Sitting of 31 May 1881

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [May 30] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Third Reading—Stirling Water*, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Elementary
Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Clay Lane)* [181].
Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* [161], discharged; Land Law (Ireland) [135]—R.P.
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.

  VACCINATION ACT—CLAUSE 29— REMISSION OF FINES.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has come to any decision in regard to the fines illegally imposed upon six persons (amounting with costs to 36 s. 6d. each) at Warrington for refusing to have their children vaccinated, the conviction having been made under the 29th Clause of the Vaccination Act, while the children were from three to six years old?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, in this case he had directed the fines to be remitted.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—KIL MAINHAM GAOL—STOPPAGE OF LETTERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that a letter, dated 21st May, written by a Member of this House to one of the gentlemen in Kilmainham, was stopped because it contained a passage reflecting on the political wisdom of one of the members of the Government connected with the affairs of Ireland; and, whether he will state shortly some of the principles of censorship on which the governors of prisons are instructed to act, for guidance of the public in their communications; and, if not, whether he will cause the letter to be handed to the gentleman to whom it was addressed, and issue suitable instructions in future?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): It is the fact
  1776
  that a letter, dated the 21st instant, written by the hon. Member for Wexford, and addressed to Denis Hannigan, a prisoner in Kilmainham Gaol under the Protection of Person and Property Act, was stopped by the Governor of that gaol. The hon. Member will find the rules as to the writing and receiving of letters by such prisoners among the Regulations made by the Lord Lieutenant under the Act, and which have been laid before Parliament.

  THE ORDNANCE SURVEY—WARWICK SHIRE.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked the First Commissioner of Works, When the enlarged ordnance map of the county of Warwick will be accessible?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, that in consequence of the additional sum voted for the prosecution of the Ordnance Survey the survey for the county of Warwick would be commenced in the year 1885.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked, whether there would be any objection to furnishing the House with a Return of the enlarged maps for counties, and also of the order in which they were intended to be taken?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had no objection to lay such a Return on the Table. Under the accelerated scheme of survey, he hoped the Survey would be completed in about 10 years. There must, of course, be some counties the survey of which would be undertaken later than others, and he was afraid that under the arrangement Warwick would not be one of the early ones.

  AGRARIAN CRIMES (IRELAND)—THE RETURNS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been directed to a Return, issued to Members on the 26th May, relating to Agrarian and other Crimes (Ireland), for the month of December 1880; whether Hugh M`Linden, the person named at page 17, in the Return for the county Wicklow, as having been injured on the 18th December last by the receipt of a threatening letter, is the person who charged Patrick Kelly, a respectable Catholic farmer, with having fired at him, and thereby caused his confinement in gaol

  1777
  for several weeks, the committing magistrate having refused to accept bail, though forthcoming to any amount, and the grand jury having subsequently found that the charge was groundless; whether this Hugh M'Linden is the same person who was himself recently committed to gaol for using violent threats to a witness in open court; and, whether he will inquire through the police into the character of this "injured person," so as to be able to inform the House that he is not a "mauvais sujet," and that the other ten cases entered in the Return, of intimidation by threatening letters, or notices or otherwise, are furnished on equally reliable testimony?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, Hugh M'Linden, the person referred to in this Question, is the person who charged Patrick Kelly with having fired at him on the 13th of December last. On the 14th of December, Kelly was committed for re-examination on the 8th of January, when bail was accepted. He was returned for trial at the Wicklow Quarter Sessions; but the Grand Jury ignored the bill. I am informed that Hugh M'Linden is a man of indifferent character, and in March last was committed for seven days at Newtown Petty Sessions for contempt of Court. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information on which the cases of intimidation have been included in the Return.

  SOUTH AFRICA—SWAZI LAND.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to a letter published in the "Free State Journal," attributed to Sir Morrison Barlow, the British Agent in Swazi Land, and in which the writer alludes to a belief, on the part of the Boers, that a Swazi army was then waiting for his orders to "rush into the district (Transvaal) slay, burn, and destroy all and everything," and goes on to say—"There are few things would give me greater pleasure than to receive such an order;" and, whether, in case it shall be proved that Sir Morrison Barlow is the writer, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to remove him from a post in which he may endanger the peace of the Empire?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I cannot answer the Question in detail; but I can acquaint the hon. Member of that which
  1778
  will sufficiently meet his purpose. This letter has been noticed by Sir Evelyn Wood. I believe that, as the hon. Member states, there is no doubt as to the authorship of the letter, and that, in consequence, Sir Evelyn Wood suggested to Lord Kimberley that leave of absence should be given to the gentleman who had written the letter. Lord Kimberley has acted upon that suggestion.
  MR. PARNELLwished to know whether any further information had been received with regard to attempts to incite the Natives against the Boers in the Transvaal?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, as far as I am aware, no such attempts have been made. I feel very confident that we had not, up to last evening, received anything in the nature of authentic information on the subject.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—JOHN RYAN OF MURROE.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If there was any charge against John Ryan of Murroe (who was arrested in March last), except trying to induce others to join the local Land League; and, if not, if he considers that sufficient grounds for detaining this young man any longer in prison away from his business and his family?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): John Ryan was arrested on reasonable suspicion of having, since the 30th of September last, been guilty as principal of the crime of intimidating a certain person with a view to compel him to join the Land League. This man's case will shortly come before the Lord Lieutenant for consideration, under the provisions of the Protection of Person and Property Act, and, no doubt, a just decision will be arrived at in reference to it.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF ARTHUR. PAGE BETTINGHAM—CONVICTIONS FOR BETTING.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Arthur Page Bettingham, who, on May 21st, was fined twenty-five pounds and costs at

  1779
  the Solehill Police Court, for illegally betting, the evidence showing that the defendant shouted "three to one on the field," and took a shilling on Rochester and a shilling on Merryfield; and, whether the police have instructions to carry out the Law in a similar manner against any Members of this or of the other House of Parliament who may be found laying or taking the odds at the forthcoming Epsom Races?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, my hon. Friend has rather misconceived the facts of this conviction. He seems to have assumed that the conviction in this case was for making bets. That was not so. The law on that matter was altered in 1845, when the old betting Acts were repealed. The law is now directed against persons who keep places for betting. In this case the conviction was for keeping a betting stand. He was proceeded against because he was the keeper of a stand for betting on the racecourse. My hon. Friend asks me whether I will cause similar proceeding's to be instituted against Members of this or the other House of Parliament in case of such offences being committed by them. If my hon. Friend is able to assure me from personal observation to-morrow that any Member of this House has kept betting stands on the racecourse at Epsom, after looking at the law on the subject, I will, on receiving information of that character, consider what steps ought to be taken. I find that the use of a large umbrella constitutes a "place."
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked, whether it was any offence to bet with the men who kept these stands?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is a question of law upon which I should not like to commit myself offhand. All I can do is to refer my hon. Friend to the Act of 1845, repealing the Act of 18 Geo. II., which did inflict a penalty on betting of £10 or £20. I should not like to commit myself further than this. The Acts of 1853 and 1874 are directed against persons who keep places for betting.

  TUNIS—SUPPRESSION OF TELEGRAMS.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE (for the Earl of BECTIVE)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government is aware that thirteen telegrams sent from Tunis by the
  1780
  correspondent of a London newspaper have been suppressed, by order, in Paris; if such action is not an infringement of the International Convention regarding telegraphic communications; and, if Her Majesty's Government is prepared to make any representations in the matter?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, no information has reached Her Majesty's Government beyond the report contained in the newspapers, and they are, consequently, unable to express any opinion on the subject. If the action mentioned in the newspaper paragraph had been taken, it is rather doubtful whether it would have been a violation of the International Telegraphic Convention. Article 7 of that Convention, which was concluded in 1875, and laid before this House in 1876, gives all Powers ability to stop the transmission of any private telegram which may appear dangerous to the security of the State. By Article 8 power is reserved to each Government to interrupt the whole system of telegraphs for an indefinite period—on condition, however, that the other Governments should be informed.

  ARMY—GRANTS FOR MILITARY SERVICES
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he will consent to lay upon the Table a list of annuities and grants of money awarded for special Military Services to officers of Her Majesty's Army, whether Imperial or Indian, since 1835?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, so far as the India Office is concerned, there will be no objection to give a Return of all the grants made from the Indian Revenues. The India Office has no knowledge of the grants made from Imperial Revenues; but I will communicate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, and ascertain from him whether there will be any objection on his part to make the Return. I will then communicate further with the hon. Member as to the form in which it should be moved for.

  INDIA—THE BHEEL TRIBES.
  COLONEL MAKINSasked the Secretary of State for India, If it be true, as reported in the "Times" by telegraph, dated 29th May, from Calcutta,

  1781
  that the Government have concluded a Treaty of Peace with the insurgent Bheel tribes, and that among the principal provisions of the Treaty are the following:—The Bheels are not to be troubled on account of the Census; their lands are not to be measured; all who took part in the recent insurrection are to be pardoned; all the Bheels who were imprisoned during the last three years are to be released on payment of a proper ransom; half the Tisalu tax is to be remitted; no new police stations are to be established; the Excise Duty is to be abolished; the Bheels are to be allowed to levy black mail on travellers; whether such a treaty has been accepted by the Bheels, who thereupon dispersed to their hills; and, if such a description of the said treaty be a fabrication, if he can take any steps to prevent in future the infliction of such hoaxes on the public?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, we have only received extremely meagre telegraphic accounts of the disturbances which have taken place in the Bheel country. The insurgent Bheel Tribes are not British subjects; but the disturbances appear to have arisen amongst some of the tribes which are subject to the Oudepore State. From the accounts we have received, it seems that the importance of these disturbances has been very considerably exaggerated. The last information that reached us was that the Oudepore Dunbar appeared disposed to treat these tribes fairly, and to remedy any substantial grievances. It is extremely improbable that the British Agent would have concurred in any such Treaty as that alleged; but we have no full information at present. I think the hon. and gallant Member will see it is quite impossible that the Indian Government should exercise any supervision over the telegrams which are despatched from India to this country. Very useful and very accurate information is generally contained in them; but no doubt, in this case, the information furnished is extremely erroneous.

  WAYS AND MEANS—INLAND REVENUE —DRAWBACK ON MALT DUTY.
  MR. EARPasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it not the fact that great dissatisfaction has been expressed at the manner in which the claims of drawback of Malt Duty were
  1782
  met by the Inland Revenue Department; whether it has not been admitted by one of the heads of that Department that injustice has been done to traders by the method adopted in making the allowance; whether it is not the fact that in some cases the drawback was allowed to persons holding stocks of malt on the quantity shown by their books, and not by measuring or gauging, as provided by the Act; and, whether he will authorise a Copy of the Correspondence on the subject, which has taken place between the Department and the persons aggrieved, to be printed and placed before Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE, who was indistinctly heard, said that he would endeavour to answer the Question of his hon. Friend as briefly as he could. Great dissatisfaction had been expressed by gentlemen whose opinion was of great weight; but it was a mistake to suppose that general dissatisfaction had been felt at the manner in which the Excise officers performed their difficult duties. He did not think that the proportion of those who were dissatisfied was more than 1 to 100. In saying that he intended no disrespect to those who were dissatisfied, but only desired to do justice to the Department. With regard to the supposed admission on the part of the Department, he found, unfortunately, that Mr. Ellis was out of health, and he had not been able to consult him on the subject. But the question would be examined hereafter. With regard to the third Question, there was only this foundation in fact—that some of the stocks of the great traders were taken in a particular manner, having regard to the fact that the malt was stored in large bins which it was difficult to test by penetrating to the bottom of the bins. The measurements were brought in and then the stocks were entered in the books. Thus the books were collateral and complementary evidence. He was afraid his hon. Friend would not be satisfied with the succinct answer which he was obliged to give. As to the production of the Correspondence which had taken place between the Department and the persons aggrieved, rather than lay it on the Table at the present moment he would suggest that, when the extreme pressure of Parliamentary Business had a little subsided, he would endeavour to make arrange-

  1783
  ments with the hen. Member, who took great interest in the question, for a personal discussion on the nature of the rules adopted in these cases.

  AFGHANISTAN—THE CIVIL WAR.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary of State for India, If it is a fact that civil war has already broken out in the Kandahar district between Ayoub and Abdurrahman; that the immediate evacuation of the Pishin Valley has been ordered by the Home Government against the wishes of the Indian Government; that the Czar has by Imperial Ukase incorporated in the Russian Empire the whole Country of the Tekke Turcoman's, including Askabad, the furthest part of General Skobeleff's advance, notwithstanding the assurances of his Government that Russia merely intended to punish the Turcomans; that this Country is being colonised by Cossack and Russian immigrants, and that the railway from the Caspian to Herat is being rapidly advanced; that a deputation of Turcoman leaders is at present at St. Petersburg, and has promised fidelity and military service to the Czar, thus securing for Russia the aid of some 60,000 of the finest cavalry in the world?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, it is a fact, as stated in the telegrams which have been communicated by the India Office to the Press, that skirmishes, apparently of an unimportant character, have taken place between the partizans of Abdurrahman and Ayoob Khan. But nothing has yet happened which differs very much in character or degree from the circumstances which have from time to time taken place in that part of the country during the occupation of Candahar by the British troops. With regard to the other Questions which the hon. Member has put to me, I must refer him to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as we have no official information at the India Office on the subjects to which he refers.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. DILLON.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish respectfully to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you have received a Letter from the senior
  1784
  Member for the County of Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) complaining that he has been prevented from coming to this House by his arrest when on his way here, and stating that in his absence he has been misrepresented in this House by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, and asking for your intervention in order that he may be able to resume his duties in this House? I wish also to ask whether you have any objection to communicate the contents of the letter to the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have to inform the hon. Member for the City of Cork that I received yesterday a communication from the senior Member for the County of Tipperary, and last night I answered the letter. With regard to the production of the communication or my answer, that is a matter for the determination of the House.
  MR. PARNELL: May I ask you, Sir, to be good enough to inform me in what way I may obtain the opinion of the House as to the desirability of producing the letter, whether it would come on as a matter of Privilege, or in the ordinary way?
  MR. SPEAKER: It would certainly not come on as a matter of Privilege. If the hon. Member thinks proper to move for the production of the Correspondence, that will be a matter for the House to determine. So far as I am concerned, I can see no objection to its production.
  MR. GLADSTONE: So far as the Government are concerned, to whom reference is generally made on the subject of Returns, we make no objection to the production of the Correspondence, which may be moved for as an unopposed Return.
  MR. PARNELL: Sir, I beg to give Notice that I shall move for it to-morrow.
  MR. J. COWEN: When Mr. Bradlaugh sent a letter to you, Sir, complaining of his, treatment by the House, that was regarded and dealt with as a matter of Privilege. And I would ask whether there is any difference between the two letters which renders this letter from Mr. Dillon incapable of being treated in the same way?
  MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle, I have only to may that I cannot consider that any communication whatever which Mr.

  1785
  Dillon may think proper to make to me is necessarily a Question of Privilege, and to be laid before the House.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle whether he is not aware that Mr. Bradlaugh is an English Member, and Mr. Dillon is an Irish Member?

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE DERBY DAY.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving that the House at its rising adjourn until Thursday next. He was very happy indeed to find that there was to be no opposition to that Motion. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON dissented.] Well, at all events, the hon. Baronet who shook his head had not had the courage of his convictions. No Notice of opposition appeared in the Parliamentary Record; and if the hon. Baronet really intended to challenge his Resolution, in all fairness he ought to have signified his desire in the usual Mode. Rashness was one of the failings of youth, and he (Mr. R. Power) feared it was his failing upon that occasion; for he had spoken so often upon that important subject, that anything he might then say would be tedious as "a thrice-told tale:" He had, therefore, determined not to make a speech. [Cheers.] Really those cheers almost tempted him to break his resolve; but he would only make a foxy remarks. He vainly hoped that they might have been allowed innocently to enjoy themselves to-morrow without this miserable annual squabble. He thought that reason had at last dawned upon the obtuse mind of the temperance Baronet; and he believed that the constant beatings which the hon. Baronet had received for his misconduct upon these occasions would have had some effect upon him; but he found that he was absolutely irreclaimable—logic and argument were alike thrown away upon him, and he clearly proved by his conduct that Providence thought it necessary to inflict certain evils upon the human race. What did the hon. Baronet propose to do? He proposed to imprison the Members of the House on Wednesday, and also its hard-worked officials, Did not the hon. Baronet think that the
  1786
  hours occupied by the talk of hon. Members on the Liberal Benches—hours which sometimes extended to 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning—entitled the officials of the House to at least one day of rest and recreation? Never before had there been a Session notable for so few "counts-out." With regard to this question of "counts," however, he had acquired new hope now that that long lost child, the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins) had returned to the House. "Counts," he thought, would now become a little more frequent. He would remind the House that there had been an increasing majority on the question of adjournment over the Derby Day. In 1877 the proposal was supported by 207 Members, and last year by 285. They certainly deserved a holiday considering the arduous work which they had gone through in the present Session. They had been summoned at an unusually early period, and, judging from present appearances, they were likely to sit for an unusual length of time. They had, in the prosecution of their labours, turned day into night and night into day, and their zeal in the fulfilment of their duties had been such that he believed Her Majesty had no harder-worked subjects than Her faithful Commons. He contended that all Parties in the House would be benefited by a holiday on Wednesday, and they would return to their work in a better spirit and temper than had some-times been exhibited. Anyhow, he could speak for his own Party on that occasion. For the Irish Members there had recently been nothing but interruption, Obstruction, Questions, and Amendments, coercion, and suspension. A Member of that Party hardly knew whether he was to be allowed to sit in the House, or whether he was to be consigned to a cell in Kilmainham. In fact, for an Irish Member there stood "a palace and a prison on each hand." After what he had said, no one could doubt that the Members of his Party deserved to have their physical and mental energies recruited by a holiday. If any further argument were needed to convince his Colleagues, he would remind them of the very remarkable and agreeable fact that when Plenipotentiary won the Derby in 1834, Mr. Batson made his tenants a present of one whole year's rent. He failed to see how any illustrious Colleague of his

  1787
  could possibly vote in antagonism to a race which had had so beneficial an effect. On the last occasion when the subject was brought forward, 42 Irish Members, who constituted all that was enlightened and intelligent among the Representatives of Irish constituencies, supported him, and only 10 foolish Irishmen, consisting of eight barristers, one clergyman, and one major, voted against him. Of course, the wants of their small Party went for little in the decision of that House; but then there were Her Majesty's Ministers, who deserved a holiday as much as any schoolboys in the country. Their troubles were not confined to that House, but extended all over the world, from Constantinople to Afghanistan, from Afghanistan to the Transvaal, from the Transvaal to Ireland, and from Ireland back to Northampton. He did not say that all the Members of the Government were entitled to a holiday on Wednesday, for there were drones as well as bees in the Government hive. But, at any rate, there was one right hon. Gentleman whom all would agree had earned the right to a holiday—he referred to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The number of speeches he had had to make, the number of attacks he had had to repel, the number of explanations he had had to give, the number of Questions he had had to answer, was quite sufficient to muddle the brains of any ordinary mortal, and if he was to get through the remainder of the Session with safety to himself and benefit to his Party he had better enjoy himself tomorrow on the Epsom Downs. Men of all stations, creeds, and classes, shared alike this sport. Epsom was a neutral ground where all religious and political differences were buried. He only wished they had some such burial-ground in Ireland. To show how the love of this sport permeated all classes, he might just mention that on the racecourse at York there was a celebrated spot known as "The Archbishop's Corner," where the grandfather of the present Home Secretary, in defiance of all canon law, hid himself in seine bushes in order to see the winner of a big race. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman inherited not only the fortune, but also the sporting proclivities of his grandfather, and that he would find himself at the Derby to-
  1788
  morrow. The hon. Baronet opposite thought it derogatory to the dignity of the House to adjourn for a horse race. Well, he was sorry to say that recent events had cast some doubt upon the existence of that dignity; but he would remind his hon. Friend, if he had ever read Roman history, which by-the-bye
  he very much doubted, that the Romans, who could not have been insensible to considerations of dignity, never met in the Forum when there was a race in the Circus. The ancient Britons, as soon as they became civilized enough, stamped their coins with equine subjects, and King Athelstan set such store upon horses that he prohibited their exportation except as presents. In his Derby Day speeches the hon. Baronet was accustomed to sneer at those who went to races. He called them "bawling blackguards." Well, that was scarcely a generous phrase. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: I applied it only to professional. betting men.] It might be extended to others besides betting men. The loudest bawler and the biggest blackguard he had ever met in his life was a gentleman who was a paid temperance lecturer, and who died of delirium tremens. His hon. Friend's great argument was—"Let those go to the Derby who will, and let the rest stay at home and transact Business." But the Select Committees were largely composed of betting men, and both in the Committees and in the House it would be found that the statesman-like majority would go away, and the crotchetty and chimerical minority remain. He really thought that if the hon. Baronet had his way he would keep them all in the nursery and sustain them with Zoedone. He forgot the lines of the celebrated poet—
  "The man who bath no soul for racing, Is only fit for treasons, stratagems, and water-drinking."
  The hon. Baronet said he was thirsty for work; but this inordinate appetite for work was not natural or healthy in man, and he would find that the most sober-souled individual must sometimes enjoy himself. He (Mr. R. Power) knew they would bear a great deal about "conscientious objections" to an adjournment over the Derby Day. Well, he did not say that a conscientious man might not be a good man; but conscientious men were generally very trouble-some as legislators, and inconvenient as

  1789
  friends. He would remind the House that the Derby race was entitled to respect on the score of antiquity. It was over 100 years old, and it had been sanctioned by the House of Commons for 34 years; and he doubted very much whether the Puritanical spirit was yet strong enough to prevent the Legislature from giving its countenance to an ancient and noble pastime. No sane man could have any hesitation as to the vote he should give. On the one side, they had fresh air, healthful excitement, and the indescribable pleasure of seeing the noblest horses in the world coming round Tattenham Corner and making for the winning-post amid the shouts of thousands. On the other side, they had bad air, dull repetition, and tiresome talking, and did no good either to themselves or to the country. He had forgotten that he promised not to make a speech, so he should conclude as he once heard a celebrated preacher wind up an eloquent discourse—
  "Remember, my brethren, this is not a sermon I have been preaching to you; it is only the truth I have been telling you."
  The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn until Thursday."—(Mr. Richard Power.)
  Sir WILFRID LAWSONwas about to speak, when—
  MR.WARTONrose to Order. He submitted that the hon. Baronet was not entitled to be heard. It was one of the Rules of the House that no Member should address the House on a subject in which he had a pecuniary interest—[Cries of "Oh!"]—and the hon. Baronet, he understood, had been betting on the result of the division. [Cries of "Oh!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I can only regard the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport as trifling with the House.
  MR. WARTONwho rose again amid interruption and cries of "Name him!" said, he could assure Mr. Speaker it was nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman could not have heard what he said. ["Order, order!"] He stated, and now repeated the statement, that he was informed the hon. Baronet had
  1790
  been betting on the result of the division. ["Oh, oh!"]
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, as the Speaker appeared to have overruled the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), he should proceed to give a few reasons why he could not agree with the Resolution. He admired the entertaining speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford; but it only wanted one thing—namely, a little argument. He gave no reason why that House should adjourn for a horse race except that the Romans used to do so. That was surely a poor argument to use in a Christian Assembly. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) thought it was an argument in his favour when in such an Assembly his hon. Friend was obliged to go back to a heathen assembly for a precedent. Last Friday he had read in The Morning Post, which was one of the organs of sweetness and light, the following sentence:—
  "The Motion for the adjournment over the Derby will be moved, and Sir Wilfrid Lawson will oppose the Motion, and, if need be, take a division. He will be supported by the section of Radical Nonconformists below the Gangway, who object to adjournments on Saint days, Derby days, and all that sort of thing."
  He did not, however, put the Derby at all in the same category as Saints' days. He objected to it on the ground of common sense and national morality; and if he could not maintain his stand on those grounds, he hoped the House would vote against him. What did the hon. Member for Waterford mean by saying that the Derby adjournment was a time-honoured institution? It was introduced only 34 years ago by Lord George Bentinck, and he used to carry it by narrow majorities. But there were Radicals in those days. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham was a Radical then, and he and Mr. Hume used to fight Lord George Bentinck on his Motion. Of course, the adjournment got to be an habit, as evil things unfortunately did, and by-and-bye Lord Palmerston, on behalf of the Government, took it out of the hands of private Members. But that happened only 21 years ago, and then, as time went on, some of the Radical Nonconformists and disreputable people below the Gangway protested against the adjournment, and at last, to the honour of the present

  1791
  Leader of the Opposition in that House, who saw that the proceeding was altogether contemptible, he declared that the Government would never bring forward the Motion again, but would leave it to the Member for Waterford. It was not a time-honoured practice, but an excrescence on their proceedings. What happened last year? When the Motion was made, the Secretary of State for War jumped up and said there was no Business on the Paper for Wednesday, and that if the House met the Speaker would have to sit in the Chair from 12 to 4 o'clock, looking at an empty House and with no Business to be done. It was the favourite argument for the adjournment that no Business was put down for the Derby day. But why was that so? Because everybody said—"It is no use putting down anything on the Paper—the House is sure to adjourn." Then, when an empty Paper appeared, it was said—"The House may as well adjourn, because there is nothing on the Paper." On this occasion, however, they had got rid of that difficulty. He saw that there were no fewer than 14 most important Bills put down on the Paper for to-morrow, and, strange to say, out of the whole number only two happened to be Irish Bills. Therefore, they would be very happy indeed if his hon. Friend and all his Colleagues would go the Derby to-morrow.
  MR. R. POWERasked, what was the first Bill for to-morrow?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON, said it was a peculiarly Irish Bill—it was about lunacy. Strange to say, there was only one Drink Bill among the 14; but there were three Ecclesiastical Bills. One was about churchwardens, one about Church Boards, and then there was the very important Bill of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. E. Stanhope) as to Church patronage, and he hoped that the hon. Member would not be seduced by his Colleague (Mr. Chaplin) to visit the Derby instead of attending to that important measure. That constituted a pretty good list of Bills, and it showed that they might be better employed tomorrow than in all going to the Derby. His hon. Friend the Member for Waterford said they had met unusually early this year, and so they had; but then it must be owned that they had done unusually little, although there never was a Session requiring them more to
  1792
  attend to their work. His hon. Friend told them that last year he had opposed that Motion on Sabbatarian grounds; but surely nobody but an Irishman could suppose that the Derby was run on a Sunday. His hon. Friend had the modest assurance to come down there and say that the House wanted a rest; and he made an appeal ad misericordiam to the Speaker and the officers of the House. Now, he was there at 5 o'clock last Saturday morning; and who, he might ask, was the leader of those who kept them out of their beds up to that time? Why, his hon. Friend who now professed so much anxiety for the ease and comfort of the Speaker and the officers of the House.
  MR. R POWERasked the hon. Baronet to remember that on Saturday morning he appealed to his hon. Friend to give way.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONbelieved that at half-past 4 in the morning his hon. Friend made such an appeal; and he admitted that his hon. Friend was not quite as bad as some of his Colleagues. To show that he quite realized that need of rest on the part of the Irish Members, he would tell the House what he had heard of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). He was told that at the end of a long week of obstruction the hon. Member went to a church on Sunday, and, quite excusably, he fell asleep. Suddenly, by some peal of the organ, or by some loud expression of the clergyman, the hon. Member woke up, and, on looking round and finding but a few persons in the church', he rose and said—"Mr. Speaker, Sir, I move that the House be counted." Now, he objected to the adjournment over the Derby Day, because he said there was not a national feeling on the question; and the House ought not to take such an exceptional step save in a genuine national matter. Many people, whose opinions were worth considering, objected to the system of racing, and thought the House ought not to sanction it. The hen. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) last year cited to the House a long list of Dukes, Marquesses, and Earls, to show that racing was supported by very good men; of course it was, but a thing was not made good simply because it was supported by good men. Every evil that had maintained itself in this country had maintained

  1793
  itself because good men had supported it. An evil system would fall at once if it lost such support. Mr. Wyndham, the very soul of chivalry and honour, had supported bull-baiting; John Newton, the head of the Evangelical party in his day, was a slave-dealer; and they all knew, in regard to the drink traffic, that the best men in the world carried it on. If all the Dukes in the House of Lords, and all the Bishops on the Episcopal Bench, supported the Derby, that would not make it right. They must judge the thing on its merits, and they were very clear. The system of the Turf did more harm by way of demoralization than it did good by the amusement it afforded. One of the papers had attacked him on this matter in a poem, and what did it say?—
  "Hence of late years the sport has wellnigh flown,
  The vices have it almost all their own."
  That was from an enemy; but he could give them a better quotation. In the very last book written by the departed Leader of the great Party opposite there was this passage—
  "There was one subject on which Mr. Rodney appeared to be particularly interested, and that was racing. The Turf at that time had not developed into that vast institution of national demoralization which it has now become."
  If the Conservative Party regarded their late Leader, that passage ought to have weight with them. Instead of making a speech he ought, perhaps, only to have quoted those words. He said that the tendency of racing was bad, and that it ought not to be supported by the House. It had a bad effect on the people who supported it. That was seen even in the case of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, who, although he was a member of a Diocesan Conference, had to be reproved by his Bishop because, led away by his love of racing, he had consented to act as steward of a steeple-chase on Maunday Thursday. How did they look at other countries? What a fuss they made if they saw anything wrong in any other country. He had received a circular from a body which called itself an International Association, at the head of which was the name of the Lord Mayor of London. Ho did not know whether his right hon. Friend was now in the House. He ought to be there, for he was sure that he was genuine in all his movements, and was earnest in his
  1794
  convictions. The circular referred to the gambling-tables of Monte Carlo, and said—
  "The ruin and misery entailed on numbers of our fellow-creatures through the gambling-tables of Monte Carlo demand that an organized effort should he made for their suppression."
  But what was the difference between rolling balls over green cloth and running horses over green grass? It was all gambling. It would be a great deal better if they took the beam out of their own eye, and then they would see more clearly to take the mote out of their neighbour's eye. "That which thoudoubtest do not." If there was a shadow of suspicion that horse-racing was not the most honourable thing in the world let them not sanction it. They acted now-a-days upon "reasonable suspicion." If they had reasonable suspicion that a man in Ireland was disloyal they clapped him into prison. If they had reasonable suspicion that a Member of that House was not orthodox they expelled him; and if they had reasonable suspicion that to adjourn for a horse-race was not a dignified proceeding let them not do it. They would stand in a better position before the country if they were to act with self-denial and give up a little of their own amusement for the general good.
  SIR. WILLIAM HARCOVRTsaid, he only rose to make an appeal to the House. They had had two most excellent speeches, representing both sides; they had met to transact very serious Business. If they were to take one day as a holiday, let them not lose another. Every hon. Member must have made up his mind as to his vote, and he would now ask the House to go at once to a division.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 246; Noes 119: Majority 127.—(Div. List, No. 223.)

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 135.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE. [FOURTH NIGHT.]
  [Progress 30 th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  PART I.
  ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES.
  Clause 1 (Sale of tenancies).
  MR. RAMSAY, in rising to move, in page 1, line 8, after the word "applies," to insert "the annual rent of which does not exceed thirty pounds," said, in deciding as to this Amendment it was right that they should consider what the general object of the Bill was. He had listened with much attention to the views of the Prime Minister when he introduced the measure, and he thought that the Amendment which he now proposed was not in contravention of any leading principle of the Bill. He understood that the Bill was introduced by its promoters for the purpose of interfering to the least possible extent with freedom of contract between the owners and the occupiers of the soil; and he thought they only required, in judging what should be done, to consider what was the cause of the discontent and the disaffection in Ireland, and the misery and distress of her population. He felt that anyone who had considered the merits of this question must feel that the people of Ireland were entitled to much sympathy and respect. He had heard the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) denounce the legislation of the English Parliament, when they bad succeeded in destroying the industrial resources of Ireland and the development of her manufactures, and preventing the application of the intelligence and energy of the people to any other occupation than the cultivation of the soil. Now, that he held to be the true cause of the necessity for the present legislation, and he felt that everyone who was acquainted with the subject must recognize the accuracy of his opinion on that point. They had occasion last year to legislate for the distress and destitution from which the people of Ireland suffered, in consequence of the bad harvest of the previous year. Now, he could not conceive that anyone acquainted with the condition of farms could be in doubt as to the cause of the destitution amongst the Irish people. It was nothing that legislation had done during the present century. It was the legislation of previous centuries that was responsible for that, and they were now suffering because of the iniquity of their forefathers. He admitted the accuracy
  1796
  of that view, and he appealed to the friends of the Irish people to recognize the fact that no change in the tenure of land, and no change in the ownership of the land, could affect the permanent welfare of the Irish people so long as there was a greater number of persons depending exclusively upon the cultivation of the soil for their existence than the cultivation of the soil was fitted to support. That observation might, indeed, be held to be an axiom? What were the real facts of the case? There were, at the present time, 660,000 holdings in Ireland; and from a Return presented to the other House which he had obtained of the occupations he found that there were 286,957 occupiers within the distressed districts scheduled by the Irish Board of Works each holding land under £15 rent. The number of holdings did not necessarily determine the number of occupiers; but, on the contrary, the number of occupiers was less than the number of holdings. In the distressed districts, he found there were 306,000 of these occupiers in 1879, the rent of whose occupations was under £20 in each case. Thus, no one acquainted with the management of land and with the amount of produce it could yield would fail to realize what was meant by such a number of families as these 306,000 occupiers expressed in the distressed districts of Ireland. These were not the whole of the occupiers of Ireland who were under £20, but only the families who were within the districts scheduled by the Board of Works, because of the distress which prevailed in those districts. He called the attention of the House to the recognition of the fact that this implied that 1,500,000 persons in Ireland were placed in circumstances in which destitution must have been continually staring them in the face, which circumstance could not but cause that discontent and disaffection which at present characterized that country. He had heard Gentlemen in that House refer to the fact that to the lack of industry on the part of the Irish people could be attributed in great part the cause of the distress that prevailed among them. He held that there was nothing so unjust as an imputation of that character against the Irish people. He believed they would not be able to find on the face of the earth a people placed in similar circumstances who had

  1797
  developed so many virtues as the Irish people. It was not in human nature that men who were constantly living in circumstances not free from the risk of seeing their families destitute at any time should have developed energy and industry in prosecuting the means of subsistence. And as to the so-called land hunger, which was said to be one of the grievances of Ireland for which Parliament had now to provide redress, he held that it was not land hunger, properly so-called, at all. The people of Ireland, when they went to other countries, did not show any special liking for the cultivation of the soil. In the United States, the Irish people dropped the cultivation of the soil and engaged in trade and commerce; and a large number of them, having left the small homes of their ancestors and gone to America, found that they were able to embark in trade and commerce with success. Many of them fought their way upward, and became eminent men in all the cities of the United States. Well, for these evils they were to provide a remedy, and as such he regarded this Bill; otherwise he would not have voted for it on the second reading. He regarded it as an honest attempt on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers to do something for the people of Ireland. But what were they to do? He conceived that freedom of contract, which was a very desirable thing in itself, and for which he had always contended, was not applicable to the circumstances of the people who were small occupiers of land in Ireland. The men were in such circumstances that, when the landlord came round and said they had to pay a certain amount of rent, they were ready to agree to any terms he was pleased to name, not because they had any liking for the cultivation of the soil, but because they saw no other source from which they could obtain subsistence for their families. It was truly, indeed, a struggle for existence on the part of the Irish people that drove them to stick to the land as they did, and nothing else. It was not any hunger for the land itself. In dealing with the question, he thought these facts showed they ought to restrict the operation of the Bill to the classes whose circumstances were such as to require the protection of Parliament; and he, therefore, proposed that this clause should apply only to holdings the annual
  1798
  rent of which did not exceed £30. It was not the £50 tenant, however, that he specially cared about, because, in his judgment, he was just as independent as the man in any other part of Great Britain who occupied land of the same value, or who was a tenant of £100 or £150; and it would be held to be a mockery to give such a man compensation. He did not wish to take anything from anyone which they at present enjoyed, and hon. Members would see an Amendment on the Paper in his name, which provided—
  "That nothing in this Act shall ….in any respect restrict or impair any right or privilege to which any tenant is now entitled under the foresaid custom or usage, whether the rent of the tenancy be greater or less than the amount of the rent herein specified."
  If they were to go beyond that, he held that, so far from doing good to the class especially considered, and who were really suffering so much, they would do an injury. Indeed, it seemed clear to him that if they were to give to the occupiers holdings less than £15 of annual value, they would do them no good, even supposing they were to make them fee-simple holders of the soil without money or price. If that were the case, it might be asked what good was expected to be done in confining the operation of the Act to those under £30? There was one way in which good might be done. The Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, consented to embody in it the principle of compensation for disturbance. That he held to be a most important feature in it, for by it it was proposed to confer upon those who were in a state of destitution seven years' value of the holding for the purpose of providing them with the means of going elsewhere; and he believed they would avail themselves of the privilege for the purpose, not of emigrating, but of migrating. The state of distress in which the poorer tenants were had been brought about naturally, and it never could be otherwise so long as there was a larger number depending upon the soil than the soil was capable of supporting. He was not arguing in favour of taking away anything from the rights and privileges that were at present enjoyed; but he did not think that if the Amendment were adopted it would interfere in any way with the passage of the Bill or tend to diminish

  1799
  its usefulness. Nor would the Amendment in any way tend to lessen the rights and privileges of those who paid a rent above £30; but it would render it certain that those who paid £30 would have the advantage of the Bill. He did not know whether it was generally known, because it was not at all times recognized, that the Amendment he suggested would reach more than nine-tenths of the farmers of Ireland. There were in all about 600,000 holdings occupied by about 500,000 occupiers, and there were 356,000 of these occupiers, within the distressed districts, who had suffered greatly from the bad harvest of the last few years. He trusted that Her Majesty's Ministers might see their way to accept the Amendment, and if they did he believed they would not lessen the benefits conferred by the Bill, but, on the contrary, that they would increase the prospect of the measure being acceptable to all classes, and would confer permanent good upon the Irish people. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name upon the Paper.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 8, at the end of the previous Amendment, to insert the words "the annual rent of which does not exceed thirty pounds."—(Mr. Ramsey.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BIDDELLapproved of the Amendment, because it limited the operation of an unwise clause which, as it stood, might be a good clause for the present generation of tenants; but he thought they were bound to look to the probable operation of the Bill as regarded the tenantry beyond the year 1881, and to see how it would be likely to operate, say, in 1901. What would they find then? Why, that the incoming tenant would be burdened with a heavy payment to his predecessor, such as had hitherto been unknown in three-fourths of Ireland. It had been argued by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that such a payment would not affect rent. He altogether disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman. He cared not in what form they put it; but the greater the sum the man had to pay on entering upon a farm, the less sum he would agree to pay as rent, and they could not eventually separate this payment from
  1800
  rent. He wished now to call the attention of the Committee to the different principles on which the tenant and the landlord were treated under the Bill. One of the great objects of the Bill was to counteract what some people called the cupidity of the landlords; but he (Mr. Biddell) was not satisfied that it existed in Ireland except to a limited degree. The Bill said to them—"You shall not exact an excessive rent in the present exigencies of Ireland." And, apart from that position, he thought the Court was a good institution for the purpose of regulating the rent. But what did the Bill say to the tenant? It said—"Not only shall you sell the goodwill of your holding, but you shall sell it for the largest sum you can get for it." But he should have thought the financial sagacity of the seller would need this superfluous direction to obtain the highest price. The Bill would induce nearly all the tenants to go into Court in this way. A tenant finding his relations with his landlord getting shaky, although satisfied with the rent he was paying, would go to the Court in order to get as good as a 15 years' lease. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] At any rate, that was the way in which he (Mr. Riddell) road the Bill, and he should be glad to find that he was not correct in his reading. Perhaps he might make himself best understood if he put a hypothetical case. A tenant's father dying, the son wished to take his father's farm, it being larger than his own; accordingly he went to an auctioneer to assist him in getting rid of his own, stating—"I expect to get a good round sum for my tenant right, as I had a cute man to represent me at the Court, who induced them to put it at a low rent." The auctioneer said he had other farms to get rid of, and that he would call an auction. He accordingly did so, and, probably, after the whisky had circulated and the bidders got a little excited, the most sanguine man with the least judgment and the most money would obtain possession of the holding. He ultimately finds he has given too much and fails; nobody sympathizes with him as he outbid his neighbours; whereas, had he hired direct of the landlord, he would have excited general sympathy, and the finger of the agitation would have branded the landlord as a rack-renter, and thus have tended to keep

  1801
  down rents. The Bill, then, encouraged competition in the keenest way, and did everything for the present, and was most injurious to the future tenant. The same result always followed a departure from great principles. ["Question!"] The Amendment before the Committee was that the operation of the clause should be limited, and that was the question he was now speaking to. He was of opinion that they ought to consider something beyond the old proverb—"Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." It might be that the Government thought their time might only be short, and they were therefore anxious to get over the difficulty in the easiest way they could. But that was not the principle which ought to guide the legislation of the House of Commons.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, that, as a point of Order, he wished to take the opinion of the Chairman whether the hon. Member was speaking to the Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is rather speaking against the sale of tenancies altogether, and not to the limit of £30 proposed by the Amendment.
  MR. BIDDELLsaid, he was endeavouring to show the expediency of fixing the limit of £30. If a landowner died with an estate in hand of £1,000 a-year, and the trustees did not care to carry on the farm themselves, were all the tenants to be paid under this clause who paid nothing on entry? If they were, all he would say was that they would, by thus depreciating the estate, be depriving the widow and children of that which, in all equity, belonged to them. He did not wish to express hostility to the Bill, for he had forborne to follow those whose judgment he generally approved in voting against the second reading. Far from it. Indeed, he approved of the establishment of the Court, and he thought the Government were perfectly right in bringing the matter forward; but he did not think that a property should be created in the tenant which had never before existed, except in one quarter of Ireland, where it had arisen solely in consequence of the kindness of the landlords.
  MR. GLADSTONE: As I understand the Amendment, it certainly appears to me that the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee has travelled over a very much wider field. He has said that the clause is entirely bad, and
  1802
  because the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) gets rid of the application of it to a large number of tenants in Ireland, he is prepared on that ground to support it. I understand that to be the explanation of the hon. Member. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Ramsay) spoke in favour of the general principle of the Bill and of the clause; but he considers that tenants above £30 in Ireland, or above some other figure, which is not the figure of his Amendment, are perfectly independent persons, and are quite able to make their own contracts. Now, if the clause is bad, I do not think the House ought to limit its operation, but it ought to reject it altogether. I will, therefore, not attempt to deal with that particular form of argument. But my hon. Friend behind has said that the tenant above £30 is independent in Ireland and quite able to make his own contracts. I do not hesitate to say that my hon. Friend must have made this Motion, and must have made that statement, without the smallest regard to any of the conclusions drawn by the Commissioners who have inquired into the subject. The only Commission which has reported upon it is the Commission of Lord Bessborough, and the judgment of that Commission is entirely and directly contrary to the statement of my hon. Friend, and is to the effect that unless Parliament is prepared to negative such a proposition as is contained in the Amendment, the independence of tenants of £30 and upwards cannot for a moment be maintained. But I am bound to say, even if it could be maintained, that there are other arguments which would lead me to believe that it would be unwise in the interests of the landlord. When, in 1870, we limited the operation of the Act by introducing freedom of contract, not to the point of £30, but to a point somewhat higher, I believe the effect of that limitation was evil in two ways. For the evidence before the Commission places it beyond doubt that tenants very far above £30 are still under the greatest pressure and difficulty in Ireland, and are obliged to pay excessive rents when the landlord thinks fit, as he has done in certain cases, to demand them. Besides that, the policy of the limitation has been to drive all the most important and substantial part of the tenantry in Ireland into the ranks

  1803
  of agitation for further change. The error we committed in the legislation of 1870 in lowering the limitation was, in my opinion, unfavourable to the durability of the settlement then made. But there is another argument which I would venture to press upon hon. Members. I say, first, that it is not politic to make a limitation in the interests of the landlords and of the stability of any law we may pass; secondly, that it is not equitable to the tenant, because he is not independent; and, thirdly, I would call the attention of my hon. Friend to the actual state of the law. Parliament has created by law what has proved to be a real tenant right in Ireland, and the tenants of Ireland generally are in the possession of that tenant right. But they are debarred from its exercise by way of transfer by a prohibition which is inserted in a particular section of the Land Act, and thereby the real interest we have created is made comparatively useless to them. It is available for them in case of their eviction, but it is not available for them in any other case. In the event of the Amendment being carried, we should still have to deal with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). We intend to support that repeal of the 13th clause of the Land Act; and if we repeal the 13th clause of the Land Act, then I apprehend that, even independently of the stipulations of the present law, you will have an effective tenant right in operation throughout Ireland.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The Prime Minister, in what he has said, repeats an argument that he continually uses. He says—"This is a case in which we have, by recent legislation, created a right which we have given to the tenant." [Mr. GLADSTONE: Interest.] Well, an interest. "But at the same time," he says, "we have so guarded it that he can only use that interest which we have created for him subject to a certain limitation, that he is not able absolutely and freely to assign; and, therefore, it is obviously necessary that you should remove that restriction upon the interest you have created." But why? I fail to see the reason. I might or might not be ready to remove that restriction; but the Prime Minister puts it as a matter of course that, having first of all created an interest, you have done something very shocking in re-
  1804
  stricting the free and unfettered use of it. But if, by the same instrument as that which created the interest, you limit the interest, I do not see that it necessarily follows that you should take off the restriction. The argument I refer to has continually cropped up in the course of these discussions, and I entirely dispute the proposition that no man should have an interest in property without the power of selling that interest. However, we are not at this moment at liberty to argue that question; but it has been so often brought into the discussion that I am right in referring to it, especially because the Prime Minister has just used it in his argument against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay). But I understand the argument of the hon. Member to be this. He said, especially with regard to this part of the Bill, which is contrary to economical principles, which raises very great doubts in my mind as to whether it is for the good either of the tenants or the country in general that it should be enacted, I admit that you have to deal with a very special case. You have to deal with a class of men who are small tenants, and who, owing to circumstances—whether by their own fault, whether by the fault of their landlords, the fault of legislation by this House in former Parliaments, or from whatever cause—are in a position of exceptional difficulty. And, he says, I am prepared to deal with the case of these small tenants by putting them on a different footing to that which applies to the case of larger tenants. He names a limit of £30 as typical of the class which ought to be exceptionally treated; but I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he is ready to substitute some other figure. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell) was, I think, perfectly right in calling the attention of the Government to a fact that is too often forgotten—that you have not only to deal with a present emergency, but that you must look to the interest of the country in the future. In the belief that this exceptional provision should be confined to those on whom the pinch and stress has come, I shall vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, it was a mistake to suppose that the clause would

  1805
  confer upon the Irish tenant property which he had not got. It simply enabled him freely to use the property which he had. Her Majesty's Government thought that the 13th clause of the Land Act of 1870, which they regarded as an unwarrantable interference with the tenant's interest, ought to be repealed. By the Land Act of 1870, protection was given by Parliament to the Irish tenant from year to year against disturbance by notice to quit—an operation which the purchaser or assignee of the yearly tenancy had to fear. The effect of the 13th clause was that if the landlord did not choose to accept the tenant, however unreasonably, the assignee had no protection whatever. The other House established a hard-and-fast rule that the landlord might, without any reason whatever, refuse to accept the assignee of the tenant, and, serving the dreaded notice to quit, put him out without any compensation, the effect of which, of course, was practically to destroy the right of assignment, because the purchaser, knowing that, though assignee, he would thus be at the mercy of the landlord, would give nothing for the tenancy. Her Majesty's Government thought that the landlord should have power to object to the new tenant, but only on reasonable grounds; and that power, accordingly, they proposed to leave to him. More than that he did not think that any fair landlord would ask for. The proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) would establish a limit to the operation of the 1st clause of, say, £30. But the objection to all these arbitrary lines was that they were founded on no real principle. Why should they do for a man who was rented at £30 what they would not do for another rented at £30 10s.? Another objection to the proposal was that it was not to limit the clause by the valuation, but by the rent of the holding, so that there would be the strongest inducement for the landlord to carry on the process of raising his rent in order to get the farm above the prescribed limit. Further objection to the Amendment was that it might encourage the attempts of owners to avail themselves of hard times, when tenants could not pay, to consolidate their farms for the purpose of placing them beyond the operation of the Bill. His hon. Friend said that the tenants above the limit named in the
  1806
  Amendment were more independent than those below it, and that statement of his hon. Friend would be perfectly intelligible to him if they had anything to do with the freedom of contract which he spoke about. But they had nothing to do with freedom of contract here, or with the rules of political economy, except that it seemed to him a very sound economical principle that a man should be at liberty to sell his property for what it would fetch. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell) had said that the clause would prejudice whole generations of Irish tenants, who, he thought, would be damaged by the increased amount they would have to pay for their farms. It seemed that hon. Members could never get rid of the notion that tenants in Ireland were constantly buying and selling their farms. That idea was utterly unfounded. The number of sales was extremely small. In Ulster, where free sale had always existed, there was not more than one sale in two generations. But he had still another objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member, and it was this—that on farms of over £30 one looked for a better class of tenants, as well as for the greatest amount of improvement in cultivation; but what possible encouragement would a tenant have to adopt improvements if he was not to be allowed to sell his interest to the best advantage? The right of sale had acted admirably in Ulster, where it not only secured the landlord his arrears of rent, but the tenant a valuable, because saleable, interest in his holding, and the result was that land was cultivated far better in Ulster than any other part of the country. For these reasons he trusted the Committee would not accept an Amendment which, he believed, would only sow afresh the seeds of discontent and disorder amongst the tenant farmers of Ireland.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had omitted to state some of the most important items which the farmers would have to contend with. He had told the Committee that the effect of limitation on the landlord would be merely to remove the landlord's control from his property; but he had not stated that the landlord would have no security against the imposition of a bankrupt tenant upon him, inasmuch

  1807
  as it was impossible to prevent a sum greatly in excess of the value of the holding being paid. A case came before him a few days ago, which showed that the Bill as it stood would work unfairly to the landlord. A man, five years ago, took a farm on the English system for £500 a-year. In consequence of his not succeeding in his operations his landlord made him a reduction of £50 a-year for the last four years. The tenant in a short time had the farm in such an impoverished condition that he was willing to get out of it on any terms. He had never been able to put money, so to speak, on the soil, for he had lost his capital elsewhere. He (Mr. Brodrick) asked what interest that tenant had to sell in his holding, except, perhaps, the reduction in the rent which the landlord voluntarily made him? It seemed to him a bad principle to deprive the landlord of the power of choosing a tenant who would be able to pay a fair average rent. The Solicitor General for Ireland cited a case of a man being willing to expend £1,100 on an £80 holding, or about £20 of capital per acre. He (Mr. Brodrick) asked whether that was a typical case, especially in Ulster, where, if they could get a tenant with a capital of £7 or £8 per acre, it was the utmost they could get? He entirely denied that the present system had produced the vast amount of injustice on large holdings which the language of the Prime Minister had implied; and he challenged anyone to prove from the Reports of any Commission that such a condition of things existed. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite, exception had been taken to the term "rent," as distinguished from the term "valuation." Upon this point he wished to say that if the tendency would be for landlords to push up their rent in order to get above the operation of the clause, then he thought it would be better to substitute the term "valuation." The Amendment was one which he believed the Government ought not to reject without the fullest consideration, and if the hon. Member carried it to a division he should give him his support.
  MR. SHAWpointed out that in nine cases out of 10 the persons who took large farms in Ireland had not the capital to work them. This class of farmers
  1808
  was not generally successful throughout Ireland. Unfortunately, there was such a liking for sport there that almost immediately a man got possession of a farm of 400 or 500 acres he purchased a hunter and indulged in other luxuries. The custom of selling farms had become very general all over Ireland, by permission of the landlords, and it was therefore unwise to limit the right, because it would work very great injustice, and would, moreover, stir up the elements of another agitation. The men who were most prominent in the present agitation were those who were excluded from the Act of 1870.
  MR. R. H. PAGETconsidered there was great force in the remarks of the hon. Member who had just addressed the Committee. It was only right, when the Attorney General for Ireland argued that every man should have the right to sell that which he possessed, and that there should be no limitation placed on that right of sale, to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman how many limitations of the kind there were in the Bill? The clauses of the Bill abounded in exceptions and limitations of the right of sale. Clause 9, with reference to leases, had these words—
  "And the tenancy shall during the continuance of such lease be regulated by the provisions of that lease alone, and shall not be deemed to be a tenancy to which this Act applies."
  The holders, therefore, of judicial leases were excluded from the right of free sale. Again, Clauses 10 and 11, where the right to create fixed tenancies was given to the landlord, and the payment of fee farm rent by the tenant, provided—"The tenancies so created were not to be deemed tenancies to which this Act applied." The Committee had just heard from the Attorney General for Ireland that it was wrong to establish a limit of £30, because it was not founded on principle, and there was no reason why the limit should not be placed at £30 10 s.—in short, that it would create immense difficulty to introduce into the Bill any limit whatever. But it must not be forgotten that in Clause 17 the limit of £150 was set to the power of contracting out of the Act; and it might, on precisely the same principle, be argued that the line of £150 was wrong, because there was no reason why it should not be extended to tenants rated at a less annual value

  1809
  than £149 10 s. If the clause did not fix a distinct limit, he was entirely at a loss to know what the word "limit" meant. There were again, in Clause 46, a number of limitations relating to the demesne lands and other property to which the Act did not apply, and Clause 47 provided that existing leases "should remain in force as if the Act had not passed." Why, the Bill throughout bristled with clauses referring to tenancies "to which this Act does not apply," and when the right hon. and learned Gentleman based his argument against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk upon the statement that it was wrong, as a matter of principle, to attempt to introduce any limit because all limitations were wrong, he (Mr. Paget) said he had entirely forgotten the character of his own Bill. There was one point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman which he thought worthy of a moment's consideration. He understood the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be that, previous to the Act of 1870, any Irish tenant had the right to assign his holding at Common Law, and that this right was destroyed by the Act of 1870. Now, what was the nature of this right? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had himself answered that question when he told the Committee that "it was of no commercial value, because the moment it was assigned the assignee could be turned out," and therefore the commercial value of the legal right to assign, which existed previous to the Act of 1870, amounted to nothing at all. But the Prime Minister went further, and the Committee were told that, by the Act of 1870, real property was created for the tenants. But the Act must then have created what it was never intended to create; and the Prime Minister, in his first speech on the Bill made this Session, told the House that it was a surprise to the Government to find that the result of the Act of 1870 was to give to the tenants of Ireland that which he and the then Government never intended to give them. But now, because the tenant had got by accident something which the Prime Minister had said it was never intended to give him, they were told that this right of the tenant must be completed because it was at first necessarily incomplete. Undoubtedly what was given to the tenant rightly or wrongly, inten-
  1810
  tionally or unintentionally, was incomplete, and the Government were now prepared to give him a complete right. To do that might be right or otherwise; but he (Mr. Paget) ventured to submit that the argument by which it had been supported by the Prime Minister would not for one moment bear examination. He, therefore, contended that the arguments by which this claim was supported on behalf of the tenants were untenable—plainly so as a matter of logic-and that there was no reason why limitations of the application of the clause should not be introduced if necessary.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, it was clear that the general feeling of the Committee was, at any rate, against the figure named in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be withdrawn, especially as the general question of limitation would be raised by another Amendment on the Paper. For his own part, he had no wish to sit into September, and ventured to hope that the Committee would not have to listen to a discussion of the same point two or three times over.
  MR. GIBSONdesired to guard him-self against any possible concurrence with the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland, that the Government had made up their minds to yield to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford to strike out Clause 13 from the Act of 1870. That must not be allowed to pass without challenge, and it must not be supposed that it was a proposition that would be yielded to without a large amount of discussion. The clause was deliberately framed, and he was strictly accurate in saying that it was placed in the Bill on the Motion of Earl Granville, and that it came before the House at the time accredited from the Government of the day. It would not be a matter of surprise, therefore, when the subject came on for discussion, that hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House declined to agree to its withdrawal without full discussion.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEappealed to the hon. Member for Falkirk to withdraw his Amendment, and, if necessary, to move it in the form of an Amendment to the proviso at the end of the clause. The proviso, he reminded the hon. Member, would afford a much more suitable opportunity for the discus-

  1811
  sion of the question of limitation than the part of the clause at that moment before the Committee. The Bunt was so low, and would exclude so many tenants who had an undoubted right to come within the provisions of the Bill, that if the present Amendment were carried to a division he should be obliged to vote against it.
  Mr. W. FOWLERsaid, he held in his hand the Bill of 1870 as it came down from the House of Lords, and with notes of the particular changes which were there introduced. It had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland that Clause 13 of that Act forbade all assignment by the tenant; but that was confined to tenancies held from year to year existing at the time of the passing of the Act. Without going into the question of the right of limitation, he thought the Committee ought not to run away with the idea that the 13th clause of the Act of 1870 was a general forbidding of assignment by the tenant. He was disposed to think that it was exceedingly difficult to place any limit to this section. If they once admitted that they were about to make a new code of law as between landlord and tenant, and then attempted to set up limitations, it was extremely difficult to do so unless they applied them to whole classes of estates and people. He had on the Paper an Amendment which proposed a limit of a different kind from the present. Again, he thought the limitation by a money figure would work very awkwardly; indeed, he did not see how it would work at all in the present state of confusion and dispute which existed throughout the country. While he felt that the question was one of immense difficulty and that there were others arising from the new code which were in themselves so difficult that they must not he discussed in a hurry, but with care and patience, and with a desire to get to the bottom of the whole matter, still he recommended the hon. Member for Falkirk not to press his Amendment to a division. If a division must be taken on the question of a money limit, he thought it would be taken with greater advantage on the limit of £100.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he honoured very much the spirit shown by the last speaker, and wished it were more common on the Benches opposite. He de-
  1812
  precated most earnestly any attempt to hurry the discussion on the Bill, such as was shown by hon. Members opposite when they constantly cried "Question!" and "Divide!" This had been very obvious during the speech of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell), who, in criticizing the clause, had stated his case with such complete fairness, and who had never wandered by one word from the point raised by the Amendment. For his own part, he believed that the more carefully the Committee discussed the important matter contained in the early part of the Bill the sooner the end of the Bill would be reached. On the other hand, if the work was scamped, so to speak, and the clauses hurried through, it would be found when they got a little further into the clauses that the confusion in which the Bill was at present involved would become a great deal worse. One of the strongest reasons why the Committee should not be so anxious to save time was that they had not got their definitions in order. He had himself heard the Prime Minister say they had created a "tenant right;" but when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) repeated those words, the Prime Minister said he had used the term "tenant interest." Therefore, he regretted to remind the Committee that they did not even then know what it was they were discussing. Again, that which had been called by the Prime Minister both "tenant right" and "tenant interest," he had himself also described as "goodwill" by an analogy which might be supposed to hold between a tenancy and certain trading occupations. Therefore, according to the varying phases of the Premier's mind, they had every possible definition and every sort of difference of idea. Then with regard to Clause 13 of the Act of 1870. They found the Attorney General for Ireland making use of a most extraordinary argument, in saying that in a normal condition of things there was not more than one sale in two generations. But that, he contended, was not a normal condition of things. As they had, according to the Premier, confirmed tenant right, the moment that right was confirmed by this Bill the tenant would want to sell it, because it was only the present tenants who would get any benefit from the Bill; it would not be

  1813
  the tenants who wanted to become the landlords of the future. When it was fully understood that 200,000 people were going to have the power to sell what they had never paid for, the absurdity of the argument of the Attorney General for Ireland that only one sale would take place in two generations was very apparent. But he must remind the Prime Minister that when the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was before the House last year, he himself accepted a limit, he believed, of £30 beyond which that Bill was not to apply. It might be that £50 was a more convenient figure than £30 in the present instance; but as the principle of limitation was introduced into the Bill he had referred to, and was considered a good one, it was difficult to see why it should not be also admitted in the present Bill.
  MR. RAMSAYthought he was entitled to address the Committee after the representation which had been made in opposition to his views on that side of the House. He had no objection, if the Committee would allow him, having regard to the difficulty which had been stated as between rent and value, to amend his Amendment by substituting for the words on the Paper the words "which does not exceed the annual rent of £50." He reminded hon. Members who had listened to the discussions on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill that the argument of limitation was supported on the sole ground that there were two classes of tenants in Ireland, and that there must be some line at which to draw a distinction. There was one class of men so dependent that there was no possibility of their making a free contract, and there was another so independent that they were perfectly well able to make a free contract with the owners of the land in Ireland. The Bill was intended to benefit a poor class which demanded the sympathy of the people of this country; but he believed that no measure would do much to alleviate the distress of the small occupiers, to whom he believed it would do no good to give the lands even without money and without price.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the Amendment had better be disposed of.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I must say I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should not extend to his
  1814
  own Friend and supporter the Member for Falkirk the courtesy which is generally extended to Members when they desire to amend their proposals. I would point out that the hon. Member for Falkirk, in his opening remarks, said he had no exclusive preference for a particular limit, although he argued on the assumption that there should be some limit. I think it would be but courtesy, in accordance with the ordinary practice of the House, that the hon. Member should be allowed to withdraw his Amendment and re-submit it to the Committee in the form which he desires. Of course, the Committee will exercise their discretion as to the mode in which they will deal with the Amendment; but I think the best course will be to allow the hon. Member to withdraw it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I dissent altogether from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which is founded upon an entire misapprehension of the facts of the case. It is perfectly true that it is usual to allow a Member who proposes an Amendment to make alterations in it, even at the last moment, for the purpose of making it clear. But this is simply a case of proposing an Amendment entirely different from the original. The Committee will see that a holding rented at £30 is one thing and a holding valued at £50 is a totally different thing, and means a holding rented at between £60 and £70.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he accepts the principle involved in the Amendment? If that is so his observations will be in point; but if he declines to accept the principle, I contend that he should allow the hon. Member for Falkirk to put his proposal in the form which the hon. Member considers most favourable.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Government think that the only safe method of limitation is by introducing at a certain line freedom of contract; and we intended to propose, if there were to be any limitation at all, that it should be in that shape. But my point is, that when a particular proposition has been made to the House, and has been debated for a couple of hours, it is better that it should be disposed of instead of being passed by without any judgment being pronounced by the Committee.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSpointed out to the Committee that by the arrangement indicated by the right hon. Gentleman there would be two divisions; whereas, if the proposal of the hon. Member to amend his Amendment were accepted there would be but one. He repeated the statement made by his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, that all through the discussion the Amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk had been distinctly argued on the principle and not with respect to the particular figure inserted in the Amendment. He had a most complete recollection that the hon. Member himself, in his opening statement, actually said that he did not lay any stress upon the figure 30, and that he was prepared to substitute the figure 50. That had been throughout the general opinion of the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the Committee that there would have to be two divisions if the Amendment was not withdrawn in order to insert £50. It was quite within the competence of any hon. Member to move that the word "thirty" be omitted.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "rent," and insert the word "valuation,"—(Mr. Fitz Patrick,)—instead thereof.
  Question, "That the word 'rent' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word "valuation' be there inserted, put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "thirty," and insert the word "fifty,"—(Mr. Fitz Patrick,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty,' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, before the Question was put, he wished to ask whether it was competent for a Member to move a succession of Amendments, each one involving an increase of, say, £1 upon the other? Suppose a sum of £50 was proposed to be inserted, was it competent to Members to move that £51, £52, and so on, be inserted? He believed the present proceeding was
  1816
  irregular, and that a division should be taken once for all in accordance with previous decisions on points of this kind, otherwise the reductions proposed might be interminable.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the Committee negative the Amendment to insert the word "fifty," it will be competent to any hon. Member to move that another sum be inserted.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'fifty,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'the annual valuation of which does not exceed fifty pounds,' be there inserted."
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is not necessary, as far as the Government is concerned, to renew the debate; but I wish to point out that this was the limit introduced, unfortunately I think, into the Land Act of 1870, but for a very different purpose. It was introduced for the purpose of allowing freedom of contract at a certain point; but it did not exclude from a free disposal of the interest, which, we think, should be an equitable interest existing in law. Her Majesty's Government, of course, regard the Amendment in its present form with feelings of somewhat diminished intensity; but our objections to it are absolutely of the same force as they were to the figure of 30.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 140; Noes 243: Majority 103.—(Div. List, No. 224.)
  MR. BOURKEsaid, there was a point which he wished to raise which limited the tenant right to farms on which the tenantry resided; but as his object was covered by the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson), he should not move.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would see his way to go, at any rate, some distance in the direction of the Amendment he was about to propose. He could understand a wide sympathy existing for those occupying tenants who were themselves working men, and worked their farms by the aid of their families. He could also have great sympathy for those who, although they did

  1817
  not actually exist on the farm, had, by industry and thrift, two or three farms. These classes formed a meritorious and industrious tenantry who were deserving of every consideration. His Amendment, therefore, made the distinction clearer between those tenants who occupied and those who sub-let; and, although it might not be the best way of dealing with the question, he ventured to think there was substantial justice underlying his proposition. He was fully conscious that this was not the intention of the Prime Minister, or of his Colleagues; and, therefore, he presented his Amendment, which needed no lengthened argument to support it, in perfect good faith, and in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to make some concession in the direction which he had indicated.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 8, after "applies," insert "and in actual occupation of the holding."—(Mr. Gibson.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, if his right hon. and learned Friend would turn to the Definition Clause he would see the word tenant defined as meaning "a person occupying land." If, accordingly, the tenant sub-let his holding, he ceased to be "tenant" within the provisions of the Bill. The tenant was, in short, the person in occupation.
  MR. GIBSONaccepted the statement of his right hon. and learned Friend; and he would not press the matter further at that stage of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that, as he understood, the Government proposed to establish on those holdings which were not subject to the Ulster Custom a new custom or tenant right, and that the regulations relating to the sale under that custom were contained in this clause, but that the regulations in this clause were not meant to control the Ulster Custom or usage. That being so, his Amendment would not in any way affect any holding subject to the Ulster Custom. But the custom which the Government proposed to establish outside Ulster differed from the Ulster Custom. Now, it was quite clear that outside Ulster a different state of relations between landlords and
  1818
  tenants prevailed, as compared with the relations between landlords and tenants within that Province; and, therefore, he desired by his Amendment to make provision for certain cases which were likely to arise. The Committee would bear in mind that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had just stated that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give the tenant the right of selling anything he had not got; and he was quite willing to suppose that a tenant in Ireland was, in this respect, in the same position as any other individual—that was to say, he could not sell anything which he had not created, or bought, or inherited. There were persons on estates in Ireland who had neither bought nor inherited tenant right; and, therefore, he thought some words should be inserted in the clause to enable the Court to deal with cases of this kind when they came before it. With this view, he proposed to add words that would make it clear that, while the Committee, on the one hand, were desirous of protecting tenants improvements, and giving them the right to get compensation for such improvements, and for tenant right where they had either inherited or bought it—that it was not the intention of the Committee to allow a tenant who had neither bought nor inherited it to sell any part of his tenant right.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 8, after the word "may," insert "except in the cases hereinafter in this section specially mentioned."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked what were the intentions of the Government with regard to cases similar to that which he would describe to the Committee, and of which there were any number that could be instanced to his personal knowledge. There were men in Ireland known as "gombeen men," who acquired, by lending money to small tenants, their rights and interest in their occupancies; and he was acquainted with one case where fully 10 or 12 small farms were in the hands of a person of the kind he had alluded to. Therefore, he asked, was that man to be considered a tenant in occupation under this Bill, having acquired the tenant right in a holding for which he had paid only a nominal sum? In his opinion, there ought to be a pro

  1819
  vision of the kind which had just been proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex inserted in the clause, for the exclusion of such persons from the operation of the Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to the observations of the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham), I may say that I think the question raised by him is substantially and entirely disposed of by the conversation which has just taken place between the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. It is the intention of the Government to fix the tenant's interest where it now subsists—namely, in the real occupier, consequently no transaction between the "gombeen man" and the tenant can come within the scope of the Bill. The Bill would take no cognizance of such a person whatever. But it appears to me that such an Amendment as that suggested by the noble Lord is unnecessary, because, if I understand aright, he has in view the making of a substantial and improved proposition, these words being merely words of reservation, pointing to some other operative Amendments which the noble Lord is going to introduce, the nature of which I am not at present acquainted with. Now, the Amendment before the Committee I think is unnecessary, because the noble Lord will, when he makes his operative proposals, put them in strong indicating words; and, therefore, I hope we may pass over this point without prejudice to the proposals of the noble Lord.
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, in the case of the transaction of the "gombeen man," the tenant was got rid of, and the" gombeen man" actually became the occupier of the property. He maintained that there was no provision under the Bill for the protection of the man who had sold his right in the way indicated, and a valuable property was being created for the money lender, for which he had only paid a nominal sum; and, therefore, it was but reasonable that an Amendment should be inserted to meet the case.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)was understood to say that the "gombeen man," if in occupation as tenant, and accepted as such by the landlord, must, of course, be
  1820
  recognized and treated as tenant by the Bill.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he was willing, by leave of the Committee, to withdraw the preliminary Amendment which he had moved. There was one question, however, which, no doubt, the Attorney General for Ireland would answer. Was he right in saying it was quite understood that the restrictions in Clause 1 were not intended to apply to time Ulster Custom so far as free sale was concerned?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law)said, there was no intention to alter the Ulster Custom by the regulations contained in the clause; but it was hoped that when the Bill passed, it would be in such a form that the Ulster tenants, like other tenants, would find it convenient to avail themselves of this statutory right of sale.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he had known instances of persons getting hold of property in the manner alluded to by the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham); but he had never known the law of property interfered with because these persons were "gombeen men."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSreminded the Committee that, a few days ago, he had asked the Prime Minister when he would furnish the words proposed as alterations to the 2nd clause. At that time he had intended to press the point; but the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was, he thought, satisfactory—namely, that it would be better to see in what shape the 1st clause stood before they came to deal with the actual wording of the section. He wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the question of how they could best got a clear notion and definition of what it was that the tenant could sell; and that was the main object of the Amendment he lied placed on the Paper. It appeared to him that great confusion of ideas prevailed amongst the Committee with regard to this subject; some hon. Members thinking that the tenant who had created improvements had the right to sell everything that could possibly be sold in connection with the tenancy; whilst others took an entirely different

  1821
  view. He asked for a definition of what the tenant actually could sell, because the words of the clause, "his interest," were extremely vague, and carried with them no definite idea. He wanted to draw the attention of some hon. Members behind him—particularly those from Ireland—to this fact. They appeared to think, if you allowed the tenant to sell without defining what it was he had to sell, that you could afterwards limit what he could sell by limiting the price. They said, if the tenants could sell their full interest, the proper course was to limit the price at which the tenant could sell. But that suggestion was open to answer, because if you once allowed the tenant's right to sell absolutely, there was clearly a difficulty when you once fully acknowledged the power of the tenant to sell his interest to limit the price at which the tenant could sell. He did not say there were not certain limits which could be put on the right of sale; but the matter was one which required very careful consideration on the part of hon. Members; for, after having given the power to sell, he thought that the tenant might say—"It is very hard to limit me after giving me the right to sell." There ought to be a clear and definite understanding as to what the tenant could sell, and what he could not. Supposing that the Bill of 1870 had not passed, what was it that the tenant would have had a right to sell? He clearly would only have had a right to sell that which he had—namely, an unexpired tenancy. He was to have the full benefit of all his improvements, and, if he had paid money on entering the farm, either with the expressed or implied assent of the landlord, he would be entitled to have that recouped. He could sell his improvements and receive back the money he had paid; but all he could sell beside was the unexpired term of his tenancy, and, he being a tenant from year to year, that was not of high marketable value. That, he understood, was the foundation of the argument of the Prime Minister; for, when he introduced the Bill, the Prime Minister said that what the tenant had to assign was so small that it was little worth giving or receiving. The Prime Minister founded the power to sell in this Bill upon the Act of 1870, and what that Act did was, not to put money in the pockets of the tenants, but to secure them in their hold-
  1822
  ings, in order that they might work out the land to the best advantage. The proposition advanced by those who represented Ireland at that time was that the tenant had a right to continual occupation, subject to the payment of rent, and also that he had a right to sell his interest to any solvent tenant to whom the landlord could make no reasonable objection. That was the contention of the Irish Party at that time; and what was the answer of the Prime Minister? He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) contended that the Act of 1870 was passed, not to give the tenant the right to sell, but to secure him in his holding; and the Prime Minister in 1870 said the Government wanted to shelter the tenant from loss by eviction and to make that shelter effectual. Therefore, the object of the Act of 1870 was clearly not to put anything in the tenant's pocket except what he got through having security. It was distinctly stated that the object was not to give the tenant a paramount and permanent interest in his holding; but that was the whole position of the Government at the present time. The Bessborough Commission, considering this question of free sale, said in their Report—
  "We say that the tenant, upon whom has been conferred fixity of tenure and fair rent, will be in a position differing little from the owner of the soil, and ought not to be unnecessarily deprived of any ordinary incidents of property; and, therefore, he should be at liberty to sell."
  That was the particular thing the Government said was never meant. They fought against it, and in 1870 said their object was to give the tenant effectual shelter. But, if that was coupled with the restrictions in Clause 13 of the Bill, it became clear what Parliament meant at that time. What the Prime Minister then asked Parliament to do was to give shelter to the tenant, but not the right to sell. Now, what had a tenant to sell when he left his farm, not by reason of eviction, but because he left for some reason of his own? If he left at the expiration of his term, what could he recover? He would have a right to recover from the landlord the value of the improvements he had made; and probably, if he had paid something to the outgoing tenant with the landlord's assent, he ought in justice to recover that. But he had no claim against the

  1823
  landlord for anything else. The argument of the Government was that under the Act of 1870 the tenant had a mysterious share in the soil, which he could not sell, but which made him practically the proprietor, and was entitled, therefore, to get a higher price than he could have got before this tenant right, for which he had not paid a farthing, came into operation. He happened to be the tenant for the time being, and was to be invested with a right given absolutely for nothing. The Act of 1870 gave to the tenant absolute security in his holding while he was there; but the Government were now proposing to take away from all incoming tenants for the future what they would possess under the Act of 1870, and to make them pay for all future time to the outgoing tenants that which was given to them free in 1870. What the tenants were to be required to pay for was security; but without this Bill they would have that free as a birthright. What was the practical result? If there was one thing more than another that the tenant wanted when he went into possession it was the use of all the capital possible with which to work the farm. When the question of perpetuity of tenure was being discussed some time ago, the Prime Minister used a remarkable argument. He said that if that was carried into effect it would be found that all that active and energetic class which did not require any permanent stake in the soil, but existed by the intelligent and profitable application of capital to farming, would be absolutely prescribed, and no man would be found to put spade or plough into the land unless he could purchase it as a permanent estate. Now, the Government were doing something very similar to that—the same thing, but not in precisely the same degree; for they said the tenant should not go into his holding unless he could pay something which he could not spare, and practically had not got. The ultimate result would be, unless the tenant's interest was more clearly defined, men who were tenants from year to year would be turned into a sort of perpetual leaseholders. He was not sure that that was a point at which all wished to arrive. Then there was another point which ought to be carefully cleared up, and this was the proper time to raise it. They had asked
  1824
  several times of what this tenant right was made up. They had been told a good many things, and on the second reading the Prime Minister had introduced an additional element, for which at the time he thought no one was prepared. As he understood the Prime Minister, the accidental tenant was the man who was to put into his pocket the value which his holding had in consequence of the scarcity of land in the particular district; and the Prime Minister said tenant right excluded the excess which was found in open biddings for holdings in Ireland, because of the scarcity of land as compared with the demand for it. Just as in this country when one article was rare the price might go beyond a fair value, so in Ireland, through the necessity of the much closer bidding for land, the buyer was ready to give more than he ought to give, and more than he could afford to give, and that excess was the second element of the tenant right. Were they to really accept that as what the tenant could sell? If so, it was difficult to see why that should be applied to land alone. One could hardly conceive that it was not to apply to land in the neighbourhood of a town; and, if so, then it must apply to the houses built on the land; and, therefore, the increased value of land, and the buildings upon it, in the neighbourhood of growing towns, owing to the scarcity of the supply, was to go, not to the landlord, but to the tenant. He would like to know how far that doctrine could be carried, because land in the City of London was valuable because of the scarcity in comparison with the demand; and, if that was what was meant, it was time to look about. He saw nothing in the Bill including that, and if that was the intention there must be some safeguard; otherwise they would be in an absolutely hopeless state of confusion in dealing with the other parts of the Bill. Then, as to what the tenant had to transfer, his holding was his means of livelihood; but he could not sell his means of livelihood. They all knew that the conditions of holdings in Ireland were all different. If he held land under a good landlord his holding would be much more valuable than if he held under a bad landlord. But if the holding was put up to public auction, was the good conduct of the landlord to be

  1825
  put forward as part of the price of the holding? He did not know whether that was contemplated or not. Again, it was undoubtedly the case that a large quantity of land was held at a low rent, and some at a rack rent. Was it to be held that the accidental tenant of the low-rented farm was to pay all the difference between the low rent and the rack rent unless the landlord made a bargain to raise the rent? That was not fair. That question was considered by the Duke of Richmond's Commission; and in the Report of the minority of that Commission, speaking of that point, they said—
  "We believe that any new legislation ought to follow more closely the Ulster example, especially in respect of what is known as free sale and tenant's interest. There are objections to the unqualified application of that system to every holding, which may be thus stated. Tenant's interest might in many cases exist with no difference between fair rent and low rent actually paid, and this value, where no tenant right payment has been made at the beginning of the tenancy, is not morally the property of the occupier, and to treat it as such by legislation would be to wrong the landlord."
  Then, there was another point—the unearned increment. Suppose a tenant held a holding of £100 a-year, and the landlord, by enterprize and industry, had brought a railway there, and a trade sprang up there, was the tenant to have the advantage of that entirely? Those advantages would be in perpetuity, and the tenant would be able to sell his tenant right at a much higher rate than if they were not taken into consideration.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 8, after the word "sell," to insert the words "such interest as under any contract, express or implied, between himself and his landlord, or by any legal custom or usage he may then have in unexhausted improvements or in the unexpired term of."—(Sir Richard Cross.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GLADSTONE: Before speaking generally on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I think I may as well notice the point which he raised at the conclusion. He said—"Is it to be held that when a landlord has brought a railway into the neighbourhood, or by other measures has added to the value of the farms, that increased value is to form part of the tenant right?" Most
  1826
  certainly, in point of right, that would not form part of the tenant right; and if the landlord is wise he will take care that it shall not form part of the tenant right. And that word "tenant right" is not a word that I have chosen. It is so much in usage, and it is difficult to exclude it from the discussion; but the word I have always chosen is the word "assignment," because I do not want to raise the question at all how far this value of assignment is in the nature of a right, but wish to treat it rather as it is—as a matter of fact. I have never laid down the doctrine that the tenant was entitled to the whole of the difference between a fair rent and full rent which arises from the scarcity of land in Ireland. I do not know that it is any part of my duty to prescribe or attempt to lay down an abstract proposal on the subject. I think the more we avoid abstract doctrines in dealing with this subject the more practical progress we shall make. But what I must repeat is this. I was describing the actual position of the tenant—and, unquestionably, the occupancy of the land, which is what the tenant has to sell, does bear value in Ireland which it would not otherwise bear in consequence of the scarcity of land. But for that it is impossible to suppose that that would happen which constantly has happened—namely, that when a landlord has evicted a tenant from a farm under the Land Act, he does not pay compensation for disturbance, but that it is paid by the incoming tenant. I dealt with that, not as a matter of right, but as a matter of fact. That is an actual interest of the existing tenant, limited, however, by certain stipulations of the Land Act. I make that statement to ensure its being clearly understood that I lay down no abstract rule as to the property of the tenant, in the strict sense of the word, in that extra rent which is due to the extreme competition for land. I think it is not very easy to make out, perhaps, if that were an abstract doctrine, a claim either for the landlord or the tenant, in so far as that disposition may be the result of that competition and excess in the demand as compared with the supply. We have had before us, in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, two questions which are quite distinct. One is the question whether there is any element of value in tenant right in Ireland beyond the

  1827
  tenant's improvements; and the other is the question whether it is wise to attempt to define tenant right. On the first of these we hold that there was an element of value in the tenant right beyond improvements; but that is an element of value which attaches to the fact of occupancy, and it has been indicated by the willingness of the tenant to pay for obtaining it. As to the expediency of attempting to define the tenant right, without having any absolute conviction, the more I think of it the less I think it would be expedient to make that attempt. It is quite plain, in my opinion, that the definition proposed by the right hon. Gentleman will not do. I have no doubt he has bestowed great pains upon this definition; but I think it would be unsafe to adopt it. The tenant's interest is the interest made up of what the law gives or shall give him. We are going to operate on the tenant's interest in all the clauses of this Bill. We shall adopt from time to time enactments which, I hope, will improve the tenant's interest. There seems to be a general admission that the Court, under the circumstances of Ireland, shall have the power to fix a judicial rent. There seems to be also an admission that the judicial rent, once fixed, must endure for a certain time. I do not want to gain any surreptitious advantage; but these admissions are generally made. But, supposing that we may agree in considering that the Court shall fix a judicial rent, and that that rent, when fixed, shall be followed by a statutory term—15 years is the period in the Bill, but it has been proposed to increase it and to reduce it—I do not think we should increase or reduce it for the purpose of this argument; but if you adopt any provision of that kind—and the majority of the Committee seem disposed to adopt it—you will at once add to the value of the tenant's interest. The right hon. Gentleman puts the tenant's interest under the head of a contract between himself and his landlord; and, secondly, under the head of legal custom or usage. That element of contract, derived from a statutory term, will not flow from the legal custom, but from the enactment of the Bill. I think that is an indication of my meaning when I say it would be unwise to attempt to define exhaustively the tenant's interest at the time when we are going to consider that matter
  1828
  under the different clauses, and we do not know in what shape the interest may come out from the discussion. There-fore, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I am only using this as an illustration. Evidently, the object is to prevent the invasion of the landlord's rights. The landlord's rights will not, in my opinion, be infringed. The landlord's rights are to be defended mainly under one head only; and, secondarily, perhaps, under neither—mainly, of course, by preserving to the landlord the right of obtaining, in the shape of increased rent, or in the shape of judicial rent, the fair rent of the land which we shall hereafter have to discuss. The landlord may possibly have an interest in preventing tenant right from running to an excess, partaking of no rational explanation by reference to improvements, or to any such interest as has usually been known in parts of Ireland other than Ulster. But these are the limits of the landlord's interest; and so far as the landlord's interest depends on the augmentation of rent, that is provided for in other parts of the Bill. As far as it depends on the value to be given for the assignment, that is a question that will be raised at a future time. There is no necessity for our defining the interest; but, if we look to the general argument of the right hon. Gentleman, what does it mean? He admitted, in the first place, that we do not constitute any new claim on the landlord. We did in 1870, but we do not now; and he says that the ultimate result will be that the landlord will have to pay. But against the speculative and hypothetical argument of the right hon. Gentleman I place an assertion, founded on historical experience, that in Ulster, where tenant right has prevailed, and where it has prevailed to a greater extent than it is likely to do under the provisions of this Bill as it stands, rent has exceeded the rent paid in the rest of Ireland, and has increased, as we know from undeniable figures, very much faster than elsewhere. Therefore, I cannot admit the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman. Then he asks, what has the the tenant to sell? What he has to sell has to be tested in this way—is anybody ready to give anything for it or not? He says that I laid down the abstract doctrine that because a tenant has the means of livelihood in his occupation, therefore, that is in the

  1829
  market. I laid down no such abstract proposal. I said the tenant would have the means of livelihood in his occupation, and that his means of livelihood were fortified by the law which prevents his being removed except on a certain payment, and that that increased the value of his occupancy. Why is he not to have that? The right hon. Gentleman thinks it is extremely hard on the incoming tenant; but why is it hard that he should pay that which he is willing and desirous to pay? He only wants the opportunity and the opening to pay, and you are not satisfied with facilitating the way to do that, but you insist that for this thing, which has value, which in innumerable cases is paid for, he shall not pay at all. Why? Has it been inexpedient in Ireland? Has it produced bad effects? The hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) says it has. He denounces the Ulster Custom as vicious in principle and mischievous in effect. The united wisdom of the Bench below him had devised the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire, which declared it to be a matter of great importance that the Ulster Custom should be maintained. If that is so; if it is good for the outgoing tenant; if it has been proved to be good for the incoming tenant; and if it is proved that he desires to do that which you, in the tenderness of your interest, will not allow him to do, why do you prevent him from doing so, and deprive him of the right to sell the interest he now possesses, which policy and principle alike recommend? The present question is a narrower one. I frankly own the fair spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has sought to consider the arguments for this Bill. I separate from the general argument the question of a particular argument for a definition. I think I have shown that the definition he proposes is not practicable; and I think that as we progress with this Bill we shall do wisely, taking every just security for the landlord's interest, when we come to the proper provisions of the Bill, not to attempt to define the right—which means, after all, the occupancy—of the tenant, together with such incidents as it may please the Legislature to attach to it.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do now report Progress,
  1830
  and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Ritchie,)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
  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.

  MOTIONS.

    FISHING VESSELS' LIGHTS—REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
    RESOLUTION.
    MR. BIRKBECK, in rising to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the recommendations of the Select Committee of last Session on Fishing Vessels' Lights be carried out in accordance with the Report of the Committee, so far as it affects trawlers' lights;"
    said, he regretted there should be any necessity to bring this matter before the House; but he had no other alternative, because it affected the interests of a most important trade, and the safety of the lives of a valuable class of men. He admitted that there was a necessity for an alteration in the lights of fishing vessels. The Merchant Shipping Act of 1862 and the Sea Fisheries Act of 1868 were at variance with each other, and trawling smacks had been using an illegal light for many years. This was an international matter, and therefore it was of the more importance that it should be settled at once. The question of drift-net vessels had been settled, and the question was solely and entirely in relation to the lights required to be displayed by trawling vessels. They were in the habit of carrying a white foremast light; they also had to carry a side light, inasmuch as when in their occupation they were vessels under way the same as any ordinary sailing vessel. By the 25th clause of the Merchant Shipping Amendment Act power was given to a Joint Committee of the Board of Trade and of the Admiralty, by an Order in Council, to annul or modify any of the regulations or to make new ones; and the proposed alterations came under that clause. It was an obnoxious clause, because it gave a Departmental Committee power to vary regulations without coming to Parliament or consulting the

    1831
    fishing interest or the Mercantile Marine. On the 24th February, 1874, a Joint Committee of the Admiralty, Board of Trade, and Trinity Board, was appointed to draw up regulations to prevent collision at sea. Negotiations were carried on with all the principal maritime Powers. An Article, No. 10, was drawn up and agreed upon, and passed by an Order in Council, in August, 1879; and sub-section D was as follows:—
    "A trawler at work shall carry on one of her masts two lights, in a vertical line, one over the other, not less than three feet apart—the upper light red and the lower light green, and shall also carry the side lights required for other vessels."
    These regulations appeared in an Order in Council of the 14th of August, 1879, and were published in the usual way in The Gazette and in the local papers of the coasting towns, and that was the first intimation the fishing interest had of the changes. Meetings were called at the principal ports, and a representative conference was held at Great Yarmouth in October, 1879. The proposed regulations were unanimously condemned. The late President of the Board of Trade sent Commissioners to the various fishing ports to hear the objections of the fishing interest to the proposed regulations—the Commissioners being Mr. Gray, Captain Digby Murray, and Captain Weller, of the Trinity House—and they visited Great Yarmouth, Grimsby, Hull, Brixham, and Penzance, to hear objections; and in the following year they issued what was considered a most unsatisfactory Report, which was laid on the Table. In consequence of its being so unsatisfactory, the late President of the Board of Trade was asked that the enforcement of the regulations should be postponed from the 1st of September, 1880, to the 1st of September, 1881, and he agreed to the request, and also that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the objections of the fishing interest. After the General Election the present President of the Board of Trade also agreed to the appointment of the Committee. It sat early in June, and 37 witnesses were examined on behalf of the fishing interest from all parts of the United Kingdom. Their evidence was of a clear, convincing, and telling character. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the Board of Trade. The Committee unanimously
    1832
    found that Article 10 of the new regulations should be revised; that trawlers should not be compelled to carry side lights when trawling, nor two coloured masthead lights, but that they should retain the white light they had carried so many years; that drift-net vessels should carry two white lights instead of two red lights, as proposed by the Departmental Committee; that pilot boats should carry a red over a white masthead light; and, lastly, that for the future no alterations in fishing lights should take place without ample notice being given to those interested. After so strong a Report as this being made in their favour, the fishing interest made up their minds that their wishes would be acceded to; but he regretted to say that when the Departmental Committee met in January of this year, they made fresh recommendations which, as far as trawling vessels were concerned, did not carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee. They agreed that the trawlers should have a red masthead light, and a white light somewhere in the after part of the vessel. There was a strong feeling among the fishing interest that these regulations could not be carried out. In February he gave Notice of this Motion; but the fishing interest was astonished to find that on the 25th of April another Report—a third edition of the regulations—came out. He considered that Report was only another proof of the ignorance of those who concocted those regulations. The trawling interest objected to them; and in his opinion they would, if carried out, be admirably well calculated to bring about collisions and loss of life and property at sea. The trawlers were to carry a red light at the masthead, and also a white light in the after part of the vessel, somewhere en the gunwale. The red masthead light was not visible at best more than two miles at sea, and on a November night not more than one mile. The white light was certainly visible three or four miles off. Trawling smackowners contended that if this red masthead light were adopted, it certainly would be mistaken for the port light of a sailing vessel. The white light would not be seen in many positions. He was glad to see the Secretary of the Board of Trade present, for he had gone out with him to the North Sea to test these regulations, and he should be surprised if he

    1833
    did not find him in the same Lobby with himself on this question. The Departmental Committee contended that the white light was necessary to prove in what direction the trawling vessel was heading. The witnesses who were examined on the part of the Board of Trade displayed their ignorance as regarded fishing vessels. The white light had been the best means of preventing collisions, and its adoption had been recommended by the Smackowners' Insurance Association. He hoped the right hon Gentleman would take the matter into consideration, and give the trawling trade what they asked for, and which for the last 18 years had proved of the greatest advantage. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    MR. NORWOODsaid, he rose to second the Motion. He spoke as the Representative of a port which contained as many trawlers as any port in the United Kingdom. In the Humber there was something like 900 trawlers. In his own port there were as many as 460 registered trawlers, of a total value of £700,000, and affording employment to 25,000 persons, who were unanimously in favour of carrying the white light. It was said that there was the danger of collision from steamers and other vessels passing up and down and mistaking this light for some stationary light. But there was no possibility of any such mistake. In the first place, because the stationary lights were first class lights, electric in many cases, and with which the fishing lights were not for a moment to be compared. Then, the trawlers fished in large fleets and in well-known ground, and steamers passing up and down the Coast knew where to expect to find them. It was a remarkable fact that with the great traffic up and down the North-East Coast collisions with fishing vessels were comparatively rare. Then, as to the possibility of mistaking the white light of the trawler for the white light of the pilot vessel, he might observe that they rarely had more than four pilot vessels at a time cruising off the mouth of the Humber. The trawlers said they were a vast body, and that if a change was to be made it was reasonable that it should be made in the case of the infinitely smaller body, the pilots. As a Member of the Select Committee of last year, he complained very
    1834
    strongly of the manner in which it bad been treated. The question of lights was exhaustively investigated by the Committee—much evidence taken, and an unanimous conclusion arrived at in favour of the white light for trawlers—yet the Board of Trade referred that Report to the consideration of a Departmental Committee, consisting of the Registrar and the Hydrographer of the Admiralty, four members of the Board of Trade, and two Trinity House men, who were under the supervision and control of the Board of Trade. The result was that the unanimous decision of the Select Committee, in which the Secretary of the Board of Trade joined, was overruled by the Departmental Committee. He hoped that the House would insist that their Committee should be treated with respect. He had mentioned one of the best instances of the way in which the Board of Trade had overridden the wishes of the mercantile community, and he hoped that the House would express its opinion on the subject.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the recommendations of the Select Committee of last Session on Fishing Vessels' Lights be carried out in accordance with the Report of the Committee, so far as it effects trawlers' lights."—(Mr. Birkbeck.)
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he rose early in the discussion, with the hope that the statement he had to make on the part of the Government would be satisfactory to the hon. Members who had moved and seconded the Resolution. The position of the Government in relation to this matter had been stated both publicly and privately on more than one occasion, and the House was aware what that position was; but there seemed to be some confusion in the minds of hon. Members as to Departmental Committees, and the Departments of the Government by which they were appointed. He wished, therefore, to explain that in the case of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade the Board did not accept its Report as final, nor, indeed, had they expressed an opinion on the subject. They had, in fact, to consider the antagonistic Reports of two Committees, the Departmental Committee and the Select Committee of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) had expressed his sense of the disrespect with which

    1835
    that latter Committee had been treated; but it was a Committee appointed at the request of the fishing interests, and of its 11 Members seven represented places in which the trawling interest was powerful. It had done valuable work, no doubt; but it was not a tribunal so impartial as to merit more consideration than the House itself. It was appointed to inquire into the objections urged by persons connected with the fishing interests against the new regulations as to the lights to be carried by fishing vessels. Accordingly, none of its Members represented the shipping interests generally, which interests, however, the Government was bound to consider. If it were a question of fishing vessels alone, there would not be the slightest difficulty. The trawlers were in favour of their present illegal practice of carrying a single white light at the masthead; but representations had been made, both by foreign Governments and by the drifters, who were in favour of a more distinctive light. It was most desirable, if possible, to come to some international agreement in the matter before committing the fishermen of the country to the adoption of any particular light, and with that object he had caused circular letters—[Mr. NORWOOD: Fishing letters.]—to be sent asking the opinions of various parties interested. No replies had as yet been received from foreign Governments; but from the large shipping firms in this country more than 60 answers had been returned, of which 41 were against the proposal of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Birkbeck), and 14, including that of the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company, in its favour. In these circumstances, he hoped the House would not come to an immediate conclusion on the subject. The object of the Government was to promote some arrangement by which the lights used should be at once distinctive and self-descriptive, so as to announce three main facts—the kind of vessel, the direction of its head, and its being under command or otherwise. Of course, the peculiarity of trawling vessels was that, though they were under sail and had steerage way, they were not under command, and consequently they required a special light to distinguish them, on the one hand from vessels at anchor, and on the other from vessels under way and under command.
    1836
    It was difficult, however, with the limited number of combinations and permutations of red, white, and green lights, to find a light that would answer the purpose. The objection to the proposal of the hon. Member for North Norfolk was that if trawlers carried white lights they might be mistaken for pilot vessels or for vessels at anchor, while the multiplication of white lights on our coasts would render it more difficult for home-bound vessels to make the shore lights. The hon. Member for North Norfolk had said that the white lights in question had been carried for the last 18 years with perfect safety; but the statistics of the case compelled him to traverse that assertion. The figures showed that during the last three years alone 69 fishing vessels—not all trawlers, as far as he knew—had been sunk in collision, and 49 lives had been lost in consequence. Of these, there were no less than 39 collisions involving the loss of not less than 36 lives, which were collisions with other vessels, and not collisions of fishing vessels inter se; and from the evidence brought to his notice he could not doubt that some, at all events, of these collisions, probably the greater part of them, were due to a confusion of lights. Now, the Departmental Committee had made two recommendations. The Departmental Committee and they alone were responsible for those recommendations. He would not trouble the House with regard to the first recommendation of the Departmental Committee. With regard to the second recommendation, they differed from the conclusion of the Committee of the House of Commons. They said, with regard to the masthead, there should be a red light, with a white light below abaft the beams, on the taffrail or some other convenient place, and that the side light should be discontinued. The hon. Member for North Norfolk objected, in the first place, to the red light being at the masthead, because it might be mistaken in many cases for the light of a sailing vessel. It was also objected, he believed, that the white light, which was in the after-part of the ship, would be in the way of the steersman and prevent him from keeping a good look-out. A further objection was that the light would not be seen, because the sail would be in its way. He was not going to discuss those points. He

    1837
    merely wished to put them before the House. He thought they were all agreed, in the first place, that the object he had stated to the House was a desirable one to obtain—namely, that there should be a distinctive light; and he was not unwilling to say that they were all agreed that all the methods of securing that distinctive light which had hitherto been suggested were open to grave objections, and therefore he was not prepared, at the present moment, to adopt the Report of the Departmental Committee, or to adopt any other suggestion which had been made to him. But neither could he, until he had before him the opinions for which he had asked both from foreign Governments and from the shipping interest generally, adopt the conclusion of the hon. Member for North Norfolk. He was not altogether unfriendly to the hon. Member's proposal. He was certainly not unfriendly to the object the hon. Member had in view, and he would suggest to him that he should withdraw his Motion to-night, satisfied with the discussion to which it had given rise; and then he (Mr. Chamberlain) would undertake that as soon as he had obtained the replies to which he had referred, they should be laid on the Table of the House. He would then propose to refer those Papers, as well as all previous Papers on the matter, back to the Departmental Committee; but he would propose to add to that Departmental Committee, to which objection was taken that it was too much of an Official Committee, some hon. Members of the House, as Representatives of the trawlers as well as of the drifters and of general shipping. As to the new Regulations, he would undertake that they should not come into force until a further Report was made.
    MR. INDERWICKsaid, he thought the House ought to feel very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the trouble he had taken on this subject. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Birkbeck) would accept the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, it being, of course, thoroughly understood that the House would have an opportunity of discussing the regulations before they came into operation.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, it seemed to him that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman would simply
    1838
    make confusion worse confounded. In his opinion, they had before them all the evidence that was necessary, and they ought to endeavour to make an end of the question as soon as possible. All the witnesses from England, Scotland, and Ireland, said that a white light involved safety, and that red, green, and all the other rubbish, would lead to nothing but confusion. He hoped the hon. Member for North Norfolk would take a division on his Resolution, and thus put a stop to all this useless foolscap Correspondence. The matter should be dealt with without any further delay.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, he thought there was every reason to be satisfied with the tone of the discussion, and with the offer of the President of the Board of Trade, who appeared to be gradually coming round to the views of the hon. Member for North Norfolk, though the right hon. Gentleman had been hampered by the Office over which he presided, and the Reports of the Departmental Committee. The strong expressions of opinion would show him that it was necessary that the matter should be dealt with and settled. The old system had worked well for 18 years, and it was a pity that it was interfered with. The new system would be dangerous, and might cause a great loss of life. There were very few cases in which the lights had been the cause of collision. The difficulties had arisen from the Board of Trade desiring to have a new plan that would be theoretically perfect, for which they were willing to sacrifice one that had worked well. He thought his hon. Friend might be satisfied with the debate without pressing the matter to a division.
    SIR WILLIAM FFOLKESsaid, he had intended giving some account of an experimental trip to sea with the hon. Member for North Norfolk and the Secretary of the Board of Trade; but the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had made it unnecessary for him to do so. When it was said that 30 accidents had happened from trawlers carrying white lights, he should like to ask how many more would occur if they were compelled to carry red lights, which, as it was known, were very inferior to white lights? Their experience of the white light was that it was infinitely clearer than the red light, and was visible at a greater distance, and that notwithstand-

    1839
    ing that the red light was brought from the Board of Trade and the white light was taken from a fishing smack. A gunwale light in the after-part of the ship was perfectly dazzling to a man there, and it prevented them seeing the hull of a steamer at a distance of 30 yards, although her lights could be seen; and this was on a fairly light night. He should support his hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk if he pressed the matter to a division.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, it was clear that the balance of argument was entirely on the side of the hon. Member for North Norfolk. The right hon. Gentleman professed to be consulting the shipping interest and foreign nations. The Representatives of the shipping interest had spoken in that House. The success that had hitherto followed the efforts of the Government to obtain the concerted action of the Powers on other questions rendered it doubtful whether they would succeed on this question.
    SIR JOHN ST. AUBYNsaid, that his constituents were of opinion that the Report of the Select Committee should be upheld, and that trawlers should carry a white light. The offer of the President of the Board of Trade was fair and reasonable, and might, he thought, be accepted by the hon. Member for North Norfolk.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would accept the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade, who had met the matter in a very fair spirit. In the interest of human life it was necessary to make a change.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, it was not only a question of life, but also a question whether the Board of Trade would put an end to an important trade, because the seamen belonging to the trawlers intended absolutely to refuse to go to sea with the lights prescribed by the Board of Trade. He was glad to find the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had made his proposal; he only regretted such an arrangement had not been made sooner. He hoped, however, it would be distinctly understood that there was no disposition to place themselves in the hands of a Departmental Committee whose conclusions a Select Committee of the House of Commons had entirely set aside; and he thought that more consideration should
    1840
    be shown to the Report of that Select Committee, as there was a concurrence of opinion in the evidence of the ship-owners, skippers, and insurance officers, with which the Committee unanimously agreed in a Report drafted by their Chairman, the Secretary to the Board of Trade.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYbegged it would be understood that so long as the matter remained in its present state the seamen would enjoy their white light under all the conditions which they themselves preferred. As Chairman of the Committee, he must also state that all the other recommendations in their Report had been carried out with the exception of the white light. His own opinion was certainly in favour of the white light. The Departmental Committee had no disposition to run counter to the decision of the House of Commons' Committee; but as men having considerable experience in the general trade of the country, although not practical fishermen, he thought their opinion was entitled to respect, looking as they did at the question on all its sides, and not merely as a trawlers' question. He hoped the proposal of his right hon. Friend would be accepted in the spirit in which it had been offered.
    MR. BIRKBECK, in reply, said, he had hoped that his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade would have mentioned to the House the nature of their experience on Wednesday last in the North Sea, and would have told the House that, in his opinion, the recommendations of the Committee could not be carried out. He thought it most unfair that the letter describing the regulations should have been sent to foreign Powers without any intimation to them that the regulations could not be carried out. He trusted he would receive a distinct assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that this important matter would not be settled before the House had been afforded an opportunity of fully discussing it.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the House would have an opportunity of considering any new regulations that might be proposed—anything that differed from the present practice.
    MR. BIRKBECKsaid, he threw the whole responsibility resulting from this matter on the Front Bench. If disasters occurred from the proceedings of the

    1841
    Board of Trade, the Government must take the consequences. He begged to withdraw his Motion.
    MR. WILSONsaid, he had made careful inquiry into the subject the House had been engaged in discussing, and would read a telegram he had that day received from a gentleman of high authority resident in Hull, and who had made himself acquainted with the opinions of steamship owners whose vessels made, not dozens, but thousands of voyages across the North Sea. He said—
    "After consulting captains as well as shipowners, we are of opinion that the present lights used in vessels employed as trawlers are good and safe, and that any alteration would cause great confusion, collision, and possible loss of life."
    That, he believed, was as reliable as the information that had been procured by the Board of Trade.
    EARL PERCYobserved, that the House had been placed in a very peculiar and somewhat difficult position by the extraordinary conduct of the Board of Trade. It now turned out that the Reference by the Board to the Departmental Committee was of a very limited character, and that the Committee were entirely precluded from going into the question at large—they could, in fact, only approach the fringe of the matter—and the Board of Trade were at liberty, if they thought fit, to ignore any opinion they might express. The Secretary to the Board of Trade had stated that he did not feel at all aggrieved that his opinion as Chairman of the Committee had been overridden. Well, had he been selected as Chairman, he would certainly feel aggrieved if his opinion were regarded as useless by the head of his own Department. He trusted that in future the Board of Trade would appoint its Committees in such a manner as that they would be in a position to arrive at some definite conclusion on the subjects referred to them.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    POTATO CROP COMMITTEE, 1880 (IRE LAND).—RESOLUTION.
    MAJOR NOLAN, in rising to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that Her Majesty's Government should take steps to carry into effect such of the recommendations of the Potato Crop Committee of 1880 as relate to Ireland, by promoting the,
    1842
    creation and establishment of new varieties of the Potato; by facilitating the progress of further experiments as the best means of lessening the spread of the Potato Disease; and by bringing within the reach of small farmers supplies of sound seed to be obtained for cash payments,"
    said, that the question he was about to bring under the notice of the House of Commons was one of the utmost importance. The value of the potato crop in Ireland was subject to great variation. It was calculated by the Registrar General that in the year 1879 there had been a loss on the crop, as compared with former years, amounting to £6,000,000; while Professor Baldwin, a high authority on the subject, declared the loss to be as high as £8,000,000. It was said that the potato was a precarious crop; but the whole object of his Motion was to make it less precarious. A certain class of persons objected to Government aid being given; but the potato required special attention, and he believed it would be totally impossible for the small farmers of Ireland, unless the Government did something in the matter from time to time, to ensure for themselves a good crop of potatoes. Another reason for Government interference was that the late Government had interfered with very marked success, and, in fact, had behaved very well. The Irish Members initiated the idea that at a time of great emergency new seed should be found, and the late Government took it up and carried it out, for which he thanked them. He gave a great deal of credit to the late Government for what they did on the occasion, because they held the purse-strings and had the majority. Mr. Lowther, who was then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, listened patiently to the proposals of the Irish Members and took great pains in carrying them out, and he begged to return that right hon. Gentleman his heartfelt thanks for the assistance he had given. The suggestions which he now submitted were in accordance with the recommendations of a Select Committee of last year, composed not only of Irish Members but of English and Scotch Members interested in the subject. They examined several scientific witnesses, who were all agreed as to the way in which the potato disease was propagated. There was no doubt that it was propagated by means of fungi, each of which gave out millions of spores within 48 hours, and that ac-

    1843
    counted for the terrible rapidity with which the disease spread. The Government might assist in the determination of certain scientific points which were of great practical importance. One of them was the duration of the life of the potato plant. It appeared to be about 20 years; but Regents were thought to have a little more vitality than others. Champions seemed to be exhausted more quickly than others, because in Ireland the same trouble was not taken about the seed as was taken elsewhere. It was the duty of the Government to see that there was something to take the place of the potato that was being exhausted. It was of no use waiting for a famine before we began to consider what we should do. Where should we have been if Mr. Nicholls had not introduced the Champion? If a cemetery keeper had not taken a fancy to cultivate different seeds, Ireland would have been in a bad position at present. Mr. Nicholls might be called an inventor, only he could not patent his invention. Yes, but if such an invention could be patented, it would be worth people's while to produce new varieties. Because it was not worth any-one's while to produce new varieties, the Government ought to step in, by assisting a society where one existed and taking the initiative where there was none. There were special reasons for the action of the Government in the case of small farmers. Large farmers could choose their own seed. The lowland Scotch brought their seed from high altitudes and kept up the quality by constant changes. The small farmer could do nothing of the kind. His system, according to all the witnesses, was practically destructive; he lost three or four times as much as the large farmer, following the better system. It was the duty of the Government, in the circumstances, to help the small farmer; and the present was a very favourable time for doing it. The efforts might be made through the agency of the Board of Guardians. No seed merchant would send seed to Ireland for several years to come. They could not trust in Ireland to speculation in this matter. What he proposed was that the Boards of Guardians should have power to sell seed to small tenants, who would be enabled at a merely nominal expense to change their seed every second year. The seed should come from Scotland. He hoped
    1844
    the Government would undertake to carry out the Resolution which he had placed on the Paper, and which he begged now to move.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he rose to second the Motion. He thought the House, and especially those who were interested in Irish affairs, should be much obliged to the hon. and and gallant Member for having brought this important question before the House. In connection with it, the admirable qualities of the potato had been compared with the less nutritious character of Indian meal. After some experience of the use of Indian meal by the poor in Ireland, he could say that when the Relief Committees were at work in the winter of 1879, the only food that could be supplied easily and plentifully was Indian meal. The fear was lest its too exclusive use should produce dysentery and general poverty of blood; and those effects, unfortunately, were found in some of the most distressed districts, and were clearly traced to a diet of Indian meal. Everything showed the necessity of improving the stock of potatoes, and their superiority to meal in a country of which the climate did not permit corn to be grown in any great quantity. The population of Ireland, in consequence of the great failure of the potato crop in 1847 and 1848, was reduced from 8,000,000 to about 5,000,000. After the great Famine of 1847 and 1848 there was no very general failure of the potato crop which caused alarm to the Government of the country until the winter of 1879. The shortness of the crop of 1877 induced the people to take less care than they ought to have done in the selection of the seed for the crop of 1878, and that operated with still greater effect on the spring of 1879.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, if the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Galway had not been in such a hurry to bring his own proposals before the House, the Government would have made proposals which would have been more favourable to the Irish people, and they would not now have been in their position of indebtedness to the Boards of Guardians. Having brought in his Bill, the hon. and gallant

    1845
    Member obtained the assistance of the Government, because his plan would be less expensive than their own. Then the hon. and gallant Member moved for a Committee to inquire into the cause of the failure of the potato crop—
    MR. A. MOORErose to Order, on the ground that the noble Lord was making observations which had no bearing upon the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway.
    MR. SPEAKERruled that the noble Lord was in Order.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLthanked the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair for putting down disorderly interruption. With regard to the machinery suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway for relieving the poor people of Ireland, he thought that it would be in the highest degree imprudent to entrust the Boards of Guardians with any further powers or responsibility in the matter. What, he asked, had been the result of the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, by which he had placed in the hands of the Boards of Guardians power to raise funds for supplying the people with potatoes? Why, it was notorious that in may parts of the West of Ireland the Boards of Guardians either took no trouble at all to see that proper seed was purchased, or—
    MR. SPEAKER: I understood that the noble Lord rose to second the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway; but the noble Lord has not yet approached that subject.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he should not like to submit any reasons to show that Mr. Speaker was incorrect; but the hon. and gallant Member had moved—
    "That Her Majesty's Government should take steps to carry into effect such of the recommendations of the Potato Crop Committee of 1880 as relate to Ireland, by promoting the creation and establishment of new varieties of the Potato; by facilitating the progress of further experiments as the best means of lessening the spread of the Potato Disease; and by bringing within the reach of small farmers supplies of sound seed to be obtained for cash payments."
    This, generally, was a Motion which he (Lord Randolph Churchill) wished
    1846
    to second; and he would point out that the hon. and gallant Member was satisfied that the machinery by which these ends could be accomplished was the Board of Guardians, and that was the point to which he was adverting when interrupted. While seconding the hon. and gallant Member's Motion generally, having used the reasons and arguments upon the potato crop which appeared to him to be germane, he now ventured rather to criticize that particular detail, the machinery, which the hon. and gallant Member would adopt. With all respect, he would submit to Mr. Speaker that his remarks approached nearer to the question than would appear to him (Mr. Speaker).
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Mr. Speaker, I put it to you whether the noble Lord is not trifling with the time of the House?
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: May I call your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there are no Members of the Government present but the Legal Representatives of Ireland. I protest against the Solicitor General for Ireland's interference with the noble Lord.
    MR. SPEAKER: As I informed the noble Lord, I understood that he rose to second the Motion. His observations seem to me to be of a critical character, and certainly not in support of the Resolution.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I was referring to the Boards of Guardians in Ireland; and, if I may be allowed to say so, the Solicitor General for Ireland has not had a very long experience of this House—
    MR. SPEAKER: I must call on the noble Lord not to address himself to an hon. Member, but to the Chair.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I would put it to you, whether Members, even though they be "right hon." Members, should not leave it to you to call hon. Members to Order, and particularly when they have not had very long experience of the House? If they would not be in such a hurry to interrupt—
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I rise to Order. I really would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the noble Lord is

    1847
    not trifling with the House? And I ask the House whether he is not still more trifling with them by not addressing himself to the Chair?
    MR. SPEAKER: As I have said, the noble Lord must address himself to the Chair.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he certainly intended to do so, and would, perhaps, be more successful in his attempt if he were not interrupted by hon. Members. He had been saying that the Boards of Guardians had not proved themselves to be the most trustworthy machinery for such a purpose as that stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan). There was a strong belief in Ireland that in many cases the Boards of Guardians had laid themselves open to the suspicion—to say the least of it—of acting from interested motives. This was a fact, and he had no doubt there were Irish Members present who were prepared to say that there was no exaggeration in this statement. He did not think that even the Solicitor General for Ireland could get up and deny it. Whilst agreeing with the hon. and gallant Member in his project, he was justified in criticizing this particular detail. He most strongly objected to any further experiment being made by the Government of the day with the object of entrusting Boards of Guardians with public funds to carry out the wish of the hon. and gallant Member. There were other bodies, no doubt, who would be able to carry out the hon. and gallant Member's object. He was not at all sure that the Grand Jury would not be able to do it. The Grand Jury was, composed principally of people interested in the soil. They were landlords, the payment to whom of rent largely depended on the prolific growth of potatoes in a large portion of Ireland. The Grand Jury was also composed of a class of men who would be less liable to imputations of interested motives than Boards of Guardians. No doubt, there were some hon. Members from Ireland who would agree with him in that view. Then, the hon. and gallant Member had drawn the attention of the House to the desirability of "promoting the creation amt establishment of new varieties of the potato." It had been discovered and shown almost irrefutably that all the theories about the potato seed being
    1848
    blown about in the air were absurd and vested on no scientific foundation. The fact was that a particular seed, planted and grown in the ordinary method of Irish cultivation—which was not the highest form of cultivation—after a very few years got worn out. In Ireland the soil was not carefully manured and the potatoes were grown in a very careless way; frequently they were not cut up, but put into the ground whole. Year after year this process went on, the worst potatoes being selected for seed and the best for food; and there was no doubt whatever that in about seven years of such treatment as this any kind of potato would become diseased. Of course, where the Champions had been used—whether they had been distributed by the Relief Committees or by the boards of Guardians—there had been a very satisfactory result; crops almost incredible for their prolific character had been produced. But where the old kinds had been planted—the Regent and the Derry Blue—which were kinds with which, no doubt, some hon. Members were best acquainted, they had turned out most unfortunately, and had not produced the result which had been expected. Therefore, it was very important that the Government should take steps to supply the Irish people, or to assist the Irish people to supply them-selves with these Champion potatoes, which appeared to be, with the exception of the Magnum Bonum—[Laughter.]—he did not know why hon. Members laughed. It was very extraordinary that they should find anything peculiar in this, because these Magnum Bonums were well known; though it was, comparatively, a rare kind of tuber. It had not been tried in Ireland to any great extent. In England it had proved very successful; and if the Government would take steps to bring these recently discovered kinds, the Champion and the Magnum Bonum, within the reach of the Irish people they would be acting to the advantage of Ireland and taking steps to prevent the recurrence of that distress which we had seen in that country in 1879. Then the hon. and gallant Member proceeded to recommend the Government to facilitate the progress of further experiments as the best means of lessening the spread of the potato disease, and in this he (Lord Randolph Churchill) agreed. No doubt, the Go-

    1849
    vernment had at present in Ireland establishments which could be advantageously used for these experiments. As the hon. and gallant Member had pointed out, they had the establishment at Glasnevin—the agricultural farm under the experienced direction of Professor Baldwin. If that agricultural establishment could be turned to some such use as that the hon. and gallant Member suggested, it would be doing more good to the people of Ireland than it had ever yet been the means of doing—for up to the present, although a large expenditure of public money had taken place upon it, the results of the operations at Glasnevin had not been satisfactory. Then the hon. and gallant Member recommended that steps should be taken to bring within the reach of small farmers supplies of sound seed to be obtained for cash payments. Here, no doubt, the hon. and gallant Member recommended a thing extremely desirable; but he would suggest to him that this part of his Motion was a little visionary. Cash payments in Ireland, at the present moment, were not generally obtained; and he was doubtful whether the Government would be justified in making any considerable advances to the Boards of Guardians, in order that they might lend them to the Irish tenants in the hope of obtaining cash payments in return. The state of the country did not appear to be one which would justify the State in embarking in this particular enterprize; and, on the whole, he should be inclined to recommend the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to press too hurriedly on the attention of the House this question of cash payments in Ireland. Generally, with regard to the hon. and gallant Member's Motion, it was not only well deserving of the attention of the House, but it demanded the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government, because there was no doubt that if the summer of this year proved unpropitious—if we had the continual rain that we had in 1879—there would be a great recurrence of the severe and exceptional distress of that year. The only means by which this severe and exceptional distress could be avoided was by taking steps to improve the cultivation of the potato; therefore, he had much pleasure in seconding the Motion.
    1850
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that Her Majesty's Government should take steps to carry into effect such of the recommendations of the Potato Crop Committee of 1880 as relate to Ireland, by promoting the creation and establishment of new varieties of the Potato; by facilitating the progress of further experiments as the best means of lessening the spread of the Potato Disease; and by bringing within the reach of small farmers supplies of sound seed to be obtained for cash payments."—(Major Nolan.)
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it was exceedingly to be regretted that the noble Lord, when he had the opportunity, had not availed himself of it to acquire more accurate knowledge of Ireland, and especially of the potato question.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFrose to Order. He wished to ask whether the Solicitor General for Ireland was in Order in using language of this character to an hon. Member of the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman is in Order.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), continuing, said, having regard to the national importance of the question, and to the particular condition of Ireland, not only now but, unhappily, periodically, the thanks of the House were due to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for introducing the subject to the notice of the House. Whatever might be said about hon. Members for Ireland introducing speculative questions, his hon. and gallant Friend had brought before the House a subject which was of the most vital importance to the very existence of Ireland. Political economy and chemical analysis might tell them that potatoes were very bad things; but as a matter of fact they were the food of hundreds and thousands of men who had shed their blood on every field of battle where honour had been achieved by British arms. Unfortunately, by constantly using the same kind of potato it had become worn out, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman had put before the House a plain and practical question—namely, that inasmuch as they must admit that the people of Ireland would grow and could grow potatoes, that they could and would live largely on potatoes, it must be decided how they were to get

    1851
    seed that would not fail, and how famine was to be avoided. A problem of this kind could, no doubt, be best and most usefully solved by a Ministerial Department for Agriculture and Commerce, to the appointment of which the Government, practically, assented the other clay upon the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Massy Lopes). The noble Lord had suggested using the Grand Juries in Ireland for this purpose. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) did not consider this practicable; they met only twice in the year, at each Assizes, and were only occupied a few days at each meeting. That such bodies could administer any fund for the advantage of the cultivation of potatoes was perfectly impossible. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Why?] The noble Lord asked why? He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had already stated the reason. Grand Juries were not continuing bodies; they were only nominated at each Assizes; and at those two periods of the year transacted fiscal as well as criminal business, and they had no organization suitable for the objects contemplated by the Motion before the House. With reference to Boards of Guardians, he would submit to the House that they were the bodies who would be the most efficient in administering the Relief Fund suggested; they were acquainted with the individual wants in the various localities, and knew where good seed was required and the best means of obtaining it. What was wanted in Ireland was fresh and not worn-out seed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan) would probably agree with him that the experiments he suggested would be most effectually carried out by the National Agricultural Society rather than by a Government Department. If agricultural schools existed, they might have been made useful for this purpose; but the only institutions of this kind in Ireland had been the agricultural schools in connection with the National Board, and their history, he was sorry to say, had been of a most unpromising character. [Lord. RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Question!] The noble Lord cried "Question!" He was sorry to see the noble Lord failed still to grasp the real question. The agricultural schools at one time flourished very successfully in Ireland.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to know, Sir, if the Solicitor General for Ireland is in Order in turning his back on the Chair when addressing the House?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The interruption of the noble Lord, which I presume the Speaker will take no notice of—
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: After the observation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I must ask you, Sir, is it competent for a Member of the House to turn his back on the Speaker when addressing the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: It must be within the knowledge of every Member of this House that the Chair is to be addressed.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that no one could for a moment imagine that he intended disrespect to the Chair by any position in which he might stand when addressing the House. He was about to say that the agricultural schools in connection with the National Board fell through because the education given in them was of too theoretical a character. There were now but two agricultural schools in Ireland which survived, and that in Cork would have been actually given up had it not been for the great exertions of the Agricultural Society. The course suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to improve the potato crop in Ireland could not be successfully carried out at this moment, and he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would be satisfied with having ventilated the question, and with having obtained the assurance that he might depend upon it that the Department of Agriculture and Commerce would, when appointed, take the subject in hand. At present there was no immediate necessity for action, for the potatoes were now not only above the ground, but he was glad to say they promised to yield a good crop.
    MR.GIVANsaid, that with regard to the speech of the noble Lord, he must express his surprise that the time of the House was trifled with to such an extent. It was melancholy in the state of Public Business to see the time of the House deliberately wasted by the noble Lord. He disapproved of the suggestion of the noble Lord that any fund

    1853
    for the distribution of seed potato should be entrusted to the Grand Jury in preference to the Boards of Guardians. His hon. and gallant Friend had suggested a very sensible and practical mode in which provision might be made out of the public funds to secure suitable and good seed potatoes in Ireland. Only a grant of £200 would be required, and he hoped the Government would, at any rate, accept the proposal in a modified form.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, if they had to wait till the establishment of a Board of Agriculture, or Minister of Agriculture, they would have to wait long enough, he was afraid, for the experiment. There were several bodies in Ireland who might make the experiment as to the growth of new varieties of potatoes. Several agricultural bodies already did so; but there was a powerful body in Ireland which probably possessed larger funds than any other, body in that part of the Kingdom, and which was constituted for the purpose of promoting the interests of the tenants of Ireland—he referred to the Land League. Seeing opposite hon. Gentlemen who had a good deal to do with that Association, and who had some influence over its funds, he could not lose the opportunity of suggesting to them that these experiments might be very wisely performed by them. If they could discover for the small farmers the best kind of potatoes to cultivate for the purpose of eking out their living, they would do that which all the world would consider patriotic; and he was quite sure they would find a solace in the endeavour for the heated contests in which they had been so long engaged.
    MR. A. MOOREsaid, it had been clearly demonstrated by evidence that one kind of potato could not be expected to last more than 12 years. The Champion was a great success, but it could not be expected to last for more than 20 years at the most; and in the meantime efforts ought to be made to propagate a new species. A very large sum of money was annually spent at Kew; he would suggest that some portion of that money be devoted to the propagation of new varieties of potatoes. He wished to suggest that Boards of Guardians in Ireland should be enabled to sell fresh seed at cost price.
    MR. CALLANsaid, no hope had been held out to them by the Solicitor General for Ireland that the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan) would be adopted. There were some Members in the House who, whenever an Irish subject was introduced, felt bound to drag in the Land League. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had suggested that the funds of the Land League should be devoted to the experiments under discussion. As far as the Land League was concerned, the hon. Member reminded him of a character in "David Copperfield"—Mr. Dick, who never could get Charles I. out of his head—
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock, till Thursday.

MINUTES.
SELECT CoMMITTEE—Stationery Office (Controller's Report), appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Land Drainage Provisional Orders* (104); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Bandon, &c.) * (105); Local Government Provisional Orders (Halifax, &c.) * (106).
Second Reading—Veterinary Surgeons (87); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2)* (88).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue * (98), and passed.
Referred to Select Committee—Stolen Goods* (86).
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (Berwick-upon-Tweed, &c.) * (85).

VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL.
(The Lord Aberdare.)
(NO. 87.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD ABERDARE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to prevent the assumption of the title of veterinary surgeon by unqualified persons. It provided for the infliction of a penalty on persons practising as duly qualified veterinary surgeons without first having become members of the Veterinary College. It was not intended to interfere with persons who acted as farriers or treated cattle without professing to be veterinary surgeons.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Aberdare.)
EARL SPENCERsaid, he was able, on the part of the Government, to support the second reading of the Bill. In some parts of the country there was a considerable deficiency in the number of trained veterinary surgeons. It was important in carrying out the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act to encourage as far as possible the veterinary science; but beyond that he thought it was of the greatest possible importance that whilst they endeavoured to prevent the

1763
spread of infectious diseases amongst cattle they should try to mitigate the severity of the diseases themselves which were a source of very great loss to the farmers in this country. Every measure, therefore, that would have the effect of improving the position of veterinary surgeons would deserve their Lordships' support. He could not help thinking that some of the clauses of the Bill went rather further than they should. No doubt every person who assumed a title to which he had no right should be liable to some prosecutions; but he did not think if any person chose to consult a cow doctor, or anyone who presumed to have a knowledge of a certain cattle disease without being able to call himself a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, that the law ought to object. Thus, in the 3rd clause, the words "or veterinary practitioner;" and, again, "or otherwise qualified practitioner" might, strictly construed, apply to many people qualified to practice veterinary surgery, but who could not under this Bill assume the title of veterinary surgeon. Subject to the objections he had indicated, and which could be amended in Committee, he would support the measure.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he wished to point out that there was a very important body in Edinburgh called the Edinburgh Veterinary College, which had a large staff of Professors, and was thoroughly competent to give perfect and adequate instruction in veterinary science. When he held the Office he had the honour to hold in Ireland in connection with the late Government, they had frequently selected practitioners who had been educated at that College for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act in Ireland. They always had the greatest possible confidence in the diplomas given to persons educated in that College, and in no case had they found that they had acted improperly in appointing persons educated there. To all intents and purposes the gentlemen educated there were veterinary surgeons in the highest sense of the term; and he thought it would be a very sweeping enactment to say that no person should call himself a veterinary surgeon save and except those who had been educated at the Royal College of Surgeons in London. The noble Lord (Lord Aber-
1764
dare) had not stated the reasons why he had excluded that College; and perhaps he would inform them now, before the Bill was read a second time, why he had taken that course. It seemed to him (the Duke of Marlborough) desirable that every precaution should be taken for the protection of the veterinary science, and for providing duly qualified practitioners; but he thought it would be sufficient if every person who called himself veterinary surgeon should put letters after his name indicating in what College he had been educated. The term veterinary surgeon was, no doubt, a source of some amount of pride and gratification to persons following the Profession; and he thought it would be unfair if they shut out such a scientific body as the Edinburgh Veterinary College from allowing its members to attach the title veterinary surgeon to their name.
LORD ABERDAREsaid, he would entirely concur in the objection if it were well founded; but he wished to point out to the noble Duke that this Bill had been brought in with the full knowledge and consent of the Royal Highland Society. The Charter of that Society was for the purpose of recognizing all the degrees already conferred by the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland. [The noble Lord here read an extract from the Charter, setting forth the object for which it was granted, and stating that an arrangement had been entered into with the Royal College of Surgeons in London that no diplomas should henceforth be given by the Highland Society.]
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYpointed out that there were two or three Colleges of this kind in Scotland, two in Edinburgh, and one in Glasgow, which were capable of giving diplomas. They were all under the Charter. It seemed rather hard to say that nobody except persons educated in a particular College should hold the title of veterinary surgeon. It was almost the same as saying that general practitioners who had not been educated in a particular College should not be allowed to call themselves doctors.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 16 th of June next.

SCOTCH BUSINESS—LOCAL GOVERN MENT AND LOCAL TAXATION (SCOT LAND).
OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MINTO, in calling attention to the subject of local government and taxation in Scotland, said, his reason for doing so was that the Prime Minister had, through the Lord Advocate, intimated that they had under consideration the propriety or expediency of proposing a very considerable and, indeed, a very radical change in the management of local affairs and local taxation in Scotland. The Lord Advocate had addressed a speech to the Scotch Members of the House of Commons, and also issued a Memorandum on the subject. Looking to these Papers, he must say a very considerable amount of information was afforded as to the amount of local taxation raised for various purposes in Scotland, and the proportion in which such local taxation was assisted by Imperial funds. It was well known that in Scotland local taxation generally fell on owners, whereas in England, he believed, it fell on occupiers. One of the points referred to by the Lord Advocate was that the system of subvention from the Imperial Exchequer worked badly, in respect that it produced a disregard for economy on the part of local bodies, and that a change in that respect might be very properly introduced. The mode suggested for carrying it out tentatively was that some tax might be set apart for the use of the local body, such as the dog tax or carriage duty, or some other tax. The question then was, which was the best mode off assisting local taxation? Was it desirable that owners should pay the rates, or that the occupiers should do so, or should one-half be levied on each of these classes? Another very important question was, whether personal property might not be brought in to share social and public burdens by being made to contribute, or whether personal property should claim exemption, as heretofore, from visits of the rate collector? As to the constitution of the Local Boards, very great changes were pointed to. It was suggested that a representative body should be elected, so that a more direct local action might be brought to bear on the matter of local taxation. These were the chief points. He would not
1766
trouble the House with any observations of his own on the subject, upon which he thought he had said enough to justify his bringing it before them, but would conclude by asking Her Majesty's Government, Whether they could communicate to this House, or to the Scottish members of the House, any information bearing upon or explanatory of their intentions, promulgated elsewhere, on the subject of local government and local taxation in Scotland?
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he must express an anxious hope that the Government would give no hasty answer on this question. Some time ago, when he was a Member of the Government, he was wholly unaware that the Government had arrived at any conclusion as to a change in local or county government in Scotland. There had been discussions going on on this subject for some years, and he could not say that any general concurrence of opinion had been arrived at in Scotland as to any change in county government. The truth was, they were, in Scotland, very far before England in this matter. He would not say the Scotch system was absolutely perfect, or that it was incapable of amendment or of reform; but the system was one that worked extremely well, and he never heard any practical objection brought against it. His noble Friend (the Earl of Minto) asked the Government to communicate their intentions "promulgated elsewhere." He imagined his noble Friend referred to certain documents circulated to Scotch Members and to Scotch Peers during the last week, and which he had only an opportunity of reading that morning; but if he referred to those Papers, they were not Papers that "promulgated" anything whatever. One proposal to cease giving a subvention from the Treasury, and rather that some of the taxes should be relegated to the administration of local bodies was a plan that he had heard recommended for a good number of years, with regard not only to Scotland, but to England, and he apprehended that such a method adopted in Scotland would also be extended to England. With regard to the alleged economic results of such a plan, he did not himself quite see how this effect should be produced; but it was a large question affecting not Scotland only, but England. He quite admitted, however,

1767
that if the system of subvention being given to local bodies was to be entirely altered, it might become necessary also to alter their system of local administration. Their present system was this—that in all cases where the general ratepayers contributed to the local taxes, those local ratepayers were represented in the administration. For example, in all cases in which the tenants contributed to the local taxation as well as the landlord, the fund was administered by a body composed of both parties; where it was raised entirely from the owners, and not from the occupiers, the owners had the exclusive disposal of it. This was a fair proposition, but it would not be right that a mixed body should have the administration of a fund which came from the proprietors alone; and if the tenantry were desirous of having a share in the administration of such funds, they would also have to contribute. He very much doubted whether the occupiers of Scotland would desire to have any share in the disposal of those particular matters. This was rather a complicated matter, and involved large questions of principle, and he hoped his noble Friend would not announce on the part of the Government any formal scheme with regard to it, because he was sure the counties of Scotland had not made up their mind upon any scheme.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the question of local government and taxation had been pressing for solution by Parliament; and he was glad there was reason to believe, from those Papers which had been circulated in an informal manner, that the Government had an intention of dealing with the question at no very distant date. If the Government elected to commence by dealing with that question in Scotland, Scotland had, he thought, neither any reason, nor would it have any desire, to complain. What Scotland did complain of in common with England was that for all purposes of Parliamentary Business and legislation the whole time of Parliament was occupied by the Representatives of one portion of the Kingdom, who would neither do Irish Business themselves nor allow other persons to do it, nor allow, indeed, Business of any sort or kind to be done; and hence it was that an important question like local taxation would have been pressed on the atten-
1768
tion of Parliament over and over again. A subject which affected most vitally the interest of Scotland had to be introduced to the notice of Scotch Members by a meeting between the Lord Advocate and the Scotch Members in a tea-room, or some other hole-and-corner place, where they could collect together. Of that Scotland had some right to complain; but there was, with reference to this question, a suggestion which he should like to submit for the earnest consideration of the Government. It was beyond doubt that many local measures which had been passed by Parliament had been found, when submitted to practical test and operation, to be incomplete, inelastic, and incapable of adapting themselves to the particular wants of the various localities. The reason of this was not far to seek. It was because these measures affecting local interests had been drawn up by a central authority in a central office without adequate communication with the localities for whose benefit the measures were intended. He did not blame the central authority; but any-one who knew these facts could not but see that the attention of the central authority had in many instances been directed to the requirements of Parliament, and not so much to the wants of the locality for which the measure was destined. He hoped that in dealing with this question—if, indeed, the Government could propose to deal with the Local Government Question in Scotland—the Lord Advocate would keep this in mind, and that he would communicate, if not the principles, at all events the details of his measure, when the principles had been settled, to the local authorities, by whom he meant not only the Commissioners of Supply, but the various local elective boards which existed in Scotland. If the Lord Advocate took that course he would save himself a great deal of trouble and opposition in Parliament; and when his measure was introduced in "another place" he would find it would require much less revision and alteration.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government, so far as he was aware, had no immediate intention of introducing so large a measure as the noble Earl (the Earl of Minto) appeared to contemplate. It was true that the Lord Advocate proposed almost immediately to bring in a mea-

1769
sure into the other House of Parliament providing for an alteration of the Poor Law and an amendment of the constitution of the Parochial Boards. It was a measure based on the recommendations of a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1871. Among other things, it proposed to give a more strictly representative character to those Boards than they now possessed, and in some respects extended the authority of the Boards; but with regard to local taxation, the Government had no immediate intention of dealing with it.
THE EARL OF MINTOasked if in the measure referred to it was intended to alter the method of taxation with regard to the Poor Law?
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEwas not able to say, not having seen the Bill, whether the incidence of taxation would be dealt with.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION BILL.
QUESTION.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETasked the Lord President of the Council as to the progress of the Bill for the Rivers Conservancy and the Prevention of Floods, and whether ordnance survey of the river basins could not be expedited, inasmuch as no works for the prevention of floods could be commenced, until the survey of these districts was completed?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would take that opportunity of asking whether the Government would take some means to stimulate the publication of the 6-inch survey?
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHinquired whether the River Thames would not be included in the Bill, because otherwise great injustice would be done.
EARL SPENCERsaid, Her Majesty's Government had made every endeavour to forward the Bill in the other House of Parliament. It left their Lordships' House on the 17th of March, and was read a first time in the other House on the following day. The second reading was proposed on the 31st of March; but the debate on that Motion was adjourned, and was resumed on the 2nd of April, when an Amendment to read the Bill a second time that day six months was defeated by a large majority. His right hon. Friend the President of the Local
1770
Government Board proposed to refer it to a Select Committee, which was not to take evidence, but only to consider the clauses. Since the 8th of April every effort had been made by his right hon. Friend to further advance the Bill; but Motions to stop its progress and the operation of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule had proved a great obstacle to his efforts. There were, at the present time, 11 Notices against its progress, some being Motions which were not calculated to assist the Bill—such, for instance, as Mr. Healy's Motion to add Mr. Dillon's name to the Committee. He could assure their Lordships that if the Bill did not become law in the present Session, the failure would be attributable to no want of interest on the part of the Government. In regard to the completion of the Ordnance Survey of the river districts, he admitted that it would be a great advantage that it should be completed. The Government would endeavour to secure for the river basins a priority, and he would make inquiry as to the possibility of carrying out the suggestion of the noble Marquess as well as the noble Duke.

ARMY ORGANIZATION—MILITIA AND LINE BATTALIONS.
QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he rose to call attention to paragraph 173 on page 31 of the Report on Army Reorganization of the Committee assembled under General Lord Airey; and to ask Her Majesty's Government how the difficulty pointed out in that paragraph of converting a militia battalion into a battalion of the line without legislative enactment is to be met; and further, whether the opinion of the law officers of the Crown has been taken as to the legality of converting a man who has been enlisted under Act of Parliament as a militiaman in a particular regiment into a soldier of the line? He felt he ought to apologize for raising a military subject so soon after the discussion they had had in their Lordships' House. The changes, however, which were to take place were of a most violent character and would affect the whole Service; and he could not help expressing his regret that the Secretary of State for War had kept to himself all the information he had got, instead of communicating it to Parliament for

1771
consideration by the Members of both Houses. He hoped, however, that the Government would not press forward their scheme until a fuller opportunity were given for an expression of opinion by those affected by the scheme as to its probable results. He contended that, in reality, the scheme had been sprung upon them without the slightest previous intimation to those immediately concerned as to what was to be its general bearing.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he must confess that after hearing the noble Earl's speech he had some difficulty in understanding his Questions. The noble Earl asked how it was proposed to convert a Militia battalion into a Line battalion without an Act of Parliament? He could only give the answer which the noble Earl anticipated, and characterized as jocular—he knew not why—for he gave it in sober earnest. It had never been the intention of the Government to convert a Militia battalion into a Line regiment, or a single Militiaman into a Linesman. Nor had they any idea of altering the conditions under which Militiamen joined the Service, or to ask for an Act of Parliament to enable them to do so. The paragraph of Lord Airey's Committee's Report, quoted by the noble Earl, referred to the recommendation of the Localization of Forces Committee of 1872, that in time of war recruits should be enlisted for general service in the Line or Militia battalion of a sub-district. Such a measure formed no part of Lord Cardwell's scheme, nor was there any intention of adopting it now. The Line and the Militia would continue, as at present, to be distinct Services. It was quite true that some legislation would be necessary on some technical points; but that would not in the slightest degree affect the conditions under which the Militia Force was raised.
LORD STRATHNAIRNsaid, that nothing could be worse than the way in which opponents of the Army Organization scheme had been treated by the Secretary of State for War. He did not also think that the measure itself had been treated with the justice and the amplitude which the vital importance of its nature and the welfare and success of the Army demanded.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he must protest against the careless man-
1772
ner in which documents in reference to proposed changes in the Army were prepared; and, as an instance, need not go further than a single item in the Book on the Table, in which appeared the pay given, or proposed to be given, to a superior non-commissioned officer exceeded that of the junior commissioned officers—by which the regimental sergeant-major would lose pay on promotion from the ranks. He must more forcibly, also, protest against the way in which irresponsible secret advisers of the Government sneered at officers of experience in regimental commands, their own experience being limited to some five years as a subaltern, and six months, or less, as a captain. Also, against the system by which both the Army and the Navy were placed under civilians, and the puerile way in which that House was treated on military questions, tending to, and resulting from, the system of jobbery that prevailed, which made the interests of the Army and the Navy subservient to political jobbery. He did not so much blame the Government as the system of jobbery which was due to the increased power in respect to patronage of the other House of Parment.
EARL GRANVILLE: I rise to Order. The noble Lord is using language which I do not think is proper with regard to "another place." I trust that the noble Lord will withdraw the expression he has used.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had no desire to say anything improper with regard to "another place." He found fault rather with the system than with the Government. He was, however, quite ready to withdraw the objectionable expression if it was the feeling of their Lordships that he should do so; but he submitted that the Government should take steps to render what he complained of impossible.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, he attributed the defects in our Army Organization to the fact that a civilian was, by the custom of Parliament, placed at the head of, the Army.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he thought that it was unnecessary he should apologize for being, as a civilian, at the head of the Navy. He could not refrain from protesting against what the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Strathnairn) had said in reference to the line

1773
which had been taken by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in "another place," because there was no foundation for the impressions entertained by the noble and gallant Lord. Their Lordships were now asked to reopen a question which had been discussed for several hours the other night, when ample opportunity was given for any noble Lord to address the House. Ample opportunity had been given to both Houses of Parliament for any discussion or Motion that might have been considered desirable with regard to the changes which were proposed. Those changes did not depend upon an Act of Parliament, but upon the Prerogative of the Crown; and there had been ample opportunity for moving an Address to the Crown, or taking any other steps which noble Lords might have thought necessary.
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that the second Memorandum, which it was stated would be laid upon the Table, making alterations in the first Memorandum, was not yet before their Lordships; and he thought it a little hard that, considering the changes would take effect on the 1st July, the military men of the House should have so short a time allowed for raising any points they might wish to bring forward upon it.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the second Memorandum referred to changes in detail, and did not, so far as he was aware, affect the principle of the scheme in any way.
LORD DENMAN, as matter of Privilege, called attention to that part of the noble and gallant Earl's speech in which he (the Earl of Galloway) alluded to The Times publishing the projects of the Government before they were laid before Parliament. He pointed out the great unfairness in not reporting the remarks of the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Powis), on moving for a Return on the subject of five years' inaction incapacitating a general from employment. He did not say this to curry favour with the noble Earl, though he had been a pupil of his friend Dr. Selwyn (late Lord Bishop of Lichfield), but in order that truth might be placed before the public. Their Lordships might reflect that if peace were to last for 10 years no one above the rank of a colonel now might be able to command a force. General Kavanagh had lately depicted
1774
the danger of shelving officers who, although old, might be far more active than their juniors, whilst invaluable by their experience. The retirement of colonels at the age of 55 was under consideration. He himself, three-quarters of a century old, was willing to compete with any of their Lordships in some athletic exertions or any struggle for the maintenance of truth, whilst he had known a man of 30 unable even to shave himself. No one could report their Lordships' debates without the leave of the House, and the Usher of the Black Rod had the right to give or withhold admission to the Reporters' Gallery, in the same way as the Speaker of the House of Commons could allot space to each journal. He (Lord Denman) had, on June 6, 1856, pointed out the power of the public even over The Times, and had never been fairly reported by that journal since, having a few words, seemingly not worth a report, attributed to him with his name. He did not care for being reported, but wished to see nothing reported but the truth.
After a few words from the Earl of GALLOWAY,
The subject dropped.
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
Read 2a (according to order); Committee negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXV. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed.
STATIONERY OFFICE (CONTROLLER'S REPORT).
Select Committee appointed, such Committee to consist of five Lords, "to consider the First Report of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
And, on June 2, the Lords following were named of the Committee:

E. Jersey.

L. Thurlow.

V. Sherbrooke.

L. Monteagle of Brandon

L. Clinton.

And a message sent to the Commons to acquaint them that this House has appointed a Committee of five Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons "to consider the first Report of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office;" and to request that the Commons will be pleased to appoint an equal number of Members to be joined with the Members of this House.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.