the way in which troops were being poured into Ireland, and how careful the Government were that they should be English soldiers, it was important that the right hon. Gentleman should keep a strict watch over them. And when the right hon. Gentleman introduced Votes, it would be well if he would bring them on at a reasonable hour, so that they might be discussed.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, the general points raised by the hon. Member might be dealt with on Vote 3; but he could assure the hon. Member that there was not, either on the part of the officers or of the superior authorities in Ireland, any desire to screen any soldiers who might commit any improprieties such as had been described. On the contrary, when such cases had come before them, they had rigidly dealt with them. It was not the case that the soldiers had

    1559
    been severely punished for cheering; but in one of the cases referred to the man had used language of a most treasonable character, which could not be passed over. The wish of the Army authorities was that discipline in all respects should be maintained. In regard to the case of the man thrown into a canal, the man appeared not to be sober, and when he was asked to pick out the men who had assaulted him he could not identify them. He did not know what more the authorities could have done than they had done in that case.
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, he was interested on behalf of some of the Militia Staff-sergeants in Ireland, who considered themselves ill-treated; and he was anxious to know mere definitely when the Army Scheme would be brought under the attention of the House. He would not go into the details of the grievances of these men; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, in consideration of his not doing so, to give same precise statement as to when the scheme could be brought before the House, so that there should be an opportunity of discussing the grievances, and urging them upon the House.
    MR. CHILDERShad had no intimation of the grievances; but on Vote 5 he would give the hon. Member the fullest opportunity of discussing them. At present, however, he was not aware of the special points to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORconsidered it obvious that the Committee was not then in a condition to pass this Vote. Here was an hon. Member appealing to the Secretary of State foe War for an assurance about something, and when the Committee tried to ascertain what it was upon which he wanted an assurance they found it had nothing to do with this Vote. This was simply because the Vote had been suddenly sprung upon the House, and when not a Member of the Government had a copy of the Estimates in his hands. The right hon. Gentleman had had more than one-third of the Effective Vote voted to him, and he said he should have another £3,500,000; and he proposed that the discussion the Army Estimates should go on in the beginning of July. From the 1st of April to the lst of July was only three months, and he could not in that quarter have spent £4,500,000. The statement,
    1560
    therefore, that the money was absolutely necessary now would not bear investigation. He would further remind the right hon. Gentleman that he always had balances of millions under the control of the War Office. He did not seem to be so well acquainted with the details of his Office as he might be. At the end of the Appropriation Account in any year he would find in detail the account of all the balances standing to the credit of the War Office at the end of September, and he would find that these balances invariably amounted to £12,000,000 or £15,000,000. He did not say that all these moneys were immediately available for every purpose; but over and above the £4,500,000 he had had voted to him there were other funds available, and he, therefore, could not want funds, and would not be in want of funds for three months. There was no necessity, therefore, for this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman said he had selected this particular Vote because it was non-contested. It was simply because it was the largest Vote he could ask for. If he wanted non-contentious Votes, why could he not ask for that for Divine Service or for some Non-Effective Service? These were not Votes on which contention could arise; but he wanted this because, having already got Vote 1, if he also had Vote 10 he would have all the money for pay and food and transport, and all the most contentious business connected with the War Office, except stores, would have passed. The question of the transport of troops was one upon which a large amount of discussion might reasonably be expended. Discussion might very properly be raised on such questions as stoppages of soldiers' pay, Colonial losses, fuel, forage, or provisions; and in the Appendix, page 193, there were figures connected with the Transvaal which suggested a number of questions. But if they passed this Vote, how were those questions to be dealt with? When they came to other Votes it would not be in order to discuss the points which might be properly raised on this. He therefore could not accept the right hon. Gentleman's observation that it was necessary that this money should be voted; and even if it were, it was the duty of the Government to have brought it before the House at some more convenient hour. It was now past 2, and it was not right

    1561
    or proper to pass a Vote of £3,500,000 at such an hour without discussion. It had been sprung upon the House without reasonable Notice, and they had no reason to suppose it would be proceeded with until the Civil Service Estimates had been discussed. If it was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to have money, why not ask for a general Vote on Account? Why not take half of this Vote and leave the other half as fair ground on which to raise discussion connected with the items? Half the money ought to be enough. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to be able to accept that suggestion. Under those circumstances, he must challenge the Vote, and he did not think he could finish his remarks much before 3 o'clock.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the old idea was that no large sums of money should be asked for after 12 o'clock at night; but on this occasion, at five minutes past 1, they were asked for £3,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not name a particular day on which hon. Members might have an opportunity of discussing questions connected with the Army, the Government having got into a mess with regard to their other Business. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that this money was very much wanted; but the hon. Member for Queen's County had pointed out that that statement was very incorrect, and it was very strange that the Army was in a far better position, as far as funds were concerned, than any other Service. Only two months had elapsed since the Army got £4,500,000—a sum sufficient for four months; so that that part of the case entirely broke down, unless there was something kept in the background. He suspected there were large expenses connected with the Transvaal, and so on, which had to be paid off, and which the Government did not wish to have discussed till their other Business was practically disposed of. He would urge the Committee not to allow this new principle to be introduced of asking for large sums without the opportunity of discussion at this late hour.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 73: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 218.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Queen's County, that he had ascertained beyond doubt that the £8,000,000 balances at the War Office were not at their disposal, and that the money would run out about two weeks or more from this day. Therefore it was absolutely necessary to have this Vote. The hon. Member was a terrible tempter in suggesting that he should take a Vote on Account; but it was understood to be a canon in that House not to take Votes on Account for the Army Service.
    GENERAL BURNABYbegged to move that the Chairman do leave the Chair. His reason for doing so was that this Vote comprised a great many soldiers' grievances—some of those shabby things which the Army were beginning to become alive to. For instance, he should like to know whether in the first item of £1,500,000, for the "Cost of Provisions," was comprised that portion of a soldier's rations which were deducted from his pay? It had been said by a general officer commanding the Home district that the notion that the soldier got his rations free was nothing but a "snare and a delusion." There was nothing which so disappointed a soldier as to find that the lump of meat and portion of bread he got was all he got, and that his evening meal—bread, tea, coffee, potatoes, vegetables, &c., had to be deducted from his pay to the amount of 1s. 11 d. per week. He also should like to know whether, under the head of "transport," was included the cost of a soldier's funeral from the place where he died to the place where he was buried? The sum of 35 s. had to be deducted from a soldier's effects and savings in the Regimental Savings' Bank, his effects being all his under garments, which the soldier had to pay for, and these were seized by the Paymaster after death, even to the shirt off his corpse, and sold by auction. Then, as to separation allowances for wives and families, he would like to know whether the Vote for "Cost of Provisions" included proper and full rations for those wives of soldiers married with leave and their children, when they were forcibly separated from the soldiers, who were fighting for their country? There were other things upon which the House should have full opportunity of discussion. He found that soldiers had to pay

    1563
    10 s. for their own burial fees at the Brompton Cemetery; this went to the clergyman of the parish or district in which the death took place, and 1s. to the cemetery was also paid. But he did not see why the military chaplains should not perform the duties without any charge upon the soldiers; and he certainly was of opinion all fees should be paid by the State. Anxious as he was that the Vote should be passed, he thought it had been brought on toe late, and therefore felt himself compelled to make his Motion, as his only means of these grievances being made known to the House without loss of time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(General Burnaby.)
    MR. CHILDERSexplained that the question of troops having additional pay did not arise in any way upon this Vote. It was an entirely distinct question, and he thought the hon. and gallant Member knew that that was so. The question of the cost of soldiers' funerals was one which the Treasury had at this moment under discussion, having been taken up some time ago. That question, however, did not arise on this Vote, and the same remark applied to the matter of the chaplains' fees.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsuggested, in order to shorten this matter, that the Secretary of State should take—say, £2,000,000, and leave £500,000, upon which all these points could be raised; and, in the meantime, the absolute wants of the Department might be met. He must, however, admit that such a course would be unusual, and should not be taken as a precedent.
    MR. CHILDERSthought he had fully explained the points raised, and he observed that the hon. Member, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, must know that if there was anything that Committee set their faces against, it was the taking of Votes on Account for Army or Navy Services.
    COLONEL STANLEYdesired to suggest another course. Before now, when he had been Secretary of State for War, it had been agreed, when Votes were being taken and particular points could not be answered, that the answers should be given on the Report. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would
    1564
    be able to answer all the points before the Report on Monday.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had not the least objection to that course, although he thought he had answered every point that had been raised. He was most anxious to meet the objections of any hon. Member.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was afraid the Irish Members could not assent to the suggestion, because a discussion on Report was a very different thing from a discussion in Committee. Although they had been prepared to go on with the Army Estimates in the ordinary way, they had no reason to expect that they would be suddenly called upon to discuss this Vote 10. But they were prepared to raise such questions as the right hon. Gentleman would not be able to dispose of in an hour or two. He was prepared to contest every penny voted for the transport or other expense connected with the service in which the troops were being employed in Ireland. He could not find words sufficiently strong to condemn that service, and he would be no party to voting money for it, unless they got an assurance such as would show that they were justified in allowing the Vote to pass. Then there was the question of transport to other parts of the world, and that opened up large considerations which could not possibly be adequately discussed at that late hour. The public could not know what took place, and it was very unfair that the Government should insist on going through the Division Lobby.
    MR. BIGGARheld that the proposal of the Government could not be defended, and said he could not remember an instance in which the late Government had insisted upon taking money at such an hour. The taking of Votes of public money should be in the presence of the representatives of the Press, so that what took place could be made known. If the criticisms upon Votes were not made known to the public, they might as well be passed with closed doors; and for Ministers to suppose that the discussion was to take place without being known to the public was a thoroughly untenable proposition.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 6; Noes 65: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 219.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had been carefully considering whether it was possible, consistent with the financial Rules—and after careful consideration and consultation with his right hon. Friends around him he thought he could make a promise, without any grievous breach of Rules—that the hon. Member might raise a discussion on the question of expenditure in connection with the Army in Ireland on other Votes. He would take care that that could be done. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: What Vote?] Not only as to transport, but as to recent expenditure of the Army in Ireland. He would not introduce any technical difficulty.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the objections he proposed to raise in regard to the Irish portion of the Army, or rather that portion of the Army in Ireland, was an objection which covered a great deal more ground than was covered by the question of transport. He objected altogether to that portion of the military system which was known as the relief system.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, that question did not occur on the present Vote, and the hon. Member would have the fullest opportunity of discussing it.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, they could not separate the relief system from the question of transport. If they brought soldiers from one part of the country to another they must necessarily expend a certain amount of money in the transport.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, what he said was that they could raise the question of what the hon. Member called relief on three or four other Votes.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the difficulty was this—he had watched the proceedings in Supply with great care for some time, and he had seen more Members disappointed in their intentions in offering observations on particular branches of the Public Service by rulings from the Chair, with regard to the particular Vote on which they ought to offer their observations, than in any other way. The movement of troops was a subject that properly belonged to that Vote, because it was a Vote under which they supplied the funds which went to pay for those movements; and, as he said before, they could not separate the question of the transport of
    1566
    troops from the relief system. The way in which he regarded the movement of soldiers for a time in Great Britain and another period of time in Ireland was that particular aspect of it which could not be separated at all from Vote 10, and it was only under that Vote that he could properly raise it. If the present Vote was passed, and the question should be raised on another Vote, the Chairmnn would be obliged to rule that the question could not be discussed on the Vote concerning Divine Service. Therefore, he could not accede to the suggestion that those £3,500,000, which had not been discussed at all, should be passed without any ventilation of the question which naturally arose upon it, and especially in the small hours of the morning. He would explain to the Committee his objections to the Vote which were connected with the relief system. Under the present system of foreign reliefs, the regiments which go abroad were larger than those which are kept at home on the average. According to the Return which the right hon. Gentleman furnished the House with some time ago, it appeared that there were 43 battalions of 480 rank and file. When a regiment went abroad it was recruited to its full strength, and was maintained at that strength. When it came home it was allowed to go through the process of natural depletion until it had reached the lowest figure on the Home Establishment. Now, there were in the British Army a considerable number of Irish soldiers, and there were many regiments which were more largely composed of Irish soldiers than of either English or Scotch. What he wished to make his Irish Colleagues understand was this—that the Irish soldiers were made to bear a disproportionate share of the dangers and difficulties of foreign service, and that Irish soldier life was wasted and sacrificed, while English and Scotch soldier life was economized. That, he thought, was a very fair ground for objecting to the system of relief as at present carried out. The regiments which returned from foreign service, and which had a considerable period of home service before them, were landed in Great Britain—it was the exception when a regiment on its return from foreign service landed in Ireland. During a great portion of the tour the regiments were kept in Great

    1567
    Britain, and it was only when the time for foreign service came round that they were sent over to Ireland for their last period of home service, to be there recruited up to the full foreign strength, so that a disproportionate share of foreign and dangerous service fell upon the Irish recruit. Of the whole of the regiments, two-thirds were in Great Britain, and one-third in Ireland, and those which were peculiarly Scotch were treated more fairly in the matter. He would take the case of the Cavalry regiments first, not counting the three regiments of Household Cavalry, which had not been drawn out since 1816. There were 28, of which 7 were Dragoon Guards, 3 Dragoons, 5 Lancers, and the remainder Hussars; 16 of those were at home, 1 at sea, and the rest abroad. Of the 11 Cavalry regiments standing next for foreign service, there ought to be 7 or 8 in Great Britain against 3 or 4 in Ireland; but, two years ago, 6 were stationed in Ireland and 5 in Great Britain. Of those stationed in Great Britain, the only one that had gone abroad was the 6th Dragoons, and that was an Irish regiment; and although there were the 4th Dragoon Guards at York, and the 5th Dragoon Guards at Aldershot, both of which had been home since 1856, and the Enniskillens, which returned home 11 years later, those regiments had been allowed to be at home 11 years longer than the unfortunate Irish regiments. Thus there were the 1lth Dragoons, which were then at Manchester, had been sent over to Ireland simply because its time for foreign service was approaching. Of the 10 Cavalry regiments, which at the beginning of the present year stood presumably next for foreign service, no less than 7 were in Ireland—namely, 2nd and 3rd Dragoon Guards, 1st and 2nd Dragoons, and 7th, 19th, and 20th Hussars. One had since gone to Natal; and of the 3 regiments in England, 2 were the 4th and 5th Dragoon Guards, which had been kept at home for such a long time, and the third regiment was the 7th Dragoon Guards, which was now at Aldershot, at the fixed establishment of 444, so that of the 10 regiments, 3 were in England, 1 was certainly not going abroad immediately, 2 were peculiarly favoured, and all the others were in Ireland next for foreign service. With regard to Infantry, of the 19 regiments
    1568
    which two years ago had the longest home service, and which, therefore, stood first for foreign service, 14 were stationed in Ireland and 5 in Great Britain; and of the 14 stationed in Ireland, 11 had no local connection with that country. They belonged to brigades of which the depôts were in Great Britain. Among the 5 battalions in Great Britain was the 1st- 18th and the 50th-84th. The lst-18th, which one might have thought would have been stationed in Ireland, for its depôt was at Clonmel, that was sent abroad to Afghanistan. The 50th, which was English, was stationed at home longer than any other regiment in the Service. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what ground there was for keeping that regiment in England all those years, seeing that all the rest of the Army had to take its share of foreign service. He believed those regiments were, for some peculiar reason, favoured. [Mr. CHILDERS dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head. He could assure him that the rumour was repeated in a great many messes. He should like to know why the 84th, which was in England two years ago, was now at the Curragh? All the regiments in Ireland—the 38th and the 77th—had gone abroad, 1 to the Colonies and the other to India; and of the 11 regiments or battalions now standing next for foreign service, 9 wore in Ireland, and of those only 1 belonged to a brigade which had its depôt in the country. All the others were English regiments, having their depôts in England. If they looked at the matter from an Irish brigade depôt point of view, they would see there were in Ireland 8 brigade depôts having each a depôt and 2 linked battalions. Then there was another point. Of the 8 Infantry battalions at Aldershot, the only one whose effective strength was kept above the establishment was the 2nd-18th. Why? Because it was an Irish regiment, and had to serve its linked battalion on Irish service. Thus it would be seen that while the regiments which were principally composed of Irish soldiers, which were properly at home only in Ireland, and which were fed from Irish brigade depôts, were for the most part abroad, the English regiments, which stood next for foreign service, were sent over to Ireland to be recruited up to full foreign strength. The effect was that the Irish soldiers in the British Army abroad

    1569
    were disproportionate in number to the English soldiers. Under those circumstances, the Irish Representatives were entitled to protest against a system which involved an undue drain upon Irish soldiers. They had no desire to see Afghans or Zulus subdued, or the Transvaal annexed, or the liberties of any people broken down, and they were very sorry to see their soldiers employed in such work. He should be very glad to see them engaged in defensive war; but he should prefer to see every Irishman removed from the Army into civil life, instead of having their faculties wasted as they now were. He raised this question now because the question of transport was involved in that of reliefs; but if the relief system was to be challenged, Vote 10 was the proper Vote to challenge it upon. But that was only one point arising on Vote 10. There were half-a-dozen other points; but that was not the proper time to raise them, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would content himself with a portion of the present Vote, or make arrangements for an early discussion of all these details. There was a tacitly recognized rule that Votes should not be broken up in Committee; but some of the Army Votes were divided into separate parts, and he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should not now—not as a precedent, but simply because of the embarrassing circumstances in which he found himself—take half the Vote, in order to leave some ground upon which to bring forward all these points. If he would not consent to that, the Irish Members must continue to keep a House.
    MR. CHILDERSappealed to the hon. Member and to the Committee, whether, if questions which barely arose out of this Vote were to be discussed in such a way, it would be possible to expect the Estimates to be got through this Session? The hon. Member seemed to think that the Government wished to expose Irish soldiers to greater perils than other soldiers, and based his view on the fact that soldiers, on coming from foreign service, first returned to England, then were sent to Ireland, and from there sent on foreign service again. Regiments, on returning from foreign service, notably preferred spending their first years in England. That had been the case even
    1570
    since the Peninsular War. Then they went to Ireland, and formerly they went abroad from Ireland; but now a large proportion went from England. There was no intention in that system to do any injustice to Irish soldiers, and this was the first time he had heard that Irish soldiers disliked foreign service. He had always heard hitherto that they wished to go on foreign service. Then, the hon. Member said, a larger proportion of English soldiers ought to have been sent abroad to the Afghan and Transvaal Wars; then, he disapproved of those wars, and, therefore, did not wish to see his countrymen engaged so largely on foreign service. It was impossible for the War Office to lay down a rule that the sentiments of the regiments as to a particular war should be ascertained, and that regiments recruited from that part of the United Kingdom which approved of a particular war should be sent out. He should pity the Minister for War who had to carry out such a principle. The War Office proposed to carry out still further the battalion system; and, under that system, every regiment would have one battalion at home and one abroad. Under that system, every man and every officer would have, as nearly as possible, eight years' service abroad; and it was in order to carry that out that the War Office were increasing the regiments for foreign service. There was no intentional difference between the treatment of Irish and English soldiers, and the hon. Member's case must fall to the ground. He hoped the Vote would now be taken.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORmaintained that there was a much larger proportion of Irish soldiers abroad than English soldiers; that Irish soldiers were systematically taken from Ireland and sent on foreign service; that English and Scotch soldiers were sent to Ireland; and that Ireland was occupied by foreign troops, while the Irish soldiers were sent to do foreign service. The other day the hon. Member for Aberdeen moved for a certain Return showing the number of recruits in Scotch regiments from the Scotch recruiting field. The Secretary for War made no difficulty about giving that Return; and he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) copied the Notice of Motion of the hon. Member, in order to obtain a similar Return as to Irish recruits. But the right

    1571
    hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) refused absolutely to give him that information. He refused because he know that anyone would, if the Return were granted, see at a glance the system carried on; and that the Irish soldiers were sent abroad to bear the dangers of foreign service, while English and Scotch soldiers were safe at home. If the right hon. Gentleman had been prepared to make a clean breast of it, he would not have refused the Return.
    MR. CHILDERSreplied, that the hon. Member for Aberdeen moved for a Return which only sought to ascertain the number of Scotch recruits, and it did not give one tittle of information as to what soldiers had gone abroad.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, it was well known—and he spoke as an old soldier—that in many Scotch regiments there was a large proportion of Irish soldiers; and in the 92nd Regiment, which had most distinguished itself in the Afghan campaign, there were 200 Irishmen. It could not be held that the Irish soldiers were sent abroad to bear the brunt of battle, while Englishmen were sent where there was no war; for the regiments were sent abroad according to the roster, and no distinction was made. If a regiment was required for foreign service, it was sent, whether it was English, or Irish, or Scotch, and he repudiated the assertion that Irish soldiers were selected for slaughter. Irish soldiers were the most straightforward and plucky men that ever existed; but it was not right that it should be said they wore sent to be shot, while Englishmen were kept back.
    DR. LYONSsaid, if the hon. Member had proved anything, it was that a most exceptional and complimentary distinction was conferred upon Irish soldiers. They knew that where fighting went on promotion was fastest, and he lead now to learn for the first time that Irishmen were backward on any occasion when fighting was going on. It had always been the boast of Irishmen that they claimed to be in the van. He would remind the hon. Member of the well-known lines of one of Ireland's most distinguished national poets, the late Thomas Davis—
    "They rushed from the revel to join the parade,
    For the van is the right of the Irish Brigade."
    1572
    If it was known that Irish soldiers were more particularly selected to be sent to the field, that fact, so far from stopping recruiting in Ireland, would have the very contrary effect; and he was sure that if Irish recruits were habitually put into the regiments which were sent to the front, they would have a still larger increase of recruits than at present—3,000 in 1880, as compared with 1,400 three years previously—and the Service would be more popular than ever in Ireland.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he entirely dissented from such a statement.
    MR. O'SHEAsaid, the hon. Member was entirely mistaken with regard to the 4th Dragoon Guards, which was an Irish regiment.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: How many Irishmen?
    MR. O'SHEAsaid, he had no Return to show the exact numbers of the different nationalities at the present moment in the 4th, which was the Royal Irish Dragoon Guards. The regiment was notoriously more Irish than was altogether agreeable to the authorities in 1866 and 1867. But he must add, of of his own experience in the Army, that the general complaint of the hon. Member was not shared either by Irish officers or men.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANentirely dissented from the view of the hon. Member for Dublin that it was a point of honour with Irishmen to be sent to the front in those little wars in various parts of the world, which were very shameful wars. There was no honour whatever in shooting Zulus, or Afghans, or Boers, or in being snot down by them. Those men were fighting for the independence and rights of their country. It was admitted that they had been standing on the defensive against an unjust war, and against annexation, and it was no honour to send his countrymen to take part in such wars.
    MR. BIGGARbegged to move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. He thought it was time that discussion came to an end. The hon. Member for Queen's County had stated certain facts, and the Secretary of State contradicted his statement; but it was not alleged that those particular regiments had not been moved, and he thought if they reported Progress then, they could discuss the merits

    1573
    of the matter at a future time. It was desirable that they should know how the matter of selecting regiments for home service was done, and whether Irish regiments, more than others, were selected to be slaughtered, either by the enemies of England, or by unhealthy climates.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    MR. CHILDERSappealed to the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) whether what had been stated was the case? He (Mr. Childers) had answered him with respect to selection for a particular service, and had assured him that no regard was ever paid to their nationality; but that, under the present system, every soldier must take his turn at foreign service. And he did ask the hon. Member, after that statement—after he had told him that he could discuss the general question on other Votes—on the Vote for Quartermaster General—nay, he would entreat the House, not to postpone the matter any longer, but let them take the Vote.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he should be exceedingly glad to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who had been exceedingly civil in some things and exceedingly uncivil in others. He refused to give the information which his hon. Friend asked for a few days ago, and he now said he would give the information in general terms, but would not give a similar Return with regard to Irish soldiers which he had given with regard to Scotch soldiers. However plausible the right hon. Gentleman might be, he was not thoroughly candid.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONrose to Order, and asked if the expression used was courteous to the right hon. Gentleman?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he did not think the remark was courteous.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, however unwilling he was to say anything uncivil or un-Parliamentary, he did say that the right hon. Gentleman avoided explaining certain matters with respect to which his hon. Friend wished to know. On previous occasions he refused to explain the matter, and the result was that they did not know how matters stood. If he would say that he would grant the Return and the information before the
    1574
    light of day, that was to say, before the reporters, he would say he was candid; but if he refused that information when the reporters were present, and refused to discuss the matter until some uncertain future day, they were entitled to resist the Vote.
    MR. CHILDERSwould appeal, not to the hon. Member, but to the whole Committee. He hoped he had been most candid up to now. The hon. Member asked why he objected to a certain Return, and he said plainly that if that Return was given it would not have assisted the hon. Member in the slightest degree; and he said at the time that if the hon. Member would go to him and ask for the information he wanted he would give him such information as he could, but the Return ho asked for would not have helped him in the smallest degree.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he asked for a certain Return, knowing perfectly well what he wanted it for, and the right hon. Gentleman would allow that he could judge as well as himself what he wanted it for. The Return which was granted to the hon. Member for Aberdeen with respect to Scotch soldiers was precisely the Return he wanted for his purposes, and he could not conceive any other Return that would suit him so completely. The right hon. Gentleman said that he might afford him some information, but was not willing to give him the Return, because he might use it in support of a Motion which he could not agree with. He said that Return would have vindicated his present position, and would have shown that Irish regiments were, to an undue extent, sent on foreign service. It would have proved that an undue proportion of Irish soldier-life was sacrificed in proportion to Scotch and English soldier-life, and that it was unfair to Irish recruits that they should have that undue share of foreign service. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Dublin to talk about honour. He did not for a moment recognize the honour of foreign service in wars such as the British Government had lately been carrying on.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 57: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 220.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. CHILDERSobserved, that the hon. Member had now explained very clearly what information he wished to obtain. He wished to ascertain the proportion of English, Scotch, and Irish soldiers who were sent on foreign service, in order to see whether his contention that an undue proportion of Irish soldiers were sent abroad was correct. He should be happy to give such information, and he hoped after that assurance he might be allowed to take the Vote.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwas glad that the right hon. Gentleman now consented to give the Return which he had previously refused.
    MR. CHILDERSexplained that what had been previously asked for was a Return of Irish recruits in the particular regiments. He had an objection to giving that information; but he promised to give the proportion of all kinds of soldiers sent on foreign service, and he thought a more candid offer than that could not have been made.
    COLONEL STANLEYremarked, that he had no particular interest in the Return; but he thought the offer of the right hon. Gentleman was as fair a one for carrying out what was asked for as could possibly be made. Irish recruits might and did go to English and Scotch as well as Irish regiments, and he thought the Return in the form proposed would be the fairest mode in Which the information could be given. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman's appeal would be listened to.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it seemed to him an extraordinary proposal that because the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to furnish a Return, the Irish Members, who objected to the whole system which had been adopted that night, should at once consent to vote £3,500,000 of public money. What he had asked the right hon. Gentleman for was a Return showing the number of Irishmen, Scotchmen, and Englishmen who were abroad and at home; but the right hon. Gentleman, although he knew the purpose of that request, refused the Return, and he refused a similar Return to that of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, because he knew it would afford information upon which he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) might base a Motion.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had refused for palpable reasons to give the number of recruits in each regiment; but he had now promised to give the precise information by which the hon. Member could test his opinion that an undue proportion of Irish soldiers were sent abroad. That was a totally different matter from the number of recruits in each regiment. There were continual transfers on one regiment to another, and he could give no information as to them; but he would meet the point upon which the hon. Member had spoken for half-an-hour.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. Gentleman offered information which was not asked for; and he thought the Secretary for War should at once give the Return desired without further quibbling.
    MR. CHILDERSdenied that he had any desire to quibble, and repeated that he was prepared to give the precise figures as to the number of men sent abroad.
    MR. LEAMYobjected to the Vote of £3,500,000 being taken at such a late hour, and stated that, no matter what information the right hon. Gentleman was willing to give, he should oppose the Vote. He begged to move that the Chairman should leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Leamy.)
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was sorry that no arrangement seemed to be possible in this matter; but he could not see why the Return, which was an exact copy of the Return obtained by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, should not be granted.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) wished to learn whether the recruiting of the last few years would fill up a certain number of kilted regiments, and to ascertain that he asked for a Return of the number of recruits. He did not ask for any information as to the recruits sent abroad; but the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) wanted a Return of the numbers of Irish, English, and Scotch sent abroad. That information must be got not from the Recruiting Office, but from the Quartermaster's Office.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORpointed out that the Return obtained by the

    1577
    hon. Member for Aberdeen not only showed the number of recruits, but also their destination, and he himself had asked for both classes of information. He contended that there were too many Irish recruits; and he found from a Return issued by the Quartermaster that whereas, in 1869, there were 1,403 recruits in Ireland, the average number for the next five years was 2,250, and for the following five years, from 1874 to 1879, it was 3,260. Unfortunately, these recruits increased not only in absolute numbers but in disproportion to the population; and while the population of Ireland was rapidly decreasing the number of young men drawn off by the British Army was increasing annually. Ireland could not afford to lose those young men, and recruiting ought to stop in Ireland during the suspension of the liberties of the people.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now travelling beyond the Question before the Committee.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORadmitted that, but explained that he was merely replying to the observations of the Secretary for War. The right hon. Gentleman thought he ought to be content with a Return showing the number of Irishmen who had been sent abroad, and he should be very glad to have that Return; but he could not understand what objection there could be to giving him the information he asked for in the first instance—namely, the number of Irishmen, the number of Scotchmen, and the number of Englishmen who were now abroad.
    MR. CHILDERS: I have not the slightest objection.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORrepeated that what he wanted was the number of English, Scotch, and Irish soldiers now abroad, and the number of English, Scotch, and Irish soldiers who were at home. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should have so much difficulty.
    MR. CHILDERSreminded the hon. Member that he had already promised to give information as to the number of Irishmen sent abroad in each year, but he could not furnish such information as to recruiting.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, his own personal wishes as to the form of the Return were a matter of slight consequence; but Mr. Childers seemed to
    1578
    expect, after the concession he had made, that those who objected to the whole principle of the system which had been pursued that night would now agree to the Vote. They were asked to vote away £3,500,000 of the public money in the absence of many hon. Members who were best qualified to deal with the subject. The majority of the military Members were unaware this Vote was coming on, and, in their absence, the House was taken at a disadvantage. A whole volume of Returns would not alter that part of the case. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): Monstrous.] The hon. and learned Gentleman said it was monstrous; but he objected as a Member of the House to the passing of this Vote, and would not give way because his personal feelings had been salved by the promise of a Return.
    COLONEL STANLEYventured, reluctantly, to interpose. He had probably had as much to do with Estimates as any Member of the House; and he must say that, although occasionally a difficulty had arisen, he had never yet known a Committee disregard an appeal made by a responsible Minister of the Crown, that the money was absolutely necessary for the Public Service. He hoped no private feeling would be allowed to interfere on this occasion. It was not the fault of the Government that the Vote had to be asked for at 5 minutes past 4 in the morning; and as to Notice, although he was no friend of the Government, he was bound to say he noticed that this Vote was on the Paper that morning. This discussion was very inconvenient, and he could only suggest that further questions on the Vote should be reserved to the stage of Report.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)disclaimed any idea of personal discourtesy to Mr. Arthur O'Connor; but the word which escaped his lips exactly expressed his thoughts. It was stated hours ago that it was necessary for the Public Service that this money should be voted, and that it should be done without taking a day from the Irish Land Bill; but the hon. Member for Queen's County wished to have a day taken from that measure. The hon. Member had, for three quarters of an hour, urged his demand for a particular Return; but having obtained it, he was not satisfied, and the position he now

    1579
    took up was that he did not wish to see a single Irish soldier recruited, and, therefore, he opposed the Vote. He (the Attorney General) protested against that state of obstruction to the Public Service.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORrose to Order, and asked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was in Order in imputing to him obstruction?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must say that those continued Motions of the same kind look to me very much like obstruction.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he desired the Chairman to decide the point of Order.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have heard nothing from the hon. and learned Gentleman that was out of Order.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he intended to convey that these proceedings did obstruct the Public Service, and it was on that account that the word "monstrous" escaped him just now. The matter became one of physical endurance; and as the Government had no choice but to continue the contest, he hoped the Committee would support them.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he should give the right hon. Gentleman his most cordial support, and he could bear testimony to the admirable temper which the right hon. Gentleman had shown. He must, also, bear witness to the intelligent criticism which Mr. Arthur O'Connor gave upon military matters. He had often listened with much attention to the hon. Member's remarks on that subject.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to explain that he had never spoken on military matters before.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDwas sure he had frequently heard the hon. Member do so. As to the Return which the hon. Member had obtained, no doubt it would contain valuable information; but he thought that now the Vote had received adequate discussion.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he at first objected to the Vote being taken after 1 o'clock; but now he felt it his duty to support the Secretary for War. He would tell the hon. Member for Queen's County that he had some sinister reasons for asking—
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANrose to Order, and asked whether that remark was Parliamentary?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that remark is quite Parliamentary.
    MR. ONSLOWwould withdraw the remark, and would say, instead, that there was something behind the scenes which induced the hon. Member to want the Return. As a Constitutional Member, he objected most strongly to the remarks which the hon. Member had made. If an Irishman was recruited he was recruited for the whole Empire, and it was no matter what part of the world he was sent to. It was to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had promised the Return, because it would not do much good one way or the other; and the Return had been forced upon the right hon. Gentleman simply because hon. Members below the Gangway wished the baneful effects of the Land League to be brought to bear on the troops. It was time that other hon. Members should speak their minds firmly against those hon. Members who were not sent to Parliament for the true interests of Ireland, but for a particular purpose. The course taken by the hon. Member for Queen's County was, he thought, detrimental to the interests of the Empire, and he should support the right hon. Gentleman in carrying through the Vote.
    MR. CHILDERS: Perhaps, as a decided appeal has been made to me, I may be allowed to answer it. I think I ought to sum up how the question stands. When the Vote was proposed, after a somewhat discursive conversation, which I endeavoured to answer, the hon. Member for Queen's County rose and, for nearly an hour, addressed the Committee on one question. His object was to prove by statistics that an undue proportion of Irishmen were sent on foreign service. That was the alpha and omega of his speech; and he complained that I had refused to give him a Return from which he could have ascertained the facts, and therefore he would have to speak at greater length than he would otherwise. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR dissented.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I appeal to other hon. Members whether that was not the case; and I will go as far as to say that the whole of his argument was that an undue number of Irishmen wore sent on foreign service. He charged me with having refused to give him certain information, and I stated that I would

    1581
    give him the facts; and now he wants a totally different Return about recruiting, because he wishes to destroy recruiting in Ireland. He says distinctly he does not wish an Irishman to be recruited in Ireland. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR dissented.] The hon. Member may shake his head as long as he likes; I say that he has said that several times. He said distinctly, and he has said it on a previous occasion, that he wished to prevent any Irish recruit entering the Army. I am addressing 70 or 80 men of honour, who know that these were the precise words of the hon. Member; and if that is his method of argument, I say I will not for one moment descend to help the hon. Member to what I believe would be destructive to Irish recruiting, and would stop the source from which I believe we get the best soldiers, I tell him distinctly that he is trying to get information to carry out that object. He says that he now wants a recruiting Return as the foundation of some of the facts he wants to elicit as to the proportion of Irish sent abroad. I will give him that proportion; but I will not help him to do what is detrimental to the Army. Then comes the question—Are six or seven Irish Members, who are the heart and soul of obstruction in this House; who have obstructed on former occasions, and brought about the necessity for "urgency;" who have done their utmost to obstruct Public Business—
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORrose to Order, and asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in imputing to Irish Members a distinct and flagrant violation?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not a violation of the Rules of the House to speak of obstruction when obstruction exists. There is a special Rule of the House for preventing obstruction.
    MR. R. POWERwished to know whether the hon. Gentleman could point to any vote he had ever given in support of obstruction?
    MR. CHILDERS: That is not a point of Order. The obstruction is now coming from the source from which it has hitherto come. It is only a repetition of past obstruction; and the country, when it knows what has happened tonight, will only see that the obstruction, which was postponed for a short time, is renewed, and that that obstruction is
    1582
    directed against the Land Bill. I know perfectly well with whom we have to deal; we have to deal with those who are repeating a course which the House had to condemn by establishing the Rules of Urgency under which we had to conduct Business for some time. What are we to do now? The right hon. Gentlemen have appealed to me as to the taking of this Vote. We are prepared to carry on this debate, and I think if we do so the country will justify the measures which it will be necessary to adopt to put a stop to this obstruction. But then the question arises, Are we to expose the officers of the House, who have already been here a long time—including Mr. Speaker himself, who is waiting outside—to this inconvenience? I put that to the majority who have voted in these divisions. If they express the opinion that, in spite of the desire we all have to spare the Speaker and the officers of the House, it is our duty to go on, we will go on. But I hope the majority will clearly show whether they expect that to be done. If, on the contrary, they think we should give way, most reluctantly we will give way; but I and my Colleagues are prepared to sit here through the night.
    MR. R. POWERprotested against the violent and extraordinary speech of the Secretary of State for War, and, observing that he was determined to vote with the Government on the Land Bill, objected to the language of the Attorney General. He objected to £3,500,000 being voted away at half-past 4 o'clock in the morning; and if the Government wished to beat them by physical force, the Irish Members were also prepared to remain all night. But if neither side would give way, both sides would only make fools of themselves.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would persist with this Vote. In former times this Vote would have been granted as a matter of course; but if the House was to be met by this unprecedented obstruction to the Public Service, hon. Members ought to be prepared to make a personal sacrifice to support the Government.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONurged the Government to give some promise upon this subject.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he certainly ought to except the hon. Member (Mr. R. Power) from any imputation of gene-

    1583
    ral obstruction, and again expressed his readiness to furnish information as to the proportion of Irish soldiers sent abroad, and to undertake that the subject should be discussed on a subsequent occasion.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that, while leaving the Attorney General free to indulge in any expressions he chose, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had been unjust to him. He repudiated entirely the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that he wished to embarrass the Government, and that he desired to prevent recruiting in Ireland. He had put a Motion on the Paper declaring that the House was of opinion that recruiting ought to be suspended in Ireland pending the restoration of the Constitutional liberties of the people of that country; but he had not said that he would endeavour to prevent recruiting in Ireland. The Return which the right hon. Gentleman had promised would furnish all the information he had asked for; and he asked the House to accept the assurance that he had not taken up the opposition that evening from a mere wish to obstruct, but because he felt that the Vote ought not to be taken without examination and discussion. That was not the way in which the people's money ought to be taken, and the Committee were not justified in passing the Vote in the small hours of the morning. But, having regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Waterford, he would be willing to accept an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that another opportunity should be given for the discussion, and would only ask the right hon. Gentleman in future to be less ready to impute motives.
    MR. CHILDERSreplied, that four hours ago he could have been more charitable. However, he accepted the suggestion, and promised that an opportunity for the discussion of these questions of the movements of troops should be on Vote 4.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANthought they were now very near a settlement, and they had, in fact, reached that point half-an-hour ago, when the Attorney General interfered with his furious war-charge, and threw the whole matter into confusion. Personally, he wished to repudiate any desire to defeat or delay the Land Bill.
    DR. COMMINSalso repudiated that imputation, and regretted the injudicious interposition of the hon. and learned Attorney General.
    MR. R. POWERregretted the misunderstanding that had arisen, and, after the very satisfactory statement of the right hon. Gentleman, would appeal to his hon. Colleagues to let the Vote pass.
    MR. LEARYin withdrawing his Motion, said, he intended no obstruction; but he objected to the Vote being taken at so late an hour.
    Motion by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was at first against the Vote; but as the Government appeared to be in a difficulty, and as the Secretary for War met them in a courteous and satisfactory way, he was inclined to give way. But he did protest against the language of the Attorney General, and would tell him that language of that kind had no effect upon the Irish Members. He had been suspended twice, and he should not mind if he were suspended thrice. All the House could do was to turn the Irish Members out; but those Members were there in discharge of their duty, and they should discharge that duty, no matter whom it displeased.
    MR. BIGGARwould like the Chairman to qualify his charge of obstruction, which he thought was not warranted by the facts. The conduct of the Irish Members had been perfectly bonâ fide.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORdid not care a straw, as far as he was personally concerned, about the charge of obstruction, because he had never obstructed. But he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the question of reliefs was only one of various questions arising out of this Vote, each of which would give rise to a considerable amount of discussion. However, as the hon. Member for Waterford had come to an understanding with the Secretary of State, he, would not now move reductions of the Vote, as he had intended to do, by the amounts for the transport of troops to Ireland, Natal, and the Transvaal. At the same time, he was not altogether satisfied with that understanding, and if he could have persuaded his hon. Friend to consider a little longer before entering

    1585
    upon that undertaking he would have done so. A great wrong was done to the country, and a dangerous precedent was set when, by dint of sitting a number of hours, a majority could force a minority, which had taken the trouble to study the matter, into voting under these circumstances £3,500,000 on the Army Estimates.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

    LORD LIEUTENANTS OF COUNTIES (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. LITTON, Bill to deprive Lord Lieutenants of Counties in Ireland while absentees of the power of recommending persons for the commission of the peace, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LITTON, Mr. FINDLATER, Mr. JAMES DICKSON, and Mr. LEA.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 180.]
    House adjourned at Five o'clock in the morning till Monday next.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Irish Jury Laws, appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Gas Provisional Orders* [97].
Second Reading—Married Women's Property (Scotland) (75); Local Government Provisional Orders (Berwick-upon-Tweed, &c.)* (85).

RAILWAYS—ADMINISTRATION OF FOREIGN RAILWAYS.—QUESTION.
LORD BRABOURNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If there had been a Report received from from Mr. Crow, British Consul at Berlin, with respect to railway rates and charges,

1429
and the administration of railways by the Government of Germany?
EARL GRANVILLEin reply, said, that there was such a Report. It had been presented to Parliament in March last, and would be found among the Consular Reports.

VALUATION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRELAND)—GRIFFITH'S VALUATION.
OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
THE DUNE OF ST. ALBANSin rising to call attention to the law relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland known as Griffith's valuation, and to the unsatisfactory assessment of such property now in force, said, the subject of his Notice had been so threshed out during the past winter that it was unnecessary he should offer their Lordships any explanation beyond reminding them it was admitted that the prices, except in the instance of wheat, on which Sir Richard Griffith founded his valuation, were so below their present value as to make it a fallacious test of what the land which produces them was worth at the present time. It therefore followed that the principle held in Scotland, and partially in England, that the ratal should be dependent on the rental, could not be fairly universally applied in Ireland that rents should be governed by rates. There, however, was always the fact that Griffith's valuation existed, stamped with the authority of the Government in force for purposes of taxation, as their estimate of what the land was worth, and he said this was misleading. A Chancellor of the Exchequer might recognize the uses of such a scheme as Griffith's valuation; but it was another thing what Irish tenants would think of it when insidiously placed before them by agitators for their own purpose, nor was it easy to explain why a landowner could justly and legally demand a larger sum from the tenant than that on which he paid Income Tax. It was impossible to deny that Griffith's valuation played a great part in economic relations in land in Ireland. The landlord, the tenant, and the passer-by inquired the relation between the rent and the rates. He thought he was justified in making this appeal by the terms in which Mr. Baxter introduced the General Valuation (Ireland) Bill in 1873, at a time when the
1430
present Lord President of the Council (Earl Spencer) was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the now Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) was his Chief Secretary. On that occasion, Mr. Baxter, expressing, as he (the Duke of St. Albans) supposed, the opinion of those noble Lords, said that the valuation of the Southern and Western Provinces of Ireland was made when prices were exceptionally low, shortly after the Famine of 1847, and that the valuation of these Provinces was less than it ought to be. Mr. Baxter concluded his remarks by saying he believed the result, if his recommendations were carried out, would be as beneficial in Ireland as they had been in Scotland. On the second reading of the Bill, Mr. Kavanagh, who knew Ireland as well as any man did, speaking from the Conservative Benches, said the whole valuation of land in Ireland was far below what it ought to be, and that it ought to be placed on a fair basis. A Scotch Member (Mr. Duncan M'Laren), in the course of the debate, mentioned that Scotland was re-valued every 12 months, and he (the Duke of St. Albans) could not see why Ireland should not be so as well. He believed most of their Lordships who were experienced in land matters in Ireland would welcome such a valuation. The importance of the subject to those resident in Ireland would be his excuse for bringing it under their Lordships' attention. He believed if he had challenged a direct expression of opinion on this subject, many of their Lordships most conversant with Ireland would have supported him; but he had no desire to embarrass the Government in their present attempt to improve the condition of Ireland, and, therefore, without attempting to deal further with the general question, he would simply ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they would take any steps to have the law amended, so that in future the valuation of land in Ireland made by the Government Department for the purposes of Imperial and local taxation might not mislead public opinion as to the real value of such land?
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he agreed with much that the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of St. Albans) had said. He desired, however, before the Question was answered, to point out how undesirable, in the opinion of nearly

1431
everyone who had given evidence or written on the subject, it was to make valuations made for Imperial and other purposes the basis of rent. He had heard from a friend that in his part of the country, the land was at least 50 per cent under Griffith's valuation; while in his own part of the country Griffiths valuation was much nearer, and he therefore paid much higher rates than his friend. He did, not think it was necessary to have an entirely now valuation, as there were materials in hand for correcting them, and those materials should be made use of, the only thing required being a careful study of the data upon which Sir Richard Griffith worked, and a careful comparison of the old value of properties with the present price of farm produce, making the necessary alterations so as to arrive at a now valuation. He thought, however, that it was most desirable that they should have an issue of now Ordnance maps in reference to the boundaries of estates and other matters. There ought also to be abroad distinction between the valuation of land and the valuation of houses, because in many instances the landlords had to pay taxation upon the valuation of houses that belonged to the tenants. As changes were about to be made at the present time, he thought it only fair that a landlord should only be taxed on the valuation of his land, on something like the real value of the rental he received.
THE MARQUESS OF LANDSDOWNEsaid, that Griffith's valuation had been one of the thorns which had recently been constantly stuck into the sides of landlords, and, at the same time, one of those delusions that had been perpetually dragged before the attention of tenants, who were often only too willing to listen to the statements of agitators. While he sympathized with the noble Duke who had raised the question (the Duke of St. Albans), in his wish to see the question settled on a satisfactory basis, he was not sure that the suggestion made by him was likely to bring about the best possible solution of the question. He felt some doubt if the revaluation of land in Ireland would be of such value as the noble Duke seemed to think. The noble Duke was perfectly candid in stating that he did not wish the Commission so much to obtain a perfect basis for valuation, as to
1432
prevent the public mind being misled with regard to the rating value of land. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne), however, doubted whether an amended valuation would be either a useful, a practicable, or desirable measure at that moment; while as to its effect on either public opinion or taxation, he doubted whether it would be very important. As regarded local taxation, it would probably lead to the result that the taxpayer would, in most cases, pay about the same amount of rates as at present, but in a different way. He would pay a lower percentage upon a higher valuation. When they came to the question of the general valuation of land the noble Duke, in dwelling upon its fallacies, seemed to be trying to slay the slain. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) did not think anyone believed in it as an absolute or relative standard of rent, except, perhaps, those who conceived that by some Divine dispensation the land ought to be the property of those who tilled it. For some time past no one had been able to take up a paper in Ireland or England without finding an exhaustive demolition of Griffith's valuation. It had again been demolished in the able pamphlets issued by the Dublin Land Committee, and it had finally been put out of Court by the Reports of the two Commissions on the subject. He, therefore, doubted whether a new valuation would effect any good result. He ventured to think that the difficulties in the way of making such a valuation were so serious that at no time would it be very expedient to encounter them with a light heart; but, at the present moment, and under the present circumstances, it would be most inexpedient to do so. It must either be intended as a gauge of rent or it must not. If it was not intended as a gauge of rent, it would be valueless for the purposes of the noble Duke. If, on the other hand, it was to be the future measure of the letting value of land, then he asked their Lordships to consider the difficulties and obstacles which remained to be overcome. In the first place, they would have to consider the principle on which the valuation was to be based. Would they calculate the rent on what was called a scientific basis—that was to say, what the tenant would be able to pay to the owner after providing for his own maintenance and that of his family,

1433
and after, in addition to that, securing for himself a fair profit for his expenditure and industry? In that view, they would be met with this difficulty—that on the authority of two or three Members of Her Majesty's Government there were many holdings in Ireland so small that if the tenants held them rent free they would not have sufficient means to keep their families in a decent state of comfort. What, then, should be the rent of such holdings? Would it be a minus quality? Then there was a further difficulty—with reference to what standard of agriculture would the valuer fix the rent? Would the Public Department intrusted with the valuation have to estimate the rent with reference to the results which would be obtained from a proper treatment of the soil; because obviously it would be unjust to fix rents with reference to the sort of agriculture which prevailed in some parts of Ireland, where, to use the words of the Duke of Richmond's Commission, it was "miserably backward and feeble." Was the rent, then, to be computed on that basis, or on the basis of a more advanced and improved system of agriculture? But let them assume that these and other formidable difficulties had been overcome, there remained to be considered the question of time. They would have to deal with every one of these 600,000 tenancies at present existing in Ireland. His noble Friend (the Duke of St. Albans) had mentioned seven years as the time within which the valuation might be completed. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) felt doubt whether it could be concluded in that time, as it would be necessary to examine into such questions as that of the subsoil, the climate, the nearness of markets, and the thousand and one other questions which entered into the value of land. And, after all, when they had got their valuation, it would be inconclusive upon the most important point. It might give with perfect justice the letting value of a farm as it stood; but that would not determine the fair rent as between the actual owner and occupier, which could not be arrived at without ascertaining the tenant's interest in his holding, and whether he or the landlord had made the improvements. Before all these points could be effectually cleared up, it would be necessary to have upon every one of the 600,000 tenancies what was com-
1434
monly spoken of as "a land case." The noble Duke had referred to Mr. Baxter' s speech delivered in the year 1873. But in that year, so far as he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was aware, there was no proposition before Parliament to deprive the landlord and the tenant of the power of entering into contracts for the letting of land, and to compel them to place that duty in the hands of a Land Court. He would not be guilty of the irregularity of discussing a measure which was not before their Lordships' House; but, without any breach of Order, he thought he might say that it would require some courage to assert that some kind of measure affecting land tenure in Ireland would not be likely to pass within a reasonable period, and that one incident of that measure would not be the establishment of a Court which could be intrusted with the duty of fixing a fail rent. If so, would the new valuation be binding on the Court, or would it not? He had no doubt that a valuation such as that proposed by his noble Friend would not be regarded as binding on the Land Court when considering the circumstances of each individual case; and, if so, it followed that after all the trouble, expense, and delay they would have a valuation which would not be accepted by either the landlord or the tenant, and would not be binding upon the Court which might hereafter be called upon to decide questions of this kind. He therefore submitted that, although Griffith's valuation was not to be relied on or regarded as an absolute or even relative gauge of rent, it would be, in present circumstances, unwise on the part of Her Majesty's Government to undertake such a valuation as that which had been suggested.
LORD WAVENEYsaid, that, while there was much to complain of in Griffith's valuation, he did not think, for the reasons pointed out by the noble Marquess who had just sat down (the Marquess of Lansdowne), that a new valuation should be made at the present time. The Land Courts would have limited districts to deal with, and they would have the opportunity of arriving at a fair measure of rent in the case of different holdings. The principal difficulty would be owing to the number of holdings; hut that could be overcome by taking the valuation in acres, and so arrive at a conclusion. It appeared to

1435
him that the tenant's interest would be more accurately ascertained in the way he had suggested than in any other, because there would be a standard of the value of land in addition to the positive value. At the same time, he must say that, after many years' experience in Ireland, he thought it was possible to construct a valuation upon much more accurate principles; and the nearer they came to the Ulster Custom the more likely would they be to obtain a satisfactory result. The Ulster Custom was an immense advantage in determining the interest of the tenant, and it was wanting in the other three Provinces, in which all interests were massed together. Therefore he insisted strongly on some regulated and wells understood scale which should give the characteristic value of the land. It would be the most fatal termination of any Session of late years if the House of Commons returned to their constituents and their Lordships to their duties in the country without passing a Land Bill which should be acceptable to Ireland.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, there could be no doubt about the difficulty in getting a proper valuation, and he did not think that difficulty had been overrated by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne). Griffith's valuation took a very long time to make, and was only made after considerable preparation by experienced men; but, notwithstanding the preparation with which it was undertaken and the ability with which it was carried out, it was, on the whole, totally inadequate, and did not make sufficient allowance for contiguity to towns and markets or to the seaboard, where valuable manure for potatoes could be obtained for nothing. That made a considerable difference. He knew men who rented land close to where fairs were held, and they made their rent by letting their land for a few nights' grazing at fair time. He thought, pending a settlement of fair rent under the proposed Land Bill, Griffith's valuation would be good as a basis, for if a new valuation was to be made, the valuation would take a number of years to complete. If the Land League continued, it would choke the new Courts; and if they did that, owners might as well say good-bye to their Property at once, and Parliament might as
1436
well pass a measure giving their property to the tenants. He hoped something would be done soon, and that the Government would not leave rent a vague and indefinite thing, but would formulate it in some practical way, which would show that it was not their intention to transfer land absolutely to the tenants, as would be done if some presently acknowledged basis were accepted.
LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he agreed very much with what had been said by the noble Marquess behind him (the Marquess of Lansdowne), who appeared to have given reasons more than sufficient for the kind of answer which he had to give to the noble Duke (the Duke of St. Albans)—reasons why he was not able and did not think it expedient to pledge Her Majesty's Government to undertake the re-valuation of Ireland. But if the noble Marquess meant—though he (Lord Carlingford) did not suppose he did—that the present valuation was in all respects a satisfactory one, and ought to be permanently maintained in its present position, he (Lord Carlingford) was unable to go with him as far as that. He thought it was evident that the present valuation was a very imperfect one, and that there were reasons which, sooner or later, must induce the Government to see that it was revised and placed on a sounder footing. But that was not a task to be lightly undertaken, and he did not think the noble Duke would expect him to pledge the Government in the present state of Public Business, and of Irish Business in particular, to bring in a Bill for that purpose, especially in view of the fate which had met former Bills on this important subject. Two Bills for the purpose of revising the general valuation of Ireland and providing a new one had been brought in by two successive Governments, but had signally failed to make their way through the other House of Parliament; and he was not able to say that such a task should he undertaken now, although he fully admitted the imperfections of the system as it stood, and the grave reams that existed for improving it. There could be no doubt that in Ireland they ought to pay a little more Income Tax. And it was true that the inhabitants of the Middle and Southern Provinces of Ireland were paying less than their day share of taxation in comparison

1437
with Ulster. It was also true that tenants of arable land in Ireland were paying more than their due in comparison with those who held grass lands in that country. But the noble Duke who introduced this subject did not refer to any one of these grievances, his only grievance and only reason for insisting on a re-valuation being that Griffith's valuation misled public opinion as to the real value of land. No doubt that had been the case; and for that result landlords and Members of Parliament were, to a great degree, themselves responsible. But the danger of misleading the people of Ireland on that point no longer existed. There were not two opinions on the subject, even in Ireland. He (Lord Carlingford) understood that the Land League, and those tenants who were influenced by that body, by no means swore by Griffith's. There seemed, therefore, to be a practical unanimity of opinion that that valuation was out of the question as a guide for rents in Ireland. That opinion had been stated in the strongest way in the evidence before the Royal Commission on Agriculture, and also in the clearest way in the Report of the Irish Land Commission. It was therein stated—
"If anything has been clearly established it is this, that Griffith's valuation is not a trustworthy standard for the settlement of rents."
It was also said—
"If a new valuation is required for rating purposes, it should rather be made at a time when there was no general desire to convert it to rent purposes."
That was a very sensible reason for not introducing a new valuation in the days through which they were now passing. It also came out in the Royal Commission, and he thought it was a fact worthy of the notice of their Lordships, that while there were many rents in Ireland far above Griffith's valuation, which, nevertheless, were fair and reasonable rents, yet, with regard to the poorer tillage lands, it was quite high enough, and in case of revision would not admit of any addition whatever. That was an important statement made by Mr. Ball Greene, the Commissioner of Valuation, that in the case of the poorer tillage lands the rent at Griffith's valuation might be considered a fair rent, quite sufficiently high. He thought the noble Duke (the Duke of St. Albans) need not be under the slightest apprehension that
1438
the Court proposed to be constituted for the settlement of rent would be guided by Griffith's valuation. No such tribunal would judge by such a standard. Each case would, undoubtedly, be considered on its own merits, whatever they might be; and the noble Duke need not have any alarm that it would be guided by any such valuation as that now in force in Ireland. While, therefore, he fully admitted the imperfections of the Irish valuation, and the reasons that existed for improving it at the proper time, he could not undertake to pledge the Government to make that change now.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY (SCOT LAND) BILL.—(No. 75.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLORin moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had passed the House of Commons, having been introduced there by a Representative of one of the largest of the Scotch constituencies, and having received the assent of the majority of the other Scotch Representatives. Two Acts had been passed in Scotland on this subject—one in 1861, and the other in 1877. The Act of 1861 provided that, in the case of a wife being deserted by her husband, or in case of a separation by decree of a Court, she could obtain a protection order from the Court or Judge, which would have the effect of giving her control over her own property, and removing it from that of her husband; and there was a further clause in that Act which said that if after marriage the wife should acquire any property, the husband might be compelled to make proper provision out of it for her benefit. The Act of 1877 extended those provisions. By it the husband's right was entirely excluded in all cases of the earnings the wife might make by any separate employment, or literary, scientific, or artistic exertions; and the husband was exempted from liability for his wife's ante-nuptial contracts. That was all that had as yet been done in Scotland with a view to diminishing the powers of the husband over the property of the wife. In England a good deal more had

1439
been done, for in the year 1870 an Act was passed to enable wives, whether married before or after the passing of the Act, to secure to themselves against the husband all earnings in trade or business, literary, scientific, or artistic exertions, and all stock of more than £25 in the public funds or Joint Stock Companies; and with regard to women married after the passing of the Act, it secured to them all real estate which they might own, after the passing of the Act, up to the value of £200. The present Bill was introduced in order to carry out the same process of enlarging the wives' legal rights, and, of course, diminishing those of the husband. In Scotland the question which arose in the minds of the framers, with reference to the English Act, was, whether those provisions, large in their character and special in their particulars, might not be better dealt with in a wider or simpler form. The present Bill provided that, in regard to those women who might be married after the Act passed, all the personal and real estate which they had at the time of the marriage, or might afterwards acquire, unless there was a contract to the contrary, should remain and be the separate property of the wife. With regard to those who were already married, there were provisions the effect of which he would state. The 3rd clause of the Bill said the Act should not apply to those already married, with this exception—that property coming to them after the Bill passed would also be subject to the provisions of the Bill; a provision which, no doubt, was wider in its scope than the corresponding provisions of the English Act. The 4th clause provided that married persons might, it they thought fit, by mutual consent, and by a certain procedure, which should be registered, place themselves under the Act. He would not trouble their Lordships with the 5th clause further than to say that, in case of desertion, the Court might dispense with the husband's consent to any deed relating to her estate. The 6th clause was a provision which was introduced in some of our Colonies, especially Canada, and which, as regarded its principle, appeared to be neither unjust nor unreasonable—namely, that in regard to married persons domiciled in Scotland, in the case of the intestacy of the wife, the husband should take a similar interest in the wife's estate which the
1440
wife would take in the husband's. There was also a provision in the Bill that if the personal estate of the wife should be lent or intrusted to the husband who became bankrupt, it should be treated as assets of the husband's estate in bankruptcy, under reservation of the wife's claim to a dividend as a creditor for the value of such money or other estates. He proposed, in Committee, to amend this, by postponing the wife's claim to dividend until all the husband's creditors for money or money's worth had been paid. As to Clause 7, relating to the liability of the husband to the wife's estate for the maintenance of the family, he proposed to move the omission of that clause in Committee, and trust to the good sense and good feeling of the husband and wife. He had now said all that was necessary, and would ask their Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL CAIRNSsaid, that, although he had some objections to the details of the measure, he had nothing whatever to say against its principle.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on the first sitting day after the recess at Whitsuntide.

AFFAIRS OF TUNIS.
OBSERVATIONS.
EARL DE LA WARRin rising to call attention to the state of affairs in the Regency of Tunis; and to ask, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in reference to the French invasion of that country, the breach of International law, and the treaty or convention which the Bey by military force has been compelled to sign; also to move for Papers, said, he did not think their Lordships would dissent from at least one remark which he was about to make—that the time was come when the country ought to know what was to be the future policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the affairs of Tunis. Events had marched rapidly onwards, and what was lately foreseen in the future had now become history of the past. But, under the garb of diplomatic secrecy, information had been

1441
withheld, save what had been given by the public Press, till it was announced that one of the fairest and most fertile countries of Northern Africa was virtually placed under a French Protectorate. It was but a few weeks ago that rumours reached the country that French troops were being massed on the Frontier of Algeria and Tunis; and it was soon afterwards stated, on the authority of M. St. Hilaire, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, that the sole object of the movement was to punish and repress some lawless mountainous tribes who had been committing ravages on the Algerine Frontier, and that there was no idea on the part of France of conquest or annexation. But it soon became apparent that these tribes could nowhere be found. The troops then occupied the most important military positions in the country, with the view of encircling, as alleged, the supposed enemy. But, failing in this, after throwing some hundred shells into a fort which was afterwards discovered to be almost unarmed, the troops advanced to within a few miles of the City of Tunis. Ships of war, in the meantime, were engaged in operations on the coast; the French General, with an armed escort of 100 men or more, and with a large force encamped within two miles of the residence of the Bey, went to the palace and demanded an audience of the Sovereign. Guns were also placed in position commanding the palace. He was now stating what had been told him personally by an eye-witness, who was in the palace at the time. A Treaty was produced, of the contents of which their Lordships were now aware, which was at length signed by the Bey, under the pressure of military force. Thus ended the military drama. They now came to the diplomatic part, and here let him say it was far from his wish in any way to represent what was not strictly correct in what had taken place. He knew that excited feelings might sometimes lead to statements which might afterwards be viewed with regret. But, calmly speaking, and looking at the events which had taken place, he would ask the Government what value they placed on the assurances that had been given them by the French Government. Was it possible that this was not a premeditated plan of operation? Would an army of 20,000 men, and he believed he was
1442
understating the number, have been sent to stop the incursions of a few almost unarmed mountain tribes? And, if it was not premeditated, what change of circumstances caused the change of operations? Scarcely any hostile tribes appeared, save some harmless Bedouins or other Natives here and there tending their flocks and herds, whose tents, as alleged, were burnt and themselves sometimes shot. The Bey offered no hostility, but only protested, carefully avoiding all collision with the French troops, and treated them in a friendly manner up to the time when his independence was wrested from him. And that was done acting upon the assurance which had been repeatedly given that the operations of the French troops would be strictly confined to the punishment of the Kroumirs. But how was it that Her Majesty's Government were left uninformed of that? How was it that they assured their Lordships and the country that this expedition meant nothing beyond repressing some hostile tribes, while the French General must have had his orders to force submission upon the Bey, and carried with him the Treaty which was to be extorted from him? That was a matter upon which their Lordships ought to be informed. Did Her Majesty's Government believe that the avowed object of this expedition was the real one? He would for a moment refer to the Papers which had been laid before the House, in order to show that there was information in the hands of the Government which had not been communicated to their Lordships. It was impossible not to see that this question of French influence in Tunis was one of long standing, and that it had not its beginning in the recent outbreak of Frontier Tribes. As far back as the year 1878 M. Waddington, the then French Minister for Foreign Affairs, related a conversation which took place between himself and the noble Marquess below him (the Marquess of Salisbury), which it was impossible to read without seeing that it had been long a question of taking the first opportunity of spreading French influence. He found that the noble Marquess did not admit the construction put upon his words as given in the despatch of M. Waddington; and the improbability of the use of such words was much confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by what had been

1443
stated by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) in his despatch dated June 17, 1880, in which he said—
"In the view of Her Majesty's Government, Tunis was a portion of the Ottoman Empire, to dispose of which Great Britain had no moral or International right."
He would now return to that part of the subject more immediately before the House—the recent action of Her Majesty's Government. It was upon the 5th of April last that the French Government announced their intention of taking steps to subdue the lawless Frontier Tribes, that only being the avowed object. But almost immediately after that, on the 9th of April, Lord Lyons informed the noble Earl opposite that M. St. Hilaire's language implied that the expedition was undertaken solely with a view to chastise the lawless tribes, and that it was not intended that it should enter further into Tunisian territory than might be necessary for that purpose. The noble Lord further said—
"It may be that the present intentions of the French Government do not go much beyond this. I am not, however, blind to the probability that they may be led on much further, and even M. St. Hilaire hinted that the opportunity might he taken to bring the Bey of Tunis to his senses with regard to other matters affecting French interests."
Lord Lyons made use of other words indicating anxiety as to the possible consequences. This very important despatch of Lord Lyons was received at the very beginning of the expedition, and a further despatch, dated April 12, was in the same tone of apprehension, and quoted the words of M. Jules Ferry in the French Chambers, who "spoke of the entrance of French troops on Tunisian territory as a matter of course." To the same effect were the despatches of Mr. Reade, Her Majesty's Consul at Tunis. He wished to recall the attention of the noble Earl opposite to these despatches of Lord Lyons and Mr. Reade, as he could not understand how it was that the House had been informed on several occasions that the French Government had no idea of annexation or conquest, but that their operations would be confined to the punishment of the Frontier Tribes. On the 6th of May the noble Earl stated in the House—
"It does not appear unreasonable that the French should resent outrages within the Algerian frontier, and should take measures to
1444
prevent the recurrence of such outrages. The French Government have constantly given us assurances that they have no intention to annex territory, and yesterday they formally and distinctly authorized Lord Lyons to assure Her Majesty's Government that there was no idea of conquest or annexation with regard to Tunis." [3 Hansard, cclx. 1927.]
Now, at the very time that the noble Earl addressed these words to the House, he was in possession of the information that the French troops had occupied the fort of Bizerta and other military positions, and were advancing in the direction of the City of Tunis. At the same time, in a despatch to Lord Lyons, dated the 7th of May, the noble Earl said—
"They (Her Majesty's Government) cannot, however, conceal from themselves that proceedings of a military nature such have been instituted by the French—the occupation of Bizerta and the destruction of the fort of Tabarca—seem to be directed to some object beyond the mere chastisement of disorderly Arab tribes on the frontier, nor can they affect to misunderstand the intimations which have been given to your Excellency by M. Barthélemy St. Hilaire that, although the French Government did not seek to establish a protectorate, the new Treaty which would be imposed upon the Bey would be in the nature of one."
He could not reconcile those facts and statements with the words of the noble Earl on the 6th of May, that "the French Government had shown no intention of annexation." He came next to the point of Treaties and International rights. Her Majesty's Government had recently stated that Tunis was an integral portion of the Ottoman Empire, and in that view it naturally followed that no Treaty could be valid without the consent of the Sultan. He need hardly remind the House that the strongest proofs could be adduced in support of that. Among them was the fact that the Beys of Tunis had always received investiture from the Sultan, and that troops in lieu of tribute were furnished in time of war, and there were other stipulations of a similar kind. It was known that the French now refused, for manifest reasons, to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Sultan; but it would be easy to show that France in Treaties dating back to 1604 and onward to 1824 acknowledged it, and so recently as 1863, on the occasion of the Tunisian Loan contracted at Paris, M. Drouyn de Lhuys, Minister for Foreign Affairs, suggested the authorization of the Sublime Porte

1445
to legalize the transaction. But, however that might be, the noble Earl opposite could not regard the Treaty which had just been signed as a legal document, if Tunis was a part of the Ottoman Empire. By the Treaty of Paris in 1856, by the Treaty of London in 1871, and by the recent Treaty of Berlin, the integrity of the Ottoman Empire was guaranteed. He could not leave this part of the subject without alluding to what must be regarded as a great violation of International rights. The territory of a neighbouring and friendly Sovereign was invaded against repeated protests, without any declaration of war, military positions were taken up in various parts of the country, his flag was hauled down from a Tunisian fort and the French flag hoisted, troops advanced to the walls of the city, the general with an armed escort entered the palace, and, under military compulsion, a Treaty was signed. Whether Tunis owed allegiance to the Sultan or whether the Bey was independent, there had surely been a great violation of International rights. And now he came to this—In what way did it affect this country? It was impossible to look at the geographical position of Tunis without seeing that it was a matter of great importance. It could not for a moment be supposed that this country could regard with indifference a territory like Tunis falling into the hands of a great Power commanding, as it might do, the channel to the East along which the greater portion of the traffic of this country passed. There was a narrow channel of not more than 80 miles between the Italian and Tunisian shores. At no great distance from Tunis lay the harbour of Bizerta, with sufficient water—from five to seven fathoms—to float the largest iron-clad in any Navy with sufficient space, being about eight miles in length and in width about five miles, to manœuvre a fleet, and which, at a comparatively small outlay at the entrance, might be made one of the finest harbours in the Mediterranean. In case of war, how greatly would be increased the difficulty of our communications with the East, how greatly would it add to the difficulty of maintaining our position in the Mediterranean if a large French Fleet were at Bizerta, within 200 miles of Malta. There was another point of which he must briefly remind their Lord-
1446
ships, and it was one of some importance. Malta was mainly dependent upon Tunis for provisions, both meat and corn. In the event of war, if Tunis were in the possession of France, it would be difficult to know whence these supplies could be procured. And he could net omit to mention that the future commercial interests of this country might be greatly imperilled if the Regency of Tunis were under a French Protectorate. At present, Commercial Treaties with Tunis were favourable. If France was for the future to have the control of Treaties such as that of 1875, which expired in 1882, very different conditions might be imposed which might seriously affect the exports of our manufactures. He did not believe that this country would regard with jealousy any just and fair development of French interests in the Mediterranean; but the annexation of territory, or the establishing a Protectorate over a country without the consent of other Powers who had great interests at stake, could not do otherwise than lead to an estrangement which might be productive of grave and serious consequences. He must say, in conclusion, that in the Papers and Correspondence now before their Lordships, he could see no distinct intimation as to what would be the future policy of Her Majesty's Government. He trusted it would no longer be withheld, and he sincerely hoped it would be based upon the upholding of Treaties and the respecting of International rights—that unjust aggressions would not be tolerated, and that the honour and good faith of this country would be maintained.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that perhaps the less was said in Parliament about the recent proceedings in Tunis the more chance there would be of the French adhering to the professions of their Government and of their desisting from extreme exactions. It was the less necessary to speak of the disregard of the Law of Nations, since within the last few days a pamphlet had appeared, written by a Frenchman, appealing to Frenchmen to do right, and laying the blame on those who had tempted France to do wrong. He trusted that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would not look upon the Treaty recently published as in any way obligatory or final.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, your Lordships do not seem generally inclined to join in this discussion, which has been raised by the noble Earl opposite (Earl De La Warr) on a very important subject, in which, as we all know, he takes a very great interest. Many years ago, I asked a very experienced Foreign Secretary whether he did not feel it a difficulty in his position that it frequently happened that he could not state publicly the best reasons for things that he did or things that he did not do. His answer was, that that was a very great difficulty; but that there was compensation in the greatly superior knowledge which he had to the opposition which attacked him. But I am bound to say, with regard to the noble Earl opposite, that no one can accuse him of a want of information on this subject. I believe the noble Earl will not contradict me when I state that I believe he has been in almost daily correspondence with a gentleman of great energy, great ability, and high character, the counsel of Mr. Levy in the Enfida case, and who, I am informed, is in correspondence with three of the London papers, writes the Reuter telegrams, and is more or less ably represented in both Houses of Parliament. The noble Earl has also had the advantage of all the official documents which have passed between us and France on the subject of Tunis—documents which, as far as I am aware, notwithstanding the doubt which he has thrown upon them, entirely carry out all that at different times, and generally in answer to himself, I have stated to your Lordships. If there were any feeling shown on either side of the House to raise an important discussion on this question, and, still more, if there were any intention of bringing an attack or moving a Vote of Censure on Her Majesty's Government for what they have done, I should be only too happy to enter into the fullest discussion of this matter. But I must say that I very much agree with my noble Friend who has just sat down (Lord Stanley of Alderley), and I doubt exceedingly whether any great public object would be attained by Her Majesty's Government entering into weekly or bi-weekly driblets of discussion with one particular Peer on a matter of great importance involving questions of very great delicacy between
1448
two great and friendly Governments. Therefore, until I see a greater indication of the wish of the House generally to have a really important discussion on this subject I am sure the noble Earl will not think it a want of respect to him individually if I do not go fully into the case.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl who introduced this subject (Earl De La Warr) stated his case with great moderation, and evidently spoke under a sense of responsibility in touching upon this question. But although I quite understand the point of view from which he approaches the subject, and that much is to be said in favour of some of the considerations advanced by him, I am compelled to express an opinion strictly in harmony with that of the noble Earl who has just sat down (Earl Granville)—namely, that no great public benefit will be derived from expanding or continuing this discussion. Any person taking part in this discussion must feel that he is speaking under the weight of great responsibility, because all that is said here is addressed not only to your Lordships and to the English public, but to others, and it is a matter of notoriety that this is a question upon which the French Government and the French people feel very strongly. I do not think that my noble Friend behind me gave quite sufficient weight to the grounds which undoubtedly exist, and which have existed for some time, for causing the French Government to look upon Tunis with great interest and to desire to extend their influence in that country. It is not merely that it is a neighbouring country, but it is a neighbouring country inhabited by tribes of a very warlike and fanatical character, who are of the same race and of the same religion as those who are the subjects of the French Government in the neighbouring Colony of Algiers. I think that no one impartially considering such a state of things will wonder at or blame the French Government for desiring that their influence should be extended and strengthened in Tunis. Supposing an analogous case to arise in reference to one of our own Colonies, and that a race of men of a warlike and fanatical tendency of the same religion and race as those of our own subjects lived outside of

1449
our Frontier, we should be very jealous of any other influence beside our own being acquired over that population. The French Government, however, have gone a good deal further than insuring or extending their influence in Tunis; but, and especially after what has fallen from the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), I am not here to express any opinion upon what they have done. It is always a very doubtful point whether, in a case which does not invite the action of this country to take any more decided steps, remonstrance is in itself a prudent proceeding; and in this case I doubt whether there is any ground in the interest of this country alone for even any intervention or remonstrant action; but whether there is ground for any such action or not, we do not yet know precisely what the proceedings or the intentions of Her Majesty's Government on this subject have been and are. They have not up to this time remonstrated in any formal manner against the action of the French Government. It is, however, perfectly in their discretion to do so. The French Government have undoubtedly taken steps which it is open to us to regard—if we think fit to do so on grounds of policy or of antecedent history—as trenching upon the comity of one friendly nation towards another. But Her Majesty's Government have not thought fit to do so, and I am bound to say that I for one shall not, as far as my knowledge at present goes, challenge that decision. I shall not prolong this discussion. I believe that the French Government and the French nation are actuated by a very friendly sentiment towards this country, and I believe that that friendly connection between us is of the highest importance to this country and to the interest of the world. As far as Tunis is concerned, I see no interest which this country possesses which would justify or should induce us to strain or to place any undue weight upon the friendly relations that exist between the two countries. I do not deny that the French Treaty with the Bey, to which both the noble Lords have alluded, is one which Her Majesty's Government will find it necessary to bear in mind, and which will increase their vigilance for British interests in certain quarters. As far as Tunis is concerned, however, I do not hold that
1450
we have any interest there that should cause us to be disturbed or disquieted by what has passed. If it were possible to suppose that the action which the French Government have taken had any further or more distant object, I do not at all forget that there are in other parts of the Mediterranean British interests of the very gravest character, and any Government who thinks that those interests are in any way compromised by the action of the French Government would be justified in taking up an attitude of great vigilance. But the French Government have given the noble Earl opposite assurances which have been laid upon the Table of the House, and which the noble Earl has very wisely treated as amounting to International engagements. Those assurances, which we have no ground for believing to be other than sincere—and, indeed, it would be unseemly for us to doubt their sincerity—we are justified in accepting as being sufficient to remove any disquieting impressions; and, therefore, no case has arisen to make it incumbent on any independent Member of your Lordships' House to call attention to the subject.

IRISH JURY LAWS.
MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
The order made on Monday last for the appointment of a Select Committee discharged.
Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Irish Jury Laws."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
Motion agreed to.
And, on May 30, the Lords following were named of the Committee:

Ld. President.

L. Inchiquin.

Ld. Privy Seal.

L. Silchester.

D. Marlborough.

L. Monck.

M. Lansdowne.

L. Penzance.

E. Derby.

L. Emly.

V. Hutchinson.

L. Ardilaun.

L. Tyrone.

The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.